evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity that might otherwise be drawn from this passage." Or that the words eis rò ev eioɩ may be understood of an unity of will and testimony; whereas the simple expression er eit must be understood of the unity of essence. Now, Sir, if I have rightly divined your meaning, be so good as to tell us whether we are to think the former reading genuine or not? If we accept it for genuine, and maintain, even from your own concessions, that the text is nothing to the purpose of the orthodox, all suspicion of fraud on the part of the heretics will be at an end, and you will be compelled to acquit the Arians of a scandalous accusation, which at present you have neither courage enough to avow, nor generosity enough to abandon, (p. 339-341.) But to me, I confess, the Complutensian eis rò ev appears full as orthodox as the more common ev alone; and may be thus paraphrased; οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἓν Θεῖον ἅμα συντελοῦσιν, hi tres conjuncti unum efficiunt Deum; in the same manner as ëσovraι oi δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν is exactly synonymous with οὐκέτι εἰσὶ δύο, ἀλλὰ oap μía. Matt. xix. 5, 6. To show my uncommon civility, I advertise my reader, that I shall impartially transcribe every argument in your favor that has come to my knowlege; but I shall sometimes be content with transcribing them; for many are such as Patience herself would disdain to refute.

Sir,

LETTER IV.

Of the Mss. used by R. Stephens and Beza.

What! will the line stretch out to the crack o' doom?

How formidable an host you are now leading to battle! Sixteen Mss. of Robert Stephens, all containing the heavenly witnesses ! We may however spare our alarms; for all these Mss. on a nearer inspection will prove "phantoms bodiless and vain, empty visions of the brain." I shall first lay down the real state of the case, and then confute your cavils. Mr. Gibbon gives his readers the option between fraud and error. I am always unwilling to attribute to fraud what I can with any reasonable pretence attribute to error. But if any person be more suspicious than I am, he needs not be frightened from his opinion by your declamation. For when he considers how Erasmus was worried for speaking his mind too freely, and with what jealousy R. Stephens was watched by the Paris divines, it cannot appear incredible that Stephens might make this seeming mistake on purpose; so far, like Zacagni (see Letter ii: p. 248.) honest in his fraud, that he furnishes every inquisitive reader with the means of detection. But as I am content with the other supposition, I say, 1. That Henry Stephens, and not Robert, collated the Mss. 2. That the colla

tion was probably inaccurate and imperfect. 3. That it certainly was not published intire. 4. That Stephens's margin is full of mistakes in the numbers and readings of the Mss. 5. That the marks in the text are often misplaced or omitted. 6. That some of the very Mss. used by Stephens having been again collated, are found to agree in this critical passage with all the rest that have been hitherto examined. And, 7. That therefore the semicircle, which now comes after the words év r oupave in the seventh verse, ought to be placed after the words ev rn yn in the eighth.

You, Sir, answer in the first place, that H. Stephens was not the sole collator of the Mss. "because there is no pretence for the assertion, and because reason, propriety, and probability, are all uniformly against it," p. 297. Now this is so fully proved in Wetstein's Prolegomena, p. 143-144. that I should even be tempted to hope that if you had read them before you wrote your letters, you would have spared yourself a considerable quantity of disgrace and repentance. I shall repeat Wetstein's last quotation: "Pater meus-cum N. T. Græcum cum multis vetustis exemplaribus opera mca collatum, primo quidem minutioribus typis-mox autem grandibus characteribus," &c. To which add Beza's testimony to the same purpose: "Ad hæc omnia accessit exemplar ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum viginti quinque plus minus manuscriptis codicibus et omnibus pene impressis diligentissime collatum." Thus Beza in his first edition of 1556. But in his second edition, when R. Stephens was dead, these important words follow after "impressis;" "ab Henrico Stephano ejus filio et paternæ sedulitatis hærede quam diligentissime collatum." Observe in all this proceeding the craft of a printer and editor. Robert was aware that, by telling his readers who was the collator, he might infuse a suspicion into their minds, that the work was negligently performed he therefore carefully avoided mentioning that circumstance. Another instance of this management may be seen in

I

With the same caution, speaking of his No. 2, (now our Cambridge Ms.) he calls it, "exemplar vetustissimum in Italia ab amicis collatum, avrißanley." Without fairly confessing or openly violating the truth, that it was collated by his son Henry, he disguises the fact in a general expression. I have not forgotten Mr. Travis's masterly construction of the sentence, p. 284; "It was the exemplar, the book itself, then, (and not the lections out of it) which was collected or (rather) procured for R. Stephens, by his friends in Italy." I have heard of a learned Doctor in our university, who confounded the collection with the collation of Mss., but I never till now heard of a single copy being collected. That the reader may not suspect me of inventing nonsense for the pleasure of fathering it on Mr. Travis (a supposition which at first sight may seem not improbable), I assure him that I have honestly copied the very words, and can only beg of him to verify my citation by the evidence of his own senses.

the preface to his first edition, where he says, that he has not suffered a letter to be printed but what the greater part of the better Mss. like so many witnesses unanimously approved. This boast is indeed utterly false, as all critics agree, who have taken any pains in comparing Stephens's editions. They know that Stephens has not observed this rule constantly, because his editions often vary from one another, and his third edition often from all his Mss. even by his own confession. But because Mr. Griesbach took this point for granted; not foreseeing that a man would be found so hardy or ignorant as to deny it, you insult him, p. 298. and call his assertion "groundless, improbable, uncandid, and injurious." These are the magic words that have charmed your converts of the first eminence. Editors and printers are such conscientious people, that we may be sure they will never practise any tricks of their profession, or give their own publications undeserved praise. And whoever offers to think that they may sometimes bestow extravagant commendations on their own labor, diligence, or fidelity, is totally void of "literary candor and Christian charity," (p. 59. 125.) But an example will make this position clearer. In the eleventh verse of the second chapter of Matthew, all the Mss., the Complutensian edition, nay the very Ms. from which Erasmus published his edition, have eldov instead of evpov; but Erasmus, on the single authority of a faulty copy of Theophylact, altered it to cupov: Stephens in his third edition followed Erasmus, and evpov infects our printed Testaments to this day. I can only excuse Stephens by the universal custom of dealers who think it an innocent deceit to cry up the value of their wares. Stephens inserted nothing in his text (mistakes excepted) which he did not find in the Complutensian edition, or in Erasmus, or in his Mss. But he frequently quits all his Mss. to follow his printed guides, and frequently follows Erasmus without attending to the rest, of which partiality I have already given a specimen. Let us be no more pestered with the stale common-places of honor, honesty, veracity, judgment, diligence, erudition, &c. If R. Stephens's Mss. all omitted the controverted passage, he would still retain it in his edition; because he has the same vicious complaisance for many other passages, without having equal seeming authority. Here he had the consent of both editions for his warrant; in other places he follows Erasmus alone. You, Sir, prove, with admirable conciseness, in something less than six pages, (p. 78-81. 172-177.) that Stephens did not take this verse from the Complutensian edition. Granted. He did not take it wholly from the Complutensian. He took it partly from the Complutensian and partly from Erasmus. He differs from Erasmus in adding the article thrice, and in transposing the word åytov; and in these four differences he followed the Complutensian edition and the genius of the language.

Mr. Griesbach asserts, as quoted by you, Sir, p. 297. that there are in R. Stephens's Mss. many good readings, which are not inserted in his margin. You answer him by a flat denial. This is indeed a compendious and convenient method of answering; but I would counsel you not to make it too cheap by frequent use. Mr. Griesbach thought that this and some other of his assertions were so generally allowed, that it would be waste of time and paper to prove them in form. At last up starts a grave and reverend gentleman, and tells us with a serious face, that it is not day at noon. And this trash we are expected to refute, or the Mumpsimus regiment will boast hereafter that we have not accepted their leader's challenge. Let us however undertake the tiresome task of slaying the slain. First then I affirm, that Stephens has omitted to mark in his margin at least one-half of the Complutensian various readings. Have you a mind to dispute this, Sir? Will you give Mill the lie, as you have Sandius (p. 199.) and others? Now, if the collator was so negligent in noting the various readings of an edition, "which was printed from most ancient copies, and had a wonderful agreement with Stephens's own Mss." (Steph. Præf. ad N. T.) is it not extremely probable, nay, morally certain, that he was equally inattentive to his Mss. ? I shall therefore assume, what seems to me sufficiently proved-that Stephens's collation was imperfectly published; which if you choose to deny, you must confute Wetstein also, who says that Beza produces from Stephens's Mss. above a hundred various readings not noticed in Stephens's margin. When Emlyn argued from Mill's authority, Prol. 1226. p. 126. that Stephens's collation was imperfect, and pressed Martin with this objection, that good old man told him, for want of a better answer, that Stephens had only neglected the trifling variations of the Complutensian edition, and selected the important. Not to insist, that by this method an editor claims the right of judging for the reader what is trifling and what important; the fact is notoriously false for whoever will look into Stephens or Mr. Travis, p. 79. 172. will find, that of four differences from the Complutensian on this very place, Stephens mentions not fewer than one. He mentions only his omission of eis rò in the seventh verse, and is altogether silent on the addition of ourou; on the change of eπì tñs yñs into èv rn yn in the eighth verse, and on the addition of the whole clause, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. After this flagrant instance of Stephens's inaccuracy, I expect to hear no more of his diligence and fidelity.

R. Stephens had fifteen Mss., seven of which-"Fifteen!" cries Martin in a rage; he had "sixteen." You, Sir, qui cum Martino errare malis, quam cum aliis recte sentire, sing to the same tune, p. 55. 116. and to prove it, quote from the preface to Stephens's third edition," cum sedecim scriptis exemplaribus." You bright wits soar far above the reach of common sense, or else you might

have compared these words with the following: "Iis namque placuit, primo, secundo, ad sextum decimum usque nomina imponere, ut primo Complutensem editionem intelligas, quæ olim ad antiquissima exemplaria fuit excusa." This sentence to an ordinary reader would be very intelligible, but Mr. Travis is no ordinary reader. Can any thing be plainer than that Stephens calls the Complutensian edition a Ms. when he reckons his sixteen copies in the gross, because that edition had with him the weight and value of a Ms.? And if it was really printed, as Stephens believed, from most ancient manuscripts, he was reasonable and moderate enough in treating it as a separate Ms. But if besides No. 1, which signifies this edition, Stephens had sixteen Mss., his sixteenth Ms. would then be marked No. 17. Unluckily no such number appears in any part of the margin. However, as I love to be generous, I will help you to an argument, that will not only prove what you want, but something more. No. 19. (0) is quoted in the margin, Matth. xxiv. 20. from which deducting one for the Complutensian edition, there will remain eighteen Mss. belonging to Stephens, and à fortiori, sixteen. I know that foolish people who are called critics will start an objection. They will affect to think it, with Mill, a misprint for 12 (10. ß.); but you, Sir, will wisely disregard what such fellows think. "Your soul never came into their secret, nor to their assembly has your honor been united." But what am I doing? Teaching the rudiments of arithmetic to a couple of "Clotens, who can't take two from twenty for their hearts, and leave eighteen!" (Cymbeline.)

Whether Stephens had sixteen or only fifteen Mss. in all, is not of so much consequence as the next question, how many of these contained the Catholic Epistles. Martin, (Verité, p. 171.) part of whose reasoning you have adopted, (p. 80. 175.) says, nine at least; and thus he argues: If Stephens had only seven Mss. in all, he would not have made a particular enumeration, but have said, π. or ev πãow in the margin. If he had only eight, he would have said, π. πλǹv (adding the number of the dissentient Ms.), such being his custom in other places. I answer, 1. That Stephens could not, consistently with truth, as Martin himself owns, use the mark . in this place, because the Complutensian edition, his No. 1. dissents; nor, 2. could he, consistently with himself, say, π. Tλn, because he never does say so in his second volume, the Epistles and Apocalypse. But you are not content with Martin's scanty allowance, your lively imagination hurries you beyond the bounds of sober reason; and in one of your happy inventive moments you set down the whole sixteen, p. 284, as containing this disputed passage. A jolly company! What luck old Robert had to light on these Mss. and settle the true reading from them, before Satan and his Arians had laid their claws on them! Did you ever hear, Sir, of any large collection of Mss. all containing