What judgment must be pass'd upon the Latin Manufcripts of the Vulgate of St. Jerom, which have not the Text of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. W fcripts of the Bible which had pafs'd under ERE we fo happy as to have the Manu St. Jerom's eyes, or only the Manufcripts which had been made very near the time that ancient Clergyman was upon his revife, we might clear up very many paflages, which have given place for several Criticisms. We fhould fee whether the paffage they dispute with us was originally in that Verfion. But all the Manufcripts which are preferv'd fall far fhort of the time when it was made, the most ancient scarce come within four or five hundred years of it; fince F. le Long reckons for the most ancient that of Theodulphus, made in the year 790. and confequently more modern by half a Century than the quotation of Ambrofe Ansbert. But fuppose they should find, if they will, fome other yet more ancient, let it be a thousand years old, and the Text of St. John's Epistle not read in it; will this be any more than an omiffion, a fault of the tranfcriber, like many others of the fame nature? The more ancient this fhall have been, the more it may have been copied by others fince, in which the fame fault fhall have efcap'd thro' the inadver tency of the tranfcribers: as we have often seen the faults of an impreffion to pafs from one edition to another, in the very printing of the facred Books, where the revifers and correctors of the prefs ought to use all poffible care to prevent fuch I 2 mistakes. mistakes. The helps of Correctors, which are fix'd in every Printing-houfe, being wanting to the generality of tranfcribers, the faults which efcap'd their pen remain'd in their Manufcripts; this Manufcript came into the hands of the buyer, who fometimes was a man lefs careful in reading, than in forming a Library for pomp and fhew: nothing is more frequent in the world than this, and we must not imagine that it was ever otherwife. When fuch a Manufcript met with a buyer who us'd it, and read it for devotion, he might either not perceive the omiffion, or leave it there without giving himself the trouble to correct it; either because he could not write, (for that art was not always fo common as it is in our days;) or if he could, thro' negligence in correcting it; or because of an overcurious nicenefs he was afraid of fpoiling the beauty of his Book. There are at prefent men of all thefe Characters, the negligent, the indolent, and the affectedly neat; and men who liv'd a thousand years ago were form'd no o therwife than thofe who have come after 'em. The omiffions thus remaining in one Manuscript which has been preferv'd for many ages, of what weight can this Manufcript and others of the fame fort be in a matter which ows its firft original to the carelefsness of a transcriber, and which is preferv'd only by a like carelessnefs, or ignorance, or the laziness and negligence of the perfons into whofe hands it fhall have pafs'd fucceffively? It even happens, that when fuch an omiffion is grown old in a Manufcript, the ages which have pafs'd upon it without making any alteration in it, have gain'd it on the other hand a fort of venerable prefcription; fo that the older a Manufcript is, the more venerable it grows, even 'till the very faults of it fometimes hold the place of law and determination. " When When a transcriber looking over his copy happen'd to obferve fomething forgot, if he was a man who had the perfection of the Text of the facred Author more at heart, than the neatness or beauty of his Manufcript, he himself inferted the paffage he had omitted in the margin; and this is what Mr. Simon and others have obferv'd concerning the paffage of St. John, that not being in the very Body of the Epiftle, 'tis found written in the margin, by the fame hand, and with the fame ink as the reft. In other Manufcripts where this Text is not in the body of the Epiftle, fome of those who had poffefs'd this copy from that time, or a little after, having perceiv'd that the Text of the three wit neffes in heaven was wanting to it, had wrote it in the margin over against the place where it ought to have been. All these wife and pious precautions, as well of the transcribers of the facred Scripture, as of the buyers, or religious readers, are fo many condemnations brought against the other Manufcripts in which this paffage is found wanting; and are a certain proof that this defect must be look'd on but as a mere omiffion, and confequently as a matter, which is of no confideration against the authentickness of this Text. This reafoning, which is 'fo evident and natural, and lets us fee of how little moment it is with regard to the paffage we are upon, that it is not found in fome Manufcripts of feven or eight hundred years old, and which are very few; this reafoning, I fay, is confirm'd and render'd infuperable by the quotations, which I have produc❜d in the foregoing Chapter. The Authors of 'em were not mere tranfcribers, tranfcribers unknown, who got their bread by writing, as Printers do now-a-days; they are men of letters, and for the most part of a venerable venerable character in the Church, learned Divines who wrote upon religious Subjects, who had the Bible at hand, and who, in the fame age, (from which they offer us fome Manuscripts unknown otherwise than from their fingle quality of Manufcripts in which this paffage of St. John is not found,) come to us by their Works, each with his Bible, and upon opening 'em lay before our Eyes in the Epistle of St. John the Text they have quoted. 'Tis then with regard to this Text quite as much, as if we had their very Copy, as it is with regard to all the other paffages, which are fet down in their quotations. I fee there five of the moft ancient Manuscripts they have, I know from what hand they come to me; thofe from whom I receive 'em affure me by the use they have made of the paffage in St. John's Epiftle, that it really belongs to the Epistle of that Apoftle. Have they the fame affurance of any Manufcripts in which this paffage is not feen; and is there the leaft comparifon to be made betwixt the one and the other? They will be confirm'd in this thought, if, placing on one fide the few Manufcripts in which this Text is wanting with the innumerable multitude of those which have it, (fince they are forc'd to own that within these feven or eight hundred. years 'tis generally found in the Manuscripts) they attend to the regard which was anciently paid to one and the other. If before the eighth Century there were fome Copies in which this paffage of St. John was wanting, they muft neceffarily have been but little known in publick; or if they were, they gave themselves no more trouble about 'em, than we do now about the faults of a printed Book, and even of the Bible; all that is done in this refpect is to avoid the fame faults in another Edition. And 'tis thus the Ancients were wont to act in what concerns the paffage of St. John; the fault or omiffion remain'd where it was, and they took care not to let it pass into other Copies. They went farther, when, at the clofe of the eighth Century, they made by order of Charles the Great that excellent revife of the Copies of the New Testament, of which fo much has been faid. The learned men who were chofen to make a judgment of the Copies and the faults to be corrected, either met with none of these Manuscripts which wanted this paffage, (which would be a fign of their scarcenefs,) or if they had fome of 'em before their eyes, among the great number of others which were neceffary to their defign, they plac'd the omiffion of this Text among the faults that were to be corrected; otherwife, one cannot conceive why they should have plac'd it themselves in the Epiftle of St. John, as has been prov'd. Unless they had directly explain'd themfelves against the omiffion of this Text, they could not better make it known to be a fault of the transcribers, than by following themselves the quite oppofite Manufcripts, and inferting from them this forgotten Text. This was all that belong'd to their defign, and the nature of their work; critical remarks upon particular Texts, whether they were omitted in fome Copies, or were found faulty in fome of their expreffions, would have gone too far, and not have been neceffary for the use of the faithful, which is what Charles the Great had folely propofed: a good revife, and an exact and faithful correction : that was all. They acted no otherwife in the Correctorium of the Sorbonne, in the tenth Century. Always the Manuscripts in which the Text of the three witneffes in heaven was not, were rejected, as defective in this point; and the only ones in which it is found were follow'd in thefe Correctoria. If then they |