So then the authority of the printed books rests only upon the authority of the editions of Erasmus & Cardinal Ximenes. But seing Erasmus omitted it in his two first editions & inserted it unwillingly against the authority of his manuscripts in his three last, the authority of these three can be none at all. When Lee upon Erasmus's putting forth his second edition fell foule upon him for leaving out the testimony of the three in heaven, a Erasmus answered that he had consulted more more then seven Greek Manuscripts & found it wanting in them all, & that if he could have found it but in any one manuscript he would have followed that in favour of the Latine. Hence notice was sent to Erasmus out of England that it was in a manuscript there; & thereupon he printed it in his following editions. bb. Ex hoc igitur codice Britannico posuimus quod in dicebatur deesse, cui sit ansa calumniandi. Quanquam et hoc suspicor ad Latinorum codices fuisse castigat. Posteaquam enim Græcam concordiam inierant cum ecclesia Romana, studuerunt et hac in parte cum Romanis consentire Erasm. Annot. in h.l. Edit. 3a & sequ. to avoyd their calumnies (as he saith,) he printed it in his following editions notwithstanding that he suspected that manuscript to be a new one corrected by the latine. But since upon enquiry cc. Versiculus 1 Ioh. 5.7 in Syriaca, ut et vetustissimis Græcis exemplaribus, nostro Alexandrino alijsqꝫque MSS Græcis quos contulimus, non reperitur. Walton Prolegom. 14. § 23. Bib. Pol. I cannot learn that they in England ever heard of any such manuscript but from Erasmus, & since he was only told of such a manuscript in the time of the controversy between him & Lee & never saw it himself: I cannot forbear to suspect that it was nothing but a trick put upon him by some of the Popish Clergy, to try if he would make good what he had offered of printing the testimony of the three in heaven by the authority of any one greek copy, & thereby to get it into his edition. Greek manuscripts of the scriptures are things of value & do not use to be thrown away, & such a manuscript for the testimony of the three in heaven would have made a greater noise then the rest have done against it. Let those who have such a manuscript at length tell us where it is.

So also let them who insist upon the edition of Cardinal Ximenes tell us by what Manuscript he printed this testimony, or at least where any such manuscript of good note is to be seen. ffor till then I must take yethe liberty to beleive that he printed nothing else then a translation out of the Latine, & that for these reasons.

First because in the Preface to his edition of the new Testament we are told that this Testament was printed after Manuscripts taken out of the Popes Library, & these the Cardinal only aa Accivit borrowed thence & therefore returned them back so soon as his edition was finished: & Caryophilus some time after by the Popes command collating the Vatican manuscripts found the testimony of the three in heaven wanting in them all. I do not say but that the Cardinal had other manuscripts, but these were the chief & the only ones he thought worth the while to tell his Reader of.

Secondly I startle at the marginal note in this place of the Cardinals edition. ffor it is besides the use of the19 this edition to put notes in the margin of yethe greek text. I have not found it done above thrice in all this edition of the new Testament, & therefore there must be something extraordinary in it; & that in respect of the Greek because tis in the margin of this text. In 1 Cor. 15 there is noted in this margin a notable variation in the greek reading. In Matt. 6.13 where they in their edition recede from the greek copies & follow correct it by the Latine, by them translated into Greek they make a marginal note to justify their doing so. And so here where the testimony of the three in heaven is generally wanting they in the greek copies, they make a third marginal note to secure themselves from being blamed for printing it. Now in such a case as this is there is no question but that they would make the best defense they could, & yet they do not tell of any various lections in their greek manuscripts nor produce any one greek manuscript on their side, but run to the authority of Thomas Aquinas. The greek manuscripts have yethe text thus: For there are three that bear record, the spirit the water & the blood, & these three are one. In many of the latine manuscripts these words these three are one are here omitted & put only at the end of the testimony of the three in heaven before that of the spirit water & blood: in others they are put after both testimonies. In Tthe Complutensian edition they follows the former copies & justify their doing so by the authority of Thomas Aquinas. aa The marginal note is this. Sanctus Thomas in expositione secundæ decreta de summa Trinitate & fide catholica tractans in passum contra Abbatem Ioachim, viz. Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cælo; patre verbum et spiritus sanctus, dicat ad litteram verba sequentia: Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditum, hi tres unum sunt: Quandoquidem dicitur propter essentiæ unitatem. Sed hoc Ioachim perversè trahere volens ad unitatem charitatis & consensu inducebat consequentem auctoritatem. Nam subditur Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra s. spiritus, aqua et sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur: et hi tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in exemplaribus non habetur sed dicitur esse apposita ab hæreticis Arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis de unitate essentiæ trium personarum. Hac beatus Thomas ubi supra. Thomas, say they, "in treating of the three wchwhich bear witness in heaven teaches that the words these three are one are subjoyned for insinuating the unity of the essence of the three persons: And whereas one Ioachim interpreted this unity to be only in love & consent, it being thus said of the spirit water & blood in some copies that these three are one; Thomas replied that this last clause is not extant in the true copies but was added by the Arians for perverting the sense." Thus far this Annotation. Now this plainly respects the latine copies (for Thomas understood not Greek) & therefore part of the designe of this annotation is to set right the36120 the Latine reading. But this is not the main designe, for so yethe annotation should have been set in the margin of the Latin Version. It's being set in the margin of the Greek text shews that it's main designe is to justify the greek by the Latine thus rectified & confirmed. Now to make Thomas thus in a few words do all the work was very artificial, & in Spain where Thomas is of Apostolic authority might pass for a very judicious & substantial defense of yethe printed Greek: but to us Thomas Aquinas is no Apostle; we are seeking for the authority of greek manuscripts.

A third reason why I conceive yethe Complutensian Greek to have been in this place a translation from yethe Latine is because Stunica, who, as I told you, was one of the Divines employed by the Cardinal in this Edition & at that very time wrote against Erasmus, when in his Objections he comes to this text of the testimony of the three in heaven, he cites not one Greek Manuscript for it against Erasmus, but argues wholy from yethe authority of the Latine. On the contrary he sets down by way of concession, the common reading of the greek Manuscripts (his own & others,) in these words Ὅτι τρεις ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυρουντες τὸ πνευμα καὶ τὸ ὑδωρ καὶ τὸ ἁιμα καὶ ὁι τρεις ἐις τὸ ἕν ἐισι, & then he condemns them all together without exception & justifies the Latine against them by the authority of Ierom. bb Sciendum est hoc loco gr Codices apertissimè esse corruptos, nostros verò veritatem ipsam ut a prima origine traducti sunt, continere. Quod ex Prologo B. Hieronymi super Epistolas manifeste apparet. Ait enim: Quæ si sic ut ab eis digestæ sunt ita quoqꝫque ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum verterentur eloquium &c. Hæc Stunica in h. l. Ejus littera extat in Criticorum Vol. 9. Know, saith he, that in this place the greek Manuscripts are most evidently corrupted, but ours (that is the Latin ones) contein yethe truth it self as they are translated from the first original. Which is manifest by the Prologue of S. Ierome upon the Epistles, &c And this Prologue (wchwhich he goes on to cite at length & of wchwhich we gave you an account above) is all he urges in favour of the testimony of the three in heaven. In other places of scripture where he had greek Manuscripts on his side, he produces them readily. So in 1 Thes. 2.7. Ita quidem legitur, saith he, in græcis codicibus quos ego viderim. In Iames 1.1 he saith, Sciendum in omnibus græcis codicibus πορείας hic legi per ei dipthongum. In 1 Thes. 5.23. he saith, cùm in græcis exemplaribus quotquot sunt ὁλόκληρον et in Latinis integet hic legatur per nemine discrepante, nescio cur Erasmus dixerit &c. In Phil 4.9 Siquidem in omnibus, saith he, græcis codicibus ταυτα λογίζεσθε hic legitur – neqꝫque græci sunt libri qui πραττέτε hoc loco neqꝫque latini qui agite, nisi mendosos utriusqꝫque linguæ codices cùm hæc commentaretur Erasmus perlegit. After this manner does Stunica produce yethe manuscripts used in yethe Complutensian edition when they make for him & here he produces them too but 'tis for Erasmus against himself. Know, saith he, that in this place the greek manuscripts are most evidently corrupted. In other places if he hath but one manuscripmanuscript on his side, he produces it magnificently enough, as yethe Codex Rhodiensis in his discourse upon 2 Cor. 2.3 Iames 1.22. 2 Pet. 2.2. & other texts: here he produces all yethe Manuscripts against himself without excepting so much as one. And hence Erasmus in his answer to Stunica gloried in the consent of the Spanish manuscripts wthwith his own, & Sanctus Caranza21 Caranza (another of the Complutensian Divines) in his defense of Stunica written presently after, had nothing to reply in this point. Neither could Sepulueda or the Spanish Moncks who next undertook yethe controversy find any one greek manuscript which here made against Erasmus. Nor had Marchio VelesiussVelesius better successe, thô on that occasion he collated 16 greek manuscripts, eight whereof belonged to yethe King of Spain's library & the other eight to other libraries in Spain, & did it on purpose to collect out of them whatever he could meet with in favour of the present vulgar Latine. Neither did the reprinting of the Complutensian Bible by Arias Montanus, produce the notice of any such manuscript, tho on that occasion many Manuscripts as well greek as latine fetcht from Complutum & other places were collated by Arias, Lucas Brugensis, Canter & others. So then to summe up the argument, Tthe Complutensian Divines did sometimes correct the greek by the Latine wthwithout the authority of any one greek Manuscript, as appears by their practise in Mat. 6.13, & therefore their printing of the testimony of the three in heaven is no evidence of that they did it by a manuscript. For But on the contrary for want of one they contented themselves wthwith yethe authority of Thomas Aquinas, & Stunica confest they had none. Nor has all the zeal for this text has not been able since to discover one either in Spain or any where else.

And now you may understand whence it is that yethe Complutensian edition & yethe reading of the pretended English manuscript set down by Erasmus in his Annotations, differ so much from one another. ffor the Complutensian has the text thus Ὅτι τρεις ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυρουν τες ἐν τωι ὀυρανωι, ὁ παττὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνευμα καὶ ὁι τρεις εις τὸ ἕν ἐισιν καὶ τρεις ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυρουντες ἐπὶ της γης τὸ πνευμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἱμα. The pretended English Manuscript thus Ὅτι τρεις ἐισὶν ὁι μαρτυρουντες ἐν τωι ὀυρανωι, πατὴρ, λόγος καὶ πνευμα, καὶ ὁυτοι ὁι τρεις ἕν ἐισιν. Καὶ τρεις ἐισὶν μαρτυρουντες ἐν τηι γηι πνευμα καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἁιμα. The differences are too great to spring from the bare errors of scribes & arise rather from the various translation of the place out of Latin into Greek by two several persons.

But whilst these two readings by their discord confute one another, yethe readings of the real Greek manuscripts by their agreement confirm one another as much. For Caryophilus who by the command of Pope Vrban yethe 8th collated the Vatican & other manuscripts borrowed out of the principal Libraries in Rome, found one common reading in them all wthwithout the testimony of the three in heaven as you may see in those his Collations printed anno 1673 by Peter Possinus in the end of his Catena of the Greek Fathers upon Mark. He met wthwith eight manuscripts in all upon the Epistles & notes their reading thus. 1 Ioan. 5.7 MSS octo (omnes nempe) legunt, Ὅτι τρεις ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυρουντες, τὸ πνευμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ ἁιμα, καὶ ὁι τρεις ἐις τὸ ἕν ἐισι: Porro totus septimus versus hujus capitis desideratur in octo MSS codd græcis &c. Thus Caryophilus.

The very same reading Erasmus in his Annotations on this place gives us of all his manuscripts which were more then seven & so doth Stephens of all his seven without noting any various lections in them370 22 them. Only the comma wchwhich in Stephen's Edition is (surely by mistake) set after οὐρανωι, is to be put in it's right place. The very same reading does Stunica also in his book against Erasmus note out of the Manuscripts he had seen in Spain, as was shewed above: nor does Velesius in his collation of the sixteen Spanish manuscripts note any various lections in this text. The same reading exactly have also yethe manuscripts in England, namely that most ancient & most famous one in the Kings Library wchwhich was conveyed thither from Egypt through Greece & published in Walton's Polyglott Bible & yethe four at Oxford, vizt that in New College, & that in Magdalen College (both very old) & two in Lincoln College, & five others ancient ones lately brought out of Turkey by Mr Covel & collated by Dr Mills. The very same reading have also the three Manuscripts of MonsrMonsieur Petavius Gachon a Senator of Paris, whose various lections collected by his son Iohn Gachon, were printed in yethe Oxford edition of the new Testament A.C. 1675. The same reading wthwithout any variation is published by Francis Asulan in his edition printed A.C. 1518 by Aldus out of the at Venice out of the Manuscripts of those parts. The same reading Oecumenius six hundred years ago found in the Manuscripts of Greece as you may see in the text of his Commentary on this Epistle of Iohn. The same reading also Cyril of Alexandria met wthwith in the manuscripts of Egypt above eleven hundred years ago, as you may see in his citations of the text, both in his Thesaurus lib. 14 c. 5, & in his first book de fide ad Reginas: excepting that in the latter of these two citations the particle ἐις is omitted & μαρτυρουσι written for ὁι μαρτυρουντες. And that the very same reading was also in yethe manuscripts of the first ages may be gathered from the conformity of this reading to all the ancient Versions.

It may seem by what has been hitherto said that this Testimony is not to be found in Greek Manuscripts. aa Habuimus ab Hieromo id quod maximi facit MS Bibl. correctorius incerto auctore quem Epanorthotem aut Correctorem fere vocat magna diligentia ac fide contextum, secuto uti oportet antiquos nostræ editionis codices, eosqꝫque cum Hebræis Græcis et Poetis patrum commentarijs sedulo collatos: qui ad Gen. 8.7 latinus a nobis descriptus est. Hæc Lucas, qui ad Gen. 8.7 dicit librum multis annis scriptum et pluribus forte compositum dein loco ex eo citato pergit. Ad quæ dici quin possit? An quod libro findendam non sit? Non hæc licet qui : quæ namqꝫque a nostri seculi scriptoribus ea MSS codicibus collectæ sunt variæ lectiones omnes propemodum in eo comperrimus et ad fontes fideliter examin deprehendimus. Scripsit hac Lucas anno 1579 sequitur Correctoriam disputationes Erasmus testibus in cælo elaborat esse. Epanorthotes whom Lucas Brugensis describes to be an ancient accurate full & industrious Collator of Manuscripts, found it wanting in all those he met with. Epanorthotes, saith Lucas, deesse hæc eadem Græcis libris et antiquis Latinis annotat. Lucas Brugensis & others in their collations of several Greek Manuscripts belonging to yethe Libraries in Flanders & Spain could find nothing in favour of the Complutensian edition; & bb. Walton could find as little in England Nor have other collators made a further discovery to this day. but produced Lee, Stunica & yethe rest in England, Spain, fflanders, ffrance & Italy who conspired against Erasmus could find nothing in the manuscripts of those parts against him If those be excepted wchwhich once appeared to certain men here in England but could never since be seen. After the disputes of those times, cc. cato patris ac verbi ac spiritus sancti. codices aliter legentis describendo sic pergit. Nostro tempore duo Græci codices manuscripti reperti sunt, unus in Anglia & alter in Hispania: quorum uterqꝫque hoc loco testimonium habet Patris Verbi et Spiritu sancti. Hesselius about the year 1565 Professor of Divinity at Lovain, in his Commentary on this place ingeniously confesses it wanting in all the greek manuscripts then known except two, the one one in Spain the other in England, meaning those by wchwhich the Complutensian Divines & Erasmus printed it: wchwhich two we have shewed to be none at all, unlesse some Annius dug up one in England.. Since that time nothing further has been produced besides the imaginary books of the dreaming Beza. And yet I will not say but that it may be hereafter found in some Greek copies. For in the times of the holy war the Latines had much to do in the East. They were long united to the Greek Church: They made Latine Patriarchs of Ierusalem & Antioch; they reigned at Constantinople over the Greeks from the year 1204 for above 50 years together, & during this their Kingdom in yethe year 1215 was assembled the Lateran ConcilCouncil consisting of 415 Bishops Greeks & Latines together, & therein the testimony of the three in heaven was quoted out of some of yethe Latine manuscripts as we told you above. All wchwhich might occasion some Greeks as well as Latines to note it in the Margins of their books & thence insert it into yethe text in transcribing. For this is most certain that some greek manuscripts have been corrected by the Latine ones. Such a book dd Hic obiter illud incidit admonendum esse Græcorum quosdam novi Testamenti codices ad Latinorum exemplaria emendatos. Id factum est in fœdere Græcorum cum Romana Ecclesia: quod fœdus testatur Bulla quæ dicitur aurea. Visum est enim et hoc ad firmandam concordiam pertinere. Et nos olim in hujusmodi codicem incidimus, et talis adhuc dicitur adservari, in Bibliotheca Pontificia. Verum ex his corrigere nostros est Lesbia ut aiunt admovere regulam. Erasm. ad Lectorem edit. 5ta N.T. Erasmus tells us he once met with, & that there was such another in the Popes Library. He suspected also that Boook in England out of wchwhich he printed the testimony of the three in heaven to be of the same kind, tho I rather think 'twas none at all unless some Italians of that age were at the pains to transcribe one or two of St Paul's Epistles. Such another book was one of those out of wchwhich Velesius collected his various lections. Whence Mariana into whose hands the manuscript boook of those Lections fell, tells us that for that reason in his annotations on the new Testament he used those lections but sparingly & cautiously. And that Velesius did meet wthwith such a corrected manuscript appears by the Lections themselves. For in Apoc. 18.17, where the Greek reads ἐπὶ τόπον & the Latine translates in locum & by the error of one letter in lacum, as the books now have it: some Grecian here has corrected his book by the Latine & written ἐπὶ λίμνην as tis in the lections of Velesius taken out of this manuscript. Again in Apoc 9.11 where the Latine translator in expounding the names Abaddon & Apollyon adds, Et latine habens nomen exterminans, Velesius notes the reading in his Greek cCopy to be ρὡμαιστὶ ἔχων ὄνομα ἐξτέρμινανς: which certainly is a translation of the Latine. Again in Apoc. 21.12 where the Greek has ἀγγέλους, and some ancient Latine copies angelos, but the far24 far greater part of yethe Latine copies at present angulos Velesius in his MS reads γωνίας. So in Apoc 19.6 where yethe Greek is ὄχλου πολλου & yethe Latine turbæ magnæ & in later copies tubæ magnæ, Velesius in his MS reads σάλπιγγος μεγάλης. In Heb. 13.2 for ἔλαθον latuerunt & in later copies placuerunt Velesius reads ἤρεσαν: & in 1 Pet. 3.8, for τὸ δὲ τέλος In fine & by error In fide Velesius reads ἐν τη πίστει δὲ. These & such like instances put the thing out of dispute. Now tho Velesius found not yethe testimony of yethe three in heaven in this Manuscript, & Erasmus tells us he never saw it in any greek manuscript, & by consequence not in that corrected one wchwhich fell into his hands: yet it may have crept out of the Latine into some other books not yet taken notice of, & even in some MSS wchwhich in other places have not been corrected by the Latine, it may possibly have been inserted by some of yethe Greek Bishops of the Lateran Council where the testimony of the three in heaven was read. And therefore he ytthat shall hereafter meet wthwith it in any book, ought first before he insists upon yethe authority of that book, to examin whether it hath not been corrected by the Latine, & whether it be ancienter then yethe Lateran Councel & empire of the Latines in Greece. ffor if it be liable to either of those two exceptions it can signify nothing to produce it.

Having given you the history of the controversy, I shal now confirm all that I have said from yethe sense of the text it self. ffor without yethe testimony of yethe three in heaven the sense is good & easy, as you may see by the following paraphrase inserted into yethe text in a different character.

Citations in the text of ScriptureWho is he that overcometh yethe world but he that beleiveth that Iesus Christ is yethe Son of God, that son spoken of in the Psalmes where he saith Thou art my son this day have I begotten thee. This is he that after yethe Iews had long expected him, came first in a mortal body by baptism of water and then in an immortal one by shedding his blood upon the crosse & rising again from the dead: not by water only but by water & blood: being the son of God as well aa Acts 13.33. by his resurrection from the dead as bb Luc. 1.35. by his supernatural birth of the Virgin: and it is the spirit also that together wthwith yethe water & blood beareth witness beareth witnesse of the truth of his coming, because the spirit is truth, & so a fit & unexceptionable witnesse. For there are three that bear record of his coming, the Spirit wchwhich he promised to send, & wchwhich was since shed forth upon us in the form of cloven tongues & in various gifts, the baptism of water wherein God testified this is my beloved son, and the shedding of his blood accompanied wthwith his resurrection whereby he became the most faithful martyr or witnesse of this truth. And these three, the Spirit, the baptism & yethe passion of Christ agree in witnessing one & the same thing (namely theat truth of Christ's coming) the Son of God is come,) & therefore their evidence is strong. For the Law requires but two consenting witnesses, & here we have three. And if wee receive the witness of men the threefold witnesse of God wchwhich he bare of his Son, by declaring at his baptism This is my beloved Son, by raising him from the dead, & by pouring out his spirit on us, is greater & therefore ought to be more readily received.

Thus is the sense plain & natural & the argument full & strong, but if you insert the testimony of the three in heaven you interrupt & spoil it. ffor the whole designe of the Apostle being here to prove to men by witnesses the truth of Christs coming, I would ask how the testimony of the three in heaven makes to this purpose. If If their testimony be not given to men how does it prove to them yethe truth of Christs coming? If it be, how is the testimony in heaven distinguished from that in earth? Tis the same Spirit which witnesses in heaven & in earth. If in both cases it witnesses to us men, wherein lies the difference between its witnessing in heaven & its witnessing in earth? If in the first case it does not witnesse to men, to whom does it witnesse, & to what purpose? & how does its witnessing make to the designe of Iohn's discourse? Let them make good sense of it who are able: for my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determin what's scripture & what not by orour private judgments, I confesse it in places not controverted: but in disputable places I love to take up wthwith what I can best understand. Tis the temper of the hot & superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, & for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle Iohn as they please: but I have that honour for him as to beleive he wrote good sense, & therefore take that sense to be his wchwhich is the best: especially since I am defended in it by so great authority. For I have on my side the authority of the fourth generall cCouncil, & (so far as I know) of all the Churches in all ages except yethe modern Latines & such others as have lately been influenced by them, & that also of all the old Versions & greek manuscripts & ancient Latine ones; & nothing against me but the authority of Ierome, & the credulity & heat of his followers. For to tell us of other manuscripts without ever letting us know in what Libraries they were to be seen; to pretend MSS wchwhich since their first discovery could never be heard of, nor were then seen by persons whose names & credit we know, is plainly to impose upon the learned world, & ought not to passe any longer for fair dealing. The Spaniards tell us plainly that they followed the Latine, & by the authority of Thomas left out the clause and these three are one in the 8th verse as inserted by the Arians: & yet S. Ambrose, S. Austin, Eucherius & other Latines in the Arian age gathered the unity of the Deity from this clause, & the omission of it is now by printing it acknowledged to be bb καθὼς γέγραντα ὅτι τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ ἁιμα καὶ τὸ πνευμα; ὁι τρεις τὸ έν ἐισιν Dionys. Alexand. Resp ad Pauli Samosatensis Quæst. 4. an erroneous correction. The pretended Manuscript in England wanted the same clause & therefore if there was any such MS it was a corrected one like yethe Spanish Edition & yethe Velesian manuscript of Velesius. Erasmus who printed the triple testimony in heaven by that MS English MS, never saw it, dd. Erasm. advers. Monach. Hisp. in articulo de Trinitate. tells us it was a new one, suspected its sincerity & accused it publickly in his writings on several occasions for several years together: accused it publickly in his writings on several occasions for many years together & yet his adversaries in England never answered his accusation, never endeavoured to satisfy him & yethe world about it, did not so much as let us know where the record might be consulted for confuting him: but on the contrary when they had got the Trinity into his Edition, threw by their MS (if they had one) as an Almanack out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men? Let Manuscripts at length be produced, & freely exposed to the sight of the learned world, but let such MSS be produced as are of authority; or else let it be confest that whilst Ierome pretended to correct the Latin by the Greek, the Latines have corrected both the Latin & yethe Greek by the sole authority of Ierome.