Catalogue Entry: THEM00099

Various drafts and copies of the Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and related material.

Author: Isaac Newton

Source: Ms. 361(4), New College Library, Oxford, UK

Contents

ff. 2-41 'An historical account of two notable corruptions of Scripture in a Letter to a Friend', in English with Greek and Latin citations, c. 25,000 words. At the top of the first page, in Thomas Pellet's hand: 'No. 30'. Copy of two letters of 14 November 1690 written by Newton to John Locke on 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 respectively: in this version they read as one continuous text. A crucial document for the study of Newton's theology, in particular his anti-Trinitarianism. It is a painstaking and extremely detailed collation of these two verses, both widely regarded as clear evidence for Trinitarianism, as they appear in surviving early Bibles in various languages and as they are quoted by various Fathers. Newton's conclusion is that the wording was altered, by accident or design, in the fourth or fifth century.

Locke sent a copy of the original letters to Jean Le Clerc. On 11 April 1691 Le Clerc suggested that the original author read Simon's Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam, 1689), which Newton did, leading him to incorporate new information from Simon and from Burnet's Travels into this version of the text. The document was published in 1754 from a manuscript in the Remonstrants' Library and then more accurately by Horsley in 1785 (Horsley, 5: 493-550). Printed from this manuscript in NC, 3: 83-129. Cf. the expanded Latin translation of the first letter in Yahuda Var. 1 Ms. 20.

ff. 43-8 Copy of part of the above, in another hand, c. 2,500 words. Probably a printer's copy made in preparation for Horsley's edition.

ff. 49v-68 'The third Letter.' First version (draft A), in Newton's hand, of another letter sent to Locke soon after the earlier texts, in English with Latin and Greek citations, c. 8,000 words. This deals with other allegedly Trinitarian passages in Scripture which Newton believed to be corrupt. Printed in NC, 3: 129-44.

ff. 70-83 Second version (draft B), with a few changes, of the 'Third Letter', begun by Newton and completed by Conduitt (ff. 80-3), apparently copying from draft A. Possibly connected with Hopton Haynes's translation of the letter into Latin in 1709. In the section written by Newton, the variant readings between drafts A and B are all noted in Conduitt's hand on the facing pages.

ff. 85-101 Copy of draft B of the 'Third letter' in Horsley's hand, including copies of Conduitt's notes of the variant readings.

ff. 104-5 'Another Letter Written to a friend who had perused the former Letters': revision of the beginning and end of the 'Third Letter'. Newton's hand, c. 800 words. Printed in NC, 3: 144-6.

ff. 107-8 Much neater copy of the above in another hand.

f. 109 Partial copy in the same hand.

ff. 112-14 Another copy in Horsley's hand.

ff. 117-21 Earlier drafts of parts of the first letter, in Newton's hand, c. 5,000 words.

This bundle also contains another 117 leaves of later material relating to Newton and Newtoniana, including a codicil to Catherine Conduitt's will concerning his papers (f. 139, 26 June 1737, printed in Brewster (1855), 2: 341), 18th-19th century correspondence of the Ekinses, Horsley, David Brewster and others about the whereabouts and ownership of the papers, and press cuttings about the erection of the Newton monument in Grantham in 1858 and the publication of Brewster's biography (1855).

Notes

New College Mss. 361.1-4 comprise the Ekins papers given to New College in 1872.

[1] a. Dicit Dominus Ego et Pater {unum} sumus, et iterum de Patre et {Filio} et Spiritu sancti scriptum est {hi} tres unum sunt. Cyprian de {illeg} Eccles.]

[2] b Si templum Dei factus est quæro cujus Dei? – Si spiritus sancti cùm tres unum sint quomodo spiritus sanctus placatus ei esse potest qui {aut} Patris aut Filij inimicus est. Cyp{rian} Epist 73 ad Iubaianum.

[3] c. Eucherius reads the text thus. Tria sunt quæ testimonium perhibent aqua, sanguis & spiritus: & then adds this interpretation. Plures hic ipsam interpretatione mystica intelligunt Trinitatem, eo quod perfecta ipsa perhibeat testimonium Christo: Aquâ Patrem indicans quia ipse de se dicit. Me dereliquerunt fontem aquæ vivæ; sanguine Christum demonstrans utique per passionis cruorem; spiritu verò sanctum spiritum manifestans. Eucher. De Quæst. N. Testi

[4] d Sane fallite nolo in Epistola Ioannis Apostoli, ubi ait, Tres sunt testes, Spiritus aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt: ne fortè dicas spiritum et aquam et sanguinem diversas esse substantias et tamen dictum esse tres unum sunt. Propter hoc admonui te ne fallaris. Hæc enim sunt in quibus {illeg} sint sed quid ostendunt {illeg} attenditur ––– Si vero {illeg} <3r> {illeg} Iesus aquam datumus {illeg}ientibus, ait Evangelista, {illeg} {autem} dixit de spiritu quem accepturi erant credentes in {eum} D. Augustini cont. Maximum cap. 22.

[5] e Facundus in the beginning of his book to the Emperor Iustinian, prò defensione trium capitulorum Concilij Chalcedonensis first recites the text after the manner of Cyprian but more distinctly in these words; Nam Ioannes Apostolus in Epistola {suâ} de patre et filio et spiritu sancto sic dicit: Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra. Spiritus, Aqua et Sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in spiritu significantes Patrem Ioan 4.21 – – – – in aqua spiritum sanctum Ioan. 7.37 – – – in sanguine verò filium. And a little after he thus confirms this interpretation by Cyprians authority saying: aut si forsan ipsi qui de Verbo contendunt eo quod dixit tres sunt qui testificantur in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis et hi tres unum sunt, Trinitatem nolunt intelligi, secundum ipsa verba quæ possint pro Apostolo Ioanne respondeant. Numquid hi tres qui in terra testificari et qui unum esse dicuntur possunt spiritus et aquæ et sanguinis dici? Quod tamen Ioannis Apostoli testimonium {illeg} <4r> scripsit, de patre, {filio et spiritu} sancto dictum intelligit. {illeg} Dicit Dominus Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre filio et spiritu sancto scriptum est. Et hi tres unum sunt. Facund. l. 1. p. 16. ex edit. Sirmondi Parisijs 1629.]

[6] a. Hist. N. Test.

[7] {illeg}

[8] f The whole Preface runs thus. Incipit Prologus in Epistolas canonicas. Non ita est ordo apud Græcos, qui integre sapiunt fidemus rectam sectantur, epistolarum septem, quæ canonicæ noncupantur, sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur: Vt quia Petrus est primus in ordine Apostolorum primæ sint etiam ejus Epistola in ordine cæterarum; sed sicut Evangelistas dudum at veritatis lineam correximus ita has proprio ordini Deo juvante reddidimus. Est enim una earum prima Iacobi, duæ Petri, tres Ioannis et Iudæ una. Quæ si sicut ab his digestæ sunt, ita quoque ab Interpretibus fideliter in Latinam verterentur eloquium, nec ambiguitates legentibus: facerent nec {ser}monum sese varietatis {illeg} pugnarent, illo præcip{illeg} non de unitate Trinitatis {in} prima Ioannis epistola, positum legimus. In qua etiam ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse a fideo veritate comperimus, trium tantummodo vocabula, hoc est aquæ sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentibus, et Patris Verbique ac Spiritus sancti testimonium omittentibus: quo maxime et fides catholica coloratur et Patris ac ffilij {ac} Spiritus sancti una divinitate {illeg} substantia comprobatur {illeg}

[9] g Sæpenumero violentus parumque impuden{illeg} sæpe varius {parum} sibi constans. Erasm. Annot. in Ioan. 5.7. Vide etiam {illeg} Erasmus contra {illeg} in h.l. de Hieronymo fusius dixit.

[10] k. Codex Armenianus ante 400 annos {illeg}

[11] {illeg}

[12] m Testimonium {trium} in cælo non est in antiquissimis Illyiricorum & Ruthenorum codicibus quorum unum exemplum a sexcentis fere annis manu scriptum, jam pridem apud Illustrissimum Gabrielem Chineum terræ {Banticæ} Dominum vidi et legi: alterum manibus {illeg}teritur, fide et antiquitate sua nobile. Camillus de Antichristo lib. 2. cap. 2. pag. 156.

[13] n Crit. Hist. N. Test. lib. 1, part. 2, c. 18.

[14] Hesych.ad {illeg} l. 2. c. 8. part {illeg}

[15] Cassiod. in Bibl. S. Patr. edit. Paris. 1589.

[16] See also Ambrose in Luc 22.10 & his book de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur, cap. 4.]

[17] Basil. lib. 5 adv. Eunom. sub finem

[18] Lucas Brug. in calce annot.

[19] a Matth. Paris Hist. an. 1179.

[20] See Walton's Proleg. 10. § 5.

[21] a In editis exemplaribus nonnullis non legi, ut in Aldina et Badien{se} editione. Addo ut in Græco Testam{ento} Gerbelij Hagano 1521 nec in Colinæi Parisijs edito. Gomarus in h. l.

[22] b Cùm præsertim si quisquam alius et {illeg} quoque de his verbis nostro quodam jure judicium ferre possumus. Qui non paucos annos in S. Scripturis Vet. et N. Testamen{illeg} Hebraicè Græcè et Latinè perlegendis consumpserimus, et Hebraica Græcaque ipsa divinarum. {illeg}

[23] Beza in h. l.

[24] Non desunt qui Bezam minus audacem fuisse judicant dum a recepta lectione sæpius sine necessitate recedit, et unius, interdum nullis codicis auctoritate, fretus Prætorianam exercet potestatem ex conjecturis mutando et interpolando textum sacrum pro lubitu. Walton Prolegom. 4.915 in Bib. Polygl.

[25] c Crit. Hist. N. Test. cap. 18.

[26] {illeg}

[27] b. Ex hoc igitur codice Britannico posuimus quod in {illeg} dicebatur deesse, {illeg} 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.

[28] c. Versiculus 1 Ioh. 5.7 in Syriaca, ut et vetustissimis Græcis exemplaribus, nostro Alexandrino alijsque MSS Græcis quos contulimus, non reperitur. Walton Prolegom. 14. § 23. Bib. Pol.

[29] a Accivit {illeg}

[30] a The marginal note is this. Sanctus Thomas in expositione secundæ decreta{illeg} 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 sequent{ia:} 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 & con{sensu} inducebat consequentem auctoritatem. Nam subditur {illeg} 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 {illeg} exemplaribus non habetur sed dicitur esse apposita ab hæreticis Arianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis {illeg} de unitate essentiæ trium personarum. Hac beatus Thomas ubi supra.

[31] b 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 quoque ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum verterentur eloquium &c. Hæc Stunica in h. l. Ejus {littera} extat in Criticorum Vol. 9.

[32] a 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, eosque cum Hebræis Græcis et {Poetis} patrum commentarijs sedulo collatos: qui {illeg} 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 {illeg}: quæ namque a nostri seculi scriptoribus ea MSS codicibus collectæ sunt variæ lectiones omnes propemodum in eo comperrimus et ad fontes fideliter examin{illeg} deprehendimus. Scripsit hac Lucas anno 1579 {illeg} sequitur Correctoriam {illeg} disputationes Erasmus testibus in cælo elaborat{illeg} esse.

[33] Note:The contents of this note are only visible in the diplomatic transcript because they were deleted on the original manuscript

[34] c. {illeg} <23r> cato patris ac verbi {ac} spiritus sancti. {illeg} codices aliter legentis describendo sic pergit. Nostro tempore duo Græci codices manuscripti reperti sunt, unus in Anglia & alter in Hispania: quorum uterque hoc loco testimonium habet Patris Verbi et Spiritu sancti.

[35] d 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.

[36] Citations in the text of Scripture

[37] a Acts 13.33.

[38] b Luc. 1.35.

[39] b καθὼς γέ{γραντα} ὅτι τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ ἁιμα καὶ τὸ πνευμα; ὁι τρεις τὸ έν ἐισιν Dionys. Alexand. Resp ad Pauli Samosatensis Quæst. 4.

[40] d. Erasm. advers. Monach. Hisp. in articulo de Trinitate.

[41] a Oratio {illeg}

[42] {illeg}

[43] a Codex græcus hoc loco jam legit ΘΣ pro ΟΣ sensu perturbato.

[44] Concil. Ephes. part. sub initio.

[45] a Vide Baronium ann 451 § 149, 150, 151.

[46] b Evagr. l 3. c. 22. Theodorus Lector l {illeg} Marcellus Chron.

[47] c. {Theosius} was {illeg} in the year of Antioch 963 as Evagrius notes, & Macedonius banished the same year or the year {before}.

[48] a Liberat. Brev. cap. 19.

[49] Vide Baronium an. 510. sect 9.

[50] d. NB. In Hincmarus Opusc 33, c 22, the words ut esset are in like manner referred to the sacred text & some body to make out the sense has in their stead added ut appareret to the words of Liberatus & written ut appareret, ut esset Deus, &c. But the words ut appareret not being in Liberatus must be struck out & supplied by setting the comma after ut esset to part these words from the sacred text.

[51] c Hincmar. opusc. 33. cap. 18.

[52] a Vide annotationes Valesij in Evag. l {3} c. 31.

[53] d Victor {Tunnensis} in Chronico

[54] b Evagr. l. 3. c. 82.

[55] Theodorus l. 2 Nicephorus l 16. c 26. {Eusebius} l. 3 c. 44.

[56] e Theophanus p. 135.

[57] a Alia manu {illeg}

[58] b Alia menu atramento {illeg} <38v> antiquus tum conspicua esset ut usque nunc per medium lineæ crassiori alio atramento superinductæ cerni possit, quid opus esset ut a lineâ illâ superinductâ incrassaretur: sin olim tam evanida esset ut cerni vix posset mirum est quod ejus ductus et vestigia satis certa per medium lituræ illius superinductæ etiamnum appareant. Doceant verba evanida alijs in locis atramento novo incrassata fuisse vel futeantur ΟΣ hic mutatum in ΘΣ

[59] a Connexus Patris in filio et filij in Paracleto tres {efficit} cohærentes alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt (non unus:) quomodo dictum est Ego et Pater unum sumus; ad substantiæ unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem. Tertul. adv. Pra. c. 25.

[60] (a) Dicit Dominus Ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, et tres unum sunt. Cypr. de. unit. Eccles.

[61] (b) Si templum Dei factus est, quæso cujus Dei? – – – – – Si Spiritus Sancti, cùm tres unum sint, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus ei esse potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est. Cypr. Epist. 73 ad Iubaianum

[62] (c) Eucherius reads the text thus. Tria sunt quæ testimonium perhibent, Aqua, Sanguis & Spiritus, & then adds this interpretation. Plures hîc ipsam interpretatione mysticâ intelligunt Trinitatem, eo quòd perfecta ipsa perhibeat testimonium Christo: Aquâ Patrem indicans, quia ipse de se dicit, hic dereliquerunt fontem aquæ vivæ; Sanguine Christum demonstrans, utique per passionis cruorem; Spiritu verò Sanctum Spiritum manifestans. Eucher. de Quæst. N. Test.

[63] (d) Sane falli te nolo in Epistolà Ioannis Apostoli, ubi ait, Tres sunt testes, Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis, et tres unum sunt: ne fortè dicas Spiritum et aquam et sanguinem diversas esse substantias, et tamen dictum esse tres unum sunt. Propter hoc admonui te ne fallacis. Hæc enim sunt, in quibus non quid sint, sed quid ostendant {semper} attenditur –––––– {Si verò} ea quæ hìc significata sunt {velim} inquærere, non absurdè incurrit ipsa. Trinitas, quæ unus solus summus est Deus, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, de quibus verissime dici potuit tres unum sunt. Vt nomine spiritùs significatum accipiamus Deum Patrem (de Deo ipso quippe adorando loquebatur Dominus ubi ait Spiritus est Deus) nomine autem Sanguinis Filium, quia verbum caro factum est, nomine Aquæ Spiritum sanctum. Cùm enim de Aquâ loqueretur Iesus, quæ datum erat sitientibus, ait Evangelistas "Hoc autem dixit de Spiritu quem acceptum erant credentes in eum. D. Augustin. cont. Maximum. cap. 22

[64] (e) Facundus in the begining of his book to the Emperor Iustinian, pro defensione trium Capitulorum Concilii Chalcedonensis, first recites the Text after the manner of Cyprian, but more distinctly in these words. Nam Ioannes Apostolus, in Epistolâ suâ, de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, sic dicit: Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in Terrâ, Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis et Hi Tres unum sunt: in Spiritu significantes Patrem (Ioan 4.21) –––––– in Aquâ Spiritum Sanctum (Ioan. 7.37) –––––– in sanguine verò <45v> filium. And a little after he thus confirms this Interpretation, by Cyprians Authority saying; aut si forsan ipsi qui de Verbo contendunt, in eo quod dixit tres sunt qui testificantur in terrâ, Spiritus Aqua et Sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt, Trinitatem nolunt intelligi, secundum ipsa verba quæ posuit pro Apostolo Ioanne respondeant. Numquid hi tres, qui in terrâ testificari, & qui unum esse dicuntur, possunt spiritus et aquæ et sanguinis dici? Quod tamen Ioannis Apostoli testimonium B. Cyprianus Carthaginensis Antistes et Martyr, in Epistolà sive Libro quod de Trinitate [immo de Vnitate Ecclesiæ] scripsit; de Patre Filio et Spiritu Sancto dictum intelligit. Ait enim, Dicit Dominus Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt. Facund. l. 1. p. 16. ex edit. Sirmondi Parisiis 1629

[65] Copy from an Old MS pasted on Paper with various Readings.

[66] a Quidam autem [sc. Hæretici] ex ijsdem scripturis quædam crasini de quibus reven{illeg} timebant, sicut constat Arianos de Evangelio erasisse quod Salvator ait: Quia Deus spiritus est quem credere nolebant quod Spiritus S. Deus esset omnipotens. Hincmar Opusc. 33. cap. 18.

[67] b Quod natum est. Ambros. de Spir. sancto Lib. 2, cap. {illeg} & cap. 12. & De Fide Lib. 3, c. 8.

[68] c. Sed etiam ipse Dominus dixit in Evangelio: Quoniam Deus Spiritus est. Quem {illeg} ita expresse Ariani testificant esse de Spiritu, ut eum de vestris codicibus auferant. Atque utinam de vestris et non etiam de Ecclesiæ codicibus tollent. Eo enim {illeg} <71r> est. Et fortasse hoc etiam in Oriente fecistis. Et literas quidem potuistis abolere, sed fidem non potuistis auferre. Plus vos illa litura prodebat: Plus vos illa litura damnabat. Neque enim vos poteratis oblinire veritatem, sed illa litura de libro vitæ vestra nomina radebat. Cur auferebatur, Quoniam Deus Spiritus est, si non pertinebat ad spiritu. Ambros.

[69] Varia lectio = 1 Arians

[70] 2 Arians

[71] a Quod siquis de Latinorum codicum varietate contendit quorum aliquos perfidi falsaverunt, Græcos inspiciat codices et advertat quia scriptum est, Οἱ πνεύματι Θεω λατρεύοντες, quod interpretatur, qui Spiritui Deo servimus. Ergo cum serviendum dicat spiritui &c. Ambros. l. 2 de Spir. Sancto. c. 6.

[72] varia lectio 3 But

[73] 4 S

[74] b Nos enim sumus circumcisio qui spiritu Deo servimus, vel sicut nonnulli codices habent qui spiritui Deo vel spiritui Dei servimus. Augustin. l. 3 ad Bonifac. c. 7.

[75] c Plures enim codices etiam Latini sic habent, qui spiritui Dei ser <72r> vimus, Græci autem omnes aut pene {omnes.} In nonnullis autem exemplaribus Latinis invenimus, non spiritui Dei servimus, sed spiritu Deo servimus. Augustin. l. 1 de Trin. c. 6.

[76] all or

[77] VL 2 St

[78] d Scio plurosque codices habere, Qui spiritu Deo servimus. Quantum autem inspicere potuimus, plures Græci hoc habent, Qui spiritui Dei servimus. D. Aug. de Verb. Apost. serm. 15.

[79] 3 S

[80] rejoice in Christ Iesus

[81] 5 Arian

[82] a. Ait enim idem Quia scimus quod filius Dei venit, et concarnatus est propter nos, et passus est, et resurgens a mortuis assumpsit nos et dedit nobis intellectum optimum ut intelligamus Verum, & simus in vero filio Iesu Christo. Hic est verus Deus et vita æterna et resurrectio nostra. Hilar. de Trin. l. 6.

[83] b. Accipe tamen quid etiam scripserit Evangelista Ioannes in Epistola dicens: Scimus quod Filius Dei apparuit, et dedit nobis sensum ut cognoscamus Patrem, & simus in vero Filio ejus Iesu Christo. Hic est verus Deus et vita æterna. Verum Ioannes filium Dei, et verum Deum dicit. Ambros. l. 1 de Fide c. 7.

[84] V. l. 1 Arian

[85] a Αλλὰ καὶ ἔκλαυσε κειται ἐν τω κατὰ Λουκαν Ευάγγελίω ἐν τοις ἀδιορθώτοις άντιγράφοις, καὶ κέχρηται τη μαρτυρία ὁ ἅγιος Ειρηναιος εν τω κατὰ Αιρέσειν, πρὸς τοὺς δοκήσει, τὸν Χριστὸν πεφηνέναι λέγοντας. Ορθόδοξοι δὲ ἀφέιλοντο τὸ ᾽ρητὸν, φοβηθέντες καὶ μὴ νοήσαντες ἀυτου τὸ τέλος καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον. Epiphan. in Anachorato c. 31

[86] a Nec sane ignorandum nobis est et in Græcis et Latinis codicibus complurimus vel de adveniente Angelo vel de sudore sanguineo nihil scriptum referiri. Hilar. l. 10 de Trin.

[87] b. In quibusdam Exemplaribus tam Græcis quam Latinis invenitur, scribente Luca: Apparuit illi Angelus de cælo confortans eum. &c. Hieron. l. 2 adv. Lucif.

[88] V l 2 Eusebian

[89] 3 I am not able to determine

[90] a. Origen. in h. l. Chrysostom. in h. l. Cyril. Thesaur. Assert. 10. Hilar. in h. l. can. 19. Et de Trinitate l. 9, pag. 196. Hieron. in h. l. ut ex ejus Commentario patet. Nam textus ab eo citatus jam corruptus est.

[91] C: V L. 1. foolish

[92] b Augustin l. 2 de consensu Evangel. c. 3.

[93] 2 S Austin

[94] 3. Eusebian

[95] a. Scriptum est, inquiunt, De die autem illo & hora nemo scit, neque Angeli cælorum, nec filius, nisi solus Pater. Primum veteres non habent Codices Græci, quod nec ffilius scit. Sed non mirum si et hoc falsarunt qui scripturas interpolavere divinas. Qua ratione autem videatur adjectum proditur dum ad interpretationem tanti sacrilegij derivatur. Pone tamen ab Evangelistis scriptum &c. Ambros. l. 5 De ffide, c. 7.

[96] /V L 1. D. Ambrose

[97] b. In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est; neque filius, cum in Græcis, & maxime Adamantij & Pierij exemplaribus hoc non habetur asscriptum. Sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur. Gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia Magistri gloria discipulorum sit, et dicunt: Non potest æqualis esse qui novit et qui ignorat, &c. Hieron. com. in Matth. 24.

[98] c. Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus. Tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot codices. Hieron. Præf. ad Damasum in Com. Matth.

[99] 2 Arian

[100] d. In Marco {additum} est, μεδὲ ὁ υἱὸς, id est, neque filius. Et fatetur Divus Hieronymus hoc adscriptum fuisse etiam apud Matthæum in nonnullis Latinis codicibus, in Græcis non haberi præsertim in exemplaribus Adamantij ac Pierij. Atqui ex Homilijs Origenis quas scripsit in Matthæum apparet illum addidisse Filium, cujus hæc sunt verba. Qui non cognoverunt de die illo et hora neque Angeli cælorum neque ffilius, {illeg} scientiam diei illius et horæ cohæredibus promissionis illius ex quo seipsum exinanirit. Ac paulo post: Et præparans omnem quem vult scire illum diem & horam cum sanctis Angelis & cum ipso Domino nostro Iesu Christo. Ad eundem modum legit Augustinus in Homilijs quas edidit in Matthæum, Sermone vigesimo primo, nec legit solum verum etiam interpretatur: Cumque hoc Hilarius, cum ait in Expositione Canonis, dicens diem illum omnibus esse incognitum, & non solum Angelis sed etiam sibi ignoratum. Legit et interpretatur eodem modo Chrysostomus. Denique et Hieronymus ipse in progressu enarrationis sequitur hanc lectionem. Et cum Marcus ἐπιτομὴν scripserit Matthæi, consentaneum est illum non hoc addidisse de suo. Proinde suspicor hoc a nonnullis subtractum ne Arrianis esset ansa confirmandi filium esse patre minorem qui nobiscum aliquid ignoraret. Verum erat igitur ex Marco item eradendum, ubi plane legitur. Neque convenit hæc via tollere occasiones hæreticorum, alioqui bona pars Evangeliorum foret eradenda. Et imprimis illud, Pater major me est. Interpretatione medendum erat huic malo, non rasura; calamo non scalpello. Erasm. Annot. in h. l. Beza in his Annotations, uses to be sharp upon Erasmus for such Annotations as this but is silent here. For he knew that his own MS, that very old one which he presented to the University of Cambridge read here in Matthew, both in Greek & Latin, nor the Son, & it seems chose rather to say nothing then to acknowledge this reading.

[101] V L. 1 Wish

[102] Hieron. in h. l.

[103]

3 Instead of the words inclosed in the brackets it is.

The addition obscures the sense & seems to have been made in the times of the Arian Controversy for transferring the name of the whole family in heaven & earth from God to Christ. –

[104] Note:The contents of this note are only visible in the diplomatic transcript because they were deleted on the original manuscript

[105] V. L. Arian

[106] a Epiphan. Hæres. 42. p. 358. Edit. Petau.

[107] 1. D. Augustin

[108]

2 The words enclosed within the black lines are not in the other M.S. but instead of them as follows – By these instances it is manifest that the scriptures have been very much corrupted in the first ages & cheifly in the 4th century in the time of the Arian controversy – And to the shame of Christians be it spoken the Catholicks are here found much more guilty of these corruptions than the Hereticks. In the earliest ages the Gnosticks were much accused of this crime & seem to have been guilty & yet the Catholicks were not then wholly innocent. But in the 4th 5th & 6th centuries when the Arians Macedonians Nestorians & Eutychians were much exclaimed against for this crime I cannot find any one instance in which they were justly accused. The Catholicks ever made the corruptions (so far as I can yet find) & then to justify & propagate them exclaimed against the Hereticks & old interpreters, as if the antient genuine readings & translations had been corrupted. Whoever was author of the Latin version which did insert the testimony of the three in heaven he charges the authors of the antient Latin versions with infidelity for leaving it out. if Macedonius be condemned & banished for corrupting the scriptures, the Catholicks clamor against the Council which condemned him as if they had corrupted them. If the Catholicks foist into the publick books of the Churches Quia Deus Spiritus est, the Catholicks also rail at the Arians as if they had corrupted the scripture by blotting it out. If the Catholicks strike out ὀυδὲ ὁ υἱὸς they clamour at the Arians for inserting it. If the Catholicks instead of Every spirit which confesseth that Iesus Christ's come in the flesh write corruptly Every Spirit which dissolves Iesus they pretend that the Gnosticks had done the contrary. And if they have taken this liberty with the Scriptures it is to be feared they have not spared other authors. So Ruffin (if we may believe Ierome) corrupted Origen's works & pretended that he purged them from the corruption of the Arians. And such was the liberty of the age that learned men blushed not in translating authors to correct them at their pleasure & confess openly that they did so, as if it were a crime to translate them faithfully All which I mention out of the great hatred I have to pious frauds & to shame Christians out of these practices.

Besides the corruptions of the scriptures mentioned above there are divers others so very antient that they may seem to have been made about the same time. So

[109] 3 Others by an easy change of Κς into Χς read the Church of Christ as the Syriack version & Theodoret Com: in Phil 1 –

[110]

1. In the other MS. it runs thus viz

By this & other instances it appears that the Spanish divines in their edition of the bible at Complutum have corrected the Greek testament by the vulgar latin as they have done other books by their Indices expurgatorii) Two instances of this I find in the 1st letter a third I now send you, & a fourth     may be added concerning

[111] 2 like the former is in the other M.S.

[112] the words one or ar not in the other M.S

[113] 4. two of Covils

[114] 5 the vulgar latin is not on the other M.S

[115] 6 our

[116] 7 our) is left out

[117]

8. After Θεον in the other M.S. it runs thus viz.

But this making the sense ambiguous the Complutensian Edition to make sure work reads τον μόνον &c.

[118] 9. This paragraph is not in the other M.S.

[119] a Ego sum Alpha & ω, dicit Dominus Iesus, qui est et qui erat & qui <79v> venturus est, Omnipotens. Ambrose l. 2 de fide c. 3.

[120] a See Mark. 14.61 Ephes. 4 6. Act. 7.48.

[121] b. Ambrose. in h. l.

[122]

Various readings

(1) Arians.

[123] (2) Arians

[124] (d) Quòd siquis de Latinorum codicum varietate contendit, quorum aliquos perfidi falsaverunt, Græcos inspiciat codices, et advertat quia scriptum est, οἱ πνεύματι Θεω πατρεύοντες, quod interpretatur, qui Spiritui Deo servimus. Ergo cùm serviendum dicat spiritui &c. Ambros. l. 2 De Spirit. Sanct: c. 6.

[125]

Various readings

(1) But

[126] (e) Nos enim sumus circumcisio, qui spiritu Deo servimus, vel sicut nonnulli codices habent, qui spiritui Deo, vel, spiritui Dei servimus. Augustin. l. 3 ad Bonifac. c. 7.

[127] (f) Plures enim codices etiam Latini sic habent, qui spiritui Dei servimus; Græci autem omnes, aut pene omnes. In nonnullis autem exemplaribus Latinis invenimus non spiritui Dei servimus, sed, spiritu Deo servimus. Augustin. l. 1 de Trin. c. 6.

[128] (2) all or almost all

[129] (g) Scio plerosque codices habere, Qui Spiritu Deo servimus. Quantum autem inspicere potuimus, plures Græci hoc habent, Qui Spiritui Dei servimus. D. Aug. de Verb. Apost. serm. 15

[130]

Various readings

(1) rejoice in Christ Iesus &

[131] (2) Arian

[132] (h) Ait enim idem, Quia scimus quòd filius Dei venit, et concarnatus est propter nos, et passus est, et resurgens à mortuis assumpsit nos, et dedit nobis intellectum optimum ut intelligamus Verum, & simus in vero filio Iesu Christo. Hic est verus Deus, et vita æterna, et resurrectio nostra. Hilar. de Trin. l. 6.

[133] (i) Accipe tamen quid etiam scripserit Evangelista Ioannes in Epistolâ, dicens: Scimus quòd Filius Dei apparuit, et dedit nobis sensum, ut cognoscamus Patrem, & simus in vero Filio ejus Iesu Christo. Hic est verus Deus et vita æterna. Verum Ioannes filium Dei, et verum Deum dicit. Ambros. l. 1 de Fide. c. 7.

[134]

Various readings

(l) Arian.

[135] Αλλὰ καὶ ἔκλαυσε κειται ἐν τω κατὰ Λουκαν Ευαγγελίω ἐν τοις ἀδιορθώτοις άντιγράφοις. καὶ κέχρηται τη μαρτυρία ὁ ἅγιος Ειρηναιος ἐν τω κατὰ Αιρέσεων, πρὸς τοὺς δοκήσει, τὸν Χριστὸν πεφηνέναι λέγοντας. Ορθόδοξοι δὲ ἀφέιλοντο τὸ ᾽ρητὸν, φοβηθέντες καὶ μὴ νοήσαντες ἀυτου το τέλος καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον. Epiphan. in Anachorato c. 31.

[136] (l) Nec sane ignorandum nobis est et in Græcis et Latinis codicibus complurimus vel de adveniente Angelo, vel de sudore sanguineo, nihil scriptum referiri. Hilar. l. 10 de Trin.

[137] (m) In quibusdam Exemplaribus, tam Græcis quàm Latinis, invenitur scribente Lucâ: Apparuit illi Angelus de cælo confortans eum. Hieron: l. 2 adv. Lucif.

[138]

Various readings

(l) Eusebian.

[139] (2) I am not able to determine

[140] (n) Origen. in h. l. Chrysostom in h. l. Cyril. Thesaur. Assert. 10. Hilar in h. l. can 19. et de Trin. l. 9, pag. 196. Hieron. in h. l. ut ex ejus commentario patet. Nam textus ab eo citatus jam corruptus est.

[141]

Various readings

(1) foolish

[142] Augustin. l. 2. de consensu Evangel. c. 3

[143] (2) Eusebian

[144] (p) Scriptum est, inquiunt, "De Die autem illo et horâ nemo scit, neque Angeli cælorum, nec filius, nisi solus Pater". Primum veteres non habent Codices Græci, "quod nec filius scit." Sed non mirum si et hoc falsârunt, qui scripturas interpolavere divinas. Quâ ratione autem videatur adjectum proditur, dum ad interpretationem tanti sacrilegii derivatur. Pone tamen ab Evangelistis scriptum Ambros. l. 5 De ffide c 7

[145] (q) In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est, "neque Filius", cùm in Græcis, & maximè Adamantii & Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habetur asscriptum. Sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur. Gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi Ignorantia Magistri gloria Discipulorum sit, et dicunt: Non potest æqualis esse qui novit & qui ignorat. Hieron: com. in Matth. 24.

[146] (r) Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus. Tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot codices Hieron. Præf. ad Damasum in Com. Matth.

[147]

Various readings

(1) Arian

[148] (s) In Marco additum est, μηδὲ ὁ υἱὸς, id est, "neque filius". Et fatetur Divus Hieronymus hoc adscriptum fuisse etiam apud Matthæum in nonnullis Latinis codicibus, in Græcis non haberi præsertim in exemplaribus Adamantii et Pierii. Atqui ex Homiliis Origenis quas scripsit in Matthæum, apparet illum addidisse Filium, cujus hæc sunt verba. Qui non cognoverunt de die illo et horâ, neque Angeli cælorum, neque Filius. Præparat enim Filius scientiam diei illius et horæ cohæredibus promissionis illius, ex quo seipsum exinanirit. Ac paulo pòst: Et præparans omnem quem vult scire illum diem et horam cum sanctis Angelis & cum ipso Domino nostro Iesu Christo. Ad eundem modum legit Augustinus in Homiliis quas edidit in Matthæum, sermone vigesimo primo; nec legit solùm, verùm etiam interpretatur: cumque hoc Hilarius, cùm ait in expositione Canonis, dicens diem illum omnibus esse incognitum, & non solum Angelis, sed etiam sibi ignoratum. Legit et interpretatur eodem modo Chrysostomus. Denique et Hieronymus ipse in progressu enarrationis sequitur hanc lectionem. Et cùm Marcus ἐπιτομὴν scripserit Matthæi, consentaneum est, illum non hoc addidisse de suo. Proinde suspicor hoc à nonnullis subtractum ne Arrianis esset ansa confirmandi filium esse patre minorem, qui nobiscum aliquid ignoraret. Verùm erat igitur in Marco item eradendum, ubi plane legitur. Neque convenit hâc viâ tollere occasiones hæreticorum, alioqui bona pars Evangeliorum foret eradenda. Et imprimis illud, "Pater major me est." Interpretatione medendum erat huic malo, non rasurâ; calamo, non scalpello. Erasm. Annot. in h. l. Beza in his annotations uses to be sharp upon Erasmus for such Annotations as this, but is silent here. For he knew that his own MS, that very old one which he presented to the University of Cambridge, read here in Matthew both in Greek & Latin, "nor the Son," & it seems chose rather to say nothing then to acknowledge this reading.

[149] (t) Hieron. in. h. l.

[150]

Various readings

(1) Instead of the sentence "Yet the addition was very ancient –––––––––––––––– Father of all" the other Copy has what follows. "The addition obscures the Sense & seems to have been made in the times of the Arian Controversy for transferring the name of the whole family in Heaven & Earth from God to Christ.

[151] (2) Arian

[152] (u) Epiphan. Heres. 42. p. 358. Edit. Petau.

[153]

Various readings

(1) & insisted –––––––––––––––––––– spread the corrupt reading.

Instead of this the other MS has what follows.

By these instances it is manifest that the scriptures have been very much corrupted in the first ages, & chiefly in the 4th century in the time of the Arian controversy. And to the shame of Christians be it spoken, the Catholics are here found much more guilty of these corruptions than the Heretics. In the earliest ages, the Gnostics were much accused of this crime, & seem to have been guilty, & yet the Catholics were not then wholly innocent. But in the 4th. 5th. & 6th. centuries, when the Arians, Macedonians, Nestorians & Eutychians were much exclaimed against for this crime, I can not find any one instance in which they were justly accused. The Catholics ever made the corruptions, so far as I can yet find; & then to justify & propagate them, exclaimed against the Heretics & old interpreters: as if the antient genuine readings & translations had been corrupted. Whoever was the author of the Latin version, which did insert the testimony of the three in heaven, he charges the authors of the ancient Latin versions with infidelity for leaving it out. If Macedonius be condemned & banished for corrupting the Scriptures, the Catholics clamour against the council which condemned him, as if they had corrupted them. If the Catholics foist into the public books of the Churches "Quia Deus Spiritus est", the Catholics also rail at the Arians, as if they had corrupted the scriptures by blotting it out. If the Catholics strike out ούδὲ ὁ υἱὸς, they clamour at the Arians for inserting it. If the Catholics instead of "Every spirit which confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh" write corruptly "Every Spirit which dissolves Iesus"; they pretend that the Gnostics had done the contrary. And if they have taken this Liberty with the Scriptures, it is to be feared they have not spared other authors. So Ruffin (if we may beleive Ierome) corrupted Origens works, & pretended that he only purged them from the corruptions of the Arians. And such was the liberty of that age, that learned men blushed not in translating authors to correct them at their pleasure, & confess openly that they did so; as if it were a crime to translate them faithfully. All which I mention out of the great hatred I have to pious frauds, & to shame Christians out of these practices.

Besides the corruptions of the scriptures mentioned above there are divers others so very ancient that they may seem to have been made about the same time. So.

[154] (2) Others by an easy change of Κου into Χου read "the Church of Christ" as the Syriac version & Theodoret Com: in. Phil. 1.

[155] (3) These words not in the other MS

[156]

Various readings

(1) The other MS has it thus. By this & other Instances it appears that the Spanish Divines in their edition of the Bible at Complutum have corrected the Greek testament by the Vulgar Latin as they have done other books by their Indices expurgatorii. Two instances of this I find in the first Letter, a third I now send you, & a fourth may be added concerning 1 Iohn 2.14.

[157] like the former

[158] (3) these words not in the other MS one or (3) two at Oxford, & (4)

[159] (4) two of Dr Covils

[160] Note:The contents of this note are only visible in the diplomatic transcript because they were deleted on the original manuscript

[161] (6) our only Master & Lord Iesus Christ

[162] Butt this making the Sense ambiguous, the Complutensian Edition to make sure work reads τὸν μόνὸν &c

[163]

Various readings

1. What follows of this paragraph is not in the other MS

[164] (x) Ego sum Alpha & ω, dicit Dominus Iesus, qui est, et qui erat. & qui venturus est, Omnipotens. Ambros. l. 2 de fide c. 3.

[165] (2) In the other MS is added: God is called the first & the last to signify not his Eternity but that it is he who sits upon the throne in the beginning & end of the Prophesy: which some not understanding have applied here to Christ to prove his eternity.

[166] * What follows is not[altered] in Sr I Ns handwriting in the MS of which this is a copy.

[167] τόν νυν ἰσα θεω Ιακησιοι ορο{illeg}ς

[168] Heliod Æthiop. Hist l 9.

[169] ib lib 4

[170] Grot. in h. l.

[171] Luc. Brug in calce annot.

[172] a Matth. Paris. l. Hist. ann. 1179.

[173] ✝ See Walton's Proleg. 10. § 5.

© 2017 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC