<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 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 beleiving the last.

Hincmare in the place mentioned in the former letter, tells us a[1] that the Arians rased out of the Gospel this text, Quia Deus spiritus est because God is a spirit, & 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, which all men understand of the father, but those which D. Ambrose cites b[2] divers times out of Iohn 3.6, after this manner, Quod natum est ex carne caro est quia de carne natum est et quod natum est ex spiritu spiritus est quia Deus spiritus est. That which is born of the flesh is flesh because it is born of the flesh & that which 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 the 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 & the Lord himself said in the gospel: Because God is a Spirit. Which place the Arians {s}o so expresly testify to respect the Spirit that {y}e take it out of your books: & I could wish that {ye} took it out of your 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 the inclination {of} her Priests was invaded by Valens & Vrsatius, <50r> this fals & sacrilegious thing was found done in the ecclesiastical books. And perhaps ye have also done the same thing in the east: & truly the letters ye could blot out but ye could not take away the faith. That blot betrayed you the more, that blot condemned you the more. For ye could not wipe out the truth, but that blot rased your names out of the book of life. Why were the words, because 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 with the context out of the discourse between Christ & Nicodemus, Iohn 3.6. So then it's certain by the testimony of Ambrose that before the Emperor Constantius conquered the west & called the Council of Sirmium & made Auxentius (the predecessor of Ambrose) bishop of Millan, some of the Latin Churches for proving the Deity of the Holy Ghost had inserted the clause quia Deus spiritus est into the 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 of Ambrose. Its certain also that this clause quia Deus spiritus est was here erroneously inserted by the Latines & therefore justly struck out by the Arians: & that Ambrose & Hincmare 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 the Latines (however Ambrose declame against the Arians for striking it out) were ashamed to insert it into their books any more.

Another corruption for proving the Deity & worship of the Holy Ghost was made in Phil. <51r> 3.3. For there the ancient reading in the Latin was Qui spiritu Deo servimus, who worship God in the spirit, & this reading Ambrose follows in his Commentary on this Epistle: but in his book de Spiritu sancto lib. 2 c. 6, to prove the worship of the Holy Ghost he quotes another reading qui spiritui Deo servimus who worship God the Spirit . And confessing that the 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, 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 οἱ πνεύματι Θω λατρεύοντες, which the Latin interprets, qui spiritui Deo servimus, who worship God the Holy Ghost. Therefore since he says we are to worship the spirit &c. This is one corruption made in both the Latin but[5] there is another of the same text made in both the Greek & Latin. For the Alexandrine MS & several others & the Complutensian Edition have Θεου for Θεῷ & so make the reading οἱ πνεύματι Θεου λατρεύοντες who worship the spirit of God. And both these corruptions seem to be as old as the Macedonian controversy. For S[6] Augustin in the 7th chapter of his 3r 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 the spirit, or the spirit of God. Of the latter of these two corruptions he makes this further mention in the 6t chapter of his first book de Trinitate. c[8] For many Latin books & all or almost all the 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 St[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 this corruption was in S. Augustin's age, far spread in both Latin & Greek MSS & more in the Greek then in the Latin. And yet Ambrose not long before read οἱ πνεύματι Θεῷ λατρεύοντες, as many {illeg} greek MSS still have it & so did Chrysostom & Theophylact & expounded it, not with Ambrose, who worship God the spirit, but who worship God πνευματικῶς spiritually or in the spirit. And the same reading & sense is in the Syriack Ethiopic & Arabic. & so also the 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 the law & putting confidence in the flesh & to worship God in the spirit. He opposes the worshipping god in the spirit to the 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 which 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 & 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 still extant in some old latin manuscripts of the new Testament. Another corruption of this text is recorded by Basil l. 4 contra Eunom. Cyrill de Trin. Dial. 3 Ambrose lib 1 de Fide c. 7. & by others. The words of Ambrose are [12] Yet take what also Iohn the Evangelist wrote in his Epistle saying: We know that the Son of God hath appeared & given us an understanding that we may know the 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 the particle in between vero & filio ejus be rased out in the vulgar Latin to this day. By the designe of these corruptions, which was to transfer the epithete true from the Father to the Son for proving him the true God, you may learn that the text was otherwise understood before. For all corruptions are for imposing a new sense. The true reading is this: We know that the Son of God is come & hath given us an understanding that we 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. First he tells you that the son of God is come to make us know the true God, & then he tells you who that true God is . We are, saith he, in the 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 thee the only true God, that is, the Father. Iohn. 17.3.

Another corruption I meet with in Luke <54r> 19.41, & this also was made by the Catholicks in the beginning of the Arian controversy. For 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 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, & the holy Irenæus in his book against heresies uses that testimony to confute those who said that Christ appeared not really but only in shew. But the Catholicks blotted out that passage being afraid of it & not knowing its end & force. Thus far Epiphanius, pleading for this passage by the authority of Irenæus & callling those books uncorrected in which the Catholicks had not blotted it out. To the authority of Irenæus I may add that of Origen in his commentary on this place, Hom. 49.

Such another corruption the Catholicks 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 the ground. 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 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 the 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 which 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 περι 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 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 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 question is of a good 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 the early ages when every Christian had not all the Gospels some body who used only Matthews & was troubled that Christ should reprehend the young man for saying God Master[17], tried to adapt Christs reprehension to the next words What good thing shall I do? & yet was so foolish as to make Christ in his reprehension still speak of a good person. And this corruption I take to have been made in the times of the Arian controversy for avoyding the objection of the <56r> Arians taken from this text. For this corrupt reading is followed by D[18] Augustin & therefore began to spread before his age.

Another corruption of the same kind I meet with in Matthews Gospel chap. 24 v. 36. For there Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Hilary & D.[19] 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 it & his Gospel in chap. 13 from v. 14 to v. 33 in which this occurs is a translation of Matthews Hebrew without adding or altering any thing. 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 want the words neither the Son, & these words seem to have been struck out first in the greek MSS & then in the Latin ones in the heat of the Eusebian controversy. For the Eusebians then urged them & Ambrose makes this answer in behalf of the Catholicks. [20] It is written, say the 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 that neither the Son knows. But it is no wonder if they falsified this place also, who have interpoled the divine scriptures. But why they added it is discovered whilst they apply it to the explication of so great sacrilege. Yet suppose it written by the Evangelists &c. By these words of Ambrose it appears that they endeavoured to strike out of both the Gospels this clause nor the son though the attempt succeeded only in Matthew's; & that the clause was still in most of the Latin MSS because D. Ambrose in arguing against it appeals from them to the greek. But whilst he saith the ancient greek <57r> MSS want it & yet living always amongst the Latines 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 Latines wherein their Versions differed from the greek. For Ierome in his commentary on this place relates the matter thus. [21] In some Latine books there is added nor the Son, whilst in the Greek ones & chiefly in the exemplars 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, &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 which Origen & Pierius used (for it's very improbable he should meet with those) but in the exemplars or editions of those men, meaning the 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: [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 ancient greek books of Ambrose are not all the ancient books but only the exemplars of Origen & Pierius; nor yet ancient books but such as had been transcribed since the time of those two men; 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 the 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 our Lord Iesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven & earth is named. But Ierome tells us[24] that the words of our Lord Iesus Christ were added in the Latin copies while the 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 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 & in one of Colberts MSS & in the Ethiopic Version. And thus Chrysostom Theophylact & Ambrose read it in their Commentaries, tho the 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 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 Claromontan, gr & lat. in that of S. Germ. one of M. Colbert & in the Syriac Latin & Ethiopick Versions: no did Tertullian nor Ierome nor Ambrose read them.

Another corruption of the same standing I meet with in Apoc. 1.8, which place D. Ambrose to prove the omnipotence of Christ cites in these words. [25] I am Alpha & Omega saith the Lord Iesus who is & who was & who is to come the omnipotent. For the 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 the Arian controversy received & spread by the Catholicks. For [26] Epiphanius tells us that the heretick Marcion corrupted 1 Cor. 10.9 by writing Χριστὸν for Κύριον & this corruption 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 & in one of Dr 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 Κύριον Χριστὸν & Θεὸν) into one another.

Such another corruption was made in those <60r> early ages in Iude 5 where the Alexandrin MS & 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. For the genuine reading backt with almost all the greek MSS & with the 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 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 conjoyned 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 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. He should rather have argued from the Greek that the Latines had corrupted their Version. For all the greek MSS to this day & all the ancient Versions besides the 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. For tis followed by Irenæus l. 3 c. 18, unless the 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

By these instances it's manifest that the scriptures have been very much corrupted in the first ages & chiefly in the fourth Century in the times of the Arian Controversy. And to the shame of Christians be it spoken the Catholicks are here found much more guilty of these corruptions then 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 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 the 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} {Who}ever was the author of the {Latin version which did insert} [28] <62r> 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 clamour 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 not that Iesus Christ is 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's to be feared they have not spared other authors. So Ruffin (if we may beleive Ierome) corrupted Origen's works & pretended that he only purged them from the corruption 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 times with the former So in Iohn 19 40 somebody has attempted to change Ἰησου into Θεου. For in the Alexandrine MS the reading is, Then {they} took the 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 your days because God is crucified & dies which ye will not beleive.

In 2 Thes. 1.9 somebody to make Christ be called the Lord God has after κυρίου attempted to add Θεου & thereby to make the reading: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence 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 with better success has been made in Act. 20.28 where the oldest MSS (as the Alexandrine & that which was Beza's in both gr & lat.) & some others & the Syriac& Armenian Version, & Irenæus l 3. c 14 & 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 the Lord [or The Church of Christ which he hath purchased with 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 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 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 Apostle discoursing of charity subjoyns: 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 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 which 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 I find in the first Letter: a third I 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 & three of those ancient greek ones at Rome collated by Caryophylus & two at Oxford & two others noted by Beza & two of Dr Covils & the 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 which strengtheneth me, that is through God. But others after με have added Χριστω & so m{a}d{e} {the re}ading, through Christ which strengtheneth me.

<65r>

So in Rom. 15.32 some have chan{ged} the 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 some few greek MSS out of one of which Erasmus printed it & into the Arabic version. For they are wanting in the Alexandrine MS & most others & in the Syriac Latin & Ethiopic & in the Commentaries of Arethas & Primasius & the Complutensian edition. [29] 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.

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 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 & 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 ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς ευλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς ἀιώνας Αμήν. Which the Syriac Interpreter renders thus: Who is God over all. To whom be praises & blessings for ever Amen. [30] 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 Syriack 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 praise. For the Syrians frequently use the former way of speaking {instead} of the latter which is ours. 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, & the Syriac Version corrupted as above. For ὁ is not a relative here as 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 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, by an ellipsis of the article say who is; but if wee 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 wether wee must read, The God over all blessed for ever: Amen, & refer all this sentence to Christ by apposition (which seems a hard construction) or say The God over all be blessed for ever: Amen, & so with the Syriack Interpreter make Amen the conclusion of a wish, as it was always among the 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 with Amen after it is in the dialect of the Apostles an optative. For even in the Doxology Rom. 1.25, where the Verb ἐστιν is by the following words ἐις τοὑς ἀιωνας extended to the future tense, the Syriac Interpreter by reason of the concluding word Amen, understood it as an optative. This interpretation therefore I prefer. For the Iews used frequently to intermix doxologies with 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 his own nation above other na{tions and it} was proper to end such a discourse with giving glory to God. And the epithites ὀ ὢν επι παν των θεὸς & ἐυλογητὸς, that is the most high God & the blessed one, being amongst the Iewsa[31] the proper names of God the Father, cannot without straining be applied to any other where without straining they may (as in this text) be applied to him. b[32] St Ambrose indeed disputing against those who understood this text of the 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 sunt omnia super quæ Deus Christus est. I agree with Ambrose that Christ is in that other epistle represented God over all, but not in this. For it is not requisite that the words of a Doxology should relate to the preceding discourse. But what ever be the sense of the Greek, it's plain by this passage of Ambrose that some of the Latines of his age understood Qui est Deus of the Father, & by consequence that some of the ancient Latin Versions now lost translated it as a Doxology. And since the Syriack now puts a stop after ἐυλογητός in the middle of the sentence where the Greek admits of none, it argues that this Version has been ta{m}pered with. And if so, it's to be suspected that the corruption has been made by writing 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: which makes me wish that old Syriac MSS could be here consulted. Till that <68r> {may be done,} I can only {obser}ve the {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 the 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 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 tast death for all men

[1] a Quidam autem [sc. Hæretici] ex ijsdem scripturis quædam eraserunt de quibus revinci{illeg} timebant, sicut constat Ar{i}anos de Evange{lio} erasisse quod Sa{l}vator ait: Q{illeg} Quia Deus spiritus est quia credere nolebant quod Sp{iritus} S. Deus esset omnipotens. Hincmar Opusc. 33. cap. 18.

[2] b Quod natum est. Ambros. {de} spiritu sancto lib. 2 cap. 9 & cap. 12. & De fide lib. 3, c. 8.

[3] c. Sed etiam ip{se} Dominus dixit {in} Evangelio: Qu{oni}am Deus spiri{tus} est. Quem loc{illeg} ita expresse Ariani testifica{mini} esse de spiritu {ut} eum de vestris codicibus auferatis atque utinam de vestris et non {eti}am de Ecclesi{æ} codicibus tolleret. Eo enim temp{illeg} quo impiæ i{illeg}tatis Auxen{tius} mediolanense{illeg} Eulesiam{illeg} <50r> armis exercituque occupavera{t} vel a Valente atque Vrsatio nutantibus sacerdotibus suis incursabatur Eulesia Sirmiensis, falsum hoc et sacrilegum in ecclesiasticis codicibus deprehensum 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.

[4] 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.

[5] varia lectio And

[6] varia lectio Bishop

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

[8] c Plures enim codices etiam Latini sic habent, qui spiritui Dei servimus Græci autem omnes aut pæne omnes. In nonnullis autem exemplaribus Latinis invenimus non spiritui Dei servimus sed spiritu D{eo} servimus. D. Augustin. l. 1 de Trin. c. 6.

[9] V Lec. St

[10] 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.

[11] Ait enim idem Quia scimus quod filius Dei venit ...

[12] Accipe tamen quid etiam scripserit Evangelista Ioannes in Epistola dicens: Scimus quod Filius Dei apparuit et dedit nobis sensum ut cognoscamus patrem et 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.

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

[14] b In quibusdam exemplaribus tam græcis quam Latinis invenitur scribente Luca: Apparuit illi Angelus de cælo confortans eum. &c. Hieron. l. 2 adv. Lucif.

[15] V. L. {Omousian}

[16] 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 corrumpiter.

[17] Good

[18] D. Augustin l. 2 de consensu Evangel. c. 3.

[19] D. Augustin l. 2 de consensu Evangel. c. 3.

[20] a. Scriptum est, inquiu{nt}, De die autem illo & hora 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 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 Fide c. 7.

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

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

[23] c In Marco additum est μεδὲ ὁ υἱὸς id est neque filius. Et fatetur Divus Hieronymus hoc ascriptum fuisse etiam apud Matthæum in nonnullis Latinis codicibus, in Græcis non haberi præsertim in exemplaribus adamantij ac Pierij. Atqui <58r> 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 filius. Præparat enim filius scientiam diei illius & horæ cohæredibus promissionis illius ex quo seipsum exinanivit. 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 planè legitur. Neque convenit hac via tollerere 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}[Editorial Note 1] own MS (that very old one which he presented to the Univers{ity} 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.

[Editorial Note 1] 'that is' has been added due to some damage to the left margin of the folio

[24] Hieron. in h. l.

[25] Ego sum Alpha et ω dicit {Dom}inus Iesus qui est et qui erat et qui venturus est omnipotens. l. 2. de Fide c. 3

[26] Epiphan. Hæres. 42. p. 358. Edit. Petau.

[27] might be

[28] & then to justify & propagate them exclaimed against the Hereticks & old Interpreters, as if the ancient genuine readings & translations had been corrupted. Whoever was the author of the Latin Version which did insert

[29] This is omitted in another MS

[30] qui est Deus super omnes. Cui sint laudes et benedictiones in sæculum sæculorum. Amen. Interpres Latinus in Bibl. Polygl.

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

[32] b. Ambrose. in {h. l.}

© 2022 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