there fpecify'd, 'tis an infallible proof that he had feveral others in which the Text was entire.

Hentenius, Profeffor of Divinity at Louvain, printed in 1547. a very beautiful Latin Bible, and not finding in five Manufcripts these very words of the 7th Verfe in cœlo, which answer to the Greek v eg, which were wanting in feven Manuscripts of Stephens, Hentenius, I fay, places there an obelus with a reference to five Manufcripts. Now as it would be abfurd to infer that Hentenius had only these five Manufcripts of St. John's Epiftle, 'tis juft the fame to fay that Stephens had but feven Manufcripts of this Epiftle, under pretext that the obelus mentions but feven; fince on the contrary Hentenius taking notice but of five in which the words in cœlo were not read, he has fhewn by this very thing that they were read in the others: the cafe is the fame with regard to the seven Greek Manufcripts of Stephens, which had not the words ἐν τῷ ἐρανῷ.

The only thing they can object is to say that Stephens having befides thefe feven MSS. the Complutenfian Edition, in which the paffage of St. John's Epiftle was entire; he ought not to have put, as he has fo frequently done in other places, ἐν πᾶσι, or fimply . fince it was not wanting in all: but ought only to have mark'd thofe, in which it was wanting, which are these seven.

w.

This anfwer might take place, firft, if it was true that Stephens had taken the Text we are upon from the Complutenfian Edition: but nothing is more evidently falfe: I have fhewn it in my Differtation upon this paffage; and to repeat it here in two words, the Edition of Complutum has of τρεις, there words of Stephens και οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς: the Complutenfian fays, eis to ev eio, Robert Stephens, ev ic. Which makes a very great difference, In the

Το

O 2

8th

Το

8th Verfe the Complutenfian reads i Ts ys. Stephens cv Ty the laft clause of this Verfe, oi rges eis To v ei, is wanting in the Edition of Complutum, where the words are plac'd at the end of the 7 th Verfe; there is nothing like this in the Editions of Stephens, and thefe words are at the end of the 8th Verfe, as they ought to be agreeably to the other Greek Manufcripts and the Latin. Stephens cannot then have had that Edition in view.

་

Secondly, When upon putting an obelus, there remain'd but one or two Copies which had the words, that the obelus mark'd to be wanting in fome Manufcripts; it was his cuftom to fet in the margin war, or a. with the Greek word war, which fignifies except, to denote that these words were wanting in all, except fuch or fuch Copies: for instance, in St. John, Chap. vi. v. 45. he places an obelus over the word axiras, and in the margin T. WHEN TO 2. is to n. to exprefs, in all except the two Manufcripts y. & n. In St. Matthew, Ch. v. V. 33. wán, in the margin, a. av ß. i. e. in all, except the Manufcript. In Chap. xii. ỷ. 35. nagdias, in the margin, . 8 . in all except the Manufcript. In St. John, Chap. iii. y. 25. Isdaiav in the margin, 7. av 18 α. i. e. in all except the Copy a, which is the Complutenfian Edition: and it is this very Edition they would make to be an exception to the lift of the feven Manufcripts mark'd with an obelus in St. John's Epiftle, as if it was the only Copy which Stephens had befides those feven, and the only one in which the Text was. But Stephens has not put, as in other places wan rõ ag except the Complutenfian, and they have no right to make him fay what he has not faid, and what is withal very different from his common cuftom. All this fhews that if Stephens had only had these feven Manuscripts of St. John's Epistle, he would

not

not have flood to have nam'd 'em one after another, to let us understand that the obelus he had put in the Text refpected only these.

Beza, who had Stephens's Manufcripts, and who had made his annotations upon thefe very Manufcripts, leaves no room to doubt of the truth I have just demonstrated, fince fpeaking of the words ev Tev, over which we find the obelus, he fays they were wanting in feven Manufcripts, but with regard to the whole Verfe, for 'tis of this he treats in his Note, it was in fome of Stephens's Manufcripts, befides the Complutenfian Bible: Erafmus, fays he, read this Verfe in the Codex Britannicus; it is in the Complutenfian Edition; and we read it alfo in fome old Manufcripts of our dear friend Stephens.

What remains is only to fay two words upon the other Manufcripts mention'd in the title of this Chapter, those which are spoke of by the Divines of Louvain, and that which F. Amelotte fays he faw at Rome.

I had quoted in my Differtation upon this Text a confiderable paffage from the Divines of Louvain, who having printed a Latin Bible in the year 1574. fpeaking of the Greek Copies fay in their Preface, that befides that of the Complutum, the Codex Britannicus of Erafmus, and the Manufcripts of Robert Stephens, they had feen feveral others of the fame fort; that is to fay, in what concerns the paffage of St. John, for 'tis of this they were fpeaking. Mr. Emlyn had anfwer'd, that this muft only be understood of the Latin Editions. I fhew'd the impropriety of that anfwer; and he has ftopp'd there; thus leaving me by his conviction the Greek Manufcripts in which this paffage was, which the Divines of Louvain faid they had seen.

Next came the teftimony of Amelotte a Father of the Oratory, who fays in a Note upon the Text

of

of St. John, that he had feen it at Rome in a very ancient Greek Manufcript of the Vatican Library. Mr. Emlyn had borrow'd from Mr. Simon, (who in feveral refpects appears to have been no good friend to F. Amelotte) all that he had advanc'd to render his integrity doubtful. I have examin'd all his reafons, and confuted 'em. Mr. Emlyn, who had held himself fecure of his fact under the authority of Mr. Simon, yields to 'em; and F. Amelotte's integrity has remain'd fafe as to that matter; nothing that I have faid has been confuted: here again then is another very ancient Greek Manufcript in which the Text of the three witneffes in heaven is found, as in the Complutenfian, the Manufcript of Erafmus, thofe of Robert Stephens, and fome others which had fallen under the eyes of the Divines of Louvain: will they after this fay, that 'tis in no Manufcript?

CHAP. VI.

ག

A Defence of the Manufcripts of Robert Stephens against certain Manufcripts produced from the Library of the King of France, which are pretended to be the fame that Stephens used in his Editions.

TH

HE proof which all those who have wrote before me upon this fubject have drawn from the Editions of Robert Stephens, and which I have us'd after 'em, for the authentickness of the Text of the three witneffes in heaven, muft not be look'd on as a matter of fmall importance upon the occafion. This Text, 'tis true, is feveral other ways prov'd to be genuine, as is feen in this Treatife, and in the two others of which this is but the fequel;

quel, but yet to take from it the teftimony of Robert Stephens, or rather of the ancient Manuscripts from which he made his Greek Editions of the New Teftament, would be to deprive it of one of its principal fupports.

Those who have wrote against the authenticknefs of this Text have demanded where thefe Manufcripts of Stephens's are, that we may be fatisfy'd with our own eyes whether this paffage is in 'em or no. The Library of the King of France, which abounds in Manufcripts, and from whence Stephens had several, was the proper place to feek for 'em; but I have not yet feen any thing pofitive produced from thence. Mr. l'Abbé Roger, Dean of the Metropolitical See of Bourges, who printed in 1713. a Latin Differtation to prove this paffage genuine, receiv'd feveral informations with relation to thefe Manufcripts. Fa. le Long, Prieft of the Oratory, a learned Man, and very induftrious in this fort of enquiries, has endeavour'd to give the finishing ftroke to this, and to inform the Publick by a Letter which was inferted in the Journal des Savans, the last June, and which was addrefs'd to me, as if it had actually been written to me. It is dated the 12th of April, but I did not fee it till the end of the month of July. My Book was in the press, and the impreffion already got very near as far as the matters which refpe&t Robert Stephens's Manufcripts. Thus this Chapter, in which I am about to examin F. le Long's Letter, muft be look'd on an addition to this Work, which had been finish'd fome months before.

F. le Long's Letter is wrote in a very genteel manner with regard to my particular fubject. He there declares from the beginning that he does not enter upon the genuineness of the paffage of St. John, and that what he propofes to clear up is only a point of Criticism. He pretends they are much deceiv'd,

who