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.

1052 “Audi Paulum magnâ voce clamantem: _Deus manifestatus est in carne_ [down to] _assumptus est in gloriâ_. O magni doctoris affatum! _Deus_, inquit, _manifestatus est in carne_,” &c.—_Concilia_, vii. p. 618 e.

1053 Theodori Studitæ, _Epistt_. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirmondi’s _Opera Varia_, vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,—Venet. 1728.)

1054 Paul 113, (Matthæi’s a) contains two Scholia which witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη:—Paul 115, (Matthæi’s d) also contains two Scholia.—Paul 118, (Matthæi’s h).—Paul 123, (Matthæi’s n). See Matthæi’s N. T. vol. xi. _Præfat._ pp. xlii.-iii.

1055 ii. 228 a.

1056 ii. 569 e: 570 a.

_ 1057 Panoplia_,—Tergobyst, 1710, fol. ρκγ᾽. p. 2, col. 1.

1058 Σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῶν φώτων.

1059 But in Apost. 12 (Reg. 375) it is the lection for the 30th (λ᾽) Saturday.—In Apost. 33 (Reg. 382), for the 31st (λα᾽).—In Apost. 26 (Reg. 320), the lection for the 34th Saturday begins at 1 Tim. vi. 11.—Apostt. 26 and 27 (Regg. 320-1) are said to have a peculiar order of lessons.

1060 For convenience, many codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of “Apostolus”) which are rather Ἀπόστολο-εὐαγγέλια. Many again which are but fragmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the Epistles: such are Apostt. 97 to 103. See the APPENDIX.

1061 No. 21, 28, 31 are said to be Gospel lessons (“Evstt.”). No. 29, 35 and 36 are Euchologia; “the two latter probably Melchite, for the codices exhibit some Arabic words” (Abbé Martin). No. 43 and 48 must be erased. No. 70 and 81 are identical with 52 (B. M. _Addit._ 32051).

1062 Viz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Menologies with a few Gospel lections): 15: 16: 17: 19: 20: 24: 26: 27: 32: 37: 39: 44: 47: 50: 53: 55: 56: 59: 60: 61: 63: 64: 66: 67: 68: 71: 72: 73: 75: 76: 78: 79: 80: 87: 88: 90.

1063 Viz. Apost. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, 42 at Rome: 54 at St. Petersburg: 74 in America.

1064 Viz. Apost. 2 and 52 (Addit. 32051) in the B. Mus., also 69 (Addit. 29714 verified by Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: 7 at the Propaganda (verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 at Paris (verified by Abbé Martin): 13, 14, 18 at Moscow: 38, 49 in the Vatican (verified by Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow (verified by Dr. Young): 46 at Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besançon (verified by M. Castan): 57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65 B-C (all three verified by Scrivener): 58 at Ch. Ch., Oxford: 77 at Moscow: 82 at Messina (verified by Papas Matranga): 84 and 89 at Crypta Ferrata (verified by Hieromonachus Rocchi).

1065 Viz. Apost. 34 (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Codex. The Abbé Martin assures me that this copy exhibits μυστήριον; | θῢ ἐφανερώθη. Note however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation, proves that nothing else but θς was intended. This is very instructive. What if the same slip of the pen had been found in Cod. B?

1066 Viz. Apost 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv.)

1067 Viz. Praxapost. 85 and 86 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vii. which exhibits μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφα | νερώθη ἐν σαρκί; and A. β. viii., which exhibits μυστίριον; ὅς ἐ ... νερώθη | ἐν σαρκύ. [_sic._]). Concerning these codices, see above, pp. 446 to 448.

_ 1068 Concilia_, ii. 217 c ( = ed. Hard. i. 418 b).

1069 He wrote a history of the Council of Nicæa, in which he introduces the discussions of the several Bishops present,—all the product (as Cave thinks) of his own brain.

1070 viii. 214 b.

1071 Cited at the Council of CP. (A.D. 553). [_Concilia_, ed. Labbe et Cossart, v. 447 b c = ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.]

_ 1072 Concilia_, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d.

1073 Harduin, iii. 32 d.

1074 A Latin translation of the work of Leontius (_Contra Nestor. et Eutych._), wherein it is stated that the present place was found in _lib._ xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 660-99: the passage under consideration being given at p. 694 c d]: but Mai (_Script. Vett._ vi. 290-312), having discovered in the Vatican the original text of the excerpts from Theod. Mops., published (from the xiith book of Theod. _de Incarnatione_) the Greek of the passage [vi. 308]. From this source, Migne [_Patr. Gr._ vol. 66, col. 988] seems to have obtained his quotation.

1075 Either as given by Mai, or as represented in the Latin translation of Leontius (obtained from a different codex) by Canisius [_Antiquæ Lectt._, 1601, vol. iv.], from whose work Gallandius simply reprinted it in 1788.

_ 1076 Theodori Mops. Fragmenta Syriaca, vertit_ Ed. Sachau, Lips. 1869,—p. 53.—I am indebted for much zealous help in respect of these Syriac quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,—who, I venture to predict, will some day make his mark in these studies.

_ 1077 Ibid._ p. 64. The context of the place (which is derived from Lagarde’s _Analecta Syriaca_, p. 102, top,) is as follows: “Deitas enim inhabitans hæc omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam gratia Spiritus Sancti adjuvabat ad hunc effectum, ut beatus quoque Apostolus dixit: ‘_Vere grande ... in spiritu_;’ quoniam nos quoque auxilium Spiritûs accepturi sumus ad perfectionem justitiæ.” A further reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16 at page 69, does not help us.

1078 I owe this, and more help than I can express in a foot-note, to my learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s.

1079 Pages 437-43.

1080 See above, p. 444.

1081 See above, pp. 446-8; also the _Appendix_.

1082 See pp. 426-8.

1083 See pp. 480-2.

1084 N. T. 1806 ii. _ad calcem_, p. [25].

1085 Page 76.

1086 See above, pp. 376-8.

1087 Viz. from p. 431 to p. 478.

1088 See above, pp. 462-4.

1089 Viz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit. i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; iii. 11.

1090 From the friend whose help is acknowledged at foot of pp. 450, 481.

1091 Scholz enumerates 8 of these copies: Coxe, 15. But there must exist a vast many more; as, at M. Athos, in the convent of S. Catharine, at Meteora, &c., &c.

1092 In explanation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to the APPENDIX at the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing words have been in print I have obtained from Rome tidings of about 34 more copies of S. Paul’s Epistles; raising the present total to 336. The known copies of the book called “_Apostolus_” now amount to 127.]

1093 Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_, 3rd ed. p. 251): and Paul 181 (see above, at pp. 444-5).

1094 Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg.

1095 Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): 15 (which is not in the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener’s _Introduction_): 209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are no longer preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the suppression of the Jesuits, is any one able to tell what has become of them).

1096 Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (_Vat._ 165,—from Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: 64: 66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: 161: 162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (_Milan_ N. 272 _sup._,—from Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (_Modena_ II. A. 13,—from Sig. Cappilli [Acts, 195—_see Appendix_]): 286 (_Milan_ E. 2 _inf._—from Dr. Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 287 (_Milan_ A. 241 _inf._—from Dr. Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 293 (_Crypta Ferrata_, A. β. vi.—from the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi [_see Appendix_]): 302 (_Berlin, MS. Græc._ 8vo. No. 9.—from Dr. C. de Boor [_see Appendix_]).

1097 Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): and Paul 261 (Muralt’s 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330).

1098 I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul’s Epistles at 1 Tim. iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,—chiefly the result of the labours of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matthæi, Scholz, Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute to the number,—thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names follow:—

In the VATICAN (Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently acknowledge. See the _Appendix_) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294, 295, 296, 297.—PROPAGANDA (Dr. Beyer) No. 92.—CRYPTA FERRATA (the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See the _Appendix_,) No. 290, 291, 292.—VENICE (Sig. Veludo) No. 215.—MILAN (Dr. Ceriani, the most learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288, 289.—FERRARA, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.—MODENA (Sig. Cappilli) No. 285.—BOLOGNA (Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.—TURIN (Sig. Gorresio) No. 165, 168.—FLORENCE (Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.—MESSINA (Papas Filippo Matranga. See the _Appendix_,) No. 216, 283.—PALERMO (Sig. Penerino) No. 217.—The ESCURIAL (S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at the instance of his Excellency, Sir Robert Morier, who is requested to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.—PARIS (M. Wescher, who is as obliging as he is learned in this department,) No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164.—(L’Abbé Martin. See the _Appendix_) No. 282. ARSENAL (M. Thierry) No. 130.—S. GENEVIEVE (M. Denis) No. 247.—POICTIERS (M. Dartige) No. 276.—BERLIN (Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, 300, 301.—DRESDEN (Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.—MUNICH (Dr. Laubmann) No. 55, 125, 126, 128.—GOTTINGEN (Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.—WOLFENBUTTEL (Dr. von Heinemann) No. 74, 241.—BASLE (Mons. Sieber) No. 7.—UPSALA (Dr. Belsheim) No. 273, 274.—LINCOPING (the same) No. 272.—ZURICH (Dr. Escher) No. 56.—Prebendary Scrivener verified for me Paul 252: 253: 255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: 277.—Rev. T. Randell, has verified No. 13.—Alex. Peckover, Esq., No. 278.—Personally, I have inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: 234: 235: 236: 240: 242: 249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: 269: 270: 279: 280: 281.

1099 Viz. Paul 37 (the _Codex Leicest._, 69 of the Gospels):—Paul 85 (Vat. 1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi:—Paul 93 (Naples 1. B. 12) which is 83 of the Acts,—noticed by Birch:—Paul 175 (Ambros. F. 125 _sup._) at Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See above, p. 456 _note_ 1.

1100 Viz. Paul 282,—concerning which, see above, p. 474, note 1.

1101 The present locality of this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218) is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the “Seminario” at Syracuse are an “Evst.” and an “Apost.” (which I number respectively 362 and 113). My authority for Θεός in Paul 218, is Birch [_Proleg._ p. xcviii.], to whom Munter communicated his collations.

1102 For the ensuing codices, see the APPENDIX.

1103 Vat. 2068 (Basil. 107),—which I number “Apost. 115” (see APPENDIX.)

1104 Viz. by 4 uncials (A, K, L, P), + (247 Paul + 31 Apost. = ) 278 cursive manuscripts reading Θεός: + 4 (Paul) reading ὁ Θεός: + 2 (1 Paul, 1 Apost.) reading ὅς Θεός: + 1 (Apost.) reading Θῢ = 289. (See above, pp. 473-4: 478.)

1105 The Harkleian (see pp. 450, 489): the Georgian, and the Slavonic (p. 454).

1106 See above, pp. 487-490,—which is the summary of what will be found more largely delivered from page 455 to page 476.

1107 See above, pp. 448-453: also p. 479.

1108 See above, pp. 479-480.

1109 See above, pp. 452-3.

1110 See above, pp. 482, 483.

1111 See above, page 436, and middle of page 439.

1112 See his long and singular note.

_ 1113 Fresh Revision_, p. 27.

_ 1114 Printed Text_, p. 231.

1115 P. 226.

1116 “_Forte_ μυστήριον; ὁ _χς_ ἐθανατώθη ἐν σαρκί ... ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀποστόλοις.”—Bentleii _Critica Sacra_, p. 67.

_ 1117 Developed Criticism_, p. 160.

1118 Thus Augustine (viii. 828 f.) paraphrases,—“_In carne manifestatus est_ FILIUS DEI.”—And Marius Victorinus, A.D. 390 (ap. Galland. viii. 161),—“_Hoc enim est magnum sacramentum, quod_ DEUS _exanimavit semet ipsum cum esset in_ DEI _formá:_” “_fuit ergo antequam esset in carne, sed manifestatum dixit in carne_.”—And Fulgentius, A.D. 513, thus expands the text (ap. Galland. xi. 232):—“_quia scilicet Verbum quod in principio erat, et apud_ DEUM _erat, et_ DEUS _erat, id est_ DEI _unigenitus Filius_, DEI _virtus et sapientia, per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia, ... idem_ DEUS _unigenitus_,” &c. &c.—And Ferrandus, A.D. 356 (_ibid._ p. 356):—“_ita pro redemtione humani generis humanam naturam credimus suscepisse, ut ille qui Trinitate perfecta_ DEUS _unigenitus permanebat ac permanet, ipse ex Maria fieret primogenitus in multis fratribus_,” &c.

_ 1119 MS. note in his interleaved copy of the N. T._ He adds, “Hæc addenda posui Notis ad S. Hippolytum contra Noetum p. 93, vol. i. _Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Opusculorum._”

1120 Page 29.

1121 P. 29.

1122 P. 30.

_ 1123 Address_, on the Revised Version, p. 10.

1124 See above, pp. 37 to 39.

1125 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 34.

1126 P. 231.

1127 Fifth Rule of the Committee.

1128 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 30.

1129 No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall effectually protect me from being misunderstood.

Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All, (for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and attainment, as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in early life, I numbered several professing Unitarians among my friends. It were base in me to forget how wondrous kind I found them: how much I loved them: how fondly I cherish their memory.

Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are bound to seek help at the hands of _any_ who are able to render help,—_who_ ever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,—if a devotee of Buddha,—could contribute anything,—_who_ would hesitate to sue to him for enlightenment? As for Abraham’s descendants,—they are our very brethren.

But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when the Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th “Resolution” of the Upper House,—viz., that the Revising body “shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong;”—the Synod of Canterbury did not suppose that it was pledging itself to sanction _such_ “co-operation” as is implied by actual _co-optation_!

It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the 5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that “in framing it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the admission of any member of the Socinian body.” _Chronicle of Convocation_ (Feb. 1871,) p. 4.

“I am aware,” (says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,) “that the ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the translation of a renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish heretics, like Symmachus and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine profited by the expository rules of Tychonius the Donatist. But I very much doubt whether the ancient Church would have looked for a large outpouring of a blessing from GOD on a work of translating His Word, where the workmen were not all joined together in a spirit of Christian unity, and in the profession of the true Faith; and in which the opinions of the several translators were to be counted and not weighed; and where everything was to be decided by numerical majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius were to be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or a Cyril.” (_Address on the Revised Version_, 1881, pp. 38.)

_ 1130 The Bible and Popular Theology_, by G. Vance Smith, 1871.

_ 1131 An Unitarian Reviser of our Authorized Version, intolerable: an earnest Remonstrance and Petition_,—addressed to yourself by your present correspondent:—Oxford, Parker, 1872, pp. 8.

1132 See letter of “One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.” in _the Times_ of July 11, 1870.

_ 1133 Protest against the Communion of an Unitarian in Westminster Abbey on June_ 22nd, 1870:—Oxford, 1870, pp. 64.

1134 See the _Chronicle of Convocation_ (Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,—when a Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of Winchester,—“That it is the judgment of this House that no person who denies the Godhead of our LORD JESUS CHRIST ought to be invited to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the judgment of this House that any such person now on either Company should cease to act therewith.

“And that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, and their concurrence requested:”—which was done. See p. 143.

1135 The Reader is invited to refer back to pp. 132-135.

1136 The Reader is requested to refer back to pp. 210-214.

1137 S. Mark x. 21.

1138 S. Luke xxii. 64.

1139 S. Luke xxiii. 38.

1140 S. Luke xxiv. 42.

1141 Εἰπεῖν is “_to command_” in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S. Mark v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand, the Revisers have thrust “_command_” into S. Matth. xx. 21, where “_grant_” had far better have been let alone: and have overlooked other places (as S. Matth. xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where “_command_” might perhaps have been introduced with advantage. (I nothing doubt that when the Centurion of Capernaum said to our Lord μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], he entreated Him “only to give _the word of command_.”)

We all see, of course, that it was because Δός is rendered “_grant_” in the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S. Mark x. 37), that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to represent Εἰπέ in the earlier Gospel differently; and so they bethought themselves of “_command_.” (Infelicitously enough, as I humbly think. “_Promise_” would evidently have been a preferable substitute: the word in the original (εἰπεῖν) being one of that large family of Greek verbs which vary their shade of signification according to their context.) But it is plainly impracticable to _level up_ after this rigid fashion,—to translate in this mechanical way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after an impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon above, at pp. 187-206.

Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with their Mother, have evidently agreed together to “_ask a favour_” of their LORD (cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins Εἰπέ,—the sons begin, Δός. Why are we to assume that the request is made by the Mother in _a different spirit_ from the sons? Why are we to impose upon her language the imperious sentiment which the very mention of “_command_” unavoidably suggests to an English ear?

A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond their prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized Version after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct “_plain and clear errors_,”—_not_ to produce a “New English Version.”

1142 Take the following as a sample, which is one of the Author’s proofs that the “Results of the Revision” are “unfavourable to Orthodoxy:”—“The only instance in the N. T. in which the religious worship or adoration of CHRIST was apparently implied, has been _altered_ by the Revision: ‘_At_ the name of JESUS every knee shall bow,’ [Philipp. ii. 10] is now to be read ‘_in_ the name.’ Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N. T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of JESUS CHRIST.”—_Texts and Margins_,—p. 47.

_ 1143 Supra_, p. 424 to p. 501.

1144 See above, pp. 272-275, pp. 278-281.

1145 See above, p. 275.

1146 See above, pp. 276-7.

1147 See above, pp. 303-305.

1148 See above, p. 304.

1149 See above, pp. 339-42; also pp. 422, 423.

1150 See above, pp. 391-7.

1151 See above, pp. 36-40: 47-9: 422-4.

1152 See above, pp. 41-7: 420-2.

1153 See above, pp. 98-106: 424-501.

1154 Evan. 738 belongs to Oriel College, Oxford, [xii.], small 4to. of 130 foll. slightly _mut._ Evan. 739, Bodl. Greek Miscell. 323 [xiii.], 8vo. _membr._ foll. 183, _mut._ Brought from Ephesus, and obtained for the Bodleian in 1883.

1155 Evst. 415 belongs to Lieut. Bate, [xiii.], _chart._ foll. 219, mutilated throughout. He obtained it in 1878 from a Cyprus villager at Kikos, near Mount Trovodos (_i.e._ Olympus.) It came from a monastery on the mountain.

1156 Apost. 128 will be found described, for the first time, below, at p. 528.