Chapter LXX: S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the (5)

(γ) Of Patristic testimonies (to μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη) _there exists not one_. That EPIPHANIUS [A.D. 360] _professing to transcribe_ from an early treatise of his own, in which ἐφανερώθη stands _without a nominative_, should prefix ὅς—proves nothing, as I have fully explained elsewhere.(1082)—The equivocal testimony rendered by THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA [A.D. 390] is already before the reader.(1083)

And this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came in,—and (I venture to predict) will go out,—with the present century. My only wonder is, how an exhibition of 1 Tim. iii. 16 so feebly attested,—so almost _without_ attestation,—can have come to be seriously entertained by any. “Si,”—(as Griesbach remarks concerning 1 John v. 7)—“si tam pauci ... testes ... sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam γνησιότητα, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta; _nullum prorsus superesset in re criticâ veri falsique criterium_, et _textus Novi Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius_.”(1084)

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

Will you permit me, my lord Bishop, as an ordinary writer, addressing (like yourself) “ordinary readers,”—respectfully to point out that you entirely mistake the problem in hand? The Greek Text of the N. T. is not to be settled by MODERN OPINION, but by ANCIENT AUTHORITY.(1086) In this department of enquiry therefore, “_complete isolation_” is his, and _his only_, who is forsaken by COPIES, VERSIONS, FATHERS. The man who is able, on the contrary, to point to an overwhelming company of Ancient Witnesses, and is contented modestly to take up his station at their feet,—such an one can afford to disregard “_The Textual Criticism of the last fifty years_,” if it presumes to contradict _their_ plain decrees; can even afford to smile at the confidence of “professed Scholars” and “Critics,” if they are so ill advised as to set themselves in battle array against that host of ancient men.

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

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

[III.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of reading_ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii 16.

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

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

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

[(_c_) In the IInd century,—HIPPOLYTUS [A.D. 190] (as was explained at page 463,) twice comes forward as a witness on the same side.]

[(_d_) In the IIIrd century,—GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, (if it be indeed he) has been already shown (at page 463) probably to testify to the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη.]

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

[(_f_) BASIL THE GREAT also [A.D. 355], as will be found explained at page 464, must be held to witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16: though his testimony, like that of the five names which go before, being open to cavil, is not here insisted on.]—And now to get upon _terra firma_.

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

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

(3) GREGORY, BISHOP OF NAZIANZUS [A.D. 355], a contemporary of Basil, in _two_ places is found to bear similar witness. See above page 457.

(4) DIODORUS, (or “Theodorus” as Photius writes his name,) the teacher of Chrysostom,—first of Antioch, afterwards the heretical BISHOP OF TARSUS in Cilicia,—is next to be cited [A.D. 370]. His testimony is given above at pages 458-9.

(5) The next is perhaps our most illustrious witness,—viz. GREGORY, BISHOP OF NYSSA in Cappadocia [A.D. 370]. References to at least _twenty-two_ places of his writings have been already given at page 456.

(6) Scarcely less important than the last-named Father, is CHRYSOSTOM [A.D. 380], first of Antioch,—afterwards PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE,—who in _three_ places witnesses plainly to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. See above, page 457.

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

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

(9) CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, [A.D. 410,] who in _at least two_ places witnesses to it unequivocally. See above, pp. 464 to 470. So does,

(10) THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS in Syria, [A.D. 420]: who, in at least _four_ places, (see above, page 456) renders unequivocal and important witness on the same side.

(11) Next, the ANONYMOUS AUTHOR claims notice [A.D. 430], whose composition is found in the Appendix to the works of Athanasius. See above, page 475.

(12) You will be anxious to see your friend EUTHALIUS, BISHOP OF SULCA, duly recognized in this enumeration. He comes next. [A.D. 458.] The discussion concerning him will be found above, at page 459 to page 461.

(13) MACEDONIUS II, PATRIARCH OF CP. [A.D. 496] must of necessity be mentioned here, as I have very fully explained at page 470 to page 474.

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

(15) And hither is to be referred the testimony of SEVERUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH [A.D. 512], which has been already particularly set down at page 458.

(16) To the VIIth century [A.D. 616] belongs the HARKLEIAN (or PHILOXENIAN) Version; concerning which, see above, page 450. “That Θεός was the reading of the manuscripts from which this Version was made, is put beyond reach of doubt by the fact that in twelve of the other places where εὐσέβεια occurs,(1089) the words ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘_beauty-of-fear_’) are found _without_ the addition of ܐܠܚܐ (or ܐܚܠܐ) (‘GOD’). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2), where the Peschito reads ‘_fear of_ GOD,’ the Harkleian reads ‘_fear_’ only. On the other hand, the Harkleian margin of Acts iii. 12 expressly states that εὐσέβια is the Greek equivalent of ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘_beauty-of-fear_’). This effectually establishes the fact that the author of the Harkleian recension found Θεός in his Greek manuscript of 1 Tim. iii. 16.”(1090)

(17) In the VIIIth century, JOHN DAMASCENE [A.D. 730] pre-eminently claims attention. He is _twice_ a witness for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, as was explained at page 457.

(18) Next to be mentioned is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA; whose memorable testimony at the 2nd Nicene Council [A.D. 787] has been set down above, at page 475. And then,

(19) THEODORUS STUDITA of CP. [A.D. 790],—concerning whom, see above, at pages 475-6.

(20), (21) _and_ (22). To the IXth century belong the three remaining uncial codices, which alike witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:—viz. the “COD. MOSQUENSIS” (K); the “COD. ANGELICUS” (L); and the “COD. PORPHYRIANUS” (P).

(23) The SLAVONIC VERSION belongs to the same century, and exhibits the same reading.

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

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

(26) To the XIth century, THEOPHYLACT [A.D. 1077], who bears express testimony to the same reading. See page 476.

(27) To the XIIth century, EUTHYMIUS [A.D. 1116], who closes the list with his approving verdict. See page 476.

And thus we reach a period when there awaits us a mass of testimony which transports us back (_per saltum_) to the Church’s palmiest days; testimony, which rightly understood, is absolutely decisive of the point now under discussion. I allude to the testimony of EVERY KNOWN COPY OF S. PAUL’S EPISTLES except the three, or four, already specified, viz. D of S. Paul; א, 17, and perhaps 73. A few words on this last head of Evidence may not be without the grace of novelty even to yourself. They are supplementary to what has already been offered on the same subject from page 443 to page 446.

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

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

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

Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the “mystery of Godliness;” declaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that “GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.” And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_ copies of S. Paul’s Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such “Consent” amounts to _Unanimity_; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this subject-matter, is conclusive.

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

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

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

(I.) In 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16, the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, is witnessed to by 289 MANUSCRIPTS:(1104)—by 3 VERSIONS:(1105)—by upwards of 20 Greek FATHERS.(1106)

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

(III.) The reading ὅς (also in place of Θεός) is countenanced by 6 MANUSCRIPTS in all (א, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by _only one_ VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic(1109)):—_not for certain by a single Greek_ FATHER.(1110)

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

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

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

(p) INTERNAL EVIDENCE _for reading_ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16, _absolutely overwhelming_.

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

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

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

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

I question if his motion will find _a seconder_. You yourself lay it down magisterially that ὅς “is _not emphatic_ (‘He who,’ &c.): nor, by a _constructio ad sensum_, is it the relative to μυστήριον; but is a relative to an _omitted_ though easily recognized antecedent, viz. CHRIST.” You add that it is not improbable “that the words are quoted from some known _hymn_, or probably from some familiar _Confession of Faith_.” Accordingly, in your Commentary you venture to exhibit the words within inverted commas _as a quotation_:—“And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: ‘who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,’ ” &c.,(1115)—for which you are without warrant of any kind, and which you have no right to do. Westcott and Hort (the “chartered libertines”) are even more licentious. Acting on their own suggestion that these clauses are “a quotation from _an early Christian hymn_,” they proceed to print the conclusion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 stichometrically, as if it were a _six-line stanza_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) _“__Composition of the Body which is responsible for the __‘__New Greek Text.__’__ ”_

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

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

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

(2) _An Unitarian Revisionist intolerable._—_The Westminster-Abbey Scandal._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) _The probable Future of the Revision of_ 1881.

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

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

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

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

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

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

REVISED (1881). AUTHORIZED (1611). “And come, follow me.” “And come, _take up the cross and_ follow me.”(1137) “And they blindfolded “And when they had him, and asked him, blindfolded him, _they saying, Prophesy.” struck him on the face_, and asked him, saying, Prophesy.”(1138) “And there was also a “And a superscription superscription over him, also was _written_ over This is the King of the him _in letters of Greek, Jews.” and Latin, and Hebrew_, This is the King of the Jews.”(1139) “And they gave him a “And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.” piece of a broiled fish, _and of an honeycomb_.”(1140)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The word GOD, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient
ancient evidence.”

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

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

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

“Some ancient authorities read _which_.”

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

(6) _The nature of this contention explained._

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

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

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

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

Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom (by your own avowal) you stand completely identified.(1150) I repeat, (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those Critics is,—_not_ that their superstructure rests upon an insecure foundation; but that it rests on _no foundation at all_. My complaint is,—_not_ that they are _somewhat_ and _frequently_ mistaken; but that they are mistaken _entirely_, and that they are mistaken _throughout_. There is no possibility of approximation between _their_ mere assumptions and the results of _my_ humble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of Scripture. We shall only _then_ be able to begin to reason together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.

(7) _Parting Counsels._

Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that of your friends,—(I.) “THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK’S GOSPEL:”—(II.) THE ANGELIC HYMN on the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to this hour, you and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as convenient _Test places_. When you are prepared frankly to admit,—(I.) That there is no reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S. MARK xvi. 9-20:(1151)—(II.) That ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the Evangelical text of S. LUKE ii. 14:(1152)—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1 TIMOTHY iii 16,(1153)—we shall be in good time to proceed to something else. _Until_ this happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.