It can only be urg'd againft what I have been faying concerning the time in which this Dialogue may have been wrote, that the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is there spoke of as a doctrine which the Arians denied, and which the Orthodox there defends from Scripture; whereas Arius had not touch'd upon that matter. 'Tis true, that Arius did not immediately explain himself upon this fubject, but they faw very well that denying the external Divinity of the Son, which is prov'd by fo many Texts of Scripture, he would foon come to declare against that of the Holy Ghoft, the proofs of which are not fo numerous, nor fo evident. For they did not tarry long before they heard the Arians blafpheme against the Perfon of the Holy Ghost; as against that of the Son: the Council of Nice, in which Arius had been condemn'd upon the article of the Divinity of Jefus Christ, had been held ten or twelve years when this Dialogue was wrote; now how many courfes might not, and indeed did not, the antitrinitarian herely run, during these ten or twelve years?

I return from my digreffion upon the time of this Dialogue, to the quotation which is there made of thefe words of St. John, these three are one. "Tis but at the end of the piece, fays Mr. Emlyn, that these words are fet; St. John fays, and thefe three are one, which, fays he, looks like a little poftfcriptum. Mr. Emlyn makes a jeft of the most serious thing in the world, and which requires the utmoft veneration, by treating thus difdainfully as a little poftfcriptum, part of a Difcourfe fo well connected, as the paffage we are upon. From pag. 145. to the middle of pag. 147. the Orthodox Author, who defends the Divinity of the Holy Ghoft against the Arian, after having establish'd at large in this Dialogue the eternal and confubftantial Divinity of the Son, and prov'd by divers Texts of Scripture

these two fundamental truths, that the Son is God with the Father, and that the Holy Ghoft in like manner God with the Father and the Son, concludes the mystery of the Trinity, pag. 147. with fome reflexions upon Mofes, Elias, and St. Paul, He fays" that this Apoftle was therefore carried 66 up into the third Heaven because he bore the "Trinity in his heart; God, fays he, being wil❝ling to teach us by this example, that no perfon

can afcend into Heaven, unless he has the fame "faith which St. Paul had. And, adds he, the "quickning and falutary Baptifm, by which we re"ceive remiffion of fins, and without which no "perfon was ever admitted into Heaven, is it not "adminifter'd to the Faithful in the name of the "Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft? Befides "all this St. John fays, AND THESE THREE "ARE ONE.

Is then a Difcourfe fo connected, a reafoning fo closely kept up a little poftfcriptum, a poftfcript? And yet 'tis not the end of the Dialogue. But what did Mr. Emlyn pretend by this expreffion, which fuits fo ill with his fubject. If he meant to infinuate into the mind of his Readers that 'tis an addition made after the work by a foreign hand, he has acted unfairly; and if he believ'd, and would have others believe, that they are the words of the fame Author with the reft of the Dialogue, will it be less true upon this account that it is the quotation of the paffage of St. John? Certainly Mr. Emlyn knows not what to lay hold of.

A third Greek writer which I have not yet quoted, and have found fince, fhall be here join'd to the two foregoing, in defence of the Text of the three witneffes in Heaven; 'tis Euthymius Zygabemus, a Greek Monk, who flourish'd at Conftantinople at the end of the eleventh Century, and the beginning of the twelfth. Among feveral works,

works, which gain'd him the efteem of the Publick, he drew up, by the order of the Emperor Alexis Comnenus, who was rais'd to the Throne of Conftantinople a collection of divers works of the Greek Fathers, who had wrote against the herefies. For this reafon he call'd his work Penoplia dogmatica, which fignifies a compleat armour for the dotrines of the Faith. In the first part of this Book, Tit. 7. towards the end, he produces these words, THREE ARE ONE, to prove the unity of the divine perfons in the unity of effence; his words are, τὸ ἓν ἐπὶ τ ὁμοσίων λέγεθ, ἔνθα ταυτότης φύσεως μικρής ἑτερότης ἢ ὑποτάσεων· ὡς τὸς καὶ τὰ τρία ν. The term ONE expreffes things of the fame essence, when the nature is the fame, and the perfons different, according to this, AND THREE ARE ONE. These words then of St. John, which the Author of the Dialogue against the Arians had quoted in the fourth Century, or if they will in the fixth, Euthymius, both Greeks, urges in defence of the fame doctrine of faith, in the eleventh Century.

СНАР. Х.

That the Greek Church has always own'd this Text to be genuine : prov'd from its Rituals, its Confeffions of faith, and the teftimony of the Mufcovite Church.

TH

HE proofs of the truth which I have the honour and fatisfaction to defend, present themfelves, as crowding in, as it were, in a body, from all parts. The oppofite error could not ftand against the number and weight of those which the Latin Church has fupply'd us with; this modern error thought to be more fecure in prefence of the

Greek

Greek Churches, but it every where lyes open, and crush'd down with authorities.

I had prov'd in the 13th Chapter of my Differtation upon this Text, that the Greek Church own'd it to be a genuine Text of St. John's Epiftle; and I had produc'd the exprefs terms of its Confeffion of Faith, where 'tis inferted entire, fo as we read it in the Greek of the New Testament: I went back from thence, as far as to the fifth Century, by means of a Book intitul'd Apoftolos, which from that age was become a kind of publick Lectionary, from which the Greeks read the paffages which particularly belong'd to each folemnity in the year. According to this cuftom the Text of the three witneffes in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, was read in the Church upon Trinity Sunday. By going back from the modern times to ages fo remote, as the fifth Century, I cut off the answer that might have been made from the pretended novelty of this cuftom, and introduction of the Text of St. John's Epiftle. Mr. Emlyn has found no other fhift to evade fo preffing a proof, but by faying that the Lectionaries were fubject to alterations which were made in 'em from time to time; and we have seen that Mr. la Croze had the fame thought before him, and that in confequence of this, he paid little regard to the proof drawn from the Apoftolos, or Praxapoftolos of the Greeks, tho' he believes it very ancient. In the examination of Mr. Emlyn's Piece, I have given an answer, to which he has made no reply, but this would be quite another thing, if I had been aware of a mistake, which those who have spoke of the Apoftolos after Leo Allatius have led me into. They have all mention'd it as a Le&tionary or Ritual; now a Ritual, or Lectionary, is an ecclefiaftick work, drawn up by the Doctors for the use of publick congregations. Thus the

3

Latin Church has its Lectionaries, or Rituals; the English has its Liturgy, or Common Prayer; we have alfo ours; and the Greeks have withal a greater number of these Rituals, but their Apoftolos is by no means of this order, it is but fo far a Lectionary as it is read in the Church, and they chufe, as I have obferv'd, out of it the portions that are more fuitable to certain days, than they are to others. This then is the very Epiftles of the Apoftles, put all together in one Volume, which is for this reafon call'd Apoftolos, i. e. the Apoftle; as the other Volume is call'd the Gofpel, because it contains all the four Evangelifts. I might have obferv'd this, if I had attended to the manner Dr. Tho. Smith, who liv'd fo long in Greece, has exprefs'd himself concerning the Apoftolos. For he fays that it is a Collection of the Epiftles of the New Testament wrote or printed feparately; that is, feparately from the Gospel. I might alfo have obferv'd it in a paffage which I have quoted from the Euchologium of the Greeks, where it is faid, that they prefent to him whom they are to ordain Reader, the Book in which are contain'd the Acts of the Apostles and their Epifiles. I owe the advantage of this remark which fpreads fo great a light over the prefent fubject to two Muscovite Gentlemen, whofe Letters I fhall give. For fince the Apoftolos is the very Volume of the Epiftles, the thought of alterations made from time to time in the Rituals can have no place here.

To come now to the new proof which I add to thofe of the Greek Rituals, and which I take from the ufe of the Muscovite Church; few men are ignorant, that this Church is a very ancient branch of the Greek Church. As the Muscovites or Ruffians, were converted by the Greeks at the end of the tenth Century, they receiv'd the Holy Scripture from them, took their Rites and Cere

monies