_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 “GOD.”
(_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_ Θεός.
Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancient MANUSCRIPTS 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. μυστήριον; ὅς
ἐφανερώθη,) as the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Undisturbed in your
enjoyment of the testimony borne by Cod. א, you cannot but feel that such
testimony is fully counterbalanced by the witness of Cod. A: and further,
that the conjoined evidence of 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 manuscripts of S. Paul’s
Epistles for reading Θεός in this place, _in the proportion of_ 125 _to_
1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp. 445-6,) such
multitudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us.
At p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a “lesson of primary
importance, often reiterated but often forgotten, _ponderari debere
testes, non numerari_.” You might have added with advantage,—“_and
oftenest of all, misunderstood_.” For are you not aware that, generally
speaking, “Number” _constitutes_ “Weight”? If you have discovered some
“regia via” which renders the general consent 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 Θεός (not ὅς) 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 mass
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 Θεός.(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 illustrious Father.
You are besides aware that DIDYMUS,(984) another illustrious 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 illustrious as these, without misgiving, passes my
comprehension. Chrysostom is _three_ times a witness.
Next come two quotations from GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS,—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 Nazianzus 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 TITLE 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., Περὶ ΘΕΊΑΣ ΣΑΡΚώσεως. We
commonly speak of this as the seventh of the “_Euthalian_” κεφάλαια or
chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were
“devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;”(989) and this
particular title (Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως) is freely employed and discussed
in Gregory of Nyssa’s treatise against Apolinaris,(990)—which latter had,
in fact, made it part of the title of his own heretical treatise.(991)
That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, ΘΕῸΣ
ἐφανερώθη ἐν ΣΑΡΚΊ no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover
that Θεός(992) must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16
throughout the century which witnessed the production of codices B and א.
SEVERUS, BP. OF ANTIOCH, you also consider a “not unambiguous” witness. I
venture to point out to you that when a Father of the Church, who has been
already insisting on the GODhead of CHRIST (καθ᾽ ὅ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεός,) goes
on to speak of Him as τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν, there is no
“ambiguity” whatever about the fact that he is quoting from 1 Tim. iii.
16.(993)
And why are we only “_perhaps_” to add the testimony of DIODORUS OF
TARSUS; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul’s actual words (Θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), 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.
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 Θεός.”(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 illustrious Fathers:—your attempt to detract
from the importance of their testimony by screwing down their date “to the
sticking place:”—your assertion that the testimony of a fifth Father “_is
not unambiguous_:”—your insinuation that the emphatic witness of a sixth
may “_perhaps_” be inadmissible:—all this kind of thing is not only quite
unworthy of a Bishop when he turns disputant, but effectually indisposes
his opponent to receive his argumentation with that respectful deference
which else would have been undoubtedly its due.
Need I remind you that men do not write their books when they 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 pass 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 circumstance solicits me, which, if it does not entertain
the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol, will certainly entertain every one else
who takes the trouble to read these pages.
“Such 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 Θεός.... 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 circumstance,—and proceed
vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your
way, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in
the same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet
tingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department
of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references
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 Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη,(1002)—which is the only
matter of any real importance to my argument. Its testimony is, in fact,
as express and emphatic as words can make it.
And here, let me call your attention to the circumstance that there are at
least SIX OTHER PRIMITIVE WITNESSES, _some_ of whom must needs have
recognized the reading for which I am here contending, (viz. Θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,) though not one of them quotes the 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 circumstance.
The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1) IGNATIUS (three in
number) _are_ helpful, and may not be overlooked. They are as
follows:—Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός—εἶς Θεός
ἐστιν ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ
Λόγος ἀΐδιος.(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 Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί: viz. Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ
φανερωθείς.(1005)—(3) HIPPOLYTUS, on two occasions, even more
unequivocally refers to this reading. Once, while engaged in proving that
CHRIST is GOD, he says:—Οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον Θεὸς ἐν σώματι
ἐφανερώθη:(1006)—and again, in a very similar passage which Theodoret
quotes from the same Father’s lost work on the Psalms:—Οὗτος ὁ προελθὼν
εἰς τὸν κόσμον, Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἐφανερώθη.(1007)—(4) GREGORY
THAUMATURGUS, (if it really be he,) seems also to refer directly to this
place when he says (in a passage quoted by Photius(1008)),—καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς
ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.—Further, (5) in the APOSTOLICAL
CONSTITUTIONS, we meet with the expression,—Θεὸς Κύριος ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν
εν σαρκί.(1009)
And when (6) BASIL THE GREAT [A.D. 377], writing to the men of Sozopolis
whose faith the Arians had assailed, remarks that such teaching “subverts
the saving Dispensation of 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 passing in review our SAVIOUR’S work for His
Church in ancient days,)—viz. “After all these, at the end of the day,
αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός:”(1010)—_who_ will deny
that such an one probably found neither ὅς nor ὅ, but Θεός, in the copy
before him?
I have thought it due to the enquiry I have in hand to give a distinct
place to the foregoing evidence—such as it is—of Ignatius, Barnabas,
Hippolytus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Apostolical Constitutions, and
Basil. But I shall 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
Θεός. 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 GOD.(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
principal texts which make for his purpose. Presently, (viz. at page 117,)
he announces as his thesis,—“_Faith in_ CHRIST _as_ GOD;” and when he
comes to 1 Timothy, _he quotes_ iii. 16 _at length_; reasons upon it, and
points out that Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί 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. Matthæi 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_ Θεός,—followed by the
remark that “our Nature was justified, by GOD _manifested in Him_.”(1014)
I really see not how you would have Cyril more distinctly recognize Θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί as the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1015)
You are requested to observe that in order to prevent cavil, I forbear to
build on two other famous places in Cyril’s writings where the evidence
for reading Θεός is about balanced by a corresponding amount of evidence
which has been discovered for reading ὅς. Not but what the _context_
renders it plain that Θεός must have been Cyril’s word on both occasions.
Of this let the reader himself be judge:—
(1) In a treatise, addressed to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, Cyril
quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 _in extenso_.(1016) “If” (he begins)—“the Word,
being GOD, could be said to inhabit Man’s nature (ἐπανθρωπῆσαι) without
yet ceasing to be GOD, but remained for ever what He was before,—then,
great indeed is the mystery of Godliness.”(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
Θεός:—“What then means ‘was manifested in the flesh’? It means that the
Word of GOD the FATHER was made flesh.... In this way therefore we say
that He was both GOD and Man.... Thus” (Cyril concludes) “is He GOD and
LORD of all.”(1020)
But, as aforesaid, I do not propose to rest my case on either of these
passages; but on those two other places concerning which there exists no
variety of tradition as to the reading. Whether the passages in which the
reading is _certain_ ought not to be held to determine the reading of the
passages concerning which the evidence is about evenly balanced;—whether
in doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not be allowed
to turn the scale;—I forbear to enquire. I take my stand on what is clear
and undeniable. On the other hand you are challenged to produce a single
instance in Cyril of μυστηριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη, where the reading is not
equally balanced by μυστήριον Θεός. And (as already explained) of course
it makes nothing for ὅς that Cyril should sometimes say that “the mystery”
here spoken of 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 ὅς (not Θεός), 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 circumstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with
ὅς instead of Θεός.(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 ὅς and ending at πνεύματι, 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
substitution of ὅς for Θεός)—is, in the account of the Critics, the one
thing which the Scholiast was desirous of putting on record.
In the meanwhile, on referring to the place in Cyril, we make an important
discovery. The Greek of the Scholium in question being lost, we depend for
our knowledge of its contents on the Latin translation of Marius Mercator,
Cyril’s contemporary. And in that translation, no trace is discoverable of
either ὅς or ὅ.(1031) The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at
ἐφανερώθη. The Latin is as follows:—“Divinus Paulus _magnum quidem_ ait
_esse mysterium pietatis_. Et vere ita se res habet: _manifestatus est_
enim _in carne_, cum sit DEUS Verbum.”(1032) The supposed hostile evidence
from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass 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 Θεός of our LORD.”(1034) Well but,
neither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a
Treatise expressly to prove the GODhead 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 Θεός 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 rectâ 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 assigned by Cyril
himself,)—this is only because, on the previous day, being Sunday, Cyril
of Jerusalem had enlarged upon the Scriptural evidence for those august
verities, (viz. S. Mark xvi. 19,—S. Luke xxiv. 51,—Acts i. 9); and
therefore was unwilling to say over again before the same auditory what he
had so recently delivered.
But indeed,—(the remark is worth making in passing,)—many of our modern
Critics seem to forget that the heretics with whom Athanasius, Basil, the
Gregories, &c., were chiefly in conflict, did not by any means deny the
Godhead of our LORD. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted that CHRIST
_was_ GOD. 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._