Catalogue Entry: THEM00263

^[1] Copy from an Old MS pasted on Paper with various Readings.

^[2] 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.

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

^[4] 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.

^[5] Varia lectio = ¹ Arians

^{[6] 2} Arians

^[7] 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.

^[8] varia lectio ³ But

^{[9] 4} S

^[10] 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.

^[11] 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.

^[12] all or

^[13] VL 2 S^t

^[14] 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.

^[15] 3 S

^[16] rejoice in Christ Iesus

^[17] 5 Arian

^[18] 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.

^[19] 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.

^[20] V. l. ¹ Arian

^[21] 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

^[22] 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.

^[23] b. In quibusdam Exemplaribus tam Græcis quam Latinis invenitur, scribente Luca: Apparuit illi Angelus de cælo confortans eum. &c. Hieron. l. 2 adv. Lucif.

^[24] V l ² Eusebian

^{[25] 3} I am not able to determine

^[26] 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.

^[27] C: V L. 1. foolish

^[28] b Augustin l. 2 de consensu Evangel. c. 3.

^[29] 2 S Austin

^[30] 3. Eusebian

^[31] 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.

^[32] /V L 1. D. Ambrose

^[33] 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.

^[34] c. Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus. Tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot codices. Hieron. Præf. ad Damasum in Com. Matth.

^[35] 2 Arian

^[36] 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.

^[37] V L. 1 Wish

^[38] Hieron. in h. l.

^[39]

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. –

^[40] The contents of this note are only visible in the diplomatic transcript because they were deleted on the original manuscript

^[41] V. L. Arian

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

^[43] 1. D. Augustin

^[44]

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 4^th 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 4^th 5^th & 6^th 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

^[45] 3 Others by an easy change of Κς into Χς read the Church of Christ as the Syriack version & Theodoret Com: in Phil 1 –

^[46]

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 1^st letter a third I now send you, & a fourth     may be added concerning

^[47] 2 like the former is in the other M.S.

^[48] the words one or ar not in the other M.S

^[49] 4. two of Covils

^[50] 5 the vulgar latin is not on the other M.S

^[51] 6 our

^[52] 7 our) is left out

^[53]

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.

^[54] 9. This paragraph is not in the other M.S.

^[55] 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.

^[56] a See Mark. 14.61 Ephes. 4 6. Act. 7.48.

^[57] b. Ambrose. in h. l.