aware that you have tacitly substituted ἐξεληλυθυῖαν,—which is only
supported by _four_ manuscripts of bad character: being disallowed
by _eighteen uncials_, (with A C D at their head,) and _every known
cursive but one_; besides the following Fathers:—Marcion (Epiph. i.
313 a, 327 a.) (A.D. 150),—Origen (iii. 466 e.),—the author of _the
Dialogus_ (Orig. i. 853 d.) (A.D. 325),—Epiphanius (i. 327
b.),—Didymus (pp. 124, 413.), in two places,—Basil (iii. 8
c.),—Chrysostom (vii. 532 a.),—Cyril (Opp. vi. 99 e. Mai, ii. 226.)
in two places,—ps.-Athanasius (ii. 14 c.) (A.D. 400),—ps.-Chrysostom
(xiii. 212 e f.).... Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text should be
put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are avowedly
(for see page 369) unskilled in Textual Criticism, and who were
appointed only to revise the authorized _English Version_?
899 This I make the actual sum, after deducting for marginal notes and
variations in stops.
900 I mean such changes as ἠγέρθη for ἐγήγερται (ix. 7),—φέρετε for
ἐνένκαντες (xv. 23), &c. These are generally the result of a change
of construction.
901 MS. communication from my friend, the Editor
902 I desire to keep out of sight the _critical impropriety_ of such
corrections of the text. And yet, it is worth stating that א B L are
_the only witnesses discoverable_ for the former, and _almost the
only_ witnesses to be found for the latter of these two utterly
unmeaning changes.
903 Characteristic of these two false-witnesses is it, that they are not
able to convey even _this_ short message correctly. In reporting the
two words ἔρχωμαι ἐνθάδε, they contrive to make two blunders. B
substitutes διέρχομαι for διέρχωμαι: א, ὦδε for ἐνθάδε,—which latter
eccentricity Tischendorf (characteristically) does not allude to in
his note ... “These be thy gods, O Israel!”
904 Rev. xxii. 19.
905 iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference is _not_
to S. Matt. x. 15.
906 P. 123.
907 Viz. vi. 7-13.
908 i. 199 and 200.
_ 909 In loc._
910 See above, pp. 347-9.
911 See above, pp. 79-85.
912 See above, pp. 409-411.
913 See above, p. 399.
914 Bp. Ellicott _on Revision_, p. 30.
915 The Bp. attended _only one meeting_ of the Revisers. (Newth, p.
125.)
916 Page 4.
917 See above, pp. 41 to 47.
918 Pages 17, 18.
919 See above, p. 37, note 1.
920 Pages 98-106.
921 Pages 64-76.
922 The exceptions are not worth noticing _here_.
923 N. T. ed. 2da. 1807, iii. 442-3.
924 i. 887 c.
925 Called _Ancoratus_, written in Pamphylia, A.D. 373. The extract in
_Adv. Hær._ extends from p. 887 to p. 899 (= _Ancor._ ii. 67-79).
926 ii. 74 b. Note, that to begin the quotation at the word ἐφανερώθη
was a frequent practice with the ancients, especially when enough
had been said already to make it plain that it was of the SON they
were speaking, or when it would have been nothing to the purpose to
begin with Θεός. Thus Origen, iv. 465 c:—Didymus on 1 John _apud_
Galland. vi. 301 a:—Nestorius, _apud_ Cyril, vi. 103 e:—ps-Chrysost.
x. 763 c, 764 c:—and the Latin of Cyril v.1 785. So indeed
ps-Epiphanius, ii. 307 c.
927 i. 894 c.
_ 928 Apud_ Theodoret, v. 719.
929 iv. 622 a,—_qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu_.
_ 930 De incarn. Unig._ v. part i. 680 d e = _De rectâ fide_, v. part ii.
b c.
_ 931 Ibid._ 681 a = _ibid._ 6 d e.
932 Page 98.
933 Note at the end of Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary on 1 Timothy.
934 Berriman’s MS. Note in the British Museum copy of his
_Dissertation_,—p. 154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian.
935 “Certe quidem in exemplari Alexandrino nostro, linea illa transversa
quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud
dubitarim ipse scriptum _ΟΣ_, quod proinde in variantes lectiones
conjeceram.... Verum postea perlustrato attentius loco, lineolæ, quæ
primam aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa
deprehendi, præsertim ad partem sinistram, quæ peripheriam literæ
pertingit,” &c.—_In loco._
_ 936 Clem. Rom._ ed. Wotton, p. 27.
937 Berriman, pp. 154-5.
_ 938 Ibid._ (_MS. Note._) Berriman adds other important testimony, p.
156.
_ 939 Dissertation_, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in
recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading
of the place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common
black ink, and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the θ. There
has been no attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could
deceive no one.
940 “Quanquam lineola, quæ Θεός compendiose scriptum ab ὅς distinguitur,
sublesta videtur nonnullis.”—N. T. p. 710.
941 Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report:—“Manibus hominum inepte
curiosorum ea folii pars quæ dictum controversum continet, adeo
detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere
possit ... Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuisse videntur,
ut primitivam illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent.”
(_Symb. Crit._ i. p. x.) The MS. was evidently in precisely the same
state when the Rev. J. C. Velthusen (_Observations on Various
Subjects_, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 1773.
942 As C. F. Matthæi [N. T. m. xi. _Præfat._ pp. lii.-iii.]
remarks:—“_cum de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui
dissimilior deprehenditur_.” Woide instances it as an example of the
force of prejudice, that Wetstein “apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ
adscripsisse, _quia eam abesse volebat_.” [_Præfat._ p. xxxi.]
943 “Patet, ut alia mittamus, e consensu Versionum,” &c.—ii. 149.
944 Woide, _ibid._
_ 945 Supra_, p. 100.
_ 946 Introduction_, p. 553.
_ 947 Introd._ p. 553.
948 Any one desirous of understanding this question fully, should
(besides Berriman’s admirable _Dissertation_) read Woide’s
_Præfatio_ to his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (§
87).—“Erunt fortasse quidam” (he writes in conclusion) “qui
suspicabuntur, nonnullos hanc lineolam diametralem in medio Θ
vidisse, quoniam eam videre volebant. Nec negari potest præsumptarum
opinionum esse vim permagnam. Sed idem, etiam Wetstenio, nec
immerito, objici potest, eam apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ
adscripsisse, quia eam abesse volebat. Et eruditissimis placere
aliquando, quæ vitiosa sunt, scio: sed omnia testimonia, omnemque
historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nec mirum
est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem
vidissemus, evanuerant.”
_ 949 Prolegomena_ to his ed. of Cod. C,—pp. 39-42.
950 “Ος habet codex C, ut puto; nam lineola illa tenuis, quæ ex Ο facit
Θ, non apparet.” (_In loc._) And so Griesbach, _Symb. Crit._ i. p.
viii. (1785).
951 “Quotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc biennium
sæpissime) mihi prorsus apparebat.” “Quam [lineolam] miror hucusque
omnium oculos fugisse.” [_Prolegg._ p. 41].... Equidem miror sane.
952 Page 75.
953 Pages 64, 69, 71, 75.—Some have pointed out that opposite _ΟΣ_ in
F—above _ΟΣ_ in G,—is written “quod.” Yes, but not “_qui_.” The
Latin version is independent of the Greek. In S. Mark xi. 8, above
ΑΓΡΩΝ is written “_arboribus_;” and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, ΑΓΩΝΙΖΟΜΕΘΑ is
translated by F “_maledicimur_,”—by G, “_exprobramur vel
maledicimur_.”
_ 954 Introduction to_ Cod. Augiensis, p. xxviij.
_ 955 E.g._ Out of ΟΜΕΝΤΟΙΣΤΕΡΕΟΣ [2 Tim. ii. 19], they both make Ο · μεν
· το · ισ · τεραιος. For ὑγιαίνωσιν [Tit. i. 13], both write υγει ·
ενωσειν:—for καινὴ κτίσις [2 Cor. v. 17] both give και ·
νηκτισις:—for ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες [1 Tim. iii. 10], both exhibit ανευ ·
κλητοιον · εχοντες (“nullum crimen habentes”):—for ὡς γάγγραινα
νομὴν ἕξει [2 Tim. ii. 17], both exhibit ως · γανγρα · ινα · (F G)
νομηνεξει, (G, who writes above the words “_sicut cancer ut
serpat_”).
956 He must be held responsible for ὝΠΟΚΡΙΣΙ in place of ὑποκρίσει [1
Tim. iv. 2]: ΑΣΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ instead of λογιζόμενος [2 Cor. v. 19]:
ΠΡΙΧΟΤΗΤΙ instead of πραότητι [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author
of ΓΕΡΜΑΝΕ in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of Ο δε πνευμα in 1 Tim. iv.
1.
But the scribes of F and G also were curiously innocent of Greek. G
suggests that γυναιξειν (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be “infinitivus”—(of
course from γυναίκω).
_ 957 Introduction_, p. 155.
958 Thirteen times between Rom. i. 7 and xiii. 1.
_ 959 E.g._ Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (_ο_ς and _ο_).
Those who have Matthæi’s reprint of G at hand are invited to refer
to the last line of fol. 91: (1 Tim. vi. 20) where Ὦ Τιμόθεε is
exhibited thus:—_Ο_ Ὦ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΕ.
960 Col. ii. 22, 23: iii. 2.
961 As 1 Tim. iii. 1: iv. 14: vi. 15. Consider the practice of F in 1
Thess. i. 9 (_Ο_; ΠΟΙΑΝ): in 2 Cor. viii. 11, 14 (_Ο_; ΠΩΣ).
962 Rarest of all are instances of this mark over the Latin “e”: but we
meet with “_spē_” (Col. i. 23): “_sē_” (ii. 18): _rēpēntes_ (2 Tim.
iii. 6), &c. So, in the Greek, ἡ or ᾗ written _Η_ are most
unusual.—A few instances are found of “u” with this appendage, as
“_domūs_” (1 Tim. v. 13): “_spiritū_” (1 Cor. iv. 21), &c.
963 This information is obtained from a photograph of the page procured
from Dresden through the kindness of the librarian, Counsellor Dr.
Forstemann.
964 See Rettig’s _Prolegg._ pp. xxiv.-v.
965 “You will perceive that I have now succeeded in identifying every
Evangelium hitherto spoken of as existing in Florence, with the
exception of Evan 365 [Act. 145, Paul 181] (Laurent vi. 36), &c.,
which is said to ‘contain also the Psalms.’ I assure you no such
Codex exists in the Laurentian Library; no, nor ever did exist
there. Dr. Anziani devoted full an hour to the enquiry, allowing me
[for I was very incredulous] to see the process whereby he convinced
himself that Scholz is in error. It was just such an intelligent and
exhaustive process as Coxe of the Bodleian, or dear old Dr. Bandinel
before him, would have gone through under similar circumstances.
Pray strike that Codex off your list; and with it ‘Acts 145’ and
‘Paul 181.’ I need hardly say that Bandini’s Catalogue knows nothing
of it. It annoys me to be obliged to add that I cannot even find out
the history of Scholz’s mistake.”—_Guardian_, August 27, 1873.
966 “_Whose_ word on such matters is entitled to most credit,—the word
of the Reviewer, or the word of the most famous manuscript collators
of this century?... Those who have had occasion to seek in public
libraries for manuscripts which are not famous for antiquity or
beauty or completeness (_sic_), know that the answer ‘_non est
inventus_’ is no conclusive reason for believing that the object of
their quest has not been seen and collated in former years by those
who profess to have actually seen and collated it. That 181 ‘is
non-existent’ must be considered unproven.”—Bp. Ellicott’s
_Pamphlet_, p. 72.
967 The learned Abbé Martin, who has obligingly inspected for me the 18
copies of the “Praxapostolus” in the Paris library, reports as
follows concerning “Apost. 12” ( = Reg. 375),—“A very foul MS. of
small value, I believe: but a curious specimen of bad Occidental
scholarship. It was copied for the monks of S. Denys, and exhibits
many Latin words; having been apparently revised on the Latin. The
lection is assigned to Σαββάτῳ λ᾽ (not λδ᾽) in this codex.”
968 “_Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiæ Cryptæ Ferratæ in Tusculano,
digesti et illustrati cura et studio_ D. Antonii Rocchi,
Hieromonachi Basiliani Bibliothecæ custodis,”—_Tusculani_, fol.
1882.—I have received 424 pages (1 May, 1883).
969 Not a few of the Basilian Codices have been transferred to the
Vatican.
970 In an APPENDIX to the present volume, I will give fuller
information. I am still (3rd May, 1883) awaiting replies to my
troublesome interrogatories addressed to the heads of not a few
continental libraries.
971 Rufinus, namely (_fl._ A.D. 395). _Opp._ iv. 465
972 MS. letter to myself, August 11, 1879.
973 MS. letter from the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s College, Oxford.
974 See above, page 429.
975 Page 71. And so p. 65 and 69.
976 MS. letter to myself.
977 See above, page 429.
_ 978 Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. Versionis Goth. fragmenta quæ
supersunt_, &c. 4to. 1843.
979 “Si tamen Uppström ‘_obscurum_’ dixit, non ‘_incertum_,’ fides illi
adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me
enim præsente in aula codicem tractabat.”—(Private letter to
myself.)
Ceriani proceeds,—“Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii.
16, nota 54 _Proleg._ Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens Θεός.
Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos
fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti ‘_Let me
recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references,
sir_.’ ”
The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the
former editor of the codex, was in favour of “GOD” in 1835, and of
“_soei_” (_quæ_ [ = ὅ], to agree with “_runa_,” _i.e._ “mystery,”
which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured
to print “_saei_” = ὅς. “Et ‘saei’ legit etiam diligentissimus
Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis Ambrosiani investigator et editor,
in opere _Codicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c._ Holmiæ
et Lipsiæ, 1868.”
980 Stuttgard, 1857.
981 Of the department of Oriental MSS. in the Brit. Mus., who derives
his text from “the three Museum MSS. which contain the Arabic
Version of the Epistles: viz. _Harl._ 5474 (dated A.D.
1332):—_Oriental_ 1328 (Xth cent.):—_Arundel Orient._ 19 (dated A.D.
1616).”—Walton’s Polyglott, he says, exhibits “a garbled version,
quite distinct from the genuine Arabic: viz. ‘_These glories
commemorate them in the greatness of the mystery of fair piety.
_GOD_ appeared in the flesh_,’ ” &c.
982 See above, pp. 271 to 294.
983 i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 a _bis_.—ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b
(these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615,
from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full, _supra_,
p. 101.]—iii. 39 b _bis_: 67 a b.—_Ap. Galland._ vi. 518 c: 519 d:
520 b: 526 d: 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these
places, I believe, exhibit ὁ Θεός,—which seems to have been the
reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four
instances of it,—(they will be found distinctly specified below,
page 493, _note_ 1),—are known to exist. More places must have been
overlooked.
Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name
Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for
Θεός; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read
thus:—τὸ μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη. Griesbach borrowed that
quotation and that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in
turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question are _not
the words of Gregory Nyss. at all_; but of Apolinaris, against whom
Gregory is writing,—as Gregory himself explains. [_Antirrh. adv.
Apol._ apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]
_ 984 De Trin._ p. 83. The testimony is express.
985 i. 92: iii. 657.-iv. 19, 23.
986 i. 313:—ii. 263.
987 i. 497 c d e.—viii. 85 e: 86 a.—xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.—(The first
of these places occurs in the Homily _de Beato Philogonio_, which
Matthæi in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited
from an independent source [_Lectt. Mosqq._ 1779]. Gallandius [xiv.
_Append._ 141-4] reprints Matthæi’s labours).—Concerning this place
of Chrysostom (_vide suprà_, p. 101), Bp. Ellicott says (p.
66),—“The passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer] does allege,
deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as an illustration
of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this passage
attests the reading θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest
the reading ὁ θεός in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator
has introduced it?”... I can but say, in reply,—“No, certainly not.”
May I be permitted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible
how Bp. Ellicott can show himself so _planè hospes_ in this
department of sacred Science as to be capable of gravely asking such
a very foolish question?
988 i. 215 a: 685 b. The places may be seen quoted _suprà_, p. 101.
989 The place is quoted in Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 59.
_ 990 Antirrheticus_, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77.
991 The full title was,—Ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ᾽
ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου. _Ibid._ 518 b, c: 519 a.
992 Apolinaris did not deny that CHRIST was very GOD. His heresy (like
that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the
Godhead with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret:—Α. Θεὸς Λόγος σαρκὶ
ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπον ἀπετέλεσεν Θεόν. Ο. Τοῦτο οὖν λέγεις θείαν
ἐμψυχίαν? Α. Καὶ πάνυ. Ο. Ἀντὶ ψυχῆς οὖν ὁ Λόγος? Α. Ναί. _Dial._
vi. _adv. Apol._ (_Opp._ v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.)
993 Cramer’s _Cat. in Actus_, iii. 69. It is also met with in the Catena
on the Acts which J. C. Wolf published in his _Anecdota Græca_, iii.
137-8. The place is quoted above, p. 102.
994 Cramer’s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.
995 P. 67.
996 P. 65.
997 P. 65.
998 See above, p. 429.
999 Bentley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and others adduce
“_Euthalius_.”
_ 1000 Concilia_, i. 849-893. The place is quoted below in note 3.
1001 “Verum ex illis verbis illud tantum inferri debet false eam
epistolam Dionysio Alexandrino attribui: non autem scriptum non
fuisse ab aliquo ex Episcopis qui Synodis adversus Paulum
Antiochenum celebratis interfuerant. Innumeris enim exemplis constat
indubitatæ antiquitatis Epistolas ex Scriptorum errore falsos
titulos præferre.”—(Pagi ad A.D. 264, apud Mansi, _Concil._ i.
1039.)
1002 εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ῶν ἐν τῷ Πατρι συναΐδιος λόγος, ἕν αὐτοῦ
πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεός, καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος; ΘΕῸΣ ΓᾺΡ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ ἘΝ
ΣΑΡΚΊ, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ γαστρὸς
πρὸ ἑωσφόρου—_Concilia_, i. 853 a.
1003 Cap. xi.
_ 1004 Ad Ephes._ c. 19: c. 7. _Ad Magnes._ c. 8.
1005 Cap. xii.
_ 1006 Contra Hæresim Noeti_, c. xvii. (Routh’s _Opuscula_, i. 76.) Read
the antecedent chapters.
_ 1007 Dialog._ ii. ’_Inconfusus._’—_Opp._ iv. 132.
1008 Cod. 230,—p. 845, line 40.
1009 vii. 26, _ap. Galland_. iii. 182 a.
1010 iii. 401-2, _Epist._ 261 ( = 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4
follows.
1011 μαθήσεται γὰρ ὅτι φύσει μὲν καὶ ἀληθείᾳ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ,
θεοτόκος δὲ δι᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ἡ τεκοῦσα παρθένος.—Vol. v. Part ii. 48 e.
1012 καὶ οὔτι που φαμὲν ὅτι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεὸς ἐν
σαρκὶ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γεγονώς.—_Opp._ V. Part 2, p. 124 c d. (=
_Concilia_, iii. 221 c d.)
1013 N. T. vol. xi. _Præfat._ p. xli.
1014 διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθέντος Θεοῦ.—_De Incarnatione Domini_, Mai,
_Nov. PP. Bibliotheca_, ii. 68.
1015 Earlier in the same Treatise, Cyril thus grandly paraphrases 1 Tim.
iii. 16:—τότε δὴ τότε τὸ μέγα καὶ ἄῤῥητον γίνεται τῆς οἰκονομίας
μυστήριον; αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ δημιουργὸς ἁπάσης τῆς
κτίσεως, ὁ ἀχώρητος, ὁ ἀπερίγραπτος, ὁ ἀναλλοίωτος, ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς φῶς, ἡ ζῶσα τοῦ Πατρὸς εἰκών, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς
δόξης, ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν φύσιν
ἀναλαμβάνει.—_Ibid._ p. 37.
1016 P. 153 d. (= _Concilia_, iii. 264 c d.)
_ 1017 Ibid_, d e.
1018 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἕνα τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς, καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον
Θεὸν ἐνηνθρωπηκότα διεκήρυξαν οἰ μαθηταί κ.τ.λ. Presently,—μέγα γὰρ
τότε τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ μυστήριον, πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς
ὢν ὁ Λόγος. p. 154 a b c.—In a subsequent page,—ὅ γε μὴν
ἐνανθρωπήσας Θεός, καίτοι νομισθεὶς οὐδὲν ἕτερον εἶναι πλὴν ὅτι
μόνον ἄνθρωπος ... ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ,
τετίμηται δὲ καὶ ὡς Υἱὸς ἀληθῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός ... Θεὸς εἶναι
πεπιστευμένος.—_Ibid._ p. 170 d e.
1019 Ἀναθεματισμὸς β᾽.—Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ σαρκὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἡνῶσθαι
τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, ἕνα τε εἶναι Χριστὸν μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας
σαρκός, τὸν αὐτὸν δηλονότι Θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἀνάθεμα
ἔστω.—vi. 148 a.
_ 1020 Ibid._ b, c, down to 149 a. (= _Concilia_, iii. 815 b-e.)
1021 Preserved by Œcumenius in his _Catena_, 1631, ii. 228.
1022 Ellis, p. 67.
1023 In loc.
_ 1024 Variæ Lect._ ii. 232. He enumerates ten MSS. in which he found
it,—but he only quotes down to ἐφανερώθη.
1025 In loc.
1026 P. 227 _note_.
1027 Pointed out long since by Matthæi, _N. T._ vol. xi. _Præfat._ p.
xlviii. Also in his ed. of 1807,—iii. 443-4. “Nec ideo laudatus est,
ut doceret Cyrillum loco Θεός legisse ὅς, sed ideo, ne quis si Deum
factum legeret hominem, humanis peccatis etiam obnoxium esse
crederet.”
1028 See Berriman’s _Dissertation_, p. 189.—(MS. note of the Author.)
1029 Not from the 2nd article of his _Explanatio xii. capitum_, as
Tischendorf supposes.
1030 See how P. E. Pusey characterizes the “Scholia,” in his _Preface_ to
vol. vi. of his edition,—pp. xii. xiii.
1031 Cyril’s Greek, (to judge from Mercator’s Latin,) must have run
somewhat as follows:—Ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ὁμολογουμένως μέγα φησὶν
εἶναι τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. Καὶ ὄντως οὔτως ἔξει; ἐφανερώθη
γὰρ ἐν σαρκί, Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος.
_ 1032 Opp._ vol. v. P. i. p. 785 d.—The original scholium (of which the
extant Greek proves to be only a garbled fragment, [see Pusey’s ed.
vi. p. 520,]) abounds in expressions which imply, (if they do not
require,) that Θεός went before: _e.g._ ___quasi Deus homo
factus:____—____erant ergo gentes in mundo sine Deo, cum absque
Christo essent:____—____Deus enim erat incarnatus:____—____in
humanitate tamen Deus remansit: Deus enim Verbum, carne assumptâ,
non deposuit quod erat; intelligitur tamen idem Deus simul et
homo,___ &c.
1033 P. 67.
_ 1034 Opp._ vi. 327.
1035 ii. 852.
1036 Matthæi, N. T. xi. _Præfat._ pp. lii.-iii.
1037 Vol. V. P. ii. pp. 55-180.
1038 “How is the Godhead of Christ proved?” (asks Ussher in his _Body of
Divinity_, ed. 1653, p. 161). And he adduces out of the N. T. only
Jo. i. 1, xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Jo. v. 20.—He _had_ quoted 1 Tim.
iii. 16 in p. 160 (with Rom. ix. 5) to prove the union of the two
natures.
1039 Burgon’s _Last Twelve Verses_, &c., p. 195 and note. See Canon Cook
on this subject,—pp. 146-7.
_ 1040 Suprà_, p. 102.
1041 Pp. 68-9.
_ 1042 Proleg. in N. T._,—§ 1013.
_ 1043 Opp._ (ed. 1645) ii. 447.
_ 1044 Concilia_, v. 772 a. I quote from Garnier’s ed. of the
_Breviarium_, reprinted by Gallandius, xii. 1532.
1045 iv. 465 c.
_ 1046 Concilia_, vi. 28 e [= iii. 645 c (ed. Harduin)].
1047 “Ex sequentibus colligo quædam exemplaria tempore Anastasii et
Macedonii habuisse ὅς Θεός; ut, mutatione factâ ὅς in ὡς,
intelligeretur _ut esset Deus_.” (Cotelerii, _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ iii.
663)—“Q. d. Ut hic homo, qui dicitur Jesus, esset et dici posset
Deus,” &c. (Cornelius, _in loc._ He declares absolutely “olim
legerunt ... ὅς Θεός.”)—All this was noticed long since by Berriman,
pp. 243-4.
1048 “Apost. 83,” is “_Crypta-Ferrat._ A. β. iv.” described in the
APPENDIX. I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta
Ferrata, the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe
the letter which conveyed information which the writer knew would be
acceptable to me:—“Clme Rme Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci
illius Paulini non modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his
ipsis variationes, adsequutus es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam,
descriptis prope sexcentis et quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel
MSS. Tres autem, quos primum nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad
Liturgicorum ordinem. Jam felici omine tuas prosoquere
elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et labore nimio valetudinem
tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. Maias, an. R. S.
MDCCCLXXXIII. ANTONIUS ROCCHI, Hieromonachus Basilianus.”
For “Paul 282,” (a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as “Arménien 9,”) I
am indebted to the Abbé Martin, who describes it in his
_Introduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T._, 1883,—pp. 660-1.
See APPENDIX.
1049 Prebendary Scrivener (p. 555) ably closes the list. Any one desirous
of mastering the entire literature of the subject should study the
Rev. John Berriman’s interesting and exhaustive _Dissertation_,—pp.
229-263.
1050 The reader is invited to read what Berriman, (who was engaged on his
“_Dissertation_” while Bp. Butler was writing the “Advertisement”
prefixed to his “_Analogy_” [1736],) has written on this part of the
subject,—pp. 120-9, 173-198, 231-240, 259-60, 262, &c.
1051 Apud Athanasium, _Opp_. ii. 33; and see Garnier’s introductory Note.