Chapter LXX: S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the (4)

_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 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 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 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 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, 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 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_ manifestat_us_ 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,) 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 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 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 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 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?

[i] _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 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 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 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; 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_; 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 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 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 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 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 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, ‘_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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 _justificat_US _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)) _manifestat_US (or TUM) _est in carne, justificat_US (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 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 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 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.