"GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF G.o.dLINESS, WHO WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT," &C.:

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

(_A_) _Preliminary explanations and cautions._

But English readers will require to have it explained to them at the outset, that inasmuch as T??S (G.o.d) is invariably written _TS_ in ma.n.u.scripts, the only difference between the word "G.o.d" and the word "_who_" (?S) consists of two horizontal strokes,-one, which distinguishes T from ?; and another similar stroke (above the letters TS) which indicates that a word has been contracted. And further, that it was the custom to trace these two horizontal lines so wondrous faintly that they sometimes actually elude observation. Throughout cod. A, in fact, the letter T is often scarcely distinguishable from the letter ?.

It requires also to be explained for the benefit of the same English reader,-(and it will do learned readers no harm to be reminded,)-that "_mystery_" (?st?????) being a neuter noun, _cannot_ be followed by the masculine p.r.o.noun (??),-"_who_." Such an expression is abhorrent alike to Grammar and to Logic,-is intolerable, in Greek as in English. By consequence, ?? ("_who_") is found to have been early exchanged for ?

("_which_"). From a copy so depraved, the Latin Version was executed in the second century. Accordingly, every known copy or quotation(922) of _the Latin_ exhibits "quod." _Greek_ authorities for this reading (?) are few enough. They have been specified already, viz. at page 100. And with this brief statement, the reading in question might have been dismissed, seeing that it has found no patron since Griesbach declared against it. It was however very hotly contended for during the last century,-Sir Isaac Newton and Wetstein being its most strenuous advocates; and it would be unfair entirely to lose sight of it now.

The two rival readings, however, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, are,-Te?? ?fa?e????

("G.o.d _was manifested_"), on the one hand; and t? t?? e?see?a? ?st?????, ?? ("_the mystery of G.o.dliness, who_"), on the other. _These_ are the two readings, I say, between whose conflicting claims we are to adjudicate.

For I request that it may be loyally admitted at the outset,-(though it has been conveniently overlooked by the Critics whom _you_ follow,)-that the expression ?? ?fa?e???? in Patristic quotations, _unless it be immediately preceded by_ the word ?st?????, is nothing to the purpose; at all events, does not prove the thing which _you_ are bent on proving.

English readers will see this at a glance. An Anglican divine,-with reference to 1 Timothy iii. 16,-may surely speak of our SAVIOUR as One "_who_ was manifested in the flesh,"-without risk of being straightway suspected of employing a copy of the English Version which exhibits "_the mystery of G.o.dliness who_." "Ex hujusmodi locis" (as Matthaei truly remarks) "nemo, nisi mente captus, in contextu sacro probabit ??."(923)

When Epiphanius therefore,-_professing to transcribe_(924) from an earlier treatise of his own(925) where ?fa?e???? stands _without a nominative_,(926) writes (if he really does write) ?? ?fa?e????,(927)-we are not at liberty to infer therefrom that Epiphanius is opposed to the reading Te??.-Still less is it lawful to draw the same inference from the Latin Version of a letter of Eutherius [A.D. 431] in which the expression "_qui manifestatus est in carne_,"(928) occurs.-Least of all should we be warranted in citing Jerome as a witness for reading ?? in this place, because (in his Commentary on Isaiah) he speaks of our SAVIOUR as One who "was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit."(929)

As for reasoning thus concerning Cyril of Alexandria, it is demonstrably inadmissible: seeing that at the least on two distinct occasions, this Father exhibits Te?? ?fa?e????. I am not unaware that in a certain place, apostrophizing the Docetae, he says,-"Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor indeed the _great mystery of G.o.dliness_, that is CHRIST, who (??) _was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit_,"(930) &c.

&c. And presently, "I consider _the mystery of G.o.dliness_ to be no other thing but the Word of G.o.d the FATHER, who (??) Himself _was manifested in the flesh_."(931) But there is nothing whatever in this to invalidate the testimony of those other places in which Te?? actually occurs. It is logically inadmissible, I mean, to set aside the places where Cyril is found actually to write Te?? ?fa?e????, because in other places he employs 1 Tim. iii. 16 less precisely; leaving it to be inferred-(which indeed is abundantly plain)-that Te?? is always his reading, from the course of his argument and from the nature of the matter in hand. But to proceed.

_(B) Bp. Ellicott invited to state the evidence for reading ?? in_ 1 Tim.

iii. 16.

[a] _"__The state of the evidence,__"__ as declared by Bp. Ellicott._

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

"The state of the evidence is briefly as follows:-

(1) ?? is read with A1 [_indisputably_; after minute personal inspection; see note, p. 104.] C1 [Tischendorf _Prol. Cod.

Ephraemi_, -- 7, p. 39.] F G ? (see below); 17, 73, 181; Syr.-Philoxenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic; also (?? or ?) Syriac, Arabic (Erpenius), aethiopic, Armenian; Cyril, Theodorus Mopsuest., Epiphanius, Gelasius, Hieronymus _in Esaiam_ liii. 11.

(2) ?, with D1 (Claromonta.n.u.s), Vulgate; nearly all Latin Fathers.

(3) Te??, with D3 K L; nearly all MSS.; Arabic (Polyglott), Slavonic; Didymus, Chrysostom (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note), Theodoret, Euthalius, Damascene, Theophylact, c.u.menius,-Ignatius _Ephes_. 29, (but very doubtful). A hand of the 12th century has prefixed ?e to ??, the reading of ?; see Tischendorf _edit.

major_, Plate xvii. of Scrivener's Collation of ?, facsimile (13).

On reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important uncial MSS., but _all_ the Versions older than the 7th century are distinctly in favour of a _relative_,-as ? seems only a Latinizing variation of ??,-and lastly, as ?? is the more difficult, though really the more intelligible, reading (Hofmann, _Schriftb._ Vol.

I. p. 143), and on every reason more likely to have been changed into Te?? (Macedonius is actually said to have been expelled for making the change, _Liberati Diaconi Breviarium_ cap. 19) than _vice versa_, we unhesitatingly decide in favour of ??."-(_Pastoral Epistles_, ed. 1869, pp. 51-2.)

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

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

[b] _Testimony of the __Ma.n.u.sCRIPTS__ concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16: _and first as to the testimony of __CODEX_ A.

You begin then with the _Ma.n.u.script_ evidence; and you venture to a.s.sert that ?S is "indisputably" the reading of Codex A. I am at a loss to understand how a "professed Critic,"-(who must be presumed to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and who is a lover of Truth,)-can permit himself to make such an a.s.sertion. Your certainty is based, you say, on "minute personal inspection." In other words, you are so good as to explain that you once tried a coa.r.s.e experiment,(933) by which you succeeded in convincing yourself that the suspected diameter of the ? is exactly coincident with the sagitta of an _epsilon_ (?) which happens to stand _on the back of the page_. But do you not see that unless you start with _this_ for your major premiss,-"_Theta_ cannot exist on one side of a page if _epsilon_ stands immediately behind it on the other side,"-your experiment is _nihil ad rem_, and proves absolutely nothing?

Your "inspection" happens however to be _inaccurate_ besides. You performed your experiment unskilfully. A man need only hold up the leaf to the light on a very brilliant day,-as Tregelles, Scrivener, and many besides (including your present correspondent) have done,-to be aware that the sagitta of the _epsilon_ on fol. 145_b_ does not cover much more than a third of the area of the _theta_ on fol. 145_a_. Dr. Scrivener further points out that it cuts the circle _too __ high_ to have been reasonably mistaken by a careful observer for the diameter of the _theta_ (T). The experiment which you describe with such circ.u.mstantial gravity was simply nugatory therefore.

How is it, my lord Bishop, that you do not perceive that the way to ascertain the reading of Codex A at 1 Tim. iii. 16, is,-(1) To investigate _not_ what is found at _the back_ of the leaf, but what is written on _the front_ of it? and (2), Not so much to enquire what can be deciphered of the original writing by the aid of a powerful lens _now_, as to ascertain what was apparent to the eye of competent observers when the Codex was first brought into this country, viz. 250 years ago? That Patrick Young, the first custodian and collator of the Codex [1628-1652], read _TS_, is certain.-Young communicated the "various Readings" of A to Abp.

Ussher:-and the latter, prior to 1653, communicated them to Hammond, who clearly knew nothing of ?S.-It is plain that _TS_ was the reading seen by Huish-when he sent his collation of the Codex (made, according to Bentley, with great exactness,(934)) to Brian Walton, who published the fifth volume of his Polyglott in 1657.-Bp. Pearson, who was very curious in such matters, says "we find not ?? _in any copy_,"-a sufficient proof how _he_ read the place in 1659.-Bp. Fell, who published an edition of the N. T. in 1675, certainly considered _TS_ the reading of Cod. A.-Mill, who was at work on the Text of the N. T. from 1677 to 1707, expressly declares that he saw the remains of _TS_ in this place.(935) Bentley, who had himself (1716) collated the MS. with the utmost accuracy ("_accuratissime ipse contuli_"), knew nothing of any other reading.-Emphatic testimony on the subject is borne by Wotton in 1718:-"There can be no doubt" (he says) "that this MS. always exhibited _TS_. Of this, _any one may easily convince himself who will be at the pains to examine the place with attention_."(936)-Two years earlier,-(we have it on the testimony of Mr.

John Creyk, of S. John's Coll., Cambridge,)-"the old line in the letter ?

was plainly to be seen."(937)-It was "much about the same time," also, (viz. about 1716) that Wetstein acknowledged to the Rev. John Kippax,-"who took it down in writing from his own mouth,-that though the middle stroke of the ? has been evidently retouched, yet the fine stroke which was originally in the body of the ? is discoverable at each end of the fuller stroke of the corrector."(938)-And Berriman himself, (who delivered a course of Lectures on the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, in 1737-8,) attests emphatically that he had seen it also. "_If therefore_" (he adds) "_at any time hereafter the old line should become altogether undiscoverable, there will never be just cause to doubt but that the genuine, and original reading of the MS. was_ _TS_: and that the new strokes, added at the top and in the middle by the corrector were not designed to corrupt and falsify, but to preserve and perpetuate the true reading, which was in danger of being lost by the decay of Time."(939)-Those memorable words (which I respectfully commend to your notice) were written in A.D. 1741. How _you_ (A.D. 1882), after surveying all this acc.u.mulated and consistent testimony (borne A.D. 1628 to A.D.

1741) by eye-witnesses as competent to observe a fact of this kind as yourself; and fully as deserving of credit, when they solemnly declare what they have seen:-how _you_, I say, after a survey of this evidence, can gravely sit down and inform the world that "_there is no sufficient evidence that there was ever a time when this reading was patent as the reading which came from the original scribe_" (p. 72):-_this_ pa.s.ses my comprehension.-It shall only be added that Bengel, who was a very careful enquirer, had already cited the Codex Alexandrinus as a witness for Te??

in 1734:(940)-and that Woide, the learned and conscientious editor of the Codex, declares that so late as 1765 he had seen traces of the ? which twenty years later (viz. in 1785) were visible to him no longer.(941)

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

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

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

[c] _Testimony of_ CODICES ? _and_ C _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

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

[d] _Testimony of_ CODICES F _and_ G _of S. Paul, concerning_ 1 Tim. iii.

16.

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

F and G then are confessedly independent copies of one and the same archetype: and "both F and G" (you say) "exhibit _?S_."(952) Be it so. The question arises,-What does the stroke above the _?S_ signify? I venture to believe that these two codices represent a copy which originally exhibited _TS_, but from which the diameter of the T had disappeared-(as very often is the case in codex A)-through tract of time. The effect of this would be that F and G are in reality witnesses for Te??. Not so, you say. _That_ slanting stroke represents the aspirate, and proves that these two codices are witnesses for ??.(953) Let us look a little more closely into this matter.

Here are two doc.u.ments, of which it has been said that they "were separately derived from some early codex, in which there was probably no interval between the words."(954) They were _not immediately_ derived from such a codex, I remark: it being quite incredible that two independent copyists could have hit on the same extravagantly absurd way of dividing the uncial letters.(955) The common archetype which both employed must have been the work of a late Western scribe every bit as licentious and as unacquainted with Greek as themselves.(956) _That_ archetype however may very well have been obtained from a primitive codex of the kind first supposed, in which the words were written continuously, as in codex B.

Such Ma.n.u.scripts were furnished with neither breathings nor accents: accordingly, "of the ordinary breathings or accents there are no traces"(957) in either F or G.

But then, cod. F occasionally,-G much oftener,-exhibits a little straight stroke, nearly horizontal, over the initial vowel of certain words. Some have supposed that this was designed to represent the aspirate: but it is not so. The proof is, that it is found _consistently_ introduced over the same vowels _in the interlinear Latin_. Thus, the Latin preposition "a"

_always_ has the slanting stroke above it:(958) and the Latin interjection "o" is furnished with the same appendage,-alike in the Gospels and in the Epistles.(959) This observation evacuates the supposed significance of the few instances where ? is written _?_:(960) as well as of the much fewer places where ? or ? are written _?_:(961) especially when account is taken of the many hundred occasions, (often in rapid succession,) when nothing at all is to be seen above the "?."(962) As for the fact that ??a is always written _?_?? (or ???),-let it only be noted that besides ?d?e?, ?????, ?s?????, &c., ?a????, ??a????, ???da?, &c., (which are all distinguished in the same way,)-_Latin words also beginning with an_ "I"

are similarly adorned,-and we become convinced that the little stroke in question is to be explained on some entirely different principle. At last, we discover (from the example of "si," "sic," "etsi," "servitus,"

"saeculis," "idolis," &c.) that the supposed sign of the rough breathing _is nothing else but an ancient subst.i.tute for the modern dot over the _"I."-We may now return to the case actually before us.

It has been pointed out that the line above the ?S in both F and G "is not horizontal, but rises a little towards the right." I beg to call attention to the fact that there are 38 instances of the slight super-imposed "line"

here spoken of, in the page of cod. F where the reading under discussion appears: 7 in the Greek, 31 in the Latin. In the corresponding page of cod. G, the instances are 44: 8 in the Greek, 36 in the Latin.(963) These short horizontal strokes (they can hardly be called _lines_) generally-not by any means always-slant upwards; and _they are invariably the sign of contraction_.

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

_The sign of contraction_, I answer: seeing that whereas there are, in the page before us, 9 aspirated, and (including _?S_) 8 contracted Greek words, not one of those _nine_ aspirated words has _any mark at all_ above its initial letter; while every one of the _eight_ contracted words is duly furnished with the symbol of contraction. I further submit that inasmuch as ?? is _nowhere_ else written _?S_ in either codex, it is unreasonable to a.s.sume that it is so written in this place. Now, that almost every codex in the world reads _TS_ in 1 Tim. iii. 16,-is a plain fact; and that _?S_ (in verse 16) _would be_ Te?? if the delicate horizontal stroke which distinguishes T from ?, were not away,-no one denies. Surely, therefore, the only thing which remains to be enquired after, is,-Are there _any other_ such subst.i.tutions of one letter for another discoverable in these two codices? And it is notorious that instances of the phenomenon abound. The letters S, ?, ?, T are confused throughout.(964) And what else are ?????????S for pe?????te? (Matth. v.

4),-?????O???? for e???????t? (Luc. xvii. 16),-???????? for ?ata??? (xix.

6),-but instances of the _self-same mistake_ which (as I contend) has in this place turned _TS_ into _?S_?

My lord Bishop, I have submitted to all this painful drudgery, not, you may be sure, without a sufficient reason. _Never any more must we hear of _"breathings"_ in connexion with codices_ F _and_ G. The stroke above the ?S in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has been proved to be _probably the sign of contraction_. I forbear, of course, to insist that the two codices are witnesses _on my side_. I require that you, in the same spirit of fairness, will abstain from claiming them as certainly witnessing _on yours_. The Vth-century codex C, and the IXth-century codex F-G must be regarded as equivocal in the testimony they render, and are therefore not to be reckoned to either of the contending parties.

These are many words about the two singularly corrupt IXth-century doc.u.ments, concerning which so much has been written already. But I sincerely desire,-(and so I trust do you, as a Christian Bishop,)-to see the end of a controversy which those only have any right to re-open (_pace tua dixerim_) who have _something new to offer on the subject_: and certain it is that the bearing of F and G on this matter has never before been fully stated. I dismiss those two codices with the trite remark that they are, at all events, but one codex: and that against them are to be set K L P,-_the only uncials which remain_; for D (of "Paul") exhibits ?, and the Vatican codex B no longer serves us.

[fe] _Testimony of the_ CURSIVE COPIES: _and specially of_ "Paul 17," "73"

_and_ "181," _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.