1 - Newton - History of Two Corruptions of Scripture

i
COLLECTION
OF
ESSAYS AND TRACTS

I
CD
IN
= CM
ICO = 0)
iCD
THEOLOGY.
BY JARED SPARKS.
No. lY.
CD
CO
Vo\
'^
fif 2^
OCTOBER,
1823.
CONTENTS.
SIR ISAAC
NEWTON,
Biographical notice, History of two corruptions of scripture,
------
191
CHARLES BUTLER,
193 235 321
Historical outline of the controversy respecting 323 THE text ok the Three Heavenly Witnesses,
BOSTON
PUBLISHED BY
O.
EVERETT, NO.
CAMBRIDGE
:
13
CORNHILL.
University Press
Hilliard
& Metcalf.
1823.
SIR ISAAC
NEWTON'S
HISTORY
OF
TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
NEWTON.
In the annals of the
names of ment and
a few
human race are recorded the have shone as the ornawho men,
whose wisdom
the boast of then- species,
has muhiplied the triumphs and hastened the progress of intellect, and whose genius has thrown a splendor Of this fortunate number Newton over the world.
stands at the head.
To
give a
life
full
account of
this
extraordinary man, of his
and
character, his disall
coveries and their influence, would be to analyze

that
is
wonderful
in the
human mind,
to reveal the
deep things of nature, unfold the mechanism of the universe, and enumerate the achievements of science
during the
last
century.
will
No
such arduous and ven-
here be undertaken, nor any thing more than the outlines of a subject, whose compass
turesome task
is
so vast, and
whose objects are so elevated.

at
Sir Isaac
Newton was born
Woolsthorpe, near
Grantham, Lincolnshire, on the 25th of December, 1G42. In his early infancy he was extremely feeble, and
httle
hope of
his
life
was entertained.
His
194
father died three
newtojSt.
months before he was born, and
on the mother.
accordingly the charge of the son devolved wholly She spared no pains with his edu-
cation, and kept him under her own eye till he was twelve years old, when she sent him to the public school at Grantham. He was boarded in the house
of an apothecary, whose brother was usher of the

school.
began to display the peculiar bent of his genius, and to give a presage of what its future versatihty and power would accomplish.
It
first
was here
that he
It
is
his thoughts ran
recorded of him, while at this school, that more on practical mechanics, than
on
his regular exercises,
and that during the hours of
which the other boys devoted to play, he was busy with hammers, saws, and hatchets, constructrecreation,
ing miniature models and machines of wood.

his first efforts
Among
was a wooden
telling the
clock, kept in motion
by water, and
the top.
He made
them
hours on a dial-plate at kites, to which were attached
paper lanterns, and one of his favourite amusements
was
flying
in the night, to the consternation
of
the neighbouring inhabitants.
He
fabricated tables
schoolfellows,
and other
and
is
articles of furniture for his
said to
have invented and executed a vehicle
with four wheels, on which he could transport himself
from one place
to
another by turning a windlass.
The
motions of the heavenly bodies did not escape his notice even at this period ; for he formed a dial
NEWTON.
195
walls of the house, which indicated the
of a curious construction, by fastening pegs in the hours and
half hours of the day.
At
first
his fondness for these
to neglect his regular studies j occupations caused him but he had too much spirit quietly to look on while
other boys were gaining places above him, and he at but a distinlength maintained not only a reputable,
guished standing in the school. In the mean time his mother's second husband
died, and as she
needed the assistance of her

to
son,
she took him
home
manage
the affairs of the farm.
To
this
business he was devoted for a year or two,

little
but with so
interest in the pursuit, that his
mothlike-
er soon found her agricultural concerns

ly to
were not
flourish
in
business to go to the produce of the farm, but in executing this charge
was one part of his Grantham market and dispose of

his
hands.
It
he
is
neither to be
for a
applauded
for
his diligence, nor
admired
love of his duties.
The
important
task of finding a purchaser and
making
his
a bargain,
he
usually entrusted to the enterprise of a servant, and

his
own
time was
passed
in
early
haunts
at
the apothecary's house, reading books, or planning machines, till it was announced that the time of his
return had
arrived.
in the
managed much
produce
at the
At home, the farm same way as the

It
itself
was
its
sale of
market.
the care of others,
was neglected, or left to while the mind of its nominal
superintendent was invoking the genius of invention,
17*
196
NEWTON.
roaming the fields of philosophy, or exploring the regions of hidden nature.
So unpromising were the prospects of making him a farmer, that his mother resolved to yield to his
propensities,
scholar.
To
and put him in the way of being a this end he was again sent to Grantham
At Grantham he resided nine months, and was then entered at Trinity College, Cambridge, on
school.
the 5th of June, 1660, in the eighteenth year of his In this situation, so favourable for drawing out age.
and improving
his
pecuhar
It
talents,
his success
was
was not among the least equal fortunate circumstances to Newton, that Dr Barrow was at that time fellow of Trinity College. With
to his advantages.
mathematical powers of the
highest order,
and
strong predilection for the natural sciences, this great
man would
lege
genius as that
;
not be long in discovering so bright a which then began to dawn in his col-
his greatness,
and, with a modesty and good temper equal to he would not be slow to encourage the
nor to lend assistance where

tainments.
ardour with which the young student was animated, it could advance his at-
Barrow became not only

;
his adviser
and
teacher, but his sincere friend
and few were the
men
of his time,
who were
better able to teach, or

to
whose friendship was more Newton's mind soon turned

favourite
studies,
be desired.
into the
channel of his
and he read with avidity the works

in
of the
modern geometers then
vogue, especially
NEWTorf.
197
and Wallis. It is Kepler, Descartes, Saunderson, remarked of him, that he gave no time to the more elementary books usually put into the hands of begimiers.
Euclid himself he studied but
partially, for
by a glance of the eye at the enunciation and diaof the gram, he saw at once the process and result
demonstration.
The wide
distance,
which others are
forced to traverse with slow and painful steps, in their entrance to the profound sciences of numbers and
Propogeometry, he passed over at a single stride. sitions, which required elaborate demonstrations to
bring them out of the mists of doubt, and make them evident to other minds, were to him self-evident truths.
With these endowments from

aids in his reach,
his
nature, and
with the
progress in exampled ; but with
ought not to be surprised, that mathematical attainments was unall
we
these on his side,
we can
hardly reahze the
fact,
that while yet an undergradu-
ate at the university
he should conceive one of the
sublimest inventions of
human
genius.
first
It
the last year of this period that he
was during detected the

which more
of principles of the Fluxional Analysis,

will hereafter
be
said.
took the degree of bachelor of arts in the year 16G4, at which time, and for some months after, he appears to have been engaged in optical researches.
He
His attention was particularly occupied

to devise
is
in
attempting
;
some method of improving telescopes and

that at this time he
it
known,
had purchased a prism
198
NEWTON-
with the design of making experiments to try DescarThe next year after he was tes' theory of colours.
graduated, these inquiries were interrupted, and he was compelled to leave Cambridge on account of the
plague, and take refuge
country.
at
his
own home
in
the
In this retirement he spent nearly two years, and

is
it
natural to suppose, that a
mind
like
his,
with the
world of unexplored nature before him, would not be It was during this season of seclusion, that he idle.
caught the dawning hints of his great discovery of gravitation, the origin of which is among the most
striking illustrations of the
force of accident in de-
veloping the genius, and swaying the opinions of men.
Newton was one day

garden, occupied
apple
fell
passing a solitary hour in a
in
philosophical musings,
Trifling as
spirit
when an
was
this
from a tree near him.
incident,
it
quickened the inquiring

his
of Newton,
and immediately called out

cause.
mind
to search for the

to the earth
.''
Why
should
an
apple
fall
Why
it
should any other body fall? impelled, by what laws directed
By
?
what power is These were the
questions, which he asked himself; and, although he could not answer them, he was led into a train of reflections,
which ultimately carried him
to the highest
of
human attainments. The fact had been well

fall
established, that on every

is
part of the earth's surface there
a tendency in
this
bodies to
to its centre,
and that
tendency
is
NEWTON.
199
not perceptibly diminished by ascending to different elevations, as the tops of lofty buildings, and the
summits of high mountains. Why then should not the power, which causes this gravitating tendency,
reach beyond the remotest points of the earth's surface
?
.''
Why
not to the moon, and the other celestial

if so,
bodies
And
why may not
their motions
be
in
some way influenced by this power, as well as the motions of bodies less distant from the centre of the
Not that it is necessary, that the tendency, or should force, everywhere be the same ; for although it is not sensibly diminished on any part of the earth's surearth
?
face, yet at a point so far distant as the

sibly
mooc, it may posof thought,
become weaker.
Pursuing
this train
By comparirg the periods of the planets, with their several distances from the sun, he ascertained, that if they were actually held in their orbits by a power like that of gravitation on
instituted a calculation.
he
the earth's surface, this
power must act by a fixed law,

squares of the dis-
and decrease
in proportion as the
tances of the gravitating bodies increase.
only remained to determine, whether a power, acting by such a law, would keep the moon in its
It
orbit,
and produce
its
several motions.
it
He went
through a rigorous computation, but

ful
it
;
was unsuccess-
the results did not correspond with observation ; did not appear that the moon was actuated by such a
;
and he was not encouraged to prosecute his labours. Hereafter it will be seen, however, that he
power
200
was deceived, and
NEWTON.
that
he had akeady discovered the
great law of the universe.
ter
In the year 1667 Newton took his degree of masof arts, and was elected fellow of his college.
to
About the same time he returned

two years he had been more or
Cambridge.
engaged
For
in his
less
optical experiments, although only at intervals during his retirement. His was to
primary object
accomplish
the telescope
and
to
this,
himself in grinding lenses of

al
elliptical
improve he employed and parabolicin passing
forms, hoping thus to correct the indistinctness of
figure
produced by the aberration of rays
His attempts proved aborthrough a spherical lens. tive, for, whatever figure he gave to his lens, the image was still defective. Wearied with ill success, he desisted from the labour of and begrinding lenses,
took himself to experiments with his In these prism. experiments he was struck with the oblong form of the spectrum, and the brilliancy of the colours which
it
exhibited.
He
look for granted, that the rays of
light, in
fracted, in
lar.
It
passing through the prism, were equally rewhich case the spectrum ought to be circu-
was, nevertheless, invariably oblong. He observed, moreover, that the colours were regularly arranged, the red uniformly appearing at one end, and the violet at the other. From these appearances
he drew the conclusion, that the rays
in passing through the prism are not equally refracted, but those com-
posing each colour are refracted in a different angle
NEWTON.
201
ed.
from those of any other colour, and are thus separatIt hence followed, that light is composed of
rays of as
many
different colours, as there are distinct
colours in the spectrum, and that the rays of each
colour are refracted

is
in a certain
uniform angle.
This
called the refrangibUity of light.
this great discovery to be extensive most the of application, since susceptible it is intimately concerned with all the phenomena of
Newton soon perceived
light
and colours.
He
discovered the mistake under
which he had laboured respecting the cause of the imperfection of telescopes ; for he found by computation, that the different refrangibility of light contrib-
uted several hundred times more to produce this effect, than refraction through a spherical lens. Hence, if a
figure could
be so formed as
to correct the errors

still
of
refraction, the different refrangibility would
re-
main, and the image would scarcely be more distinct. He despaired of conquering this double difficulty,
and resorted
for the
most convenient remedy
to the
applied himself to forming and polishing metallic concave mirrors with his own hands, and finally constructed two telescopes of
principle of reflection.
this
He
description, the
first
of which
is
now
in the
pos-
session of the
Royal Society. ment received the name of the Newtonian telescope, and was the foundation of all the great improvements
In a letter to Oldenburg,
This kind of
instru-
which have since been made.
a plan of a refracting telescope was suggested
by
202
Newton,
in
KEWTON.
which the errors of
refrangibility
might be
corrected by passing the rays of hght through substances possessing different dispersive powers, so that
the refraction of one should be counteracted by the
opposite refraction of another.
But there
is
no
evi-
dence, that he carried

hint
this
plan into execution.
The
was not
lost
it
refracting telesco^'.es matic.
has been so far improved, that have been made perfectly achro-
One
of the most remarkable results of Newton's

light,
discovery in
was his explanation of the phenom-
ena of colours.
laid open, in a
He
all
rnalysed
the
rainbow.
He
most ingenious manner, the causes of

natural objects.
various colours in
By
a series of
he was led which Hght

ing
curious experiments and philosophical deductions, to the conclusic::, that there is a thin,
transparent covering on th? curfaces of bodies, in is both refracted and reflected, produc-
One colour process different colours. over because the another, configuration of prevails the particles on which light falls is such, as to absorb
by
this
nearly
all
the rays except of one kind.
In almost
all
the fixed colours of opaque bodies, th3 three principal properties of hght, refraction, reflection, and inflection, are
is
concerned.
There
is
no colour where there

is
no
light,
and
this
shows that colour
an accident,
and not a property inherent in matter. Newton has In the language explained its cause and its nature.
of a poet, he " untwisted
all
the shining robe of day,"
NEWTON.
and
in the
203
words of a philosopher, who happily pursued the figure so beautifully started, " he made
the texture of the magic garment, which nature has so kindly spread over the surface of the
visible
known
world."*
In short, the science of optics
was
so completely renovated
by Newton, and established
on the principles of truth and reason, that he

be considered as having been
its
may
author.
While thus successfully going forward in the march of discovery, his patron, Dr Barrow, had been appointed professor of mathematics at Cambridge.
in
But
1669, he concluded to resign his professorship, as he wished to devote himself more exclusively to
theology.
cessor.
By
The
his desire
duties of his
Newton was made his sucnew office encroached so

he was forced
to relax in
much on
his leisure, that
some degree
the intenseness with which he had pros-
ecuted his researches.
That he might, however, complete what he had so successfully begun, he caused his optical inquiries to be the chief subject of his
lectures during the raised to
the
years after he was professor's chair, and thus gradually

first
three
matured
his new discoveries into a system. Newton was elected a member of the Royal
Soci-
time he was chosen, a teles1672, sent him was exhibited for the inspection by cope of the society. So highly was it approved, that a
ety in and, at the
resolution
was passed
Second
to
forward a description of
II.
it
Playfair's
Dissertation, Part
sect. 3.
18
204
to
NEWTON.
optician,
Huygens, the celebrated philosopher and

might be secured to
its
that the invention
true author.
In a letter read by Oldenburg shortly after to the Society, Newton gave intimations of discoveries to which he had been conducted in optics, and which
he proposed
to
submit to the consideration of that
learned body.
These proved
his new theory of light At the earnest solicitation never as yet made public. of the Royal Society, his papers on these subjects
be no other, than and colours, which he had

to
were immediately printed in their Transactions. Newton was now more than thirty years old, and had been
in developing the of nature, but this was the profoundest mysteries first occasion on which he had appeared before the
employed
for
nearly
ten years
public as a writer.
His theory met with a chilling opposition from almost every quarter, and he was so much disturbed at the petulance and peevishness with which he was
by ignorance in the garb of pretended knowledge, he was so much vexed by the narrowassailed
ness and jealousy of some, and the bitterness of others, that he sometimes repented of having jeopardthe world with truths, which
receive, and w^hich
ized his peace by an unavailing attempt to enlighten it was so averse to
of years to
elicit
had cost him the patient labour and mature. He was first attack-
ed by Hooke, and then by Pardies, Gascoigne, Lucas, and other writers on the continent. Being once
NEWTON.
enlisted,
it
205
his spirit to shrink
did not accord with
from the contest, and he replied promptly to every animadversion from a respectahle source, which was
pubUshed against him. over all opposition, and
He
was
at last
settled his theory
triumphant on a basis
which has never been moved.
So
foreign
were such controversies from
his dis-
position and feehngs, that he absolutely refused to publish his Optical Lectures, which were then ready
for the press ; nor did they see the hght till more than thirty years afterwards. In alluding to this " I blamed he own
controversy,
says,
my
imprudence
quiet, to
for parting
with so real a blessing
as
my
run after a shadow."
This remark
sufficiently indi-
cates the reluctance with which he forced himself to
combat prejudice and passion.
It
may
justly
com-
applause as the evidence of a pacific and unassuming temper, but we can hardly be required
our
to
mand
descend
to the
level of his
the splendid reality of which he
modesty in thinking was in pursuit to be

conscious of no
truth,
no more than a shadow.

other
science
set,
He was
of
motives
;
than
love
and
zeal
for
and notwithstanding
his chagrin
at the out-
he had the
satisfaction of witnessing the gradual
reception of his theory by those most enhghtened, and

best qualified to understand
it, till
at length
it
gave
new
aspect to the
science of optics.
since the apple in
Twelve years had passed away
the garden had carried up his thoughts to the cause
206
NEWTON.
of the celestial motions,

to
when he was
resume
that subject.
He
again induced received a letter from
Dr Hooke
concerning the kind of curve described by
a falling body, subjected to the double influence of the diurnal motion of the earth, and the of
power
gravitation.
into
This
letter
put Newton on new
inquiries
nature of this description of curves, and orompted him to retrace the steps of his former
the
calculations in regard to the
moon's motion.
The
he had been deceived by the old measurement of the earth, which was essentially false ; making a
truth
is,
degree to consist of sixty EngHsh miles, whereas, by the late and more accurate measurement of Picard, a
half.
degree was ascertained to be sixty-nine miles and a As Newton reckoned the moon's distance in
semidiameters of the earth, and as the length of a semidiameter depended on the length of a degree, this difference gave rise to an enormous error, and
was the cause of his
failure
and discouragement.
By
new
calculation with corrected data, his most
He proved sanguine hopes were more than realized. with demonstrative accuracy, that the deflection of
the
to
moon towards
the earth
is
precisely what
it is
it
ought
be on the supposition, that
actuated by a force
operating inversely as the squares of the distances. He then brought the other planets within his calculation, and found the same law to hold in them all.
Thus was accomplished

its
a discovery
more sublime more
in
nature,
more profound
in its details,
difficult
NEVVTOK.
in its demonstration,
207
and more important in its results, than any which has ever yielded to the force of indusThe law which governs the try, or the light of genius.
heavens and the earth, the uniting principle of the universe, the cement of nature, was detected, and its
rules of action developed
and made appKcable
to the
highest purposes of science. are not to understand, that
We
Newton was
the
first,
who imagined
the existence of such a
attraction
between natural bodies.
power as This was conjec-
tured long before, but no one had been able to prove the fact. It is not certain that the ancients had any
distinct notions of a
power
like that
of gravity.
Lufor-
cretius, in his romantic account of the origin
and
mation of the world, has some fanciful allusions to a kind of principle, which keeps the earth self-balanced
some manner in the the motions of inexplicable producing stars. But it is doubtful, after all, whether he supin the
centre of the imiverse, and operates in
poses these effects to be produced by an internal Lupower of attraction, or an external pressure.* cretius is mentioned, because he to allowed be may
have spoken the sense of the large and flourishing sect of the Epicureans, whose he defendphilosophy ed with an ingenuity and of a better eloquence worthy
subject.
Copernicus had some obscure notions of a gravitating principle In the earth, which he supposed to
De Rerum
Natura, Lib. V.
18*
208
exist also in the stars
in their
NEWTON.
and planets, and preserve them
spherical forms.
He
calls
it
a kind
of nat-
ural
appetency*
Kepler went one step
farther,
and
supposed that an attracting power not only existed in the earth, but that it might reach to the moon and
other planets, and that they might reciprocally attract each other. To such extravagant lengths did his
fancy lead him, that he even assigned to the planets a sort of animating, self-directing principle, by which they were endowed with a sympathy for one another
and enabled
of space.
as gravity
to make their way Dr Hooke found out,

exists,
it
through the regions

that if such a
power
to
must act
in
proportion
the
distance of the body, and the quantity of matter.
From
this brief
sketch
it
appears, that the ancients
had no conception of a gravitating power ; that Copernicus supposed it to extend not beyond the body of each planet ; that Kepler assigned to it a reciprocal influence
among
the several planets, but
knew
nothing of
its
nature or laws of action, and that
Dr
farther, but in estabUshing the existence of such a power, he went not beyond the
Hooke advanced
confines of probability.
Newton's discovery embraces

;
two
essential
particulars
first,
the
fact,
that
an
attracting
the
; secondly, principle pervades law by which this principle acts. Take these away, and no conjectures about attraction could ever
'^
all
matter
tiam
Equidem existimo gravitatem non aliud esse quam appetenquandam naturalem. De, Revol. C(rL Orb. Lib. I. Cap. 9
NEWTON.
be converted
to a single practical use.
tlie
209
But now
they are settled on

stration,
immovable
basis of
demonkey of
they
put
in
our hands the great

profited
;
nature.
Newton undoubtedly
had
as far as he
could by what others had done

his
but,
discoveries, they
literally
compared with done nothing.

in
They were tapers guiding the meridian sun

career of his glory.
the
With
a
this
law
at
command, Newton constructed
new system
of the world.
to
He
solved the most
difficult
problems pertaining
the motions of the
heavenly bodies, and explained the celestial phenomena in a manner at once simple and satisfactory. In all his inquiries on these subjects, as well as on
every other, he rigidly pursued the
mode
;
of philoso-
or rather phizing recommended by Lord Bacon his own mode, as he made it peculiarly his own by being the first, who reduced it to practice, and
gave it a prevalence in the world. a fundamental axiom, that nothing
With him
is
it
was
to
be assumed
as a principle, which does not rest on observation or experiment, and that no hypothesis is to be admitted as estabhshing a fact.*
This axiom he never deserted, and hence the profound investigations into which his sublime geomQuicquid enim ex phaenomenis non
canda
est
;
deducifiir, hypothesis vo-
et
hypotheses seu metaphysics, seu physics, seu qual-
itatiim occultariun, seu

li
mechanics,
in
philosophia experiraenta-
locum nou kabent.
Principia, Lib. III. Schot. General.
210
etry carried him,
NEWTON.
were clothed with the same
certain-
ty, as the results of
humble and obvious
calculations.
He
walked among the planets, and took their dimensions, and measured their periods, and ascertained
their motions
much
and influence on each other, with as the ocean security as the mariner traverses
;
with his compass
and he went forward with equal assurance, that he should not be deceived nor misled. He explained the lunar irregularities, which had
all
baffled
former
astronomers, he
suggested
and
demonstrated the true figure of the earth, solved the

of the equinoxperplexing problem of the precession and extended the of the causes illustrated tides, es,
his researches with brilliant success to the eccentric
orbits
and
erratic motions of the
comets.*
The
these
first
public intimation, which
Newton gave of
sent
discoveries,
to the
was
in
1G83, when he
short paper Royal Society containing a dozen This to the planetary motions. propositions relating who visitpaper attracted the attention of Dr Halley,
ed Newton
at
Cambridge the year
following,
and
became fully acquainted with his novel and astonishing attainn.ants in these high departments of astronomy.
No man was
better qualified to understand and es-
timate them, and he extorted a promise from Newton, that he would make farther communications to the
*
Lorsque
la
comcte de 1680 parut,
mbrassoit I'univers entier.

p. 148.
ie vaste genie de Newton Comttographie, par Pi7igr^, Tom. f.
NEWTON.
Royal Society.
ing,
211
subsequent meetappointed to cor-
Accordingly
at a
Dr Halley and Mr Paget were
respond with Newlon, and remind

ise.
him of
his
prom-
The consequence
was, that
to arrange his materials form, and on the ISth of April, 1686, he presented to the Society the manuscript of the Philosophic
began
he immediately into a methodical
JVaturalis Principia Mathematica.
It
was put
to
press by order of the Royal Society under the superintendence of Dr Halley.
This great work, although

est efforts of
it
ranks among the highat first
human
genius, was not

it
with so
much
applause as
greeted deserved, and as it was
destined to receive.
Its originality
were no doubt obstacles

to
to
its
success.
it
and profoundness It is hard

does not under-
make
the world believe what
stand, especially
when such
a faith
is
met by preju-
dice on the one hand, and a spirit of jealousy on the other. Theory and observation harmonized so perfectly
in
this
constrained
to fall
system, that the more impartial were in with the author's conclusions,
his
although they could not go with him to the depths of But the power of old opinions was geometry.
too strong to suffer the scales to drop from the eyes
Many there were in the higher walks of science, who would see and confess nothing it was their pride to be sceptics as to the new phiof the multitude.
;
losophy.
They had ranged
themselves under the
popular standard of Ai'istotle and
Descartes
they
212
dwelt
in a fairy land,
NEWTON.
and could not descend from the
tion
the humble sphere of demonstraregion of dreams to and fact. So strong did the current set against
Newton's philosophy, that Voltaire spoke truth, in the opinion of Playfair, when he said that the Prin-
had not twenty advocates out of England at the time of the author's death, notwithstanding it had
cipia
been nearly
in
forty years before the public.
And even
for-
England, the Newtonian philosophy was not
earlier mally introduced into the universities at an It made its way slowly, but surely. period.
The schools astonished stood, but found it vain To combat still with demonstration strong, And, unawakened, dream beneath the blaze
Of truth.
When
the
new philosophy had once gained

progress was
as rapid
as
it
a foot-
ing abroad,
its
had been
It fortunately passed through tardy in the outset. the hands of a succession of men eminently qualified, both by intellectual ascendency and mathematical
skill, to illustrate
The fluxdeepest principles. field it was a an untrodden ional analysis opened ; magic wand in the grasp of the mathematician. Armits
this potent instrument, he interrogated nature It with an authority and success before unknown. diffidark or was that all let in a flood of light upon
ed with
cuh
The prodigious in the philosophy of Newton. achievements of Euler, Clairaut, D'Alembert, La

Grange, and
La
Place, conspire to give lustre to
NEWTON.
Newton's fame, and certainly
to his discoveries.
21S
La
Place, in particular, has gone up with the transcendental calculus to the summit of the Newtonian
system, and all firmer foundation.
his lahours
have tended
to fix
it
on a
After having proved throughout a law Uke that of gravitation, that his great work, all the irregularities of explains with rigid precision
the celestial motions, he concludes, that from this
circumstance, and the extreme simplicity of such a law, we are authorized to believe it the law of
nature.*
the science of physical astronomy, but
Newton's discovery did not end here. It created it was not limit-
ed to the compass of the heavens.

attraction pervades
all
The
principle of
things, the smallest as well as
the largest.
affinities,
It lets
and
tells
us into the mystery of chemical us all that we know of the compo-
sition
of bodies, their texture, internal relations, and

In this sphere of
attraction,
its
other properties.
is
influence,
it
it
contiguous not ostensibly observe the
called
and ahhough
does
same laws of
is
action as in
the case of remote bodies, yet there
reason to sup-
pose, that this deviation is caused by the figure, position, and other accidentsof the particles brought in contact.
Newton made many experiments with chemical

is
agents to try his theory, and he
allowed to have
discovered the principle on which the operations of

"
Mpchanique Celeste, Tom.
I.
Liv. 2. chap,
1.
214
chemistry depend.*
NEWTON.
thus find him applying his not to discovery explain the machinery of the only universe, but to detect the method of penetrating the
We
inmost recesses of nature, and bringing hidden properties of things.

Serious objections were at
ry,
first
to
light
the
offered to this theo-
by Euler and some

its
it
others, from the circumstance
of
not accounting for the cause of attraction.
They
said
was the
scholastic notion of an occult quality^
and that the whole system was no more than a revival of the old, exploded philosophy.
tion
it
To
this objec-
was only replied on Newton's
part, that
he did
not pretend to have discovered the cause of gravity ; and, moreover, that if such a discovery were made, it
would add nothing towards confirming the truth of his theory.f He was concerned with effects ; the
uniformity of these he called
a law
;
while this uni-
formity continues, the law will remain the same.
The
law is investigated in its operations, and while these are subject to a fixed rule, nothing will be gained And here, it may be or lost by knowing the cause.
observed,
exemplified the pecuhar character of the Newtonian philosophy, in which the causes of physicis
*
t
liis
Murray's Chemistry, Introduction,
p. 20.
Rationem vero harum
gravitatis proprietatum ex plia^nome-
nondum
Lib. III. Schol.
potui deducere, et hypotheses non fingo. Princip. Gen. And, after his discussion on contiguous at-
" I traction, he says, scruple not to propose the principles of tion above mentioned, they being of very general extent,
leave the causes to be found out."
Oplics, Queri/ 31.
moand
NEWTON.
al
215
consideration,
till
events do not
come under
the
phenomena and laws of

understood.
effects
are explained and
We
It
now come
to
speak of the fluxional analysis.

that the
to
first
was remarked above,

occurred
conception of
this invention
Newton
in
1663, a short
time before he received his bachelor's degree.

this period,
At
than slight
infinities.
however, he attained to nothing more improvements of Dr WaUis's treatise on

It
us, that
he arrived
was two years afterwards, as he tells at the method of fluxions ; and
even then he published nothing on the subject, but contented himself with using the instrument, which
he had invented, solely as a means of advancing

studies in mathematics and philosophy.
his
Before
this
invention,
the
mixed mathematics
Problems were
laboured under great
difficulties.
perpetually occurring, especially on the properties of
curves and the phenomena of motion, which involved intricacies, that would yield to no powers of
calculation then known. It was frequently impossible so far to simplify the data, as to subject tiiem either to a geometrical or algebraical process, and no
more than an
be obtained.
indefinite
approximation
of fluxions
to truth
is
could
The method
free
from
sources of difficulty, and easily accommodates itself to the conditions of abstruse problems. It embraces all the relations of numbers and
quantity, and
the most of these
may be
applied with equal advantage
19
216
NEWTON.
It is
throughout the whole circle of the sciences.
powerful aid to the researches of the philosopher,
and introduces him

knowledge,
its
to
those higher departments of
to
which he could never ascend without
assistance.
The
after
its
first
public notice, which

in
Newton gave of
in
this
invention,
was
the
Principia, twenty-four years
origin.
This dilatoriness
making
it
known
Leib-
was the cause of

nitz,
a long and sharp controversy.
Germany, had already published several in which the principles of fluxions were clearpapers ly laid down, and the mathematicians of the contiin
nent claimed for him the honour of the invention.
The
contest
was carried on with warmth between
the partizans of these two illustrious philosophers, till at length the Royal Society appointed a committee to investigate the subject to the bottom.
In their
report
that
it
was decided
in the
most conclusive manner
Newton was
question
the original inventor, and the only was, whether Leibnitz had seen any of
of Newton's papers, which might unfold to him the This question has never been completely mystery.
answered.
That Leibnitz had seen
in
London some
of Newton's mathematical papers in manuscript, is certain ; but there is no good evidence of his having
derived any hints from them on this subject, nor any Fontenelle considerpositive proof to the contrary.
ed Newton
the
as unquestionably
the
first
inventor,
and
French Academy of Sciences confessed the
NEWTON.
same.*
217
Play fair, and other English mathematicians have conceded, that Leibnitz was the second invenNewton. tor, ahhough many years after This concession, whether well founded or not,detracts
no degree from Newton's glory, for nothing is more certain, than that he invented and employed the calcuin
lus long before
any other person. It is among the fortunate events connected with the progress of science, that the same mind, which detected
it
was known
to
the law of gravitation, should invent the only instru-
ment by which
its
this
law could be demonstrated, and

in the
influence traced
this task the old
motions of the universe.

In
To
ly
*
geometry was not adequate.
the Principia, however, the author never uses directthe fluxional analysis.f
Many
of his theorems
In the preface to the Elements of the Geometry of Infinities, " M. published by the Academy at Paris, 1727, it was stated that, Newton trouva le premier ce marveilleux calcul ; M. Leibneitz
le publia le
premier."
tThe
principles of fluxions are explained in the
Second Len^-
ma
of the Second Book, but they do not enter into the strations in the body of the work.
demon-
to his
Newton was charged with having preferred the old geometry own new analysis. The truth seems to be, however, that
in its
he preferred each
proper place.
Castiglione said of him,
ssepius se repreiiendebat,
quod
res
mere geometricas algebraicis
rationibus tractavisset, et quod libro suo de algebra Arilhmcticac Universalis titulum posuisset, melius asserens Cartesium suum de
re
eadem volumen
di.\isse
Geometriam, ut
sic
ostenderet hascom-
putationes subsidia tantum esse geometria; ad inveniendum. Dr Winthrop, Professor of Mathematics at Harvard University, wrote
a tract to show that this representation is erroneous, and founded on a misrepresentation of a remark by Dr Pemberton in the
218
NEWTON.
their
and propositions were discovered, and

established
this analysis
truth
but in communicating ; by these truths, he gives a decided preference to the It is not so much his purpose to synthetical mode.
describe the process by which he comes to certain results, as to make these results obvious to others ;
admit a question, whether the profound researches of the French mathematicians might not have done more to enlarge the bounds of
it
and
will
at
least
science,
plify
if
they had taken a httle more pains to simtheir
and elucidate the achievements of
wonder-
working analysis, by the aids of the old geometry. We have now briefly touched on Newton's three
great discoveries, the law of gravitation, the refranThese gibility of light, and the fluxional analysis.
constituted the brightest era in the progress of
human
entire
knowledge; they were destined

revolution in the received
to
work an
system of things, and to raise a majestic and imperishable monument to the
fame of their author. The study of the creation was commenced on new principles, and prosecuted with new success. Truth was called down from heaven it beamed on the to earth inquirer's path, and
;
encouraged him
to
persevere
in
the
enterprize of
hiding places of nature, and many discovery. of the mysterious workings of omnipotence, became
familiar to mortals.
preface lo his
The
View of Newton's
philosophy.
Gent. Magazine,
rol. 44, for 1774; p. 531.
NEWTON.
219
Our
ed
in
devoted
philosopher lived a retired Ufe at Cambridge, to the duties of his professorship, and absorb-
Scarcely a single incident is known of him, unconnected with his immediate pursuits and discoveries, during the space of
his favourite studies. thirty years.
It is
mentioned as greatly
to his credit
and as an instance of his firmness of character, that
when
to
king James sent a mandamus to the university confer the degree of master of arts on father
Francis, an ignorant Benedictine monk,

at
Newton was
what
privileges of
the head of those
who
strenuously resisted
was deemed an encroachment on the

the university.
ed
to
was among the delegates appointremonstrate to the high commission court, and
that the king thought
it
He
such was the earnestness with which their charge
was executed,
to enforce his
expedient not
demand.
In 1688
Newton was cho-
sen by the university a member of the convention parliament, in which he held a seat till that body \v?s
dissolved.
Montague, at that time chancellor of the exchequer, and afterwards earl of Halifax, was educated
for at the
Mr
same college with Newton, and contracted

friendship.
him a warm and sincere
The
to
great
work of a recoinage of money was about

place, and Montague wished
to profit
take
by the distin-
guished talents of his friend, as well as to elevate to an office of dignity and emolument. At the the chancellor, the king solicitation of appointed
him
19*
220
him warden of
NEWTON.
the mint
in
1696, and three years
afterwards he was raised to the responsible post of master of the mint. This place yielded him an
he retained
services
annual income of nearly fifteen hundred pounds, and His it during the remainder of his life.
were of high value
and
at all
When Mr Whiston
in this important station, times gave the fullest satisfaction. appointed to his office in the mint, he made
deputy in the professorship of mathIn 1703 ematics, and allowed him the whole salary. he resigned all his duties at Cambridge, and through
his
his influence
the
Whiston was elected his successor. In same year Newton was chosen president of the
Royal Society, and two years afterwards the order of knighthood was conferred on him by Queen
Anne
It
in consideration
of his extraordinary merit.
was not probable, that a mind hke Newton's would suffer the labours of his new station to drive him entirely from philosophical pursuits ; yet we do not learn, that he did any thing more in this
work on Opics, way, than to prepare for the press his been nearly had which and his Method of Fluxions, The book on Optics in readiness for many years.
was published
1704, and is more diligently elabThe author the Principia itself. than orated perhaps, in discoveries his on value seems to have set a peculiar
in
and imbeing fully aware of their originality exhibits a masterly example His work portance.
optics,
of the
experimental philosophy, and
testifies
to the
NEAVTON.
221
splendid success, which may crown the efforts of It was genius when aided by persevering industry.
translated
into
Latin,
with the approbation of the
author,
by Dr Samuel
Clarke.
optics
The
Queries appended to the treatise on

for the
deep and original thoughts by which they are marked, and for the sagacity of
have been admired
their
author in suggesting
many
probable results in
philosophy, which experiment and observation have Some of them no doubt he had provsince verified.
apprehension, that they might not be acceptable to a public not yet prepared for their reception, induced him to employ this cautious methed, but his
He had been taught of experience, that truth is no welby the discipline come guest when it comes in the garb of innovation,
od of making them known.
and that ignorance
is
easily dazzled
to blindness
by
the too sudden light of knowledge.
the time of publishing his Method of Fluxions, Newton gave himself but little to the study of
From
He mathematics, unless for occasional amusement. used to say, that " no old man loved mathematics
except
Dr
Wallis."
It
was
after this period that the
controversy with Leibnitz occurred, but in this he was not personally engaged. It was carried on by Dr Keill, and other English mathematicians. The
facility
with which he solved the famous problem sent

in the
is
by Leibnitz
English nation,
year 1715, as a challenge to the a proof that neither the quickness of
222
his genius, nor his
NEWTON.
mathematical
skill,
ed by neglect.
At four o'clock
in the
was impairafternoon he
received the problem, as he was returning fatigued from his labours in the mint. Before he went to bed
the solution
was completed.
of the success with which the
We
may now speak
capacious and grasping mind of Newton sought out
were spent
other treasures of knowledge. As his early years in reading the book of nature with the
so his declining
scrutinizing eye of a philosopher,
nobler pursuit of unfolding the science of the moral world, and conThe ardour templating the ways of God to man.
days carried
him onward
in the still
with which he measured
the
physical and visible
heavens, was not more fervent than that with v/hich he inquired for the truths of the spiritual and invisiHe read the scriptures, pondered their meanble.
ing, illustrated
many
of their darker parts, and settled
down
into a firm belief of their divine origin
and holy
import.
In
many
respects he stood as high in the
rank of theologians as of philosophers.
The same
power of intellect was appHed with equal energy in both characters ; and had not his briUiant discoveries
in the
former engrossed
all
the admiration of which
the mind of
latter
man
is
capable, his achievements in the
would have elevated
him
to
commanding
station
among
the most able and erudite divines.
lifetime, that
person of eminence in the church, said of him in his " he was the best divine and commen-
NEWTON.
laioY
223
on the Bible he had ever met with." And it is a remark of Dr Chalmers, that " we see in the theology of Newton, the very spirit and principle which
gave
all
its
stability,
and
all
its
sureness, to the phi-
losophy of Newton." sacred history, and had

the external
He was
made
deeply versed himself master of
in
all
means of understanding the Scriptures. His great work on Chronology had for one of its main objects the verification of the writings of the Old
This work cost him the labour of many
Testament.
years, and
It is
was not published entire till after his death. drawn from an immense fund of classical and
ancient learning, and shows in the author an intimate
acquaintance with the poets, historians, and critics of He begins with a historical sketch former times.
of chronological science from
that the chronology of ancient
its
origin,
and proves
is
kingdoms
All
involved
in the utmost uncertainty. profane history runs back to tradition, and then soon loses itself in
utter darkness.
The Europeans had no chronology
before the establishment of the Persian empire, and the Greek antiquities are so full of fable, that no
reliance can be placed on
first
them
in fixing dates.
fiction,
It
The
and
Greek chronologists were addicted to instituted inaccurate modes of reckoning.
has been
the foible of nations to refer their origin to as remote
a period as possible, and this vanity has usually shown

itself in
proportion to the obscurity, which hung about

It
their
early history.
was
so
in
Greece, and the
224
NEWTON.
Grecian writers have been guides to all future chroThe Romans depended on the Greeks for nologists.
the chronology of the East, while in the history of their
own
nation, the accounts of dates
and times are not
worthy of credit, till the age of Alexander. And as for western Europe in general, it had no chronology
till
the third and fourth centuries, and in

later.
some
parts
much
Out of
this chaos,
and certainty.
He
Newton undertook to bring light has made it appear that the
Greek mode of reckoning was erroneous, and assigned to the Greek nation too high an antiquity.
On
a series of arguments estabhshed
by astronomical
calculations, in addition to various historical testimony,
he builds a system of chronology, widely different from any, which learned moderns have deduced from
ancient writers.
The
difference of time amounts in
general
to about
three hundred years, and in
some
The same cautious important events to much more. and rigid mode of reasoning prevails throughout his
chronological treatise, as in his philosophical researches; the same exactness of logic, fertility of invention,
in detecting and combining the forcible of an points argument. On the Grecian mythology he throws much light,
and sagacity
and with learned ingenuity traces the gods and minor deities of Greece and Rome to the deified heroes of
He finds their origin at a much later period Egypt. than most writers, and discovers that various names
NEWTON.
have been multiplied from the same
original.
225
The
work
the
a cm'ious discussion concerning the earth, the commencement of peopling of towns, of agriculture, the arts and sciences, idolcloses with
first
atrous worship, and
numerous other circumstances
which have grown out of the social compact. The value which the author set upon this treatise, may be estimated from the fact, that the
and
institutions,
first
than half of the chapter, which constitutes more whole work, he copied out eighteen times with his
own hand.
He
observes, that he
commenced
the
study of chronology and history while at Cambridge, as a relaxation from his severer pursuits. With all his horror of controversy he was again
driven into
it
in the latter
Caroline, renowned
for
Queen years of his life. her love of knowledge and
her
civilities
to
men
of literature and science, was
fond of conversing with Newton, and often expressed her satisfaction, that it was her fortune to live in the
same age and country with such a man.
She had
caught glimpses of his new views of chronology, and desired him to favour her with an abstract of his
system,
to
At her request,
Coiiti, a
Abbe
its
also, a copy was given Venetian nobleman, on condition
of
being kept secret.
But the treacherous Veneafter
tian
betrayed his
trust
he arrived
in
Paris.
He procured the abstract to be translated into French and published without the author's consent or knowlTo this translation notes were afiixed confutedge.
226
ing
its
NEWTON.
positions.
Newton was
so indignant at this
unworthy conduct of Conti, as well as the perfidy of the translator, who pretended to have asked consent
to publish the abstract, that
he wrote a reply
in
the
Philosophical Transactions, ahhough

ty-third year,
now
in his eigh-
which was equally remarkable for the of its argument, and the keenness of its rebuke. power The controversy was continued by Souciet on one
side,
and
Dr Halley on
till
the other, and
was not brought
to
a close
about
the time of Newton's death.
Whiston wrote against the Chronology, and boasted many years afterwards, that his objections were never
answered.
Another posthumous work of our author, was the

Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel, and the These were left unfinished. Apocalypse of St John.
The remarks on
Daniel are more matured than those
on the Apocalypse ; but on both they exhibit traces of the same depth of learning and patience of investigation,
starts
which characterize the Chronology. He with an inquiry into the origin of the books of
and advances the theory, so
the Old Testament,
enlarged on of late, that the historical parts are compiled from various written documents now
lost.
much
This he thinks particularly demonstrable of
The present Genesis, and the books of the Kings. number and arrangement of the Jewish scriptures
were not
settled
till
after the
Roman
captivity,
when
their
the Jews added
the points,
and committed
KEWTON.
ral traditions to writing in the
227
Talmud.
No
vari-
ous readings were preserved, and whatever errors had crept into the text before this period cannot now be
repaired, except from
Newton
ic
the version of the Seventy. Daniel at the head of the places prophetwriters, and considers his prophecies as a key to
the interpretation of the others, and the foundation of the christian religion.
iel
The
periods foretold by
Dan-
accord so exactly with the times of the ministry and death of our Saviour, as to present the clearest
possible evidence, that the prophet spoke the dictates of divine inspiration. The book of Daniel was
written by different persons ; the six first chapters are a collection of papers of a historical character ; the six last only were written and these Daniel, by at various times.
After a series of preliminary observations to this the author traces each of the effect,
prophethe
par-
cies
of
Daniel
to
its
verification
in
succeeding
The vision of the Four Beasts, and Ten Horns of the fourth beast, he explains with
events.
ticularity
and immense erudition.
the Seventy
to the usual
The prophecy of Weeks he translates anew, and, contrary mode of interpretation, refers one clause
of It to the second coming of Christ. His acquaintance with chronology enabled him to apply the several parts of this remarkable prophecy with great exactness to the events to the Mesprincipal
relating
siah, to the time of his
birth, his death, the duration
20
228
NEWTON.
of his ministry, the wars of the Jews, and the ruin of

the Jewish nation.
His deductions from

fortifies
civil
and
and scriptural history he

calculations.
by
astronomical
In regard to the Apocalypse, it has been the prevaiUng opinion of learned men, that this book was written later, than any other part of the Scriptures
;
but Newton assigns to

to hint that
all
it
it
an earlier origin.
He
would seem
was written before John's

he supposes After a few
Gospel, and at
events before the general Epistles
of Peter, and that to the

it
Hebrews,
as
to
be alluded
to
in those
Epistles.
remarks on the authenticity of the Apocalypse, he proceeds to explain some of its dark prophecies,
which, as he considers them to bear an intimate relation to the prophecies of Daniel, he interprets on
similar principles.
Daniel and John

events,
in certain points
predict the
same
many
of which have already
taken place. ducts him to
In pursuing the parallel which conthis opinion, he dwells on the origin

All his disto those prefulfilled
;
and progress of the papal hierarchy. courses on the prophecies are confined
dictions
which he believes
to
have
been
he hazards no conjectures beyond the limits of evidence ; hence some parts of the Apocalypse he does
not touch, but leaves them to be unfolded in the order
of providence.
tract
by Newton,
entitled a History
first
of
Two
JVotable Corruptions of Scripture, was
publish-
NEWTON.
ed
in
229
1754.
copy was obtained from Holland,
which was among the papers formerly belonging to Le Clerc, and deposited after his death in the Remonstrants'
Library
at
Amsterdam.
this tract in
So
early as
1708,
to
Le Clerc mentioned
its
his preface
Kuster's edition of Mill's Testament; but he was

author, as
it
ignorant of
in
his
came
it
to
him from Locke

years afterwards
own
handwriting.
Some
Wetstein ascertained, that
and as the copy
in
was written by Newton, Holland was mutilated at the
beginning and end, he apphed to the heirs of Newton to be favoured with a perfect transcript from the
motives never explained, this request was not granted, and the piece found its way to the
original.*
From
public in the imperfect state in which
it
was
left
by
Le
Clerc.
When
Horsley published
this tract
an edition of
Newton's works, however,
was printed from a copy of the original manuscript then in the possession of Dr Ekens.
It
is
the author's purpose in this treatise to prove
the famous text of the
Three Heavenly Witnesses

to
in
John
to
be an interpolation, and
defend the Vul-
gate reading of the disputed passage in Timothy. f Considering the early stage at which he took
up
and the comparatively unexplored region through which he was compelled to pass, he has
this subject,
managed
*
t 1
his
argument with remarkable abihty and

p. 185.
Wetstenii Prolegomena,
John
V.
7;
Tim.
iii,
16.
230
success.
NEWTONT.
Fathers,
the
His knowledge of the Greek and Latin theologians of the middle ages, and
the history of sacred learning, as displayed in this work, impresses the reader with amazement at the
universality of his
powers and attainments.
Notwith-
standing the length to which the controversy on the text in John has since been carried, and the eminent
has called into action, very few weighty particulars have been added to those first collected
talents
it
by Newton ; and it would have been no disparagement to the champions of the cause he sustained, if they had manifested more willingness, than they have
done, to acknowledge their obligation for the aids they have received from so illustrious a source.
Newton
left
many
writings on theological subjects,
which have not been pubhshed. Whiston mentions a tract on the Rule of Faith, and one on the Dominion of the CJergy.
In the catalogue of Newton's arranged manuscripts, by order of his executors, we
iind noticed
an article on Comiptions of Scripture, and another entitled Paradoxical Questions concernSeveral pieces are designated by ing Athanasius.
title
the general
of Church Matters.
No
reason has
been assigned by the persons into whose hands these papers have fallen, why they should be withheld
from the public. duced them not
It
Horsley examined them, but
intro-
into his edition of the author's works.
has been supposed, and no doubt rightly, that the in theoloopinions they express on certain doctrines
NEWTON.
ogy are not such
dard of Horsley.
cause, every fair
as squared with the
231
orthodox stan-
Whatever may have been the mind must seriously regret, that the
Newton, on the important subjects of rehgious truth and scriptural interpretation, should be withheld from the world.
recorded thoughts of such a
as
man
Some of his pecuhar theological sentiments may be discovered from his writings, and the testimony
of his friends.
Whiston
tells
us of his profound
knowledge of church history during the three first centuries of the christian era, and of his having been convinced by his study of this history, that the doctrine of the trinity
was introduced
into the christian
scheme many years after the time of the Apostles.* The tenour of Newton's writings is in accordance
with this declaration, nor do they exhibit any evidence, that their author ever believed in a trinity.
The
his papers
charge against Horsley of having suppressed because they were adverse to this doctrine,
also the faith of Ne^^ton, that in early times
has never been contradicted.

It
was
christian preachers
were
first
chosen by the people,
and then ordained by bishops, and that no person could be ordained to the pastoral office over any
The
In the satne
Present State of the Republic of Letter?, vol. III. p. 282. work may he seen several other particulars concern-
ing the theological opinions of

to the
Newton.
See also
An
Inquiry in-
comparative Moral
Tendency of Unitarian and Trinitarian
Doctrines, p. 367.
20*
232
congregation,
till
NEWTON'.
whom
of
he was
to teach.*
he had been elected by the people, In this respect his views

to
church
government seem
have
approached
He did not nearly to those of the Independents. hold to the baptism of infants, but believed that all
the subjects of this
advanced
in
ceremony should be sufficiently and understanding to receive reliage
gious instruction. f
To theology and ecclesiastical history the leisure hours of this great philosopher were devoted during
the last thirty years of his
fice in the
life.
The
duties of his of-
mint were arduous, but his habits of close
application to study, early
formed and long continued,
enabled him to penetrate deeply into those branches of sacred knowledge, to which he at first applied for
relaxation and amusement.
Till his eightieth year his health
He
was then
afflicted
with a severe
was usually good. illness, from which
,he never entirely recovered, although he went puncthrough the labours of his office till within a
tually
year of his death. It has been said, that his mind became so
much
impaired in his advanced age, that he could not understand his own works ; but this is a mistake, as is
testified
by Pemberton.
In his last illness, and for
some time previously, Newton was attended by Dr Mead, with whom he held such conversations as
Republic of Letters, vol.
i
Ill, p.
281-
Ibid. p. 280.
NEWTON.
233
proved him to have full possession of his faculties. He died on the 20th of March, 1727, in the eightyfifth year of his age, and his remains were deposited
in
Westminster Abbey. Plato thought, and others

indulged
the
as
wise
is
as
Plato
chain
have
dream,
that there
from the highest

a reality,
of inteUigences descending by a regular gradation to the lowest. If wisdom deceive
not her children, and the vision of Plato be indeed
who
will
deny
?
to
Newton
the
first
rank
in
is
that portion of the scale,
which the human race
Other philosophers have been renowned for genius, acuteness, and power of intellect ; they have been quick to invent, and sagacious
destined to occupy
to discover the
more hidden phenomena of
nature,
and the deeper reasons of things. Other philosophers have shone as stars of the first magnitude in
the firmament of science
;
in
one happy discovery
they may have gone before the rest of mankind ; in one endowment of nature they may have stood without an equal.
Such there have been, and they have

the world
;
reflected glory on
but in the blaze of
Newton's effulgence they are eclipsed and lost. All the rare qualities, which singly measured the greatness of others, were combined in him, and contribut-
ed
their respective shares to raise
him
to the
emi-
nence he held, and sustain him there. To no being whose destiny has been fixed among mortals, can be
more
justly
apphed the words of the sweetest poet
234
that ever invoked the
NEWTON.
philosophic inuse.
Of New-
ton
it
may
truly
be
said, that he
was one,
Qui genus humanutn ingetiio superavit, et omnes

Prsestinsit, stellas exortus uti Eetherius
Sol*
In private hfe he was mild and affable, peaceful in his temper, gentle in his manners, and a lover of
tranquillity
little
and retirement.
into the world,
Although he went out he was social in his feelings, and
ready
in conversation.
among
his
Humihty and modesty were most striking virtues. He was without
arrogance or pretension, putting himself on a level with other men, and ascribing whatever progress he
had made
knowledge wholly to his untiring industry and patience. As he was a stranger to pride, so he was free from any affected singularities. He was gen^
in
erous in his benefactions, and a patron of true worth
wherever
it
was found.
His religious
faith
was
settled
',
on the foundation of reason and the Scriptures and strong ; he was a christian piety was steady
behef and
ciples and
in practice.
his
in
la short, the balance of prin-
powers which marked the rare structure
of his mind, together with the unison in his philosoformed a perfect and wonphy, morals, and rehgion, the in all derful harmony parts of his character.
Lucret. de Rerura Nat. Lib, IIL
v. 1056.
Alf
HISTORICAL ACCOUNT
OF
TWO CORRUPTIONS OF
IN A
SCRIPTURE.
LETTER TO A FRIEND.
SECTION
I.
On
I.
the
Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses.

late writers
Since the discourses of some

you
a curiosity of
have
raised in
text
knowing the truth of that
of
in
scripture
Three
concerning the testimony of the Heaven, 1 John v. 7, I have here sent you
an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and by what steps it has been changed, so far as I Ajid I have can hitherto determine by records.
done
it
the
more
stand the
many
because to you, who underabuses which they of the Roman

freely,
church have put upon the world, it will scarce be than is comungrateful to be convinced of one more
For ahhough the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinmonly believed.
236
SIR ISAAC Newton's history of
ger, Grotius, and

their
some
others,
would not dissemble
knowledge, yet the generality are fond of the

its
place for
making
against
heresy.
But
whilst
we
exclaim against the pious frauds of the Roman church, and make it a part of our religion to detect and re-
nounce
it
all
things of that kind,
we must acknowledge
that ac-
a greater crime in us to favour such practices,

in
;
than
the Papists
for
we
so
much blame on
count
they
act according
to their religion,
but
we
contrary to ours.
In the eastern nations, and for
a long time in the western, the faith subsisted without this text ; and it is rather a danger to rehgion, than
reed.
an advantage, to m.ake it now lean upon a bruised There cannot be better service done to the
purge
it
truth, than to
of things spurious
and, there-
fore,
knowing your prudence, and calmness of temper,

confident
1 shall
;
am
not offend you by telling you

it
my
mind
plainly
especially since
is
no
article
of
faith, no point of discipline, nothing but a criticism concerning a text of scripture which I am going to
write about.
II.
The
some
history of the corruption, in short,
is this.
First,
ter,
of the Latins interpreted the
spirit,
wa-
to
and blood, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Then Jerome, for the same end, prove them one.
to allege
it
inserted the Trinity in express words into his version.
Out of him the Africans began
against
the Vandals, about sixty-four years after his death. Afterwards the Latins noted his variations in the mar-

gins of their
237
to
in
books
and thence
it
creep into the text in transcribing,

the twelfth and
began at length and that chiefly
following
centuries,
was revived by the schoolmen.
when disputing And when printing
came
crept out of the Latin into the printed Greek, against the authority of all the Greek MSS.
up,
it
;
and ancient versions

it
went soon
after into
and from the Venetian presses Greece. Now the truth of
this history will
appear by considering the arguments

alleged for the testimony of
are the authorities of Cyprian,
on both
III.
sides.
The arguments
in
the
Three
Heaven,
all
Athanasius, and Jerome, and of

scripts,
many Greek manu-
and almost
the Latin ones.
'
IV. Cyprian's words run thus,* "the Lord saith, and the Father are one.' And again of the
'
And Son, and Holy Ghost it is written, these Three are One.' " The Socinians here deal
Father,
too injuriously with Cyprian, while they would have
this
place corrupted ; for Cyprian repeats almost the same thing. f
in
another place
If,"
"
saith
he,
[" one baptized among heretics] be of God, tell me, I pray, of what
^
made God ?
;
the temple
If of the
Dicit
et Filio et Spiritu
Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus et iterum de Patre Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt. Cypr.
Dei factus
est,
de Unit. Eccles.
t
Si teraphiin
quajso cujus Dei
Si
Spiritus
Sancti,
cum
tres
unum
sinf,
quomodo
Spiritus Sanctus plaeatus ei

est.
esse potest, qui ant Patris aut Filii inimicus
Cypr. Episl. 73,
ad Jubaiamtm.
238
Holy Ghost,
the
since these Three are One, how can be reconciled to him who is the Ghost Holy " These enemy of either the Father or the Son f
places of Cyprian being, in my opinion, genuine, seem so apposite to prove the testimony of the Three in Heaven, that I should never have suspected a mislake in
it,
could
I
but have reconciled

this
it
with the
reading in the next ignorance the Latins of both Africa and Europe, age, amongst For had it been in as well as among the Greeks.
meet with of
Cyprian's Bible, the Latins of the next age, when all the world was engaged in disputing about the Trinity, and all arguments that could be thought of
and daily brought upon could never have been ignorant of a text, the stage, which in our age, now the dispute is over, is chiefly In reconciHng this difficulty, I considinsisted upon.
were
diligently sought out,
er, therefore, that the
by Cyprian
are
in
only words of the text quoted both places are, " And these Three
to the
One
;"
which words may belong
eighth
verse as well as to the seventh.
For Eucherius,*
bishop of Lion in France, and contemporary to St

Eucherius reads the text thus Tria sunt qua? testimonium peraqua, sanguis, et spiritus. And then adds tliis interpre:
hibent
tation, Plures hie ipsam, interprefationemystica,intelligunt Trin-
itatem
aqua, Patrem indicans
eo quod perfecta ipsa perhibeat testimonium Christo ; ; quia ipse de se dicit, me dereliquerunt
;
fontem aquaj vivae pa^sionis cruorem
sanguine, Christum deroonstrans, utique per manifestans. spiritu vero Sanctum Spiritum
Eiicher. de Quest. A". Test.
239
Austin, reading the text without the seventh verse,

tells
us, that
many
then understood the
spirit,
the
And water, and the blood, to signify the Trinity. St Austin* is one of those many ; as you may see in his third book against Maximinus, where he tells us, that " the is the for God is a
spirit
Father,
for
spirit
the water the
Christ gives to
Holy Ghost, them that

in the
he
;
is
the water which
thirst
and the blood the
Son, for the word was

the opinion of
made
flesh."
Now
if it
was
many
western churches of those

the blood, sig-
times, that the spirit, the water, and

nified the
it is
Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost;
plain that the testimony of Three in Heaven, in express words, was not yet crept into their books ;
and even whhout

Cyprian, or any
this testimony,
it
was obvious
for
man
else of that opinion, to
say of
Sane
falli te
nolo in
epis(oI;i
sunt testes, spiritus, aqua, el

dicas, spiritum
et et
Joannis Apostoli, ubi ait, " (res sanguis, et tres unuin sunt ;" no forte
aquam
et
tamen dictum
fallaris
;
esse, tres
luium sunt.
ne
hanc
enim
sunt, in
Si
sanguinem diversas esse substantias, Propter hoc admonui te, quibus non quid sint, sed quid osteniiis
dant, semper attenditur.
vero ea, qua3
significata sunt, vcli-
mus
lus,
inquirere
non absurde occurrit
ipsa Trinitas, quas unus, so-
summus est Deus, Pater et Fiiius et Spiritus Sanctus; de quibus verissime dici potuit, tres sunt testes, et tres ununi sunt ;
nomine
spiritAs significatuin acci|)ianuis
Deum Patrem, (de Deo adorando loquebatur Dominus, ubi ait, " spiritus est Deus); nomine aufemsangniiiis,Filium; quiaverbum caro factum est nomine autem aqu;p, Spiritum Sanctum. Cum enim
ut
ipso quippe
;
rctur Jesus,
quam
daturus erat sitientibus,
ait
dea(|Uiiloque" lioc evangelista;
autem
D.
dicit
de Spiritu,
quem
accepturi erant credentes in eum."

Lib.
iii.
Jlugiistin. cont.
Maximinum.
cap. xxii.
21
240
siK ISAAC Newton's history of
the Father, and Son, and
Holy Ghost, 'And these Three are One.' " And that
"
it is
written,
this
was Cyp-
rian's
sixth century,
meaning, Facundus,* an African bishop in the is my author ; for he tells us expressly,

the above mentioned place, underso, interpreting the spirit, water,
that Cyprian, in
stood
to be the Father,
and blood, Son, and Holy Ghost; and thence affirming, that John said of the Father, Son, and Holy " Ghost, These Three are One." This at least may be
it
gathered from
this
passage of Facundus, that some
in
those early ages interpreted Cyprian after this manner.
Nor do
*
understand
how any
of those
many who
Facundus, in tlie beginning of liis book to the Emperor Justinian, pro Defensione triuni Capituloruni Concilii Clialcedonensis,
first
recites the text after the
manner of Cyprian, but more
dis-
tinctly in these
words
de Patre
et
Filio et
Joannes Apostolus, in epistold sua, " Tres sunt, qui tesSpiritu Saucto sic dicit,
;
Nam
timonium dant
sunt;"
in
in terra, 'jiiritus,
spiritu
significans
litlle after
Spiritum Sanctum, Joan. vii. he thus confirms
aqua,et sanguis et hi tres unum &ic. Joan. iv. 21. in aqui And a 37, in sanguine vero Filium.
;
Patrem,
tliis
interpretation
by Cj'prian's auaqua, et secun-
thority, saying,
Aut
si
forsan
ipsi,
qui de verbo contendunt, in eo

spiritus,
intelligi
quod
dixit,
sanguis, et hi tres
" tres sunt qui testificantur in terra, unum sunt," Trinitatem nolunt
in terra testificari, et qui
.'
dum
tur,
ipsa verba quaj posuit, pro Apostolo

hi tres, qui
Joanne respondeant.
Numquid
unum
esse dicun-
Quod tamen Jopossunt spiritus et aquae et sanguines dici annis Apostoli testimonium B. Cyprianus Carthaginensis, antistes et martyr, in epistola sive libro quem de Trinitate, immo de Unitatc Ecclesia3 scripsit,
intelligit; ait
enim,
" dicit
de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Saiicto dictum Dominus, 'ego et Pater unum sumus ;' et
' iterum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, et hi " ex Facunil. Lib. i. edit. tres unum sunt.' Sir7nondi, Parisp. 16;
ik, 1629.

took the
Trinity
;
241
spirit,
or any
water, and blood, for a type of the man else, who was ignorant of the
in Heaven, as the churches testimony of the Three in the times of the Arian controversy generally were ;
could understand him otherwise.
And
even Cypri-
an's own words do plainly make for the interpreta" For he does not say, the Father, the Word, tion.
and the Holy Ghost," as it is now in the seventh verse ; but " the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost," as it is
in baptism
to derive
;
the
tried at place from which they

If
it
first
the Trinity.
be pretended,
that the
words
reads
by Cyprian are taken out of the seventh than out of the eighth, because he rather verse,
cited
not.
Hi
Trcs in
Unum
sunt, but
Hi
Tres
Unum sunt; I answer, that the Latins generally read, Hi Tres Unum sunt, as well in the eighth verse, as in as you may see in the newly cited places the seventh
;
of St Austin and Facundus, and those of Ambrose,
Pope Leo, Beda, and Cassiodorus, which

in the present vulgar Latin.
follow,
and
So then the testimony
of Cyprian respects the eighth, or at least is as applicable to that verse as to the seventh, and therefore is of no force for proving the truth of the seventh ; but, on the contrary, for disproving it we have here the
testimony of Facundus, St Austin, Eucherius, and For those many others whom Eucherius mentions.
if
those of that age had
met with
it
in
their
books,
the
they would never have understood

water, and the
Trinity, in order to prove
the
spirit,
blood, to be the three persons of the
them one God.
242
V. These passages in Cyprian may receive further light by a hke passage in Tertullian, from whence
Cyprian seems
to
have borrowed them
for
it is
well
known
lian's
Cyprian was a great admirer of Tertulwritings, and read them frequently, calling
that
Tertullian his master.
The
passage
is this
;*
"
The
connexion of the Father

in
in the
Son, and of the Son
the
Paraclete,
one another, one person,) as
makes three coherent ones from which Three are One, (one thina;, not
it is
said, 'I
and the Father are One
;'
denoting the unity of substance, not the singularity of number." Here, you see, Tertullian says not, " the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost," as the text now has it, but " the Father, Son, and Paraclete ;"
nor cites any thing more of the text than these words,
" which Three are One." Though this treatise against St Praxeas be wholly spent in discoursing about the
Trinity, and
all
texts of scripture are cited to prove
it,
and
this text
of St John, as
we now read
it,
would have
been one of the most obvious and apposite to have been cited at large, yet Tertullian could find no more obvious
words
in
One."
ty,
" these Three are purpose than These, therefore, he interprets of the Triniit
for
his
"
and enforces the interpretation by that other text, and the Father are One ;" as if the phrase was
Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit co-
of the same importance in both places.

Connexiis
haerentes, alterum ex altero,
"
et
qui Tres
quomodo dictum
tiae
"
est,
Ego
Pater
Unum sunt," Unum sumus ;"
(non Unus) ad substan-
unitatem, non adnumeri singularitatem. Prax. c. 25.
TeriuUian. luhers.

VI. So then
this interpretation
243
seems
to
have been
invented by the Montanists

their Trinity.
for giving
countenance to
For TertuUian was a Montanist when

;
he wrote
this
and
it
is
most Hkely that so corrupt
and forced an interpretation had its rise among a sect of men accustomed to make bold with the Scriptures.
it
Cyprianbeing used to itin his master's writings, seems from thence to have dropt into his ; for this
may be
men,
it
gathered from the Hkeness between their And by the disciples of these two great citations.
seems
to
have been propagated among those

it
many
in
Latins, who, as Eucherius tells us, received
the next age, understanding

spirit,
the Trinity
by the
"
water, and blood."
For how, without the
countenance of some such authority, an interpretation so corrupt and strained should come to be received in that
stand.
age so generally,
do not under-
VII.
lian
And what
is
said of the testimony of Tertul-
and Cyprian,
may be much more
said of that in
the feigned disputation of Athanasius with Arius at For there the words cited are only y.xi d Nice.
r^m
7 'K uTiv,
and
these
Three are One
and they
are taken out of the seventh verse, without naming the persons of the Trinity before them. For the
Greeks interpreted " the spirit, water, and blood," of the Trinity, as well as the Latins ; as is manifest
from the annotations they made on
margin of some of their manuscripts.
this text
in
the
Si-
For Father
21*
244

informs us that in one of the
mon*
MSS
oi
in the library
of the king of France, marked number 2247, over

against these words,
7^,t TO
7rvsvf<,
'<>Tt
r^c7i el<riv
/^cc^rvôvvrei
t^
Kxi
ro
u^mq xxt re
earth,'\
is
ce,in.x
,j'or
there are
Three that hear record \in

ter,
the spirit, the iva-
and
the blood
there
this
remark,
bxvtou,
rare?-! t
7risvf*.x TO kyiov, xx)
nxrifo, xui
eivToi
that
is,
Holy Ghost, and the Father, and He of HimAnd in the same copy over against these self. words, t* o{ Tûi eli TO ev ii<ri, and these Three are One ; this note is added, mrevTi f4.tx B-sory.i, J; B-iog, One God. This MS is that is. One Deity,
the
about 500 years old. VIII. Also in the margin of one of the
MSS,
in
Monsieur Colbert's
library,
is
mon
tells
us there
a like
number 871, father SiFor besides remark.
these words,
'5 -S-^s?, /îi^
^sorjn,
One God, One God-
head; there are added,

rov eiyla
er,
TTveZ/itxToi,
t^d^rv^lct roZ ^soZ too 5rr^5 kxi
and
the
sufficiently
of God, the FathThese marginal notes Holy Greeks used to apply this the how show
the testimony
Ghost.
text to the Trinity
author of that disputation

I
and by consequence how the is to be understood. But
should
tell
you
also, that that disputation
was not
writ
by Athanasius, but by
a later author, and there-
fore, as a spurious piece, uses not to
be much
insist-
ed upon.
* Critical History of the New Testamrnt, chap. f Suspicor verba h t~^ yri non extare in MS.
18.

IX.
245
spirit,
Now
this
" the mystical application of
water, and blood," to signify the Trinity, seems to me to have given occasion to somebody, either frau-
" the Three in testimony of Heaven" in express words into the text, for proving the Trinity ; or else to note it in the margin of his
dulently to insert the
book, by way of interpretation ; whence it might afterwards creep into the text in transcribing. And the first upon record that inserted it, is Jerome ; if
the preface* to the
*
canonical epistles, wîich goes

Incipit prologus in epistolas
The whole preface runs thus;
canonicas.
ordo apud Graecos, qui integre sapiuiit, fidemque rectam sectantur, epistolaruin septem, quae canonicee
ita est
Non
nuncupantur, sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur; ut quia Petrus est primus in ordine apostolorum, primaj sint etiam ejus epistola;
in
ordine ceterarum.
Sed
sicut evangelistas
dudunn
ad
veritatis liaeain correximus, ita lias proprio ordini,
reddidimus.
Johannis, et Judae una. Quae que ab interpretibus fideliter

iiec
Est enim una earum prima Jacobi, si sicut ab eis digests sunt, ita quoin Latinum verterentur eloquiura,
Deo juvante, dua Petri, tres
ambiguilatem legentibus facerent, ncc sermonum sese variepositum legimus.

In quii etiam ab infide-
tates impugnarent, illo praecipue loco ubi de Unitate Trinitatis in
primA Johannis
epistola,
libus translatoribus multuni erratum esse a fidei veritate
compcrimus,
trium tantummodo vocabula, hoc est, aquae, sanguinis, et spiritOs, in ipsd sua editione ponentibus ; et Patris, Verbique, ac Spiritils testimonium omittentibus in quo maxime et fides catholica robora;
tur, et Patris
ac
Filii et Spiriti^s
una
divinitatis
siibstautia
com-
probatur.
In ceteris vero epistolis,
distet editio, lectoris
quantum a nostni aliorura Sed tu, virgo Christi judicio derelinquo.
dum a me impensius scripturae veritatem inqniris, mcam quodammodo seuectutem invidorum dentibus corrodendam exponis, qui me falsarium, corruptoremque Sanctarum proEustochium,
nunciant Scripturarum. Sed ego, in tali opere, nee aemulorum mcorum invidiam pertimesco, nee Sanctze Scripturae veritatem
posceniibus dencgabo.
246
under
not a
his
name, be
his.
Foi whilst he composed
new
translation of the
New
Testament, but
only corrected the ancient vulgar Latin, as learned
men
haps
this
think,
at
and among
in
;
his
emendations, written perthe said preface,
first
the margin of his book, he inserted
testimony
he complains
in
how he was thereupon accused by some

ins for falsifying
of the Lat-
and makes answer, that former Latin translators had much erred from the
scripture
;
faith, in putting
in their edition,
Three
in
spirit, water, and blood," and omitting the testimony of " the Heaven," whereby the Cathohc faith is
only
" the
established.
he corrected
original
In this defence he seems to say, that the vulgar Latin translation by the
;
Greek
and
this is the great
testimony the
in the
text relies
upon.
whilst he confesses
it
X. But
was not
Latin
accuses former translators of falsifying the Scriptures in omitting it, he satifies us that it has
crept into the Latin since his time, and so cuts off all the authority of the present vulgar Latin for justifying
before, and
And whilst he was accused by his contemporaries of falsifying the Scriptures in inserting it, this accusation also confirms that he altered the public reading. For had the reading been dubious before he made it so,
it.
no man would have charged him with falsification for Also whilst, upon this accusafollowing either part.
tion,
he recommends the alteration by
its
usefulness
it
for establishing the Catholic faith, this
renders
the
TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE.

more suspected
;
247
by discovering both the design of
his making it, and the ground of his hoping for success. However, seeing he was thus accused by his
contemporaries,
it
gives us just reason to
examine
the business between
him and
his accusers.
And
so
he being called
to the bar,
we
are not to lay stress
own testimony for himself (for no man is a witness in his own cause), but laying aside all prejuof dicOj we ought, according to the ordinary rules
upon
his
justice, to
examine the business between him and
his accusers
XI.
They
by other witnesses. that have been conversant
in
his writ-
a strange liberty which he takes in asings, observe Many notable instances of this he has serting things.
very fabulous lives of Paul and Hilarion, not to mention what he has writWhence Erasmus said of ten upon other occasions. " in that he was him, frequently affirming things, violent and impudent, and often contrary to himBut I accuse him not. It is possible that he self."*
left
us in composing those
might be sometimes imposed upon,

vertency, commit a mistake.
poraries accused him,
it is
or,
through inadhis
Yet since
contemshould
but just that
we
lay aside the prejudice of his great
name, and hear
the cause impartially between them.

*
Sicpe
numero
violentas,
parumque pudens,
Jlnnoiiilion. in
sacpe varlus, pa
v. 7.
rumque
sibi
constans.
Erasmi
Johan.
Vide etiam qute Erasmus contra
Leum
in
hunc locum de Hier-
onyrao fusius
dixit.
248
XII.
Now the witnesses between them are partly the ancient translators 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 have copied out the Greek manuscripts of the Scriptures in all ages.
And
all
these
are against him.
For by the unanimous evidence

" appear that the testimony of the
of
all
these,
in
it
will
Three
scripts,
Heaven" was wanting in the Greek manufrom whence Jerome, or whoever was the
author of that preface to the canonical epist?es, pretends to have borrowed it.
ancient interpreters which I cite as witnesses against him, are chiefly the authors of the
Xni. The
ancient vulgar Latin, of the Syriac, and the iEthiopic versions. For as he tells us, that the Latins omitted the testimony of " the
Three
in
Heaven"
in their
version before his time, so in the Syriac and jEthiopic
versions, (both which, from
count of them, are
much
bishop Walton's acancienter than Jerome's
time, being the versions which the oriental iEthiopic
nations received from the beginning, and generally used, as the Latins did the vulgar Latin) that same testimony is wanting to this day ; and the authors of
these three most ancient, most famous, and most receiv-
ed versions, by omitting it, are concurrent witnesses, that

they found it wan ting in the original Greek manuscripts of their own times. It is wanting also in other ancient versions
;
as in the
Egyptian Arabic, published

in
249
Walton's Polyglot ; in the Armenian version,'''' used, ever since Chrysostom's age, by the Armenian
nations
;
and
in
the Illyrican of Cyrillus, used in
Rascia, Bulgaria, Moldavia, Russia, Muscovy, and other countries, which use the Sclavonic tongue.
In a copy of this version, f printed at Ostrobe (Ostrow) in Volhinia, in the year 1581, I have seen it
and one CamillusJ relates the same thing ; out of ancient manuscripts of this version seen by him.
wanting
Father Simon notes

sion of the
least
it
wanting also
in a certain ver-
1000 years
father
French church, which, saith he, is at old, and which was published by Nor do I a Benedictine monk. Mabillon,
know of any version wherein it is extant, except the modern vulgar Latin, and such modern versions, of
the western nations, as have been influenced by
it.
So
and
then,
by
the unanimous consent of
all
the ancient
faithful interpreters
which we have hitherto met

use of the best manuscripts
with,
*
who
doubtless
made
Episcopum
Codex Armeniaciis ante 400 annos cxaratiis, qiiem vidi apiid Ecclesia: Armeniaca;, quae Amstelodami coHi!<i(ur, locum ilium non legit. Sandius.Jlppend. Interpret. Paradox, in It. I.
tThe
sunt.
printed Sclavonic version runs thus;
"Quia Tres sunt

in
qui testificantur, spiritus, et aqua, ct sanguis; et Tres

Si testimonium, &ic."
Unum
rum
^Testimonium Trium in Coelo non est in antiquissimis [llyricoet Ruthenorum codicibus ; quorum unum exemplar, a sex;
centis fere annis manuscriptum, janipridom apud illustri.ssimuni Gabrielem Chineum, terra" Bactrica; Dominum vidi, ct legi alterum manibus nostris teritur, fide et antiquitate sua nobile, CaviilIvs de Jlntichrislo, Lib.
ii.
cap. 2. pag. 156.
250

in
" they could get, the testimony of the Three en" was not anciently in the Greek.
Heavverto
XIV. And
the
first
that
it
was neither
in the ancient
sions nor in the Greek, but
was wholly unknown

in
all
churches,
;
is
most certain by an argument

that
hinted above
universal,
namely, that
vehement,
lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time, and both before and long enough " the Three in Heaven" was after this text of
it,
and
never once thought of. It is now in every body's mouth, and accounted the main text for the business,
had
to
and would assuredly have been so too with them, And yet it is not once it been in their books.
be met with
in all
the disputes, epistles, orations,
and other writings of the Greeks and Latins (Alexder of Alexandria, Athanasius, the council of Sardica,
Basil,
Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom,
Cyril, Theodoret, Hilary,
Ambrose, Austin, Victori-
nus Afer, Philastrius Brixiensis, Phaebedius Agennensis, Gregorius Baeticus, Faustinus Diaconus, Paschasius, Aruobius Junior, Cereahs,
and others)
in
the
times of those controversies

self,
if
no, not in
Jerome him-
his
version and
preface
to the canonical
be excepted. The writings of those times and there is no arvêry many, and copious which they do not urge gument, or text of scripture,
epistles
were
That of St John's Gospel, " I and again and again. the Father are One," is every where inculcated,
but this of " the Three
in
Heaven" and
their being

'
251
One,"
is
no where
to
be met with,
till
at length,
when
ignorant ages came on, it began by degrees to creep into the Latin copies out of Jerome's version. So far are they from citing the testimony of " the
the
Heaven," that, on the contrary, as often as they have occasion to mention the place, they omit and that too, as well after Jerome's age, as in, it,
in
Three
For Hesychius* cites the place thus ; Jludi Johannem dicentem, Tria sunt qui testimoniand before
it.
um
prcebent, et
et
is
Tres
Unum
sunt, spiritus, et sanin
guis,
which
in
aqua. never done, but

is
The words
terra
he omits,
in copies
where " the Three
Cassiodorus, or whoever wanting. was the author of the Latin version of the discourse
Heaven"
of Clemens Alexandrinus on these epistles of St John,
reads
it
thus
et
Qûia
et
tres
sunt,
et hi
qui
testijicantur,
spiritus,
aqua,
sanguis,
Tres
Unum
sunt.-\
Beda,
in his
commentary on
qui
the place, reads
it
thus
Et
s])iritus est
testificaiur ,
quoniam Ckristus
Tres
est
Veritas.
Quoniam Tres
^c.
sunt, qui testimonium dant in
terra, spiritus, aqua,
et saiiguis, et
Unum
sunt.
Si testimonium,
far
But here
the words in terra, so

this
as I
text,
can gather from his commentary on have been inserted by some later hand.
first
The
author of the
epistle, ascribed to
Pope Eusebius,
reads
terra.
*
t
it,
as
Beda
if
doth, omitting only the words in
And
the
authority of popes be valuable,
Hesych.
ii. c. 8. post med. Cassiodor. in Bibl. S. Pair. edit. Paris. 1389.
in Levit. Lib.
22
253
SIR ISAAC Newton's history or

the Great, in his tenth epistle, thus cites
Pope Leo
the place
;
Et
et
spiritus est
spiritus est Veritas ;
qui iestificatur, quoniam quia Tres sunt qui testimonium,

et
dant, spiritus.
sunt.
aqua,
sanguis
et
hi
Tres Untim
first
St Ambrose, in the sixth chapter of his
book
the
De
Spiritu Sancto, disputing

says.
for
the unity of
Three Persons,
Hi
Tres
Unum sunt,
Johan-
nes dixit, aqua, sanguis, et spiritus ; Unum in mysThis is all he could find of the terio, non in natura.
text, while
he was disputing about the Trinity, and
therefore
he proves the unity of the persons by the mystical unity of the spirit, water, and blood ;
interpreting
those
of
in
the the
Trinity
with
Cyprian
eleventh chapter of his Yea, he recites the text thus ; Per aquam third book, fully et sanguinem venit Christus Jesus, non solum in aqua,
and others.
sed in aqua
et
sanguine
et
et
spiritus testimonium dat,
quoniam
spiritus
est Veritas.
Qiiia Tres sunt testes,
spiritus, aqua,
sanguis
like
et hi
Tres
Unum
sunt in
Christo Jesu.'^
rius,
The
and St Austin, you have
reading of Facundus, Euchein the places cited above.
These are Latins
as late, or later than
Jerome;
for Je-
rome did not prevail with the churches of his own time " the Three in Heaven." to receive the testimony of
And
his
for
them
to
know
for the
his version,
and not receive

it.
testimony, was
as
in effect to
condemn
XV. And
*
Greeks, Cyril of Alexandria

this
reads the text without

See also Ambrose
iiiitiantiir,
testimony
and
in his
in
the xivtli
iis
in
Luc.
xxii. 10,
book De
qui
mvsteriis
cap. 4.

book of book
his
253
De
Thesaurus, cap. 5 ; and again in his first Fide ad Reginas, a Uule after the middle ;
later
and so does CEcumenius, a
Greek,
in
his
com-
mentary on this place of St John's epistle. Also, Didymus Alexandrinus, in his commentary on the " the and blood,"
same passage, reads, spirit, water, " the Three in Heaven without mentioning ;" and so he doth in his book of the Holy Ghost, where he
seems
to omit nothing that
he could
find for his pur-
pose ; and so doth Gregory Nazianzen in his xxxviitli and also Niccoration concerning the Holy Ghost
;
tas in his
commentary on Gregory Nazianzen's xlivth
And here it is farther observable, that, as had contended that " the Father, Son, Eusebians the
oration.
and Holy Ghost," were not to be connunieratcd, because they were things of a difi:erent kind ; Nazianzen and Nicetas answer, that they may be connumerated, because St John connumerates three things not consubstantial, namely, " the spirit, the water, and the blood." By the objection of the Eusebians, it then appears that the testimony of " the Three in
Heaven" was
theirs
for
not in their books
and by the answer
of the Catholics
;
it is as evident, that it was not in while they answer by instancing " the
spirit, water, and blood," they could not have missed of " the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost,"
had they been connumerated, and called one words immediately before ; and to answer by
cing in these, would have been far
in
the
instan-
more
to their
pur-
254
SIR ISAAC
Newton's history of
pose, because
like
manner
it was the very thing in question. In the Eunomians, in disputing against the
Cathohcs, had objected, that the Holy Ghost is nowhere in scripture conjoined with the Father and
much
the Son, except in the form of baptism ; which is as " as to say, that the testimony of the Three in
in their
Heaven" was not

whilst he
is
books
and yet St Basil,*
very diligent in returning an answer to them, and perplexes himself in citing places, which are nothing to the purpose, does not produce this text of " the Three in Heaven," though it be the
most obvious, and the only proper passage, had it been then in the Scriptures ; and therefore he knew
The objection of the Eunomians, and nothing of it. the answer of the Cathohcs, sufficiently show that it
was
in the
the tenth epistle of

that very
books of neither party. Besides all this, Pope Leo, mentioned above, was
famous
epistle
to
Flavian,
patriarch
of
through
east
Constantinople, against Eutyches, which went about all the churches, both eastern and western,
being translated into Greek, and sent about in the
by Flavian. west, and read
It
was generally applauded
in the
in
the
council of Chalcedon, and
there solemnly approved and subscribed by all the bishops ; and in this epistle the text was thus cited ;
Et
spiritus est qui testijicatur,

;
quoniam Christus
est
Veritas
tus, et
aqua,
quia Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiriet And sanguis ; et hi Tres Unum sunt.
Eunomium,
sub finetn.
* Lib. V. adversus

by putting
7rvsvfA.ct,
255
according to the Greek reading,

is still
for Christus,
which
the^ vulgar
:
Latin,
it
was
â
thus translated by the Greeks

fjLot^TvpolJf iTTeiStj
el
Tfl
< to
^rvstJjw*
f'="T"'
'X-VVf^ IcTTiv
ij
Ai)'flf<af
ffiii
yap
et<!'iv
fnxprvpouvTii, TO TTveufcx, ki to voap^
>ci
ciifA*.
x.cti
et
Tpe7i Ts ev siTi.
So then we have
in the
the reading, quot-
ed by the Pope, owned
west, and
solemnly
subscribed in the east by the fourth general council, and therefore it continued the public received reading in both the east and
that council.
west,
till
after the
age of
XVI. So then
the testimony of "the
Three
in
Heaven," which, in the times of these controversies, would have been in every body's mouth, had it
been
books, was wholly unknown to the churches of those ages. All that they could find in
in
their
their
books was the testimony of "the water, the
spirit,
ny
and the blood." Will you now say that the testimoof " the Three in Heaven" was razed out of
their
.'*
books by the prevailing Arians Yes, truly, those Arians were crafty knaves, that could conspire so cunningly and slily all the world over at once (as
at the
word of a Mithridates)
of
the
in
in
the
latter
end of
to
the
all
reign
Emperor
their
Constantius,
get
men's books
hands, and
correct
them
it
without being perceived ; ay, and conjurors too, to do without leaving any blot or chasm in their books,
whereby the knavery might be suspected and discovered

5
and
to
wipe away the memory of
it
out of
all
22*
256
men's brains, so that neither Athanasius, nor any body else, could afterwards remember that they had
ever seen
it
in their
books before
and out of their

to the
own books
too,
so that
as
when they turned
they generally did in the west, soon after the death of Constantius, they could then remember no more of it than any body else.
faith,
consubstantial
Well, then,
it
was out of
it
their
in
;
books
in
Jerome's age,
the point
when he pretended
are to prove
;
was
which
is
we
was
in
and when any body can show, that it their books before, it may be pertinent to
;
consider that point also

inquire how, since
ies that
it
but
out,
till
then
was
it
we are only to came into the copthat,
are
now
extant.
For they
without
proof, accuse the heretics of corrupting books, and
upon that pretence correct them at their pleasure without the authority of ancient manuscripts, as some learned men of the fourth and fifth centuries used to
do, are falsaries
ly
by their own confession, and certainneed no other confutation. And therefore if this
reading was once out, we are bound in justice to believe, that it was out from the beginning ; unless
the razing of
it
out can be proved by
some
better
argument than that of pretence and clamour. XVII. Will you now say, that Jerome followed
some copy different from any which the Greeks were acquainted with ? This is to overthrow the authority of his version by making him depart from
the received
Greek
and besides,
it
is
contrary to

what he himself seems
ing not the vulgar
to represent
;
257
blam-
for in his
copies, but the Latin interpreters only, which were before his time, as if they had varied from the received Greek, he represents
that
Greek
he himself followed
it.
He
does not excuse
justify himself for reading differently from the received Greek, to follow a private copy, but accuses
and
former interpreters, as of " the Three in
if,
in leaving
out the testimony
Heaven," they had not followed And therefore, since the received Greek, as he did.
the Greeks
knew
nothing of this testimony, the au;
thority of his
version sinks
and that the rather,
then accused of corrupting the and could not text, persuade either the Greeks or
because
he was
the Latins of those times to receive his reading the Latins received
it
for
not
till
many
this
years after his
death
and the Greeks not

it
till
present age,
when
the Venetians sent
and
their
amongst them in printed books ; not receiving it was plainly to approve the
authority of this version being thus
accusation.
XVin. The
far discussed,
it
remains, that
we consider
the author-
ity of the manuscripts, wherein we now read the " the Three in Heaven." And by testimony of the best inquiry that I have been able to make, it is
wanting
Latin.
in the
manuscripts of
all
languages but the

that the iEthiopic,
For, as
we have shown,
Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, and

still
Sclavonian versions,
in use in the several eastern nations, Ethiopia,
SSS
SIR ISAAC NEWTOiN's HISTORY OP
some
it
Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Muscovy, and others, are strangers to this reading, and that
was anciently wanting also in the French ; so I told by those who have been in Turkey, that it is wanting to this day in the Greek manuscripts, which have been brought from those parts into the
am
west
in print
manuscripts are objected against it, pretend that the Arians razed it out. A reading to be found in no manuscripts but the Latin, and not in the Latin before Jerome's
age, as
and that the Greeks, now that they have got from the Venetians, when their
it
Jerome himself confesses, can be but of

;
little
authority
and
this authority sinks,
because we have
already
that
it
proved the reading spurious, by showing was heretofore unknown, both to the western
in the
and the eastern churches,

further satisfaction,
times of the great
controversy about the Trinity.
But, however, for

give
we
shall
now
you an account
of the Latin and Greek manuscripts ; and show, first, how, in the dark ages, it crept into the Latin manuscripts out of Jerome's version
;
and then how
it
late-
ly crept out of the Latin into the printed
Greek with-
out the authority of

it
MSS
those
in
Greek, having never yet so

the
who first published much as seen it in
any Greek manuscript.
XIX. That
vulgar
Latin,
now
in
use,
is
mixture of the old vulgar Latin, and Jerome's version together, is the received opinion. Few of these
manuscripts are above four or
five
hundred years

old.
259
The
it,
latest
" the Three
generally have the testimony of in Heaven ;" the oldest of all usually
it
want
which shows that

it
has crept in by degrees.

in three
Erasmus notes
the other two
to
be wanting
in the at
very ancient
ones, one of which was
were
Pope's library at Rome, Bruges ; and he adds, that in
another manuscript belonging to the library of the Minorites in Antwerp, the testimony of " the Three
in
Heaven" was noted
in
the margin
in
in
newer
hand.
Peter Cholinus notes
the margin of his
Latin edition of the Scriptures, printed anno Christi

that it was wanting in the most ancient of the Dr Gilbert manuscript Tugurine library. Burnet has lately, in the first letter of his travels,
1543 and 1544,
wanting in five other ones kept at Strasburg, Zurich, and Basil ; one of which MSS. he reckons about 1000 years old, and the other four about 800.
it
noted
Father Simon has noted

libraries of the
it
wânting in five others in the
king of France, Mons. Colbert, and the Benedictines of the abbey of St Germain's. An
ancient and diligent collator of manuscripts, cited by Lucas Brugensis by the name of Epanorthotes, notes in general, that it was wanting in the ancient Latin
Lucas himself, collating many Latin manuscripts. ones, notes it to be wanting in only five, that is, in
the
k\\
all
old
ones
he had,
his
manuscripts being
almost
of them
new
ones.
Codex
Lobiensis written
For he praises* the anno Christi 1084, and the
Lucas
Brug. in cake annot.
2G0
SIR ISAAC neavton's history op

written
Codex Tornacensis
used others
most ancient and venerable
for their antiquity
anno Christi 1105, as and ;

of which a great
much more new,
num-
ber was easily had ; anuvs, written anno Christi 1432, that
such as was the
Codex
is,
Buslidi-
but eight
years before the invention of printing.

council, collected
The Lateran
under Innocerxt the Third, anno

in canonicd
Christi 1215, canon 2, mentions Joachim, the abbot,
quoting the text in these words
ûoniam
Johannis
epistolct Iegitur,(ûia
Tres sunt qui testimoni-
um dant in cceIo, Pater, et Jêrbum, et Spiritus, Tres Unum sunt ; statimque subjungitur Et
et
hi
Tres
sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et Tres Unum sunt : sicut in codicibus qui-
busdam
in
invenitur.
This was written by Joachim*
papacy of Alexander the Third, that is, in or before the year 1180, and therefore this reading
the
was then got but

sicut in codicihus
into
some books
for
the words
to the
first
quibusdam invenitur refer as well words of Joachim, quoniam in canonicd
Johannis epistola legitur, as to the next statimque subjungitur ; and more to the first than the next,
because the
first
part of the citation
was then but
in
some books,
manuscripts ; appears by but the second part was in almost all ; the words Tres Unum sunt being in all the books which wanted the testimony of " the Three in Heaven," and in most of those which had it ; though afterwards
as
ancient
Vide Matb. Paris Histor. Angl. A, D. 1179.

left
2G1
out in many,
when branded by
the schoohiien
for Arian.
go to the original of the corruption. Gregory the Great* writes, that Jerome's version was in use in his time, and therefore no wonder if the " the Three in Heaven" testimony of began to be
to
XX. But
cited out of
in
it
before.
Eugenius, bishop of Carthage,
the seventh year of Hunneric, king of the
Van-
dals,
anno Christi 484,

can
in the
it
summary of
first
his faith
exhibited to the king, cited

far as I
find.
the
of any man, so
A while
after,
Fulgentius, another
African bishop, disputing against the same Vandals, cited it again, and backed it with the forementioned " the place of Cyprian, applied to the testimony of
Three
so it is probable, that by of that abused authority Cyprian it began first in Afric, in the disputes with the ignorant Vandals, to
in
Heaven."
And
get
It
some
credit
and thence
at length
crept into use.
occurs also frequently in Vigilius Tapsensis, another African bishop, contemporary to Fulgentius. In
ihe
defence, some allege earlier writers ; namely, of Pope Hyginus, the epistle of first epistle the book of II. John Idacius Clarus Pope
its
against
Varimadus;
Trinitatis,
and
the
to
book
De
unitd
Deitate
ascribed
Athanasius.
But
Chiffletius,
sis
who
published the works of Victor Vitcn-
and Vigilius Tapsensis, sufficiently proves the book against Varimadus to be this VigiUus's, and er*
Vide Walton's Prolegomena,
x. 5.
262
two
roneously ascribed to Idacius.
To
its
the
same Vigilius
All the
he asserts
also the
book
De
unitd Deitate Trinitatis.

author.
Certainly Athanasius was not
epistles of Hyginus, except the beginning and the end, and the first part of the epistle of Pope John,
wherein the testimony of " the Three

cited, are nothing
in
Heaven"
is
else than the
fragments of the
book against Varimadus, described word by word by some forger of decretal epistles, as may appear by So then Eugenius is the first upon comparing them.
record that quotes
it.
XXI. But though he

in
set
it
on foot among the Af-
it became of authority in the the revival of before twelfth learning Europe and thirteenth centuries. In those ages St Barnard,
ricans, yet I cannot find that
Joachim, and the Lateran council, spread it abroad, and scribes began generally to insert it into the text ; but in such Latin manuscripts
the Schoolmen,
and European
times,
it is
writers, as
are ancienter than those
scarce to be met with.
XXII.
Now
that
it
was inserted
is
Latin out of Jerome's version,
into the vulgar manifest by the
manner how
to
the vulgar Latin and that version
came
be mixed.
For
it is
agreed that the Latins, after

it
Jerome's version began to be of use, noted out of

his corrections of the vulgar Latin
their
books
in the margin of and these the transcribers afterwards
inserted into the text.
By
this
means, the old Latin

it
has been so generally corrected, that
is
nowhere

to
263
read,
be found sincere.
It is
Jerome
that
we now
and not the old vulgar Latin ; and what wonder, if " the Three in in Jerome we read the testimony of
Heaven
f"
For who
that inserted the rest of
Jerome
for the
into the text,
Trinity, as
would leave out such a passage this hath been taken to be ?
XXIII. But to put the question out of dispute, there are footsteps of the insertion still remaining. For in some old manuscripts, it has been found noted
in the
margin such as ought
in
others, the various
readings are
it
to arise,
by transcribing
I shall
out of the
margin
into the text.
following varieties.
Of
only mention the three the manuscripts which have
not the testimony of " the Three in Heaven," some have the words in terra, in the eighth verse, but the
most want
that
it ;
which seems
to
proceed from hence,
some, before they allowed so great an addition to the text, as the testimony of " the Three in Heaven," noted only in terra in the margin of their books, to be inserted into the testimony of the spirit, water, and blood. Of the manuscripts which have the " the Three in testimony of Heaven," some in the
eighth verse have
jEZi
Tres Unumsunt;
others not.
The
Et
reason of this seems to be, that of those who noted this testimony in the margin, some blotted out
sunt in the eighth verse according to Jerome ; and others did not. And, lastly, the " the Three in Heaven" is in most testimony of
hi Tres
Unum
books
set before
the testimony
of " the Three in
33
264

it is
earth ;" in some,
set after
so
;
Erasmus notes two
old books, in which

third
;
it is
set after
I
and Hessehus
(if
Lucas Brugensis a misremember not) a fourth j

it
it
to
and so Vigihus Tapsensis* sets proceed from hence, that

not whether
after
which seems
was sometimes so
or after.
noted in the margin, that the reader or transcriber
knew
it
were
to
come before
Now
these discords in the Latin manuscripts, as they detract from the autliority of the manuscripts, so they
confirm to us, that the old vulgar Latin has in these things been tampered w^hh, and corrected by Jerome's
version.
In the next place, I am to show how, and " the when, testimony of the Three in Heaven" crept
XXIV.
out of the Latin into the Greek.

printed the
Those who
first
Greek testament,
in
did generally, in follow-
" the ing their manuscripts, omit the testimony of
Three
Christi
in
Heaven," except
first
ted in the
Spain ; for it was omitand second edition of Erasmus, anno

;
1516 and 1519

at
in
the
edition of Francis
Asulan, printed 1518 ; in that of Nicholas Gerbelius, printed

anau, anno Christi
Venice by Aldus, anno Christi

at
Haganno
1521
and a
little after,
in that
of Wolfius
Christi
edition,
Cephalius, printed at Strasburg,

in
;
1524; and again as Erasmus notes

Paris,
the Badian 1526, and in that of Simon

in
Colinseus at
*
Vigilius, libr.
editis
anno Christi 1534.f
At
the
advers. Varitnadum, cap. 5.

;
tin
Badianfi editione.
ganoffi,
exemplaribus nonnullis non legi ut in Aldincl et Addo, nee in Grajco Testamento Gerbelii, Hain Colinaji Parisiis edito.
1521; nee
Gomarv.sin
h.
I.

same time
it
265
was omitted
in
some
the
editions of other
western languages, as and editions of Luther ;

editions
in the
in
Saxon and German

Latin
Tugurine
of Peter Chohnus, anno Christi 1543 and
1544.
The
first
edition
in in
Greek, which has the
" the Three testimony of Cardinal Ximenes, printed

in
Heaven," was
that of
at Complutum in Spain, but not 1515; pubhshed before the year 1521. The cardinal, in his edition, used the assistance of
several divines, which he called together to
Complu-
tum, there founding an university, anno Christi 1517, or a little before. Two of those divines were Antonius Nebrissensis and
Stunica.
For Stunica then
Complutum, and in the preface* to a treatise he wrote against Erasmus, gives this testimoresided at
ny of himself;
Latin
reading the holy Scriptures in

;
"that he had spent some years in Hebrew, Greek, and

diligently collated the
and had
Hebrew and
This
Greek exemplars with
the
Latin
copies."
book, displeasing the cardinal, was not printed till after his death ; and then it came forth at Complu-
tum, anno Christi 1520.

*
The
year before, one Lee,
Cum
prajscitim,
si
quisriuam alius, ct iios quoque bis de rebus,
nostro quodatn jure, judicium ferre possumus. [Quippe] qui non paucos annos in Sanctis scripturis Veteris elNovi Testamenti, Hebraice, Grajce, ct Latine pcrlegcndis
consumpscrimus
ac HebraiLatin
is
ca Grajcaque ipsa divinarum IJleraiura exemplaria

codicibus diligcutissime contulerimus.
lica;
cum
Longa
igitur lectioiie
ac
esperientii jampridem edocfi, quantum tralationi Luic eccl^siasNovi Testament! dcfereiidnm sit, ni fnllor, optime novi. /fee
iilHnica inproan. lihri sni.
266
an Englishman, wrote also against Erasmus ; and both Stunica and Lee, amongst other things, reprehended him for omitting the testimony of " the Three in Heaven." Afterwards Erasmus, finding the
Spaniards, and some others of the
in a heat
Roman Church,
testimony in his
against him, printed
this
third edition,
in
his
anno Christi 1522, representing, "that former editions he had printed the text as he
it
manuscripts ; but now there being found in England one manuscript which had the tesof " the Three in he had inserted
found
in
his
timony
Heaven,"
;
it,
according to that
manuscript
for avoiding the
calum-
nies raised against him."
two following editions. phens, anno Christi 1550, reprinted Erasmus's edition, with some few alterations and various lections,
taken out of the Complutensian edition, and fifteen
And so it continued in his And at length Robert Ste-
Greek manuscripts, which he named

letters, ,
",
after the
numeral
y.
^, i,
he. putting x
y, S,
,
for the
Complutensiin
an edition, and
&ic.
for the
manuscripts
order ; and noting in the margin, that the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" was wanting in the seven manuscripts,
us, that
<?,
f,
C. ^^
'>
"^) 'V*
Whence Beza*
His words
tells
he had read
it
in the rest.
are.
Legit Hieronymus,
et
legit
Erasmus
in Britannico codice
et
in Compliitensi
editione.
Legimus
nos in nonthis is the
nullis Roherti nostri veteribns libris.
And
original and authority of the printed

*
editions.
For
Beza
in
hunc locum.

these are the editions ever since followed by
all
267
the
West
and of
into
late
years propagated by the Venetian

;
presses
Greece
and nothing further, that

in
I
in
know
of,
has been discovered
any manuscripts
favour of these editions.
XXV.
Now to
f)ull
ofF the vizard, I cannot but,
in the first place,
extremely complain of Beza's want

In
of modesty and caution in expressing himself.*
the preface to his annotations, describing what helps he had in composing his first edition, he tells us,
" that he had the annotations of Valla, Stapulensis,
and Erasmus, and the writings of the ancients and moderns collated by himself; and out of Stephens's library, the exemplar which Stephens had collated
with
Avhich
about twenty-five
manuscripts,
almost
all
of
were printed."
for that
He
should have said sevenputs in other places, and
teen
number he
in his
annotations cites no more.
So then he had
the collations of two
has given us
in
more manuscripts than Stephens And this was all his furniture. print.
The
to
manuscripts he does not here pretend nor could he have them ; for they were not Stephens's manuscripts, but belonged to several
original
;
have
hbraries in France
and
Italy.
The
manuscript S
'Non dcsiint, qui Bezam nimis audaccm fiiisse judlcanl, dum a receptu Icctioiie sspius sine necessitate recedit ; et unius, interdum nuUius, codicis authoritate fietiis, praetoriam exercet potestatc.m, ex cotijecturis
lihifo.
mutando
et
interpolando textum sacrum pro

in Bihl. Polyglotl.
Walton. Prolegom.
iv. sect. 15.
23*
268
SIR ISAAC Newton's history op
Stephens himself never saw; but had only various

lections collected out of
it
by
his friends in Italy.
manuscripts v, ^, s, r, C, ?, /, n, were not Stephens's, but belonged to the library of the king of
The
France,
to
whom
6,
let,
Stephens was printer.
The
other
six books,
his
tQ, ly, tS, /r,
own
library, but
borrowed them
Stephens had not out of for a time from
several places to collate, his friends studying to pro-
mote the design of

his annotations,
his
edition.
And
yet
Beza
if
in
when he would
favour any text, cites
the collations of Stephens in such a manner, as
he
his
had the very

eyes.
original manuscripts
at
Geneva before
And where Stephens
does not
cite various
lections, there
he reckons, that
in the text of
all
Ste-
phens's collated books he read
the manuscripts.
So
period to
'<;,
vi. 11. where Stephens notes a certain be wanting in the manuscript copies and Beza saith, Hcec periodus in omnibus exemplaribus Gracis legiiur, exceptis secundo et octavo. In the
in
Mark
Acts
xiii
33. because Stephens had noted no various
lections,
turn
Beza
affirms of the
Greek
text, Ita scrip-
invenimus in omnibus vetustis codicibus.

iv. 3.
In
John
where Stephens
omnibus
licuit.
is silent,
Beza speaks
Sic legitur in
Grcecis
quidem mihi inspicere

Stephens
M,9Vflv,
exemplaribus, qucs In James i. 22. where
Beza tells us of the word again E<ro in Omnibus nostris vetustis libris inveni.
is
silent,
where Stephens in the margin had noted the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" to be wantso,
And
269
ing in seven manuscripts, he thinks that, in reading
the rest
lis
the text of Stephen's collated book, he reads it in and so tells us, Legimus et nos in nonnul;
Roherti Stephani codicibus.

edition of his annotations.
This he did
in
the
first
Afterwards, when
he had got two real manuscripts, the Claromontan, and that which at length he presented to the University
of Cambridge (in both which the canonical epis-
tles are
wanting
;)
in the epistle to his fourth edition,
reckoning up the books he then used, he put only two, and the seventeen of Stephens ; and in his fifth edition he writes summarily, that he used
in
these
nineteen manuscripts, joining with those two real ones the collations of Stephens, as if in those he had sev-
which sufficiently explains his way ; But whilst he had of speaking in his annotations. not the manuscripts themselves to read with his own
enteen others
eyes,
ing
it
was too hard and unwarrantable

Legirmis
et
way of speak-
to tells us,
nos in nonnuUis Roherti
Stephani codicibus; and therefore, in his later editions, he corrects himself, and tells us only, that the reading
doth extare in nonnuUis
Stephani veterihus
libns.
Thus Beza argues from Stephens's book of collations; and the same inference has been made by Lucas
Brugensis and others, ever since, from Stephens's " forementioned edition of that book. For," say " they, Stephens had fifteen manuscripts in all, and found the testimony of the Three in Heaven' want'
ing but in seven
and therefore
it
was
in the
other
270
eight
;
and so being found
in
the greater part of his
side."
manuscripts, has the authority of manuscripts on its Thus they argue ; and this is the great arhitherto
gument by which the printed Greek has

justified.
been
XXVI. But if they please to consider the business a httle better, they will find themselves very
much
the
mistaken.
manuscripts
in all, yet all
For though Stephens had fifteen of them did not contain all
y,
s-, <",
Greek testament. Four of them, noted
iS",
had each of them the four Gospels only. Two, noted contained only the Gospels and the Acts of the S,
71,
Apostles.
only.
One, noted tT, contained the Apocalypse One, noted <, had only the Apocalypse, with
Epistles
to
St Paul's
the
Corinthians,
Gaiatians,
Ephesians, Pliilippians, seven, noted i^, . C' ^' '
and Colossians.
'* 'V-
The
other
contained
both
St
Paul's Epistles and the canonical ones, besides some other books ; namely, the manuscript C contained the
Gospels ; the manuscripts t, tx, ty, the of the Apostles ; and the manuEpistles and Acts And e, 6, the Epistles, Gospels, and Acts. ^, scripts
this
Epistles and
any one
may
gather,
the various lections are cited out of, in every

the
by noting what manuscripts book of

in the various lections
New Testament.
For
of the
canonical epistles, and those to the
Romans, Corinthiand Colossians,

(^,
<J^
ans, Gaiatians, Ephesians, Phihppians,
are found these seven manuscripts,
(.
i,
tx, ly^
every wiiere cited, and no
more than these. The same
fWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE.

ulso,
271
and no more, are cited
in
the Epistles to the
Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and the Hebrews ; one numeral error, whether of the scribe or typo-
grapher excepted.
Stephens therefore did collect
various lections of the Epistles out of only these seven
and in all these seven manuscripts, ^, e, ^, 6, i, ix, ty he found the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" to be wanting ; as you may see noted in the margin of
;
his edition.
XXVn. And
that this testimony
was wanting
in all
Stephens's manuscripts, is apparent also by its being generally wanting in the manuscripts which are now extant in France. For father Simon* tells us, " that
after a diligent
France, and could not find
in
it
search in the Hbrary of the king of that also of Monsieur Colbert, he

in
any one manuscript
though he
consulted seven manuscripts in the king's library, and one in Colbert's." And because Stephens had some
of his various lections from Italy,
will
add, that a
gentleman, who,
in his travels,
had consulted twelve
MSS
was
in
several libraries in Italy, assured
me
that
he found
that
wanting most ancient and most famous

in capital letters.
it
in
them
all.
One
of the twelve
MS
in the
Pope's library, written
XXVIII.
books
So then the authority of the printed
rests only upon the authority of the editions of Erasmus and Cardinal Ximenes. But seeing that
Erasmus omitted
*
it
in his
two
first
editions,
and
in-
Simon's Critical History of the
New
Test. chap, xviii.
272
serted
it

unwillingly, against the authority of his
;
man-
uscripts, in his three last
the authority of these three
When Lee, upon Erasmus's second putting edition, fell foul upon him " for leaving out the testimony of the Three in Heavcan be none
at
all.
forth
his
en," Erasmus* answered, "that he had consulted more than seven Greek manuscripts, and found it
it
wanting in them all ; and that if he could have found in any one manuscript, he would have followed that
in favour of the Latin."
Hence
that
it
notice
was sent
to
Erasmus out of England,

there, and thereupon to
manuscript avoidf their calumnies, as
was
in a
he printed it in his following editions; notwithstanding that he suspected that manuscript to be a new one, corrected by the Latin. But
saith,
he
since,
England ever heard of any such manuscript, but from Erasmus ; and since he was only told of such a manuscript, in
*
upon
inquiry, I cannot
learn that they in
the time of the controversy

raihi diversis
between him
Dicam
septem
[scilicet
Grasca]
temporibus plura fuisse exemplaria quam nee in ullo iiomm repertum, quod in
;
nostris [scilicet Latinis] legitur. Quod si contigisset unum exemplar, in quo fuisset, quod nos leginius, niminim illinc adjpcissem,
quod
feci
;
in ca^teris aberat.
Id quia non coiitigit,
quod solum
licuit,
mus
+
indicavi quid in Grsecis codicibus minus esset. contra Leum, in hunc locum.
lioc
Hcec Eras-
Ex
igitur codice Britannico

;
dicebatur deesse
ne cui
sit
reposuimus, quod in nostris ansa calumniandi. Quanquam et

fuisse castigatum.
hunc
suspicor, ad
Latinorum codices,
Postea-
quam enim concordiam inierunt cum ecclesi^ Remand, studuerunt et hfic in parte cum Romanis consentire. Ernsmi Jlnnotation. in
hunc locum
edilio lerlia, et sequni.

and Lee, and never saw
to suspect, that
it
273
it
himself;
cannot forbear
was nothing but a

clergy, to try
if
him by the Popish good what he had
upon he would make

the authority of
trick put
offered, the printing of the testiin
mony
of " the Three

ly,
Heaven" by
to get
it
one Greek co
and thereby
into his edition.*
Greek manuscripts of the Scripture are things of value, and do not use to be thrown away ; and such a " the Three in manuscript for the testimony of
rest
Heaven," would have made a greater noise than the have done against it. Let those who have such a manuscript, at length tell us where it is.
XXIX.
edition
So
also
let
them who
tell
insist
upon the
of cardinal Ximenes,
us by what
manu-
this testimony ; or, at least, where script he printed such manuscript of good note is to be seen ; for any take the liberty to believe, that he till then I must
printed nothing else than a translation out of the Latin, and that for these reasons.
First
;
because
in
the preface to his edition of the

told, that this
New
Testament we are
and
1
testament was
printed after the

library
*
;
manuscripts taken out of the Pope's

the cardinal
these
Joan.
only
borrowedf
Versiculus
v. 7. in
SyriacA, ul et vctustissimis Graecis

aliis
exemplaribus, noslro Alcxandrino,

contulimiis,
Polyglott.
non
reiieillur.
11'alion.
manuscriptis Graecis, quos Prolegomena, \\ii. 23, in Bihl,
pontificis
tAccivite Vatican^ Roma; Bibliothccii, bona cum Leonis X. maximi veni&. As Gaspar Bellerus, in his epistle prefixtiie
ed to
Quinquagcna of Antonius Nabrissensis, expresses
it.
274
thence, and therefore returned them back so soon as

his
edition
after,
was
finished.
And
Caryophikis some
collating the
time
by the Pope's command,
Vatican manuscripts, found the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" wanting in them all. I do not
say but that the Cardinal had other manuscripts ; but these were the chief, and the only ones he thought
worth while to
tell his
reader
of.
Secondly
startle at
the marginal note in this
For it is beside the place of the Cardinal's edition. use of this edition, to put notes in the margin of the Greek text. I have not found it done above thrice
in all this edition of the
New
Testament
and there-
fore
there must
that, in
be something extraordinary ; and respect of the Greek, because it is in the

this
margin of noted in
text.
In
a
Corinth,
xv.
there
in
is
this
margin
In
notable
vi.
variation
the
Greek reading.
in
Matthew
from
13.
where they,
their
edition,
it
recede
the
Greek copies
and correct
note, to justify
by the Latin, they make a marginal their doing so and so here, where
;
" the the testimony of

ly wanting
in the
Three
in
Heaven"
is
generala third
Greek
to
copies,
they make
marginal
note,
secure
it.
blamed
there
is
for printing
themselves from being Now in such a case as this,
defence they could
no question but they would make the best and yet they do not tell of the ;
various lections in the
Greek manuscripts, nor protheir

side,
duce any one Greek manuscript on
but
275
The run to the authority of Thomas Aquinas.* Greek manuscripts have the text thus, " For there
are
Three
that bear record, the spirit,
tlie
water, and
In many of the blood ; and these Three are One." the Latin manuscripts, the words, " these Three are
One," are here omitted, and put only at the end of the testimony of " the Three in Heaven," before that of " the spirit, water, and blood ;" in others,
In the Comthey are put after both testimonies. the former follow plutensian edition, they copies, and
justify their doing
so,
by the authority of Thomas

"
they,
in in treating
Aquinas.
the words
"
Thomas," say
of the
Three which bear witness

'
Heaven, teaches, that these Three are One' are subjoined for
unity of the essence of the
insinuating the
Three
Persons.
this unity to
*
And whereas one Joachim

be only
in love
interpreted
it
and consent,
being thus
The marginal note is this; Sanctus Thomas, in expositione secundce decretalis de summaTrinitate et Fide Catholica, traclans istum passum contra Abbatem Joachim, viz. " Trcs sunt qui testimonium dant in ctt'lo, I'ater, V'eibum,ct Spiritus Sanclus," dicit
ad literam verba sequentia.
personarum
subditur, et
'
" Et ad insinuandam unitatem triuni
hi
Tres
Unum
sunt
;'
quod quidem
dicitur
propter essential unitatem. Sed hoc Joachim perverse traliere volens ad unitatem cliarilatis et consensus, indncebat consequeiitem auctoritatem. Nam subditur ibidem, t Tres sunt, qui tes
timonium dant
in
in terrA, sanctus
'
spiritus,
aqua, et sanguis
;'
et
quibusdam
libris additur,
et
hi
Tres
Unum
sunt.'
Sed hoc
in veris
Hffireticis Arianis
tis
exemplaribus non habetur; sed dicitur esse apposilum ab ad perverlendum intellectum sanum auctorita-
pra7missa3 de unitate essentiae
Trium Personarum."
Hepc Becr
tus
Thomas, ubi supra.
24
276
said of the spirit, water, and blood, in

'
some
copies,
this
these
Three are One

is
;'
Thomas repHed,
that
Jast clause
added
not extant in the true copies, but was the Arians for perverting the sense." by
Thus
far this annotation.
Now
this plainly respects
the Latin copies, for
Thomas understood
But
not Greek,
and therefore part of the design of

to set right the Latin reading.
this annotation is
this is
not the
main design. For so the annotation should have been set in the margin of the Latin version. Its
being inserted
that
its
in the
margin of the Greek text shows,

is
main design
thus, in a
;
to justify the
Greek by
the
Latin thus rectified and confirmed.
Now
to
Thomas
very
apostolic
few words, do
in Spain,
all
the work,
make was
is
artificial
and
where Thomas
of
very judicious authority, might and substantial defence of the printed Greek. But We are to us, Thomas Aquinas is no Apostle.
seeking for the authority of Greek manuscripts. third reason why I conceive the Compluten-
pass for a
sian
Greek
to
have been
is,
in
this
place
translaI
tion
from the Latin,
because Stunica (who, as

at that
told you,
was one of the divines employed by the

time wrote against
in
Cardinal in this edition, and
Erasmus) w^hen,
he
cites
his objections,
he comes
to this
text of the testimony
of " the Three in Heaven,"

for
it
not one
;
Greek manuscript
against
Erasmus
the Latin.
but argues wholly from the authority of On the contrary, he sets down, by way

of concession, the
271
reading of the Greek and that of others, manuscripts, as well as his own,
common
in these
Koti
words,
<>'''
f^Û
Mifix-
f'""'" '
y.x^7vpou'jr((;,
ro Trviuuce,
^'"^' ?
TO vûip. X.XI
TO
Kdi
c'l
Tpc7i ili '
'^''
and
then condemns them altogether without exception ; and justifies the Latin against them by the authority " " of Jerome. Know," saith he, that in this place
the
Greek manuscripts
is,
are most evidently corrupted
but ours (that

itself,
the Latin ones)
contain the truth

first
as they
is
are translated
from the
original
manifest by the prologue of St Jerome upon And this prologue, which he the Epistles, Sic."*
which
goes on to cite at length, and of which we gave you an account above, is all he argues in favour of the " the Three in Heaven." Li other testimony of where he had Greek of manuscripts scripture, places
on
his side,
ii.
he produces them readily.

7. Ita
So
Thes-
salonians
quidem
legitur, says
he, in Gree-
ds
codicibus, qiios
saith,
In James i. ego viderim. Sciendimi in omnibus Greeds codicibus

'
IL
v.
he
Tops.uig
hiclegi per
diphtkongum. In
Thessalonians
23.
he
saith.
Cumin Greeds
in
eXiicXijôv^ et
discrepante,
*
exemplaribus quotquot sunt, Latinis integer hie Jegcitur, neniinc In nescio cur Erasmus dixerit, fyc.
hoc loco codices aperlissime esse corriiptos
iiisani,
;
Sciendum
est,
nostras vero veritalem
ut
;i
))rimii
origine U'aducti sunt,

epistolas
Gontiuere
quod ex prologo B. ilietonymi super

Ait eiiim, " Quae
si sictit
mani;
feste apparet.
ab
eis digestae sunt
i(;i
quocjue
k,c.
al)
interpretibus fideliterin Latinura verterentureloquiura,"
II(ec iilunica in h.
locum. Ejus Liber exslal in Crilicor.
vol. ix\
278
SIR ISAAC
Newton's history of
Pliilipp. iv. 9.
cis
Si quidem in omnibus, saith he, Gi'arxZrcc

Xoylt^tc-^s
codicibus,
hie
legitur
neque
GrcEci suit
libri,
qui
Trfccm-Ere
hoc loco, neque Latini,
qui agite
cum
this
hcec
mendosos utriusque lingute codices, commentaretur Erasmus, pcrlegit. After

nisi
manner does Stunica produce

in the
;
the manuscripts
used
for
for
him
Compkitensian edition, and here he produces them " Erasmus himself.

against
in this
when they make

too, but
saith
it
is
Know,"
he,
place the Greek manuscripts are most In other places, if he hath but evidently corrupted."
" that
one manuscript on
his side,
ly enough ; as the Codex upon 2 Corinthians ii. 3. James i. 22. 2 Peter ii. 2. and other texts. Here he produces all the manuscripts against himself, without excepting so
he produces it magificentRhodiensis in his discourses
much
as
one.
gloried
And hence Erasmus,

in
in his
answer
to Stunica,
the consent of the Spanish manuscripts

;
and Sanctius Caranza, another of the Compkitensian divines, in his defence of Stunica, written presently after, had nothing to reply in this
with his
point.
own
Neitlier could
Sepulveda, or the Spanish
monks who next undertook the controversy, find one Greek manuscript, which here made against ErasNeither had Marchio Valesius better success, though on that occasion he collated sixteen Greek manuscripts, eight whereof belonged to the king of
mus.
Spain's library, and the other eight to other libraries of Spain ; and he did it on purpose to collect out of

them whatever he could meet with
Latin.
in favour
27^
of the
Neither did the reprinting present vulgar of the Complutensian Bible by Arias INIontanus produce the notice of any such manuscript ; though, on
that
occasion,
many
manuscripts, as well Greek as
Latin,
fetched
from Complutum and other places,
were collated by Arias, Lucas Brugensis, Canter, and others.
XXX.
So
then,
to
sum up
Complutensian
divines did
the argument, the sometimes correct the authority of any

their
Greek by the Latin, without the Greek manuscript, as appears by

^Matthew
vi.
practice in
13.
and therefore
in
their
is
printing
the
" testimony of the Three

that they did
for
Heaven"
no evidence
it by a manuscript, but on the contraiy, want of one, they contented themselves with the authority of Thomas Aquinas ; and Stunica confess-
text
ed that they had none. Nor has all the zeal for this been able since to discover one either in Spain,
or any where else.
XXXL
is,
And now you may understand whence

Complutensian
edition,
it
that the
and the reading of
the pretended English manuscript, set
down by Erasanoth;
mus
er
;
in his annotations, differ so
much from one
for the
Complutensian edition has the text thus

TirviZfêi- Kcc'i ol
Ui
KXt TO uyioY
f^xprvpouvTî
rpeî < ra
e\i
e/V/. x.xi rpsr, sitivoI
eTTi
rr^
yjjj,
ro w.Zf/.Xy
tcxi
ro uoa/p. kmi ra xifAX.

;
The pretended
English manuscript thus
ori
rper^
24-
280
(Icrtv e:
&IR ISAAC Newton's history of

iu.etpTvôtJfrei
01
iv
r^ owjav^,
y,u\
TrccTt^p^
Xoyo^, nu)
TrvsZ/LtU.'
KUi ourot
rpui
V tls-iv,
rp'.'i.
fA.ocprvpoZvrii Iv rfj y-^,
jTveZfâ Kxt vSap, kx) uiy,x.
The
differences are too great
to spring
from the bare errors of scribes, and arise rather from the various translations of the place, out
of Latin into Greek, by two several persons.
XXXII. But
discord,
real
whilst these two readings, by their confute one another, the readings of the
Greek manuscripts by their agreement confirm For Caryophilus, who, by one another as much.
the
command
of
Pope Urban
the
the Vatican and other manuscripts,
Eighth, collated borrowed out of
the principal libraries in Rome, found one common " the reading in them all, without the testimony of
you may see in those his 1G73 collations, printed by Peter Possinus, in the end of his Catena of the Greek Fathers upon
in ;"
Three
Heaven
as
in
Mark.
He met
with
eight manuscripts
in all
1
upon
Joan,
the Epistles, and notes their reading

V. 7.
Tpe7i
thus;
Manuscripti octo (omnes nempe)

ilîv 01
x.a.)
legunt, "Or/
x.eti
ro fA.ctpTvpo7ivTei,
'X'viuf^ct, y.ut
to leap,
ro
S.ii^.
01
rpui eh 7o
iWi.
Porro
totus
septirnus
versus hnjus
capitis desideratur in octo manuscriptis
codicibus Greeds, <^c.
Thus Caryophilus. XXXIII. The very same reading Erasmus,

us of
all
;
in his
annotations on this place, gives

scripts,
his
manu-
which were more than seven

all
and so doth
Stephens of
lections in
his seven, without noting
them.
Only
the
any various in Stewhich comma,
TWO CORRPUTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

phens's edition
is,
281
oZpxv^p,
surely ^by mistake, set after
The very same readis to be put in its right place. ing does Stunica also, in his book against Erasmus, note out of the manuscript he had seen in Spain, as was seen
above.
Nor does
Valesius,
in his collection
of the six-
teen Spanish manuscripts, note any various lections in The same reading exactly have also the this text.
manuscripts
in
England
and famous one
in tlie king's library,
namely, that most ancient which was con-
veyed
lished
at
thither
in
from Egypt through Greece, and puband the four Walton's Polyglott Bible
;
College, and that in both very old, and two in Lincoln Magdalen College, five other ancient ones lately four or and College ; collated at Oxford, in order to a new impression of
Oxford,
viz.
that in
New
the
Greek testament,
as I
am
informed.
The
very
same reading have also tiie three manuscripts of Monsieur Petavius Gachon, a senator of Paris, whose various lections, collected by his son John Gachon,
were printed
tament, anno
in
the Oxford edition of the
New
Tes-
Christi
1675.
is
without any variation,

in his edition, printed
reading, published by Francis Asulan

at
The same
anno Christi 1518, by Aldus

six
Venice, out of the manuscripts of those parts.
The
hundred years ago, found in the manuscripts of Greece ; as you may see in the text of his commentary on this epistle of St The same reading also Cyril of Alexandria John.
same reading QCcumenius,
met with
in the
manuscripts of Egypt, above eleven
282

as
hundred years ago

of the text
;
you may see
in his
citations
both
in his
Thesaurus, hb. xiv.
cap. 5.
and
in his first
book
that in the latter

is
Fide ad Reginas ; excepting of these two citations, the particle <5

/^"xpTvpoZs-i
De
omitted
and
written for
'
Kxprvpouvrei,
And
that the very
same reading was

first
also
in
the
manuscripts of the
versions.
ages,
may be
to
gathered from
the
the conformity of this reading
all
ancient
XXXIV.
said, that this
It
seen by what has been hitherto testimony is not to be found in the Greek
may be
manuscripts. Epanorthotes,* whom Lucas Brugensis describes to be an ancient, accurate, full, and industrious collator of manuscripts, found
it
wanting
In all
those he
h(SC
met
with.
eadem Greeds
other
libris, et
Epanorthotes, saith Lucas, deesse antiquis Latinis annotat.
Nor have
collators
id
made
a further discovery
Habuimus ab Hunnajo,
correctorium ab incerto auctore,
quod maximi facimus, MS Bibl. quem Epanorthotem, aut corfide
rectorem fere vocamiis, magnri diligentid ac
tOntexfi'm, se-
culo uli oportet antiquos nostrse editionis codices, eosqne cum Hffibi'ffiis, Grsecis, et veterum Patrum commentariis sedulo collalos
;
qui liber ad Genesin

;
viii.
7.
latius
.
a nobis descriptus
est.
H(cc Lucas
qui ad
el
Gcnesia
v\\\.
1 dixit hiinc
librumnmUis ancilaio,
nis scriptum,
pluribu-i forle composiium.
Dein, loco ex eo
pergit.
non
nes,
sit?
Ad quae dlci quid possit? An quod libro fidendum Non hoc ditêt, qui evolverit quae namque a nostri
;
seculi scriptoribus ex
MSS
in
codicibus collectae sunt varise lectio-
omnes propemodum
examinatas derreheiidimus.
eo comprrimus; et ad fontes fideliter Scrip sit ha c Lvcas, anno 1579; wi-
de sequitur correcUrium ante dispulalionts Erasmicas de teslibus in ckIo elaboratum esse.
TWO CORRUPTlO>fS OF SCRIPTURE.

to this day.
283
Spain,
against
Lee, Stunica, and the rest in England, Flanders, France, and Italy, who conspired
Erasmus, could
find
nothina;
in
the
manube
scripts of those parts against
him
if
that Phcenix
to somebody someexcepted, which once appeared where in England, but could never since be seen.
Hessehus,* about the year 15G5, professor of divinion this place, ingenty at Louvain, in his commentary
manuuously confesses it wânting in all the Greek in one the then Spain, known, except two, scripts
other in England ; meaning those by which the Coraplutensian divines and Erasmus printed it. Which two we have shown to be none at all ; unless
the
Since that time one Annius dug up one in England. besides the imagnothing further has been produced,
And yet I will not inary books of dreaming Beza. be found in some say, but that it may hereafter
Greek
copies.
For
in the times
of the holy war,
the Latins had
much
to
do
in the East.
long united to the Greek church ; they Antioch ; they reigned patriarchs of Jerusalem and
at
They were made Latin
the year Constantinople over the Greeks from

* Hcssclius
sic se liabent
ail ; Mantiscripti Gracci fere onines Qiioniiim Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in ternulla factA ra, si)iiitus, aqua, ct sanguis, et hi Tres Uiuim sunt;" mentione triplicis testimonii de ccelo " Patris, Verbi, et Spiritus
inhunc locum
"
Sancti." Dein codices aliter legenles describendo sic pergit ; IVostro tempore duo Gra;ci codices inanuscripli reperti sunt; unus in quoruu) uterque hoc loco testimoniAngiia, et alter in Hispauia
:
um habet
"Patris, Verbi, et Spiritus Sancti."
284
SIR ISAAC
Newton's iiisTORr of
years together
and during ; assembled was 1215, kingdom, year the Lateran council, consisting of four hundred and fifteen bishops, Greeks and Latins together ; and therein the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" was quoted out of some of the Latin manuscripts, as
1204, for above
fifty
this their
in the
we
told
you above.
All which might occasion

it
it
some
in
Greeks, as well as Latins, to note

their
in the
margins of
books
and hence
insert
into the text
transcribing.
For
this
is
most certain, that some
Greek manuscripts have been corrected by the Such a book Erasmus* tells us, that he Latin ones.
" once met with, and
er
in
that there
was such anoth-
the Pope's hbrary."

in
book
mony
kind
less
;
suspected also that out of which he printed the testiEngland, of " the Three in Heaven," to be of the same
He
though
I rather
think
it
was none
at
all
un-
falsary of that age were at the pains to Such transcribe one or tvro of St Paul's Epistles.
some
another book was one of those, out of which Valesius

collected his various lections.
*
Whence
Mariana,
Hie obiter illnd incidit admonendum esse GrEecorum quosdara Novi Testanienti codices ad Latiiia exemplaria emendates. Id factum est in fcedere Grsecorum cum Romana ecclesia ; quod
fcRilus testatum Bulla, (juse
dicitur
Anrea
visum
est
enim
in in
et
hoc
ad firmaiidaui concordiain pertinere. Et nos olim codicem incidimus ; et talis adhuc dicitur a Iservari
Pontif.
hujusmodi
Bibliothec^
Verum ex
his corrigere nostros est
Lesbiam, ut aiunt, adJVoii
movere regulam.
menti.
Erasmus ad Lcdorem. Editio ota
Tesla-

into
285
lec-
whose hands the manuscript book of those

fell, tells
tions
tions
us, that for that reason, in his annota-
on the
New
Testament, he used those lections
And that Valesius but sparingly and cautiously. a corrected with such did meet manuscript, appears
by
the lections themselves.
17.
For
in the
xviii.
where the Greek reads

as
t< roxev
Apocalypse and the

:
Latin translates in locinn, and by the error of one

letter
in lacum,
the books
now have
it
some
Grecian has here corrected
this
in
and written
sius,
fVi
A/,M,wi}v
as
it is
book by the Latin, the lections of ValeApocalypse

ix.
taken out of
this.
Again
in the
11.
where the Latin

ei
translation, in
expounding the
Apollyon, adds, Et Latine hahens nomen exterminans ; Valesius notes the reading in his Greek copy to be pMuxiri %&' o>,ttx |t^^(vv; ;
names Abaddon
which certainly
and some
is
a translation of the Latin.
Again, in
the
the Apocalypse xxi. 12.
where the Greek has uyyixm,

angelos,
at
liut
ancient Latin copies,
far greater part of the
Latin copies
his
present have
ansûlos
Valesius, in
manuscript, reads vv/5.
So
in the
Apocalypse
;
xix. G.
iurha:.
where the Greek

magncc, and
his
in
is
oy_,\H TraXXdZ
the
Latin,
the
later
copies, tuba magna'.;
Valesius, in
In
manuxiii.
script, reads
fÂxTnyyaii !/.iyuXy,i.
;
Hebrews
2.
for 'e>ix8ot,latuernni
and
;
in later
copies, /?/aci/erMn^,
iii.
Valesius reads
rjesTxv
and
in 1
Peter
8. for t* St
riMi- in fine, and
Tp
7ri?-it
S).
by an error in fide, Valesius reads These, and such like instances, ))ut
286
the thing out of dispute. Now, though Valesius found not the testimony of "the Three in Heaven"
in this manuscript ; and Erasmus tells us, that he never saw it in any Greek manuscript ; and, by consequence, not in that corrected one which fell into
his
hands
yet
it
may have
crept out of the Latin
into
some other books, not yet taken notice of ; and even in some manuscripts, which, in other places,
by the Latin, it may been inserted by some of the Greek bishops of the Lateran council, where the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" was read. And therepossibly have
fore
have not been corrected
he that
first,
shall hereafter
insist
meet with
it
in
any book,
ought upon book, to examine whether it has not been corrected
before he
the authority of that
by the Latin; and whether
it
be ancienter than the
Lateran council, and empire of the Latins in Greece ; for, if it be liable to either of these two exceptions, it
can signify nothing
to
produce
it.
XXXV.
Having given you the history 'of the con-~
troversy, I shall
now confirm
itself.
all
that I have said
from
the sense of the text
of " the Three in

easy, as
For, without the testimony Heaven," the sense is good and
you may see by the following paraphrase
inserted in the text in a different character.
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that jesus is the son OF GOD, that Son spoken of in the Psalms, where
lie saith,
'
"
Thou
art
my Son
this
day have
begot-

ten thee.'
'
287
This
is
he that,
first
after
in a
the
Jews had
long expected him, came, baptism of water, and then in an immortal one by shedding his blood upon the cross, and rising again
mortal body, by
from the dead
and blood
not by water only, but by water being the Son of God, as well by his
;
resurrection from the
dead. Acts
xiii.
Luke THE Spirit also that, together with the water and blood, beareth witness of the truth of his and so a coming because the spirit is truth fit and For there are unexceptionable witness. Three that bear record of his comiug the
supernatural birth of the Virgin,
IS
;
33. as by his 35. And it i,
Spirit, which he promised to send, and which was shed forth upon us in the form of cloven tongues, and
in various
gifts
'
the baptism
is
of water, wherein
;
God
testified,
This
my
beloved Son
and the
shedding of his blood, accompanied with his resurrection, whereby he became the most faithful martyr
or witness of this truth.
spirit,
And these Three,
the
the b;;ptism, and passion of Christ,
agree in
that the
witnessing
One
is
and the same thing, namely,
Son of God
is
strong
for the
come, and, therefore, their evidence law requires but two consenting
witnesses,
and here we have three.
And
if
we
receive the witness of men, the threefold witness OF GOD, which he bare of his Son, by declaring at his baptism,
raising
'
This
is
my
beloved Son
;'
by
his
him from the dead, and by pouring out 25
288
spirit
on
us, is
greater
is
and therefore ought
to
be
more
readily received."
XXXVI. Thus
the argument
full
the sense plain and natural, and

;
and strong
but, if
you
insert the
" the Three testimony of
and
spoil
it.
in heaven," you interrupt For the whole design of the apostle
being here to prove to

Christ's coming,
I
men by
witness the truth of
" the Three

their
in
would ask how the testimony of heaven" makes to this purpose. If

it
it
testimony be not given to men, how does prove to them the truth of Christ's coming ? If
be,
how
is
the
testimony
?
in
is
from
that
on earth
It
heaven distinguished the same spirit which

If in both cases
lies
witnesses in heaven and in earth.

it
witnesses to us men, wherein

its
the
difference
between
in earth ? to
witnessing
If, in
in
the
first
it
heaven, and its witnessing case, it does not witness

witness
?
men,
to
.''
whom
doth
purpose
And how
does
design of St John's good sense of it, who are able.
And to what witnessing make to the discourse ? Let them make

its
For
my
part, I
can
make none.
mine what
judgments
is
If
it
be said that we are not
to deter-
scripture,
and what
not,
by our private
I confess it in ; places not controverted ; but in disputable places, I love to take up with what It is the I can best understand. temper of the hot
and superstitious part of mankind, in matters of reliand for that gion, ever to be fond of mysteries
;
reason,
to
like
best
what
they
understand
least.
2S9
but
Such men may use the apostle John as they please ; I have that honour for him, as to beheve that he
be
wrote good sense ; and therefore take that sense to his, which is the best ; especially since I am dein
it
fended
by so great
authority.
For
have on
Fourth General Council, my so far I of all the as churches in all and, know, the modern Latin, and such others as ages, except have lately been influenced by them ; and that also
side the authority of the
of
all
the old versions, and
Greek manuscripts, and
and nothing against me, but the ; of Jerome, and the credulity and heat of authority
ancient Latin ones
his follov.ers.
For
seen
first
to
tell
us of other manuscripts, without ever

in
^^hat
letting us
know
libraries
they were to be
; pretend manuscripts, which, since their discovery, could never be heard of ; nor were
to
then seen by persons whose names and
credit
wc
know
is
plainly
to
impose on the learned world,
and ought not
to pass
tell
The
Spaniards
any longer for plain dealing. us plainly that they followed the
Latin, and by the authority of

clause,
Thomas
left
out the
One," by the Arians. And yet St Ambrose, St Austin, Eucherius, and other Latins, in the
verse, as inserted
"
And
these
Three
are
in
the eighth
Arian age, gathered the unity of the Deity from and the omission of it is ; now, by printing it, acknowledged to be an erroneous correction.
this clause
The
manuscript in England wanted the same clause,
290
and therefore, if there was any such MS, it was a corrected one,
like the
Spanish edition, and the manuscript
of Valesius.
mony
saw
it
in
;
Erasmus, who printed the triple testiheaven by that English manuscript, never
tells
us
it
was a new one

it
suspected
its
sincerity
and accused
for
pubhcly
in his writings
;
on
several occasions,
several years together
and
yet his
adversaries in England never answered his

;
accusation
never endeavoured
it
;
to satisfy
him and
the world about
know, where the record might be consulted for confuting him but, on the contrary, when they had got the
;
did not so
much
as let us
Trinity into his edition, threw by their manuscript, And if they had one, as an almanac out of date.
can such shuffling dealings
satisfy considering
men
Let manuscripts at length be produced, and freely exposed to the sight of the learned world ; but let
such manuscripts be produced as are of authority ; or else let it be confessed, that whilst Jerome pre-
tended to correct the Latin by the Greek, the Latins have corrected both the Latin and the Greek by the sole authority of Jerome.
^91
SECTION
On
the
II.
Text concerning
the
Mystery of Godliness
manifest in the Flesh,

1.
What
the Latins have done to the foregoing,

1
the Greeks have done to that of St Paul,

iii.
Timothy
16.
For by changing
tion of eo5,
ec, the abbrevia" Great is the now read, mystery they
into
of godliness;
as
all
GOD manifested
all
in
the flesh."
four or five
Wherehundred
the churches for the
first
of years, and the authors
the ancient versions,

is
" Great Jerome, as well as the rest, read, mystery of godliness, which was manifested
flesh."
the
in the
For
this
is
the
conunon reading of the
to this day ; Jerome's manuscripts having given him no occasion
Ethiopic, Syriac,
and Latin versions
to correct the old vulgar Latin in this place.
Grotius
adds the Arabic, but the Egyptian Arabic version has es and so has the above mentioned Sclavonian
:
version of
Cyrillus
for
these two versions were
made
long
after the sixth century,

AV'îth
wherein the corversions
ruption began. the writers of the
the ancienter
fivê
agree
first
centuries, both
all
Greeks
and Latins.
For
they,
in
their
discourses to
Son, never allege this text, as that I can find, they would all have done, and some of them frequently, had they read " God manifested in the flesh ;" and therefore they read . Ter-
prove the Deity of the
25*
292
tullian
adversus
Praxeam, and
Cyprian
adversus
Judceos, industriously cite all the places where Christ is called God, but have Alexander nothing of this.
of Alexandria, Athanasius, the bishops of the council of Sardica, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen,
Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem,

Cyril of Alexandria, Cassian,
also
Hilary, Lucifer,
Jerome,
Afer,
Ambrose, Austin, Phoebadius, Victorinus
Faustinus Diaconus, Pope Leo the Great, Arnobius Junior, Cerealis, Vigilius Tapsensis, Fulgentius, wrote all of them in the fourth and fifth
centuries, for the deity
of
God
;
tracts
of the Son, and incarnation and some of them largely, and in several and yet I cannot find that they ever allege
this text to
prove
it,* if
it,
once urges
hot
into
excepting that Gregory Nyssen the passage crept not into him out
In
all
of some marginal annotation.
the times of the

it
and
lasting Arian controversy,

;
never came
are
over,
play though now those " God manifested they that read
it
disputes
in the flesh," think
one of the most obvious and pertinent texts
for the
business.
n. The churches, therefore, of those ages were

absolute
strangers to this reading.

their writers,
For, on
the
contrary,
as often
as
they have any
occasion to cite the reading then in use, discover that it was . For though they cite it not to prove
Oi'at.
xi.
contra
Euuom.

the deity of the Son, yet in their commentaries,
293
and
sometimes
in other discourses,
they produce
it.
particularly
Hilary,
lib.
2. de
Trinitale, and
And Am-
brose,
or
whoever of
his
contemporaries was the

;
author of the commentary on the Epistles, reads o and so doth St Austin in Genesin ad liternm, hb. 5
and Beda
in his
commentary on
this text,
where he
cites the reading of St Austin,
and the author of the
commentary on the Epistles, ascribed to Jerome. So also do Primasius and Sedulius in their commentaries
on
this
text;
;
and Victo inus Afer,

adversus
lib.
1.
adversus
gilius
Arium
and Idacius Clarus, or rather Vilib. 3.
Tapsensis,
Vanmadum,
;
cap.
12
did
and Fulgentius,
c. 2.
de Incarnatione
and so
Pope Leo
the Great, epist. 20.

lib.
ad Flavianum;
and Pope Gregory the Great,
34. Moral, cap. 7.
These ancient Latins

" Great ner,
is
all cite
the text after this
manwas
the mystery of Godhness, which
manifested in the flesh ;" as the Latin manuscripts of St Paul's Epistles generally have it to this day ;
and therefore
it
cannot be doubted, but that
this
hath
been the constant public reading of the Latin churches from the beginning. So also one of the Arians
in
a homily, printed in Fulgentius's works, reads
and interprets it of the Son of God, who was born of the Father ante secula ; and of the Virgin, in
And Fulgentius, in his answer novissimo tempore. to this homily, found no fault with the citation ; but on
the contrary, in his
first
book ad Trasimundum, cap.
294
6.

to
seems
have read and understood the text
after
the
same manner with other Latins.
III. Now, for the Greeks, I find indeed that they have changed the ancient reading of the text, not
only
in
the manuscripts of St Paul's Epistles,

;
hut
also in other authors
and yet there are
still
remain-
ing
sufficient
at
instances
first.
reading was
tary
on
;
this epistle,
among them of what the So in Chrysostom's commenthey have now gotten fes into
the text
itself, I
am
and yet by considering the commentary satisfied that he read o. For he nehher
else, infers
in this
commentary, nor any where

;
the
deity of Christ h'om this text

;
they do who read -^05 read 0, understands by it Christ incarnate ; or, as he expresses it, "Man made God, and God made
nor expounds it, as but with the Latins, who
Man
;"
and so leaves
or
it
at liberty
to
be taken
in
for
either
God
man.
And
accordingly
one place
of his commentary he saith, Ê-puupaS)] Iv irxpx.f ^n/^mpIn anotlier place ; "AvdpaTroi atp^ri uvu-f^d^rfiroi, yoi
kvfipuTToi avct>J,<p6>}. ix.}jpux,^v
ev x-or/uct, f^s6^ i fâv eiôv
avTov
loas
oiuyysAci.
received
Man appeared without up ; Man was preached in

&c. he
sin ;
the
Man
world ; was
((pxv'ipah
seen amongst us hy angels.

ev c-apx), iîKcciaSii ev Trveoy-oiri,
Instead of
saith,
Man appeared
without sin; making Man the nominative case to these and all the verbs which follow ; which certainly he
would not have done, had 5)5 been

case expressly in the text.
their nominative
He
might properly put
man

for
0,
295
but not for e*?.

for
ehxcciaB-)}.
uveifAxpTijToi
Neither could he have put if he had read in his text
Gffls lSiY.xia6}t.
For what man of common sense would
sinless in and through the said of Chrysostom will be have spirit more evident, when I shall have shown you how
say, that
?
God was made

I
But what
afterwards, in the time of the Nestorian controversy,

all
parties read oor

;
the reading
os, without any dispute raised about and how the Greeks have since coro
rupted the text in Cyril's writings, and changed

e<i
and
Chrysostom's. IV. And, first, that the Nestorians read is evident by some fragments of the orations or homihes
into 95, as they
have done
in
Arnobius Junior,
with Serapion.
of Nestorius, sent by him to the Pope, and cited by in the second book of his conflict
For there, in order to show what was the opinion of Nestorius, and how he defended
it,
he
cites
two of
his orations in these

;
words
Kon
na-
peperit sanctissima JMaria Deitatem
nam quod
tum
est
de came, caro
;
Creatorem
JVon peperit creatura est. scd peperit hominem Dcitatis ministrinn.
JVoncedlficavit Deiim, Jêi'bum, Spiritus Sanctus ;
quod
ita-
ex
ipsa,
natum
est,
de
Sjyiritu
Sancto
est.
Deo
que virgo templum ex virgine adijicovit.

post;
Et paulo
Qui perse natus

in
est
Deus
in utero (scilicet ante

;
Luciphorum) Deus
est.
mam
Deo honoramus.
Et paulo post QôTUnforEt in alia pra^dicatione ;
ereavit.
Spiritum divina separat natura, qui humaniiatem ejus Quicquid ex Maria natum est, de Spiritik
296
Sancto
SIR ISAAC
Newton's history of
est,
creatum
est ;
qui ef secundum justitiam replevit, quod hoc quod manifestatum est in carne^jusin Spiritu.
tificatum est
Which
last
words
in
the
language wherein Nestorius wrote

are,
o
those homilies,
i^pxveptiSij Iv a-xpxi- IS'iKcaeeSri Iv TrvsufAotrt,
that Nestorius reads o expressly; but not only so, absolutely excludes God from being understood by it ; arguing, that the Virgin was not
5oroj5
V. Here you see
the flesh,
because that thing which was manifested in was justified in the spirit; or, as he ex-
pounds it, replenished by the spirit in righteousness, and calling that thing which was manifested in the
flesh, a creature
;
Spiritus, saith he, secundum, justi-
tiam replevit \hoc^ quod creatum est; \jiempe^ hoc manifestatum est in came, justijicatum est in
quod
Spiritu.
VI.
And now,
whilst he read the text after this

it
manner, and urged one Vvôuld suspect,
thus against the deity of Christ, that if this had not been the re-
ceived public reading in the Greek churches, his adversaries would have fallen foul upon him, and
exclaimed against him

the Scripture
for
falsifying
the text, and

thing,
blasphemously saying " calls
it
was a created
manifested
which
God
in the flesh."
And such an made as great

troversy
;
accusation as this would surely have

a noise as any
thing else in the con-
in history.
and yet I meet with nothing of this kind His adversaries do not so much as tell
him, that ? was in the text.
They were
so far
297
from raising any controversy about the reading, that they do not in the least correct him for it ; but
on the contrary they themselves, in their answers to as he did ; and only laboured his writings, read
'd,
by various disputations
text, as I find
to put another sense upon the by Cassian and Cyril, the two princi-
pal
who
VII.
at that
time wrote against him.
Chrysostom's scholar, and his deacon and legate to the Pope and after the banishment of Chrysostom, retired from Con;
John Cassian was
stantinople into Syria and
monkish
in
life for
some
Egypt, where he lived a time, and then ended his days
France.
At
that time, therefore,
when
Nestorius,
who was
opinion,
patriarch of Constantinople, broached his and Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria,

;
Nestorius sent a legacy to Rome with copies of his orations, to let the Pope understand the controversy ; and thereupon Leo the Great, who
opposed him
was then archdeacon of the Church of Rome, and

afterwards Pope, put Cassian, then in France, upon writing this book, De Incarnatione Domini, against
Nestorius.
He
wrote
it
therefore, in the year 430,
as Baronius also reckons.
For he wrote
it
before
the condemnation of Nestorius in the council of

esus, as appears
Ephis
by the book
in
itself.
This book
now
extant only
Latin
but, considering that his
design in writing was to

against Nestorius, and
stir
up the Greek church

for
that
the
making great
at
impression upon them, he quotes Greek Fathers
298
the end of his book, and concludes with an exhortation

to the citizens
of Constantinople, telhng them,
that
what
he
wrote
;
he
had received
satisfied
from
his
it
master Chrvsostom
originally in
am
that
he wrote
in
Greek.
His other books were

Photius
both
languages.
For
it
saw them
in
eloquent
Greek
and
is
more
likely that they
had
their
author's eloquent language from their author, and the Latin from one of the Latins where he lived ; than
that the contrary should
tise,*
be true.
Now
in this trea-
when he comes
to consider the passage of
Nes-
torius about this text, of
which we gave you an account above out of Arnobius, he returns this answer
it
;
to
Jam prirnum enim

quod
est
hoc quod
ais, JVestori,
;
justitid repleverif,
vis
creaturn est
et
quia hoc apostolico

apparuit in
tcstimonio comprobare,
;
quod
Spiritu
dicat,
;
came
justificatus
in
utrumque /also
et hoc,
sensu etfurioso Spiritu loqcris.
Quia
quod
a Spiritu
vis
eum repletum
esse justiiid, ideo ponis,
ut ostendas ejus vacuitatem, cui prastitam esse asseras

justitice
adimpletionem.
Et
hoc,
quod super hnc
re
apostolico testimonio uteris, divini testimonii ordinem
rationemque furaris.
JVon enim
ita
ah apostolo posi-
ium
est,
tit
tu
id
truncatum vitiatumque posuisti.
Quid enim
est pietatis
apostolus ait ?
Et manifeste magnum
sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in Vides ergo, quod carne, justificatum est in Spiritu.
mysterium pnetatis, vel sacra^nentum justificatum apos*
Libro septimo, cap.
18,

tolus prcedicavit,
209
Thas far Cassian is not only readP or but confuting INestorius by that reading. whereas Nestorius said it was a creature which was
ing
0,
justified,
Cassian
tells
him, that
if
he had read the

that
it
wliole text, he
would have found
was " the

he,
mystery of godhness."
Vides ergo,
saith
quod
mysterium pietatis justificatum apostolus prfsdicavit. He does not say, Deum justificatum apostolus prcedicavit (as
been
in
his
he certainly would have done, had that Bible,) but mysterium ; and so makes
mysterium, or, which is all one, its relative quod, the nominative case to the verbs which follow. In
another part of this treatise,

cites
te
lib. 5.
cap. 12. Cassian

;
and interprets the text as follows

est
Et
manifes-
magnum
pietatis sacramentum,
^-c.
quod manifesest
iatum
est in
came,
Quod
ergo
illud sacramentum,
Deus
ita
scilicet
quod manifestatum natus in came, Deus visus in corpore,

est
magnum est in came?
qui utique sicut palam
manifestatus in came,
So you see assumptus in gloria. Nestorius and Cassian agree in reading i', but dif-
palam
est
fer in
interpreting
it
the
its
one restraining
being justified
;
it
to
creature, by reason of
restraining
it
the other
God, by reason of its being a great mystery, and assumed in glory. VII3, In like manner Cyril, the grand adversaof in his three books De Fide ad Imry Nestorius,
to
peratorem
Reginas, written against him in the beginning of that controversy, did not reprehend
et
26
300
him, as
SIR ISAAC
if
Newton's history of
falsely,
he had cited the text
but only
complained of his misinterpreting it ; telling him, that he did not understand the great mystery of and that it was not a created godliness, thing, as he
thought, but the
for
Word
his
this
ro
if
or
Son of God
and arguing
this interpretation
from the circumstances of the
text.
And,
first, in
book
De
;
Fide ad Imperatou\xvZa-6e,
;.
rem, sect. 7.
T5 ypatpdi'
he has
passage
uSirei
fitire fîv
(A.iyo(, rjj?
tua-i^stoc^ f^vrnpiov, TijTE-
fj XpirOV, 0? i(pUVSp6l6i]
CrxOKl. iS'lX.XiU@7j V 5ry'J^T<,
&C,
Ye
err, saith he, not
knoiving the Sci-iptures,

is
nor the
great mystery of godliness, that

manifested
this citation
it
Christ
the
i'?,
who was
in the flesh, justified in

is
spirit.
By
plain that
he read
using one of
for
f^vriipiev,
these
MSS which, by understanding X/i/s-ov
turned
ing
into
<i ;
and, by
way
in
of interpretation, insert-
rarert Xptrov,
j
which
those
MSS
was
to
be
understood
in
oi,
unless you will say that he turns 5

is
For had eas been in this very hard. said have H-^s-ipiev, ihtUi X^/s-v, 'i^ text, he would not TTeVi Xptroi l(pttnû6y, putbut f^v^-vipiov, Gsoi, i<pct.vipaih
which
;
tino- x^.f^ss,
not for
f^vripiov^
but for A?.
For
Xptrh, and
605 are
more plainly equipollent than Xpirci and t^vrnpiov. And making Xpuci and t^v^^ptoy equipollent, he makes
/M,^5-/)'v
the nominative case to
>/'*^'
and therefore
Had he read them joined in this text by the article . left out that authenhave never would he read ês,
tic
tation
and demonstrative word, and by way of interpreFor this for iv5-w/><e 5, written Xpiihv 05.

was not
to argue against Nestorius, but to spoil
301
the
argument which lay before him. Neither would he have gone on, as he does, within a few lines, to recite the same text, putting Aoy by way of interpretation for
his bare
f^vTîîov
;
and
the
after
to
opinion, that
to
Word
or
the
propound it as Son of God
was here
be understood by
this
mystery, and to
opinion, as needing proof out of other texts of scripture, as he does after this man-
dispute for this his
ner ;* Moreover, saith he, in

tery of godliness
is
my
nothing
else
;
opinion, that mysthan he who came to
us from
God
the
Father
the
JVord,
xoho
was
servant, he
For in taking the form of a manifested in the flesh. was horn of the holy God-bearing Firgin, And then after many other things he at length fyc
in sect.
23 and 24, concludes,
that " this divine

;
mys-
tery
is
above our understanding
and that the only-
begotten, tures, the
who
is God, and, according to the ScripLord of all things, appeared to us, was
seen on earth, and became a man."

not the text
itself,
This he makes
;
but the interpretation thereof

it
and
be
from the preceding disputation, concludes

genuine.
to
IX. Again,
in
the
first
of his two treatises,

.
De
Fide ad Reginas, near the end, he cites the text, and argues thus against the interpretation of Nesto* "E/ yaf
yi/iiv
eJj^j
iTigav
eJfiix,)
i's
ri to Trjs ilffiZucc; (AUffrriîiv, airoV
Ik Qstu
vecrôs Xoyoi,
xcci
lâvEja^jj
fiiîpriv
ifa^xi.
rrif
ayias TaoSUou
^toTOKOV,
Jsi/Xst; Xa/SeJv.
TiyUnrai yk^ hoc Ctfril. dc Fidr
ad Imperalorem,
Sect. 8,
302
rius.
"
Who
is
" that he," saith he,

it
is
manifested
it
in the flesh ?
Is
not fully evident, that
is
no
so
other than the

will
Word
of
God
the
Father
For
be a great mystery of godliness (which was* manifested in the flesh) ; he was seen of anthat
gels,
ascending into heaven
the Gentiles
by
;
the holy Apostles
he was preached to he was beheved 5
on
as
in the
world
but this not as a mere
man
but
God
born
in the flesh,
and
after
our manner."
X. So
nas,f he
also in his
cites the
second book,
place
again
;
De Fide ad Regiand then argues
upon it against the opinion of Nestorius after this manner " If the word, being God, is said to become a man, and yet continue what he was before, without
;
losing his deity, the mystery of godliness
is
without
doubt a very great one
but
if
Christ be a
mere
man, joined with God only in the parity of dignity and power, (for this is mantained by some unlearned
men,) how
plain,
is
he manifested
in the flesh ?
Is
it
not
that every man is in the flesh, and cannot otherwise be seen by any body ; how then was he said
to
be seen of the holy angels

?
For do they
not also see us
What was
if
there therefore
new
or
extraordinary in Christ,
a
the angels saw him such
man
as
we
are,
and nothing more, &ic."

his reasons
Thus
which
Cyril goes on to give
why
that
was manifested
*
t
in the flesh,
loco jam legit
was not a mere created
Codex Grscus hoc

Section 33.
0C
pro
sensu perturbato*

man, as
Nestorious
interpreted,
303
eternal
but
the
Word,
or
Son
of
God
all
which would have

if
been very superfluous and impertinent, then been expressly in the text.
God had
XL
Seeing therefore Nestorius alleged the text

it
to prove, that
was a created thing which was man;
ifested in the flesh
and Cyril,
in confuting
him, did
not answer that

raise
it
was God expressly
in the text,
nor
any debate about the reading, but only put another interpretation upon the text than Nestorius had done ; arguing with Cassian, that in the text it
was not
great
mere man,
as Nestorius contended, but a

;
and by consequence Christ, or God the Son, which was manifested in the flesh ; and labouring by divers other arguments
mystery
of godliness
to prove this interpretation,
cavil, that Cyril
it
is
evident beyond
all
was a stranger
i'ôr ,
to '.
now
got
into
the text
and read
as Nestorius andCassian did.
XII
who,
his
in
And
his
all this is
further confirmed
by Photius,
commentary
on the Epistles not yet

&;c.
published, relates that Cyril, in the 12th chapter of
Scholiums, read
is
ItpuvepuiYi,
and consonant
text
to this reading
in
Cyril's
commentary upon the

second
of the
his
explanation
of the
twelve
Anathematisms, where he puts the question, Qidd
Apparuit in came ? And explains it by saying. Hoc est. Dei patris verhum caro factum est, and concludes, that it is hency that we call him God and Man. Whereas had &eli been in the
est igitur
quod
dicit,
26*
304
SIR ISAAC Newton's HiSTony of
text, it would have needed no interpretation ; nor would he have put ^/yej for ??, in order to prove that God was manifested in the flesh. And yet in his
books ad Reginas, and in other writings, wherever he quotes this text, the Greeks have since corrected itby
their corrected manuscripts of St Paul's Epistles,
and
written 5 instead of
c ;
whence,
if
you would
truly
o
understand the Nestorian history, you must read or o<- for eoc, in all Cyril's citations of this text.
XIII.
whilst Cyril read o or ?, and in the of the twelve chapters, or articles, quotexplanation ed this text in the second article ; and this explana-
Now,
tion
was recited by him in the council of Ephesus, and approved by the council,* with an anathema at the end of every article ; it is manifest that this
and by consecouncil allowed the reading 05 or ; authentic and that or was the 05 public unconquence
troverted reading
till
after the times of this
council.
For
Nestorius and Cyril, the pitriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, and the heads of the two
if
read parties in this controversy,
0?
or
and their
writings went about amongst the eastern churches, and were canvassed by the bishops and clergy without any the reading ; and if Cyril read dispute raised about
5
by the approbation of the council

the
itself; I think
its
that
conclusion
we make
if
of
being
then
the
general
uncontroverted
reading, must
needs
be granted us.
And
the authority
iii,
of one of the
Concii. Ephes. par.
sub
initio.
two CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

first
305
four general councils
truth of the reading,
make any thing for the we have that into the bargain.
the
XIV.
Yet
whilst
Nestorian
controversy
brought the text into play, and

the interpretation
that
into
the two parties ran
extremes, the one disputing

;
or
a?
was a creature
the other that
it
was
the
Word
made
was
the prevalence of the latter party orthodox opinion, that o or U the it for pass God ; and so gave occasion to the Greeks of
;
God
change the language of Christ into that of God; and say, in their expositions of the text, that God was manifested in the flesh, as I find
henceforward
to
Thodoret
dotl),
and
at
text itself;
inviting
the easy
to
length to write o or change of
God
Co
in
the
into
Gc,
them
do
it ;
and,
if this
was become the

the text in
orthodox authentic reading,
to
set right
Chrysostom, Cyiil, Theodoret, and wherever else they found it, in their opinion, corrupted by heretics.
XV. And
the
man
that
first
began thus
to
alter
the sacred text,
was Macedonius, the patriarch of

the beginning of the sixth century.
Constantinople,
in
For the Emperor Anastasius banished him for corAt that time, the Greek church had been rupting it.
Many long divided about the council of Chalcedon. who allowed the condemnation of Eutyches, rejected the council
;
by reason of
its
decreeing, by the
letter against
influence of the bishop of
Rome's
Eu-
tyches, that Christ subsisted not
only ex duabus naturis, which Eutyches allowed, but also in duabus
306
naturis
;
which language was new
to the
Greeks,
and by a great part of that church taken for Nestorianism. For they understood, that as the body and
soul
made
the nature of man, so

;
God and man made

nature to the
the
nature of Christ
assigning the
person of Christ, as well as to all other things, and not considering that in all compounds the several
parts
have also their several natures.

to
Hence each
party endeavoured
render the other suspected of
heresy ; as if they that were for the council secretly favoured the Nestorians, and they that were against ' For one party, in maintaining it, the Eutychians.
two
distinct natures in Christ,
were thought
;
the nature
of one person with Nestorius
deny and the
to
other party, in opposing two distinct natures in him, were thought to deny the truth of one of the natures
Both parties, therefore, to clear with Eutyches. themselves of those imputations, anathematised both
those heresies
;
and therefore whilst they thus
differ-
ed
in their
sense, as
modes of speaking, they agreed in their But the bishops Evagrius well observes.
of
Rome
another, and for a long time
and Alexandria being engaged against one distracting the East

disputes
his
;
by these
to
length the Emperor Zeno, and empire, perhaps to secure it quiet of the bishop of Rome, from the encroachment
at
who, by this verbal contest,* aspired to the name and authority of universal bishop, sent about an
* Vide Baroniuin,
anno 451
sect. 149, 150. 151,
307
henoticum, or pacificatory decree ; wherein he anthemaiised both Nestorius and Eutyches with their
followers on the one hand, and abrogated the Pope's
letter
and the council on the other
and
his succesto
sor, Anastasius, for the

this
same end, laboured
have
donius
those
decree signed by all the bishops. at first subscribed it ; but afterwards heading
And Mace-
who
stood up for the council,* was, for corrupt-
ing the Scriptures in favour of his opinion, and such other tilings as were laid to his charge, deposed and
banished, ann. C. 512. f

at
But
his
own
party,
which
length prevailed, defended him, as if oppressed calumnies and so received that reading for gen; by which he For how had uine, put about among them.
what they reckon on their side, Jerome well knew, when he recommended the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" by its
ready are
all
parties to receive
usefulness
the last age,
and we have a notable instance of it in when the churches, both eastern and western, received this testimony in a moment into their Greek testaments, and still continue with great zeal
;
and passion
to
defend
it
for
the
ancient
reading,
against the authority of
all
the
Greek manuscripts.
XVI. But now
have told you the original of the
Evagriiis, lib. iii. cap. xxi. 44. Marcellini Chronicon.

t
Theodorus Lector,
lib.
ii.
and
Flavian wa? banished

;
in
the year of Antioch 561, as Eva-
grius notes
and Macedonius was banished the same year, or the
year before.
308
corruption, I must
tell you my author ; and he is of the church of Carthage, archdeacon Liberatus,
who
lived
in that
very age.
in his in these
For
in
his Breviary,
after,
which he wrote
collected,
in the
year 535, or soon
and
as he saith
it
preface, out of
Greek
tempore ah Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus imperatore Anasiasio dicitur expulsus, tanquam evangelia
falsaret
paruit
;
records, he delivers
words
Hoc
et
maxhne
hahet
illud apostoli dictum,

in spiritu.
Quia ap-
in carne, justificatum
Htmc enim
mono syll ahum
id
mutasse,
uhi
qui
in
hoc
est
Grcecum,
est,
literd
mutatd
vertisse
et fecisse
ut esset Deus, apparuit per carnem.
Tanquam
JVestorianus
severum ergo cidpatus expeUitur per omitted here letters Greek The Monachum.jof in those and of in the edition second Sunius, are,
the councils, thus inserted
;
Uhi hahet
mutatd
e's,
hoc
est qui,
monasyUahum Grcecum,
et fecisse
literd
in u, vertisse
id
this
est,
nem.
Cut
Deus apparuit per carmade by interpolation was surely

ut esset,
in the sacred text before conjecture ; for if was the corruption, then or o was not in, and so could
not be changed into ^5
but
if eos
was not
in, it
could
not be brought in by this change.

tion therefore
is
The
interpola-
inconsistent and spurious, and

straining to
seems
out
to
have been occasioned by

;
make
Nestorianism here
the scribes for that end, J refert
* Liberati Brev. cap. xix.
tN. B. In Hincmari opusc.
xxKiii. cap. 22. the
Vide Baronii Annal. 510, sect. 9. words < ew^

ring the
309
and then
words ut
essei to the
sacred text
ut.
the
interpolator writing
î
for
Whereas they
should have referred ut esset to the words of Liberatus, thus distinguished
Deus apparuit per camera. therefore, wave the conjecture of this

ut esset,
from the sacred text; Id est, I had rather,

interpolator,
and
up the lacuna by the authority of an ancient author, Hincmarus ; who above eight hundred years
fill
ago*
related the fact

;
out of Liberatus after this

illicitis
manner
ûidam
ipsas Scripturas verbis
im-
posturaverunt ; sicut Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus, qui ah Anasiasio Imperatore, ideo a

civitate expulsus legitur,
et
quoniam falsavit evangelia ; ilium apostoli locum, quod apparuit in carne, jus;
tificatum est in spiritu
literarum
et
hoc modo mutando falsavit.
per cognationem Grcscarum Ubi enim
habuit, qui, hoc est oc, monosyllahum Grcecum, litera
mutatd o in , mutavit, et fecit 0c, id est, ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem; quapropter tanquam JVesfor
torianus fuit expulsus. He was banished therefore changing the ancient reading (which in some
MSS
o)
into
was oc, as these authors have it, and in others c. But whereas he is here represented
manner
referred to the sacred text
;
are in like
and somebody, to
out the sense, lias in their stead added ut npparerct to the words of Liberatus, and written id npparerct, ut esset Deus, he
make
But the words

out,
id nppareret
not being in Liberatus, must be struck
and supplied by setting the words from the sacred text

*
comma after
id esscl, to part these
Hincmari opuscul.
artic. xxxiii. cap. IS.
310

this,
a Nestorian, for doing
the meaning
is,
that
he
was banished
for corrupting the text in favour of the

;
doctrine of two natures in Christ
which
his
enemies
accounted Nestorianism, though

Nestorius held only a
that
spirit
it
was not
really so.
;
human
nature in Christ
in
and
the
God,
in
the
Word, dwelt
this
nature,
as
a holy
man
the
human
nature.
and therefore interpreted of This doctrine Macedonius
anthematised, and maintained two natures in Christ;

and, for proving
it
this,
corrupted the text, and
made
This distinguishing Christ into two natures was, by the enemies of Macedonius, accounted Nestorianism in another lanmanifested in the flesh.
God
respect the historian saith, that as a Nestorian for corrupting the text, though he was not really of that opinion.
guage
and
in this
they banished
him
XVII. But
Nestorian for
whilst
this,
he
is
said
to
be banished as a
without explaining what is here meant by a Nestorian, it looks like a trickish way of speaking, used by his friends to ridicule the proceedings against
him
as inconsistent
;
the crime
of falsation
as
if
perhaps to invert Nestorian would
c into o. For they that read histowith ry judgment, will too often meet with such and even in the very story of trickish reports ;
rather change
Macedonius,
meet with some other reports of the

in
same kind.
that
For Macedonius having
his
keeping
the original acts of the council of Chalcedon, signed
by
emperor under
whom
it
was
called, and

refusing
to
;
311
deliver
up
to
this
book
this
to
the
emperor
Anastasius
some,
;
make
if,
emperor perjured,
distorted the story
coming to the crown, he had promised under his hand and oath, that he would not act against the council of Chalcedon ; and represented his subscribed promise to be the
as
at his
book, which Macedonius refused to deliver back to
him.
his bishopric by being and had subscribed the council of Chalcedon, against
Macedonius had got
the henoticum* of Zeno, in which that council
was
anathematised
and
this
being objected against him,

accusation,
his friends, to stifle the
make
a contrary
to the emperor that in of behalf he had done as much as the crown, council. Another report was,f " That the people
;
story of the
as
if,
when he came
of Alexandria and
and
free, priests
all Egypt, great and small, bond and monks, excepting only strangers,
became about
this
time possessed with
evil spirits,
and being deprived of human speech, barked day and night like dogs ; so that tliey were afterwards
jound with
iron chains,
and drawn
to
the church,
that they might recover their heahh.

ate
their
For they
then
all
hands and arms.

to
And
an
angel
people, saying, that this to them because happened they anathematised the
appeared
council
some of
the
of
Chalcedon, and threatened,

Again, we
are
that
they
should do so no more."
told in hiscap. 31.
Vide Annotatioiics Valesii in Evagr, Victor Tuiiunonsis in Clironico.
k.c. lib.
iii.
27
312
tory,*
" That the adversaries of Macedonius produced certain boys in judgment to accuse both him
themselves of sodomy
and
found that his genitals were cut

selves to other arts for
when they thembetook off, they Now if you deposing him."

;
but
that
can beheve that a eunuch had the beard and voice of
and that in a solemn council the great ; of the East was thus accused and thus patriarch
another
that there
; you must acknowledge, were many bishops among the Greeks who would not stick at as ill and shameless things,
man
acquitted, and yet deposed
as corrupting the
Scriptures.
But
if
all
this
be a
a sham
invented to discredit the council, the
need of
in
such shams, adds credit to their proceedings
con-
demning him for a falsary. XVIII. This council, if
mistake not, sat
first at
Constantinople, being that council which Theodorus " a calls company of mercenary wretches ;" and
Nicephorus,
" a convention of heretics, assembled
against Macedonius."
Upon their adding to thef " " thrice holy" these words, who art crucified for us" the people fell into a tumult ; and afterwards, when
Macedonius came
be accused, they fell into a " The time of persecugreater tumult, crying out, tion is at hand ; let no man desert the father ;" meanto
ing Macedonius.
*
t
In this tumult, which

cap. 32.
was
said
Evagrius,
lib.
lib.
iii.
ii.
Theodor.
Nicephor.
lib, xvi.
cap. 26
Evagr.
lib. iii;
cap. 44.

to
313
up by the clergy of Constantinople, of the city were burnt, and the nobles many parts and emperor brought into the greatest danger ; instirred
be
somuch
that the emperor was forced to proffer the resignation of his empire, before he could quiet the multitude. Then seeing that, if Macedonius were
judged, the people would defend him, he caused him to be carried by force in the night to Chalcedon ;
and thence
into banishment, as
Theodorus
writes.
also to
Whence
I gather, that
the council
removed
Chalcedon
to avoid the tumult,
and
finish their
pro-
ceedings there.
in
For the
story of his being accused
tumult
the
judgment by boys, Nicephorus places after this and all agree that he was condemned ; and ;
an epistle recorded by Evagrius, say that Xenaias and Dioscorus, joined with many bishops, banished him. When his conPalestine,
in
monks of
demnation was sent him, signed by the emperor, he asked, whether they that had condemned him, received the council of Chalcedon
that brouglit
" If
and when they ; him the sentence denied h, he replied, Arians and Macedonians had sent me a book of
I
condemnation, could he stood upon the
receive
it .^"
So
that
it
seems
illegality
of the council.
The
next day one Timothy was made bishop of Constantinople, and he sent about the condemnation of
Macedonius
ed.*
*
to
all
the absent bishops to be subscribit
Whence
think
will easily
be granted, that he
Theophanes,
p. 135.
314
SIR ISAAC
Newton's history gp
was condemned
by the greatest part of and ; by consequence, that thegenuine reading was till then, by the churches of that For had not the public reading empire, accounted .
as a falsary
the eastern empire
then been
there could have been no colour for
pretending that he
changed
it
into
c.
XIX. About
six years after, Anastasius died,
and
his successors, Justin

ity
and Justinian, set up the authorof the council of Chalcedon again, together with
that of the
Pope over
;
the eastern churches, as uni-
versal bishop
and from that time the friends of

it is
Macedonius
tion
prevailing,
probable, that in opposi-
which condemned him, and for and promoting establishing the doctrine of two natures in Christ, they received and spread abroad the
to the heretics,
reading 0c.
that fell
slept
till
But
as for the authority of the
Pope,
again with
Rome
it.
in
the Gothic wars, and
Phocas revived
told
XX.
you of several shams put about by the

discredit the proceedings
friends of Macedonius, to
of the council against him.
There
is
one which
notably confirms what has hitherto been said, and makes it plain that his friends received his corruptions as
genuine scripture.
For whereas Macedonius
Testament, his friends retorted the crime upon the council, as if they had
taken upon them, under colour of purging the Scriptures from the corruptions of Macedonius, to correct
in
was banished
for corrupting the
New
them whatever they thought the Apostles,
as un-

skilful
315
For
this
men and
idiots,
had written amiss.
I gather
about in
from an ironical report of this kind put the West, and thus recorded by Victor
Tununensis.
Messcdd
J^.
C. consuUbus, Constanti-
nopoli,jiibente Anastasio Imperatore, sancta Evangelia, tanquam ab idiotis composita, reprehend untur et " In the of emandantur that
;
is,
consulship
jNIessala,
the holy Gospels,
by the command of the emperor
Anastasius, were censured and corrected at Constantinople
wrhten by Evangehsts that were idiots." Here Victor errs in the year. For Messala was
;
as
if
consul anno Christi 506, that banishment of JMacedonius.

uncertain
in
is,
six years before the
But Victor
;
is
very
dates
of
the years
for
he
places
the banishment of Macedonius in the consulship of
Avienus
502
and
the
in
abovementioned
tumult
about the Trisagium
the consulship of Probus,

all
anno Christi 513
whereas
these things hap-
pened
in
the
same year.
For
chronicle, that
the Scriptures
it is plain by this were examined and
corrected about this time by a council at Constantinople, by the order of Anastasius ; and I meet with
no other council
to which this character can agree, besides that which deposed Macedonius. Now that should censure and correct the they Gospels, as if
written
history
by idiots, is too plainly ironical to be true and therefore it must be an abusive report, ;
to
invented and put about to ridicule and shame the

council, and
propagate the corruptions of
Maco
27*
316
donius as the genuine apostolic reading of the ScrijJtures, which the council had rashly corrected.
XXI.
So then
the falsation
fifth
was
set
on foot
in
century, and is now of about twelve hundred years standing and therefore since it lay but in a letter, and so was more easily
the beginning of the
;
spread abroad in the Greek manuscripts than the " the Three in Heaven" in the Latin testimony of
ones
we need
not
wonder
if
the old
reading be
scarce to be met with in any
Greek manuscripts
us,
I
now
extant
and yet
it is
in
some.
tells
;
XXII.
For though Beza

^95
all
that
tell
all
the
Greek manuscripts read

readers, that
yet
must
0.
Beza's
his manuscripts read
For he had
no other manuscripts of the Epistles besides the Claromontan ; and in this manuscript, as Morinus
by ocular inspection has since informed us, the ancient reading was c ;* but yet in another hand,
and with other
out of the line
;
ink, the
letter
has been written
and the
letter o,
thickenedf to make
Sed praepostera
aliqua
AliS rnanu et atramento, extra lineae serietn, addita est litera
0,
et
ambesa paululum O,
facile
i.
ut appareret signia.
emendatio
conspicitur.
ii.
Hac Morinus
in ExercUationibiis
iiividit,
Biblicis, Lib.
Exercitat.
cap. 4.
At Beza nobis
ut ex ejus epistolA ad Academiatn Cantabrigiensem a Waltono edita liquet ubi variantes aliquas lectiones celandas esse admonet.
;
Such is the reading in the defective edition of 1754, as well as in the late edition of the entire essay from which the present is reprinted; but the sense of the passage imt{|<'
Thickened."
" ambesa paululum" in the preceding expressed by 0. En.] note, a partial crasement of the letter
plies,
what
is
two Corruptions op scripture.

a C, appears
;
317
by Va-
which instance shows
sufficiently
whom
the ancient reading
has been changed.
lesius also read in one of the Spanish manuscripts; and so did the author of the Oxford edition of the
New
Testament, anno Christi 1675, in the manuscript of Lincoln College Library, which is the
oldest of the
Oxford manuscripts.
Photio
The Alexandrian
Epist.) read
MS"*^ and one of Colbert's, and Cyril, c. 12. Scholi-
orum,
(teste
MS
com.
in
oc.
So then there are some ancient Greek manuscripts which read c, and others o ; but 1 do not hear of
any Latin ones, either ancient or modern, which
read Gti^.
XXIIL And
said,
besides to read -'s makes the sense
obscure and difficult. " that God was
For how can

justified
in
it
properly be
the
spirit .^"
But
ducta cernitur tam lineola per nipdium I. Putat auO, qiiani virgiila siiperiia ut jam legatiir lem Millius, lirieolas illas olim teniies t'uisse et piope evanidas, et
Alio atramentojam
literal
novo
deiii
atramento incrassatas
fuisse
tiusloco, lineolce per raediuiri

ral,
diictas,
eo quod perluslralo attenquae primam aciem fuge-
set
ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa depreliendere visus e3pra^sertim ad partem sinistrani, qua; periiilieriam iiterre per;
tingit
luculeutiora multo liabiturus nisi obstante liturSquam dixit

ipsi
hodierna lineolte
superinductA.
Veriim
si
lineola aiitiquitus
linea;
tam conspicua
alio
esset, ut uscpie
nunc per medium

;
crassioris,
atramento superinducta?, cerni possit
lineA
illi superinductS incrassaretur. ut cerni vix posset; mirum est, quod ejus ductus et vestigia satis
quid opus esset, ut a Sin olim tam evanida esset,
certa, per
medium
literse illius
Doceant verba evanida

fuisse, vel fateantur
aliis in
superinducta?, etiaranum appartnnt. locis atiamento novo incrassata

in
OC
hie
mutatum
0C.
318
to read
o,
and interpret
it
of Christ, as the ancient

it
Christians did, without restraining
to his divinity,
makes
the sense very easy.
For the promised and
long expected Messias, the hope of Israel, is to us *' And this mystery the great mystery of godliness." was at length manifested to the Jews from the time
of his baptism, and justified to be the.person they expected.
whom
have now given you an account of the corruption of the text, the sum of which is this ; the difference between the Greek and the ancient ver-
XXIV.
sions puts
it
past dispute,
that either
the
Greeks
have
corrupted their
MSS,
or the Latins, Syrians,

;
and Ethiopians,
their versions
and
it is
more reasonIt
able to lay the fault upon the Greeks than
other three, for these considerations.

for
upon the was easier
than for three to conspire. It was easier to change a letter or two in the Greek, In the Greek, the than six words in the Latin.
it
one nation to do
sense
is
obscure
in the
versions, clear.
to
It
was
the
agreeable to the interest of the Greeks, change, but against the interest of other
to
make
nations
do
it ;
and men are never
false to their interest.
The Greek
reading was unknown in the times of the Arian controversy ; but that of the versions then in
Some Greek use amongst both Greeks and Latins. MSS render the Greek reading dubious; but those
of the versions hitherto collated
agree.
There are
no signs of corruption
in
the versions, hitherto dis-

covered
;
319
but in the Greek
particularly
we have shewed you when, on what occasion, and by whom,

not whether
it
the text
was corrupted.
I
XXV.
to tell
know
be worth the while
you, that in the printed

is
there
an
epistle
De
works of Athanasius, incarnatione verbi, which

Nestorian
reads 05.
For
this epistle relates to the
heresy, and so was written by a much later author than Athanasius, and may also possibly have been
since corrected, like the works of
Cyril,
I
Chrysostom and by the corrected texts of St John's Epistles. have had so short a time to run my eye over auupon further search,
this falsation
thors, that I cannot tell whether,
more passages about

occur pertinent
falsation
tion to
may
not hereafter
if
to
it
the argument.
will
But
there
the
should, I presume
is
not be
difficult,
now
thus far laid open, to
know what
to
I
construc-
put upon them, and
how
apply them.
XXVI. You
see what freedom
have used
in this
debating the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts, I understand not, why we should be
so fond of
whilst
it
discourse, and 1 hope you will interpret it candidly. For if the ancient churches, in and deciding
them now the debates are over.

the character of an honest
And
to
is
man
be
pleased, and of a man of interest to be troubled at the detection of frauds, and of both to run most into
those passions
when
the detection
is
made
plainest
320
I

this letter will, to
hope
one of your
as
it
integrity,
prove
so
much
the
more acceptable,
makes
a further
discovery than you have hitherto met with in commentators.
BUTLER'S
HISTORICAL OUTLINE.
HISTORICAL OUTLLVE
OF THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE TEXT
OF THE
THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES.

BY CHARLES BUTLER OF LINXOLn's
INN.
As corning the Appendix to Butler's Hora BiblictB. from a Roman Catholic and a Trinitarian, this article to be free from any bias on the must be
supposed
writer against the genuineness of the seems, indeed, to have reviewed the suband to have given as ject with great iinpartiality, accurate an outline of the controversy through the several stages of its progress, as the hmits he pres-
[The following comparative view of the arguments, \vhich have been advanced on both sides in discuss1 John, v. 7. is taken from ing the genuineness of
part of the
text.
He
cribed to himself would admh.
If in
some
instances
he
too brief for perspicuity, he has on the whole contrived to embrace the most important points of
is
the discussion within
smaller compass than
any
other writer.]
genuineness of the verse of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, or 1 John v. 7. has engaged much of
The
28
324
the
butler's HISTomCAL OUTLIXE.

attention
;
of the
learned during the three
last
centuries
so that, as
Mr. Herbert Marsh observes,
is hardly a library in all Europe, from the Vatican to the Bodleian, from Madrid to Moscow, in
" there
which the manuscripts of the Greek Testament have

not been examined, in order to determine, whether
proceeded from the pen of St John ;" and, Travis observes, " there are few subjects, in the walks of philology or criticism, in which, one
it
really
as
Mr
simple
question, as
itself,
it
appears on a distant view, ex-
on a nearer approach, into so many pands comphcated branches, and covers so large a field of historical and theological criticism."
of the state of the question ; II. Of the history of the general admission of The Verse into the printed text ; III. And of the principal disI.
The folio win Some account
2:
sheets
mav be
found to contain,
putes to which
it
has given rise
IV.
An
inquiry
whether the general sense of the text is affected by the omission of The Verse ; V. Some account of
the argument in favour of
scription
;
its
authenticity from pre-
VI.
Some
its
against
scripts
;
it
from
VII.
account of the arguments absence from the Greek manu-
Of
the answers to those arguments,

in
from
Valla
its
;
supposed existence
VIII.
the
manuscripts of
in
From
its
supposed existence
the
editors ; IX.. And manuscripts of the Complutensian in the existence its from manuscripts used supposed
by Robert Stephens
X. Some observations on
the
butler's historical outline.

argument arising on
its
325
not being inserted in the
Greek Apostolos or Collection of Epistles read in the Church ; XI. On its not being inserted in the oriental
versions
XII.
most ancient
lence of
all
not being inserted in the Latin manuscripts ; XIII. On the siits
On
the
Greek Fathers respecting
it
XIV.
On
ers
the silence of the most ancient of the Latin Fath-
will then respecting it ; XV. Some account be given of what has been written respecting its
first
introduction into the
Greek and Latin manu-
scripts.
other important topics for and several against the authenticity of The Verse ; and of those which have been mentioned, lead to facts
There
are
many
and subjects which are not noticed in these sheets but, what is noticed, \v\\\, perhaps, be found sufficient
;
to
shew the general turn and bearings of the controI.
versy.
The
state of the question
is
as follows
In the
Tcxtus Rcceptus, or received Greek text of the 1st Epistle of St John, the 7th and 8th verses of the fifth chapter are expressed in these words :
Seventh Verse.
"Oti
rpd
(~/v
c'l
fûprvpoZyrti
tv T&i
eupx\u,
Trcniip,
Afiy5, Kit]
TO a.yt6V TTViu/^x'
Kcti oiiToi Of
rpeli iv <V/,
Eighth Verse.
y.ui
uSuj),
TO Xiuof xeti
oi
Tpi7i ili
'To
tv fV<y,
326

:
In the vulgate, the verses are thus translated

7th.
Ouoniam
sunt.
tres sunt,
et
Pater, Vei-bum,
qui testimonium dant in Sjriritus Sanctus : et hi tres

6tb.
ccelo ;
unum
Et
tus, et
tres sunt,
qui testimonium dant in terra
spiri-
aqua,
et
sanguis
is,
et hi tres
in
unum
sunt.
The
verse,
question
or, to
V
whether the whole of the 7th
speak with greater accuracy, whether

i
the words,
Ki ouret
01
rôuaxvi^
'
TTXiiip,
Xoyoi,
x-xi
to uyiov
7rvsv(4.s6'
rpsTi
o't
(i^!\ in the 7th verse,

iv
TJJ y>j,
and the words,

in
it
xi rpui ciTit
fixprvpoZvrei
in the 8th verse, are
genuine or spurious.
genuine, the
text
If the passage
question be
is
stands properly, as
it
pressed
BiTii
y.x)
n'l
if
it
be spurious,
v /V;v,
should stand
now ex"On rpu^

oiif/.'
ei
fcxprvpiZvrs^^ to TrViUtcx, kx\ ra hSup, kcci ra
Tûi iU TO
in
tho
Greek
and
in
the
;
Latin,
"
(ûoniam
tres
sunt, qui testimonium dant

:
unum sunt." IT. With respect to the histohy of the general ADMISSION OF THE VERSE INTO THE PRINTED TEXT 1. The first event, which deserves attention, is the
spiritus, et
aqua, et sanguis
et
lii
tres in
the Latin Vulgate : what should be understood by the Vulgate, in this place, will be mentioned afterwards.
insertion of
it
in
2.
The second
is
Erasmus''s
insertion
of The
Verse, in his three last editions of the Greek Testa-
ment.
327
Erasmus had the honour of behig the person who published the first printed edition of the Greek New
Testament.
He
pubHshed
five
editions,
in
1516,
1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535.
The Complutensian
Polyglott was printed in 1517, and published in 1522. In his edition of 1522, and in his two subsequent editions,
Erasmus
his
is
supposed
to
have conformed
his
text, in different places, to the

this
all
makes
Complutensian edition ; edition of 1519 the most esteemed of
he published.
insert
he did not
nesses.
1516 and 1519, The Verse of the Heavenly WitIn his editions of
rise to
This gave
a dispute between him and
Lee, an Englishman, and to a dispute between him and the Spanish divines employed on the Complutensian Polyglott.
if it
He promised to restore The Verse, could be found in a single Greek manuscript.

the manuscript now then called the Codex BritDublin,
Such a manuscript was found,

in Trinity College,
annicus, since called the

in
Codex Montfortianus
and,
consequence of this discovery, Erasmus inserted The Verse in his edition of 1522, and retained it in
his
two subsequent
editions.
3.
The
third of these
events,
is
the insertion of
The Verse
in the Complutensian That Polyglott. noble work was begun in 1502, completed in 1517,.
and published
4.
in
1522.
is
The
fourth of these events,
the insertion of
The Verse by Robert

tion of the
Stephens,
in
in his
celebrated edi;
New
Testament,
1550
the text of
it,
28*
328
butler's historical outline,

is
with a very few variations,

fifth
similar to that of the
edition of
Erasmus.
The fifth of these events, is the insertion of The Verse mBeza's editions of the Greek Testament. The first of his editions was pubhshed in 1565 he
5.
;
principally follows in
it,
the third edition of Robert
He printed other editions in 1576, 1582, 1589, and 1598 ; they do not contain every where the same text, but in all of them. The Verse is inserted.
Stephens.
6. The The Verse
sixth of these
in the
events,
is
the insertion of
Elzevir edition of the Greek
New
Testament.
Five several printers of the name and family of

Elzevir, are immortalized
of their presses.
by the successful labours Lewis, the eldest of them, was a

in
printer of distinction
1505; Daniel, the
last
of
them, died
in
1680.
first
Their edition of the Greek Testament was

printed, at
third
edition
Leyden, in 1624 ; it was printed from the of Robert Stephens where it varies
:
from that
edition,
it
follows, generally, the edition of
Beza
and, like each of those editions, contains
The
Verse.
By
this edition, the text,
which had
fluctuat-
ed, in the preceding editions, acquired a consistency.

It
was followed,
it
in all
subsequent editions, and, on
deservedly acquired the appellation of Editio Recepta : the editors of it are unknown.
that account,
7. The seventh of these events, is the insertion of The Verse in the modern edition of Luther''s transla-
329
Hon of the
New
Testament.
From
the translations
The published by himself, he uniformly rejected it. he the while was in was which last edition, press,
living,
but was not quite finished till after his death, was that of 1546. In that, as in all his former ediit
tions,
is
wholly absent.
Luther concludes
his
preface to that edition, with
dying request, that, The should be ahered, in the slightest instance. Verse, however, was inserted in the Frankfort edition of
what may be termed his no account, his translation upon
1574
in
rejected
the
and, for a time, inserted in some, and ; other editions: but, since the beginning of
17th century, with the exception of the Wittenin the ediberg edition of 1607, the insertion of it,
tions of Luther's translation, has
8. It should
been general.
be added, that the principal printed editions of the Greek New Testament since the Elzevir,
are those of Mill, Bengel, IVetstein, and Gries'
bach.
it is
The Verse
is
found
in the text
first,
of them
all
;
by
determined by the two the two last, to be spurious.

editors,
it
to
be genuine
To
the credit of
all
the
their
particular
should be observed, that, notwithstanding sentiments, they state, with equal

fairness,
candour and
the
arguments
for
and the ar-
guments against The

III.
Verse.
With respect to the principal disputes to WHICH IT HAS GIVEN RISE 1. The first, is the dispute between Erasmus and
:
Lee, and between Erasmus and the Editors of the
Comphitensian Polyglott.
330
It
bCtler's historical outline.
has been mentioned that Erasmus published He five editions of the Greek New Testament.
did not insert
The Verse
in the
two editions of 1516
this, he was reprehended, in the severest terms, by Lee or Ley, an Enghsh divine
and 1519.
For
of some note, afterwards advanced, by Henry the Eighth, to the archbishopric of York ; and by Stunica, a Spanish
divine,
employed on the Complutenhis
sian Polyglott.
In answer to them, he declared
readiness to insert
The
Verse,
if
a single manuscript
should be found to contain
it.
As The Verse was

without the authority
inserted in the Complutensian Polyglott, and ought
not to have been inserted in
it,
of one or more manuscripts, Stunica was bound, in honour, to produce such a manuscript ; but he pro-
duced none.
(For the controversy between Erassee Biirigni, Vie dÊrasme, 2 vol. 8vo.
mus and Lee,
Paris, 1757, 1 vol.
372-381
for the controversy
between Erasmus and Stunica, see the same work, vol. 163-175 ; and for Stunica's attack and Eras-
mus's defence, see the Crit. Sac.
At length, the Codex Britannicus, now in College, Dublin, was found

In performance
Codex
vii. p. 1229.) then called the Montfortianus,
Tom.
the library of Trinity to contain The Verse.
The
2.
promise, Erasmus inserted Verse in his edition of 1522; and retained it

of his
in his editions of
1527 and 1535.

dispute, respecting the authenticity
The second
of
The
Verse, miay be considered to have begun
butler's historical oftline.
331
till
with Sandius the Arian, and to have continued,

the note respecting
it,
in
Mr
Gibbon's History, proin his
voked
a fresh dispute.
By
Sandius,
it
was pointedly attacked
JVu-
cleus Historia. Ecclesiasticce,
Cosmopoli, 1G69, 8vo.
Col. 1676. 4to. and his Interprctationes
Paradox^
in
Johannem.
Its
authenticity
is
defended hy
Mr
Selden.
In his
de Sxjnedriis Ehrceorum, L. 2. C. 4. S. 4. he sums up the arguments on each side of the question, and pronounces in favour of The Verse.
treatise
A
er
regular and able attack on
it
was made by Fath-
Simon, in his Histoire critique du Texte du JVouveau Testament, Rot. 1680. 4to. Part I. ch. 18;
Part
ings.
It
II.
ch. 9. and in several other parts of his writ-
found a zealous advocate
in
of the church of Utrecht.

lished the following works.
In support of
Martin, the Pastor it, he pub-
Deux
verset 7
Dissertations
Critiques, la premiere sur le
du
ch. v.
de la premiere Epistre de St Jean,

Ciel,^^
"
//
y a trois au
authenticite de ce texte.
^c. dans laquelle on prouve La second e sur le passage

ou,
de Joseph touchant Jesus Christ,

ce
V on fait
voir que
passage
n^ est
Examen
point suppose. Utrecht, 1717, 6vo. de la response de Monsieur Emlyn a la
Dissertatioii Critique sur le verset 7
du
ch. v. de la 1
Epistre de St Jean.
Londres, 1719, Svo.
3S2
verite du Texte de la premiere Epistre cle St Jean, v. 7. demontree par des preuves qui sont au dessus de toute exception, prises du temoignage de VEglise Latine, et de VEglise Grecque, et en particulier
La
dhm
Irlande.
manuscript du JVouveau Testament, trouve en Par David Martin, Pasteur de VEglise a Utrecht. Utrecht, 1721.
found an able adversary in Mr Thomas Emfyn, an eminent presbyterian divine, whose suf-
The Verse
ferings for his religious principles,
all
true christians
it
must lament and reprobate

following works.
he attacked
in the
full inquiry into the original authority of that

v. 7.
text, 1
John, 1757. 1719,
London. 1815, Svo.

Martin's
i-eprinted in
An
1
ansiver to
v. 7.
Mr
critical dissertation
on
John,
London, 1709, Svo.
Reply to Mr .Martin'' s examination of the answer, London, 1720. Martin also met with an able adversary in Casar
de Missy, a native of Berlin, French preacher in the Savoy, and French chaplain at St James's, the author
Letters against the genuineness of the verse, inserted in the 8th and 9th volumes of the Journal
of
Four
Britannique. The Bible de Vence, published middle of the last century, Tom.
at Paris,
xiii.
about the
p. 5. contains
a candid, learned, and sensible dissertation in favour of The Verse. The author cites in it, ICetneri Dis-
ibutler's historical outline.

sertatio hujus
loci,
333
;
Dissertatio
singularis
Roger^
Dissertatio Critico-Theologica, in hunc locum, PariSf
1713.
A
Dr
regular attack
upon The Verse was made by
Benson, a presbyterian divine, in his Parajphrase of the, Gospels, 2 vol. 4to. 1756. Sir Isaac JVewton is the author of a treatise against
the genuineness of
ance, under the
JVeivton
to
The
of
Verse.
It
made
its
appear-
title
Two
Letters
from Sir Isaac
Mr
Le
manuscript
in the
1754, reprinted from a possession of Dr Ekins, dean of

Clerc,
Carlisle, in the fifth

tion of Sir Isaac
volume of Dr Horsley's
force,
late edi-
Newton's works.
candour, and
They
Newton.
are written with the
perspicuity,
which might be expected from Sir Isaac
The English opposition to The Verse, in this stage of the controversy, is respectably closed by Mr Boivyer, the learned printer's Conjectures on the JVew
Testament, London, 4to. 1781.
In the
of
much
the
The Verse had been the subject Some mention of controversy in Germany. works which there have made their apprincipal
mean
time,
pearance on this subject, may be found in the note on St John's first Epistle, in Schviidius^s Historia
Antiqua
Vindicatio canonis sacri veteris novique Testamenti, Lipsia, Svo. 1774. an excellent publicaet
tion of the high
Lutheran school
Tubing(C, 1773
;
in
BengeVs Gnoin Michaclis^s
mon, 2
vol. 4 to.
and
334
Herbert Marsh,
first,
Introduction to the JVew Testament, translated by vol. 4. cA. 21. Michaelis had, at
Mr
in
declared himself an advocate for
The
Verse,
his Vindicice
piurium
lectionu/n codicis
et
Greed JVovi
Testamenti adversus Whistonum
ah eo latas leges
criticas, Halce, 1751 ; but, afterwards, became one of its most powerful opposers, in his Historical and Critical Collections, relative to what are called the
proof passages,
3.
in dogmatic theology.
to the third stage of the controversy. In the 119th Note to the 37th Chapter of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roinan Empire, (3
This leads
" The 545, 4to.) INIr Gibbon asserts, that Three Witnesses have been established, in our Greek
vol. p.
Testament, by the prudence of Erasmus
the honest
bigotry of the Complutensian editors, the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens, in the placing
a crotchet
or the deliberate falsehood or strange mis-
apprehension of Theodore Beza." This note was attacked by Mr Travis, Archdea-
con of Chester, in three letters, in the Gentleman's He printed them, with two Magazine of 1782.
others, in a separate
publication, in quarto, in 1784,
and reprinted the
five,
with considerable further ad-
ditions, in octavo, in
1786.
To
these,
Mr Professor
in the
Porson replied
in
several letters, published
Gentleman's Magazine of 1788, 1789.

azine for January
ject,
In the
Mag-
1790, another
letter,
on the sub-
appeared from
Mr
Travis.
Mr
Porson replied

to
335
it, in the jMagazine of the following month, and soon afterwards, all Mr Person's Letters, with addi-
tions,
which increased
their
pubhshed in one octavo ment of his uncommon

and
wit.
volume, an
erudition,
number
to twelve,
were
eternal
monu-
critical
sagacity,
In 1794,
Mr Travis
;
with considerable additions

notice in them, of
republished his letters, he took no particular
Mr
Person's letters to him, but
professes to answer, one after another, the arguments of other distinguished opponents of The Verse. In
1795,
ters to
J\Ir
Herbert Marsh published a series of

Travis, entitled Letters to
vindication
let-
Mr
iii
Mr
Archdeacon
Translator's
Travis,
of one of
the
notes to Michaelis's Introduction,
and
in confirmation
of the opinion, that a Greek Manuscript now preserved in the public library of the University of Cambridge, is one of the seven, which are quoted by Robert Stephens, at 1
John
v. 7. with
an Appendix, con-
taining a review of Mr Travis's Collation of the Greek which he examined at Paris ; an extract
MSS
from Mr Pappelbaum's Treatise on the Berlin MS ; and an Essay on the Origin and Object of the Vchsian readings.
By
the
Translator of Michaelis
Leipsig and London, 1795. The principal object of Mr Marsh's

the
title
letters
was, as
one expresses it, of his notes to his translation of Michaelis's Introduction, that the
title
to vindicate his assertion, in
Greek manuscript referred

is
to
in
the
of his book,
one of the seven, which are quot-
29
336
butler's historical outline,

-,
ed by Robert Stephens, at 1 John, v. 7 but his letabound with most learned, ingenious, and profound remarks on almost every point, which comes
ters
into consideration, in the discussion of the genuine-
ness of
The
Verse.
Mr
Clarke has lately circulated among his friends,
an interesting pamphlet on the subject of The Verse, with this title, Observations on the Text of the Three
Divine Witnesses, accompanied with a Plate, containing two very exact Fac-Similes of 1 John, Chap. v. verse 7, 8, and 9, as they stand in the first Edition of
the JVeiv Testament, printed at Compliitum, 1514,
and
in the
Codex Montfortii, a JManuscript marked C. 97, in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. By A. Clarice, Manchester, 1805. It is to be hoped he
will put
it
into public circulation.
Such have been

troversy.
distinct
the principal stages of this con-
The
following
may be
found to contain a
view of the principal arguments used by the combatants in support of their opinions.
iV. The first object of the inquiry is to ascertain WHETHER THE GENERAL SENSE OR IMPORT OF THE
TEXT, IS ASSISTED OR INJURED, BY THE INSERTION OR OMISSION OF The Verse. The ascertainment
of this
fact, will
estabHsh a strong argument for or

is is
of the text. This against the internal evidence the verse is of some an inquiry obscure, nicety ;
susceptible
to partisans of each opinion, have attempted sense on it, which best suits their cause.
of more than one construction, and the

fix that
337
is
This much must be granted,

not absohitely necessary Whhout it, the text will stand
is
that
The Verse
"
to
the
sense of the text.

follows.
as
Who
eth that Jesus
he that overcometh the world, but he, who believThis is he, who is the son of God ?
blood, even Jesus the Christ
;
came by water and

not,
by the water only, but by the water and th
blood.
And
is
it is
the Spirit
who witnessed
because
the spirit
truth.
Spirit,
Thus
in
there are three
who bear
;
witness, the
and the water, and the blood

one."
and the three agree Whatever be its

is
is
right
construction, the sentence
complete and perfect

the person to
in itself.
is
Jesus, the Christ,
whom testimony
borne
the spirit,
the water, and the blood, are the witnesses bearing
Thus without further aid, the testimony to him. and construction meaning of the sentence are complete.
The Verse
1.
therefore
is
not essentially neces-
sary to the text.
V.
the
its
Erasmus
has been stated to have
madq
from
first
attack on
The
Verse.
At
that time,
general insertion in the manuscript and printed of tiio copies of the Latin text, the universal opinion
Latin church was
in its favour.
The
text of these
and tempocopies had been adopted by the spiritual ral courts, appealed to in disputes, taught in the
schools,
and praised
and commented
on by the
learned
men
of every state, within the Latin pale.

therefore,
if
its
Prcscrijjtion
in these
prescription be pleadable
favour.
cases,
was
in
338
2. If
we
believe the opposers of
The
Verse, the
to
introduction of
The
Verse, was
first
owing
the
fath-
spirituaUzation of the 8th verse

ers,
by the African
which became common

Httle
in the
till
Verse gained
ground
4th century ; The the 8th ; and was
It is universally received for genuine in the 12th. remarkable, that not the slightest vestige of opposition to it is discoverable in the works of those
times,
which have reached us
nothing, which
inti-
mates, that even a suspicion

the genuineness of
3.
had been entertained of
The
Verse.
Here
the
communicant with the see of
Rome
Trent,
takes a higher ground.
The
council
to all,
of
Session 4, declared
Anathema
"
who
should
not receive for holy and canonical, all and every part of the books of the Old and New Testament,
as they
had been accustomably read in the Catholic Church, and as they stood in the old vulgate ediand
in
tion ;"
the
sixth
session,
declared
" the
Vulgate to be authentic, and that no one should, on any pretence, dare or presume to reject it."
Now, when the council of Trent made this decree. The Verse had long been accustomably read in the catholic church, and long made a part in the
old vulgate edition
;
those, therefore, in
communion
Verse,
fall
with the see of
Rome, who now reject The
within the council's Anathema.
To
reply
;
these objectioas the adversaries of
The Verse
butler's historical oiJtline.

1st.
339
are
That
in
the times of which
we
now
us, in
speaking,
that no
there was httle of biblical criticism, and
works of those times have reached
which such an objection either would be made, or would be noticed.

2dly. That, before too great a stress
insertion
in the
is laid
on
its
be formed of the edition denoted,
Vulgate, an accurate notion should in these cases, by

It
the appellation of the Latin Vulgate.
does not
denote the edition, anterior to St Jerome, which,-
from
Italic
its
;
superior celebrity, was called
the Ancient
does not denote the edition published by St Jerome ; it merely denotes that edition, which,
it
at the
time of the council of Trent, was generally in use ; and afterwards served as the groundwork
of the editions published, first by Sixtus Quintus, afterwards by Clement the Eighth, and which last
edition
is
the archetype of the
this edition
modern Vulgate ; that partook more of the modern, than of

itself,
it
ancient versions
in a
; and, that standing by matter of criticism, of no authority.
is,
3dly.
To
suppose, that the

to
council
of Trent
pronounced the Vulgate and that no one was at

translation or exposition,
be wholly free from error, liberty to vary from it, in
declaring
clare
it
In going to an extreme. to be authentic, the council did not deis
the Vulgate
to
council only pronounced
be inspired or infallible ; the it to be inerrant, where the

In this
dogmata of
faith or
morals are concerned.
29*
340
decision, every
Roman
Catholic must acquiesce, as
he receives the scripture from the church, under her authority, and viîth her interpretation ; but further
this, the council leaves the Vulgate in mere matters of criticism, to the private judgment of every
than
individual.
To
this
effect,
father
Salmeron,
who
was one of the ten
who
disciples of St Ignatius, and assisted at the council of Trent in the character

first
is
of one of the pope's theologians,
cited
by the
in
tlie
Abbe de Vence,
to
have expressed himself
third of his prolegomena.
In this stage of the argument, Bossuet takes very high ground, in one of his letters to Leibnitz, publish-
ed by
Mr
as, in that letter,
Dutens, in his edition of Leibnitz's works ; Bossuet seems to place the general
acquiescence of the Roman Cathohc church, in the authenticity of The Verse, among the traditions
which the church receives, and the faithful are thereAs every thing which has fore bound to adopt. fallen from the pen of that great man, is important,
and the passage
in question is little
known,
it is
here
transcribed at length.
" J'avoue au reste, Monsieur, ce que vous dites des anciens exemplaires Grecs sur le passage, Tres Sunt,
S/-C.
cle contenu dans ce passage
mais vous sâvez aussi bien que raoi, que Partine doit pas etre pour d'ailleurs etabli, non etant cela revoque en doute,
seulement par la Tradition des Eglises, mais encore Vous sâvez aussi par I'Ecriture tres eviderament.
341
sans doute, que ce passage se trouve reû dans tout ce qui paroit manifeste, sans meme I'Occident;
reraonter plus haut, par la production
Fulgence
lente
dans ses Ecrits, et

foi
meme
qu'en fait S. dans une excel-
Confession de
presentee unanimement au
au Roi Huneric par toute I'Eglise d'Afrique. Ce temoignage produit par un aussi grand Theologien,
par cette scavante Eglise, n'ayant point ete reproche par les heretiques, et au contraire etant conet
firme par le sang de tant de martyrs, et encore par

tant
de miracles, dont cette Confession de foi fut suivie, est une demonstration de la Tradition, du
moins de toute I'Eglise d'Afrique, I'une des plus illusOn trouve meme dans S. Cyprien tres du monde.
une
allusion manifeste a ce passage, qui a passe natu;
rellement dans notre Vulgate
et
confirme
la
Tradi-
Je suis, &tc. tion de tout rOccident. " J. Benigne, Eveque de Meaux." Such is the state of the argument, so far as the
authenticity of
The Verse depends on

in its favour,
the
general
prepossession, the Greek original.

It
before the impression of

adversaries of
certainly imposes on
the
The
Verse, the obligation of attack.

their principal
The
its
following are
authenticity, and arguments against the principal anwers to them. VI. They say, that there is hardly a library in Europe, in which the Manuscripts of the Greek Tes-
tament have not been examined, in order to deter-
342
butler's historical
really
OUTLIISTE:
mine whether The Verse

pen of St John
;
proceeded from the and that the result of this long and
is,
laborious examination
that of
all
the
Greek manu-
of which scripts of the Cathohc Epistles, now extant, more than a hundred have been quoted by name,
independently of those which have been quoted the aggregate, (as where Dr Griesbach, Professor
Birch, or Professor Alter speak, at large, of all the manuscripts they have seen), the passage has been
the Codex Montdiscovered in one manuscript only, fortianus, which is neither of sufficient antiquity nor
of sufficient integrity, to be entitled to a voice in a question of sacred criticism.

This, the advocates of
mit
but
The Verse
generally ad-
now extant, there
reply that, though no such manuscript be existed formerly Greek manuscripts,
which contained The Verse, for which they cite those, which were in the possession of Valla, the
Complutensian
editors,
and Robert Stephens.
VII. With respect to the manuscripts of Valla ; the advocates of The Verse assert, that Valla had
seven Greek manuscripts of the 1st Epistle of St John, and that all his manuscripts exhibited The
Verse.
They
observe, that
it
was
his plan to
in his annotations, those passages, in
mark, which the Vul-
gate receded
notice,
in in
from the Greek
that
he takes no
his
annotations, of the
omission of
The
Verse, any of his manuscripts ; from which they it was contained in them all. that infer,
343
The
adversaries of
The Verse
reply,
that
we
are
ignorant of the number of manuscripts which Valla used, and of his plan of annotation ; that, though it
be probable he had seven Greek manuscripts, which exhibited St John's Gospel, ch. vii. v. 29. where he expressly mentions that number of manuscripts, it does not appear, and it is highly improbable, he
should have the hke
number of Greek manuscripts

St John;
that
of the
1st
Epistle of
The Verse
might have been wanting in the Latin text, with which he made his collation ; that he might studiously have
avoided a remark, which,

in
and the times

posed him
that
which he
;
lived,
it is
country might have exhighly probable
in the
to persecution
that
some or other of
his manuscripts
titles
;
have been
quoted under different contains The Verse, and
that
no manuscript
is
that,
of course, there
the
probability of none of his manuscripts having contained it, as there is that we are now in possess-
same
ion of
some
or other
of his manuscripts.
adversaries of
FroiA
these circumstances, the

infer, that
The Verse
its
nothing near to a conclusion in
favour
can be drawn from his silence respecting the passage

in his manuscripts.
It is
observable that
Mr Archdeacon Travis objects

when he was pressed by
heavily to Erasmus, that,
Lee, with the contents of Valla's manuscripts, he attempted to bear him down by other arguments,
but did not deny that
The Verse was
to
be found
in
344
the

manuscripts of Valla, which manuscripts
the
archdeacon
But
asserts, were in Erasmus's possession. the archdeacon appears to have been mistaken
;
in this supposition
la's
',
Erasmus was
it
the editor of Val-
no where appears that he commentary was in possession of Valla's manuscripts, and he himbut
self asserts
the contrary.
Such
are the obligations
of literature to Erasmus, that
men
of letters should
eagerly rise in
is
his defence,
whenever they think he
unjustly accused.
VIII. With respect to the manuscripts used BY the CoiiPLUTENsiAN EDITORS ; The Polyglott
Alcala or Complutum, under the Bible, printed patronage, and at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes,
at
was begun
in
1502
the whole impression of
it
was
cer-
finished in 1517, and published in

tain that the cardinal
1522.
in
It is
spared no expense
procuring
whether he had any that were The Verse truly valuable, has been much doubted. %as its place in this edition ; from which its advomanuscripts
;
but,
cates infer, that
it
was exhibited by
all,
or at least
the greatest part of the manuscripts used
by the
Complutensian
editors.
This inference
Verse.
is
denied by
the adversaries of
The
They
contend, that,
from the deference, which the Complutensian editors had for the Vulgate, they were honestly persuaded, that The Verse was genuine, and therefore inserted,
and thought themselves warranted in inserting in their text, a translation of it from the Latin. This^
345
they say, appears clearly from the dispute between the former in the bitterest Stunica and Erasmus ;
terms, reproached the
latter
with the omission of

;
The
Verse,
in his
printed
edition
Erasmus, with
Stunica to produce a equal vehemence, challenged in Greek manuscript support of The Verse ;
single
Stunica did not cite

sisted
in
single
manuscript, but per-
the Latin. urging the authority of
This,
Mr Archdeacon Travis owns

for satisfactorily.
himself unable to account
IX. With respect

scripts
of the case, to per; explain sons unacquainted with Stephens's celebrated edition
this part
To
to
Robert Stephens's manu-
Greek Testament, which gives rise to the and which was the edition publishpresent question, ed by him in 1550, it is necessary to observe that
of the
the text of
it is
a re-impression of the fifth edition of

alterations.
Erasmus, with a few
margin, the Complufrom various readings quotes Stephens
In the
tensian edition, and from fifteen
Greek manuscripts, from the King's libraborrowed were which of eight six were procured from various quarters, and
ry,
one was collated
in Italy.
The Complutensian
denoted,
text
and the
fifteen
copies he
when he
cited
various readings from them, by the Greek numerals The copy ', he quotes far as fifteen. 'j ^'. y\ as
like throughout the whole New Testament, because, other printed editions, the Complutensian edition,
which
it
denotes, contains the whole.
Of his
fifteen
346
BUTLER
HISTORICAL OUTLINE.
in manuscripts, he quotes some in one part, some another ; but none throughout the whole New Testament. In the Cathohc Epistles, Stephens has quoted
only seven manuscripts, which he denotes by the numerals S\ i. ^'. 6\ l. tA, ty', of which the four marked
^',
',
C'
6'
'>
three
<,
were from the King's hbrary, and the other iy\ were among the six which he had
the disputtext, h rZ oupxf^,
v, 7.
ci
procured elsewhere. At the 1 John ed passage stands thus in Stephens's

e "ûTifp, t
iio-i-
Xcyoi-, vmi
to aytov
wvry.ctoe,
iv
x< outoi
rpiti (*
KXi rpui
etTiv ci
/n^xorvpeuvref
Ttj yfj
Stephens has quoted the seven with an obelus prefixed. mentioned, manuscripts just
In the margin,
according to his plan of annotation, when any word or number of words is omitted in the quoted
Now,
manuscript, he expresses it by placing in his text, an obelus before the first word, and a little crotchet in
the shape of a semicircle, and of the size of a comma, after the last word. At the place in question,
is set before , which precedes -f ovpavS, and the semicircle immediately after oupxfc;^ 5 so that " by this notation the words r^ odpav^', and not the
the obelus
whole passage, are represented as absent from these

seven manuscripts. But, as compositors are not inreference are frequently placed of and marks fallible,
wrong, through various accidents

edition of
in
printing,
this
Robert Stephens had not been pubhshed many years, when Lucas Brugensis suspected, that Stephens's compositor had here made a mistake, and

that he ought to have
cu^v9, but after yij, that
347
set
is,
the
crotchet, not after
after the last
word of the
controverted passage, and not after the third ; for, even in the sixteenth century it was well known, that
the
Greek manuscripts, in general, omitted the whole passage ; but no one, either before or since the time of Robert Stephens, has ever seen a Greek
manuscript which omitted the three first words only. This, however, was not admitted by the advocates
of
The
Verse,
who
is
still
scripts, as authority, not
quoted these seven manuindeed for the whole pas-
sage, but, what

necessity, for at
of some importance in a case of least three quarters of it. About a
hundred years after the time of Lucas Brugensis, Simon examined all the Greek manuscripts in the library of the king of France, and found that not
only
"
T9 eipxv^^ but that

y 'i?
all
the following words, as
yv were absent from them all ; and, as of the four out seven, which Stephens has quoted at 1 John V. 7. had been borrowed from this hbrary,
far as
though Simon did not attempt to determine what particular four, he concluded, that Stephens's representation
at that passage was inaccurate. To argument, the patrons of Stephens's semicircle had recourse to the hypothesis, that the eight
evade
this
manuscripts, which, in the time of Robert Stephens,
belonged to the king's library, were no longer there, and even that they were no longer in existence; a
position, which,
though wholly incapable of defence,
30
348
is
indispensably necessary for those,

is
who
maintain,
that the semicircle

scripts
set right,
because the manuin
which
still
exist,
both in Paris and
other
places, decide against them.

post,
From
this
untenable
Le
they were driven, a few years afterwards, by Long, who, in 1720, undertook to determine the
eight
particular
manuscripts, in the royal library,
which had been used by Robert Stephens, and consequently four out of the seven, which are quoted at
1
John
V. 7.
in
described
The eight manuscripts he imperfectly the Journal des Sfavans for June 1720;
but he gave a more complete and accurate account of them in the edition of his Bihliotheca Sacra, which
was published
author.
in
1723, soon after the death of the
From
circle
this time, the
appeared
to
to
accuracy of Stephens's semibe given up, and his manuscripts,

authenticity of
as evidence for the
The
Verse, ap-
be wholly abandoned. But, in 1791, Mr peared Archdeacon Travis took a journey to Paris, in order
compare Stephens's quotations from the eight manuscripts, which he had borrowed from the royal
to
those library, with the readings of
on which
Le Long
had
fixed, as the
eight,
which were used by Ste-
phens.
his
own
In this comparison, he found, according to account, that the quotations made by R.
Stephens differed, so frequently, from the readings in Le Long's manuscripts, as to warrant the inference, that these were not the eight, which Stephens
sutler's historical outline.

used.
349
The grounds
of his opinion, he mentions at
length, in the
bon; they
Mr GibMarsh. Mr by of Mr Travis's last the to publication Previously edition of his letters to Mr Gibbon, Mr Marsh in one
sixth edition of his letters to
have been attacked
of his notes to Michaelis, (Vol. II. p. 789), had informed the world, that he had found a Greek manuscript,
marked
. 6.
4.
in
the University of Cambridge,
the public library of which he had discov-
by
ered to be the manuscript which Stephens had quoted the mark, "/', and consequently, one of the seven
in Stephens's edition manuscripts which are quoted of 1550, at 1 John V. 7 ; and at the same time,
induced him to believe, assigned the reasons, which that the manuscript in question had been at Paris,
and that
Stephens
not only including
it
was no other than the manuscript which

ly'.
called
"
Now,
but
all
this
manuscript omits
following
fi
odpciv^,
;
t^ y^
and,
the
words,
all
since
Stephens quotes
his seven manuscripts of the Catholic Epistles for the
same omission,
it
follows, that, as
one of them omit-
Of ted the whole passage, the others did the same. aware well the truth of this inference, Mr Travis was ;
and, in his last edition of his letters to
Mr
Gibbon,
attacked
Mr
Marsh's arguments
in
support of the
identity of the manuscript

ly.
x. G. 4.
and Stephens's
To this Mr
ters to
Mr
Herbert Marsh answered, by "his LetArchdeacon Travis, published in 1795."
350
In this publication,
Mr Marsh
states
the
several
steps which led to the discovery of the identity of the two manuscripts. He estabhshes it by various proofs ; and, by an application of an algebraical theorem to the documents produced by him, he shows, that the
probabihty
is
favour of the identity of the manuscripts to the probability of the contrary, as two nonillions
in
to a unity.
This
is
one of the most curious instances
which have appeared, of the application of mathematical calculation to a critical inquiry. One of the points, principally discussed by Mr Marsh, is, how
far
the inference, deduced from a general and resimilarity, in favour of the identity of
markable
scripts,
is
manu-
cordances
in
all
counteracted by a certain number of disa consideration of the utmost importance,

of manuscripts
;
collations
but
Mr
Marsh's
treatise
abounds with other curious and important remarks, and is a mine of recondite and useful biblical erudition.
nature of this inquiry does not admit of more than this general outline of that part of the controver-
The
from the subject of Robert StePersons to whom the subject phens's manuscripts. is new, would be surprised, in their investigation of
sy,
which
arises
it,
to find that
it
embraces so wide a
field
of inquiry.
Perhaps, nothing has contributed so much to the accurate knowledge, which seems now to be obtain-
ed of the Greek text of the

discussions
to
New
which
The
Testament, as the Verse has given rise.
351
X. Tlie adversaries of The Verse continue the observe that there are many Greek attack
;
they
or the collection manuscripts of the Apostolos, of lessons, read in the Greek churches, from the
and which they call the Apostolos, to diswhich contains tinguish it from the Lectionarium, Now, they observe, the lessons from the Gospels.
Epistles,
that
no one has been able
to discover
The Verse
it is
in
a single manuscript apostolos. The advocates of The Verse observe, that
to
be found
in the first
the apostolos, printed edition of
which appeared at Venice in 1602 ; but the adversaries of The Verse contend, that this does not afford
the
slightest
argument
in
favour of the authenticity

the lessons were
of
The
Verse,
as, in all probability,
printed from the modern Greek had long found its way.
text, into
which
it
XI.
The
adversaries of The Verse further contend,
that it is wholly unknown to any of the Oriental Versions which were made from the
TEXT, while
it
was
in its original purity.
It is totally
unknown
sion
;
to the
it is
manuscripts of the old Syriac verwanting in the new Syriac or Philoxenian

in
version,
which was made
the
beginning of the
sixth century,
at
and collated with Greek manuscripts

in the
beginning of the seventh ; it is wanting also in the Aiabic manuscripts, as well of the
Alexandria,
version printed in the Polyglott, as in that published
30*
352

;
by Erpenlus
it
is
wanting
in
the
Ethiopic,
the
Cophtic, the Sahidic, and the Ai-menian versions. To this, the advocates of The Verse reply, that
all
those versions, except the
Armenian, were made

is
from the Syriac, which, they say,

description.
faulty
beyond
first
That we know
little
is
of the Armenian
version
but that
The Verse
contained in the
at
edition of that version,
pubhshed
1666
from which they
infer, that
Amsterdam, in The Verse was
contained in the manuscript or manuscripts, from
which that edition was printed. We certainly know little of the Armenian version ; but no one has actuVerse in any Arpretended to have seen The
ally
in the manuscript ; and Professor Alter, second volume of his edition of the Iliad, page 85, " Pater Zohmentions his having been informed by
menian
rab
Armenus,
Bibliothecarius Meghitarensium
that
in
insula S.
Lazari Venetiis,"
having examined
many Armenian manuscripts, in the library of his convent, he had not found The Verse in any one of
them.
XII.
IT IS
The
adversaries of
The Verse contend
that
WANTING IN FORTY OF THE MOST ANCIENT This, they MANUSCRIPTS OF THE Latin VERSION.
if say, equipoises,
do not overbalance the authority of those Latin manuscripts in which it is contained. " BibIn 1743, Sabatier published, at Rheims,his
it
liorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, seu vetus

Ttalica, et ceterse
qusecunque
in codicibus
Manuscrip-

tis
353
reperiri
potuerunt, quae
cum
vulgata Latina et
The object of the textu Greco comparantur." work is to restore the text of the ancient Itahc, by cum
putting together the quotations of the Bible, in the works of the ancient Fathers ; where none can be
found, Sabatier su})plies the
chasm from
the Vulgate.
parts of
He
was so fortunate
as to find, in
different
the works of St Augustin, a sufficient

tations, to
number of quofirst
form the whole of the four
chapters,
and likewise the beginning of the fifth. But, when he comes to the seventh verse, this very voluminous
Father,
epistle
who wrote
in
not less than ten treatises on the

deserts
question, suddenly
immediately after
to
fills
this critical place,
him, though he comes again
his
assistance.
This chasm, therefore, Sabatier
up, by
a quotation from Vigilius Tapsensis,
who
that
wrote
at the
end of the
fifth
century.
The adversaries of The Verse urge, the Greek Fathers have never quoted
XIII.
their
it, in
warmest disputes about the Trinity, which they certainly would have done, if the passage had been
known
to them ; and this, they observe, is the more remarkable, as they often quote and dwell upon the sixth and eighth verses in succession, without once
mentioning or even slightly alluding to the seventh This is one of the strongest parts of the verse.
cause of the adversaries of

cates have
little
The
it,
Verse.
Its
it
advo-
to reply to
except that
no more, than that
The Verse
proves did not exist in the
354
Fathers used ; that many works copies, which those written by those Fathers, and many other works
written at the
and that
all
same time, have not come down to us ; The Verse might have been mentioned in
or one of these.
or
some
The Verse urge the same argument from the silence of the Latin Fathers till the fourth century. Here, they are met by the advocates of The Verse, who contend
XIV. The
adversaries of
that,
not quoted, it is expressly referred to by several of the earhest Latin Fathers ; TertuUian and St Cyprian. The adver-
though
The Verse
is
particularly
saries of the
Verse reply, that none of these passages

seventh verse, but refer to the eighth
interpreting the Spirit, the blood,
refer to the
verse,
by mystically
and the water, mentioned in that verse, of the FathGhost. They dwell much er, the Son, and the Holy
on a passage of St Augustin,
" the says, that
Spirit,
which he expressly the blood, and the water, may

in
be understood, without any absurdity, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," an expression, which, most assuredly, St Augustin would never have used,
if
he had been aware of the seventh verse. It is certain that The Verse is mentioned
to the
in
St
Jerome's Preface
Canonical Epistles
first
but the
authenticity of these prefaces,
suspected
Erasmus,
dictine
given up by monk, and almost

is
Dom
all
Martianay, the
writers.
by Bene-
modern
BUTLER'S HISTORICAL OUTLINE.
355
adversaries of The Verse thus account THE INTERPOLATION OF IT INTO THE TEXT OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. The mystical mterpretation of
for
XV. The
the 8th verse, which
some of the
the
fathers
adopted,
was, as they allege, frequently inserted

mentaries, and sometimes
in
in their
com-
margin of their
copies
text
it
;
;
by degrees
it
it
it
insensibly
came
shd from the margin into the to be considered as part of
at first,
sometimes
in
appeared sometimes in one form, and another, and was inserted sometimes
before, and sometimes after the eighth verse ; at length the dignity of the subject gave it a precedence over the eighth verse ; and thus it came to be con-
sidered as the seventh verse of the chapter.

bly
it
Proba-
had gained a place in no manuscript, as part of the text, till some time after the death of St Au;
gustin
and the eighth century

its final
may be
considered
Latin text.
into the
as the era of
settlement in the
it
From
Greek.
the Latin text
was transplanted
At the general council of Lateran, held in The 1215, The Verse was quoted from the Greek.
Vulsent
acts of the council, with the quotation of the

gate,
to
were translated
into
the
Greek
and
the
Greek churches.
About
a century after
this period, the
the
first
Greeks began to quote The Verse ; Greek writers who have quoted it, are
Manuel
and
it
CaUecas,
who
lived
in
the
fourteenth^
j
and Bryennius,
is
ivho lived in the fifteenth century
observable, that,
when
the passage
first
356
appeared
BUTLER
in
HISTORICAL OUTLINE.
it
Greek,
presented
itself
first
under as
its
many
different
shapes, as
when
it
made
ap-
pearance
line
in Latin.
XVI. This, perhaps, may be considered an
out-
of the history of the controversy respecting this celebrated Verse. It has the merit of having rendered invaluable services to the biblical criticism of sacred text.
It
the
has led to a minute discus-
sion of several curious and interesting topics of lite-
rary history, particularly the rules for judging of the age of manuscripts, the nature of manuscript collations, the different merits of the principal editions of
the
Old and
New
Testament, the early versions of
by whom they were
them, and the characters of the different persons, A full and edited or pubhshed.
complete history of the controversy, which should enter, at large, into all its particulars, would be an
invaluable acquisition to literature.
Considering Mr Archdeacon Travis was a mere novice in biblical criticism, when he first engaged in
the controversy, he performed wonders
his misfortune to
;
but
it
was
combat with
giants.
which appears argument be satisfactorily answered, is its having a place in the confession of faiih presented by the Mr Porson has treated African bishops to Huneric.
principal
in its favour,
The
not to
this
argument with abundance of wit
but
it
seems
to deserve a
more
serious treatment.
It is
not neces-
sary to suppose, as
Mr
Porson humourously says,
BUTI.ER
HISTORICAL OUTLINE.
357
that each of the four

in
If
hundred bishops had a Bible his pocket, and the useful place doubled down. there were such a number of copies exhibiting
Verse, as induced the bishops to adopt
it
The
into
the confession of faith, this fact would afford strong
ground
to contend, that
it
was inserted
in the copies
then generally in use.
This circumstance, therefore, may be thought to deserve further investigation ; and a more complete examination of the manuscripts in the royal library
at Paris, is much to be desired ; in other respects the topics of argument respecting the authenticity of
this celebrated
Verse, appear to have been exhausted.
END OF THE SECOND VOLUME.
CAMBRIDGE
1823.
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, BY HILLIARD AND METCALF.
COLLECTION
OF
ESSAYS AND TRACTS

IN
THEOLOGY.
VOL.
II.
CONTENTS
OF
THE SECOND VOLUME.
DANIEL WHITBY.
Biographical notice.
-
Preface
......
LAST THOUGHTS.
21
SECT.
I.
Proofs from Scripture.^ that the JVature and Powers of Christ were derived from the Father -
33
SECT.
The Scriptures teach
the Father,
II.
that Christ is
a distinct Being
to
from
and subordinate
him
39
SECT.
In what Sense Christ
III.
may
be called
God
53
SECT.
IV.
-
On
the
Faith necessary for Salvation
63
VI
CONTENTS.
SECT.
V.
Strange Consequences of the Doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same Being
85
SECT.
Explanation of certain
have been supposed Father and Son
to
VI.
Texts in the Gospel, which
prove
-
the Identity
-
of
the
-
94
SECT.
Texts in the Epistles considered
VII.
-
112
FRANCIS HARE.
Biographical notice
-
123
on the difficulties and discouragements which attend the study of the scripTURES
143
SIR ISAAC
Biographical notice
NEWTON.
-
>
193
AN historical ACCOUNT OF TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

SECT.
I.
On
the
Text of
the
Three Heavenly Witnesses
235
CONTENTS.
Vll
SECT.
II.
On
the
Text concerning the Mystery of Godliness manifest in the Flesh
291
CHALRES BUTLER.
HISTORICAL OUTLINE OF THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE TEXT OF THE THREE
HEAVENLY WITNESSES
323
AGENTS
FOR llECEIVING SUBSCUIPTIONS FOR
THIS COLLECTION
OF
ESSAYS AND TRACTS IN THEOLOGY.
MAINE.
Portland,
Samuel Johnson
PENNSYLVANIA.
Philadelphia, A. Small
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Portsmouth, Concord, Keene,
J.
MARYLAND.
E.
J.
W. Foster
B. Moore
Baltimore,
JV.
Coale S^ Co. G. Maxwell
J.
J. Prentiss
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Washington, Georgetown,
Norfolk, Richmond,
P. Thompson
MASSACHUSETTS.
-T
i
James Thomas
Christopher Hall
J.
Charles Whipple
Newburyport,Jj^^^^^,^,^^^
Salem,
^
VIRGINIA.
H.
JVash'
Gushing k. Jlppleton
Henry Whipple
William Hilliard C. Harris Charles Williams
S. Butler
Cambridge, Worcester, Greenfield, Northampton,

Springfield,
NORTH CAROLINA.
Newbern,
Raleigh, Fayetteville,
Salmon Hall
Joseph Gales
I.
M'Rea
A. G. Tannatt
SOUTH CAROLINA.
Charleston, Columbia,
./.
RHODE
Providence,
George
ISLAND. Dana
John Mill W. Arthur
GEORGIA.
CONNECTICUT.
New Haven,
Hoive
&.
Spalding,
W. T. Williams Savannah, E. S/- H. Ely Augusta, Milledgeville, Ginn fy Curtis
NEW
York, Albany, Canandaigua,
Utica,
YORK.
J.
J.
KENTUCKY.
Lexington,
Lol'isville,
New
Easlburn <^ Co. E. F. Backus
William G. Hunt
J. Collins, jr.
*
D. Bemis &, Co. William Williams
ALABAMA.
Mobile,
Littlefield,
Davenport,Sf Co.
NEW
Trenton,
JERSEY.
CANADA.
Montreal,
H. H. Cunningham
D. Fenton

1 - Newton - History of Two Corruptions of Scripture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 - Newton - History of Two Corruptions of Scripture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

ESSAYS AND TRACTS

Biographical notice, History of two corruptions of scripture,

193 235 321

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

In the annals of the

names of ment and

the boast of then- species,

extraordinary man, of his

character, his disall

coveries and their influence, would be to analyze

such arduous and ven-

whose objects are so elevated.

Newton was born

months before he was born, and

of an apothecary, whose brother was usher of the

his thoughts ran

his regular exercises,

and that during the hours of

ing miniature models and machines of wood.

clock, kept in motion

hours on a dial-plate at kites, to which were attached

paper lanterns, and one of his favourite amusements

in the night, to the consternation

the neighbouring inhabitants.

articles of furniture for his

have invented and executed a vehicle

with four wheels, on which he could transport himself

from one place

another by turning a windlass.

walls of the house, which indicated the

of a curious construction, by fastening pegs in the hours and

half hours of the day.

his fondness for these

needed the assistance of her

she took him

the affairs of the farm.

business he was devoted for a year or two,

interest in the pursuit, that his

er soon found her agricultural concerns

business to go to the produce of the farm, but in executing this charge

was one part of his Grantham market and dispose of

his diligence, nor

love of his duties.

task of finding a purchaser and

usually entrusted to the enterprise of a servant, and

At home, the farm same way as the

the care of others,

was neglected, or left to while the mind of its nominal

superintendent was invoking the genius of invention,

roaming the fields of philosophy, or exploring the regions of hidden nature.

mathematical powers of the

strong predilection for the natural sciences, this great

nor to lend assistance where

Barrow became not only

teacher, but his sincere friend

and few were the

better able to teach, or

whose friendship was more Newton's mind soon turned

and he read with avidity the works

modern geometers then

Euclid himself he studied but

which others are