No 30 An historical account
of two notable corruptions of Scripture,
in a Letter to a Friend.
SrSir
Since the discourses of some late writers have raised in you a
curiosity, of knowing yethe truth of that text of Scripture concerning
the testimony of yethe three in heaven 1 Iohn 5.7: I have here sent
you an account of what the reading has been in all ages, & by what
steps it has been changed, so far as I can hitherto determine by
records. And I have done it the more freely because to you who
understand the many abuses wchwhich they of yethe Roman Church have
put upon yethe world, it will scarce be ungratefull to be convinced of one
more ynthan is commonly believed. For althô yethe more learned & clear
sighted men (as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger Grotius & some others) could not
dissemble their knowledge, yet yethe generality are fond of yethe place
for its making against heresy. But whilst But whilst we ex
claim against the pious frauds of yethe Roman Church, & make
it a part of orour religion to detect the & renounce all things of
that kind: we must acknowledge it a greater crime in us to
favour such practises, then in the Papists we so much blame
on that account. For they act according to their religion
but we contrary to orsours. In the eastern nations, & for a
long time in the western the faith subsisted without this
text & it is rather a danger to religion then an advantage
to make it now lean upon a bruised reed. There cannot
be better service done to the truth then to purge it of things
spurious: & therefore knowing yorour prudence & calmnesse of
temper, I am confident I shal not offend you by telling you
my mind plainly: especially since 'tis no article of faith, no
point of discipline, nothing but a criticism concerning a text
of scripture wchwhich I am going to write about.
The history of the corruption in short is this. First some of yethe
Latines interpreted the spirit water & blood of the Father, Son
& Holy ghost to prove them one. Then Ierome for the same
end inserted the Trinity in expres words into his Version. Out
of him the Africans began to allege it against the Vandals
about 64 years after his death. Afterwards the Latines
noted his variations in the margins of their books & thence it began
at length to creep into the text in transcribing, & that chiefly
in the twelft & following Centuries when revived
by the Schoolmen. And when printing came it crept out of yethe Latine into the printed Greek against yethe
authority of all the greek MSS & ancient Versions,
& from the Venetian presses it went soon after
into Grece. Now the truth of this history will
appear by considering the arguments on both sides.
The arguments alleged for yethe testimony of
the three in heaven are the authorities of Cy
prian, Athanasius & Ierome, & of many
greek manuscripts & almost all yethe Latine ones.
Cyprians words run thus. a.a. Dicit Dominus Ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancti scriptum est hi tres unum sunt. Cyprian de Eccles.] The Lord
saith, I and the Father am one, & again of yethe
Father & Son & Holy Ghost it is written. And
these three are one. The Socinians here deale
too injuriously wthwith Cyprian while they would
have this place corrupted: for Cyprian in
another place repeats almost the same thing
bb Si templum Dei factus est quæro cujus Dei? – Si spiritus sancti cùm tres unum sint quomodo spiritus sanctus placatus ei esse potest qui aut Patris aut Filij inimicus est. Cyprian Epist 73 ad Iubaianum. If, saith he, [one baptized amongst hereticks] be
made the temple of God, tell me I pray of
what God? . . . . If of the Holy ghost, since these
three are one, how can the Holy ghost be
reconciled to him who is the enemy of either
the Father or the Son. These places of Cyprian
being in my opinion genuine seem so apposite
to prove yethe testimony of the three in heaven,
that I should never have suspected a mistake in
it could I but have reconciled it wthwith yethe igno
rance I meet wthwith of this reading in the next
age amongst yethe Latines of both Afric & Europe
as well as amongst the Greeks. For had it been
in Cyprian's Bible, the Latines of the next age
when all the world was engaged in disputing
about the Trinity & all arguments that could be
thought of were diligently sought out & daily
brought upon the stage, could never have been
ignorant of a text, wchwhich in orour age now the dispute is
over is chiefly insisted upon. In reconciling this
difficulty I consider therefore that yethe only words
of the text quoted by Cyprian in both places
are, And these three are one: which words may
belong to yethe eighth verse as well as to yethe seventh.
ffor cc. Eucherius reads yethe text thus. Tria sunt quæ testimonium perhibent aqua, sanguis & spiritus: & then adds this interpretation. Plures hic ipsam interpretatione mystica intelligunt Trinitatem, eo quod perfecta ipsa perhibeat testimonium Christo: Aquâ Patrēem indicans quia ipse de se dicit. Me dereliquerunt fontem aquæ vivæ; sanguine Christum demonstrans utiqꝫque per passionis cruorem; spiritu verò sanctum spiritum manifestans. Eucher. De Quæst. N. Testi Eucherius Bishop of Lion in France & contempo
rary to S. Austin, reading yethe text wthwithout yethe seventh verse tells
us that many then understood yethe Spirit, the Water &
the Blood to signify the Trinity. And dd Sane fallite nolo in Epistola Ioannis Apostoli, ubi ait, Tres sunt testes, Spiritus aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt: ne fortè dicas spiritum et aquam et sanguinem diversas esse substantias et tamen dictum esse tres unum sunt. Propter hoc admonui te ne fallaris. Hæc enim sunt in quibus sint sed quid ostendunt attenditur ––– Si vero Iesus aquam datumus ientibus, ait Evangelista, autem dixit de spiritu quem accepturi erant credentes in eum D. Augustini cont. Maximum cap. 22. S. Austin is361 is one of those many as you may see in his third book against
Maximus, where he tells us that the Spirit is the Father,
for God is a spirit, the water the Holy Ghost, for he is the wa
ter which Christ gives to them that thirst, & the blood the Son
for the Word was made flesh. Now if it was the opi
nion of many in the western Churches of those times
that the spirit, the water & the blood signified the Fa
ther, the Son, & yethe Holy Ghost, its plain that the testi
mony of the three in heaven in expresse words was
not yet crept into their books, & even without this
testimony it was obvious for Cyprian or any man
else of that opinion to say of the Father & Son
& Holy Ghost: it is written And these three are one.
And that this was Cyprian's meaning, ee Facundus in the beginning of his book to yethe Emperor Iustinian, prò defensione trium capitulorum Concilij Chalcedonensis first recites the text after the manner of Cyprian but more distinctly in these words; Nam Ioannes Apostolus in Epistola suâ de patre et filio et spiritu sancto sic dicit: Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra. Spiritus, Aqua et Sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in spiritu significantes Patrem Ioan 4.21 – – – – in aqua spiritum sanctum Ioan. 7.37 – – – in sanguine verò filium. And a little after he thus confirms this interpretation by Cyprians authority saying: aut si forsan ipsi qui de Verbo contendunt eo quod dixit tres sunt qui testificantur in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis et hi tres unum sunt, Trinitatem nolunt intelligi, secundum ipsa verba quæ possint pro Apostolo Ioanne respondeant. Numquid hi tres qui in terra testificari et qui unum esse dicuntur possunt spiritus et aquæ et sanguinis dici? Quod tamen Ioannis Apostoli testimonium scripsit, de patre, filio et spiritu sancto dictum intelligit. Dicit Dominus Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre filio et spiritu sancto scriptum est. Et hi tres unum sunt. Facund. l. 1. p. 16. ex edit. Sirmondi Parisijs 1629.] Facundus, an
African Bishop in the sixt Century is my author.
For he tells us expresly that Cyprian in the
above mentioned place understood it so, interpreting
the water, spirit & blood to be the Father, Son
& Holy Ghost & thence affirming that Iohn said
of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost, These three are
one. This at least may be gathered from this
passage of Facundus, that some in those early ages
interpreted Cyprian after this manner. Nor do I
understand how any of those many who took the
spirit water & blood for a type of the Trinity,
or any man else who was ignorant of the testi
mony of the three in heaven (as the Churches in
the times of the Arian controversy generally were)
could understand him otherwise. And even Cypri
an's own words do plainly make for this interpre
tation. For he does not say, the Father, the Word
& the Holy Ghost as 'tis now in the seventh verse,
but the Father & Son & Holy Ghost as 'tis in Baptism,
the place from whence they used at first to derive
the Trinity. If it be pretended that the words
cited by Cyprian are taken out of yethe seventh verse
rather then out of the eighth because he reads
not Hi tres in unum sunt but hi tres unum sunt
I answer that the Latines generally read hi
tres unum sunt as well in yethe eighth verse
as in the seventh as you may see in the newly cited
places of S. Austin & Facundus, & those of Ambrose,
Pope Leo, Beda & Cassiodorus & others wchwhich follow, &
in the present Vulgar Latine. So then the tes
timony of Cyprian respects the eighth, or at least
is as applicable to that verse as to the seventh,
& therefore is of no force for proving the truth
of the seventh: but on the contrary for disproving
it we have here the testimonies of Facundus, S. Austin,
Eucherius & those many others whom Eucherius mentions.
For if those of that age had met with it in their books they would never5 never have understood the spirit the water & the blood to be the
three persons of the Trinity in order to prove them
one God.
And what is said of the testimony of Tertullian & Cyprian may
be much more said of that in the feigned disputation of Atha
nasius wthwith Arius at Nice. For there the words cited are
only καὶ ὁι τρεις τοἕν ἐισιν these three are one, &
they are taken out of the eighth seventh verse without
naming the persons of the Triunity before them. # # For the Greeks interpreted the spirit water & blood of the Trini
ty as well as the Latines, as is manifest by the annotations
they made on this text in the margins of some of their manu
scripts. For aa. Hist. N. Test. Father Simon informs us that one of the MSS in
the Library of the King of ffrance marked Num. 2247 over
against these words Ὅτι ρεις ἐισιν δι μαρτυρουντες ἐν τη γο
τὸ πνευμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καί τὸ ἁιμα For there are three that
beare record [in earth] the spirit the water & the blood: there
is this remark τουτέστι τὸ πνευμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ
ἀυτὸς ἑαντου That is, the holy Ghost & the Father & he of
himself. And in the same copy over against these words καί &
τρεις ἐις τὸ ἕν ἐισι & these three are one this note is added.
τουτὲστι μία θεότης ἑις θεός. That is, one Deity one God. This
MS is about 500 years old. Also in the margin of one of yethe
MSS in Mons Colberts Library Num. 871, as the same Father
tells us there is the like remark. For besides these words
ἐις θεος μία θεοτης One God, one Godhead; there are added μαρ
τυρία του θεου του πατρὸς καὶ του ἁγίου πνεύματος The testimony
of God the father & of the Holy Ghost. These marginal notes
sufficiently shew how yethe Greeks used to apply this text to yethe
Trinity & by consequence how the author of that disputation
is to be understood. But I should tell you also that that
Disputation was not writ by Athanasius byut by a later Author
& therefore as a spurious piece uses not to be insisted
upon. And
besides, this disputation was not writ by Athanasius but
by a later Author, & therfore as a spurious piece uses not to be much insisted upon.
Now this mystical application of the spirit water
& blood to signify the Trinity, seems to me to have given
occasion to some body either fraudulently to insert the tes
timony of the three in heaven in expresse words into yethe
text for proving the Trinity, or else to note it in the margin of his book by
way of interpretation, whence it might afterwards creep
into the text in transcribing. And the first upon record ytthat
inserted it is Ierome, if the ff The whole Preface runs thus. Incipit Prologus in Epistolas canonicas. Non ita est ordo apud Græcos, qui integre sapiunt fidemus rectam sectantur, epistolarum septem, quæ canonicæ noncupantur, sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur: Vt quia Petrus est primus in ordine Apostolorūum primæ sint etiam ejus Epistola in ordine cæterarum; sed sicut Evangelistas dudum at veritatis lineam correximus ita has proprio ordini Deo juvante reddidimus. Est enim una earum prima Iacobi, duæ Petri, tres Ioannis et Iudæ una. Quæ si sicut ab his digestæ sunt, ita quoqꝫque ab Interpretibus fideliter in Latinam verterentur eloquium, nec ambiguitates legentibus: facerent nec sermonum sese varietatis pugnarent, illo præcip nōon de unitate Trinitatis in prima Ioannis epistola, positum legimus. In qua etiam ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse a fideo veritate comperimus, trium tantummodo vocabula, hoc est aquæ sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentibus, et Patris Verbiqꝫque ac Spiritus sancti testimonium omittentibus: quo maxime et fides catholica coloratur et Patris ac ffilij ac Spiritus sancti una divinitate substantia comprobatur Preface to the Canonical Epistles
which pass under his name are his. For whilst he composed
not a new Translation of the new Testament but only cor
rected yethe ancient Vulgar Latine (as learned men think)
& amongst his emendations ( writen perhaps at first in the margin of
his book) he inserted this testimony and complains in the said
Preface how he was thereupon accused by some of the
Latines for falsifying the scripture, & makes answer that
former Latine Translators had much erred from the
faith in putting only the spirit water & blood in their edi
tion & omitting the testimony of the three in heaven whereby
the Catholick faith is established by this defense he seems
to say that he corrected the vulgar latine Translation by the
original Greek, & this is the great testimony wchwhich the Text
relies upon.
But whilst he confesses it was not in the Latine be
fore, & accuses former Translators of falsifying the scrip
tures in omitting it, he satisfies us ytthat it has crept into the
Latine since his time, & so cuts off all the authority of
the present Vulgar Latine for justifying it. And whilst
he was accused by his contemporaries of falsifying the
scriptures in inserting it, this accusation also confirms that
he altered yethe public reading. For had the reading been
dubious before he made it so, no man would have
charged him with falsification for following either
part. Also whilst upon this accusation he recommends
the alteration by its usefulnesse for establishing the
catholic faith, this renders it the more suspected by
discovering both the designe of his making it, & yethe ground
of his hoping for successe. However seing he was
thus accused by his contemporaries, it gives us
just occasion to examin the businesse between
him & his accusers. And so he being
called to the barr, we are not to lay
stresse upon his own testimony for
himself, (for no man is a witnesse in
his own cause,) but laying aside all prejudice we6 we ought by according to the ordinary rules of justice to examin the busi
nesse between him & his accusers by other witnesses.
They that have been conversant in his writings observe
a strange liberty he takes in asserting things. Many notable
instances of this he has left us in composing those very
fabulous lives of Paul & Hilarion, not to mention what
he has written upon other occasions. Whilst Whence Erasmus
said of him that he was in affirming things gg Sæpenumero violentus parumqꝫque impuden sæpe varius parum sibi constans. Erasm. Annot. in Ioan. 5.7. Vide etiam Erasmus contra in h.l. de Hieronymo fusius dixit. frequently
violent & impudent & often contrary to himself. But I accuse him not. It's possible he might be sometimes
imposed upon or through inadvertency commit a mistake.
Yet since his contemporaries accused him, it's just we
should lay aside the prejudice of his great name &
hear the cause impartially between them
Now the witnesses between them are partly
the ancient Translators of the scriptures into various
languages, partly the writers of his own age & of the
ages next before & after him & partly the scribes
who have copied out the greek Manuscripts of the
scriptures in all ages. And all three are against him.
For by the unanimous testimony evidence of all these,
it will appear that the testimony of the three in
heaven was wanting in the Greek Manuscripts from
whence Ierome, or whoever was the author of that
Preface to yethe Canonical Epistles, pretends to have
borrowed it.
The ancient Interpreters wchwhich I cite as witnesses
against him are chiefly the Authors of the ancient
Vulgar Latin of the Syriac & of the Ethiopic versi
ons. For as he tells us that the Latines omitted
the testimony of the three in heaven in their
version before his time, so in the Syriac & Ethiopic
Versions (both wchwhich by Walton's account of them are
much ancienter then Ierome's time, being the Versions
wchwhich the oriental & Ethiopic nations received from
the beginning & generally used as the Latines did
the vulgar Latine) that testimony is wanting to this
day: & the authors of these three most ancient
most famous & most received versions by omitting
it are concurrent witnesses that they found it
wanting in the original greek Manuscripts of their
times. Tis wanting also in other ancient versions, as
in the Egyptian Arabic published in Walton's Polyglott, in kk. Codex Armenianus ante 400 annos the
Armenian used ever since Chrysostom's age by the Arme
nian nations & in the Illyrican of Cyrillus used in Rascia, Bulgariagaria Moldavia Ruscia Muscovy & other countries
wchwhich use the Sclavonick tongue. In a l copy of this
version printed in Bulgaria at Ostrobe in Volk Volkinia in yethe year 1581, I have
seen it wanting, & one mm Testimonium trium in cælo non est in antiquissimis Illyiricorum & Ruthenorum codicibus quorum unum exemplum a sexcentis fere annis manu scriptum, jam pridem apud Illustrissimum Gabrielem Chineum terræ Banticæ Dominum vidi et legi: alterum manibus teritur, fide et antiquitate sua nobile. Camillus de Antichristo lib. 2. cap. 2. pag. 156. Camillus relates the same
thing out of ancient manuscripts of this Version seen
by him. Father Simon nn Crit. Hist. N. Test. lib. 1, part. 2, c. 18. notes it wanting also in a certain Version of the French Church, wchwhich (saith he) is at least a thousand years old & wchwhich was published by F. Mabillon a Benedictine Monck. Nor do I know of any Version wherein
it's extant except the modern vulgar Latin & such
modern versions of the western nations as have been
influenced by it. So then by the unanimous consent
of all the ancient & faithful Interpreters we have
hitherto met with (who doubtless made use of the best
Manuscripts they could get) the testimony of the three
in heaven was not anciently in the Greek.
And that it was neither in the ancient Versions
nor in the Greek but was wholy unknown to the first
Churches is most certain by an argument hinted above,
namely that in all that vehement universal & lasting
controversy about the Trinity in Ieromes time & both
before & long enough after it: this text of the three
in heaven was never thought of. Tis now in every
bodies mouth & acccounted the main text for the business
& would have been so then had it been in their books
& yet it is not once to be met with in all the Dis
putes, Epistles, Orations & other writings of the Greeks
& Latines (Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius the Council of Sardica, Basil,
Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret,
Hilary, Ambrose, Austin, Victorinus Afer, Philastrius Brixi
ensis, Phæbadius Agennensis, Gregorius Bæticus, Faustinus
Diaconus, Paschasius, Arnobius junior, Cerealis & others) in the times of those con
troversies; no not in Ierome himself if his version
& Preface to yethe Canonical epistles be excepted. The
writings of those times were very many & copious
& there is no argument or text of scripture to this
purpose wchwhich they do not urge again & again.
That of Iohn's Gospel, I & the father am one is
every where inculcated but this of the three in
heaven & their being one is no where to be met
with till at length when the ignorant ages came
on it began by degrees to creep into the Latine
copies out of Ierome's Version. So far are they
from citing the testimony of the three in heaven,
that on the contrary as often as they have occasion
to mention the place they omit it, & that as well
after Ierome's age as in & before it. For Hesychius cites cites the place thus. Hesych.ad l. 2. c. 8. part Audi Ioannem dicentem tria sunt qui
testimonium præbent & tres unum sunt, spiritus et sanguis et
aqua. The words in terra he omits, wchwhich is never done
but in copies where the testimony of the three in heaven
is wanting. Cassiodorus, or who ever was the author of the latin Version
of yethe discourse of Clemens Alexandrinus on these Epistles
of St Iohn, reads it thus. Cassiod. in Bibl. S. Patr. edit. Paris. 1589.Et spiritus est qui testificatur
Quia tres sunt qui testificantur spiritus et aqua et sanguis
et hi tres unum sunt. Beda in his commentary on the place
reads it thus: Et spiritus est qui testificatur
quoniam Christus est veritas. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium
dant in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis & tres unum sunt.
Si testimonium. &c But here the words in terra so far
as I can gather by his commentary on this text have
been inserted by some later hand. The author of the
first Epistle ascribed to Pope Eusebius reads it as
Beda doth, omitting only yethe words in terra. And if the
authority of Popes be valuable, Pope Leo yethe great, in
his tenth Epistle thus cites the place. Et spiritus est
qui testificatur, quoniam spiritus est veritas. Quia tres
sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus et aqua et sanguis
et hi tres unum sunt. Ambrose in thies sixt Chapter
of his first book de spiritu sancto disputing for the
unity of the three persons, saith, Hi tres unum sunt
Ioannes dixit, Aqua sanguis et spiritus. Vnum in mysterio
non in natura. This is all he could find of the text
while he was disputing about the Trinity, & therefore
he proves the unity of the persons by the mystical
unity of the spirit water & blood, interpreting these
of the Trinity wthwith Cyprian & others. Yea in the 11th
chapter of his third book, he fully recites the Text thus. See also Ambrose in Luc 22.10 & his book de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur, cap. 4.]Per aquam et sanguinem venit Christus Iesus
non solum in aqua sed in aqua et sanguine: et spiri
tus testimonium quoniam spiritus est veritas. Quia tres
sunt testes spiritus aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum
sunt in Christo Iesu. The like readings of ffacundus,
Eucherius & S. Austin you have in the places cited
above. These are the Latines as late or later then
Ierome. And ffor Ierome did not prevail with yethe
Churches of his own times to receive the testimony of
the three in heaven. And for them to know his Version
& not receive this testimony was in effect to condemn
it.
And as for the Greeks, Cyril of Alexandria reads
the text without this testimony in the 14th book of his The
saurus89saurus chap. 5, & again in his first book de fide ad
Reginas a little after the middle. And so doth Oecu
menius a later Greek in his commentary on this
place of S. Iohn's Epistle. Also Didymus Alexan
drinus in his commentary on the same place reads
the spirit water & blood without mentioning the
three in heaven, & so he doth in his book of the
Holy Ghost where he seems to omit nothing that
he could find for his purpose: & so doth Gregory
Nazianzen in his 37th Oration concerning the Holy
Ghost, & also Nicetas in his Commentary on Gregory
Nazianzen's 44th Oration. And here it is further observable ytthat Tthe Eusebians contended
that the Father Son & Holy Ghost were not to
be connumerated because things of a different kind, &
Nazianzen & Nicetas answer that they might be
connumerated because St Iohn connumerates three
things not consubstantial, the spirit the water &
the blood. By the objection of the Eusebians it
appears that the testimony of the three in hea
ven was not in their books, & by the answer
of the Catholicks it is as evident that it was
not in theirs. ffor while they answer by instancing
in the spirit water & blood they could not have
missed of the ffather Word & Holy Ghost had they
been connumerated & called one in the words imme
diately before; & to answer by instancing in these
would have been far more to the purpose because
the very thing in question. In like manner the
Eunomians in disputing against the Catholicks
objected that the Holy Ghost is no where in
scripture conjoyned with the ffather & Son
except in baptism, which is as much as to say
that the testimony of the three in heaven
was not in their books: & S. BasilBasil. lib. 5 adv. Eunom. sub finem whilst he is
very diligent in returning an answer to them,
& perplexes himself in citing places wchwhich are nothing
to the purpose, does not produce this text of the
three in heaven, thô the most obvious & only proper
place had it been then in the scriptures, & therefore he
knew nothing of it. The Objection of the Eunomians
& answer of the Catholicks sufficiently shews that it was
in the books of neither party. Besides all this, the 10th Epistle * * Insert this at yethe bottom of yethe next page. epistle * of Pope Leo mentioned above, was that very famous Epistle
to Flavian Patriarch of Constantinople against Eutyches, wchwhich
went about through all the Churches both Eastern & western,
being translated into Greek & sent about in the East by Flavian. It was
generally applauded in the West, & read in yethe Councel of
Chalcedon, & there solemnly approved & subscribed by all the
Bishops. And in this Epistle the text was thus cited. Et
spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas: Quia
tres sunt qui testificantur testimonium dant, spiritus et aqua
et sanguis et hi tres unum sunt. And by putting πνευμα (accord
ing to yethe greek reading) for Christus which is still the vul
gar Latine, it was thus translated by the Greeks.
Καὶ τὸ πνευμά ἐστιν τὸ
μαρτυρουν ἐπειδὴ τὸ πνευμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. Τρεις γαρ
ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυρουντες τὸ πνευμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ ἁιμα
καὶ ὁι τρεις τὸ ἓν ἐισι. So then we have this reading
quoted by the Pope, owned in yethe West & solemnly
subscribed in yethe East by the fourth general Council.
And & therefore it continued the public received reading in both
east & west till after the age of that Council.
So
So10
So then the testimony of the three in heaven, wchwhich in the
times of those controversies would have been in every bodies
mouth had it been in their books, was wholy unknown to
the Churches of those ages. All that they could find in
their books was the testimony of the water the spirit &
the blood. Will you now say that the testimony of the
three in heaven was rased out of their books by the
prevailing Arians? Yes truly those Arians were crafty
Knaves that could conspire so cunningly & slyly all the
world over at once (as at the word of Mithridates) in
the latter end of the reign of the Emperor Constantius to get all men's
books into their hands & correct them without being per
ceived: Ay & Conjurers too, to do it without leaving any
blot or chasm in the books, whereby the knavery might
be suspected & discovered; & to wipe even the memory of
it out of all men's brains, so that neither Athanasius nor
any body else could afterwards remember that they had
ever seen it in their books before, & out of their own
too so ytthat when they turned to the consubstantial faith, as
they generally did in the West soon after the death of
Constantius, they could remember no more of it then any
body else. Well then it was out of their books in Ierom's
age when he pretends it was in wchwhich is the point we were to prove; & when any body can
shew that it was in before, it may be pertinent to
consider that point also: but till then we are only to enquire
how since it was out, it came into the copies now extant.
For they that wthwithout proof accuse hereticks of corrupting books, & upon
that pretense correct them at their pleasure without the authority
of ancient manuscripts, (as some learned men in the fourth & fift
Centuries used to do,) are ffalsaries by their own confession, & need
no other confutation. And therefore if this reading was once out,
we are bound in justice to beleive it was out from the beginning,
unlesse the rasing of it out can be proved by some better ar
gument then that of pretense & clamour.
Will you now say that Ierome followed some Copy
different from what the Greeks were acquainted with? This is to over
throw the authority of his Version by making him depart from the
received Greek: & besides it is contrary to what he himself
seems to represent. ffor in blaming, not the vulgar greek copies, but
the Latine Interpreters wchwhich were before him as if they had varied
from the received Greek, to follow a private Copy he represents that he he followed it. He does not excuse & justify himself for receding
from the received Greek to follow a private copy, but accuses
former Interpreters as if in leaving out the testimony of
the three in heaven they had not followed the received Greek as he did.
And therefore since the Greeks knew nothing of this testi
mony, the authority of his Version sinks: & that the rather
because he was then accused of corrupting the text &
could not perswade either the Greeks or Latines of
those times to receive his reading. For the Latines
received it not till many years after his death, & the Greeks
not till this present age when the Venetians sent it
amongst them in printed books: & their not receiving it was
to approve the accusation.
The authority of this Version being thus far
discust, it remains that we consider the authority
of the Manuscripts wherein we now read the testimony
of the three in heaven. And by the best enquiry ytthat
I have been able to make it is wanting in the ma
nuscripts of all Languages but the Latine. ffor as we
have shewed that the Ethiopic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian
& Sclavonian Versions still in use in these several
eastern nations Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia,
Armenia, Moscovy & some others are strangers to this
reading & that it was anciently wanting also in the French Version: so I am told by those who have been in Turkey
that it is wanting to this day in the Greek manuscripts of
those parts as well as in the manuscripts wchwhich have been brought
from thence into the west; & that yethe Greeks now they have got it
in print from the Venetians, when their manuscripts are objected
against it, pretend that yethe Arians rased it out. of those Manuscripts
A reading to be found in no manuscripts but the Latine, & not in
the Latine before Ierome's age as Ierome himself confesses, can be
but of little authority, & this authority next sinks because we have already proved the reading spurious by
shewing that it was heretofore unknown both to the western &
eastern churches in the times of the great controversies about the
Trinity. But however for further satisfaction we shall now give
you an account of these, Latin & Greek manuscripts, & shew first how in the dark ages it crept
into these Latine Latine manuscripts (in the dark ages) out of Ierome's Version
& then how it lately crept out of the Latine into the printed
Greek wthwithout the authority of greek MSS.: those who first published it in Greek having never yet so much
as seen it in any Greek manuscript.
That the Vulgar Latin now in use is mixed of the old Vulgar
Latine & of Ierome's Version together is the received opinion. Few
of these Manuscripts are above 400 or 500 years old. The latest generally
have the testimony of the three in heaven; the oldest of all usually want
it: wchwhich shews that it has crept in by degrees. Erasmus notes it wanting
in three very ancient ones, one of wchwhich was in the Popes Library at Rome,
the other two at Bruges, & adds that in another MS belonging to yethe bishop of yethe
Minorites in Antwerp yethe testimony of yethe three in heaven was noted in the margin in a newer hand12 hand. Peter Cholinus notes in yethe margin of yethehis Latine Edition of yethe
scriptures printed A.C. 1543 & 1544 that it was wanting in the most
ancient manuscript of the Tigurine Library. Dr Burnet has lately
in the first Letter of his Travells noted it wanting in five other ancient ones kept at one of about a 1000 years old & yethe other four about 800. Fr Simon has noted it wanting in five others in yethe Libraries of yethe King of France Monr Colbert & yethe Benedictines of the Abby of St Germans. An ancient & dili
gent collator of manuscripts cited by Lucas Brugensis by yethe name
of Epanorthotes notes in general that it was wanting in the
ancient latine manuscripts. Lucas himself collating many Latine
ones notes it wanting in only five, that is in the few old ones
he had, his manuscripts being almost all of them new ones.
Lucas Brug. in calce annot.ffor he praises the Codex Lobiensis written A.C. 1084 & yethe
Codex Tornacensis written A.C. 1105, as most ancient & vene
rable for antiquity, & used others much more new, of wchwhich
a great number was easily had, such as was yethe Codex B
Buslidianus written A.C. 1432, that is but eight years
before the invention of printing. The Lateran Council
collected under Innocent yethe third. A.C. 1215 can. 2, mentions
Ioachim yethe Abbot quoting the text in these words Quoniam In canonica Ioannis Epistola legitur Quia tres sunt
qui testimonium dant in cælo Pater et Verbum et Spiritus, et hi tres
unum sunt; statimqꝫque 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 a Matth. Paris Hist. an. 1179. in yethe Papacy of
Alexander yethe 3d that is in or aboutefore yethe year 1180 & therefore this
reading was then got but into some books. ffor yethe words
sicut in codicibus quibusdāam rep invenitur refer as well to yethe
first words of Ioachim Quoniam in canonica Ioannis epistola
legitur as to yethe second next statimqꝫque subjungitur, & more to
yethe first then to yethe next, because yethe first part of yethe cita
tion was then but in some books as appears by ancient manu
scripts, but yethe second part was in almost all, the words tres
unum sunt being in all yethe books wchwhich wanted yethe testimony of the
three in heaven & in most of those wchwhich had it, thô now the
afterwards left out in many when branded by the schoolmen
for Arian.
But to go to yethe original of yethe corruption, ✝See Walton's Proleg. 10. § 5. Gregory yethe great
writes that Ierome's version was in use in his time, & there
fore no wonder if yethe testimony of yethe three in heaven began to be
cited out of it before. Eugenius Bishop of Carthage in yethe seventh year
of Hunneric King of yethe Vandals A.C. 484, in yethe summary of
his faith exhibited to that King, cited it the first of any
man so far as I can find. A while after ffulgentius, another
African Bishop disputing against the same Vandals cited it again, & backt
it with the forementioned place of Cyprian applied to yethe testimony of
the three in heaven. And so its probable that by that abused
authority of Cyprian it began first in Afric in the disputes with
the ignorant Vandals to get some credit, & thence at length
crept into Europe. It occurs also frequently in Vigilius Tapsen
sis another African Bishop contemporary to Fulgentius. 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 & yethe book de unita Dei
tate Trinitatis ascribed to Athanasius. But Chiffletius who pub
lished yethe works of Victor Vitensis & Vigilius Tapsensis, sufficiently proves the book against Varimadus13 Varimadus to be this Vigilius's & erroneously ascribed to Idacius. To yethe same
Vigilius he asserts also yethe book de unita Deitate Trinitatis. Certainly Atha
nasius was not its Author. All the Epistle of Hyginus except the begin
ning & end, & the first parts of the Epistle of Pope Iohn wherein the
testimony of the three in heaven is cited, are nothing else then frag
ments of yethe 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 quotes it.
But thô he set it on foot among the Africans, yet I cannot
find that it got ground in Europe became of authority in Europe
before the revival of learning in the 12th and 13th Centuries.
In those ages S. Bernard, the Schoolmen, Ioachim & yethe Lateran
Council by the spread it abroad & Scribes began generally to
insert it into the text: but in such Latine manuscripts &
European writers as are ancienter then those times, it is
seldome to be met with.
Now that it was inserted into yethe Vulgar Latin out of Ierom's
Version is manifest by the manner how the Vulgar Latin & that
Version came to be mixed. For 'tis agreed that the Latines, after
Ierome's Version began to be in use, noted out of it his versi
ons corrections of yethe Vulgar Latine in the Margins of their
books & these the transcribers afterwards inserted into yethe text.
By this means the old Latine has been so generally corrected ytthat
it is no where to be found sincere. Tis Ierome that we now
read & not yethe old Vulgar Latine, & what wonder if in Ierome
we read yethe testimony of the three in heaven? For who that
inserted yethe rest of Ierome into yethe text would leave out such a
passage for the Trinity as this has been taken to be?
But to put the question out of dispute there are footsteps
of the insertion still remaining. For in some old Manuscripts
it has been found noted in the margin, in others the various read
ings are such as ought to arise by transcribing it out of the
margin into the text. I shall only mention the three follow
ing varieties. Of the MSS wchwhich have not the testimony of
the three in heaven some have the words in terra in the eighth verse but the most want it. Which seems
to proceed from hence that some before they allowed
so great an addition to yethe text as yethe testimony of the three
in heaven, noted only in terra in the margins of their
books to be inserted into the testimony of yethe spirit, water & blood. Of the MSS wchwhich have the testimony of the three in
heaven some in the eighth verse have hi tres unum sunt
others not. The reason of wchwhich seems to be that of those
who noted this testimony in the margin, some blotted out
et hi tres unum sunt in yethe eighth verse according to Ierome
& others did not. And lastly the testimony of the three in
heaven is in most books set before the testimony of the
three in earth, in some set after. So Erasmus notes
two old books in which it is set after, Lucas Brugensis
a third & Hesselius (if I misremember not) a fourth: & so Vigilius Tapsensis lib. adv. Varimadum c. 5, sets it after.
Which seems to proceed from hence that it was sometimes
so noted in the margin that the Reader or transcriber knew not
whether it were to come before or after. Now these
discords in the Latine manuscripts as they detract from the
authority of the manuscripts, so they confirm to us ytthat yethe old vulgar361 vulgar latin has in these things been tampered with,
& corrected by Ieromes version.
In the next place I am to shew how & when
the testimony of the three in heaven crept out of
yethe Latine into the Greek. Those who first printed
the greek Testament did generally in following their
manuscripts omit the testimony of the three in heaven.
except in Spain. For it was omitted in the first &
second editions of Erasmus A.C. 1516, & 1519; in the aa In editis exemplaribus nonnullis non legi, ut in Aldina et Badiense editione. Addo ut in Græco Testamento Gerbelij Hagano 1521 nec in Colinæi Parisijs edito. Gomarus in h. l. Edition
of ffrancis Asulan printed at Venice by Aldus A.C. 1518;
in that of Nich. Gerbelius printed at Haganau upon
the Rhine 1521, & a little after in that of Wolfius
Cephalius printed at Strasburge A.C. 1524, & again 1526;
in that wchwhich was printed at Badecco the Badian edition, as Erasmus notes, & in that of Simon Cho
linæus at Paris A.C. 1534. At the same time it was
omitted in some other editions of other western langua
ges as in the Saxon & German editions of Luther &
the Latine Tigurine editions of Peter Cholins A.C. 1543
& 1544. The first edition in greek wchwhich has the testimo
ny of the three in heaven was that of Cardinal Xime
nes printed at Complutum in Spain A.C. 1515, but not
published before yethe year 1521. The Cardinal in his
edition used the assistance of several Divines wchwhich he
called together to Complutum, there founding an Vni
versity A.C. 1517, or a little before. Two of those
Divines were Antonius Nebrissensis & Stunica. For
Stunica then resided at Complutum, & bb Cùm præsertim si quisquam alius et quoqꝫque de his verbis nostro quodam jure judicium ferre possumus. Qui non paucos annos in S. Scripturis Vet. et N. Testamen Hebraicè Græcè et Latinè perlegendis consumpserimus, et Hebraica Græcaqꝫque ipsa divinarum. in the Preface
to a treatise he wrote against Erasmus gives this testi
mony of himself, that he had spent some years in
reading the holy scriptures in Hebrew Greek & Latin
& had diligently collated yethe Hebrew & Greek exemplars
with the Latine copies. This book displeasing the Cardi
nal was not printed till after his death, & then it
came forth at Complutum, A.C. 1521. The year before
one Lee an Englishman writ also against Erasmus, &
both Lee Stunica & Lee amongst other things reprehend
ed him for omitting the testimony of the three in
heaven. Afterwards Erasmus finding the Spaniards & some
others of the Roman Church in a heat against him
printed this testimony in his third edition A.C. 1522,
representing that in his former editions he had printed
the text as he found it in his Manuscripts, but now
there being found in England one Manuscript wchwhich had
the testimony of the three in heaven, he had inserted
it according to that manuscript for avoiding the calumnies raised15 raised against him. And so it continued in his two following
editions: And at length RobtRobert Stephens A.C. 1550 reprinted
Erasmus's edition with some few alterations & various
lections taken out of the Complutensian edition & 15 greek Ma
nuscripts wchwhich he named after yethe numeral letters α,
β, γ, δ, ε &c putting α for yethe Complutensian edition &
β, γ, δ, ε &c for the Manuscripts in order & noting
in the margin that the testimony of the three in
heaven was wanting in the seven Manuscripts δ, ε, ζ, θ,
ι, ια, ιγ. Whence BezaBeza in h. l. tells us that he had read it
in the rest. His words are: Legit Hieronymus, legit
Erasmus in Britannico codice et in Complutensi editione.
Legimus et nos in nonnullis Roberti nostri veteribus
libris. And this is the original & authority of the printed
editions. For these are all the editions ever since followed
by all the West & of late years propagated by the Venetian Presses into Grece: & nothing further that I know of
has been discovered in any manuscript in favour of these
editions.
Non desunt qui Bezam minus audacem judicant fuisse judicant dum a recepta lectione sæpius sine necessitate recedit, et unius, interdum nullis codicis auctoritate, fretus Prætorianam exercet potestatem ex conjecturis mutando et interpolando textum sacrum pro lubitu. Walton Prolegom. 4.915 in Bib. Polygl. Now to pull off yethe vizzard, I cannot but in the
first place extreamly complain of Beza's want of
modesty & caution in expressing himself. In the Preface
to his annotations describing what helps he had in
composing his first edition, he tells us that he had yethe
Annotations of Valla, Stapulensis & Erasmus, & the writ
ings of the ancients & moderns collated by himself,
& out of Stephen's library the exemplar wchwhich Stephens
had collated wthwith about 25 manuscripts almost all of
them wchwhich were printed. He should have said 17: for
that number he puts in other places & in his An
notations cites no more. So then he had yethe collati
ons of two more Manuscripts then Stephens has
givens us in print. And this was all his furniture.
The original manuscripts he does not here pretend
to have, nor could he have them. ffor they were
not Stephen's manuscripts but belonged to several
Libraries in France & Italy. The Manuscript β
Stephens himself never saw but had only various
lections collected out of it by his friends in Italy. The
manuscripts γ, δ, ε, στ, ζ, η, ι, ιε were not Stephen's's
but belonged to yethe Library of the King of France
to whom Stephens was Printer. The other six books
θ, ια, ιβ, ιγ, ιδ, ιστ Stephens had not out of his own
Library but borrowed them for a time from several
places to collate, his friends studying to furnish the
designe of his edition. And yet Beza in his Annotations when he would favour any Text takes the collations of
Stephens in such a manner as if he had the very origi
nal manuscripts at Geneva before his eyes. And were
Stephens does not cite various lections there he reccons
that in the text of Stephens collated book he read
all the Manuscripts. So in Marck. 6.11 when Stephens
notes a certain period to be wanting in the manuscript
copies β and η Beza saith, Hæc periodus in omnibus
exemplaribus græcis legitur exceptis secundo et octavo
In Act. 13.33 because Stephens had noted no various
lection Beza affirms of the greek text, Ita scriptum
invenimus in omnibus vetustis codicibus. In 1 Iohn. 4.3.
where Stephens is silent Beza speaks: sic legitur
in omnibus Græcis exemplaribus, quæ quidem mihi inspi
cere licuit. In Iames 1.2 where Stephens is again
silent Beza tells us of the word μόνον Ego in omnibus
nostris vetustis libris inveni. And so where Stephens
in the margin had noted the testimony of the three in hea
ven to be wanting in seven manuscripts he thinks that
in reading the text of Stephens's collated book he
reads it in all the rest & so tells us. Legimus et nos
in nonnullis Roberti Stephani codicibus. Thus he did in
the first edition of his Annotations. Afterwards when
he had got two real manuscripts, the Claromontan &
that wchwhich at length he presented to yethe Vniversity
of Cambridge, (in both wchwhich the Canonical Epistles are wanting) in the epistle to his fourth edition in
recconing up the books he then used, he puts only
these two & the 17 of Stephens, & in his fift
edition he writes summarily that he used nineteen
manuscripts, joyning wthwith those two real ones the
collations of Stephens as if in those he had 17
others: wchwhich sufficiently explains his way of speak
ing in his Annotations. But whilst he had not yethe
manuscripts themselves to read wthwith his own eyes, it
was too hard & unwarrantable a way of speaking
to tell us, Legimus et nos in nonnullis Roberti
Stephani codicibus & therefore in his later editions
he corrects himself & tells us only that the read
ing doth extare in nonnullis Stephani veteribus
libris. Thus Beza argues from Stephens book of
collations: And the same inference has been made
by Lucas Brugensis & others ever since by from Stephens's forementioned
edition of that book. ffor say they Stephens' had
fifteen manuscripts in all & found the testimony
of the three in heaven wanting but in seven, &
therefore it was in the other eight, & so being found17 found in the greater part of his manuscripts has
yethe authority of manuscripts on its side. Thus they argue
& this is the great argument by wchwhich the printed book
Greek has hitherto been justified.
But if they please to consider the bussinessbusiness
a little better they will find themselves very much
mistaken. ffor thô Stephens had fifteen manuscripts
in all, yet all of them did not contein all the Greek
Testament. Four of them noted γ, στ, ιβ, ιδ had each
of them yethe four Gospels only. Two noted β, η conteined
only the Gospels & Acts of yethe Apostles. One noted ιστ
conteined yethe Apocalyps only. One noted ιε had only yethe
Apocalyps wthwith St Pauls epistles to yethe Corinthians
Galathians Ephesians Philippians & Colossians. The
other seven noted δ, ε, ζ, θ, ι, ια, ιγ conteined both
St Pauls Epistles & yethe Canonical ones besides some
other books: namely the Manuscript ζ conteined the
Epistles & Gospels, the manuscript ι, ια ιγ the Epistles
& Acts of the Apostles & the manuscripts δ, ε, θ the
Epistles Gospels & Acts. And this any one may gather
by noting what manuscripts the various lections are
cited out of in every book of the new Testament.
ffor in the various lections of the canonical Epistles
& those to the Thessalonians Timothy Titus & the
Hebrews are found these seven manuscripts, δ, ε, ζ,
θ, ι, ια, ιγ every where cited, & no more then these.
The same also & no more are cited in the Epistles
to the Thessalonians Timothy Titus & the Hebrews,
one numeral error (whether of the scribe or
Typographer) excepted. Stephens therefore did collect
various Lections of the Epistles out of only these
seven manuscripts δ, ε, ζ, θ, ι, ια ιγ & in all these
seven he found the testimony of the three in heaven
to be wanting as you may see noted in the margin
of his edition.
And that this testimony was wanting ✝ ✝ And that this testimony was wanting in all Stephen's Manuscripts
is apparent also by its being generally wanting in the MSS wchwhich
are now extant in France. For Father Simon cc Crit. Hist. N. Test. cap. 18. tells us that
after diligent search in the Library of the King of France
& in that also of MonsrMonsieur Colbert, he could not find it
in any one MS manuscript tho he consulted seven MSS in
the Kings Library & one in Colbert's. And because Stephen
had some of his various lections from Italy I will add
that a Gentleman who in his travells had consulted twelve
MSS in several Libraries in Italy, assured me that he
found it wanting in them all. One of the twelve was that theat Popes
most ancient & most famous MS in the Popes library written in Capital letters.
So then the authority of the printed books rests
only upon the authority of the editions of Erasmus &
Cardinal Ximenes. But seing Erasmus omitted it in
his two first editions & inserted it unwillingly against
the authority of his manuscripts in his three last, the
authority of these three can be none at all. When
Lee upon Erasmus's putting forth his second edition fell
foule upon him for leaving out the testimony of the
three in heaven, a Erasmus answered that he had consulted more more then seven Greek Manuscripts & found it wanting
in them all, & that if he could have found it but
in any one manuscript he would have followed that in
favour of the Latine. Hence notice was sent to Eras
mus out of England that it was in a manuscript there;
& thereupon he printed it in his following editions.
bb. Ex hoc igitur codice Britannico posuimus quod in dicebatur deesse, cui sit ansa calumniandi. Quanquam et hoc suspicor ad Latinorum codices fuisse castigat. Posteaquam enim Græcam concordiam inierant cum ecclesia Romana, studuerunt et hac in parte cum Romanis consentire Erasm. Annot. in h.l. Edit. 3a & sequ. to avoyd their calumnies (as he saith,) he printed it
in his following editions notwithstanding that he suspected
that manuscript to be a new one corrected by the latine.
But since upon enquiry cc. Versiculus 1 Ioh. 5.7 in Syriaca, ut et vetustissimis Græcis exemplaribus, nostro Alexandrino alijsqꝫque MSS Græcis quos contulimus, non reperitur. Walton Prolegom. 14. § 23. Bib. Pol. I cannot learn that they in
England ever heard of any such manuscript but from
Erasmus, & since he was only told of such a manuscript
in the time of the controversy between him & Lee
& never saw it himself: I cannot forbear to suspect
that it was nothing but a trick put upon him by some
of the Popish Clergy, to try if he would make good
what he had offered of printing the testimony of the
three in heaven by the authority of any one greek
copy, & thereby to get it into his edition. Greek
manuscripts of the scriptures are things of value & do
not use to be thrown away, & such a manuscript for
the testimony of the three in heaven would have made
a greater noise then the rest have done against it. Let
those who have such a manuscript at length tell us
where it is.
So also let them who insist upon the edition of
Cardinal Ximenes tell us by what Manuscript he
printed this testimony, or at least where any such
manuscript of good note is to be seen. ffor till then
I must take yethe liberty to beleive that he printed
nothing else then a translation out of the Latine, &
that for these reasons.
First because in the Preface to his edition of
the new Testament we are told that this Testament
was printed after Manuscripts taken out of the Popes
Library, & these the Cardinal only aa Accivit borrowed thence
& therefore returned them back so soon as his
edition was finished: & Caryophilus some time after by
the Popes command collating the Vatican manuscripts
found the testimony of the three in heaven wanting
in them all. I do not say but that the Cardinal had
other manuscripts, but these were the chief & the
only ones he thought worth the while to tell his
Reader of.
Secondly I startle at the marginal note in this place
of the Cardinals edition. ffor it is besides the use of the19 this edition to put notes in the margin of yethe
greek text. I have not found it done above
thrice in all this edition of the new Testament,
& therefore there must be something extraor
dinary in it; & that in respect of the Greek
because tis in the margin of this text. In 1 Cor.
15 there is noted in this margin a notable va
riation in the greek reading. In Matt. 6.13 where
they in their edition recede from the greek
copies & follow correct it by the Latine, by them translated
into Greek they make a marginal note to
justify their doing so. And so here where the
testimony of the three in heaven is generally
wanting they in the greek copies, they make a third
marginal note to secure themselves from being
blamed for printing it. Now in such a case as this is there
is no question but that they would make the
best defense they could, & yet they do not tell
of any various lections in their greek manuscripts
nor produce any one greek manuscript on their
side, but run to the authority of Thomas Aqui
nas. The greek manuscripts have yethe text thus:
For there are three that bear record, the spirit
the water & the blood, & these three are one.
In many of the latine manuscripts these words
these three are one are here omitted & put
only at the end of the testimony of the three
in heaven before that of the spirit water &
blood: in others they are put after both
testimonies. In Tthe Complutensian edition they follows the
former copies & justify their doing so by the
authority of Thomas Aquinas. aa The marginal note is this. Sanctus Thomas in expositione secundæ decreta de summa Trinitate & fide catholica tractans in passum contra Abbatem Ioachim, viz. Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cælo; patre verbum et spiritus sanctus, dicat ad litteram verba sequentia: Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditum, hi tres unum sunt: Quandoquidem dicitur propter essentiæ unitatem. Sed hoc Ioachim perversè trahere volens ad unitatem charitatis & consensu inducebat consequentem auctoritatem. Nam subditur Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra s. spiritus, aqua et sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur: et hi tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in exemplaribus non habetur sed dicitur esse apposita ab hæreticis Arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis de unitate essentiæ trium personarum. Hac beatus Thomas ubi supra. Thomas, say they,
"in treating of the three wchwhich bear witness in heaven
teaches that the words these three are one
are subjoyned for insinuating the unity of the essence
of the three persons: And whereas one Ioachim
interpreted this unity to be only in love & consent,
it being thus said of the spirit water & blood in
some copies that these three are one; Thomas
replied that this last clause is not extant in
the true copies but was added by the Arians
for perverting the sense." Thus far this Anno
tation. Now this plainly respects the latine copies
(for Thomas understood not Greek) & therefore
part of the designe of this annotation is to set right the36120 the Latine reading. But this is not the main designe, for so yethe
annotation should have been set in the margin of the Latin
Version. It's being set in the margin of the Greek text shews
that it's main designe is to justify the greek by the Latine
thus rectified & confirmed. Now to make Thomas thus in a few
words do all the work was very artificial, & in Spain where
Thomas is of Apostolic authority might pass for a very
judicious & substantial defense of yethe printed Greek: but
to us Thomas Aquinas is no Apostle; we are seeking for the
authority of greek manuscripts.
A third reason why I conceive yethe Complutensian Greek
to have been in this place a translation from yethe Latine is because
Stunica, who, as I told you, was one of the Divines em
ployed by the Cardinal in this Edition & at that very
time wrote against Erasmus, when in his Objections he comes
to this text of the testimony of the three in heaven, he cites
not one Greek Manuscript for it against Erasmus, but argues
wholy from yethe authority of the Latine. On the contrary he
sets down by way of concession, the common reading of the greek
Manuscripts (his own & others,) in these words Ὅτι τρεις ἐισιν ὁι
μαρτυρουντες τὸ πνευμα καὶ τὸ ὑδωρ καὶ τὸ ἁιμα καὶ ὁι τρεις ἐις
τὸ ἕν ἐισι, & then he condemns them all together without ex
ception & justifies the Latine against them by the autho
rity of Ierom. bb Sciendum est hoc loco gr Codices apertissimè esse corruptos, nostros verò veritatem ipsam ut a prima origine traducti sunt, continere. Quod ex Prologo B. Hieronymi super Epistolas manifeste apparet. Ait enim: Quæ si sic ut ab eis digestæ sunt ita quoqꝫque ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum verterentur eloquium &c. Hæc Stunica in h. l. Ejus littera extat in Criticorum Vol. 9. Know, saith he, that in this place the greek Manu
scripts are most evidently corrupted, but ours (that is the Latin
ones) contein yethe truth it self as they are translated from the
first original. Which is manifest by the Prologue of S. Ierome
upon the Epistles, &c And this Prologue (wchwhich he goes on to cite at
length & of wchwhich we gave you an account above) is all he urges
in favour of the testimony of the three in heaven. In other
places of scripture where he had greek Manuscripts on his
side, he produces them readily. So in 1 Thes. 2.7. Ita quidem
legitur, saith he, in græcis codicibus quos ego viderim. In
Iames 1.1 he saith, Sciendum in omnibus græcis codicibus
πορείας hic legi per ei dipthongum. In 1 Thes. 5.23. he
saith, cùm in græcis exemplaribus quotquot sunt ὁλόκληρον
et in Latinis integet hic legatur per nemine discrepante,
nescio cur Erasmus dixerit &c. In Phil 4.9 Siquidem in omnibus,
saith he, græcis codicibus ταυτα λογίζεσθε hic legitur – neqꝫque græci
sunt libri qui πραττέτε hoc loco neqꝫque latini qui agite, nisi
mendosos utriusqꝫque linguæ codices cùm hæc commentaretur Erasmus
perlegit. After this manner does Stunica produce yethe manu
scripts used in yethe Complutensian edition when they make for
him & here he produces them too but 'tis for Erasmus
against himself. Know, saith he, that in this place the greek
manuscripts are most evidently corrupted. In other places if he
hath but one manuscripmanuscript on his side, he produces it magnificently
enough, as yethe Codex Rhodiensis in his discourse upon 2 Cor. 2.3
Iames 1.22. 2 Pet. 2.2. & other texts: here he produces all yethe
Manuscripts against himself without excepting so much as one.
And hence Erasmus in his answer to Stunica gloried in the
consent of the Spanish manuscripts wthwith his own, & Sanctus Caranza21 Caranza (another of the Complutensian Divines) in his defense
of Stunica written presently after, had nothing to reply in this
point. Neither could Sepulueda or the Spanish Moncks who
next undertook yethe controversy find any one greek manuscript
which here made against Erasmus. Nor had Marchio VelesiussVelesius
better successe, thô on that occasion he collated 16 greek
manuscripts, eight whereof belonged to yethe King of Spain's library
& the other eight to other libraries in Spain, & did it on
purpose to collect out of them whatever he could meet with in
favour of the present vulgar Latine. Neither did the re
printing of the Complutensian Bible by Arias Montanus, produce
the notice of any such manuscript, tho on that occasion many
Manuscripts as well greek as latine fetcht from Complutum &
other places were collated by Arias, Lucas Brugensis, Canter &
others. So then to summe up the argument, Tthe Complutensian Divines did sometimes correct the greek
by the Latine wthwithout the authority of any one greek Ma
nuscript, as appears by their practise in Mat. 6.13, & there
fore their printing of the testimony of the three in heaven
is no evidence of that they did it by a manuscript. For But on the contrary for want
of one they contented themselves wthwith yethe authority of Thomas
Aquinas, & Stunica confest they had none. Nor has all the zeal for this
text has not been able since to discover one either in Spain or
any where else.
And now you may understand whence it is that yethe Compluten
sian edition & yethe reading of the pretended English manuscript set down
by Erasmus in his Annotations, differ so much from one another. ffor
the Complutensian has the text thus Ὅτι τρεις ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυρουν
τες ἐν τωι ὀυρανωι, ὁ παττὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνευμα καὶ ὁι
τρεις εις τὸ ἕν ἐισιν καὶ τρεις ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυρουντες ἐπὶ της
γης τὸ πνευμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἱμα. The pretended English
Manuscript thus Ὅτι τρεις ἐισὶν ὁι μαρτυρουντες ἐν τωι ὀυρανωι,
πατὴρ, λόγος καὶ πνευμα, καὶ ὁυτοι ὁι τρεις ἕν ἐισιν. Καὶ τρεις
ἐισὶν μαρτυρουντες ἐν τηι γηι πνευμα καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἁιμα. The differ
ences are too great to spring from the bare errors of scribes & arise rather
from the various translation of the place out of Latin into Greek by two se
veral persons.
But whilst these two readings by their discord confute one another, yethe
readings of the real Greek manuscripts by their agreement confirm one
another as much. For Caryophilus who by the command of Pope Vrban
yethe 8th collated the Vatican & other manuscripts borrowed out of the princi
pal Libraries in Rome, found one common reading in them all wthwithout
the testimony of the three in heaven as you may see in those his Colla
tions printed anno 1673 by Peter Possinus in the end of his Catena
of the Greek Fathers upon Mark. He met wthwith eight manuscripts in
all upon the Epistles & notes their reading thus. 1 Ioan. 5.7 MSS
octo (omnes nempe) legunt, Ὅτι τρεις ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυρουντες,
τὸ πνευμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ ἁιμα, καὶ ὁι τρεις ἐις τὸ ἕν ἐισι:
Porro totus septimus versus hujus capitis desideratur in octo MSS
codd græcis &c. Thus Caryophilus.
The very same reading Erasmus in his Annotations
on this place gives us of all his manuscripts which were more then
seven & so doth Stephens of all his seven without noting any various lections in them370 22 them. Only the comma wchwhich in Stephen's Edition is (surely
by mistake) set after οὐρανωι, is to be put in it's right place.
The very same reading does Stunica also in his book against
Erasmus note out of the Manuscripts he had seen in Spain,
as was shewed above: nor does Velesius in his collation of
the sixteen Spanish manuscripts note any various lections in
this text. The same reading exactly have also yethe manuscripts
in England, namely that most ancient & most famous one
in the Kings Library wchwhich was conveyed thither from Egypt
through Greece & published in Walton's Polyglott Bible & yethe
four at Oxford, vizt that in New College, & that in
Magdalen College (both very old) & two in Lincoln College,
& five others ancient ones lately brought out of Turkey
by Mr Covel & collated by Dr Mills. The very same
reading have also the three Manuscripts of MonsrMonsieur Petavius
Gachon a Senator of Paris, whose various lections collected
by his son Iohn Gachon, were printed in yethe Oxford edition of
the new Testament A.C. 1675. The same reading wthwithout
any variation is published by Francis Asulan in his edition
printed A.C. 1518 by Aldus out of the at Venice out of
the Manuscripts of those parts. The same reading Oecu
menius six hundred years ago found in the Manuscripts
of Greece as you may see in the text of his Commenta
ry on this Epistle of Iohn. The same reading also Cyril
of Alexandria met wthwith in the manuscripts of Egypt
above eleven hundred years ago, as you may see in his
citations of the text, both in his Thesaurus lib. 14 c. 5,
& in his first book de fide ad Reginas: excepting that
in the latter of these two citations the particle ἐις is
omitted & μαρτυρουσι written for ὁι μαρτυρουντες. And that the very same reading was also in yethe
manuscripts of the first ages may be gathered from the con
formity of this reading to all the ancient Versions.
It may seem by what has been hitherto said that this
Testimony is not to be found in Greek Manuscripts. aa Habuimus ab Hieromo id quod maximi facit MS Bibl. correctorius incerto auctore quem Epanorthotem aut Correctorem fere vocat magna diligentia ac fide contextum, secuto uti oportet antiquos nostræ editionis codices, eosqꝫque cum Hebræis Græcis et Poetis patrum commentarijs sedulo collatos: qui ad Gen. 8.7 latinus a nobis descriptus est. Hæc Lucas, qui ad Gen. 8.7 dicit librum multis annis scriptum et pluribus forte compositum dein loco ex eo citato pergit. Ad quæ dici quin possit? An quod libro findendam non sit? Non hæc licet qui : quæ namqꝫque a nostri seculi scriptoribus ea MSS codicibus collectæ sunt variæ lectiones omnes propemodum in eo comperrimus et ad fontes fideliter examin deprehendimus. Scripsit hac Lucas anno 1579 sequitur Correctoriam disputationes Erasmus testibus in cælo elaborat esse. Epanortho
tes whom Lucas Brugensis describes to be an ancient accu
rate full & industrious Collator of Manuscripts, found it
wanting in all those he met with. Epanorthotes, saith
Lucas, deesse hæc eadem Græcis libris et antiquis Latinis
annotat. Lucas Brugensis & others in their collations of
several Greek Manuscripts belonging to yethe Libraries in Flanders & Spain
could find nothing in favour of the Complutensian edition; &
bb. Walton could find as little in England Nor have other collators made a further discovery to this day. but produced Lee, Stunica & yethe rest
in England, Spain, fflanders, ffrance & Italy who conspired against Eras
mus could find nothing in the manuscripts of those parts
against him If those be excepted wchwhich once appeared to certain men here in England but could never since be seen. After the disputes of those times, cc. cato patris ac verbi ac spiritus sancti. codices aliter legentis describendo sic pergit. Nostro tempore duo Græci codices manuscripti reperti sunt, unus in Anglia & alter in Hispania: quorum uterqꝫque hoc loco testimonium habet Patris Verbi et Spiritu sancti. Hesselius
about the year 1565 Professor of Divinity at Lovain, in
his Commentary on this place ingeniously confesses it wanting
in all the greek manuscripts then known except two, the one
one in Spain the other in England, meaning those by wchwhich the
Complutensian Divines & Erasmus printed it: wchwhich two we
have shewed to be none at all, unlesse some Annius dug up one in England.. Since that time nothing
further has been produced besides the imaginary books of
the dreaming Beza. And yet I will not say but that it
may be hereafter found in some Greek copies. For in the
times of the holy war the Latines had much to do in
the East. They were long united to the Greek Church:
They made Latine Patriarchs of Ierusalem & Antioch;
they reigned at Constantinople over the Greeks from the
year 1204 for above 50 years together, & during this their
Kingdom in yethe year 1215 was assembled the Late
ran ConcilCouncil consisting of 415 Bishops Greeks & Latines
together, & therein the testimony of the three in heaven
was quoted out of some of yethe Latine manuscripts as we
told you above. All wchwhich might occasion some Greeks as
well as Latines to note it in the Margins of their books
& thence insert it into yethe text in transcribing. For this
is most certain that some greek manuscripts have been
corrected by the Latine ones. Such a book dd Hic obiter illud incidit admonendum esse Græcorum quosdam novi Testamenti codices ad Latinorum exemplaria emendatos. Id factum est in fœdere Græcorum cum Romana Ecclesia: quod fœdus testatur Bulla quæ dicitur aurea. Visum est enim et hoc ad firmandam concordiam pertinere. Et nos olim in hujusmodi codicem incidimus, et talis adhuc dicitur adservari, in Bibliotheca Pontificia. Verum ex his corrigere nostros est Lesbia ut aiunt admovere regulam. Erasm. ad Lectorem edit. 5ta N.T. Erasmus tells
us he once met with, & that there was such another in
the Popes Library. He suspected also that Boook in England out of
wchwhich he printed the testimony of the three in heaven to be of
the same kind, tho I rather think 'twas none at all unless some Italians of that age were at the pains to transcribe one or two of St Paul's Epistles. Such
another book was one of those out of wchwhich Velesius collected
his various lections. Whence Mariana into whose hands the
manuscript boook of those Lections fell, tells us that for
that reason in his annotations on the new Testament he used
those lections but sparingly & cautiously. And that Velesius did
meet wthwith such a corrected manuscript appears by the Lections
themselves. For in Apoc. 18.17, where the Greek reads ἐπὶ
τόπον & the Latine translates in locum & by the error of
one letter in lacum, as the books now have it: some Grecian
here has corrected his book by the Latine & written ἐπὶ
λίμνην as tis in the lections of Velesius taken out of
this manuscript. Again in Apoc 9.11 where the Latine transla
tor in expounding the names Abaddon & Apollyon adds, Et
latine habens nomen exterminans, Velesius notes the reading
in his Greek cCopy to be ρὡμαιστὶ ἔχων ὄνομα ἐξτέρμινανς:
which certainly is a translation of the Latine. Again
in Apoc. 21.12 where the Greek has ἀγγέλους, and some ancient Latine copies angelos, but the far24
far greater part of yethe Latine copies at present angulos Velesius in
his MS reads γωνίας. So in Apoc 19.6 where yethe Greek is ὄχλου πολλου &
yethe Latine turbæ magnæ & in later copies tubæ magnæ, Velesius in his MS
reads σάλπιγγος μεγάλης. In Heb. 13.2 for ἔλαθον latuerunt & in
later copies placuerunt Velesius reads ἤρεσαν: & in 1 Pet. 3.8, for τὸ
δὲ τέλος In fine & by error In fide Velesius reads ἐν τη πίστει δὲ. These
& such like instances put the thing out of dispute. Now tho Velesius
found not yethe testimony of yethe three in heaven in this Manuscript, & Erasmus
tells us he never saw it in any greek manuscript, & by consequence not
in that corrected one wchwhich fell into his hands: yet it may have crept out
of the Latine into some other books not yet taken notice of, & even in some
MSS wchwhich in other places have not been corrected by the Latine, it may
possibly have been inserted by some of yethe Greek Bishops of the Lateran
Council where the testimony of the three in heaven was read. And there
fore he ytthat shall hereafter meet wthwith it in any book, ought first before he
insists upon yethe authority of that book, to examin whether it hath not
been corrected by the Latine, & whether it be ancienter then yethe Lateran
Councel & empire of the Latines in Greece. ffor if it be liable to
either of those two exceptions it can signify nothing to produce it.
Having given you the history of the controversy, I shal now
confirm all that I have said from yethe sense of the text it self. ffor
without yethe testimony of yethe three in heaven the sense is good & easy,
as you may see by the following paraphrase inserted into yethe text in
a different character.
Citations in the text of ScriptureWho is he that overcometh yethe world but he that beleiveth
that Iesus Christ is yethe Son of God, that son spoken of in the
Psalmes where he saith Thou art my son this day have I begotten
thee. This is he that after yethe Iews had long expected him, came
first in a mortal body by baptism of water and then in an
immortal one by shedding his blood upon the crosse & rising again
from the dead: not by water only but by water & blood:
being the son of God as well aa Acts 13.33. by his resurrection from the dead
as bb Luc. 1.35. by his supernatural birth of the Virgin: and it is the
spirit also that together wthwith yethe water & blood beareth wit
ness beareth witnesse of the truth of his coming, because the
spirit is truth, & so a fit & unexceptionable witnesse. For there
are three that bear record of his coming, the Spirit wchwhich he
promised to send, & wchwhich was since shed forth upon us in the form
of cloven tongues & in various gifts, the baptism of water wherein
God testified this is my beloved son, and the shedding of his blood
accompanied wthwith his resurrection whereby he became the most
faithful martyr or witnesse of this truth. And these three,
the Spirit, the baptism & yethe passion of Christ agree in witness
ing one & the same thing (namely theat truth of Christ's coming)
the Son of God is come,) & therefore their evidence is strong.
For the Law requires but two consenting witnesses, & here we
have three. And if wee receive the witness of men the
threefold witnesse of God wchwhich he bare of his Son, by declar
ing at his baptism This is my beloved Son, by raising him
from the dead, & by pouring out his spirit on us, is greater
& therefore ought to be more readily received.
Thus is the sense plain & natural & the argument full & strong,
but if you insert the testimony of the three in heaven you interrupt
& spoil it. ffor the whole designe of the Apostle being here to
prove to men by witnesses the truth of Christs coming, I would
ask how the testimony of the three in heaven makes to this purpose. If
If their testimony be not given to men how does it prove to them
yethe truth of Christs coming? If it be, how is the testimony in heaven
distinguished from that in earth? Tis the same Spirit which witnesses
in heaven & in earth. If in both cases it witnesses to us men, wherein
lies the difference between its witnessing in heaven & its witnessing in
earth? If in the first case it does not witnesse to men, to whom
does it witnesse, & to what purpose? & how does its witnessing
make to the designe of Iohn's discourse? Let them make good sense
of it who are able: for my part I can make none. If it
be said that we are not to determin what's scripture & what
not by orour private judgments, I confesse it in places not controverted:
but in disputable places I love to take up wthwith what I can
best understand. Tis the temper of the hot & superstitious part of
mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries,
& for that reason to like best what they understand least.
Such men may use the Apostle Iohn as they please: but I
have that honour for him as to beleive he wrote good sense,
& therefore take that sense to be his wchwhich is the best: espe
cially since I am defended in it by so great authority. For I
have on my side the authority of the fourth generall cCouncil,
& (so far as I know) of all the Churches in all ages except yethe
modern Latines & such others as have lately been influenced
by them, & that also of all the old Versions & greek manuscripts
& ancient Latine ones; & nothing against me but the authority
of Ierome, & the credulity & heat of his followers. For to
tell us of other manuscripts without ever letting us know in
what Libraries they were to be seen; to pretend MSS wchwhich
since their first discovery could never be heard of, nor
were then seen by persons whose names & credit we know,
is plainly to impose upon the learned world, & ought not
to passe any longer for fair dealing. The Spaniards tell
us plainly that they followed the Latine, & by the autho
rity of Thomas left out the clause and these three are
one in the 8th verse as inserted by the Arians: & yet
S. Ambrose, S. Austin, Eucherius & other Latines in the Arian
age gathered the unity of the Deity from this clause,
& the omission of it is now by printing it acknowledged to be bb καθὼς γέγραντα ὅτι τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ ἁιμα καὶ τὸ πνευμα; ὁι τρεις τὸ έν ἐισιν Dionys. Alexand. Resp ad Pauli Samosatensis Quæst. 4. an erro
neous correction. The pretended Manuscript in England wanted the
same clause & therefore if there was any such MS it was a corrected one like yethe Spanish
Edition & yethe Velesian manuscript of Velesius. Erasmus who printed the triple
testimony in heaven by that MS English MS, never saw it, dd. Erasm. advers. Monach. Hisp. in articulo de Trinitate. tells
us it was a new one, suspected its sincerity & accused it pub
lickly in his writings on several occasions for several years toge
ther: accused it publickly in his writings on several occasions for many
years together & yet his adversaries in England never answered his
accusation, never endeavoured to satisfy him & yethe world about it,
did not so much as let us know where the record might be consulted for confuting him: but on the contrary when they had got the Trinity into his Edition,
threw by their MS (if they had one) as an Almanack out of date. And
can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men? Let Manuscripts
at length be produced, & freely exposed to the sight of the learned
world, but let such MSS be produced as are of authority; or
else let it be confest that whilst Ierome pretended to correct the
Latin by the Greek, the Latines have corrected both the Latin & yethe
Greek by the sole authority of Ierome.
What
What the Latines have done to this text the Greeks
have done to that of S. Paul 1 Tim. 3.16. For by chang
ing Ο in ΟΣ & both into ΘΣ (the abbreviation of Θεὸς) they now read
Great is the mystery of godlinesse God manifested in the
flesh: whereas all the Churches for the first four or
five hundred years, & the authors of all the ancient
Versions, Ierome as well as the rest, read, Great is yethe
mystery of godliness which was manifested in the flesh. For this is the common reading of the Ethiopic, Syriac
& Latine Versions to this day, Ierome's manuscripts
having given him no occasion to correct yethe old Vulgar
Latine in this place. Grotius adds the Arabic, but the
Egyptian Arabic Version has Θεὸς, & so has the above
mentioned Sclavonian Version of Cyrillus. For these two
Versions were made long after the sixt Century wherein the corruption began.
With yethe ancienter Versions agree the writers of the first
five Centuries both Greeks & Latines. For they in all
their discourses to prove yethe Deity of the Son, never
allege this text (that I can find,) as they would all
have done, & some of them frequently, had they read
God manifested in the flesh, & therefore they read Ὃ. Ter
tullian adversus Praxeam & Cyprian adversus Iudæos
indoustriously cite all the places where Christ is
called God, but have nothing of this. Alexander of
Alexandria, Athanasius, the Bishops of the Council of
Sardica, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory
Nyssen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Ierusalem, Cyril of Alex
andria, Cassian; Also Hilary, Lucifer, Ierome, Am
brose, Austin, Phœbadius, Victorinus Afer, Faustinus Dia
conus, Pope Leo the great, Arnobius junior, Cereatis,
Vigilius Tapsensis, Fulgentius all wrote all of them in yethe fourth
& fift Centuries for the Deity of yethe Son & incar
nation of God, & some of them largely & in several
Tracts; & yet I cannot find that they ever allege this
text to prove it excepting that aa Oratio G. Nyssen once urges it, if the passage crept not into him out of some marginal annotation. In all the times of the hot &
lasting Arian controversy it never came into play, thô now
those disputes are over they that read God manifested
in the flesh think it one of the most obvious & per
tinent texts for the businesse.
The Churches therefore of those ages were all
strangers to this reading: for on the contrary their
writers as often as they have any occasion to cite the
reading then in use discover that it was Ὃ. For thô they cite27 cite not it not to prove the Deity of yethe Son, yet in their
Commentaries & sometimes in other discourses they produce it.
And particularly Hilary lib 11 de Trinitate & Ambrose, or whoever of his contempora
ries was yethe author of yethe Commentary on yethe Epistles, reads
Ὃ; & so doth S. Austin in Genesin ad litteram lib 5,
& Beda in his commentary on this text where he cites
the reading of S. Austin, & the Author of the Commen
tary on the Epistles ascribed to Ierome. So also do
Primasius & Sedulius in their Commentaries on this text,
& Victorinus Afer lib 1 adversus Arium, & Idacius Clarus
or rather Vigilius Tapsensis lib. 3. cap adversus Varimadum & Fulgentius lib. 1 cap. 12. & Fulgentius cap. 2 de incarnatione. And so did Pope Leo the great Epist
20 ad Flavianum & Pope Gregory the great lib 34
Moral. cap 7 alias 4. These ancient Latines all cite yethe
text after this manner Great is the mystery of god
linesse wchwhich was manifested in the flesh, as the latine
MSS of S. Pauls Epistles generally have it to this
day; & therefore it cannot be doubted but that this
hath been the constant public reading of the Latine
Churches from yethe beginning. So also one of the Arians
in a Homily printed in Fulgentius's works reads Ὃ &
interprets it of the son of God who was born of yethe Father
ante sæcula & of the Virgin in novissimo tempore: & Ful
gentius in his answer to this Homily found no fault wthwith
the citation, but on yethe contrary in his first book ad
Trasimundum, chap. 6, seems to have read & understood yethe
text after the same manner wthwith other Latines.
Now for the Greeks, I find indeed that they have
changed the ancient reading of yethe text not only in the MSS
of S. Pauls Epistles but also in other authors, & yet
there are still remaining sufficient instances among them
of what the reading was at first. So in Chrysostom's
Commentary on this Epistle they have now gotten θεὸς
into the text & yet by considering the Commentary it
self I am satisfied that he read ὃ. For he neither
in this Commentary nor any where else infers the Deity
of Christ from this text nor expounds it as they do
who read θεὸς, but with yethe Latines & others who read ὃ
understands by it Christ incarnate, or as he expresses it
Man made God & God made man, & so leaves it at liberty
to be taken for either God or Man. And accordingly in one place of his commentary he saith ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ
ὁ δημιουργὸς, in another place Ἄνθρωπος ὤφθη ἀναμάρ
τητος, ἄνθρωπος ἀναλήφθη, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν κόσμωι, μεθ᾽
ἡμων ειδον ἀυτὸν ὁι ἄγγελοι. Man appeared wthwithout sin.
Man was received up, was preached in the world, was seen amongst28 amongst us by Angels. Instead of ὃ ἐφανηρώθη ἐν σαρκι,
εδικαιώθη ἐν πνέυματι, he saith Man appeared without
sin, making man the nominative case to these & all yethe
verbs wchwhich follow: wchwhich certainly he would not have
done had θεὸς been their nominative case expresly in his text.
He might put properly put man for ὃ but not for
θεὸς Neither could he have put ἀναμάρτητος for ἐδι
καιώθη if he had read in his text ἐδικαιώθη:
for what man of common sense would say that God was made
sinlesse in or through yethe spirit. But what I have said of
Chrysostom will be more evident when I shall have shewed
you how afterwards in the time of the Nestorian contro
versy, all parties read ὃ or ὃς wthwithout raising any dispute raised
about yethe reading, & how the Greeks have since corrupted
the text in Cyrills writings, & changed ὃ & ὃς into θεὸς as they have done
in Chrysostom's.
And first that the Nestorians read ὃ is evident by
some fragments of the Orations or Homilies of Nestorius sent by him
to yethe Pope & cited by Arnobius junior in yethe second book of yethe
ConfictConflict wthwith Serapion. For there to shew what was yethe
opinion of Nestorius & how he proved it defended it,
he cites two of his Orations in these words. Non pepe
rit sanctissima Maria Deitatem, nam quod natum est de
carne caro est. Non peperit creatura creatorem sed
peperit hominem Deitatis ministrum. Non ædificavit
Deum vVerbum sSpiritus sanctus: quod ex ipsa natum
est de spiritu sancto est. Deo itaqꝫque Verbo templum
ex Virgine ædificavit. Et paulo post. Qui per se
natus est Deus in utero [scil. ante Luciferum] Deus est.
Et paulo post. Θεοτόκου formam in Deo honoramus. Et in alia prædicatione: Spiritum divina separat
natura qui humanitatem ejus creavit. Quicquid ex Maria
natum est de spiritu sancto est, qui et secundum justiciam
replevit quod creatum est, hoc quod manifestatum est in
carne justificatum est in spiritu. Which last words in
the language wherein Nestorius wrote those hHomilies
are ὃ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι..
Here you see Nestorius reads ὃ expresly, & not only
so but absolutely excludes God from being understood
by it: arguing that yethe Virgin was not θεοτόκος be
cause that thing wchwhich was manifested in yethe flesh, was
justified in the spirit, ( or (as he expounds it) replenish
ed by the spirit in righteousnes; & calling that thing wchwhich was manifested in the flesh
a creature. Spiritus, saith he, secundum justiciam reple
vit [hoc] quod creatum est, [nempe] hoc quod manifesta
tum est in carne, justificatum est in spiritu.
And now whilst he read the text after this manner
& urged it thus against the Deity of Christ, one would expect29 expect that if this had not been the received public reading
in the greek churches his adversaries would have fallen
foul upon him & exclaimed against him for falsifying
the text & blasphemously saying it was a created thing
wchwhich yethe scripture calls God manifested in the flesh. And
such an accusation as this would surely have made as
great a noise as any thing else in the controversy. And
yet I meet wthwith nothing of this kind in history. His adver
saries do not so much as tell him that Θεὸς was in the
text. They were so far from raising any controversy
about the reading that they do not in the least correct
him for it but on the contrary they themselves in their
answers to his writings read ὃ as he did & only laboured
by various disputations to put another sense upon the
text: as I find by Cassian & Cyril the two principal
who at that time wrote against him.
Iohn Cassian was Chrysostom's scholar & his Deacon
& Legate to yethe Pope & after yethe banishment of Chry
sostome retired from Constantinople into Syria & Egypt
where he lived a monastic life for some time & then
ended his days in France. At that th time therefore
when Nestorius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople
broached his opinion & Cyril the Patriarch of Alex
andria opposed him, Nestorius sent a Legacy to the Rome
wthwith copies of his Orations to let yethe Pope understand
the controversy: & thereupon Leo the great, who was then Arch
deacon of Rome the Church of Rome & afterwards Pope,
put Cassian (then in France) upon writing this book De
incarnatione Domini against Nestorius. He wrote it there
fore in the year 430, as Baronius also reccons: for he
wrote it before yethe condemnation of Nestorius in the
Council of Ephesus, as appears by yethe book it self. This
book is now extant only in latine: but by considering
that his designe in writing it was to stir up the
greek Church against Nestorius, & that for making
the greater impression upon them he quotes the
greek Fathers at the end of his book, & concludes
wthwith a an exhortation to yethe Citizens of Constantinople, telling
them that what he wrote for, he had received from his master
Chrysostom, I am satisfied that he wrote it originally in greek. His other books were in both languages,
for Photius saw them in eloquent Greek; & its more
likely that they had their Authors eloquent language
from their Author & the Latine from one of the La
tines where he lived, then that the contrary should be
true. Now in this treatise lib 7 c 18, when he comes to
consider the passage of Nestorius about this text, of wchwhich
we gave you an account above out of Arnobius: he returns this30 this answer to it. Iamprimum enim hoc ais [Nestorj] quia
justicia repleverit quod creatum est; et hoc Apostolico
vis testimonio comprobare quod dicat, Apparuit in carne
justificatus est in spiritu: utrumqꝫque falso sensu et furioso
spiritu loqueris. Quia ut hoc quod a spiritu vis eum
repletum esse justicia, ideo ponis ut ostendas ejus vacui
tatem cui præstitam esse asseris justiciæ ad impletionem.
Et hoc quod super hac re Apostolico testimonio uteris
divini testimonij ordinem rationemqꝫque furoris. Non enim
ita ab Apostolo positum est ut tu id truncatum vitia
tumqꝫque posuisti. Quid enim Apostolus ait? Et mani
festuèm magnum est pietatis sacramentum quod mani
festatum est in carne justificatum est in spiritu.
Vides ergo quod mysterium pietatis vel sacramentum
justificatum Apostolus prædicavit. Thus far Cassian,
not only reading Ὃ but confuting Nestorius by that
reading. For whereas Nestorius said it was a crea
ture wchwhich was justified, Cassian tells him that if he had
read yethe whole text he would have found that it was
the mystery of godlinesse. Vides ergo, saith he, quod mys
terium pietatis justificatum Apostolus prædicavit. He does
not say Deum justificatum Apostolus prædificavit, (as he would cer
tainly have done had that been in yethe his Bible,) but
mysterium, & so makes mystery the nominative case to
ἐδικαιώθη mysterium or, wchwhich is all one, it's relative quod
the nominative case to yethe verbs wchwhich follow. In another
part of this Treatise Cassian cites lib 5. c 12 Cassian cites
& interprets this text as follows. Et manifestè magnum
est sacr pietatis sacramentum quod manifestatum est in
carne &c. Quid ergo magnum est illud sacramentum
quod manifestatum est in carne? Deus scilicet natus
in carne, Deus visus in corpore, qui utiqꝫque sicut palam
est assumptus est in gloria. So you see, Nestorius &
Cassian differ agree in reading ὃ but differ in inter
preting it; the one restraining it to a creature by
reason of its being justified, the other restraining it to
God by reason of its being a great mystery & assumed
in glory.
In like manner Cyril the grand adversary of
Nestorius in his three books de fide ad Imperatorem et Re
ginas written against him in the beginning of that contro
versy31versy, did not reprehend him as if he had cited the
text falsly, but only complained of his misinterpreting
it; telling him that he did not understand the great
mystery of godlinesse, & that it was (not a created thing
as he thought) but the word or son of God, & arguing
for this interpretation from the circumstances of the
text. And first in his book de fide ad Imperatorem sect. 7, he has this passage πλανασθε μὴ ἐιδότες τὰς
γραφάς μήτε μὴν τὸ μέγα της ἐυσεβείας μυστή
ριον, τουτέστι Χριστόν ὃς ἐφανερωθη ἐν σαρκὶ ἐδικαι
ώθη ἐν πνεύματι &c. Ye erre, saith he, not knowing
the scriptures nor the great mystery of godlinesse, that is
Christ, who was manifested in yethe flesh, justified in yethe
spirit. By this citation its plain that he read Ὃ, ffor by
putting using one of those MSS wchwhich by understanding Χριστὸν for μυστήριον he turned Ὃ into ὃς, & by way of interpretation inserting Christ τουτέστι Χριστὸν wchwhich in those MSS was to be understood:
unless you will say ytthat he turned Θεὸς into ὅς, wchwhich is very
hard. For had Θεὸς been in his text he would not
have said μυστήριον τουτέστι Χριστόν ὃς ἐφανερώθη,
but rather much rather μυστήριον Θεὸς, τουτέστι Χριστὸς,
ἐφανερώθη, putting Χριστὸς not for μυστήριον but
for θεὸς. For Χριστὸς & Θεὸς are more plainly equipollent then Χριστος & μυστήριον, & in
making Χριστὸς & μστήριον equipollent he makes
μυστήριον the nominative case to εφανερώθη &
therefore readreads them joyned in his text by the article
ὃς. Had he read Θεὸς he would never have left out
that plain authentic & demonstrative word & by way of
interpretation for μυτήριον θεὸς written Χριστόν ὃς;
for this was not to argue against Nestorius but to
spoile the argument wchwhich lay before him. Neither
would he have gone on as he does within a few lines
after to recite the same text, putting λογὸς by way of interpretation for μστήριόν & to propound it as his bare opinion that the Word or
son of God was here to be understood by this mystery,
& to dispute for this his opinion (as needing proof) out of other texts
of scripture, as he does after this manner. More
over, saith he, in my opinion, that mystery of godlines in my opini
on is nothing ell else then the very Word of God the
Father, wchwhich from orour sake he that came to us from the Father, the the Word, who was manifested in the flesh.
ffor in taking the form of a servant, he was born
of yethe holy God-bearing Virgin &c. And then after
many other things he at length in sect 23 & 24 concludes that this divine
mystery is above orour understanding, & that the only begotten who32
who is God & according to the scriptures the Lord of all
things, appeared to us was seen on earth & became a
man. This he makes not yethe text it self, but the interpretation thereof & from the preceding disputation concludes it to be genuine. And all this is further confirmed by Photius who in his commentary on yethe Epistles (not yet published) relates that Cyril in yethe 12. Scholium read And all this is further confirmed by Photius who in his Commentary
upon yethe Epistles (not yet published) relates that Cyril in yethe 12 chapt
of his Scholiums, read ὃς ἐφανερώθη &c. And consonant to this reading
is Cyrills commentary upon the text in his explanation of the second of the twelve anathematas,
where he puts the question Quid est igitur quod dicit. Apparuit in carne? hoc est
And explains it by saying hoc est, Dei Patris Verbum caro factum est, & concludes
that it is hence that we call him God & man. Whereas had Θεὸς been in the text
it would have needed no expla interpretation, nor would he have put λογὸς for
θεὸς in order to prove that God was manifested in the flesh.]
Again in the first of his two treatises de fide ad
Reginas neare yethe end he cites the text & argues thus
upon it against the interpretation of Nestorius. Who is
it, saith he, that is manifested in the flesh? Is it not
fully evident that it is the Word of God the ffather?
ffor so will that be a great mystery of godliness [aa Codex græcus hoc loco jam legit θεὸς ΘΣ pro ΟΣ sensu perturbato. wchwhich
was] manifested in the flesh. He was seen of Angels
ascending into heaven: he was preached to the Gen
tiles by the holy Apostles: he was believed on in the
world: but this not as a mere man but as God born
in the flesh & after our manner.
So also in his second book de fide ad Reginas, sect.
33 he cites yethe place again & then argues upon it against
the opinion of Nestorius after this manner. If the Word
being God be said to become a man & yet continue
what he was before without losing his Deity, the
mystery of godlinesse is wthwithout doubt a very great one:
but if Christ be a mere man joyned wthwith God only
in the parity of dignity & power (for this is maintained
by some unlearned men) how is he manifested in the
flesh? Is it not plain that every man is in the flesh
& cannot otherwise bee seen by any body? How then
was he said to be seen of the holy Angels? For do
they not also see us? What was there therefore
new or extraordinary in Christ if the Angels saw
him such a man as we are & nothing more? &c
Thus Cyril goes on to give his reasons why that wchwhich
was manifested in the flesh was not a mere created
man, as Nestorius interpreted but the eternal wWord
or Son of God: all wchwhich would have been very super
fluous & impertinent if God had then been expresly
in the Text.
Seing therefore Nestorius alleged the text to
prove that it was a created thing wchwhich was manifested in
the flesh, & Cyril in confuting him did not answer that
it was God expresly in the text nor raise any debate a
bout the reading, but only put another interpretation
upon the text then Nestorius had done: arguing with
Cassian that in the text it was not a mere man as
Nestorius contended, but the great mystery of godliness, &
by consequence Christ or God, yethe Son, which was manifested in the the flesh, & labouring by divers other arguments to
prove this interpretation: its evident beyond all cavil
that Cyril was a stranger to θεὸς now got into the text
& read ὃ or ὃς as Nestorius & Cassian did.
And yet in those his books ad Reginas & his other writings, wherever
he quotes this text the Greeks have since corrected by
it by their corrected MSS of S. Pauls Epistles & written
Θεὸς instead of ὃ. Whence if you would truly understand
the Nestorian history you must read ὃς or ὃς for θεὸς in all
Cyrills citations of this text.
Now if Cyril read ὃ or ὃς or ὃ, & in his explanation of
the twelve Chapters or Articles quoted this text in yethe
second Article & this explanation was recited by him
in the Council of EphesusConcil. Ephes. part. sub initio. & approved by the Council with an
anathema at the end of every Article: it's
manifest that this Council read allowed the reading ὃς or ὃ & by consequence
that ὃς or ὃ was the authentic public uncontroverted read
ing till after the times of this Council. For if
Nestorius & Cyril the Patriarchs of Constantinople &
Alexandria & heads of the two parties in this contro
versy read ὃς or ὃ & their writings went about amongst yethe
eastern Churches & were canvased by yethe Bishops &
Clergy wthwithout any dispute raised about yethe reading, &
if Cyril read ὃς by the approbation of the Council
it self: I think yethe conclusion we make of its
being then yethe uncontro general uncontroverted reading
must needs be granted us. And if the authority of
one of the four first general Councils make any
thing for the truth of the reading, we have that into
the bargain.
Yet whilst the Nestorian controversy brought the
text into play, & yethe two parties ran yethe interpretation
into extremes, the one disputing that ὃ or ὃς was a crea
ture, the other that it was the word of God: the pre
valence of the latter party made it passe for yethe ortho
dox opinion that ὃ or ὃς was God, & so gave occasion to the
Greeks henceforward to change their language of Christ
into ytthat of God, & say in their Commentaries expositions
of thise text that God was manifested in the flesh (as I
find Theodoret doth,) & at length to write God in
the text it self, the easy change of Ο or ΟΣ into ΘΣ inviting
them to do it; Aand after this was become the orthodox
authentic reading, to set right yethe text in Chrysostom,
Cyril, Theodoret & wherever else they found it (in their
opinion) corrupted by hereticks.
And the man that first began thus to correct alter yethe sacred
sacred text was Macedonius the Patriarch of Constantinople in
the beginning of the sixt Century. For the Emperor Anas
tasius banished him for corrupting it. At that time the Greek
Church had been long divided about the Council of Chalcedon;
many who allowed the condemnation of Eutyches rejecting yethe
Councel by reason of its decreeing by the influence of the
Bishop of Rome's letter against Eutyches, that Christ sub
sisted not only ex duabus naturis wchwhich Eutyches allowed
but also in duabus naturis which language was new to yethe
Greeks & by a great part of that Church taken for
Nestorianism. For they understood that as the body & soul
made the nature of man so God & mMan made the nature
of Christ, assigning a nature to yethe Person of Christ as
well as to all other things, & not considering that in all
compounds the several parts have also their several natures.
Hence each party endeavoured to render the other suspected of
heresy, as if they that were for yethe Council secretly favoured
the Nestorians & they that were against it the Eutychians.
ffor one party in maintaining two distinct natures in Christ
were thought to deny the nature of one person wthwith Nestorius,
& the other party in opposing two distinct natures in him
were thought to deny the truth of one of the natures wthwith
Eutyches. Both parties therefore to cleare themselves of those im
putations anathematized both those heresies & therefore whilst
they thus differed in their modes of speaking they agreed in their
sence as Evagrius well observes. But the Bishops of Rome &
Alexandria being engaged against one another & for a long
time distracting the East by these disputes: at length yethe Empe
ror Zeno to quiet his Empire & perhaps to secure it from
the encroachment of yethe Bishop of Rome aa Vide Baronium ann 451 § 149, 150, 151. who by this verbal contest
aspired to yethe name & authority of ecumenical universal Bishop, sent
about an Henoticum or pacificatory Decree wherein he ana
thematized both Nestorius & Eutyches wthwith their followers
on the one hand & abrogated the Popes letter & yethe Councell
on the other: & his successor Anastasius for yethe same
end laboured to have this Decree signed by all the Bishops.
And Macedonius heading those wh at first subscribed it, but
afterwards heading those who stood up for yethe Councel,
bb Evagr. l 3. c. 22. Theodorus Lector l Marcellus Chron. was for corrupting the scriptures in favour of his opinion & such other
things as were laid to his charge deposed & cc. Theosius was in yethe year of Antioch 963 as Evagrius notes, & Macedonius banished yethe same year or yethe year before. banished A.C. 512.
But his own party (wchwhich at length prevailed) defended him as if
opprest by calumnies & so received that reading for genuine wchwhich
he had put about among them. For how ready all parties are
to receive what they reccon on their side, Ierome well knew,
when he recommended the testimony of the three in heaven by its use
fulnesse, & we have a notable instance of it in the last age when
the churches both eastern & western received this testimony in
a moment in their greek Testaments, & still continue wthwith great
zeal & passion to defend it for the ancient reading against the authority of all the greek
Manuscripts.
But now I have told you the original of the corruption I must35 must tell you my Author, & he is Liberatus Archdeacon
of the Church of Carthage who lived in that very age. For
in his Breviary. wchwhich he wrote in the year 535 or soon
after & collected (as he saith in his Preface) out of greek
records, aa Liberat. Brev. cap. 19. he delivers it in these words. Hoc tempore Macedo
nius Constantinopolitanus Episcopus ab Imperatore Anas
tasio dicitur expulsus tanquam Evangelia falsaret et
maxime illud Apostoli dictum: Quia apparuit in carne,
justificatum est in spiritu. Hunc enim mutasse ubi
habet Qui …. hoc est …….. monosyllabum græcum, litera
mutata in …… vertisse et fecisse ……. id est, Vt esset
Deus, apparuit per carnem. Tanquam Nestorianus ergo
culpatus expellitur per Saverum Monachum.Vide Baronium an. 510. sect 9. The greek
letters here omitted are in the second edition of Surius
& in those of the Councels thus inserted: ubi habet οσ
hoc est qui monosyllabum græcum littera mutata ο
in ω vertisse et fecisse ὡς, id est Vt esset Deus, apparuit
per carnem. But this interpolation was surely made by
conjecture. ffor if Θεὸς was in the sacred text before
the corruption, then ὁς or ὃ was not in & so could not
be changed into ὡς: but if Θεὸς was not in it could
not be brought in by this change. The interpolation
therefore is sp inconsistent & spurious & seems to have
been occasioned by straining to make out Nestorianism
here: the Interpolator scribes for that end dd. NB. In Hincmarus Opusc 33, c 22, the words ut esset are in like manner referred to yethe sacred text & some body to make out yethe sense has in their stead added ut appareret to yethe words of Liberatus & written ut appareret, ut esset Deus, &c. But yethe words ut appareret not being in Liberatus must be struck out & supplied by setting the comma after ut esset to part these words from yethe sacred text. referring the words
ut esset to the sacred text & then the Interpolator writing ὡς for ut
whereas they should have referred ut esset to the
words of Liberatus thus distinguished from the sacred
text. id est ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem: I had
rather therefore wave the conjecture of this Interpola
tor & write fill up the lacunæ by the authority of an
ancient Author Hincmarus – who flourished above 800
years ago cc Hincmar. opusc. 33. cap. 18. related yethe fact out of Liberatus after this
manner. Quidam ipsas scripturas verbis illicitis imposturave
runt, sicut Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus. Qui ab Ana
stasio Imperatore ideo a civitate expulsus legitur quoniam fal
savit Evangelia, et illum Apostoli locum ubi dicit Quod apparuit
in carne justificatum est in spiritu per cognationem græcarum
literarum Ο et Θ hoc modo falsavit mutando falsavit. Vbi
enim habuit Qui hoc est ΟΣ, monosyllabum græcum littera
mutata Ο in Θ mutavit & fecit ΘΣ, id est ut esset, Deus
apparuit per carnem. Quapropter tanquam Nestorianus fuit
expulsus. He was banished therefore for changing the ancient
reading (wchwhich was not in some MSS was ΟΣ but as these authors have it, by &
mistake but in others Ο,) into ΘΣ. But whereas he is here repre
sented a Nestorian for doing this, the meaning is that he was
banished for corrupting the text in favour of the doctrine of two
natures in Christ, wchwhich his enemies accounted Nestorianism tho it was
not really so. Nestorius held only a humane nature in Christ 36 & that God the Word dwelt in this nature as the spirit
& therefore interpreted it of the This Ma
cedonius anathematized & maintained two natures in Christ, & for
proving this corrupted the text Christ into two
Macedonius accounted Nestorianism
respect the Nestorian faith that they banished him as a Nestorian
for corrupting yethe text tho he was not really .
But whilst he is said to be banished as a Nestorian
for this, without explaining what is there meant by a Nest
orian, it looks like a trickish way of speaking used by his
friends amongst the to ridicule the proceedings against
him as inconsistent, & perhaps to invert yethe crime of falsa
tion as if a Nestorian would rather change ΘΣ into Ο.
For they that read history with judgment will too often
meet wthwith such trickish reports & even in the very story
of Macedonius I meet wthwith some other reports of the
same kind. For Macedonius having in his keeping the
original Acts of the Council of Chalcedon signed by ytthat
Emperor under whom it was called & refusing to deli
ver this book to yethe Emperor Anastasius: some to make
this Emperor perjured distorted the story as if at his
coming to the crown he had promised under his hand
& oath that he would not act against the Counceil of
Chalcedon, & & represented his subscribed promise to be the
book wchwhich Macedonius refused to deliver back to him. Mace
donius had got his Bishopric by being against the Council
of Chalcedon, & aa Vide annotationes Valesij in Evag. l 3 c. 31. had subscribed the Henoticum of Zeno in
wchwhich that Council was anathematized: & this being objected
against him, his friends to stifle yethe accusation make a con
trary story of the Emperor as if when he came to yethe
crown he had done as much in behalf of the Council.
# Another & & # Another report was dd Victor Tunnensis in Chronico that yethe people of Alexandria & all Egypt
great & small, free & bond, Priests & Monks excepting only strang
ers, became about this time possessed wthwith evil spirits & being
deprived of humane speech barked day & night like doggs so
that they were afterward bound wthwith iron chains & drawn
to church that they might recover their health. For they
all eat their hands and arms. And then an Angel appeared
to some of the people saying that this happened to them
because they anathematized the Council of Chalcedon, &
threatning that they should do so no more.
Again we are told in bb Evagr. l. 3. c. 82. history that the adversaries of Ma
cedonius produced certain boys in judgment to accuse
both him & themselves of Sodomy: but when they found
his genitals were cut off, they betook themselves to other
arts for deposing him. If you can beleive that an Eu
nuch had yethe beard & voice of another man & that
in a solemn Council the great Patriarch of the East
was thus accused & thus acquitted & yet deposed: you must
acknowledge that there were many Bishops among the
Greeks who would not stick at as ill & shamelesse things
as corrupting the scriptures. But if all this be a sham
invented to discredit the Council: the need of such shams
adds credit to their proceedings in condemning him
for a falsary.
37
This Council (if I mistake not)set first
being that Council wchwhich Theodorus calls a company of
wretches & Nicephorus a convention of Hereticks assembled against
Macedonius dTheodorus l. 2 Nicephorus l 16. c 26. Eusebius l. 3 c. 44. adding to the thrice holy this
Who art crucified for us the people fell into a
& afterward when Macedonius came to be accused they
fell into a greater tumult crying out. The time of
persecution is at hand, let no man desert the Father,
meaning Macedonius. In this tumult (wchwhich was said to be
stirred up by the Clergy of Constantinople) many parts
of the City were burnt & yethe nobles & Emperor brought
unto the greatest danger, insomuch that the Emperor
was forced to profer the resignation of his Empire
before he could quiet the multitude. Then seing ytthat if
Macedonius were judged the people would defend him
he caused him to be carried by force in the night
to Chalcedon & thence into banishment, as Theodorus
writes. Whence I gather that the Council removed
also to Chalcedon to avoyd the tumult & finish their
proceedings there. For yethe story of his being accused in
judgment by boys Nicephorus places after this tumult
& all agree that he was condemned, & the Monks of
Palestine in an Epistle recorded by Evagrius say that
Xeraias & Dioscorus joyned wthwith many Bishops banished
him. When his condemnation was sent him signed by yethe
Emperor he asked whether they that condemned him
received the Council of Chalcedon, & when they that
brought him the sentence denyed it he replied, If
Arians & Macedonians had sent me a book of condem
nation I could I receive it? The case So that it seems
he stood upon yethe illegality of the Council. The next day
one Timothy was made Bishop of Constantinople & he
ee Theophanus p. 135. sent about yethe condemnation of Macedonius to all the
absent Bishops to be subscribed. Whence I think it will
easily be granted that he was condemned as a falsary by the
greatest part of the eastern Empire & by consequence that
the genuine reading was till then by the Churches of that Empire
accounted ὃ. For had not the public reading then been ὃ there
could have been no colour for pretending ytthat he changed it into θΣ.
After the death of Anastasius About six years after Anastasius dyed & his successors Iustin & Iusti
nian set up the authority of the Council of Chalcedon again
together wthwith that of yethe Pope over the eastern Churches as
universal Bishop. And from that time the friends of Macedonius
prevailing, its probable that in opposition to the Hereticks wchwhich con
demned him & for promoting & establishing yethe doctrine of two natures in wchwhich condemned him they thenceforward in Christ they received & spread the
reading ΘΣ. But as for yethe authority of the Pope, that fell
again wthwith Rome in the Gothick wars & slept till Phocas
revived it.
# I told you in – –# men & idiots written amisse. For this I
gather from an ical report of this nd put about in yethe West
& thus recorded by Victor Tunnensis in his Chronicle. Messala V.
Cons. Consantinopoli jubente Anastasio Imperatore sancta
Evangelia tanquam ab idiotis Evangelistis composita reprehen
duntur et endantur . That is In the Consulship of Messala
the holy Gospels by this command of the Emperor Anastasius
were censured & condemned at Constantinople as if written
by Evangelists wchwhich Here Victor errs in the year.
For Messala was Consul in 506 that is six years before yethe
banishment of Macedonius. But victor is very uncertain in yethe
years: for he places yethe banishment of Macedonius in the Con
sulship of Avisanus A.C. 502 & the above-mentioned tumult
about the trisagium in the Consulship of Protus A.C. 513: where
as all these things happened in a year For it's plain by this
Chronicle that the scriptures were examined & corrected about this
time by a Council at Constantinople by the order of Anastasius
& I meet wthwith no other Council to wchwhich this character can
besides that wchwhich deposed Macedonius. Now that they should
censure & correct the Gospels as if written by Idiots is too plain
ly ironical to be true history & therefore must be an abusive
report invented & put about to ridicule & shame the Council & to propagate the corruptions of Macedonius as the
genneral & Apostolick reading of yethe scripture wchwhich yethe Council had rashly cor
rected.
So then the falsation was set on foot in the beginning
of the sixt Century & is now of about 1200 years standing
& therefore since it lay but in a lettter & so was more easily
spread in yethe greek MSS then the testimony of the three in
heaven in the Latine ones, we need not wonder if the old
reading be scarce to be met with in any greek MSS now
extant: & yet it is in some. For thô Beza tells his Readers us
that all yethe greek MSS read Θεὸς yet I must tell Beza's
Readers that all his MSS read ὃ. For he had no other MSS
on the Epistles besides the Claromontan, & in this MS, as
Morinus by ocular inspection aa Alia manu has since informed us, the an
cient reading was Ο, but yet in another hand & with
other ink, the letter Θ has been written out of the line
& the letter Ο thickened to make a Σ appear. Which
instance shews sufficiently by whom the ancient reading
has been changed. Velesius also read ὃ in one of the
Spanish MSS, & so did the author of the Oxford edition
of the new Testament A.C. 1675 in yethe MS of Lincoln
College library wchwhich is yethe oldest of the Oxford MSS. The bb Alia menu atramento antiquus tum conspicua esset ut usqꝫque nunc per per medium literæ lineæ crassiori
alio atramento superinductæ cerni possit, quid opus esset ut a lineâ illâ super
inductâ incrassaretur: sin olim tam evanida esset ut cerni vix posset
mirum est quod ejus ductus et vestigia satis certa per medium lituræ illius
superinductæ usqꝫque nunc etiamnum appareant. Doceant verba evanida alijs
in locis atramento novo incrassata fuisse vel futeantur ΟΣ hic mutatum
in ΘΣ Alexandria MS & one of Colberts & Cyril c. 12 scholiorum (teste Photio MS com. in epistolas) read ΟΣ. So
then there are some ancient greek MSS wchwhich read ὃ & others ος: but I do
not hear of any Latine ones either ancient or modern
wchwhich read Θεὸς.
And besides to read Θεὸς makes yethe sense obscure & difficult.
For how can it properly be said that God was manifested
in the flesh justified in the spirit? But to read ὃ, & interpret
it of Christ as the ancient Christians did without restraining
it to his divinity, makes yethe sense very easy. For the pro
mised & long expected Messias, the hope of Israel is to us
the great mystery of godlinesse, & this mystery was at length mani
fested to the flesh Iews from the time of his baptism, & justified to be the person
whom they expected.
I have now given you an account of the corruption
of the text, the summ of wchwhich is this. The difference between
the greek & the ancient Versions puts it past dispute that
either the Greeks have corrupted their MSS or the Latines
Syrians & Ethiopians theirs Versions, & it's more reason
able to lay the fault upon the Greeks then upon yethe
other three for these considerations. It was easier for
one nation to do it then for three to conspire. It was
easier to change a letter or two in the Greek then
six words in the latine. In the Greek the sense is
obscure in the Versions clear. It was agreable to the in
terest of the Greeks to make yethe change but against the
interest of the three nations to do it, & men are never false 39 to their interests. The greek reading was unknown in the times
of the Arian controversy, but that of the Versions known. then in use amongst both Greeks & Latines. Some
greek MSS render the greek reading dubious: but those of the Versi
ons hitherto collated agree. There are no signes of corruption
in the Versions hitherto discovered but in the Greek we have
shewed you particularly when, on what occasion & by whome
the text was corrupted.
I know not whether it be worth yethe while to tell
you that in yethe printed works of Athanasius there is an
Epistle De incarnatione Verbi wchwhich reads Θεὸς. For this
Epistle relates to yethe Nestorian heresy & so was written
by a much later author then Athanasius, & may also
possibly have been since corrected (like the works of
Chrysostom & Cyril) by yethe corrected text of S. Paul's
Epistles. I have had so short a time to run my eye over
Authors, that I cannot tell whether upon further search,
more passages about this falsation may not occur hereafter
occur pertinent to yethe argument. But if there should
I presume it will not be difficult now the falsation is
thus far laid open, to know what construction to put
upon them & how to apply them.
You see what freedome I have used in this discourse,
& I hope you will interpret it candidly. ffor if yethe an
cient Churches in debating & deciding the greatest myste
ries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts: I
understand not why we should be so fond of them
now the debates are over. And whilst it's yethe character
of an honest man to be pleased, & of a man of interest
to be troubled at the detection of frauds, & of both to
run most into those passions when the detection is made
plainest: I hope this letter will to one of your inte
grity prove so much the more acceptable, as it makes
a further discovery then you have hitherto met wthwith
in Commentators.
After yethe fourth Paragraph ending wthwith these words –
–––[in order to prove them one God,] add this Pa
ragrathParagraph
These passages in Cyprian may receive further
light by a like passage in Tertullian, from whence
Cyprian seems to have borrowed them. For tis well
known that Cyprian (tho otherwise a very prudent man) was a great admirer of Ter
tullians writings & read them frequently, calling Tertulli
an his Master. The passage is this. aa Connexus Patris in filio et filij in Paracleto tres efficit cohærentes alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt (non unus:) quomodo dictum est Ego et Pater unum sumus; ad substantiæ unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem. Tertul. adv. Pra. c. 25. The connexion
of yethe Father in the Son & of yethe Son in the Pa
raclete makes three coherenting ones upon one from another,
wchwhich three are one (one person not one thing, not
one person:) as it is said, I & the Father are
one; denoting the unity of substance, not the singula
rity of number. Here you see Tertullian says not
the father word & holy spirit as the text now
has it, but the Father Son & Paraclete, nor cites
any thing more of the text then these words;
wchwhich three are one. Tho this his whole treatise against Praxeas be wholy spent in discoursing about yethe Trinity & all texts of scripture are cited for that purpo to prove it, & this text of Iohn as we now read it would have been one of the most obvious & apposite to have been cited at large, yet Tertullian could find no more words in it for his purpose then These three are one. These therefore he interprets – – These he interprets of the
Trinity & enforces the interpretation by that
other text Ego et Pater I and yethe FaterFather are one,
as if the phrase was of the same importance
in both places. So then this interpretation seems
to have been invented by the Montanists for giving
countenance to their Trinity. ffor Tertullian was a
Montanist when he wrote this: & its most likely
that so corrupt & forct an interpretation had it's rise
amongst men of corrupt minds. a sect of men accustomed to make bold wthwith yethe scriptures. Cyprian finding it being accustomed to it used to it
in his Master's writings, transferred it to his own Trinity
as may be it seems from thence to have dropt into his. For this may be gathered by from the likeness between their
citations. And by the disciples of these two great men
it seems to have been propagated amongst those
many Latines who (as Eucherius tells us) received
it in the next age, understanding the Trinity
by the spirit, water & blood. For how else without the countenance of some such author an in
terpretationterpretation so corrupt & strained should come to be
received in that age so generally, I do not under
stand.
In the last Paragraph but four, after the words
[& two in Lincoln College] strike out the words [&
five other ancient ones lately brought out of
Turkey by Mr Covel & collated by Dr Mills] &
instead thereof write [& four or five other ancient
ones lately collated at Oxford in order to a new
impression of yethe Greek Testament as I am infod.]informed