And now, we may proceed to consider theVersions.[f]Testimony of theVersionsto the reading of1 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 witnessin favour ofὅς. 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 theVersionssay?(a) Now, it is allowed on all hands that theLatinVersion 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”substitutedfor“quod.”Estius conjectures that“quod”isa 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 EternalWord, the second Person in the[pg 449]Trinity, isdesignatedby 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 theVulgate. 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 Jeromefoundin ancient Greek MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.(c) Next, for theSyriac(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 thepossibilityof 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.[pg 450](d) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in thePhiloxenian, or rather theHarkleianVersion (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)ofGod, who-was-manifested(masculine)in the flesh.’The marginal addition [ܗܘ before ܕܐܬܓܠܝ (or ܘܗ before ܝܠܓܬܐܕ)] makes the reference toGodall the plainer.”973See 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.974It not only witnessesagainstyou, (for the Latin and the Peschito dothat,) but, as I have shown you, it is a witness onmyside.(e) and (f). Next, for the Versions ofLowerandUpper Egypt.[pg 451]“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.”975But 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 dutyforthe 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, ifthe relativemay be masculine, why notthe articlealso? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) relative by ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar passage where a neuter noun (e.g.πνεῦμα or σῶμα) has gone before.In this particular case, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek,[pg 452]would ever dream of writing anything else but τὸ μυστήριον ὅ.”976And now I trust I have made it plain to you thatyou are mistakenin your statement (p. 69),—that“Ὅς issupported by the two Egyptian Versions.”It is supported byneither. 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, thatGod'sTruth is to be established.(g) As for theGothicVersion,—dissatisfied with the verdict of De Gabelentz and Loebe,978I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the way is preservedthe only known copyof 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.979The Gothic therefore must be considered to[pg 453]witness to the (more than) extraordinary combination;—μέγΑΣ ... μυστήριον ... ὍΣ. (See the footnote 4 p.452.)I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from that distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania.“But”(he adds)“the reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the notes to his edition,980at 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 singlescarcely legible copyof a Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:—while certainly“magnusest pietatis sacramentum,quimanifestatusest in corpore”—is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to accept.(h) For theÆthiopic. 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)“TheArmenianVersion,”(writes Dr. Malan)“from the very nature of the language, is indeterminate. There isno grammatical distinction of gendersin Armenian.”(j) TheArabicVersion, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu981informs me,)[pg 454]exhibits,—“Intruth 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 theGeorgianVersion, which is of the VIth century,—and theSlavonic, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr. Malan informs me)unequivocally witness toΘεός.Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancientManuscriptsandVersionsof 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 whichyoucontend, (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 theHarkleian, theGeorgian, and theSlavonicVersions outweighs the single evidence of theGothic.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 of125to1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp.445-6,) such multitudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us. At[pg 455]p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a“lesson of primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten,ponderari debere testes, non numerari.”You might have added with advantage,—“and oftenest of all, misunderstood.”For are you not aware that, generally speaking,“Number”constitutes“Weight”? If you have discovered some“regia via”which renders the general consent ofCopies,—the general consent ofVersions,—the general consent ofFathers, 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 betweena.d.250 anda.d.350.982Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what follows? Thatat a period antecedent to the date of any existing copyof 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 (thePatristic) remains to be explored; after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present Dissertation.[h]Testimony of theFathersconcerning the true reading of1Tim.iii. 16:—Gregory of Nyssa,—Didymus,—Theodoret,—John Damascene,—Chrysostom,—Gregory Naz.,—Severus Of Antioch,—Diodorus of Tarsus.It only remains to ascertain what theFathershave to say on this subject. And when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a mass of evidence which effectually[pg 456]closes this discussion. You contended just now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codexa, as if its witness were a point of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show thatGregory of Nyssa(a full century before Codexawas produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading but Θεός.983Of 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 thatDidymus,984another illustrious witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.You are also aware thatTheodoret,985infourplaces, is certainly to be reckoned on the same side:[pg 457]And further, thatJohn Damascene986twiceadds his famous evidence to the rest,—and is also against you.Chrysostom987again, 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 isthreetimes a witness.Next come two quotations fromGregory of Nazianzus,—which I observe you treat as“inconclusive.”I retain them all the same.988You 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 thana.d.350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,)—the titlebestowed, in the way of summary, on that portion of S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy which is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,—viz., Περὶ[pg 458]ΘΕΊΑΣ ΣΑΡΚώσεως. We commonly speak of this as the seventh of the“Euthalian”κεφάλαια or chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were“devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;”989and 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.991That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ΣΑΡΚΊ no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover that Θεός992must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16 throughout the century which witnessed the production of codicesband 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 theGodhead ofChrist(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. 16.993And why are we only“perhaps”to add the testimony ofDiodorus of Tarsus; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul's[pg 459]actual words (Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), and expressly says that he finds them inS. Paul's Epistle to Timothy?994How—may I be permitted to ask—would you have a quotation made plainer?[i]Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case ofEuthalius.Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that theanimusyou 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 diedseverally about 394, 396, 457 and 756a.d.)seemunquestionably to have read Θεός.”996Excuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of theunequivocalevidence 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 arein articulo mortis? Didymusdiedina.d.394, to be[pg 460]sure: but he was then 85 years of age. He was therefore born ina.d.309, and is said to have flourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had employedtill then? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong tothe 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 ofthemby insultingme.“We pass over”(you say)“names brought in to swell the number, such as Euthalius,—for whom no reference is given.”997Do 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 asEuthalius”! You had evidently forgotten when you penned that offensive sentence, thatEuthaliusis one of the few Fathersadduced by yourself998(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 references999without thought or verification,—prudently to abstain from dropping[pg 461]a hint how you came by them,—but to use them like dummies, for show. At the end of a few years, (naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,—and proceed vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your way, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in the same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet tingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references areneverobtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that elsewhere they are not to be met with. But waiving this, you have made itluce clariusto all the world that so late as the year 1882, toyou“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 isa.d.458,) is one with which no Author of a“CriticalCommentary”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 on1Tim.iii. 16.”Turn also, if you please, to theBibliothecaof Gallandius (vol. x. 197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact that theonlyreason 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 toDionysius Of Alexandria.Six other primitive witnesses to1 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 byDionysius of Alexandria(a.d.264) to Paul of Samosata. That the long and[pg 462]interesting composition in question1000was 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 bysomebody:1001that 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 leastsix other primitive witnesses,someof 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 placein 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 Epistlead Diognetum1003clearly refers to it early in the IInd century;[pg 463]though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I cannot feel surprised at the circumstance.The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1)Ignatius(three in number)arehelpful, 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.1004It 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)Barnabashas 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 thatChristisGod, 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 Photius1008),—καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.—Further, (5) in theApostolical Constitutions, we meet with the expression,—Θεὸς Κύριος ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν εν σαρκί.1009[pg 464]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 ourLord 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 ourSaviour'swork for His Church in ancient days,)—viz.“After all these, at the end of the day, αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός:”1010—whowill 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 notbuildupon such foundations. Let me go on with what is indisputable.[k]The testimony ofCyril of Alexandria.Next, forCyril of Alexandria, whom you decline to accept as a witness for Θεός. You are prepared, I trust, to submit to the logic offacts?In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that ourLordis very and eternalGod.1011His 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 inChristasGod;”and when he comes to 1 Timothy,he quotesiii. 16at length;[pg 465]reasons upon it, and points out that Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί is here spoken of.1012There 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 againquoted at length withΘεός,—followed by the remark that“our Nature was justified, byGodmanifested in Him.”1014I really see not how you would have Cyril more distinctly recognize Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί as the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.1015You 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 thecontextrenders 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. 16in extenso.1016“If”(he begins)—“the Word, beingGod, could be said to inhabit[pg 466]Man's nature (ἐπανθρωπῆσαι) without yet ceasing to beGod, but remained for ever what He was before,—then, great indeed is the mystery of Godliness.”1017He proceeds in the same strain at much length.1018Next (2) the same place of Timothy is just as fully quoted in Cyril'sExplanatio xii. capitum: where not only the Thesis,1019but also the context constrains belief that Cyril wrote Θεός:—“What then means‘was manifested in the flesh’? It means that the Word ofGodtheFatherwas made flesh.... In this way therefore we say that He was bothGodand Man.... Thus”(Cyril concludes)“is HeGodandLordof all.”1020But, 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 iscertainought not to be held to determine the reading of the passages concerning which the evidence is about evenly balanced;—whether in doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not be allowed to turn the scale;—I forbear to enquire. I take my stand on what is clear and undeniable. On the other hand you are challenged to produce a single instance in Cyril of μυστηριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη, where the reading is not equally[pg 467]balanced by μυστήριον Θεός. And (as already explained) of course it makes nothing for ὅς that Cyril should sometimes say that“the mystery”here spoken of isChristwho“was manifested in the flesh,”&c. A man with nothing else but the A. V. of the“Textus Receptus”before him might equally well saythat. See above, pages427-8.Not unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium1021which the Critics freely allege in proof that Cyril wrote ὅς (not Θεός), and whichas 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,1022Wetstein,1023Birch,1024Tischendorf,1025or even Tregelles,1026should not have seen this for themselves.The author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting on ourLord'sabsolute exemption from sin, although for our sakes He became very Man. In support of this, he quotes Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)—“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.”“S. Cyril”(he proceeds)“in the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,—‘Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit;’for He was in no way subject to our infirmities,”and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance that it is entirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose that it is any part of the Scholiast's object, in what precedes, to invite attention to so irrelevant a circumstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with ὅς instead of[pg 468]Θεός.1027As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years ago,1028the Scholiast's one object was to show how Cyril interpreted the expression“justified in the Spirit.”Altogether misleading is it to quoteonly the first line, beginning at ὅς and ending at πνεύματι, as the Criticsinvariablydo. 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,”1029in preference to any other of Cyril's writings, for a vastly different reason.1030And yetthis—(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.1031The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at ἐφανερώθη. The Latin is as follows:—“Divinus Paulusmagnum quidemaitesse mysterium pietatis. Et vere ita se res habet:manifestatus estenimin carne, cum sitDeusVerbum.”1032The supposed hostile evidence from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on.[pg 469][l]The argumente silentioconsidered.The argumente 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 ourLord.”1034Well but, neither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a Treatise expressly to prove theGodhead of theSonand of theHoly Ghost.“Grave est,”—says Tischendorf.1035No, not“grave”at all, I answer: but whether“grave”or not, thatGregory of Nyssaread Θεός in this place, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, you have been reminded already, that“ubi de DivinitateChristiagitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur.”1036Examine 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.”1037But in fact attend to the method of Athanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;1038and you will speedily convince yourself that the argumente silentiois next to valueless on occasions like the present.[pg 470]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 elsewhere1039fully 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 ourLord. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted thatChristwasGod. 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 aboutMacedonius.His testimony.
And now, we may proceed to consider theVersions.[f]Testimony of theVersionsto the reading of1 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 witnessin favour ofὅς. 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 theVersionssay?(a) Now, it is allowed on all hands that theLatinVersion 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”substitutedfor“quod.”Estius conjectures that“quod”isa 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 EternalWord, the second Person in the[pg 449]Trinity, isdesignatedby 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 theVulgate. 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 Jeromefoundin ancient Greek MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.(c) Next, for theSyriac(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 thepossibilityof 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.[pg 450](d) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in thePhiloxenian, or rather theHarkleianVersion (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)ofGod, who-was-manifested(masculine)in the flesh.’The marginal addition [ܗܘ before ܕܐܬܓܠܝ (or ܘܗ before ܝܠܓܬܐܕ)] makes the reference toGodall the plainer.”973See 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.974It not only witnessesagainstyou, (for the Latin and the Peschito dothat,) but, as I have shown you, it is a witness onmyside.(e) and (f). Next, for the Versions ofLowerandUpper Egypt.[pg 451]“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.”975But 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 dutyforthe 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, ifthe relativemay be masculine, why notthe articlealso? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) relative by ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar passage where a neuter noun (e.g.πνεῦμα or σῶμα) has gone before.In this particular case, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek,[pg 452]would ever dream of writing anything else but τὸ μυστήριον ὅ.”976And now I trust I have made it plain to you thatyou are mistakenin your statement (p. 69),—that“Ὅς issupported by the two Egyptian Versions.”It is supported byneither. 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, thatGod'sTruth is to be established.(g) As for theGothicVersion,—dissatisfied with the verdict of De Gabelentz and Loebe,978I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the way is preservedthe only known copyof 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.979The Gothic therefore must be considered to[pg 453]witness to the (more than) extraordinary combination;—μέγΑΣ ... μυστήριον ... ὍΣ. (See the footnote 4 p.452.)I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from that distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania.“But”(he adds)“the reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the notes to his edition,980at 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 singlescarcely legible copyof a Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:—while certainly“magnusest pietatis sacramentum,quimanifestatusest in corpore”—is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to accept.(h) For theÆthiopic. 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)“TheArmenianVersion,”(writes Dr. Malan)“from the very nature of the language, is indeterminate. There isno grammatical distinction of gendersin Armenian.”(j) TheArabicVersion, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu981informs me,)[pg 454]exhibits,—“Intruth 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 theGeorgianVersion, which is of the VIth century,—and theSlavonic, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr. Malan informs me)unequivocally witness toΘεός.Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancientManuscriptsandVersionsof 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 whichyoucontend, (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 theHarkleian, theGeorgian, and theSlavonicVersions outweighs the single evidence of theGothic.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 of125to1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp.445-6,) such multitudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us. At[pg 455]p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a“lesson of primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten,ponderari debere testes, non numerari.”You might have added with advantage,—“and oftenest of all, misunderstood.”For are you not aware that, generally speaking,“Number”constitutes“Weight”? If you have discovered some“regia via”which renders the general consent ofCopies,—the general consent ofVersions,—the general consent ofFathers, 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 betweena.d.250 anda.d.350.982Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what follows? Thatat a period antecedent to the date of any existing copyof 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 (thePatristic) remains to be explored; after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present Dissertation.[h]Testimony of theFathersconcerning the true reading of1Tim.iii. 16:—Gregory of Nyssa,—Didymus,—Theodoret,—John Damascene,—Chrysostom,—Gregory Naz.,—Severus Of Antioch,—Diodorus of Tarsus.It only remains to ascertain what theFathershave to say on this subject. And when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a mass of evidence which effectually[pg 456]closes this discussion. You contended just now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codexa, as if its witness were a point of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show thatGregory of Nyssa(a full century before Codexawas produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading but Θεός.983Of 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 thatDidymus,984another illustrious witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.You are also aware thatTheodoret,985infourplaces, is certainly to be reckoned on the same side:[pg 457]And further, thatJohn Damascene986twiceadds his famous evidence to the rest,—and is also against you.Chrysostom987again, 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 isthreetimes a witness.Next come two quotations fromGregory of Nazianzus,—which I observe you treat as“inconclusive.”I retain them all the same.988You 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 thana.d.350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,)—the titlebestowed, in the way of summary, on that portion of S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy which is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,—viz., Περὶ[pg 458]ΘΕΊΑΣ ΣΑΡΚώσεως. We commonly speak of this as the seventh of the“Euthalian”κεφάλαια or chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were“devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;”989and 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.991That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ΣΑΡΚΊ no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover that Θεός992must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16 throughout the century which witnessed the production of codicesband 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 theGodhead ofChrist(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. 16.993And why are we only“perhaps”to add the testimony ofDiodorus of Tarsus; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul's[pg 459]actual words (Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), and expressly says that he finds them inS. Paul's Epistle to Timothy?994How—may I be permitted to ask—would you have a quotation made plainer?[i]Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case ofEuthalius.Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that theanimusyou 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 diedseverally about 394, 396, 457 and 756a.d.)seemunquestionably to have read Θεός.”996Excuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of theunequivocalevidence 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 arein articulo mortis? Didymusdiedina.d.394, to be[pg 460]sure: but he was then 85 years of age. He was therefore born ina.d.309, and is said to have flourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had employedtill then? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong tothe 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 ofthemby insultingme.“We pass over”(you say)“names brought in to swell the number, such as Euthalius,—for whom no reference is given.”997Do 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 asEuthalius”! You had evidently forgotten when you penned that offensive sentence, thatEuthaliusis one of the few Fathersadduced by yourself998(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 references999without thought or verification,—prudently to abstain from dropping[pg 461]a hint how you came by them,—but to use them like dummies, for show. At the end of a few years, (naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,—and proceed vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your way, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in the same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet tingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references areneverobtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that elsewhere they are not to be met with. But waiving this, you have made itluce clariusto all the world that so late as the year 1882, toyou“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 isa.d.458,) is one with which no Author of a“CriticalCommentary”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 on1Tim.iii. 16.”Turn also, if you please, to theBibliothecaof Gallandius (vol. x. 197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact that theonlyreason 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 toDionysius Of Alexandria.Six other primitive witnesses to1 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 byDionysius of Alexandria(a.d.264) to Paul of Samosata. That the long and[pg 462]interesting composition in question1000was 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 bysomebody:1001that 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 leastsix other primitive witnesses,someof 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 placein 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 Epistlead Diognetum1003clearly refers to it early in the IInd century;[pg 463]though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I cannot feel surprised at the circumstance.The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1)Ignatius(three in number)arehelpful, 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.1004It 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)Barnabashas 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 thatChristisGod, 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 Photius1008),—καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.—Further, (5) in theApostolical Constitutions, we meet with the expression,—Θεὸς Κύριος ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν εν σαρκί.1009[pg 464]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 ourLord 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 ourSaviour'swork for His Church in ancient days,)—viz.“After all these, at the end of the day, αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός:”1010—whowill 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 notbuildupon such foundations. Let me go on with what is indisputable.[k]The testimony ofCyril of Alexandria.Next, forCyril of Alexandria, whom you decline to accept as a witness for Θεός. You are prepared, I trust, to submit to the logic offacts?In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that ourLordis very and eternalGod.1011His 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 inChristasGod;”and when he comes to 1 Timothy,he quotesiii. 16at length;[pg 465]reasons upon it, and points out that Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί is here spoken of.1012There 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 againquoted at length withΘεός,—followed by the remark that“our Nature was justified, byGodmanifested in Him.”1014I really see not how you would have Cyril more distinctly recognize Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί as the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.1015You 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 thecontextrenders 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. 16in extenso.1016“If”(he begins)—“the Word, beingGod, could be said to inhabit[pg 466]Man's nature (ἐπανθρωπῆσαι) without yet ceasing to beGod, but remained for ever what He was before,—then, great indeed is the mystery of Godliness.”1017He proceeds in the same strain at much length.1018Next (2) the same place of Timothy is just as fully quoted in Cyril'sExplanatio xii. capitum: where not only the Thesis,1019but also the context constrains belief that Cyril wrote Θεός:—“What then means‘was manifested in the flesh’? It means that the Word ofGodtheFatherwas made flesh.... In this way therefore we say that He was bothGodand Man.... Thus”(Cyril concludes)“is HeGodandLordof all.”1020But, 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 iscertainought not to be held to determine the reading of the passages concerning which the evidence is about evenly balanced;—whether in doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not be allowed to turn the scale;—I forbear to enquire. I take my stand on what is clear and undeniable. On the other hand you are challenged to produce a single instance in Cyril of μυστηριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη, where the reading is not equally[pg 467]balanced by μυστήριον Θεός. And (as already explained) of course it makes nothing for ὅς that Cyril should sometimes say that“the mystery”here spoken of isChristwho“was manifested in the flesh,”&c. A man with nothing else but the A. V. of the“Textus Receptus”before him might equally well saythat. See above, pages427-8.Not unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium1021which the Critics freely allege in proof that Cyril wrote ὅς (not Θεός), and whichas 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,1022Wetstein,1023Birch,1024Tischendorf,1025or even Tregelles,1026should not have seen this for themselves.The author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting on ourLord'sabsolute exemption from sin, although for our sakes He became very Man. In support of this, he quotes Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)—“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.”“S. Cyril”(he proceeds)“in the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,—‘Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit;’for He was in no way subject to our infirmities,”and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance that it is entirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose that it is any part of the Scholiast's object, in what precedes, to invite attention to so irrelevant a circumstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with ὅς instead of[pg 468]Θεός.1027As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years ago,1028the Scholiast's one object was to show how Cyril interpreted the expression“justified in the Spirit.”Altogether misleading is it to quoteonly the first line, beginning at ὅς and ending at πνεύματι, as the Criticsinvariablydo. 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,”1029in preference to any other of Cyril's writings, for a vastly different reason.1030And yetthis—(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.1031The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at ἐφανερώθη. The Latin is as follows:—“Divinus Paulusmagnum quidemaitesse mysterium pietatis. Et vere ita se res habet:manifestatus estenimin carne, cum sitDeusVerbum.”1032The supposed hostile evidence from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on.[pg 469][l]The argumente silentioconsidered.The argumente 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 ourLord.”1034Well but, neither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a Treatise expressly to prove theGodhead of theSonand of theHoly Ghost.“Grave est,”—says Tischendorf.1035No, not“grave”at all, I answer: but whether“grave”or not, thatGregory of Nyssaread Θεός in this place, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, you have been reminded already, that“ubi de DivinitateChristiagitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur.”1036Examine 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.”1037But in fact attend to the method of Athanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;1038and you will speedily convince yourself that the argumente silentiois next to valueless on occasions like the present.[pg 470]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 elsewhere1039fully 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 ourLord. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted thatChristwasGod. 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 aboutMacedonius.His testimony.
And now, we may proceed to consider theVersions.[f]Testimony of theVersionsto the reading of1 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 witnessin favour ofὅς. 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 theVersionssay?(a) Now, it is allowed on all hands that theLatinVersion 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”substitutedfor“quod.”Estius conjectures that“quod”isa 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 EternalWord, the second Person in the[pg 449]Trinity, isdesignatedby 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 theVulgate. 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 Jeromefoundin ancient Greek MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.(c) Next, for theSyriac(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 thepossibilityof 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.[pg 450](d) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in thePhiloxenian, or rather theHarkleianVersion (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)ofGod, who-was-manifested(masculine)in the flesh.’The marginal addition [ܗܘ before ܕܐܬܓܠܝ (or ܘܗ before ܝܠܓܬܐܕ)] makes the reference toGodall the plainer.”973See 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.974It not only witnessesagainstyou, (for the Latin and the Peschito dothat,) but, as I have shown you, it is a witness onmyside.(e) and (f). Next, for the Versions ofLowerandUpper Egypt.[pg 451]“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.”975But 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 dutyforthe 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, ifthe relativemay be masculine, why notthe articlealso? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) relative by ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar passage where a neuter noun (e.g.πνεῦμα or σῶμα) has gone before.In this particular case, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek,[pg 452]would ever dream of writing anything else but τὸ μυστήριον ὅ.”976And now I trust I have made it plain to you thatyou are mistakenin your statement (p. 69),—that“Ὅς issupported by the two Egyptian Versions.”It is supported byneither. 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, thatGod'sTruth is to be established.(g) As for theGothicVersion,—dissatisfied with the verdict of De Gabelentz and Loebe,978I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the way is preservedthe only known copyof 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.979The Gothic therefore must be considered to[pg 453]witness to the (more than) extraordinary combination;—μέγΑΣ ... μυστήριον ... ὍΣ. (See the footnote 4 p.452.)I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from that distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania.“But”(he adds)“the reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the notes to his edition,980at 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 singlescarcely legible copyof a Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:—while certainly“magnusest pietatis sacramentum,quimanifestatusest in corpore”—is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to accept.(h) For theÆthiopic. 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)“TheArmenianVersion,”(writes Dr. Malan)“from the very nature of the language, is indeterminate. There isno grammatical distinction of gendersin Armenian.”(j) TheArabicVersion, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu981informs me,)[pg 454]exhibits,—“Intruth 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 theGeorgianVersion, which is of the VIth century,—and theSlavonic, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr. Malan informs me)unequivocally witness toΘεός.Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancientManuscriptsandVersionsof 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 whichyoucontend, (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 theHarkleian, theGeorgian, and theSlavonicVersions outweighs the single evidence of theGothic.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 of125to1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp.445-6,) such multitudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us. At[pg 455]p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a“lesson of primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten,ponderari debere testes, non numerari.”You might have added with advantage,—“and oftenest of all, misunderstood.”For are you not aware that, generally speaking,“Number”constitutes“Weight”? If you have discovered some“regia via”which renders the general consent ofCopies,—the general consent ofVersions,—the general consent ofFathers, 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 betweena.d.250 anda.d.350.982Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what follows? Thatat a period antecedent to the date of any existing copyof 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 (thePatristic) remains to be explored; after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present Dissertation.[h]Testimony of theFathersconcerning the true reading of1Tim.iii. 16:—Gregory of Nyssa,—Didymus,—Theodoret,—John Damascene,—Chrysostom,—Gregory Naz.,—Severus Of Antioch,—Diodorus of Tarsus.It only remains to ascertain what theFathershave to say on this subject. And when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a mass of evidence which effectually[pg 456]closes this discussion. You contended just now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codexa, as if its witness were a point of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show thatGregory of Nyssa(a full century before Codexawas produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading but Θεός.983Of 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 thatDidymus,984another illustrious witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.You are also aware thatTheodoret,985infourplaces, is certainly to be reckoned on the same side:[pg 457]And further, thatJohn Damascene986twiceadds his famous evidence to the rest,—and is also against you.Chrysostom987again, 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 isthreetimes a witness.Next come two quotations fromGregory of Nazianzus,—which I observe you treat as“inconclusive.”I retain them all the same.988You 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 thana.d.350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,)—the titlebestowed, in the way of summary, on that portion of S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy which is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,—viz., Περὶ[pg 458]ΘΕΊΑΣ ΣΑΡΚώσεως. We commonly speak of this as the seventh of the“Euthalian”κεφάλαια or chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were“devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;”989and 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.991That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ΣΑΡΚΊ no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover that Θεός992must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16 throughout the century which witnessed the production of codicesband 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 theGodhead ofChrist(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. 16.993And why are we only“perhaps”to add the testimony ofDiodorus of Tarsus; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul's[pg 459]actual words (Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), and expressly says that he finds them inS. Paul's Epistle to Timothy?994How—may I be permitted to ask—would you have a quotation made plainer?[i]Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case ofEuthalius.Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that theanimusyou 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 diedseverally about 394, 396, 457 and 756a.d.)seemunquestionably to have read Θεός.”996Excuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of theunequivocalevidence 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 arein articulo mortis? Didymusdiedina.d.394, to be[pg 460]sure: but he was then 85 years of age. He was therefore born ina.d.309, and is said to have flourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had employedtill then? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong tothe 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 ofthemby insultingme.“We pass over”(you say)“names brought in to swell the number, such as Euthalius,—for whom no reference is given.”997Do 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 asEuthalius”! You had evidently forgotten when you penned that offensive sentence, thatEuthaliusis one of the few Fathersadduced by yourself998(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 references999without thought or verification,—prudently to abstain from dropping[pg 461]a hint how you came by them,—but to use them like dummies, for show. At the end of a few years, (naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,—and proceed vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your way, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in the same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet tingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references areneverobtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that elsewhere they are not to be met with. But waiving this, you have made itluce clariusto all the world that so late as the year 1882, toyou“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 isa.d.458,) is one with which no Author of a“CriticalCommentary”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 on1Tim.iii. 16.”Turn also, if you please, to theBibliothecaof Gallandius (vol. x. 197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact that theonlyreason 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 toDionysius Of Alexandria.Six other primitive witnesses to1 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 byDionysius of Alexandria(a.d.264) to Paul of Samosata. That the long and[pg 462]interesting composition in question1000was 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 bysomebody:1001that 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 leastsix other primitive witnesses,someof 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 placein 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 Epistlead Diognetum1003clearly refers to it early in the IInd century;[pg 463]though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I cannot feel surprised at the circumstance.The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1)Ignatius(three in number)arehelpful, 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.1004It 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)Barnabashas 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 thatChristisGod, 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 Photius1008),—καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.—Further, (5) in theApostolical Constitutions, we meet with the expression,—Θεὸς Κύριος ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν εν σαρκί.1009[pg 464]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 ourLord 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 ourSaviour'swork for His Church in ancient days,)—viz.“After all these, at the end of the day, αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός:”1010—whowill 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 notbuildupon such foundations. Let me go on with what is indisputable.[k]The testimony ofCyril of Alexandria.Next, forCyril of Alexandria, whom you decline to accept as a witness for Θεός. You are prepared, I trust, to submit to the logic offacts?In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that ourLordis very and eternalGod.1011His 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 inChristasGod;”and when he comes to 1 Timothy,he quotesiii. 16at length;[pg 465]reasons upon it, and points out that Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί is here spoken of.1012There 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 againquoted at length withΘεός,—followed by the remark that“our Nature was justified, byGodmanifested in Him.”1014I really see not how you would have Cyril more distinctly recognize Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί as the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.1015You 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 thecontextrenders 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. 16in extenso.1016“If”(he begins)—“the Word, beingGod, could be said to inhabit[pg 466]Man's nature (ἐπανθρωπῆσαι) without yet ceasing to beGod, but remained for ever what He was before,—then, great indeed is the mystery of Godliness.”1017He proceeds in the same strain at much length.1018Next (2) the same place of Timothy is just as fully quoted in Cyril'sExplanatio xii. capitum: where not only the Thesis,1019but also the context constrains belief that Cyril wrote Θεός:—“What then means‘was manifested in the flesh’? It means that the Word ofGodtheFatherwas made flesh.... In this way therefore we say that He was bothGodand Man.... Thus”(Cyril concludes)“is HeGodandLordof all.”1020But, 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 iscertainought not to be held to determine the reading of the passages concerning which the evidence is about evenly balanced;—whether in doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not be allowed to turn the scale;—I forbear to enquire. I take my stand on what is clear and undeniable. On the other hand you are challenged to produce a single instance in Cyril of μυστηριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη, where the reading is not equally[pg 467]balanced by μυστήριον Θεός. And (as already explained) of course it makes nothing for ὅς that Cyril should sometimes say that“the mystery”here spoken of isChristwho“was manifested in the flesh,”&c. A man with nothing else but the A. V. of the“Textus Receptus”before him might equally well saythat. See above, pages427-8.Not unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium1021which the Critics freely allege in proof that Cyril wrote ὅς (not Θεός), and whichas 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,1022Wetstein,1023Birch,1024Tischendorf,1025or even Tregelles,1026should not have seen this for themselves.The author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting on ourLord'sabsolute exemption from sin, although for our sakes He became very Man. In support of this, he quotes Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)—“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.”“S. Cyril”(he proceeds)“in the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,—‘Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit;’for He was in no way subject to our infirmities,”and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance that it is entirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose that it is any part of the Scholiast's object, in what precedes, to invite attention to so irrelevant a circumstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with ὅς instead of[pg 468]Θεός.1027As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years ago,1028the Scholiast's one object was to show how Cyril interpreted the expression“justified in the Spirit.”Altogether misleading is it to quoteonly the first line, beginning at ὅς and ending at πνεύματι, as the Criticsinvariablydo. 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,”1029in preference to any other of Cyril's writings, for a vastly different reason.1030And yetthis—(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.1031The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at ἐφανερώθη. The Latin is as follows:—“Divinus Paulusmagnum quidemaitesse mysterium pietatis. Et vere ita se res habet:manifestatus estenimin carne, cum sitDeusVerbum.”1032The supposed hostile evidence from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on.[pg 469][l]The argumente silentioconsidered.The argumente 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 ourLord.”1034Well but, neither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a Treatise expressly to prove theGodhead of theSonand of theHoly Ghost.“Grave est,”—says Tischendorf.1035No, not“grave”at all, I answer: but whether“grave”or not, thatGregory of Nyssaread Θεός in this place, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, you have been reminded already, that“ubi de DivinitateChristiagitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur.”1036Examine 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.”1037But in fact attend to the method of Athanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;1038and you will speedily convince yourself that the argumente silentiois next to valueless on occasions like the present.[pg 470]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 elsewhere1039fully 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 ourLord. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted thatChristwasGod. 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 aboutMacedonius.His testimony.
And now, we may proceed to consider theVersions.[f]Testimony of theVersionsto the reading of1 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 witnessin favour ofὅς. 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 theVersionssay?(a) Now, it is allowed on all hands that theLatinVersion 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”substitutedfor“quod.”Estius conjectures that“quod”isa 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 EternalWord, the second Person in the[pg 449]Trinity, isdesignatedby 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 theVulgate. 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 Jeromefoundin ancient Greek MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.(c) Next, for theSyriac(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 thepossibilityof 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.[pg 450](d) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in thePhiloxenian, or rather theHarkleianVersion (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)ofGod, who-was-manifested(masculine)in the flesh.’The marginal addition [ܗܘ before ܕܐܬܓܠܝ (or ܘܗ before ܝܠܓܬܐܕ)] makes the reference toGodall the plainer.”973See 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.974It not only witnessesagainstyou, (for the Latin and the Peschito dothat,) but, as I have shown you, it is a witness onmyside.(e) and (f). Next, for the Versions ofLowerandUpper Egypt.[pg 451]“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.”975But 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 dutyforthe 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, ifthe relativemay be masculine, why notthe articlealso? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) relative by ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar passage where a neuter noun (e.g.πνεῦμα or σῶμα) has gone before.In this particular case, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek,[pg 452]would ever dream of writing anything else but τὸ μυστήριον ὅ.”976And now I trust I have made it plain to you thatyou are mistakenin your statement (p. 69),—that“Ὅς issupported by the two Egyptian Versions.”It is supported byneither. 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, thatGod'sTruth is to be established.(g) As for theGothicVersion,—dissatisfied with the verdict of De Gabelentz and Loebe,978I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the way is preservedthe only known copyof 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.979The Gothic therefore must be considered to[pg 453]witness to the (more than) extraordinary combination;—μέγΑΣ ... μυστήριον ... ὍΣ. (See the footnote 4 p.452.)I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from that distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania.“But”(he adds)“the reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the notes to his edition,980at 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 singlescarcely legible copyof a Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:—while certainly“magnusest pietatis sacramentum,quimanifestatusest in corpore”—is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to accept.(h) For theÆthiopic. 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)“TheArmenianVersion,”(writes Dr. Malan)“from the very nature of the language, is indeterminate. There isno grammatical distinction of gendersin Armenian.”(j) TheArabicVersion, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu981informs me,)[pg 454]exhibits,—“Intruth 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 theGeorgianVersion, which is of the VIth century,—and theSlavonic, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr. Malan informs me)unequivocally witness toΘεός.Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancientManuscriptsandVersionsof 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 whichyoucontend, (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 theHarkleian, theGeorgian, and theSlavonicVersions outweighs the single evidence of theGothic.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 of125to1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp.445-6,) such multitudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us. At[pg 455]p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a“lesson of primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten,ponderari debere testes, non numerari.”You might have added with advantage,—“and oftenest of all, misunderstood.”For are you not aware that, generally speaking,“Number”constitutes“Weight”? If you have discovered some“regia via”which renders the general consent ofCopies,—the general consent ofVersions,—the general consent ofFathers, 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 betweena.d.250 anda.d.350.982Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what follows? Thatat a period antecedent to the date of any existing copyof 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 (thePatristic) remains to be explored; after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present Dissertation.[h]Testimony of theFathersconcerning the true reading of1Tim.iii. 16:—Gregory of Nyssa,—Didymus,—Theodoret,—John Damascene,—Chrysostom,—Gregory Naz.,—Severus Of Antioch,—Diodorus of Tarsus.It only remains to ascertain what theFathershave to say on this subject. And when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a mass of evidence which effectually[pg 456]closes this discussion. You contended just now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codexa, as if its witness were a point of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show thatGregory of Nyssa(a full century before Codexawas produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading but Θεός.983Of 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 thatDidymus,984another illustrious witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.You are also aware thatTheodoret,985infourplaces, is certainly to be reckoned on the same side:[pg 457]And further, thatJohn Damascene986twiceadds his famous evidence to the rest,—and is also against you.Chrysostom987again, 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 isthreetimes a witness.Next come two quotations fromGregory of Nazianzus,—which I observe you treat as“inconclusive.”I retain them all the same.988You 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 thana.d.350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,)—the titlebestowed, in the way of summary, on that portion of S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy which is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,—viz., Περὶ[pg 458]ΘΕΊΑΣ ΣΑΡΚώσεως. We commonly speak of this as the seventh of the“Euthalian”κεφάλαια or chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were“devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;”989and 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.991That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ΣΑΡΚΊ no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover that Θεός992must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16 throughout the century which witnessed the production of codicesband 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 theGodhead ofChrist(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. 16.993And why are we only“perhaps”to add the testimony ofDiodorus of Tarsus; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul's[pg 459]actual words (Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), and expressly says that he finds them inS. Paul's Epistle to Timothy?994How—may I be permitted to ask—would you have a quotation made plainer?[i]Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case ofEuthalius.Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that theanimusyou 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 diedseverally about 394, 396, 457 and 756a.d.)seemunquestionably to have read Θεός.”996Excuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of theunequivocalevidence 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 arein articulo mortis? Didymusdiedina.d.394, to be[pg 460]sure: but he was then 85 years of age. He was therefore born ina.d.309, and is said to have flourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had employedtill then? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong tothe 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 ofthemby insultingme.“We pass over”(you say)“names brought in to swell the number, such as Euthalius,—for whom no reference is given.”997Do 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 asEuthalius”! You had evidently forgotten when you penned that offensive sentence, thatEuthaliusis one of the few Fathersadduced by yourself998(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 references999without thought or verification,—prudently to abstain from dropping[pg 461]a hint how you came by them,—but to use them like dummies, for show. At the end of a few years, (naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,—and proceed vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your way, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in the same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet tingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references areneverobtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that elsewhere they are not to be met with. But waiving this, you have made itluce clariusto all the world that so late as the year 1882, toyou“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 isa.d.458,) is one with which no Author of a“CriticalCommentary”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 on1Tim.iii. 16.”Turn also, if you please, to theBibliothecaof Gallandius (vol. x. 197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact that theonlyreason 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 toDionysius Of Alexandria.Six other primitive witnesses to1 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 byDionysius of Alexandria(a.d.264) to Paul of Samosata. That the long and[pg 462]interesting composition in question1000was 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 bysomebody:1001that 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 leastsix other primitive witnesses,someof 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 placein 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 Epistlead Diognetum1003clearly refers to it early in the IInd century;[pg 463]though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I cannot feel surprised at the circumstance.The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1)Ignatius(three in number)arehelpful, 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.1004It 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)Barnabashas 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 thatChristisGod, 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 Photius1008),—καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.—Further, (5) in theApostolical Constitutions, we meet with the expression,—Θεὸς Κύριος ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν εν σαρκί.1009[pg 464]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 ourLord 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 ourSaviour'swork for His Church in ancient days,)—viz.“After all these, at the end of the day, αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός:”1010—whowill 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 notbuildupon such foundations. Let me go on with what is indisputable.[k]The testimony ofCyril of Alexandria.Next, forCyril of Alexandria, whom you decline to accept as a witness for Θεός. You are prepared, I trust, to submit to the logic offacts?In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that ourLordis very and eternalGod.1011His 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 inChristasGod;”and when he comes to 1 Timothy,he quotesiii. 16at length;[pg 465]reasons upon it, and points out that Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί is here spoken of.1012There 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 againquoted at length withΘεός,—followed by the remark that“our Nature was justified, byGodmanifested in Him.”1014I really see not how you would have Cyril more distinctly recognize Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί as the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.1015You 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 thecontextrenders 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. 16in extenso.1016“If”(he begins)—“the Word, beingGod, could be said to inhabit[pg 466]Man's nature (ἐπανθρωπῆσαι) without yet ceasing to beGod, but remained for ever what He was before,—then, great indeed is the mystery of Godliness.”1017He proceeds in the same strain at much length.1018Next (2) the same place of Timothy is just as fully quoted in Cyril'sExplanatio xii. capitum: where not only the Thesis,1019but also the context constrains belief that Cyril wrote Θεός:—“What then means‘was manifested in the flesh’? It means that the Word ofGodtheFatherwas made flesh.... In this way therefore we say that He was bothGodand Man.... Thus”(Cyril concludes)“is HeGodandLordof all.”1020But, 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 iscertainought not to be held to determine the reading of the passages concerning which the evidence is about evenly balanced;—whether in doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not be allowed to turn the scale;—I forbear to enquire. I take my stand on what is clear and undeniable. On the other hand you are challenged to produce a single instance in Cyril of μυστηριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη, where the reading is not equally[pg 467]balanced by μυστήριον Θεός. And (as already explained) of course it makes nothing for ὅς that Cyril should sometimes say that“the mystery”here spoken of isChristwho“was manifested in the flesh,”&c. A man with nothing else but the A. V. of the“Textus Receptus”before him might equally well saythat. See above, pages427-8.Not unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium1021which the Critics freely allege in proof that Cyril wrote ὅς (not Θεός), and whichas 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,1022Wetstein,1023Birch,1024Tischendorf,1025or even Tregelles,1026should not have seen this for themselves.The author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting on ourLord'sabsolute exemption from sin, although for our sakes He became very Man. In support of this, he quotes Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)—“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.”“S. Cyril”(he proceeds)“in the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,—‘Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit;’for He was in no way subject to our infirmities,”and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance that it is entirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose that it is any part of the Scholiast's object, in what precedes, to invite attention to so irrelevant a circumstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with ὅς instead of[pg 468]Θεός.1027As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years ago,1028the Scholiast's one object was to show how Cyril interpreted the expression“justified in the Spirit.”Altogether misleading is it to quoteonly the first line, beginning at ὅς and ending at πνεύματι, as the Criticsinvariablydo. 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,”1029in preference to any other of Cyril's writings, for a vastly different reason.1030And yetthis—(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.1031The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at ἐφανερώθη. The Latin is as follows:—“Divinus Paulusmagnum quidemaitesse mysterium pietatis. Et vere ita se res habet:manifestatus estenimin carne, cum sitDeusVerbum.”1032The supposed hostile evidence from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on.[pg 469][l]The argumente silentioconsidered.The argumente 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 ourLord.”1034Well but, neither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a Treatise expressly to prove theGodhead of theSonand of theHoly Ghost.“Grave est,”—says Tischendorf.1035No, not“grave”at all, I answer: but whether“grave”or not, thatGregory of Nyssaread Θεός in this place, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, you have been reminded already, that“ubi de DivinitateChristiagitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur.”1036Examine 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.”1037But in fact attend to the method of Athanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;1038and you will speedily convince yourself that the argumente silentiois next to valueless on occasions like the present.[pg 470]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 elsewhere1039fully 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 ourLord. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted thatChristwasGod. 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 aboutMacedonius.His testimony.
And now, we may proceed to consider theVersions.
[f]Testimony of theVersionsto the reading of1 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 witnessin favour ofὅς. 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 theVersionssay?
(a) Now, it is allowed on all hands that theLatinVersion 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”substitutedfor“quod.”Estius conjectures that“quod”isa 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 EternalWord, the second Person in the[pg 449]Trinity, isdesignatedby 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 theVulgate. 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 Jeromefoundin ancient Greek MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.
(c) Next, for theSyriac(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 thepossibilityof 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 thePhiloxenian, or rather theHarkleianVersion (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)ofGod, who-was-manifested(masculine)in the flesh.’The marginal addition [ܗܘ before ܕܐܬܓܠܝ (or ܘܗ before ܝܠܓܬܐܕ)] makes the reference toGodall the plainer.”973See 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.974It not only witnessesagainstyou, (for the Latin and the Peschito dothat,) but, as I have shown you, it is a witness onmyside.
(e) and (f). Next, for the Versions ofLowerandUpper 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.”975But 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 dutyforthe 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, ifthe relativemay be masculine, why notthe articlealso? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) relative by ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar passage where a neuter noun (e.g.πνεῦμα or σῶμα) has gone before.In this particular case, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek,[pg 452]would ever dream of writing anything else but τὸ μυστήριον ὅ.”976And now I trust I have made it plain to you thatyou are mistakenin your statement (p. 69),—that“Ὅς issupported by the two Egyptian Versions.”It is supported byneither. 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, thatGod'sTruth is to be established.
(g) As for theGothicVersion,—dissatisfied with the verdict of De Gabelentz and Loebe,978I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the way is preservedthe only known copyof 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.979The Gothic therefore must be considered to[pg 453]witness to the (more than) extraordinary combination;—μέγΑΣ ... μυστήριον ... ὍΣ. (See the footnote 4 p.452.)
I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from that distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania.“But”(he adds)“the reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the notes to his edition,980at 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 singlescarcely legible copyof a Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:—while certainly“magnusest pietatis sacramentum,quimanifestatusest in corpore”—is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to accept.
(h) For theÆthiopic. 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)“TheArmenianVersion,”(writes Dr. Malan)“from the very nature of the language, is indeterminate. There isno grammatical distinction of gendersin Armenian.”
(j) TheArabicVersion, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu981informs me,)[pg 454]exhibits,—“Intruth 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 theGeorgianVersion, which is of the VIth century,—and theSlavonic, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr. Malan informs me)unequivocally witness toΘεός.
Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancientManuscriptsandVersionsof 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 whichyoucontend, (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 theHarkleian, theGeorgian, and theSlavonicVersions outweighs the single evidence of theGothic.
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 of125to1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp.445-6,) such multitudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us. At[pg 455]p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a“lesson of primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten,ponderari debere testes, non numerari.”You might have added with advantage,—“and oftenest of all, misunderstood.”For are you not aware that, generally speaking,“Number”constitutes“Weight”? If you have discovered some“regia via”which renders the general consent ofCopies,—the general consent ofVersions,—the general consent ofFathers, 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 betweena.d.250 anda.d.350.982Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what follows? Thatat a period antecedent to the date of any existing copyof 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 (thePatristic) remains to be explored; after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present Dissertation.
[h]Testimony of theFathersconcerning the true reading of1Tim.iii. 16:—Gregory of Nyssa,—Didymus,—Theodoret,—John Damascene,—Chrysostom,—Gregory Naz.,—Severus Of Antioch,—Diodorus of Tarsus.
It only remains to ascertain what theFathershave to say on this subject. And when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a mass of evidence which effectually[pg 456]closes this discussion. You contended just now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codexa, as if its witness were a point of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show thatGregory of Nyssa(a full century before Codexawas produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading but Θεός.983Of 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 thatDidymus,984another illustrious witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.
You are also aware thatTheodoret,985infourplaces, is certainly to be reckoned on the same side:
And further, thatJohn Damascene986twiceadds his famous evidence to the rest,—and is also against you.
Chrysostom987again, 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 isthreetimes a witness.
Next come two quotations fromGregory of Nazianzus,—which I observe you treat as“inconclusive.”I retain them all the same.988You 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 thana.d.350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,)—the titlebestowed, in the way of summary, on that portion of S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy which is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,—viz., Περὶ[pg 458]ΘΕΊΑΣ ΣΑΡΚώσεως. We commonly speak of this as the seventh of the“Euthalian”κεφάλαια or chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were“devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;”989and 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.991That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ΣΑΡΚΊ no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover that Θεός992must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16 throughout the century which witnessed the production of codicesband 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 theGodhead ofChrist(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 ofDiodorus of Tarsus; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul's[pg 459]actual words (Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), and expressly says that he finds them inS. Paul's Epistle to Timothy?994How—may I be permitted to ask—would you have a quotation made plainer?
[i]Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case ofEuthalius.
Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that theanimusyou 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 diedseverally about 394, 396, 457 and 756a.d.)seemunquestionably to have read Θεός.”996Excuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of theunequivocalevidence 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 arein articulo mortis? Didymusdiedina.d.394, to be[pg 460]sure: but he was then 85 years of age. He was therefore born ina.d.309, and is said to have flourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had employedtill then? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong tothe 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 ofthemby insultingme.“We pass over”(you say)“names brought in to swell the number, such as Euthalius,—for whom no reference is given.”997Do 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 asEuthalius”! You had evidently forgotten when you penned that offensive sentence, thatEuthaliusis one of the few Fathersadduced by yourself998(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 references999without thought or verification,—prudently to abstain from dropping[pg 461]a hint how you came by them,—but to use them like dummies, for show. At the end of a few years, (naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,—and proceed vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your way, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in the same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet tingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references areneverobtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that elsewhere they are not to be met with. But waiving this, you have made itluce clariusto all the world that so late as the year 1882, toyou“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 isa.d.458,) is one with which no Author of a“CriticalCommentary”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 on1Tim.iii. 16.”Turn also, if you please, to theBibliothecaof Gallandius (vol. x. 197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact that theonlyreason 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 toDionysius Of Alexandria.Six other primitive witnesses to1 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 byDionysius of Alexandria(a.d.264) to Paul of Samosata. That the long and[pg 462]interesting composition in question1000was 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 bysomebody:1001that 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 leastsix other primitive witnesses,someof 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 placein 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 Epistlead Diognetum1003clearly refers to it early in the IInd century;[pg 463]though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I cannot feel surprised at the circumstance.
The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1)Ignatius(three in number)arehelpful, 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.1004It 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)Barnabashas 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 thatChristisGod, 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 Photius1008),—καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.—Further, (5) in theApostolical 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 ourLord 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 ourSaviour'swork for His Church in ancient days,)—viz.“After all these, at the end of the day, αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός:”1010—whowill 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 notbuildupon such foundations. Let me go on with what is indisputable.
[k]The testimony ofCyril of Alexandria.
Next, forCyril of Alexandria, whom you decline to accept as a witness for Θεός. You are prepared, I trust, to submit to the logic offacts?
In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that ourLordis very and eternalGod.1011His 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 inChristasGod;”and when he comes to 1 Timothy,he quotesiii. 16at length;[pg 465]reasons upon it, and points out that Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί is here spoken of.1012There 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 againquoted at length withΘεός,—followed by the remark that“our Nature was justified, byGodmanifested in Him.”1014I 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 thecontextrenders 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. 16in extenso.1016“If”(he begins)—“the Word, beingGod, could be said to inhabit[pg 466]Man's nature (ἐπανθρωπῆσαι) without yet ceasing to beGod, but remained for ever what He was before,—then, great indeed is the mystery of Godliness.”1017He proceeds in the same strain at much length.1018Next (2) the same place of Timothy is just as fully quoted in Cyril'sExplanatio xii. capitum: where not only the Thesis,1019but also the context constrains belief that Cyril wrote Θεός:—“What then means‘was manifested in the flesh’? It means that the Word ofGodtheFatherwas made flesh.... In this way therefore we say that He was bothGodand Man.... Thus”(Cyril concludes)“is HeGodandLordof 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 iscertainought not to be held to determine the reading of the passages concerning which the evidence is about evenly balanced;—whether in doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not be allowed to turn the scale;—I forbear to enquire. I take my stand on what is clear and undeniable. On the other hand you are challenged to produce a single instance in Cyril of μυστηριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη, where the reading is not equally[pg 467]balanced by μυστήριον Θεός. And (as already explained) of course it makes nothing for ὅς that Cyril should sometimes say that“the mystery”here spoken of isChristwho“was manifested in the flesh,”&c. A man with nothing else but the A. V. of the“Textus Receptus”before him might equally well saythat. See above, pages427-8.
Not unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium1021which the Critics freely allege in proof that Cyril wrote ὅς (not Θεός), and whichas 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,1022Wetstein,1023Birch,1024Tischendorf,1025or even Tregelles,1026should not have seen this for themselves.
The author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting on ourLord'sabsolute exemption from sin, although for our sakes He became very Man. In support of this, he quotes Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)—“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.”“S. Cyril”(he proceeds)“in the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,—‘Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit;’for He was in no way subject to our infirmities,”and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance that it is entirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose that it is any part of the Scholiast's object, in what precedes, to invite attention to so irrelevant a circumstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with ὅς instead of[pg 468]Θεός.1027As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years ago,1028the Scholiast's one object was to show how Cyril interpreted the expression“justified in the Spirit.”Altogether misleading is it to quoteonly the first line, beginning at ὅς and ending at πνεύματι, as the Criticsinvariablydo. 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,”1029in preference to any other of Cyril's writings, for a vastly different reason.1030And yetthis—(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.1031The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at ἐφανερώθη. The Latin is as follows:—“Divinus Paulusmagnum quidemaitesse mysterium pietatis. Et vere ita se res habet:manifestatus estenimin carne, cum sitDeusVerbum.”1032The supposed hostile evidence from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on.
[l]The argumente silentioconsidered.
The argumente 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 ourLord.”1034Well but, neither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a Treatise expressly to prove theGodhead of theSonand of theHoly Ghost.“Grave est,”—says Tischendorf.1035No, not“grave”at all, I answer: but whether“grave”or not, thatGregory of Nyssaread Θεός in this place, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, you have been reminded already, that“ubi de DivinitateChristiagitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur.”1036Examine 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.”1037But in fact attend to the method of Athanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;1038and you will speedily convince yourself that the argumente silentiois 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 elsewhere1039fully 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 ourLord. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted thatChristwasGod. 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 aboutMacedonius.His testimony.