Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that the _animus_ you display in conducting the present critical disquisition not only astonishes, but even shocks me. You seem to say,-_Non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris_. The plainest testimony you reckon doubtful, if it goes against you: an unsatisfactory quotation, if it makes for your side, you roundly declare to be "evidence" which "stands the test of examination."(995)... "We have examined his references carefully" (you say). "Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus of Alexandria, Theodoret and John Damascene (_who died_ severally about 394, 396, 457 and 756A.D.) _seem_ unquestionably to have read Te??."(996) Excuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of the _unequivocal_ evidence borne by these four ill.u.s.trious Fathers:-your attempt to detract from the importance of their testimony by s.c.r.e.w.i.n.g down their date "to the sticking place:"-your a.s.sertion that the testimony of a fifth Father "_is not unambiguous_:"-your insinuation that the emphatic witness of a sixth may "_perhaps_" be inadmissible:-all this kind of thing is not only quite unworthy of a Bishop when he turns disputant, but effectually indisposes his opponent to receive his argumentation with that respectful deference which else would have been undoubtedly its due.

Need I remind you that men do not write their books when they are _in articulo mortis_? Didymus _died_ in A.D. 394, to be sure: but he was then 85 years of age. He was therefore born in A.D. 309, and is said to have flourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had employed _till then_? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong to _the first quarter of the IVth century_?-is more ancient in short (and infinitely more important) than that of any written codex with which we are acquainted?

Pressed by my "cloud of witnesses," you seek to get rid of _them_ by insulting _me_. "We pa.s.s over" (you say) "_names brought in to swell the number, such as Euthalius_,-_for whom no reference is given_."(997) Do you then suspect me of the baseness,-nay, do you mean seriously to impute it to me,-of introducing "names" "to swell the number" of witnesses on my side? Do you mean further to insinuate that I prudently gave no reference in the case of "Euthalius," because I was unable to specify any place where his testimony is found?... I should really pause for an answer, but that a trifling circ.u.mstance solicits me, which, if it does not entertain the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol, will certainly entertain every one else who takes the trouble to read these pages.

"Such as _Euthalius_"! You had evidently forgotten when you penned that offensive sentence, that EUTHALIUS is one of the few Fathers _adduced by yourself_(998) (but for whom you "gave no reference,") in 1869,-when you were setting down the Patristic evidence in favour of Te??.... This little incident is really in a high degree suggestive. Your practice has evidently been to appropriate Patristic references(999) without thought or verification,-prudently to abstain from dropping a hint how you came by them,-but to use them like dummies, for show. At the end of a few years, (naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circ.u.mstance,-and proceed vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your way, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in the same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet tingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references are _never_ obtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that elsewhere they are not to be met with. But waiving this, you have made it _luce clarius_ to all the world that so late as the year 1882, to _you_ "Euthalius" was nothing else but "a name." And this really does astonish me: for not only was he a famous Ecclesiastical personage, (a Bishop like yourself,) but his work (the date of which is A.D. 458,) is one with which no Author of a "_Critical_ Commentary" on S. Paul's Epistles can afford to be unacquainted. Pray read what Berriman has written concerning Euthalius (pp. 217 to 222) in his admirable "_Dissertation on_ 1 _Tim._ iii. 16."

Turn also, if you please, to the _Bibliotheca_ of Gallandius (vol. x.

197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact that the _only_ reason why, in the "Quarterly Review," "no reference is given for Euthalius," is because the only reference possible is-1 Tim. iii. 16.

[j] _The testimony of the letter ascribed to_ DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA.

_Six other primitive witnesses to_ 1 Tim. iii. 16, _specified_.

Then further, you absolutely take no notice of the remarkable testimony which I adduced (p. 101) from a famous Epistle purporting to have been addressed by DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 264) to Paul of Samosata. That the long and interesting composition in question(1000) was not actually the work of the great Dionysius, is inferred-(whether rightly or wrongly I am not concerned to enquire)-from the fact that the Antiochian Fathers say expressly that Dionysius did not deign to address Paul personally. But you are requested to remember that the epistle must needs have been written by _somebody_:(1001) that it may safely be referred to the IIIrd century; and that it certainly witnesses to Te?? ?fa?e????,(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 circ.u.mstance that there are at least SIX OTHER PRIMITIVE WITNESSES, _some_ of whom must needs have recognized the reading for which I am here contending, (viz. Te??

?fa?e???? ?? sa???,) though not one of them quotes the place _in extenso_, nor indeed refers to it in such a way as effectually to bar the door against reasonable dispute. The present is in fact just the kind of text which, from its undeniable grandeur,-its striking rhythm,-and yet more its dogmatic importance,-was sure to attract the attention of the earliest, no less than the latest of the Fathers. Accordingly, the author of the Epistle _ad Diognetum_(1003) clearly refers to it early in the IInd century; though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I cannot feel surprised at the circ.u.mstance.

The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1) IGNATIUS (three in number) _are_ helpful, and may not be overlooked. They are as follows:-Te?? ?????p???? fa?e???????:-?? sa??? ?e??e??? Te??-e?? Te??

?st?? ? fa?e??sa? ?a?t?? d?? ??s?? ???st?? t?? ???? a?t??, ?? ?st?? a?t??

????? ??d???.(1004) It is to be wished, no doubt, that these references had been a little more full and explicit: but the very early Fathers are ever observed to quote Scripture thus partially,-allusively,-elliptically.

(2) BARNABAS has just such another allusive reference to the words in dispute, which seems to show that he must have read Te?? ?fa?e???? ??

sa???: viz. ??s??? ... ? ???? t?? Te?? t?p? ?a? ?? sa???

fa?e???e??.(1005)-(3) HIPPOLYTUS, on two occasions, even more unequivocally refers to this reading. Once, while engaged in proving that CHRIST is G.o.d, he says:-??t?? p??e???? e?? ??s?? Te?? ?? s?at?

?fa?e????:(1006)-and again, in a very similar pa.s.sage which Theodoret quotes from the same Father's lost work on the Psalms:-??t?? ? p??e????

e?? t?? ??s??, Te?? ?a? ?????p?? ?fa?e????.(1007)-(4) GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, (if it really be he,) seems also to refer directly to this place when he says (in a pa.s.sage quoted by Photius(1008)),-?a? ?st? Te??

???????? ? ?sa???? ?? sa??? fa?e???e??.-Further, (5) in the APOSTOLICAL CONSt.i.tUTIONS, we meet with the expression,-Te?? ?????? ? ?p?fa?e?? ???

e? sa???.(1009)

And when (6) BASIL THE GREAT [A.D. 377], writing to the men of Sozopolis whose faith the Arians had a.s.sailed, remarks that such teaching "subverts the saving Dispensation of our LORD JESUS CHRIST;" and, blending Rom. xvi.

25, 26 with "the great mystery" of 1 Tim. iii. 16,-(in order to afford himself an opportunity of pa.s.sing in review our SAVIOUR'S work for His Church in ancient days,)-viz. "After all these, at the end of the day, a?t?? ?fa?e???? ?? sa???, ?e??e??? ?? ???a????:"(1010)-_who_ will deny that such an one probably found neither ?? nor ?, but Te??, 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 Const.i.tutions, and Basil. But I shall not _build_ upon such foundations. Let me go on with what is indisputable.

[k] _The testimony of_ CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA.

Next, for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, whom you decline to accept as a witness for Te??. You are prepared, I trust, to submit to the logic of _facts_?

In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that our LORD is very and eternal G.o.d.(1011) His method is to establish several short theses all tending to this one object, by citing from the several books of the N. T., in turn, the princ.i.p.al texts which make for his purpose. Presently, (viz. at page 117,) he announces as his thesis,-"_Faith in_ CHRIST _as_ G.o.d;" and when he comes to 1 Timothy, _he quotes_ iii. 16 _at length_; reasons upon it, and points out that Te?? ?? sa??? is here spoken of.(1012) There can be no doubt about this quotation, which exhibits no essential variety of reading;-a quotation which Euthymius Zigabenus reproduces in his "_Panoplia_,"-and which C. F. Matthaei has with painful accuracy edited from that source.(1013)-Once more. In a newly recovered treatise of Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is again _quoted at length with_ Te??,-followed by the remark that "our Nature was justified, by G.o.d _manifested in Him_."(1014) I really see not how you would have Cyril more distinctly recognize Te??

?fa?e???? ?? sa??? 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 Te?? is about balanced by a corresponding amount of evidence which has been discovered for reading ??. Not but what the _context_ renders it plain that Te?? must have been Cyril's word on both occasions.

Of this let the reader himself be judge:-

(1) In a treatise, addressed to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, Cyril quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 _in extenso_.(1016) "If" (he begins)-"the Word, being G.o.d, could be said to inhabit Man's nature (?pa????p?sa?) without yet ceasing to be G.o.d, but remained for ever what He was before,-then, great indeed is the mystery of G.o.dliness."(1017) He proceeds in the same strain at much length.(1018) Next (2) the same place of Timothy is just as fully quoted in Cyril's _Explanatio xii. capitum_: where not only the Thesis,(1019) but also the context constrains belief that Cyril wrote Te??:-"What then means 'was manifested in the flesh'? It means that the Word of G.o.d the FATHER was made flesh.... In this way therefore we say that He was both G.o.d and Man.... Thus" (Cyril concludes) "is He G.o.d and LORD of all."(1020)

But, as aforesaid, I do not propose to rest my case on either of these pa.s.sages; but on those two other places concerning which there exists no variety of tradition as to the reading. Whether the pa.s.sages in which the reading is _certain_ ought not to be held to determine the reading of the pa.s.sages 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 ?st?????; ?? ?fa?e????, where the reading is not equally balanced by ?st????? Te??. And (as already explained) of course it makes nothing for ?? that Cyril should sometimes say that "the mystery"

here spoken of is CHRIST who "was manifested in the flesh," &c. A man with nothing else but the A. V. of the "Textus Receptus" before him might equally well say _that_. See above, pages 427-8.

Not unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium(1021) which the Critics freely allege in proof that Cyril wrote ?? (not Te??), and which _as they quote it_, (viz. so mutilated as effectually to conceal its meaning,) certainly seems to be express in its testimony. But the thing is all a mistake. Rightly understood, the Scholium in question renders no testimony at all;-as I proceed to explain. The only wonder is that such critics as Bentley,(1022) Wetstein,(1023) Birch,(1024) Tischendorf,(1025) or even Tregelles,(1026) should not have seen this for themselves.

The author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting on our LORD'S absolute exemption from sin, although for our sakes He became very Man. In support of this, he quotes Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)-"_Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth_." "S. Cyril" (he proceeds) "in the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,-'_Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit_;' for He was in no way subject to our infirmities," and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance that it is entirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose that it is any part of the Scholiast's object, in what precedes, to invite attention to so irrelevant a circ.u.mstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with ?? instead of Te??.(1027) As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years ago,(1028) the Scholiast's one object was to show how Cyril interpreted the expression "_justified in the Spirit_." Altogether misleading is it to quote _only the first line_, beginning at ?? and ending at p?e?at?, as the Critics _invariably_ do. The point to which in this way prominence is exclusively given, was clearly, to the Commentator, a matter of no concern at all. He quotes from Cyril's "_Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti_,"(1029) in preference to any other of Cyril's writings, for a vastly different reason.(1030) And yet _this_-(viz. Cyril's supposed subst.i.tution of ?? for Te??)-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 ?? or ?.(1031) The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at ?fa?e????. The Latin is as follows:-"Divinus Paulus _magnum quidem_ ait _esse mysterium pietatis_. Et vere ita se res habet: _manifestatus est_ enim _in carne_, c.u.m sit DEUS Verb.u.m."(1032) The supposed hostile evidence from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pa.s.s on.

[l] _The argument_ e silentio _considered._

The argument _e silentio_,-(of all arguments the most precarious,)-has not been neglected.-"But we cannot stop here," you say:(1033) "Wetstein observed long ago that Cyril does not produce this text when he does produce Rom. ix. 5 in answer to the allegation which he quotes from Julian that S. Paul never employed the word Te?? of our LORD."(1034) Well but, neither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a Treatise expressly to prove the G.o.dhead of the SON and of the HOLY GHOST.

"_Grave est_,"-says Tischendorf.(1035) No, not "_grave_" at all, I answer: but whether "_grave_" or not, that _Gregory of Nyssa_ read Te?? in this place, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, you have been reminded already, that "_ubi de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur_."(1036) Examine the place in Cyril Alex. for yourself, reading steadily on from p. 327 a to p. 333 b. Better still, read-paying special attention to his Scriptural proofs-Cyril's two Treatises "_De recta Fide_."(1037) But in fact attend to the method of Athanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;(1038) and you will speedily convince yourself that the argument _e silentio_ is next to valueless on occasions like the present.

Certain of the Critics have jumped to the conclusion that the other Cyril cannot have been acquainted with S. Mark xvi. 19 (and therefore with the "last Twelve Verses" of his Gospel), because when, in his Catechetical Lectures, he comes to the "Resurrection," "Ascension," and "Session at the Right Hand,"-he does not quote S. Mark xvi. 19. And yet,-(as it has been elsewhere(1039) fully shown, and in fact the reason is a.s.signed 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 pa.s.sing,)-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 G.o.dhead of our LORD. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted that CHRIST _was_ G.o.d. This, in fact, has been pointed out already. Very differently indeed would the ancient Fathers have expressed themselves, could they have imagined the calamitous use which, at the end of 1500 years, perverse wits would make of their writings,-the astonishing inferences they would propose to extract from their very silence. I may not go further into the subject in this place.

[m] _The story about_ MACEDONIUS. _His testimony._

It follows to say a few words concerning MACEDONIUS II., patriarch of Constantinople [A.D. 496-511], of whom it has been absurdly declared that he was _the inventor_ of the reading for which I contend. I pointed out on a former occasion that it would follow from that very circ.u.mstance, (as far as it is true,) that Macedonius "_is a witness for_ Te??-_perforce_."(1040)

Instead of either a.s.senting to this, (which is surely a self-evident proposition!),-or else disproving it,-you are at the pains to furbish up afresh, as if it were a novelty, the stale and stupid figment propagated by Liberatus of Carthage, that Macedonius was expelled from his see by the Emperor Anastasius for falsifying 1 Timothy iii. 16. This exploded fable you preface by announcing it as "_a remarkable fact_," that "it was the _distinct belief of Latin writers_ as early as the VIth century that the reading of this pa.s.sage had been corrupted by the Greeks."(1041) How you get your "remarkable fact," out of your premiss,-"the distinct belief of Latin writers," out of the indistinct rumour ["_dicitur_"] vouched for by a single individual,-I see not. But let that pa.s.s.

"The story shows" (you proceed) "that the Latins in the sixth century believed ?? to be the reading of the older Greek ma.n.u.scripts, and regarded Te?? as a false reading made out of it." (p. 69.)-My lord Bishop, I venture to declare that the story shows nothing of the sort. The Latins in the VIth (and _every other_) century believed that-_not_ ??, but-?, was the right reading of the Greek in this place. Their belief on this subject however has nothing whatever to do with the story before us. Liberatus was not the spokesman of "the Latins of the VIth," (or any other bygone) "century:" but (as Bp. Pearson points out) a singularly ill-informed Archdeacon of Carthage; who, had he taken ever so little pains with the subject, would have become aware that for no such reason as he a.s.signs was Macedonius [A.D. 511] thrust out of his bishopric. If, however, there were at least thus much of truth in the story,-namely, that one of the charges brought against Macedonius was his having corrupted Scripture, and notably his having altered ?? into Te?? in 1 Tim. iii. 16;-surely, the most obvious of all inferences would be, that Te?? _was found in copies of S.

Paul's epistles put forth at Constantinople by archiepiscopal authority between_ A.D. 496 _and_ A.D. 511. To say the least,-Macedonius, by his writings or by his discourses, certainly by his influence, _must have shown himself favourable to_ Te?? (_not_ ??) ?fa?e????. Else, with what show of reason could the charge have been brought against him? "I suppose"

(says our learned Dr. John Mill) "that the fable before us arose out of the fact that Macedonius, on hearing that in several MSS. of the Constantinopolitan Church the text of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (which witnesses expressly to the G.o.dhead of CHRIST) had been depraved, was careful that those copies should be corrected in conformity with the best exemplars."(1042)

But, in fact, I suspect you completely misunderstand the whole matter. You speak of "_the_ story." But pray,-_Which_ "story" do you mean? "The story"

which Liberatus told in the VIth century? or the ingenious gloss which Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims, put upon it in the IXth? You _mention_ the first,-you _reason from_ the second. Either will suit me equally well.

But-_una la volta, per carita!_

Hincmar, (whom the critics generally follow,) relates that Macedonius turned ?S into T??S (_i.e._ _TS_).(1043) _If Macedonius did, he preferred_ Te?? _to_ ??.... But the story which Liberatus promulgated is quite different.(1044) Let him be heard:-

"At this time, Macedonius, bp. of CP., is said to have been deposed by the emperor Anastasius on a charge of having falsified the Gospels, and notably that saying of the Apostle, '_Quia apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu._' He was charged with having turned the Greek monosyllable ?S (_i.e._ '_qui_'), by the change of a single letter (O for ?) into OS: _i.e._ '_ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem._' "

Now, that this is a very lame story, all must see. In reciting the pa.s.sage in Latin, Liberatus himself exhibits neither "_qui_," nor "_quod_," nor "_Deus_,"-but "QUIA _apparuit in carne_." (The translator of Origen, by the way, does the same thing.(1045)) And yet, Liberatus straightway adds (as the effect of the change) "_ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem_:" as if that were possible, unless "_Deus_" stood in the text already! Quite plain in the meantime is it, that, according to Liberatus, ?? was the word which Macedonius introduced into 1 Tim. iii. 16. And it is worth observing that the scribe who rendered into Greek Pope Martin I.'s fifth Letter (written on the occasion of the Lateran Council A.D. 649),-having to translate the Pope's quotation from the Vulgate ("_quod manifestatus est_,")-exhibits ??

?fa?e???? in this place.(1046)

High time it becomes that I should offer it as my opinion that those Critics are right (Cornelius a Lapide [1614] and Cotelerius [1681]) who, reasoning from what Liberatus actually says, shrewdly infer that there must have existed codices in the time of Macedonius which exhibited ?S T??S in this place; and that _this_ must be the reading to which Liberatus refers.(1047) _Such codices exist still._ One, is preserved in the library of the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata, already spoken of at pp. 446-8: another, is at Paris. I call them respectively "Apost. 83" and "Paul 282."(1048) This is new.

Enough of all this however. Too much in fact. I must hasten on. The entire fable, by whomsoever fabricated, has been treated with well-merited contempt by a succession of learned men ever since the days of Bp.

Pearson.(1049) And although during the last century several writers of the unbelieving school (chiefly Socinians(1050)) revived and embellished the silly story, in order if possible to get rid of a text which witnesses inconveniently to the G.o.dHEAD of CHRIST, one would have hoped that, in these enlightened days, a Christian Bishop of the same Church which the learned, pious, and judicious John Berriman adorned a century and a-half ago, would have been ashamed to rekindle the ancient strife and to swell the Socinian chorus. I shall be satisfied if I have at least convinced you that Macedonius is a witness for Te?? in 1 Tim. iii. 16.

[n] _The testimony of an_ ANONYMOUS _writer_ (A.D. 430),-_of_ EPIPHANIUS (A.D. 787),-_of_ THEODORUS STUDITA (A.D. 795?),-_of_ SCHOLIA,-_of_ c.u.mENIUS,-_of_ THEOPHYLACT,-_of_ EUTHYMIUS.

The evidence of an ANONYMOUS Author who has been mistaken for Athanasius,-you pa.s.s by in silence. That this writer lived in the days when the Nestorian Controversy was raging,-namely, in the first half of the Vth century,-is at all events evident. He is therefore at least as ancient a witness for the text of Scripture as codex A itself: and Te??

?fa?e???? is clearly what he found written in this place.(1051) Why do you make such a fuss about Cod. A, and yet ignore this contemporary witness?

We do not know _who wrote_ the Epistle in question,-true. Neither do we know who wrote Codex A. What _then_?

Another eminent witness for Te??, whom also you do not condescend to notice, is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA in Sicily,-who represented Thomas, Abp. of Sardinia, at the 2nd Nicene Council, A.D. 787. A long discourse of this Ecclesiastic may be seen in the Acts of the Council, translated into Latin,-which makes his testimony so striking. But in fact his words are express,(1052) and the more valuable because they come from a region of Western Christendom from which textual utterances are rare.