the fame defect in a certain old Latin Manufcript which he highly valued, to which he join'd what he had obferv'd concerning S. Cyril principally, that he had not quoted this paffage upon occafions, where it would have been very much to his purpose. All this held his mind for fome time in doubt betwixt these and the contrary reasons he had for believing the Text genuine. Thus when Ley and Stunica had wrote against him upon his leaving it out of his two Greek Editions, he gives no other anfwer, but that he follow'd his Manufcripts closely, and that if they would fhew him one which had the paffage, he would ftreight put out another Edition, in which it should be inferted. Upon this he meets with a Manufcript in England where he finds this paffage, and without hesitation or offering the leaft violence to himself, he gives it a place in his Edition. By this means he fatisfies his confcience, and filences his calumniators, who fpread abroad against him fcandalous reports, as if he had meant to favour Arianifm by fuppreffing fo plain a Text. Mr. Emlyn fhould have better obferv'd the frank and open conduct of Erafmus in this whole affair, and have thus fhewn fomewhat more regard to the judgment he had pass'd himself upon the Codex Britannicus. He had spoke of it as of an imaginary Manufcript, forg'd and fuppofititious; now how can this be reconcil'd with what he has juft faid, that Erafmus had produc'd it against his own opinion, for fear of calumny? But what calumny? That he did not infert in a new Edition a paffage which he found in a Manuscript that no body befides himself had ever feen? Certainly Mr. Emlyn did not think of the matter. The Manufcript which Erafmus fpoke of really exifted, and the Text of St. John was in this Manufcript; to attempt to form doubts in fo clear a cafe is to feek for darkness in broad day,

CHAP.

W

CHAP. IV.

Of Robert Stephens's Manufcripts.

E have seen in the foregoing Chapter the extreme perplexity in which Mr. Simon and Mr. Emlyn are found with reference to the Manufcripts of Complutum and Erafmus; they could not extricate themselves but by denying that the paffage of St. John was in any of these Manufcripts. The difficulty is confiderably augmented by the Manufcripts of Robert Stephens: but here again 'tis the fame refuge; they have no other; they must deny that the Text of St. John was in thefe Manuscripts: but yet Robert Stephens faw it there, and took it thence to place it in his Editions. The Editions speak the paffage to be there! What have they to fay to all this? They must rack their brains, and amafs a heap of trifles, which ferve to no other purpose than to perplex the matter; I fhall dispatch 'em in this Treatise, and keep close to what is call'd the trunk of the tree, and leave Mr. Emlyn to catch at the branches.

To this end, I fhall fay but two words upon the number of Manuscript Copies in general, which Robert Stephens had. They pretend that he had but fifteen of this kind, and he fays in his Preface that he had fixteen. I compar'd, fays he, very exactly my Edition of the New Teftament with fixteen very old written Copies: the Complutenfian Copy which he fpeaks of afterward was a printed Book, which confequently cannot be comprehended in the number of fixteen, which Stephens does not call by the general name of Manufcripts, but by the particular name of written Copies; cum vetuftiffimis Jedecim SCRIPTIS.

Beza

Beza had in his hands the Manufcripts of his great friend Robert Stephens, when he went upon the Verfion and Notes of the New Teftament, and he says in the Preface to his Editions of 1582 and 1589. that he had feventeen Copies of Robert Stephens; because he reckon'd in this number the Complutenfian Copy which Stephens had made use of.

In the year 1598. he put out his last Edition of the fame Book, and fetting down as in the foregoing, the Copies he had in hand, he puts down nineteen, namely, feventeen of Stephens's, and two others: one was the old Manufcript he had from Lyons, which contain'd the Gospels and the Acts, which he prefented to the University of Cambridge, where it now is; and the other, which contain'd the Epiftles of St. Paul, was that which he call'd the Copy of Clermont, which is at present in the French King's Library.

Mr. Emlyn has gone fo far as to deny that Beza faw and read these Manufcripts, and by a turn of imagination altogether new, has faid that what Beza has fo oft fet down in his Annotations, fpeaking of Robert Stephens's Manufcripts, vidimus, legimus, in Roberti noftri Codicibus invenimus, &c. meant no more, than that he had feen in Robert Stephens Edition in 1550. the Greek numeral Letters, by which that learned Man had express'd each of his Manufcripts in the margin of that Edition. He has perceiv'd by my answer that he had made his Readers fmile, who could not avoid being merry upon the occafion; he has not return'd to it again, and has handfomly given up that ingenious thought.

Beza however has not been abfolutely discharg'd for this. Mr. Emlyn no longer difputes his having had these Manuscripts in his hands, fince Beza fays it, and Robert Stephens has faid it also in the Adver8 tisement

tisement put at the end of Beza's Edition of the New Teftament in 1556. But he accufes him of not having clearly enough exprefs'd himself in what he has faid of these Manuscripts upon the Text of the witneffes in heaven; as if he had there intended artifice, and had left with defign fome obfcurity in the Notes, which particularly requir'd, by reafon of the nicety and importance of the fubject, that he should not leave there the leaft fhadow of obfcurity. 'Tis with this Mr. Emlyn there finds fault, and by this he thinks to take from us the teftimony of this venerable divine and learned Critick, as if Beza had not actually found this excellent paffage of St. John's Epiftle in Stephens's Manufcripts.

To know whether this reproach is well grounded, we need but copy here the two annotations which Beza has made upon this Text: This paffage, fays he, There are three in heaven, &c. clearly explains what the Apoftle had faid of fix witneffes, three in heaven, and three in earth; yet neither the Syriac Tranflator, nor the old Latin, nor Gregory Nazianzen, nor Athanafius, nor Didymus, nor Chryfoftom, nor Hilary, nor Augustin, nor Bede read it; i. e. they have not quoted it; but St. Jerom read it, and Erafmus found it in a Manufcript of England, 'tis alfo in the Complutenfian Edition, and in fome ancient Manufcripts of Robert Stephens. What is there wanting to this? Why, what is wanting, fays Mr. Emlyn, is that Beza fhould have exprefs'd the Manufcripts of Stephens, in which he fays this paffage was, and not fay in general and confusedly 'tis in fome Manufcripts of Stephens. 'Tis then the word fome which feems to him to contain an obfcurity and not to be plac'd there without defign. Could I expect pardon from a discreet and understanding Reader, if he faw me running after fo pitiful a trifle, and amufing my felf with col

lecting

lecting from this very work of Beza abundance of inftances of this very fort of annotations, in plerif que, or in nonnullis exemplaribus, &c? I endeavour to make a more prudent use of my Readers time and

attention.

Well, fay they, but he has obferv'd in the fol lowing annotation, upon these words of the fame verse, cv Tu sev in heaven, in how many Copies they were wanting; and why has he not done the fame in the preceding Note? Why? Because it was of no great importance to tell us how many Manufcripts among Stephens's had this Text. I with for Mr. Emlyn's fake he had done it; but will any one venture to affirm after all this, that a Critick fo hard to be fatisfy'd as he, would not yet find fomething to fay? We must not, fays St. Athanafius, expect from an Author that he fhould express himfelf as we would, or as we think we should; 'tis enough that what he fays may be eafily underftood. This rule flows from good fenfe; and there's no Author, either ancient or modern, but what ftands in need of the fame juftice.

Let us continue to make the extract of Beza's Notes; coming to these words of the Text & TW šegvậ in heaven, he says, these words are wanting in feven ancient Manufcripts: and these seven are those which Robert Stephens had mark'd in the margin by their numeral Letters. I had faid, that this diftinction of feven Manufcripts which wanted these words from thofe which Beza, faying of this verse that it was in fome, had juft mention'd, is an evident proof, firft, that Stephens had more than seven Manufcripts of St. John's Epiftle; and fecondly, that he muft neceffarily have had feveral, two only, if they will, in which the verfe was entire; fince Stephens and Beza reftrain'd those, in which the words Tev were wanting, to feven. A reasoning so clear and natural ought not to be fub

jec