ject to difpute; yet Mr. Emlyn has not fail'd to call it in queftion. He denies the Manufcripts Beza fpeaks of in these two annotations to be different; and the reafon he gives is drawn from the most refin'd criticism. If these feven Manufcripts, fays he, were not the fame with thofe of which Beza, (speaking of the verse, that it was read in St. Jerom, in Erafmus, and in the Complutenfian) faid that it was also read in nonnullis Stephani," in fome of Stephens's; " he should have faid in the following Note, deeft in feptem aliis vetuftis Codicibus, 'tis wanting in feven OTHERS; not having then faid feven others, but only feven this, fays he, does not diftinguish these Manufcripts from the reft, but leaves room to judge that they are the fame. What pity 'tis, I will not fay to answer these things, the meaneft Grammarian will do it for me, but that I cannot avoid transcribing 'em from Mr. Emlyn's writings into mine!

Robert Stephens, as I have elsewhere observ'd, had already made two Greek Editions of the New Teftament before that of 1550. upon which Beza made his annotations. This laft was in every refpect like the two former, and differ'd from them only in the largenefs of the characters, and the form of the volume; this being in folio, with large margins, and the two former in 16°, and confequently with very small margins. The Manufcripts of the last of these three Editions were the fame as of the firft and fecond; Stephens fays it in exprefs terms, cum iifdem contulimus, &c. Now the verse of the witneffes in heaven was inferted entire in the two former. This learned man acted in this according to what prudence and the rules of ftrict Criticilm requir'd, and what all prudent and able Editors have done in like cafes; which is to have regarded the two words which were wanting in feven Manuscripts as a mere omiffion, becaufe he N

found

Bound 'em in the reft, in the Complutenfian, in Erafmus, and in the Latin Verfions; and because alfo the nature of the oppofition which is feen in the words of the following verfe, v ry, in earth, with thefe foregoing, & Tev, in heaven, evidently enough fhew that the words in heaven muft be join'd with the witneffes which are nam'd in the 7th verfe. If Stephens had only kept to these two Editions, and had not with the exactness of an honeft man and a learned Critick put out this third, in which, as I may fay, he gives an exact account of the Manuscripts from which he had made his two former; what would they have faid, who upon occafion of this great exactnefs in fetting down in the margin the various readings he had found among all his Manufcripts pretend that this Text was not in any? If the cafe be fo, we cannot avoid looking upon Stephens as an egregious Impoftor for having given us as a Text of the Apoftle St. John, an entire verfe forg'd by himself, or others like him: Mr. Emlyn finds that I am too fevere in drawing confequences which reflect upon the honour of Stephens in making him pafs for a profigate forger of fuppofititious paffages; but would one imagine whence this indulgence fhould proceed?

he fanfy'd that I fpoke of a pretended negligence of this learned Printer in correcting an error of the prefs, with regard to the obelus which ends at the word egr, whereas, fays he, it fhould not have ended till the middle of the 8th verfe, and after the words, ¿v Tỹ y, in earth. What a pleafant notion was this? Either Robert Stephens, faid I, had the Manufcripts in which the Text of St. John was found, which he inferted into four Editions, one after another, or he had not: If he had, all's over, and our caufe is gain'd: If he had not,

! Reply pag. 29.

* Exam, pag. 148, 149.

Stephens

Stephens was an impoftor, an infamous fellow, who deferv'd the utmost contempt: Mr. Emlyn will place better at another time his foft fpeeches, and his regard for the memory of Stephens.

I had spoke in advantagious terms of the fincerity and exactnefs of this learned man, in giving nothing a place in his Edition of the facred Scripture, which was not in the Manufcripts: and I had confirm'd this by the teftimony of Beza, and Hentenius, Profeffor in Divinity at Louvain; but for my part," fays Mr. Emlyn, I do not rely fo much as Mr. Martin, upon the integrity and exactness of Stephens. And why not? Because, fays he, Dr. Mill has obferv'd, that Stephens had omitted above feven hundred various readings betwixt his Edition and that of Complutum. Is it then to want either integrity or exactness not to fill an Edition with all the various readings that are found in the Manufcripts? Truly, Stephens would have made a fine work of it, if he had fill'd his margin with a thousand variations of no fignificancy: he chofe, like a skilful man as he was, thofe which appear'd to him the most confiderable.

These fort of Criticifms concerning the nature of the variations which are met with in the ancient Manuscripts, have nothing common with the addition of a Text which was not in any; for the queftion here is only concerning that. I come back then to this, that if Stephens did not find in his ancient Manufcripts the paffage which speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, he was guilty of forgery, for having inferted it in his Editions, compar'd, as he fays, with his Manufcripts. France, which affuredly did not love him, tho' they could not but efteem him, receiv'd his first Editions, made at Paris, with the applaufes they

deferv'd and it was not, 'till fince a party has been form'd as by concert against the genuineness of the paffage of St. John, that an attempt has been made to fapp the foundation of thefe Editions, by attacking the Manufcripts from which they were made. Let us now pass to the obelus which in the third Edition was fet before the words c T segvw, and which has given occafion to a malicious Criticifm against this paffage.

CHAP. V.

Of the obelus plac'd in the middle of the 7th Verfe, There are three in heaven, &c. of the Manufcripts mention'd by the Divines of Louvain, and of that which F. Amelotte fays he faw at Rome.

WE

E have feen that among the Manuscripts of Robert Stephens there were found seven, in which the paffage of St. John was not entire, for they wanted these words v Tegev, i. e. in beaven: but as notwithstanding this he did infert 'em in his Edition, for the reafons I'have given, he mark'd them with two fmall points, which he fet at the upper end of the line, one before the word

, and the other after ev, which thus form'd a kind of parenthesis nam'd an obelus, as if one fhould, fay fomewhat pointed, or sharp. This obelus, placed as it is, and ending with the word sevg fhews that all the reft of the Verfe was in the fame Manuscripts, but this not fuiting with those who will have the Text to be fuppofititious, they pretend that the end of this obelus is mifplac'd, by an error of the press, and that it ought to be put

after

after these words of the following Verfe, cv Ty in earth. 'Tis pretended that the Divines of Louvain pafs'd the fame judgment upon the mifplacing this obelus 150 years ago: but they have only faid that the Manufcripts of Stephens had the Text of the 7th Verfe entire, and fo as 'tis printed, unless the obelus be placed wrong: I would my felf fay as much, tho' I maintain that it is in its true place. As it is a point of mere Criticism, which requires a nice application and enquiry, no one muft be furpriz'd that Dr. Mill, who had his mind full of learning, and who could not but be very much wearied with the large Work of the Edition of the New Teftament he has left us, has not allow'd all the time and pains neceffary to clear up this matter; one man cannot do every thing. Where the Doctor fail'd in attention, I have endeavour'd to fupply with mine; it may be seen thro' the whole of what I have faid in the xth Chapter of my Differtation, where I have very largely treated of this matter, and in the xiiith Chapter of the Examination of Mr. Emlyn's Answer, that there is no reason to doubt but the obelus must be in the place where 'tis put in the Edition without carrying it any farther.

Mr. Emlyn has not touch'd upon the reasons I have given, and he had no other way to take, than by calling out for the Manufcripts of Robert Stephens; to demand what is become of 'em; let 'em produce 'em; that they cannot be loft; and fuch other matters which fhew a man reduc'd to the laft extremity.

Without tarrying to fhew that it belongs neither to me nor any other to give an account what is become of old Manufcripts for upwards of 150 years, which may fo eafily have had the fate of fo many others no lefs confiderable, which are loft, I would beg of Mr. Emlyn to tell us whither this

Reply pag. 27.

objection