Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 7: ff. 117-121)
Concerning the \Latin/ MSS of ye vulgar Latin {now extant} \now extant/ these things are to be observed. 1 That the \vulgar/ Latin is a mixture of the {illeg} Latin & Ieromes corrections \now here in use is not ye {illeg} Vulgar Latin/ \but/ Ierome's Version & therefore \accordingly therefore/ his Prefaces \– where the|y| other {other} \are extant {illeg}// are usually found in ye MSS prefaced to ye sacred books: \that also, to the canonical Epistles is extant in one of {illeg} Another {illeg} \so that/ ye authority of the present vulgar Latin for justifying the testimony of ye three in heaven {resolves} it self into Ieroms' authority./ 2 That this Version was not \an/ entirely new \one,/ but an \new/ edition of ye old vulgar Latin wth various corrections made by Ierome & therefore tis not to be wondred if the testimony of the three in heaven hath amongst the rest of his corrections crept into the text. 3 That among the MSS wch are not above 400 or 500 years old usually have this testimony, but those wch are older usually want it & therefore it has crept in by degrees, & was not generally received by the Latins till \ye Council of/ the disputing age of the schoolmen set \blew/ it about. 4 That \the said Preface is extant in almost all ye old MSS but the testimony of ye 3 in h/ {illeg} \it/ is wanting not only in those old MSS which wch {sic} want Ieromes aforesaid |yt| Preface but also in the greatest part of those old ones wch have it: & therefore ye first ages wch received Ieromes edition wth his Prefaces {illeg} were averse from receiving the {testimon} testimony of ye three in heaven in ye text {illeg} till the said Preface \to ye Canonical Epist./ (wch is found in almost all these old books \MSS & therefore was first received)/ began to give it credit. 5 That this testimony \of ye 3 in h./ in some of those old MSS. wch have it not in ye text is found noted in ye margin in another hands & therefore it crept first into ye margins of ye books by ye authority of ye said Preface, & then in transcribing ye books {illeg} the margins into ye text. ✝ 6 That the testimony \in the said Preface this testimony is set after the {testimony} /this testimony\/ {illeg} in old MSS is almost always set after ye testimony of ye 3 on earth \as it is \also/ in that Preface,/ contrary to what we now read \in the text; & this is a further argumt, that/ And hence also I {collect} that {sic} it was \originally/ inserted chiefly by ye authority of that Preface. because Yet I cannot think wth Fr Simon yt it had no other original. ffor the words in terra & in cælo & in terra are not in ye Pref. & therefore were taken from ye corrected text of Ieromes Edition. For I know not what other original they could have 7. That ye words in cælo & in terra are not in that Preface & therefore were not borrowed from thence but from Ieromes correction of ye text, & \by consequence/ the insertion of this testimony was influenced as well by that correction as by the Preface contrary to ye opinion of F. Simon. 8 That the reading of this text in ancient MSS is \{in severall}/ very various & uncertain wch \this/ is a certain \most infallible/ character that the text has been much tampered with & that those who first inserted this testimony knew of no certain authentick reading wch they were bound to follow but noted it first in ye margin in such words \{a manner}/ as they thought conformable either to Ieromes correction of ye text or to his {illeg} Preface or to such marginal notes as they had seen in other books & then ye transcribers \by these marginal notes/ corrected ye text \by ye marginal notes/ some one way some another {according to} the best of their judgments.
<117v>Tis agreed that ye Latines, after Ieromes Version \Edition/ began to be received noted out of it his corrections of the Vulgar Latin in the margins of their books & these ye transcribers afterwars inserted into ye text. By this means ye old Latin has been so generally corrected that it is no where to be found sincere. Tis Ierome that we now read & not ye old vulgar Latin & what wonder if in Ierome we read the testimony of the three in heaven? For who that inserted ye rest of Ierome into ye text would easily leave out such a passage for the Trinity as this is now taken to be? And yet as ye Latines of Ieromes age received it not but taxed him wth {illeg} falsification of ye scriptures for inserting it so those of ye next ages were so averse to it that it was a long time before it crept into any competent number of their books & {we} may be recconed one of ye last of his corrections wch they received. Yet at length |at length by the authority of his Preface| it crept by degrees into ye margins of their books as ye rest of his corrections had done before & thence into ye text where we now find it. Yet I cannot \scarce/ think wth F. Simon that it had no other original {illeg} but from that Preface. ffor the words in cælo & in terra are not in the Preface & therefore were not borrowed from thence but from Ieromes correction of ye text |or at least {illeg} corrections wch some ffalsary had made in one or more books to put about this {illeg} reading.| Lastly it is to be observed that the reading of this text in ancient MSS is very various and uncertain. For this is a most infallible signe that ye text has been tampered wth & that those who first inserted this testimony knew of no certain authentick reading wch they were to follow, but \{only} \some of them// noted it first in ye margins \of their books/ in such various forms of words as they thought conformable either to Ieromes correction of ye text or to his Preface or to such marginal notes as they had seen in other books {illeg} \& that sometimes/ wthout designing to make it part of ye text & then others & then the transcribers by these marginal notes corrected the text some one way some another according to ye best of their judgments. For as \this testimony/ in some old MSS wch still extant wch \in ye {tex}/ want ye|this| testimony of ye three in heaven it in the text, is {illeg} found noted in ye margin in another \ancient/ hand & so {illeg} in others wch have it \not in ye margin/ the various readings \in ye text/ are such as ought to result by transcribing it out of ye margins into ye text. I shall only mention ye three \or four/ following varieties. 1 Of ye MSS wch have not ye testimony – – – – – – – – 3dly The testimony of the three in heaven in almost all ye \some of the/ old MSS wch have it, i|wa|s set after \before/ yt of ye three in earth, in some tis set before as we now read it, in others \but in the far greatest part of them/ it was set after. The reason of wch seems to be Which seems to have proceeded from hence that it was sometimes so noted in ye margin that ye reader or transcriber knew not whether it were to come before or after & that in Ieromes Preface it was set after. ffor this Preface {being} in most of their books {illeg} \was/ always ready at hand to be consulted by {illeg} both by thos by all{illeg} those who wrote it either in the margin or in the text, & therefore would be apt to make them set it after.
Now that ye MSS are such as we have here described will appear by ye account wch learned men have given of those they have consulted. Erasmus in describing five \seven/ old ones \besides yt followed in ye Badian Edition/ tels us that this testimony was wanting in four \five & in ye Badian/ & set in ye set after the spirit water & blood in ye other two & that in one of ye five it was noted in the margin in a newer hand. His words are: In codice qui mihi suppeditatus erat est e Bibliotheca Minoritarum Antuerpiensium in margine scholium erat ascriptum de testimonio patris verbi et spiritus sed manu recentiore ut consentaneum sit hoc adjectum ab erudito quopiam qui noluerit hanc particulam prætermitti, quandoquidem nec in æditione Badiana ulla sit mentio patris filij et spiritus sancti – Duos consului codices miræ vetustatis Latinos in Bibliotheca quæ Brugis est {illeg} {bimi} Donatiani. Neuter habebat testimonium patris verbi et spiritus. Ac ne illud quidem in altero addebatur, In terra. Tantum erat, Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant spiritus aqua et sanguis. In exemplari Constantiensi utroqꝫ post testimonium aquæ sanguinis et spiritus adjectum erat testimonum patris verbi et spiritus, his verbis, sicut in cælo tres sunt pater verbum et spiritus et tres unum sunt. Nec erat additum testimonium dant nec pronomen hi. In codice quem exhibuit publica bibliotheca Scholæ Basiliensis non erat testimonium spiritus aquæ et sanguinis. \{illeg}/ Adhæc Paulus Bombasius vir doctus et integer meo rogatu locum hunc ad verbum descripsit ex Bibliothecæ Vaticanæ codice pervetusto in quo non habebatur, testimonium patris verbi et spiritus. Si movet authoritas vetustatis, liber erat antiquissimus, si Pontificis ex illius bibliotheca petitum est testimonium. {Hac} \Thus far/ Erasmus in h. l. Peter Cholinus notes in the margin of his {illeg} latin edition of ye scriptures printed A.C. 1543 & 1544 that it was wanting in ye most ancient MS of ye Tigurine {illeg} library Hessalius in his commentary on the first Epistle of Iohn tells us that ye MS of St Peters Church in Lovane sets ye testimony in heaven after that in earth reading the text thus Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cælo pater verbum et spiritus et tres unum sunt. And this reading he preferrs. Dr Gilbert Burnet tells {us} in the first letter of his travelles tells us that {illeg} of those Bibles that have ye other Prefaces in them \tells us yt Ieromes Preface to ye Canonical Epistles was in all ye MSS ancient & modern of those Bibles in the/ that he ever saw & gives us an account how he {illeg} in consulting eight very ancient MSS he found \Ieromes Preface it in all of them but one & {illeg}/ ye testimony of ye three in heaven \was/ wanting in five \of these eight MSS/ & set after that of ye three in heaven \spirit water & blood/ in the other three & in two of ye five he found it noted in ye margin in another hand. One of these was at Zurich & seemed \to him/ to be about 800 years old because written in a hand wch began to be {illeg} used in Charles the great's time. Another was at Basil of ye same antiquity & in both these Ieromes Preface was extant but the testimony of father word & holy spirit was wanting. He found At Strasburg he saw 4 very ancient MSS of ye new Testament in latin. Three of these seemed to be about ye time of Charles ye great \& so above 800 years old/ but ye 4th seemed to be much ancienter & might belong to ye seventh century. In it neither the Prologue nor the place was extant but it was added at ye foot of ye page in another hand. In two of ye other the Prologue is extant but ye place is not: only in one of them it is added in the margin. In ye fourth as the place Prologue is extant so is ye place, but it comes after ye verse of ye other three & is joyned to it thus sicut tres sunt in cælo. In ye old MS Bible of Geneva & in th which seemed to be above 700 years old & also in the a MS latin Bible in ye Library of St Laurence of fflorence both St Ieromes Preface & ye passage are extant, but {ye} this passage comes after that other of the three in other three {& w} contrary to ye received reading & in that of fflorence is pinned to it with a sicut {with} as in that at Strasburg, but sicut is not in the Geneva MS. These are ye 8 old MSS \consulted by Dr Burnet/ besides a 9th at Ven wch he saw at Venice in St Marks library in Venice in three languages Greek Latin & Arabick that seemed not above 400 years old in wch this passage was not in ye Greek, but it was in the Latin set after \that of/ ye other three wth a sicut. {illeg} as above \{in}/
M{illeg} F. Simon who had seached {sic} divers old MSS tells us that ye \Ierome's/ Preface to ye Canonical Epistles ascribed to Ierom is found wth other Prefaces & such Latin Copies as have been made not above six hundred years ago: but in those wch were written above 7 or 800 years ago \he saith/ it is extant only in some few only of such copies \& instances in three such old copies wch want it/ & instances in three yet \he/ adds that the ye most of addition of ye testimony of ye three in heaven is not in most of those old copies of Ieromes Bible to wch nevertheless the Preface is prefixt & instances in two \tells us of two copies/ of this kind one in ye King's Library & ye other in Mr Colbert's. He tells us of another MSS {illeg} marked 3564 observes also that this addition is placed in ye margin of \most of/ those ancient copies in the body of wch he found it wanting it is not extant. For in that copy of ye Kings library marked 3584 in ye margin over against these words, Tres sunt qui testimonium dant there are these other words added In cælo Pater Verbum et Spiritus & tres sunt qui testimonium dant in Terra & hi tres unum sunt: & the writing of this addition appears to be no less ancient then yt of ye text. The like addition is {illeg} \to be {seen}/ in the copy in Monr Colbets {sic} library marked 158, where in the margin over against these words tres sunt qui testimonium dant, these are added {in c}ælo pater Verbum et Spiritus. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in {terr}a, sanguis aqua et caro: & to make the text & addition agreeable, there are some of ye words of the text amended or put out. There is {nothing} to be read of this Addition to be {read} {illeg} copies of ye library belonging to ye Benedictines of the Abby of S. {Germans} {illeg}{er}ly it is placed in the margin of one of these copies & the {Addition} is as old as ye text it self. Yet \it is extant/ in a fourth copy in ye same Library written eight hundred years ago in ye time of Lotharius II but in an inverted order & strangely disfigured. ffor in that copy the reading was formerly thus Sunt tres qui testimonium dant (the words in terrà being interlined) spiritus aqua et sanguis; & tres unum sunt: & tres sunt qui de cælo testificantur pater verbum & spiritus et tres unum sunt. But some time afterwards ye words de cælo testificantur were defaced to make room for these testimonium dicunt in cælo. And thus far F. Simon.
Lucas Brugensis tells us that \in/ an ancient text \book/ wch he calls C{orollari}um & wch he saith conteins an accurate & elaborate collation of ye Scriptures wth ancient {illeg} ancient MSS of ye scriptures, {illeg} this Addition is noted to be wanting in the greek MSS & in the ancient Latine ones. Lucas himself collating many Latine {ones} \MSS/ notes it wanting in only five, that is \in/ the few old ones he had: F for his MSS were almost all of them new ones. [1] ffor he praises the Codex Lobiensis written A.C. 1084 & the Codex Tornacensis written A.C. 1105 as most ancient & venerable for antiquity & used others much more new of wch a great number was easily had such as was his Codex Buslidianus written A.C. 1432, that is but 8 years before ye invention of printing. Lucas {illeg} tells us also that such books & {wri} authors as want ye testimony of ye 3 in heaven usually want ye particle in terra, thô not always & that others wch have ye testimony in ye seventh verse & yt |ye| of the \words/ hi tres unum a[2] sunt, were wanting in 15 {illeg} MSS 15 of his MSS {illeg} after ye spirit water & blood tho they bo{illeg}th in old Authors & {illeg} MSS they are usually extant there. He mentions also a book wch had \one of his books which MSS wch/ had ye testimony of ye three in heaven set after that of ye other three, wch he saith is all one as if it were wanting.
The Lateran Council collected under Innocent ye third A.C. 1215 can. 2 mentions Ioachim the Abbot quoting the texts in these words: Quoniam in canonica Ioannis Epistola legitur, Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cælo Pater & Verbum et Spiritus et hi tres unum sunt statimqꝫ subjungitur, et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt sicut in codicibus quibusdam invenitur. This was writ by Ioachim a in the Papacy of Alexander ye 3d that is {in} or before the year 1180 & therefore this reading was \then/ got but into some books. ffor the words sicut in codicibus quibusdam invenitur refer as well to ye first words of Ioachim Quoniam in Canonica Ioannis Epistola legitur as to the next statimqꝫ subjungitur; & more to ye first then to ye next because the first part of the citation was then but in some books as appears by ancient MSS but the second part was in almost all the words tres unum sunt being in all the books wch want the testimony of the three in heaven & in most of those wch have it, tho afterwards left out in many when branded by the Schoolmen for Arian. So then till Ioachim ye Abbot set the schoolmen upon disputing about the Trinity this Addition crept but into some MSS & the most wanted it.
But to go to ye original of the corruption, ✝[3] Gregory the great writes that Ierome's Version was in use in his time & therefore no wonder if the testimony of the three in heaven began to be cited out of it before. Eugenius bishop of Carthage in ye seventh year of Hunneric king of ye Vandals began to cite it A.C. 484, in the summary of his faith exhibited to that king, cited it the first of any man so far as I can find: but whether he read ye testimony of the three in heaven before or after that of ye other three is uncertain. A while after ffulgentius another African bishop disputing against the same Vandals cited it again & backt it wth the forementioned place of Cyprian applied to ye testimony of the three in heaven. And so its probable that \by/ that abused text \authority/ of Cyprian it began first in Afric in the disputes wth ye ignorant Vandals to get some credit, & thence at length crept into Europe. It occurs also in Vigelius Tapsensis another African Bishop contemporary to Fuglentius. In its defense some allege earlier writers, namely the first Epistle of Pope Hyginus, the first Epistle of Pope Iohn II, the book of Idacius Clarus against Varimadus & the book de unita Deitate Trinitatis ascribed to Athanasius. But Chiffletius who published the works of Victor Vitensis & Vigilius Tapsensis together, sufficiently proves the book against Varimadus to be this Vigilius's & erroneously ascribed to Idacius. To the same Vigilius he asserts also the book de unita Deitate Trinitatis. Certainly Athanasius was not its Author. All the Epistle of Hyginus except the beginning & end, & the first part of the epistle of Pope Leo Iohn wherein the testimony of the three in heaven is cited are nothing else then fragments of the book against Varimadus, described word for word by some forger of Decretal Epistles, as may appear by comparing them. So then Eugenius is the first upon record that cites it.
{illeg} But tho he set it on foot yet among the Africans yet {illeg} yet its plain by the manuscripts above mentioned that it got became not of much authority in Europe before the revival of learning in the 12th & 13th centuries. When In ye dark ages it crept into some MSS but the most by b|B|y ye authority of Ieromes Preface but & of those authors who first cited it, or \by {illeg}/ inserted it into their bibles & noted it in the margin of their books it crept into some MSS in the dark ages, but wth such various & uncertain readings as make it plain {that} before the revival of learning there was no certain reading established. The reading wch most prevailed was to set ye three in heaven after the three in earth. Whether Eugenius & Fulgentius read the three in heaven before or after ye other three is uncertain but Vigilius read them after & this reading being countenanced by Ierome's Preface was \continued/ most in vogue during ye \dark ages/ as is plain by the old MSS, but about 500 or 600 years ago when learning began to revive S. Bernard, the Schoolmen Ioachim & the Lateran Council not only spread abroad that reading which obteins at has from that time {illeg} gotten into books & is at present received.
So then Eugenius & his bishops in the {illeg} are the first upon record who cite this|e| text Addition & they began \first/ to cite it about 6 in their controversies wth ye ignorant Vandals about 60 years after Ierome's death. From thence \Afric/ it past into Europe & crept silently into M there crept silently & slowly into MSS during all the dark ages & wth so great a variety of that is for six hundred years together, there being \in all that time/ no controversies about ye Trinity to propagate it \In all this time it crept into crept into/ turn mens eyes upon it \& spread it faster/. &But at length in the 12th & 13th Centuries when learning began to revive St Bernard, the Schoolmen Ioachim \& his followers/ & the Lateran Council put by their by their preaching spread it abroad In all this time it crept not into one half of ye MSS, & almost all those wch had it read it much otherwise then we do now, {illeg} & differed so much in their reading from one another that its plain there was then no certain reading est But at length when learning revived But at length in ye 12th & 13th Centuries when learning began to revive, the S. Bernard, the Schoolmen Ioachim & the Lateran Council by their Sermons, disputes & definitions put it into all mens mouths & gave it so much cred that credit wch made it known to all men & gave it credit. In ye dark ages it crept not into one half of ye MSS & \in/ those wch had it read it so various ye reading is so various & uncertain that its plain there was then no certain authentick reading received. But when learning revived \& new disputes about the Trinity were raised/ the reading wch they \{illeg} followed in their new disputes b/ \learned men followed/ in those disputes \prevailed above the rest &/ became generally received. ffor this this is plain by their changi|e|ng \then made in/ the order of ye testimonies in heaven & earth. For the Africans in the|ir| sixt & 7th centur disputes wth ye Vandals set {illeg}|the| a|A|ddition \of the three in heaven/ after the testimony of ye spirit water & blood as I gather out of Vigilius Tapsensis advo Varimadum c. 5 where it is set after: The \& the/ same order was also followed in all \almost all/ ye dark ages in ye European MSS the dark ages {in} almost all the MSS wch have this Addition as is plain by the account we have given of those MSS above. But about 500 years ago the Schoolmen & Ioachim in their new disputes about the Trinity \& the Lateran Council/ followed the contrary reading wch sets the Addition before ye spirit water & blood {&} this reading by the authority wch it received from them \& the Lateran Council/ has crept into all the later MSS & is now become generally received as if it were of Apostolick authority. And thus much concerning the original of this Addition in the Latin
In the next place – – –
<121r>{For} \For/ all ye known MSS \& particularly those in the Kings {illeg} library {illeg}/ wch omit the words εν τω ουραν{ω} {illeg} the next words ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνευμά
– and the seven at Oxford viz {illeg} Roe's, Laud's & the {Barneian} MSS in {ye Bod}leian Library, \collated by Dr Mills/ that | {One} in New College, that | one in Magdalen College (both very old) {that} in Lincoln Colleges, & four|ive| at Cambridge \one/ in Christ's College & three \four/ brought out of Greece \& collated/ by Dr Covil \{and} by Dr Mills/. The very same reading have also the three MSS of Mons {Petavius} Gachon a Senator of Paris whose various Lections collated by his son Iohn Gachon were printed in the Oxford Edition of ye new Testament A.C. 1675. The same reading have also five | seven MSS in ye K of France's library & as many \five/ in Colberts where consulted by P. Simon. The same reading is also is in the MS brought out of Turkey \Greece/ by D. Huntington, & in two MS at Basil & in the Codex Leicestrensis & the Codex Genevensis.
The history of ye corruption in short is this. ffirst Tertullian & his followers the Latines interpreted the father son & H. G spirt {sic} water & blood – – – both {illeg}
The arguments alleged for ye Testimonies of the three in heaven are the Authorities of Iero Tertullian Cyprian Athanasius |&| Ierome & many Greek Manuscripts & almost all the Latines ones.
Tertullians words run thus. Cæterum, de meo inquit, de meo sumet [Paracletus] sicut ipse de Patris: ita connexus Patris in filium|o| & ffilij in Paracleto tres {efficit} cohærentes, alterum ex altero. Qui tres unum sunt, non unus; quomodo dictum est Ego et Pater unum sumus; non ad substantiæ unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem. By his \using the words Paraclete \son/ & Paraclete {illeg} wch are not in ye text &/ {quoting} the words Ego et Pater unum sumus & not the words to illustrate the words {illeg} tres unum sunt, I conclude that he applied the words tres unum sunt to ye father son & Paraclete by way of interpretation. And to ye same pur And hence Cyprian who admired \studied/ ye writings of Tertullian & called him his Master, writes thus \in this manner/. The Lord saith I & ye father am one & again of the ffather son & holy Ghost it is written: {illeg} And these three are one.
The Socinians here deale too injuriously – – –
Stephens has indeed put a comma affter {sic} ἐν τω οὐρανω as if only those words were wanting in his 7 MSS: but all MSS the MSS wch {insert the} there is no MS extant where those words alone are wanting. \The whole 7th vers is generally wanting in all MSS./ ffour of Stephens 7 MSS were in ye K. of ffrance's Library & P. Simon found \all/ the rest of ye {sic} 7th vers also wanting in all the 7 MSS \consulted by him/ in ye|t|yt King of ffrance's Library: & \therefore/ the comma {is} by mistake set after οὐρανω & should have been set after {illeg} οι τρεις ἔν {illeg} the end of the vers
So then this interpretation seems to have been invented by the Montanists for giving countenance to their Trinity: for Tertullian was a Montanist when he wrote this.
Cyprian tho not a Montanist, yet admired & studied Tertullians writings & called him his Master, & seems to have followed him in the interpretation of the text. ffor he {has} it \{illeg} \{illeg}/ this Text/ in such a manner as if he had been just reading the words of Tertullian, & was {illeg} \imitating/ him. His words are these.
That by the authority \And so its probable that it began first in Afric & thence by consequence that/ some of those \Africans/ who received the interpretation of Tertullian & Cyprian \first/ noted it in the margin of their books, as it is found noted in the margins of some old {books} still extant, & that in copying after those Books some Scribes began to insert it into {texts} {illeg} \written/ before the days of Eugenius, & ffulgentius, & because \& Vigilius/ & being {illeg} got into texts of some books it soon began to be quoted, & was first quoted by Eugenius in his disputes with the ignorant Vandals, who & from the Books of ye Africans & Ieroms Version {by degrees} crept into ye Books of ye Europeans. It occurs also frequen
It occurs also frequently in Vigilius Tapsensis another African Bishop contemporary {wth ffulgen}tius. And so its probable that it began first in Afric & by consequence that some of those Africans – – – – – Europeans.
In its defense
<121v>To The Hon Sr Isaac Newton
Then ye \some/ Latines who followed {read} either Tertullians {works} or Ieromes Version noted it in the margins of their Books, whence it crept into ye text of \some/ new Manuscripts, {Vesalius} \by transcribing. About/ ye year of Christ {illeg} it was cited by Eugenius Bishop of Carthage against the ignorant Vandals, but {it got} not much into ye text till the 12th & following Centuries when – – –
The pretence that the Arians corrupted this text being ridiculous, Dr Mills in his Notes on this Text rejects it & supposes that it was \not/ corrupted by the Gnosticks {&} Basilides Saturninus Valentinus Marcion and others {tho hereticks} of the same {illeg} {ones} wth this long before the Arian controversy began] either by the Arians {or} ancienter hereticks, but was casually omitted by the {Scribes} in the first ages of {illeg} so as to be {not} wanting in {some} all the {first} MSS written about an hundred years before the days of Tertullian & Cyprian, & that Tertullian & Cyprian {illeg} {illeg} & even in those copies wch were followed in the ancient Versions {illeg} Whence it came to be wanting in the old \old vulgar/ Latin, the Syriac the Coptic and other Versions. But that \And that/ Tertullian & Cyprian meeting \{at length met}/ wth an old \authentic/ copy or two in which it was extant {illeg} and some \four/ \{ancient}/ books to be copied from thence & wch remained in the Churches of {Afric} after {illeg} but were not much taken notice of nor multiplied till 80 or 100 years after the death of Cyprian, but began to abound in Afric before the dispute between Eugenius & the Vandals, & were thence propagated {into} the rest of the Latine Churches.
So then the reading testimony of ye three in heaven was general {sic} wanting in the first ages of Christianity & does till the heat of the Arian & Athanasian controversy was over. ffor & does not appear to have \been/ extant in any one copy before the heat of ye controver Athanasian controversy was over. ffor that Tertullian or Cyprian saw it in {some} Greek copy is an hypothesis without any proof & tis not probable that they did {for} they were Latines & interpreted ye water spirit & blood of the Trinity.
Then ye Africans noted began to note the interpretation in the margins of their books. And \at/ length the scribes in copying these books began to transcribe it out of the margin into ye text. And from In ye {fourth or} the fift century to {illeg} it against the Vandals. And from ye MSS of Afric it crept into the MSS of Europe. Some {illeg} {and Ierome inserted} it into his Version {so that from thence} it came into the Vulgar Latin. But it crept not much into the text of the European MSS till the twelfth & following centuries when disputing was revived by the Schoolmen. And when printing came up – – – – on both sides.
Hon. Sr
This Gentleman the Bearer, was the sole Inventor of hanging Coaches or Calashes, so that they cannot possibly overturne: he is very ambitious that You should see it, (before he makes it publick) least any unforseen facet in the Contrivance, should appear to You; wch when found out, I dare affirme he will be able to rectify. He knows nothing of Mathematics. but I take him to be one of the best Mechanicians in England. & if You will please to appoint the time & place when & where to view this Contrivance, he will esteem it the height of his happines to have the Honr of wayting upon You. I am Most Honrd Sr. Yor most obedient humble servt S Newton
[1] Luc. Brug in calce annot.
[2] a Matth. Paris. {illeg} l. Hist. ann. 1179.
[3] ✝ See Walton's Proleg. 10. § 5.
