V. These passages in Cyprian may receive further light by a like passage in Tertullian, from whence Cyprian seems to have borrowed them; for it is well known that Cyprian was a great admirer of Tertullian’s writings, and read them frequently, calling Tertullian his master. The passage is this⁷: “The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, makes three coherent ones from one another, which Three are One (one thing, not one person,) as it is said, ‘I and the Father are One;’ denoting the Unity of substance, not the singularity of number.” Here, you see, Tertullian says not, “the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost,” as the text now has it, but “the Father, Son, and Paraclete;” nor cites anything more of the text than these words, “which Three are One.” Though this treatise against St. Praxeas be wholly spent in discoursing about the Trinity, and all texts of Scripture are cited to prove it, and this text of St. John, as we now read it, would have been one of the most obvious and apposite to have been cited at large, yet Tertullian could find no more obvious words in it for his purpose than “these Three are One.” These, therefore, he interprets of the Trinity, and inforces the interpretation by that other text, “I and the Father are One;” as if the phrase was of the same importance in both places.

VI. So then this interpretation seems to have been invented by the Montanists for giving countenance to their Trinity. For Tertullian was a Montanist when he wrote this; and it is most likely that so corrupt and forced an interpretation had its rise among a sect of men accustomed to make bold with the Scriptures. Cyprian being used to it in his master’s writings, it seems from thence to have dropt into his: for this may be gathered from the likeness between their citations. And by the disciples of these two great men, it seems to have been propagated among those many Latins, who (as Eucherius tells us) received it in the next age, understanding the Trinity by the “Spirit, Water, and Blood.” For how, without the countenance of some such authority, an interpretation so corrupt and strained should come to be received in that age so generally, I do not understand.

VII. And what is said of the testimony of Tertullian and Cyprian, may be much more said of that in the feigned disputation of Athanasius with Arius at Nice. For there the words cited are only “και οἱ τρεις το ἑν εισιν,” “and these Three are One;” and they are taken out of the seventh verse, without naming the persons of the Trinity before them. For the Greeks interpreted “the Spirit, Water, and Blood,” of the Trinity, as well as the Latins; as is manifest from the annotations they made on this text in the margin of some of their manuscripts. For Father Simon⁸ informs us that in one of the manuscripts in the library of the king of France, marked numb. 2247, over against these words, “ὁτι τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῃ γῃ⁹, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα,” “for there are Three that bear record [in earth,] the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood;” there is this remark, “τουτεστι, το πνευμα το ἁγιον, και ὁ πατηρ, και αὑτος ἑαυτου,” “that is, the Holy Ghost, and the Father, and He of Himself.” And in the same copy over against these words, “και οἱ τρεις εις το ἑν εισι,” “and these Three are One;” this note is added, “τουτεστι, μια θεοτης, εἱς θεος,” that is, “One Deity, One God.” This manuscript is about 500 years old.

VIII. Also in the margin of one of the manuscripts in Monsieur Colbert’s library, numb. 871, Father Simon tells us there is a like remark. For besides these words, “εἱς θεος, μια θεοτης,” “One God, One Godhead;” there are added, “μαρτυρια του θεου του πατρος και του ἁγιου πνευματος.” “The testimony of God, the Father, and of the Holy Ghost.” These marginal notes sufficiently show how the Greeks used to apply this text to the Trinity; and 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, but by a later author, and therefore, as a spurious piece, uses not to be much insisted upon.

IX. Now this mystical application of “the Spirit, Water, and Blood,” to signify the Trinity, seems to me to have given occasion to somebody, either fraudulently to insert the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” in express words into the 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 that inserted it, is Jerome; if the preface¹⁰ to the canonical epistles, which goes under his name, be his. For whilst he composed not a new translation of the New Testament, but only corrected the ancient vulgar Latin (as learned men think), and among his emendations (written perhaps at first in the margin of his book) he inserted this testimony; he complains in the said preface, how he was thereupon accused¹¹ by some of the Latins for falsifying Scripture; and makes answer, that former Latin translators had much erred from the faith, in putting only “the Spirit, Water, and Blood,” in their edition, and omitting the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” whereby the Catholic faith is established. In his defence he seems to say, that he corrected the vulgar Latin translation by the original Greek; and this is the great testimony the text relies upon.

X. But whilst he confesses it was not in the Latin before, and accuses former translators of falsifying the Scriptures in omitting it, he satisfies us that it has crept into the Latin since his time, and so cuts off all the authority of the present vulgar Latin 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 the 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 usefulness for establishing the Catholic faith, this renders it the more suspected; by discovering both the design of his making it, and the ground of his hoping for success. However, seeing he was thus accused by his contemporaries, it gives us just reason to examine the business between him and his accusers. And so, he being called to the bar, we are not to lay stress upon his own testimony for himself, (for no man is a witness in his own cause,) but laying aside all prejudice, we ought, according to the ordinary rules of justice, to examine the business between him and his accusers by other witnesses.

XI. They that have been conversant in his writings, observe a strange liberty which he takes in asserting things. Many notable instances of this he has left us in composing those very fabulous lives of Paul and Hilarion, not to mention what he has written upon other occasions. Whence Erasmus said of him, that he was in affirming things, “frequently violent and impudent, and often contrary to himself¹².” But I accuse him not. It is possible that he might be sometimes imposed upon, or, through inadvertency, commit a mistake. Yet since his contemporaries accused him, it is but just that we should lay aside the prejudice of his great name, and hear the cause impartially between them.

XII. Now the witnesses between them are partly the ancient translators of the Scriptures into the various languages; partly the writers of his own age, and of the ages next before and after him; and partly the Scribes who have copied out the Greek manuscripts of the Scriptures in all ages. And all these are against him. For by the unanimous evidence of all these, it will appear that the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” was wanting in the Greek manuscripts, from whence Jerome, or whoever was the author of that preface to the canonical epistles, pretends to have borrowed it.

XIII. The ancient interpreters, which I cite as witnesses against him, are chiefly the authors of the ancient vulgar Latin, of the Syriac, and the Æthiopic versions. For as he tells us, that the Latins omitted the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” in their version before his time, so in the Syriac and Æthiopic versions, (both which, from bishop Walton’s account of them, are much ancienter than Jerome’s time, being the versions which the Oriental and Æthiopic nations received from the beginning, and generally used, as the Latins did the vulgar Latin,) that same testimony is wanting to this day; and the authors of these three most ancient, most famous, and most received versions, by omitting it, are concurrent witnesses, that they found it wanting in the original Greek manuscripts of their own times. It is wanting also in other ancient versions; as in the Egyptian Arabic, published in Walton’s Polyglot; in the Armenian version¹³, used, ever since Chrysostom’s age, by the Armenian nations; and in the Illyrican of Cyrillus, used in Rascia, Bulgaria, Moldavia, Russia, Muscovy, and other countries, which use the Sclavonic tongue. In a copy of this version¹⁴, printed at Ostrobe (Ostrow) in Volhinia, in the year 1581, I have seen it wanting; and one Camillus¹⁵ relates the same thing out of ancient manuscripts of this version seen by him. Father Simon notes it wanting also in a certain version of the French church, which, saith he, is at least 1000 years old, and which was published by Father Mabillon, a Benedictine monk. Nor do I know of any version wherein it is extant, except the modern vulgar Latin, and such modern versions, of the Western nations, as have been influenced by it. So then, by the unanimous consent of all the ancient and faithful interpreters which 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.

XIV. And that it was neither in the ancient versions nor in the Greek, but was wholly unknown to the first churches, is most certain by an argument hinted above; namely, that in all that vehement, universal, and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome’s time, and both before and long enough after it, this text of “the Three in Heaven” was never once thought of. It is now in everybody’s mouth, and accounted the main text for the business, and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books. And yet it is not once to be met with in all the disputes, epistles, orations, and other writings of the Greeks and Latins (Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, the council of Sardica, Basil, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Hilary, Ambrose, Austin, Victorinus Afer, Philastrius Brixiensis, Phæbedius Agennensis, Gregorius Bæticus, Faustinus Diaconus, Paschasius, Arnobius Junior, Cerealis and others,) in the times of those controversies; no, not in Jerome himself; if his version and preface to the canonical epistles be excepted. The writings of those times were very many, and copious; and there is no argument, or text of Scripture, which they do not urge again and again. That of St. John’s gospel, “I and the Father am One,” is everywhere inculcated, but this of “the Three in Heaven, and their being One,” is nowhere to be met with, till at length, when the ignorant ages came on, it began by degrees to creep into the Latin copies out of Jerome’s version. So far are they from citing the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” that, on the contrary, as often as they have occasion to mention the place, they omit it, and that too, as well after Jerome’s age, as in and before it. For Hesychius¹⁶ cites the place thus: “Audi Johannem dicentem, Tria sunt qui testimonium præbent, et Tres Unum sunt, spiritus, et sanguis, et aqua.” The words ‘in terrâ’ he omits, which is never done, but in copies where “the Three in Heaven” is wanting. Cassiodorus, or whoever was the author of the Latin version of the discourse of Clemens Alexandrinus on these epistles of St. John, reads it thus: “Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur, spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et hi Tres Unum sunt.”¹⁷ 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 terrâ, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et Tres Unum sunt. Si testimonium,” &c. But here the words, in ‘terrâ,’ so far as I can gather from his commentary on this text, have been inserted by some latter hand. The author of the first epistle, ascribed to Pope Eusebius, reads it, as Beda doth, omitting only the words, in terrâ. And if the authority of popes be valuable, Pope Leo the 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.” St. Ambrose, in the sixth chapter of his first book, De Spiritu Sancto, disputing for the unity of the Three Persons, says, “Hi Tres Unum sunt, Johannes dixit, aqua, sanguis, et spiritus: Unum in mysterio, non in naturâ.” This is all he could find of the text, while he was disputing about the Trinity, and therefore he proves the unity of the persons by the mystical unity of the Spirit, Water, and Blood: interpreting these of the Trinity with Cyprian and others. Yea, in the eleventh chapter of his third book, he fully recites the text thus: “Per aquam et sanguinem venit Christus Jesus, non solùm in aquâ, sed in aquâ et sanguine; et spiritus testimonium dat, quoniam spiritus est veritas. Quia Tres sunt testes, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis; et hi Tres Unum sunt in Christo Jesu.”¹⁸ The like reading of Facundus, Eucherius, and St. Austin, you have in the places cited above. These are Latins as late, or later, than Jerome; for Jerome did not prevail with the churches of his own time to receive the testimony of “the Three in Heaven.” And for them to know his version, and not receive his testimony, was in effect to condemn it.

XV. And as for the Greeks, Cyril of Alexandria reads the text without this testimony in the xivth book of his Thesaurus, cap. 5; and again in his first book De Fide ad Reginas, a little after the middle; and so does Oecumenius, a later Greek, in his commentary on this place of St. John’s epistle. Also, Didymus Alexandrinus, in his commentary on the same passage, reads, “the Spirit, Water, and Blood,” without mentioning “the Three in Heaven:” and so he doth in his book of the Holy Ghost, where he seems to omit nothing that he could find for his purpose: and so doth Gregory Nazianzen in his xxxviith oration concerning the Holy Ghost; and also Nicetas in his commentary on Gregory Nazianzen’s xlivth oration: And here it is further observable, that, as the Eusebians had contended, that “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” were not to be connumerated, because they were things of a different kind; Nazianzen and Nicetas answer, that they might be connumerated, because St. John connumerates three things not substantial, namely, “the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood.” By the objection of the Eusebians, it then appears that the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” was not in their books; and by the answer of the Catholics it is as evident, that it was not in theirs; for while they answer by instancing “the Spirit, Water, and Blood,” they could not have missed of “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost,” had they been connumerated, and called one in the words immediately before; and to answer by instancing in these, would have been far more to their purpose, because it was the very thing in question. In like manner the Eunomians, in disputing against the Catholics, had objected, that the Holy Ghost is nowhere in Scripture conjoined with the Father and the Son, except in the form of baptism; which is as much as to say, that the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” was not in their books: and yet St. Basil¹⁹, whilst he is very diligent in returning an answer to them, and perplexes himself in citing places, which are nothing to the purpose, does not produce this text of “the Three in Heaven,” though it be the most obvious, and the only proper passage, had it been then in the Scriptures; and therefore he knew nothing of it. The objection of the Eunomians, and the answer of the Catholics, sufficiently show that it was in the books of neither party. Besides all this, the tenth epistle of Pope Leo, mentioned above, was that very famous epistle to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, against Eutyches which went about through all the churches, both Eastern and Western, being translated into Greek, and sent about in the East by Flavian. It was generally applauded in the West, and read in the council of Chalcedon, and there solemnly approved and 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 testimonium dant, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis; et hi Tres Unum sunt.” And by putting πνευμα (according to the Greek reading) for Christus, which is still the vulgar Latin, it was thus translated by the Greeks: “και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν· επειδη το πνευμα εστιν ἡ αληθεια· τρεις γαρ εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες, το πνευμα, και το ὑδωρ, και το αἱμα, και οἱ τρεις το ἑν εισι.” So then we have the reading, quoted by the Pope, owned in the West, and solemnly subscribed in the East by the fourth general council, and therefore it continued the public received reading in both the East and West, till after the age of that council.

XVI. So then the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” which, in the times of these controversies, would have been in everybody’s mouth, had it been in their books, was wholly unknown to the churches of those ages. All that they could find in their books was the testimony of “the Water, the Spirit, and the Blood.” Will you now say, that the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” was razed out of their books by the prevailing Arians? Yes, truly, those Arians were crafty knaves, that could conspire so cunningly and slily all the world over at once (as at the word of a Mithridates) in the latter end of the reign of the emperor Constantius, to get all men’s books in their hands, and correct them without being perceived: ay, and conjurors too, to do it without leaving any blot or chasm in their books, whereby the knavery might be suspected and discovered; and to wipe away the memory of it out of all men’s brains, so that neither Athanasius, or anybody else, could afterwards remember that they had ever seen it in their books before; and out of their own books too; so that when they turned to the consubstantial faith, as they generally did in the West, soon after the death of Constantius, they could then remember no more of it than anybody else. Well, then, it was out of their books in Jerome’s age, when he pretended it was in; which is the point we are to prove; and when anybody can show, that it was in their books before, it may be pertinent to consider that point also; but till then we are only to inquire how, since it was out, it came into the copies that are now extant. For they that, without proof, accuse the heretics of corrupting books, and upon that pretence correct them at their pleasure without the authority of ancient manuscripts, as some learned men of the fourth and fifth centuries used to do, are falsaries by their own confession, and certainly need no other confutation. And therefore if this reading was once out, we are bound in justice to believe, that it was out from the beginning; unless the razing of it out can be proved by some better argument than that of pretence and clamour.

XVII. Will you now say, that Jerome followed some copy different from any which the Greeks were acquainted with? This is to overthrow the authority of his version by making him depart from the received Greeks; and besides, it is contrary to what he himself seems to represent; for in his blaming not the vulgar Greek copies, but the Latin interpreters only, which were before his time, as if they had varied from the received Greek, he represents that he himself followed it. He does not excuse and justify himself for reading differently 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 testimony, the authority of his version sinks; and that the rather, because he was then accused of corrupting the text, and could not persuade either the Greeks or the Latins of those times to receive his reading; for the Latins received it not till many years after his death; and the Greeks not till this present age, when the Venetians sent it amongst them in printed books; and their not receiving it was plainly to approve the accusation.

XVIII. The authority of this version being thus far discussed, 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 inquiry that I have been able to make, it is wanting in the manuscripts of all languages but the Latin. For, as we have shown, that the Æthiopic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, and Sclavonian versions, still in use in the several Eastern nations, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Muscovy, and some others, are strangers to this reading, and that it was anciently wanting also in the French; so I am told by those who have been in Turkey, that it is wanting to this day in the Greek manuscripts, which have been brought from those parts into the West; and that the Greeks, now that they have got it in print from the Venetians, when their manuscripts are objected against it, pretend that the Arians razed it out. A reading to be found in no manuscripts but the Latin, and not in the Latin before Jerome’s age, as Jerome himself confesses, can be but of little authority: and this authority sinks, because we have already proved the reading spurious, by showing that it was heretofore unknown, both to the Western and the Eastern churches, in the times of the great controversy about the Trinity. But, however, for further satisfaction, we shall now give you an account of the Latin and Greek manuscripts; and show, first, how, in the dark ages, it crept into the Latin manuscripts out of Jerome’s version; and then how it lately crept out of the Latin into the printed Greek without the authority of manuscripts; those who first published it in Greek having never yet so much as seen it in any Greek manuscript.

XIX. That the vulgar Latin, now in use, is a mixture of the old vulgar Latin, and of Jerome’s version together, is the received opinion. Few of these manuscripts are above four or five hundred years old. The latest generally have the testimony of “the Three in Heaven:” the oldest of all usually want it, which shows that it has crept in by degrees. Erasmus notes it to be wanting in three very ancient ones, one of which was in the Pope’s library at Rome, the other two were at Bruges; and he adds, that in another manuscript belonging to the library of the Minorites in Antwerp, the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” was noted in the margin in a newer hand. Peter Cholinus notes in the margin of his Latin edition of the Scriptures, printed anno Christi 1543 and 1544, that it was wanting in the most ancient manuscript of the Tugurine library. Dr. Gilbert Burnet has lately, in the first letter of his travels, noted it wanting in five other ones kept at Strasburg, Zurich, and Basil; one of which manuscripts he reckons about 1000 years old, and the other four about 800. F. Simon has noted it wanting in five others in the libraries of the king of France, Mons. Colbert, and the Benedictines of the Abbey of St. Germain’s. An ancient and diligent collator of manuscripts, cited by Lucas Brugensis by the name of Epanorthotes, notes in general, that it was wanting in the ancient Latin manuscripts. Lucas himself, collating many Latin ones, notes it to be wanting in only five, that is, in the few old ones he had, his manuscripts being almost all of them new ones. For he praises²⁰ the Codex Lobiensis written anno Christi 1084, and the Codex Tornacensis written anno Christi 1105, as most ancient and venerable for their antiquity; and used others much more new, of which a great number was easily had; such as was the Codex Buslidianus, written anno Christi 1432, that is, but eight years before the invention of printing. The Lateran council, collected under Innocent the Third, anno Christi 1215, canon 2, mentions Joachim, the abbot, quoting the text in these words: “Quoniam in canonicâ Johannis epistolâ [legitur,] Quia Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cœlo, Pater, et Verbum, et Spiritus; et hi Tres Unum sunt: statimque subjungitur: Et Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis, et Tres Unum sunt: sicut in codicibus quibusdam invenitur.” This was written by Joachim²¹ in the papacy of Alexander the Third, that is, in or before the year 1180, and therefore this reading was then got but into some books; for the words “sicut in codicibus quibusdam invenitur” refer as well to the first words of Joachim, “quoniam in canonicâ Johannis epistolâ legitur,” as to the text [next], “statimque subjungitur;” and more to the first than the text [next], because the first part of the citation was then but in some books, as appears by ancient manuscripts; but the second part was in almost all: the words “Tres Unum sunt” being in all the books which wanted the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” and in most of those which had it; though afterwards left out in many, when branded by the schoolmen for Arian.

XX. But to go to the original of the corruption. Gregory the great²² writes, that Jerome’s version was in use in his time, and therefore no wonder if the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” began to be cited out of it before. Eugenius bishop of Carthage, in the seventh year of Hunneric king of the Vandals, anno Christi 484, in the summary of his faith exhibited to the king, cited it the first of any man, so far as I can find. A while after, Fulgentius, another African bishop, disputing against the same Vandals, cited it again, and backed it with the forementioned place of Cyprian, applied to the testimony of “the Three in Heaven.” And so it is probable, that by that abused authority of Cyprian it began first in Afric, in the disputes with the ignorant Vandals, to get some credit; and thence at length crept into use. It occurs also frequently in Vigilius Tapsensis, another African bishop, contemporary to Fulgentius. In its defence, some allege earlier writers; namely, the first epistle of Pope Hyginus, the first epistle of Pope John II. the book of Idacius Clarus against Varimadus; and the book, De unitâ Deitate Trinitatis, ascribed to Athanasius. But Chiffletius, who published the works of Victor Vitensis and Vigilius Tapsensis, sufficiently proves the book against Varimadus to be this Vigilius’s, and erroneously ascribed to Idacius. To the same Vigilius he asserts also the book De unitâ Deitate Trinitatis. Certainly Athanasius was not its author. All the epistles of Hyginus, except the beginning and the end, and the first part of the epistle of Pope John, wherein the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” is cited, are nothing else than fragments of the book against Varimadus, described word by word by some forger of decretal epistles, as may appear by comparing them. So then Eugenius is the first upon record that quotes it.

XXI. But though he set it on foot among the Africans, yet I cannot find that it became of authority in Europe before the revival of learning in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In those ages St. Barnard, the Schoolmen, Joachim, and the Lateran council, spread it abroad, and scribes began generally to insert it into the text; but in such in Latin manuscripts and European writers, as are ancienter than those times, it is scarce to be met with.

XXII. Now that it was inserted into the vulgar Latin out of Jerome’s version, is manifest by the manner how the vulgar Latin and that version came to be mixed. For it is agreed that the Latines, after Jerome’s version began to be of use, noted out of it his corrections of the vulgar Latin in the margin of their books; and these the transcribers afterwards inserted into the text. By this means, the old Latin has been so generally corrected, that it is nowhere to be found sincere. It is Jerome that we now read, and not the old vulgar Latin; and what wonder, if in Jerome we read the testimony of “the Three in Heaven?” For who that inserted the rest of Jerome into the text, would leave out such a passage for the Trinity, as this hath been taken to be?

XXIII. 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 readings are such as ought to arise, by transcribing it out of the margin into the text. I shall only mention the three following varieties. Of the manuscripts which have not the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” some have the words in terrâ, 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 the text, as the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” noted only in terrâ in the margin of their books, to be inserted into the testimony of the Spirit, Water, and Blood. Of the manuscripts which have the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” some in the eighth verse have “Hi Tres Unum sunt;” others not. The reason of this seems to be, that of those who noted this testimony in the margin, some blotted out “Et hi Tres Unum sunt” in the eighth verse according to Jerome; and 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, it is set after; so Erasmus notes two old books, in which it is set after; Lucas Brugensis a third; and Hesselius (if I misremember not) a fourth; and so Vigilius Tapsensis²³ 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 Latin manuscripts, as they detract from the authority of the manuscripts, so they confirm to us, that the old vulgar Latin has in these things been tampered with, and corrected by Jerome’s version.

XXIV. In the next place, I am to show how, and when, the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” crept out of the Latin 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 and second edition of Erasmus, anno Christi 1516 and 1519; in the edition of Francis Asulan, printed at Venice by Aldus, anno Christi 1518; in that of Nicholas Gerbelius, printed at Haganau, anno Christi 1521; and a little after, in that of Wolfius Cephalius, printed at Strasburg, anno Christi 1524; and again in 1526, in the Badian edition, as Erasmus notes; and in that of Simon Colinæus at Paris, anno Christi 1534²⁴. At the same time it was omitted in some editions of other Western languages, as in the Saxon and German editions of Luther; and in the Latin Tugurine editions of Peter Cholinus, anno Christi 1543 and 1544. The first edition in Greek, which has the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” was that of Cardinal Ximenes, printed at Complutum in Spain, in 1515; but not published before the year 1521. The Cardinal, in his edition, used the assistance of several divines, which he called together to Complutum, there founding an university, anno Christi 1517, or a little before. Two of those divines were Antonius Nebrissensis and Stunica. For Stunica then resided at Complutum, and in the preface²⁵ to a treatise he wrote against Erasmus, gives this testimony of himself: “That he had spent some years in reading the holy Scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; and had diligently collated the Hebrew and Greek exemplars with the Latin copies.” This book, displeasing the cardinal, was not printed till after his death; and then it came forth at Complutum, anno Christi 1520. The year before, one Lee, an Englishman, writ also against Erasmus; and both Stunica and Lee, amongst other things, reprehended him for omitting the testimony of “the Three in Heaven.” Afterwards Erasmus, finding the Spaniards, and some others of the Roman church, in a heat against him, printed this testimony in his third edition, anno Christi 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 which had the testimony of ‘the Three in Heaven,’ he had inserted it, according to that manuscript; for avoiding the calumnies raised against him.” And so it continued in his two following editions. And at length Robert Stephens, anno Christi 1550, reprinted Erasmus’s edition, with some few alterations and various lections, taken out of the Complutensian edition, and fifteen Greek manuscripts, which he named after the numeral letters α, β, γ, δ, ε, &c., putting α for the Complutensian edition, and β, γ, δ, ε, &c. for the manuscripts in order; and 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 Beza²⁶ 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 and authority of the printed editions. For these are the editions ever since followed by all the West; and of late years propagated by the Venetian presses into Greece; and nothing further, that I know of, has been discovered in any manuscripts in favour of these editions.

XXV. Now to pull off the vizard, I cannot but, in the first place, extremely complain of Beza’s want of modesty and caution in expressing himself²⁷. In the preface to his annotations, describing what helps he had in composing his first edition, he tells us, “That he had the annotations of Valla, Stapulensis, and Erasmus, and the writings of the ancients and moderns collated by himself; and out of Stephens’s library, the exemplar which Stephens had collated with about twenty-five manuscripts, almost all of which were printed.” He should have said seventeen; for that number he puts in other places, and in his annotations cites no more. So then he had the collations of two more manuscripts than Stephens has given us in print. And this was all his furniture. The original manuscripts he does not here pretend to have; nor could he have them; for they were not Stephens’s manuscripts, but belonged to several libraries in France and 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, ϛ, ζ, η, ι, ιε, were not Stephens’s, but belonged to the library of the king of France, to whom Stephens was printer. The other six books, θ, ια, ιβ, ιγ, ιδ, ιϛ, Stephens had not out of his own library, but borrowed them for a time from several places to collate, his friends studying to promote the design of his edition. And yet Beza in his annotations, when he would favour any text, cites the collations of Stephens in such a manner, as if he had the very original manuscripts at Geneva before his eyes. And where Stephens does not cite various lections, there he reckons, that in the text of Stephens’s collated books he read all the manuscripts. So in Mark vi. 11, where 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 the Acts xiii. 33, because Stephens had noted no various lections, Beza affirms of the Greek text, “Ita scriptum invenimus in omnibus vetustis codicibus.” In 1 John iv. 3, where Stephens is silent, Beza speaks; “Sic legitur in omnibus Græcis exemplaribus, quæ quidem mihi inspicere licuit.” In James i. 22, where Stephens is again silent, Beza tells us of the word μονον, “Ego in omnibus nostris vetustis libris inveni.” And so, where Stephens in the margin had noted the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” to be wanting in seven manuscripts, he thinks that, in reading the text of Stephens’s collated book, he reads it in the rest; and so tells us, “Legimus et nos in nonnullis Roberti Stephani codicibus.” This he did in the first edition of his annotations. Afterwards, when he had got two real manuscripts, the Claromontan, and that which at length he presented to the University of Cambridge (in both which the canonical epistles are wanting); in the epistle to his fourth edition, in reckoning up the books he then used, he puts only these two, and the seventeen of Stephens; and in his fifth edition he writes summarily, that he used nineteen manuscripts, joining with those two real ones the collations of Stephens, as if in those he had seventeen others; which sufficiently explains his way of speaking in his annotations. But whilst he had not the manuscripts themselves to read with his own eyes, it was too hard and unwarrantable a way of speaking to tell us, “Legimus et nos in nonnullis Roberti Stephani codicibus;” and therefore, in his later editions, he corrects himself, and tells us, only, that the reading doth “extare in nonnullis Stephani veteribus libris.” Thus Beza argues from Stephens’s book of collations; and the same inference has been made by Lucas Brugensis and others, ever since, from Stephens’s fore-mentioned edition of that book. “For,” say they, “Stephens had fifteen manuscripts in all, and found the testimony of ‘the Three in Heaven’ wanting but in seven; and therefore it was in the other eight; and so being found in the greater part of his manuscripts, has the authority and manuscripts on its side.” Thus they argue; and this is the great argument by which the printed Greek has hitherto been justified.

XXVI. But if they please to consider the business a little better, they will find themselves very much mistaken. For though Stephens had fifteen manuscripts in all, yet all of them did not contain all the Greek Testament. Four of them, noted γ, ϛ, ιβ, ιδ, had each of them the four Gospels only. Two, noted β, η, contained only the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. One, noted ιϛ, contained the Apocalypse only. One, noted ιε, had only the Apocalypse, with St Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. The other seven, noted δ, ε, ζ, θ, ι, ια, ιγ, contained both St. Paul’s Epistles and the canonical ones, besides some other books; namely, the manuscript ζ contained the Epistles and Gospels; the manuscripts ι, ια, ιγ, the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles; and the manuscripts δ, ε, θ, the Epistles, Gospels, and 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. For in the various lections of the canonical epistles, and those to the Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and the Hebrews, are found these seven manuscripts, δ, ε, ζ, θ, ι, ια, ιγ, everywhere cited, and no more than these. The same also, and no more, are cited in the epistles to the Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and 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; and 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.

XXVII. And that this testimony was wanting in all Stephens’s manuscripts, is apparent also by its being generally wanting in the manuscripts which are now extant in France. For Father Simon²⁸ tells us, “That after a diligent search in the library of the king of France, and in that also of Monsieur Colbert, he could not find it in any one manuscript; though he consulted seven manuscripts in the king’s library, and one in Colbert’s.” And because Stephens had some of his various lections from Italy, I will add, that a gentleman, who, in his travels, had consulted twelve manuscripts in several libraries in Italy, assured me that he found it wanting in them all. One of the twelve was that most ancient and most famous manuscript in the Pope’s library, written in capital letters.

XXVIII. So then the authority of the printed books rests only upon the authority of the editions of Erasmus and Cardinal Ximenes. But seeing that Erasmus omitted it in his two first editions, and 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 foul upon him for leaving out the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” Erasmus²⁹ answered, “That he had consulted more than seven Greek manuscripts, and found it wanting in them all; and that if he could have found it in any one manuscript, he would have followed that in favour of the Latin.” Hence notice was sent to Erasmus out of England, that it was in a manuscript there; and thereupon to avoid³⁰ 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 Latin. But since, upon inquiry, I cannot learn that they in England ever heard of any such manuscript, but from Erasmus; and since he was only told of such a manuscript, in the time of the controversy between him and Lee, and 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, the printing of the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” by the authority of one Greek copy, and thereby to get it into his edition³¹. Greek manuscripts of the Scripture are things of value, and do not use to be thrown away; and such a manuscript, for the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” would have made a greater noise than the rest have done against it. Let those who have such a manuscript, at length tell us where it is.

XXIX. 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; for till then I must take the liberty to believe, that he printed nothing else than a translation out of the Latin, and 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 the manuscripts taken out of the Pope’s library; and these the cardinal only borrowed³² thence, and therefore returned them back so soon as his edition was finished. And Caryophilus some time after, by the Pope’s 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, and the only ones he thought worth while to tell his reader of.

Secondly: I startle at the marginal note in this place of the cardinal’s edition. For it is beside the use of this edition, to put notes in the margin of the Greek text. I have not found it done above thrice in all this edition of the New Testament; and therefore there must be something extraordinary; and that, in respect of the Greek, because it is in the margin of this text. In 1 Corinth. xv. there is noted in this margin a notable variation in the Greek reading. In Matthew vi. 13, where they, in their edition, recede from the Greek copies, and correct it by the Latin, they make a marginal note to justify their doing so; and so here, where the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” is generally wanting 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, there is no question but they would make the best defence they could; and yet they do not tell of any various lections in the Greek manuscripts, nor produce any one Greek manuscript on their side, but run to the authority of Thomas Aquinas³³. The Greek manuscripts have the text thus: “For there are Three that bear record, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood; and these Three are One.” In many of the Latin manuscripts, the words “these Three are One” are here omitted, and put only at the end of the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” before that of “the Spirit, Water, and Blood:” in others they are put after both testimonies. In the Complutensian edition they follow the former copies, and justify their doing so, by the authority of Thomas Aquinas. “Thomas,” say they, “in treating of the Three which bear witness in Heaven, teaches, that the words ‘these Three are One’ are subjoined for insinuating the unity of the essence of the Three persons. And whereas one Joachim interpreted this unity to be only in love and consent, it being thus said of the Spirit, Water, and Blood, in some copies, ‘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 annotation. Now this plainly respects the Latin copies (for Thomas understood not Greek), and therefore part of the design of this annotation is to set right the Latin reading. But this is not the main design. For so the annotation should have been set in the margin of the Latin version. Its being set in the margin of the Greek text, shows that its main design is to justify the Greek by the Latin thus rectified and confirmed. Now to make Thomas thus, in a few words, do all the work, was very artificial; and in Spain, where Thomas is of apostolic authority, might pass for a very judicious and substantial defence of the 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 the Complutensian Greek to have been in this place a translation from the Latin, is, because Stunica (who as I told you, was one of the divines employed by the Cardinal in this edition, and 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 wholly from the authority of the Latin. On the contrary, he sets down, by way of concession, the common reading of the Greek mannscripts (as well as his own, and that of others) in these words, “ὁτι τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες· το πνευμα, και το ὑδωρ, και το αἱμα· και οἱ τρεις εις το ἑν εισι:” and then condemns them altogether without exception; and justifies the Latin against them by the authority of Jerome. “Know,” saith he, “that in this place the Greek manuscripts are most evidently corrupted; but ours (that is, the Latin ones) contain the truth itself, as they are translated from the first original: which is manifest by the prologue of St. Jerome upon the Epistles, &c.”³⁴. And this prologue (which he goes on to cite at length, and of which we gave you an account above) is all he argues 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 1 Thessalonians ii. 7, “Ita quidem legitur,” says he, “in Græcis codicibus quos ego viderim.”

In James i. 11, he saith, “Sciendum in omnibus Græcis codicibus πορειαις hîc legi per ει diphthongum.” In 1 Thessalonians v. 23, he saith, “Cum in Græcis exemplaribus quotquot sunt, ὁλοκληρον, et in Latinis integer hîc legatur, pernemine discrepante, nescio cur Erasmus dixerit,” &c. In Philipp. iv. 9, “Si quidem in omnibus,” saith he, “Græcis codicibus, ταυτα λογιζεσθε hîc legitur; neque Græci sunt libri, qui πρασσετε hoc loco, neque Latini, qui agite; nisi mendosos utriusque, linguæ codices, cum hæc commentaretur Erasmus, perlegit.” After this manner does Stunica produce the manuscripts used in the Complutensian edition, when they make for him; and here he produces them too, but it is 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 manuscript on his side, he produces it magnificently enough; as the Codex Rhodiensis in his discourses upon 2 Corinthians ii. 3, James i. 22, 2 Peter ii. 2, and other texts. Here he produces all the 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 with his own; and Sanctius Caranza, another of the Complutensian divines, in his defence of Stunica, written presently after, had nothing to reply in this point. Neither could Sepulveda, or the Spanish monks who next undertook the controversy, find one Greek manuscript, which here made against Erasmus. Neither had Marchio Valesius better success, though on that occasion he collated sixteen Greek manuscripts, eight whereof belonged to the king of Spain’s library, and the other eight to other libraries of Spain: and he did it on purpose to collect out of them whatever he could meet with in favour of the present vulgar Latin. Neither did the reprinting of the Complutensian Bible by Arias Montanus produce the notice of any such manuscript; though, on that occasion, many manuscripts, as well Greek as Latin, fetched from Complutum and other places, were collated by Arias, Lucas Brugensis, Canter, and others.

XXX. So then, to sum up the argument, the Complutensian divines did sometimes correct the Greek by the Latin, without the authority of any Greek manuscript, as appears by their practice in Matthew vi. 13; and therefore their printing the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” is no evidence that they did it by a manuscript, but, on the contrary, for want of one, they contented themselves with the authority of Thomas Aquinas; and Stunica confessed that they had none. Nor has all the zeal for this text been able since to discover one either in Spain, or anywhere else.

XXXI. And now you may understand whence it is, that the Complutensian edition, and the reading of the pretended English manuscript, set down by Erasmus in his annotations, differ so much from one another; for the Complutensian edition has the text thus; “Ὁτι τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῳ ουρανῳ· ὁ πατηρ, ὁ λογος, και το ἁγιον πνευμα· και οἱ τρεις εις το ἑν εισι. και τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες επι της γης, το πνευμα, και το ὑδωρ, και το αἱμα.” The pretended English manuscript thus; “Ὁτι τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῳ ουρανῳ, πατηρ, λογος, και πνευμα· και οὑτοι οἱ τρεις ἑν εισιν. και τρεις μαρτυρουντες εν τῃ γῃ, πνευμα, και ὑδωρ, και αἱμα.” The differences are too great to spring from the bare errors of scribes, and arise rather from the various translations of the place, out of Latin into Greek, by two several persons.

XXXII. But whilst these two readings, by their discord, confute one another, the readings of the real Greek manuscripts by their agreement confirm one another as much. For Caryophilus, who by the command of Pope Urban the Eighth, collated the Vatican and other manuscripts, borrowed out of the principal libraries in Rome, found one common reading in them all, without the testimony of “the Three in Heaven;” as you may see in those his collations, printed in 1673 by Peter Possinus, in the end of his Catena of the Greek Fathers upon Mark. He met with eight manuscripts in all upon the epistles, and notes their reading thus: “1 Joan. v. 7, Manuscripti octo (omnes nempe) legunt, Ὁτι τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες, το πνευμα, και το ὑδωρ, και το αἱμα· και οἱ τρεις εις το ἑν εισι.” “Porro totus septimus versus hujus capitis desideratur in octo manuscriptis codicibus Græcis,” &c. Thus Caryophilus.

XXXIII. The very same reading Erasmus, in his annotations on this place, gives us of all his manuscripts, which were more than seven; and so doth Stephens of all his seven, without noting any various lections in them. Only the comma, which in Stephens’s edition is, surely by mistake, set after ουρανῳ, is to be put in its right place. The very same reading does Stunica also, in his book against Erasmus, note out of the manuscript he had seen in Spain, as was seen above. Nor does Valesius, in his collection of the sixteen Spanish manuscripts, note any various lections in this text. The same reading exactly have also the manuscripts in England; namely, that most ancient and famous one in the king’s library, which was conveyed thither from Egypt through Greece, and published in Walton’s Polyglott Bible; and the four at Oxford, viz. that in New College, and that in Magdalen College, both very old, and two in Lincoln College; and four or five other ancient ones lately collated at Oxford, in order to a new impression of the Greek Testament, as I am informed. The very same reading have also the three manuscripts of Monsieur Petavius Gachon, a senator of Paris, whose various lections, collected by his son John Gachon, were printed in the Oxford edition of the New Testament, anno Christi 1675. The same reading, without any variation, is published by Francis Asulan in his edition, printed anno Christi 1518, by Aldus at Venice, out of the manuscripts of those parts. The same reading Œcumenius, six hundred years ago, found in the manuscripts of Greece; as you may see in the text of his commentary on this epistle of St. John. The same reading also Cyril of Alexandria met with 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. xiv. cap. 5; and in his first book De Fide ad Reginas; excepting that in the latter of these two citations the paricle εις is omitted; and μαρτυρουσι written for οἱ μαρτυρουντες. And that the very same reading was also in the manuscripts of the first ages, may be gathered from the conformity of this reading to all the ancient versions.

XXXIV. It may seem by what has been hitherto said, that this testimony is not to be found in the Greek manuscripts. Epanorthotes³⁵, whom Lucas Brugensis describes to be an ancient, accurate, full, and 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.” Nor have other collators made a further discovery to this day. Lee, Stunica, and the rest in England, Spain, Flanders, France, and Italy, who conspired against Erasmus, could find nothing in the manuscripts of those parts against him; if that Phœnix be excepted, which once appeared to somebody somewhere in England, but could never since be seen. Hesselius³⁶, about the year 1565, professor of divinity at Lovain, in his commentary on this place, ingenuously confesses it wanting in all the Greek manuscripts then known, except two, the one in Spain, the other in England; meaning those by which the Complutensian divines and Erasmus printed it. Which two we have shown to be none at all; unless one Annius dug up one in England. Since that time nothing further has been produced, besides the imaginary books of dreaming Beza. And yet I will not say, but that it may hereafter be 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 Latin patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch; they reigned at Constantinople over the Greeks from the year 1204, for above fifty years together; and during this their kingdom, in the year 1215, was assembled the Lateran council, consisting of four hundred and fifteen bishops, Greeks and Latins together; and therein the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” was quoted out of some of the Latin manuscripts, as we told you above. All which might occasion some Greeks, as well as Latins, to note it in the margins of their books; and hence insert it into the text in transcribing. For this is most certain, that some Greek manuscripts have been corrected by the Latin ones. Such a book Erasmus³⁷ tells us, that he “once met with, and that there was such another in the Pope’s library.” He suspected also that book in England, out of which he printed the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” to be of the same kind; though I rather think it was none at all; unless some falsary 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 which Valesius collected his various lections. Whence Mariana, into whose hands the manuscript book of those lections fell, tells us, that for that reason, in his annotations on the New Testament, he used those lections but sparingly and cautiously. And that Valesius did meet with such a corrected manuscript, appears by the lections themselves. For in the Apocalypse xviii. 17, where the Greek reads επι τοπον; and the Latin translates in locum, and by the error of one letter in lacum, as the books now have it; some Grecian has here corrected this book by the Latin, and written επι λιμνην; as it is in the lections of Valesius, taken out of this. Again, in the Apocalypse ix. 11, where the Latin translation, in expounding the names Abaddon et Apollyon, adds, Et Latinè habens nomen exterminans; Valesius notes the reading in his Greek copy to be ρωμαιστι εχων ονομα εξτερμινανς; which certainly is a translation of the Latin. Again, in the Apocalypse xxi. 12, where the Greek has αγγελους, and some ancient Latin copies, angelos, but the far greater part of the Latin copies at present have angulos; Valesius, in his manuscript, reads γωνιας. So in the Apocalypse xix. 6, where the Greek is οχλου πολλου, the Latin, turbæ magnæ; and in the later copies, tubæ magnæ; Valesius, in his manuscript, reads σαλπιγγος μεγαλης. In Hebrews xiii. 2, for ελαθον, latuerunt; and in later copies, placuerunt, Valesius reads ηρεσαν: and in 1 Peter iii. 8, for το δε τελος, in fine, and by an error in fide, Valesius reads εν τῃ πιστει δε. These, and such like instances, put the thing out of dispute. Now, though Valesius found not the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” in this manuscript; and Erasmus tells us, that he never saw it in any Greek manuscript; and, by consequence, not in that corrected one which fell into his hands; yet it may have crept out of the Latin into some other books, not yet taken notice of; and even in some manuscripts, which, in other places, have not been corrected by the Latin, it may possibly have been inserted by some of the Greek bishops of the Lateran council, where the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” was read. And therefore he that shall hereafter meet with it in any book, ought first, before he insist upon the authority of that book, to examine whether it has not been corrected by the Latin; and whether it be ancienter than the Lateran council, and empire of the Latins in Greece; for if it be liable to either of these two exceptions, it can signify nothing to produce it.

XXXV. Having given you the history of the controversy, I shall now confirm all that I have said from the sense of the text itself. For, without the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” the sense is good and easy, as you may see by the following paraphrase inserted in the text in a different character.

“WHO IS HE THAT OVERCOMETH THE WORLD, BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD? that Son spoken of in the Psalms, where he saith, ‘Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.’ THIS IS HE THAT, after the Jews 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 cross, and rising again from the dead; NOT BY WATER ONLY, BUT BY WATER AND BLOOD; being the Son of God, as well by his resurrection from the dead (Acts xiii. 33.), as by his supernatural birth of the Virgin (Luke i. 35.). AND IT IS THE SPIRIT also, THAT, together with the water and blood, BEARETH WITNESS of the truth of his coming; BECAUSE THE SPIRIT IS TRUTH; and so a fit and unexceptionable witness. FOR THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR RECORD of his coming; THE SPIRIT, which he promised to send, and which was since shed forth upon us in the form of cloven tongues, and in various gifts; THE baptism of WATER, wherein God testified, ‘This is my beloved Son;’ AND THE shedding of his BLOOD, accompanied with his resurrection, whereby he became the most faithful martyr or witness of this truth. AND THESE THREE, the spirit, the baptism, and passion of Christ, AGREE IN witnessing ONE and the same thing, namely, that the Son of God is come; and, therefore, their evidence is strong: for the law requires but two consenting witnesses, and here we have three. AND IF WE RECEIVE THE WITNESS OF MEN, THE threefold WITNESS OF GOD, which he bare of his Son, by declaring at his baptism, ‘This is my beloved Son;’ by raising him from the dead, and by pouring out his spirit on us, IS GREATER; and therefore ought to be more readily received.”

XXXVI. Thus is the sense plain and natural, and the argument full and strong; but if you insert the testimony of “the Three in Heaven,” you interrupt and spoil it. For the whole design of the apostle being here to prove to men by witness the truth of Christ’s coming, I would ask how the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” makes to this purpose. If their testimony be not given to men, how does it prove to them the truth of Christ’s coming? If it be, how is the testimony in heaven distinguished from that on earth? It is the same spirit which witnesses in heaven and in earth. If in both cases it witnesses to us men, wherein lies the difference between its witnessing in heaven, and its witnessing in earth? If, in the first case, it does not witness to men, to whom does it witness? And to what purpose? And how does its witnessing make to the design of St. John’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 determine what is Scripture, and what not, by our private judgements; I confess it in places, not controverted; but in disputable places, I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind, in matters of religion, ever to be fond of mysteries; and for that reason, to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the apostle John as they please; but I have that honour for him, as to believe that he wrote good sense; and therefore take that sense to be his, which is the best; especially since I am defended in it by so great authority. For I have on my side the authority of the Fourth General Council, and, so far as I know, of all the churches in all ages, except the modern Latin, and such others as have lately been influenced by them; and that also of all the old versions, and Greek manuscripts, and ancient Latin ones; and nothing against me, but the authority of Jerome, and the credulity and 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 manuscripts, which, since their first discovery, could never be heard of; nor were then seen by persons whose names and credit we know; is plainly to impose upon the learned world, and ought not to pass any longer for plain dealing. The Spaniards tell us plainly that they followed the Latin, and by the authority of Thomas left out the clause, “And these Three are One,” in the eighth verse, as inserted by the Arians. And yet St. Ambrose, St. Austin, Eucherius, and other Latins, in the Arian age, gathered the unity of the Deity from this clause; and the omission of it is now, by printing it, acknowledged to be an erroneous correction. The manuscript in England wanted the same clause, and therefore, if there was any such manuscript, it was a corrected one, like the Spanish edition, and the manuscript of Valesius. Erasmus, who printed the triple testimony in heaven by that English manuscript, never saw it; tells us it was a new one; suspected its sincerity; and accused it publicly in his writings on several occasions, for several years together; and yet his adversaries in England never answered his accusation; never endeavoured to satisfy him and the 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 manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men? Let manuscripts at length be produced, and freely exposed to the sight of the learned world; but let such manuscripts be produced as are of authority; or else let it be confessed, that whilst Jerome pretended to correct the Latin by the Greek, the Latins have corrected both the Latin and the Greek by the sole authority of Jerome.

---

← Bishop Horsley’s Advertisement · Contents · 1 Timothy iii. 16 God Manifested in the Flesh →

Footnotes

1. “Dicit Dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus; et iterum de patre et filio et spiritu sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt.”—Cypr. de Unit. Eccles. ↩

2. “Si templum Dei factus est, quæso cujus Dei? Si spiritus sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo spiritus sanctus placatus ei esse potest, qui aut patris aut filii inimicus est?”—Cypr. Epist. 73, ad Jubaianum. ↩

3. Eucherius reads the text thus: “Tria sunt quæ testimonium perhibent; aqua, sanguis, et spiritus.” And then adds this interpretation, “Plures hìc ipsam, interpretatione mystica, intelligunt Trinitatem; eò quod perfecta ipsa perhibeat testimonium Christo: aqua, patrem indicans; quia ipse de se dicit, me dereliquerunt fontem aquæ vivæ: sanguine, Christum demonstrans, utique per passionis cruorem: spiritu verò sanctum spiritum manifestans.”—Eucher. de Quæst. N. Test. ↩

4. “Sanè falli te nolo in epistolâ Joannis 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 dictam [dictum] esse, tres unum sunt. Propter hoc admonui te, ne fallaris: hæc enim sunt, in quibus non quid sint, sed quid ostendant, semper attenditur. Si verò ea, quæ his significata sunt, velimus inquirere; non absurdè occurrit ipsa Trinitas, quæ unus, solus, summus est Deus, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus; de quibus verissimè dici potuit, tres sunt testes, et tres unum sunt: ut nomine spiritûs significatum accipiamus Deum patrem, (de Deo ipso quippe adorando loquebatur Dominus, ubi ait, ‘spiritus est Deus;’) nomine autem sanguinis, filium; quia verbum caro factum est: nomine autem aquæ, spiritum sanctum. Cùm enim de aquâ loqueretur Jesus, quam daturus erat sitientibus, ait evangelista; ‘Hoc autem dicit de spiritu, quem accepturi erant credentes in eum.’”—D. Augustin. cont. Maximum, lib. iii. cap. xxii. ↩

5. Facundus, in the beginning of his book to the Emperor Justinian, Pro Defensione trium Capitulorum Consilii Chalcedonensis, first recites the text after the manner of Cyprian, but more distinctly in these words: “Nam Joannes apostolus, in epistolâ suâ, de patre et filio et spiritu sancto sic dicit, ‘Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terrâ, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis; et hi tres unum sunt;’ in spiritu significans patrem, &c. Joan. iv. 21. In aquâ spiritum sanctum, Joan. vii. 37; in sanguine verò filium.” And a little after he thus confirms this interpretation by Cyprian’s authority, saying, “Aut si forsan ipsi, qui de verbo contendunt, in eo quod dixit, ‘Tres sunt qui testificantur in terrâ, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt,’ Trinitatem nolunt intelligi; secundum ipsa verba quæ posuit, pro apostolo Joanne respondeant. Numquid hi tres, qui in terrâ testificari, et qui unum esse dicuntur, possunt spiritus et aquæ et sanguines dici? Quod tamen Joannis apostoli testimonium B. Cyprianus Carthaginensis, antistes et martyr, in epistolâ sive libro quem de Trinitate, immò de Unitate Ecclesiæ scripsit, de patre, filio, et spiritu sancto dictum intelligit: ait enim, ‘dicit dominus, ego et pater unum sumus; et iterum de patre, filio, et spiritu sancto scriptum est, et hi tres unum sunt.’”—Facund. lib. i. p. 16; ex edit. Sirmondi, Parisiis, 1629. ↩

6. The insinuation contained in this expression, that the Trinity is not to be derived from the words prescribed for the baptismal form, is very extraordinary to come from a writer who was no Socinian.—Bp. Horsley. ↩

7. “Connexus patris in filio, et filii 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.”—Tertullian. advers. Prax. cap. 25. ↩

8. Critical History of the New Testament: cap. 18. ↩

9. Suspicor verba εν τῃ γῃ non extare in MS. ↩

10. The whole preface runs thus: “Incipit prologus in epistolas canonicas. Non ita est ordo apud Græcos, qui integrè sapiunt, fidemque rectam sectantur, epistolarum septem, quæ canonicæ nuncupantur, sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur: ut quia Petrus est primus in ordine apostolorum, primæ sint etiam ejus epistolæ in ordine ceterarum. Sed sicut evangelistas dudum ad veritatis lineam correximus, ita has proprio ordini, Deo juvante, reddidimus. Est enim una earum prima Jacobi, duæ Petri, tres Johannis, et Judæ una. Quæ si sicut ab eis digestæ sunt, ita quoque ab interpretibus fideliter in Latinum verterentur eloquium, nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent, nec sermonum sese varietates impugnarent, illo præcipuè loco ubi de Unitate Trinitatis in primâ Johannis epistolâ, positum legimus, &c. In quâ etiam ab infidelibus translatoribus, multum erratum esse à fidei veritate comperimus, trium tantummodo vocabula, hoc est, Aquæ, Sanguinis, et Spiritûs, in ipsâ suâ editione ponentibus: et Patris, Verbique, ac Spiritûs testimonium omittentibus; in quo maximè et fides catholica roboratur, et patris, ac filii, et spiritûs una divinitatis substantia comprobatur. In cæteris verò epistolis, quantum à nostrâ aliorum distet editio, lectoris judicio derelinquo. Sed tu, virgo Christi Eustochium, dum à me impensiùs scripturæ veritatem inquiris, meam quodammodo senectutem invidorum dentibus corrodendam exponis, qui me falsarium, corruptoremque sanctarum pronunciant scripturarum. Sed ego, in tali opere, nec æmulorum meorum invidiam pertimesco, nec Sanctæ Scripturæ veritatem poscentibus denegabo.” ↩

11. Jerome complains not of any accusation raised upon what he had done in this or any other particular text of Scripture. He affirms, that this text was unfaithfully rendered in the Latin Bibles, which were current in his time before his own edition. That his edition, in this as well as in other passages, faithfully represented the original Greek; and he expresses an apprehension, that the number of his emendations, which the infidelity of former translators had rendered necessary, might furnish his enemies with a pretence for abuse.—Bp. Horsley. ↩

12. “Sæpe numero violentus, parumque pudens, sæpe varius, parumque sibi constans.”—Erasmi Annotation. in Johan. v. 7. Vide etiam quæ Erasmus contra Leum in hunc locum de Hieronymo fusiùs dixit. ↩

13. “Codex Armeniacus ante 400 annos exaratus, quem vidi apud Episcopum Ecclesiæ Armeniacæ, quæ Amstelodami colligitur, locum illum non legit.”—Sandius Append. Interpret. Paradox. in h. l. ↩

14. The printed Sclavonic version runs thus: “Quia Tres sunt qui testificantur, Spiritus, et Aqua, et Sanguis; et Tres in Unum sunt. Si testimonium,” &c. ↩

15. “Testimonium trium in Cœlo non est in antiquissimis Illyricorum et Ruthenorum codicibus; quorum unum exemplar, à sexcentis ferè annis manuscriptum, jampridem apud illustrissimum Gabrielem Chineum, terræ Bactricæ Dominum vidi, et legi: alterum manibus nostris teritur, fide et antiquitate suâ nobile.”—Camillus de Antichristo, lib. ii. cap. 2. pag. 156. ↩

16. Hesych. in Levit. lib. ii. c. 8. post med. ↩

17. Cassiodor. in Bibl. S. Patr. edit. Paris. 1589. ↩

18. See also Ambrose in Luc. xxii. 10, and in his book, De iis qui mysteriis initiantur, cap. 4. ↩

19. Lib. 5, adversus Eunomium sub finem. ↩

20. Lucas Brug. in calce annot. ↩

21. Vide Math. Paris Histor. Angl. A.D. 1179. ↩

22. Vide Walton’s Prolegomena, x. 5. ↩

23. Vigilius, libr. advers. Varimadum, cap. 5. ↩

24. “In editis exemplaribus nonnullis non legi; ut in Aldinâ et Badianâ editione. Addo, nec in Græco Testamento Gerbelii Haganoæ, 1521; nec in Colinæi Parisiis edito.”—Gomarus in h. l. ↩

25. “Cum præsertim, si quisquam alius, et nos quoque his de rebus, nostro quodam jure, judicium ferre possumus. [Quippe] qui non paucos annos in sanctis scripturis Veteris et Novi Testamenti, Hebraicè, Græcè, et Latinè perlegendis consumpserimus; ac Hebraica, Græcaque ipsa divinarum literarum exemplaria cum Latinis codicibus diligentissimè contulerimus. Longâ igitur lectione ac experientiâ jampridem edocti, quantum tralationi huic ecclesiasticæ Novi Testamenti deferendum sit, ni fallor, optimè novi.”—Hæc Stunica in proem. libri sui. ↩

26. Beza in hunc locum. ↩

27. “Non desunt, qui Bezam nimis audacem fuisse judicant, dum à receptâ lectione sæpiùs sine necessitate recedit; et unius, interdum nullius, codicis authoritate fretus, prætoriam exercet potestatem, ex conjecturis mutando et interpolando textum sacrum pro libitu.”—Walton. Prolegom. iv. sect. 15, in Bibl. Polyglot. ↩

28. Simon’s Critical History of the New Test. chap. xviii. ↩

29. “Dicam mihi diversis temporibus plura fuisse exemplaria quàm septem [scilicet Græca]; nec in ullo horum repertum, quod in nostris [scilicet Latinis] legitur. Quod si contigisset unum exemplar, in quo fuisset, quod nos legimus, nimirum illinc adjecissem, quod in cæteris aberat. Id quia non contigit, quod solum licuit, feci; indicavi quid in Græcis codicibus minus esset.”—Hæc Erasmus contra Leum, in hunc looum. ↩

30. “Ex hoc igitur codice Britannico reposuimus, quod in nostris dicebatur deesse; ne cui sit ansa calumniandi. Quanquam et hunc suspicor, et Latinorum codices, fuisse castigatum. Posteaquam enim concordiam inierunt cum ecclesiâ Romanâ, studuerunt et hac in parte cum Romanis consentire.”—Erasmi Annotation. in hunc locum; editio tertia, et sequen. ↩

31. “Versiculus 1 Joan. v. 7, in Syriacâ, ut et vetustissimis Græcis exemplaribus, nostro Alexandrino, aliis manuscriptis Græcis, quos contulimus, non reperitur.”—Walton. Prolegomena, xiv. 23, in Bibl. Polyglot. ↩

32. “Accivit è Vaticanâ Romæ Bibliothecâ, bonâ cum Leonis X. pontificis maximi veniâ;”—as Gasper Bellerus, in his epistle prefixed to the Quinquagena of Antonius Nabrissensis, expresses it. ↩

33. The marginal note is this: “Sanctus Thomas, in expositione secundæ decretalis de summâ Trinitate et Fide Catholicâ, tractans istum passum contra Abbatem Joachim, viz. ‘Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cœlo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus,’ dicit ad literam verba sequentia:—‘Et ad insinuendam unitatem trium personarum subditur, et Hi Tres Unum sunt;’ quandoquidem dicitur propter essentiæ unitatem. Sed hoc Joachim perversè trahere volens ad unitatem charitatis et consensûs, inducebat consequentem auctoritatem. Nam subditur ibidem, ‘Et Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terrâ, Spiritus Sanctus, Aqua, et Sanguis:’ et in quibusdam libris additur, ‘et hi Tres Unum sunt.’ Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur; sed dicitur esse appositum ab Hæreticis Arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis præmissæ de unitate essentiæ Trium Personarum.” Hæc Beatus Thomas, ubi supra. ↩

34. “Sciendum est, hoc loco codices apertissimè esse corruptos; nostros verò veritatem ipsam, ut à primâ origine traducti sunt, continere; quod ex prologo B. Hieronymi super Epistolas manifestè apparet. Ait enim, ‘Quæ si sicut ab eis digestæ sunt; ita quoque ab interpretibus fideliter in Latinum verterentur eloquium,’” &c.—Hæc Stunica in hunc locum. Ejus Liber extat in Criticor. vol. ix. ↩

35. “Habuimus ab Hunnæo,—id quod maximi facimus, MS. Bibl. correctorium ab incerto auctore, quem Epanorthotem, aut correctorem fere vocamus, magnâ diligentiâ, ac fide contextum, secuto uti oportet antiquos nostræ editionis codices, eosque cum Hebræis, Græcis, et veterum patrum commentariis sedulo collatos; qui liber ad Genesin viii. 7. latius à nobis descriptus est.” Hæc Lucas; qui ad Genesin viii. 7, dixit hunc librum multis annis scriptum, et pluribus fortè compositum. Dein, loco ex eo citato, pergit. Ad quæ dici quid possit? An quod libro fidendum non sit? Non hoc dicet, qui evolverit; quæ namque à nostri seculi scriptoribus ex MSS. codicibus collectæ sunt variæ lectiones, omnes propemodum in eo comperimus; et ad fontes fideliter examinatas deprehendimus. Scripsit hæc Lucas, anno 1579; “unde sequitur correctorium ante disputationes Erasmicas de testibus in cœlo elaboratum esse.” ↩

36. Hesselius in hunc locum ait; “Manuscripti Græci fere omnes sic se habent: ‘Quoniam Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terrâ, Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis, et hi Tres Unum sunt;’ nullâ factâ mentione triplicis testimonii de cœlo ‘Patris, Verbi, et Spiritûs Sancti.’” Dein codices aliter legentes describendo sic pergit; “Nostro tempore duo Græci codices manuscripti reperti sunt; unus in Angliâ, et alter in Hispaniâ; quorum uterque hoc loco testimonium habet ‘Patris, Verbi, et Spiritûs Sancti.’” ↩

37. “Hic obiter illud incidit admonendum esse Græcorum quosdam Novi Testamenti codices ad Latina exemplaria emendatos. Id factum est in fœdere Græcorum cum Romanâ ecclesiâ; 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 Bibliothecâ Pontif. Verum ex his corrigere nostros est Lesbiam, ut aiunt, admovere regulam.”—Erasmus ad Lectorem. Editio 5ta Novi Testamenti. ↩