The Revision Revised Part 6

We have thus again enumerated _upwards of forty_ ancient Fathers. And again we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12 words? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such counter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony from every part of ancient Christendom:-viz: "B D, 38, 435, a b d and one Egyptian version"-might really have been mistaken for a _mauvaise plaisanterie_, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually precludes the supposition. How could our Revisionists _dare_ to insinuate doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were _bound_ to know, there exists _no manner of doubt at all_?

(5) The record of the same Evangelist (S. Luke xxiii. 38) that the Inscription over our SAVIOUR'S Cross was "written ... in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew," _disappears entirely_ from our "Revised" version; and this, for no other reason, but because the incident is omitted by B C L, the corrupt Egyptian versions, and Cureton's depraved Syriac: the text of which (according to Bp. Ellicott(283)) "is of a very composite nature,-_sometimes inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican ma.n.u.script_" (B): _e.g._ on the present occasion. But surely the negative testimony of this little band of disreputable witnesses is entirely outweighed by the positive evidence of ? A D Q R with 13 other uncials,-the evidence of _the entire body of the cursives_,-the sanction of the Latin,-the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac,-the Armenian,-aethiopic,-and Georgian versions; besides Eusebius-whose testimony (which is express) has been hitherto strangely overlooked(284)-and Cyril.(285) Against the threefold plea of Antiquity, Respectability of witnesses, Universality of testimony,-what have our Revisionists to show? (_a_) They cannot pretend that there has been a.s.similation here; for the type of S. John xix. 20 is essentially different, and has retained its distinctive character all down the ages.

(_b_) Nor can they pretend that the condition of the Text hereabouts bears traces of having been jealously guarded. We ask the Reader's attention to this matter just for a moment. There may be some of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber even, to whom what we are about to offer may not be altogether without the grace of novelty:-

That the t.i.tle on the Cross is diversely set down by each of the four Evangelists,-all men are aware. But perhaps all are not aware that _S.

Luke's record_ of the t.i.tle (in ch. xxiii. 38) is exhibited in _four different ways_ by codices A B C D:-

A exhibits-????S ?S??? ? ??S????S ?O? ??????O?

B (with ? L and a) exhibits-? ??S????S ?O? ??????O? ????S

C exhibits-? ??S????S ?O? ??????O? (which is Mk. xv. 26).

D (with e and ff2) exhibits-? ??S????S ?O? ??????O? ????S ?S??? (which is the words of the Evangelist transposed).

We propose to recur to the foregoing specimens of licentiousness by-and-by.(286) For the moment, let it be added that codex X and the Sahidic version conspire in a fifth variety, viz., ????S ?S??? ??S??S ?

??S????S ?O? ??????O? (which is S. Matt. xxvii. 37); while Ambrose(287) is found to have used a Latin copy which represented ??S??S ? ???O????S ?

??S????S ?O? ??????O? (which is S. John xix. 18). We spare the reader any remarks of our own on all this. He is competent to draw his own painful inferences, and will not fail to make his own damaging reflections. He shall only be further informed that 14 uncials and the whole body of the cursive copies side with codex A in upholding the Traditional Text; that the Vulgate,(288)-the Peschito,-Cureton's Syriac,-the Philoxenian;-besides the Coptic,-Armenian,-and aethiopic versions-are all on the same side: lastly, that Origen,(289)-Eusebius,-and Gregory of Nyssa(290) are in addition consentient witnesses;-and we can hardly be mistaken if we venture to antic.i.p.ate (1st),-That the Reader will agree with us that the Text with which we are best acquainted (as usual) is here deserving of all confidence; and (2ndly),-That the Revisionists who a.s.sure us "that they did not esteem it within their province to construct a continuous and complete Greek Text;" (and who were never authorized to construct _a new Greek Text at all_;) were not justified in the course they have pursued with regard to S. Luke xxiii. 38. "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" is the only idiomatic way of rendering into English the t.i.tle according to S.

Luke, whether the reading of A or of B be adopted; but, in order to make it plain that they _reject the Greek of_ A _in favour of_ B, the Revisionists have gone out of their way. They have instructed the two Editors of "_The Greek Testament with the __ Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version_"(291) to exhibit S. Luke xxiii. 38 _as it stands in the mutilated recension of Drs. Westcott and Hort_.(292) And if _this_ procedure, repeated many hundreds of times, be not constructing a "new Greek Text" of the N. T., we have yet to learn what _is_.

(6) From the first verse of the concluding chapter of S. Luke's Gospel, is excluded the familiar clause-"_and certain others with them_" (?a? t??e?

s?? a?ta??). And pray, why? For no other reason but because ? B C L, with some Latin authorities, omit the clause;-and our Revisionists do the like, on the plea that they have only been getting rid of a "harmonistic insertion."(293) But it is nothing of the sort, as we proceed to explain.

Ammonius, or some predecessor of his early in the IInd century, saw fit (with perverse ingenuity) to seek to _force_ S. Luke xxiii. 55 into agreement with S. Matt. xxvii. 61 and S. Mark xv. 47, by turning ?ata???????sasa? d? ?a? ???a??e?,-into ?at????????sa? d? ??? ???a??e?.

This done, in order to produce "harmonistic" agreement and to be thorough, the same misguided individual proceeded to run his pen through the words "and certain with them" (?a? t??e? s?? a?ta??) as inopportune; and his work was ended. 1750 years have rolled by since then, and-What traces remain of the man's foolishness? Of his _first_ feat (we answer), Eusebius,(294) D and Evan. 29, besides five copies of the old Latin (a b e ff2 q), are the sole surviving Witnesses. Of his _second_ achievement, ? B C L, 33, 124, have preserved a record; besides seven copies of the old Latin (a b c e ff2 g-1 1), together with the Vulgate, the Coptic, and Eusebius in one place(295) though not in another.(296) The Reader is therefore invited to notice that the tables have been unexpectedly turned upon our opponents. S. Luke introduced the words "and certain with them,"

in order to prepare us for what he will have to say in xxiv. 10,-viz. "It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and _other women with them_, which told these things unto the Apostles." Some stupid harmonizer in the IInd century omitted the words, because they were in his way. Calamitous however it is that a clause which the Church has long since deliberately reinstated should, in the year 1881, be as deliberately banished for the second time from the sacred page by our Revisionists; who under the plea of _amending our English Authorized Version_ have (with the best intentions) _falsified the Greek Text_ of the Gospels in countless places,-often, as here, without notice and without apology.

(10) We find it impossible to pa.s.s by in silence the treatment which S.

Luke xxiv. 12 has experienced at their hands. They have branded with doubt S. Luke's memorable account of S. Peter's visit to the sepulchre. And why?

Let the evidence _for_ this precious portion of the narrative be first rehea.r.s.ed. Nineteen uncials then, with ? A B at their head, supported by _every known cursive_ copy,-all these vouch for the genuineness of the verse in question. The Latin,-the Syriac,-and the Egyptian versions also contain it. Eusebius,(297)-Gregory of Nyssa,(298)-Cyril,(299)-Severus,(300)-Ammonius,(301) and others(302) refer to it: while _no ancient writer_ is found to impugn it. Then, _why_ the double brackets of Drs. Westcott and Hort? and _why_ the correlative marginal note of our Revisionists?-Simply because D and 5 copies of the old Latin (a b e l fu) leave these 22 words out.

(11) On the same sorry evidence-(viz. D and 5 copies of the old Latin)-it is proposed henceforth to omit our SAVIOUR'S greeting to His disciples when He appeared among them in the upper chamber on the evening of the first Easter Day. And yet the precious words ("_and saith unto them, Peace be unto you_" [Lu. xxiv. 36],) are vouched for by 18 uncials (with ? A B at their head), and _every known cursive copy_ of the Gospels: by all the Versions: and (as before) by Eusebius,(303)-and Ambrose,(304)-by Chrysostom,(305)-and Cyril,(306)-and Augustine.(307)

(12) The same remarks suggest themselves on a survey of the evidence for S. Luke xxiv. 40:-"_And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet._" The words are found in 18 uncials (beginning with ? A B), and in every known cursive: in the Latin,(308)-the Syriac,-the Egyptian,-in short, _in all the ancient Versions_. Besides these, ps.-Justin,(309)-Eusebius,(310)-Athanasius,(311)-Ambrose (in Greek),(312)-Epiphanius,(313)-Chrysostom,(314)-Cyril,(315)-Theodoret,(316)-Ammonius,(317)-and John Damascene(318)-quote them. What but the veriest trifling is it, in the face of such a body of evidence, to bring forward the fact that D and 5 copies of the old Latin, with Cureton's Syriac (of which we have had the character already(319)), _omit_ the words in question?

The foregoing enumeration of instances of Mutilation might be enlarged to almost any extent. Take only three more short but striking specimens, before we pa.s.s on:-

(_a_) Thus, the precious verse (S. Matthew xvii. 21) which declares that "_this kind_ [of evil spirit] _goeth not out but by prayer and fasting_,"

is expunged by our Revisionists; although it is vouched for by every known uncial _but two_ (B ?), every known cursive _but one_ (Evan. 33); is witnessed to by the Old Latin and the Vulgate,-the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, aethiopic, and Slavonic versions; by Origen,(320)-Athanasius,(321)-Basil,(322)-Chrysostom,(323)-the _Opus imperf._,(324)-the Syriac Clement,(325)-and John Damascene;(326)-by Tertullian,-Ambrose,-Hilary,-Juvencus,-Augustine,-Maximus Taur.,-and by the Syriac version of the _Canons of Eusebius_: above all by the Universal East,-having been read in all the churches of Oriental Christendom on the 10th Sunday after Pentecost, from the earliest period. Why, in the world, then (our readers will ask) have the Revisionists left those words out?...

For no other reason, we answer, but because Drs. Westcott and Hort place them among the interpolations which they consider unworthy of being even "exceptionally retained in a.s.sociation with the true Text."(327) "Western and Syrian" is their oracular sentence.(328)

(_b_) The blessed declaration, "_The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost_,"-has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S.

Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial except B ?

L, and every known cursive _except three_: by the old Latin and the Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the Coptic, Armenian, aethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:(329)-by Origen,(330)-Theodoras Heracl.,(331)-Chrysostom(332)-and Jovius(333) the monk;-by Tertullian,(334)-Ambrose,(335)-Hilary,(336)-Jerome,(337)-pope Damasus(338)-and Augustine:(339)-above all, by the Universal Eastern Church,-for it has been read in all a.s.semblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse? We can only answer as before,-because Drs. Westcott and Hort consign it to the _limbus_ of their _Appendix_; cla.s.s it among their "Rejected Readings" of the most hopeless type.(340) As before, _all_ their sentence is "Western and Syrian." They add, "Interpolated either from Lu. xix. 10, or from an independent source, written or oral."(341)... Will the English Church suffer herself to be in this way defrauded of her priceless inheritance,-through the irreverent bungling of well-intentioned, but utterly misguided men?

(_c_) In the same way, our LORD'S important saying,-"_Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of: for the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them_" (S. Luke ix. 55, 56), has disappeared from our "Revised" Version; although Ma.n.u.scripts, Versions, Fathers from the _second century_ downwards, (as Tischendorf admits,) witness eloquently in its favour.

V. In conclusion, we propose to advert, just for a moment, to those five several mis-representations of S. Luke's "t.i.tle on the Cross," which were rehea.r.s.ed above, viz. in page 86. At so gross an exhibition of licentiousness, it is the mere instinct of Natural Piety to exclaim,-But then, could not those men even set down so sacred a record as _that_, correctly? They could, had they been so minded, no doubt, (we answer): but, marvellous to relate, the TRANSPOSITION of words,-no matter how significant, sacred, solemn;-of short clauses,-even of whole sentences of Scripture;-was anciently accounted an allowable, even a graceful exercise of the critical faculty.

The thing alluded to is incredible at first sight; being so often done, apparently, without any reason whatever,-or rather in defiance of all reason. Let _candidus lector_ be the judge whether we speak truly or not.

Whereas S. Luke (xxiv. 41) says, "_And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered_," the scribe of codex A (by way of improving upon the Evangelist) transposes his sentence into this, "And while they yet disbelieved Him, _and wondered for joy_:"(342) which is almost nonsense, or quite.

But take a less solemn example. Instead of,-"And His disciples plucked _the ears of corn, and ate them_, (t??? st???a?, ?a? ?s????,) rubbing them in their hands" (S. Luke vi. 1),-B C L R, by _transposing_ four Greek words, present us with, "And His disciples plucked, _and ate the ears of corn_, (?a? ?s???? t??? st???a?,) rubbing them," &c. Now this might have been an agreeable occupation for horses and for another quadruped, no doubt; but hardly for men. This curiosity, which (happily) proved indigestible to our Revisionists, is nevertheless swallowed whole by Drs.

Westcott and Hort as genuine and wholesome Gospel. (_O dura Doctorum ilia!_)-But to proceed.

Then further, these preposterous Transpositions are of such perpetual recurrence,-are so utterly useless or else so exceedingly mischievous, _always_ so tasteless,-that familiarity with the phenomenon rather increases than lessens our astonishment. What _does_ astonish us, however, is to find learned men in the year of grace 1881, freely resuscitating these long-since-forgotten _betises_ of long-since-forgotten Critics, and seeking to palm them off upon a busy and a careless age, as so many new revelations. That we may not be thought to have shown undue partiality for the xxiind, xxiiird, and xxivth chapters of S. Luke's Gospel by selecting our instances of _Mutilation_ from those three chapters, we will now look for specimens of _Transposition_ in the xixth and xxth chapters of the same Gospel. The reader is invited to collate the Text of the oldest uncials, throughout these two chapters, with the commonly Received Text.

He will find that within the compa.s.s of 88 consecutive verses,(343) codices ? A B C D Q exhibit no less than 74 instances of Transposition:-for 39 of which, D is responsible:-? B, for 14:-? and ? B D, for 4 each:-A B and ? A B, for 3 each:-A, for 2:-B, C, Q, ? A, and A D, each for 1.-In other words, he will find that in no less than 44 of these instances of Transposition, D is implicated:-?, in 26:-B, in 25:-A, in 10:-while C and Q are concerned in only one a-piece.... It should be added that Drs. Westcott and Hort have adopted _every one of the 25 in which codex_ B _is concerned_-a significant indication of the superst.i.tious reverence in which they hold that demonstrably corrupt and most untrustworthy doc.u.ment.(344) Every other case of Transposition they have rejected. By their own confession, therefore, 49 out of the 74 (_i.e._ two-thirds of the entire number) are instances of depravation. We turn with curiosity to the Revised Version; and discover that out of the 25 so retained, the Editors in question were only able to persuade the Revisionists to adopt 8. So that, in the judgment of the Revisionists, 66 out of 74, or _eleven-twelfths_, are instances of licentious tampering with the deposit.... O to partic.i.p.ate in the verifying faculty which guided the teachers to discern in 25 cases of Transposition out of 74, the genuine work of the HOLY GHOST! O, far more, to have been born with that loftier instinct which enabled the pupils (Doctors Roberts and Milligan, Newth and Moulton, Vance Smith and Brown, Angus and Eadie) to winnow out from the entire lot exactly 8, and to reject the remaining 66 as nothing worth!

According to our own best judgment, (and we have carefully examined them all,) _every one_ of the 74 is worthless. But then _we_ make it our fundamental rule to reason always from grounds of external Evidence,-never from postulates of the Imagination. Moreover, in the application of our rule, we begrudge no amount of labour: reckoning a long summer's day well spent if it has enabled us to ascertain the truth concerning one single controverted word of Scripture. Thus, when we find that our Revisionists, at the suggestion of Dr. Hort, have transposed the familiar Angelic utterance (in S. Luke xxiv. 7), ????? ?t? de? t?? ???? t?? ?????p??

pa?ad????a?,-into this, ????? t?? ???? t?? ?????p?? ?t? de?, &c., we at once enquire for _the evidence_. And when we find that no single Father, _no_ single Version, and no Codex-except the notorious ? B C L-advocates the proposed transposition; but on the contrary that every Father (from A.D. 150 downwards) who quotes the place, quotes it as it stands in the Textus receptus;(345)-we have no hesitation whatever in rejecting it. It is found in the midst of a very thicket of fabricated readings. It has nothing whatever to recommend it. It is condemned by the consentient voice of Antiquity. It is advocated only by four copies,-which _never_ combine exclusively, except to misrepresent the truth of Scripture and to seduce the simple.

But the foregoing, which is a fair typical sample of countless other instances of unauthorized Transposition, may not be dismissed without a few words of serious remonstrance. Our contention is that, inasmuch as the effect of such transposition _is incapable of being idiomatically represented in the English language_,-(for, in all such cases, the Revised Version retains the rendering of the Authorized,)-our Revisionists have violated the spirit as well as the letter of their instructions, in putting forth _a new Greek Text_, and silently introducing into it a countless number of these and similar depravations of Scripture. These Textual curiosities (for they are nothing more) are absolutely out of place in a _Revision of the English Version_: achieve no lawful purpose: are sure to mislead the unwary. This first.-Secondly, we submit that,-strong as, no doubt, the temptation must have been, to secure the sanction of the N. T. Revisionists for their own private Recension of the Greek, (printed long since, but published simultaneously with the "Revised Version")-it is to be regretted that Drs. Westcott and Hort should have yielded thereto. Man's impatience never promotes G.o.d'S Truth. The interests of Textual Criticism would rather have suggested, that the Recension of that accomplished pair of Professors should have been submitted to public inspection in the first instance. The astonis.h.i.+ng Text which it advocates might have been left with comparative safety to take its chance in the Jerusalem Chamber, after it had undergone the searching ordeal of competent Criticism, and been freely ventilated at home and abroad for a decade of years. But on the contrary. It was kept close. It might be seen only by the Revisers: and even _they_ were tied down to secrecy as to the letter-press by which it was accompanied.... All this strikes us as painful in a high degree.

VI. Hitherto we have referred almost exclusively to the Gospels. In conclusion, we invite attention to our Revisionists' treatment of 1 Tim.

iii. 16-the _crux criticorum_, as Prebendary Scrivener styles it.(346) We cannot act more fairly than by inviting a learned member of the revising body to speak on behalf of his brethren. We shall in this way ascertain the amount of acquaintance with the subject enjoyed by some of those who have been so obliging as to furnish the Church with a new Recension of the Greek of the New Testament. Dr. Roberts says:-

"The English reader will probably be startled to find that the familiar text,-'_And without controversy great is the mystery of G.o.dliness_: G.o.d _was manifest in the flesh_,' has been exchanged in the Revised Version for the following,-'_And without controversy great is the mystery of G.o.dliness; He who was manifested in the flesh._' A note on the margin states that 'the word G.o.d, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence;' and it may be well that, in a pa.s.sage of so great importance, the reader should be convinced that such is the case.

"What, then, let us enquire, is the amount of evidence which can be produced in support of the reading 'G.o.d'? This is soon stated.

Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. None of the very ancient versions support it. No uncial witnesses to it, with the doubtful exception of A.... But even granting that the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian ma.n.u.script is in favour of 'G.o.d,' far more evidence can be produced in support of 'who.' ?

and probably C witness to this reading, and it has also powerful testimony from the versions and Fathers. Moreover, the relative 'who' is a far more difficult reading than 'G.o.d,' and could hardly have been subst.i.tuted for the latter. On every ground, therefore, we conclude that this interesting and important pa.s.sage must stand as it has been given in the Revised Version."(347)

And now, having heard the learned Presbyterian on behalf of his brother-Revisionists, we request that we may be ourselves listened to in reply.

The place of Scripture before us, the Reader is a.s.sured, presents a memorable instance of the mischief which occasionally resulted to the inspired Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the Scriptures in uncial characters. S. Paul _certainly_ wrote ??a ?st? t?

t?? e?see?a? ?st?????; Te?? ?fa?e???? ?? sa???, ("_Great is the mystery of G.o.dliness_: G.o.d _was manifested in the flesh_") But it requires to be explained at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was), thus,-_TS_ ("G.o.d"), is only distinguishable from the relative p.r.o.noun "who" (?S), by two horizontal strokes,-which, in ma.n.u.scripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at present they can scarcely be discerned.(348) Need we go on? An archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the word _TS_ ("G.o.d"), gave rise to the reading ?S ("who"),-of which nonsensical subst.i.tute, traces survive in _only two_(349) ma.n.u.scripts,-? and 17: not, for certain, in _one single_ ancient Father,-no, nor for certain in _one single_ ancient Version. So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of writing t? ?st????? ?? ("the mystery _who_"), that copyists promptly subst.i.tuted ? ("_which_"): thus furnis.h.i.+ng another ill.u.s.tration of the well-known property of a fabricated reading, viz. sooner or later inevitably to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromonta.n.u.s, of the VIth century (D): the only Patristic evidence in its favour being Gelasius of Cyzicus,(350) (whose date is A.D. 476): and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Chrysostom.(351) The Versions-all but the Georgian and the Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text-favour it unquestionably; for they are observed invariably to make the relative p.r.o.noun agree in gender with the word which represents ?st????? ("mystery") which immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, ?? ("_who_") is found,-but only because the Syriac equivalent for ?st????? is of the masculine gender: in the Latin, _quod_ ("_which_")-but only because _mysterium_ in Latin (like ?st????? in Greek) is neuter. Over this latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ? does not find a single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its most strenuous advocates.

It is time to pa.s.s under hasty review the direct evidence for the true reading. A and C exhibited _TS_ until ink, thumbing, and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated what once was patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to contend on the negative side of _this_ question.-F and G, which exhibit _?S_ and _?S_ respectively, were confessedly derived from a common archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke which distinguishes T from ? must have been so faintly traced as to be scarcely discernible. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke in question represents _the aspirate_, is scarcely admissible. _There is no single example of_ ?? _written_ _?S_ _in any part of __ either Cod._ F _or Cod._ G. On the other hand, in the only place where ?S represents _TS_, it is written _?S_ _in both_. Prejudice herself may be safely called upon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference.

To come to the point,-Te?? is the reading of _all the uncial copies extant but two_ (viz. ? which exhibits ??, and D which exhibits ?), and of all the cursives _but one_ (viz. 17). The universal consent of the Lectionaries proves that Te?? has been read in all the a.s.semblies of the faithful from the IVth or Vth century of our era. At what earlier period of her existence is it supposed then that the Church ("the witness and keeper of Holy Writ,") availed herself of her privilege to subst.i.tute Te??

for ?? or ?,-whether in error or in fraud? Nothing short of a conspiracy, to which every region of the Eastern Church must have been a party, would account for the phenomenon.

We enquire next for the testimony of the Fathers; and we discover that-(1) Gregory of Nyssa quotes Te?? _twenty-two times_:(352)-that Te?? is also recognized by (2) his namesake of n.a.z.ianzus in two places;(353)-as well as by (3) Didymus of Alexandria;(354)-(4) by ps.-Dionysius Alex.;(355)-and (5) by Diodorus of Tarsus.(356)-(6) Chrysostom quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 in conformity with the received text at least three times;(357)-and (7) Cyril Al. as often:(358)-(8) Theodoret, four times:(359)-(9) an unknown author of the age of Nestorius (A.D. 430), once:(360)-(10) Severus, Bp. of Antioch (A.D. 512), once.(361)-(11) Macedonius (A.D. 506) patriarch of CP.,(362) of whom it has been absurdly related that he _invented_ the reading, is a witness for Te?? perforce; so is-(12) Euthalius, and-(13) John Damascene on two occasions.(363)-(14) An unknown writer who has been mistaken for Athanasius,(364)-(15) besides not a few ancient scholiasts, close the list: for we pa.s.s by the testimony of-(16) Epiphanius at the 7th Nicene Council (A.D. 787),-of (17) c.u.menius,-of (18) Theophylact.

It will be observed that neither has anything been said about the many indirect allusions of earlier Fathers to this place of Scripture; and yet some of these are too striking to be overlooked: as when-(19) Basil, writing of our SAVIOUR, says a?t?? ?fa?e???? ?? sa???:(365)-and (20) Gregory Thaum., ?a? ?st? Te?? ???????? ? ?sa???? ?? sa???

fa?e???e??:(366)-and before him, (21) Hippolytus, ??t?? p??e???? e??

??s??, Te?? ?? s?at? ?fa?e????:(367)-and (22) Theodotus the Gnostic, ?

S?t?? ?f?? ?at??? t??? ????????:(368)-and (23) Barnabas, ??s??? ... ? ????

t?? Te?? t?p? ?a? ?? sa??? fa?e???e??:(369)-and earlier still (24) Ignatius: Te?? ?????p???? fa?e???????:-?? sa??? ?e??e??? Te??:-e?? Te??

?st?? ? fa?e??s?a? ?a?t?? d?? ??s?? ???st?? t?? ???? a?t??.(370)-Are we to suppose that _none_ of these primitive writers read the place as we do?

Against this array of Testimony, the only evidence which the unwearied industry of 150 years has succeeded in eliciting, is as follows:-(1) The exploded _Latin_ fable that Macedonius (A.D. 506) _invented_ the reading:(371)-(2) the fact that Epiphanius,-_professing to transcribe_(372) from an earlier treatise of his own(373) (in which ?fa?e???? stands _without a nominative_), prefixes ??:-(3) the statement of an unknown scholiast, that in one particular place of Cyril's writings where the Greek is lost, Cyril wrote ??,-(which seems to be an entire mistake; but which, even if it were a fact, would be sufficiently explained by the discovery that in two other places of Cyril's writings the evidence _fluctuates_ between ?? and Te??):-(4) a quotation in an epistle of Eutherius of Tyana (it exists only in Latin) where "qui" is found:-(5) a casual reference (in Jerome's commentary on Isaiah) to our LORD, as One "qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu,"-which Bp. Pearson might have written.-Lastly, (6) a pa.s.sage of Theodorus Mopsuest. (quoted at the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553), where the reading is "qui,"-which is balanced by the discovery that in another place of his writings quoted at the same Council, the original is translated "quod." And this closes the evidence. Will any unprejudiced person, on reviewing the premisses, seriously declare that ?? is the better sustained reading of the two?

For ourselves, we venture to deem it incredible that a Reading which-(_a_) Is not to be found in more than two copies (? and 17) of S. Paul's Epistles: which-(_b_) Is not certainly supported by a single Version:-(_c_) Nor is clearly advocated by a single Father,-_can_ be genuine. It does not at all events admit of question, that until _far_ stronger evidence can be produced in its favour, ?? ("who") may on no account be permitted to usurp the place of the commonly received Te??

("G.o.d") of 1 Tim. iii. 16. But the present exhibits in a striking and instructive way all the characteristic tokens of a depravation of the text. (1st) At an exceedingly early period it resulted in _another_ deflection. (2nd) It is without the note of _Continuity_; having died out of the Church's memory well-nigh 1400 years ago. (3rd) It is deficient in _Universality_; having been all along denied the Church's corporate sanction. As a necessary consequence, (4th) It rests at this day on wholly _insufficient Evidence_: Ma.n.u.scripts, Versions, Fathers being _all_ against it. (5th) It carries on its front its own refutation. For, as all must see, _TS_ might easily be mistaken for ?S: but in order to make ?S into _TS_, _two horizontal lines must of set purpose be added to the copy_. It is therefore a vast deal _more likely_ that _TS_ became ?S, than that ?S became _TS_. (6th) Lastly, it is condemned by internal considerations. ?? is in truth so grossly improbable-rather, so _impossible_-a reading, that under any circ.u.mstances we must have anxiously enquired whether no escape from it was discoverable: whether there exists no way of explaining _how_ so patent an absurdity as ?st????? ?? _may_ have arisen? And on being reminded that the disappearance of two faint horizontal strokes, _or even of one_, would fully account for the impossible reading,-(and thus much, at least, all admit,)-should we not have felt that it required an overwhelming consensus of authorities in favour of ??, to render such an alternative deserving of serious attention? It is a mere abuse of Bengel's famous axiom to recal it on occasions like the present. We shall be landed in a bathos indeed if we allow _gross improbability_ to become a constraining motive with us in revising the sacred Text.

And thus much for the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. We invite the reader to refer back(374) to a Reviser's estimate of the evidence in favour of Te?? and ?? respectively, and to contrast it with our own. If he is impressed with the strength of the cause of our opponents,-their mastery of the subject,-and the reasonableness of their contention,-we shall be surprised. And yet _that_ is not the question just now before us. The _only_ question (be it clearly remembered) which has to be considered, is _this_:-Can it be said with truth that the "evidence" for ?? (as against Te??) in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is "_clearly preponderating_"? Can it be maintained that Te?? is a "_plain and clear error_"? Unless this can be affirmed-_cadit quaestio_. The traditional reading of the place ought to have been let alone. May we be permitted to say without offence that, in our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the Revisers' bidding, were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred page,(375)-with which the Church Universal was once well acquainted, but which in her corporate character she has long since unconditionally condemned and abandoned,-she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom? Yes, and to have _that_ openly said of her which S. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day who fell back into the very errors which they had already abjured. The place will be found in 2 S. Peter ii. 22. So singularly applicable is it to the matter in hand, that we can but invite attention to the quotation on our t.i.tle-page and p.