dred years the most celebrated Writers have fhewn us, that they read it in St. Jerom's Bible.

I had briefly touch'd upon this reafoning drawn from the ancient Latin Verfions in my i firft Differtation, to fhew that the Text of the witnesses in heaven, which was always read in these Verfions, muft neceffarily have been found in the Greek. The fhortness I us'd in my explication fhou'd not have hinder'd Mr. Emlyn from taking notice of it and anfwering it; but he has thought good not to meddle with it. As I have now been as large upon this proof, as it deferves, its force will be better perceiv'd; and I question whether any answer can be given to it, that will fatisfy a perfon, who feeks after truth and folidity.

CHA P. II.

Of the first Greek Editions, in which the Text of the three witnesses in heaven is read, and of thofe in which this Text is not inferted.

Before I come to fpeak of the Greek Manu

fcripts which ferve to defend the truth of the paffage of St. John, I think it will not be amifs to make fome obfervations upon the first Greek Editions of the New Teftament with relation to this famous Text.

The Latin Bibles were the firft that were printed, about the middle of the 15th Century; the little ufe which was then made of the Greek Tongue in reading the holy Scripture, was without doubt

i Differt. fur le 7. . du ch. v. de la 1 Ep. de S. Jean P. 94.

the

the cause, why they made no hafte to print it in that language. It was not till the beginning of the 16th Century, that Cardinal Ximenes having form'd the great and noble defign of printing a Bible in feveral languages, collected with immense care and charge all the Manufcripts he could find for this purpofe, and committed the examination to feveral learned men, who were employ'd in that Edition. That of the New Teftament was finifhed, not as Mr. Simon has faid thro' miftake in 1515. but in 1514. the 10th day of January, as 'tis fet down in the very Edition, which was made at Complutum.

k

The paffage of St. John is in this Greek Edition, which is the first that was made, and which was made from Manufcripts; but it did not appear in the world 'till fome years after, by reafon of feveral accidents, which interven'd at that time, and are nothing to our subject.

During this delay of the publication of the Polygott Bible of Ximenes, known by the name of the Complutenfian, from Complutum the place where it was printed, Erafmus having got together four or five Greek Manufcripts of the New Teftament, put out an Edition at Bafil in 1516. The paffage of St. John's Epiftle was not in this Edition.

In the year 1518. the Greek New Teftament was printed at Venice; in which alfo they have not put the paffage of St. John; this is the Edition that goes under the name of Aldus.

That of Erafmus in 1516. was reprinted in 1519. without any alteration; at leaft with respect to this paffage.

He publifh'd a third in 1522. in which this Text was restored.

Robert Stephens having gather'd together from

F. le Long. Bibl. Sacr. Tom. I. pag. 13.

the

the Library of King Francis the Firft, and divers other places, feveral Greek Manufcripts, put out in 1546. a very fine Edition of the New Teftament with the paffage of St. John's Epiftle, fuch as we have it in the common Editions; he put out a fecond in 1549. from this first.

By this exact account of the firft Greek Editions of the New Teftament, we see those which were made from Manufcripts which had the Text of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft in the Epistle of St. John; and those where it was wanting.

As both had been taken from Manufcripts all thofe which have fince been fent abroad, were copied from thefe first Editions.

I know but three which have follow'd that of Aldus, and the two firft of Erafmus in what regards the omiffion of this paffage in difpute; that of Haguenan in 1521. that of Strasburg in 1524. and that of Simon Colinæus at Paris in 1534. all the rest of the fame age, and fince that time have regularly follow'd the former, which read the paffage of St. John: there's not a tranflation even to the German Verfion of the New Teftament made by the Socinians, and printed at Racovia in 1630. which has not preferv'd this paffage.

The fmall vogue which the Edition of Aldus, and that of Erafmus in 1516. had in this refpect, is an evident mark of the difapprobation of the Christian World. They look'd upon 'em as Editions defective in this point, which did not deserve to have any regard paid to 'em, nor that any advantage should be drawn thence against the other Editions, in which the Text of the witneffes in heaven were found. Yet those who believe the Text fuppofititious pretend this to be of force a

! Synopf. Burmanni lib. i. 33.

gainst

gainst its being authentick; but its not difficult to fhew 'em that they are under a mistake. Mr. Simon himself, that Mr. Simon who has rais'd the ftandard fo high against this facred Text, fhall fpeak for me, and fupply me with the arguments I fhall ufe. Let us hear him explain himself upon the subject of these Editions. I don't believe, m fays he, that either that of Strasbourg in 1524. or that of Simon Colinæus at Paris in 1534. were taken from Manufcripts. Wolfius, who publish'd that of Strafbourg, fays nothing of it in his Preface; he there witneffes, on the contrary, that he only reprinted in new characters and in a new form what had already been printed. Simon Colinæus has put no Preface before his Greek Edition, which makes me believe that he adjusted it according to his own fenfe from the foregoing Editions. All the pretended authority of thefe Editions cannot be more exprefly made void, and the proof which men, either of little undertanding, or great prejudice, would draw thence against the Text of the holy Apoftle. Mr. Simon fends us back to the Manufcripts; they alone hold the place of the Original in the Editions; and thofe which want this fupport are but Copies, of no authority in themselves. Thus he brings us back, as at one step, to the first Editions, which were copied by Wolfius, and Simon Colinæus; let us then go back with him fo far as to them.

Being thus come to the firft Edition of Erafmus in 1516. and that of Aldus in 1518. our bufinefs will be to fee from what Manufcripts they were both made. As to that of Aldus, we know nothing at all about it; and tho I do not doubt but that he had fome Manufcripts from which he printed the Epistle of St. John without the Text of the witneffes in heaven, nevertheless as we do not

m Hift. du Texte du N. Teftam, ch. xviii.

know

know whether he had feveral fuch, and whether what he had was of any esteem or no, his Edition can be of no great weight in what concerns the omiffion of this Text.

The cafe is not the fame with the Edition of Erafmus; he informs us that he had four or five Manufcripts, but whether they were very ancient or no, is not known; there's but one, which he fays a friend of his fent him an extract of from Rome, that is known to be ancient.

Let us now compare thefe Manufcripts in which the paffage of St. John is found to be wanting, with the other from which the Editions, of Complutum, that of Erafmus in 1522. and that of Robert Stephens in 1546. which have all this Verfe, were made. I here touch upon what regards these Manuscripts only by the by, and fo far as the way of comparifon requires; I fhall have occafion prefently to fpeak of 'em more at large. We know that Cardinal Ximenes had abundance of Manufcripts, and the best that he could find; and that these Manufcripts were put into the hands of able men, who examin'd 'em with care: Nothing like this can be faid in favour of the Edition of Aldus; and as to that of Erafmus, there were but few, and it cannot enter into competition with the three Editions of Complutum, of Erafmus himself in 1522, and R. Stephen's in 1546. either with regard to the number of Manufcripts taken all together, fince they all agree in having this Text; or with regard to their antiquity, of which Stephens fays, fpeaking of those from which he made his Edition, that they were of the moft venerable antiquity; codices nactus aliquot ipfe vetuftatis fpecie pene adorandos.

Here again let us hear Mr. Simon; " We must judge of the readings of the Manufcripts according to

a Hift. du Texte Grec du N. Titam. ch. xxix. p. 351.