Vu TWO EL 1 1I ER S OF | Sir [S44C|NEWTON TO E 1E CLERC Late Divinity Profeffor of the RzMoNsTRANTS uHOLL'ZA4NNJJ, EON m ἐν 73 4 E D ἐν "ΩΝ Ade nO γι διὰ 4: er oe *4a ^ i 5 A. t d eet «δ δ 11 - £ 4 PL : v5. μηδ γα παν A] ral A NM λῶν ee » 3 Ie 4 cat d 4 Saxe hs Ve PE 2d ada i ° 4 P ty Me AN 4 Ὶ δ τ 4 1 D a b Ὁ IT M m 2 bd d E wv » " u , ἱ * " > ^ ὃ i : ; 0" - » a jt - : Ὁ ; «y ev M ἢ 1 H » ἂν t hy de A Ls; ἂν ea Fr Á , ] " Apos ay , io + v ab a ue d vir md b > = aie cA} ^ e CO AF wi E t εἴ L * j “ἢ Oey hs v Y Ρ p: we ao ‘ Ec ἌΝ ΜΝ ὁ ὧν EA" 1 δ Ὁ hy! κῶνον 5 - v z " 1 P 3 fe eras * . » a d ^ ^ ui ! δ y - = απ * γῳ * » c » i AIL RN TES lob de NE YR á > DEC 4 * Re a ied TR eee ἐς 4 , T Mss ni^ í : T ye atri Lining y & L jte Ure qu Sm ge vu o Pl . n Ee , : 4 NLD NSS Δ o eut ? " Ἵ a bow DL ‘ e . 7$ Ma 4 n ὕψος i a " 1 ‘ E^ V» A ! "i ᾿ L v ) » Ὁ E í ‘ 4 1 y Án d , + τῶν "n als E ΑΝ poe 4 t E * ᾿ i ὶ ^ > * ^ . d ] T Wag Loe TERS. OF Sir ISAAC NEWTON sae E "r£. OLE Ὁ Late Divinity Profeffor of the Rz WOM GEE ee in HOLLAND. The Former Containng a DISSERTATION upon the Reading of the Greek Text, I Joun, v. 7. The Larrer Upon That of 1 T'1MoTHY, il. 16. Publifhed from authentick MSS in the Library of the Remonstrants in HOLLAN D. LON DON: Printed for J. P A Y NE, at Poprz's Heap in Pater-Noster-Row. MDCCLIV. eua vli lodi n234 AUR iáow ab hy τὰ | T Er duet Am 2008 £A κδιδλΥχαν 317 D j | XT ibo 51313 16 gaibeo SL. te CES | s e hu 1% quur εν ] 3 ái na rouPTs do à n re f ved) TUNE i ni i; 2x docodbus ᾽ ped AW AAOM | i V YA AS n ie on VR E *$onwodl. ΦΑΒΕΙ raso τὸ, GWYAS Ἧς πὰ..." Ww 232c00I- Ak 74 ai. i , "OT OMEIDOQM | ΒΗ SI LET LER: CONTAINING, A DISSERTATION upon the follow- ing Paffage in the Firsr EPisTLE of St. Jouw. CILAD,. V. Vers 6::5,:85.9. Verfe 6. Οὗτός egw ὃ ἐλθὼν di ὕδατος xa} ἅιματος, ᾿Ἰησοὺς ὃ Χριστός" οὐχ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἄλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ ἀϊματι" xal τὸ πνῶμά ἐστ τὸ μαρ)υροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πγεῦμα ecw ἡ ὠλήθεια" Verfe 7. Ὅτι eds εἰσιν οἱ uagluecufles EN TQ OYPANO, O IIATHP, O ΛΟΓΟΣ, KAI ΤῸ ATION IINEYMA: KAI OY- TOI OI TPEIZ EN ELSI. Verfe 8. KAITPEIZ ΕἸΣῚΝ OI MAP- TYPOYNTEX EN TH ΓΗ, τὸ «wu, καὶ πὸ ὕδωρ, xdi τὸ diMa* xdi οἱ Tees εἰς TO ty εἰσιν. , 4 ~ ΕῚ Verfe 9. Εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάγομεν, » uadlupia τῇ Θεὰ μείξων ἐςίν, Β ENGLISH ἐξ F^ n Lat] ^ — t3 I ENGLISH VERSION. EPisT. Joun, CHAP. V. Mau Gea tots Verfe re f This | is he that came by Wa- ter and Blood, even Jefus Chrift; not by . Water only ; but Water and Bloods and it is the Spirit that beareth witnefs, becaufe the Spirit is truth, Verfe 7. ** For there are Three that bear record In HEavEN, THE FATHER, THE WorD, AND THE Hoty GHosT: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. Verfe 8, “ AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN Eartuy, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood: and thefe Three agree in One, - Verfe 9. ** If we receive the witnefs of * men, the witnefs of God is greater; Cc." Du. Is SIR, O W it has come to país, that all the printed Greek, as well as Latin editions of the New 'leftament in ufe, fhould agree in giving us the prefent reading of the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Verfes of the Fifth Chapter of the Firft Epiftle of Saint Joun, will be matter of furprife to, and raife the curiofity of every perfon, who is much converfant in the Antiquities of the Chriftian Church. For all the late printed Greck and Latin Books do now conftantly D 2 | read. ( oy? read. ** It is the Spirit, that beareth wit- * nefs, becaufe the Spirit is truth. For there are Three, that bear record iN * HEAVEN; THE FATHER, THE WoRp, “© AND THE Hory GHosT: AND THESE *« THREE. ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE ** THREE, THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH; ** the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood: « and thefe Three agree in One." Where- as all the Greek Manufcripts of the New ‘Teftament, and all the ancient Verfions, that have been made of it into any Lan- guage whatever, (if we except the vulgar Latin, and it can be fully proved, that this did alfo accord with all the other verfions, till it was reformed and corrected by Jerome) are quite filent-in regard to the teftimony of “τῆς 'T'hreein Heaven"; and all the councils, fathers, commentators and other writers, at leaft of thefour firft cen- turies of the Church, as often as in any of their writings they were led to confider the paffage before us, do plainly fhew, that it ftood in their books, ** It is the Spirit that ἐς beareth witnefs; becaufe the Spirit is « Truth: For there are. Three that bear * record, the Spirit, the Water and the ἐς, Blood: and thefe Three agree in One.” | And € ^ C5 \0-— * And that this-Teftimony of ** the Three t in Heaven", was neither in the ancient Greek manufcripts, nor in the early ver- fions; but wholly unknown to the firft ages of the Church, may reafonably be prefumed from this circumítance alone, that in all that warm, univerfal and lafting controverfy about the Trinity, which began long before, and continued long after Jerome's time, we do not find any one ofthe writers on the fide of the Trinity making the leaft ufe of this teftimony ; even while they induftrioufly ranfacked both the Old and New Teftament in fearch after, and in their difputes actually produced every text, allufion or diftant hint therein found, that with the leaft fhadow.of probability could be of fervice in their caufe. Is it then probable, if their books read, as ours do at this time, that no one of the difputants fhould hit upon a paffage, that ftands fo very fair to their purpofe as the teftimony of * the * Three in Heaven", moft evidently does ? It has indeed been infifted, that in the writings of Cyprian, an eminent Father, about the middle of the third Century, there are two paffages, which muft fuppofe him to have the fame reading before him, . | D 3 as (. δ᾽ ).. as in our printed books.. "The learned Editor of his works, in anfwerto a charge brought againft Jerome for being a falfary, and the firít author of this interpolation, remarks,* ** That itis a fufficient confuta- ** tion of this very heavy calumny. brought * againft St. Jerome, that Cyprian has * quoted it [* the teftimony of the Three in * Heaven] who wrote not only before * the time of Jerome, but even that of * Arius, and before the commencement of ** the long controverfy about the Trinity." I wonder much to find it here affirmed, that Cyprian has quoted the teftimony of « the Three in Heaven"; all that can pofüibly be imagined is, that he had it in his thoughts - at thofe times; andif I am not very much miftaken, it was not even there. Fora fufficient account may be given of his « * Cui graviffime | calumniz de D. Hieronimo « falfario, et S.Scripturarum interpolatore amoliendz. « fufficere poterit, Cyprianum citaffe (nempe triplex « teftimonium Patris, Verbi et Spiritus Sancti in coelo € teflantium) non modo ante Hieronimi tempora, fed * Arii ipfius, et litem de dogmate illo de trino et uno * Deo, fcripterem; qui tamen hic loci, et in epiftola ** Jubaianum hanc pericope agnofcit." — JVor. Pearfeni, in Cypriani Tractat. de Unit. Ecclefie, p. 109. - | words, (P words, without fuppofing him to have fuch. a reading in his books. In one of the paffages referred to, Cyprian, in proving the Unity of the Church, argues thus. ** The * Lord fays, (Jouw x. 20.) JI. and the Father are One: and again it 15 written ** of the Father and the Son and the Holy * Ghoft. And thefe Three are One. [One « Thing]. And does any Man believe, that this Unity proceeding from the * divine firmnefs, and cohering in the heavenly mifteries, can be cut afunder in the Church, and parted by the feparation of contradictory wills?"---In the other paffage difputing the validity of the bap- tifm of hereticks fuppofed to deny one or other of the Perfons in the Trinity, he reafons thus. .** If a perfon can be baptifed * by them, he can obtain pardon of his * fins; and if he can obtain pardon of his - «ς * + Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater Unum fumus. Et iterum, de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto fcriptum (€ eftt Et bb Tres Unum (unt. Et quifquam credit hanc unitatem de diviná firmitate venientem, facra- mentis cceleftibus cohzrentem, fcindi in ecclefia poffe, aut voluntatum collidentium divortio feparari δ᾽ —Cyprian. Tractat. de Unitate Evcclefiz, 5. 109. Edit. Pear fen. . «€ B 4 a ¢¢ fins, (δὼ * fins, he is both fanctified and made a * Temple of God, i I afk of what God ? * Tf of the Creator, he could not be made * his Temple, who believes not in Him; * if of Chrifi; neither can he be made His * who denies Cbrzf? to be God: if of the “ Holy Gbofl, fince the Three are One, how * can the Holy Ghof be reconciled to him, * who is an enemy to either the Father or * the $022" But here it is to be noted, that Cyprian does not fay in either ofthefe places, * the Father, Word and Holy Ghoft" ; as the text now has it; but in the former paflag ce, *theFather, Sonand Holy Ghoft",and in the latter, ** the Creator, Chrift and Holy ** Ghoft"; and in neither place cites any thing more of the text than thefe words, “ and ** thefe Three are One". The whole difficulty then refts here, how Cyprian came to fay, “ΤῸ is written of the Father, Som and Holy ~ * tQuzro cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non-potuit, qui ** in eum non credit; Si Chri/fi, nec hujus fieri poteft ** templum, ,qui negat Deum Chrifium; Si Spiritui © Sanéli, cum Tres Unum fint, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus ** placatus effe ei poteft, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus € eft ?"— Cyprian. Jh ifl. ad JT QUU p. 203. Edit. Pearfon. cc Gboft ; (titi) * Ghofl, and tbefe Three are One’: and of this Iam now to give an Account. It will then be found, that both the Latins and the Greeks did foon after generally interpret thefe words, ** the Spirit; the Water * and the Blood’, to denote, in their miftical fenfe, ‘the Father, Sonand Holy Ghoft". And if fo; it will be no hard thing to fuppofe Cyprian to do the fame... St. Auftin (contra Maximinum) after challenging his antagonift to produce one inftance, either in the Old Or New Teftament, where two or more things of different natures or fubflances are con- joined; that is, where it is faid of them, ὌνυΜ sunt, (they are one) to guard againft an obvious objection; thus goeson. || * I * | Sane falli te nolo in epiftolà Johannis apoftoli, ubi ait, Tres funt Teftes, Spiritus, Aqua et Sanguis : * et Tres Unum funt. Propter hoc admonui, ne falla- * ris. Hzc enim facramenta funt, in quibus, non | quid fint, fed quid oftendant, femper attenditur; *€ quoniam figna funt rerum ; aliud exiftentià, et aliud fignificantià. Si ergo illa, quz his fignificantur, intelliguntur, ipfa inveniuntur unius effe fubftantia.— De quibus (nempe Patre, Filio Sanétoque Spiritu) veriffime dici poteít, Tres funt Tefles, et Tres Unum * funt ; ut nomine Spiritus fignificatum acciplamus; * Deum Patrem,—Nomine autem Sanguinis, Filium,— * Et nomine que, Spiritum. Sanctum." — Auguflin- contra Maximin. Lib, ΠῚ, cap. 22. e wn ^ n Lal ^ e^ a A ^ e "^ La e^ * would ( 1o ) * would not have you be deceived by the Epiftle of St. Joun, where he fays, There are Three Witneffes, the Spirit, tbe Water and the Blood: and the Three are One. For thefe are mifterious words, in which we are always to mind, not what they ufually import, but what they ftand for ; for they are fymbols of things and dif- ferent in fignification from their nature. If then thofe things, which are fignified by thefe words, are rightly comprehended, thefe will be found to be of one fubftance. —Of which (namely, zbe Fatber, Son and Holy Ghoft) it may be truly faid, They are Three Witneffs, and tbe Three are One; * fo that by The Spirit we fhould un- derftand God the Father ;—alfo by the - word Blood, The Son;—and by the Water, “© The Holy Ghof.” Thus did St. Auftin manifeftly interpret ‘ the Spirit, Water * and Blood”, miftically to denote, ** the * Father, Son and Holy Ghoft’; and neither in this, nor any other part of his writings, does he make the leaft mention of the * threewitneffesin Heaven", any otherthanas fignified in the mifterious fenfe of the words, ** Spirit, Water and Blood". And whenever he names them, it is notío, as we find it in SE yo in our préfent books, ** the Father, Word and ** Holy Ghoft". Nor indeed is it to beimagin'd that St. Auftin, or any other Father, who gave fuch an interpretation, could have read in his books, the teftimony of ** the Three in ** Heaven" .--Inlikemanner Eucherius, Bifhop of Lyons, in his queftions upon this very Epiftle of St. Joun, informs us, that ** the ** Spirit, Water and Blood", was generally in- terpreted in this miftical way, though in a manner fomewhat different from St. Auftin. His words are, ὃ ** Que/?. John in his epiftle * lays down; There are Three things that * bear record, the Water, the Blood and * the Spirit; What.is meant by this? « Anfwer. Some expound differently, but * molt perfons underftand it of the Trinity « jtfelf by à miftical interpretation * by the Water, pointing out the Father ; * by the Blood, fhewing Chri? ; and by the ἐς ἃ Interrog. In Epiftola Johannes ponit, Tria fun “ que teftimonium perkibent, Aqua, Sanguis et Spiritus. ** Quid. in hoc indicatur? Re/p. Quidam ex hoc dif~’ _ © putant, &c. plures tamen hic ipfam interpretatione * myfticà | intelgunt . T'rinitatem.— 4gud — indicans « Patrem ; Sanguine, Chrifium demonftrans ; Spiritu, « Sanéium Spiritum manifeftans." — Eucherius Lugdunen- ffs de Queeftionibus in Epifiolan Fokaxnis, « S pirat ^ (12 * Spirit, manifefting the Holy Ghof.’— We may alfo determine, that the Bifhop could. not have in his copy the teftimony of « the Threein Heaven"; as, I think, he muft then have formed his queftion; upon the whole, not a part of the paffage; and becaufe he has omitted the words 7” ferrd, which is never done by thofe, who cite this teftimony. Moreover a paffage in Facundus, an Aírican.Bifhop, about the middle of the fixth century,will both confirm this interpre- tation of St. John, and make it probable, that Cyprian is to be fo underftood alfo. In his defence of the council of Chalcedon, addrefled to the emperor Juftinian, he quotes the paffage thus : * ** For St. John * the Apoftle, in his epiftle, fays thus of the ** Father, and Son, and Holy Ghoft : There « are Three that bear witnefs in Earth, tbe « Spirit, Water and Blood, and thefe Three € * Nam et Johannes Apoftolus in epiftolá fua de ** Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, fic dicit. Tres funt « eui feflmonium «dant in terrá, Spiritus, Aqua et € Sanguis, et bi Tres Unum funt. Yn Spiritu fignificans € Patrem;—In Aqua vero Spiritum Sanctum fignificans ; € —In Sanguine vero Filium fignificans.” —Facund. ἊΝ U Mp 16. Ex Editione Sirmondi Pariftis, 1629. C6 are (237) * gre One: by the Spzrzt denoting the Fa- * ther; by the Water, fignifying the Holy * Gbofl: and by the Bid, fignifying the * Son.”—Thus Facundus, not only gives us the miftic Interpretation of the ** Spirit, Wa- * ter and Blood"; but introduces it in the very manner of Cyprian, and exprefly tells us, that he underftood Cyprian to be of the fame opinion. Moreover Facundus can hardly be thought to know any thing of the teftimony of ** the "Three i in Heaven", fince he makes no ufe of j it, when it Avonld have been far more to his purpofe. The argu- ment he was upon, was to prove the Unity of ** the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft"; and here, after the example of many before him, he imploys the miftical interpretation of the ** Spirit, Water and Blood”, for this purpofe; and becaufe St. John fays of them; .** and « thefe Three are One”; and this expofition, fuppofing them Symbols of the Three Per- fons of the Trinity, he makes ufe of it 4 ; | in + The EpiTOR muft inform the reader, that thus far is not Sir IsaAc's; the Copy tranfmitted to him fairly acknowledges it, and adds, that the four firft paragraphs of the Manufcript are loft; and that asthere were no hopes of recovering them, they were fupplied, not ( 14) in order to prove them Ove God. t Thefe paflages in Cyprian may: receive further light by a like paffage in Tertullian, from whence Cyprian feems to have bor- rowed them. For it is well known, that Cyprian was a great admirer of Tertullian’s writings, and read them frequently, calling Tertullian his mafter. The paffage is this, not out of vanity, but merely to lay before the reader thofe paflages, which the letter itfelf plainly-fhews had been made ufe of “by the author himfelf ;; and to the purpofes, as is apprehended, they are here fubfervientto ; and an aflurance is alfo given, that all which follows the words ** He makes ufe of it” are Sir IsAAc’s own without alteration. iu _ “ T Unum effe dicuntur, poffunt Spiritus, aut Aqua, ** aut Sanguines dici? Quod tamen Johannis Apoftoli ** teftimonium B, Cyprianus Carthaginienfis Antiftes ** et Martyr, in epiftola, five libro, quem de Trinitate * (immo de Unitate ecclefie) fcripfit, de Patre, Filio © etSpiritu San&o dictum intelligit. Ait enim, Dicit * Dominus, Ego et Pater Unum fumus; et iterum de * Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto firiptumef ; et hi Tres “εἰ Unum funt.—Facundus, cap. Y. pag. 16. ibidem. — «€ € Connexus Patrisin Filio, et Filii in Paracleto “ὦ tres ' efficit cohzrentes, alterum. ex. altero, Qui * Tres Unum funt, (non. Unus) quomodo dictum eft. * Ego et Pater Unum fumus ; ad fubftantie Unitatem, * non ad numeri fingularitatem.”—Tertullian advers. Prax, ic. 28. | en C ws y « y^ "7" Lou "1 (p w^ terre - ἣν ] sad Y $4 & i A Due at. yok ^ A c Seien Σὰ s E. M ἢ ah x [oh e " MN = 4 δι * wehbe ap AUNT ; ϑν Pot 1 * 9, ^ ᾽Ὶ » P * E Pa i - n' rat 7 A mnMUIP *Uo wr ^. MO i 9 : Py t "CE wea i tie "es Ἦν ὶ en 4 983 , ) ya - B ae " Ὁ ὃ ᾿ δ . be P - 4 ς ' : a ; THE SEGOND LETTER: CONTAINING A DISSERTATION UPON THE FIRST of TIMOTHY ii. 16. do E oh ali ee LETTER: ON: TAT N IN: Ὁ A DISSERTATION upon the First of Timoruy. iii. 16. Verfe 16. ** Kai ὁμολογουμένως μέγα, tq τὸ τὴς εὐσεβείας qug pir OEOZ ἐφανερώθη ἐν 2 : 2 af > σαρκὶ, ἐδικαιώθη ev πνεύματι, ὥφθη ἀγΓέλοις, 5 12) , > > ἐχκηρύχϑη ev ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιφεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη * ἐγ δόξῃ; ter «€ cc | €€ ^ ENGLISH VERSION. I. FrMoTruHY ii, 16. Verie 10. ** And about See d * great is the Miftery of Godlinefs: GOD * was manifeft in the Fleth, juftified in the * Spirit, feen of Angels, preached unto the * Gentiles, believed on in the world, re- * ceived up into Glory". G:32 SIR, La] La e ^ ( 84 ) SIR, HAT the Latins have done to the Text of the Firft Epiftle 1 of Saint Joun, v. 7. the Greeks have done to that of St. Paul's Firft Epiftle to -Timotuy, ii. 16. For by changing 7 into ΘΟ, the Abbreviation of Ode, they now read, ‘“ Great is the « Miftery of Godlinefs: GOD was mani- « feft in the Flefh". Whereas all the Churches for the firft four.or five hundred years ; and the authors of all the ancient verfions, Jerome, as well as the reft, read, | ‘AST eat [ y) ες Great is the Miftery of Godlinefs, which * was manifefted in the Flefh". — For this is the common reading of the Ethiopic, Syriac, and Latin Verfions to this day; Jerome's Manufcripts having giv- en him no occafion to correct the old vul- gar Latin in this Place. Grotius adds the Arabic; but the Egyptian Arabic Verfion has Ode; and fo has the abovementioned Sclavonian Verfion of Cyrillus. For thefe two Verfions were made long after the fixth Century, wherein the Corruption be- gan. With the ancienter verfions agree the writers of the firft five Centuries, both Greeksand Latins. For they, in all their difcourfes to prove the Deity of the Son, never alledge this text, (asIcan find) as they would all have done; (and fome of them frequently,) had they read ** Gop was « manifeft in the Flefh" and therefore they read Z. Tertullian (adverfus Praxeam) and Cyprian (adverfus Fudeos) induftriouily cite all the places, where Cunisr is called Go»; but have nothing of this.------Alexander of Alexandria, Athanafius, the Bifhops of the Council of Sardica, Epiphanius, Bafil, G3 Gregory " ( 86 ) Gregory Nazienzen, Gregory Nyflen, Chry- foftom, Cyril of Jerufalem, Cyril. of A- lexandria; and amongft the Latins, Hilary, Lucifer, Jerome, Ambrofe, Auftin, Phz- bedius, Victorinus Afer, Fauftinus Diaco- nus, Pope Leo the Great, Arnobius Junior, Cerealis, — Vigilius "Tapfenfis, Fulgentius, wrote all of them in the fourth and fifth Centuries for the Deity of the Son, and incarnation of God; and fome of them largely, and in feveral tracts; and yet I can- not find, that they ever alledge this text to prove it. | 7 In all the times of the hotand laíting Ariah controverfy, it never came into play ; though now, that thofe difputes are over, they, that read ** Gop was manifeft in the Flefh", think it one of the moft obvious, and pertinent texts for the bufinefs, The Churches therefore of thofe ages were abfolute fttangers to this reading. For, on the contrary, their writers, a$ often as they have occafion to:cite the reading then in ufe, difcover thatit was a. -For though they cite it not to prove the Deity of the Son; yetin theircommentaries, and fome- times in thei other difcourfes they produce . if. ( 3p ) it. And particularly Ambrofe, or whoever of his Cotemporaries was the author of the commentary on the epiftles, reads?; and fo doth St. Auftin im Genefin. ad literam, Lib, V.------And Bede in his commentary on this text, where he cites the reading of St. Auftin, andthe author of the commentary on the epiftles afcribed to Jerome. So alfo do Primafius and Sedulius in their commentaries on this text; and Victorinus Afer, Libro primo adverfus Arium; and \da- cius Clarus, or rather Vigilius Gene Libro tertio, adverfus Varimadum, capite 12. ------And fo did Pope Leo the Great, Epift. xx. ad Flaviamum; and Pope Gregory the Great, Libro xxxiv. Moral. cap. 7. alias 4. | dens Thefe ancient Latins all cite the text ee this manner, ** Great is the Miftery of * Godlinefs, whzch was manifeft in the * Flefh"; as the Latin Manutcripts of St. Paul’s ἘΠ: generally have it to this day: And therefore, it cannot be doubted, but that this hath been the conftant publick reading of the Latin Churches from the be- ginning. So alfo one of the Arians in a homily, printed in Fulgentius’s works, reads 3, and eI OB interprets ( 88 ) interprets it of the Son of God, who was born’ of the Father ante fecu/a; and of the virgin, 7z noviffimo tempore: and ulgentius, in his anfwer to this homily, found no fauit with the Citation; but, on the contrary, in his firft book to Trafimundus, chap. 6, feems to have read, and underftood the text after the fame manner, with the other Latins. Now for the Greeks, I find indeed, that they have changed the ancientreading of thetext, not only in the Manufcripts of St. Paul's Epiftles; but alfo in other authors; and yet there are fill remaining fufficient Inftances among them of what the reading was at fifftl. 5. ἐπ Thus, in Chryfoftom's commentary on this Epittle, they have now gotten Θεὺς into the text; and yet by confidering the com- mentary by itfelf, I am fatisfed, that he read 4. Forheneither in his commentary, nor any where elfe infers the Deity of Chrift from this text; nor expounds it, as they do, who read Od; but with the Latins, who read 8, underftands by it Chrift incarnate; or as he expreffes it, “ Man made God, and « God made Man" ; and fo leaves it at liber- ty to be taken for either God or Man.------ ( 89 ) And accordingly in one place of his com- mentary, he faith. “ ᾿Εφανερώθη ἐν σαρχὶ o € δκΚμιαργόο᾽. ------- In another place; «€ “Av ewnos ὠφϑὴ avapaphiros, avers «€ ἀγαλήφϑη exnevs Gn ἐν χέσμω pee ἡμῶν ἔιδον ce quu dyfean”. '* Man appeared with~ « out Sin; Man was received up;. Man was * preached in the world; was feen amongft « ys by Angels”. Inftead of “ ὅ epameas» « ἐγ σαρχὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, &c. he faith, « Man appeared without Sin; Man was re- * ceived up, was preached in the world, « was feenamongít us by Angels"; making Man the Nominative Cafe to thefe, and all the Verbs which follow; which certainly Ἧς would not have done, had Θεὸς been their Nominative Cafe exprefly in the text. He might properly put man for σ΄; but not for 9,4. Neither couldhe have put ἀναμάρτητος for ἐδικαιωϑη; if he had read in his text, Bede ἐδικαιωθη. For what man of common fenfe would fay, that God was made finlefs in and through the Spirit. But what f have faid of Chryfoftom will be more evident, when I fhall have fhewn you, how afterwards, in the time of the Neftorian controverfy, all parties read o with- | out e ( go ) out any difpute raifed about the reading, and how the Greeks have fince corrupted the text in Cyril’s writings, and changed δ into bes, as they have done in Chryfoftom's. And firf, that the Neftorians read 9 is evident by fome fragments of the orations er homilies of Neftorius fent by him to the Pope; and cited by Arnobius Junior, in the fecond book of his conflict with Serapion, For there, in order to fhew what was the epinion of Neftorius, and how he defended it, he cites two of his orations in thefe words. .‘* Non peperit fan@ifima Maria * Peitatem; nam quod natum eft de carne, * caro eft. Non peperit creatura Creato- rem ; fed peperit hominem Deitatis mi- &iftrum. Non edificavit Deum, Ver- bum, Spiritus San&us; quod ex ipsa na- tum eft, de Spiritu Sancto eft. Deo ita- que virgo templum ex virginea edifica- * vit". Et paulo. poft, “ Qui per fe natus eft Deus in utero (fcilicet ante Lucipho- ‘rum ) Deus eft". ------ Et paulo © poft. * Qeroe tormiam in Deo honoramus". Et in ali pradicatione; ““ Spiritum divina κε jeparat natura, qui humanitatem ejus creavit, — Quicquid ex Maria natunreft, « de [ 95) * de Spiritu San&o eft, qui et fecundum ** juftitiam replevit, quod creatum eft; hoc * quod manifeftatum eft in carne, juítifica- * tum eft in Spiritu", Which laft words in the language, wherein Neftorius wrote thofe homilies, are, “9 ἐφανεραθη ἐν σαρκὶ» *€ εδικαιωθὴ ey πνεύματι᾽. Here you fee, that Neftorius ea à ex- prefly; notonly fo, but abfolutely excludes God from being underítood by it; arguing, that the virgin was not ϑεότόχος, becaufe that thing, which was manifefted in the Flefh, was juftified in the Spirit; or (as he expounds it) replenifhed by the Spirit in righteoufnefs; and calling that thing, which was mani- fefted in the Flefh, a Creature. “" Spiritus, « faith be, fecundum juftitiam replevit [hoc] ** quod creatum eft; [nempe] hoc quod ma- * nifeftatum eft in carne, juftificatum eft in ** Spiritu". -And now whilft he read the text after this manner, and urged it thus againft the Deity of Chrift, one bad expect, that if this had not been the received publick read- ing in the Greek Churches, his adverfaries would have fallen foul upon him, and ex- claimed againft him for falfifying the text, and blafphemoufly faying, it was a created : thing, ( 92 ) thing, which the fcripture calls God mani- jefled in the Flefo. And fach an accufation, as this, . would furely have made as great. a noife, as ii di thing elfe in the controveríy. And vet I meet with vothidp of this kind i hiftory. His adverfaries do not fo much as tell him, that Ses wasin the text. ‘They were fo far from raifing any controverfy a- bout the reading, that they do not in the leaft correct him for. it; but, on the con- trary, the ey henielge in their an SR to lassen) by various diu n to pis another fenfe upon the text; as I find by Caffian and Cyril, the two principal, vig at that time wrote againft him, | . john Cafüan was Chryfoftom’s Schell and his-Deacon and Legate to the Pope; and after the banifhment of Chryfoftom, retired from Conftantinople into Syria and Egypt, where he lived a monattick life for fome mes and then ended his days in France. At that time, therefore, when Neftorius, who was Patriarch of Conftantinople, broached his opinion, and Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria oppofed him; Neftorius fent a legacy ( 93 ) legacy to Rome with copies of his orations to let the Pope underftand the controverfy 5 and. thereupon. Leo, the Great, who was thenArchdeacon of theChurch of Rome, and afterwards Pope, put Caffian (then in France) upon. writing his book, De incarnatione Do- mini, againft Neftorius. He wrote it there- fore, in the year. of our Lord 430; as Bar ronius alfo reckons. . For he wrote it before the condemnation of Neftorius in the Coun- cil of Ephefus ; as appears by the book it- felf. . } | This book is now extant only in Latin ; but confidering, that his defign in writing was to ftir up the Greek Church againít Neftorius ;; and that too, for the making great impreflion upon them, he quotes Greek fathers at the end of his book, and concludes with an exhortation to the Citizens of Con- ftantinople, telling them, that, what he wrote; he had received from his mafter Chry- foftom ; I am fatisfied, that he wrote it or ginally in Greek. His other books were in both languages. For Photius faw them in eloquent Greek; and it is more likely, that they had their author's eloquent language from their author, and the Latin | from ( 94 ) from one of the Latins, where he lived; than that the contrary fhould be true. Now in this treatife * when he comes to confider the paffage of Neftorius about this text, of which we gave you an account above, out of Arnobius, hereturnsthis anfwer to it. * Jam primum enim hoc quod ais (Neftori) * quia juftitia repleverit, quod creatum eft ; ** et hoc apoftolico vis teftimonio comprobare, ** quod dicat, apparu in carne; juftificatus « eff in Spiritus utrumque infano fenfu, et « furiofo Spiritu loqueris. Quia et hoc, d quod ὃ à Spiritu vis eum repletum effe jufti- « tid, ideo ponis, ut oftendas ejus vacuita- tem cui preftitam effe afferas juftitiae ad * impletionem. Et hoc, quod fuper hac re e apoftolico teftimonio uteris, divini tefti- * monii ordinem rationemque furaris. Non ** enim ita ab apoftolo pofitum eft, ut tu id * truncatum, vitiatumque pofuifi. Quid * enim apoftolus ait? Et manife/te magnum « of pietatis Jacramentum, quod manifeflatum “ eff in carne, jufiificatum eft in Spiritu. Vides * ergo, quod mifterium pietatis, vel facra- * mentum juftificatum apoftolus praedicavit". * « [jbro feptimo, capite 18". ------Thus ( 95 7 ΘΕ Thus far Caffian is not only reading 7, but confuting Neftortus by that rea dh ----—For whereas Neftotius faid it was a Creature, which was juftified, Caffian tells him, that if he had read the whole text, "he would have found, thatit was The My by fer y wf Godlinefs. ““ Vides ergo, faith be, quod τς mifterium pietatis jufti&catum apoftolus ** predicavit. Hedoesnotíay. ** Deum “ juftificatum apoftolus praedicavit". (As he would certainly have done, had that been in his Bible); but mitertum; and fo makes zz7/7- rium, or which is allone, its relative guod, the Nominative Cafe to the Verbs that fol- low. Tn PET part of this treatife, 757» quinto cap. 12. Cafhan cites, and inter- prets the text, as follows. ““ Et manifefte * magnum eft pietatis facramentum, quod ἐς manifeftatum eft in carne, juftificatum, «Sc, Quod ergo magnum eft illad facra- ἐξ mentum quod sien feftatumd eft in carne? "ἂν Deus, fcilicet, natus in carne, Deus vifus ** jn corpore, qui utique ficut palam eft * manifeftatus in carne, ita palam eft af- * fumptus in glorià".------So you fee Nef. torius and Caffian agree in readings’; but differ ( 96 ) differ in interpreting it; the one reftraining it to a Creature, by reafon of its being jufti- fied; the other reftraining it to Ged, by reafon of its being a great miftery, and af- fumed in glory. 4 In like manner Cyril, the great adverfary of Neftorius, in his three books, De Fide ad Imperatorem et Reginas, written againfthim in the beginning of the controverfy, did not re- prehend him; as if he had cited the text falfe- ly; but only complained of his mifinterpreting it; telling him that he did not underftand the Miflery of Godlinefs , and that it was not a cre- ated tbing (as he thought) but the Word or Son of God; and arguing for this interpre- tation from the circumftances of the text. And firft, in his book, De Fide ad Impera- à e , “ἡ aN « νὰσε, pn εἰδότες τὰς γραφὰφ' porre μὲν TO ~ , \ « μέγα τὴς εὐσεβείας μυφήριον, τοτέφι Χριφξον he ἃ, ὁ Ruso he turns ¢ into; unlefs you will fay, that he turns θεοὺς into ὅς, which is very hard. For had ϑεὸς been in this text he would not have faid μυφήριον, τετέφι Χριφὸν, ὅς ἐφανερώθη; but pune, Os, τετέφι Χριστὸς ἐφανερῷθη» putting Χρισὺσ, not for μυφίριον; but for Geos. For Xpigts and Θειὸς τα equipollent: Butin making Xeig and μυφύριον equipollent, he makes pune the Nominative Cafe to ἐφανερώθη; and therefore read them joined in this text by the article o’------Had he read θεὸς, he would never have left out that au- thentick and demonttrative word, and by way of interpretation for μυφήριον Geos, writ- ten Χριστὸν ὅς. For this was not to argue againft Neftorius; but to {poil the argument, which lay before him. Neither would he have gone on, as 9 he does, within a few lines after, to propound it as his opinion, that the Word or Son cf God was to be underftood by this Miftery, and to difpute for this his opinion out of other Texts of Scripture; as he does after this manner. f ‘ Moreover, faith he, 4 " TE γὰρ av ove ἕτερον διμαὶ τὶ τὸ τὴς εὐσεξείας * μυςήριον, ἢ αὐ]ὸς ἡ ἡμὶν à ἐκ θεοῦ τα]ρὸς λόγος, ὅς ἐφὰ- νερώϑη ἐν σαρκὶ. Τεγένηται ydo διὰ τὴς aylas παρθένε Cyril de Fide €€ ** καὶ ϑευτόκε, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών" ad Imperatorem. Sed, 8. IP * that ( 98 ) * that Miftery of Godlinefs, in my opinion, * is nothing elfe than the very Word of “© God the Father; which for our fake was * manifefted in the Flefh. For in taking ** the form of a Servant, it was born of the ** holy God-bearing’ Virgin, &c."------ And then after many other things, he, atlength, in Sections 23 and 24, concludes, that, « This divine Miftery is above our under- ** ftanding; and that the only begotten Son, who is God, and, according to the Scrip- * tures, the Lord of all things, appeared | * to us, was feen on earth, and became a * Man." | Again in the firft of his two treatifes, De Fide ad Reginas, near the end, he cites the text, and argues thus againft the interpreta- tion of Neftorius. |.**- Who isit, faith he, * that is manifefted in the Flefh? Is it not ^ * fully evident, that it is no other than the « Word of God the Father? For fo will it * bea great Miftery of Godlinefs (which *. was || manifefted in the Flefh): He was ἐς --“---] || Codex Graecus legit θεὸς fenfu perturbato. * feen c ( 99 ) feen of Angels, afcending into Heaven; he was moreover preached to the Gen- tiles by the holy Apoftles; he was believ- ed. on in the world: Butthis is not, as a mere man; but as God. born in the F leth, -and after our manner. So alfo in: his fecond book, De Fide ad Re- ginas, * he cites the place again; and. then argues upon it againft the opinion of Neí-. torius after this manner. . ** If the Word «c being God. is. faid to become a Man; and yet continue what he was before, without lofing his Deity, the Mittery of Godli- nefs..is. without doubt.a very great one: But if Chrift.be a mere Man, joined with Godonly.-in the. parity of dignity and power, (for this is maintained by fome unlearned. men) how. is he manifefted in ᾿ .the Flefh? Is it not plain, that every * Man is in the. Flefh, and cannot other-, € wife be. feen. by. any body; How then / was he faid to be feen. of the holy Angels? For do. they not alfo fee us? What was -there new- or. extraordinary in Chrift, if. * Section 33. Hag « the ( 100 ) « the Angels faw him fuch a Man, as we « are, and nothing more, &c." Thus Cyril goes on to give his reafons, why that, which was manifefted in the Flefh, was not a mere created Man, as Neftorius interpreted; butthe eternal Word, or Son of God; all which would have been very fuperfluous, and impertinent, - if θεὸς had then been exprefly in the text. Seeing therefore Neftorius alledged the text to prove, that it was a created thing, which was manifefted in the Flefh; and Cyril in confuting him did not an(wer, that it was God exprefly in the text; nor raife any debate about the reading ; but only put another interpretation. upon the text, than Neftorius had done; arguing with Caffian, that in the text, it was not amere Man, as Neftorius contended, but a great Mi/fery of Godlinefs; and by confequence Chrift, the Son of God, which was manifelled in the Flefb, and labouring by divers arguments to prove this interpretation, itis evident beyond all cavil, that Cyril wasa ftranger to Θεὸς, now got into the text; and read o, as Neftorius and Caffian did. | And ( 101 ) And yet in thefe his books ad Regrzas, wherever he quotes this text, the Greeks have fince corrected it by their corrected Manufcripts of St. Paul's Epiflles, | and written O és inftead of o»; Whence, if you would truly underftand the Neftorian hif- tory, you muft read ὁ for Θεὸς in all Cyril’s citations of this text. Now, whilft Cyril read 4, and in the explanation of the £we/ve chapters, or arti- cles, quoted this text in the fecond article; and this explanation was recited by him in the Council of Ephefus, and approved by the Council 47, with an Anathema at the end of every article; it is manifeít, that this Council allowed the reading ?; and, by con- fequence, that 9 was the authentick and public uncontroverted reading, till after the times of this Council. For if Neftorius and Cyril, the Patriarchs of Conftantinople and Alexandria, and the heads of the two parties in this controverfy, read 2; and their writings went about among the Eaftern Churches, and were can- vaffed by the bifhops and clergy without + Concil, Ephef. Par, iii. fub initio. H 3 any (τοῦ ἢ any difpute raifed about the reading ; and if Cyril read ¢ by the approbation of the Coun- . cil itfelf; I think, that the conclufion we make, of its being then the general uncon- troverted reading, muft needs be granted us. And if the authority of one of the four firft general Councils make any thing for the truth of the matter, or to fettle the reading, we have that into the bargain. Yet, whilft the Neftorian cditio brought the text into play, and the two parties ran the interpretation into extremes ; the one difputing that ¢ was a Creature ; the other, that it was the Word of God; the prevalence of the latter party nade it país for the orthodox opinion, that 6 was God ; and fo gave occafion to the Greeks hence- forward to change the language of Cbrf into that of God; and fay, in their expofi- - tions of the text, that God was manifefied in the Flefb (451 find Theodoret doth) and, at length, to write God in the textitfelf; the eafy change of δ into OC, (the abbreviation of Θεῦς,} inviting them to doit; and if this was become the orthodox authentick reading, to fet right the text in Chryfoftom, Cyril, ( 103 ) Cyril, Theodoret,. and wherever elfe they found “it (in their opinion) corrupted by hereticks. | And the man, that firft began thus to alter the facred text, was Macedonius, the Patriarch of Conftantinople, in the beginning of the fixth Century. For the Emperor Anaftafius banifhed 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 the Council by reafon of its decreeing, by the influence of the Bifhop of Rome's letter againft Eutyches, that Chrift fubfifted not only Ex duabus uaturis, which Eutyches allowed; but alfo, In dua- bus maturis, which language was new to the Greeks; and by a great part of the Church taken for Neftorianifm. For they underftood, that-as the Body and Sou/ made the Nature of Man; fo God and Man made the Nature of Chri/?, affigning the Nature to the Perfon of Chrift, as wellas to all other things, and not confidering, that in all com- pounds the feveral parts have alfo their fe- veral Natures. : H 4 Hence ( 104 ) Hence each party endeavoured to render the other fufpected of herefy; as if they, that were for the Council, fecretly favoured the Neftorians ; and they that were againft it, the Eutychians. For one party, in main- taining two diftinét Natures in Chrift, were thought to deny the Nature of one Perfon with Neftorius ; and the other party, in op- pofing two diftin& Natures in him, were thought to deny the truth of one of the Natures, with Eutyches. Both parties, there- fore, to clear themfelves of thefe imputa- tions, anathematifed both thofe herefies ; and therefore, whilft they thus differed in their modes of fpeaking, they agreed in the fenfe, as Evagrius well obferves. | But the Bifhops of Rome and Alexandria, being engaged againft one another, and for a long time diftracting the Eaft by thefe difputes: At length, the Emperor Zeno, to - quiet his empire, and perhaps to fecure it from the encroachment of the Bifhop of Rome, who, by a verbal conteft, * afpired to the name and authority of univerfal Bithop, fent about an Henoticum, or pacificatory de- * Vide Baronium, Anno 451. Sect. 132» I5 Ὁ cree, ( 105 ) cree, wherein he anathematifed both Nefto- rius and Eutyches with their followers on the one hand, and abrogated the Pope’s letter, and the Council on the other: And his fuc- ceffor Anaftafius, for the fame end, laboured for to have this decree figned by all the Bifhops. And Macedonius at firft fubícribed it; but afterwards heading thofe, who ftood up for the Council * was, for his corrupting the Scriptures in favour of his opinion; and fuch other things, as were laid to his charge, depofed and banifhed 4, Anno Chrifti 512. But his own party (which at length pre- valed) defended him, as if opprefled by calumnies ; and fo received that reading for genuine, which he had put about among them. For how ready are all parties to re- ceive what they reckon on their fide, Je- rome well knew, when he recommended the teftimony of “ the Three in Heaven” * Evagrius, Lib. iii. Cap. xxi. 44. Theodorus Le&or, Lib, ii. and Marcellini Cronicon. + Flavian was banifhed in the year of Antioch 561; as Evagrius notes; and Macedonius was banifhed the fame year, or the year before. by ( 106 ) by its ufefulnefs ; and we have à notable in- ftance of it, in the laft age; When the Churches both Eaftern and Weftern receiv- ed this teftimony in. à moment, into their Greek Teftaments, and fti continue with - great zeal and paíhon to defend it for the ancient reading againft the authority of all the Greek Manufcripts. But now 1 have told you the oficial of the corruption, I muft tell you my authors and he is Liberatus, Arch-deácon of the Church of Carthage, who lived in that very age. For in his Breviary, which he wrote in the year 5 35, oF foon after, and collected (as he faith in his preface) out of Greek re- cords. he delivers it in thefe words. | -* Hoe © * tempore Macedonius Conftantinopolitanus ** Epifcopus ab Imperatere Anaftafio dicitur d expulfus, tanquam evangelia falfaret; εἰ ἐς maxime illud Apoftoli di&um. Qua ap- “ paruit in carne, jufificatum in Spiritu. * Hunc enim mutaffe, ubi habet. Quz ... .- € hoe δ ον baa monofyllabum Graecum, € ]iterá mutatá in ,. , V ΕΓΒ GE EDMIE Cee ge ide lote NE CES MEE apparuit * per carnem. Tanquam Neftorianus ergo e expellitur | ( 107 ) * expellitur per feverum Monachum". ὃ The Gteek Letters here omitted are in the fecond edition; and in thofe of the Councils thus inferted:: “ Ubi habet ὅσ, hoc « eft, gai; monofyllabum Graecum, litera « mutatà o in e vertiffe, et fecifle, ws; id « eft; ut effet, Deus apparuit per carnem". But this interpolation was furely made by conjecture, For if Θεοὺς was in thefacred text, before the corruption; then ὃς ΟΥ̓ ὃ Was ποῖ ἴῃ, and fo could not be changed into o5: But if Θεὸς was not in, it could not be brought in by thischange. ‘The interpolation there- fore is inconfiftent and fpurious, and.feems to have been occafioned by ítraining to make out Neftorianifm here, the Scribes for thatend, ¥ referring the words, uf e/fet, αὐτο νιν 2 eo eee (08 Vide Baronii Annal. sro. Se&. 9. 4 Noa bene, In Hincmari opufculis, cap. 18. cap. 22. the words, ut effet, are in like manner referred to the facred text; and fome body, to make out the fenfe, has in their ftead added, wt appareret,to the words of TAberatus; and written, ut appareret, ut effet Deus, Ac. Butthe words, wt appareret, not being in Libe- ratus muft be ftruck out, and fupplied by fetting the comma after, zt effet, to part thefe words from the fa~ cred text. to ( 108 ) to the facred text; and then the interpolator writing ὡς for wf. Whereas, they fhould have referred, ut effet, tothe words of Libe- ratus, thus diftinguifhed from the facred text. ** Id eft, ut eflet, Deus apparuit per * carnem. I had rather, therefore, wave the con- jecture of this interpolator, and fill up the Lacunz by the authority. of an ancient author, Hincmarus, who above eight hun- dred years ago * related the fact out of Liberatus, after this manner. ““ Quidam * nimirum ipfas feripturas verbis inlicitis * jmpofturaverunt; ficat — Macedonius * Conftantinopolitanus Epifcopus, qui ab * Anaftafio Imperatore, ideo à civitate ex- ** pulfus Jegitur, quoniam falfavit evangelia; ** et illum Apoftoli locum, Quod apparuzt in " carne, jufificatum cfl in Spiritus per cog- ** nationem Graecarum literarum O et © hoc * modo mutando falfavit. Ubi enim ha- * buit, Qu7, hoc eft OC, monofyllabum * Graecum, litera mutata O in ©, vertit, * et fecit OC, id eft, ut effet, Deusappa- * puit per carnem, quápropter tanquam A — * Hincmari opufcul. Artic, xxxiii, cap. 18. * Neftorianus ( 109 ) « Neftorianus fuit expulfus .------- He was banifhed therefore for changing the ancient reading (which. was not OC, as thefe au- thors have it by, miftake ; but 2) into OC. But whereas, he is reprefented a Neftorian, for doing this, the meaning is, that he was banifhed for corrupting the text in favour of the do&rine oftwo Natures in Chrift, which his enemies accounted Neftorianifm ; though it was not really fo. Neftorius held only a human Nature in Chrift ; and that God, the word, dwelt in this Nature ; as the Spirit in a holy man; and therefore. interpreted 3 ofthe human Nature. This do&rine Mace. donius anathematifed, and. maintained two "Natures in Chrift, and, for proving this, cor- rupted the text ; and made it Gop, who was of Macedonius, accounted Neftorianifm in other language ; and in this refpect the Hiftorian faith, that they banifhed him, as a Neftorian for corrupting the text; though - he was not really of the opinion. But whilft they tell us, that he was ba- nifhed, as a Neftorian for this, without ex- plaining what is here meant by a Neftorian ; if ( 110 ) it looks like a trickifh way of fpeaking, ufed by his friends to ridicule the proceedings againft him, as inconfiftent; perhaps to in- vert the crime of falfation ; as if a Neftorian would rather change ΘΟ into O. For they, that read hiftory with judgment, will too often meet with fuch: trickifh re- ports; and even in the.very ftory of Mace- donius, L meet with fome other reports of the fame kind. For Macedonius, having in his keeping the original acts of the Council of Chalcedon, figned by that Emperor; un- der whom it was called ;. and refufing to de- liver up this book to the Emperor Anaftafius, fome, to make this Emperor perjured, dií- torted the ftory, as if at his coming to the crown, he had promifed under his:hand and oath, that he.would not a& againft the Coun-- cil of Chalcedon, and 1:refented: his fub- fcribed promife to be the sook, which Ma- cedonius refufed to delive: back to him. 'Vacedonius had got his bifhoprick by be- ing againft the Council of Chalcedon, and hed fubfcriosi the dienoticum* ofothe Em- * Vide Annotaticnes Valefii in Evagrii, 8c. Lib. iii. Capx. 31. | peror | = (iar) peror Zeno; in which that Council was ana-’ thematifed ; and this being. objected» againft’ him, ‘his friends, to ftifle the accufation,’ make a contrary {tory of the Emperor, «as if, when he came to the crown, he had done as much as. that in behalf of the Council... .— - Another report was +, ** That the'people «€ of Alexandria, and of all Egypt, greatand ** (mall; bond and.free,:priefts and monks, «excepting only ftrangers, became. about « this: time poflefíed with evil fpirits, and * being deprived of human fpeech, barked: * day: and night, like dogs; fo that they: ** were afterwards bound with iron chains, ἐξ apd. drawn to the.Church, that they might “ recover their health.’ For they all.eat up * their hands and arms. And then an Angel- «appeared (to fome of the, people,’ faying, « thàt;this happened το them, becaufe they * anathematifed the Council of Chalcedon, ** and threatned; that they fhould: do fo no cc more. f . Again, we are told in hiftory, * * That « the adverfaries of Macedonius produced + Victor Tununenfis in Chronico. 3 Evagrius, Lib. iii. Cap. 32. ** certain ( 112} * certain boys in judgment, to accufe beth ** him, and themfelves of fodomy , but that ** when they found his genitals were cut off, ** they betook themfelves to other arts for the. * depofing of him". Now, if you can be- lieve, that a eunuch had the beard and voice: of another man ; and that in a folemn Coun- cil, the great Patriarch of the Eaft was thus accufed, and thus acquitted, and yet after all depofed ; you muft acknowledge, that there were many Bifhops among the Greeks, who would not ftick at, as ill and fhamelefs: things, as corrupting the Scriptures. But if’ all this be a fham, invented to difcredit the: Council ; the need of fuch fhams adds credit to their proceedings in condemning him for’ a falfary. : This Council (if I miftake not) fat frit at Conftantinople, being that Council, which’ Theodorus calls, ** a company of mercenary ** wretches”: and Nicephorus; ** a conven- ** tion of hereticks, affembled againft Mace- * donius". | Upon their adding to the * ** thrice holy" the words, ** who art cruci- * Theodor. Lib.ii.—— Nicephor. Lib. xvi. Cap. 26. —— Evagri. Lib. iii. Cap. 44. ** fied (una - ** fied for us”; the people fell into a tumult ; and afterwards, when Macedonius came to be accufed, they fell into a greater tumult, crying out, ** The time of perfecution is at * hand. Let no man defert the F ather", meaning Macedonius. | τς Tn this tumult (which was faid to be ftir- red up by theClergy of Conftantinople) many parts of the city were burnt, and the Nobles and Emperor brought into the greateft dan- ger; infomuch, that the Emperor was forced to proffer the refignation of his empire, be- fore he could quiet the multitude. Then feeing, that if Macedonius were judged, the people would defend him, he caufed him to be carried by force in the night to Chalce- don; and thence into banifhment, as The. odorus writes. Whence I gather, that the Council removed alfo to Chalcedon, to avoid the tumult, and finith their proceedings theres 77 _ For the ftory of his being accufed in judg- ment by boys, Nicephorus places after this tumult; and all agree, that he was con- demned ; and the Monks of Paleftine, in an Epiftle, recorded by Evagrius, fay, tho I E Χεηρὰϑ \ \ X b ‘ ( 114 ἢ Xenaias and Diofcorus, joined with many Bifhops, banifhed him. When his con- demnation was fent him, figned. by the Emperor, he afked, whether they, that had condemned him, received the Council of Chalcedon; and when they, that brought him the fentence, denied it, he replied. ** If * Arians and Macedonians had fent me a * book of condemnation, could I receive “it”? So that, it feems, he ftood upon the illegality of the Council. The next day, one Timothy was made Bifhop of Conftantinople ; and he fent about the condemnation of Macedonius to all the abfent Bifhops to be fubfcribed *..--Whence, I think, it will be eafily granted, that he. was condemned, as a falfary, by the greateft part of the Eaftern empire; and by confe- quence, that the genuine reading was till then, by the Churches of that Empire, ac- counted $.----- For had not the publick read- ing then been ¢, there could have been no . colour for pretending, that he changed it X into OC. reves M: Theophanes, pag. 135. RT About ( 115) About fix years after, Anaftafius the Em- peror died; and his Succeffors Juftin and Juftinian fet up the authority of the Council of Chalcedon àgain, together with that of the Pope over the Eaftern Churches, as uni- verfal Bifhop; and from that time, the friends of Macedonius prevailing, it is pro- bable, that in oppofition to the hereticks, which condemned him ; and for promoting and eftablifhing the doctrine of two Natures in Chrift, they received and fpread abroad the reading ©C. But as for the authority of the Pope, ἐῤαέ fell again with Rome in the Gothick wars; and flept, till Phocas re- vived it again. | I told you of feveral fhams put about by the friends of Macedonius to difcredit the proceedings of the Council againft him, There is one, which notably confirms what has hitherto been faid, and makes it plain, that his friends received his corruptions, as genuine Scripture. For whereas Macedo- nius was banifhed for corrupting the New "Leftament, his friends retorted the crime upon the Council, as if they had taken upon them, under colour of purging the Gofpel I 2 fromm € rró ) from the corruptions of Macedonius to cor- rect in them, whatever they thought the Apoftles, as unfkilful men and idiots, had written amifs. 1023 For this I gather from an ironical report of this kind, put about in the Weft; and thus recorded- by Victor Tununenfis: «© Meflala. V. C. Confulibus, Conftantino- ** poli, jubente Anaftafio Imperatore, fancta " evangelia, tanquam ab idiotis compofita re- L prehenduntur, et emendantur", that is, ‘© In the Confulthip of Meffala the holy Gof- ** pels, by the command ‘of the Emperor «« Anaftafius, were cenfured and. corrected * at Conftantinople ; as if written by evan- * gelifts, that were idiots". Here Victor errs in the year.. For Meflala was Conful, Anno Chrifti 506; that is, fix years before the banifhment of Macedonius.». But Victor is very uncertain in dates of the years. For he places the banifhment of Macedonius in the Confulfhip of Arienus, Anno Chrifti 502; and the above-mentioned tumult about the “Trifagium, in the Confulfhip of Probus, Anno Chrifti 513; whereas all thefe things nee ened in the fame year. | For ( 117 ) . For it is plain by this chron cle, that the Scriptures were examined and corrected about this time by a Council at Conítanti- nople by the order of Anaftafius; and I meet with no other Council, to which this character can agree; befides that which de- pofed Macedonius. Now, that they fhould cenfure and correct the Gofpels, as if writ- ten by ideots, is too plainly ironical, to be truly hiftory ; and therefore it muft be an abufive report put about to difcredit the Council. Sothen the falfation was fet. on foot in the beginning of the. fifth Century, and is .now of about twelve hundred years ftand- ing; and therefore, fince it lay but in a let- ter ; and fo was more eafily {pread abroad in the Greek Manuícripts, then the teftimony of * the Three in Heaven”, in the Latin ones, we need not wonder, if the old read- ing be fcarce to be:met with, in any Greek Manufcripts, now extant; and yet it is in fome. | For though Beza tells us, that all the Greek Manufcripts.read Θεὸς; yet, I mutt tell Beza’s readers, that all his Manufcripts read é. For he had no other Manufcripts on ( 118 ) en the Epiftles, befides the Claromontan ; and in this Manufcript, as Morinus by ocu- lar infpection has fince informed us, . the ancient reading was 2, * but yet, in another hand, and with other ink, the letter © has been written out of the line; and the letter O (omicron) thickened to make aC (a figma) appears: which inftance fhews fufficiently; by whom the ancient reading has been changed. | Valefius alfo reads σ΄ in one of the Spanith Manuícripts 7 ; and fo did the authors of the * «t Alia manu, et atramento extra linez feriem ad- ** dita eft litera O, et ambesá paululum O, ut appareret * fima, Sed przpoftera emendatio facile confpicitur", Hac Marinus in exercitationibus Biblicis, Lib. i. Exercitat. i. tap. 4.-----Àt Beza nobis aliquod invidit, ut ex ejus epiftola adAcádemiam Cantabrigienfem à W altono editam Iiquet, ubi variantes aliquas lectiones celandas effe ad- monet. + Thefe Spanifh Manufcripts, that have been feveral times mentioned in thefe letters, and which Sir Isaac (as well as many others) anprenenided to be Greek ones, callated by Valefius, were really Latin ones. The Marquefs collated no other; but then he tranflated the various readings into Greek, which impofed upon many of the learned ; but it is much to be wondered, that it fhould efcape the penetration ‘of this great man. Oxford ( 119 ) Oxford edition of the New Teftament, ds Chrifti, 1675, read it in the Manufcript of Lincoln College Library, which is the oldeft of the Oxford ΣΝ de then, there are fome of the ancient Greek Manufcripts, which read ? ; but I do not hear of any Latin ones, either ancient or modern, which read Oz. à; And befides, to read-©2z3s makes the fenfe obfcure and difhcult, For how could it properly be faid, * that God was jtiftified by .. © the Spirit" ? But to réad 0, and Interpreti of Chrift, as the ancient Chriftians did; without reftraining it to his divinity, makes the fenfe very eafy. For the promifed and long expected Meffias, the hope of Ifrael, is to us, “the great Miftery of Godlinefs”. And this miftery was at length manifefted to the Jews from the time of his Baptifm, and juftified to be the perfon, whom they expected. 4 I have now given you an account of the corruption of * * * ADVER- By R.GRosA DAs Page 71, Line g. For Paul's, read "fobn's. P. 77, 1l. 4. for Religin, read Religion. ADVERTISEMENT CLR.” TL Ἢ * ^E HE MawuvscniPT is defective in the « . end of the Seconp LrrTTER; neither ** can it beabfolutely determined, how much “of it has been /5ff. However, it is moft ** probable, that very little of it is wantin gi ** and though the Reader will be forry to find ** himfelf deprived even of a few lines, that ** have dropt frorn the pen of fo great a Man, ‘he cannot have fuftained the lofs of any “matter, which will at all affe& the point * in debate, Sir Isaac having given his | ** proofs, ( 122.) * proofs, that the prefent reading of the * GREEK ManoscriptTs in general, and of ** all our printed books, could not be the ** ancient and true one, ἴῃ this paffage, 1 277. * i1 16. and afterwards pointed out the ** caufe of this corruption of the Text; as εἰ w ell as the time when, and the perfon by * whom, it was fo corrupted ; and, laftly, ** having fhewn, that the change made in * it has rendered the fenfe of the paflage ** obfcure, difficult and hardly proper, which _ * was otherwife eafy and clear; from thefe ** confiderations, it is more than probable; * that the Author was concluding with an ** application fomewhat fimilar to that we ** find at the end of the FoRMER LETTER, ** efpecially fince he has begun the broken * paragraph at theend, with a general re- ** capitulation of what he had done. * The Reader is to be informed, that the * Manuscript of thefe Two LETTERS 1$ ** ftill preferved in the Library of the Rr- * MONSTRANTS in Holland. It was lodged “there by Mr. Le Crexc, and it was fent * to him by the famous Mr. Locke, and is ἐς adtually in the hand-writing of this Gen- «ς tleman. ( 123 ) * tleman. And notwithftanding the Letters ** have the acknowledged defects, the Ep1- © yor thought it a pity, that the world * fhould be longer deprived of thefe 'T'wo * Pieces, as they now.are, fince they cannot * be obtained more perfect, all other copies see of them being either loft or deftroyed.” Bien Me tL ais De On Friday, April the stb 1754, will be publ feed, The ADVENTURER Complete, in FOUR VOLUME S, Duodecime. Printed for J. Payne, at Pope’s-Head, in Pater-nofter-Row. ὁ. Where may be had, | I. The ApvENTuRER, in 2 Vols. Folio, with Contents and Tranflations. Alfo, any odd Numbers of the Folio Edition. | IL. The Fifth and Sixth Volumes of The RAMBLER, in Duodecimo. With Tables of Contents, and a Tranflation of the Mottos and Quotations for all the Six Volumes. III. The RAMBrER complete, in Two Volumes Folio, with Contents and 'lrantla- tions, Price only One Pound in Boards. IV. A Letter from the Lord Archbifhop of Sexs, to Monfieur ******* Counfellor in the Parliament of Paris. In Anfwer to the Parlaments Arret, againft the Clergy of France, in refpe& to the Certificates of Con- feffion, and the Bull Unigenitus. 'Tranflated - from the Original French, fupprefled by the Parliament. Price 64. V. A Letter to the Archbifhop of Sens, in Anfwer to his Lordfhip's Letter to’ Mon- fieur ******* 9 Counfellor in the Parliament of Paris. To which is added, a Copy of the Proceedings of the Parliament of Paris, taken from its Regifters. Price 15. IN. B. Thefe Two Letters contain a full - Account of the prefent Difpute between the Clergy and Parliament of France. ‘ er a by ῃ ἵν ᾧ J CN nie DAD NA 5 a Sa o eun M / k M ^ "er = "» - ^ eur cy q* at UE NE