Next, for the cursive Copies. You claim without enquiry,-and _only because you find that men have claimed them before you_,-Nos. 17, 73, 181, as witnesses for ??. Will you permit me to point out that no progress will ever be made in these studies so long as "professed Critics" will persevere in the evil practice of transcribing one another's references, and thus appropriating one another's blunders?

About the reading of "Paul 17," (the notorious "33" of the Gospels,) there is indeed no doubt.-Mindful however of President Routh's advice to me always "to verify my references,"-concerning "Paul 73" I wrote a letter of enquiry to Upsala (July 28, 1879), and for all answer (Sept. 6th) received a beautiful tracing of what my correspondent called the "1 Thim. iii. 16 _paraphe_." It proved to be an abridged exhibition of 21 lines of c.u.menius. I instantly wrote to enquire whether this was really all that the codex in question has to say to 1 Tim. iii. 16? but to this I received no reply. I presumed therefore that I had got to the bottom of the business. But in July 1882, I addressed a fresh enquiry to Dr. Belsheim of Christiania, and got his answer last October. By that time he had visited Upsala: had verified for me readings in other MSS., and reported that the reading here is ??. I instantly wrote to enquire whether he had seen the word with his own eyes? He replied that he desired to look further into _this_ matter on some future occasion,-the MS. in question being (he says) a difficult one to handle. I am still awaiting his final report, which he promises to send me when next he visits Upsala. ("Aurivillius" says nothing about it.) Let "Paul 73" in the meantime stand with a note of interrogation, or how you will.

About "Paul 181," (which Scholz describes as "vi. 36" in the Laurentian library at Florence,) I take leave to repeat (in a foot-note) what (in a letter to Dr. Scrivener) I explained in the "Guardian" ten years ago.(965) In consequence however of your discourteous remarks (which you will be gratified to find quoted at foot,(966)) I have written (not for the first time) to the learned custos of the Laurentian library on the subject; stating the entire case and reminding him of my pertinacity in 1871. He replies,-"Scholz fallitur huic bibliothecae tribuendo codicem sign. 'plut.

vi. n. 36.' Nec est in praesenti, nec fuit antea, neque exstat in alia bibliotheca apud nos."... On a review of what goes before, I submit that one who has taken so much pains with the subject does not deserve to be flouted as I find myself flouted by the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol,-who has not been at the pains to verify _one single point_ in this entire controversy for himself.

_Every other known copy of S. Paul's Epistles_, (written in the cursive character,) I have ascertained (by laborious correspondence with the chiefs of foreign libraries) concurs in exhibiting Te?? ?fa?e???? ??

sa???. The importance of this testimony ought to be supremely evident to yourself who contend so strenuously for the support of Paul 73 and 181.

But because, in my judgment, this practical unanimity of the ma.n.u.scripts is not only "important" but _conclusive_, I shall presently recur to it (viz. at pages 494-5,) more in detail. For do but consider that these copies were one and all derived from yet older MSS. than themselves; and that the remote originals of those older MSS. were perforce of higher antiquity still, and were executed in every part of primitive Christendom.

How is it credible that they should, one and all, conspire to mislead? I cannot in fact express better than Dr. Berriman did 140 years ago, the logical result of such a concord of the copies:-"From whence can it be supposed that this general, I may say this universal consent of the Greek MSS. should arise, but from hence,-That Te?? is the genuine original reading of this Text?" (p. 325.)

In the meantime, you owe me a debt of grat.i.tude: for, in the course of an enquiry which I have endeavoured to make exhaustive, I have discovered _three_ specimens of the book called "_Apostolus_," or "_Praxapostolus_"

(_i.e._ Lections from the Epistles and Acts) which also exhibit ?? in this place. One of these is Reg. 375 (our "Apost. 12") in the French collection, a _Western_ codex, dated A.D. 1022.(967) The story of the discovery of the other two (to be numbered "Praxapost." 85, 86,) is interesting, and will enliven this dull page.

At Tusculum, near Rome,-(the locality which Cicero rendered ill.u.s.trious, and where he loved to reside surrounded by his books,)-was founded early in the XIth century a Christian library which in process of time became exceedingly famous. It retains, in fact, its ancient reputation to this day. Nilus "Rossanensis" it was, who, driven with his monks from Calabria by invading hordes, established in A.D. 1004 a monastery at Tusculum, to which either he, or his successors, gave the name of "Crypta Ferrata." It became the headquarters of the Basilian monks in the XVIIth century.

Hither habitually resorted those ill.u.s.trious men, Sirletus, Mabillon, Zacagni, Ciampini, Montfaucon,-and more lately Mai and Dom Pitra. To Signor Cozza-Luzi, the present learned and enlightened chief of the Vatican library, (who is himself "Abbas Monachorum Basiliensium Cryptae Ferratae,") I am indebted for my copy of the Catalogue (now in process of publication(968)) of the extraordinary collection of MSS. belonging to the society over which he presides.

In consequence of the information which the Abbate Cozza-Luzi sent me, I put myself in communication with the learned librarian of the monastery, the "Hieromonachus" D. Antonio Rocchi, (author of the Catalogue in question,) whom I cannot sufficiently thank for his courtesy and kindness.

The sum of the matter is briefly this:-There are still preserved in the library of the Basilian monks of Crypta Ferrata,-(notwithstanding that many of its ancient treasures have found their way into other repositories,(969))-4 ma.n.u.scripts of S. Paul's Epistles, which I number 290, -1, -2, -3: and 7 copies of the book called "Praxapostolus," which I number 83, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9. Of these eleven, 3 are defective hereabouts: 5 read Te??: 2 (Praxapost.) exhibit ??; and 1 (Apost. 83) contains an only not unique reading, to be mentioned at p. 478.

Hieromonachus Rocchi furnishes me with references besides to 3 Liturgical Codices out of a total of 22, (?p?st???e?a?????a), which also exhibit Te??.(970) I number them Apost. 106, 108, 110.

And now, we may proceed to consider the VERSIONS.

[f] _Testimony of the_ VERSIONS _to the reading of_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

"Turning to the ancient Versions" (you a.s.sert) "we find them almost unanimous against Te??" (p. 65). But your business, my lord Bishop, was to show that some of them witness _in favour of_ ??. If you cannot show that several ancient Versions,-besides a fair proportion of ancient Fathers,-are clearly on your side, your contention is unreasonable as well as hopeless. What then do the VERSIONS say?

(_a_) Now, it is allowed on all hands that the LATIN Version was made from copies which must have exhibited ?st????? ? ?fa?e????. 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" subst.i.tuted _for_ "quod." Estius conjectures that "quod" _is_ a conjunction in this place. But in fact the reasoning of the Latin Fathers is observed invariably to proceed as if they had found nothing else but "DEUS" in the text before them. They bravely a.s.sume that the Eternal WORD, the second Person in the Trinity, is _designated_ by the expression "_magnum pietatis sacramentum_."

(_b_) It is, I admit, a striking circ.u.mstance that such a mistake as this in the old Latin should have been retained in the VULGATE. But if you ever study this subject with attention, you will find that Jerome,-although no doubt he "professedly corrected the old Latin Version by the help of ancient Greek ma.n.u.scripts," (p. 69,)-on many occasions retains readings which it is nevertheless demonstrable that he individually disapproved. No certain inference therefore as to what Jerome _found_ in ancient Greek MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.

(_c_) Next, for the _Syriac_ (PESCHITO) Version. I beg to subjoin the view of the late loved and lamented P. E. Pusey,-the editor of Cyril, and who at the time of his death was engaged in re-editing the Peschito. He says,-"In 1 Tim. iii. 16, the Syriac has '_qui manifestatus est_.' The relative is indeterminate, but the verb is not. In Syriac however ?st????? is masculine; and thus, the natural way would be to take ?st????? 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 ?? in the Greek, and the _possibility_ of its affecting the translation into Syriac. But the Peschito is so really a translation into good Syriac, (not into word-for-word Syriac,) that if the translator had wanted to express the Greek ??, in so difficult a pa.s.sage, _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 ??.

(_d_) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in the PHILOXENIAN, or rather the HARKLEIAN Version (VIIth cent.), concerning which I have had recourse to the learned Editor of that Version. He writes:-"There can be no doubt that the authors of this Version had either Te?? or Te?? before them: while their marginal note shows that they were aware of the reading ??. They exhibit,-'_Great is the mystery of the goodness of the fear_ (feminine) _of _G.o.d_, who-was-manifested_ (masculine) _in the flesh_.' The marginal addition [?? before ?????? (or ?? before ??????)] makes the reference to G.o.d all the plainer."(973) See more below, at p. 489.

Now this introduction of the word Te?? into the text, however inartistic it may seem to you and to me, is a fatal circ.u.mstance 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 circ.u.mstance which const.i.tuted the greatness of the mystery: viz. G.o.d 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 ??.(974) It not only witnesses _against_ you, (for the Latin and the Peschito do _that_,) but, as I have shown you, it is a witness on _my_ side.

(_e_) and (_f_). Next, for the Versions of LOWER and UPPER EGYPT.

"We are content" (you say) to "refer our readers to Tischendorf and Tregelles, who unhesitatingly claim the Memphitic [or Coptic] and the Thebaic [or Sahidic] for ??."(975) But surely, in a matter of this kind, my lord Bishop-(I mean, when we are discussing some nicety of a language of which personally we know absolutely nothing,)-we may never "be content to refer our readers" to individuals who are every bit as ignorant of the matter as ourselves. Rather should we be at the pains to obtain for those whom we propose to instruct the deliberate verdict of those who have made the subject their special study. Dr. Malan (who must be heartily sick of me by this time), in reply to my repeated enquiries, a.s.sures me that in Coptic and in Sahidic alike, "the relative p.r.o.noun always takes the gender of the Greek antecedent. But, inasmuch as there is properly speaking no neuter in either language, the masculine does duty _for_ the neuter; the gender of the definite article and relative p.r.o.noun being determined by the gender of the word referred to. Thus, in S. John xv. 26, the Coptic '_pi_' and '_phe_' respectively represent the definite article and the relative, alike in the expression ? ?a?????t?? ??, and in the expression t? ??e?a ?: and so throughout. In 1 Tim. iii. 16, therefore, '_pi musterion phe_,' must perforce be rendered, t? ?st????? ?:-not, surely, ?

?st????? ??. And yet, if _the relative_ may be masculine, why not _the article_ also? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) relative by ?? in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar pa.s.sage where a neuter noun (_e.g._ p?e?a or s?a) has gone before. _In this particular case_, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek, would ever dream of writing anything else but t? ?st????? ?."(976) And now I trust I have made it plain to you that _you are mistaken_ in your statement (p.

69),-that "?? is _supported by the two Egyptian Versions_." It is supported by _neither_. You have been shown that they both witness against you. You will therefore not be astonished to hear me again declare that I am at a loss to understand how you can cite the "Philoxenian, _Coptic and Sahidic_,"(977)-as witnesses on your side. It is not in this way, my lord Bishop, that G.o.d'S Truth is to be established.

(_g_) As for the GOTHIC Version,-dissatisfied with the verdict of De Gabelentz and Loebe,(978) I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the way is preserved _the only known copy_ of Ulphilas for 1 Tim. iii. 16. He inclines to the opinion that "_saei_" is to be read,-the rather, because Andreas Uppstrom, the recent editor of the codex, a diligent and able scholar, has decided in favour of that "_obscure_" reading.(979) The Gothic therefore must be considered to witness to the (more than) extraordinary combination;-???S ... ?st????? ... ?S. (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. Ma.s.smann, in the notes to his edition,(980) at page 657, says,-'_saei_ [qui] is altogether obliterated.' "-In claiming the Gothic therefore as a witness for ??, you will (I trust) agree with me that a single _scarcely legible copy_ of a Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:-while certainly "_magnus_ est pietatis sacramentum, _qui_ manifestat_us_ est in corpore"-is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to accept.

(_h_) For the aeTHIOPIC. Version,-Dr. h.o.e.rning, (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 aethiopic must therefore be considered to favour the reading ?st?????; ? ?fa?e????, and to represent the same Greek text which underlies the Latin and the Peschito Versions. The aethiopic therefore is against you.

(_i_) "The ARMENIAN Version," (writes Dr. Malan) "from the very nature of the language, is indeterminate. There is _no grammatical distinction of genders_ in Armenian."

(_j_) The ARABIC Version, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu(981) informs me,) exhibits,-"In _truth the mystery of this justice is great. It is that he_" (or "_it_,"

for the Arabic has no distinction between masculine and neuter) "_was manifested in the body, and was justified in the spirit_" &c.-This version therefore witnesses for neither "who," "which," nor "G.o.d."

(_k_) and (_l_). There only remain the GEORGIAN Version, which is of the VIth century,-and the SLAVONIC, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr. Malan informs me) _unequivocally witness to_ Te??.

Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancient Ma.n.u.sCRIPTS and VERSIONS of S. Paul's Epistles.

[_g_] _Review of the progress which has been hitherto made in the present Enquiry._

Up to this point, you must admit that wondrous little sanction has been obtained for the reading for which _you_ contend, (viz. ?st?????; ??

?fa?e????,) as the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Undisturbed in your enjoyment of the testimony borne by Cod. ?, you cannot but feel that such testimony is fully counterbalanced by the witness of Cod. A: and further, that the conjoined evidence of the HARKLEIAN, the GEORGIAN, and the SLAVONIC Versions outweighs the single evidence of the GOTHIC.

But what is to be said about the consent of the ma.n.u.scripts of S. Paul's Epistles for reading Te?? in this place, _in the proportion of_ 125 _to_ 1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp. 445-6,) such mult.i.tudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us.

At p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a "lesson of primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten, _ponderari debere testes, non numerari_." You might have added with advantage,-"_and oftenest of all, misunderstood_." For are you not aware that, generally speaking, "Number" _const.i.tutes_ "Weight"? If you have discovered some "regia via" which renders the general consent of COPIES,-the general consent of VERSIONS,-the general consent of FATHERS, a consideration of secondary importance, why do you not at once communicate the precious secret to mankind, and thereby save us all a world of trouble?

You will perhaps propose to fall back on Hort's wild theory of a "_Syrian Text_,"-executed by authority at Antioch somewhere between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350.(982) Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what follows? That _at a period antecedent to the date of any existing copy_ of the Epistle before us, the Church in her corporate capacity declared Te?? (not ??) to be the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.

Only one other head of Evidence (the PATRISTIC) remains to be explored; after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present Dissertation.

[h] _Testimony of the_ FATHERS _concerning the true reading of_ 1 _Tim._ iii. 16:-GREGORY OF NYSSA,-DIDYMUS,-THEODORET,-JOHN DAMASCENE,-CHRYSOSTOM,-GREGORY NAZ.,-SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH,-DIODORUS OF TARSUS.

It only remains to ascertain what the FATHERS have to say on this subject.

And when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a ma.s.s of evidence which effectually closes this discussion. You contended just now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codex A, as if its witness were a point of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show that GREGORY OF NYSSA (a full century before Codex A was produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading but Te??.(983) Of his weighty testimony you appear to have been wholly unaware in 1869, for you did not even mention Gregory by name (see p. 429). Since however you now admit that his evidence is unequivocally against you, I am willing to hasten forward,-only supplying you (at foot) with the means of verifying what I have stated above concerning the testimony of this ill.u.s.trious Father.

You are besides aware that DIDYMUS,(984) another ill.u.s.trious witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.

You are also aware that THEODORET,(985) in _four_ places, is certainly to be reckoned on the same side:

And further, that JOHN DAMASCENE(986) _twice_ adds his famous evidence to the rest,-and is also against you.

CHRYSOSTOM(987) again, whose testimony you called in question in 1869, you now admit is another of your opponents. I will not linger over his name therefore,-except to remark, that how you can witness a gathering host of ancient Fathers ill.u.s.trious as these, without misgiving, pa.s.ses my comprehension. Chrysostom is _three_ times a witness.

Next come two quotations from GREGORY OF n.a.z.iANZUS,-which I observe you treat as "inconclusive." I retain them all the same.(988) You are reminded that this most rhetorical of Fathers is seldom more precise in quoting Scripture.

And to the same century which Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus adorned, is probably to be referred,-(it cannot possibly be later than A.D. 350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,)-THE t.i.tLE bestowed, in the way of summary, on that portion of S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy which is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,-viz., ?e?? T???S S????se??. We commonly speak of this as the seventh of the "_Euthalian_" ?ef??a?a or chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 t.i.tles were "devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;"(989) and this particular t.i.tle (?e?? ?e?a? sa???se??) is freely employed and discussed in Gregory of Nyssa's treatise against Apolinaris,(990)-which latter had, in fact, made it part of the t.i.tle of his own heretical treatise.(991) That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, T??S ?fa?e???? ?? S???? no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover that Te??(992) must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16 throughout the century which witnessed the production of codices B and ?.

SEVERUS, BP. OF ANTIOCH, you also consider a "not unambiguous" witness. I venture to point out to you that when a Father of the Church, who has been already insisting on the G.o.dhead of CHRIST (?a?? ? ??? ?p???e Te??,) goes on to speak of Him as t?? ?? sa??? fa?e?????ta Te??, there is no "ambiguity" whatever about the fact that he is quoting from 1 Tim. iii.

16.(993)

And why are we only "_perhaps_" to add the testimony of DIODORUS OF TARSUS; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul's actual words (Te??

?fa?e???? ?? sa???), and expressly says that he finds them in _S. Paul's Epistle to Timothy_?(994) How-may I be permitted to ask-would you have a quotation made plainer?

[i] _Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case of_ EUTHALIUS.