construction. Very few, however, of the defenders of the reading ős admit this translation. They regard the clause ôs épavepwen not as the subject of the subsequent predicates, édikaiwin, win, etc., but as co-ordinate with them. Their translation would be: "Great is the mystery of godliness; he who was manifested in the flesh, [he who] was justified in the spirit, [he who] was seen of angels, etc."

In favor of the reading ős is the fact that it requires but a single step to obtain from it the other readings deós, ő, or is. The addition of two short strokes converts os into cós. On the other hand, the omission of a single letter gives us ő, a form evidently derived from ős, and adopted merely as a supposed grammatical correction. If we suppose, however, that Deos was the original reading, we must first obtain ős from it, and then obtain ő by altering this alteration. Caeteris paribus, that form is to be preferred from which the others are most easily explained.

Again, os is at first sight the more difficult reading, and as such has the preference. The form ős seems harsh, while Jeós is very easy. Copyists are liable to alter a harsh form for an easier one. At the same time ős gives a good sense, even without resorting to the opinion defended by Conybeare and Howson, and by others, that Paul here quotes a fragment from a hymn of the early church, as in other places in his pastoral epistles. In accordance with this. idea the verse would read: "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness.

'He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,
'Seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles,

'Believed on in the world, received up into glory.'"

The omission of the article before deos, although it is the subject of the sentence, is another suspicious circumstance. mentioned by Professor Stuart. He found, out of two hun

against it; but Paul wrote this, who in another passage, in immediate connection with τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον, has νυνὶ δὲ ἐφανερώθη, which is no sort of Greek."-Note on 1 Tim iii. 16.

dred and fifty-seven cases in the New Testament in which Deos is used as the subject of the sentence, only four cases in which it fails to take the article, and so strong is the tendency to insert it, that in three of these cases, an examination of the authorities collected by Tischendorf will show that important MSS. exhibit the article. It is however noticeable that these four cases all occur, like our passage now under discussion, in the writings of Paul.

It is a further argument in favor of ős that Paul has in other cases similarly connected uvoτýptov with some form of the verb pavepów. In Coll. i. 26, 27, he has тò μvotýpiov τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν, νυνὶ δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, οἷς ἠθέλησαν ὁ θεὸς γνωρίσαι τὶς ὁ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὅς ἐστι Χρίστος ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης. Here μυστήριον is not only followed by ἐφανερώθη, but a little later τοῦ μυστήριου is followed by ὅς ἐστι Χρίστος, which shows that μυστήριον may be applied personally to Christ, and followed by the masculine relative, unless the gender is here due to attrac tion. In Rom. xvi. 25, 26, Paul again connects μvoτýpov with φανερόω: κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου, φανέρωθέντος δὲ νῦν, κ. τ. λ.

In favor of ős, has sometimes been adduced the argument that eos seems to be an alteration made for the purpose of its use in polemic theology, as giving the orthodox an additional text to use against the Arians and other heretics. But there seems to have been no intentional corruption of this sort, for we cannot see that there was any distinction between the orthodox and the heretics in their use of the passage. Some defenders of the deity of Christ favor one, and some the other reading. Both Gregory of Nyssa in the East, and Didymus at Alexandria, simultaneously exhibit Deós, the former using it as freely as if it were the universally received reading; while, on the other hand, the multifarious polemical writings of Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, and Epiphanius nowhere contain this passage, except

that the latter quotes it to prove the divinity of the Holy Ghost. If we descend to a later period, we shall find that in the fifth and sixth century the reading Deós would be likely to be looked on with suspicion as favoring the heresies of Nestorians. It would not be regarded as the orthodox reading, for it distinguishes most clearly between the divine and the human natures: God is not confounded with the flesh, but said to have been manifested in it. It was only after a long controversy that the Eastern and North African churches settled to a general opposition to the doctrine of the single nature of Christ. The conflict waged so bitterly by Cyril and his supporters against Nestorius and Theodoret had the effect of leading his successors into the opposite Monophysite heresy. For a season there was scarcely any middle ground allowed between the Nestorians and the Eutychians. All who opposed the blind and intolerant zeal of the Monophysites were branded by them as Nestorians. The whole Eastern church seemed falling into this extreme. At this time it will be seen that those who regarded themselves as the orthodox party, and the devoted followers of Cyril, would have looked with great suspicion on the reading "God was manifested in the flesh," a reading so apparently opposed to their Monophysite rendering of John's text: “The Word was made flesh.' Accordingly we find that Liberatus distinctly speaks of the reading with 9eós as Nestorian and heretical. If there had been at an earlier time a temptation to the orthodox to alter ős to Deós, the temptation was now equally strong to change Deós to ős.

Editors of the New Testament, have according to their different principles of criticism or means of information, varied in their reading of this passage. In favor of deős may be mentioned Stephens, Mill, Matthaei, Scholz, and others of less note; Griesbach, Lachman, Tischendorf, and Tregelles prefer ős, while Wetstein's choice seems to favor ő. We do not propose to balance against each other the various arguments for either reading, with the purpose of defending

one or the other. It has been our aim simply to give a more complete, accurate, and impartial statement of the facts in the case than has heretofore been accessible, that each one who studies them may have all the materials necessary for the satisfaction of his own judgment, and that something may thus be done for perfecting the purity of the original text of the scriptures.

It is gratifying to discover that none of the early Christian writers, whether called orthodox or heritic by the general councils of the church, have ventured to tamper with the sacred text. Epiphanius, Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen, all active opponents of Arianism, either read ős distinctly, or else do not quote the passage, although it would seem that with the reading eós it might have been used with effect against their opponents. On the other hand, when, a century later, Deós seemed the less orthodox reading, we find Theodorus and Nestorius, though treated as heretics, employing the relative. Again the tide has turned, and Deós has been called the more orthodox reading, and the identical alteration for which the Constantinopolitan bishop was deposed as a heretic has of late years been charged upon the defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity as an orthodox trick. There is no proof on either side of any intentional corruption of the sacred text.

ARTICLE II.

THE SON OF MAN.

BY REV. WILLIAM S. TYLER, PROFESSOR IN AMHERST COLLEGE.

THERE is something very remarkable about this name. Doubtless there is in it, also, some deep significance. It is the chosen, and, if we may so say, the favorite name of the Redeemer of mankind-the name by which he loves to designate himself, and by which he does call himself more frequently than any other. And yet, with the exception of a single instance, this name is never applied to him by any one but himself. The name occurs twenty-two times in the Gospel of Matthew, and, besides the parallel passages in the other Gospels, five times in Mark, twelve times in Luke, and eleven times in John-about eighty times in all, counting all the repetitions and parallel passages;1 and in every instance of its use in the Gospels, it occurs in discourses or remarks made by our Lord himself, and is applied exclusively to himself.

It is also found once in the Acts (vii. 56), and therea solitary exception to the otherwise unvarying usage of the New Testament- the expression is put into the mouth of the Martyr Stephen, who, "being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God"; and (apparently because he saw him in human form, and manifestly full of human sympathy, standing as if he had risen up to sustain the first Christian martyr and to receive his spirit when he should resign it to his keeping), he said: "Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God."

This name does not appear in any of the Epistles. The

1 We take this number (80) on the authority of Cruden. Bloomfield states the number at 61; but that is certainly too small. We have not taken the trouble to verify the accuracy of Cruden.