things and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. He therefore judiciously concluded, that his father read the whole verse thus: To us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we from him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him ; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things, and we in him. With this opinion, could he forget to employ his new-found text in his disputes with the heretics? Either his reverence for his father's memory, or the singular fitness of the passage for his purpose, would alone be a sufficient motive; united, they were irresistible. In his thirty-ninth oration, therefore, p. 630. C. he quotes the verse with this addition, compares it with Rom. xi. 36. and argues from it as if both heretics and orthodox allowed it to be genuine. His commentator, Nicetas, T. ii. Orat. xxxix. p. 1026. B. xliv. p. 1249. A. twice follows this reading, and urges it against the Arians, adding in the latter place, "Neque enim alioqui Trinitas fuerit, nisi Spiritus quoque connumeretur;" which, as Mr. Matthæi' rightly remarks, is an unwary confession of fraud. Three Ms. Scholiasts agree in the same reading, and one has the impudence to affirm that it was erased by Arius. Εξελήφθη παρὰ τοῦ ̓Αρείου. (read ἐξηλείφθη.) From Gregory it passed to John Damascenus, who quotes it several times, to Euthymius Zigabenus, and to Emanuel Calecas. From Gregory or John Damascenus (for both, I believe, were early translated into Slavonic) it crept into the Slavonian version, and is in the Mss. and first editions, but omitted in the latter.

2

I acknowlege that I have mixed a little romance with the beginning of this story. But I was willing for once to imitate your way of setting down your own fancies for positive facts. The intelligent reader will however see that I have supposed nothing but what is probable. I take Gregory to have been deceived by finding in some eminent Greek Father3 a sentence similar to that which I have quoted from Eucherius. My hypothesis too is very charitable; for I was willing to bring off my favorite Gregory with the least possible loss of honour. I have pointed out the real source of the mistake, though I cannot trace its progress, nor discover through what channels it flowed into Gregory's oration.

If an admirer of Gregory, writing on the deity of the Holy Spirit, used these words: "The blessed apostle Paul testifies, that 'to us there is one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things,' which also the most pious bishop Gregory the divine declares

1 Animadvers, ad 1 Cor. viii. 6. p. 204-210.

2 De Principiis Fidei, c. 3. p. 215. ed. Coteler. whom Mr. Matthæi seems to have overlooked.

3 How easily this might happen, will appear from the following passage of Epiphanius, Hær. Lxvi. 69. p. 691. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἑνὶ ἕτερος θεὸς—ἀλλὰ εἷς Πατὴρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, δι ̓ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἓν Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα, ἀεὶ οὖσα ἡ τριὰς, μία ἡ θεότης.

(confitetur) in his oration of the holy lights, where, to demonstrate the Trinity, he has brought the following proofs directly from scripture: To us there is one God the Father, &c. where the from whom and by whom and in whom do not separate the natures -as is clear, if we attentively read in the same Apostle, from him and by him and in him are all things, &c." would not he confess, that he was indebted for the knowlege of this text to Gregory Nazianzen, and to him only? The plain English of such an appeal would be: This sentence is wanting in our present copies, but Gregory, whose fidelity and accuracy cannot be questioned, had it in his Ms., as appears from his quoting it. So Fulgentius's testimony amounts to no more than this: The verse is not now indeed in the epistle, but it was there in Cyprian's days, for he quotes it, and to suspect him either of fraud or mistake would be the height of impiety.

The implicit faith with which the Latin writers copy their predecessors, often diminishes and sometimes destroys the value of their testimony. Thus a gloss crept early into some copies of John iii. 6. "Et quoniam Deus Spiritus est, de Deo natus est.” I believe Tertullian to be the author of this gloss, who sometimes blends the words of scripture with his own, so that it requires much skill and pains to make the separation. From him it quickly spread through all the Latin churches, "Ceu flamma per tædas, vel Eurus Per Siculas equitavit undas." It would be idle to recount all the writers who quote this for scripture; but some, not content with asserting it to be genuine, charge the Arians with having corrupted the copies that omitted it. Hear the holy Ambrose: "This place you Arians so expressly testify to be written of the Spirit, that you erase it from your books. And I wish you erased it only from your own, and not from the public books of the church." Observe the candor and judgment of this saint. He acknowleges that a passage is wanting in almost all the Mss. and founds his accusation of the Arians on the very circumstance that ought to have acquitted them. The same calumny is repeated by Bede, Fulbert and Hincmar, who "follow in the chase, not like hounds that hunt, but like those that fill up the cry." I must not forget to add, that Grabe' defends the genuineness of this interpolation, and very properly in company with 1 John v. 7. "The heifer hath calved and hath not calved." Pray, Sir, in what part of scripture may this passage be found? It is quoted by at least four of the Fathers. Tertullian says, “We read in

2

1 Not. ad Bulli Defens. Fid. Nic. p. 139. "Grabius vir bonus nec indoctus fuit et in scriptis Patrum apprime versatus: criticus non fuit, neque esse potuit, ut pote neque ingenio neque judicio――satis ad eam rem instructus." Thirlby Dedicat. to Justin Martyr.

De Carne Christi, § 23.

2

'

Ezechiel." Clemens Alexandrinus says simply, "in scripture." Gregory Nyssen and Epiphanius 3 seem to quote it from Isaiah. There is some difference in the words, but they all agree in the application, which, I suppose, I need not mention.

Justin Martyr tells Trypho, that the Jews have corrupted their scripture to elude the prophecies relating to the Messiah. One of his examples is Psalm xcvi. 10. from which three words, says Justin, have been erased by the Jews, so that the true reading is, "The Lord hath reigned from the tree." Thirlby in his note produces an host of witnesses for the same reading, to whom he might have added the author against Varimadus iii. 2. This reading, though manifestly false and spurious, has crept into some Psalters, and seems to have imposed on Erasmus, who cites it without suspicion in his colloquy intitled, Inquisitio de Fide.

These interpolations, which are well known to the learned, I have produced merely to teach the superficial reader not to place too much confidence in the citations of the Fathers. We have seen how Nicetas, though he was sensible that authority was against him, retains and defends Gregory Nazianzen's reading. We have seen how Justin Martyr and Ambrose, when they wanted to promote a passage to the rank of scripture, reproached their adversaries with having erased it.

You suppose "authenticæ literæ" in Tertullian to signify the autographs of the apostles. This construction you support by a passage from Ignatius, which I profess not to understand; but I am sure that it will not admit the sense you put on it. You then refer us to Peter of Alexandria, who testifies, it seems, that the original Gospel of St. John was kept at Ephesus in his time. Are you really ignorant, Sir, that this Peter is an author, whose age, name and credit are totally uncertain? And Berriman and Ērnesti think that "authenticæ" means no more than genuine, uninterpolated. But I flatter myself that I can confirm your interpretation from Tertullian himself, who quotes the "originale instrumentum Moysi." Now if Tertullian had seen the original volume of Moses," how much more easily might he have seen the original epistle of John? Nor is it wonderful that the autograph of Moses should last to Tertullian's time, when the autograph of Esdras has lasted to the present day. For Montfaucon 8 saw at Bologna an Hebrew Ms. which, as appeared from a memorandum

1 Strom. vii. p. 756.

2 In Zacagni's Collectan. Monument. Vet. p. 303.

3 Hæres. xxx. 30. p. 156.

4 Petavius Uranolog. p. 397.

5 Dissert. on Tim. iii. 16. p. 13.

• Opusc. Philolog. et Crit. p. 308.

7 Contra Hermog. § 19.

8

Diar. Ital. p. 400.

in the middle of the book, was written by Esdras's own proper hand.

But to leave this solemn trifling, and return to the question. The words of Tertullian, which you have taken for a quotation from scripture, I think I have shown to be only a deduction of his own from two texts John x. 30. xvi. 14. Phœbadius copies Tertullian. Cyprian finding two or three words, which happen to follow in the same order, 1 John v. 8. immediately succeeded by a formal quotation from scripture, thought these words also to be a quotation, and employed them without remorse in the sense which, as he imagined, his master had affixed to them. Thus Tertullian' proves by some ingenious arguments, that Daniel's three hours of prayer were the third, the sixth, and the ninth. Then comes Cyprian, takes the fact for granted, asserts the same of Daniel's three companions, and hence elicits the mystery of the Trinity. Whoever could argue at this rate, could with equal or greater ease find the same doctrine in such an expression as "the three are one," though the literal sense seemed ever so foreign to his subject.

Two or three centuries afterwards both Facundus and Fulgentius appealed to this passage of Cyprian. Neither of them could find a text of scripture, where it was expressly said of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, "these three are one." Yet Cyprian seemed to affirm it. Facundus therefore supposed, that Cyprian mixed his own interpretation with the words of scripture, Fulgentius on the other hand, being somewhat more sanguine, supposed that he quoted literally the words of scripture. Finding therefore a kind of counterpart to Cyprian's quotation in 1 John v. 8. he would naturally conclude that the three heavenly witnesses were distinctly mentioned in Cyprian's copy, but had afterwards vanished, either by the malice of the Arians, or the negligence of the scribes, confounding the homœoteleuta. If you think, Sir, that it derogates from the honor of Cyprian or Fulgentius to insiDuate that they could, in matters of such importance, blindly follow their leaders, you ought to recollect that I pass no harsher censure on them than I have passed on you with respect to Martin; a censure, whose justice you cannot help feeling in your mind, whether you choose to confess it or not.

POSTSCRIPT.

1. I have perhaps been much more diffuse on this article than was necessary. But I remember, that when I was a novice in this controversy, I was very angry with the opposers of the heavenly witnesses for their obstinacy in denying Cyprian's words to be a

1 De Jejuniis, § 10.

literal quotation. My reasons for the opinion which gave birth to my indignation were chiefly two. 1. My esteem for the learning, good sense and fidelity of the fathers, which would not suffer me to believe, that they would quote negligently or interpret absurdly. 2. My reliance on the candor of the disputants in stating the adversary's arguments. But experience has instructed me to entertain more moderate and qualified sentiments of both parties.

2. Mr. Travis has taken particular care not to let the reader know, that the passage so triumphantly urged, as a direct quotation of 1 John v. 7. is cited at length by Facundus, and expressly declared by him to be an interpretation of 1 John v. 8. But from Mr. Travis's representation of the matter, you would believe that Facundus refers in general terms to Cyprian, without specifying the exact place.

3. Scipio Maffei' asserts that Facundus alludes to the seventh verse. But because he makes in the same page several other assertions totally ungrounded, (such as that the verse is in Aldus's edition, that Mill allows it to be extant in other Greek Mss. not less ancient than the Alexandrian, &c.) I shall conclude that in this instance, as well as the others, he asserted what he wished rather than what he knew.

4. I have written de Unitate in Facundus, and thus disabled an objection which might otherwise be made, that Facundus cannot be safely trusted, because he refers to Cyprian's treatise by a wrong title, de Trinitate. But learned men have long since conjectured, de Unitate, which might indeed have been admitted into the text, though it were not confirmed by the Verona Ms. in Maffei, p. 145.

5. Mr. Travis has read Tertullian so diligently and understands him so well, that he denies, p. 233-235, Tertullian to have been a Montanist, when he wrote his treatise against Praxeas. A proper man this to confute Newton!

EXTRACTS FROM NEGLECTED BOOKS.

No. IV. [Continued from No. LXXIV.]

Prognostica, sive Practica, Perpetua. Dissertatio de Cornelio, et ejusdem Natura ac Proprietate. (Printed at the end of a volume containing the "Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum," &c. Frankfort, 1644.) MOST of our readers are probably acquainted with the "Epistola Obscurorum Virorum:" to such as are not, we re

'Opuscoli Ecclesiastici, p. 174. published with his Istoria Teologica.