the Syriac, and quod in the Latin, for in this shorter form of the verse, H is preceded only by the demonstrative THH.

The Coptic or Memphitic Version, which has been referred to the third century, as edited by both Wilkins and Boeticher, translate rò vorngiov by III MYгTHPION, and for the relative gives us OH ET, i.e. ilte qui.

In the Thebaic Version, which is perhaps even more ancient, the form is almost identical with the Memphitic. Both certainly have the relative, but do not distinguish its gender.

The Gothic Version, of the fourth century translates grov by the feminine substantive runa, and connects with it the masculine relative saci, which seems to require & rather than 8. The adjective mikils, great, is also masculine, though connected with the feminine runa, the mystery being referred personally to Christ, and the gender of mikils being determined by the idea rather than the grammatical form of the noun with which it is connected.

The Armenian Version, belonging to the fifth century, plainly has a relative.

The various Arabic Versions are all too modern to possess any critical authority, unless an exception be made in favour of a MS. Version preserved in the Vatican. With the exception of the Arabic of the Polyglot, they all have a relative.

The Slavonic and Georgian, which are of even less weight than the Arabic, are said to favour dog.

It will, then, be seen that all the versions made previous to the sixth century have the relative, and that, with the apparent exception of the Gothic, they leave its gender in doubt, a point which can be decided only by the Greek MSS. As these afford but very slight support to ",-only a single copy having this reading, and then probably arising from grammatical accommodation to the Latin which is written beside it,the versions may confidently be adduced as unanimously supporting ös.

III. AUTHORITY OF THE FATHERS.

Our third source of evidence is the authority of the Fathers. All their citations which have any bearing upon our text we will endeavour to give from minute personal examination of the original authorities, omitting, however, those Latin Fathers who did not also use the Greek, and who are therefore authority only for the Old Latin or the Vulgate Version. It is to be premised that it is difficult always to discover the original text of the Fathers, especially in quotations of Scripture, because scribes, and too often editors, have altered these quotations so as to make them correspond with their own copies of the

Readings of 1 TIM. III. 16.

397

Scriptures. Accordingly we may rely with more confidence on the comments connected with our text than on the words in which we now find it quoted. The mere citation of this passage with the reading sós is no sure sign that such was the reading of an author, for the temptation to change is to Seós has been very strong, while, as all the later MSS. have is, and this also seems the more orthodox reading, there has been since the sixth century no such tendency to alter 90s to s. This being the case, a citation of this passage with the reading is almost certainly has not been altered, while with the reading Sós it may have suffered corruption. This principle may be expressed in more general terms: when of two earlier readings one has at a later period become universal, the writings of the early Fathers may in all honesty of intention be so altered as to accord with the received reading, but not with the obsolete one. In accordance with this rule, a citation with the reading is has more probably not been altered than with the reading Θεός.

Again, the passage may be alluded to in such a way as to indicate what was the author's reading, although not formally quoted. If we read that "the mystery of godliness was manifested in the flesh," we may be sure that the writer's copy of the Scriptures contained only a relative between Morgio and ipaveguen. On the other hand, if an author frequently allude to this passage, persistently connecting 36s with some form of pavegów, we may be sure that he read this passage as in the Textus Receptus, while if he generally connects ipangwon with such subjects as κύριος, υἱός, Χριστός, and σωτήρ, instead of Θεός, it is a probable proof that 9e6s was not in his copy, although the presumption is much weakened if such subjects are connected with the subsequent predicates. Thus, little can be gathered from Origen's remark: "My Saviour is said to have been received up into glory."

It may be added of Latin translations of Greek Fathers, that they are especially worthy of confidence, as correctly expres sing the original, in cases where they shew a variation from the Vulgate.

The following Fathers clearly support ős :

1. Epiphanius. A.D. 368. Ος ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι.* TVEμar.* This passage is found in a long quotation from the Ancoratus of Epiphanius, taken by him into his Panarium. The two passages have been generally quoted as independent authorities, and correctly so, as Epiphanius himself transferred

*Panarium, tom. i. p. 894 (Coloniæ, 1682). A single MS. of little note is said to reads for %, viz. the Cod. Rhedig. of the fifteenth century, noted by Ochler in his edition of the Panarium, vol. i. part i. p. 157.

VOL. XIV.-NO. LII.

D d

these sections from one work to the other. In the Ancoratus, as we now have it, ős, is omitted,* a remarkable omission if the reading had been 9ɛóş.

2. Theodorus of Mopsuestia. A.D. 407.

λ.†

α. "Ος ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνέυματι· δεδικαιῶσθαι ἐν σνέυματι λέγων αυτὸν εἴτε ὡς, κ. τ. λ. " Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit; saying that he was justified in the spirit either because," &c.

b. Consonantia et apostolus dicit, et manifeste magnum est pietatis mysterium, qui manifestatus est in carne, justificatus in spiritu.‡ “And agreeably with this the apostle says: ‘And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit.' Note here,

that this old translation from the Greek varies from the Vulgate in having mysterium for sacramentum, and qui manifestatus instead of the neuter form, and therefore no doubt correctly represents the original of Theodorus.

Less decisive in its present form is the following:

c. Christum justificatum et immaculatum factum virtute Sancti Spiritus, sicut beatus Paulus modo quidem dicit quod justificatus est in spiritu.§ "Christ was justified and made spotless by the agency of the Holy Spirit, as Paul says, in one place, that he was justified by the Spirit," &c.

d. In another place Theodorus speaks of Christ as not needing to be "justified by the Spirit," if the proper Godhead dwelt in him ; a comment hardly appropriate had he read Iɛos ・ ・ ・ ・ ἐδικαιώθη ἐν.

3. Cyril of Alexandria. A.D. 412. This author has been. quoted at times as favouring Sós, but it may be abundantly proved that his real reading is ös. He several times quotes this passage.

ös

α. Πλανᾶσθε μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς, μήτε μὴν τῆς εὐσεβείας τὸ μέγα μυστήριον, τουτ' ἐστι Χριστόν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη, κ. τ. λ. Εἴη γὰρ ἂν οὐχ ἕτερον οἶμαι τι τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ἢ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. Bis. “ Ye err, not knowing the scriptures, nor indeed the great mystery of godliness, that is, Christ, who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, &c.; for the mystery of godliness could be nothing else,

* Ancor. 69, tom. i. p. 894.

† De Incarn. ap. Leont. Hieros. Fragm. 21. Maii Script. Vet. Vat. Coll., tom. vi. p. 308. The same passage translated into Latin by Fr. Turrianus, may be found in Basnage's Thesaurus, tom. i. p. 588.

De Incarn., lib. xiii., ap. Concil. Constant. II., Mansi, tom. ix. col. 221. Henderson calls both Theodorus and Epiphanius Diaconus “Latin Fathers," pp. 35, 64. | Ibid., col. 206.

SAd Baptizandos, Mansi, tom. ix. col. 218.

De Incarn. Unig. Dial. VIII. (ed Aubert), tom. v. part i, pp. 680, also in nearly the same words, De Recta Fide, tom. v. part ii. p. 6.

681;

Readings of 1 TIM. III. 16.

399

I think, than the Word of God the Father sent to us, who was manifested in the flesh." This explanation necessarily requires the reading of, for if 9ós takes its place, the mystery is evidently the great doctrine of redemption through the God-man, and not the person of the Word of God.

6. "Ος ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι· κατ ̓ οὐδένα γὰρ τρόπον ταῖς ἡμετέραις ἀσθενείαις ἥλω.* "Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit; for in no way was he overcome by our infirmities." The same passage exists in a Latin translation by Marius Mercator, A.D. 418, in the following form: Divinus Paulus magnum quidem sit esse Mysterium pietatis, et vere res ita se habet. Manifestatus est enim in carne, cum sit Deus Verbum; justificatus est autem in spiritu, nullo enim modo nostris videtur infirmitatibus contineri." This quotation of the Greek form by Ecumenius has been universally but erroneously supposed to refer to the citation quoted below from the Twelve Anathematisms; but Ecumenius distinctly states that it was taken from the twelfth chapter of the Scholia; the very place where we find it in Mercator's translation.

α. Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, Θεὸς ἐφανε ρώθη ἐν σαρκί, κ. τ. λ. ξ Here θεός has been foisted into the text, as is shewn by the comment upon the passage. Cyril is engaged in upholding the divinity of Christ, and without dwelling on the word 90s, as he indubitably would, if he had employed that reading, he adds, Εἰ θεὸς ὢν ὁ λόγος ἐνανθρωπῆσαι λέγοιτο (notice that 26yos, and not 965, is made the subject). "If the Word, being God, be said to have become incarnate, and this without dropping his divinity, but continuing the same that he ever had been, then great, and confessedly great, is the mystery of godliness." The argument for Christ's divinity is drawn from the fact that the mystery is called great, and not from the word Sós. "But," he adds, "if Christ be regarded as a common man, how has he been manifested in the flesh? or rather, is it not evident that all men are in the flesh, and cannot be seen in any other way?" This father thus goes on to draw his argument from the predicates ipaveguen, pon, &c., and bases not the slightest proof on the word Seós. "And how was he seen of the holy angels? Do not the angels see us? and what is there strange or mysterious if, being so different from us, some of the

Schol. de Incarn. Unig., cap. 12, ap. Ecum. Comm. in 1 Tim, iii. 16 (Par., 1631), tom. ii. p. 227.

† Cyril, tom. v. part i. p. 785, also Mar. Merc. (ed. Migne), col. 1013.

+ Ceumenius introduces the quotation with the words ̔Ο ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλος ἐν τῷ δωδεκάτῳ κεφηλαίῳ τῶν Σχολίων φησίν· ὅς ἐφανερώθη, κ. τ. λ. This is frequently quoted in the margin of MSS.

De Recta Fide. tom. v. part ii. p. 153.

This expression, 9sò; wv i λóyo;, is quite common with Cyril; cf. Id. pp. 72 A, 94 D.

angels saw him? And how was he preached to the Gentiles?" And so Cyril proceeds to comment on the remaining clauses of the verse, from each of which he concludes that Christ must have been God. He then closes with these words: "Great, then, is the mystery of godliness, πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ θεὸς ὤν zali hiyos, for the Word has been manifested in the flesh, being also God; he was also justified in the spirit; was also seen of angels; was preached also to the Gentiles; and is believed on by the inhabitants of the world, as in truth the Son of God and the Father, and he who appeared in the flesh." Is not the context clear that Cyril did not recognise sóc?

α. Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως, κ. τ. λ., θεὸς ἐφαν., κ. τ. λ. * In this place also the text of Cyril has been tampered with, as the context shews ; for he asks: Τίς ὁ ἐν σαρκι φανερωθείς ; ἢ δῆλου ὅτι πάντησε καὶ πάντως ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος οὕτω γὰρ ἔσται μέγα τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας αυστήριον [Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,† ὤφθη δὲ ἀγγέλοις ἀναβαίνων εἰς οὐρα νούς. "Who is it that was manifested in the flesh? Is it not evident that it was most certainly the Word which is from God the Father? for so will the mystery of godliness be great. He was seen also of angels as he ascended into heaven; was preached unto the Gentiles by the holy apostles; was believed on in the world. By no means can we then say that he was a mere man, like us; but as God he was made in the flesh, even as we are. This passage taken as a whole, like the one previously quoted, shews that Cyril read ős, for it were most strange that with the word sós before him, he should have omitted to speak of it when so much to this purpose, and should have endeavoured to prove that ὁ φανερωθείς was divine by the use of the word μυστήριον, the mystery not being "confessedly great" unless the man Christ Jesus is also God. Can we believe that he would have felt obliged to fortify his proof of the divinity of him who was manifested in the flesh, by shewing that the further statements in regard to him, "was seen of angels, was preached to the Gentiles," &c., are inconsistent with his mere humanity, if this very text had called Christ God? Is it possible that so keen a champion of orthodoxy as Cyril would, in professedly quoting a passage to prove the divinity of Christ, have withheld all reference to the most important word in it, and expended his strength in drawing comparatively feeble deductions? Would he have been content with throwing sand when he might have hurled a cannon ball at the heretics? He did not certainly set

*De Recta Fide, p. 124 C.

The words enclosed in brackets are omitted by Euthymius Zigadenus in his citation of this passage from Cyril (vid. Matthaei's Greek Test., vol. ii. Pref. to Cath. Epp., also Max. Biblioth, tom. xix. p. 165 D); they are not translated in Aubert's Latin Version, nor are they necessary for the sense. They are, no doubt, spurious. Cf. Griesb. Symbol. Crit., tom. p. lii.