Chapter LXX: S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the (3)

“This cannot be permitted, Gentlemen, on any terms. We have not been appointed to revise the _Greek Text_ of the N. T. Our one business is to revise the _Authorized English Version_,—introducing such changes only as are absolutely necessary. The Resolutions of Convocation are express on this head: and it is my duty to see that they are faithfully carried out. True, that we shall be obliged to avail ourselves of our skill in Textual Criticism—(such as it is)—to correct ‘_plain and clear errors_’ in the Greek: but _there_ we shall be obliged to stop. I stand pledged to Convocation on this point by my own recent utterances. That two of our members should be solicitous (by a side-wind) to obtain for their own singular Revision of the Greek Text the sanction of our united body,—is intelligible enough: but I should consider myself guilty of a breach of Trust were I to lend myself to the promotion of their object. Let me hope that I have you all with me when I point out that on every occasion when Dr. Scrivener, on the one hand, (who in matters of Textual Criticism is _facile princeps_ among us,) and Drs. Westcott and Hort on the other, prove to be irreconcileably opposed in their views,—_there_ the Received Greek Text must by all means be let alone. We have agreed, you will remember, to ‘make _the current Textus Receptus the standard; departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary_.’(914) It would be unreasonable, in my judgment, that anything in the Received Text should be claimed to be ‘a clear and plain error,’ on which those who represent the two antagonistic schools of Criticism find themselves utterly unable to come to any accord. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort are earnestly recommended to submit to public inspection that Text which they have been for twenty years elaborating, and which for some time past has been in print. Their labours cannot be too freely ventilated, too searchingly examined, too generally known: but I strongly deprecate their furtive production _here_. All too eager advocacy of the novel Theory of the two accomplished Professors, I shall think it my duty to discourage, and if need be to repress. A printed volume, enforced by the suasive rhetoric of its two producers, gives to one side an unfair advantage. But indeed I must end as I began, by respectfully inviting Drs. Westcott and Hort to remember that we meet here, _not_ in order _to fabricate a new Greek Text_, but in order to _revise our _‘Authorized English Version.’”... Such, in substance, is the kind of Allocution which it was to have been expected that the Episcopal Chairman of a Revising body would address to his fellow-labourers the first time he saw them enter the Jerusalem chamber furnished with the sheets of Westcott and Hort’s N. T.; especially if he was aware that those Revisers had been individually talked over by the Editors of the work in question, (themselves Revisionists); and perceived that the result of the deliberations of the entire body was in consequence, in a fair way of becoming a foregone conclusion,—unless indeed, by earnest remonstrance, he might be yet in time to stave off the threatened danger.

But instead of saying anything of this kind, my lord Bishop, it is clear from your pamphlet that you made the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort _your own Theory_; and their Text, by necessary consequence, in the main _your own Text_. You lost sight of all the pledges you had given in Convocation. You suddenly became a partizan. Having secured the precious advocacy of Bp. Wilberforce,—whose sentiments on the subject you had before adopted,—you at once threw him and them overboard.(915)... I can scarcely imagine, in a good man like yourself, conduct more reckless,—more disappointing,—more unintelligible. But I must hasten on.

[17] Bp. Ellicott’s defence of the “New Greek Text,” in sixteen particulars, examined.

It follows to consider the strangest feature of your pamphlet: viz. those two-and-thirty pages (p. 43 to p. 75) in which, descending from generals, you venture to dispute in sixteen particulars the sentence passed upon your new Greek Text by the _Quarterly Review_. I call this part of your pamphlet “strange,” because it displays such singular inaptitude to appreciate the force of Evidence. But in fact, (_sit venia verbo_) your entire method is quite unworthy of you. Whereas I appeal throughout to _Ancient Testimony_, you seek to put me down by flaunting in my face _Modern Opinion_. This, with a great deal of Reiteration, proves to be literally the sum of your contention. Thus, concerning S. Matth. i. 25, the Quarterly Reviewer pointed out (_suprà_ pp. 123-4) that the testimony of B א, together with that of the VIth-century fragment Z, and two cursive copies of bad character,—cannot possibly stand against the testimony of ALL OTHER copies. You plead in reply that on “those two oldest manuscripts _the vast majority of Critics set a high value_.” Very likely: but for all _that_, you are I suppose aware that B and א are two of the most corrupt documents in existence? And, inasmuch as they are confessedly derived from one and the same depraved original, you will I presume allow that they may not be adduced as two independent authorities? At all events, when I further show you that almost all the Versions, and literally _every one_ of the Fathers who quote the place, (they are _eighteen_ in number,) are against you,—how can you possibly think there is any force or relevancy whatever in your self-complacent announcement,—“We cannot hesitate to _express our agreement with Tischendorf and Tregelles_ who see in these words an interpolation derived from S. Luke. _The same appears to have been the judgment of Lachmann._” Do you desire that _that_ should pass for argument?

To prolong a discussion of this nature with you, were plainly futile. Instead of repeating what I have already delivered—briefly indeed, yet sufficiently in detail,—I will content myself with humbly imitating what, if I remember rightly, was Nelson’s plan when he fought the battle of the Nile. He brought his frigates, one by one, alongside those of the enemy;—lashed himself to the foe;—and poured in his broadsides. We remember with what result. The sixteen instances which you have yourself selected, shall now be indicated. First, on every occasion, reference shall be made to the place in the present volume where my own Criticism on your Greek Text is to be found in detail. Readers of your pamphlet are invited next to refer to your own several attempts at refutation, which shall also be indicated by a reference to your pages. I am quite contented to abide by the verdict of any unprejudiced person of average understanding and fair education:—

(1) _Four words omitted in_ S. Matth. i. 25,—complained of, above, pp. 122-4.—You defend the omission in your pamphlet at pages 43-4,—falling back on Tischendorf, Tregelles and Lachmann, as explained on the opposite page. (p. 416.)

(2) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xvii. 21,—proved to be indefensible, above, pp. 91-2.—The omission is defended by you at pp. 44-5,—on the ground, that although Lachmann retains the verse, and Tregelles only places it in brackets, (Tischendorf alone of the three omitting it entirely,)—“it must be remembered that here Lachmann and Tregelles were not acquainted with א.”

(3) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xviii. 11,—shown to be unreasonable, above, p. 92.—You defend the omission in your pp. 45-7,—remarking that “here there is even less room for doubt than in the preceding cases. The three critical editors are all agreed in rejecting this verse.”

(4) _The substitution of_ ἠπόρει for ἐποίει, in S. Mark vi. 20,—strongly complained of, above, pp. 66-9.—Your defence is at pp. 47-8. You urge that “in this case again the Revisers have Tischendorf only on their side, and not Lachmann nor Tregelles: but it must be remembered that these critics had not the reading of א before them.”

(5) _The thrusting of_ πάλιν (after ἀποστελεῖ) into S. Mark xi. 3,—objected against, above, pp. 56-8.—You defend yourself at pp. 48-9,—and “cannot doubt that the Revisers were perfectly justified” in doing “as Tischendorf and Tregelles had done before them,”—viz. _inventing_ a new Gospel incident.

(6) _The mess you have made_ of S. Mark xi. 8,—exposed by the Quarterly Reviewer, above, pp. 58-61,—you defend at pp. 49-52. You have “preferred to read with Tischendorf and Tregelles.” About,

(7) S. Mark xvi. 9-20,—and (8) S. Luke ii. 14,—I shall have a few serious words to say immediately. About,

(9) the 20 _certainly genuine_ words you have omitted from S. Luke ix. 55, 56,—I promise to give you at no distant date an elaborate lecture. “Are we to understand” (you ask) “that the Reviewer honestly believes the added words to have formed part of the Sacred Autograph?” (“The _omitted_ words,” you mean.) To be sure you are!—I answer.

(10) _The amazing blunder_ endorsed by the Revisers in S. Luke x. 15; which I have exposed above, at pp. 54-6.—You defend the blunder (as usual) at pp. 55-6, remarking that the Revisers, “_with Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_, _and Tregelles_, adopt the interrogative form.” (This seems to be a part of your style.)

(11) _The depraved exhibition of the _LORD’S_ Prayer_ (S. Luke xi. 2-4) which I have commented on above, at pp. 34-6,—you applaud (as usual) at pp. 56-8 of your pamphlet, “with Tischendorf and Tregelles.”

(12) _The omission_ of 7 important words in S. Luke xxiii. 38, I have commented on, above, at pp. 85-8.—You defend the omission, and “the texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles,” at pp. 58-9.

(13) _The gross fabrication_ in S. Luke xxiii. 45, I have exposed, above, at pp. 61-5.—You defend it, at pp. 59-61.

(14) _A plain omission_ in S. John xiv. 4, I have pointed out, above, at pp. 72-3.—You defend it, at pp. 61-2 of your pamphlet.

(15) “_Titus Justus_,” thrust by the Revisers into Acts xviii. 7, I have shown to be an imaginary personage, above, at pp. 53-4.—You stand up for the interesting stranger at pp. 62-4 of your pamphlet. Lastly,

(16) My discussion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (_suprà_ pp. 98-106),—you contend against from p. 64 to p. 76.—The true reading of this important place, (which is not _your_ reading,) you will find fully discussed from p. 424 to p. 501.

I have already stated why I dismiss _thirteen_ out of your sixteen instances in this summary manner. The remaining _three_ I have reserved for further discussion for a reason I proceed to explain.

[18] Bp. Ellicott’s claim that the Revisers were guided by “the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities,”—disproved by an appeal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The self-same claim,—(namely, of abiding by the verdict of Catholic Antiquity,)—vindicated, on the contrary, for the “Quarterly Reviewer.”

You labour hard throughout your pamphlet to make it appear that the point at which our methods, (yours and mine,) respectively diverge,—is, that _I_ insist on making my appeal to the “_Textus Receptus_;” _you_, to _Ancient Authority_. But happily, my lord Bishop, this is a point which admits of being brought to issue by an appeal to fact. _You_ shall first be heard: and you are observed to express yourself on behalf of the Revising body, as follows:

“It was impossible to mistake the conviction upon which its
Textual decisions were based.

“It was a conviction that (1) THE TRUE TEXT WAS NOT TO BE SOUGHT
IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS; or (2) In the bulk of the Cursive
Manuscripts; or (3) In the Uncials (with or without the support of
the _Codex Alexandrinus_;) or (4) In the Fathers who lived after
Chrysostom; or (5) In Chrysostom himself and his contemporaries;
BUT (6) IN THE CONSENTIENT TESTIMONY OF THE MOST ANCIENT
AUTHORITIES.”—(p. 28.)

In such terms you venture to contrast our respective methods. You want the public to believe that I make the “Textus Receptus” “_a standard from which there shall be no appeal_,”—entertain “the notion that it is _little else than sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last 300 years_,”(916)—and so forth;—while _you_ and your colleagues act upon the conviction that the Truth is rather to be sought “_in the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities_.” I proceed to show you, by appealing to an actual instance, that neither of these statements is correct.

(_a_) And first, permit me to speak for myself. Finding that you challenge the Received reading of S. LUKE ii. 14, (“_good will towards men_”);—and that, (on the authority of 4 Greek Codices [א A B D], all _Latin_ documents, and the Gothic Version,) you contend that “_peace among men in whom he is well pleased_” ought to be read, instead;—I make my appeal unreservedly to ANTIQUITY.(917) I request the _Ancients_ to adjudicate between you and me by favouring us with their verdict. Accordingly, I find as follows:

That, in the IInd century,—the Syriac Versions and Irenæus _support the Received Text_:

That, in the IIIrd century,—the Coptic Version,—Origen in 3 places, and—the Apostolical Constitutions in 2, do the same:

That, in the IVth century, (_to which century_, you are invited to remember, _codices_ B _and_ א _belong_,)—Eusebius,—Aphraates the Persian,—Titus of Bostra,—each in 2 places:—Didymus in 3:—Gregory of Nazianzus,—Cyril of Jer.,—Epiphanius 2—and Gregory of Nyssa—4 times: Ephraem Syr.,—Philo bp. of Carpasus,—Chrysostom 9 times,—and an unknown Antiochian contemporary of his:—these eleven, I once more find, are _every one against you_:

That, in the Vth century,—besides the Armenian Version, Cyril of Alex. in 14 places:—Theodoret in 4:—Theodotus of Ancyra in 5:—Proclus:—Paulus of Emesa:—the Eastern bishops of Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431;—and Basil of Seleucia:—_these contemporaries of cod._ A I find are _all eight against you_:

That, in the VIth century,—besides the Georgian—and Æthiopic Versions,—Cosmas, 5 times:—Anastasius Sinait. and Eulogius, (_contemporaries of cod._ D,) are _all three with the Traditional Text_:

That, in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries,—Andreas of Crete, 2:—pope Martinus at the Lat. Council:—Cosmas, bp. of Maiume near Gaza,—and his pupil John Damascene;—together with Germanus, abp. of Constantinople:—are again _all five with the Traditional Text_.

To these 35, must be added 18 other ancient authorities with which the reader has been already made acquainted (viz. at pp. 44-5): all of which bear the self-same evidence.

Thus I have enumerated _fifty-three_ ancient Greek authorities,—of which _sixteen_ belong to the IInd, IIIrd, and IVth centuries: and _thirty-seven_ to the Vth, VIth, VIIth, and VIIIth.

And now, which of us two is found to have made the fairer and the fuller appeal to “the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities:” _you_ or _I_?... This first.

And next, since the foregoing 53 names belong to some of the most famous personages in Ecclesiastical antiquity: are dotted over every region of ancient Christendom: in many instances are _far more ancient than codices_ B _and_ א:—with what show of reason will you pretend that the evidence concerning S. Luke ii. 14 “_clearly preponderates_” in favour of the reading which you and your friends prefer?

I claim at all events to have demonstrated that _both_ your statements are unfounded: viz. (1) That _I_ seek for the truth of Scripture in the “Textus Receptus:” and (2) That _you_ seek it in “the consentient testimony of the _most ancient authorities_.”—(Why not frankly avow that you believe the Truth of Scripture is to be sought for, and found, in “_the consentient testimony of codices_ א _and_ B”?)

(_b_) Similarly, concerning THE LAST 12 VERSES OF S. MARK, which you brand with suspicion and separate off from the rest of the Gospel, in token that, in your opinion, there is “a breach of continuity” (p. 53), (whatever _that_ may mean,) between verses 8 and 9. _Your_ ground for thus disallowing the last 12 Verses of the second Gospel, is, that B and א omit them:—that a few late MSS. exhibit a wretched alternative for them:—and that Eusebius says they were often away. Now, _my_ method on the contrary is to refer all such questions to “_the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities_.” And I invite you to note the result of such an appeal in the present instance. The Verses in question I find are recognized,

In the IInd century,—By the Old Latin—and Syriac Verss.:—by Papias;—Justin M.;—Irenæus;—Tertullian.

In the IIIrd century,—By the Coptic—and the Sahidic Versions:—by Hippolytus;—by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage;—by the “Acta Pilati;”—and by the “Apostolical Constitutions” in two places.

In the IVth century,—By Cureton’s Syr. and the Gothic Verss.:—besides the Syriac Table of Canons;—Eusebius;—Macarius Magnes;—Aphraates;—Didymus;—the Syriac “Acts of the Ap.;”—Epiphanius;—Leontius;—ps.-Ephraem;—Ambrose;—Chrysostom;—Jerome;—Augustine.

In the Vth century,—Besides the Armenian Vers.,—by codices A and C;—by Leo;—Nestorius;—Cyril of Alexandria;—Victor of Antioch;—Patricius;—Marius Mercator.

In the VIth and VIIth centuries,—Besides cod. D,—the Georgian and Æthiopic Verss.:—by Hesychius;—Gregentius;—Prosper;—John, abp. of Thessalonica;—and Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem.... (See above, pages 36-40.)

And now, once more, my lord Bishop,—Pray which of us is it,—_you_ or _I_,—who seeks for the truth of Scripture “in _the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities_”? On _my_ side there have been adduced in evidence _six_ witnesses of the IInd century:—_six_ of the IIIrd:—_fifteen_ of the IVth:—_nine_ of the Vth:—_eight_ of the VIth and VIIth,—(44 in all): while _you_ are found to rely on codices B and א (as before), supported by a single _obiter dictum_ of Eusebius. I have said nothing as yet about _the whole body of the Copies_: nothing about _universal, immemorial, Liturgical use_. Do you seriously imagine that the testimony on your side is “decidedly preponderating”? Above all, will you venture again to exhibit our respective methods as in your pamphlet you have done? I protest solemnly that, in your pages, I recognize neither myself nor you.

Permit me to declare that I hold your disallowance of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 to be the gravest and most damaging of all the many mistakes which you and your friends have committed. “The textual facts,” (say you, speaking of the last 12 Verses,)—“have been placed before the reader, because Truth itself demanded it.” This (with Canon Cook(918)) I entirely deny. It is because “the textual facts have” NOT “been placed before the reader,” that I am offended. As usual, you present your readers with a one-sided statement,—a partial, and therefore inadmissible, exhibition of the facts,—facts which, fully stated and fairly explained, would, (as you cannot fail to be aware,) be fatal to your contention.

But, I forbear to state so much as _one_ of them. The evidence has already filled a volume.(919) Even if I were to allow that in your marginal note, “the textual facts _have been_ [fully and fairly] _placed before the reader_”—what possible pretence do you suppose they afford for severing the last 12 Verses from the rest of S. Mark, in token that they form no part of the genuine Gospel?... This, however, is only by the way. I have proved to you that it is _I_—not _you_—who rest my case on an appeal to CATHOLIC ANTIQUITY: and this is the only thing I am concerned just now to establish.

I proceed to contribute something to the Textual Criticism of a famous place in S. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy,—on which you have challenged me to a trial of strength.

[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 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 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, 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 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, 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
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 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.”

[b] _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. 145_b_ does not cover much more than a third of the area of the _theta_ on fol. 145_a_. Dr. Scrivener further points out that it cuts the circle _too __ 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 (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 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 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 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, (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 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 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 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 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 _Ι_ΝΑ (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 (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 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 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 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.