Apparatus

as the Father. hath power in himself

Clayton wrote 'hath', struck it, and wrote 'had'; Richards independently has 'Had'. The tense is not indifferent in this sermon: the present tense quotes John 5:19 as it stands, the past tense assimilates the verse to the argument that the Father's work was done in a prior mortality. Clayton's correction is evidence that he heard, or understood, the past. Bullock, Woodruff and T all keep the present.

Smith, p. 289 n. 36

& be a King & Priest to God

Bullock first wrote 'be a King & God', struck 'God', and wrote 'Priest to God'. Smith confirms the sequence from the manuscript. What the scribe first heard, or first expected, was the more extreme claim that the hearer would be a king and a God; the correction to 'Priest' brings the phrase back to the Revelation 1:6 formula that Woodruff, Richards and Clayton all report. The cancellation is therefore evidence about what was audible at the point where the sermon is at its most radical.

Smith, p. 290 n. 37

Berosheet—

Clayton began to write 'Barau' immediately after 'Berosheit' and struck it out. The cancellation is direct manuscript evidence at exactly the point where Smith says the printed text inserts 'Baurau' without warrant: Clayton was on the verge of writing it here and did not, which is consistent either with his having anticipated a word not yet spoken or with a false start. Either way the surviving reports put the analysis of *bara* later, in the ex nihilo argument.

Smith, p. 291 n. 48; Smith, p. 291 n. 49

Greek says Jacob

Bullock first wrote a different Greek form, struck it, and inserted 'Jacob'. The correction falls inside the demonstration whose whole force depends on the four languages agreeing, so the scribe's hesitation over the Greek is evidence of how hard the polyglot passage was to take down. Clayton's 'Ichobon' preserves an attempt at the Greek that Bullock's corrected text loses.

when we begin to learn in this way we beg to learn the only true God

Richards wrote 'the Gods', then struck both the article and the final s to leave 'God'. In a sermon whose argument is precisely that the Gods are plural, a scribe correcting the plural back to the singular at the moment of understanding is worth recording: it shows the pull of the ordinary usage against what was being said. The surviving reading agrees with Bullock and Clayton. The T counterpart falls at the end of T's S17.

who hath not committed the unpardonable sin

Clayton wrote 'eternal sin', struck it, and wrote 'unpardonable sin'. 'Eternal sin' is the Mark 3:29 reading and is not the term any report otherwise uses; the cancellation shows a scribe reaching first for the scriptural phrase and then correcting to what was actually said. It is the clearest piece of evidence in the reports that 'unpardonable' is the spoken word.

a sinner has his own mind & is in his own condemner

Bullock wrote a whole clause, 'so long as man will not give acct. of his sins', and struck it out. Clayton and Richards both preserve a clause of the same shape at the same point, Clayton nearly word for word except that his condition is giving heed to the commandments rather than giving account of sins. The cancellation is therefore evidence that something was said here which Bullock's reading text no longer contains, and T prints Clayton's version of it.