CHAP. III.] GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. 217 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was † manifest in the flesh, X x John i. 14. 1 John i. 2. † Gr. manifested. 16. For differences of reading see critical note at the end of this chapter. themselves outside the Church of the succession because of its superstitions and additions to what is primitive, have extensively declined from the faith, and this decline is going on, and nothing seems capable of arresting it. Certainly God has given it to the Church of England to be the pillar and ground of the truth in this land. She does not so much witness to what is subjective, as to what is objective, especially to the truth, the truth of truths, of God manifest in the flesh; and the coming of the Eternal Son amongst us is the only ground of what is subjective, it is the only ground of faith and hope and love, in the Christian sense of the words. 16. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh." Almost all critics and expositors have given up the reading of our English Bible, 'God," Oɛòs, and have adopted that of the principal Uncials, the relative pronoun, ôç. So that, if this be adopted, the translation literally is, "Great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifest in the flesh." Now here, in one of the most important passages of the New Testament, we have an imperfect, ungrammatical sentence, beginning with a relative with no antecedent. Now accepting the reading ös (who), what must be-not what may be, but what must be—its antecedent? It must be something which involves a deep mystery. We are told (by Alford and Ellicott), that it is Christ; but this is no answer at all, for there is no mystery about the manifestation of Christ, unless He have some superior nature manifest in the flesh. If Christ be the Messiah which the Jews expected, a man only, the descendant of David, then there is no mystery about the manifestation. It would be the merest truism to say that the best or wisest of men was "manifest in the flesh." It pertains to all men-indeed, to all creatures that are born into the world-to be manifest in the flesh. There is no special mystery about it. That the mystery of Godliness should be a mystery at all, implies that He Who was manifest in the flesh should be of a superior nature, and this nature can be only that of God, or of an angel. No one contends for the latter, so that we can only choose the former. And in choosing the former we are following the justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, a preached leading of the parallel passages, for this passage is not by itself, it is one of many; it must be associated with "The Word was made flesh; "I came down from heaven;" "Before Abraham was I am; """Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over The matter is, as the Apostle says, amongst true believers, not a matter of controversy, but is confessed and acknowledged on all hands (Alford) to be a great-the greatest of mysteries. Still if we ask how it is that this most important enunciation begins so strangely with a relative, and where are we to look for the actual antecedent, I answer that the passage is in all probability an extract; perhaps, as most suppose, from a hymn, or from some liturgical formula; perhaps from a faithful saying longer than the others cited in this Epistle. Bishop Wordsworth conjectures that the “living God," of verse 15, is the real antecedent, and that we must understand the words, "without controversy great is the mystery of godliness," as thrown in parenthetically, as is not unusual with the Apostle. "Justified in the Spirit." This is also difficult to explain, and depends upon the meaning of "Spirit." If it means "by the Holy Spirit," as in Rom. i. 3, then it refers to the Resurrection, and to the miracles which were wrought by Himself and His Apostles, and the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. If it means His own Spirit, the higher part of His human nature answering to the spirit of man in us, then it seems to allude to His being proved in all things to be the just One-He was fully justified, from the accusations of His enemies, and from His rejection by His own people; but I much prefer the former explanation. "Seen of angels." From the position of this article of faith between His Resurrection, which was His great justification, and the preaching of Him to the Gentiles, or among them, it would seem to CHAP. III.] BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD. b 219 unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, b Col. i. 6, 23. c Luke xxiv. 51. Acts i. 9. 1 Pet. iii. 22. St. Paul refer to His appearance to angels after His Resurrection. dwells far more on the glories and mysteries of the angelic world than we do, who profess to believe in his inspiration. It seems to have been a mystery in his eyes that He should be seen first of angels whom He came not to redeem, and not by men whose nature He had assumed in order to redeem them. 66 'Preached unto the Gentiles "-that the Gentiles should have Christ preached unto them, so that if they accepted Him they should be on an equality in God's sight with His ancient people, was "the mystery hid from ages and generations” (Coloss. i. 26). It was the especial mystery committed to St. Paul, that he should make it known, and insist upon the inferences which God intended men to draw from it. "Believed on in the world." This was also a wonderful fact, that the Gospel of a despised and abhorred race-of a Jew crucified, risen, and ascended, should be believed on in the world for its salvation-that a new era should date from it, a new life be infused amongst men from it, a new standard of goodness and holiness begin with it. Let us throw ourselves back in the ages, and imagine what we should have thought if we had been called upon to believe for everlasting life on an unknown Galilean Who had suffered the vilest of deaths—nothing but miracles would have induced us so much as to listen to it—nothing but grace would have led us to accept it. "Received up into glory." This is also an inconceivably great thing that the Crucified should take His seat at the right hand of God, and have all worlds and all their powers, angelic, terrestrial, and infernal, under His supreme command. 66 Several questions arise upon the meaning of this injunction. (1.) Polygamy was then practised. It was allowed to the Jews to have more wives than one (see note in Blunt). (2.) Divorce was permitted and was common both among Jews and heathen. It may be, then, that St. Paul forbade anyone who had had two wives at the same time, or who had ever divorced one of his wives, to be admitted to the pastorate. Certainly it would seem that there could be no doubt about their unfitness for an office which demands more than ordinary purity and self-denial. But the earliest fathers who mention this place undoubtedly held it to allude to those who had contracted a second marriage after the first wife was dead. Thus Tertullian (Ad Uxorem, ch. vii.), "Præscriptio Apostoli digamos non sinit præsidere." Thus Origen (Hom. 17 in Luc.), "Neque Episcopus, nec Presbyter nec Diaconus nec vidua possunt esse digami" (from note in Wordsworth, who also refers to fourth "Council of Carthage," c. lxix., Epiphanius, Apostolic Canons, Jerome and Ambrose, but does not quote). It is, however, to be remembered that the two authorities nearest to the time of St. Paul held extreme opinions on this matter. One (Tertullian) wrote a treatise, addressed to his wife, that she should not contract a second marriage after his death; the other (Origen) took to the letter our Lord's words in Matt. xix. 12, and mutilated himself. Taking into account that polygamy and divorce were practised among the Jews, from whom the Church was largely recruited, it seems most reasonable to suppose that St. Paul means what we should naturally suppose, a man who had only one wife when he was a candidate for the ministry. But was there, in the Apostle's eyes, anything morally wrong or impure in a second marriage after the first wife or husband was dead? He expressly lays down that there is not: "If the husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her husband" (Rom. vii. 2, 3). If then a second marriage is allowed to the layman, on what grounds is it forbidden to the clergyman? It must be on the grounds not of legality, but of expediency; and if the Apostle by "the husband of one wife" means one who has only been married once, it must be because of the "distress " to which for several centuries the Christians were always subject. One branch of the Catholic Church, the Church of England, has not prohibited the ordination of a widower who has contracted a second marriage, nor has she prohibited a clergyman who is a widower from marrying again. 16. "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH." There are three readings which claim attention. (1.) sóc, God, as in the Authorised. (2.), who (not He Who, but simply Who). (3.) %, the reading of D. and of the Latin. (1.) God (ɛóç) is read indisputably in K., L. (both belonging to ninth century); almost all Cursives, Arab. (Polygl.) Slav.; Chrysostom (Chrysostom's words are, "God was manifest in the flesh. The Creator was seen incarnate "), Theodoret, Euthalius, Damascene, Theophylact, Ecumenius, Ignatius, Epist. to Ephes. 19 ("God himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.") (2.) "Os is read in & (a correction of a much later date has appended 6e in very small letters to "Os). It is read apparently in A., though this is denied. A. has OC, but the stroke at the top and the small stroke in the are in a later hand, and in later or different ink, which has almost faded away. Bishop Ellicott and Wordsworth, who have both examined it, are convinced that OC is the true reading. It is also read in C. (a facsimile of the passage is given in the plates in Scrivener's third edition of "New Testament Criticism"). B. does not contain the Pastoral Epistles. "Os is also read in F., G., in Cursives 17, 73, 181, Sah., Copt. (3.) is found in D., d, f, g, Vulg., and most Latin Fathers. We shall not dwell upon this latter, but confine our remarks to the comparative probability of sóc or "Os. If sós be the original reading, it is difficult to see how "Os could have been substituted for it, because the Godhead of the Lord Jesus occupies a far more prominent position in the theology of the early Church than in that of this age-one has only to look at Ignatius and Justin Martyr to be convinced of this. So that it is impossible to imagine how a reading which directly declares the Godhead of the Saviour could be exchanged for one which only indirectly declares it. And, again, it is equally CHAP. IV.] SOME SHALL DEPART. 221 ɛós, for difficult to imagine how early copyists could have exchanged a nominative case, such a remarkable instance of a relative with no antecedent. We have every reason to think then that the original reading was "Os: but then we are to remember that the MSS. which read eos are not wrong, but supply the only possible antecedent. They read what, if we are true Christians adoring the Son, we must understand to be meant. It is lamentable to see the cool and unconcerned way in which commentators who profess the Catholic faith are content to leave the matter after they have decided against the reading, "God." Is the faith once delivered to the Saints of no concern to them that they should make no effort to show to the ignorant or semi-believing reader that it is required by the sense? The sense of the words "great is the mystery of Godliness" requires a mystery. It absolutely requires that a superior nature or a being not originally in the flesh should be seen in the flesh (1 John i. 1, 2). So that the substitution of the word Christ for God as the antecedent, is simply surrendering the Lord's Godhead, for an increasing number of persons are refusing to believe that there is anything supernatural in the Person of Christ. If the reader wishes to study further the criticism on this passage, I refer him to Tischendorf's note in his eighth edition, to Scrivener's note, page 637 of his third edition of "Introduction to Criticism of the New Testament," and to the notes in Bishop Ellicott and Wordsworth. 1. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some," &c. "Now," this is properly “but” (dè). The Apostle had been speaking of the mystery of godliness-how it was confessed universally by Christians. Now he warns Timothy, and the Church through him, that, notwithstanding this present holding of the truth, there will be a great apostasy. "Speaketh expressly." He alludes probably to such particular declarations of the Spirit as that which he had many years before this made known to the Thessalonians, in his Second Epistle to that Church, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, i.e., from the one Faith-the Faith once for all delivered to the saints. "From the faith" means "the faith," the articles of which he had just set forth in his account of the mystery of Godliness, especially |