and with the Manuscript of Dublin, of which I fhall by and by produce the extract. The Berlin Manufcript agrees with the Complutenfian Bible in this, that it has not these laft words of the 8th Verle κι οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι· Neither are they in the Codex Britannicus of Erafmus, nor the Manufcript of the University of Dublin. All the difference betwixt 'em is, that in the Complutenfian Edition, and in the Berlin Manufcript they are plac'd at the end of the 7th Verfe; that's all. But fince it appears clearly from all these proofs which we have seen, that this Manuscript is different in fo many places from the Edition of Complutum, and confequently that it must neceffarily have been made from a Manuscript different from that Edition, is it not very natural to believe, that the Manufcript from which the Berlin Manufcript was copied had these very words at the end of the Text of the three witneffes, which the Complutenfian Manuscript had there? If in the paffages where the Complutenfian Edition differs from the Greek Editions, and feveral ancient and very valuable Manufcripts, that of Berlin agreed with the Complutenfian and in like manner differ'd from the Greek Editions, and all the other ancient Manufcripts, my reasoning would not be conclufive, because I know very well 'tis a principle in Logick, à poffibili ad effe non valet confequentia; " it does not follow that a thing is, "because it may be." But after having fhewn, as I have done, that the Manufcript of Berlin was not copied from the Complutenfian, but from another very different, my confequence is very good, when I fay, the tranfpofition of these words was then in the Manuscript as in the Complutenfian.

I hope that this will fuffice to every one who feeks only to be fatisfy'd of the genuineness of this Manufcript, which had not hitherto been fo carefully discuss'd as it deferves, tho' it were only with

relation

relation to the Text of the witneffes in heaven in St. John's Epiftle. The proof then, which is drawn from this Manufcript for the authentickness of a Text fo advantagious to the Chriftian Faith, is fix'd upon good grounds by the genuineness of the Manufcript it felf, which fupplies us with it.

CHA P. IX.

Of the ancient Greek Writers, who have quoted this Text of the first Epistle of St. John, There are three, which bear record, &c.

ONE of the arguments which is urg'd against

the genuineness of this Text is, that it has never been quoted by the Greek Writers, which they would not have fail'd to do upon feveral occafions, if it had been in their Copies.

This objection falls no lefs upon the ancient Fathers of the Latin Church, than upon us. I would therefore know what they, who have fo frequently quoted this paffage, would anfwer to it. Whence have you taken it? Would the Greeks fay to 'em. It is not in our Writers. The anfwer which the Latins would make is mine. It is in the Greek, they would fay; and it is from thence that our Verfions have taken it; and tho' your Authors have not quoted it, 'tis yet in the Epiftle of the holy Apostle.

But 'tis falfe, that no ancient Greek Writer has quoted this Text. I have fhewn that 'tis directly exprefs'd in the Synopfis afcrib'd to St. Athanafius, in the paffage where running over the vth Chapter of the first Epiftle of St. John, he fays that this Apostle

Apoftle fhews there the unity of the Father and the Son; words which can only have had respect to this Text of the Epiftle, These three are one. Mr. Emlyn had pretended they might also be understood of what St. John had faid in the iid Chap. . 23. Whofo denieth the Son, the fame bath not the Father; but he that acknowledgeth the Son, bath the Father alfo; the rather, fays he, because these words in the Synopfis are plac'd immediately after those of the unity of the Father with the Son: but they are there only as a confequence of that Unity, not in proof of the Unity it felf; now the Author of the Synopfis fays St: John fpeaks of the unity.

I had join'd to this teftimony given by the Author of the Synopfis, the quotation of this paffage of St. John in a Greek Dialogue, under the names of Athanafius and Arius; Mr. Emlyn had faid nothing in his Anfwer to my Differtation, which I have not fully confuted in my Examination; even to fhew how trifling an observation he had made, in order to turn afide this Author's words to the 8th Verfe, which he had in no wise in view, but only the 7th.

He has yet taken pains to invent fomething farther; he fays, 'tis all at a venture, that I have imagin'd the Author of this Dialogue was an Orthodox Chriftian. Now no perfon but fuch a one as Mr. Emlyn can doubt whether this Author was Orthodox. And one who does not believe the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft in one and the fame Godhead, will not moft certainly find that an Author, who oppofes Arianifm in defence of it, is Orthodox.

As to the imputation he throws upon me of having taken up this opinion concerning this ancient Writer at a venture, how does he know it? I am fure that's faid at a venture, and worse than fo, for 'tis directly falfe. I can affure him, yet without pretending

pretending to give him an account of what I read, that I have read this Dialogue feveral times, from one end, to the other, and that the more I have read and examin'd it, the more I have been furpriz'd that Dr. Cave, who was in other refpects a man of great learning, fhould have fo far mistaken it as to fay, that it was the work of fome doting Monk.

Mr. Simon had pafs'd a different judgment upon it, as may be seen in my Differtation upon the paffage of the Epistle of St. John; and except perhaps one only place where the Author has too much indulg'd his imagination, a very common cafe among the beft writers of thofe ages, there is nothing in all that piece, which does not fuit with the tafte of those times, and which is not withal full of learning and piety.

Upon this occafion, I fhall here fet down a remark which I have made in reading it over again, and which I leave to the examination of the learned Criticks.

I had thought, after Mr. Simon, that this Dialogue might have been wrote about the fixth Century, or towards the end of the fifth, but I find that it may belong to the very time of St. Athanafius. tho' I don't believe it Athanafius's own. The Orthodox, represented in this Dialogue under the name of Athanafius, demands of the Arian, represented by the name of Arius, b whether by fay ing the Emperor Conftantine reigns by Sea and Land, they did thereby fay that his Son Conftantius did not reign there also. The Arian anfwers, it would be very dangerous to fay that Conftantius does not reign with Conftantine his Father.

It appears plainly from all this, that this Dialogue must have been compos'd whilst the Empe

b Athan. Tom. I. pag. 126. ed. Colon.

ror Conftantine was living, and at the time Conftantius was fent into the Eaft, where he made himfelf famous by the victories he gain'd over the enemies of the State, about the year 336. fomewhat before the death of the great Conftantine, which fell out on the 22d of May, 337. which evidently proves that this Dialogue muit have been written about the year of our Lord 336. and wrote withal in the Eaft, where Conftantius was that year.

From all this I draw alfo a convincing proof that the Author of this Dialogue is not the Author of the title we read to it, and upon account of which Dr. Cave and others have spoke with great contempt of the Dialogue and its Author. I have faid in my Differtation, that it was one of those additional titles which are feen at the head of feveral ancient Treatifes, to which their Authors having given no title, there has been one form'd, which often does not belong to 'em. This is evidently of that kind; it implies that the difpute contain'd in this Difcourfe was held in the Town of Nice during the time the Council fate, in the year 315. a very grofs and inexcufable mistake, fince that famous Council was not held till the year 325. Now at that time Conftantius was but a child of eight or nine years old, being born at Arles, according to fome in 316, and according to others in 317. and tho' Conftantine had already honour'd him the year before with the illuftrious title of Cafar, yet it would have been a ridiculous thing to fay, that he had divided the power with Conftantine, and that there would be danger in denying it, as they make the Arian fay in this Dialogue; efpecially when Crifpus and Conftantine, his elder brothers, and created Cafars long before him, Cri/pus efpecially, who was a perfon of extraordinary merit, were with Conftantine their Father at the helm of the Government.