33770
Copy from an Old MS pasted on Paper wthwith various Readings.The Third Letter
Having given you an historical account of the
corruption of two texts of scripture, I shall now mention
some others more briefly. ffor 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 mentioned in the former
Letter, tells us aa Quidam autem [sc. Hæretici] ex ijsdem scripturis quædam crasini de quibus reven 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. 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, wchwhich
all men understand of the father, but those wchwhich D.
Ambrose cites bb Quod natum est. Ambros. de Spir. sancto Lib. 2, cap. & cap. 12. & De Fide Lib. 3, c. 8. 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 wchwhich is born of the flesh is
flesh because it is born of the flesh, & that wchwhich is
born of the spirit is spirit because 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
public books of the Churches. His words are: cc. Sed etiam ipse Dominus dixit in Evangelio: Quoniam Deus Spiritus est. Quem ita expresse Ariani testificant esse de Spiritu, ut eum de vestris codicibus auferant. Atqꝫque utinam de vestris et non etiam de Ecclesiæ codicibus tollent. Eo enim 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. Neqꝫque 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. Yea & yethe
Lord himself said in the Gospel. Because God is a spirit.
Which place the Arians so so expresly testify to respect
the Spirit that ye take it out of your books. And 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 that man of impious infidelity
Auxentius took possession of the Church of Millain by
arms & an army, or the Church of Sirmium upon the
inclination of her Priests was invaded by Valens & Vrsacius
this false & sacrilegious thing was found done in the
Ecclesiastical books. And perhaps you have also done the
same thing in the East. And 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. ffor 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 dis
course about this text, quoting it a little after at
large with the context out of the discourse between Christ and33871 and Nicodemus, Iohn 3.6. So then its certain by the testi
mony of Ambrose, that before the Emperor ConstatiusConstantius
conquered the West, & called the Council of Sirmium,
& made Auxentius, the predecessor of Ambrose, Bishop
of Millain, some of the Latine 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 publick books of their congrega
tions. I do not say, into one book only, but into their
books in general: for this is the language of Am
brose. Its certain also that this clause, quia Deus
spiritus est, was here erroneously inserted by the
Latines, & therefore justly struck out by the 1Varia lectio = 1 Arians Eusebians; &
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 declaim against them 22 Arians Eu
sebians 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. 3.3.
For there the ancient reading in the Latin, was: Qui,
spiritu Deo servimus, who worship God in the spirit.
And 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 Ma
nuscripts here varied & were in some places corrupted
he endeavours to defend this reading by the Greek.
But if any one, aa 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 sprituispiritui &c. Ambros. l. 2 de Spir. Sancto. c. 6. saith he, contends about the various read
ings 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,
wchwhich 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 was made
in the Latin 3varia lectio 3 But And 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
Θεω, & 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 44 S BishpBishop
Augustin in the 7th chapter of his third Book to Boniface
mentions them both in these words. bb 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. For we are the circum
cision 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 6th chapter of his first Book de Trinitate. cc Plures enim codices etiam Latini sic habent, qui spiritui Dei ser
vimusvimus, 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. For many Latin33172 Latin books & all or 1all or almost all the Greek ones have it thus; 2
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 2VL 2 St that Augustin may
speak too largely here, he gives you his opinion in modester
language in his 15th sermon De verbis Apostoli: dd Scio plurosqꝫque 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. 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 33 S Augustines age, far spread in both Latin & Greek
MSS, & more in the Greek then in the Latin. And yet Am
brose not long before read, οἱ πνεύματι Θεω λατρεύοντες,
as many Greek MSS still have it, & so did Chrysostom & Theo
phylact, & expounded it, not with Ambrose, Who worship
God the spirit, but Who worship God πνευματικως spiritu
ally, or in the spirit. And the same reading & sense is in the
Syriac Ethiopic & Arabic. And 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 avoid 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 cir
cumcision of the flesh, for we are the circumcision which
worship God in the spirit 4 rejoice in XtChrist Iesus & have no confidence in the flesh.
Another corruption of the scriptures or rather two others,
& both those made about the beginning of the 55 Arian Eusebian
controvery we have in 1 Iohn 5.20. One of them is re
corded by Hilary in his 6th book De Trinitate where he
thus quotes this text out of his manuscripts aa. 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. 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 might 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 yethe New Testament. Another cor
ruption of this Text is recorded by Ambrose lib. 1 de ffide
c. 7. & by Basil l. 4 contra Eunom. Cyrill de Trin. Dial. 3,
& others. The words of Ambrose are bb. 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. 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 yethe
vulgar Latin to this day. By yethe designe of these corruptions wchwhich
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: We34073 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 yethe
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 eter
nal to know thee the only true God, that is, the Father.
Iohn. 17.3.
Another corruption I meet with in Luke 19.41,
& this also was made by the Catholicks in the beginning of the 1V. l. 1 Arian Eusebian Controversy. For whiltwhilst 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 has opendly confessed in these words. aa Αλλὰ καὶ ἔκκλαυσε 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 Yea, saith he, Christ also wept as tis read
in the uncorrected Exemplars of the Gospel of Luke, & yethe
holy Irenæus in his book against Heresies uses that testi
mony 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
wchwhich 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 was made about
the same time in Luke 22.43, 44, by striking out all these
words as savouring too much of infirmity: And there
appeared an Angel unto him from heaven strengthen
ing him: & being in an agony he prayed more earnestly,
& his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood
falling down to the grownd. These words are now
found in almost all the Greek manuscripts, & in all the
Versions to this day. But aa 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. Hilary tells us that in his age
they were wanting in very many copies both Greek &
Latin; & bb. In quibusdam Exemplaribus tam Græcis quam Latinis invenitur, scribente Luca: Apparuit illi Angelus de cælo confortans eum. &c. Hieron. l. 2 adv. Lucif. Ierome that they were only extant in some.
But whether the Catholicks have erroneously admitted
them or did in the beginning of the 2V l 2 Eusebian homousian contro
versy strike them out, 33 I am not able to determine I leave to be examined
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 still followed in the printed
editions, & was in the ancient exemplars used by the
Syriac, Persic & Arabic Interpreters, & in aa. Origen. in h. l. Chrysostom. in h. l. Cyril. Thesaur. Asser 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. those of Origen,
Chrysostom, Cyrill, Hilary & Ierome; & by the testimony
of Mark & Luke it was the true answer wchwhich Christ
made to the young man. But in the Latin & Æthiopic
Versions & in some Greek Manuscripts his answer is
thus334174 thus set down τί με ἐρωτας περὶ του ἀγαθου. ἑἱς ἐστιν
ὁ ἀγαθός, Why askest thou me of a good one? There
is one who is good. And this reading Erasmus & Gro
tius preferr, wchwhich 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 is 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? εἱς 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, Good
Master; tried to adapt Christs words, reprehension to the next
words, What good thing shall I do? & yet was so
C: V L. 1. foolishunadvised 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 avoiding the objection of the Arians
taken from this text. For this corrupt reading is
followed by bb Augustin l. 2 de consensu Evangel. c. 3. Bishop 22 S Austin Austin Bishop of Hippo & 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, & 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 Suon but
the ffather only. So that this was the received
reading in the first ages, & no doubt is genuine
because Mark follows it, & his Gospel in wchwhich the
from in chap. 13, from vers 14 to verse 33, in wchwhich this
occurs, is a translation of Matthews Hebrew without
adding or altering any thing. Tis also still retained
in some Greek & Latine copies & in the Ethiopic
version to this day. But the other Versions &
the generality of the Greek & Latine MSS now
extant want the words neither the Son, & these
words seem to have been struck out first in the Greek
MSS & then in the Latine ones in the heat of the
33. Eusebian Homousian controversy. For the Eusebians then urged them them & Ambrose makes this Answer in behalf of the
Catholicks. aa. Scriptum est, inquiunt, De die autem illo & hora nemo scit, neqꝫque 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. It is written, say the Eusebians, bBut of that day
& hour knoweth no man, neither the Angels in heaven,
nor the Son, but the ffather only. ffirst the ancient
Greek books have not, that neither the Son knows.
But it is no wonder if but they falsified this place
also who have interpoled the divine scriptures. But
why they added it is discovered while 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,
tho the attempt succeeded only in Matthew's; and
that the clause was still in most of the Latine
MSS because 1/V L 1. D. Ambrose 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 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.
bb. In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est; neqꝫque 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. In some Latin 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 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 & Pierius. He does
not say that it was wanting in the very MSS wchwhich
Origen & Pierius used, (for its very improbable that 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 saith concerning the disagreeing
editions of the Latin Versions: cc. Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus. Tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot codices. Hieron. Præf. ad Damasum in Com. Matth. 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 Greeek books of Ierome Ambrose are not all
the ancient books, but only the Exemplars of Origen and476 and Pierius; nor yet ancient books, but such as had been tran
scribed since the time of those two men; no nor sincere copies
of their originals, but such as had been corrupted in the 22 Arian Homousian controversy. ffor dd. In Marco additum est, μεδὲ ὁ υἱὸς, id est, neqꝫque 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 neqꝫque Angeli cælorum neqꝫque ffilius,
scientiam diei illius et horæ cohæredibus promissionis illius ex quo seipsum exinanirit. Ac
paulo post: Et præparans omnem quem vult scrirescire 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: Cumqꝫque 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. Deniqꝫque et Hieronymus ipse in
progressu enarrationis sequitur hanc enarrationem 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. Neqꝫque 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 wchwhich
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. Origen himself, as I told you, read the clause.
1V L. 1 Wish I doubt whether there were so many books corrupted as Ierome
represents. ffor 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 yethe reading
now received in the Greek, Syriac & Latin is, For this cause
I bow my knees to the father of orour Lord Iesus Christ, of
whom the whole family in heaven & earth is named. But
Ierome tells usHieron. in h. l. that the words, of orour Lord Iesus Christ,
were added in the Latine 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 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 Theophylact & Ambrose
read it in their Commentaries, tho the addition be now got
into their text. [3.3 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. –
Yet the addition was very ancient not only
in the Latin but even in some Greek copies, being in yethe Claromontan
MS. But it obscures the sense by referring the word father to Christ.
ffor this word is here referred to family & signifies the same
thing wthwith Paterfamilias. In humane affairs the father of a family
or house is frequently taken for the common father of a kindred:
here the whole creation is considered as one kindred or family so
named from God the common father of all.]
Another corruption was made about the same time in
Eph. 3.9. The reading now generally received is: Who cre
ated 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.
ffor they are still wanting in the oldest Greek MSS, the
Alexandrin & the Claromontan Gr. & Lat. in that of St Germans34477 Germans & in one of Mr Colberts, & in the Syriac Latin
& Ethiopic Versions. Neither did Tertullian nor Ierome
nor Ambrose read them.
Another corruption of the same standing I meet with
in Apoc. 1.8, wchwhich place Ambrose to prove the omnipotence
of Christ, cites in these words: aa Ego sum Alpha et Omega, dicit Dominus Iesus, Qui est et qui erat et qui venturus est, Omnipotens. Ambros. l 2 De fide c. 3 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 HomousianV. L. Arian controversy,
received & spread by the Catholicks. For aa Epiphan. Hæres. 42. p. 358. Edit. Petau. Epiphanius
tells us that the heretick Marcion corrupted 1 Cor. 10.9
by writing Χριστὸν for Κύριον: & this corruption is
now generally followed. ffor 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 Theodorets the MS of Lincoln College
in Oxford & in one of Dr Covil's MSS. In the Alex
andrine MS & Ethiopic Version tis nNeither 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 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 be
lieved 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
denyed that it was found in authentick copies. This he seems to
have from Socrates who tells us in his Ecclesiastical History lib. 7
c. 32, that Nestorius knew not that in the first Epistle of Iohn it
was written in the ancient copies, ὅτι παν πνευμα ὃ λύει τὸν
Ιἠσουν, ἀπὸ του Θεου οὐκ ἔσται, 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 yethe 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 παν 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 this534578 this reading in any Greek MSS, but argues that some old Iter
pretersInterpreters had seen it, meaning the authors of the Vulgar
Latin. He should rather have argued from the Greek that yethe
Latines had corrupted 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 Alexandrin MS & two or three others omit part
of the words. The same reading was followed by Polycarp the
disciple of Iohn, in his Epistle, & among the ancienter Latines by Tertullian De carne Christi sub finem & by
Cyprian l. 2 cont. Iudæos, c. 8. Yet the corruption was might be older ynthan
Cyprian, & seems to have been being followed by Irenæus l. 3,
c. 18 unless thise book has been Latines have corrected by the Latines him. But it
prevailed not before the times of the Nestorian controversy.
For 11. D. Augustin Austin (Tract. 6 in 1 Ioan.) read the text both ways [ 22 The words enclosed within the black lines
are not in the other M.S. but instead of them as
follows – By these instances it is manifest that
the scriptures have been very much corrupted in the first
ages & cheifly in the 4th century in the time of the Arian
controversy – And to the shame of Christians be it spoken the
Catholicks are here found much more guilty of these corruptions
than the Hereticks. In the earliest ages the Gnosticks were
much accused of this crime & seem to have been guilty & yet
the Catholicks were not then wholly innocent. But in the 4th
5th & 6th centuries when the Arians Macedonians Nesto
rians & Eutychians were much exclaimed against for
this crime I cannot find any one instance in wchwhich 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 the
author of the Latin version wchwhich 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 rail clamor
against the Council wchwhich condemned him as if they had corrupted them. If the Ca
tholicks 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 wchwhich confesseth
that Iesus XstChrist's come in the flesh write corruptly Every Spirit wchwhich 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 wchwhich 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
& insisted
most upon the genuine reading. But soon after Socrates
Cyrill of Alexandria, Pope Leo I, Prosper, Cassian, Beda,
Fulbertus Carnolensis &c spread the corrupt reading.
Again] in Iohn 19.40 somebody has attempted to change
Ιησου into Θεου. For in the Alexandrine MS the reading
is, Then they took the body of God.
In acts 13.41, some body has attempted to 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, wchwhich 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 yethe 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 Alexan
drin & that wchwhich was Beza's in both Gr. & Lat.) & some others,
& the Syriac & Armenian Versions, & Irenæus l. 3. c. 14, & the Apostolic
Constitutions l. 2. c. 61 & Didymus l. 2 de spir. sancto & Calaritan &
Chrysostom (as appears by his commentary on this text & in Eph. 4.
12) & Ierome epist ad Evagrium, read: The Church of the Lord
wchwhich he hath purchased wthwith his own blood. 33 Others by an easy change of Κς into Χς read the Church of Christ
as the Syriack version & Theodoret Com: in Phil 1 – Others by an easy change
of Κου into Χου Others, as the Syriac Version 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 4 in copying. 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, subjoins
Hereby we understand charity, because he laid down his
life for us & we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
ffor somebody to make this a text for the Deity of the Son,
has in the Vulgar Latin inserted the word Dei after charity34679 charity, & the Spaniards have thence in the Complutensian
Edition printed Θεου against the authority of all the Greek
MSS & all other ancient Versions: so that now the text is
Hereby we know the love of God, because he, [that is, God]
laid down his life for us. And this reading gets grownd
dayly, 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 wchwhich discover the fraud be faded.
11. In the other MS. it runs thus viz
By this & other instances it appears that the Spanish
divines in their edition of the bible at Complutum have
corrected the Greek testament by the
vulgar latin as they have done other books by their
Indices expurgatorii) Two instances of this I find
in the 1st letter a third I now send you, & a
fourth may be added concerning
[How the Spanish Divines in their Edition of yethe Bible at
Complutum have corrected the Greek Testament by the Vulgar
Latin, as they have done other Books by their Indices Expur
gatorij, appears by another instance in] 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 22 like the former is in the other M.S. like the former has been made
in Iude 4, where the Alexandrin MS & three of those
ancient Greek ones at Rome collated by Caryophylus
3the words one or ar not in the other M.S & one or two at Oxford & three of Covil 44. two of Covils & two others noted by Beza & L. Calari
tan p. 222 & Beda & 55 the vulgar latin is not on the other M.S the Vulgar Latin, read τὸν μόνον δεσπό
την καὶ κύριον ἡμων Ιἠσουν Χριστὸν αρνούμενοι, that
is denying 66 our the only Master & 77 our) is left out orour Lord Iesus Christ. Other
MSS. & the Syriac & Arabic after δεσπότην add Θεὸν. 88. 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.
But this making the sense ambiguous, denying the only Lord God & our Lord Iesus Christ. tThe Compluten
sian Edition to make surer work reads: τὸν μόνον Θεὸν
καὶ δεσπότην. Τὸν κύριον ἡμων Ιησουν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι;
denying the only God & yethe Master even orour Lord Iesus
Christ. And the Ethiopic; denying the only God Iesus
Christ.
In Philip 4.13, the Alexandrin & Claromontan MSS &
some others, & the Latin & Ethiopic read & Clemens Alex
andrinus & Ambrose & Ierome read only, ἐν τω ενδυναμουντι
με, through him who strengtheneth me; that is, through God.
But others after με have added Χριστω, & so made the reading,
through Christ who strengtheneth me.
So in Rom. 15.32 some have changed the will of God
into the will of Christ Iesus; & in Coll. 3.15, the peace
of God into the peace of Christ; & in Rom. 10.17, the
Word of God into the Word of Christ. And Ambrose to prove 99. This paragraph is not in the other
M.S. Ambrose to prove the Omnipotence of Christ, cites Apoc. 1.8
in these words. aa Ego sum Alpha & ω, dicit Dominus Iesus, qui est et qui erat & qui venturus venturus est, Omnipotens. Ambrose l. 2 de fide c. 3. I am Alpha & Omega saith the Lord Iesus who is & who was was & who is to come, the Omnipotent. for Whereas 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 & Omega the first & the last, have crept
erroneously into some few Greek MSS, out of one of wchwhich
Erasmus printed it, & into yethe Arabic version. For they
are wanting in the Alexandrine MS & most others,
& in the Syriac Latin & Æthiopic, & in the Commen
taries of Arethas & Primasius, & in the Complutensian
Edition.
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 orour 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.
635380
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 Syriack interpreter renders thus:
Qui est Deus super omnes. Cui sint laudes
et benedictiones in seculum seculorum Amen
Interpres Latinus in Bibl. Polyg. Who is
God over all to whom be praises &
blessings for ever Amen. Where if to (Him) be writ
instead of to 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 and blessings
for ever Amen, that is in our Dialect. To
him who is God over all be praises. For the Syrians frequently make
use of the former way of speaking instead of the latter
wchwhich is ours. Some think thxxxxxxxxbeen added
in the Greek, but I see no xxxxxxundground for
their opinion There is more reason to suspect
that the text has been abused by taking the first
word (ὁ) for a relative & the Syriac version cor
rupted 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 it's consequent in the same case.
Wee say not Χριστὸν ὁ ὢν θεὸς but Χριστὁν
τον οντα θεὸν & this is all one to say Χριστὸν
τον θεὸν. In both cases τὸν is an article of one, 35481 and the same nature & signification wee 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 wee
must say, he who is of him who is to him who is
or the, of the, to the. If therefore wee would
translate the text without losing the article wee 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, & referr all this sen
tence to Christ by apposition (wchwhich seems a hard)
construction) or say The God over all be blessed for
everr: 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 expressed this mood by the fu
ture 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 op
tative. 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 there discourses. The Apostles do it
frequently in their writings xxxxxxd, The God 735582 over all &c. have the form of such a doxology.
The Apostle had been reckoning up the advantages
of his own nation above other nations and
it was proper to end such a discourse with giving
Glory to God & the Epithets ὀ ὢν επι παν
των θεὸς & ἐυλογητὸς that is the most high
God & the blessed one. being amongst the aa See Mark. 14.61 Ephes. 4 6. Act. 7.48. Iews 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. bb. Ambrose. in h. l. 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 quâ dictum est, De Patre
enim Deo hoc loco mentio facta [non] est. Sed
quid mirum si in hoc loco Christum Deum
super omnia apertâ voce loqueretur de quo
alia in Epistola hunc sensum tali sermone
firmavit dicens, Ut in nomine Iesu omne genu
flectatur cælestium terrestrium et 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 antient Latin Versions now
lost translated it as a Doxology. And since 35683 The Syriack now puts a stop after ἐυλογητός in the
middle of the sentence where the Greek admitts
of none, it argues that this version has been
tampered with; And if so it is 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 wchwhich makes me wish
that old Syriack MSS could be here consulted.
Till that may be done, I can only observe the Syriack inter
preter 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 anyone will contend that the Syriack
has not been corrupted here yet he must allow
that it has been corrupted in some places & par
ticularly 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