The Revision Revised / Three Articles Reprinted from the "Quarterly Review." I. The New Greek Text. II. The New English Version. III. Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory. To Which is Added a Reply to Bishop Ellicott's Pamphlet in Defence of the Revisers and Their Greek Text of the New Testament: Including a Vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Timothy III. 16.

by John William Burgon

[19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16.

A Dissertation.

In conclusion, you insist on ripping up the discussion concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16. I had already devoted eight pages [pg 425] to this subject.[920] You reply in twelve.[921] That I may not be thought wanting in courtesy, the present rejoinder shall extend to seventy-six. I propose, without repeating myself, to follow you over the ground you have re-opened. But it will be convenient that I should define at the outset what is precisely the point in dispute between you and me. I presume it to be undeniably this:—That whereas the Easterns from time immemorial, (and we with them, since Tyndale in 1534 gave us our English Version of the N. T.,) have read the place thus:—(I set the words down in plain English, because the issue admits of being every bit as clearly exhibited in the vernacular, as in Greek: and because I am determined that all who are at the pains to read the present Dissertation shall understand it also:)—Whereas, I say, we have hitherto read the place thus,

“Great is the mystery of godliness:—God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory:”

You insist that this is a “plain and clear error.” You contend that there is “decidedly preponderating evidence” for reading instead,

“Great Is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,” &c.:

Which contention of yours I hold to be demonstrably incorrect, and proceed to prove is a complete misconception.

(A) Preliminary explanations and cautions.

But English readers will require to have it explained to them at the outset, that inasmuch as ΘΕΟΣ (God) is invariably [pg 426] written ΘΣ in manuscripts, the only difference between the word “God” and the word “who” (ΟΣ) consists of two horizontal strokes,—one, which distinguishes Θ from Ο; and another similar stroke (above the letters ΘΣ) which indicates that a word has been contracted. And further, that it was the custom to trace these two horizontal lines so wondrous faintly that they sometimes actually elude observation. Throughout cod. a, in fact, the letter Θ is often scarcely distinguishable from the letter Ο.

It requires also to be explained for the benefit of the same English reader,—(and it will do learned readers no harm to be reminded,)—that “mystery” (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὅς),—“who.” Such an expression is abhorrent alike to Grammar and to Logic,—is intolerable, in Greek as in English. By consequence, ὅς (“who”) is found to have been early exchanged for ὅ (“which”). From a copy so depraved, the Latin Version was executed in the second century. Accordingly, every known copy or quotation[922] of the Latin exhibits “quod.” Greek authorities for this reading (ὅ) are few enough. They have been specified already, viz. at page [100]. And with this brief statement, the reading in question might have been dismissed, seeing that it has found no patron since Griesbach declared against it. It was however very hotly contended for during the last century,—Sir Isaac Newton and Wetstein being its most strenuous advocates; and it would be unfair entirely to lose sight of it now.

The two rival readings, however, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, are,—Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη (“God was manifested”), on the one hand; and τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ὅς (“the mystery of godliness, who”), on the other. These are the two readings, I say, [pg 427] between whose conflicting claims we are to adjudicate. For I request that it may be loyally admitted at the outset,—(though it has been conveniently overlooked by the Critics whom you follow,)—that the expression ὂς ἐφανερώθη in Patristic quotations, unless it be immediately preceded by the word μυστήριον, is nothing to the purpose; at all events, does not prove the thing which you are bent on proving. English readers will see this at a glance. An Anglican divine,—with reference to 1 Timothy iii. 16,—may surely speak of our Saviour as One “who was manifested in the flesh,”—without risk of being straightway suspected of employing a copy of the English Version which exhibits “the mystery of godliness who.” “Ex hujusmodi locis” (as Matthæi truly remarks) “nemo, nisi mente captus, in contextu sacro probabit ὅς.”[923]

When Epiphanius therefore,—professing to transcribe[924] from an earlier treatise of his own[925] where ἐφανερώθη stands without a nominative,[926] writes (if he really does write) ὂς ἐφανερώθη,[927]—we are not at liberty to infer therefrom that Epiphanius is opposed to the reading Θεός.—Still less is it lawful to draw the same inference from the Latin Version of a letter of Eutherius [a.d. 431] in which the expression “qui manifestatus est in carne,”[928] occurs.—Least of all should we be warranted in citing Jerome as a witness for reading ὅς in [pg 428] this place, because (in his Commentary on Isaiah) he speaks of our Saviour as One who “was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.”[929]

As for reasoning thus concerning Cyril of Alexandria, it is demonstrably inadmissible: seeing that at the least on two distinct occasions, this Father exhibits Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. I am not unaware that in a certain place, apostrophizing the Docetæ, he says,—“Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor indeed the great mystery of godliness, that is Christ, who (ὅς) was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,”[930] &c. &c. And presently, “I consider the mystery of godliness to be no other thing but the Word of God the Father, who (ὅς) Himself was manifested in the flesh.”[931] But there is nothing whatever in this to invalidate the testimony of those other places in which Θεός actually occurs. It is logically inadmissible, I mean, to set aside the places where Cyril is found actually to write Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, because in other places he employs 1 Tim. iii. 16 less precisely; leaving it to be inferred—(which indeed is abundantly plain)—that Θεός is always his reading, from the course of his argument and from the nature of the matter in hand. But to proceed.

(B) Bp. Ellicott invited to state the evidence for reading ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16.

[a] “The state of the evidence,” as declared by Bp. Ellicott.

When last the evidence for this question came before us, I introduced it by inviting a member of the Revising body (Dr. Roberts) to be spokesman on behalf of his brethren.[932] This time, I shall call upon a more distinguished, a wholly unexceptionable witness, viz. yourself,—who are, of course, [pg 429] greatly in advance of your fellow-Revisers in respect of critical attainments. The extent of your individual familiarity with the subject when (in 1870 namely) you proposed to revise the Greek Text of the N. T. for the Church of England on the solvere-ambulando principle,—may I presume be lawfully inferred from the following annotation in your “Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.” I quote from the last Edition of 1869; only taking the liberty—(1) To break it up into short paragraphs: and—(2) To give in extenso the proper names which you abbreviate. Thus, instead of “Theod.” (which I take leave to point out to you might mean either Theodore of Heraclea or his namesake of Mopsuestia,—either Theodotus the Gnostic or his namesake of Ancyra,) “Euthal.,” I write “Theodoret, Euthalius.” And now for the external testimony, as you give it, concerning 1 Timothy iii. 16. You inform your readers that,—

“The state of the evidence is briefly as follows:—

(1) Ὅς is read with a1 [indisputably; after minute personal inspection; see note, p. 104.] c1 [Tischendorf Prol. Cod. Ephraemi, § 7, p. 39.] F G א (see below); 17, 73, 181; Syr.-Philoxenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic; also (ὅς or ὅ) Syriac, Arabic (Erpenius), Æthiopic, Armenian; Cyril, Theodorus Mopsuest., Epiphanius, Gelasius, Hieronymus in Esaiam liii. 11.

(2) ὅ, with d1 (Claromontanus), Vulgate; nearly all Latin Fathers.

(3) Θεός, with d3 k l; nearly all MSS.; Arabic (Polyglott), Slavonic; Didymus, Chrysostom (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note), Theodoret, Euthalius, Damascene, Theophylact, Œcumenius,—Ignatius Ephes. 29, (but very doubtful). A hand of the 12th century has prefixed θε to ος, the reading of א; see Tischendorf edit. major, Plate xvii. of Scrivener's Collation of א, facsimile (13).

On reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important uncial MSS., but all the Versions older than the 7th century are distinctly in favour of a relative,—as ὅ seems only a Latinizing [pg 430] variation of ὅς,—and lastly, as ὅς is the more difficult, though really the more intelligible, reading (Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. I. p. 143), and on every reason more likely to have been changed into Θεός (Macedonius is actually said to have been expelled for making the change, Liberati Diaconi Breviarium cap. 19) than vice versâ, we unhesitatingly decide in favour of ὅς.”—(Pastoral Epistles, ed. 1869, pp. 51-2.)

Such then is your own statement of the evidence on this subject. I proceed to demonstrate to you that you are completely mistaken:—mistaken as to what you say about ὅς,—mistaken as to ὅ,—mistaken as to Θεός:—mistaken in respect of Codices,—mistaken in respect of Versions,—mistaken in respect of Fathers. Your slipshod, inaccurate statements, (all obtained at second-hand,) will occasion me, I foresee, a vast deal of trouble; but I am determined, now at last, if the thing be possible, to set this question at rest. And that I may not be misunderstood, I beg to repeat that all I propose to myself is to prove—beyond the possibility of denial—that the evidence for Θεός (in 1 Timothy iii. 16) vastly preponderates over the evidence for either ὅς or ὅ. It will be for you, afterwards, to come forward and prove that, on the contrary, Θεός is a “plain and clear error:” so plain and so clear that you and your fellow-Revisers felt yourselves constrained to thrust it out from the place it has confessedly occupied in the New Testament for at least 1530 years.

You are further reminded, my lord Bishop, that unless you do this, you will be considered by the whole Church to have dealt unfaithfully with the Word of God. For, (as I shall remind you in the sequel,) it is yourself who have invited and provoked this enquiry. You devote twelve pages to it (pp. 64 to 76),—“compelled to do so by the Reviewer.” “Moreover” (you announce) “this case is of great importance as an example. It illustrates in a striking manner the [pg 431] complete isolation of the Reviewer's position. If he is right all other Critics are wrong,” &c., &c., &c.—Permit me to remind you of the warning—“Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.”

Testimony of the Manuscripts concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16: and first as to the testimony of Codex a.

You begin then with the Manuscript evidence; and you venture to assert that ΟΣ is “indisputably” the reading of Codex a. I am at a loss to understand how a “professed Critic,”—(who must be presumed to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and who is a lover of Truth,)—can permit himself to make such an assertion. Your certainty is based, you say, on “minute personal inspection.” In other words, you are so good as to explain that you once tried a coarse experiment,[933] by which you succeeded in convincing yourself that the suspected diameter of the Ο is exactly coincident with the sagitta of an epsilon (Ε) which happens to stand on the back of the page. But do you not see that unless you start with this for your major premiss,—“Theta cannot exist on one side of a page if epsilon stands immediately behind it on the other side,”—your experiment is nihil ad rem, and proves absolutely nothing?

Your “inspection” happens however to be inaccurate besides. You performed your experiment unskilfully. A man need only hold up the leaf to the light on a very brilliant day,—as Tregelles, Scrivener, and many besides (including your present correspondent) have done,—to be aware that the sagitta of the epsilon on fol. 145b does not cover much more than a third of the area of the theta on fol. 145a. Dr. Scrivener further points out that it cuts the circle too [pg 432] high to have been reasonably mistaken by a careful observer for the diameter of the theta (Θ). The experiment which you describe with such circumstantial gravity was simply nugatory therefore.

How is it, my lord Bishop, that you do not perceive that the way to ascertain the reading of Codex a at 1 Tim. iii. 16, is,—(1) To investigate not what is found at the back of the leaf, but what is written on the front of it? and (2), Not so much to enquire what can be deciphered of the original writing by the aid of a powerful lens now, as to ascertain what was apparent to the eye of competent observers when the Codex was first brought into this country, viz. 250 years ago? That Patrick Young, the first custodian and collator of the Codex [1628-1652], read ΘΣ, is certain.—Young communicated the “various Readings” of a to Abp. Ussher:—and the latter, prior to 1653, communicated them to Hammond, who clearly knew nothing of ΟΣ.—It is plain that ΘΣ was the reading seen by Huish—when he sent his collation of the Codex (made, according to Bentley, with great exactness,[934]) to Brian Walton, who published the fifth volume of his Polyglott in 1657.—Bp. Pearson, who was very curious in such matters, says “we find not ὅς in any copy,”—a sufficient proof how he read the place in 1659.—Bp. Fell, who published an edition of the N. T. in 1675, certainly considered ΘΣ the reading of Cod. a.—Mill, who was at work on the Text of the N. T. from 1677 to 1707, expressly declares that he saw the remains of ΘΣ in this place.[935] Bentley, who had himself [pg 433] (1716) collated the MS. with the utmost accuracy (“accuratissime ipse contuli”), knew nothing of any other reading.—Emphatic testimony on the subject is borne by Wotton in 1718:—“There can be no doubt” (he says) “that this MS. always exhibited ΘΣ. Of this, any one may easily convince himself who will be at the pains to examine the place with attention.”[936]—Two years earlier,—(we have it on the testimony of Mr. John Creyk, of S. John's Coll., Cambridge,)—“the old line in the letter θ was plainly to be seen.”[937]—It was “much about the same time,” also, (viz. about 1716) that Wetstein acknowledged to the Rev. John Kippax,—“who took it down in writing from his own mouth,—that though the middle stroke of the θ has been evidently retouched, yet the fine stroke which was originally in the body of the θ is discoverable at each end of the fuller stroke of the corrector.”[938]—And Berriman himself, (who delivered a course of Lectures on the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, in 1737-8,) attests emphatically that he had seen it also. “If therefore” (he adds) “at any time hereafter the old line should become altogether undiscoverable, there will never be just cause to doubt but that the genuine, and original reading of the MS. was ΘΣ: and that the new strokes, added at the top and in the middle by the corrector were not designed to corrupt and falsify, but to preserve and perpetuate the true reading, which was in danger of being lost by the decay of Time.”[939]—Those memorable words (which I respectfully commend to your notice) were written in a.d. 1741. How you (a.d. 1882), after surveying all this [pg 434] accumulated and consistent testimony (borne a.d. 1628 to a.d. 1741) by eye-witnesses as competent to observe a fact of this kind as yourself; and fully as deserving of credit, when they solemnly declare what they have seen:—how you, I say, after a survey of this evidence, can gravely sit down and inform the world that “there is no sufficient evidence that there was ever a time when this reading was patent as the reading which came from the original scribe” (p. 72):—this passes my comprehension.—It shall only be added that Bengel, who was a very careful enquirer, had already cited the Codex Alexandrinus as a witness for Θεός in 1734:[940]—and that Woide, the learned and conscientious editor of the Codex, declares that so late as 1765 he had seen traces of the θ which twenty years later (viz. in 1785) were visible to him no longer.[941]

That Wetstein subsequently changed his mind, I am not unaware. He was one of those miserable men whose visual organs return a false report to their possessor whenever they are shown a text which witnesses inconveniently to the God-head of Jesus Christ.[942] I know too that Griesbach in 1785 announced himself of Wetstein's opinion. It is suggestive [pg 435] however that ten years before, (N. T. ed. 1775,) he had rested the fact not on the testimony borne by the MS. itself, but on “the consent of Versions, Copies, and Fathers which exhibit the Alexandrian Recension.”[943]—Since Griesbach's time, Davidson, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Ellicott have announced their opinion that ΘΣ was never written at 1 Tim. iii. 16: confessedly only because ΘΣ is to them invisible one hundred years after ΘΣ has disappeared from sight. The fact remains for all that, that the original reading of a is attested so amply, that no sincere lover of Truth can ever hereafter pretend to doubt it. “Omnia testimonia,” (my lord Bishop,) “omnemque historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet; nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.”[944]

The sum of the matter, (as I pointed out to you on a former occasion,[945]) is this,—That it is too late by 150 years to contend on the negative side of this question. Nay, a famous living Critic (long may he live!) assures us that when his eyes were 20 years younger (Feb. 7, 1861) he actually discerned, still lingering, a faint trace of the diameter of the Θ which Berriman in 1741 had seen so plainly. “I have examined Codex a at least twenty times within as many years” (wrote Prebendary Scrivener in 1874[946]), “and ... seeing (as every one must) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced that it reads ΘΣ”.... For you to assert, in reply to all this mass of positive evidence, that the reading is “indisputably” ΟΣ,—and to contend that what makes this indisputable, is the fact that behind part of the theta (Θ), [but too high to mislead a skilful observer,] an epsilon stands on the reverse side of the page;—strikes me as bordering inconveniently on the ridiculous. If this be your notion of [pg 436] what does constitute “sufficient evidence,” well may the testimony of so many testes oculati seem to you to lack sufficiency. Your notions on these subjects are, I should think, peculiar to yourself. You even fail to see that your statement (in Scrivener's words) is “not relevant to the point at issue.”[947] The plain fact concerning cod. a is this:—That at 1 Tim. iii. 16, two delicate horizontal strokes in ΘΣ which were thoroughly patent in 1628,—which could be seen plainly down to 1737,—and which were discernible by an expert (Dr. Woide) so late as A.D. 1765,[948]—have for the last hundred years entirely disappeared; which is precisely what Berriman (in 1741) predicted would be the case. Moreover, he solemnly warned men against drawing from this circumstance the mistaken inference which you, my lord Bishop, nevertheless insist on drawing, and representing as an “indisputable” fact.

I have treated so largely of the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, not because I consider the testimony of a solitary copy, whether uncial or cursive, a matter of much importance,—certainly not the testimony of Codex a, which (in defiance of every other authority extant) exhibits “the body of God” in S. John xix. 40:—but because you insist that a is a witness on your side: whereas it is demonstrable, [pg 437] (and I claim to have demonstrated,) that you cannot honestly do so; and (I trust) you will never do so any more.

[c] Testimony of Codices א and c concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16.

That א reads ΟΣ is admitted.—Not so Codex c, which the excessive application of chemicals has rendered no longer decipherable in this place. Tischendorf (of course) insists, that the original reading was ΟΣ.[949] Wetstein and Griesbach (just as we should expect,) avow the same opinion,—Woide, Mill, Weber and Parquoi being just as confident that the original reading was ΘΣ. As in the case of cod. a, it is too late by full 100 years to re-open this question. Observable it is that the witnesses yield contradictory evidence. Wetstein, writing 150 years ago, before the original writing had become so greatly defaced,—(and Wetstein, inasmuch as he collated the MS. for Bentley [1716], must have been thoroughly familiar with its contents,)—only “thought” that he read ΟΣ; “because the delicate horizontal stroke which makes Θ out of Ο,” was to him “not apparent.”[950] Woide on the contrary was convinced that ΘΣ had been written by the first hand: “for” (said he) “though there exists no vestige of the delicate stroke which out of Ο makes Θ, the stroke written above the letters is by the first hand.” What however to Wetstein and to Woide was not apparent, was visible enough to Weber, Wetstein's contemporary. And Tischendorf, so late as 1843, expressed his astonishment that the stroke in question had hitherto escaped the eyes of every one; “having been repeatedly seen by himself.”[951] He attributes it, (just as we [pg 438] should expect) to a corrector of the MS.; partly, because of its colour, (“subnigra”); partly, because of its inclining upwards to the right. And yet, who sees not that an argument derived from the colour of a line which is already well-nigh invisible, must needs be in a high degree precarious? while Scrivener aptly points out that the cross line in Θ,—the ninth letter further on, (which has never been questioned,)—also “ascends towards the right.” The hostile evidence collapses therefore. In the meantime, what at least is certain is, that the subscribed musical notation indicates that a thousand years ago, a word of two syllables was read here. From a review of all of which, it is clear that the utmost which can be pretended is that some degree of uncertainty attaches to the testimony of cod. c. Yet, why such a plea should be either set up or allowed, I really see not—except indeed by men who have made up their minds beforehand that ΟΣ shall be the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Let the sign of uncertainty however follow the notation of c for this text, if you will. That cod. c is an indubitable witness for ΟΣ, I venture at least to think that no fair person will ever any more pretend.

[d] Testimony of Codices F and G of S. Paul, concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16.

The next dispute is about the reading of the two IXth-century codices, f and g,—concerning which I propose to trouble you with a few words in addition to what has been already offered on this subject at pp. [100-1]: the rather, because you have yourself devoted one entire page of your pamphlet to the testimony yielded by these two codices; and because you therein have recourse to what (if it proceeded from any one but a Bishop,) I should designate the insolent method of trying to put me down by authority,—instead of seeking to convince me of my error by producing some good [pg 439] reasons for your opinion. You seem to think it enough to hurl Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and (cruellest of all) my friend Scrivener, at my head. Permit me to point out that this, as an argument, is the feeblest to which a Critic can have recourse. He shouts so lustily for help only because he is unable to take care of himself.

f and g then are confessedly independent copies of one and the same archetype: and “both f and g” (you say) “exhibit ΟΣ.”[952] Be it so. The question arises,—What does the stroke above the ΟΣ signify? I venture to believe that these two codices represent a copy which originally exhibited ΘΣ, but from which the diameter of the Θ had disappeared—(as very often is the case in codex a)—through tract of time. The effect of this would be that f and g are in reality witnesses for Θεός. Not so, you say. That slanting stroke represents the aspirate, and proves that these two codices are witnesses for ὅς.[953] Let us look a little more closely into this matter.

Here are two documents, of which it has been said that they “were separately derived from some early codex, in which there was probably no interval between the words.”[954] They were not immediately derived from such a codex, I remark: it being quite incredible that two independent copyists could have hit on the same extravagantly absurd way of dividing the uncial letters.[955] The common archetype [pg 440] which both employed must have been the work of a late Western scribe every bit as licentious and as unacquainted with Greek as themselves.[956] That archetype however may very well have been obtained from a primitive codex of the kind first supposed, in which the words were written continuously, as in codex b. Such Manuscripts were furnished with neither breathings nor accents: accordingly, “of the ordinary breathings or accents there are no traces”[957] in either f or g.

But then, cod. f occasionally,—g much oftener,—exhibits a little straight stroke, nearly horizontal, over the initial vowel of certain words. Some have supposed that this was designed to represent the aspirate: but it is not so. The proof is, that it is found consistently introduced over the same vowels in the interlinear Latin. Thus, the Latin preposition “a” always has the slanting stroke above it:[958] and the Latin interjection “o” is furnished with the same appendage,—alike in the Gospels and in the Epistles.[959] This observation [pg 441] evacuates the supposed significance of the few instances where ἃ is written Α:[960] as well as of the much fewer places where ὁ or ὃ are written Ο:[961] especially when account is taken of the many hundred occasions, (often in rapid succession,) when nothing at all is to be seen above the “ο.”[962] As for the fact that ἵνα is always written ΙΝΑ (or ΪΝΑ),—let it only be noted that besides ιδωμεν, ιχθυς, ισχυρος, &c., Ιακωβος, Ιωαννης, Ιουδας, &c., (which are all distinguished in the same way,)—Latin words also beginning with an “I” are similarly adorned,—and we become convinced that the little stroke in question is to be explained on some entirely different principle. At last, we discover (from the example of “sī,” “sīc,” “etsī,” “servītus,” “saeculīs,” “idolīs,” &c.) that the supposed sign of the rough breathing is nothing else but an ancient substitute for the modern dot over the “I.”—We may now return to the case actually before us.

It has been pointed out that the line above the ΟΣ in both f and g “is not horizontal, but rises a little towards the right.” I beg to call attention to the fact that there are 38 instances of the slight super-imposed “line” here spoken of, in the page of cod. f where the reading under discussion appears: 7 in the Greek, 31 in the Latin. In the corresponding page of cod. g, the instances are 44: 8 in the Greek, 36 in the Latin.[963] These short horizontal strokes [pg 442] (they can hardly be called lines) generally—not by any means always—slant upwards; and they are invariably the sign of contraction.

The problem before us has in this way been divested of a needless encumbrance. The suspicion that the horizontal line above the word ΟΣ may possibly represent the aspirate, has been disposed of. It has been demonstrated that throughout these two codices a horizontal line slanting upwards, set over a vowel, is either—(1) The sign of contraction; or else—(2) A clerical peculiarity. In the place before us, then, which of the two is it?

The sign of contraction, I answer: seeing that whereas there are, in the page before us, 9 aspirated, and (including ΟΣ) 8 contracted Greek words, not one of those nine aspirated words has any mark at all above its initial letter; while every one of the eight contracted words is duly furnished with the symbol of contraction. I further submit that inasmuch as ὅς is nowhere else written ΟΣ in either codex, it is unreasonable to assume that it is so written in this place. Now, that almost every codex in the world reads ΘΣ in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—is a plain fact; and that ΟΣ (in verse 16) would be Θεός if the delicate horizontal stroke which distinguishes Θ from Ο, were not away,—no one denies. Surely, therefore, the only thing which remains to be enquired after, is,—Are there any other such substitutions of one letter for another discoverable in these two codices? And it is notorious that instances of the phenomenon abound. The letters Σ, Ε, Ο, Θ are confused throughout.[964] And what else are ΠΕΝΟΟΥΝΤΕΣ for πενθουντες (Matth. v. 4),—ΕΚΡΙΖΩΟΗΤΙ for εκριζωθητι (Luc. xvii. 16),—ΚΑΤΑΒΗΟΙ for καταβηθι (xix. 6),—but [pg 443] instances of the self-same mistake which (as I contend) has in this place turned ΘΣ into ΟΣ?

My lord Bishop, I have submitted to all this painful drudgery, not, you may be sure, without a sufficient reason. Never any more must we hear of “breathings” in connexion with codices f and g. The stroke above the ΟΣ in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has been proved to be probably the sign of contraction. I forbear, of course, to insist that the two codices are witnesses on my side. I require that you, in the same spirit of fairness, will abstain from claiming them as certainly witnessing on yours. The Vth-century codex c, and the IXth-century codex f-g must be regarded as equivocal in the testimony they render, and are therefore not to be reckoned to either of the contending parties.

These are many words about the two singularly corrupt IXth-century documents, concerning which so much has been written already. But I sincerely desire,—(and so I trust do you, as a Christian Bishop,)—to see the end of a controversy which those only have any right to re-open (pace tuâ dixerim) who have something new to offer on the subject: and certain it is that the bearing of f and g on this matter has never before been fully stated. I dismiss those two codices with the trite remark that they are, at all events, but one codex: and that against them are to be set k l p,—the only uncials which remain; for d (of “Paul”) exhibits ὅ, and the Vatican codex b no longer serves us.

[fe] Testimony of the cursive copies: and specially of “Paul 17,” “73” and “181,” concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16.

Next, for the cursive Copies. You claim without enquiry,—and only because you find that men have claimed them before you,—Nos. 17, 73, 181, as witnesses for ὅς. Will you permit me to point out that no progress will ever be made in these [pg 444] studies so long as “professed Critics” will persevere in the evil practice of transcribing one another's references, and thus appropriating one another's blunders?

About the reading of “Paul 17,” (the notorious “33” of the Gospels,) there is indeed no doubt.—Mindful however of President Routh's advice to me always “to verify my references,”—concerning “Paul 73” I wrote a letter of enquiry to Upsala (July 28, 1879), and for all answer (Sept. 6th) received a beautiful tracing of what my correspondent called the “1 Thim. iii. 16 paraphe.” It proved to be an abridged exhibition of 21 lines of Œcumenius. I instantly wrote to enquire whether this was really all that the codex in question has to say to 1 Tim. iii. 16? but to this I received no reply. I presumed therefore that I had got to the bottom of the business. But in July 1882, I addressed a fresh enquiry to Dr. Belsheim of Christiania, and got his answer last October. By that time he had visited Upsala: had verified for me readings in other MSS., and reported that the reading here is ὅς. I instantly wrote to enquire whether he had seen the word with his own eyes? He replied that he desired to look further into this matter on some future occasion,—the MS. in question being (he says) a difficult one to handle. I am still awaiting his final report, which he promises to send me when next he visits Upsala. (“Aurivillius” says nothing about it.) Let “Paul 73” in the meantime stand with a note of interrogation, or how you will.

About “Paul 181,” (which Scholz describes as “vi. 36” in the Laurentian library at Florence,) I take leave to repeat (in a foot-note) what (in a letter to Dr. Scrivener) I explained in the “Guardian” ten years ago.[965] In consequence however [pg 445] of your discourteous remarks (which you will be gratified to find quoted at foot,[966]) I have written (not for the first time) to the learned custos of the Laurentian library on the subject; stating the entire case and reminding him of my pertinacity in 1871. He replies,—“Scholz fallitur huic bibliothecæ tribuendo codicem sign. ‘plut. vi. n. 36.’ Nec est in præsenti, nec fuit antea, neque exstat in aliâ bibliothecâ apud nos.”... On a review of what goes before, I submit that one who has taken so much pains with the subject does not deserve to be flouted as I find myself flouted by the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol,—who has not been at the pains to verify one single point in this entire controversy for himself.

Every other known copy of S. Paul's Epistles, (written in the cursive character,) I have ascertained (by laborious correspondence with the chiefs of foreign libraries) concurs in exhibiting Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. The importance of this [pg 446] testimony ought to be supremely evident to yourself who contend so strenuously for the support of Paul 73 and 181. But because, in my judgment, this practical unanimity of the manuscripts is not only “important” but conclusive, I shall presently recur to it (viz. at pages [494-5],) more in detail. For do but consider that these copies were one and all derived from yet older MSS. than themselves; and that the remote originals of those older MSS. were perforce of higher antiquity still, and were executed in every part of primitive Christendom. How is it credible that they should, one and all, conspire to mislead? I cannot in fact express better than Dr. Berriman did 140 years ago, the logical result of such a concord of the copies:—“From whence can it be supposed that this general, I may say this universal consent of the Greek MSS. should arise, but from hence,—That Θεός is the genuine original reading of this Text?” (p. 325.)

In the meantime, you owe me a debt of gratitude: for, in the course of an enquiry which I have endeavoured to make exhaustive, I have discovered three specimens of the book called “Apostolus,” or “Praxapostolus” (i.e. Lections from the Epistles and Acts) which also exhibit ὅς in this place. One of these is Reg. 375 (our “Apost. 12”) in the French collection, a Western codex, dated a.d. 1022.[967] The story of the discovery of the other two (to be numbered “Praxapost.” 85, 86,) is interesting, and will enliven this dull page.

At Tusculum, near Rome,—(the locality which Cicero [pg 447] rendered illustrious, and where he loved to reside surrounded by his books,)—was founded early in the XIth century a Christian library which in process of time became exceedingly famous. It retains, in fact, its ancient reputation to this day. Nilus “Rossanensis” it was, who, driven with his monks from Calabria by invading hordes, established in a.d. 1004 a monastery at Tusculum, to which either he, or his successors, gave the name of “Crypta Ferrata.” It became the headquarters of the Basilian monks in the XVIIth century. Hither habitually resorted those illustrious men, Sirletus, Mabillon, Zacagni, Ciampini, Montfaucon,—and more lately Mai and Dom Pitra. To Signor Cozza-Luzi, the present learned and enlightened chief of the Vatican library, (who is himself “Abbas Monachorum Basiliensium Cryptæ Ferratæ,”) I am indebted for my copy of the Catalogue (now in process of publication[968]) of the extraordinary collection of MSS. belonging to the society over which he presides.

In consequence of the information which the Abbate Cozza-Luzi sent me, I put myself in communication with the learned librarian of the monastery, the “Hieromonachus” D. Antonio Rocchi, (author of the Catalogue in question,) whom I cannot sufficiently thank for his courtesy and kindness. The sum of the matter is briefly this:—There are still preserved in the library of the Basilian monks of Crypta Ferrata,—(notwithstanding that many of its ancient treasures have found their way into other repositories,[969])—4 manuscripts of S. Paul's Epistles, which I number 290, -1, -2, -3: and 7 copies of the book called “Praxapostolus,” which I [pg 448] number 83, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9. Of these eleven, 3 are defective hereabouts: 5 read Θεός: 2 (Praxapost.) exhibit ὅς; and 1 (Apost. 83) contains an only not unique reading, to be mentioned at p. [478]. Hieromonachus Rocchi furnishes me with references besides to 3 Liturgical Codices out of a total of 22, (Ἀποστολοευαγγέλια), which also exhibit Θεός.[970] I number them Apost. 106, 108, 110.

And now, we may proceed to consider the Versions.

[f] Testimony of the Versions to the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.

“Turning to the ancient Versions” (you assert) “we find them almost unanimous against Θεός” (p. 65). But your business, my lord Bishop, was to show that some of them witness in favour of ὅς. If you cannot show that several ancient Versions,—besides a fair proportion of ancient Fathers,—are clearly on your side, your contention is unreasonable as well as hopeless. What then do the Versions say?

(a) Now, it is allowed on all hands that the Latin Version was made from copies which must have exhibited μυστήριον ὅ ἐφανερώθη. The agreement of the Latin copies is absolute. The Latin Fathers also conspire in reading “mysterium quod:” though some of them seem to have regarded “quod” as a conjunction. Occasionally, (as by the Translator of Origen,[971]) we even find “quia” substituted for “quod.” Estius conjectures that “quod” is a conjunction in this place. But in fact the reasoning of the Latin Fathers is observed invariably to proceed as if they had found nothing else but “Deus” in the text before them. They bravely assume that the Eternal Word, the second Person in the [pg 449] Trinity, is designated by the expression “magnum pietatis sacramentum.”

(b) It is, I admit, a striking circumstance that such a mistake as this in the old Latin should have been retained in the Vulgate. But if you ever study this subject with attention, you will find that Jerome,—although no doubt he “professedly corrected the old Latin Version by the help of ancient Greek manuscripts,” (p. 69,)—on many occasions retains readings which it is nevertheless demonstrable that he individually disapproved. No certain inference therefore as to what Jerome found in ancient Greek MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.

(c) Next, for the Syriac (Peschito) Version. I beg to subjoin the view of the late loved and lamented P. E. Pusey,—the editor of Cyril, and who at the time of his death was engaged in re-editing the Peschito. He says,—“In 1 Tim. iii. 16, the Syriac has ‘qui manifestatus est.’ The relative is indeterminate, but the verb is not. In Syriac however μυστήριον is masculine; and thus, the natural way would be to take μυστήριον as the antecedent, and translate ‘quod manifestatum est.’ No one would have thought of any other way of translating the Syriac—but for the existence of the various reading ὅς in the Greek, and the possibility of its affecting the translation into Syriac. But the Peschito is so really a translation into good Syriac, (not into word-for-word Syriac,) that if the translator had wanted to express the Greek ὅς, in so difficult a passage, he would have turned it differently.”[972]—The Peschito therefore yields the same testimony as the Latin; and may not be declared (as you declare it) to be indeterminate. Still less may it be represented as witnessing to ὅς.

(d) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in the Philoxenian, or rather the Harkleian Version (VIIth cent.), concerning which I have had recourse to the learned Editor of that Version. He writes:—“There can be no doubt that the authors of this Version had either Θεός or Θεοῦ before them: while their marginal note shows that they were aware of the reading ὅς. They exhibit,—‘Great is the mystery of the goodness of the fear (feminine) of God, who-was-manifested (masculine) in the flesh.’ The marginal addition [ܗܘ before ܕܐܬܓܠܝ (or ܘܗ before ܝܠܓܬܐܕ)] makes the reference to God all the plainer.”[973] See more below, at p. [489].

Now this introduction of the word Θεός into the text, however inartistic it may seem to you and to me, is a fatal circumstance to those who would contend on your side. It shows translators divided between two rival and conflicting readings: but determined to give prominence to the circumstance which constituted the greatness of the mystery: viz. God incarnate. “May I suggest” (adds the witty scholar in his Post-script) “that there would be no mystery in ‘a man being manifested in the flesh’?”

The facts concerning the Harkleian Version being such, you will not be surprised to hear me say that I am at a loss to understand how, without a syllable expressive of doubt, you should claim this version (the “Philoxenian” you call it—but it is rather the Harkleian), as a witness on your side,—a witness for ὅς.[974] It not only witnesses against you, (for the Latin and the Peschito do that,) but, as I have shown you, it is a witness on my side.

(e) and (f). Next, for the Versions of Lower and Upper Egypt.

“We are content” (you say) to “refer our readers to Tischendorf and Tregelles, who unhesitatingly claim the Memphitic [or Coptic] and the Thebaic [or Sahidic] for ὅς.”[975] But surely, in a matter of this kind, my lord Bishop—(I mean, when we are discussing some nicety of a language of which personally we know absolutely nothing,)—we may never “be content to refer our readers” to individuals who are every bit as ignorant of the matter as ourselves. Rather should we be at the pains to obtain for those whom we propose to instruct the deliberate verdict of those who have made the subject their special study. Dr. Malan (who must be heartily sick of me by this time), in reply to my repeated enquiries, assures me that in Coptic and in Sahidic alike, “the relative pronoun always takes the gender of the Greek antecedent. But, inasmuch as there is properly speaking no neuter in either language, the masculine does duty for the neuter; the gender of the definite article and relative pronoun being determined by the gender of the word referred to. Thus, in S. John xv. 26, the Coptic ‘pi’ and ‘phè’ respectively represent the definite article and the relative, alike in the expression ὁ Παράκλητος ὅν, and in the expression τὸ Πνεῦμα ὅ: and so throughout. In 1 Tim. iii. 16, therefore, ‘pi mustèrion phè,’ must perforce be rendered, τὸ μυστήριον ὅ:—not, surely, ὁ μυστήριον ὅς. And yet, if the relative may be masculine, why not the article also? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) relative by ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar passage where a neuter noun (e.g. πνεῦμα or σῶμα) has gone before. In this particular case, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek, [pg 452] would ever dream of writing anything else but τὸ μυστήριον ὅ.”[976] And now I trust I have made it plain to you that you are mistaken in your statement (p. 69),—that “Ὅς is supported by the two Egyptian Versions.” It is supported by neither. You have been shown that they both witness against you. You will therefore not be astonished to hear me again declare that I am at a loss to understand how you can cite the “Philoxenian, Coptic and Sahidic,”[977]—as witnesses on your side. It is not in this way, my lord Bishop, that God's Truth is to be established.

(g) As for the Gothic Version,—dissatisfied with the verdict of De Gabelentz and Loebe,[978] I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the way is preserved the only known copy of Ulphilas for 1 Tim. iii. 16. He inclines to the opinion that “saei” is to be read,—the rather, because Andreas Uppström, the recent editor of the codex, a diligent and able scholar, has decided in favour of that “obscure” reading.[979] The Gothic therefore must be considered to [pg 453] witness to the (more than) extraordinary combination;—μέγΑΣ ... μυστήριον ... ὍΣ. (See the footnote 4 p. [452].)

I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from that distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania. “But” (he adds) “the reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the notes to his edition,[980] at page 657, says,—‘saei [qui] is altogether obliterated.’ ”—In claiming the Gothic therefore as a witness for ὅς, you will (I trust) agree with me that a single scarcely legible copy of a Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:—while certainly “magnus est pietatis sacramentum, qui manifestatus est in corpore”—is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to accept.

(h) For the Æthiopic. Version,—Dr. Hoerning, (of the British Museum,) has at my request consulted six copies of 1 Timothy, and informs me that they present no variety of text. The antecedent, as well as the relative, is masculine in all. The Æthiopic must therefore be considered to favour the reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη, and to represent the same Greek text which underlies the Latin and the Peschito Versions. The Æthiopic therefore is against you.

(i) “The Armenian Version,” (writes Dr. Malan) “from the very nature of the language, is indeterminate. There is no grammatical distinction of genders in Armenian.”

(j) The Arabic Version, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu[981] informs me,) [pg 454] exhibits,—“In truth the mystery of this justice is great. It is that he” (or “it,” for the Arabic has no distinction between masculine and neuter) “was manifested in the body, and was justified in the spirit” &c.—This version therefore witnesses for neither “who,” “which,” nor “God.”

(k) and (l). There only remain the Georgian Version, which is of the VIth century,—and the Slavonic, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr. Malan informs me) unequivocally witness to Θεός.

Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancient Manuscripts and Versions of S. Paul's Epistles.

[g] Review of the progress which has been hitherto made in the present Enquiry.

Up to this point, you must admit that wondrous little sanction has been obtained for the reading for which you contend, (viz. μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη,) as the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Undisturbed in your enjoyment of the testimony borne by Cod. א, you cannot but feel that such testimony is fully counterbalanced by the witness of Cod. a: and further, that the conjoined evidence of the Harkleian, the Georgian, and the Slavonic Versions outweighs the single evidence of the Gothic.

But what is to be said about the consent of the manuscripts of S. Paul's Epistles for reading Θεός in this place, in the proportion of 125 to 1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp. [445-6],) such multitudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us. At [pg 455] p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a “lesson of primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten, ponderari debere testes, non numerari.” You might have added with advantage,—“and oftenest of all, misunderstood.” For are you not aware that, generally speaking, “Number” constitutes “Weight”? If you have discovered some “regia via” which renders the general consent of Copies,—the general consent of Versions,—the general consent of Fathers, a consideration of secondary importance, why do you not at once communicate the precious secret to mankind, and thereby save us all a world of trouble?

You will perhaps propose to fall back on Hort's wild theory of a “Syrian Text,”—executed by authority at Antioch somewhere between a.d. 250 and a.d. 350.[982] Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what follows? That at a period antecedent to the date of any existing copy of the Epistle before us, the Church in her corporate capacity declared Θεός (not ὅς) to be the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.

Only one other head of Evidence (the Patristic) remains to be explored; after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present Dissertation.

[h] Testimony of the Fathers concerning the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16:—Gregory of Nyssa,—Didymus,—Theodoret,—John Damascene,—Chrysostom,—Gregory Naz.,—Severus Of Antioch,—Diodorus of Tarsus.

It only remains to ascertain what the Fathers have to say on this subject. And when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a mass of evidence which effectually [pg 456] closes this discussion. You contended just now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codex a, as if its witness were a point of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show that Gregory of Nyssa (a full century before Codex a was produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading but Θεός.[983] Of his weighty testimony you appear to have been wholly unaware in 1869, for you did not even mention Gregory by name (see p. [429]). Since however you now admit that his evidence is unequivocally against you, I am willing to hasten forward,—only supplying you (at foot) with the means of verifying what I have stated above concerning the testimony of this illustrious Father.

You are besides aware that Didymus,[984] another illustrious witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.

You are also aware that Theodoret,[985] in four places, is certainly to be reckoned on the same side:

And further, that John Damascene[986] twice adds his famous evidence to the rest,—and is also against you.

Chrysostom[987] again, whose testimony you called in question in 1869, you now admit is another of your opponents. I will not linger over his name therefore,—except to remark, that how you can witness a gathering host of ancient Fathers illustrious as these, without misgiving, passes my comprehension. Chrysostom is three times a witness.

Next come two quotations from Gregory of Nazianzus,—which I observe you treat as “inconclusive.” I retain them all the same.[988] You are reminded that this most rhetorical of Fathers is seldom more precise in quoting Scripture.

And to the same century which Gregory of Nazianzus adorned, is probably to be referred,—(it cannot possibly be later than a.d. 350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,)—the title bestowed, in the way of summary, on that portion of S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy which is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,—viz., Περὶ [pg 458] ΘΕΊΑΣ ΣΑΡΚώσεως. We commonly speak of this as the seventh of the “Euthalian” κεφάλαια or chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were “devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;”[989] and this particular title (Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως) is freely employed and discussed in Gregory of Nyssa's treatise against Apolinaris,[990]—which latter had, in fact, made it part of the title of his own heretical treatise.[991] That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ΣΑΡΚΊ no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover that Θεός[992] must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16 throughout the century which witnessed the production of codices b and א.

Severus, bp. of Antioch, you also consider a “not unambiguous” witness. I venture to point out to you that when a Father of the Church, who has been already insisting on the Godhead of Christ (καθ᾽ ὅ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεός,) goes on to speak of Him as τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν, there is no “ambiguity” whatever about the fact that he is quoting from 1 Tim. iii. 16.[993]

And why are we only “perhaps” to add the testimony of Diodorus of Tarsus; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul's [pg 459] actual words (Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), and expressly says that he finds them in S. Paul's Epistle to Timothy?[994] How—may I be permitted to ask—would you have a quotation made plainer?

Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case of Euthalius.

Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that the animus you display in conducting the present critical disquisition not only astonishes, but even shocks me. You seem to say,—Non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris. The plainest testimony you reckon doubtful, if it goes against you: an unsatisfactory quotation, if it makes for your side, you roundly declare to be “evidence” which “stands the test of examination.”[995]... “We have examined his references carefully” (you say). “Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus of Alexandria, Theodoret and John Damascene (who died severally about 394, 396, 457 and 756a.d.) seem unquestionably to have read Θεός.”[996] Excuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of the unequivocal evidence borne by these four illustrious Fathers:—your attempt to detract from the importance of their testimony by screwing down their date “to the sticking place:”—your assertion that the testimony of a fifth Father “is not unambiguous:”—your insinuation that the emphatic witness of a sixth may “perhaps” be inadmissible:—all this kind of thing is not only quite unworthy of a Bishop when he turns disputant, but effectually indisposes his opponent to receive his argumentation with that respectful deference which else would have been undoubtedly its due.

Need I remind you that men do not write their books when they are in articulo mortis? Didymus died in a.d. 394, to be [pg 460] sure: but he was then 85 years of age. He was therefore born in a.d. 309, and is said to have flourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had employed till then? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong to the first quarter of the IVth century?—is more ancient in short (and infinitely more important) than that of any written codex with which we are acquainted?

Pressed by my “cloud of witnesses,” you seek to get rid of them by insulting me. “We pass over” (you say) “names brought in to swell the number, such as Euthalius,—for whom no reference is given.”[997] Do you then suspect me of the baseness,—nay, do you mean seriously to impute it to me,—of introducing “names” “to swell the number” of witnesses on my side? Do you mean further to insinuate that I prudently gave no reference in the case of “Euthalius,” because I was unable to specify any place where his testimony is found?... I should really pause for an answer, but that a trifling circumstance solicits me, which, if it does not entertain the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol, will certainly entertain every one else who takes the trouble to read these pages.

“Such as Euthalius”! You had evidently forgotten when you penned that offensive sentence, that Euthalius is one of the few Fathers adduced by yourself[998] (but for whom you “gave no reference,”) in 1869,—when you were setting down the Patristic evidence in favour of Θεός.... This little incident is really in a high degree suggestive. Your practice has evidently been to appropriate Patristic references[999] without thought or verification,—prudently to abstain from dropping [pg 461] a hint how you came by them,—but to use them like dummies, for show. At the end of a few years, (naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,—and proceed vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your way, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in the same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet tingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references are never obtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that elsewhere they are not to be met with. But waiving this, you have made it luce clarius to all the world that so late as the year 1882, to you “Euthalius” was nothing else but “a name.” And this really does astonish me: for not only was he a famous Ecclesiastical personage, (a Bishop like yourself,) but his work (the date of which is a.d. 458,) is one with which no Author of a “Critical Commentary” on S. Paul's Epistles can afford to be unacquainted. Pray read what Berriman has written concerning Euthalius (pp. 217 to 222) in his admirable “Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16.” Turn also, if you please, to the Bibliotheca of Gallandius (vol. x. 197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact that the only reason why, in the “Quarterly Review,” “no reference is given for Euthalius,” is because the only reference possible is—1 Tim. iii. 16.

[j] The testimony of the letter ascribed to Dionysius Of Alexandria. Six other primitive witnesses to 1 Tim. iii. 16, specified.

Then further, you absolutely take no notice of the remarkable testimony which I adduced (p. 101) from a famous Epistle purporting to have been addressed by Dionysius of Alexandria (a.d. 264) to Paul of Samosata. That the long and [pg 462] interesting composition in question[1000] was not actually the work of the great Dionysius, is inferred—(whether rightly or wrongly I am not concerned to enquire)—from the fact that the Antiochian Fathers say expressly that Dionysius did not deign to address Paul personally. But you are requested to remember that the epistle must needs have been written by somebody:[1001] that it may safely be referred to the IIIrd century; and that it certainly witnesses to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη,[1002]—which is the only matter of any real importance to my argument. Its testimony is, in fact, as express and emphatic as words can make it.

And here, let me call your attention to the circumstance that there are at least six other primitive witnesses, some of whom must needs have recognized the reading for which I am here contending, (viz. Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,) though not one of them quotes the place in extenso, nor indeed refers to it in such a way as effectually to bar the door against reasonable dispute. The present is in fact just the kind of text which, from its undeniable grandeur,—its striking rhythm,—and yet more its dogmatic importance,—was sure to attract the attention of the earliest, no less than the latest of the Fathers. Accordingly, the author of the Epistle ad Diognetum[1003] clearly refers to it early in the IInd century; [pg 463] though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I cannot feel surprised at the circumstance.

The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1) Ignatius (three in number) are helpful, and may not be overlooked. They are as follows:—Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός—εἶς Θεός ἐστιν ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ Λόγος ἀΐδιος.[1004] It is to be wished, no doubt, that these references had been a little more full and explicit: but the very early Fathers are ever observed to quote Scripture thus partially,—allusively,—elliptically.

(2) Barnabas has just such another allusive reference to the words in dispute, which seems to show that he must have read Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί: viz. Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.[1005]—(3) Hippolytus, on two occasions, even more unequivocally refers to this reading. Once, while engaged in proving that Christ is God, he says:—Οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη:[1006]—and again, in a very similar passage which Theodoret quotes from the same Father's lost work on the Psalms:—Οὗτος ὁ προελθὼν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἐφανερώθη.[1007]—(4) Gregory Thaumaturgus, (if it really be he,) seems also to refer directly to this place when he says (in a passage quoted by Photius[1008]),—καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.—Further, (5) in the Apostolical Constitutions, we meet with the expression,—Θεὸς Κύριος ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν εν σαρκί.[1009]

And when (6) Basil the Great [a.d. 377], writing to the men of Sozopolis whose faith the Arians had assailed, remarks that such teaching “subverts the saving Dispensation of our Lord Jesus Christ;” and, blending Rom. xvi. 25, 26 with “the great mystery” of 1 Tim. iii. 16,—(in order to afford himself an opportunity of passing in review our Saviour's work for His Church in ancient days,)—viz. “After all these, at the end of the day, αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός:”[1010]—who will deny that such an one probably found neither ὅς nor ὅ, but Θεός, in the copy before him?

I have thought it due to the enquiry I have in hand to give a distinct place to the foregoing evidence—such as it is—of Ignatius, Barnabas, Hippolytus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Apostolical Constitutions, and Basil. But I shall not build upon such foundations. Let me go on with what is indisputable.

[k] The testimony of Cyril of Alexandria.

Next, for Cyril of Alexandria, whom you decline to accept as a witness for Θεός. You are prepared, I trust, to submit to the logic of facts?

In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that our Lord is very and eternal God.[1011] His method is to establish several short theses all tending to this one object, by citing from the several books of the N. T., in turn, the principal texts which make for his purpose. Presently, (viz. at page 117,) he announces as his thesis,—“Faith in Christ as God;” and when he comes to 1 Timothy, he quotes iii. 16 at length; [pg 465] reasons upon it, and points out that Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί is here spoken of.[1012] There can be no doubt about this quotation, which exhibits no essential variety of reading;—a quotation which Euthymius Zigabenus reproduces in his “Panoplia,”—and which C. F. Matthæi has with painful accuracy edited from that source.[1013]—Once more. In a newly recovered treatise of Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is again quoted at length with Θεός,—followed by the remark that “our Nature was justified, by God manifested in Him.”[1014] I really see not how you would have Cyril more distinctly recognize Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί as the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.[1015]

You are requested to observe that in order to prevent cavil, I forbear to build on two other famous places in Cyril's writings where the evidence for reading Θεός is about balanced by a corresponding amount of evidence which has been discovered for reading ὅς. Not but what the context renders it plain that Θεός must have been Cyril's word on both occasions. Of this let the reader himself be judge:—

(1) In a treatise, addressed to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, Cyril quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 in extenso.[1016] “If” (he begins)—“the Word, being God, could be said to inhabit [pg 466] Man's nature (ἐπανθρωπῆσαι) without yet ceasing to be God, but remained for ever what He was before,—then, great indeed is the mystery of Godliness.”[1017] He proceeds in the same strain at much length.[1018] Next (2) the same place of Timothy is just as fully quoted in Cyril's Explanatio xii. capitum: where not only the Thesis,[1019] but also the context constrains belief that Cyril wrote Θεός:—“What then means ‘was manifested in the flesh’? It means that the Word of God the Father was made flesh.... In this way therefore we say that He was both God and Man.... Thus” (Cyril concludes) “is He God and Lord of all.”[1020]

But, as aforesaid, I do not propose to rest my case on either of these passages; but on those two other places concerning which there exists no variety of tradition as to the reading. Whether the passages in which the reading is certain ought not to be held to determine the reading of the passages concerning which the evidence is about evenly balanced;—whether in doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not be allowed to turn the scale;—I forbear to enquire. I take my stand on what is clear and undeniable. On the other hand you are challenged to produce a single instance in Cyril of μυστηριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη, where the reading is not equally [pg 467] balanced by μυστήριον Θεός. And (as already explained) of course it makes nothing for ὅς that Cyril should sometimes say that “the mystery” here spoken of is Christ who “was manifested in the flesh,” &c. A man with nothing else but the A. V. of the “Textus Receptus” before him might equally well say that. See above, pages [427-8].

Not unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium[1021] which the Critics freely allege in proof that Cyril wrote ὅς (not Θεός), and which as they quote it, (viz. so mutilated as effectually to conceal its meaning,) certainly seems to be express in its testimony. But the thing is all a mistake. Rightly understood, the Scholium in question renders no testimony at all;—as I proceed to explain. The only wonder is that such critics as Bentley,[1022] Wetstein,[1023] Birch,[1024] Tischendorf,[1025] or even Tregelles,[1026] should not have seen this for themselves.

The author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting on our Lord's absolute exemption from sin, although for our sakes He became very Man. In support of this, he quotes Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)—“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.” “S. Cyril” (he proceeds) “in the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,—‘Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit;’ for He was in no way subject to our infirmities,” and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance that it is entirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose that it is any part of the Scholiast's object, in what precedes, to invite attention to so irrelevant a circumstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with ὅς instead of [pg 468] Θεός.[1027] As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years ago,[1028] the Scholiast's one object was to show how Cyril interpreted the expression “justified in the Spirit.” Altogether misleading is it to quote only the first line, beginning at ὅς and ending at πνεύματι, as the Critics invariably do. The point to which in this way prominence is exclusively given, was clearly, to the Commentator, a matter of no concern at all. He quotes from Cyril's “Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti,”[1029] in preference to any other of Cyril's writings, for a vastly different reason.[1030] And yet this—(viz. Cyril's supposed substitution of ὅς for Θεός)—is, in the account of the Critics, the one thing which the Scholiast was desirous of putting on record.

In the meanwhile, on referring to the place in Cyril, we make an important discovery. The Greek of the Scholium in question being lost, we depend for our knowledge of its contents on the Latin translation of Marius Mercator, Cyril's contemporary. And in that translation, no trace is discoverable of either ὅς or ὅ.[1031] The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at ἐφανερώθη. The Latin is as follows:—“Divinus Paulus magnum quidem ait esse mysterium pietatis. Et vere ita se res habet: manifestatus est enim in carne, cum sit Deus Verbum.”[1032] The supposed hostile evidence from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on.

[l] The argument e silentio considered.

The argument e silentio,—(of all arguments the most precarious,)—has not been neglected.—“But we cannot stop here,” you say:[1033] “Wetstein observed long ago that Cyril does not produce this text when he does produce Rom. ix. 5 in answer to the allegation which he quotes from Julian that S. Paul never employed the word Θεός of our Lord.”[1034] Well but, neither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a Treatise expressly to prove the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. “Grave est,”—says Tischendorf.[1035] No, not “grave” at all, I answer: but whether “grave” or not, that Gregory of Nyssa read Θεός in this place, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, you have been reminded already, that “ubi de Divinitate Christi agitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur.”[1036] Examine the place in Cyril Alex. for yourself, reading steadily on from p. 327 a to p. 333 b. Better still, read—paying special attention to his Scriptural proofs—Cyril's two Treatises “De rectâ Fide.”[1037] But in fact attend to the method of Athanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;[1038] and you will speedily convince yourself that the argument e silentio is next to valueless on occasions like the present.

Certain of the Critics have jumped to the conclusion that the other Cyril cannot have been acquainted with S. Mark xvi. 19 (and therefore with the “last Twelve Verses” of his Gospel), because when, in his Catechetical Lectures, he comes to the “Resurrection,” “Ascension,” and “Session at the Right Hand,”—he does not quote S. Mark xvi. 19. And yet,—(as it has been elsewhere[1039] fully shown, and in fact the reason is assigned by Cyril himself,)—this is only because, on the previous day, being Sunday, Cyril of Jerusalem had enlarged upon the Scriptural evidence for those august verities, (viz. S. Mark xvi. 19,—S. Luke xxiv. 51,—Acts i. 9); and therefore was unwilling to say over again before the same auditory what he had so recently delivered.

But indeed,—(the remark is worth making in passing,)—many of our modern Critics seem to forget that the heretics with whom Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, &c., were chiefly in conflict, did not by any means deny the Godhead of our Lord. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted that Christ was God. This, in fact, has been pointed out already. Very differently indeed would the ancient Fathers have expressed themselves, could they have imagined the calamitous use which, at the end of 1500 years, perverse wits would make of their writings,—the astonishing inferences they would propose to extract from their very silence. I may not go further into the subject in this place.

[m] The story about Macedonius. His testimony.

It follows to say a few words concerning Macedonius II., patriarch of Constantinople [a.d. 496-511], of whom it has been absurdly declared that he was the inventor of the reading for which I contend. I pointed out on a former occasion [pg 471] that it would follow from that very circumstance, (as far as it is true,) that Macedonius “is a witness for Θεός—perforce.”[1040]

Instead of either assenting to this, (which is surely a self-evident proposition!),—or else disproving it,—you are at the pains to furbish up afresh, as if it were a novelty, the stale and stupid figment propagated by Liberatus of Carthage, that Macedonius was expelled from his see by the Emperor Anastasius for falsifying 1 Timothy iii. 16. This exploded fable you preface by announcing it as “a remarkable fact,” that “it was the distinct belief of Latin writers as early as the VIth century that the reading of this passage had been corrupted by the Greeks.”[1041] How you get your “remarkable fact,” out of your premiss,—“the distinct belief of Latin writers,” out of the indistinct rumour [“dicitur”] vouched for by a single individual,—I see not. But let that pass.

“The story shows” (you proceed) “that the Latins in the sixth century believed ὅς to be the reading of the older Greek manuscripts, and regarded Θεός as a false reading made out of it.” (p. 69.)—My lord Bishop, I venture to declare that the story shows nothing of the sort. The Latins in the VIth (and every other) century believed that—not ὅς, but—ὅ, was the right reading of the Greek in this place. Their belief on this subject however has nothing whatever to do with the story before us. Liberatus was not the spokesman of “the Latins of the VIth,” (or any other bygone) “century:” but (as Bp. Pearson points out) a singularly ill-informed Archdeacon of Carthage; who, had he taken ever so little pains with the subject, would have become aware that for no such reason as he assigns was Macedonius [a.d. 511] thrust out of his bishopric. If, however, there were at least thus much of truth in the story,—namely, that one of the charges brought against Macedonius [pg 472] was his having corrupted Scripture, and notably his having altered ὅς into Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16;—surely, the most obvious of all inferences would be, that Θεός was found in copies of S. Paul's epistles put forth at Constantinople by archiepiscopal authority between a.d. 496 and a.d. 511. To say the least,—Macedonius, by his writings or by his discourses, certainly by his influence, must have shown himself favourable to Θεός (not ὅς) ἐφανερώθη. Else, with what show of reason could the charge have been brought against him? “I suppose” (says our learned Dr. John Mill) “that the fable before us arose out of the fact that Macedonius, on hearing that in several MSS. of the Constantinopolitan Church the text of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (which witnesses expressly to the Godhead of Christ) had been depraved, was careful that those copies should be corrected in conformity with the best exemplars.”[1042]

But, in fact, I suspect you completely misunderstand the whole matter. You speak of “the story.” But pray,—Which “story” do you mean? “The story” which Liberatus told in the VIth century? or the ingenious gloss which Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims, put upon it in the IXth? You mention the first,—you reason from the second. Either will suit me equally well. But—una la volta, per carità!

Hincmar, (whom the critics generally follow,) relates that Macedonius turned ΟΣ into ΘΕΟΣ (i.e. ΘΣ).[1043] If Macedonius did, he preferred Θεός to ὅς.... But the story which Liberatus promulgated is quite different.[1044] Let him be heard:—

“At this time, Macedonius, bp. of CP., is said to have been deposed by the emperor Anastasius on a charge of having falsified the Gospels, and notably that saying of the Apostle, [pg 473] ‘Quia apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu.’ He was charged with having turned the Greek monosyllable ΟΣ (i.e. ‘qui’), by the change of a single letter (Ω for Ο) into ΩΣ: i.e. ‘ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem.’ ”

Now, that this is a very lame story, all must see. In reciting the passage in Latin, Liberatus himself exhibits neither “qui,” nor “quod,” nor “Deus,”—but “quia apparuit in carne.” (The translator of Origen, by the way, does the same thing.[1045]) And yet, Liberatus straightway adds (as the effect of the change) “ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem:” as if that were possible, unless “Deus” stood in the text already! Quite plain in the meantime is it, that, according to Liberatus, ὡς was the word which Macedonius introduced into 1 Tim. iii. 16. And it is worth observing that the scribe who rendered into Greek Pope Martin I.'s fifth Letter (written on the occasion of the Lateran Council a.d. 649),—having to translate the Pope's quotation from the Vulgate (“quod manifestatus est,”)—exhibits ὡς ἐφανερώθη in this place.[1046]

High time it becomes that I should offer it as my opinion that those Critics are right (Cornelius à Lapide [1614] and Cotelerius [1681]) who, reasoning from what Liberatus actually says, shrewdly infer that there must have existed codices in the time of Macedonius which exhibited ΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ in this place; and that this must be the reading to which Liberatus refers.[1047] Such codices exist still. One, is preserved in the library of the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata, [pg 474] already spoken of at pp. [446-8]: another, is at Paris. I call them respectively “Apost. 83” and “Paul 282.”[1048] This is new.

Enough of all this however. Too much in fact. I must hasten on. The entire fable, by whomsoever fabricated, has been treated with well-merited contempt by a succession of learned men ever since the days of Bp. Pearson.[1049] And although during the last century several writers of the unbelieving school (chiefly Socinians[1050]) revived and embellished the silly story, in order if possible to get rid of a text which witnesses inconveniently to the Godhead of Christ, one would have hoped that, in these enlightened days, a Christian Bishop of the same Church which the learned, pious, and judicious John Berriman adorned a century and a-half ago, would have been ashamed to rekindle the ancient strife and to swell the Socinian [pg 475] chorus. I shall be satisfied if I have at least convinced you that Macedonius is a witness for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16.

[n] The testimony of an Anonymous writer (a.d. 430),—of Epiphanius (a.d. 787),—of Theodorus Studita (a.d. 795?),—of Scholia,—of Œcumenius,—of Theophylact,—of Euthymius.

The evidence of an Anonymous Author who has been mistaken for Athanasius,—you pass by in silence. That this writer lived in the days when the Nestorian Controversy was raging,—namely, in the first half of the Vth century,—is at all events evident. He is therefore at least as ancient a witness for the text of Scripture as codex a itself: and Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη is clearly what he found written in this place.[1051] Why do you make such a fuss about Cod. a, and yet ignore this contemporary witness? We do not know who wrote the Epistle in question,—true. Neither do we know who wrote Codex a. What then?

Another eminent witness for Θεός, whom also you do not condescend to notice, is Epiphanius, deacon of Catana in Sicily,—who represented Thomas, Abp. of Sardinia, at the 2nd Nicene Council, a.d. 787. A long discourse of this Ecclesiastic may be seen in the Acts of the Council, translated into Latin,—which makes his testimony so striking. But in fact his words are express,[1052] and the more valuable because they come from a region of Western Christendom from which textual utterances are rare.

A far more conspicuous writer of nearly the same date, Theodorus Studita of CP, [a.d. 759-826,] is also a witness [pg 476] for Θεός.[1053] How does it happen, my lord Bishop, that you contend so eagerly for the testimony of codices f and g, which are but one IXth-century witness after all,—and yet entirely disregard living utterances like these, of known men,—who belonged to known places,—and wrote at a known time? Is it because they witness unequivocally against you?

Several ancient Scholiasts, expressing themselves diversely, deserve enumeration here, who are all witnesses for Θεός exclusively.[1054] Lastly,—

Œcumenius[1055] (a.d. 990),—Theophylact[1056] (a.d. 1077),—Euthymius[1057] (a.d. 1116),—close this enumeration. They are all three clear witnesses for reading not ὅς but Θεός.

[o] The testimony of Ecclesiastical Tradition.

Nothing has been hitherto said concerning the Ecclesiastical usage with respect to this place of Scripture. 1 Tim. iii. 16 occurs in a lection consisting of nine verses (1 Tim. iii. 13-iv. 5), which used to be publicly read in almost all the Churches of Eastern Christendom on the Saturday before Epiphany.[1058] It was also read, in not a few Churches, on the 34th Saturday of the year.[1059] Unfortunately, the book which [pg 477] contains lections from S. Paul's Epistles, (“Apostolus” it is technically called,) is of comparatively rare occurrence,—is often found in a mutilated condition,—and (for this and other reasons) is, as often as not, without this particular lesson.[1060] Thus, an analysis of 90 copies of the “Apostolus” (No. 1 to 90), is attended by the following result:—10 are found to have been set down in error;[1061] while 41 are declared—(sometimes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of those who profess to have examined them),—not to contain 1 Tim. iii. 16.[1062] Of 7, I have not been able to obtain tidings.[1063] Thus, there are but 32 copies of the book called “Apostolus” available for our present purpose.

But of these thirty-two, twenty-seven exhibit Θεός.[1064] You will be interested to hear that one rejoices in the unique [pg 478] reading Θεοῦ:[1065] while another Copy of the 'Apostolus' keeps “Paul 282” in countenance by reading ὅς Θεός.[1066] In other words, “God” is found in 29 copies out of 32: while “who” (ὅς) is observed to survive in only 3,—and they, Western documents of suspicious character. Two of these were produced in one and the same Calabrian monastery; and they still stand, side by side, in the library of Crypta Ferrata:[1067] being exclusively in sympathy with the very suspicious Western document at Paris, already described at page [446].

Ecclesiastical Tradition is therefore clearly against you, in respect of the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. How you estimate this head of Evidence, I know not. For my own part, I hold it to be of superlative importance. It transports us back, at once, to the primitive age; and is found to be infinitely better deserving of attention than the witness of any extant uncial documents which can be produced. And why? For the plain reason that it must needs have been once attested by an indefinitely large number of codices more ancient by far than any which we now possess. In fact, Ecclesiastical Tradition, when superadded to the testimony of Manuscripts and Fathers, becomes an overwhelming consideration.

And now we may at last proceed to sum up. Let me gather out the result of the foregoing fifty pages; and remind [pg 479] the reader briefly of the amount of external testimony producible in support of each of these rival readings:—ὅ,—ὅς—Θεός.

[I.] Sum of the Evidence of Versions, Copies, Fathers, in favour of reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16.

(α) The reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη,—(which Wetstein strove hard to bring into favour, and which was highly popular with the Socinian party down to the third quarter of the last century,)—enjoys, as we have seen, (pp. [448-53],) the weighty attestation of the Latin and of the Peschito,—of the Coptic, of the Sahidic, and of the Æthiopic Versions.

No one may presume to speak slightingly of such evidence as this. It is the oldest which can be produced for the truth of anything in the inspired Text of the New Testament; and it comes from the East as well as from the West. Yet is it, in and by itself, clearly inadequate. Two characteristics of Truth are wanting to it,—two credentials,—unfurnished with which, it cannot be so much as seriously entertained. It demands Variety as well as Largeness of attestation. It should be able to exhibit in support of its claims the additional witness of Copies and Fathers. But,

(β) On the contrary, ὅ is found besides in only one Greek Manuscript,—viz. the VIth-century codex Claromontanus, D. And further,

(γ) Two ancient writers alone bear witness to this reading, viz. Gelasius of Cyzicus,[1068] whose date is a.d. 476;[1069] and the Unknown Author of a homily of uncertain date in the [pg 480] Appendix to Chrysostom[1070].... It is scarcely intelligible how, on such evidence, the Critics of the last century can have persuaded themselves (with Grotius) that μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη is the true reading of 1 Timothy iii. 16. And yet, in order to maintain this thesis, Sir Isaac Newton descended from the starry sphere and tried his hand at Textual Criticism. Wetstein (1752) freely transferred the astronomer's labours to his own pages, and thus gave renewed currency to an opinion which the labours of the learned Berriman (1741) had already demonstrated to be untenable.

Whether Theodore of Mopsuestia (in his work “de Incarnatione”) wrote ὅς or ὅ, must remain uncertain till a sight has been obtained of his Greek together with its context. I find that he quotes 1 Tim iii. 16 at least three times:—Of the first place, there is only a Latin translation, which begins “Quod justificatus est in spiritu.”[1071] The second place comes to us in Latin, Greek, and Syriac: but unsatisfactorily in all three:—(a) The Latin version introduces the quotation thus,—“Consonantia et Apostolus dicit, Et manifeste magnum est pietatis mysterium, qui[1072] (or quod[1073]) manifestatus (or tum) est in carne, justificatus (or tum) est in spiritu:”—(b) The Greek, (for which we are indebted to Leontius Byzantinus, a.d. 610,) reads,—Ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι[1074]—divested of all [pg 481] preface.[1075] Those seven words, thus isolated from their context, are accordingly printed by Migne as a heading only:—(c) The Syriac translation unmistakably reads, “Et Apostolus dixit, Vere sublime est hoc mysterium, quod,”—omitting τῆς εὐσεβείας.[1076] The third quotation, which is found only in Syriac,[1077] begins,—“For truly great is the-mystery of-the-fear-of God, who was manifested in-the-flesh and-was-justified in-the-spirit.” This differs from the received text of the Peschito by substituting a different word for εὐσέβεια, and by employing the emphatic state “the-flesh,” “the-spirit” where the Peschito has the absolute state “flesh,” “spirit.” The two later clauses agree with the Harkleian or Philoxenian.[1078]—I find it difficult from all this to know what precisely to do with Theodore's evidence. It has a truly oracular ambiguity; wavering between ὅ—ὅς—and even Θεός. You, I observe, (who are only acquainted with the second of the three places above cited, and but imperfectly with that,) do not hesitate to cut the knot by simply claiming the heretic's authority for the reading you advocate,—viz. ὅς. I have thought it due to my readers to tell [pg 482] them all that is known about the evidence furnished by Theodore of Mopsuestia. At all events, the utmost which can be advanced in favour of reading μυστήριον; ὅ in 1 Timothy iii. 16, has now been freely stated. I am therefore at liberty to pass on to the next opinion.

[II.] Sum of the Evidence of Versions, Copies, Fathers in favour of reading μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Timothy iii. 16.

Remarkable it is how completely Griesbach succeeded in diverting the current of opinion with respect to the place before us, into a new channel. At first indeed (viz. in 1777) he retained Θεός in his Text, timidly printing ὅς in small type above it; and remarking,—“Judicium de hâc lectionis varietate lectoribus liberum relinquere placuit.” But, at the end of thirty years (viz. in 1806), waxing bolder, Griesbach substituted ὅς for Θεός,—“ut ipsi” (as he says) “nobis constaremus.” Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers, under your guidance, have followed him: which is to me unaccountable,—seeing that even less authority is producible for ὅς, than for ὅ, in this place. But let the evidence for μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί be briefly recapitulated:—

(α) It consists of a single uncial copy, viz. the corrupt cod. א,—(for, as was fully explained above,[1079] codd. c and f-g yield uncertain testimony): and perhaps two cursive copies, viz. Paul 17, (the notorious “33” of the Gospels,)—and a copy at Upsala (No. 73), which is held to require further verification.[1080] To these, are to be added three other liturgical witnesses in the cursive character—being Western copies of the book called “Apostolus,” which have only recently come to [pg 483] light. Two of the codices in question are of Calabrian origin.[1081] A few words more on this subject will be found above, at pages [477] and [478].

(β) The only Version which certainly witnesses in favour of ὅς, is the Gothic: which, (as explained at pp. [452-3]) exhibits a hopelessly obscure construction, and rests on the evidence of a single copy in the Ambrosian library.

(γ) Of Patristic testimonies (to μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη) there exists not one. That Epiphanius [a.d. 360] professing to transcribe from an early treatise of his own, in which ἐφανερώθη stands without a nominative, should prefix ὅς—proves nothing, as I have fully explained elsewhere.[1082]—The equivocal testimony rendered by Theodore of Mopsuestia [a.d. 390] is already before the reader.[1083]

And this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came in,—and (I venture to predict) will go out,—with the present century. My only wonder is, how an exhibition of 1 Tim. iii. 16 so feebly attested,—so almost without attestation,—can have come to be seriously entertained by any. “Si,”—(as Griesbach remarks concerning 1 John v. 7)—“si tam pauci ... testes ... sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam γνησιότητα, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta; nullum prorsus superesset in re criticâ veri falsique criterium, et textus Novi Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius.”[1084]

Yet this is the Reading which you, my lord Bishop, not only stiffly maintain, but which you insist is no longer so [pg 484] much as “open to reconsideration.” You are, it seems, for introducing the clôture into Textual debate. But in fact you are for inflicting pains and penalties as well, on those who have the misfortune to differ in opinion from yourself. You discharge all the vials of the united sees of Gloucester and Bristol on me for my presumption in daring to challenge the verdict of “the Textual Criticism of the last fifty years,”—of the Revisers,—and of yourself;—my folly, in venturing to believe that the traditional reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, (which you admit is at least 1530 years old,) is the right reading after all. You hold me up to public indignation. “He has made” (you say) “an elaborate effort to shake conclusions about which no professed Scholar has any doubt whatever; but which an ordinary reader (and to such we address ourselves) might regard as still open to reconsideration.”—“Moreover” (you proceed) “this case is of great importance as an example. It illustrates in a striking manner the complete isolation of the Reviewer's position. If he is right, all other Critics are wrong.”[1085]

Will you permit me, my lord Bishop, as an ordinary writer, addressing (like yourself) “ordinary readers,”—respectfully to point out that you entirely mistake the problem in hand? The Greek Text of the N. T. is not to be settled by Modern Opinion, but by Ancient Authority.[1086] In this department of enquiry therefore, “complete isolation” is his, and his only, who is forsaken by Copies, Versions, Fathers. The man who is able, on the contrary, to point to an overwhelming company of Ancient Witnesses, and is contented modestly to take up his station at their feet,—such an one can afford to disregard “The Textual Criticism of the last fifty years,” if it presumes to contradict their plain [pg 485] decrees; can even afford to smile at the confidence of “professed Scholars” and “Critics,” if they are so ill advised as to set themselves in battle array against that host of ancient men.

To say therefore of such an one, (as you now say of me,) “If he is right, all other Critics are wrong,”—is to present an irrelevant issue, and to perplex a plain question. The business of Textual Criticism (as you state at page 28 of your pamphlet) is nothing else but to ascertain “the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities.” The office of the Textual Critic is none other but to interpret rightly the solemn verdict of Antiquity. Do I then interpret that verdict rightly,—or do I not? The whole question resolves itself into that! If I do not,—pray show me wherein I have mistaken the facts of the case. But if I do,—why do you not come over instantly to my side? “Since he is right,” (I shall expect to hear you say,) “it stands to reason that the ‘professed Critics’ whom he has been combating,—myself among the number,—must be wrong.”... I am, you see, loyally accepting the logical issue you have yourself raised. I do but seek to reconcile your dilemma with the actual facts of the problem.

And now, will you listen while I state the grounds on which I am convinced that your substitution of ὅς for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is nothing else but a calamitous perversion of the Truth? May I be allowed at least to exhibit, in the same summary way as before, the evidence for reading in this place neither ὅ nor ὅς,—but Θεός?

[III.] Sum of the Evidence of Versions, Copies, Fathers, in favour of reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii 16.

Entirely different,—in respect of variety, of quantity and [pg 486] of quality,—from what has gone before, is the witness of Antiquity to the Received Text of 1 Timothy iii. 16: viz. καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, κ.τ.λ.... I proceed to rehearse it in outline, having already dwelt in detail upon so much of it as has been made the subject of controversy.[1087] The reader is fully aware[1088] that I do not propose to make argumentative use of the first six names in the ensuing enumeration. To those names, [enclosed within square brackets,] I forbear even to assign numbers; not as entertaining doubt concerning the testimony they furnish, but as resolved to build exclusively on facts which are incontrovertible. Yet is it but reasonable that the whole of the Evidence for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη should be placed before the reader: and he is in my judgment a wondrous unfair disputant who can attentively survey the evidence which I thus forego, without secretly acknowledging that its combined Weight is considerable; while its Antiquity makes it a serious question whether it is not simply contrary to reason that it should be dispensed with in an enquiry like the present.

[(a) In the Ist century then,—it has been already shown (at page [463]) that Ignatius (a.d. 90) probably recognized the reading before us in three places.]

[(b) The brief but significant testimony of Barnabas will be found in the same page.]

[(c) In the IInd century,—Hippolytus [a.d. 190] (as was explained at page [463],) twice comes forward as a witness on the same side.]

[(d) In the IIIrd century,—Gregory Thaumaturgus, (if [pg 487] it be indeed he) has been already shown (at page [463]) probably to testify to the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη.]

[(e) To the same century is referred the work entitled Constitutiones Apostolicæ: which seems also to witness to the same reading. See above, p. [463].]

[(f) Basil the Great also [a.d. 355], as will be found explained at page [464], must be held to witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16: though his testimony, like that of the five names which go before, being open to cavil, is not here insisted on.]—And now to get upon terra firma.

(1) To the IIIrd century then [a.d. 264?], belongs the Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria, (spoken of above, at pages [461-2],) in which 1 Tim. iii. 16 is distinctly quoted in the same way.

(2) In the next, (the IVth) century, unequivocal Patristic witnesses to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη abound. Foremost is Didymus, who presided over the Catechetical School of Alexandria,—the teacher of Jerome and Rufinus. Born a.d. 309, and becoming early famous, he clearly witnesses to what was the reading of the first quarter of the IVth century. His testimony has been set forth at page [456].

(3) Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus [a.d. 355], a contemporary of Basil, in two places is found to bear similar witness. See above page [457].

(4) Diodorus, (or “Theodorus” as Photius writes his name,) the teacher of Chrysostom,—first of Antioch, afterwards the heretical bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia,—is next to be cited [a.d. 370]. His testimony is given above at pages [458-9].

(5) The next is perhaps our most illustrious witness,—viz. Gregory, bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia [a.d. 370]. References to at least twenty-two places of his writings have been already given at page [456].

(6) Scarcely less important than the last-named Father, is Chrysostom [a.d. 380], first of Antioch,—afterwards Patriarch of Constantinople,—who in three places witnesses plainly to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. See above, page [457].

(7) And to this century, (not later certainly than the last half of it,) is to be referred the title of that κεφάλαιον, or chapter, of St. Paul's First Epistle to Timothy which contains chap. iii. 16,—(indeed, which begins with it,) viz. Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως. Very eloquently does that title witness to the fact that Θεός was the established reading of the place under discussion, before either cod. b or cod. א was produced. See above, pages [457-8].

(8) In the Vth century,—besides the Codex Alexandrinus (cod. a,) concerning which so much has been said already (page [431] to page 437),—we are able to appeal for the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, to,

(9) Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, [a.d. 410,] who in at least two places witnesses to it unequivocally. See above, pp. [464] to 470. So does,

(10) Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, [a.d. 420]: who, in at least four places, (see above, page [456]) renders unequivocal and important witness on the same side.

(11) Next, the Anonymous Author claims notice [a.d. 430], whose composition is found in the Appendix to the works of Athanasius. See above, page [475].

(12) You will be anxious to see your friend Euthalius, bishop of Sulca, duly recognized in this enumeration. He comes next. [a.d. 458.] The discussion concerning him will be found above, at page [459] to page 461.

(13) Macedonius II, Patriarch of CP. [a.d. 496] must of necessity be mentioned here, as I have very fully explained at page [470] to page 474.

(14) To the VIth century belongs the Georgian Version, as already noted at page [454].

(15) And hither is to be referred the testimony of Severus, bishop of Antioch [a.d. 512], which has been already particularly set down at page [458].

(16) To the VIIth century [a.d. 616] belongs the Harkleian (or Philoxenian) Version; concerning which, see above, page [450]. “That Θεός was the reading of the manuscripts from which this Version was made, is put beyond reach of doubt by the fact that in twelve of the other places where εὐσέβεια occurs,[1089] the words ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘beauty-of-fear’) are found without the addition of ܐܠܚܐ (or ܐܚܠܐ) (‘God’). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2), where the Peschito reads ‘fear of God,’ the Harkleian reads ‘fear’ only. On the other hand, the Harkleian margin of Acts iii. 12 expressly states that εὐσέβια is the Greek equivalent of ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘beauty-of-fear’). This effectually establishes the fact that the author of the Harkleian recension found Θεός in his Greek manuscript of 1 Tim. iii. 16.”[1090]

(17) In the VIIIth century, John Damascene [a.d. 730] pre-eminently claims attention. He is twice a witness for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, as was explained at page [457].

(18) Next to be mentioned is Epiphanius, deacon Of Catana; whose memorable testimony at the 2nd Nicene Council [a.d. 787] has been set down above, at page [475]. And then,

(19) Theodorus Studita of CP. [a.d. 790],—concerning whom, see above, at pages [475-6].

(20), (21) and (22). To the IXth century belong the three remaining uncial codices, which alike witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:—viz. the “Cod. Mosquensis” (k); the “Cod. Angelicus” (l); and the “Cod. Porphyrianus” (p).

(23) The Slavonic Version belongs to the same century, and exhibits the same reading.

(24) Hither also may be referred several ancient Scholia which all witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, as I explained at page [476].

(25) To the Xth century belongs Œcumenius [a.d. 990], who is also a witness on the same side. See page [476].

(26) To the XIth century, Theophylact [a.d. 1077], who bears express testimony to the same reading. See page [476].

(27) To the XIIth century, Euthymius [a.d. 1116], who closes the list with his approving verdict. See page [476].

And thus we reach a period when there awaits us a mass of testimony which transports us back (per saltum) to the Church's palmiest days; testimony, which rightly understood, [pg 491] is absolutely decisive of the point now under discussion. I allude to the testimony of every known copy of S. Paul's Epistles except the three, or four, already specified, viz. d of S. Paul; א, 17, and perhaps 73. A few words on this last head of Evidence may not be without the grace of novelty even to yourself. They are supplementary to what has already been offered on the same subject from page [443] to page 446.

The copies of S. Paul's Epistles (in cursive writing) supposed to exist in European libraries,—not including those in the monasteries of Greece and the Levant,[1091]—amount to at least 302.[1092] Out of this number, 2 are fabulous:[1093]—1 has been destroyed by fire:[1094]—and 6 have strayed into unknown localities.[1095] Add, that 37 (for various reasons) are said not to contain the verse in question;[1096] while of 2, I [pg 492] have been hitherto unsuccessful in obtaining any account:[1097]—and it will be seen that the sum of the available cursive copies of S. Paul's Epistles is exactly 254.

Now, that 2 of these 254 cursive copies (viz. Paul 17 and 73)—exhibit ὅς,—you have been so eager (at pp. 71-2 of your pamphlet) to establish, that I am unwilling to do more than refer you back to pages [443], -4, -5, where a few words have been already offered in reply. Permit me, however, to submit to your consideration, as a set-off against those two copies of S. Paul's Epistles which read ὅς,—the following two-hundred and fifty-two copies which read Θεός.[1098] To speak [pg 493] with perfect accuracy,—4 of these (252) exhibit ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη;[1099]—1, ὅς Θεός;[1100]—and 247, Θεός absolutely. The numbers follow:—

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 52. 55. 56. 57. 59. 62. 63. 65. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 120. 121. 122. 123. 125. 126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 149. 150. 151. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211. 212. [pg 494] 213. 215. 216. 217. 218.[1101] 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 255. 256. 257. 258. 260. 262. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 272. 273. 274. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282.[1102] 283. 285. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301.

Behold then the provision which the Author of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the Holy Ghost by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the “mystery of Godliness;” declaring this to be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that “God was manifested in the flesh.” And lo, out of two hundred and fifty-four copies of S. Paul's Epistles no less than two hundred and fifty-two are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such “Consent” amounts to Unanimity; and, (as I explained at pp. [454-5],) unanimity in this subject-matter, is conclusive.

The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,—(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp. [445-6], and now respectfully propose it to you, my [pg 495] lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favour me publicly with an answer;)—For what conceivable reason can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?

True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of Christ,—in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing but this.

To the overwhelming evidence thus furnished by 252 out of 254 cursive Copies of S. Paul's Epistles,—is to be added the evidence supplied by the Lectionaries. It has been already explained (viz. at pp. [477-8]) that out of 32 copies of the “Apostolus,” 29 concur in witnessing to Θεός. I have just (May 7th) heard of another in the Vatican.[1103] To these 30, should be added the 3 Liturgical codices referred to at pp. [448] and [474], note 1. Now this is emphatically the voice of ancient Ecclesiastical Tradition. The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:—

(I.) In 1 Timothy iii. 16, the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, is witnessed to by 289 Manuscripts:[1104]—by 3 Versions:[1105]—by upwards of 20 Greek Fathers.[1106]

(II) The reading ὅ (in place of Θεός) is supported by a single MS. (D):—by 5 ancient Versions:[1107]—by 2 late Greek Fathers.[1108]

(III.) The reading ὅς (also in place of Θεός) is countenanced by 6 Manuscripts in all (א, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by only one Version for certain (viz. the Gothic[1109]):—not for certain by a single Greek Father.[1110]

I will not repeat the remarks I made before on a general survey of the evidence in favour of ὅς ἐφανερώθη: but I must request you to refer back to those remarks, now that we have reached the end of the entire discussion. They extend from the middle of p. [483] to the bottom of p. 485.

The unhappy Logic which, on a survey of what goes before, can first persuade itself, and then seek to persuade others, that Θεός is a “plain and clear error;” and that there is “decidedly preponderating evidence,” in favour of reading ὅς in 1 Timothy iii. 16;—must needs be of a sort with which I neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaintance. I commend the case between you and myself to the judgment of Mankind; and trust you are able to await the common verdict with the same serene confidence as I am.

Will you excuse me if I venture, in the homely vernacular, to assure you that in your present contention you “have not a leg to stand upon”? “Moreover” (to quote from your own pamphlet [p. 76],) “this case is of great importance as an example.” You made deliberate choice of it in order to convict me of error. I have accepted your challenge, you see. Let the present, by all means, be regarded by the public as [pg 497] a trial-place,—a test of our respective methods, yours and mine. I cheerfully abide the issue,

(p) Internal Evidence for reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16, absolutely overwhelming.

In all that precedes, I have abstained from pleading the probabilities of the case; and for a sufficient reason. Men's notions of what is “probable” are observed to differ so seriously. “Facile intelligitur” (says Wetstein) “lectiones ὅς et Θεός esse interpretamenta pronominis ὅ: sed nec ὅ nec ὅς posse esse interpretamentum vocis Θεός.” Now, I should have thought that the exact reverse is as clear as the day. What more obvious than that ΘΣ, by exhibiting indistinctly either of its delicate horizontal strokes, (and they were often so traced as to be scarcely discernible,[1111]) would become mistaken for ΟΣ? What more natural again than that the masculine relative should be forced into agreement with its neuter antecedent? Why, the thing has actually happened at Coloss. i. 27; where ὍΣ ἐστι Χριστός has been altered into ὅ, only because μυστήριον is the antecedent. But waiving this, the internal evidence in favour of Θεός must surely be admitted to be overwhelming, by all save one determined that the reading shall be ὅς or ὅ. I trust we are at least agreed that the maxim “proclivi lectioni præstat ardua,” does not enunciate so foolish a proposition as that in choosing between two or more conflicting readings, we are to prefer that one which has the feeblest external attestation,—provided it be but in itself almost unintelligible?

And yet, in the present instance,—How (give me leave to ask) will you translate? To those who acquiesce in the [pg 498] notion that the μέγα μυστήριον τῆς εὐσεβείας means our Saviour Christ Himself, (consider Coloss. i. 27,) it is obvious to translate “who:” yet how harsh, or rather how intolerable is this! I should have thought that there could be no real doubt that “the mystery” here spoken of must needs be that complex exhibition of Divine condescension which the Apostle proceeds to rehearse in outline: and of which the essence is that it was very and eternal God who was the subject of the transaction. Those who see this, and yet adopt the reading ὅς, are obliged to refer it to the remote antecedent Θεός. You do not advocate this view: neither do I. For reasons of their own, Alford[1112] and Lightfoot[1113] both translate “who.”

Tregelles (who always shows to least advantage when a point of taste or scholarship is under discussion) proposes to render:—

“He who was manifested in the flesh, (he who) was justified in the spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was preached among Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) was received up in glory.”[1114]

I question if his motion will find a seconder. You yourself lay it down magisterially that ὅς “is not emphatic (‘He who,’ &c.): nor, by a constructio ad sensum, is it the relative to μυστήριον; but is a relative to an omitted though easily recognized antecedent, viz. Christ.” You add that it is not improbable “that the words are quoted from some known hymn, or probably from some familiar Confession of Faith.” Accordingly, in your Commentary you venture to exhibit the words within inverted commas as a quotation:—“And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: ‘who [pg 499] was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,’ ” &c.,[1115]—for which you are without warrant of any kind, and which you have no right to do. Westcott and Hort (the “chartered libertines”) are even more licentious. Acting on their own suggestion that these clauses are “a quotation from an early Christian hymn,” they proceed to print the conclusion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 stichometrically, as if it were a six-line stanza.

This notwithstanding, the Revising body have adopted “He who,” as the rendering of ὅς; a mistaken rendering as it seems to me, and (I am glad to learn) to yourself also. Their translation is quite a curiosity in its way. I proceed to transcribe it:—

“He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.”

But this does not even pretend to be a sentence: nor do I understand what the proposed construction is. Any arrangement which results in making the six clauses last quoted part of the subject, and “great” the predicate of one long proposition,—is unworthy.—Bentley's wild remedy testifies far more eloquently to his distress than to his aptitude for revising the text of Scripture. He suggests,—“Christ was put to death in the flesh, justified in the spirit, ... seen by Apostles.”[1116]—“According to the ancient view,” (says the Rev. T. S. Green,) “the sense would be: ‘and confessedly great is the mystery of godliness [in the person of him], who [mystery notwithstanding] was manifested in the flesh, &c.’ ”[1117]... But, with submission, “the ancient view” was not this. The Latins,—calamitously shut up within the [pg 500] limits of their “pietatis sacramentum, quod,”—are found to have habitually broken away from that iron bondage, and to have discoursed of our Saviour Christ, as being Himself the “sacramentum” spoken of. The “sacramentum,” in their view, was the incarnate Word.[1118]—Not so the Greek Fathers. These all, without exception, understood S. Paul to say,—what Ecclesiastical Tradition hath all down the ages faithfully attested, and what to this hour the copies of his Epistles prove that he actually wrote,—viz. “And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness:—God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,” and so on. Moreover this is the view of the matter in which all the learning and all the piety of the English Church has thankfully acquiesced for the last 350 years. It has commended itself to Andrewes and Pearson, Bull and Hammond, Hall and Stillingfleet, Ussher and Beveridge, Mill and Bengel, Waterland and Berriman. The enumeration of names is easily brought down to our own times. Dr. Henderson, (the learned non-conformist commentator,) in 1830 published a volume with the following title:—

“The great mystery of godliness incontrovertible: or, Sir Isaac Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a corruption in the text 1 Tim. iii. 16: containing a review of the [pg 501] charges brought against the passage; an examination of the various readings; and a confirmation of that in the received text on principles of general and biblical criticism.”

And,—to turn one's eyes in quite a different direction,—“Veruntamen,” wrote venerable President Routh, at the end of a life-long critical study of Holy Writ,—(and his days were prolonged till he reached his hundredth year,)—

“Veruntamen, quidquid ex sacri textûs historia, illud vero haud certum, critici collegerunt, me tamen interna cogunt argumenta præferre lectionem Θεός, quem quidem agnoscunt veteres interpretes, Theodoretus cæterique, duabus alteris ὅς et ὅ.”[1119]

And here I bring my Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16 to a close. It began at p. [424], and I little thought would extend to seventy-six pages. Let it be clearly understood that I rest my contention not at all on Internal, but entirely on External Evidence; although, to the best of my judgment, they are alike conclusive as to the matter in debate.—Having now incontrovertibly, as I believe, established ΘΕΌΣ as the best attested Reading of the place,—I shall conclude the present Letter as speedily as I can.

(1) “Composition of the Body which is responsible for the ‘New Greek Text.’ ”

There remains, I believe, but one head of discourse into which I have not yet followed you. I allude to your “few words about the composition of the body which is responsible for the ‘New Greek Text,’ ”[1120]—which extend from the latter part of p. 29 to the beginning of p. 32 of your pamphlet. “Among the sixteen most regular attendants at your meetings,” (you say) “were to be found most of those persons who [pg 502] were presumably best acquainted with the subject of Textual Criticism.”[1121] And with this insinuation that you had “all the talents” with you, you seek to put me down.

But (as you truly say) “the number of living Scholars in England who have connected their names with the study of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is exceedingly small.”[1122] And, “of that exceedingly small number,” you would be puzzled to name so much as one, besides the three you proceed to specify (viz. Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Westcott, and Dr. Hort,)—who were members of the Revision company. On the other hand,—(to quote the words of the most learned of our living Prelates,)—“it is well known that there are two opposite Schools of Biblical Criticism among us, with very different opinions as to the comparative value of our Manuscripts of the Greek Testament.”[1123] And in proof of his statement, the Bishop of Lincoln cites “on the one side”—Drs. Westcott and Hort; “and on the other”—Dr. Scrivener.

Now, let the account be read which Dr. Newth gives (and which you admit to be correct) of the extraordinary method by which the “New Greek Text” was “settled,”[1124] “for the most part at the First Revision,”[1125]—and it becomes plain that it was not by any means the product of the independently-formed opinions of 16 experts, (as your words imply); but resulted from the aptitude of 13 of your body to be guided by the sober counsels of Dr. Scrivener on the one hand, or to be carried away by the eager advocacy of Dr. Hort, (supported as he ever was by his respected colleague Dr. Westcott,) on the other. As Canon Cook well puts it,—“The question really is, Were the members competent to form a correct judgment?”[1126] “In most cases,” “a [pg 503] simple majority”[1127] determined what the text should be. But ponderari debent testes, my lord Bishop, non numerari.[1128] The vote of the joint Editors should have been reckoned practically as only one vote. And whenever Dr. Scrivener and they were irreconcilably opposed, the existing Traditional Text ought to have been let alone. All pretence that it was plainly and clearly erroneous was removed, when the only experts present were hopelessly divided in opinion. As for the rest of the Revising Body, inasmuch as they extemporized their opinions, they were scarcely qualified to vote at all. Certainly they were not entitled individually to an equal voice with Dr. Scrivener in determining what the text should be. Caprice or Prejudice, in short, it was, not Deliberation and Learning, which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. A more unscientific,—to speak truly, a coarser and a clumsier way of manipulating the sacred Deposit, than that which you yourself invented, it would be impossible, in my judgment, to devise.

(2) An Unitarian Revisionist intolerable.—The Westminster-Abbey Scandal.

But this is not nearly all. You invite attention to the constituent elements of the Revising body, and congratulate yourself on its miscellaneous character as providing a guarantee that it has been impartial.

I frankly avow, my lord Bishop, that the challenge you thus deliberately offer, surprises me greatly. To have observed severe silence on this part of the subject, would have seemed to me your discreeter course. Moreover, had you not, in this marked way, invited attention to the component elements of the Revising body, I was prepared to give the subject the go-by. The “New Greek Text,” no less than the “New [pg 504] English Version,” must stand or fall on its own merits; and I have no wish to prejudice the discussion by importing into it foreign elements. Of this, you have had some proof already; for, (with the exception of what is offered above, in pages [6] and [7],) the subject has been, by your present correspondent, nowhere brought prominently forward.

Far be it from me, however, to decline the enquiry which you evidently court. And so, I candidly avow that it was in my account a serious breach of Church order that, on engaging in so solemn an undertaking as the Revision of the Authorized Version, a body of Divines professing to act under the authority of the Southern Convocation should spontaneously associate with themselves Ministers of various denominations,[1129]—Baptists, Congregationalists, Wesleyan [pg 505] Methodists, Independents, and the like: and especially that a successor of the Apostles should have presided over the deliberations of this assemblage of Separatists. In my humble judgment, we shall in vain teach the sinfulness of Schism, if we show ourselves practically indifferent on the subject, and even set an example of irregularity to our flocks. My Divinity may appear unaccommodating and old-fashioned: but I am not prepared to unlearn the lessons long since got by heart in the school of Andrewes and Hooker, of Pearson and Bull, of Hammond and Sanderson, of Beveridge and Bramhall. I am much mistaken, moreover, if I may not claim the authority of a greater doctor than any of these,—I mean S. Paul,—for the fixed views I entertain on this head.

All this, however, is as nothing in comparison of the scandal occasioned by the co-optation into your body of [pg 506] Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian Minister of S. Saviour's Gate Chapel, York. That, while engaged in the work of interpreting the everlasting Gospel, you should have knowingly and by choice associated with yourselves one who, not only openly denies the eternal Godhead of our Lord, but in a recent publication is the avowed assailant of that fundamental doctrine of the Christian Religion, as well as of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture itself,[1130]—filled me (and many besides myself) with astonishment and sorrow. You were respectfully memorialized on the subject;[1131] but you treated the representations which reached you with scornful indifference.

Now therefore that you re-open the question, I will not scruple publicly to repeat that it seems to me nothing else but an insult to our Divine Master and a wrong to the Church, that the most precious part of our common Christian heritage, the pure Word of God, should day by day, week by week, month by month, year after year, have been thus handled; for the avowed purpose of producing a Translation which should supersede our Authorized Version. That the individual in question contributed aught to your deliberations has never been pretended. On the contrary. No secret has been made of the fact that he was, (as might have been anticipated from his published writings,) the most unprofitable member of the Revising body. Why then was he at first surreptitiously elected? and why was his election afterwards stiffly maintained? The one purpose achieved by his continued presence among you was that it might be thereby made to appear that the Church of England no [pg 507] longer insists on Belief in the eternal Godhead of our Lord, as essential; but is prepared to surrender her claim to definite and unequivocal dogmatic teaching in respect of Faith in the Blessed Trinity.

But even if this Unitarian had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold, (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of God's Word may not be attained without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer.

In the meantime, this same person was invited to communicate with his fellow-Revisers in Westminster-Abbey, and did accordingly, on the 22nd of June, 1870, receive the Holy Communion, in Henry VII.'s Chapel, at the hands of Dean Stanley: declaring, next day, that he received the Sacrament on this occasion without “joining in reciting the Nicene Creed” and without “compromise” (as he expressed it,) of his principles as an “Unitarian.”[1132] So conspicuous a sacrilege led to a public Protest signed by some thousands of the Clergy.[1133] It also resulted, in the next ensuing Session of Convocation, in a Resolution whereby the Upper House cleared itself of complicity in the scandal.[1134]...

How a good man like you can revive the memory of these many painful incidents without anguish, is to me unintelligible. That no blessing from Him, “sine Quo nihil validum, nihil sanctum,” could be expected to attend an undertaking commenced under such auspices,—was but too plain. The Revision was a foredoomed thing—in the account of many besides myself—from the outset.

(3) The probable Future of the Revision of 1881.

Not unaware am I that it has nevertheless been once and again confidently predicted in public Addresses, Lectures, Pamphlets, that ultimate success is in store for the Revision of 1881. I cannot but regard it as a suspicious circumstance that these vaticinations have hitherto invariably proceeded from members of the Revising body.

It would ill become such an one as myself to pretend to skill in forecasting the future. But of this at least I feel certain:—that if, in an evil hour, (quod absit!), the Church of England shall ever be induced to commit herself to the adoption of the present Revision, she will by so doing expose herself to the ridicule of the rest of Christendom, as well as incur irreparable harm and loss. And such a proceeding on her part will be inexcusable, for she has been at least faithfully forewarned. Moreover, in the end, she will most certainly have to retrace her steps with sorrow and confusion.

Those persons evidently overlook the facts of the problem, who refer to what happened in the case of the Authorized Version when it originally appeared, some 270 years ago; and argue that as the Revision of 1611 at first encountered opposition, which yet it ultimately overcame, so must it fare in the end with the present Revised Version also. Those who so reason forget that the cases are essentially dissimilar.

If the difference between the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Revision of 1881 were only this.—That the latter is characterized by a mechanical, unidiomatic, and even repulsive method of rendering; which was not only unattempted, but repudiated by the Authors of the earlier work;—there would have been something to urge on behalf of the later performance. The plea of zeal for God's Word,—a determination at all hazards to represent with even servile precision the ipsissima verba of Evangelists and Apostles,—this plea might have been plausibly put forward: and, to some extent, it must have been allowed,—although a grave diversity of opinion might reasonably have been entertained as to what constitutes “accuracy” and “fidelity” of translation.

But when once it has been made plain that the underlying Greek of the Revision of 1881 is an entirely new thing,—is a manufactured article throughout,—all must see that the contention has entirely changed its character. The question immediately arises, (and it is the only question which remains to be asked,)—Were then the Authors of this “New Greek Text” competent to undertake so perilous an enterprise? And when, in the words of the distinguished Chairman of the Revising body—(words quoted above, at page [369],)—“To this question, we venture to answer very unhesitatingly in the negative,”—What remains but, with blank astonishment, not unmingled with disgust, to close the volume? Your own ingenuous admission,—(volunteered by yourself a few days before you and your allies “proceeded to the actual details of the Revision,”)—that “we have certainly not acquired sufficient Critical Judgment for any body of Revisers hopefully to undertake such a work as this,”—is decisive on the subject.

The gravity of the issue thus raised, it is impossible to over-estimate. We find ourselves at once and entirely [pg 510] lifted out of the region originally proposed for investigation. It is no longer a question of the degree of skill which has been exhibited in translating the title-deeds of our heavenly inheritance out of Greek into English. Those title-deeds themselves have been empirically submitted to a process which, rightly or wrongly, seriously affects their integrity. Not only has a fringe of most unreasonable textual mistrust been tacked on to the margin of every inspired page, (as from S. Luke x. 41 to xi. 11):—not only has many a grand doctrinal statement been evacuated of its authority, (as, by the shameful mis-statement found in the margin against S. John iii. 13,[1135] and the vile Socinian gloss which disfigures the margin of Rom. ix. 5[1136]):—but we entirely miss many a solemn utterance of the Spirit,—as when we are assured that verses 44 and 46 of S. Mark ix. are omitted by “the best ancient authorities,” (whereas, on the contrary, the MSS. referred to are the worst). Let the thing complained of be illustrated by a few actual examples. Only five shall be subjoined. The words in the first column represent what you are pleased to designate as among “the most certain conclusions of modern Textual Criticism” (p. 78),—but what I assert to be nothing else but mutilated exhibitions of the inspired Text. The second column contains the indubitable Truth of Scripture,—the words which have been read by our Fathers' Fathers for the last 500 years, and which we propose, (God helping us,) to hand on unimpaired to our Children, and to our Children's Children, for many a century to come:—

Revised (1881).	Authorized (1611).
“And come, follow me.”	“And come, take up the cross and follow me.”[1137]
“And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy.”	“And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy.”[1138]
“And there was also a superscription over him, This is the King of the Jews.”	“And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This is the King of the Jews.”[1139]
“And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.”	“And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.”[1140]

But the next (S. Luke ix. 54-6,) is a far more serious loss:—

“ ‘Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?’ But he turned and rebuked them. And they went to another village.”

“ ‘Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?’ But he turned and rebuked them, and said, ‘Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them’. And they went to another village.”

The unlearned reader sees at a glance that the only difference of Translation here is the substitution of “bid” for “command.”—which by the way, is not only uncalled for, but is a change for the worse.[1141] On the other hand, how [pg 512] grievous an injury has been done by the mutilation of the blessed record in respect of those (3 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 24 = ) forty-three (in English fifty-seven) undoubtedly inspired as well as most precious words,—even “ordinary Readers” are competent to discern.

I am saying that the systematic, and sometimes serious,—always inexcusable,—liberties which have been taken with the Greek Text by the Revisionists of 1881, constitute a ground of offence against their work for which no pretext was afforded by the Revision of 1611. To argue therefore from what has been the fate of the one, to what is likely to be the fate of the other, is illogical. The cases are not only not parallel: they are even wholly dissimilar.

The cheapest copies of our Authorized Version at least exhibit the Word of God faithfully and helpfully. Could the same be said of a cheap edition of the work of the Revisionists,—destitute of headings to the Chapters, and containing no record of the extent to which the Sacred Text has undergone depravation throughout?

Let it be further recollected that the greatest Scholars and the most learned Divines of which our Church could boast, conducted the work of Revision in King James' days; and it will be acknowledged that the promiscuous assemblage which met in the Jerusalem Chamber cannot urge any corresponding claim on public attention. Then, the Bishops of Lincoln of 1611 were Revisers: the Vance Smiths stood without and found fault. But in the affair of 1881, Dr. Vance Smith revises, and ventilates heresy from within:[1142] the Bp. of Lincoln stands outside, and is one of the severest Critics of the work.—Disappointed men are said to have been conspicuous among the few assailants of our “Authorized Version,”—Scholars (as Hugh Broughton) who considered themselves unjustly overlooked and excluded. But on the present occasion, among the multitude of hostile voices, there is not a single instance known of a man excluded from the deliberations of the Jerusalem Chamber, who desired to share them.

To argue therefore concerning the prospects of the Revision of 1881 from the known history of our Authorized Version of 1611, is to argue concerning things essentially dissimilar. With every advance made in the knowledge of the subject, it may be confidently predicted that there will spring up increased distrust of the Revision of 1881, and an ever increasing aversion from it.

(4) Review of the entire subject, and of the respective positions of Bp. Ellicott and myself.

Here I lay down my pen,—glad to have completed what (because I have endeavoured to do my work thoroughly) has proved a very laborious task indeed. The present rejoinder to your Pamphlet covers all the ground you have yourself traversed, and will be found to have disposed of your entire contention.

I take leave to point out, in conclusion, that it places you individually in a somewhat embarrassing predicament. For you have now no alternative but to come forward and disprove my statements as well as refute my arguments: or to admit, by your silence, that you have sustained defeat in the cause of which you constituted yourself the champion. You constrained me to reduce you to this alternative when you stood forth on behalf of the Revising body, and saw fit to provoke me to a personal encounter.

But you must come provided with something vastly more formidable, remember, than denunciations,—which are but wind: and vague generalities,—which prove nothing and persuade nobody: and appeals to the authority of “Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,”—which I disallow and disregard. You must produce a counter-array of well-ascertained facts; and you must build thereupon irrefragable [pg 515] arguments. In other words, you must conduct your cause with learning and ability. Else, believe me, you will make the painful discovery that “the last error is worse than the first.” You had better a thousand times, even now, ingenuously admit that you made a grievous mistake when you put yourself into the hands of those ingenious theorists, Drs. Westcott and Hort, and embraced their arbitrary decrees,—than persevere in your present downward course, only to sink deeper and deeper in the mire.

(5) Anticipated effect of the present contention on the Text of 1 Timothy iii. 16.

I like to believe, in the meantime, that this passage of arms has resulted in such a vindication[1143] of the traditional Reading of 1 Timothy iii. 16, as will effectually secure that famous place of Scripture against further molestation. Faxit Deus!... In the margin of the Revision of 1881, I observe that you have ventured to state as follows,—

“The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence.”

In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,—

“The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as ‘God manifested in the flesh’ ” (p. 39).

Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray, my lord Bishop, of what were you thinking when you permitted yourself to make the serious [pg 516] mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs have meant thereby that,—“The word He who in place of God, on the contrary, does rest on sufficient ancient evidence.” I solemnly call upon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to prove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are a refutation.—You add,

“Some ancient authorities read which.”

But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great many “More ancient authorities” read “which” (ὅ), than read “who” (ὅς)?

(6) The nature of this contention explained.

And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the Traditional Text,—(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years old,)—which I aimed at illustrating: the essential rottenness of the foundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been constructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,—which I was determined to expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,—but also that you have reared it up on a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (God is my witness!), but out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,—your work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the present volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent to every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of day as a shapeless ruin.

A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored. And why? Because the mischief, [pg 517] which extends to every part of the edifice, takes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the foundation.

And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated that no compromise is possible between our respective methods,—yours and mine: between the new German system in its most aggravated and in fact intolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given in your adhesion; and the old English school of Textual Criticism, of which I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,—except certain documents; which I insist on interpreting by the humble Inductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of deducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of your own,—every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to disprove.

Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination—(1) That the traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style “The Syrian text,”) is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch, a.d. 250 and 350:[1144]—(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a Recension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:[1145]—(3) That Cureton's is the Syriac “Vetus,” and the Peschito the Syriac “Vulgate:”[1146]—(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two IVth-century Codices, b and א, “diverged from a common parent extremely near the apostolic autographs:”[1147]—(5) That this common [pg 518] original enjoyed a “general immunity from substantive error;” and by consequence—(6) That b and א provide “a safe criterion of genuineness,” so that “no readings of א b can be safely rejected absolutely.”[1148]—(7) Similar wild imaginations you cherish concerning c and d,—which, together with b and א you assume to be among the most trustworthy guides in existence; whereas I have convinced myself, by laborious collation, that they are the most corrupt of all. We are thus diametrically opposed throughout. Finally,—(8) You assume that you possess a power of divination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of Induction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of the largest number of the best Copies, Fathers, Versions.[1149] There is, I am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this department of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,—only by self-renouncing labour,—may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine. They do but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who first invent their facts, and then proceed to build thereupon their premisses.

Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom (by your own avowal) you stand completely identified.[1150] I repeat, (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those Critics is,—not that their superstructure rests upon an insecure foundation; but that it rests on no foundation at all. My complaint is,—not that they are somewhat and frequently mistaken; but that they are mistaken entirely, and that they are mistaken throughout. There is no possibility of approximation [pg 519] between their mere assumptions and the results of my humble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of Scripture. We shall only then be able to begin to reason together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.

(7) Parting Counsels.

Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that of your friends,—(I.) “The last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel:”—(II.) the Angelic Hymn on the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of 1 Timothy iii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to this hour, you and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as convenient Test places. When you are prepared frankly to admit,—(I.) That there is no reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20:[1151]—(II.) That ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the Evangelical text of S. Luke ii. 14:[1152]—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1 Timothy iii 16,[1153]—we shall be in good time to proceed to something else. Until this happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.

I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your part will amount to an admission that “the whole fabric of Textual Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by successive editors of the New Testament,”—Lachmann namely, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,—is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence [pg 520] of this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.

(8) The subject dismissed.

The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility, to Almighty God. The Spirit of Truth will, (I know,) take good care of His own masterpiece,—the Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance, and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of Scripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.

But if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my conclusions are sound throughout, then may He enable men freely to recognize the Truth; and thus, effectually avert from our Church the supreme calamity with which, for a few months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having an utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament thrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable 'Revision' of the English.

My lord Bishop,—I have the honour to wish you respectfully farewell.

J. W. B.

Deanery, Chichester,
July, 1883.

THE GRASS WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOR EVER.

[pg 521]

---