This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
in English
Having given you an historical account of the cor
some others more briefly. For the attempts to corrupt e
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
will cease to be averse from beleiving the last.
Hincmare
former letter, tells us a
out of the Gospel this text, Quia Deus est spiritus estbecause God is a Spirit the Spirit is GodGod is a spiritleast & 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, ch
all men understand of the father, but those chb
6, after this manner, Quod natum est ex carne . For in one of the places
caro est et quod natum quia de carne natum est
et quod natum est ex spiritu spiritus est quia
Deus spiritus est. That chch
where D. Ambrose thus cites this text he complains
with Hincmarus that e
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 cYea & y? Thus does Ambrose go on eeereeee
to discourse about this text quoting it a little
after at large the
between Christ & Nicodemus, Iohn 3.6. So then
it's certain by the testimony of Ambrose
that before e
ed the west & called e
& 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 e quia Deus into
spiritus este
Nicodemus in the public books of their con
but into their books in general: for this is
the language i
that this clause quia Deus was est spiritus est
here erroneously inserted by the Latines & there
fore justly struck out by the Arians: & t
brose & 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 e
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. genuine ancient reading in
the Latin was Qui spiritu Deo servimus, who worship God in y, & this reading Ame
brose follows in his Commentary on this Epistle:
but in his book
prove ee
another reading qui spiritui Deo servimus who worship God the Spirit of God. And confessing
that e
some places corrupted he endeavours to de
fend this reading by the greek. aBut if any one, saith he, con d tends about y eech w &c. This is chee
one corruption made in but
is another of e
Greek e
others & the Complutensian Edition have
for e
Θεου λατρεύοντεςwho worship y. And both these corruptions eare almost as
as old as eArian SBishop
gustin in thith chapter of his 3r book to
Boniface mentions them both in these words. bFor we are the circumcision who worship God in the spirit, or as some books have it, who worship God y. Of the latter of these two corruptions e
he makes this further mention in et chapter
of his first book cFor many Latin books & all or almost all y. If you suspect eS tt
speake too largely here, he gives you his opinion
ApostoliI 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 yS. Augustin's age, far
spread in both Latin & Greek MSS & more in
the Greek then in e
brose not long before read
λατρεύοντεςyou have heard
sostom & Theophylact & expounded it, not th
Ambrose, who worship God the spirit, but who
worship God
spirit. And the same reading & sense is in e
Syriack Ethiopic & Arabic. & so also e
MSS now generally have, qui spiritu servi. And this reading & sense, as it is
mus Deo
now the received one, so it is evidenced to
be genuine by the context. For the Apostle
is exhorting the Philippians to avoyd
of ee
ship God in the spirit. He opposes the worship
ping god in the spirit to e
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 w.ch
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
thus quotes this text out of his manuscripts 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, & simusinin 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 was incarnate for us & suffered & rising from y. And this reading (as may be underer
stood by Beza's notes on this text) is still
extant in some old latin MS manuscripts of e
new Testament. Another corruption of this text
is recorded by D. His words Yet take what also Iohn y. Thus far Ambrose. eee
And tho these corruptions have not fully obteined
yet they have so far prevailed as to make e
particle in between vero & filio ejus be rased
out in the vulgar Latin to this day. By the
designe of these corruptions(chplainly
sttrue from the Fathere
the true God) you may learn te
otherwise understood before. For all corruptions
are for imposing a new sense. The true reading is this: We know that y (or et
by) his son Iesus Christ. This is the true God & life eternal. Thus the Alexandrine MS & present Latin. Others First he tells
have, by his Son Iesus Christ.
you that e
the true God, & then he tells you who that
true God is namely eWe are, saith he, in y. And all this is as much as to say eThis is life eternal to know the et
Another corruption I meet with in Luke where the Arians & this also made
by the Catholicks in eArian EusebianArianCEusebians the here the passage of Christs weeping over
Ierusalem as an argument of infirmity below
the nature & dignity of e
Catholicks struck it out of their books, as Epipha
nius himself Yea, saith he, Christ also wept as tis read in the uncorrected exemplars of the Gospel of Luke, & y. Thus far Epiet
phanius, pleading ee
rity of Irenæus & callling those books uncorrected
in che
To e
Origen who in his commentary on this place, Hom.
49.
Such another corruption the Catholicks attempted
22.43, 44, striking out there
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. eFor Hilary tells
These words are now found in almost all greek & a
us that in his age they were wanting in very
many copies both greek & Latin; &
that they were only extant in some. But
whether the Catholicks have erroneously admitted
them or did in the beginning of the Arian
troversy strike them out I am not able to determin.
There was another corruption made about
the same time in Matthews Gospel chap. 19.17.
For there the reading in the greater part of 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 aj
Chrysostom, Cyrill, Hilary & Ierome; & by the tes
timony of Mark & Luke it was the true
answer ch
But in the Latin & Ethiopick Versions & in some
greek manuscripts his answer is thus set down ὶ
ἀγαθόςWhy askest thou me of a good one? There is one who is good. And this reading E
rasmus & Grotius prefer ch
Christ could not at one & e
different answers to one & e
this in Matthew & that in the other Gospels.
Neither can I make sense of this answer.
For the question
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 questi
is of a good thing
of a good person. Why askest thou me of a
good one? There is one person who is a good one. It seems to me there
fore that in e
had not all e
Matthews & was troubled t
hend eGod Master
to adapt Christs reprehension to eWhat 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 eEusebian
controversy eeEusebians AriansAusebians
reading is followed by DD. Augustin l. 2 de consensu Evangel. c. 3.
began to be receeded
Another corruption of e
meet th
For there Origen, Chrysostom, & Theophylact, D.
on Matthew But of that day & hour knoweth no man neither y. So that this was e
the
is genuine because Mark has n follows it & his
Gospel in chap. 13 from v. 14 to v. 33
lation of Matthews Hebrew th
ing any thing. Tis also still retained in some
greek & Latin MSS copies of & in the Ethiopic
version to this day. But the geneither the Son, & these words seem to have been
struck out first in e
the Latin by eEusebian
controversy. For the Eusebians then urged them
& Ambrose makes this answer in behalf of eIt is written, say y &c. By these eteee
words of Ambrose it appears that they endeavour
ed to strike out of both enor the son
though the attempt succeeded only in Matthew's; & tthat they were out this time generally
MSS because D. Ambrose it from e
had no opportunity of consulting the
MSS of the greek church, he seems to have taken
up thea little before
had c
masus to be published in e
at the request of that Pope to inform the Latines
wherein their vNow
For Ierome in his commentary on this place re
lates eIn some Latine books there is added nor the Son, whilst in y, &c. Here e
Ierome confesses it was read in some greek MSS
& this reading insisted on by Arius & Eunomius &
only affirms that it was wanting in others & chief
ly in those copied after the Editions of Origen
& Pierius. He does not say that it was wanting in
the very MSS ch
very improblable he should meet th
in te
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 codicesFor if we may trust the Latin exemplars, let them answer which. For there are almost as many exemplars as booksveteres codices græciomnes veteres codicesgreek books
the exemplars of Origen & Pierius; nor indeed
cient 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
cujus hæc sunt verba. Qui non cognoverunt de die illo et hora ne
Angeli cælorum ne
cohæredibus promissionis illius ex quo seipsum exinia
Et præparans omnem quem vult scire diem 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. Cum
hoc Hilarius, cum ait in expositione canonis, dicens diem illum omni
bus esse incognitum & non solum Angelis sed etiam sibi ignoratum.
Legit et interpretatur eodem modo Chrysostomus. Deni
nymus ipse in progressu enarrationis sequitur hanc lectionem.
Et cum Marcus
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. Ne
convenit hac via tollerere occasiones hæreticorum, alioqui bona
pars evangeliorum foret eradenda. Et imprimis illud Pater me major est me est. Interpretatione medendum erat
huic malo, non rasura;
in h. l.
Annotations sharp here silent here. For he knew that
own MS (that very old one che
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.ewish there
were so many books corrupted as Ierome represents
For he wrote his whole commentary on Matthew
upon short warning within the space of 14 days (as
he tells us) & so had no time to collate many MSS.
In Ephes 3.14
in the Greek Syriac & Latin is, For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of o. But Ierome tells r
usof o were r
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
this reading is still conserved in the Alexan
drine MS & Whenceomitt seems
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 Compluten Claromontan,
sianthat
opick Versions: no did
read them.
Another corruption of e
meet thchD. Ambrose to prove
the omnipotence of Christ cites in these words. Ego
sum Alpha & I am Alpha & Omega saith the Lord Iesus who is & who was & who is to come the omnipotent. For ethe 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 eArian controversy received & spread by the Catho
licks. For e
Marcion corrupted 1 Cor. 10.Christo
rally followed. For the greek MSS & most of e
old Versions now read Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted & were destroyed of serpents. Yet eNeither let us tempt the Lord
of Lincoln College in Oxford r Covils MSS& In the Alexandrine
MS & Ethiopick Version 'tis, Neither let us tempt God.
The corruption was easy by changing
abbreviations of κ
Such another corruption was made in those S &
some others & the Latin & Arabic by changing Iesus having saved the people out of the Land of Egypt afterwards destroyed them that beleived not.
For the genuine reading backt the
greek MSS & theThe 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
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
Ιησουν, ἀπὸ του Θεου οὐκ ἔστιEvery spirit y. Thus far Socrates. tee
His meaning is that altho this sentence was
now rased out of the ancient e
ancient Latine interpreters by translating the
text: Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum ex Deo non est
ly written
ἀπὸ του Θεου οὐκ έστι
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 & not suspecting that the He should rather have argued from
Latine
that ev
all the greek MSS to this day & all the ancient
Versions besides eEvery 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 7was
then Cyprian & 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 ecorrupted him. But it
prevailed not before D. Augustin (Tract. 6
Ane
scriptures have been very much corrupted in e
first ages & chiefly in the fourth Century
in the times of the Arian Controversy. And
to ee
Catholicks are here found much more guilty
of these corruptions then the hereticks. In e
earliest ages the Gnosticks were much accused
of this crime & seem to have been guilty &
yet the catholicks were not then wholly inno
cent. But in the fourth & fift
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 e
find) & then to justify & propagate
claimed against the Hereticks
genuine readings & sometimes against the old
had translated unfaithfully
ever was the author of echwere Epistle Latin Version che
charges the Authors of e
versions with infidelity for leaving it out.
If Macedonius be condemned & banished for
corrupting the scriptures, the Catholicks clamour
against the Council ch
they had corrupted them. If e
into the publick books of the western
Churches quia Deus est spiritus est
also rail at the Arians as if they had
corrupted the scripture by blotting it out. If
the Catholicks strike out
clamour at the Arians for inserting it. If
the Catholicks instead of Every spirit w, write corruptly chtEvery Spirit w: they pretend that che
done e
liberty the
have not spared other authors. Witness So e
lations of Origen works made by Ierome
Ruffin (if we may beleive Ierome) corrupted
Origen's works &
purged them from ee
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 t
as if it were a crime to translate ch
Besides e
tioned above there
that they may seem to have been made
about the same times thSir
change
drine MS the reading is, Then they took y.e
In acts 13.41 someb
καὶ αποθνήσκει ὃ
MS of New College in Oxford is become Behold ye despisers & wonder & perish: for I work a work in y o not beleive.rch
In 2 Thes. 1.9 somebody to make Christ
be called e
tempted to add e
reading: Who shall be punished w: as it is in the MS thee
of Lincoln
College in Oxford.
Such another corruption but th
success has been made in Act. 20.28 where
the oldest MSS (as ech
was Beza's rel & some others rel & eLucifer Calaritan & Didymus The Church of y: echthThe Church of Christ, as the Syriac Version & Theodoret Com. in Phil. 1.The Church of the Lord & God,
& others, the Church of God: & this last read
ing is now generally followed, i in the Latin & Ethiopic Versions & cited by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Basil & Ambrose, unless they have been corrected
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 shews sufficiently that ethe Lord was 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. rbut
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
all the greek MSS & all
that now the text is, Hereof 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 ch
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 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
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 r Covilse
Latin
ἡμων Ιἠσουν Χριστὸν αρνούμενοιdenying our only master & Lord Iesus Christ. Other
MSS. & the Syriack & Arabic after
add but this making the sense ambiguous the Complutensian edition to make sure work
reads
κύριον ἡμων Ιησουν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοιdenying the only God & master even our Lord Iesus Christ. And the Ethiopic, denying the only God Iesus Christ.
In Phil. 4.13 the Alexandrin
others & the Latin & Ethiopic
ενδυναμουντι μεthrough him w, that is through God. But others after chthrough Christ w.ch
So in Rom. 15.32 some have chane
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 che
are wanting in e
the Syriac Latin & Ethiopic & in the Commentaries of
Arethas & Primasius & eee
but that he is the first it is he who sits upon
the throne in the beginning & end of the prophe
sy: ch
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. But r
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
ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς ευλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς ἀιώνας
Αμήνequi est Deus super omnes?c
nedictiones in sæculum sæculorum. AmenWho is God over all. t To whom be praises & blessings for ever Amen. qui est Deus super omnes. Cui sint laudes et benedictiones in sæculum sæculorum. Amen. Interpres Latinus in Bibl. Polygl.to who im be written instead
of To whom (as I suspect it was at first) & the
stop in ee
stops are of late imposition) e
be, He who is God over all, to who im be praises & blessings for ever Amen, that is in rTo him who is God over all be praise. For e
use eechr
in the Greek: but I see no
that the text has been abused by taking the first
word e
rupted as above. For
as
article. For it never respects an antecedent but
by apposition of its consequent in the same case.
We say not
τον οντα θεὸν
τον θεὸν
& the same
του ὄντος τω ὄντιsay by an ellipsis of e
say who is; but if wee will express e
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 the
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 sen
tence to Christ by apposition (ch
construction) or say The God over all be blessed for ever: Amen, & so the
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 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
τους ἀιώναςth
after it is in e
tative. For even in the Doxology Rom. 1.25, where
the Verb e
extended to e
by reason of the concluding word Amen, understood
it as an optative. This interpretation therefore I
prefer. For e
doxologies th
frequently The God
of such his own nation above other na
was proper to end such a discourse th
glory to God. And the epithites
των θεὸς
God & eeae
proper names of God the Father, cannot th
straining be applied to any other where they th
straining they may (as in this text) be applied to
him. bt Ambrose indeed disputing against those
who understood this text of eSiquis 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 .tht
represented God over all, but not in this. For
it is not requisite te
should relate to those ine
ever be the sense of the Greek,
passage of Ambrose te
age understood Qui est Deuse
consequence te
now lost translated it as a Doxology. And since
the Syriack to after
middle of the sentence where the Greek admits
of none, it argues that this Version has been
tathplain to be suspected
that eto whom for to him as was said above. For
the change in the Syriac lies but in a letter
& so might easily be made: ch
that old 397e
preter
of a wish & he that understands
And if any one will contend that e
has not been corrupted here yet he must allow
that it has been corrupted in some places & parthe reading inFor God himself by his grace tasted death for all men but should have That he by ye