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.

J

.

.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

which indicated the of a curious construction. and as she needed the assistance of her to son. little but with so interest in the pursuit. or left to while the mind of its nominal superintendent was invoking the genius of invention. but in executing this charge was one part of his Grantham market and dispose of his hands. was neglected. in the managed much produce at the At home. nor admired love of his duties. The important task of finding a purchaser and making his a bargain. and he at but a distinlength maintained not only a reputable. To this business he was devoted for a year or two. by fastening pegs in the hours and half hours of the day.NEWTON. reading books. 17* . and his own time was passed in early haunts at the apothecary's house. guished standing in the school. the farm same way as the It itself was its sale of market. the care of others. she took him home manage the affairs of the farm. 195 walls of the house. or planning machines. he usually entrusted to the enterprise of a servant. till it was announced that the time of his return had arrived. that his mothlike- er soon found her agricultural concerns ly to were not flourish in business to go to the produce of the farm. It he is neither to be for a applauded for his diligence. In the mean time his mother's second husband died. 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.

the 5th of June. or exploring the regions of hidden nature. so favourable for drawing out age. So unpromising were the prospects of making him a farmer. not be long in discovering so bright a which then began to dawn in his col- his greatness. and.196 NEWTON. with a modesty and good temper equal to he would not be slow to encourage the nor to lend assistance where tainments. be desired. especially . roaming the fields of philosophy. mathematical powers of the highest order. this great man would lege genius as that . who were better able to teach. that Dr Barrow was at that time fellow of Trinity College. his adviser and teacher. his success was was not among the least equal fortunate circumstances to Newton. and improving his pecuhar It talents. in the eighteenth year of his In this situation. that his mother resolved to yield to his propensities. on school. into the channel of his and he read with avidity the works in of the modern geometers then vogue. scholar. Cambridge. 1660. and was then entered at Trinity College. To and put him in the way of being a this end he was again sent to Grantham At Grantham he resided nine months. or to whose friendship was more Newton's mind soon turned favourite studies. it could advance his at- Barrow became not only . but his sincere friend and few were the men of his time. and a strong predilection for the natural sciences. ardour with which the young student was animated. With to his advantages.

With these endowments from aids in his reach. were to him self-evident truths. he passed over at a single stride. first It the last year of this period that he was during detected the which more of principles of the Fluxional Analysis. Saunderson. remarked of him. The wide distance. he appears to have been engaged in optical researches. sitions. had purchased a prism . which required elaborate demonstrations to bring them out of the mists of doubt. in their entrance to the profound sciences of numbers and Propogeometry. that mathematical attainments was unall we these on his side. He His attention was particularly occupied to devise is in attempting . some method of improving telescopes and that at this time he it known. that while yet an undergradu- ate at the university he should conceive one of the sublimest inventions of human genius.NEWTorf. and for some months after. that he gave no time to the more elementary books usually put into the hands of begimiers. Euclid himself he studied but partially. he saw at once the process and result demonstration. It is Kepler. at which time. will hereafter be said. took the degree of bachelor of arts in the year 16G4. for by a glance of the eye at the enunciation and diaof the gram. which others are forced to traverse with slow and painful steps. but with ought not to be surprised. and with the progress in exampled . Descartes. his nature. and make them evident to other minds. we can hardly reahze the fact. 197 and Wallis.

198 NEWTON- with the design of making experiments to try DescarThe next year after he was tes' theory of colours. with the world of unexplored nature before him. would not be It was during this season of seclusion. and that tendency is . and is it natural to suppose. at his own home in the In this retirement he spent nearly two years. mind to search for the to the earth . that on every is part of the earth's surface there a tendency in this bodies to to its centre. that he idle. and immediately called out cause. incident. these inquiries were interrupted. caught the dawning hints of his great discovery of gravitation. he was led into a train of reflections. graduated. by what laws directed By ? what power is These were the questions. occupied apple fell passing a solitary hour in a in philosophical musings. that a mind like his. Newton was one day garden. and swaying the opinions of men. which he asked himself. the origin of which is among the most striking illustrations of the force of accident in de- veloping the genius. it quickened the inquiring his of Newton. although he could not answer them. which ultimately carried him to the highest of human attainments. Trifling as spirit when an was this from a tree near him. The fact had been well fall established. and.'' Why should an apple fall Why it should any other body fall? impelled. and take refuge country. and he was compelled to leave Cambridge on account of the plague.

he ascertained. would keep the moon in its It orbit. become weaker. Pursuing this train By comparirg the periods of the planets. which causes this gravitating tendency. this power must act by a fixed law. that if they were actually held in their orbits by a power like that of gravitation on instituted a calculation.'' Why not to the moon.NEWTON. yet at a point so far distant as the sibly mooc. it He went through a rigorous computation. and the other celestial if so. or should force. whether a power. was unsuccess- the results did not correspond with observation . Hereafter it will be seen. as well as the motions of bodies less distant from the centre of the Not that it is necessary. and produce its several motions. with their several distances from the sun. bodies And why may not their motions be in some way influenced by this power. he the earth's surface. acting by such a law. that he power . and he was not encouraged to prosecute his labours. everywhere be the same . that the tendency. and the summits of high mountains. reach beyond the remotest points of the earth's surface ? . it may posof thought. as the tops of lofty buildings. Why then should not the power. squares of the dis- and decrease in proportion as the tances of the gravitating bodies increase. did not appear that the moon was actuated by such a . but ful it . for although it is not sensibly diminished on any part of the earth's surearth ? face. however. 199 not perceptibly diminished by ascending to different elevations. only remained to determine.

and NEWTON. From these appearances he drew the conclusion. nevertheless. to About the same time he returned two years he had been more or Cambridge. and the violet at the other. engaged For in his less optical experiments. in lar. Wearied with ill success. It passing through the prism. He look for granted. whatever figure he gave to his lens. were equally rewhich case the spectrum ought to be circu- was. the image was still defective. and the brilliancy of the colours which it exhibited. that the rays in passing through the prism are not equally refracted. that the rays of light. the red uniformly appearing at one end. in fracted. and to this. He observed. moreover. took himself to experiments with his In these prism. although only at intervals during his retirement. invariably oblong. experiments he was struck with the oblong form of the spectrum. himself in grinding lenses of al elliptical improve he employed and parabolicin passing forms. for. ter In the year 1667 Newton took his degree of masof arts. His was to primary object accomplish the telescope . that the colours were regularly arranged. that he had akeady discovered the great law of the universe. tive. he desisted from the labour of and begrinding lenses.200 was deceived. hoping thus to correct the indistinctness of figure produced by the aberration of rays His attempts proved aborthrough a spherical lens. but those com- posing each colour are refracted in a different angle . and was elected fellow of his college.

the first of which is now in the pos- session of the Royal Society. 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 great discovery to be extensive most the of application. 201 ed. from those of any other colour. ment received the name of the Newtonian telescope. This called the refrangibUity of light. for he found by computation. He despaired of conquering this double difficulty. and was the foundation of all the great improvements In a letter to Oldenburg. and the image would scarcely be more distinct. and are thus separatIt hence followed. as there are distinct colours in the spectrum. the different refrangibility would re- main. that light is composed of rays of as many different colours. than refraction through a spherical lens. since susceptible it is intimately concerned with all the phenomena of Newton soon perceived light and colours.NEWTON. if a figure could be so formed as to correct the errors still of refraction. This kind of instru- which have since been made. that the different refrangibility of light contrib- uted several hundred times more to produce this effect. a plan of a refracting telescope was suggested by . this He description. and that the rays of each colour are refracted is in a certain uniform angle. Hence. He discovered the mistake under which he had laboured respecting the cause of the imperfection of telescopes .

in KEWTON." . reflection. There is no colour where there is no light.es matic. and this shows that colour an accident. The was not lost . in is both refracted and reflected. discovery in was his explanation of the phenom- ena of colours. over because the another. of a poet. and not a property inherent in matter. In almost all the fixed colours of opaque bodies. the causes of natural objects. He most ingenious manner. which the errors of refrangibility might be corrected by passing the rays of hght through substances possessing different dispersive powers. But there is no evi- dence. it refracting telesco^'.202 Newton. transparent covering on th? curfaces of bodies. Newton has In the language explained its cause and its nature. configuration of prevails the particles on which light falls is such. has been so far improved. that there is a thin. as to absorb by this nearly all the rays except of one kind. in a He all rnalysed the rainbow. produc- One colour process different colours. refraction. various colours in By a series of he was led which Hght ing curious experiments and philosophical deductions. and inflection. are is concerned. that have been made perfectly achro- One of the most remarkable results of Newton's light. so that the refraction of one should be counteracted by the opposite refraction of another. he " untwisted all the shining robe of day. that he carried hint this plan into execution. to the conclusic::. laid open. th3 three principal properties of hght.

"* In short. 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.NEWTON. 18 . his patron. as he wished to devote himself more exclusively to theology. Dr Barrow. at the resolution was passed Second to forward a description of II. however. which nature has so kindly spread over the surface of the visible known world. " he made the texture of the magic garment. 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. and thus gradually first three matured his new discoveries into a system. and established on the principles of truth and reason. Newton was elected a member of the Royal Soci- time he was chosen. who happily pursued the figure so beautifully started. 3. While thus successfully going forward in the march of discovery. Part sect. That he might. in But 1669. cessor. that a ety in and. he concluded to resign his professorship. and in the 203 words of a philosopher. it Playfair's Dissertation. the science of optics was so completely renovated by Newton. So highly was it approved. that some degree the intenseness with which he had pros- ecuted his researches. complete what he had so successfully begun. had been appointed professor of mathematics at Cambridge. that he be considered as having been its may author. a teles1672. sent him was exhibited for the inspection by cope of the society.

but this was the profoundest mysteries first occasion on which he had appeared before the employed for nearly ten years public as a writer. that he sometimes repented of having jeopardthe world with truths. Newton was now more than thirty years old. and had been in developing the of nature. and then by Pardies. optician. Gascoigne. His theory met with a chilling opposition from almost every quarter. Newton gave intimations of discoveries to which he had been conducted in optics. and the bitterness of others. He was first attack- ed by Hooke. Being once . These proved his new theory of light At the earnest solicitation never as yet made public. and which he proposed to submit to the consideration of that learned body. 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. Huygens.204 to NEWTON. In a letter read by Oldenburg shortly after to the Society. which he had to were immediately printed in their Transactions. the celebrated philosopher and might be secured to its that the invention true author. and other writers on the continent. his papers on these subjects be no other. Lucas. and he was so much disturbed at the petulance and peevishness with which he was by ignorance in the garb of pretended knowledge. of the Royal Society. he was so much vexed by the narrowassailed ness and jealousy of some. which receive. than and colours.

till at length it gave a new aspect to the science of optics. and He was at last settled his theory triumphant on a basis which has never been moved. says. 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. enlisted. and he replied promptly to every animadversion from a respectahle source. since the apple in Twelve years had passed away the garden had carried up his thoughts to the cause . 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. which was pubUshed against him. over all opposition.NEWTON. that he absolutely refused to publish his Optical Lectures. my imprudence quiet. which were then ready for the press . He was of motives . It may justly com- applause as the evidence of a pacific and unassuming temper. other science set. nor did they see the hght till more than thirty years afterwards." This remark sufficiently indi- cates the reluctance with which he forced himself to combat prejudice and passion. to for parting with so real a blessing as my run after a shadow. it 205 his spirit to shrink did not accord with from the contest. In alluding to this " I blamed he own controversy. and best qualified to understand it. So foreign were such controversies from his dis- position and feehngs. no more than a shadow.

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

or the light of genius. or an external pressure. whose he defendphilosophy ed with an ingenuity and of a better eloquence worthy subject. whether he supin the centre of the imiverse. But it is doubtful. was detected. which he supposed to De Rerum Natura. the cement of nature. are not to understand. heavens and the earth. It is not certain that the ancients had any distinct notions of a power like that of gravity. in its demonstration. 18* . Lufor- cretius. 207 and more important in its results. and its rules of action developed and made appKcable to the highest purposes of science. in his romantic account of the origin and mation of the world.NEVVTOK. than any which has ever yielded to the force of indusThe law which governs the try.* cretius is mentioned. power as This was conjec- tured long before. Copernicus had some obscure notions of a gravitating principle In the earth. and operates in poses these effects to be produced by an internal Lupower of attraction. has some fanciful allusions to a kind of principle. the uniting principle of the universe. after all. Lib. because he to allowed be may have spoken the sense of the large and flourishing sect of the Epicureans. that We Newton was the first. V. who imagined the existence of such a attraction between natural bodies. but no one had been able to prove the fact. which keeps the earth self-balanced some manner in the the motions of inexplicable producing stars.

he went not beyond the Hooke advanced confines of probability. Newton's discovery embraces . exists. Take these away. that Kepler assigned to it a reciprocal influence among the several planets. and supposed that an attracting power not only existed in the earth. it through the regions that if such a power to must act in proportion the distance of the body. secondly. and that Dr farther. principle pervades law by which this principle acts. that he even assigned to the planets a sort of animating. 9 . Lib. Revol. Cap. and preserve them spherical forms. that the ancients had no conception of a gravitating power . self-directing principle. and no conjectures about attraction could ever '^ all matter tiam Equidem existimo gravitatem non aliud esse quam appetenquandam naturalem. He calls it a kind of nat- ural appetency* Kepler went one step farther. I. C(rL Orb. that Copernicus supposed it to extend not beyond the body of each planet . two essential particulars first. and the quantity of matter. but that it might reach to the moon and other planets. but in estabUshing the existence of such a power. that an attracting the . by which they were endowed with a sympathy for one another and enabled of space. the fact.208 exist also in the stars in their NEWTON. From this brief sketch it appears. and planets. but knew nothing of its nature or laws of action. De. as gravity to make their way Dr Hooke found out. and that they might reciprocally attract each other. To such extravagant lengths did his fancy lead him.

of philoso- or rather phizing recommended by Lord Bacon his own mode. as well as on every other. Lib.NEWTON. General. and hence the profound investigations into which his sublime geomQuicquid enim ex phaenomenis non canda est .* This axiom he never deserted. which does not rest on observation or experiment. who reduced it to practice. deducifiir. they literally compared with done nothing. as he made it peculiarly his own by being the first. hypothesis vo- et hypotheses seu metaphysics. discoveries. to He solved the most difficult problems pertaining the motions of the heavenly bodies. immovable basis of demonkey of they put in our hands the great profited . a fundamental axiom. III. the With a this law at command. Schot. in They were tapers guiding the meridian sun career of his glory. be converted to a single practical use. Newton constructed new system of the world. In all his inquiries on these subjects. and that no hypothesis is to be admitted as estabhshing a fact. he rigidly pursued the mode . seu physics. tlie 209 But now they are settled on stration. Newton undoubtedly had as far as he could by what others had done his but. . that nothing With him is it was to be assumed as a principle. in philosophia experiraenta- locum nou kabent. and explained the celestial phenomena in a manner at once simple and satisfactory. seu li mechanics. seu qual- itatiim occultariun. Principia. and gave it a prevalence in the world. nature.

propositions relating who visitpaper attracted the attention of Dr Halley. p. which Newton gave of sent discoveries. «mbrassoit I'univers entier. f. and took their dimensions. that he should not be deceived nor misled. He explained the lunar irregularities. and ascertained their motions much and influence on each other.210 etry carried him. . to the was in 1G83. his researches with brilliant success to the eccentric orbits and erratic motions of the comets. which had all baffled former astronomers. were clothed with the same certain- ty. He walked among the planets.ants in these high departments of astronomy. solved the of the equinoxperplexing problem of the precession and extended the of the causes illustrated tides. No man was better qualified to understand and es- timate them. and became fully acquainted with his novel and astonishing attainn. and measured their periods.* The these first public intimation. NEWTON. and he extorted a promise from Newton. Tom. when he a short paper Royal Society containing a dozen This to the planetary motions. par Pi7igr^. with as the ocean security as the mariner traverses . ie vaste genie de Newton Comttographie. 148. he suggested and demonstrated the true figure of the earth. as the results of humble and obvious calculations. ed Newton at Cambridge the year following. that he would make farther communications to the * Lorsque la comcte de 1680 parut. es. with his compass and he went forward with equal assurance.

although est efforts of it ranks among the highat first human genius. and remind ise. was not it with so much applause as greeted deserved. especially when such a faith is met by preju- dice on the one hand. him of his prom- The consequence was. who would see and confess nothing it was their pride to be sceptics as to the new phiof the multitude. It was put to press by order of the Royal Society under the superintendence of Dr Halley. and on the ISth of April. They had ranged themselves under the popular standard of Ai'istotle and Descartes : they . and as it was destined to receive. This great work. Theory and observation harmonized so perfectly in this constrained to fall system. that to arrange his materials form. losophy. 1686. and a spirit of jealousy on the other. he presented to the Society the manuscript of the Philosophic began he immediately into a methodical JVaturalis Principia Mathematica. Royal Society. 211 subsequent meetappointed to cor- Accordingly at a Dr Halley and Mr Paget were respond with Newlon. his although they could not go with him to the depths of But the power of old opinions was geometry. that the more impartial were in with the author's conclusions. it and profoundness It is hard does not under- make the world believe what stand. . ing. too strong to suffer the scales to drop from the eyes Many there were in the higher walks of science.NEWTON. Its originality were no doubt obstacles to to its success.

The schools astonished stood. D'Alembert.212 dwelt in a fairy land. that Voltaire spoke truth. but found it vain To combat still with demonstration strong. he interrogated nature It with an authority and success before unknown. NEWTON. its had been It fortunately passed through tardy in the outset. diffidark or was that all let in a flood of light upon ed with cuh The prodigious in the philosophy of Newton. field it was a an untrodden ional analysis opened . but surely. notwithstanding it had cipia been nearly in forty years before the public. and could not descend from the tion the humble sphere of demonstraregion of dreams to and fact. to illustrate The fluxdeepest principles. And. So strong did the current set against Newton's philosophy. dream beneath the blaze Of truth. both by intellectual ascendency and mathematical skill. when he said that the Prin- had not twenty advocates out of England at the time of the author's death. and La Place. conspire to give lustre to . Armits this potent instrument. in the opinion of Playfair. Clairaut. magic wand in the grasp of the mathematician. the Newtonian philosophy was not earlier mally introduced into the universities at an It made its way slowly. the hands of a succession of men eminently qualified. When the new philosophy had once gained progress was as rapid as it a foot- ing abroad. unawakened. achievements of Euler. period. La Grange. And even for- England.

It created it was not limit- ed to the compass of the heavens. chap. its other properties. internal relations. position.* the science of physical astronomy. his lahours have tended to fix it on a After having proved throughout a law Uke that of gravitation. It lets and tells us into the mystery of chemical us all that we know of the compo- sition of bodies. but Newton's discovery did not end here. yet there reason to sup- pose. Tom. he concludes. 2. and he allowed to have discovered the principle on which the operations of " Mpchanique Celeste. 1. Newton made many experiments with chemical is agents to try his theory. we are authorized to believe it the law of nature. the smallest as well as the largest. I. affinities. all the irregularities of explains with rigid precision the celestial motions. . and In this sphere of attraction. attraction pervades all The principle of things. that from this circumstance.NEWTON. it it contiguous not ostensibly observe the called and ahhough does same laws of is action as in the case of remote bodies. their texture. and other accidentsof the particles brought in contact. that this deviation is caused by the figure. and all firmer foundation. 21S La Place. in particular. that his great work. and certainly to his discoveries. and the extreme simplicity of such a law. has gone up with the transcendental calculus to the summit of the Newtonian system. is influence. Newton's fame. Liv.

" Oplics. scruple not to propose the principles of tion above mentioned. while this uni- formity continues. 20. and. Rationem vero harum gravitatis proprietatum ex plia^nome- nondum Lib. III. Princip. in which the causes of physicis * t liis Murray's Chemistry. And. and bringing hidden properties of things.f He was concerned with effects . exploded philosophy. tion it To this objec- was only replied on Newton's part. exemplified the pecuhar character of the Newtonian philosophy. Queri/ 31. after his discussion on contiguous at- " I traction. he says. Introduction. it would add nothing towards confirming the truth of his theory. p. first to light the offered to this theo- by Euler and some its it others. that if such a discovery were made. The law is investigated in its operations. observed. potui deducere. that he did not pretend to have discovered the cause of gravity . the uniformity of these he called a law . they being of very general extent. moand . moreover. the law will remain the same. leave the causes to be found out.214 chemistry depend. thus find him applying his not to discovery explain the machinery of the only universe. Schol. et hypotheses non fingo. it may be or lost by knowing the cause. nothing will be gained And here. but to detect the method of penetrating the We inmost recesses of nature.* NEWTON. Serious objections were at ry. Gen. 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. and while these are subject to a fixed rule.

which involved intricacies. and no more than an be obtained. solely as a means of advancing studies in mathematics and philosophy. till events do not come under the phenomena and laws of understood. a short time before he received his bachelor's degree. however. and the most of these may be applied with equal advantage 19 . which he had invented. that the to first was remarked above. At than slight infinities. his Before this invention. and easily accommodates itself to the conditions of abstruse problems. the mixed mathematics Problems were laboured under great difficulties.NEWTON. al 215 consideration. It embraces all the relations of numbers and quantity. It was frequently impossible so far to simplify the data. as to subject tiiem either to a geometrical or algebraical process. perpetually occurring. but contented himself with using the instrument. that would yield to no powers of calculation then known. that he arrived was two years afterwards. as he tells at the method of fluxions . he attained to nothing more improvements of Dr WaUis's treatise on It us. and even then he published nothing on the subject. especially on the properties of curves and the phenomena of motion. occurred conception of this invention Newton in 1663. effects are explained and We It now come to speak of the fluxional analysis. this period. indefinite approximation of fluxions to truth is could The method free from sources of difficulty.

This dilatoriness making it known Leib- was the cause of nitz. The contest was carried on with warmth between the partizans of these two illustrious philosophers. its to those higher departments of to which he could never ascend without assistance. That Leibnitz had seen in London some of Newton's mathematical papers in manuscript. had already published several in which the principles of fluxions were clearpapers ly laid down. and the only was. a long and sharp controversy. Germany. twenty-four years origin. was the Principia. nor any Fontenelle considerpositive proof to the contrary. and introduces him knowledge. It is throughout the whole circle of the sciences.216 NEWTON. a powerful aid to the researches of the philosopher. but there is no good evidence of his having derived any hints from them on this subject. which might unfold to him the This question has never been completely mystery. ed Newton the as unquestionably the first inventor. answered. and French Academy of Sciences confessed the . In their report that it was decided in the most conclusive manner Newton was question the original inventor. is certain . whether Leibnitz had seen any of of Newton's papers. till at length the Royal Society appointed a committee to investigate the subject to the bottom. which in Newton gave of in this invention. and the mathematicians of the contiin nent claimed for him the honour of the invention. The after its first public notice.

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

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

and Montague wished to profit take by the distin- guished talents of his friend. the king solicitation of appointed him 19* . 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. to enforce his expedient not demand. ed to was among the delegates appointremonstrate to the high commission court. to the duties of his professorship. him a warm and sincere The to great work of a recoinage of money was about place. that when to king James sent a mandamus to the university confer the degree of master of arts on father Francis. and absorb- Scarcely a single incident is known of him. At the the chancellor. It is mentioned as greatly to his credit and as an instance of his firmness of character. during the space of his favourite studies. at that time chancellor of the exchequer.NEWTON. in which he held a seat till that body \v?s dissolved. and afterwards earl of Halifax. and contracted friendship. and that the king thought it He such was the earnestness with which their charge was executed. unconnected with his immediate pursuits and discoveries. Montague. as well as to elevate to an office of dignity and emolument. 219 Our ed in devoted philosopher lived a retired Ufe at Cambridge. thirty years. In 1688 Newton was cho- sen by the university a member of the convention parliament. was educated for at the Mr same college with Newton.

than orated perhaps. he resigned all his duties at Cambridge. In same year Newton was chosen president of the Royal Society.220 him warden of NEWTON. and through his his influence the Whiston was elected his successor. was published 1704. This place yielded him an he retained services annual income of nearly fifteen hundred pounds. and allowed him the whole salary. were of high value and at all When Mr Whiston in this important station. was not probable. and is more diligently elabThe author the Principia itself. way. The book on Optics in readiness for many years. than to prepare for the press his been nearly had which and his Method of Fluxions. and three years afterwards he was raised to the responsible post of master of the mint. 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. times gave the fullest satisfaction. the mint in 1696. of the experimental philosophy. and His it during the remainder of his life. and testifies to the . and two years afterwards the order of knighthood was conferred on him by Queen Anne It in consideration of his extraordinary merit. 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. he made deputy in the professorship of mathIn 1703 ematics. appointed to his office in the mint. optics.

and that ignorance is easily dazzled to blindness by the too sudden light of knowledge. optics The Queries appended to the treatise on for the deep and original thoughts by which they are marked. that truth is no welby the discipline come guest when it comes in the garb of innovation. but his He had been taught of experience. the time of publishing his Method of Fluxions. that " no old man loved mathematics except Dr Wallis. as a challenge to the a proof that neither the quickness of . The facility with which he solved the famous problem sent in the is by Leibnitz English nation. by Dr Samuel Clarke. year 1715. and other English mathematicians. It was carried on by Dr Keill. which experiment and observation have Some of them no doubt he had provsince verified. that they might not be acceptable to a public not yet prepared for their reception. and for the sagacity of have been admired their author in suggesting many probable results in philosophy. which may crown the efforts of It was genius when aided by persevering industry.NEAVTON." It was after this period that the controversy with Leibnitz occurred. induced him to employ this cautious methed. unless for occasional amusement. Newton gave himself but little to the study of From He mathematics. used to say. apprehension. od of making them known. 221 splendid success. translated into Latin. with the approbation of the author. but in this he was not personally engaged.

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. as he was returning fatigued from his labours in the mint. Before he went to bed the solution was completed. ed by neglect. was not more fervent than that with v/hich he inquired for the truths of the spiritual and invisiHe read the scriptures. said of him in his " he was the best divine and commen- . nobler pursuit of unfolding the science of the moral world. A lifetime.222 his genius. and conThe ardour templating the ways of God to man. and settled down into a firm belief of their divine origin and holy import. of the success with which the We may now speak capacious and grasping mind of Newton sought out were spent other treasures of knowledge. pondered their meanble. that person of eminence in the church. As his early years in reading the book of nature with the so his declining scrutinizing eye of a philosopher. ing. At four o'clock in the was impairafternoon he received the problem. mathematical skill. illustrated many of their darker parts. nor his NEWTON. days carried him onward in the still with which he measured the physical and visible heavens. his achievements in the would have elevated him to a commanding station among the most able and erudite divines. In many respects he stood as high in the rank of theologians as of philosophers.

and proves is kingdoms All involved in the utmost uncertainty. and the Greek antiquities are so full of fable. 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. laioY 223 on the Bible he had ever met with.NEWTON. and critics of He begins with a historical sketch former times. and then soon loses itself in utter darkness. and shows in the author an intimate acquaintance with the poets. and It is was not published entire till after his death." sacred history. has been the foible of nations to refer their origin to as remote a period as possible. which hung about It their early history. the very spirit and principle which gave all its stability. historians." And it is a remark of Dr Chalmers. fiction. that " we see in the theology of Newton. and all its sureness. drawn from an immense fund of classical and ancient learning. The Europeans had no chronology before the establishment of the Persian empire. It The and Greek chronologists were addicted to instituted inaccurate modes of reckoning. was so in Greece. and this vanity has usually shown itself in proportion to the obscurity. profane history runs back to tradition. and had the external He was made deeply versed himself master of in all means of understanding the Scriptures. and the . of chronological science from that the chronology of ancient its origin. that no reliance can be placed on first them in fixing dates. years. to the phi- losophy of Newton.

the same exactness of logic. and certainty. the accounts of dates and times are not worthy of credit. The difference of time amounts in general to about three hundred years. in detecting and combining the forcible of an points argument. widely different from any. and assigned to the Greek nation too high an antiquity. in addition to various historical testimony. as in his philosophical researches. which learned moderns have deduced from ancient writers. He Newton undertook to bring light has made it appear that the Greek mode of reckoning was erroneous. On the Grecian mythology he throws much light. and rigid mode of reasoning prevails throughout his chronological treatise. fertility of invention. till the age of Alexander. On a series of arguments estabhshed by astronomical calculations. Grecian writers have been guides to all future chroThe Romans depended on the Greeks for nologists. while in the history of their own nation. 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 . the chronology of the East. he builds a system of chronology. some parts much Out of this chaos.224 NEWTON. and in some The same cautious important events to much more. it had no chronology till the third and fourth centuries. And as for western Europe in general. and in later.

and often expressed her satisfaction. which constitutes more whole work. . The value which the author set upon this treatise. that he commenced the study of chronology and history while at Cambridge. a Abbe its also. that it was her fortune to live in the same age and country with such a man. the commencement of peopling of towns. to At her request. was fond of conversing with Newton. her love of knowledge and her civilities to men of literature and science. have been multiplied from the same original. as a relaxation from his severer pursuits. and desired him to favour her with an abstract of his system. renowned for Queen years of his life. He observes. 225 The work the a cm'ious discussion concerning the earth. first than half of the chapter. of agriculture. idolcloses with first atrous worship. But the treacherous Veneafter tian betrayed his trust he arrived in Paris. With all his horror of controversy he was again driven into it in the latter Caroline. Coiiti. the arts and sciences.NEWTON. a copy was given Venetian nobleman. that the and institutions. he copied out eighteen times with his own hand. He procured the abstract to be translated into French and published without the author's consent or knowlTo this translation notes were afiixed confutedge. on condition of being kept secret. She had caught glimpses of his new views of chronology. may be estimated from the fact. and numerous other circumstances which have grown out of the social compact.

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

the six first chapters are a collection of papers of a historical character . iel The periods foretold by Dan- accord so exactly with the times of the ministry and death of our Saviour. and whatever errors had crept into the text before this period cannot now be repaired. his death. The book of Daniel was written by different persons . contrary mode of interpretation. and Ten Horns of the fourth beast. by at various times. to the time of his birth. No vari- ous readings were preserved. and. and the foundation of the christian religion. After a series of preliminary observations to this the author traces each of the effect. the six last only were written and these Daniel. that the prophet spoke the dictates of divine inspiration. 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.KEWTON. the Seventy to the usual The prophecy of Weeks he translates anew. ticularity and immense erudition. he explains with events. the duration 20 . refers one clause of It to the second coming of Christ. prophethe par- cies of Daniel to its verification in succeeding The vision of the Four Beasts. except from Newton ic the version of the Seventy. Daniel at the head of the places prophetwriters. as to present the clearest possible evidence. and considers his prophecies as a key to the interpretation of the others. ©ral traditions to writing in the 227 Talmud.

but Newton assigns to to hint that all it it an earlier origin. A tract by Newton. courses on the prophecies are confined dictions which he believes to have been he hazards no conjectures beyond the limits of evidence . which.228 NEWTON. of his ministry. hence some parts of the Apocalypse he does not touch. that this book was written later. the wars of the Jews. he dwells on the origin All his disto those prefulfilled . by astronomical In regard to the Apocalypse. entitled a History first of Two JVotable Corruptions of Scripture. and progress of the papal hierarchy. Daniel and John events. was publish- . as he considers them to bear an intimate relation to the prophecies of Daniel. and at events before the general Epistles of Peter. as to be alluded to in those Epistles. he interprets on similar principles. ducts him to In pursuing the parallel which conthis opinion. in certain points predict the same many of which have already taken place. and the ruin of the Jewish nation. His deductions from fortifies civil and and scriptural history he calculations. he proceeds to explain some of its dark prophecies. but leaves them to be unfolded in the order of providence. than any other part of the Scriptures . He would seem was written before John's he supposes After a few Gospel. it has been the prevaiUng opinion of learned men. remarks on the authenticity of the Apocalypse. and that to the it Hebrews.

iii. as it ignorant of in his came it to him from Locke years afterwards own handwriting. 16. which was among the papers formerly belonging to Le Clerc. 7. and deposited after his death in the Remonstrants' Library at Amsterdam. this request was not granted. Some Wetstein ascertained. to Le Clerc mentioned its his preface Kuster's edition of Mill's Testament. A copy was obtained from Holland. that and as the copy in was written by Newton. Wetstenii Prolegomena. however. Holland was mutilated at the beginning and end. 185.* From public in the imperfect state in which it was left by Le Clerc. John V. and the piece found its way to the original. was printed from a copy of the original manuscript then in the possession of Dr Ekens. managed * t 1 his argument with remarkable abihty and p. this tract in So early as 1708. he apphed to the heirs of Newton to be favoured with a perfect transcript from the motives never explained. . 1 Tim. ed in 229 1754.NEWTON. he has this subject. 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. When Horsley published this tract an edition of Newton's works. but he was author. 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.

No reason has been assigned by the persons into whose hands these papers have fallen. if they had manifested more willingness. Whiston mentions a tract on the Rule of Faith. as displayed in this work. but intro- into his edition of the author's works. very few weighty particulars have been added to those first collected talents it by Newton . Fathers. In the catalogue of Newton's arranged manuscripts. than they have done. why they should be withheld from the public. Notwith- standing the length to which the controversy on the text in John has since been carried. and one on the Dominion of the CJergy.230 success. and no doubt rightly. has been supposed. which have not been pubhshed. to acknowledge their obligation for the aids they have received from so illustrious a source. that the in theoloopinions they express on certain doctrines . title the general of Church Matters. and the history of sacred learning. duced them not It Horsley examined them. and it would have been no disparagement to the champions of the cause he sustained. NEWTONT. impresses the reader with amazement at the universality of his powers and attainments. the His knowledge of the Greek and Latin theologians of the middle ages. Newton left many writings on theological subjects. and the eminent has called into action. and another entitled Paradoxical Questions concernSeveral pieces are designated by ing Athanasius. we iind noticed an article on Comiptions of Scripture. by order of his executors.

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

hold to the baptism of infants. . The duties of his of- mint were arduous. as is testified by Pemberton.* he had been elected by the people. vol. with whom he held such conversations as Republic of Letters. In his last illness.he never entirely recovered. p. but this is a mistake. i Ill. enabled him to penetrate deeply into those branches of sacred knowledge. that his mind became so much impaired in his advanced age. 281- Ibid. illness. that he could not understand his own works . early formed and long continued. whom of he was to teach. but believed that all the subjects of this advanced in ceremony should be sufficiently and understanding to receive reliage gious instruction. but his habits of close application to study. It has been said. Newton was attended by Dr Mead. p.232 congregation. although he went puncthrough the labours of his office till within a tually year of his death. In this respect his views to church government seem have approached He did not nearly to those of the Independents. to which he at first applied for relaxation and amusement. 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. 280. from which . Till his eightieth year his health He was then afflicted with a severe was usually good. till NEWTON'. and for some time previously.

Other philosophers have shone as stars of the first magnitude in the firmament of science . and others indulged the as wise is as Plato chain have dream. reflected glory on but in the blaze of Newton's effulgence they are eclipsed and lost. which singly measured the greatness of others. 233 proved him to have full possession of his faculties.NEWTON. in one happy discovery they may have gone before the rest of mankind . and power of intellect . of inteUigences descending by a regular gradation to the lowest. and contribut- ed their respective shares to raise him to the emi- nence he held. and sagacious destined to occupy to discover the more hidden phenomena of nature. All the rare qualities. that there a from the highest a reality. which the human race Other philosophers have been renowned for genius. in the eightyfifth year of his age. and sustain him there. and they have the world . and the deeper reasons of things. acuteness. and the vision of Plato be indeed who will deny ? to Newton the first rank in is that portion of the scale. If wisdom deceive not her children. and his remains were deposited in Westminster Abbey. Such there have been. He died on the 20th of March. 1727. were combined in him. Plato thought. To no being whose destiny has been fixed among mortals. in one endowment of nature they may have stood without an equal. can be more justly apphed the words of the sweetest poet . they have been quick to invent.

234 that ever invoked the NEWTON. gentle in his manners. et omnes Prsestinsit. He was gen^ in erous in his benefactions. philosophic inuse. on the foundation of reason and the Scriptures and strong . and a patron of true worth wherever it was found. 1056. de Rerura Nat. Of New- ton it may truly be said. He was without arrogance or pretension. among his Humihty and modesty were most striking virtues. Lucret. His religious faith was settled '. morals. and ascribing whatever progress he had made knowledge wholly to his untiring industry and patience. IIL v. into the world. and ready in conversation. As he was a stranger to pride. the balance of prin- powers which marked the rare structure of his mind. he was a christian piety was steady behef and ciples and in practice. so he was free from any affected singularities. that he was one. Although he went out he was social in his feelings. . stellas exortus uti Eetherius Sol* In private hfe he was mild and affable. putting himself on a level with other men. Lib. peaceful in his temper. the in all derful harmony parts of his character. together with the unison in his philosoformed a perfect and wonphy. his in la short. and rehgion. and a lover of tranquillity little and retirement. Qui genus humanutn ingetiio superavit.

so far as I Ajid I have can hitherto determine by records. as Luther. 1 John v. who underabuses which they of the Roman freely. church have put upon the world. SECTION I. 7. 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. it will scarce be than is comungrateful to be convinced of one more For ahhough the more learned and quick-sighted men. and by what steps it has been changed. Bullinmonly believed. done it the more stand the many because to you. LETTER TO A FRIEND.Alf HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF TWO CORRUPTIONS OF IN A SCRIPTURE. I have here sent you an account of what the reading has been in all ages. Erasmus. On I. the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. .

II. and. about sixty-four years after his death. knowing your prudence. to m. Out of him the Africans began against the Vandals. The some history of the corruption. the faith subsisted without this text . in short. Son. is this. of the Father. but we contrary to ours. no point of discipline. ter. But whilst we exclaim against the pious frauds of the Roman church. and calmness of temper. than to of things spurious . Grotius. and Holy Ghost. of the Latins interpreted the spirit.ake it now lean upon a bruised There cannot be better service done to the purge it truth. Then Jerome. First. and their some others. yet the generality are fond of the its place for making against heresy. an advantage. wa- to and blood. for the same end. nothing but a criticism concerning a text of scripture which I am going to write about. and it is rather a danger to rehgion. than the Papists for we so much blame on count they act according to their religion.236 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of ger. there- fore. In the eastern nations. than reed. prove them one. to allege it inserted the Trinity in express words into his version. Afterwards the Latins noted his variations in the mar- . and for a long time in the western. and make it a part of our religion to detect and re- nounce it all things of that kind. confident 1 shall . we must acknowledge that ac- a greater crime in us to favour such practices. would not dissemble knowledge. I am not offend you by telling you it my mind plainly especially since is no article of faith. in .

the temple If of the Dicit et Filio et Spiritu Dominus. and thence it creep into the text in transcribing.* "the Lord saith. Et tres unum sunt. cum tres unum sinf. Dei factus est. [" one baptized among heretics] be of God. de Unit. The arguments in the Three Heaven. gins of their 237 to in books . and of scripts. tell me. f in another place If. when disputing And when printing came crept out of the Latin into the printed Greek. these Three are One. Cyprian's words run thus.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. and Jerome. all Athanasius. I pray. and the Father are one. too injuriously with Cyprian. Ego et Pater unum sumus et iterum de Patre Sancto scriptum est. up. many Greek manu- and almost the Latin ones. Eccles. sides. ad Jubaiamtm. against the authority of all the Greek MSS.' " The Socinians here deal Father. the twelfth and began at length and that chiefly following centuries. 73. ' I IV. for Cyprian repeats almost the same thing. t Si teraphiin quajso cujus Dei ? Si Spiritus Sancti. Episl." " saith he. and ancient versions it went soon after into and from the Venetian presses Greece. was revived by the schoolmen. it .' And again of the ' — And Son. . quomodo Spiritus Sanctus plaeatus ei est. of what ^ made God ? . esse potest. Cypr. on both III. and Holy Ghost it is written. qui ant Patris aut Filii inimicus Cypr. while they would have this place corrupted . Now the truth of this history will appear by considering the arguments alleged for the testimony of are the authorities of Cyprian.

fontem aquaj vivae pa^sionis cruorem . the since these Three are One. de Quest. the stage. Patrem indicans eo quod perfecta ipsa perhibeat testimonium Christo . A". et spiritus. Plures hie ipsam. . And then adds tliis interpre: hibent .intelligunt Trin- itatem . me dereliquerunt . Christum deroonstrans. is chiefly In reconciHng this difficulty. Test. I considinsisted upon. now the dispute is over. age. er. For Eucherius. therefore. could I I but have reconciled this it with the reading in the next ignorance the Latins of both Africa and Europe. " And these Three to the One . that I should never have suspected a mislake in it. sanguine. . that the by Cyprian are in only words of the text quoted both places are.* bishop of Lion in France. when all the world was engaged in disputing about the Trinity. seem so apposite to prove the testimony of the Three in Heaven. the Latins of the next age. 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. were diligently sought out. and all arguments that could be thought of and daily brought upon could never have been ignorant of a text. genuine. utique per manifestans. quia ipse de se dicit. meet with of Cyprian's Bible." which words may belong eighth verse as well as to the seventh. tation. amongst For had it been in as well as among the Greeks. spiritu vero Sanctum Spiritum Eiicher. aqua. which in our age. interprefationemystica. and contemporary to St Eucherius reads the text thus Tria sunt qua? testimonium peraqua. sanguis.238 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of Holy Ghost.

quibus non quid sint. tres sunt testes. or any • this testimony. tres luium sunt. Jlugiistin. non absurde occurrit ipsa Trinitas. spiritum et et Joannis Apostoli. St Austin* is one of those many . cont. the water. for the word was the opinion of made flesh. cap. that many then understood the spirit. the And water. in Si sanguinem diversas esse substantias. Maximinum. the Son.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. Propter hoc admonui te. vero ea. vcli- mus lus. so- summus est Deus. inquirere . nomine spiritAs significatuin acci|)ianuis Deum Patrem. sig- times. to say of Sane falli te nolo in epis(oI. quas unus. the water the Christ gives to Holy Ghost. et tres ununi sunt . ne hanc enim sunt." Lib. reading the text without the seventh verse. Pater et Fiiius et Spiritus Sanctus. is the water which thirst and the blood the Son. " spiritus est Deus). ubi ait. qua3 significata sunt. aqua.p. them that in the he . semper attenditur. dicit de Spiritu." Now if it was many western churches of those the blood. sed quid osteniiis dant. quiaverbum caro factum est nomine autem aqu. ubi ait. plain that the testimony of Three in Heaven. et tres unuin sunt . el dicas. (de Deo adorando loquebatur Dominus. rctur Jesus. de quibus verissime dici potuit. autem D. and the blood." no forte aquam et tamen dictum fallaris .i sunt testes. " (res sanguis. for spirit . in express words. and the Holy Ghost. where he tells us. that the spirit. Spiritum Sanctum. quem accepturi erant credentes in eum. iii. spiritus. esse. Cum enim ut ipso quippe .Filium. and even whhout Cyprian. 21 . and nified the it is Father. was not yet crept into their books . tells us. 239 Austin. that " the is the for God is a spirit Father. quam daturus erat sitientibus. ait dea(|Uiiloque" lioc evangelista. nomine aufemsangniiiis. xxii. it was obvious for man else of that opinion. to signify the Trinity. as you may see in his third book against Maximinus.

that Cyprian. qui de verbo contendunt. and Holy " Ghost. saying. tliis interpretation by Cj'prian's auaqua. qui tesSpiritu Saucto sic dicit. intelligit. 'ego et Pater unum sumus . et qui . Filio. pro Apostolo hi tres. the above mentioned place. interpreting the spirit. Nor do * I understand how any of those many who Facundus. and thence affirming. in epistola sive libro quem de Trinitate. he thus confirms aqua. that John said of the Father. in aqui And a 37. et secun- thority. 1629. .' " And that " it is written. Son. et hi tres " tres sunt qui testificantur in terra. dum tur. Lib. Patrem. Aut si forsan ipsi. These Three are One.et sanguis et hi tres unum &ic. Joan. 16.' . and Son." This at least may be it gathered from this passage of Facundus. 'jiiritus." Trinitatem nolunt in terra testificari. Facundus. unum sunt. Parisp. et hi " ex Facunil. and blood. Nam timonium dant sunt. that some in those early ages interpreted Cyprian after this manner. 21. and Holy Ghost. Son. 'And these Three are One. Joan. ik. edit. et Spiritu Saiicto dictum Dominus.240 siK ISAAC Newton's history of . intelligi quod dixit. iv.' et ' iterum de Patre. in epistold sua. immo de Unitatc Ecclesia3 scripsit. sanguis. . Cyprianus Carthaginensis. tres unum sunt. water. Numquid unum esse dicun- Quod tamen Jopossunt spiritus et aquae et sanguines dici annis Apostoli testimonium B. for he tells us expressly. underso. this was Cyp- rian's sixth century. " Tres sunt. in stood to be the Father. in tlie beginning of liis book to the Emperor Justinian. . i.* an African bishop in the is my author . but more dis- tinctly in these words de Patre et Filio et Joannes Apostolus. vii. ipsa verba quaj posuit.' Sir7nondi. qui Joanne respondeant. in sanguine vero Filium. ait enim. meaning. " dicit de Patre." in in terra. the Father. antistes et martyr. pro Defensione triuni Capituloruni Concilii Clialcedonensis. in eo spiritus. Filio. and Holy Ghost. et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est. spiritu significans litlle after Spiritum Sanctum. first recites the text after the manner of Cyprian.

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

" these Three are purpose than These. et Filii in Paracleto. and read them frequently. he interprets of the Triniit for his " I and enforces the interpretation by that other text. Tertullian says not. therefore. TeriuUian. as we now read it." as the text now has it. and Holy Ghost. 25." nor cites any thing more of the text than these words. These passages in Cyprian may receive further light by a hke passage in Tertullian." Unum sumus . and the Father are One . calling that Tertullian his master. " which Three are One. c. not it is said. yet Tertullian could find no more obvious words in One.242 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of V." as if the phrase was Patris in Filio. (one thina. ." Here. from whence Cyprian seems to have borrowed them . Connexiis haerentes." (non Unus) ad substan- unitatem. luhers. The passage is this . Word. not the singularity of number. Ego Pater Unum sunt. 'I and the Father are One . " the Father. tres efficit co- of the same importance in both places. non adnumeri singularitatem. " et qui Tres quomodo dictum tiae " est." Though this treatise against St Praxeas be wholly spent in discoursing about the Trinity. one person. one another. and Paraclete .. Son.) as makes three coherent ones from which Three are One." ty. you see. but " the Father. for it is well known lian's Cyprian was a great admirer of Tertulwritings. would have been one of the most obvious and apposite to have been cited at large. Prax. and this text of St John. alterum ex altero.' denoting the unity of substance. and all texts of scripture are cited to prove it.* " The connexion of the Father in in the Son. and of the Son the Paraclete.

without naming the persons of the Trinity before them. VI. 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. seems from thence to have dropt into his .TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. this text in the Si- For Father 21* . For the Greeks interpreted " the spirit." For how. may be much more said of that in the feigned disputation of Athanasius with Arius at For there the words cited are only y. as Eucherius tells us. age so generally. and they are taken out of the seventh verse. r^m 7« 'K uTiv. who. water. the Trinity by the " water. and blood. understanding spirit. for this may be men. received the next age. So then this interpretation 243 seems to have been invented by the Montanists their Trinity.xi d Nice. it Cyprianbeing used to itin his master's writings." of the Trinity. for giving countenance to For TertuUian was a Montanist when . I do not under- VII. without the countenance of some such authority. an interpretation so corrupt and strained should come to be received in that stand. and these Three are One . 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. as is manifest from the annotations they made on margin of some of their manuscripts. as well as the Latins . lian And what is said of the testimony of Tertul- and Cyprian. and blood.

One Deity. but by a later author. One God. t«£* o{ T^ui eli TO ev ii<ri. over against these words. the FathThese marginal notes Holy Greeks used to apply this the how show the testimony Ghost.t TO 7rvsvf<. the iva- and the blood . * Critical History of the New Testamrnt. these words.» '<>Tt r^c7i el<riv /^cc^rv^ovvrei h t^ Kxi ro u^mq xxt re earth. TTveZ/itxToi. words. This MS is that is. there are added. xui eivToi that is. Holy Ghost. xx) o nxrifo. Also in the margin of one of the MSS. t^d^rv^lct roZ ^soZ too 5r«r^«5 kxi and the sufficiently of God. is mon tells us there a like number 871. uses not to be much insist- ed upon. But should tell you also. father SiFor besides remark. /^ii^ ^sorjn.244 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of informs us that in one of the mon* MSS oi in the library of the king of France. and there- fore.x . the spirit. and the Father.'\ is ce. that that disputation was not writ by Athanasius. in Monsieur Colbert's library.tx B-sory. rare?-! t« 7risvf*. VIII. . J. B-iog. f Suspicor verba h t~^ yri non extare in MS.in. mrevTi f4. there this remark. this note is added. One God. bxvtou. rov eiyla er.j'or there are Three that hear record \in ter. marked number 2247. as a spurious piece. and He of HimAnd in the same copy over against these self. £'5 -S-^s?. author of that disputation I and by consequence how the is to be understood.x TO kyiov. and these Three are One .i. 18. the about 500 years old. 7^. One God- head. text to the Trinity . chap.

corruptoremque Sanctarum proEustochium. mcam quodammodo seuectutem invidorum dentibus corrodendam exponis. either frau- " the Three in testimony of Heaven" in express words into the text. whence it might afterwards creep into the text in transcribing. by way of interpretation . illo praecipue loco ubi de Unitate Trinitatis in primA Johannis epistola. quae canonicee ita est Non nuncupantur. Deo juvante. qui integre sapiuiit. Quae que ab interpretibus fideliter iiec Est enim una earum prima Jacobi. is Jerome . IX. In ceteris vero epistolis.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. in ipsd sua editione ponentibus . virgo Christi judicio derelinquo. Sed sicut evangelistas dudunn ad veritatis liaeain correximus. Verbique. sanguinis." to signify the Trinity. w^iich goes Incipit prologus in epistolas The whole preface runs thus. trium tantummodo vocabula. . ut quia Petrus est primus in ordine apostolorum. qui me falsarium. et Patris ac Filii et Spiriti^s una divinitatis siibstautia com- probatur. Sed ego. nee aemulorum mcorum invidiam pertimesco. lectoris quantum a nostni aliorura Sed tu. Now this " the mystical application of water. epistolaruin septem. ncc sermonum sese variepositum legimus. reddidimus. ita lias proprio ordini. for proving the Trinity . tres ambiguilatem legentibus facerent. primaj sint etiam ejus epistola. et spiritOs. dum a me impensius scripturae veritatem inqniris. In quii etiam ab infide- tates impugnarent. nee Sanctze Scripturae veritatem posceniibus dencgabo. in ordine ceterarum. si sicut ab eis digests sunt. hoc est. sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur. or else to note it in the margin of his dulently to insert the book. distet editio. libus translatoribus multuni erratum esse a fidei veritate compcrimus. ordo apud Graecos. and blood. tur. seems to me to have given occasion to somebody. if the preface* to the * canonical epistles. canonicas. Johannis. aquae. et Judae una. nunciant Scripturarum. ac Spiritils testimonium omittentibus in quo maxime et fides catholica robora. in tali opere. dua Petri. ita quoin Latinum verterentur eloquiura. And the first upon record that inserted it. fidemque rectam sectantur. et Patris. 245 spirit.

upon this accusafollowing either part.246 under not a his SIR ISAAC Newton's history of name. he recommends the alteration by its usefulness it for establishing the Catholic faith. at and among in . and And whilst he was accused by his contemporaries of falsifying the Scriptures in inserting it. first the margin of his book. it. this renders the . he inserted testimony he complains in how he was thereupon accused by some ins for falsifying of the Lat- and makes answer. For had the reading been dubious before he made it so. he corrected original In this defence he seems to say. no man would have charged him with falsification for Also whilst. Three in spirit. that former Latin translators had much erred from the scripture . be his. But was not Latin accuses former translators of falsifying the Scriptures in omitting it. tion. this accusation also confirms that he altered the public reading. but only corrected the ancient vulgar Latin. water. written perthe said preface. faith. he satifies us that it has crept into the Latin since his time. as learned men haps this think. Foi whilst he composed new translation of the New Testament. and blood. that the vulgar Latin translation by the . whilst he confesses it X." whereby the Cathohc faith is only " the established. in putting in their edition. and so cuts off all the authority of the present vulgar Latin for justifying before." and omitting the testimony of " the Heaven. his emendations. Greek and this is the great testimony the in the text relies upon.

poraries accused him. However. not to mention what he has writWhence Erasmus said of ten upon other occasions. we are not to lay stress own testimony for himself (for no man is a witness in his own cause). * Sicpe numero violentas. Erasmi Johan. and often contrary to himBut I accuse him not. 7. through inadhis Yet since contemshould but just that we lay aside the prejudice of his great name. according to the ordinary rules upon his justice. very fabulous lives of Paul and Hilarion. it gives us just reason to examine the business between him and his accusers. in sacpe varlus. to examine the business between him and his accusers XI. vertency. pa« v. and the ground of his hoping for success. " in that he was him. commit a mistake. seeing he was thus accused by his contemporaries. Vide etiam qute Erasmus contra Leum in hunc locum de Hier- onyrao fusius dixit. parumque pudens.TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. It is possible that he self. Jlnnoiiilion. that have been conversant in his writ- a strange liberty which he takes in asings. And so he being called to the bar."* left us in composing those might be sometimes imposed upon. observe Many notable instances of this he has serting things. but laying aside all prejuof dicOj we ought. it is or. and hear the cause impartially between them. They by other witnesses. rumque sibi constans. more suspected . . 247 by discovering both the design of his making it. violent and impudent. frequently affirming things.

are much bishop Walton's acancienter than Jerome's time. published . It is wanting also in other ancient versions .248 XII. are concurrent witnesses. (both which. pretends to have borrowed it. by omitting it. from count of them. in it will Three scripts. and of the ages next before and after him . partly the writers of his own age. And all these are against him. so in the Syriac and jEthiopic versions. For by the unanimous evidence " appear that the testimony of the of all these. Heaven" was wanting in the Greek manufrom whence Jerome. or whoever was the author of that preface to the canonical epist?es. and the authors of these three most ancient. of the Syriac. and partly the scribes who have copied out the Greek manuscripts of the Scriptures in all ages. For as he tells us. are chiefly the authors of the Xni. The ancient vulgar Latin. and generally used. ancient interpreters which I cite as witnesses against him. and the iEthiopic versions. that the Latins omitted the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" in their version before his time. that they found it wan ting in the original Greek manuscripts of their own times. as the Latins did the vulgar Latin) that same testimony is wanting to this day . most famous. and most receiv- ed versions. being the versions which the oriental iEthiopic nations received from the beginning. as in the Egyptian Arabic. SIR ISAAC Newton's history of Now the witnesses between them are partly the ancient translators of the Scriptures into the various languages .

qiiem vidi apiid Ecclesia: Armeniaca. quae Amstelodami coHi!<i(ur. ii. et Tres Si testimonium. et aqua. locum ilium non legit. ct legi alterum manibus nostris teritur. in It. except the modern vulgar Latin. and which was published by Nor do I a Benedictine monk.'''' used. in 249 Walton's Polyglot .. Mabillon. 156. wanting Father Simon notes sion of the least it wanting also in a certain ver- 1000 years father French church. used in Rascia. I have seen it and one CamillusJ relates the same thing . in the year 1581. Paradox. by the Armenian nations . and in the Illyrican of Cyrillus. is at old. fide et antiquitate sua nobile. . I. printed Sclavonic version runs thus. tThe sunt. which use the Sclavonic tongue. and other countries. * who doubtless made Episcopum Codex Armeniaciis ante 400 annos cxaratiis. know of any version wherein it is extant. "Quia Tres sunt in qui testificantur. In a copy of this version. f printed at Ostrobe (Ostrow) in Volhinia. Lib. &ic. So and then." Unum rum ^Testimonium Trium in Coelo non est in antiquissimis [llyricoet Ruthenorum codicibus . spiritus.Jlppend.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. saith he. of the western nations. janipridom apud illustri. CaviilIvs de Jlntichrislo. by the unanimous consent of all the ancient faithful interpreters which we have hitherto met use of the best manuscripts with. quorum unum exemplar. in the Armenian version. terra" Bactrica. ct sanguis. which. cap. 2. Sandius. out of ancient manuscripts of this version seen by him.ssimuni Gabrielem Chineum. Russia. a sex. Interpret. Muscovy. and such modern versions. centis fere annis manuscriptum. Dominum vidi. ever since Chrysostom's age. Moldavia. as have been influenced by it. pag. Bulgaria.

Faustinus Diaconus. Gregorius Baeticus. or text of scripture. the council of Sardica. Heavverto XIV. but was wholly unknown in all churches. if . That of St John's Gospel. Nazianzen. epistles. and never once thought of. and other writings of the Greeks and Latins (Alexder of Alexandria." is every where inculcated. And yet it is not once it been in their books. " I and again and again. no. the Father are One. and accounted the main text for the business. Cyril. not in Jerome him- his version and preface to the canonical be excepted. Ambrose. Epiphanius. Philastrius Brixiensis. The writings of those times and there is no arv^ery many. that vehement. Cereahs. .250 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of in " they could get. Basil. Athanasius. Hilary. Chrysostom. lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time. Phaebedius Agennensis. and others) in the times of those controversies self. Paschasius. And the first that it was neither in the ancient sions nor in the Greek. epistles were . but this of " the Three in Heaven" and their being . be met with in all the disputes. and copious which they do not urge gument. is most certain by an argument that hinted above universal. orations. the testimony of the Three en" was not anciently in the Greek. had to and would assuredly have been so too with them. It is now in every body's mouth. namely. Nyssen. Theodoret. Austin. Victori- nus Afer. and both before and long enough " the Three in Heaven" was after this text of it. Aruobius Junior.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
•'

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

;

Q^uia
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.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
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-

Besides all this. which went about all the churches.254 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of pose. which is as " as to say. which are nothing to the purpose. spiriet And sanguis . does not produce this text of " the Three in Heaven. Eunomium. had it been then in the Scriptures . and nothing of it. was famous epistle to Flavian. adversus . et aqua. both eastern and western. because like manner it was the very thing in question. et hi Tres Unum sunt. and the only proper passage. and yet St Basil. and there solemnly approved and subscribed by all the bishops . quia Tres sunt qui testimonium dant. and sent about in the by Flavian. and perplexes himself in citing places. had objected. against Eutyches. being translated into Greek. in disputing against the Cathohcs. sub finetn. and therefore he knew The objection of the Eunomians. the answer of the Cathohcs. In the Eunomians. west." though it be the most obvious. mentioned above. * Lib. and in this epistle the text was thus cited . that the Holy Ghost is nowhere in scripture conjoined with the Father and much the Son. patriarch of through east Constantinople. and read It was generally applauded in the in the council of Chalcedon. Et spiritus est qui testijicatur.* very diligent in returning an answer to them. . V. Pope Leo. that the testimony of the Three in in their Heaven" was not whilst he is books . sufficiently show that it was in the the tenth epistle of that very books of neither party. quoniam Christus est Veritas tus. except in the form of baptism .

and correct them it without being perceived ." which.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. So then the testimony of "the Three in Heaven. was wholly unknown to the churches of those ages. whereby the knavery might be suspected and discovered 5 and to wipe away the memory of it out of all 22* . to do without leaving any blot or chasm in their books. and conjurors too. in the times of these controversies." Will you now say that the testimoof " the Three in Heaven" was razed out of their . west.'* books by the prevailing Arians Yes. those Arians were crafty knaves. ay. x. till after the age of XVI. would have been in every body's mouth.ct. TO TTveufcx. 255 according to the Greek reading. by putting 7rvsvfA. which the^ vulgar : Latin. it was ^a thus translated by the Greeks fjLot^TvpolJf iTTeiStj el Tfl ««< to ^rvstJjw* f'="T"' 'X-V£Vf^» IcTTiv ij «Ai)'flf<af ffiii yap et<!'iv fnxprvpouvTii. owned west. So then we have in the the reading. is still for Christus. get men's books hands. truly. quot- ed by the Pope. ny and the blood. 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.cti et Tpe7i Ts ev siTi. and therefore it continued the public received reading in both the east and that council. the spirit. had it been books. and solemnly subscribed in the east by the fourth general council. All that they could find in in their their books was the testimony of "the water. k»i to voap^ >c«i t« ciifA*.

unless the razing of it out can be proved by some better argument than that of pretence and clamour. so that as when they turned they generally did in the west. accuse the heretics of corrupting books. are now extant. consider that point also inquire how. XVII. and besides. it was out of it their in . books in Jerome's age. it is contrary to . they could then remember no more of it than any body else. and certainneed no other confutation. it may be pertinent to . that it was out from the beginning . was which is we was in and when any body can show.256 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of men's brains. could afterwards remember that they had ever seen it in their books before . consubstantial Well. Will you now say. so that neither Athanasius. faith. we are bound in justice to believe. are falsaries ly by their own confession. nor any body else. that it their books before. and upon that pretence correct them at their pleasure without the authority of ancient manuscripts. and out of their to the own books too. as some learned men of the fourth and fifth centuries used to do. soon after the death of Constantius. the point when he pretended are to prove . For they without proof. since ies that it but out. And therefore if this reading was once out. then. till then was it we are only to came into the copthat. 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 .

that we consider the author- ity of the manuscripts. as if they had varied from the received Greek. when the Venetians sent and their amongst them in printed books . in leaving out the testimony Heaven. the au. it is wanting Latin. as we have shown. then accused of corrupting the and could not text. thority of his version sinks and that the rather. Syriac. and the Greeks not it till present age. persuade either the Greeks or because he was the Latins of those times to receive his reading the Latins received it ." And by testimony of the best inquiry that I have been able to make. Arabic. to follow a private copy. in the manuscripts of all languages but the that the iEthiopic." they had not followed And therefore. Armenian. but the Latin interpreters only. 257 blam- for in his copies.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. for not till many this years after his death . it remains. but accuses and former interpreters. For. what he himself seems ing not the vulgar to represent . not receiving it was plainly to approve the authority of this version being thus accusation. which were before his time. XVin. Ethiopia. . The far discussed. he represents that Greek he himself followed it. as he did. He does not excuse justify himself for reading differently from the received Greek. wherein we now read the " the Three in Heaven. as of " the Three in if. since the received Greek. and still Sclavonian versions. the Greeks knew nothing of this testimony. in use in the several eastern nations.

Mesopotamia. further satisfaction. in the dark ages. both to the western in the and the eastern churches. and not in the Latin before Jerome's age. now in use. how. is the received opinion. are strangers to this reading. that it is wanting to this day in the Greek manuscripts. when their it Jerome himself confesses. first. and show. A reading to be found in no manuscripts but the Latin. now that they have got from the Venetians. those in Greek. Syria. which have been brought from those parts into the am west . and then how it late- ly crept out of the Latin into the printed Greek with- out the authority of it MSS . however. for give we shall now you an account of the Latin and Greek manuscripts . Armenia. That vulgar Latin. in print manuscripts are objected against it. having never yet so the who first published much as seen it in any Greek manuscript. little authority and this authority sinks.SSS SIR ISAAC NEWTOiN's HISTORY OP some it Egypt. it crept into the Latin manuscripts out of Jerome's version . because we have already that it proved the reading spurious. and Jerome's version together. as and that the Greeks. by showing was heretofore unknown. pretend that the Arians razed it out. and that was anciently wanting also in the French . Muscovy. XIX. times of the great controversy about the Trinity. But. and others. Few of these manuscripts are above four or five hundred years . so I told by those who have been in Turkey. can be but of . is a mixture of the old vulgar Latin.

in three Erasmus notes the other two to be wanting in the at very ancient ones. notes it to be wanting in only five. one of which was were Pope's library at Rome. ones. and the Lucas Brug. wanting in five other ones kept at Strasburg. the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" was noted in the margin in in a newer hand. Codex Lobiensis written For he praises* the anno Christi 1084. one of which MSS. and the Benedictines of the abbey of St Germain's. Bruges . in the first letter of his travels. in the k\\ all old ones he had. and he adds. he reckons about 1000 years old. latest " the Three generally have the testimony of in Heaven . 1543 and 1544. An ancient and diligent collator of manuscripts. it noted Father Simon has noted libraries of the it w^anting in five others in the king of France. Colbert. his manuscripts being almost of them new ones. Zurich. . 259 The it. in cake annot. collating many Latin manuscripts. Burnet has lately. and the other four about 800. notes in general. cited by Lucas Brugensis by the name of Epanorthotes. that it was wanting in the ancient Latin Lucas himself. that is. old." the oldest of all usually it want which shows that it has crept in by degrees. that in another manuscript belonging to the library of the Minorites in Antwerp.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. and Basil . printed anno Christi that it was wanting in the most ancient of the Dr Gilbert manuscript Tugurine library. Mons. Peter Cholinus notes the margin of his Latin edition of the Scriptures.

though afterwards « as ancient Vide Matb. canon 2. Tres Unum sunt . appears by but the second part was in almost all . statimque subjungitur Et — et hi Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra. et sanguis. quoniam in canonicd Johannis epistola legitur. This was written by Joachim* papacy of Alexander the Third. manuscripts . the words Tres Unum sunt being in all the books which wanted the testimony of " the Three in Heaven. in or before the year 1180. 1179. the abbot. et J^erbum. aqua. as and . that is. . mentions Joachim. and more to the first than the next. quoting the text in these words . num- ber was easily had . D. as to the next statimque subjungitur . because the first part of the citation was then but in some books. that such as was the Codex is. ^uoniam Johannis epistolct Iegitur. Pater. Angl. for the words to the first quibusdam invenitur refer as well words of Joachim. and therefore this reading the was then got but sicut in codicihus into some books . et Spiritus.(^uia Tres sunt qui testimoni- um dant in cceIo. council. Paris Histor. anno in canonicd Christi 1215.2G0 SIR ISAAC neavton's history op written Codex Tornacensis used others most ancient and venerable for their antiquity anno Christi 1105. anuvs. written anno Christi 1432." and in most of those which had it . spiritus. Buslidi- but eight years before the invention of printing. et Tres Unum sunt : sicut in codicibus qui- busdam in invenitur. of which a great much more new. A. collected The Lateran under Innocerxt the Third.

disputing against the same Vandals. left 2G1 out in many. Trinitatis. In ihe defence. cited far as I find. Fulgentius. king of the Van- dals. in the disputes with the ignorant Vandals. and therefore no wonder if the " the Three in Heaven" testimony of began to be to XX. another African bishop. Eugenius. But Chiffletius." And get It some credit . anno Christi 484. x. and backed it with the forementioned " the place of Cyprian. occurs also frequently in Vigilius Tapsensis. contemporary to Fulgentius. John Idacius Clarus Pope its against Varimadus. 5. another African bishop. and thence at length crept into use. Gregory the Great* writes. can in the it summary of first his faith exhibited to the king. the of any man. namely.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. bishop of Carthage. go to the original of the corruption. cited it again. sufficiently proves the book against Varimadus to be this VigiUus's. the epistle of first epistle the book of II. to in Heaven. the seventh year of Hunneric. applied to the testimony of Three so it is probable. that Jerome's version was in use in his time. that by of that abused authority Cyprian it began first in Afric. But cited out of in it before. some allege earlier writers . . and the to book De unitd Deitate ascribed Athanasius. and er* Vide Walton's Prolegomena. of Pope Hyginus. so A while after. when branded by the schoohiien for Arian. sis who published the works of Victor Vitcn- and Vigilius Tapsensis.

as may appear by So then Eugenius is the first upon comparing them. are nothing in Heaven" is else than the fragments of the book against Varimadus. wherein the testimony of " the Three cited. noted out of his corrections of the vulgar Latin their books . record that quotes it. XXII. it is writers. that is nowhere . Now that it was inserted is Latin out of Jerome's version. By this means. and scribes began generally to insert it into the text . For it is agreed that the Latins. into the vulgar manifest by the manner how to the vulgar Latin and that version came be mixed. yet I cannot find that Joachim. after it Jerome's version began to be of use. and the first part of the epistle of Pope John. 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. described word by word by some forger of decretal epistles. Certainly Athanasius was not epistles of Hyginus. ricans. spread it abroad. To its the same Vigilius All the he asserts also the book De unitd Deitate Trinitatis. the old Latin it has been so generally corrected. in the margin of and these the transcribers afterwards inserted into the text. author.262 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of two roneously ascribed to Idacius. and European times. In those ages St Barnard. XXI. and the Lateran council. but in such Latin manuscripts the Schoolmen. as are ancienter than those scarce to be met with. except the beginning and the end.

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

printed at Strasburg. Varitnadum. 1524. 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. out of the Latin into the Greek. the Badian 1526." except first ted in the Spain . anno . exemplaribus nonnullis non legi ut in Aldincl et Addo. noted in the margin. in which third . cap. printed anau.sin h. that not whether after . tin Badianfi editione. that the reader or transcriber knew it were to come before Now these discords in the Latin manuscripts. I am to show how. so they confirm to us." in some. in that of Nicholas Gerbelius. in follow- " the ing their manuscripts. . testimony of the Three in Heaven" crept XXIV. I. printed 1518 . . nee in Grajco Testamento Gerbelii. and a little after. nee Gomarv. and corrected by Jerome's version. 5. Cephalius. so . anno Christi at Haganno 1521 . in . and " the when. in did generally. for it was omitand second edition of Erasmus. 1516 and 1519 at in the edition of Francis Asulan. In the next place.264 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of it is earth . set after . omit the testimony of Three Christi in Heaven. anno Christi Venice by Aldus. and in that of Simon in Colinseus at * Vigilius. which seems was sometimes so or after. Erasmus notes two old books. in that of Wolfius Christi edition. Hain Colinaji Parisiis edito. ganoffi. editis anno Christi 1534. 1521. and again as Erasmus notes Paris.f At the advers. libr. that the old vulgar Latin has in these things been tampered w^hh. printed the Those who first Greek testament. as they detract from the autliority of the manuscripts.

ni fnllor. and diligently collated the and had Hebrew and This Greek exemplars with the Latin copies.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. which has the " the Three testimony of Cardinal Ximenes. ac HebraiLatin is ca Grajcaque ipsa divinarum IJleraiura exemplaria codicibus diligcutissime contulerimus. and in the preface* to a treatise he wrote against Erasmus. one Lee. [Quippe] qui non paucos annos in Sanctis scripturis Veteris elNovi Testamenti. si quisriuam alius. judicium ferre possumus. editions in the in Saxon and German Latin Tugurine of Peter Chohnus. lihri sni. as and editions of Luther . The cardinal. Two of those divines were Antonius Nebrissensis and Stunica. and then it came forth at Complu- tum. /fee iilHnica inproan. lica. anno Christi 1543 and 1544. same time it 265 was omitted in some the editions of other western languages. anno Christi 1520. but not 1515. there founding an university. . printed in Heaven. pubhshed before the year 1521. Grajce. in his edition. nostro quodatn jure. cum Longa igitur lectioiie ac esperientii jampridem edocfi. ct iios quoque bis de rebus. The first edition in in Greek. anno Christi 1517. Latin reading the holy Scriptures in . gives this testimoresided at ny of himself." was that of at Complutum in Spain. Greek. For Stunica then Complutum. Hebraice. used the assistance of several divines. or a little before." book. * The year before. ct Latine pcrlegcndis consumpscrimus . optime novi. "that he had spent some years in Hebrew. displeasing the cardinal. which he called together to Complu- tum. was not printed till after his death . Cum prajscitim. quantum tralationi Luic eccl^siasNovi Testament! dcfereiidnm sit.

S. £. testimony in his against him. reprehended him for omitting the testimony of " the Three in Heaven. are. and fifteen And so it continued in his And at length Robert Ste- Greek manuscripts. Legimus nos in nonthis is the nullis Roherti nostri veteribns libris. and noting in the margin. that the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" was wanting in the seven manuscripts. and both Stunica and Lee. after the numeral y. putting x y.266 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of an Englishman. Legit Hieronymus." two following editions. and «. and some others of the in a heat Roman Church. And original and authority of the printed * editions. with some few alterations and various lections. . anno Christi 1550. for the Complutensiin an edition. it. &ic. C. finding the Spaniards. "that former editions he had printed the text as he it manuscripts . for the manuscripts order . amongst other things. ^^ '> "^) 'V* Whence Beza* His words tells he had read it in the rest. he. «. et legit Erasmus in Britannico codice et in Compliitensi editione. ^. according to that manuscript for avoiding the calum- nies raised against him. that <?. in his anno Christi 1522. i. phens. which he named letters. but now there being found in England one manuscript which had the tesof " the Three in he had inserted found in his timony Heaven." Afterwards Erasmus. printed this third edition. reprinted Erasmus's edition. taken out of the Complutensian edition. us. wrote also against Erasmus . representing. f." . For Beza in hunc locum. €".

has been discovered any manuscripts favour of these editions. in the first place.m. Prolegom. mutando et interpolando textum sacrum pro in Bihl. I cannot but. he tells us.* the preface to his annotations. So then he had the collations of two has given us in more manuscripts than Stephens And this was all his furniture. the exemplar which Stephens had collated with Avhich about twenty-five manuscripts. almost all of were printed. and teen . describing what helps he had in composing his first edition. The manuscript S 'Non dcsiint.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. codicis authoritate fietiis. presses Greece and nothing further. praetoriam exercet potestatc. qui Bezam nimis audaccm fiiisse judlcanl. 23* . that in I in know of. and out of Stephens's library. have hbraries in France and Italy. number he in his annotations cites no more. extremely complain of Beza's want In of modesty and caution in expressing himself. interdum nuUius. 15." for that He should have said sevenputs in other places. et unius. XXV. and Erasmus. " that he had the annotations of Valla. print. ex cotijecturis lihifo. The to manuscripts he does not here pretend nor could he have them . sect. iv. and the writings of the ancients and moderns collated by himself. Walton. but belonged to several original . for they were not Stephens's manuscripts. Stapulensis. and of into late years propagated by the Venetian . Now to f)ull ofF the vizard. these are the editions ever since followed by all 267 the West . dum a receptu Icctioiie sspius sine necessitate recedit . Polyglotl.

/r. In the in Mark Acts xiii 33. And . »?. exemplaribus.268 SIR ISAAC Newton's history op Stephens himself never saw. there he reckons. Beza speaks . s. C. original manuscripts at Geneva before And where Stephens does not cite various lections. Stephens was printer. where Stephens notes a certain be wanting in the manuscript copies « and Beza saith. The other six books. vi.9Vflv. qucs In James i. let. ly. cites the collations of Stephens in such a manner. but belonged to the library of the king of The France. /. Ita scrip- invenimus in omnibus vetustis codicibus. his edition. to whom 6. manuscripts v. exceptis secundo et octavo. own library. r. but had only various lections collected out of it by his friends in Italy. So period to '<. 11. turn Beza affirms of the Greek text. because Stephens had noted no various lections. his friends studying to pro- mote the design of his annotations. n. is silent.. Sic legitur in Grcecis quidem mihi inspicere Stephens M. where Stephens in the margin had noted the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" to be wantso. as he his had the very eyes. ^. tS. 22. 3. Hcec periodus in omnibus exemplaribus Gracis legiiur. iv. In 1 John where Stephens omnibus licuit. where Beza tells us of the word again E<ro in Omnibus nostris vetustis libris inveni. that in the text of all Ste- phens's collated books he read the manuscripts. And yet Beza if in when he would favour any text. is silent. his tQ. were not Stephens's. but borrowed them Stephens had not out of for a time from several places to collate.

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

Apostles. they will find themselves very much the mistaken. But if they please to consider the business a httle better. seven. For of the canonical epistles. tx. tx. the of the Apostles . the manuscripts t.270 eight . Pliilippians. Phihppians. SIR ISAAC Newton's history of and so being found in the greater part of his side. and the manuEpistles and Acts And e. and no more than these. noted contained only the Gospels and the Acts of the S." manuscripts. in every the by noting what manuscripts book of in the various lections New Testament. scripts this Epistles and any one may gather. noted iS". manuscripts in all. «. and Acts. had each of them the four Gospels only. namely. only. the manuscript C contained the Gospels . been XXVI. ly^ every wiiere cited. ty. yet all For though Stephens had fifteen of them did not contain all y. Ephesians. «. besides some other books . Ephesians. Two. noted tT. and those to the Romans. and this is the great arhitherto gument by which the printed Greek has justified. Gospels. had only the Apocalypse. C' ^' '» and Colossians. noted <£. (^. has the authority of manuscripts on its Thus they argue . 71. The same . s-. Corinthiand Colossians. One. are found these seven manuscripts. noted i^. with Epistles to St Paul's the Corinthians. Gaiatians. <£". '*» 'V- The other contained both St Paul's Epistles and the canonical ones. i. contained the Apocalypse One. Gaiatians. 6. ^. the Epistles. <J^ ans. Four of them. Greek testament. the various lections are cited out of. (.

though he consulted seven manuscripts in the king's library. is apparent also by its being generally wanting in the manuscripts which are now extant in France. XXVn. Timothy." And because Stephens had some of his various lections from Italy. his edition. in his travels. Titus. that a gentleman. For father Simon* tells us. I will add.fWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. books So then the authority of the printed rests only upon the authority of the editions of Erasmus and Cardinal Ximenes. 271 and no more. one numeral error. and could not find in it search in the Hbrary of the king of that also of Monsieur Colbert. And that this testimony was wanting in all Stephens's manuscripts. had consulted twelve MSS was in several libraries in Italy. who. ix. assured me that he found that wanting most ancient and most famous in capital letters. he in any one manuscript . ty he found the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" to be wanting . One of the twelve MS in the Pope's library. and one in Colbert's. xviii. and in- Simon's Critical History of the New Test. 6. whether of the scribe or typo- grapher excepted. ulso. chap. and the Hebrews . written XXVIII. as you may see noted in the margin of . Stephens therefore did collect various lections of the Epistles out of only these seven and in all these seven manuscripts. it in them all. " that after a diligent France. ^. i. e. ^. . But seeing that Erasmus omitted * it in his two first editions. are cited in the Epistles to the Thessalonians.

"that he had consulted more than seven Greek manuscripts. and since he was only told of such a manuscript. 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. England ever heard of any such manuscript. there. he since. et sequni. and found it it wanting in them all . ad Latinorum codices. upon Erasmus's second putting edition. in his three last the authority of these three When Lee." Hence that it notice was sent to Erasmus out of England. Postea- quam enim concordiam inierunt cum ecclesi^ Remand. in * upon inquiry. and that if he could have found in any one manuscript. in ca^teris aberat. Id quia non coiitigit. in hunc locum. quod feci . quod solum licuit. quod in nostris ansa calumniandi. quod nos leginius. but from Erasmus . he would have followed that in favour of the Latin." Erasmus* answered. edilio lerlia. lioc Hcec Eras- Ex igitur codice Britannico . hunc suspicor. and thereupon to manuscript avoidf their calumnies. studuerunt et hfic in parte cum Romanis consentire. . But saith.272 serted it SIR ISAAC Newton's history of unwillingly. as was in a he printed it in his following editions. man- uscripts. contra Leum. niminim illinc adjpcissem. Quanquam et fuisse castigatum. Ernsmi Jlnnotation. in hunc locum . against the authority of his . notwithstanding that he suspected that manuscript to be a new one. mus + indicavi quid in Grsecis codicibus minus esset. nostris [scilicet Latinis] legitur. forth his en. fell foul upon him " for leaving out the testimony of the Three in Heavcan be none at all. Quod si contigisset unum exemplar. quod in . dicebatur deesse ne cui sit reposuimus. corrected by the Latin. in quo fuisset.

and such a " the Three in manuscript for the testimony of rest Heaven. ul et vctustissimis Graecis aliis exemplaribus. in Bihl. \\ii. contulimiis. noslro Alcxandrino. Bibliothccii. or. Let those who have such a manuscript. . As Gaspar Bellerus. where script he printed such manuscript of good note is to be seen . 7." would have made a greater noise than the have done against it. because in the preface to his edition of the told. Polyglott.TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. at least. us by what manu- this testimony . that this New Testament we are and 1 testament was printed after the library * . maximi veni&. in his epistle prefixtiie ed to Quinquagcna of Antonius Nabrissensis. and Lee. for any take the liberty to believe. non reiieillur. only borrowedf Versiculus v. Heaven" by to get it one Greek co and thereby into his edition. and that for these reasons. that it 273 it himself. quos Prolegomena. pontificis tAccivite Vatican^ Roma. in SyriacA. First . at length tell us where it is. expresses it. to try if him by the Popish good what he had upon he would make the authority of trick put offered. manuscriptis Graecis. 11'alion. I cannot forbear was nothing but a clergy. that he till then I must printed nothing else than a translation out of the Latin. edition So also let them who tell insist upon the of cardinal Ximenes.* Greek manuscripts of the Scripture are things of value. 23. and never saw to suspect. XXIX. bona cum Leonis X. and do not use to be thrown away . the printing of the testiin mony of " the Three ly. manuscripts taken out of the Pope's the cardinal these Joan.

In a 1 Corinth. I do not say but that the Cardinal had other manuscripts . Secondly . blamed there is for printing themselves from being Now in such a case as this. " the the testimony of ly wanting in the Three in Heaven" is generala third Greek to copies. it recede the Greek copies and correct note. I have not found it done above thrice in all this edition of the New Testament . in be something extraordinary . where they. they make a marginal their doing so and so here. but these were the chief. to put notes in the margin of the Greek text. And Caryophikis some collating the time by the Pope's command. they make marginal note. because it is in the this margin of noted in text. use of this edition. there in is this margin In notable vi. their edition. and there- fore there must that. and the only ones he thought worth while to tell his reader of.274 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of thence. found the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" wanting in them all. xv. duce any one Greek manuscript on but . to justify by the Latin. where . I startle at the marginal note in this For it is beside the place of the Cardinal's edition. variation the Greek reading. defence they could no question but they would make the best and yet they do not tell of the . nor protheir side. and therefore returned them back so soon as his edition after. secure it. and respect of the Greek. was finished. Vatican manuscripts. various lections in the Greek manuscripts. in Matthew from 13.

" Hepc Becr tus Thomas. et hi Tres Unum sunt. and these Three are One. Sed hoc Joachim perverse traliere volens ad unitatem cliarilatis et consensus." say of the Three which bear witness ' Heaven. In the Comthey are put after both testimonies.* Greek manuscripts have the text thus." are here omitted.' Sed hoc in veris Hffireticis Arianis tis exemplaribus non habetur. personarum subditur. water." in others. I'ater. teaches.ct Spiritus Sanclus. qui tes• timonium dant in in terrA. that these Three are One' are subjoined for unity of the essence of the insinuating the Three Persons. and In many of the blood . et ' " Et ad insinuandam unitatem triuni hi Tres Unum sunt .' et quibusdam libris additur. by the authority of Thomas " they. sed dicitur esse apposilum ab ad perverlendum intellectum sanum auctorita- pra7missa3 de unitate essentiae Trium Personarum. and justify their doing so. 275 The run to the authority of Thomas Aquinas." before that of " the spirit. ubi supra. " For there are Three that bear record. Nam subditur ibidem. and put only at the end of the testimony of " the Three in Heaven. and blood . the words. et sanguis . being thus The marginal note is this. tlie water. traclans istum passum contra Abbatem Joachim.' quod quidem dicitur propter essential unitatem. in expositione secundce decretalis de summaTrinitate et Fide Catholica. aqua. £t Tres sunt.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. in in treating Aquinas. the former follow plutensian edition. V'eibum. sanctus ' spiritus. " Trcs sunt qui testimonium dant in ctt'lo. the words " Thomas. this unity to * And whereas one Joachim be only in love interpreted it and consent. they copies. Sanctus Thomas. " these Three are One. indncebat consequeiitem auctoritatem." dicit ad literam verba sequentia. the spirit." the Latin manuscripts. 24 . viz.

he sets down. as at that told you. all the work. but was the Arians for perverting the sense. Thomas Aquinas is no Apostle. this these Three are One is . third reason why I conceive the Compluten- pass for a A sian Greek to have been is. to justify the Greek by the Latin thus rectified and confirmed. for Thomas understood But not Greek. water.276 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of said of the spirit. is main design thus. he cites his objections. this annotation is this is not the main design. make was is artificial and where Thomas of very judicious authority. he comes to this text of the testimony of " the Three in Heaven. by way . that Jast clause added not extant in the true copies. in ' some copies. Now to Thomas very apostolic few words.' Thomas repHed. and Erasmus) w^hen. Now this plainly respects the Latin copies." for it not one . Its being inserted that its in the margin of the Greek text shows." by Thus far this annotation. but argues wholly from the authority of On the contrary. and blood. in this place a translaI tion from the Latin. But We are to us. might and substantial defence of the printed Greek. For so the annotation should have been set in the margin of the Latin version. in a . because Stunica (who. seeking for the authority of Greek manuscripts. was one of the divines employed by the time wrote against in Cardinal in this edition. and therefore part of the design of to set right the Latin reading. do in Spain. Greek manuscript against Erasmus the Latin.

"* which goes on to cite at length. are most evidently corrupted . neniinc In nescio cur Erasmus dixerit. In 1 Thessalonians 23. al) interpretibus fideliterin Latinura verterentureloquiura. ego viderim." Li other testimony of where he had Greek of manuscripts scripture. nostras vero veritalem ut . Ejus Liber exslal in Crilicor.i quocjue k. " Quae si sictit mani. and of which we gave you an account above. qiios saith. manuscripts. of concession. places on his side.x^7vpou'jr((. says he. which he the Epistles. but ours (that itself.. he Tops. ilietonymi super Ait eiiim. in Gree- ds codicibus. Sic. vol. ab eis digestae sunt i(.XI TO Kdi c'l Tpc7i ili '« '^'' and then condemns them altogether without exception . he saith. feste apparet. hoc loco codices aperlissime esse corriiptos iiisani. the Latin ones) contain the truth first as they is are translated from the original . Cumin Greeds in eXiicXij^ov^ et discrepante. that in this place the Greek manuscripts is. locum. In James i." II(ec iilunica in h.uig hiclegi per diphtkongum. ro Trviuuce. ^'"^' ? TO v^uip. Know. Ita So 1 Thes- salonians quidem legitur. Sciendum est. and justifies the Latin against them by the authority " " of Jerome. as well as his own.i ))rimii origine U'aducti sunt. Latinis integer hie Jegcitur. manifest by the prologue of St Jerome upon And this prologue.c. . epistolas Gontiuere . * exemplaribus quotquot sunt." saith he. 7. he produces them readily. the 271 reading of the Greek and that of others. Sciendimi in omnibus Greeds codicibus «' IL v. is all he argues in favour of the " the Three in Heaven. quod ex prologo B. <>''' f^^U Mifix- f'""'" «' y. ix\ . common in these Koti words. ii. fyc.TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. X.

After nisi manner does Stunica produce in the . 22. neque GrcEci suit libri. hie legitur . place the Greek manuscripts are most In other places. 2 Peter ii. and the other eight to other libraries of Spain . which here made against ErasNeither had Marchio Valesius better success. if he hath but evidently corrupted. qui agite ." he. 9. cum this hcec mendosos utriusque lingute codices. iv. without excepting so he produces it magificentRhodiensis in his discourses much as one. had nothing to reply in this with his point. eight whereof belonged to the king of mus. the consent of the Spanish manuscripts . as the Codex upon 2 Corinthians ii. 2. Here he produces all the manuscripts against himself. the manuscripts used for for him Compkitensian edition. and here he produces them " Erasmus himself. in his defence of Stunica.278 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of Pliilipp. or the Spanish monks who next undertook the controversy. James i. and other texts. saith he. in in his answer to Stunica. and Sanctius Caranza. qui Trfccm-Ere hoc loco. find one Greek manuscript. neque Latini. and he did it on purpose to collect out of . own Neitlier could Sepulveda. Spain's library." " that one manuscript on his side. but saith it is Know. 3. pcrlegit. written presently after. Gi'arxZrcc Xoylt^tc-^s codicibus. commentaretur Erasmus. gloried And hence Erasmus. though on that occasion he collated sixteen Greek manuscripts. ly enough . another of the Compkitensian divines. against in this when they make too. cis Si quidem in omnibus.

fetched from Complutum and other places. it that the and the reading of the pretended English manuscript.Zf/. want of one. though. were collated by Arias. mus er . And now you may understand whence Complutensian edition. differ so much from one for the Complutensian edition has the text thus TirviZf^ei. them whatever he could meet with Latin. kmi ra xifAX. 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 . but on the contraiy. The pretended English manuscript thus ori rper^ 24- .Xy tcxi ro uoa/p. ro w. practice in 13. Lucas Brugensis. to sum up Complutensian divines did the argument. set down by Erasanoth. as well Greek as Latin. and therefore in their is printing the " testimony of the Three that they did for Heaven" no evidence it by a manuscript. and Stunica confess- text ed that they had none. So then. and others. without the Greek manuscript.xi rpsr. x. on that occasion. . sitivoI eTTi rr^ yjjj.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.Kcc'i ol Ui KXt TO uyioY f^xprvpouvT^i rpe^i £<« ra e\i e/V/. they contented themselves with the authority of Thomas Aquinas . the sometimes correct the authority of any their Greek by the Latin. many manuscripts. Nor has all the zeal for this been able since to discover one either in Spain. XXXL is. Canter. as appears by ^Matthew vi. XXX. or any where else. in his annotations.

y.ii^». The differences are too great to spring from the bare errors of scribes. Thus Caryophilus. kx) uiy.'i. Porro totus septirnus versus hnjus capitis desideratur in octo manuscriptis codicibus Greeds. ro S. without noting them. But discord. rp'. fA. out of Latin into Greek. 'X'viuf^ct. jTveZf^a Kxt vSap. <^c. y.eti ro fA. XXXIII.) legunt. the Epistles. real whilst these two readings. 7. without the testimony of you may see in those his 1G73 collations. in his annotations on this place.ut to leap. the readings of the Greek manuscripts by their agreement confirm For Caryophilus.ocprvpoZvrii Iv rfj y-^.ctpTvpo7ivTei. Manuscripti octo (omnes nempe) il^iv 01 x. "Or/ x. •Tpe7i thus. and notes their reading V. Eighth.280 (Icrtv e: &IR ISAAC Newton's history of iu.a. collated borrowed out of the principal libraries in Rome.x. gives scripts. who.u\ TrccTt^p^ Xoyo^. his manu- which were more than seven all and so doth Stephens of lections in his seven. XXXII." Three Heaven as in Mark. us of all . in the end of his Catena of the Greek Fathers upon in . found one common " the reading in them all. printed by Peter Possinus. by two several persons. Only the any various in Stewhich comma. by their confute one another. The very same reading Erasmus. and arise rather from the various translations of the place. . He met with eight manuscripts in all 1 upon Joan. the command of Pope Urban the the Vatican and other manuscripts.etpTv^otJfrei 01 iv r^ owjav^.' KUi ourot rpui £V tls-iv. nu) TrvsZ/LtU. 01 rpui eh 7o £v iWi. by one another as much.

in his collection of the six- teen Spanish manuscripts. out of the manuscripts of those parts. 281 oZpxv^p. note any various lections in The same reading exactly have also the this text. by Aldus six Venice. is without any variation. that in New the Greek testament. same reading QCcumenius. collated at Oxford. that most ancient which was con- veyed lished at thither in from Egypt through Greece. whose various lections. viz. and two in Lincoln Magdalen College. and famous one in tlie king's library. above eleven . published by Francis Asulan at The same anno Christi 1518. were printed tament. collected by his son John Gachon. and that in both very old. as you may see in the text of his commentary on this epistle of St The same reading also Cyril of Alexandria John. College. as was seen above. note out of the manuscript he had seen in Spain. printed reading. and puband the four Walton's Polyglott Bible . phens's edition is. five other ancient ones lately four or and College . The hundred years ago. surely ^by mistake. met with in the manuscripts of Egypt. set after The very same readis to be put in its right place. namely. anno in the Oxford edition of the New Tes- Christi 1675. The very same reading have also tiie three manuscripts of Monsieur Petavius Gachon. manuscripts in England . ing does Stunica also. in his book against Erasmus. found in the manuscripts of Greece . a senator of Paris. in order to a new impression of Oxford. Nor does Valesius.TWO CORRPUTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. in his edition. as I am informed.

5. et veterum Patrum commentariis sedulo collalos . the particle «<5 /^"xpTvpoZs-i De omitted . Dein. Grsecis. et ad fontes fideliter Scrip sit ha c Lvcas. eosqne cum Hffibi'ffiis. And that the very same reading was first also in the manuscripts of the versions. Nor have • collators id made a further discovery Habuimus ab Hunnajo. sit? Ad quae dlci quid possit? An quod libro fidendum Non hoc dit^et. ages. se- culo uli oportet antiquos nostrse editionis codices. seculi scriptoribus ex MSS in codicibus collectae sunt varise lectio- omnes propemodum examinatas derreheiidimus. you may see in his citations both in his Thesaurus. and in his first book that in the latter is Fide ad Reginas .282 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of as hundred years ago of the text . found it wanting In all those he h(SC met with. viii. accurate. said. deesse antiquis Latinis annotat. MS Bibl. pluribu-i forle composiium. a nobis descriptus est. saith Lucas. xiv. aut corfide rectorem fere vocamiis. non nes. . eo comprrimus. qui liber ad Genesin . anno 1579. quem Epanorthotem. . loco ex eo pergit. qui evolverit quae namque a nostri . 7. correctorium ab incerto auctore. Epanorthotes. may be to gathered from the the conformity of this reading all ancient XXXIV. cap.* whom Lucas Brugensis describes to be an ancient. quod maximi facimus. wi- de sequitur correcUrium ante dispulalionts Erasmicas de teslibus in ckIo elaboratum esse. eadem Greeds other libris. full. et Epanorthotes. and written for «' Kxprvpouvrei. and industrious collator of manuscripts. that this It seen by what has been hitherto testimony is not to be found in the Greek may be manuscripts. hb. latius . magnri diligentid ac tOntexfi'm. H(cc Lucas qui ad el Gcnesia v\\\. excepting of these two citations. 1 dixit hiinc librumnmUis ancilaio. nis scriptum.

And yet I will not inary books of dreaming Beza. in his commentary manuuously confesses it w^anting in all the Greek in one the then Spain. the Latins had much to do in the East. Which two we have shown to be none at all . France.* about the year 15G5. et Spiritus Sancti. and Italy. against Lee. IVostro tempore duo Gra. be found in some say. which once appeared where in England. Verbi. For in the times of the holy war. scripts other in England . Hessehus. who conspired Erasmus. qui testimonium dant in ternulla factA ra. Flanders. aqua. to this day. professor of divinion this place. Mantiscripti Gracci fere onines Qiioniiim Tres sunt. Sancti. known. and the rest in England. Stunica. 283 Spain. ct sanguis.ci codices inanuscripli reperti sunt. if that Phcenix to somebody someexcepted." mentione triplicis testimonii de ccelo " Patris. but that it may hereafter Greek copies.TWO CORRUPTlO>fS OF SCRIPTURE. et alter in Hispauia : um habet "Patris." . et Spiritus inhunc locum " . et hi Tres Uiuim sunt. long united to the Greek church . meaning those by which the Coraplutensian divines and Erasmus printed it. ingenty at Louvain. could find nothina. si)iiitus. in the manube scripts of those parts against him . they Antioch . but could never since be seen." Dein codices aliter legenles describendo sic pergit . besides the imagnothing further has been produced. Verbi. unless the Since that time one Annius dug up one in England. unus in quoruu) uterque hoc loco testimoniAngiia. they reigned patriarchs of Jerusalem and at They were made Latin the year Constantinople over the Greeks from * Hcssclius sic se liabent ail . except two.

suspected also that out of which he printed the testiEngland. to note their in the margins of books . Greeks and Latins together . For this is most certain. (juse dicitur Anrea . et talis adhuc dicitur a Iservari Pontif. out of which Valesius collected his various lections. * Whence Mariana. assembled was 1215." in book mony kind less . of " the Three in Heaven. year the Lateran council. Editio ota Tesla- . Id factum est in fcedere Grsecorum cum Romana ecclesia . some another book was one of those. that he Latin ones. All which might occasion it it some in Greeks. and er in that there was such anoth- the Pope's hbrary. kingdom. menti. Et nos olim codicem incidimus ." to be of the same He though I rather think it was none at all . visum est enim in in et hoc ad firmaiidaui concordiain pertinere. Erasmus ad Lcdorem. for above fifty this their in the we told you above.284 SIR ISAAC Newton's iiisTORr of years together and during . and therein the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" was quoted out of some of the Latin manuscripts. consisting of four hundred and fifteen bishops. adJVoii movere regulam. un- falsary of that age were at the pains to Such transcribe one or tv«ro of St Paul's Epistles. ut aiunt. as well as Latins. Hie obiter illnd incidit admonendum esse GrEecorum quosdara Novi Testanienti codices ad Latiiia exemplaria emendates. hujusmodi Bibliothec^ Verum ex his corrigere nostros est Lesbiam. that some Greek manuscripts have been corrected by the Such a book Erasmus* tells us. " once met with. quod fcRilus testatum Bulla. as 1204. and hence insert into the text transcribing.

for t* St riMi. the books now have it . he used those lections And that Valesius but sparingly and cautiously. xix. tells tions tions us.M. where the Greek has uyyixm. names Abaddon which certainly and some is a translation of the Latin. into 285 lec- whose hands the manuscript book of those fell. in the the Apocalypse xxi. in later copies.ttx £|t£^^(v«v. and by the error of one letter in lacum. ))ut . taken out of this. at liut ancient Latin copies. .latuernni and . and his in is oy_. Valesius.i. adds. reads v»v/«5. in expounding the Apollyon.in fine. some Grecian has here corrected this in and written sius. /?/aci/erMn^. For in the xviii. far greater part of the Latin copies his present have ans^ulos .\H TraXXdZ the Latin. angelos. So in the Apocalypse .TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. a corrected with such did meet manuscript. the lections of ValeApocalypse ix. 12. iii.iyuXy.wi}v : as it is book by the Latin. Valesius reads rjesTxv and in 1 Peter 8. Again in the 11. fVi A/. appears by the lections themselves. that for that reason. Hebrews 2. for 'e>ix8ot. where the Greek magncc. the later copies. and such like instances. where the Latin ei translation. where the Greek reads as £t< roxev Apocalypse and the : Latin translates in locinn. Valesius notes the reading in his Greek copy to be pMuxiri «%&'» o»>. and h Tp 7ri?-it S).. by an error in fide. tuba magna'. in In manuxiii. 17. script. . in manuscript. Valesius. reads f^AxTnyyaii !/. G. in his annota- on the New Testament. iurha:. Valesius reads These. Again. Et Latine hahens nomen exterminans .

and Erasmus tells us. though Valesius found not the testimony of "the Three in Heaven" in this manuscript . Who is he that overcometh the world. if it be liable to either of these two exceptions. Having given you the history 'of the con-~ troversy. and even in some manuscripts. but he that believeth that jesus is the son OF GOD. by the Latin. where the testimony of " the Three in Heaven" was read. by consequence. not yet taken notice of . shall hereafter insist meet with it in any book. in other places." the sense is good and you may see by the following paraphrase inserted in the text in a different character. which. And therepossibly have fore have not been corrected he that first. that Son spoken of in the Psalms. where lie saith. yet it may have crept out of the Latin into some other books. and whether it be ancienter than the Lateran council. Now. that he never saw it in any Greek manuscript . it may been inserted by some of the Greek bishops of the Lateran council. as For. and. XXXV.286 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of the thing out of dispute. and empire of the Latins in Greece . not in that corrected one which fell into his hands . all that I have said from the sense of the text of " the Three in easy. this day have I begot- . ' " Thou art my Son . it can signify nothing to produce it. to examine whether it has not been corrected before he the authority of that by the Latin. I shall now confirm itself. without the testimony Heaven. ought upon book. for.

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

wherein its the difference between in earth ? to witnessing If. if you insert the " the Three testimony of and spoil it. I can make none. how does prove to them the truth of Christ's coming ? If be. . and its witnessing case. And to what witnessing make to the discourse ? Let them make its For my part. reason. If it it testimony be not given to men. it does not witness witness ? men. to ." you interrupt For the whole design of the apostle being here to prove to Christ's coming. and therefore ought to be more readily received. mine what judgments is If it be said that we are not to deter- scripture. in in the first it heaven. who are able." XXXVI. and . and what not. I love to take up with what It is the I can best understand. by our private I confess it in . I men by witness the truth of " the Three their in would ask how the testimony of heaven" makes to this purpose. 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. places not controverted . but in disputable places.'' whom doth purpose And how does design of St John's good sense of it. in matters of reliand for that gion. is greater is . to like best what they understand least. ever to be fond of mysteries . it witnesses to us men. Thus the argument full the sense plain and natural. temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind.288 spirit SIR ISAAC Newton's history of on us. in heaven. and strong but.

St Austin. know. in the verse. now. us plainly that they followed the Latin.ers. by printing it." by the Arians. and and nothing against me.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. without ever in ^^•hat letting us know libraries they were to be . and by the authority of clause. which. but the . pretend manuscripts. gathered the unity of the Deity from and the omission of it is . and therefore take that sense to his. is plainly to impose on the learned world. of Jerome. I have that honour for him. Thomas left out the One. and that also side the authority of the of all the old versions. which is the best . Eucherius. the modern Latin. as to beheve that he be wrote good sense . And yet St Ambrose. since their discovery. could never be heard of . especially since I am dein it fended by so great authority. and other Latins. nor were to then seen by persons whose names and credit wc know . For seen first to tell us of other manuscripts. For I have on Fourth General Council. and ought not to pass tell The Spaniards any longer for plain dealing. my so far I of all the as churches in all and. and the credulity and heat of authority ancient Latin ones his follov. except have lately been influenced by them . as inserted " And these Three are in the eighth Arian age. this clause The manuscript in England wanted the same clause. and such others as ages. and Greek manuscripts. . 2S9 but Such men may use the apostle John as they please . acknowledged to be an erroneous correction.

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

Timothy 16. which was manifested flesh. Grotius adds the Arabic. Text concerning the Mystery of Godliness manifest in the Flesh. in their discourses to Son. 1 the Greeks have done to that of St Paul. as all GOD manifested all in the flesh. mystery they « into of godliness. and the authors the ancient versions. they would all have done." and therefore they read «. iii. as that I can find. read. 1. mystery of godliness. the writers of the the ancienter fiv^e agree first centuries. for these two versions were made long after the sixth century. and Latin versions to correct the old vulgar Latin in this place. is " Great Jerome. ^91 SECTION On the II." the in the For this is the conunon reading of the to this day . but the Egyptian Arabic version has ©e»s and so has the above mentioned Sclavonian : version of Cyrillus . Jerome's manuscripts having given him no occasion Ethiopic. ec. both all Greeks and Latins. never allege this text. For they. What the Latins have done to the foregoing. and some of them frequently. Syriac. as well as the rest. For by changing tion of ©eo5. AV'^ith wherein the corversions ruption began.TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. the abbrevia" Great is the now read. Ter- prove the Deity of the 25* . had they read " God manifested in the flesh ." four or five Wherehundred the churches for the first of years.

contra Euuom. Lucifer. and in several and yet I cannot find that they ever allege this text to prove it. Jerome. . Vigilius Tapsensis. but have Alexander nothing of this. once urges hot into excepting that Gregory Nyssen the passage crept not into him out In all of some marginal annotation. The churches. Arnobius Junior. Victorinus Faustinus Diaconus. therefore. n. Epiphanius. and Cyprian adversus Judceos. play though now those " God manifested they that read it disputes in the flesh. Phoebadius. . of those ages were absolute strangers to this reading. tracts of the Son. xi. For though they cite it not to prove Oi'at. never came are over. . Afer. discover that it was «. Basil. for the deity of God . the bishops of the council of Sardica. For. also Hilary. Cassian. Cerealis. and incarnation and some of them largely. Pope Leo the Great." think one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business. Ambrose. of Alexandria. Cyril of Jerusalem. wrote all of them in the fourth and fifth centuries. Austin. Cyril of Alexandria. Gregory Nazianzen. industriously cite all the places where Christ is called God. Gregory Nyssen. Fulgentius.292 tullian SIR ISAAC Newton's history of adversus Praxeam. as often as they have any occasion to cite the reading then in use. Athanasius. Chrysostom.* if it. their writers. on the contrary. the times of the it and lasting Arian controversy.

and of the Virgin. which manifested in the flesh . c. the deity of the Son. ascribed to Jerome. but on the contrary." as the Latin manuscripts of St Paul's Epistles generally have it to this day . 3. in his answer novissimo tempore. and Fulgentius. and Beda in his commentary on this text. 20. and the author of the commentary on the Epistles. lib. found no fault with the citation . reads o and so doth St Austin in Genesin ad liternm. adversus gilius Arium and Idacius Clarus. ad Flavianum. 12 did . and Pope Gregory the Great. 2. reads «. 34. printed in Fulgentius's works. cap. 1. So also do Primasius and Sedulius in their commentaries on this text. These ancient Latins " Great ner. and Victo inus Afer. cap. lib. in his first book ad Trasimundum. 7. . 2. particularly Hilary. they produce it. . Vanmadum.TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE. and interprets it of the Son of God. epist. who was born of the Father ante secula . de Trinitale. author of the commentary on the Epistles. and therefore it cannot be doubted. cap. adversus lib. hb. but that this hath been the constant public reading of the Latin churches from the beginning. 5 . Moral. or rather Vilib. is all cite the text after this manwas the mystery of Godhness. Tapsensis. 293 and sometimes in other discourses. where he cites the reading of St Austin. yet in their commentaries. . or whoever of his contemporaries was the . de Incarnatione and so Pope Leo the Great. and And Am- brose. to this homily. in And Fulgentius. So also one of the Arians in a homily.

SIR ISAAC Newton's history of to seems have read and understood the text after the same manner with other Latins. as he expresses it. "AvdpaTroi atp^ri uvu-f^d^rfiroi. making Man the nominative case to these and all the verbs which follow . or.f ^n/^mpIn anotlier place .<p6>}. reading was tary on . the Man world ." and so leaves or it at liberty to be taken in for either God man. f^s6^ i f^av ei^ov avTov loas oiuyysAci. had ©5)5 been case expressly in the text. among them of what the So in Chrysostom's commenthey have now gotten ©fes into the text itself. ev c-apx). "Man made God. III. Now. ^E-puupaS)] Iv irxpx.294 6. And accordingly one place of his commentary he saith. For he nehher else. received Man appeared without up . i^iKcciaSii ev Trveoy-oiri. Man appeared without sin. ix. and God made nor expounds it. was ((pxv'ipah seen amongst us hy angels. this epistle. for the Greeks. . as but with the Latins. their nominative He might properly put man . yoi kvfipuTToi avct>J. nor any where . Instead of saith. Man was preached in &c. not only in the manuscripts of St Paul's Epistles. he sin . the deity of Christ h'om this text . I find indeed that they have changed the ancient reading of the text.^v ev x-or/uct. understands by it Christ incarnate . which certainly he would not have done. I am and yet by considering the commentary satisfied that he read o.}jpux. who Man . they do who read ©-^05 read 0. infers in this commentary. hut also in other authors and yet there are still remain- ing sufficient at instances first.

IV. and how he defended it. Creatorem JVon peperit creatura est. all parties read oor . mam Deo honoramus. natum est. 295 but not for ©e*?. ereavit. uveifAxpTijToi Neither could he have put if he had read in his text Gffls lSiY. first. post.xia6}t. for ehxcciaB-)}. Kon na- peperit sanctissima JMaria Deitatem nam quod tum est de came. the reading os. in order to show what was the opinion of Nestorius. JVoncedlficavit Deiim. without any dispute raised about and how the Greeks have since coro rupted the text in Cyril's writings. de Sjyiritu Sancto est. qui humaniiatem ejus Quicquid ex Maria natum est. and changed e<i and Chrysostom's. that the Nestorians read « is evident by some fragments of the orations or homihes into ©£95. Spiritum divina separat natura. when I shall have shown you how say. that ? God was made I But what afterwards. sent by him to the Pope. he cites two of his orations in these . as they have done in Arnobius Junior. Luciphorum) Deus est. scd peperit hominem Dcitatis ministrinn. words . of Nestorius. Deo que virgo templum ex virgine adijicovit. for 0. Et paulo post Q^oTUnforEt in alia pra^dicatione . in the time of the Nestorian controversy. Et paulo Qui perse natus in est Deus in utero (scilicet ante . de Spiritik . And. and cited by in the second book of his conflict For there.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. Spiritus Sanctus . quod ita- ex ipsa. with Serapion. J^ei'bum. caro . For what man of common sense would sinless in and through the said of Chrysostom will be have spirit more evident.

justijicatum est in quod Spiritu. saith he." And such an made as great troversy . And now. but not only so. blasphemously saying " calls it was a created manifested which God in the flesh. secundum. tificatum est Which last words in the language wherein Nestorius wrote are. \jiempe^ hoc manifestatum est in came. Spiritus. because that thing which was manifested in was justified in the spirit. Here you see the flesh. thus against the deity of Christ. that the Virgin was not 5£oroj£«5 V. replenished by the spirit in righteousness. a creature . whilst he read the text after this it manner. and yet I meet with nothing of this kind His adversaries do not so much as tell him. that ©£«? was in the text. that if this had not been the re- ceived public reading in the Greek churches. o those homilies. arguing.IS'iKcaeeSri Iv TrvsufAotrt. and exclaimed against him the Scripture for falsifying the text. or. qui ef secundum justitiam replevit. and urged one Vv^ould suspect. They were so far . accusation as this would surely have a noise as any thing else in the con- in history. his adversaries would have fallen foul upon him.296 Sancto SIR ISAAC Newton's history of est. creatum est . i^pxveptiSij Iv a-xpxi. as he ex- pounds it. VI. and calling that thing which was manifested in the flesh. and thing. justi- tiam replevit \hoc^ quod creatum est. that Nestorius reads o expressly. quod hoc quod manifestatum est in carne^jusin Spiritu. absolutely excludes God from being understood by it .

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

298 SIR ISAAC Newton's history op the end of his book. Quia quod a Spiritu vis eum repletum esse justiiid. divini testimonii ordinem rationemque furaris. of which we gave you an account above out of Arnobius. than that the contrary should tise. Quid enim est pietatis apostolus ait ? Et manifeste magnum sacramentum.* be true. he returns this answer it . . vis creaturn est et quia hoc apostolico apparuit in tcstimonio comprobare. Et hoc. . he had received satisfied from his it master Chrvsostom originally in I am that he wrote in Greek. cap. 18. came justificatus in utrumque /also et hoc. For it saw them in eloquent Greek . sensu etfurioso Spiritu loqcris. telhng them. and is more likely that they had their author's eloquent language from their author. . tit tu id truncatum vitiatumque posuisti. quod carne. to Jam prirnum enim quod est hoc quod ais. JVestori. JVon enim ita ah apostolo posi- ium est. ut ostendas ejus vacuitatem. Now in this trea- when he comes to consider the passage of Nes- torius about this text. cui prastitam esse asseras justitice adimpletionem. His other books were Photius both languages. ideo ponis. mysterium pnetatis. . and concludes with an exhortation to the citizens of Constantinople. that what he wrote . quod Spiritu dicat. and the Latin from one of the Latins where he lived . quod manifestatum est in Vides ergo. vel sacra^nentum justificatum apos* Libro septimo. justitid repleverif. justificatum est in Spiritu. quod super hnc re apostolico testimonio uteris.

it to a creature. or. the its one restraining being justified . whereas Nestorius said it was a creature which was ing 0. to peratorem Reginas. did not reprehend et 26 .) but mysterium . Nestorius and Cassian agree in reading i'. by reason of restraining it the other God. written against him in the beginning of that controversy. 5. the grand adversaof in his three books De Fide ad Imry Nestorius. that if he had read the that it wliole text.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. and interprets the text as follows est Et manifes- magnum pietatis sacramentum. tolus prcedicavit. He does not say." Vides ergo. quod manifesest iatum est in came. Cassian . Deum justificatum apostolus prcedicavit (as been in his he certainly would have done. Deus visus in corpore. In like manner Cyril. and assumed in glory. by reason of its being a great mystery. est magnum est in came? qui utique sicut palam manifestatus in came. cites te lib. 12. the nominative case to the verbs which follow. which is all one. Deus ita scilicet quod manifestatum natus in came. justified. its relative quod. cap. Cassian tells him. VII3. So you see assumptus in gloria. mystery of godhness. Quod ergo illud sacramentum. ^-c. 209 Thas far Cassian is not only readP or but confuting INestorius by that reading. he would have found was " the he. saith quod mysterium pietatis justificatum apostolus prfsdicavit. but dif- palam est fer in interpreting it . and so makes mysterium. In another part of this treatise. had that Bible.

that manifested this citation it Christ the i'?. by way in of interpretation. And making Xpuci and t^v^^ptoy equipollent.XiU@7j £V 5ry£'J^«T<. i<pct. and.iyo(. he makes /M. first. saith he. these MSS which. in book De . and ©605 are more plainly equipollent than Xpirci and t^vrnpiov. putbut f^v^-vipiov. ihtUi X^/s-«v.«.^5-«/)'«v the nominative case to £>«»£/'*^'» . j which those MSS was to be understood in oi. is nor the great mystery of godliness. 7. iS'lX. . rjj? tua-i^stoc^ f^vrnpiov.vipaih which . as SIR ISAAC if Newton's history of falsely. tic tation and demonstrative word. thing. Gsoi.300 him. For Xptrh. &C. . TijTE- fj XpirOV. justified in is spirit. T«5 ypatpdi' he has passage uSirei fitire f^iv (A. And. tino.x^. 'i^ text. unless you will say that he turns ©£«5 is For had ©eas been in this very hard.f^ss. telling him.« rem. he had cited the text but only complained of his misinterpreting it . Fide ad Imperatou\xvZa-6e. By plain that he read using one of for f^vriipiev. as he thought. and therefore Had he read them joined in this text by the article «. sect. insert- rarert Xptrov. not for f^vripiov^ but for ©A?. but the for Word his this ro if or Son of God . and by way of interpreFor this for i«v5-w/><e» ©£«5. who was in the flesh. by understanding X/i/s-ov « turned ing into <i« . not knoiving the Sci-iptures. 0? i(pUVSp6l6i] CrxOKl. and arguing this interpretation from the circumstances of the text. that he did not understand the great mystery of and that it was not a created godliness. said have H-^s-ipiev. he would not T«TeVi Xptroi l(pttn^u6y. left out that authenhave never would he read ©^es. written Xpiihv 05. Ye err. .

near the end. putting Aoy«« by way of interpretation for his bare f^vT^i^iov ." not the text itself.) i's ri to Trjs ilffiZucc. but the interpretation thereof it and be from the preceding disputation. Sect.* Moreover.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. Again. was seen on earth. dc Fidr ad Imperalorem. Neither would he have gone on. . « airoV Ik Qstu vecr^os Xoyoi. appeared to us. within a few lines. and. concludes. as needing proof out of other texts of scripture. he cites the text. the who is God. Jsi/Xst. he For in taking the form of a manifested in the flesh. mys- tery is above our understanding and that the only- begotten. in tery of godliness is my nothing else . and became a man. that to Word or the propound it as Son of God was here be understood by this mystery. opinion. concludes genuine. xoho was servant. (AUffrri^iiv. xcci l^avEja^jj fii^ipriv h ifa^xi. to IX. . 8. that mysthan he who came to us from God the Father the JVord. according to the ScripLord of all things. This he makes . was not to argue against Nestorius. and the after to opinion. as he does. was horn of the holy God-bearing Firgin. 23 and 24. TiyUnrai yk^ hoc Ctfril. in the first of his two treatises. saith he. Xa/SeJv. that " this divine . but to spoil 301 the argument which lay before him. to recite the same text. and argues thus against the interpretation of Nesto* "E/« yaf «» yi/iiv eJj^j iTigav eJfiix. as he does after this man- dispute for this his ner . and to opinion. rrif ayias TaoSUou ^toTOKOV. tures. De Fide ad Reginas. And then after many other things he at length fyc in sect.

f he also in his cites the second book. 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. it is manifested it in the flesh ? Is not fully evident. SIR ISAAC Newton's history of " Who is " that he. place again . but God born in the flesh.302 rius. and after our manner. that is no so other than the will Word of God the Father f For be a great mystery of godliness (which was* manifested in the flesh) . without . is he manifested in the flesh ? Is it not that every man is in the flesh. So nas.) how plain. (for this is mantained by some unlearned men. he was seen of anthat gels. De Fide ad Regiand then argues upon it against the opinion of Nestorius after this manner " If the word. losing his deity. being God. joined with God only in the parity of dignity and power. the mystery of godliness is without doubt a very great one . and cannot otherwise be seen by any body . is said to become a man. the Gentiles by . loco jam legit was not a mere created Codex Grscus hoc Section 33. and nothing more. ascending into heaven . and yet continue what he was before." his reasons Thus which Cyril goes on to give why that was manifested * t in the flesh. a the angels saw him such man as we are. but if Christ be a mere man. the holy Apostles he was preached to he was beheved 5 on as in the world but this not as a mere man ." saith he." X. &ic. 0C pro »j sensu perturbato* .

arguing with Cassian. cavil. as Nestorius contended. but a . relates that Cyril.c. and labouring by divers other arguments mystery of godliness to prove this interpretation. that it is hency that we call him God and Man. nor any debate about the reading. to ©'»«. that in the text it was not great a mere man. Qidd Apparuit in came ? And explains it by saying. Whereas had &eli been in the est igitur quod dicit. that Cyril it is evident beyond all was a stranger i'^or «. read is «« ItpuvepuiYi. in confuting him. ifested in the flesh and Cyril. that was a created thing which was man. now got into the text . in the 12th chapter of Scholiums. 26* . 303 eternal but the Word. and concludes.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. or Son of God . XII who. where he puts the question. commentary on the Epistles not yet &. all which would have if been very superfluous and impertinent. then been expressly in the text. and by consequence Christ. which was manifested in the flesh . published. and read as Nestorius andCassian did. or God the Son. Hoc est. and consonant text to this reading in Cyril's commentary upon the second of the his explanation of the twelve Anathematisms. but only put another interpretation upon the text than Nestorius had done . Dei patris verhum caro factum est. as Nestorious interpreted. did not answer that raise it was God expressly in the text. God had XL Seeing therefore Nestorius alleged the text it to prove. his in And his all this is further confirmed by Photius. man.

par. And the authority iii. and in the of the twelve chapters. it would have needed no interpretation . authentic and that or was the 05 public unconquence troverted reading till after the times of this council. the pitriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria. wherever he quotes this text. And yet in his books ad Reginas. or articles. and this explana- Now. and their writings went about amongst the eastern churches. in order to prove that God was manifested in the flesh. and written ©£«5 instead of c . quotexplanation ed this text in the second article . tion was recited by him in the council of Ephesus. whence. and approved by the council. XIII. and the heads of the two if read parties in this controversy. For Nestorius and Cyril. whilst Cyril read o or «?. of one of the Concii. . sub initio.for ©eoc. the Greeks have since corrected itby their corrected manuscripts of St Paul's Epistles. it is manifest that this and by consecouncil allowed the reading 05 or . in all Cyril's citations of this text. you must read or o<. 0? or . and in other writings. 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.* with an anathema at the end of every article . I think its that conclusion we make if of being then the general uncontroverted reading. if you would truly o understand the Nestorian history. nor would he have put ^/yej for ©?«?.304 SIR ISAAC Newton's HiSTony of text. Ephes. must needs be granted us.

Theodoret. corrupted by heretics. the XIV. Constantinople. in For the Emperor Anastasius banished him for corAt that time. And the man that first began thus to alter the sacred text. and. and the interpretation that into the two parties ran extremes. the patriarch of the beginning of the sixth century. make any thing for the we have that into the bargain. which Eutyches allowed. in their expositions of the text. in their opinion. the one disputing . that o or U the it for pass God . XV. Cyiil. that God was manifested in the flesh. and so gave occasion to the Greeks of . Many long divided about the council of Chalcedon. as I find henceforward to Thodoret dotl). God change the language of Christ into that of God. who allowed the condemnation of Eutyches. and at text itself. by reason of its decreeing. and wherever else they found it. and say. the Greek church had been rupting it. inviting the easy to length to write o or change of God Co in the into Gc. by the letter against influence of the bishop of Rome's Eu- tyches. but also in duabus . to set right Chrysostom. rejected the council . Yet whilst Nestorian controversy brought the text into play. them do it .two CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. or a? was a creature the other that it was the Word made was the prevalence of the latter party orthodox opinion. that Christ subsisted not only ex duabus naturis. if this was become the the text in orthodox authentic reading. first 305 four general councils truth of the reading. was Macedonius.

were thought . . and empire. so . the Eutychians. as if they that were for the council secretly favoured the Nestorians. and not considering that in all compounds the several parts have also their several natures. therefore. and therefore whilst they thus differ- ed in their sense. God and man made nature to the the nature of Christ assigning the person of Christ. to Hence each party endeavoured render the other suspected of heresy .* aspired to the name and authority of universal bishop. and they that were against ' For one party. sect. and by a great part of that church taken for Nestorianism. as well as to all other things. to clear with Eutyches. that as the body and soul made the nature of man. 149. and for a long time and Alexandria being engaged against one distracting the East disputes his . anno 451 . of Rome another. were thought to deny the truth of one of the natures Both parties. as modes of speaking. by these to length the Emperor Zeno. SIR ISAAC Newton's history of which language was new to the Greeks. in maintaining it. in opposing two distinct natures in him. 151. themselves of those imputations. perhaps to secure it quiet of the bishop of Rome. anathematised both those heresies . by this verbal contest. For they understood. sent about an * Vide Baroniuin.306 naturis . 150. the nature of one person with Nestorius deny and the to other party. two distinct natures in Christ. from the encroachment at who. they agreed in their But the bishops Evagrius well observes.

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

9. Quia ap- in carne. the councils. justificatum Htmc enim mono syll ahum id mutasse. and he is of the church of Carthage. and straining to seems out to have been occasioned by . sect. archdeacon Liberatus. J refert * Liberati Brev. cap. id this est. est. and so could not be changed into ^5 . in the year 535. which he wrote collected. or soon and as he saith it preface. xxKiii. Cut Deus apparuit per carmade by interpolation was surely ut esset. nem. 22. but if ©eos was not in. for if ©£«« was the corruption. who lived in that very age. it could not be brought in by this change. Uhi hahet mutatd e's. in spiritu. cap. Tanquam JVestorianus severum ergo cidpatus expeUitur per omitted here letters Greek The Monachum. apparuit per carnem. words «< ew^ . the Vide Baronii Annal. after. uhi qui in hoc est Grcecum. tion therefore is The interpola- inconsistent and spurious. literd mutatd vertisse et fecisse ut esset Deus. then «« or o was not in. tN. thus inserted . vertisse m . he delivers words f Hoc et maxhne hahet illud apostoli dictum. B. tanquam evangelia falsaret paruit .308 SIR ISAAC Newton's history of corruption. xix. et fecisse literd o in u. out of Greek tempore ah Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus imperatore Anasiasio dicitur expulsus. are. records. monasyUahum Grcecum. 510. make Nestorianism here the scribes for that end.jof in those and of in the edition second Sunius. In Hincmari opusc. I must tell you my author . in the sacred text before conjecture . hoc est qui. in his in these For in his Breviary.

ilium apostoli locum. interpolator. IS. he make But the words out. quod apparuit in carne. per cognationem Grcscarum Ubi enim habuit. ut esset Deus. cap. xxxiii. wave the conjecture of this ut esset. hoc est oc. mutavit. Hincmarus . artic. jus. as these authors have it. et quoniam falsavit evangelia . lias in their stead added ut npparerct to the words of Liberatus. id nppareret not being in Liberatus. thus distinguished Deus apparuit per camera. from the sacred text.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. qui ah Anasiasio Imperatore. are in like and somebody. ideo a civitate expulsus legitur. therefore. who above eight hundred years fill ago* related the fact . and in others ©c. and written id npparerct. But whereas he is here represented manner referred to the sacred text . et fecit 0c. Deus apparuit per carnem. sicut Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus. the interpolator writing ^i for Whereas they should have referred ut esset to the words of Liberatus. out of Liberatus after this illicitis manner ^uidam ipsas Scripturas verbis im- posturaverunt . ut esset. quapropter tanquam JVesfor torianus fuit expulsus. . litera mutatd o in ©. to out the sense. He was banished therefore changing the ancient reading (which in some MSS o) into was oc. ring the 309 and then words ut essei to the sacred text ut. to part these Hincmari opuscul. . monosyllahum Grcecum. and up the lacuna by the authority of an ancient author. id est. must be struck and supplied by setting the words from the sacred text * comma after id esscl. I had rather. Id est. tificatum est in spiritu literarum O et Q hoc modo mutando falsavit. qui.

a Nestorian. and . signed by emperor under whom it was called. I meet with some other reports of the in same kind. God respect the historian saith. for proving it this. will too often meet with such and even in the very story of trickish reports . as a holy man . rather change Macedonius. and in this they banished him XVII. that he was banished for corrupting the text in favour of the . he is said to be banished as a without explaining what is here meant by a Nestorian. the human nature. and made This distinguishing Christ into two natures was. .310 SIR ISAAC Newton's history op this. . But Nestorian for whilst this. it looks like a trickish way of speaking. and therefore interpreted of This doctrine Macedonius anthematised. guage . by the enemies of Macedonius. for doing the meaning is. used by his friends to ridicule the proceedings against him as inconsistent . the crime of falsation as if a perhaps to invert Nestorian would ©c into o. corrupted the text. though Nestorius held only a that spirit it was not really so. doctrine of two natures in Christ which his enemies accounted Nestorianism. For they that read histowith ry judgment. accounted Nestorianism in another lanmanifested in the flesh. and maintained two natures in Christ. that For Macedonius having his keeping the original acts of the council of Chalcedon. human nature in Christ in and the « God. that as a Nestorian for corrupting the text. though he was not really of that opinion. dwelt this nature. and. in the Word.

distorted the story coming to the crown. and threatened.c. his bishopric by being and had subscribed the council of Chalcedon. 31. priests all Egypt. that this to them because happened they anathematised the appeared council some of the of Chalcedon. that he would not act against the council of Chalcedon .f " That the people . great and small. Victor Tuiiunonsis in Clironico. ate their For they then all hands and arms. so that tliey were afterwards jound with iron chains. to stifle the make a contrary to the emperor that in of behalf he had done as much as the crown. when he came of Alexandria and and free.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. against Macedonius had got the henoticum* of Zeno. excepting only strangers. lib. Again. bond and monks. to And an angel people. that they might recover their heahh. 27 . and represented his subscribed promise to be the as at his book. accusation. Another report was. . which Macedonius refused to deliver back to him. and being deprived of human speech. he had promised under his hand and oath. story of the as if. in which that council was anathematised . barked day and night like dogs . iii. became about this time possessed with evil spirits. council. and drawn to the church. we are that they should do so no more. t Vide Annotatioiics Valesii in Evagr. his friends. k. saying. make if." told in hiscap. emperor perjured. refusing to . and this being objected against him. 311 deliver up to this book this to the emperor Anastasius some.

312
tory,*

SIR ISAAC Newton's history of

" 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

I

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.

TWO CORRUPTIONS OP SCRIPTURE.
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

I

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.

I

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-

consulship jNIessala. by the order of Anastasius . uncertain in is. whereas these things hap- pened in the same year. For Messala was ." Here Victor errs in the year. and I meet with no other council to which this character can agree. that banishment of JMacedonius. tanquam ab idiotis composita. as if written history by idiots. skilful 315 For this men and idiots. I gather about in from an ironical report of this kind put the West. had written amiss. consuUbus. Messcdd J^. reprehend untur et " In the of emandantur that . and the in abovementioned tumult about the Trisagium the consulship of Probus. For chronicle. by the command of the emperor Anastasius. to invented and put about to ridicule and shame the council.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. Constanti- nopoli. and thus recorded by Victor Tununensis. that the Scriptures it is plain by this were examined and corrected about this time by a council at Constantinople. sancta Evangelia. besides that which deposed Macedonius.jiibente Anastasio Imperatore. C. is too plainly ironical to be true and therefore it must be an abusive report. is very dates of the years for he places the banishment of Macedonius in the consulship of Avienus 502 . and propagate the corruptions of Maco 27* . as if consul anno Christi 506. is. . Now that should censure and correct the they Gospels. six years before the But Victor . the holy Gospels. all anno Christi 513 . were censured and corrected at Constantinople wrhten by Evangehsts that were idiots.

Beza's his manuscripts read For he had no other manuscripts of the Epistles besides the Claromontan . I now extant . — At Beza nobis ut ex ejus epistolA ad Academiatn Cantabrigiensem a Waltono edita liquet ubi variantes aliquas lectiones celandas esse admonet. So then the falsation fifth was set on foot in century. the letter © has been written and the letter o. and so was more easily the beginning of the .* but yet in another hand. thickenedf to make Sed praepostera aliqua AliS rnanu et atramento. and with other out of the line . facile i. Exercitat. but the sense of the passage imt{|<' Thickened. and in this manuscript. For though Beza ©^95 all that tell all the Greek manuscripts read readers. cap. tells . ink. Biblicis. and is now of about twelve hundred years standing and therefore since it lay but in a letter. the ancient reading was c . addita est litera 0. ii. we need not wonder if the old reading be scarce to be met with in any Greek manuscripts us. as Morinus by ocular inspection has since informed us. . 4. XXI. a partial crasement of the letter plies.316 SIR ISAAC Newton's history op donius as the genuine apostolic reading of the ScrijJtures. which the council had rashly corrected. Such is the reading in the defective edition of 1754. et ambesa paululum O." " ambesa paululum" in the preceding expressed by 0. and yet it is in some. that yet must 0. extra lineae serietn. Hac Morinus in ExercUationibiis iiividit. ut appareret signia. what is . as well as in the late edition of the entire essay from which the present is reprinted. Lib. spread abroad in the Greek manuscripts than the " the Three in Heaven" in the Latin testimony of ones . En.] note. XXII. emendatio conspicitur.

two Corruptions op scripture. in the manuscript of Lincoln College Library. Veriim si lineola aiitiquitus linea. certa. atramento superinducta?. but 1 do not hear of any Latin ones. which is the oldest of the Oxford manuscripts. quod ejus ductus et vestigia satis quid opus esset. ut cerni vix posset. XXIIL And said. periiilieriam iiterre per. " that God was For how can justified in it properly be the spirit . mirum est. anno Christi 1675. qiiani virgiila siiperiia ut jam legatiir lem Millius. cerni possit lineA illi superinductS incrassaretur. etiaranum appartnnt. et Alio atramentojam literal . vel fateantur aliis in superinducta?. lirieolas illas olim teniies t'uisse et piope evanidas. and Cyril. novo deiii atramento incrassatas fuisse . eo quod perluslralo attenquae primam aciem fuge- set . lineolce per raediuiri ral. c. 317 by Va- which instance shows sufficiently whom the ancient reading has been changed. qua. which read Gti^. (teste MS com. Putat auO. per medium literse illius Doceant verba evanida fuisse. tam conspicua alio esset. tingit luculeutiora multo liabiturus nisi obstante liturSquam dixit ipsi hodierna lineolte superinductA.^" But ducta cernitur tam lineola per nipdium I. a C. appears . and so did the author of the Oxford edition of the New Testament. besides to read ©-'s makes the sense obscure and difficult. crassioris. in oc. So then there are some ancient Greek manuscripts which read c. Photio The Alexandrian Epist. tiusloco. lesius also read « in one of the Spanish manuscripts.) read MS"*^ and one of Colbert's. ut uscpie nunc per medium . . Scholi- orum. diictas. either ancient or modern. and others o« . 12. ut a Sin olim tam evanida esset. locis atiamento novo incrassata in OC hie mutatum 0C. ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa depreliendere visus e3pra^sertim ad partem sinistrani.

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

I understand not. will But there the should. I presume is not be difficult. the character of an honest And to is man be pleased. and 1 hope you will interpret it candidly. I XXV. and how apply them. 319 but in the Greek particularly we have shewed you when.TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. XXVI. not whether it the text was corrupted. why we should be so fond of whilst it discourse. which Nestorian reads ©£05. For this epistle relates to the heresy. covered . this falsation thors. like the works of Cyril. and so was written by a much later author than Athanasius. For if the ancient churches. incarnatione verbi. that in the printed is there an epistle De works of Athanasius. knew nothing of these two texts. and by whom. and of both to run most into those passions when the detection is made plainest j . I Chrysostom and by the corrected texts of St John's Epistles. to know what to I construc- put upon them. now thus far laid open. more passages about occur pertinent falsation tion to may not hereafter if to it the argument. that I cannot tell whether. in and deciding them now the debates are over. to tell know be worth the while you. have had so short a time to run my eye over auupon further search. and of a man of interest to be troubled at the detection of frauds. on what occasion. You see what freedom have used in this debating the greatest mysteries of religion. and may also possibly have been since corrected.

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

.BUTLER'S HISTORICAL OUTLINE.

.

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

in " there which the manuscripts of the Greek Testament have not been examined. Of the history of the general admission of The Verse into the printed text . Travis observes. putes to which it has given rise . from the Vatican to the Bodleian. Some account of the argument in favour of scription . And of the principal disI. it from VII. and covers so large a field of historical and theological criticism.324 the butler's HISTomCAL OUTLIXE. into so many pands comphcated branches. An inquiry whether the general sense of the text is affected by the omission of The Verse . the manuscripts of in From its supposed existence the editors . in the walks of philology or criticism. as Mr. IX. ex- on a nearer approach. it appears on a distant view. V. III.. attention . And manuscripts of the Complutensian in the existence its from manuscripts used supposed by Robert Stephens . IV. is hardly a library in all Europe. The folio win Some account 2: sheets mav be found to contain. as itself. from Madrid to Moscow. Some observations on the ." and. Some its against scripts . its authenticity from pre- VI. X. " there are few subjects. whether proceeded from the pen of St John . of the learned during the three last centuries so that. in which. in order to determine. II. Herbert Marsh observes. in from Valla its . one it really as Mr simple question. account of the arguments absence from the Greek manu- Of the answers to those arguments." of the state of the question . supposed existence VIII.

what is noticed. TO Xiuof xeti oi Tpi7i ili 'To tv f»V<y. XI. On the siits On the Greek Fathers respecting it . or received Greek text of the 1st Epistle of St John. \v\\\. y. The state of the question is as follows : — In the Tcxtus Rcceptus. Eighth Verse.butler's historical outline. o Trcniip.yt6V TTViu/^x' Kcti oiiToi Of rpeli iv £<V/». On ers the silence of the most ancient of the Latin Fath- will then respecting it . versy. and of those which have been mentioned. lead to facts There are many and subjects which are not noticed in these sheets but. XIV. other important topics for and several against the authenticity of The Verse . — to shew the general turn and bearings of the controI. be found sufficient . XIII. perhaps. Kit] TO a. On its not being inserted in the oriental versions . "Oti rpd £(~/v c'l f^uprvpoZyrti tv T&i eupx\u. most ancient lence of all not being inserted in the Latin manuscripts . the 7th and 8th verses of the fifth chapter are expressed in these words : Seventh Verse. o Afiy»5. XV. .ui uSuj). XII. Some account be given of what has been written respecting its first introduction into the Greek and Latin manu- scripts. argument arising on its 325 not being inserted in the Greek Apostolos or Collection of Epistles read in the Church .

s6' rpsTi o't (i^!\ in the 7th verse. The verse. qui testimonium dant in terra .326 butler's historical outline. — and in the . now ex"On rpu^ oiif/. tres sunt. qui testimonium dant in Sjriritus Sanctus : et hi tres 6tb. et tres sunt. — question or. unum Et tus.v. spiri- aqua. in it x«i rpui ciTit fixprvpoZvrei in the 8th verse. qui testimonium dant : unum sunt. the verses are thus translated 7th. Xoyoi. Ouoniam sunt. et aqua. et sanguis et lii tres in : the Latin Vulgate : what should be understood by the Vulgate. insertion of it in — 2. The second is Erasmus''s insertion of The Verse.x) n'l : if it be spurious. the text If the passage question be is stands properly. should stand . ccelo . in his three last editions of the Greek Testa- ment. which deserves attention. whether i the words. . Latin. K»i ouret 01 r^ouaxvi^ «'» TTXiiip. : et hi tres in unum sunt. and the words. The first event. Vei-bum. x-xi to uyiov 7rvsv(4." IT. will be mentioned afterwards. is the spiritus. genuine. et sanguis is. kx\ ra hSup.»' ei fcxprvpiZvrs^^ to TrViUtcx. in this place. et Pater. kcci ra T^ui iU TO in tho Greek . as it pressed BiTii y. to £V whether the whole of the 7th speak with greater accuracy. £v £/V. " (^uoniam tres sunt. iv TJJ y>j. are genuine or spurious. With respect to the histohy of the general ADMISSION OF THE VERSE INTO THE PRINTED TEXT 1. : In the vulgate.

and to a dispute between him and the Spanish divines employed on the Complutensian Polyglott. in 1516. The Complutensian Polyglott was printed in 1517. completed in 1517. 3. is The fourth of these events. noble work was begun in 1502. 1527. in Trinity College. and published 4. 327 Erasmus had the honour of behig the person who published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. 1550 the text of it. 1516 and 1519. New Testament. and 1535. In his edition of 1522. 1519.. Such a manuscript was found. to the this all makes Complutensian edition . an Englishman. — annicus. 1522. in in his celebrated edi. if it He promised to restore The Verse. and in his two subsequent editions. Erasmus inserted The Verse in his edition of 1522. since called the in Codex Montfortianus . consequence of this discovery. is the insertion of The Verse in the Complutensian That Polyglott. in 1522. and published in 1522. 28* . edition of 1519 the most esteemed of he published. The third of these events. and. He pubHshed five editions. in different places. The Verse of the Heavenly WitIn his editions of rise to This gave a dispute between him and Lee. the insertion of The Verse by Robert tion of the Stephens. could be found in a single Greek manuscript. Erasmus his is supposed to have conformed his text. the manuscript now then called the Codex BritDublin. and retained it in his two subsequent editions.butler's historical outline. insert he did not nesses.

at third edition Leyden. the last of them. that account. are immortalized of their presses. like each of those editions. 1589. contains The Verse. generally. it in all subsequent editions. Daniel. Five several printers of the name and family of Elzevir. principally follows in it. 6. the eldest of them. was a in printer of distinction 1505. in the preceding editions. Stephens. is the insertion of The Verse mBeza's editions of the Greek Testament. they do not contain every where the same text. the text. acquired a consistency.328 butler's historical outline. which had fluctuat- ed. 1582. died in 1680. and 1598 . The Verse is inserted. The fifth of these events. The seventh of these events. but in all of them. is the insertion of The Verse in the modern edition of Luther''s transla- . and. by the successful labours Lewis. It was followed. The The Verse sixth of these in the events. in 1624 . . fifth similar to that of the edition of Erasmus. By this edition. first Their edition of the Greek Testament was printed. and. it was printed from the of Robert Stephens where it varies : from that edition. is with a very few variations. is the insertion of Elzevir edition of the Greek New Testament. the edition of Beza . on deservedly acquired the appellation of Editio Recepta : the editors of it are unknown. the third edition of Robert He printed other editions in 1576. 7. it follows. The first of his editions was pubhshed in 1565 he 5.

and Gries' bach. editors. : — by determined by the two the two last. be added. is the dispute between Erasmus and : Lee. in the slightest instance. is wholly absent. With respect to the principal disputes to WHICH IT HAS GIVEN RISE 1. press. with dying request. . notwithstanding sentiments. for a time. however. The first. From the translations The published by himself. they state. IVetstein. In that. that. since the beginning of 17th century. Verse. that. living. it is The Verse is found in the text first. has 8. he uniformly rejected it. Verse. his translation upon 1574 in rejected the and. to be spurious. The should be ahered. the insertion of it. with the exception of the Wittenin the ediberg edition of 1607. inserted in some. and . Bengel. that the principal printed editions of the Greek New Testament since the Elzevir. It should been general. with equal fairness.butler's historical outline. candour and the arguments for and the ar- guments against The III. and between Erasmus and the Editors of the Comphitensian Polyglott. was that of 1546. but was not quite finished till after his death. are those of Mill. as in all his former ediit tions. tions of Luther's translation. he the while was in was which last edition. Luther concludes his preface to that edition. it to be genuine To the credit of all the their particular should be observed. other editions: but. 329 Hon of the New Testament. of them all . was inserted in the Frankfort edition of what may be termed his no account.

the library of Trinity to contain The Verse. by Lee or Ley. 1229. a Spanish divine. 163-175 . of one or more manuscripts. promise. and for Stunica's attack and Eras- mus's defence.330 It bCtler's historical outline. to the archbishopric of York . miay be considered to have begun . did not insert The Verse in the two editions of 1516 this. was found In performance Codex vii. the Codex Britannicus. 1757. vol. and retained it of his in his editions of 1527 and 1535. As The Verse was without the authority inserted in the Complutensian Polyglott. now in College. and ought not to have been inserted in it. dispute. respecting the authenticity The second of The Verse. in the severest terms. Erasmus inserted Verse in his edition of 1522. to produce such a manuscript . see the Crit. p. At length. and by Stunica. in honour. — for the controversy 2 between Erasmus and Stunica. Tom. 2 vol. he declared readiness to insert The Verse. Stunica was bound. (For the controversy between Erassee Biirigni. employed on the Complutenhis sian Polyglott.) then called the Montfortianus. 1 vol. Sac. he was reprehended. an Enghsh divine and 1519. Paris. has been mentioned that Erasmus published He five editions of the Greek New Testament. The 2. Dublin. afterwards advanced. In answer to them. if a single manuscript should be found to contain it. Vie d^Erasme. 372-381 . For of some note. see the same work. but he pro- duced none. 8vo. mus and Lee. by Henry the Eighth.

v. 1717. and in several other parts of his writ- found a zealous advocate in of the church of Utrecht. 1676. 6vo. 331 till with Sandius the Arian. dans laquelle on prouve La second e sur le passage ou. ch. 18. proin his voked a fresh dispute. in his Histoire critique du Texte du JVouveau Testament. S. de la 1 Epistre de St Jean. 8vo. 1719. treatise A er regular and able attack on it was made by Fath- Simon. 4to. Ciel. de la response de Monsieur Emlyn a la Dissertatioii Critique sur le verset 7 du ch. the Pastor it. Part I. de la premiere Epistre de St Jean. and to have continued. Part ings. v. Cosmopoli. 4to. 9. Col. . lished the following works. the note respecting it.^^ " // y a trois au V authenticite de ce texte. 4. Utrecht. he pub- Deux verset 7 Dissertations Critiques. ch. 4. in Mr Gibbon's History. C. Rot. . he sums up the arguments on each side of the question. By Sandius. and his Interprctationes Paradox^ in Johannem. it was pointedly attacked JVu- cleus Historia. 1G69. In support of Martin. Its authenticity is defended hy Mr Selden. Svo.butler's historical oftline. L. 2. ce V on fait voir que passage n^ est Examen point suppose. and pronounces in favour of The Verse. Ecclesiasticce. 1680. Londres. de Joseph touchant Jesus Christ. In his de Sxjnedriis Ehrceorum. It II. la premiere sur le du ch. ^c.

1721. Utrecht.3S2 butler's historical outline. Mr critical dissertation on John. 5. The Bible de Vence. all true christians it must lament and reprobate following works. Tom.Martin'' s examination of the answer. The author cites in it. an eminent presbyterian divine. Martin also met with an able adversary in Casar de Missy. demontree par des preuves qui sont au dessus de toute exception. et en particulier La dhm Irlande. 1 John. Pasteur de VEglise a Utrecht. whose suf- The Verse ferings for his religious principles. a native of Berlin. and sensible dissertation in favour of The Verse. contains a candid. 1815. London. text. 1709. prises du temoignage de VEglise Latine. xiii. 1720. et de VEglise Grecque. 7. Martin's i-eprinted in An 1 ansiver to v. and French chaplain at St James's. Reply to Mr . learned. Svo. published middle of the last century. London. v. trouve en Par David Martin. 1757. 1719. French preacher in the Savoy. manuscript du JVouveau Testament. verite du Texte de la premiere Epistre cle St Jean. Svo. at Paris. ICetneri Dis- . inserted in the 8th and 9th volumes of the Journal of Four Britannique. 7. about the p. London. he attacked in the A full inquiry into the original authority of that v. the author Letters against the genuineness of the verse. . 7. found an able adversary in Mr Thomas Emfyn.

sertatio hujus loci. and They Newton. in Schviidius^s Historia Antiqua Vindicatio canonis sacri veteris novique Testamenti. in the fifth tion of Sir Isaac volume of Dr Horsley's force. PariSf 1713. 4to. may be found in the note on St John's first Epistle. . 2 vol. in hunc locum. Gospels. Dissertatio singularis Roger^ Dissertatio Critico-Theologica.ibutler's historical outline. 4 to. 2 vol. the learned printer's Conjectures on the JVew Testament. under the JVeivton to The of Verse. London. Lipsia. candour. and . 1781. in this stage of the controversy. in BengeVs Gnoin Michaclis^s mon. 333 . dean of Clerc. which might be expected from Sir Isaac The English opposition to The Verse. Carlisle. an excellent publicaet tion of the high Lutheran school Tubing(C. It made its appear- title Two Letters from Sir Isaac Mr Le manuscript in the 1754. Sir Isaac JVewton is the author of a treatise against the genuineness of ance. late edi- Newton's works. A Dr regular attack upon The Verse was made by Benson. 1773 . 4to. works which there have made their apprincipal mean time. reprinted from a possession of Dr Ekins. in his Parajphrase of the. are written with the perspicuity. In the of much the The Verse had been the subject Some mention of controversy in Germany. 1756. Svo. a presbyterian divine. pearance on this subject. is respectably closed by Mr Boivyer. 1774.

Archdea- con of Chester. 1751 . published Gentleman's Magazine of 1788. to the third stage of the controversy. with two Magazine of 1782. in a separate publication. 4." This note was attacked by Mr Travis. or the deliberate falsehood or strange mis- apprehension of Theodore Beza. azine for January ject. Introduction to the JVew Testament.) INIr Gibbon asserts. translated by vol. In the Mag- 1790. but. by the prudence of Erasmus . in his Historical and Critical Collections. afterwards. in the placing a crotchet . in the Gentleman's He printed them. in three letters. his Vindicice piurium lectionu/n codicis et Greed JVovi Testamenti adversus Whistonum ah eo latas leges criticas. in octavo. and reprinted the five. Mr Professor in the Porson replied in several letters. the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors. became one of its most powerful opposers. at — Mr in declared himself an advocate for The Verse. (3 This leads " The 545. 3. on the sub- appeared from Mr Travis. relative to what are called the proof passages. or error. cA. with considerable further ad- ditions. 21. in dogmatic theology. . In the 119th Note to the 37th Chapter of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roinan Empire. others. Testament. of Robert Stephens. 4to.334 butler's historical outline. Herbert Marsh. another letter. in 1784. 1789. in our Greek vol. the typographical fraud. that Three Witnesses have been established. p. Mr Porson replied . in quarto. Michaelis had. Halce. To these. in 1786. first.

one of the seven. that a Greek Manuscript now preserved in the public library of the University of Cambridge. By the Translator of Michaelis . volume. 1795. in the jMagazine of the following month. and in confirmation of the opinion. were eternal monu- critical sagacity. Leipsig and London. 7. In 1795. all Mr Person's Letters. at 1 John v. which increased their pubhshed in one octavo ment of his uncommon and wit. and soon afterwards. and an Essay on the Origin and Object of the Vchsian readings. he took no particular Mr Person's letters to him. with considerable additions notice in them. In 1794. of one of the notes to Michaelis's Introduction. ters to J\Ir Herbert Marsh published a series of Travis. to 335 it. but professes to answer. that the title to vindicate his assertion. of his notes to his translation of Michaelis's Introduction. Mr Travis . of republished his letters. con- taining a review of Mr Travis's Collation of the Greek which he examined at Paris . the arguments of other distinguished opponents of The Verse. with addi- tions. one after another. as one expresses it. The principal object of Mr Marsh's the title letters was. in Greek manuscript referred is to in the of his book. number to twelve. is one of the seven. which are quot- 29 . which are quoted by Robert Stephens.butler's historical outline. entitled Letters to vindication let- Mr iii Mr Archdeacon Translator's Travis. with an Appendix. — an erudition. an extract MSS from Mr Pappelbaum's Treatise on the Berlin MS .

ingenious. containing two very exact Fac-Similes of 1 John. ed by Robert Stephens. which comes ters into consideration. in the Library of Trinity College. as they stand in the first Edition of the JVeiv Testament. and the fix that . The ascertainment of this fact. 8.336 butler's historical outline. v. will estabHsh a strong argument for or is is of the text. susceptible to partisans of each opinion. Observations on the Text of the Three Divine Witnesses. have attempted sense on it. BY THE INSERTION OR OMISSION OF The Verse. nicety . verse 7. Such have been troversy. 7 but his letabound with most learned. an interesting pamphlet on the subject of The Verse. printed at Compliitum. iV. Mr Clarke has lately circulated among his friends. The first object of the inquiry is to ascertain WHETHER THE GENERAL SENSE OR IMPORT OF THE TEXT. It is to be hoped he will put it into public circulation. which best suits their cause. By A. of more than one construction. Manchester. This against the internal evidence the verse is of some an inquiry obscure. and in the Codex Montfortii. Chap. -. and profound remarks on almost every point. v. IS ASSISTED OR INJURED. Clarice. 1514. in the discussion of the genuine- ness of The Verse. and 9. at 1 John. 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. with this title. Dublin. a JManuscript marked C. 97. accompanied with a Plate. 1805.

by the water only. witness. the spirit. And is it is the Spirit who witnessed . and praised and commented on by the learned men of every state. and the blood. was in . and the blood one. V. the water. but by the water and th« blood. the text will stand is that The Verse " to the sense of the text. therefore is not essentially neces- sary to the text. as Who eth that Jesus he that overcometh the world. taught in the schools. Thus in there are three who bear . whom testimony borne . appealed to in disputes. is Jesus. therefore. even Jesus the Christ . The Verse 1. who believThis is he. The text of these and tempocopies had been adopted by the spiritual ral courts. but he. within the Latin pale. the Christ. cases. follows. are the witnesses bearing Thus without further aid. came by water and not. the and the water. who is the son of God ? blood." and the three agree Whatever be its is is right construction. 337 is This much must be granted. Spirit. the its Erasmus has been stated to have madq from first attack on The Verse.butler's historical outline. general insertion in the manuscript and printed of tiio copies of the Latin text. because the spirit truth. if its Prcscrijjtion in these prescription be pleadable favour. the testimony to him. the universal opinion Latin church was in its favour. At that time. and construction meaning of the sentence are complete. the sentence complete and perfect the person to in itself. not absohitely necessary Whhout it.

dare or presume to reject it. we believe the opposers of The Verse. If butler's historical outline. was first owing the fath- spirituaUzation of the 8th verse ers. fall with the see of Rome. that even a suspicion the genuineness of 3. in communion Verse. which have reached us . as they had been accustomably read in the Catholic Church. had been entertained of The Verse. and that no one should." Now. The council to all. on any pretence. and long made a part in the old vulgate edition . nothing. therefore. remarkable. and was It is universally received for genuine in the 12th. who now reject The within the council's Anathema. which inti- mates. Here the communicant with the see of Rome Trent. all and every part of the books of the Old and New Testament. that not the slightest vestige of opposition to it is discoverable in the works of those times. those. The Verse had long been accustomably read in the catholic church. takes a higher ground. To reply ." the sixth session. by the African which became common Httle in the till Verse gained ground 4th century . these objectioas the adversaries of The Verse . and as they stood in the old vulgate ediand in tion . declared " the Vulgate to be authentic. declared Anathema " who should not receive for holy and canonical. The the 8th . the to introduction of The Verse. when the council of Trent made this decree.338 2. of Session 4.

it at the time of the council of Trent. and. to be authentic.butler's historical oiJtline. superior celebrity. first by Sixtus Quintus. does not denote the edition. 29* . liberty to vary from it. that the to council of Trent pronounced the Vulgate and that no one was at translation or exposition. and which last edition is the archetype of the this edition modern Vulgate . anterior to St Jerome. 339 are That in the times of which we now us. which. an accurate notion should in these cases. it ancient versions in a .- from Italic its . 2dly. in declaring clare it In going to an extreme. where the In this dogmata of faith or morals are concerned. that standing by matter of criticism. 3dly. is. by It the appellation of the Latin Vulgate. 1st. Vulgate. which. that partook more of the modern. To suppose. was generally in use . the it to be inerrant. That. was called the Ancient does not denote the edition published by St Jerome . and afterwards served as the groundwork of the editions published. of no authority. before too great a stress insertion in the is laid on its be formed of the edition denoted. than of itself. or would be noticed. that no there was httle of biblical criticism. be wholly free from error. and works of those times have reached which such an objection either would be made. it merely denotes that edition. afterwards by Clement the Eighth. the council did not deis the Vulgate to council only pronounced be inspired or infallible . in speaking.

the council leaves the Vulgate in mere matters of criticism. in the authenticity of The Verse. seulement par la Tradition des Eglises. fallen from the pen of that great man. . ce que vous dites des anciens exemplaires Grecs sur le passage. in that letter.340 butler's historical outline. and vi^ith her interpretation . decision. but further this. — and the passage in question is little known. under her authority. que Partine doit pas etre pour d'ailleurs etabli. to the private judgment of every than individual. publish- ed by Mr as. is important. S/-C. Bossuet takes very high ground. In this stage of the argument. Dutens. in his edition of Leibnitz's works . and the faithful are thereAs every thing which has fore bound to adopt. To this effect. Bossuet seems to place the general acquiescence of the Roman Cathohc church. Monsieur. mais encore Vous s^avez aussi par I'Ecriture tres eviderament. every Roman Catholic must acquiesce. it is here transcribed at length. in one of his letters to Leibnitz. Tres Sunt. as he receives the scripture from the church. and assisted at the council of Trent in the character first is of one of the pope's theologians. cle contenu dans ce passage mais vous s^avez aussi bien que raoi. " J'avoue au reste. non etant cela revoque en doute. cited by the in tlie Abbe de Vence. who was one of the ten who disciples of St Ignatius. among the traditions which the church receives. father Salmeron. to have expressed himself third of his prolegomena.

It before the impression of adversaries of certainly imposes on the The Verse. so far as the authenticity of The Verse depends on in its favour.butler's historical outline. est une demonstration de la Tradition. the Greek original. and arguments against the principal anwers to them. n'ayant point ete reproche par les heretiques. sans meme I'Occident. par cette scavante Eglise. &tc. que ce passage se trouve re^u dans tout ce qui paroit manifeste. Ce temoignage produit par un aussi grand Theologien. reraonter plus haut. dans une excel- Confession de presentee unanimement au au Roi Huneric par toute I'Eglise d'Afrique. par la production Fulgence lente dans ses Ecrits." Such is the state of the argument. et encore par tant de miracles. " J. VI. the obligation of attack. et foi meme qu'en fait S. du moins de toute I'Eglise d'Afrique. rellement dans notre Vulgate et confirme la Tradi- Je suis. et au contraire etant conet firme par le sang de tant de martyrs. qui a passe natu. I'une des plus illusOn trouve meme dans S. that there is hardly a library in Europe. Benigne. in order to deter- . tion de tout rOccident. They say. une allusion manifeste a ce passage. Eveque de Meaux. the general prepossession. Cyprien tres du monde. dont cette Confession de foi fut suivie. 341 sans doute. their principal The its following are authenticity. in which the Manuscripts of the Greek Tes- tament have not been examined.

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

it does not appear. and that no manuscript is that. and of his plan of annotation . though it be probable he had seven Greek manuscripts. the infer. have been quoted under different contains The Verse. ch. Lee. 29. it is country might have exhighly probable in the to persecution that some or other of his manuscripts titles . which.butler's historical outline. v. 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. vii. which exhibited St John's Gospel. there the probability of none of his manuscripts having contained it. lived. where he expressly mentions that number of manuscripts. he attempted to bear him down by other arguments. that. with the contents of Valla's manuscripts. in and the times posed him that which he . of course. but did not deny that The Verse was to be found in . that of the 1st Epistle of The Verse might have been wanting in the Latin text. 343 The adversaries of The Verse reply. with which he made his collation . — that we are ignorant of the number of manuscripts which Valla used. and it is highly improbable. that he might studiously have avoided a remark. as there is that we are now in possess- same ion of some or other of his manuscripts. adversaries of FroiA these circumstances. he should have the hke number of Greek manuscripts St John.

has been much doubted. but. that men of letters should eagerly rise in is his defence. %as its place in this edition . in this supposition la's '.344 the butler's historical outline. which manuscripts the archdeacon But asserts. and at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes. cates infer. VIII. and thought themselves warranted in inserting in their text. printed patronage. a translation of it from the Latin. were in Erasmus's possession. manuscripts of Valla. The Polyglott — Alcala or Complutum. the whole impression of it was cer- finished in 1517. is denied by the adversaries of The They contend. that. and therefore inserted. they were honestly persuaded. from which its advomanuscripts . which the Complutensian editors had for the Vulgate. With respect to the manuscripts used BY the CoiiPLUTENsiAN EDITORS . This^ . under the Bible. whenever they think he unjustly accused. that The Verse was genuine. in It is spared no expense procuring whether he had any that were The Verse truly valuable. the archdeacon appears to have been mistaken . Erasmus was it the editor of Val- no where appears that he commentary was in possession of Valla's manuscripts. This inference Verse. at was begun in 1502 . and he himbut self asserts the contrary. from the deference. —Such are the obligations of literature to Erasmus. or at least the greatest part of the manuscripts used by the Complutensian editors. that it was exhibited by all. and published in tain that the cardinal 1522.

from the King's libraborrowed were which of eight six were procured from various quarters. it is necessary to observe that of the — the text of it is a re-impression of the fifth edition of alterations. he quotes far as fifteen. Of his fifteen . with a few margin. — terms. appears clearly from the dispute between the former in the bitterest Stunica and Erasmus . which it denotes. the Complutensian edition. Mr Archdeacon Travis owns for satisfactorily. With respect scripts of the case. The Complutensian denoted. challenged in Greek manuscript support of The Verse . 345 they say. «'j ^'. explain sons unacquainted with Stephens's celebrated edition this part —To to Robert Stephens's manu- Greek Testament. in his printed edition Erasmus. with Stunica to produce a equal vehemence. and from fifteen Greek manuscripts. and ry. to per. by the Greek numerals The copy «'. y\ as like throughout the whole New Testament. one was collated in Italy. Erasmus. reproached the latter with the omission of . single Stunica did not cite sisted in a single manuscript. contains the whole. other printed editions. ed by him in 1550. The Verse. himself unable to account IX. but per- the Latin. urging the authority of —This. text and the fifteen copies he when he cited various readings from them.butler's historical outline. because. which gives rise to the and which was the edition publishpresent question. the Complufrom various readings quotes Stephens In the tensian edition.

as compositors are not inreference are frequently placed of and marks fallible. and . v. in manuscripts. manuscripts just In the margin. 6\ l. In the Cathohc Epistles. which precedes -f ovpavS. At the place in question. tA. C' 6' '> three <«. but none throughout the whole New Testament. ci procured elsewhere.ctoe.346 BUTLER 3 HISTORICAL OUTLINE. that Stephens's compositor had here made a mistake. t iio-i- Xcyoi-. some another . «'. when any word or number of words is omitted in the quoted Now. At the 1 John ed passage stands thus in Stephens's e "^uTifp. were from the King's hbrary. when Lucas Brugensis suspected. this Robert Stephens had not been pubhshed many years. Stephens has quoted only seven manuscripts. ty'. according to his plan of annotation. vmi to aytov wvry. and the semicircle immediately after oupxfc. of which the four marked ^'. after the last word.^ 5 so that " by this notation the words r^ odpav^'. through various accidents edition of in printing. an obelus before the first word. mentioned. he expresses it by placing in his text. are represented as absent from these seven manuscripts. he quotes some in one part. manuscript. and not the the obelus whole passage. 7. wrong. But. and the other iy\ were among the six which he had the disputtext. which he denotes by the numerals S\ i. and a little crotchet in the shape of a semicircle. and of the size of a comma. h rZ oupxf^. iv x«< outoi rpiti (* KXi rpui etTiv ci /n^xorvpeuvref Ttj yfj Stephens has quoted the seven with an obelus prefixed. ^'. is set before «».

that 347 set is. which. as yv were absent from them all . for at of some importance in a case of least three quarters of it. which. as of the four out seven. he concluded. and even that they were no longer in existence. 30 . which Stephens has quoted at 1 John V. and found that not only " T9 eipxv^^ but that £y 'i? all the following words. far as though Simon did not attempt to determine what particular four. who is still scripts. though wholly incapable of defence. and. the patrons of Stephens's semicircle had recourse to the hypothesis. even in the sixteenth century it was well known. that the eight evade this manuscripts. were no longer there. not after after the last word of the controverted passage. but after yij. in general. for. was not admitted by the advocates of The Verse. in the time of Robert Stephens. 7. that the Greek manuscripts.butler's historical outline. but. had been borrowed from this hbrary. omitted the whole passage . To argument. that he ought to have cu^«v9. About a hundred years after the time of Lucas Brugensis. belonged to the king's library. This. however. and not after the third . a position. but no one. not quoted these seven manuindeed for the whole pas- sage. what necessity. that Stephens's representation at that passage was inaccurate. Simon examined all the Greek manuscripts in the library of the king of France. as authority. has ever seen a Greek manuscript which omitted the three first words only. the crotchet. either before or since the time of Robert Stephens.

with the readings of on which Le Long had fixed.348 is butler's historical outline. authenticity of as evidence for the The Verse. in 1723. Mr peared Archdeacon Travis took a journey to Paris. because the manuin which still exist. in the royal library. so frequently. ap- be wholly abandoned. from the readings in Le Long's manuscripts. From this untenable Le they were driven. as the eight. decide against them. and consequently four out of the seven. both in Paris and other places. which he had borrowed from the royal to those library. undertook to determine the eight particular manuscripts. that these were not the eight. which was published author. his own In this comparison. but he gave a more complete and accurate account of them in the edition of his Bihliotheca Sacra. in order compare Stephens's quotations from the eight manuscripts. who. by Long. soon after the death of the From circle this time. indispensably necessary for those. a few years afterwards. which had been used by Robert Stephens. But. and his manuscripts. Stephens differed. 7. in described The eight manuscripts he imperfectly the Journal des Sfavans for June 1720. as to warrant the inference. which are quoted at 1 John V. according to account. is who maintain. in 1791. he found. which were used by Ste- phens. post. that the semicircle scripts set right. in 1720. which Stephens . that the quotations made by R. the appeared to to accuracy of Stephens's semibe given up.

Mr Travis was . aware well the truth of this inference. Mr Marsh in one sixth edition of his letters to have been attacked — of his notes to Michaelis. and. 6. p.sutler's historical outline. 4. t^ y^ — and. called £" £» Now. assigned the reasons. attacked Mr Marsh's arguments in support of the identity of the manuscript ly. (Vol. that. that he had found a Greek manuscript. "/'. and Stephens's To this Mr ters to Mr Herbert Marsh answered. II. marked K «. induced him to believe. but all this manuscript omits following fi odpciv^. 349 The grounds of his opinion. Mr by of Mr Travis's last the to publication Previously edition of his letters to Mr Gibbon. 4. all since Stephens quotes his seven manuscripts of the Catholic Epistles for the same omission. 789). and consequently. at 1 John V. the public library of which he had discov- by ered to be the manuscript which Stephens had quoted the mark. in his last edition of his letters to Mr Gibbon. by "his LetArchdeacon Travis. in the University of Cambridge. in the bon. published in 1795. and at the same time. he mentions at length. used. the others did the same. which that the manuscript in question had been at Paris. 7 . . and that Stephens not only including it was no other than the manuscript which ly'. G. — they Mr GibMarsh. as one of them omit- Of ted the whole passage. one of the seven in Stephens's edition manuscripts which are quoted of 1550. had informed the world. K x." . it follows. the words.

In this publication. Perhaps. as two nonillions in to a unity. nothing has contributed so much to the accurate knowledge. is. counteracted by a certain number of disa consideration of the utmost importance. is new. how far — the inference. which seems now to be obtain- ed of the Greek text of the discussions to New which The Testament. . deduced from a general and resimilarity. 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 manu- cordances in all . by an application of an algebraical theorem to the documents produced by him. and. of manuscripts . collations but Mr Marsh's treatise abounds with other curious and important remarks. principally discussed by Mr Marsh. which arises it. in favour of the identity of markable scripts. and is a mine of recondite and useful biblical erudition. One of the points. Mr Marsh states the several steps which led to the discovery of the identity of the two manuscripts. of the application of mathematical calculation to a critical inquiry.350 butler's historical outline. would be surprised. This is one of the most curious instances which have appeared. that the probabihty is favour of the identity of the manuscripts to the probability of the contrary. as the Verse has given rise. to find that it embraces so wide a field of inquiry. He estabhshes it by various proofs . he shows. in their investigation of sy.

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

352

butler's historical outline.
;

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-

butler's historical outline.
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

butler's historical outline.

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

was. when the passage first . that. the Latin text was transplanted At the general council of Lateran. The Verse was quoted from the Greek. bly it Proba- had gained a place in no manuscript. by degrees it it it insensibly came shd from the margin into the to be considered as part of at first. . and sometimes after the eighth verse . held in The 1215. who lived in the fourteenth^ j and Bryennius. The — the 8th verse. till some time after the death of St Au. are Manuel and it CaUecas. Vulsent acts of the council. About a century after this period. The mystical mterpretation of for XV. as they allege.BUTLER'S HISTORICAL OUTLINE. sometimes in appeared sometimes in one form. at length the dignity of the subject gave it a precedence over the eighth verse . with the quotation of the gate. . and another. which some of the the fathers adopted. as part of the text. and thus it came to be con- sidered as the seventh verse of the chapter. the the first Greeks began to quote The Verse . is ivho lived in the fifteenth century observable. frequently inserted mentaries. and was inserted sometimes before. 355 adversaries of The Verse thus account THE INTERPOLATION OF IT INTO THE TEXT OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. and sometimes in in their com- margin of their copies text it . to were translated into the Greek and the Greek churches. Greek writers who have quoted it. into the as the era of settlement in the it From Greek. gustin and the eighth century its final may be considered Latin text.

which appears argument be satisfactorily answered. he performed wonders his misfortune to .356 appeared BUTLER in S HISTORICAL OUTLINE. XVI. presented itself first under as its many different shapes. is its having a place in the confession of faiih presented by the Mr Porson has treated African bishops to Huneric. 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. the different merits of the principal editions of the Old and New Testament. It is not neces- sary to suppose. A full and edited or pubhshed. as when it made ap- pearance line in Latin. at large. but it was combat with giants. when he first engaged in the controversy. which should enter. This. and the characters of the different persons. . The not to this argument with abundance of wit . It the has led to a minute discus- sion of several curious and interesting topics of lite- rary history. perhaps. Considering Mr Archdeacon Travis was a mere novice in biblical criticism. particularly the rules for judging of the age of manuscripts. into all its particulars. would be an invaluable acquisition to literature. principal in its favour. but it seems to deserve a more serious treatment. complete history of the controversy. as Mr Porson humourously says. the early versions of by whom they were them. it Greek. the nature of manuscript collations.

is much to be desired . in other respects the topics of argument respecting the authenticity of this celebrated Verse. . there were such a number of copies exhibiting Verse. END OF THE SECOND VOLUME.BUTI. 357 that each of the four in If hundred bishops had a Bible his pocket. and a more complete examination of the manuscripts in the royal library — at Paris. This circumstance. therefore. and the useful place doubled down. appear to have been exhausted. may be thought to deserve further investigation . this fact would afford strong ground to contend.ER S HISTORICAL OUTLINE. that it was inserted in the copies then generally in use. as induced the bishops to adopt it — The into the confession of faith.

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

. II. VOL.COLLECTION OF ESSAYS AND TRACTS IN THEOLOGY.

.

LAST THOUGHTS. DANIEL WHITBY.. In what Sense Christ III... II.CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. that Christ is a distinct Being to from and subordinate him - 39 SECT. IV. 21 SECT. - On the Faith necessary for Salvation 63 .^ that the JVature and Powers of Christ were derived from the Father - 33 SECT. Biographical notice. The Scriptures teach the Father. - - 3 Preface ... may be called God - - 53 SECT. I. Proofs from Scripture.

Strange Consequences of the Doctrine that the Father. SECT. and Holy Spirit are one and the same Being 85 SECT. - 112 FRANCIS HARE. Son.VI CONTENTS. Texts in the Gospel. Biographical notice - - _ 123 on the difficulties and discouragements which attend the study of the scripTURES 143 SIR ISAAC Biographical notice NEWTON. Explanation of certain have been supposed Father and Son to VI. Texts in the Epistles considered VII. On the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses - 235 . - - > 193 AN historical ACCOUNT OF TWO CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. I. SECT. V. which prove - the Identity - of the - 94 SECT.

II. On the Text concerning the Mystery of Godliness manifest in the Flesh 291 CHALRES BUTLER.CONTENTS. Vll SECT. HISTORICAL OUTLINE OF THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE TEXT OF THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES - - - - 323 .

.

.

.

.

YORK. William Williams ALABAMA. Norfolk. Charleston. P. . Raleigh. Philadelphia. Spalding. Concord. Ginn fy Curtis NEW York.• Co. W. Columbia. Harris Charles Williams S. Albany. CANADA. Davenport. J. Springfield. New Easlburn <^ Co. Hunt J. S/. E. Dana John Mill W. JVash' Gushing k. Moore Baltimore. Greenfield. Northampton. Arthur GEORGIA. G. . Fayetteville.H. W. New Haven. Hoive &. J. Mobile. Richmond. H. Coale S^ Co. JV. Keene. Salmon Hall Joseph Gales I. RHODE Providence. A. jr. * D. E. JERSEY. Small NEW HAMPSHIRE Portsmouth. T. MARYLAND. J. Jlppleton \ Henry Whipple William Hilliard C. Littlefield. KENTUCKY. J. Foster B. MAINE. George ISLAND. Worcester. Washington. H. Portland. Williams Savannah. Milledgeville./. Backus William G. Tannatt SOUTH CAROLINA. NEW Trenton.^^^ Salem. Collins. -T i James Thomas Christopher Hall J. CONNECTICUT. Utica.Jj^^^^^.Sf Co. Maxwell J. Canandaigua. Georgetown. ^ VIRGINIA. Ely Augusta. NORTH CAROLINA. Montreal.AGENTS FOR llECEIVING SUBSCUIPTIONS FOR THIS COLLECTION OF ESSAYS AND TRACTS IN THEOLOGY. F. Fenton . Lol'isville. J. Butler Cambridge. Bemis &. Newbern. Cunningham D. H. M'Rea A. Charles Whipple Newburyport. Thompson MASSACHUSETTS. G. Prentiss DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Lexington. E. Samuel Johnson PENNSYLVANIA.^.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful