This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
in English
Having given you an historical account of the Corruption of two texts of
Scripture, I shall now mention some others more briefly. For the attempts
to corrupt the scriptures have been very many, & amongst many attempts
'tis no wonder if some have succeeded. I shall mention those that have
not succeeded, as well as those that have; because the first will be
more easily allowed to be corruptions, & by being convinced of those, you
will cease to be averse from believing the last.
Hincmare in the place abovementioned in the former letter,
tells us that (a) the Arians rased out of the Gospel this text. Quia Deus spiritus est.
Various readings
(1) Arians.
Another corruption for proving the Deity & worship of the Holy Ghost, 347
spiritu Deo servimuswho worship God in the spirit. And this reading Ambrose
follows in his Commentary on this Epistle. But in his book
ding "
confessing that the Manuscripts here varied & were in some places cor
rupted, he endeavours to defend this reading by the Greek. (d)
di falsaverunt, Græcos inspiciat codices, et advertat quia scriptum est,
vimus. Ergo cùm serviendum dicat spiritui &c. Ambros. l. 2 De Spirit. Sanct:
c. 6.
any one, saith he, contends about the various readings of the Latin books,
some of which have been falsified by perfidious men, Let him look
into the Greek books, & observe that it is written
πατρεύοντες
who worship God the Holy Ghost. Therefore says he since we are to wor
ship the Spirit &c" This is one corruption made in the Latin ( 2 1
Various readings
(1) But
Various readings
(1) rejoice in t
Another corruption of the scriptures or rather two others, and both
those made about the beginning of the (2)
5.20. One of them is th book
thus quotes this text out of his manuscripts (h)
propter nos, et passus est, et resurgens à mortuis assumpsit nos, et de
dit 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.
That we know that the Son of God is come, & was incarnate for us, & suffered,
& rising from the dead assumed us, & gave us an excellent understanding,
that we may understand him that is true, & be in the true son Iesus Christ.
This is the true God & Life eternal & our resurrection" And this reading, as
may be understood by Beza's notes on this Text is recorded by Ambrose
de Fide. c. 7.
by Ambrose
Dial. 3.(i)
lâ, 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.
Evangelist wrote in his Epistle saying, We know that the Son of God hath 371
his true Son Iesus Christ. This is the true God & Life eternal. Iohn calls him
the true Son of God, & the true God." Thus far Ambrose. And tho' these corrup
tions have not fully obtained, yet they have so far prevailed, as to make the
particle in between
Another Corruption I meet with in Luke 19.41. and this also was Various readings (l) Arian.
made by the Catholics in the beginning of the (1)
whilst the Arians urged here the passage of Christs weeping over Ierusalem,
as an argument of Infirmity below the nature & dignity of the Supreme God,
the Catholics struck it out of their books, as Epiphanius himself has openly
confessed in these words. (k)ἔκλαυσε κειται ἐν τω κατὰ Λουκαν Ευαγγελίω ἐν τοις ἀδιορ
θώτοις 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.
uncorrected Exemplars of the Gospel of Luke; and the holy Irenæus, in his
book against Heretics, uses that testimony to confute those who said
that Christ appeared not really but only in shew. But the Catholics blotted
out that passage, being afraid of it, & not knowing its end and force." Thus
far Epiphanius, pleading for this passage by the authority of Irenæus, & callling
those books uncorrected in which the Catholics had not blotted it out.
Such another corruption was made about the same time in Luke 22.43. 44 Various readings (l) Eusebian.
by striking out all these words, as savouring too much of infirmity. "And there
appeared an Angel unto him from Heaven strengthening him: and being in an
agony he prayed more earnestly & his sweat was as it were great drops of blood
falling down to the ground." These words are now found in almost all the Greek
manuscripts, & in all the versions to this day. But Hilary tells us (l)
de adveniente Angelo, vel de sudore sanguineo, nihil scriptum referiri.
Hilar. l. 10 de Trin.
they were wanting in very many copies both Greek & Latin. And Ierome was
bente Lucâ: Apparuit illi Angelus de cælo confortans eum. Hieron: l. 2
adv. Lucif.
mitted them, or did in the beginning of the (1)
out, (2)
There was another Corruption made about the same time in Matthews Various readings (1) foolish
Gospel chap. 19.17. For there the reading in the greater part of the Greek Manuscripts
is still: "Why callest thou me good, there is none good but one, that is God."
And this reading is still followed in the printed Editions, and was in the
ancient exemplars used by the Syriac Persic & Arabic Interpreters; & in those of
Origen (n)
et de Trin. l. 9, pag. 196. Hieron. in h. l. ut ex ejus commentario patet.
Nam textus ab eo citatus jam corruptus est.
Luke it was the true answer which Christ made to the young man. But in
the Latin & Æthiopic Versions, & in some Greek Manuscripts, his answer is thus
set down.
ὁ άγαθός
kest thou me of a good one. There is one who is good." And this reading Erasmus
and Grotius prefer, which I wonder at. For Christ could not at one & the
same time give different answers to one & the same Question, this in Matthew
& that in the other Gospels. Neither can I make sense of this answer. For the ques
tion as they put it, is of one thing, & this answer is of an other. The young man asked,
"Good Master what good thing shall I do?" The question is of a good
Action & Christ is made to answer of a good Person. "Why askest thou me of a good
therefore, that in the early ages, when every Christian had not all the Gospels,
some body who used only Matthews, and was troubled that Christ should re
prehend the young man for saying, "Good Master", tried to adapt Christs repl reprehension to the next words, "What Good thing shall I do." And yet
was so (1)
son. And this corruption I take to have been made in the times of the Arian
controversy, for avoiding the objection of the Arians taken from this text. For
this corrupt reading is followed by Augustin (o)
to spread before his age.
Another corruption of the same kind, I meet with in Matthews Various readings (1) Arian
Gospel chap 24. v.
Augustin, in their commentaries on Matthew, & Cyril in his Thesaurus read,
"But of that day & hour knoweth no man, neither the Angels in Heaven, nor
the Son but the Father only." So that this was the received reading in the first
ages, & no doubt is genuine, because Mark follows
from verse 14 to verse 33, in which this occurs, is a translation of Matthews He
brew without adding or altering anything. 'Tis also still retained in some
Greek & Latin copies, & in the Ethiopic version to this day. But the other
versions, & the generality of the Greek & Latin MSS now extant want the
words "neither the Son
in the Greek MSS, & then in the Latin ones, in the heat of the (2)
controversy. For the Eusebians then urged them,
in behalf of the Catholics (p)
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
& hour knoweth no man, neither the Angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but the
But it is no wonder if they falsified this place also, who have interpoled the
divine scriptures. But
the explication of so great sacrilege. Yet suppose it written by the Evangelists."
By these words of Ambrose it appears, that they endeavoured to strike out
of both the Gospels this clause "nor the Son" tho the attempt succeeded only in
Matthews; and that the clause was still in most of the Latin MSS because
Ambrose, in arguing against it, appeals from them to the Greek. But whilst
he saith, "The ancient Greek MSS want it, & yet living always amongst the
Latins, had no opportunity of consulting with his own eyes the MSS of the
Greek Church, he seems to have taken up with the relation of Ierome, who had
newly sent his commentary on Matthew to Pope Damasus to be published
in the West; having writ it at the request of that Pope, to inform the Latins wherein
their versions differed from the Greek. For Ierome in his commentary on this
place relates the matter thus. (q)
& maximè Adamantii & Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habetur asscrip
tum. 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.
whilst in the Greek ones, & chiefly in the exemplar of Origen & Pierius, this is
not found written. But because it is read in some, it seems that we are
to discuss it. Arius & Eunomius rejoyce, as if the ignorance of the Master
were the glory of the Disciples; & say; He who knows & he who knows not cannot
be equal." Here Ierome confesses that it was read in some Greek MSS,
& this reading insisted on by Arius & Eunomius, & only affirms that it was
wanting in others, & chiefly in those copied after the editions of Origen & Pier
ius. He does not say that it was wanting in the very MSS which Origen
& Pierius used (for its very improbable that he should meet with these) but in
the Exemplars or editions of those men, meaning the books copied after
their MSS. For that Exemplar in this sense, is plain by 398
greeing editions of the Latin Versions (r)
Tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot codices Hieron. Præf. ad Damasum in Com. Matth.
plars, let them answer which. For there are almost as many Exemplars as
Books." So then the ancient Greeek books of Ambrose are not all the ancient
books, but only the Exemplars of Origen, and Pierius; nor yet ancient books,
but such as had been transcribed since the time of those two men: no nor
sincere copies but of their originals, but such as had been corrupted in the (1)(s)
nymus 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 Fili
um, cujus hæc sunt verba. Qui non cognoverunt de die illo et horâ, neque An
geli cælorum, neque Filius. Præparat enim Filius scientiam diei illius
et horæ cohæredibus promissionis illius, ex quo seipsum exinanirit. Ac pau
lo 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 vigesi
mo primo; nec legit solùm, verùm etiam interpretatur: cumque hoc Hila
rius, cùm ait in expositione Canonis, dicens diem illum omnibus esse in
cognitum, & non solum Angelis, sed etiam sibi ignoratum. Legit et inter
pretatur eodem modo Chrysostomus. Denique et Hieronymus ipse in pro
gressu enarrationis sequitur hanc lectionem. Et cùm Marcus
scripserit Matthæi, consentaneum est, illum non hoc addidisse de suo.
Proinde suspicor hoc à nonnullis subtractum ne Arrianis essed
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 Evan
geliorum foret eradenda. Et imprimis illud, "Pater major me est." In
terpretatione medendum erat huic malo, non rasurâ; calamo, non scal
pello. Erasm. Annot. in h. l.
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 acknow ledge
clause. I doubt whether there were so many books corrupted as Ierome
represents. For he wrote his whole commentary on Matthew upon short
warning, within the space of 14 days, as he tells us, & so had no time to
collate many MSS.
In Ephes. 3.14 is another corruption. For the reading now received Various readings (1) Instead of the sentence "Yet the addition was very ancient ––––––
in the Greek, Syriac, & Latin is, "For this cause I bow my knee to the Father
of our Lord Iesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven & earth is
named." But Ierome tells us (t)
were added in the Latin copies, while the genuine reading remained
in the Greek. So that the reading of the Greek copies of Ierome's age was, "for this cause I bow my knee unto the Father, of whom the whole family in
heaven & earth is named", that is, unto the father of the whole family in
heaven & earth. And this reading is still conserved in the Alexandrine MS,
and in one of Colberts MSS & in the Ethiopic version. And thus Chrysostom, Theo
phylact & Ambrose read it in their commentaries, tho' the addition be
now got into their Text. Yet the addition was very ancient not only
in the Latin but even in some Greek copies; being in the Claromontan
MS. But it obscures the sense by referring the word Father to Christ. For
this word is here d family, & signifies the same thing with
taken for the common Father of a kindred. Here the whole creation is considered
as one kindred or family so named from the God the common father of Man all.
kind(1)
–––––––––– 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.
Another corruption was made about the same time in Eph. 3.9.
The reading now generally received is, "Who created all things by Iesus
Christ". And this reading is as old as Chrysostom, who comments upon it. But the
last words "by Iesus Christ", have been added by the Greeks, for they are still wanting in
the oldest Greek MSS, the Alexandrin & the Claromontan Gr. & Lat. In that of St Ger
mans & in one of Mr Colberts, & in the Syriac, Latin, & Ethiopic Versions. Nei
ther did Tertullian nor Ierome nor Ambrose read them.
The old Gnostics were much complained of for corrupting the Scriptures,
and some of their corruptions were afterwards, in the time of the (2)
received & spread by the Catholics. For (u)
Marcion corrupted 1 Cor. 10.9 by writing
is now generally followed. For the Greek MSS & most of the old Versions, now read,
"Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted, & were destroyed of
serpents." Yet the old reading, "Neither let us tempt the Lord" was in
Theodorets MSS & is still conserved in the MS of Lincoln College in Oxford, and
in one of Dr Covils MSS. In the Alexandrine MS & Ethiopic version 'tis "Neither let
us tempt God." The corruption was easy by changing
ations of
Such another corruption was made in those early ages in Iude 5 where
the Alexandrin MS & some others, & the Latin & Arabic, by changing
land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believe not." For the genuine
reading, backt with almost all the Greek M.SS, & with the Syriac & Arabic, is,
"The Lord having saved the People &c".
Hincmare in the place mentioned above tells us that some for dissolving the Various readings (1) & insisted –––––––––––––––––––– spread the corrupt Instead of this the other MS has what follows. By these instances it is manifest that the scriptures have been very much corrupted Besides the corruptions of the scriptures mentioned
Hypostatical union of the two natures in Christ had rased out this text.
Spiritus qui solvit Iesum ex Deo non est".
prest with this reading, denyed that it was found in authentic copies. This he
seems to have from Socrates, who tells us in his Ecclesiastical History l. 7 c. 32 that
"Nestorius knew not that in the first Epistle of Iohn it was written in the
ancient copies,
spirit that separates Iesus is not of God. For this sentence those men have
rased out of the ancient copies, who studied to separate the Deity from the
humanity. Wherefore the ancient Interpreters observed this same thing, namely
that there were some who depraved this Epistle desiring to separate the Man
from God. For the humanity is conjoined to the divinity, nor are they now two,
but One." Thus far Socrates. His meaning is, that altho' this sentence was now
rased out of the ancient Greek copies, yet the ancient Latin interpreters by
translating the text, "
discovered that it was formerly written
ἀπὸ
otherwise. He doth not say that he himself had seen this reading in any Greek
MSS; but argues that some old Interpreters had seen it, meaning the old Vulgar
Latin. He should rather have argued from the Greek Text that the Latins had cor
rupted their Version. For all the Greek MSS to this day, & all the ancient Versions
besides the Latin, read the text thus, Every spirit that confesses not that Iesus Christ
is come in the flesh is not of God; except that the Ethiopic Version & the Alex
andrin MS, & two or three others, omit part of the words. The same reading was
followed by Polycarp, the disciple of Iohn, in his Epistle; and among the ancient
Latines by Tertullian
the Nestorian controversy. For Austin (
ways, (1)
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 in
nocent. 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
corrupted. Whoever was the author of the Latin version, which did insert the testi
mony 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 cor
rupting the Scriptures, the Catholics clamour against the council which condem
ned him, as if they had corrupted the Scriptures
lic books of the Churches "
Arians, as if they had corrupted the scriptures by blotting it out. If the Catholics
strike out against
Catholics instead of "Every spirit which confesseth not that Iesus t
flesh" write corruptly "Every Spirit that
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 plea
sure, & 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.above were
others so very ancient that they may seem to have been made about the same
time. So.
Alexandria, Pope Leo I, Prosper, Cassian, Beda, Fulbertus Carnolensis &c spread the
corrupt reading. (1)
Again in Iohn 19.40 somebody has attempted to change
into
of God."
In Acts 13.41, somebody has attempted to change
Θεὸς σταυρουται καὶ αποθνήσκει ὃ
Colled
I work a work in your Days, because God is crucified & dies, which ye will
not believe"
In 2 Thess. 1.9 somebody, to make Christ be called the Lord God, has
after
be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord God and
from the glory of his power" as it is in the MS of Lincoln College in Oxford.
Such another corruption, but with better success, has been made in
Acts 20.28 where the oldest MSS (as the Alexandrin, & that which was Beza's
in both Gr & Lat) & some others, & the Syriac & Armenian Versions, & Irenæus
l. 3. c. 14. and the Apostolic constitutions l 2. c. 61. & Didymus
Calaritan & Chrysostom (as appears by his commentary on this text & in Ephes. 4.12)
& Ierome
sed with his own Blood". (2)
version & Theodoret
"The Church of God." and this last reading is now generally followed, being in the
Latin & Ethiopic Versions & cited by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Basil, & Ambrose, un
less they have been corrected (3)(3) The variety of the readings shews that Lord
into God, & not God into the Lord, shews sufficiently that the Lord was the first reading.
The like corruption has been made also in 1 Iohn 3.16, where the A
postle discoursing of charity subjoins "Hereby we understand Charity because he laid down his life for us, & we ought to lay down our lives for the Brethren".
For somebody to make this a text for the Deity of the Son, has in the Vulgar La
tin inserted the word Dei after charity. And the Spaniards have thence
Various readings (1) The other MS has it thus. By this & other Instances it appears that the Spanish (1)
Divines in their edition of the Bible at Complutum have corrected the
Greek testament
a third I now send you, & a fourth may be added concerning 1 Iohn 2.14.
corrected the Greek Testament by the Vulgar Latin, as they have done other books
by their
where by the sole Authority of the Latin they have omitted the words
ὑμιν πατέρες ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχης
Another corruption (2)
drin MS, & three of those ancient Greek ones at Rome collated by Caryophylus,
& (3)(3) two at Oxford, & (4)r
p 222, & Beda & the Vulgar Latin (5)(5) not in the other MS. read (5)
Ιἠσουν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι(6)
Other MSS, & the Syriac & Arabic, after (7)
to make sure work reads
the only Lord God & our Lord Iesus Christ. The Complutensian Edition reads
"Denying the only God Iesus Christ".
In Philip 4.13, the Alexandrin & Claromontan MSS & some others, and
the Latin
ἐνδυναμουντι με
others after
theneth me."
So in Rom. 15.32, some have changed the will of God into the will Various readings
of Christ Iesus. And in Col. 3.15, the peace of God into the peace of Christ. And
in Rom. 10.17, the Word of God into the word of Christ. (1)
the Omnipotence of Christ cites Apoc. 1.8 in these words. (x)
turus est, Omnipotens. Ambros. l. 2 de fide c. 3.
Omega saith the Lord Iesus, who is, & who was, & who is to come, the Omnipotent.
The true reading is not, "the Lord Iesus" but "the Lord God" – that is "God the Father".
Again in Apoc. 1.11. the words of the Son of Man "I am Alpha & O
mega the first & the last" have crept erroneously into some few Greek MSS, out
of one of which Erasmus printed it, & into the Arabic version. For they are wan
ting in the Alexandrin MS & most in
& in the Commentaries of Arethas & Primasius, & in the Complutensian Edi
tion. (2)is include 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 all applied here to Christ to prove his eternity.
Another corruption there is in 2 Pet 3.18. For there the Syriac & some
Greek MSS still read, "But grow in grace & in the knowledge of our Lord &
Saviour Iesus Christ, & of God the Father. To him be glory both now & for ever.
Amen." But the other MSS & versions have left out the words "And of God
the Father" that the Doxology may refer to Christ.
*r I Ns handwriting in the MS of which this
is a copy.
ology is
the Syriac interpreter renders thus.
is God over all to whom be praises & blessings for ever, Amen" Where if to him
be written instead of to whom, as I suspect it was at first, & the stop in the
middle of the sentence taken away, for stops are of late imposition, the Syriac
version will be, "He who is God over all, to him be praises & blessings for ever
Amen"; that is in our Dialect "To him who is God over all be praises" For
the Syrians frequently
which is ours. Some think
I see no such
that the text has been abused by taking the first word
the Syriac version corrupted as above. For
would perswade us. 'Tis always an article. For it never respects an an
tecedent, but by apposition of its consequent in the same case. Wee say not
ture & signification. We may indeed for
Ellipsis of the Article say, who is; But if we will express the article, we
must say, he who is, of him who is, to him who is, or the, of the, to the. If
therefore we would translate the text without losing the article, we must
not say, Who is God over all, but, He who is God over all; or, The God over all. And so the Question is, whether we must read, "the God over all
And if any one will contend that the Syriac has not been
corrupted here, yet he must allow that it has been corrupted in some pla
ces & particularly in Heb. 2.9. where that version now hath "For God himself
by his Grace tasted death for all Men" corruptly for "That He by the
Grace of God should taste Death for all men.