Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 3: ff. 49-68)

<49r>

The Third Letter.

Having given you an historical account of the cor{r}uption of two texts of scripture I shall now mention some others more briefly. For the attempts to corrupt y^e 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 beleiving the last.

Hincmare{illeg} in the place mentioned in the former letter, tells us ^a[1] that the Arians rased out of the Gospel this text, Quia Deus est spiritus \est/ because God is a Spirit \the Spirit is God/ /God is a spirit\, least & that they did it least they should be compelled to confess that the Holy Ghost is God omnipotent. He means not the words Spiritus est Deus in Iohn 4, w^ch all men understand of the father, but those w^ch D. Ambrose cites ^b[2] divers times out of Iohn 3.6, after this manner, Quod natum est ex carne caro est et quod natum quia de carne natum est et quod natum est ex spiritu spiritus est quia Deus spiritus est. |That w^ch is born of {illeg} the flesh is flesh because it is born of the flesh & that w^ch is born of the spirit is spirit becaus the spirit is God.|. For in one of the places where D. Ambrose thus cites this text he complains with Hincmarus that y^e Arians had here blotted out the words quia Deus spiritus est, & that they had done it not only in their private books but also in the publick books of the churches. His words {a}re: ^c[3] Yea & y^e Lord himself said in the gospel: Because God is the spirit is God. \God is a Spirit./ Which place y^e Arians {s}o so expresly testify to be {illeg}po respect y^e Spirit that {y}e take it out of your books: & I could wish that {ye} took it out of yo^r own books only & not also out {of} the books of the Church. For at that time when {th}at man of impious infidelity Auxentius took possessi{on} of the Church of Millan by arms & an army, {or} the Church of Sirmium upon y^e inclination {of} her Priests was invaded by Valens & Vrsatius, <50r> this fals & sacrilegious thing was found done in the ecclesiastical books. And perhaps yo|e|{u} have also done thi|e| same thing in the east: & truly the letters yo|e|{u} might \could/ blot out but yo|e|{u} could not take away the faith. That blot betrayed you the more, that blot condemned you the more. For yo|e|{u} could not blot \wipe/ out y^e truth, but that blot rased out your names out of y^e book of life. Why were the words, because y^e Spirit is God \is a Spirit/, taken away if they did not belong to the Holy Ghost? Thus does Ambrose go on to discourse about this text quoting it a little after at large w^th y^e context out of the discourse between Christ & Nicodemus, Iohn 3.6. So then it's certain by the testimony of Ambrose that before y^e Emperor Constantius conquered the west & called y^e Counc{illeg}il of Sirmiū & made Auxentius (the predecessor of Ambrose) bishop of Millan, some of the Latin Churches for proving ha for proving the Deity of the Holy Ghost had inserted y^e clause quia Deus spiritus est into y^e discourse between Christ & Nicodemus in the public books of their con{g}regations. I do not say into one book only but into their books in general: for this is the language i|o|f Ambrose. Its certain also that this clause quia Deus est spiritus est was here erroneously inserted by the Latines & therefore justly struck out by the Arians: & y^t Ambrose & Hincmares were mistaken in charging them with falsification for striking it out. For this clause is wanting to this day in all the greek MSS & in all the Versions both ancient & modern. Which shews that y^e Latines (however Ambrose declame against the Arians for striking it out) were ashamed to insert it into their books any more.

Another corruption made for proving the Deity & worship of the Holy Ghost was made in Phil. <51r> 3.3. For there the genuine ancient reading in the Latin was Qui spiritu Deo servimus, who worship God in y^e spirit, & this reading Ambrose follows in his Commentary on this Epistle: but in his book de Spiritu sancto lib. 2 c. 6, to prove y^e worship of y^e Holy Ghost he quotes another reading qui spiritui Deo servimus who worship \God/ the Spirit of God. And confessing that y^e Manuscripts here varied & were in some places corrupted he endeavours to defend this reading by the greek. ^a[4]But if any one, saith he, cond|t|ends about y^e various readings of y^e Latin books, some of w^ch have been falsified by perfidious men, let him look into the Greek books & observe that it is written οἱ πνεύματι Θω λατρεύοντες, w^ch y^e Latin interprets, qui spiritui Deo servimus, who worsship God y^e Holy Ghost. Therefore since he says we are to worship fo the spirit &c. This is one corruption made in \both/ the Latin but^[5] there is another of y^e same text made in \both/ the Greek \& Latin/. For y^e Alexandrine MS & several others & the Complutensian Edition have Θεου for Θεῷ & so make y^e reading οἱ πνεύματι Θεου λατρεύοντες who worship y^e spirit of God. And both these corruptions are almost \seem to be as/ as old as y^e Arian \Macedonian/ controversy. For S^[6] Augustin in thi|e| 7^th chapter of his 3^r book to Boniface mentions them both in these words. ^b[7] For we are the circumcision who worship God in the spirit, or as some books have it, who worship God y^e spirit, or the spirit of God. Of the latter of these two corruptions he makes this further mention in y^e 6^t chapter of his first book de Trinitate. ^c[8] For many Latin books & all or almost all y^e Greek ones have it thus, who worship the spirit of God. Yet in some latine ones we have found, not Who worship the spirit of God, but who worship God in the spirit. If you suspect S^t[9] Augustin may speake too largely here, he gives you his opinion <52r> in modester language in his 15 sermon De verbis Apostoli. ^[10] I know, saith he, that many books have Who worship God in the Spirit. But so far as we could look into the Greek books, many of those have, who worship the spirit of God. So then y|th|is corruption was in S. Augustin's age, far spread in both Latin & Greek MSS & more in the Greek then in y^e Latin. And yet Ambrose not long before read οἱ πνεύματι Θεῷ λατρεύοντες, as you have heard \many {illeg} greek MSS still have it/ & so did{illeg} Chrysostom & Theophylact & expounded it, not w^th Ambrose, who worship God the spirit, but who worship God πνευματικῶς spiritually or in the spirit. And the same reading & sense is in y^e Syriack Ethiopic & Arabic. & so also y^e Latin MSS now generally have, qui spiritu servimus Deo. And this reading & sense, as it is now the received one, so it is evidenced to be genuine by the context. For the Apostle is exhorting the Philippians to avoyd \relying on/ the works of y^e law & \putting/ confidence in y^e flesh & to worship God in the spirit. He opposes the worshipping god in the spirit to y^e putting confidence in the flesh. Beware, saith he, of the concision (that is of those who trust in the circumcision of the flesh,) {&} for we are the circumcision w^ch worship God in the spirit . & rejoyce in Christ Iesus & have no confidence in the flesh.

Another corruption of the scriptures or rather two others & both those made about the beginning of the Arian controvery we have in 1 Iohn 5.20. One of them is recorded by Hilary in his \sixt/ book de Trinitate where he thus quotes this text out of his manuscripts ^[11] Ait enim idem [Ioannes] 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 <53r> in vero filio Iesu Christo. Hic est verus Deus et vita æterna et resurrectio nostra. For the same [Iohn] saith, That we know that the son of God is come & is|wa|s incarnate for us & suffered & rising from y^e dead assumed us & gave us an excellent understanding that we may understand this the \him that is/ true {illeg} & be in the true son Iesus Christ. This is the true God & life eternal & o^r resurrection. And this reading (as may be understood by Beza's notes on this text) is still extant in some old latin MS manuscripts of y^e new Testament. Another corruption of this text is recorded by D. \by Basil l. 4 contra Eunom. Cyrill de Trin. Dial. 3/ Ambrose lib 1 de Fide c. 7. His words \& by others. The words of Ambrose are/ ^[12] Yet take what also Iohn y^e Evangelist wrote in his Epistle saying: We know that y^e Son of God hath appeared & given us an understanding that we may know y^e Father & be in 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 corruptions have not fully obteined yet they have so far prevailed as to make y^e particle in between vero & filio ejus be rased out in the vulgar Latin to this day. By the designe of these corruptions|,| (w^ch was plainly st{illeg}m the whole ten |to transfer the epithete true from the Father| to y^e Son for proving him the true God|,|) you may learn y^t y^e text was otherwise understood before. For all corruptions are for imposing a new sense. The true reading is this: We know that y^e Son of God is come & hath given us an understanding y^t we {may} may know the true God & we are in the true one in (or by) his son \Iesus Christ/. This is the true God & life eternal. Thus the Alexandrine MS & present Latin. Others have, {illeg} by his Son Iesus Christ. First he tells you that y^e son of God is come to make us know the true God, & then he tells you who that true God is \namely y^e father of Iesus Christ in whom we are/. We are, saith he, in y^e true one by his Son Iesus Christ: This is the true God. & life eternal. And all this is as much as to say This is life eternal to know the{illeg}|e| \Father who is/ y^e only true God, & Iesus Christ whom th{illeg} |he| hath sent |y^t is, the Father.| Iohn. 17.3.

Another corruption I meet with in Luke <54r> 19.41, where the Arians & this \also/ was also made by the Catholicks in y^e beginning of the Arian \Eusebian/ /Arian\ C|c|ontroversy. For whilst the Eusebians \Arians/ urged the here the passage of Christs weeping over Ierusalem as an argument of infirmity below the nature & dignity of y^e supreme God, the Catholicks struck it out of their books, as Epiphanius himself \(in Anacorato c.31)/ has openly confessed in these words. Yea, saith he, Christ also wept as tis read in the uncorrected exemplars of the Gospel of Luke, & y^e holy Irenæus in his book against heresies uses this|at| testimony to confute those who said that Christ appeared not really but only in shew. But the Catholicks blotted out y^t passage being afraid of it & not knowing its end & force. Thus far Epiphanius, pleading y^e for this passage by y^e authority of Irenæus & callling those books uncorrected in w^ch y^e Catholicks had not blotted it out. To y^e authority of Irenæus I may add that of Origen who in his commentary on this place, Hom. 49. {illeg}

Such another corruption the Catholicks attempted \made/ about the same time in Luke 22.43, 44, striking out there \all/ these words as savouring too much of infirmity: And there appeared an Angel unto him from heaven strengthening him: & being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; & his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to y^e ground. For Hilary tells These words are now found in almost all greek & \latin/ manuscripts & in all \the/ versions \to this day/, but ^a[13] Hilary tells us that in his age they were wanting in very many copies both greek & Latin; & ^[14] Ierome that they were only extant in some. But whether the Catholicks have erroneously admitted them or did in the beginning of the Arian \Eusebian/ controversy strike them out I am not able to determin. ^[15]

<55r>

There was another corruption made about the same time in Matthews Gospel chap. 19.17. For there the reading in the greater part of y^e greek manuscripts is still Why callest thou me good, there is none good but one, that is God. And this reading is followed in the printed editions & was in the ancient exemplars used by the Syriac Persic & Arabic Interpreters & in ^a[16] those of Origen Chrysostom, Cyrill, Hilary & Ierome; & by the testimony of Mark & Luke it was the true answer w^ch Christ made to the young man. But in the Latin & Ethiopick Versions & in some greek manuscripts his answer is thus set down τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ|ι| του ἀγαθου. ἑἱς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός Why askest thou me of a good one? There is one who is good. And this reading Erasmus & Grotius prefer w^ch I wonder at. For Christ could not at one & y^e same time give different answers to one & y^e same question, this in Matthew & that in the other Gospels. Neither can I make sense of this answer. For the question \as they put it/ is of one thing & this answer of another. The young man asked, Good master what shall I do? Or as the greek Translator of Matthews Hebrew Gospel exprest it, Good Master what good thing shall I do? The questiō is of a good thing \action/ & Christ is made to answer of a good person. Why askest thou me of a good one? ἑἱς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός There is one person who is a good one. It seems to me therefore that in y^e early ages when every Christian had not all y^e Gospels some body who used only Matthews & was troubled y^t Christ should reprehend y^e young man for saying God Master^[17], tried to adapt Christs reprehension to y^e next words What good thing shall I do? & yet was so foolish as to make Christ speak in his reprehension still speak of a good person. And this corruption I take to have been made in the times of y^e Eusebian \Arian/ controversy {because} for avoyding y^e objection of y^e <56r> Ausebians \Arians/ taken from this text. For this corrupt reading is followed by D^[18] Augustin & therefore began to be receeded \spread/ before his age.

Another corruption of y^e same kind I meet w^th in Matthews Gospel chap. 24 v. 36. For there Origen, Chrysostom, & Theophylact, {illeg} the Hilary & D.^[19] Augustin in their Commentaries on Matthew \& Cyril in his Thesaurus/ read, But of that day & hour knoweth no man neither y^e Angels in heaven nor the Son but the Father only. So that this was the recived {sic} reading in the first ages, & no doubt is genuine because Mark has n follows it & his Gospel in chap. 13 from v. 14 to v. 33 \in which this occurs/ is a translation of Matthews Hebrew w^thout adding or altering any thing. Tis also still retained in some greek & Latin MSS copies of & in the Ethiopic version to this day. But the \other Versions & the/ generality of the g|G|reek & Latin MSS now want y^e words neither the Son, & these words seem to have been struck out first in y^e greek MSS & then in the Latin by \ones/ in the heat of y^e Eusebian controversy. For the Eusebians then urged them & Ambrose makes this answer in behalf of y^e Catholicks. ^[20] It is written, say y^e Arians Eusebians, But of that day & hour knoweth no man neither the Angels in heaven nor the Son but the Father only. First the ancient greek books have not y^t neither the Son knows. But it is no wonder if they falsified this place also, who have interpoled y^e \divine/ scriptures. But why they added it is discovered whilst they apply it to y^e explication of so great sacrilege. Yet suppose it written by y^e Evangelists &c. By these words of Ambrose it appears that they endeavoured to strike out of both y^e Gospels \this clause/ nor the son though the attempt succeeded only in Matthew's; & y^t that they were out this time generally \clause was still in most of/ the Latin MSS because D. Ambrose \in/ arguing against it {illeg}aly \it appeals/ from \from them to/ y^e greek. But whilst he saith the ancient greek <57r> MSS want it & yet living always amongst the Latines had no opportunity of consulting w^th his own eyes y^e MSS of the greek church, he seems to have taken up w^th y^e relation of Ierome who a little before had \newly/ sent his c|C|ommentary on Matthew to Pope Damasus to be published in y^e west, having writ it at the request of that Pope to inform the Latines wherein their v|V|ersions differed from the greek. Now For Ierome in his commentary on this place relates y^e matter thus. ^[21] In some Latine books there is added nor the Son, whilst in y^e Greek \exemplar/ ones & chiefly in the exemplars of Ar Origen & Pierius, this is not found written. But because it is read in some, {illeg} 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, &c. Here Ierome confesses 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 & Pierius. He does not say that it was wanting in the very MSS w^ch Origen & Pierius used (for it's very improblable he should meet w^th those) but in y^t \the{illeg}/ exemplars or editions \of those men/, meaning y^e books copied after their MSS. For that he uses the word exemplar in this sense is plain by his Preface to this his Commentary on Matthew where he says of the disagreeing editions of the Latin Versions: Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda respondeant quibus. Tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot codices^[22] |For if we may trust the Latin exemplars, let them answer which. For there are almost as many exemplars as books|. So then the veteres codices græci \ancient greek books/ of of {sic} Ambrose are not omnes veteres codices \all the ancient greek books/ but |only| the exemplars of Origen & Pierius; nor indeed \yet/ ancient books but such as had been transcribed since the time of those two men; {illeg} no nor sincere copies of their originals but such as had been corrupted in the Arian controversy: for ^c[23] Origen \himself/ (as I told you) read y^e clause. I wish 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.

<58r>

In Ephes 3.14 \is another corruption. For/ the reading now received in the Greek Syriac & Latin is, For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of o^r Lord Iesus Christ, of whom the whole family {illeg} in heaven & earth is named. But Ierome tells us^[24] that the words of o^r Lord Iesus Christ were added in the Latin copies while the greek genuine reading remained in the Greek: so that the reading in the Greek copies of Ieromes age was: For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of \whome/ the whole family of in heaven & earth is named, that is, unto the father of the whole family in heaven & earth. \Thus Chrysostom Ambrose & Theophylact read it/ And this reading is still conserved in the Alexandrine MS & \& {sic} in one of Colberts MSS & in the/ Ethiopic Version. \Whence/ \And thus Chrysostom Theophylact & Ambrose omitt \read/ it in their Commentaries, tho {on}|th|e \addition/ be now got into their text./ The addition <59r> 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. For the reading now generally received is, Who created all things by Iesus Christ. And this And this reading is as old as Chrysostome 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 Complutensian Claromontan, \gr & lat. in that of S. Germ. that\one/ of M. Colbert/ & in the Syriac Latin & Ethiopick Versions: no did \Tertullian nor/ Ierome nor Ambrose read them.

Another corruption of y^e same standing I meet w^th in Apoc. 1.8, w^ch place D. Ambrose to prove the omnipotence of Christ cites in these words. Ego sum Alpha & ω dicit D ^[25] I am Alpha & Omega saith the Lord Iesus who is & who was & who is to come the omnipotent. For y^e true reading is not the Lord Iesus but the Lord God, that is God the father.

The old Gnosticks were much complained of for corrupting the scriptures & some of their corruptions were afterwards in the times of y^e Arian controversy received & spread by the Catholicks. For ^[26] Epiphanius tells us that y^e heretick Marcion corrupted 1 Cor. 10.{illeg}9 by writing Christo Χριστὸν for Κύριον & this corruption is now generally followed. For the greek MSS & most of y^e old Versions now read Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted & were destroyed of serpents. Yet y^e old reading, Neither let us tempt the Lord \was in Theodorets MSS &/ is still conserved in the MS of Lincoln College in Oxford \& in one of D^r Covils MSS/. & In the Alexandrine MS & Ethiopick Version 'tis, Neither let us tempt God. The corruption was easy by changing ΚΝ, ΧΝ & ΘΝ (the abbreviations of κ|Κ|ύριον Χριστὸν & Θεὸν) into one another.

Such another corruption was made in those <60r> early ages in Iude 5 where the Alexandrin MSS & some others & the Latin & Arabic by changing ΚΣ into ΙΣ that is Κύριος into Ἰεσους, read Iesus having saved the people out of the Land of Egypt afterwards destroyed them that beleived not. {illeg} For the genuine reading backt w^th almost all y^e greek MSS & w^th y^e Syriack & Arabick is, The Lord having saved the people &c.

Hincmare in the place mentioned above tells us that some for dissolving the Hypostatical union of the two natures in Christ, had rased out this text, Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum ex Deo non est, \1 Iohn 4.3/ & that Nestorius being prest with this reading denied that it was found in authentick copies. This he seems to have from Socrates who in his Ecclesiastical History lib. 7. c. 32 tells us that Nestorius knew not that in the first Epistle of Iohn it was written in the ancient copies ὅτι πᾶν πνευμα ὃ λύει τὸν Ιησουν, ἀπὸ του Θεου οὐκ ἔστι, Every spirit y^t 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 y^e man from God. For the humanity is conjoyned to y^e Deity 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 y^e ancient Latine interpreters by translating the text: Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum ex Deo non est, had discovered that it was formerly written ὅτι πᾶν πνευμα ὁ λύει τὸν Ιησουν ἀπὸ του Θεου οὐκ έστι & that therefore this epistle was depraved where the reading was 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 Authors <61r> of the Vulgar Latin. & not suspecting that the Latin He should rather have argued from y^e Greek that y^e Latines had corrupted their v|V|ersion. For all the greek MSS to this day & all the ancient Versions besides y^e Latine read the text thus: Every spirit that confesses not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. The same reading was followed by Polycarp the disciple of Iohn in his Epistle & among the ancienter Latines by Cyprian l. 2 cont. Iudæos, c. 7. Yet the corruption was^[27] older then Cyprian & \a/ seems to have been made against the Gnosticks who distinguished between Christ & Iesus. unless For tis quot followed by Irenæus l. 3 c. 18, unless y^e Latines have corrupted him. But it prevailed not before \the times of/ the Nestorian controversy. For D. Augustin (Tract. 6 \in 1 Ioan./) read the text both ways. |& insisted most upon the genuine reading. But soon after|

An|By| these instances it's manifest that y^e scriptures have been very much corrupted in y^e first ages & chiefly in the fourth Century in the times of the Arian Controversy. And to y^e shame of Christians be it spoken y^e Catholicks are here found much more guilty of these corruptions then the hereticks. In y^e 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 fourth & fift \& sixt/ Centuries when the Arians Macedonians Nestorians & Eutychians were much exclaimed against for this crime I cannot find any one instance wherein they were justly accused. The Catholicks ever made y^e corruptions (so far as I can yet find) & then to justify & propagate {them ex}claimed against the Hereticks \& old Interpreters/ {as if the an}cient genuine readings \& translations/ were corrupted. {illeg} & sometimes against the old {illeg} had translated unfaithfully {illeg} {Who}ever was the author of y^e {Latin version w^ch did insert} ^[28] <62r> insert y^e testimony of the three in heaven, he charges the Authors of y^e antient Latin versions with infidelity for leaving it out. If Macedonius be condemned & banished for corrupting the scriptures, the Catholicks clamour against the Council w^ch condemned him as if they had corrupted them. If y^e Catholicks foist into the publick books of the western Churches quia Deus est 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 w^ch confesseth not y^t Iesus Christ is come in the flesh, write corruptly Every Spirit w^ch dissolves Iesus: they pretend that y^e Gnosticks had done y^e contrary. And if they have taken this liberty w^th y^e scriptures, its {sic} to be feared they have not spared other authors. Witness y^e translations of Origen works made by Ierome So Ruffin (if we may beleive Ierome) corrupted Origen's works & {illeg} pretended that he only purged them from y^e corruption of y^e Arians. And such was the liberty of that age that learned men blushed not t in transcribing translating Authors to correct them at their pleasure & confess openly y^t that {sic} they did so as if it were a crime to translate \them/ faithfully \All w^ch I mention out of the great hatred I have to pious frauds, & to shame Christians out of these practices./

Besides y^e corruptions of the scriptures mentioned above there \are/ divers others \so/ very ancient that they may seem to have been made about the same times w^th the former Sir \So/ in Iohn 19 40 somebody has attempted to change Ἰησου into Θεου. For in the Alexandrine MS the reading is, Then {they} took y^e body of God.

In acts 13.41 someb{ody has attempted} to <63r> change ἔργον ὃ into ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς σταυρουται καὶ αποθνήσκει ὃ, and thereby the reading in a MS of New College in Oxford is become Behold ye despisers & wonder & perish: for I work a work in yo^r days because God is crucified & dies w^ch ye will not beleive.

In 2 Thes. 1.9 somebody to make Christ be called y^e Lord God has after κυρίου attempted to add Θεου & thereby to make y^e reading: Who shall be punished w^th everlasting destruction from y^e p^esence of the Lord \God/ & from the glory of his power: as it is in the MS of Lincoln College in Oxford.

Such another corruption but w^th better success has been made in Act. 20.28 where the oldest MSS (as y^e Alexandrine & that w^ch was Beza's \{illeg}in both gr & lat/.) rel & some others rel & y^e Syriac|& Armenian Version|, & Irenæus l 3. c 14 \& Lucifer Calaritan & Didymus l. 2 de spir. sancto & the Constitutiones Apostolicæ l. 2. c. 61 & Chrysostom (as appears by his commentary in h. l. & in Eph. 4.12) & Ierome Ep. ad Evagrium/, read: The Church of y^e Lord \[or The Church of Christ/ w^ch he hath purchased w^th his own blood: \Others by an easy change of Κς into Χς, read The Church of Christ, as the Syriac Version & Theodoret Com. in Phil. 1./ other MSS have, The Church of the Lord & God, & others, the Church of God: & this last reading is now generally followed, \being i{illeg} in the Latin & Ethiopic Versions & cited by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Basil & Ambrose, unless they have been corrected/. The variety of the readings shews that the text has been corrupted & the interest of the Greeks & Latines to change the Lord into God & not God into y^e Lord shews sufficiently that the Lord was y^e first reading.

The like corruption has been made also in 1 Iohn 3.16 where the Apostle discoursing of charity subjoyns: Hereby we understand charity because he laid down his life for us & we ought to lay down o^r lives for the brethren. but |For| somebody to make this a text for the Deity of the Son, has in the Vulgar Latin inserted the word Dei after charity & the Spaniards have thence in the Complutensian Edition printed Θεου against {the auth}ority of all the greek MSS & all {other ancient Vers}ions: so that now the text is, Here{by we know} the love <64r> of God because he [that is, God] laid down his {life} for us. And this reading gets grownd daily, having begun to creep into modern versions, so that it must in time pass for genuine scripture unless it can be exploded before the MSS w^ch discover the fraud be faded.

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 you had \I find/ in the first Letter: a third you I have now in this \now send you/ & a fourth may be added concerning 1 Iohn 2.14, where by the sole authority of the Latin they have omitted the words Ἔγραψα ὑμιν πατέρες ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχης.

Another corruption like the former has been made in Iude 4 where the Alexandrin MS & Ethiopic three of those ancient greek ones at Rome collated by Cay Caryophylus & two at Oxford & two others noted by Beza \& two of D^r Covils/ & y^e Vulgar Latin \& Beda & L Calaritan p. 222./ read τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμων Ιἠσουν Χριστὸν αρνούμενοι, that is, denying our only master & Lord Iesus Christ. Other MSS. & the Syriack & Arabic after δεσπότην add Θεὸν; but this making the sense ambiguous the Complutensian edition to make sure work reads τον μόνον Θεὸν καὶ δεσπότην Τὸν κύριον ἡμων Ιησουν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι; denying the only God & master even our Lord Iesus Christ. And the Ethiopic, denying the only God Iesus Christ.

In Phil. 4.13 the Alexandrin \& Claromontan/ MSS & some others & the Latin & Ethiopic \& Clemens Alexandrinus & Ambrose & Ierome/ read only ἐν τω ενδυναμουντι με through him w^ch strengtheneth me, that is through God. But others after με have added Χριστω & so m{a}d{e} {the re}ading, through Christ w^ch strengtheneth me.

<65r>

So in Rom. 15.32 some have chan{ged} y^e will of God into the will of Christ Iesus & in Col. 3.15, the peace of God into the peace of Christ & in Rom. 10.17 the word of God into the word of Christ.

Again in Apoc. 1.11 the words of the son of Man, I am Alpha & Omega the first & the last, have crept erroneously into the Arabick & some few greek MSS out of one of w^ch Erasmus printed it \& into y^e Arabic version/. For they are wanting in y^e Alexandrine MS & most others & in the Syriac Latin & Ethiopic & in the Commentaries of Arethas & Primasius & y^e Complutensian edition. ^[29] God is {illeg} called y^e first & y^e last to signify not his eternity but that he is the first it is he who sits upon the throne in the beginning & end of the prophesy: w^ch some not understanding have applied here to Christ to prove his Eternity.

Another corruption there is in 2 Pet. 3.18 For there the Syriack & some greek MSS still read: But grow in grace & in the knowledge of o^r 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 & of God the Father, that the Doxology may refer to Christ.

And such another corruption there is of a Doxology in Rom. 9.5. The Doxology is {illeg} ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς ευλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς ἀιώνας Αμήν. Which y^e Syriac Interpreter renders thus: qui est Deus super omnes?|.| c|C|ui {illeg} sint laudes & benedictiones in sæculum sæculorum. Amen{illeg}. Who is God over all. t|T|o whom be praises & blessings for ever Amen. ^[30] Where if to who|i|m be written instead of To whom (as I suspect it was at first) & the stop in y^e middle of y^e sentence taken away (for stops are of late imposition) y^e Syriack version will be, He who is God over all, to who|i|m be praises & blessings for ever Amen, that is in o^r Dialect, To him who is God over all \be praise/. For y^e Syrians frequently use y^e former way of speaking {instead} of y^e latter w^ch is o^rs. So{me} think th{illeg} been added in the Greek: but I see no {illeg} for <66r> their opinion. There is more reason to {sus}pect that the text has been abused by taking the first word ὁ for a relative, & y^e Syriac Version corrupted as above. For ὁ is not a relative here as {illeg} they would perswade us. Tis always an article. For it never respects an antecedent but by apposition of its consequent in the same case. We say not Χριστὸν ὁ {illeg} ὢν θεὸς but Χριστὁν τον οντα θεὸν, & this is all one as to say Χριστὸν τον θεὸν. In both cases τὸν is an article of one & the same \nature &/ signification. We may indeed for ὁ ὢν του ὄντος τω ὄντι, say by an ellipsis of y^e article say who is; but if wee will express y^e 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 w^thout losing y^e 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 wether wee must read, {illeg} The God over all blessed for ever: Amen, & refer all this sentence to Christ by apposition (w^ch seems a hard construction) or say The God over all be blessed for ever: Amen, & so w^th y^e Syriack Interpreter make Amen the conclusion of a wish, as it was always among the Iews Syrians. They had no Optative mood but exprest this mood by the future tense of the Indicative, & where they would lay an emphasis on the wish added Amen. And the Apostles, as is well known, spake greek in the Syriack idiome. And therefore ἐυλογητὸς ἐις τους ἀιώνας being in the future tense w^th Amen after it is in y^e dialect of the Apostles an optative. For even in the Doxology Rom. 1.25, where the Verb ἐστιν is by y^e following words ἐις τοὑς ἀιωνας extended to y^e future tense, the Syriac Interpreter by reason of the concluding word Amen, understood it as an optative. This interpretation therefore I prefer. For y^e Iews used frequently to intermix doxologies w^th their discourses. T{he} Apostles do it frequently {in} their writings {illeg}, The God <67r> {over all} &c. have the form of such a \doxology/. {The} Apostle had been recconing up the \advantages/ of such his own nation above other na{tions and it} was proper to end such a discourse w^th giving glory to God. And the epithites ὀ ὢν επι παν των θεὸς & ἐυλογητὸς, that is the most high God & y^e blessed one, being amongst y^e Iews^a[31] y^e proper names of God the Father, cannot w^thout straining be applied to any other where they w^thout straining they may (as in this text) be applied to him. ^b[32] S^t Ambrose indeed disputing against those who understood this text of y^e Father, saith, Siquis autem non putat de Christo dictum, Qui est Deus: Det personam de qua dictum est. De patre enim Deo hoc loco mentio facta [non] est. Sed quid mirum si in hoc loco Christum Deum super omnia aperta voce loqueretur de quo alia in epistola hunc sensum tali sermone firmavit dicens, Ut in nomine Iesu omne genuflectatur cælestium terrestrium & infernorum? Hæc sunc {sic} omnia super quæ Deus Christus est. I agree w^th Ambrose y^t Christ is in that other epistle represented God over all, but not in this. For it is not requisite y^t y^e words of a Doxology should relate to \those in/ y^e preceding discourse. But what ever be the sense of the Greek, its {sic} plain by this passage of Ambrose y^t some of y^e Latines of his age understood Qui est Deus of y^e Father, & by consequence y^t some of y^e ancient Latin Versions now lost translated it as a Doxology. And since the Syriack \now/ puts a stop to after ἐυλογητός in the middle of the sentence where the Greek admits of none, it argues that this Version has been ta{m}pered w^th. And if so, its {sic} plain to be suspected that y^e corruption has been made by writing {illeg} to whom for to him as was said above. For the change in the Syriac lies but in a letter & so might easily be made: w^ch makes me wish that old \Syriac/ MSS could be here consulted. Till that <68r> {may be done,} I can only {obser}ve y^e {Syriack interpreter} took {Amen} in the Greek {for the conclusion} of a wish & he that understands {it so} \there/ will rather begin that wish at ὁ ὤν {than at} ἐυλογητὸς.

And if any one will contend that y^e \Syriac/ has not been corrupted here yet he must allow that it has been corrupted in some places & par{ti}cularly in Hebr. 2.9, where \the reading in/ that Version now {illeg} \hath/, For God himself by his grace tasted death for all men {illeg}; but should have \corruptly for/, That \he/ by y^e grace of God he might \should/ tast death for all men