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 discourse 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 testimony 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 congregations. 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 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 Eusebians 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 Manuscripts 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 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, 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 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 6th chapter of his first Book de Trinitate. cc Plures enim codices etiam Latini sic habent, qui spiritui Dei servimusvimus, 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 Ambrose not long before read, οἱ πνεύματι Θεω λατρεύοντες, as many Greek MSS still have it, & so did Chrysostom & Theophylact, & expounded it, not with Ambrose, Who worship God the spirit, but Who worship God πνευματικως spiritually, 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 circumcision 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 recorded 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 corruption 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 eternal 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 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 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 strengthening 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 controversy 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 & Grotius 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 transcribed 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. –