A far more conspicuous writer of nearly the same date, THEODORUS STUDITA of CP, [A.D. 759-826,] is also a witness for Te??.(1053) How does it happen, my lord Bishop, that you contend so eagerly for the testimony of codices F and G, which are but _one_ IXth-century witness after all,-and yet entirely disregard living utterances like these, of known men,-who belonged to known places,-and wrote at a known time? Is it because they witness unequivocally against you?

Several ancient SCHOLIASTS, expressing themselves diversely, deserve enumeration here, who are all witnesses for Te?? exclusively.(1054) Lastly,-

c.u.mENIUS(1055) (A.D. 990),-THEOPHYLACT(1056) (A.D. 1077),-EUTHYMIUS(1057) (A.D. 1116),-close this enumeration. They are all three clear witnesses for reading not ?? but Te??.

[o] _The testimony of_ ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION.

Nothing has been hitherto said concerning the Ecclesiastical usage with respect to this place of Scripture. 1 Tim. iii. 16 occurs in a lection consisting of nine verses (1 Tim. iii. 13-iv. 5), which used to be publicly read in almost all the Churches of Eastern Christendom on the Sat.u.r.day before Epiphany.(1058) It was also read, in not a few Churches, on the 34th Sat.u.r.day of the year.(1059) Unfortunately, the book which contains lections from S. Paul's Epistles, ("_Apostolus_" it is technically called,) is of comparatively rare occurrence,-is often found in a mutilated condition,-and (for this and other reasons) is, as often as not, without this particular lesson.(1060) Thus, an a.n.a.lysis of 90 copies of the "Apostolus" (No. 1 to 90), is attended by the following result:-10 are found to have been set down in error;(1061) while 41 are declared-(sometimes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of those who profess to have examined them),-not to contain 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1062) Of 7, I have not been able to obtain tidings.(1063) Thus, there are but 32 copies of the book called "Apostolus" available for our present purpose.

But of these thirty-two, _twenty-seven_ exhibit Te??.(1064) You will be interested to hear that _one_ rejoices in the unique reading Te??:(1065) while another Copy of the 'Apostolus' keeps "Paul 282" in countenance by reading ?? Te??.(1066) In other words, "G.o.d" is found in 29 copies out of 32: while "who" (??) is observed to survive in only 3,-and they, Western doc.u.ments of suspicious character. Two of these were produced in one and the same Calabrian monastery; and they still stand, side by side, in the library of Crypta Ferrata:(1067) being exclusively in sympathy with the very suspicious Western doc.u.ment at Paris, already described at page 446.

ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION is therefore clearly against _you_, in respect of the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. How _you_ estimate this head of Evidence, I know not. For my own part, I hold it to be of superlative importance. It transports us back, at once, to the primitive age; and is found to be infinitely better deserving of attention than the witness of any extant uncial doc.u.ments which can be produced. And why? For the plain reason that it must needs have been once attested by _an indefinitely large number of codices more ancient by far than any which we now possess_. In fact, ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION, when superadded to the testimony of Ma.n.u.scripts and Fathers, becomes an overwhelming consideration.

And now we may at last proceed to sum up. Let me gather out the result of the foregoing fifty pages; and remind the reader briefly of the amount of external testimony producible in support of each of these rival readings:-?,-??-Te??.

[I.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of reading_ ?st?????; ? ?fa?e???? _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

(a) The reading ?st?????; ? ?fa?e????,-(which Wetstein strove hard to bring into favour, and which was highly popular with the Socinian party down to the third quarter of the last century,)-enjoys, as we have seen, (pp. 448-53,) the weighty attestation of the Latin and of the Peschito,-of the Coptic, of the Sahidic, and of the aethiopic Versions.

No one may presume to speak slightingly of such evidence as this. It is the oldest which can be produced for the truth of anything in the inspired Text of the New Testament; and it comes from the East as well as from the West. Yet is it, in and by itself, clearly inadequate. Two characteristics of Truth are wanting to it,-two credentials,-unfurnished with which, it cannot be so much as seriously entertained. It demands _Variety_ as well as _Largeness of attestation_. It should be able to exhibit in support of its claims the additional witness of COPIES and FATHERS. But,

() On the contrary, ? is found besides in _only one Greek Ma.n.u.script_,-viz. the VIth-century codex Claromonta.n.u.s, D. And further,

(?) _Two ancient writers_ alone bear witness to this reading, viz.

GELASIUS OF CYZICUS,(1068) whose date is A.D. 476;(1069) and the UNKNOWN AUTHOR of a homily of uncertain date in the Appendix to Chrysostom(1070).... It is scarcely intelligible how, on such evidence, the Critics of the last century can have persuaded themselves (with Grotius) that ?st?????; ? ?fa?e???? is the true reading of 1 Timothy iii.

16. And yet, in order to maintain this thesis, Sir Isaac Newton descended from the starry sphere and tried his hand at Textual Criticism. Wetstein (1752) freely transferred the astronomer's labours to his own pages, and thus gave renewed currency to an opinion which the labours of the learned Berriman (1741) had already _demonstrated_ to be untenable.

Whether THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (in his work "_de Incarnatione_") wrote ??

or ?, must remain uncertain till a sight has been obtained of his Greek together with its context. I find that he quotes 1 Tim iii. 16 at least three times:-Of the first place, there is only a Latin translation, which begins "QUOD _justificat_US _est in spiritu_."(1071) The second place comes to us in Latin, Greek, and Syriac: but unsatisfactorily in all three:-(_a_) The Latin version introduces the quotation thus,-"Consonantia et Apostolus dicit, _Et manifeste magnum est pietatis mysterium_, QUI(1072) (or QUOD(1073)) _manifestat_US (or TUM) _est in carne, justificat_US (or TUM) _est in spiritu_:"-(_b_) The Greek, (for which we are indebted to Leontius Byzantinus, A.D. 610,) reads,-?? ?fa?e???? ??

sa???, ?d??a???? ?? p?e?at?(1074)-divested of all preface.(1075) Those seven words, thus isolated from their context, are accordingly printed by Migne as _a heading_ only:-(_c_) The Syriac translation unmistakably reads, "Et Apostolus dixit, _Vere sublime est hoc mysterium_, QUOD,"-omitting t?? e?see?a?.(1076) The third quotation, which is found only in Syriac,(1077) begins,-"_For truly great is the-mystery of-the-fear-of_ G.o.d, _who was manifested in-the-flesh and-was-justified in-the-spirit_." This differs from the received text of the Peschito by subst.i.tuting a different word for e?s?e?a, and by employing the emphatic state "the-flesh," "the-spirit" where the Peschito has the absolute state "flesh," "spirit." The two later clauses agree with the Harkleian or Philoxenian.(1078)-I find it difficult from all this to know what precisely to do with Theodore's evidence. It has a truly oracular ambiguity; wavering between ?-??-and even Te??. You, I observe, (who are only acquainted with the second of the three places above cited, and but imperfectly with _that_,) do not hesitate to cut the knot by simply claiming the heretic's authority for the reading you advocate,-viz. ??. I have thought it due to my readers to tell them all that is known about the evidence furnished by Theodore of Mopsuestia. At all events, the utmost which can be advanced in favour of reading ?st?????; ? in 1 Timothy iii.

16, has now been freely stated. I am therefore at liberty to pa.s.s on to the next opinion.

[II.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS _in favour of reading_ ?st?????; ?? ?fa?e???? _in_ 1 Timothy iii. 16.

Remarkable it is how completely Griesbach succeeded in diverting the current of opinion with respect to the place before us, into a new channel. At first indeed (viz. in 1777) he retained Te?? in his Text, timidly printing ?? in small type above it; and remarking,-"_Judicium de hac lectionis varietate lectoribus liberum relinquere placuit_." But, at the end of thirty years (viz. in 1806), waxing bolder, Griesbach subst.i.tuted ?? for Te??,-"_ut ipsi_" (as he says) "_n.o.bis constaremus_."

Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers, under your guidance, have followed him: which is to me unaccountable,-seeing that even less authority is producible for ??, than for ?, in this place. But let the evidence for ?st?????; ?? ?fa?e???? ??

sa??? be briefly recapitulated:-

(a) It consists of _a single uncial copy_, viz. the corrupt cod. ?,-(for, as was fully explained above,(1079) codd. C and F-G yield uncertain testimony): and _perhaps two cursive copies_, viz. Paul 17, (the notorious "33" of the Gospels,)-and a copy at Upsala (No. 73), which is held to require further verification.(1080) To these, are to be added three other liturgical witnesses in the cursive character-being Western copies of the book called "_Apostolus_," which have only recently come to light. Two of the codices in question are of Calabrian origin.(1081) A few words more on this subject will be found above, at pages 477 and 478.

() _The only Version_ which certainly witnesses in favour of ??, is the Gothic: which, (as explained at pp. 452-3) exhibits a hopelessly obscure construction, and rests on the evidence of a single copy in the Ambrosian library.

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

And this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came in,-and (I venture to predict) will go out,-with the present century. My only wonder is, how an exhibition of 1 Tim. iii. 16 so feebly attested,-so almost _without_ attestation,-can have come to be seriously entertained by any. "Si,"-(as Griesbach remarks concerning 1 John v. 7)-"si tam pauci ... testes ...

sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam ???s??t?ta, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta; _nullum prorsus superesset in re critica veri falsique criterium_, et _textus Novi Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius_."(1084)

Yet _this_ is the Reading which you, my lord Bishop, not only stiffly maintain, but which you insist is no longer so much as "_open to reconsideration_." You are, it seems, for introducing the _cloture_ into Textual debate. But in fact you are for inflicting pains and penalties as well, on those who have the misfortune to differ in opinion from yourself.

You discharge all the vials of the united sees of Gloucester and Bristol on _me_ for my presumption in daring to challenge the verdict of "the Textual Criticism of the last fifty years,"-of the Revisers,-and of yourself;-my folly, in venturing to believe that the traditional reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, (which you admit is at least 1530 years old,) is the right reading after all. You hold me up to public indignation. "He has made" (you say) "an elaborate effort to shake conclusions _about which no professed Scholar has any doubt whatever_; but which an ordinary reader (and to such we address ourselves) might regard as _still open to reconsideration_."-"Moreover" (you proceed) "this case is of great importance as an example. It 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."(1085)

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

if they are so ill advised as to set themselves in battle array against that host of ancient men.

To say therefore of such an one, (as _you_ now say of _me_,) "If he is right, all other Critics are wrong,"-is to present an irrelevant issue, and to perplex a plain question. The business of Textual Criticism (as you state at page 28 of your pamphlet) is nothing else but to ascertain "_the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities_." The office of the Textual Critic is none other but to interpret rightly _the solemn verdict of Antiquity_. Do _I_ then interpret that verdict rightly,-or do I not?

The whole question resolves itself into _that_! If I do _not_,-pray show me wherein I have mistaken the facts of the case. But if I _do_,-why do you not come over instantly to my side? "_Since_ he is right," (I shall expect to hear you say,) "it stands to reason that the 'professed Critics'

whom he has been combating,-myself among the number,-must be wrong."... I am, you see, loyally accepting the logical issue you have yourself raised.

I do but seek to reconcile your dilemma with the actual facts of the problem.

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

[III.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of reading_ Te?? ?fa?e???? _in_ 1 Tim. iii 16.

Entirely different,-in respect of variety, of quant.i.ty and of quality,-from what has gone before, is the witness of Antiquity to the Received Text of 1 Timothy iii. 16: viz. ?a? ??????????? ??a ?st? t?

t?? e?see?a? ?st?????; T??S ?fa?e???? ?? sa???, ?.t.?.... I proceed to rehea.r.s.e it in outline, having already dwelt in detail upon so much of it as has been made the subject of controversy.(1087) The reader is fully aware(1088) that I do not propose to make argumentative use of the first six names in the ensuing enumeration. To those names, [enclosed within square brackets,] I forbear even to a.s.sign numbers; not as entertaining doubt concerning the testimony they furnish, but as resolved to build exclusively on facts which are incontrovertible. Yet is it but reasonable that the whole of the Evidence for Te?? ?fa?e???? should be placed before the reader: and _he_ is in my judgment a wondrous unfair disputant who can attentively survey the evidence which I thus forego, without secretly acknowledging that its combined Weight is considerable; while its Antiquity makes it a serious question whether it is not simply contrary to reason that it should be dispensed with in an enquiry like the present.

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

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

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

[(_d_) In the IIIrd century,-GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, (if it be indeed he) has been already shown (at page 463) probably to testify to the reading Te?? ?fa?e????.]

[(_e_) To the same century is referred the work ent.i.tled CONSt.i.tUTIONES APOSTOLICae: which seems also to witness to the same reading. See above, p.

463.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) And to this century, (not later certainly than the last half of it,) is to be referred the t.i.tle of that ?ef??a???, or chapter, of St. Paul's First Epistle to Timothy which contains chap. iii. 16,-(indeed, which _begins_ with it,) viz. ?e?? ?e?a? sa???se??. Very eloquently does that t.i.tle witness to the fact that Te?? was the established reading of the place under discussion, before either cod. B or cod. ? was produced. See above, pages 457-8.

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

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

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