print. Tyndale translated them (probably following Erasmus' text of 1522), but in his later editions he put them in italics and within brackets, and here he was followed in the Great Bible. They have become established in almost all modern versions (as in the English from the Geneva version downwards), but have been again omitted in the Dutch version published with the authority of the National Synod in 1868.

All the learning of Porson, the reasonings of Locke and Newton, and the adverse judgments of such theological critics as Bishop Marsh,* have not succeeded in dislodging the interpolation from English editions of the Greek New Testament. Might not the case have been different, if in 1522 Erasmus had acted according to his convictions?

Or if (following a suggestion of Porson's) we suppose for a moment that the Complutensian editors had embodied in their text the gloss of Cassiodorus on 1 John ii. 13, 14, by reading гpúpo ὑμῖν, παιδία, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε θεὸν τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεύμα, "I write unto you, little children, because ye have known God, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost," what a world of confusion and controversy might have been occasioned !

b. Hardly second in controversial importance to the "three witnesses," and hardly less questionable on the ground of evidence, are the familiar words, 1 Tim. iii. 16, eòs épavepúbη év σapkì, "God was manifested in the flesh." Both texts are discussed by Sir Isaac Newton, in his "Letter to a friend on the History of two texts of Scripture," published by Bishop Horsley in his edition of Newton's Works (vol. v. pp. 495-550).

But the testimony of the early Greek MSS., which all admit to be of prime importance, has been much more fully examined since his time. And this additional testimony only confirms the opinion, which he and many others had expressed, that eòs had no place in this passage before the sixth century. Of the four great MSS. which contain the text (the Vatican is defective here), the Sinaitic, Alexandrian (?), and Codex Ephraemi had originally ös, “who ;" the Codex Beza D had 8, "which," (as in the Latin versions). In all of them this original reading has been changed by a much later hand to es Beds, God.

There has been much discussion about the original reading of the Alexandrian MS. All are agreed that the lines by which is is visibly changed to feòs are by a much later hand. The most that has been asserted in favour of eòs as the original reading by any recent witness is that one of these lines may possibly cover one in the old ink which has been thus rendered invisible, and that "one singularly bright hour, Feb. 7th, 1861," Mr. Scrivener saw (apparently only

* Also see the question reviewed in a paper by Crito Cantabrigiensis, who is believed to have been the late Bishop Turton of Ely.

for a moment) "the slight shadow of the real ancient diameter, only just above the recent one." That the Alexandrian, like the Sinaitic, Codex Ephraemi, and D, has been "emended," is a patent fact, although in the face of this evidence, to which should be added the earlier statement of Mill, it cannot be regarded as equally certain that the coarse recent hand (“to make assurance doubly sure") has not merely retouched what was there written from the first. But the silence of the early Fathers is very strong evidence on the other side. For if eòs had been written in A, the world would have heard of this reading in some early controversy. On the other hand, if còs is the real reading of A, this is the only trace of such a reading that has come down from the first five centuries. And in the silence of the Vatican, the testimony of the Sinaitic MS. is of the greater importance.

The tendency to insert the name of God or Christ, apart from any motive of doctrine, appears in other places: e.g. in Gal. i. 15,' the authorities are divided between "God, who separated me," and "he who separated me," with a preponderance in favour of the latter. In Jude 4τὸν μόνον δεσπότην [θεὸν]—θεὸν was added without any theological motive. In Gal. iii. 17, the words eis Xpurov, "in" (or unto) "Christ," are omitted in the best authorities. In James i. 12, "which [the Lord] hath promised,” “the Lord" is omitted in the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrian MSS., and several of the early versions have "God" instead. In Mark xiv. 61, the Alexandrian has "the Son of the blessed God," for "the Son of the Blessed." And the same tendency reappears in the English version, as in 1 John iii. 16, "Hereby perceive we the love of God" ("Hereby perceive we love," Tyndale; "Hereby have we perceived love," Geneva version); Acts vii. 59, (the subject of a notable conjecture of Bentley's), "Calling upon God and saying" ("Calling on and saying," Tyndale). And we may notice in passing, that the italics in these passages do not prevent unlettered persons from receiving an impression respecting the testimony of Scripture to the Divinity of Christ that is destined to be removed by investigation.

The relative "who" or "which," appearing to identify "the mystery" with Christ, may be illustrated from Col. i. 27: “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." And a similar doubt between the masculine and neuter relative occurs at verse 24 of the same chapter, where several MSS. read "who is the church." Cp. also Acts xvii. 23.* A gloss also bearing on this point occurs in Col. ii. 2, 3, "to the acknow

The place is still not free from difficulty, and it is just possible that @eds, Ss, and have all grown out of a dittographia or double writing of the e of épavepwon. But this is more conjecture.

ledgment of the mystery of God [and of the Father, and of Christ]; in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge:" where the words here placed in brackets are of very slight authority, and the relative pronoun in verse 3 is very possibly neuter, referring to "the mystery."

c. The interpolation in each of the two preceding instances was in so far skilfully made, that, except from the analogy of Scripture, it would have been difficult to reject them on the ground of internal evidence alone. The argument from analogy against the remaining passages in which Christ is unequivocally and absolutely spoken of as God is greatly strengthened when 1 Tim. iii. 16 is withdrawn. For there are only two of them. And it so happens, that while the external testimony in their favour is considerable, they bear the marks of spuriousness on their face.

One of these two is a reading which has not yet had a place in our English version, but has lately been brought into prominence through being found in the Sinaitic as well as in the Vatican MS.

In John i. 18 these both read "only-begotten God," μovoyevs θεός. It is clear, therefore, that this reading had a wide currency in the fourth century, and we may expect it to be largely quoted by the Christian Fathers of that and of the subsequent centuries. But it is also found in the Latin translation of Irenæus, in the Coptic, and one recension of the Æthiopic, and on the margin of the Peshito variety of the Syriac version. But the other reading, "the only-begotten Son," & povoyevǹs viós, appears in another passage of the translation of Irenæus, in the text of the Peshito Syriac, and in the Syriac of Cureton, which is supposed by many to be earlier than the Peshito. Hence in regard to what precedes the fourth century, the evidence is divided, and there is good reason for supposing that the reading "Son" existed, even if the reading "God" existed beside it in other copies. The evidence of the Alexandrian MS. in this case is unequivocal in favour of "Son." The text of Origen varies like that of Irenæus.

It may be allowed that when due weight is given to the authority of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., the external evidence preponderates in favour of còs, "God." But this is already somewhat weakened by the tendency which has been observed in MSS. to interpolate this sacred name, especially if it could be shown that in 1 Tim. iii. 16 feòs was the original reading of so early a MS. as the Alexandrian.* It is more likely, as Tischendorf says, that Son" was changed to "God," than vice versa. Under these circumstances strong arguments from internal evidence may be allowed to have full weight. And on comparing the two

*Note that coû is read for uplov in the Alexandrian MS. in Eph. v. 17.

readings it can hardly be doubted for a moment which harmonizes best with the context. The expression "only-begotten God" would be of itself unique in Scripture, and requires even for its interpretation a kind of theological inference from verses 1-4 which implies a crude and questionable development of doctrine. For it is not merely the Word that is here in question, but the "Word made flesh" (verse 14). And where in this case would be the antithesis, which is obviously intended by the writer? Surely Tischendorf is justified in saying, "eòs si reposueris, totius loci sententia parum concinnè scripta est "" If you substitute Oeos, the connection of the whole passage is confused." The interests of orthodoxy can hardly require the change, which could not well have been made after theological questions had been thought out with any clearness, and betrays rather the rude and simple reverence of an ante-theological age, in which Christian converts had not yet shaken off the associations of polytheism. For is there not a "division of the substance" when the "only-begotten God" is set over against "God" in this way?

d. In the other of the two passages (Acts xx. 28)-which stands thus in the Authorized Version: "to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood"-there are two places in which the readings vary. Instead of "God," many authorities give "the Lord," and several "the Lord and God." And the words signifying "his own blood" are differently arranged in different copies, some reading roû idíov aiparos and some ToÙ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου. Now, it is precisely on the collocation of these two phrases that the peculiarity of the passage rests.

The two carliest MSS. are again in favour of coù; but it appears from the versions and quotations of the Fathers that both readings (eo and Kupíov) existed in the earliest time. Supposing Beo to be an interpolation, it is manifestly one of the same kind as that in John i. 18; and we should therefore be the less surprised to find it in the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS. Tischendorf argues that, as "the church of God" is the almost constant expression of St. Paul, it was the less likely to have been changed into è. Tou Kupiov, "church of the Lord," and that the tendency to insert the name of God which (as we have seen above) appears elsewhere may be traced in the third reading τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ, "of the Lord and God."* And it may be urged in confirmation of this that the only two passages in St. Paul's writings in which the form "church of Christ" occurs (Rom. xvi. 16, 1 Cor. xi. 16, "the churches of Christ") are in places where, as here, he is expressing his affectionate solicitude respecting a particular church. The exceptional mode of expression in each case has a pathetic force.

This may probably be due to a marginal reading, viz., kal 0ɛou, having found its way into the text.

66

But if coû were regarded as established, the wavering of the evidence in the other part of the verse between roû idíov aiμatos and Toû aiμaros Tov idiov would still leave room for suspicion. Some might conjecture that τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ, “ the blood of His own Son," was the original reading. For if one of the contiguous v's were dropped in copying, the repetition tovov would seem unintelligible, and be attributed to dittographia. Thus viov would disappear. (For the expression, cp. Rom. viii. 32—ös Toû idíov vioù ouк ¿peíσaro.) Others may suppose that the whole clause, οὐκ ἐφείσατο.) ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, is a later addition. But one supposition does not seem to be admissible-viz., that the text of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS. is in this case the original Scripture. For "the blood of God" is an expression so unique, and to the religious mind of that age would have conveyed a meaning so portentous, that even the unanimity of the early testimonies, which is not present here, could hardly convince us of its genuineness. Besides, the God who is thus asserted to have shed His blood for the Church is not "God" in any secondary or modified sense; for the word is used with the same absoluteness as in the phrase, “No man hath seen God at any time." It is not "the Church of our God and Saviour," but the Church of God." Compare the two expressions, "No man hath seen God," and "God hath purchased the Church with His own blood."

Such a momentous doctrine as is here implied, if held by the Apostles at all, would have been stated somewhere, and not dropped carelessly by the way in a relative clause.

On the whole, it seems probable that kupiov is the right reading here. (1.) It does not violate the analogy of Scripture. (2.) eoû is the more likely to have been invented than κυρίου. (3.) κυρίου (28 well as coû) existed as a reading in the earliest time of which we have any trace. (4.) This reading is most in harmony with the connection. The personal appeal to Christ is in keeping with the affectionate tenor of the whole speech (cp. Rom. xvi. 16), and with the character of St. Paul, as this appears in his own Epistles and in the Acts.*

The inference from the evidence respecting these two passages is the same which may be gathered from the pseudo-Ignatius, and from other sources; viz., that in very early Christian times, but hardly in the earliest, the word beòs was used with less strictness of definition than before or afterwards, partly from the

It is no objection to the above reasoning that the word weρietoinσάuny, in the LXX. version of Isaiah xliii. 21, is used in this sense in the person of Jehovah. St. Paul does sometimes attribute actions to Christ which are elsewhere attributed to God. What we do not find in his undoubted writings, or in any expression genuinely attributed to him, is the interchange of Χριστὸς, or κύριος as applied to Christ, with θεός, as synonymous

terms.