CHAPTER XIV.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

X. Corruption by the Orthodox.

Sec. 1.

Another cause why, in very early times, the Text of the Gospels underwent serious depravation, was mistaken solicitude on the part of the ancient orthodox for the purity of the Catholic faith. These persons, like certain of the moderns, Beza for example, evidently did not think it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If any expression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency, they altered it, or transplanted it, or removed it bodily from the sacred page. About the uncritical nature of what they did, they entertained no suspicion: about the immorality of the proceeding, they evidently did not trouble themselves at all. On the contrary, the piety of the motive seems to have been held to constitute a sufficient excuse for any amount of licence. The copies which had undergone this process of castigation were even styled 'corrected,'—and doubtless were popularly looked upon as 'the correct copies' [like our 'critical texts']. An illustration of this is afforded by a circumstance mentioned by Epiphanius.

He states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for the Lord's Divinity, eliminated from St. Luke xix. 41 the record that our Saviour 'wept.' We will not pause to inquire what this statement may be worth. But when the same Father adds,—'In the uncorrected copies ([Greek: en tois adiorthotois antigraphois]) is found "He wept,"' Epiphanius is instructive. Perfectly well aware that the expression is genuine, he goes on to state that 'Irenaeus quoted it in his work against Heresies, when he had to confute the error of the Docetae.' 'Nevertheless,' Epiphanius adds, 'the orthodox through fear erased the record.'

So then, the process of 'correction' was a critical process conducted on utterly erroneous principles by men who knew nothing whatever about Textual Criticism. Such recensions of the Text proved simply fatal to the Deposit. To 'correct' was in this and such like cases simply to 'corrupt.'

Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]D may be regarded as specimens of Codexes which have once and again passed through the hands of such a corrector or [Greek: diorthotes].

St. Luke (ii. 40) records concerning the infant Saviour that 'the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit.' By repeating the selfsame expression which already,—viz. in chap. i. 80,—had been applied to the Childhood of the Forerunner, it was clearly the design of the Author of Scripture to teach that the Word 'made flesh' submitted to the same laws of growth and increase as every other Son of Adam. The body 'grew,'—the spiritual part 'waxed strong.' This statement was nevertheless laid hold of by the enemies of Christianity. How can it be pretended (they asked) that He was 'perfect God' ([Greek: teleios Theos]), of whom it is related in respect of His spirit that he 'waxed strong'? The consequence might have been foreseen. Certain of the orthodox were ill-advised enough to erase the word [Greek: pneumati] from the copies of St. Luke ii. 40; and lo, at the end of 1,500 years, four 'corrected' copies, two Versions, one Greek Father, survive to bear witness to the ancient fraud. No need to inquire which, what, and who these be.

But because it is [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, Origen, and the Latin, the Egyptian and Lewis which are without the word [Greek: pneumati], Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump to the conclusion that [Greek: pneumati] is a spurious accretion to the Text. They ought to reverse their proceeding; and recognize in the evidence one more indication of the untrustworthiness of the witnesses. For,—how then is it supposed that the word ([Greek: pneumati]) ever obtained its footing in the Gospel? For all reply we are assured that it has been imported hither from St. Luke i. 80. But, we rejoin, How does the existence of the phrase [Greek: ekrataiouto pneumati] in i. 80 explain its existence in ii. 40, in every known copy of the Gospels except four, if in these 996 places, suppose, it be an interpolation? This is what has to be explained. Is it credible that all the remaining uncials, and every known cursive copy, besides all the lectionaries, should have been corrupted in this way: and that the truth should survive exclusively at this time only in the remaining four; viz. in B[Symbol: Aleph],—the sixth century Cod. D,—and the eighth century Cod. L?

When then, and where did the work of depravation take place? It must have been before the sixth century, because Leontius of Cyprus quotes it three times and discusses the expression at length:—before the fifth, because, besides Cod. A, Cyril Theodoret and ps.-Caesarius recognize the word:—before the fourth, because Epiphanius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the Gothic version have it:—before the third, before nearly all of the second century, because it is found in the Peshitto. What more plain than that we have before us one other instance of the injudicious zeal of the orthodox? one more sample of the infelicity of modern criticism?

Sec. 2.

Theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part of St. John viii. 40, when they pretended to shew from Scripture that Christ is mere Man. I am persuaded that the reading 'of My Father,'—with which Origen, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Cyril Alex., and Theodoret prove to have been acquainted,—was substituted by some of the orthodox in this place, with the pious intention of providing a remedy for the heretical teaching of their opponents. At the present day only six cursive copies are known to retain this trace of a corruption of Scripture which must date from the second century.

We now reach a most remarkable instance. It will be remembered that St. John in his grand preface does not rise to the full height of his sublime argument until he reaches the eighteenth verse. He had said (ver. 14) that 'the Word was made flesh,' &c.; a statement which Valentinus was willing to admit. But, as we have seen, the heresiarch and his followers denied that 'the Word' is also 'the Son' of God. As if in order to bar the door against this pretence, St. John announces (ver. 18) that 'the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him': thus establishing the identity of the Word and the Only begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do with so plain a statement, but seek to deprave it? Accordingly, the very first time St. John i. 18 is quoted by any of the ancients, it is accompanied by the statement that the Valentinians in order to prove that the 'only begotten' is 'the Beginning,' and is 'God,' appeal to the words,—'the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father,' &c. Inasmuch, said they, as the Father willed to become known to the worlds, the Spirit of Gnosis produced the 'only begotten' 'Gnosis,' and therefore gave birth to 'Gnosis,' that is to 'the Son': in order that by 'the Son' 'the Father' might be made known. While then that 'only begotten Son' abode 'in the bosom of the Father,' He caused that here upon earth should be seen, alluding to ver. 14, one 'as the only begotten Son.' In which, by the way, the reader is requested to note that the author of the Excerpta Theodoti (a production of the second century) reads St. John i. 18 as we do.

I have gone into all these strange details,—derived, let it be remembered, from documents which carry us back to the former half of the second century,—because in no other way is the singular phenomenon which attends the text of St. John i. 18 to be explained and accounted for. Sufficiently plain and easy of transmission as it is, this verse of Scripture is observed to exhibit perturbations which are even extraordinary. Irenaeus once writes [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenes uios]: once, [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenes uios Theos]: once, [Greek: ho monogenes uios Theou]: Clemens Alex., [Greek: ho monogenes uios Theos monos]; which must be very nearly the reading of the Codex from which the text of the Vercelli Copy of the Old Latin was derived. Eusebius four times writes [Greek: ho monogenes uios]: twice, [Greek: monogenes Theos]: and on one occasion gives his reader the choice of either expression, explaining why both may stand. Gregory Nyss. and Basil, though they recognize the usual reading of the place, are evidently vastly more familiar with the reading [Greek: ho monogenes Theos]: for Basil adopts the expression thrice, and Gregory nearly thirty-three times as often. This was also the reading of Cyril Alex., whose usual phrase however is [Greek: ho monogenes tou Theou logos]. Didymus has only [? cp. context] [Greek: ho monogenes Theos],—for which he once writes [Greek: ho monogenes Theos logos]. Cyril of Jer. seems to have read [Greek: ho monogenes monos].

[I have retained this valuable and suggestive passage in the form in which the Dean left it. It evidently has not the perfection that attends some of his papers, and would have been amplified and improved if his life had been spared. More passages than he noticed, though limited to the ante-Chrysostom period, are referred to in the companion volume. The portentous number of mentions by Gregory of Nyssa escaped me, though I knew that there were several. Such repetitions of a phrase could only be admitted into my calculation in a restricted and representative number. Indeed, I often quoted at least on our side less than the real number of such reiterations occurring in one passage, because in course of repetition they came to assume for such a purpose a parrot-like value.

But the most important part of the Dean's paper is found in his account of the origin of the expression. This inference is strongly confirmed by the employment of it in the Arian controversy. Arius reads [Greek: Theos] (ap. Epiph. 73—Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read [Greek: Huios]. So Faustinus seven times (I noted him only thrice), and Victorinus Afer six (10) times in reply to the Arian Candidus. Also Athanasius and Hilary of Poictiers four times each, and Ambrose eight (add Epp. I. xxii. 5). It is curious that with this history admirers of B and [Symbol: Aleph] should extol their reading over the Traditional reading on the score of orthodoxy. Heresy had and still retains associations which cannot be ignored: in this instance some of the orthodox weakly played into the hands of heretics. None may read Holy Scripture just as the idea strikes them.]

Sec. 3.

All are familiar with the received text of 1 Cor. xv. 47:—[Greek: ho protos anthropos ek ges choikos; ho deuteros anthropos ho Kyrios ex ouranou]. That this place was so read in the first age is certain: for so it stands in the Syriac. These early heretics however of whom St. John speaks, who denied that 'Jesus Christ had come in the flesh' and who are known to have freely 'taken away from the words' of Scripture, are found to have made themselves busy here. If (they argued) 'the second man' was indeed 'the Lord-from-Heaven,' how can it be pretended that Christ took upon Himself human flesh? And to bring out this contention of theirs more plainly, they did not hesitate to remove as superfluous the word 'man' in the second clause of the sentence. There resulted,—'The first man [was] of the earth, earthy: [Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou].' It is thus that Marcion (A.D. 130) and his followers read the place. But in this subject-matter extravagance in one direction is ever observed to beget extravagance in another. I suspect that it was in order to counteract the ejection by the heretics of [Greek: anthropos] in ver. 47, that, early in the second century, the orthodox retaining [Greek: anthropos], judged it expedient to leave out the expression [Greek: ho Kyrios], which had been so unfairly pressed against them; and were contented to read,—'the second man [was] from heaven.' A calamitous exchange, truly. For first, (I), The text thus maimed afforded countenance to another form of misbelief. And next, (II), It necessitated a further change in 1 Cor. xv. 47.

(I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who maintained that Christ was 'Man' before He came into the World. This heresy came to a head in the persons of Apolinarius and Photinus; in contending with whom, Greg. Naz. and Epiphanius are observed to argue with disadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian, and Cyprian after him, knew no other reading but 'secundus homo de Caelo,'—which is in fact the way this place stands in the Old Latin. And thus, from the second century downwards, two readings (for the Marcionite text was speedily forgotten) became current in the Church:—(1) The inspired language of the Apostle, cited at the outset,—which is retained by all the known copies, except nine; and is vouched for by Basil, Chrysostom, Theodotus, Eutherius, Theodorus Mops., Damascene, Petrus Siculus, and Theophylact: and (2) The corrected (i.e. the maimed) text of the orthodox;—[Greek: ho deuteros; anthropos ex ouranou]: with which, besides the two Gregories, Photinus and Apolinarius the heretics were acquainted; but which at this day is only known to survive in [Symbol: Aleph] BCD EFG and two cursive copies. Origen, and (long after him) Cyril, employed both readings.

(II) But then, (as all must see) such a maimed exhibition of the text was intolerable. The balance of the sentence had been destroyed. Against [Greek: ho protos anthropos], St. Paul had set [Greek: ho deuteros anthropos]: against [Greek: ek ges]—[Greek: ex ouranou]: against [Greek: choikos]—[Greek: ho Kyrios]. Remove [Greek: ho Kyrios], and some substitute for it must be invented as a counterpoise to [Greek: choikos]. Taking a hint from what is found in ver. 48, some one (plausibly enough,) suggested [Greek: epouranios]: and this gloss so effectually recommended itself to Western Christendom, that having been adopted by Ambrose, by Jerome (and later by Augustine,) it established itself in the Vulgate, and is found in all the later Latin writers. Thus then, a third rival reading enters the field,—which because it has well-nigh disappeared from Greek MSS., no longer finds an advocate. Our choice lies therefore between the two former:—viz. (a) the received, which is the only well-attested reading of the place: and (b) the maimed text of the Old Latin, which Jerome deliberately rejected (A.D. 380), and for which he substituted another even worse attested reading. (Note, that these two Western fabrications effectually dispose of one another.) It should be added that Athanasius lends his countenance to all the three readings.

But now, let me ask,—Will any one be disposed, after a careful survey of the premisses, to accept the verdict of Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, who are for bringing the Church back to the maimed text of which I began by giving the history and explaining the origin? Let it be noted that the one question is,—shall [Greek: ho Kyrios] be retained in the second clause, or not? But there it stood within thirty years of the death of St. John: and there it stands, at the end of eighteen centuries in every extant copy (including AKLP) except nine. It has been excellently witnessed to all down the ages,—viz. By Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodotus, Eutherius, Theodore Mops., Damascene and others. On what principle would you now reject it?... With critics who assume that a reading found in [Symbol: Aleph]BCDEFG must needs be genuine,—it is vain to argue. And yet the most robust faith ought to be effectually shaken by the discovery that four, if not five ([Symbol: Aleph]ACFG) of these same MSS., by reading 'we shall all sleep; but we shall not all be changed,' contradict St. Paul's solemn announcement in ver. 51: while a sixth (D) stands alone in substituting 'we shall all rise; but we shall not all be changed.'—In this very verse, C is for introducing [Greek: Adam] into the first clause of the sentence: FG, for subjoining [Greek: ho ouranios]. When will men believe that guides like these are to be entertained with habitual distrust? to be listened to with the greatest caution? to be followed, for their own sakes,—never?

I have been the fuller on this place, because it affords an instructive example of what has occasionally befallen the words of Scripture. Very seldom indeed are we able to handle a text in this way. Only when the heretics assailed, did the orthodox defend: whereby it came to pass that a record was preserved of how the text was read by the ancient Father. The attentive reader will note (a) That all the changes which we have been considering belong to the earliest age of all:—(b) That the corrupt reading is retained by [Symbol: Aleph]BC and their following: the genuine text, in the great bulk of the copies:—(c) That the first mention of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic:—(d) That [the orthodox introduced a change in the interests, as they fancied, of truth, but from utter misapprehension of the nature and authority of the Word of God:—and (e) that under the Divine Providence that change was so effectually thrown out, that decisive witness is found on the other side].

Sec. 4.

Closely allied to the foregoing, and constantly referred to in connexion with it by those Fathers who undertook to refute the heresy of Apolinarius, is our Lord's declaration to Nicodemus,—'No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven' (St. John iii. 13). Christ 'came down from heaven' when He became incarnate: and having become incarnate, is said to have 'ascended up to Heaven,' and 'to be in Heaven,' because 'the Son of Man,' who was not in heaven before, by virtue of the hypostatical union was thenceforward evermore 'in heaven.' But the Evangelist's language was very differently taken by those heretics who systematically 'maimed and misinterpreted that which belongeth to the human nature of Christ.' Apolinarius, who relied on the present place, is found to have read it without the final clause ([Greek: ho on en to ourano]); and certain of the orthodox (as Greg. Naz., Greg. Nyssa, Epiphanius, while contending with him,) shew themselves not unwilling to argue from the text so mutilated. Origen and the author of the Dialogus once, Eusebius twice, Cyril not fewer than nineteen times, also leave off at the words 'even the Son of Man': from which it is insecurely gathered that those Fathers disallowed the clause which follows. On the other hand, thirty-eight Fathers and ten Versions maintain the genuineness of the words [Greek: ho on en to ourano]. But the decisive circumstance is that,—besides the Syriac and the Latin copies which all witness to the existence of the clause,—the whole body of the uncials, four only excepted ([Symbol: Aleph]BLTb), and every known cursive but one (33)—are for retaining it.

No thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the foregoing without inferring from the facts which have emerged in the course of it the exceeding antiquity of depravations of the inspired verity. For let me not be supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was the work of Apolinarius. Like the rest, it is probably older by at least 150 years. Apolinarius, in whose person the heresy which bears his name came to a head, did but inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error; and these had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of the deposit.

Sec. 5.

The matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by inviting the reader's attention to another famous place. There is a singular consent among the Critics for eliminating from St. Luke ix. 54-6, twenty-four words which embody two memorable sayings of the Son of Man. The entire context is as follows:—'Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, (as Elias did)? But he turned, and rebuked them, (and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.) (For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.) And they went to another village.' The three bracketed clauses contain the twenty-four words in dispute.

The first of these clauses ([Greek: hos kai Helias epoiese]), which claims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James, Mill rejected as an obvious interpolation. 'Res ipsa clamat. Quis enim sanus tam insignia deleverit?' Griesbach retained it as probably genuine.—The second clause ([Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoiou pneumatos este hymeis]) he obelized as probably not genuine:—the third ([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthropou ouk elthe psychas anthropon apolesai, alla sosai]) he rejected entirely. Lachmann also retains the first clause, but rejects the other two. Alford, not without misgiving, does the same. Westcott and Hort, without any misgiving about the third clause, are 'morally certain' that the first and second clauses are a Western interpolation. Tischendorf and Tregelles are thorough. They agree, and the Revisers of 1881, in rejecting unceremoniously all the three clauses and exhibiting the place curtly, thus.—[Greek: Kyrie, theleis eipomen pyr katabenai apo tou ouranou, kai analosai autous; strapheis de epetimesen autois. kai eporeuthesan desan eis heteran komen].

Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] l g1 Cyrluc, two MSS. of the Bohairic (d 3, d 2), the Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the only authority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text [in all its bare crudeness]. Against them are arrayed the whole body of MSS. uncial and cursive, including ACD; every known lectionary; all the Latin, the Syriac (Cur. om. Clause 1), and indeed every other known version: besides seven good Greek Fathers beginning with Clemens Alex. (A.D. 190), and five Latin Fathers beginning with Tertullian (A.D. 190): Cyprian's testimony being in fact the voice of the Fourth Council of Carthage, A.D. 253. If on a survey of this body of evidence any one will gravely tell me that the preponderance of authority still seems to him to be in favour of the shorter reason, I can but suggest that the sooner he communicates to the world the grounds for his opinion, the better.

(1) In the meantime it becomes necessary to consider the disputed clauses separately, because ancient authorities, rivalling modern critics, are unable to agree as to which they will reject, which they will retain. I begin with the second. What persuades so many critics to omit the precious words [Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoiou pneumatos este hymeis], is the discovery that these words are absent from many uncial MSS.,—[Symbol: Aleph]ABC and nine others; besides, as might have been confidently anticipated from that fact, also from a fair proportion of the cursive copies. It is impossible to deny that prima facie such an amount of evidence against any words of Scripture is exceedingly weighty. Pseudo-Basil (ii. 271) is found to have read the passage in the same curt way. Cyril, on the other hand, seems to have read it differently.

And yet, the entire aspect of the case becomes changed the instant it is perceived that this disputed clause is recognized by Clemens (A.D. 190); as well as by the Old Latin, by the Peshitto, and by the Curetonian Syriac: for the fact is thus established that as well in Eastern as in Western Christendom the words under discussion were actually recognized as genuine full a hundred and fifty years before the oldest of the extant uncials came into existence. When it is further found that (besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine,) the Vulgate, the Old Egyptian, the Harkleian Syriac and the Gothic versions also contain the words in question; and especially that Chrysostom in four places, Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril and Theodoret, besides Antiochus, familiarly quote them, it is evident that the testimony of antiquity in their favour is even overwhelming. Add that in eight uncial MSS. (beginning with D) the words in dispute form part of the text of St. Luke, and that they are recognized by the great mass of the cursive copies,—(only six out of the twenty which Scrivener has collated being without them,)—and it is plain that at least five tests of genuineness have been fully satisfied.

(2) The third clause ([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthropou ouk elthe psychas anthropon apolesai, alla sosai]) rests on precisely the same solid evidence as the second; except that the testimony of Clemens is no longer available,—but only because his quotation does not extend so far. Cod. D also omits this third clause; which on the other hand is upheld by Tertullian, Cyprian and Ambrose. Tischendorf suggests that it has surreptitiously found its way into the text from St. Luke xix. 10, or St. Matt, xviii. 11. But this is impossible; simply because what is found in those two places is essentially different: namely,—[Greek: elthe gar ho huios tou anthropou zetesai kai] [Greek: sosai to apololos].

(3) We are at liberty in the meantime to note how apt an illustration is here afforded of the amount of consensus which subsists between documents of the oldest class. This divergence becomes most conspicuous when we direct our attention to the grounds for omitting the foremost clause of the three, [Greek: hos kai Elias epoiesen]: for here we make the notable discovery that the evidence is not only less weighty, but also different. Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] are now forsaken by all their former allies except L[Symbol: Xi] and a single cursive copy. True, they are supported by the Curetonian Syriac, the Vulgate and two copies of the Old Latin. But this time they find themselves confronted by Codexes ACD with thirteen other uncials and the whole body of the cursives; the Peshitto, Coptic, Gothic, and Harkleian versions; by Clemens, Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril and pseudo-Basil. In respect of antiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, they are therefore hopelessly outvoted.

Do any inquire, How then has all this contradiction and depravation of Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]ABC(D) come about? I answer as follows:—

It was a favourite tenet with the Gnostic heretics that the Law and the Gospel are at variance. In order to establish this, Marcion (in a work called Antitheses) set passages of the New Testament against passages of the Old; from the seeming disagreement between which his followers were taught to infer that the Law and the Gospel cannot have proceeded from one and the same author. Now here was a place exactly suited to his purpose. The God of the Old Testament had twice sent down fire from heaven to consume fifty men. But 'the Son of Man,' said our Saviour, when invited to do the like, 'came not to destroy men's lives but to save them.' Accordingly, Tertullian in his fourth book against Marcion, refuting this teaching, acquaints us that one of Marcion's 'Contrasts' was Elijah's severity in calling down fire from Heaven,—and the gentleness of Christ. 'I acknowledge the seventy of the judge,' Tertullian replies; 'but I recognize the same severity on the part of Christ towards His Disciples when they proposed to bring down a similar calamity on a Samaritan village.' From all of which it is plain that within seventy years of the time when the Gospel was published, the text of St. Luke ix. 54-6 stood very much as at present.

But then it is further discovered that at the same remote period (about A.D. 130) this place of Scripture was much fastened on by the enemies of the Gospel. The Manichaean heretics pressed believers with it. The disciples' appeal to the example of Elijah, and the reproof they incurred, became inconvenient facts. The consequence might be foreseen. With commendable solicitude for God's honour, but through mistaken piety, certain of the orthodox (without suspicion of the evil they were committing) were so ill-advised as to erase from their copies the twenty-four words which had been turned to mischievous account as well as to cause copies to be made of the books so mutilated: and behold, at the end of 1,700 years, the calamitous result!

Of these three clauses then, which are closely interdependent, and as Tischendorf admits must all three stand or all three fall together, the first is found with ACD, the Old Latin, Peshitto, Clement, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,—not with [Symbol: Aleph]B the Vulgate or Curetonian. The second and third clauses are found with Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, six Greek and five Latin Fathers,—not with [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD.

While [Symbol: Aleph] and B are alone in refusing to recognize either first, second or third clause. And this is a fair sample of that 'singular agreement' which is sometimes said to subsist between 'the lesser group of witnesses.' Is it not plain on the contrary that at a very remote period there existed a fierce conflict, and consequent hopeless divergence of testimony about the present passage; of which 1,700 years have failed to obliterate the traces? Had [Symbol: Aleph]B been our only ancient guides, it might of course have been contended that there has been no act of spoliation committed: but seeing that one half of the missing treasure is found with their allies, ACD, Clement Alex., Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,—the other half with their allies, Old Latin, Harkleian, Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine,—it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be set up.

The endeavour to establish agreement among the witnesses by a skilful distribution or rather dislocation of their evidence, a favourite device with the Critics, involves a fallacy which in any other subject would be denied a place. I trust that henceforth St. Luke ix. 54-6 will be left in undisputed possession of its place in the sacred Text,—to which it has an undoubted right.

A thoughtful person may still inquire, Can it however be explained further how it has come to pass that the evidence for omitting the first clause and the two last is so unequally divided? I answer, the disparity is due to the influence of the Lectionaries.

Let it be observed then that an ancient Ecclesiastical Lection which used to begin either at St. Luke ix. 44, or else at verse 49 and to extend down to the end of verse 56, ended thus,—[Greek: hos kai Elias epoiese; strapheis de epetimesen autois. kai eporeuthesan eis hetepan komen]. It was the Lection for Thursday in the fifth week of the new year; and as the reader sees, it omitted the two last clauses exactly as Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]ABC do. Another Ecclesiastical Lection began at verse 51 and extended down to verse 57, and is found to have contained the two last clauses. I wish therefore to inquire:—May it not fairly be presumed that it is the Lectionary practice of the primitive age which has led to the irregularity in this perturbation of the sacred Text?

FOOTNOTES:

[Greek: Pros tois dokesei ton Christon pephenenai legontas].

[Greek: To de paidion euxane, kai ekrataiouto pneumati].

It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first Dialogus of pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20).

Opp. iii. 953, 954,—with suspicious emphasis.

Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700).

When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568),—"[Greek: To de paidion euxane kai ekrataiouto PNEUMATI, pleroumenon SOPHIA kai CHARITI." kaitoi kata physin panteleios estin hos Theos kai ex idion pleromatos dianemei tois agiois ta PNEUMATIKA, kai autos estin e SOPHIA, kai tes CHARITOS ho doter],—it is clear that [Greek: pneumati] must have stood in Cyril's text. The same is the reading of Cyril's Treatise, De Incarnatione (Mai, ii. 57): and of his Commentary on St. Luke (ibid. p. 136). One is surprised at Tischendorf's perverse inference concerning the last-named place. Cyril had begun by quoting the whole of ver. 40 in exact conformity with the traditional text (Mai, ii. 136). At the close of some remarks (found both in Mai and in Cramer's Catena), Cyril proceeds as follows, according to the latter:—[Greek: ho Euangelistes epse "euxane kai ekrataiouto" KAI TA EXES]. Surely this constitutes no ground for supposing that he did not recognize the word [Greek: pneumati], but rather that he did. On the other hand, it is undeniable that in V. P. ii. 138 and 139 (= Concilia iii. 241 d, 244 a), from Pusey's account of what he found in the MSS. (vii. P. i. 277-8), the word [Greek: pneumati] must be suspected of being an unauthorized addition to the text of Cyril's treatise, De Recta fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam.

ii. 152: iv. 112: v. 120, 121 (four times).

[Greek: Ei teleios esti Theos ho Christos, pos ho euangelistes legei, to de paidion Iesous euxane kai ekrataiouto pneumati];—S. Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 (ap. Galland. vi. 17 c). And see Quaest. 30.

ii. 36 d.

Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p. 53.—The only other Greek Fathers who quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact.

[Greek: Hen ekousa para tou Theou]. Epiph. i. 463.

Instead of [Greek: para tou Theou].

i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it.

i. 260, 463: ii. 49.

i. 705.

viii. 365.

(Glaph.) i. 18.

iv. 83, 430. But both Origen (i. 705: iv. 320, 402) and Cyril (iv. 554: v. 758) quote the traditional reading; and Cyril (iv. 549) distinctly says that the latter is right, and [Greek: para tou patros] wrong.

Excerpt. Theod. 968.—Heracleon's name is also connected by Origen with this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, [Greek: on de kai uion Monogene kai Theon kekleken].

Pp. 627, 630, 466.

P. 956.

'Deum nemo vidit umquam: nisi unicus filius solus, sinum patris ipse enarravit.'—(Comp. Tertullian:—'Solus filius patrem novit et sinum patris ipse exposuit' (Prax. c. 8. Cp. c. 21): but he elsewhere (ibid. c. 15) exhibits the passage in the usual way.) Clemens writes,—[Greek: tote epopteuseis ton kolpon tou Patrus, hon ho monoogenes huios Theos monos exegesato] (956), and in the Excerpt. Theod. we find [Greek: outos ton kolpon ton Patros exegesato ho Soter] (969). But this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our Lord is often spoken of by the Fathers as [Greek: he dexia tou hypsistou ... kolpos de tes dexias ho Pater]. (Greg. Nyss. i. 192.)

Ps. 440 (—[Greek: ho]): Marcell. 165, 179, 273.

Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14.

Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134.

Opp. ii. 466.

Opp. iii. 23, 358.

Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 ([Greek: Theos pantos ho monogenes, ho en tois kolpois on tou Patros, outos eipontos tou Ioannou]). Also ii. 432, 447, 450, 470, 506: always [Greek: en tois kolpois]. Basil, Opp. iii. 12.

Basil, Opp. iii. 14, 16, 117: and so Eunomius (ibid. i. 623).

Contra Eunom. I have noted ninety-eight places.

Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus:—[Greek: autos gar Theos on ho monogenes, en kolpois on tou theou kai patros, tauten pros hemas epoiesato ten exegesin]. Presently (p. 105), he says that St. John [Greek: kai "monogene theon" apokalei ton huion, kai "en kolpois" einai phesi tou patros]. But on p. 107 he speaks quite plainly: [Greek: "ho monogenes," phesi, "Theos, ho on eis ton kolpon tou patros, ekeinos exegesato." epeide gar ephe "monogene" kai "Theon," tithesin euthys, "ho on en tois kolpois tou patros."]—So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads [Greek: huios] in v. 365, 437: vi. 90.

He uses it seventeen times in his Comm. on Isaiah (ii. 4, 35, 122, &c.), and actually so reads St. John i. 18 in one place (Opp. vi. 187). Theodoret once adopts the phrase (Opp. v. 4).

De Trin. 76, 140, 37a:—27.

P. 117.

Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given.

Who quoted Arius' words:—'Subsistit ante tempora et aeones plenus Deus, unigenitus, et immutabilis.' But I cannot yet find Tischendorf's reference.

The reading [Greek: Huios] is established by unanswerable evidence.

The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus were the direct precursors of Apolonius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c., in assailing the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. Their heresy must have been actively at work when St. John wrote his first (iv. 1, 2, 3) and second (ver. 7) Epistles.

Rev. xxii. 19.

[Greek: Epipedosin hemin hoi hairetikoi legontes; idou ouk anelabe sarka ho Christos; ho deut. gar phesin anthr. ho k. ex ouranou.] Chrys. iii. 114 b.

[Greek: Ten gar kata sarka gennesin tou Christou anelein boulomenoi, enellaxan to, ho deuteros anthropos; kai epoiesan, ho deuteros Kyrios.] Dial. [ap. Orig.] i. 868.—Marcion had in fact already substituted [Greek: Kyrios] for [Greek: anthropos] in ver. 45: ('the last Lord became a quickening spirit':) [Tertull. ii. 304]—a fabricated reading which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion's followers:—[Greek: ho eschatos Kyrios eis pn. zo.] Dial. ubi supra. [Greek: edei gar autous, ei ge ta euangelia etimon, me peritemnein ta euangelia, me mere ton euangelion exyphelein, me hetera prosthenai, mete logo, mete idia gnome ta euangelia prosgraphein.... prosgegraphekasi goun hosa beboulentai, kai exypheilanto hosa kekrikasi.] Titus of Bostra c. Manichaeos (Galland. v. 328).

Tertull. ii. 304, (Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus de Caelo).

Dial [Orig. i.] 868, ([Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou]).

[Greek: To de panton chalepotaton en tais ekklesiastikais symphorais, he ton 'Apolinariston esti parresia.] Greg. Naz. ii. 167.

ii. 168,—a very interesting place. See also p. 87.

i. 831.

ii. 443, 531.

Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 (primus homo de terrae limo, &c.).

iii. 40.

iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has [Greek: ho deut. anthr. ouranios ex ouranou].

iv. 1051.

Ap. Thdt. v. 1135.

Ap. Galland. viii. 626, 627.

i. 222 (where for [Greek: anthr.] he reads [Greek: Adam]), 563. Also ii. 120, 346.

'Adversus Manichaeos,'—ap. Mai, iv. 68, 69.

ii. 228:—[Greek: ouch hoti ho anthropos, etoi to anthropinon proslemma, ex ouranou en, hos ho aphron Apolinarios elerei].

Naz. ii. 87 (=Thdt. iv. 62), 168.—Nyss. ii. 11.

Ap. Epiphan. i. 830.

559 (with the Text. Recept.): iv. 302 not.

Hippolytus may not be cited in evidence, being read both ways. (Cp. ed. Fabr. ii. 30:—ed. Lagarde, 138. 15:—ed. Galland. ii. 483.)—Neither may the expression [Greek: tou deuterou ex ouranou anthropou] in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 48) be safely pressed.

Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo caelestis.—i. 1168, 1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. ii. 166, 437.

ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296.

The places are given by Sabatier in loc.

Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does this reading appear in Orig. interp. ii. 84, 85: iii. 951: iv. 546.

As Philastrius (ap. Galland. vii. 492, 516).—Pacianus (ib. 275).—Marius Mercator (ib. viii. 664).—Capreolus (ib. ix. 493). But see the end of the next ensuing note.

Vol. i. p. 1275,—[Greek: ho deuteros anthr. ho Kyrios ex ouranou ouranios]:—on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he), [Greek: idou gar amphoterothen ouranios anthropos onomazetai]. And lower down,—[Greek: Kyrios, dia ten mian hypostasin; deut. men anthr., kata ten henomenen anthropoteta. ex ouranou de, kata ten theoteta].—P. 448,—[Greek: ho deuteros anthr. ex ouranou epouranios].—Ap. Montf. ii. 13 (= Galland. v. 167),—[Greek: ho deut. anthr. ex ouranou].—Note that Maximinus, an Arian bishop, A.D. 427-8 (ap. Augustin. viii. 663) is found to have possessed a text identical with the first of the preceding:—'Ait ipse Paulus, Primus homo Adam de terra terrenus, secundus homo Dominus de Caelo caelestis advenit.'

See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5: and The Traditional Text, p. 114.

This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877, and is therefore earlier than the Dean's later series.

Proleg. 418.

The text of St. Luke ix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril's fifty-sixth Sermon (p. 353) is the text of B and [Symbol: Aleph],—an important testimony to what I suppose may be regarded as the Alexandrine Textus Receptus of this place in the fifth century. But then no one supposes that Cyril is individually responsible for the headings of his Sermons. We therefore refer to the body of his discourse; and discover that the Syriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly stood in the original text:—[Greek: eidenai gar chre, hoti hos mepo tes neas kekratekotes charitos, all' eti tes proteras echomenoi synetheias, touto eipon, pros Elian aphorontes ton pyri kataphlexanta dis tous pentekonta kai tous egoumenous auton], (Cramer's Cat. ii. p. 81. Cf. Corderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei. N. T. in loc., pp. 333-4.) Now the man who wrote that, must surely have read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as we do.

See the fragment (and Potter's note), Opp. p. 1019: also Galland. ii. 157. First in Hippolyt., Opp. ed. Fabric, ii. 71.

In St. Matt. xviii. 11, the words [Greek: zetesai kai] do not occur.

Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 468. 'Agnosco iudicis severitatem. E contrario Christi in eandem animadversionem destinantes discipulos super ilium viculum Samaritarum.' Marc. iv. 23 (see ii. p. 221). He adds,—'Let Marcion also confess that by the same terribly severe judge Christ's leniency was foretold;' and he cites in proof Is. xlii. 2 and 1 Kings xix. 12 ('sed in spiritu miti').

Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. And he discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 139.

Addas Adimantus (a disciple of Manes) was the author of a work of the same kind. Augustine (viii. 606 c) says of it,—'ubi de utroque Testamento velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipelli dolositate, velut inde ostendatur utrumque ab uno Deo esse non posse, sed alterum ab altero.' Cerdon was the first to promulgate this pestilential tenet (605 a). Then Marcion his pupil, then Apelles, and then Patricius.

Titus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (ap. Galland. v. 329 b), leaving others to note the correspondences between the New and the Old Testament, proposes to handle the 'Contrasts': [Greek: pros autas tas antitheseis ton logion choresomen]. At pp. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirms what Tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven.

Verba [Greek: hos kai E. epoiese] cur quis addiderit, planum. Eidem interpolatori debentur quae verba [Greek: str. de epeti. autois] excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod testium additamentum [Greek: ho gar huios], &c. ab eadem manu derivandum est, nec per se solum pro spurio haberi potest; cohaeret enim cum argumento tum auctoritate arctissime cum prioribus. (N. T. ed. 1869, p. 544.)

Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio circumferri consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.)

The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not had time or strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this MS. and the last.

Jerome.—Apostoli in Lege versati ... ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, et imitari Eliam, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum venerat, sed ad salvandum, &c. ... increpat eos quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et bonitatis Evangelicae, &c. (i. 857 b, c, d.)

Cyprian, Synodical Epistle.—'Filius hominis non venit animas hominum perdere, sed salvare.' p. 98. A.D. 253.

Tatian.—Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Carn. c. 12 et 10: and Anim. c. 13.)

Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the words twice,—x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a.

[Greek: Kai ho Kyrios pros tous apostolous eipontas en pyri kolasai tous me dexamenous autous kata ton Elian; Ouk oidate phesi poiou pneumatos este]. (p. 1019.)

Theodoret, iii. 1119. ([Greek: poiou].)

Epiph. ii. 31. ([Greek: hoiou].)

Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place.

Augustine.—Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus filii essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. viii. 139 b. Cp. iii. (2), 194 b.

Cyril Al.—[Greek: Mepo tes neas kekratekotes charitos ... touto eipon, ton Elian aphorontes ton pyri k.t.l.] Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81. Also iv. 1017.—By a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reproof found in St. Matthew: but this is enough to shew that he admits that some reproof finds record in the Gospel.

Chrys. vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 c.

Opus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219.

Didymus.—[Greek: Ouk oidate oiou pneumatos estin ho huios tou anthropou]. De Trin. p. 188.

Evst. 48 (Matthaei's c): Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598).

See Matthaei, N.T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17.

[I have been unable to discover this Lection.]

APPENDIX I.

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA.

I have purposely reserved for the last the most difficult problem of all: viz. those twelve famous verses of St. John's Gospel (chap. vii. 53 to viii. 11) which contain the history of 'the woman taken in adultery,'—the pericope de adultera, as it is called. Altogether indispensable is it that the reader should approach this portion of the Gospel with the greatest amount of experience and the largest preparation. Convenient would it be, no doubt, if he could further divest himself of prejudice; but that is perhaps impossible. Let him at least endeavour to weigh the evidence which shall now be laid before him in impartial scales. He must do so perforce, if he would judge rightly: for the matter to be discussed is confessedly very peculiar: in some respects, even unique. Let me convince him at once of the truth of what has been so far spoken.

It is a singular circumstance that at the end of eighteen centuries two instances, and but two, should exist of a considerable portion of Scripture left to the mercy, so to speak, of 'Textual Criticism.' Twelve consecutive Verses in the second Gospel—as many consecutive Verses in the fourth—are in this predicament. It is singular, I say, that the Providence which has watched so marvellously over the fortunes of the Deposit,—the Divine Wisdom which has made such ample provision for its security all down the ages, should have so ordered the matter, that these two co-extensive problems have survived to our times to be tests of human sagacity,—trials of human faithfulness and skill. They present some striking features of correspondence, but far more of contrast,—as will presently appear. And yet the most important circumstance of all cannot be too soon mentioned: viz. that both alike have experienced the same calamitous treatment at the hands of some critics. By common consent the most recent editors deny that either set of Verses can have formed part of the Gospel as it proceeded from the hands of its inspired author. How mistaken is this opinion of theirs in respect of the 'Last twelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark,' has been already demonstrated in a separate treatise. I must be content in this place to deal in a far less ceremonious manner with the hostile verdict of many critics concerning St. John vii. 53-viii. 11. That I shall be able to satisfy those persons who profess themselves unconvinced by what was offered concerning St. Mark's last twelve verses, I am not so simple as to expect. But I trust that I shall have with me all candid readers who are capable of weighing evidence impartially, and understanding the nature of logical proof, when it is fully drawn out before them,—which indeed is the very qualification that I require of them.

And first, the case of the pericope de adultera requires to be placed before the reader in its true bearings. For those who have hitherto discussed it are observed to have ignored certain preliminary considerations which, once clearly apprehended, are all but decisive of the point at issue. There is a fundamental obstacle, I mean, in the way of any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred narrative from the context in which it stands, which they seem to have overlooked. I proceed to explain.

Sufficient prominence has never yet been given to the fact that in the present discussion the burden of proof rests entirely with those who challenge the genuineness of the Pericope under review. In other words, the question before us is not by any means,—Shall these Twelve Verses be admitted—or, Must they be refused admission—into the Sacred Text? That point has been settled long, long ago. St. John's Twelve verses are in possession. Let those eject them who can. They are known to have occupied their present position for full seventeen hundred years. There never was a time—as far as is known— when they were not where,—and to all intents and purposes what—they now are. Is it not evident, that no merely ordinary method of proof,—no merely common argument,—will avail to dislodge Twelve such Verses as these?

'Twelve such Verses,' I say. For it is the extent of the subject-matter which makes the case so formidable. We have here to do with no dubious clause, concerning which ancient testimony is divided; no seeming gloss, which is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits, and to have crept in as from the margin; no importation from another Gospel; no verse of Scripture which has lost its way; no weak amplification of the Evangelical meaning; no tasteless appendix, which encumbers the narrative and almost condemns itself. Nothing of the sort. If it were some inconsiderable portion of Scripture which it was proposed to get rid of by shewing that it is disallowed by a vast amount of ancient evidence, the proceeding would be intelligible. But I take leave to point out that a highly complex and very important incident—as related in twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel—cannot be so dealt with. Squatters on the waste are liable at any moment to be served with a notice of ejectment: but the owner of a mansion surrounded by broad acres which his ancestors are known to have owned before the Heptarchy, may on no account be dispossessed by any such summary process. This—to speak without a figure—is a connected and very striking portion of the sacred narrative:—the description of a considerable incident, complete in itself, full of serious teaching, and of a kind which no one would have ever dared to invent. Those who would assail it successfully must come forward with weapons of a very different kind from those usually employed in textual warfare.

It shall be presently shewn that these Twelve Verses hold their actual place by a more extraordinary right of tenure than any other twelve verses which can be named in the Gospel: but it would be premature to enter upon the proof of that circumstance now. I prefer to invite the reader's attention, next to the actual texture of the pericope de adultera, by which name (as already explained) the last verse of St. John vii. together with verses 1-11 of ch. viii. are familiarly designated. Although external testimony supplies the sole proof of genuineness, it is nevertheless reasonable to inquire what the verses in question may have to say for themselves. Do they carry on their front the tokens of that baseness of origin which their impugners so confidently seek to fasten upon them? Or do they, on the contrary, unmistakably bear the impress of Truth?

The first thing which strikes me in them is that the actual narrative concerning 'the woman taken in adultery' is entirely contained in the last nine of these verses: being preceded by two short paragraphs of an entirely different character and complexion. Let these be first produced and studied:

'and every man went to his own house: but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.' 'And again, very early in the morning, He presented Himself in the Temple; and all the people came unto Him: and He sat down and taught them.'

Now as every one must see, the former of these two paragraphs is unmistakably not the beginning but the end of a narrative. It purports to be the conclusion of something which went before, not to introduce something which comes after. Without any sort of doubt, it is St. John's account of what occurred at the close of the debate between certain members of the Sanhedrin which terminates his history of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The verse in question marks the conclusion of the Feast,—implies in short that all is already finished. Remove it, and the antecedent narrative ends abruptly. Retain it, and all proceeds methodically; while an affecting contrast is established, which is recognized to be strictly in the manner of Scripture. Each one had gone to his home: but the homeless One had repaired to the Mount of Olives. In other words, the paragraph under discussion is found to be an integral part of the immediately antecedent narrative: proves to be a fragment of what is universally admitted to be genuine Scripture. By consequence, itself must needs be genuine also.

It is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses are in the same predicament as those which follow: are as ill supported by MS. evidence as the other ten: and must therefore share the same fate as the rest. The statement is incorrect, to begin with; as shall presently be shewn. But, what is even better deserving of attention, since confessedly these twelve verses are either to stand or else to fall together, it must be candidly admitted that whatever begets a suspicion that certain of them, at all events, must needs be genuine, throws real doubt on the justice of the sentence of condemnation which has been passed in a lump upon all the rest.

I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient circumstance which some Critics in their eagerness have overlooked.

The reader will bear in mind that—contending, as I do, that the entire Pericope under discussion is genuine Scripture which has been forcibly wrenched away from its lawful context,—I began by examining the upper extremity, with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any traces of being a fractured edge. The result is just what might have been anticipated. The first two of the verses which it is the fashion to brand with ignominy were found to carry on their front clear evidence that they are genuine Scripture. How then about the other extremity?

Note, that in the oracular Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] immediate transition is made from the words 'out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,' in ch. vii. 5a, to the words 'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying,' in ch. viii. 12. And we are invited by all the adverse Critics alike to believe that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist.

But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch. vii. 37 and 5a, and note—(a) That two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (ver. 40-42): (b) That some were for laying violent hands on our Lord (ver. 44): (c) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled in debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him prisoner, and disputing one against another (ver. 45-52). How can the Evangelist have proceeded,—'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world'? What is it supposed then that St. John meant when he wrote such words?

But on the contrary, survey the context in any ordinary copy of the New Testament, and his meaning is perfectly clear. The last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles is ended. It is the morrow and 'very early in the morning.' The Holy One has 'again presented Himself in the Temple' where on the previous night He so narrowly escaped violence at the hands of His enemies, and He teaches the people. While thus engaged,—the time, the place, His own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holiness and love,—a rabble rout, headed by the Scribes and Pharisees, enter on the foulest of errands; and we all remember with how little success. Such an interruption need not have occupied much time. The Woman's accusers having departed, our Saviour resumes His discourse which had been broken off. 'Again therefore' it is said in ver. 12, with clear and frequent reference to what had preceded in ver. 2—'Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world.' And had not that saying of His reference as well to the thick cloud of moral darkness which His words, a few moments before, had succeeded in dispelling, as to the orb of glory which already flooded the Temple Court with the effulgence of its rising,—His own visible emblem and image in the Heavens?... I protest that with the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery,'—so introduced, so dismissed,—all is lucid and coherent: without those connecting links, the story is scarcely intelligible. These twelve disputed verses, so far from 'fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel, if retained in the text,' prove to be even necessary for the logical coherency of the entire context in which they stand.

But even that is not all. On close and careful inspection, the mysterious texture of the narrative, no less than its 'edifying and eminently Christian' character, vindicates for the Pericope de adultera a right to its place in the Gospel. Let me endeavour to explain what seems to be its spiritual significancy: in other words, to interpret the transaction.

The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our Saviour on a charge of adultery. The sin prevailed to such an extent among the Jews that the Divine enactments concerning one so accused had long since fallen into practical oblivion. On the present occasion our Lord is observed to revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion. The trial by the bitter water, or water of conviction, was a species of ordeal, intended for the vindication of innocence, the conviction of guilt. But according to the traditional belief the test proved inefficacious, unless the husband was himself innocent of the crime whereof he accused his wife.

Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. v. 16 to 24, be now considered. The accused Woman having been brought near, and set before the Lord, the priest took 'holy water in an earthen vessel,' and put 'of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle into the water.' Then, with the bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he charged the woman by an oath. Next, he wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out with the bitter water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell under a terrible penalty,—her body testifying visibly to her sin. If she was innocent, nothing followed.

And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with His hypocritical assailants, as if they had been the accused parties? Into the presence of incarnate Jehovah verily they had been brought: and perhaps when He stooped down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence against the adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We have but to assume some connexion between the curse which He thus traced 'in the dust of the floor of the tabernacle' and the words which He uttered with His lips, and He may with truth be declared to have 'taken of the dust and put in on the water,' and 'caused them to drink of the bitter water which causeth the curse.' For when, by His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest in His human flesh addressed these adulterers,—what did He but present them with living water 'in an earthen vessel'? Did He not further charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, 'If ye have not gone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from this bitter water: but if ye be defiled'—On being presented with which alternative, did they not, self-convicted, go out one by one? And what else was this but their own acquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation they shewed themselves so impatient? Surely it was 'the water of conviction' ([Greek: to hydor tou elegmou]) as it is six times called, which they had been compelled to drink; whereupon, 'convicted ([Greek: elegchomenoi]) by their own conscience,' as St. John relates, they had pronounced the other's acquittal. Finally, note that by Himself declining to 'condemn' the accused woman, our Lord also did in effect blot out those curses which He had already written against her in the dust,—when He made the floor of the sanctuary His 'book.'

Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition—and I am not concerned to defend it in every detail,—on turning to the opposite contention, we are struck with the slender amount of actual proof with which the assailants of this passage seem to be furnished. Their evidence is mostly negative—a proceeding which is constantly observed to attend a bad cause: and they are prone to make up for the feebleness of their facts by the strength of their assertions. But my experience, as one who has given a considerable amount of attention to such subjects, tells me that the narrative before us carries on its front the impress of Divine origin. I venture to think that it vindicates for itself a high, unearthly meaning. It seems to me that it cannot be the work of a fabricator. The more I study it, the more I am impressed with its Divinity. And in what goes before I have been trying to make the reader a partaker of my own conviction.

To come now to particulars, we may readily see from its very texture that it must needs have been woven in a heavenly loom. Only too obvious is the remark that the very subject-matter of the chief transaction recorded in these twelve verses, would be sufficient in and by itself to preclude the suspicion that these twelve verses are a spurious addition to the genuine Gospel. And then we note how entirely in St. John's manner is the little explanatory clause in ver. 6,—'This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him.' We are struck besides by the prominence given in verses 6 and 8 to the act of writing,—allusions to which, are met with in every work of the last Evangelist. It does not of course escape us how utterly beyond the reach of a Western interpolator would have been the insertion of the article so faithfully retained to this hour before [Greek: lithon] in ver. 7. On completing our survey, as to the assertions that the pericope de adultera 'has no right to a place in the text of the four Gospels,'—is 'clearly a Western interpolation, though not Western of the earliest type,' (whatever that may mean), and so forth,—we can but suspect that the authors very imperfectly realize the difficulty of the problem with which they have to deal. Dr. Hort finally assures us that 'no accompanying marks would prevent' this portion of Scripture 'from fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel if retained in the text': and when they relegate it accordingly to a blank page at the end of the Gospels within 'double brackets,' in order 'to shew its inferior authority';—we can but read and wonder at the want of perception, not to speak of the coolness, which they display. Quousque tandem?

But it is time to turn from such considerations as the foregoing, and to inquire for the direct testimony, which is assumed by recent Editors and Critics to be fatal to these twelve verses. Tischendorf pronounces it 'absolutely certain that this narrative was not written by St. John.' One, vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener) declares that 'on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the passage must needs be abandoned.' Tregelles is 'fully satisfied that this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel.' Alford shuts it up in brackets, and like Tregelles puts it into his footnotes. Westcott and Hort, harsher than any of their predecessors, will not, as we have seen, allow it to appear even at the foot of the page. To reproduce all that has been written in disparagement of this precious portion of God's written Word would be a joyless and an unprofitable task. According to Green, 'the genuineness of the passage cannot be maintained.' Hammond is of opinion that 'it would be more satisfactory to separate it from its present context, and place it by itself as an appendix to the Gospel.' A yet more recent critic 'sums up,' that 'the external evidence must be held fatal to the genuineness of the passage.' The opinions of Bishops Wordsworth, Ellicott, and Lightfoot, shall be respectfully commented upon by-and-by. In the meantime, I venture to join issue with every one of these learned persons. I contend that on all intelligent principles of sound Criticism the passage before us must be maintained to be genuine Scripture; and that without a particle of doubt I cannot even admit that 'it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those connected with any other passage of Scripture whatever.' I contend that it has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the rest of Scripture, and therefore exhibits the same notes of genuineness as any other twelve verses of the same Gospel which can be named: but—like countless other places—it is found for whatever reason to have given offence in certain quarters: and in consequence has experienced very ill usage at the hands of the ancients and of the moderns also:—but especially of the latter. In other words, these twelve verses exhibit the required notes of genuineness less conspicuously than any other twelve consecutive verses in the same Gospel. But that is all. The one only question to be decided is the following:—On a review of the whole of the evidence,—is it more reasonable to stigmatize these twelve verses as a spurious accretion to the Gospel? Or to admit that they must needs be accounted to be genuine?... I shall shew that they are at this hour supported by a weight of testimony which is absolutely overwhelming. I read with satisfaction that my own convictions were shared by Mill, Matthaei, Adler, Scholz, Vercellone. I have also the learned Ceriani on my side. I should have been just as confident had I stood alone:—such is the imperative strength of the evidence.

To begin then. Tischendorf—(who may be taken as a fair sample of the assailants of this passage)—commences by stating roundly that the Pericope is omitted by [Symbol: Aleph]ABCLTX[Symbol: Delta], and about seventy cursives. I will say at once, that no sincere inquirer after truth could so state the evidence. It is in fact not a true statement. A and C are hereabout defective. No longer possible therefore is it to know with certainty what they either did, or did not, contain. But this is not merely all. I proceed to offer a few words concerning Cod. A.

Woide, the learned and accurate editor of the Codex Alexandrinus, remarked (in 1785)—'Historia adulterae videtur in hoc codice defuisse.' But this modest inference of his, subsequent Critics have represented as an ascertained fact, Tischendorf announces it as 'certissimum.' Let me be allowed to investigate the problem for myself. Woide's calculation,—(which has passed unchallenged for nearly a hundred years, and on the strength of which it is now-a-days assumed that Cod. A must have exactly resembled Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B in omitting the pericope de adultera,)—was far too roughly made to be of any critical use.

Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost: viz. from the word [Greek: katabainon] in vi. 50 to the word [Greek: legeis] in viii. 52: a lacuna (as I find by counting the letters in a copy of the ordinary text) of as nearly as possible 8,805 letters,—allowing for contractions, and of course not reckoning St. John vii. 53 to viii. 11. Now, in order to estimate fairly how many letters the two lost leaves actually contained, I have inquired for the sums of the letters on the leaf immediately preceding, and also on the leaf immediately succeeding the hiatus; and I find them to be respectively 4,337 and 4,303: together, 8,640 letters. But this, it will be seen, is insufficient by 165 letters, or eight lines, for the assumed contents of these two missing leaves. Are we then to suppose that one leaf exhibited somewhere a blank space equivalent to eight lines? Impossible, I answer. There existed, on the contrary, a considerable redundancy of matter in at least the second of those two lost leaves. This is proved by the circumstance that the first column on the next ensuing leaf exhibits the unique phenomenon of being encumbered, at its summit, by two very long lines (containing together fifty-eight letters), for which evidently no room could be found on the page which immediately preceded. But why should there have been any redundancy of matter at all? Something extraordinary must have produced it. What if the Pericope de adultera, without being actually inserted in full, was recognized by Cod. A? What if the scribe had proceeded as far as the fourth word of St. John viii. 3, and then had suddenly checked himself? We cannot tell what appearance St. John vii. 53-viii. 11 presented in Codex A, simply because the entire leaf which should have contained it is lost. Enough however has been said already to prove that it is incorrect and unfair to throw [Symbol: Aleph]AB into one and the same category,—with a 'certissimum,'—as Tischendorf does.

As for L and [Symbol: Delta], they exhibit a vacant space after St. John vii. 52,—which testifies to the consciousness of the copyists that they were leaving out something. These are therefore witnesses for,—not witnesses against,—the passage under discussion.—X being a Commentary on the Gospel as it was read in Church, of course leaves the passage out.—The only uncial MSS. therefore which simply leave out the pericope, are the three following—[Symbol: Aleph]BT: and the degree of attention to which such an amount of evidence is entitled, has been already proved to be wondrous small. We cannot forget moreover that the two former of these copies enjoy the unenviable distinction of standing alone on a memorable occasion:—they alone exhibit St. Mark's Gospel mutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses.

But I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. of later date are without the pericope de adultera: that the first Greek Father who quotes the pericope is Euthymius in the twelfth century: that Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Nonnus, Cosmas, Theophylact, knew nothing of it: and that it is not contained in the Syriac, the Gothic, or the Egyptian versions. Concerning every one of which statements I remark over again that no sincere lover of Truth, supposing him to understand the matter about which he is disputing, could so exhibit the evidence for this particular problem. First, because so to state it is to misrepresent the entire case. Next, because some of the articles of indictment are only half true:—in fact are untrue. But chiefly, because in the foregoing enumeration certain considerations are actually suppressed which, had they been fairly stated, would have been found to reverse the issue. Let me now be permitted to conduct this inquiry in my own way.

The first thing to be done is to enable the reader clearly to understand what the problem before him actually is. Twelve verses then, which, as a matter of fact, are found dovetailed into a certain context of St. John's Gospel, the Critics insist must now be dislodged. But do the Critics in question prove that they must? For unless they do, there is no help for it but the pericope de adultera must be left where it is. I proceed to shew first, that it is impossible, on any rational principle to dislodge these twelve verses from their actual context.—Next, I shall point out that the facts adduced in evidence and relied on by the assailants of the passage, do not by any means prove the point they are intended to prove; but admit of a sufficient and satisfactory explanation.—Thirdly, it shall be shewn that the said explanation carries with it, and implies, a weight of testimony in support of the twelve verses in dispute, which is absolutely overwhelming.—Lastly, the positive evidence in favour of these twelve verses shall be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence, which is relied upon by those who contend for their removal. To some people I may seem to express myself with too much confidence. Let it then be said once for all, that my confidence is inspired by the strength of the arguments which are now to be unfolded. When the Author of Holy Scripture supplies such proofs of His intentions, I cannot do otherwise than rest implicit confidence in them.

Now I begin by establishing as my first proposition that,

(1) These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the Gospels reaches.

And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently established by reference to the ancient Latin version of St. John's Gospel. We are thus carried back to the second century of our era: beyond which, testimony does not reach. The pericope is observed to stand in situ in Codd. b c e ff2 g h j. Jerome (A.D. 385), after a careful survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by himself in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine times; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as often. It is quoted besides by Pacian, in the north of Spain (370),—by Faustus the African (400),—by Rufinus at Aquileia (400),—by Chrysologus at Ravenna (433),—by Sedulius a Scot (434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises written at the same period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. It is referred to by Victorius or Victorinus (457),—by Vigilius of Tapsus (484) in North Africa,—by Gelasius, bp. of Rome (492),—by Cassiodorus in Southern Italy,—by Gregory the Great, and by other Fathers of the Western Church.

To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all wrote in Latin. For the purpose in hand their evidence is every bit as conclusive as if they had written in Greek,—from which language no one doubts that they derived their knowledge, through a translation. But in fact we are not left to Latin authorities. [Out of thirty-eight copies of the Bohairic version the pericope de adultera is read in fifteen, but in three forms which will be printed in the Oxford edition. In the remaining twenty-three, it is left out.] How is it intelligible that this passage is thus found in nearly half the copies—except on the hypothesis that they formed an integral part of the Memphitic version? They might have been easily omitted: but how could they have been inserted?

Once more. The Ethiopic version (fifth century),—the Palestinian Syriac (which is referred to the fifth century),—the Georgian (probably fifth or sixth century),—to say nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions, which are of later date,—all contain the portion of narrative in dispute. The Armenian version also (fourth-fifth century) originally contained it; though it survives at present in only a few copies. Add that it is found in Cod. D, and it will be seen that in all parts of ancient Christendom this portion of Scripture was familiarly known in early times.

But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with Greek MSS. (and who handled none of later date than B and [Symbol: Aleph]), expressly relates (380) that the pericope de adultera 'is found in many copies both Greek and Latin.' He calls attention to the fact that what is rendered 'sine peccato' is [Greek: anamartetos] in the Greek: and lets fall an exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with copies which exhibited (in ver. 8) [Greek: egraphan enos ekastou auton tas amartias],—a reading which survives to this day in one uncial (U) and at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth Gospel. Whence is it—let me ask in passing—that so many Critics fail to see that positive testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse negative testimony of [Symbol: Aleph]BT,—aye, and of AC to boot if they were producible on this point? How comes it to pass that the two Codexes, [Symbol: Aleph] and B, have obtained such a mastery—rather exercise such a tyranny—over the imagination of many Critics as quite to overpower their practical judgement? We have at all events established our first proposition: viz. that from the earliest period to which testimony reaches, the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery' occupied its present place in St. John's Gospel. The Critics eagerly remind us that in four cursive copies (13, 69, 124, 346), the verses in question are found tacked on to the end of St. Luke xxi. But have they then forgotten that 'these four Codexes are derived from a common archetype,' and therefore represent one and the same ancient and, I may add, corrupt copy? The same Critics are reminded that in the same four Codexes [commonly called the Ferrar Group] 'the agony and bloody sweat' (St. Luke xxii. 43, 44) is found thrust into St. Matthew's Gospel between ch. xxvi. 39 and 40. Such licentiousness on the part of a solitary exemplar of the Gospels no more affects the proper place of these or of those verses than the superfluous digits of a certain man of Gath avail to disturb the induction that to either hand of a human being appertain but five fingers, and to either foot but five toes.

It must be admitted then that as far back as testimony reaches the passage under discussion stood where it now stands in St. John's Gospel. And this is my first position. But indeed, to be candid, hardly any one has seriously called that fact in question. No, nor do any (except Dr. Hort) doubt that the passage is also of the remotest antiquity. Adverse Critics do but insist that however ancient, it must needs be of spurious origin: or else that it is an afterthought of the Evangelist:—concerning both which imaginations we shall have a few words to offer by-and-by.

It clearly follows,—indeed it may be said with truth that it only remains,—to inquire what may have led to its so frequent exclusion from the sacred Text? For really the difficulty has already resolved itself into that.

And on this head, it is idle to affect perplexity. In the earliest age of all,—the age which was familiar with the universal decay of heathen virtue, but which had not yet witnessed the power of the Gospel to fashion society afresh, and to build up domestic life on a new and more enduring basis;—at a time when the greatest laxity of morals prevailed, and the enemies of the Gospel were known to be on the look out for grounds of cavil against Christianity and its Author;—what wonder if some were found to remove the pericope de adultera from their copies, lest it should be pleaded in extenuation of breaches of the seventh commandment? The very subject-matter, I say, of St. John viii. 3-11 would sufficiently account for the occasional omission of those nine verses. Moral considerations abundantly explain what is found to have here and there happened. But in fact this is not a mere conjecture of my own. It is the reason assigned by Augustine for the erasure of these twelve verses from many copies of the Gospel. Ambrose, a quarter of a century earlier, had clearly intimated that danger was popularly apprehended from this quarter: while Nicon, five centuries later, states plainly that the mischievous tendency of the narrative was the cause why it had been expunged from the Armenian version. Accordingly, just a few Greek copies are still to be found mutilated in respect of those nine verses only. But in fact the indications are not a few that all the twelve verses under discussion did not by any means labour under the same degree of disrepute. The first three (as I shewed at the outset) clearly belong to a different category from the last nine,—a circumstance which has been too much overlooked.

The Church in the meantime for an obvious reason had made choice of St. John vii. 37-viii. 12—the greater part of which is clearly descriptive of what happened at the Feast of Tabernacles—for her Pentecostal lesson: and judged it expedient, besides omitting as inappropriate to the occasion the incident of the woman taken in adultery, to ignore also the three preceding verses;—making the severance begin, in fact, as far back as the end of ch. vii. 52. The reason for this is plain. In this way the allusion to a certain departure at night, and return early next morning (St. John vii. 53: viii. 1), was avoided, which entirely marred the effect of the lection as the history of a day of great and special solemnity,—'the great day of the Feast.' And thus it happens that the gospel for the day of Pentecost was made to proceed directly from 'Search and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,' in ch. vii. 52,—to 'Then spake Jesus unto them, saying, I am the light of the world,' in ch. viii. 12; with which it ends. In other words, an omission which owed its beginning to a moral scruple was eventually extended for a liturgical consideration; and resulted in severing twelve verses of St. John's Gospel—ch. vii. 53 to viii. 11—from their lawful context.

We may now proceed to the consideration of my second proposition, which is

(2) That by the very construction of her Lectionary, the Church in her corporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognised the narrative in question as an integral part of St. John's Gospel, and as standing in its traditional place, from an exceedingly remote time.

Take into your hands at random the first MS. copy of St. John's Gospel which presents itself, and turn to the place in question. Nay, I will instance all the four Evangelia which I call mine,—all the seventeen which belong to Lord Zouch,—all the thirty-nine which Baroness Burdett-Coutts imported from Epirus in 1870-2. Now all these copies—(and nearly each of them represents a different line of ancestry)—are found to contain the verses in question. How did the verses ever get there?

But the most extraordinary circumstance of the case is behind. Some out of the Evangelia referred to are observed to have been prepared for ecclesiastical use: in other words, are so rubricated throughout as to shew where, every separate lection had its 'beginning' ([Greek: arche]), and where its 'end' ([Greek: telos]). And some of these lections are made up of disjointed portions of the Gospel. Thus, the lection for Whitsunday is found to have extended from St. John vii. 37 to St. John viii. 12; beginning at the words [Greek: te eschate hemera te megale], and ending—[Greek: to phos tes zoes]: but over-leaping the twelve verses now under discussion: viz. vii. 53 to viii. 11. Accordingly, the word 'over-leap' ([Greek: hyperba]) is written in all the copies after vii. 52,—whereby the reader, having read on to the end of that verse, was directed to skip all that followed down to the words [Greek: kai meketi hamartane] in ch. viii. 11: after which he found himself instructed to 'recommence' ([Greek: arxai]). Again I ask (and this time does not the riddle admit of only one solution?),—When and how does the reader suppose that the narrative of 'the woman taken in adultery' first found its way into the middle of the lesson for Pentecost? I pause for an answer: I shall perforce be told that it never 'found its way' into the lection at all: but having once crept into St. John's Gospel, however that may have been effected, and established itself there, it left those ancient men who devised the Church's Lectionary without choice. They could but direct its omission, and employ for that purpose the established liturgical formula in all similar cases.

But first,—How is it that those who would reject the narrative are not struck by the essential foolishness of supposing that twelve fabricated verses, purporting to be an integral part of the fourth Gospel, can have so firmly established themselves in every part of Christendom from the second century downwards, that they have long since become simply ineradicable? Did the Church then, pro hac vice, abdicate her function of being 'a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ'? Was she all of a sudden forsaken by the inspiring Spirit, who, as she was promised, should 'guide her into all Truth'? And has she been all down the ages guided into the grievous error of imputing to the disciple whom Jesus loved a narrative of which he knew nothing? For, as I remarked at the outset, this is not merely an assimilated expression, or an unauthorized nominative, or a weakly-supported clause, or any such trifling thing. Although be it remarked in passing, I am not aware of a single such trifling excrescence which we are not able at once to detect and to remove. In other words, this is not at all a question, like the rest, about the genuine text of a passage. Our inquiry is of an essentially different kind, viz. Are these twelve consecutive verses Scripture at all, or not? Divine or human? Which? They claim by their very structure and contents to be an integral part of the Gospel. And such a serious accession to the Deposit, I insist, can neither have 'crept into' the Text, nor have 'crept out' of it. The thing is unexampled,—is unapproached,—is impossible.

Above all,—(the reader is entreated to give the subject his sustained attention),—Is it not perceived that the admission involved in the hypothesis before us is fatal to any rational pretence that the passage is of spurious origin? We have got back in thought at least to the third or fourth century of our era. We are among the Fathers and Doctors of the Eastern Church in conference assembled: and they are determining what shall be the Gospel for the great Festival of Pentecost. 'It shall begin' (say they) 'at the thirty-seventh verse of St. John vii, and conclude with the twelfth verse of St. John viii. But so much of it as relates to the breaking up of the Sanhedrin,—to the withdrawal of our Lord to the Mount of Olives,—and to His return next morning to the Temple,—had better not be read. It disturbs the unity of the narrative. So also had the incident of the woman taken in adultery better not be read. It is inappropriate to the Pentecostal Festival.' The Authors of the great Oriental Liturgy therefore admit that they find the disputed verses in their copies: and thus they vouch for their genuineness. For none will doubt that, had they regarded them as a spurious accretion to the inspired page, they would have said so plainly. Nor can it be denied that if in their corporate capacity they had disallowed these twelve verses, such an authoritative condemnation would most certainly have resulted in the perpetual exclusion from the Sacred Text of the part of these verses which was actually adopted as a Lection. What stronger testimony on the contrary can be imagined to the genuineness of any given portion of the everlasting Gospel than that it should have been canonized or recognized as part of Inspired Scripture by the collective wisdom of the Church in the third or fourth century?

And no one may regard it as a suspicious circumstance that the present Pentecostal lection has been thus maimed and mutilated in respect of twelve of its verses. There is nothing at all extraordinary in the treatment which St. John vii. 37-viii. 12 has here experienced. The phenomenon is even of perpetual recurrence in the Lectionary of the East,—as will be found explained below.

Permit me to suppose that, between the Treasury and Whitehall, the remote descendant of some Saxon thane occupied a small tenement and garden which stood in the very middle of the ample highway. Suppose further, the property thereabouts being Government property, that the road on either side of this estate had been measured a hundred times, and jealously watched, ever since Westminster became Westminster. Well, an act of Parliament might no doubt compel the supposed proprietor of this singular estate to surrender his patrimony; but I submit that no government lawyer would ever think of setting up the plea that the owner of that peculiar strip of land was an impostor. The man might have no title-deeds to produce, to be sure; but counsel for the defendant would plead that neither did he require any. 'This man's title' (counsel would say) 'is—occupation for a thousand years. His evidences are—the allowance of the State throughout that long interval. Every procession to St. Stephen's—every procession to the Abbey—has swept by defendant's property—on this side of it and on that,—since the days of Edward the Confessor. And if my client refuses to quit the soil, I defy you—except by violence—to get rid of him.'

In this way then it is that the testimony borne to these verses by the Lectionary of the East proves to be of the most opportune and convincing character. The careful provision made for passing by the twelve verses in dispute:—the minute directions which fence those twelve verses off on this side and on that, directions issued we may be sure by the highest Ecclesiastical authority, because recognized in every part of the ancient Church,—not only establish them effectually in their rightful place, but (what is at least of equal importance) fully explain the adverse phenomena which are ostentatiously paraded by adverse critics; and which, until the clue has been supplied, are calculated to mislead the judgement.

For now, for the first time, it becomes abundantly plain why Chrysostom and Cyril, in publicly commenting on St. John's Gospel, pass straight from ch. vii. 52 to ch. viii. 12. Of course they do. Why should they,—how could they,—comment on what was not publicly read before the congregation? The same thing is related (in a well-known 'scholium') to have been done by Apolinarius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Origen also, for aught I care,—though the adverse critics have no right to claim him, seeing that his commentary on all that part of St. John's Gospel is lost;—but Origen's name, as I was saying, for aught I care, may be added to those who did the same thing. A triumphant refutation of the proposed inference from the silence of these many Fathers is furnished by the single fact that Theophylact must also be added to their number. Theophylact, I say, ignores the pericope de adultera—passes it by, I mean,—exactly as do Chrysostom and Cyril. But will any one pretend that Theophylact,—writing in A.D. 1077,—did not know of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11? Why, in nineteen out of every twenty copies within his reach, the whole of those twelve verses must have been to be found.

The proposed inference from the silence of certain of the Fathers is therefore invalid. The argument e silentio—always an insecure argument,—proves inapplicable in this particular case. When the antecedent facts have been once explained, all the subsequent phenomena become intelligible. But a more effectual and satisfactory reply to the difficulty occasioned by the general silence of the Fathers, remains to be offered.

There underlies the appeal to Patristic authority an opinion,—not expressed indeed, yet consciously entertained by us all,—which in fact gives the appeal all its weight and cogency, and which must now by all means be brought to the front. The fact that the Fathers of the Church were not only her Doctors and Teachers, but also the living voices by which alone her mind could be proclaimed to the world, and by which her decrees used to be authoritatively promulgated;—this fact, I say, it is which makes their words, whenever they deliver themselves, so very important: their approval, if they approve, so weighty; their condemnation, if they condemn, so fatal. But then, in the present instance, they do not condemn. They neither approve nor condemn. They simply say nothing. They are silent: and in what precedes, I have explained the reason why. We wish it had been otherwise. We would give a great deal to persuade those ancient oracles to speak on the subject of these twelve verses: but they are all but inexorably silent. Nay, I am overstating the case against myself. Two of the greatest Fathers (Augustine and Ambrose) actually do utter a few words; and they are to the effect that the verses are undoubtedly genuine:—'Be it known to all men' (they say) 'that this passage is genuine: but the nature of its subject-matter has at once procured its ejection from MSS., and resulted in the silence of Commentators.' The most learned of the Fathers in addition practically endorses the passage; for Jerome not only leaves it standing in the Vulgate where he found it in the Old Latin version, but relates that it was supported by Greek as well as Latin authorities.

To proceed however with what I was about to say.

It is the authoritative sentence of the Church then on this difficult subject that we desiderate. We resorted to the Fathers for that: intending to regard any quotations of theirs, however brief, as their practical endorsement of all the twelve verses: to infer from their general recognition of the passage, that the Church in her collective capacity accepted it likewise. As I have shewn, the Fathers decline, almost to a man, to return any answer. But,—Are we then without the Church's authoritative guidance on this subject? For this, I repeat, is the only thing of which we are in search. It was only in order to get at this that we adopted the laborious expedient of watching for the casual utterances of any of the giants of old time. Are we, I say, left without the Church's opinion?

Not so, I answer. The reverse is the truth. The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach,—and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence we felt to be embarrassing,—the Eastern Church has selected nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8. A more significant circumstance it would be impossible to adduce in evidence. Any pretence to fasten a charge of spuriousness on a portion of Scripture so singled out by the Church for honour, were nothing else but monstrous. It would be in fact to raise quite a distinct issue: viz. to inquire what amount of respect is due to the Church's authority in determining the authenticity of Scripture? I appeal not to an opinion, but to a fact: and that fact is, that though the Fathers of the Church for a very sufficient reason are very nearly silent on the subject of these twelve verses, the Church herself has spoken with a voice of authority so loud that none can affect not to hear it: so plain, that it cannot possibly be misunderstood. And let me not be told that I am hereby setting up the Lectionary as the true standard of appeal for the Text of the New Testament: still less let me be suspected of charging on the collective body of the faithful whatever irregularities are discoverable in the Codexes which were employed for the public reading of Scripture. Such a suspicion could only be entertained by one who has hitherto failed to apprehend the precise point just now under consideration. We are not examining the text of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11. We are only discussing whether those twelve verses en bloc are to be regarded as an integral part of the fourth Gospel, or as a spurious accretion to it. And that is a point on which the Church in her corporate character must needs be competent to pronounce; and in respect of which her verdict must needs be decisive. She delivered her verdict in favour of these twelve verses, remember, at a time when her copies of the Gospels were of papyrus as well as 'old uncials' on vellum.—Nay, before 'old uncials' on vellum were at least in any general use. True, that the transcribers of Lectionaries have proved themselves just as liable to error as the men who transcribed Evangelia. But then, it is incredible that those men forged the Gospel for St. Pelagia's day: impossible, if it were a forgery, that the Church should have adopted it. And it is the significancy of the Church having adopted the pericope de adultera as the lection for October 8, which has never yet been sufficiently attended to: and which I defy the Critics to account for on any hypothesis but one: viz. that the pericope was recognized by the ancient Eastern Church as an integral part of the Gospel.

Now when to this has been added what is implied in the rubrical direction that a ceremonious respect should be shewn to the Festival of Pentecost by dropping the twelve verses, I submit that I have fully established my second position, viz. That by the very construction of her Lectionary the Church in her corporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognized the narrative in question, as an integral part of St. John's Gospel, and as standing in its traditional place, from an exceedingly remote time.

For,—(I entreat the candid reader's sustained attention),—the circumstances of the present problem altogether refuse to accommodate themselves to any hypothesis of a spurious original for these verses; as I proceed to shew.

Repair in thought to any collection of MSS. you please; suppose to the British Museum. Request to be shewn their seventy-three copies of St. John's Gospel, and turn to the close of his seventh chapter. At that particular place you will find, in sixty-one of these copies, these twelve verses: and in thirty-five of them you will discover, after the words [Greek: Prophetes ek tes Galilaias ouk eg.] a rubrical note to the effect that 'on Whitsunday, these twelve verses are to be dropped; and the reader is to go on at ch. viii. 12.' What can be the meaning of this respectful treatment of the Pericope in question? How can it ever have come to pass that it has been thus ceremoniously handled all down the ages? Surely on no possible view of the matter but one can the phenomenon just now described be accounted for. Else, will any one gravely pretend to tell me that at some indefinitely remote period, (1) These verses were fabricated: (2) Were thrust into the place they at present occupy in the sacred text: (3) Were unsuspectingly believed to be genuine by the Church; and in consequence of which they were at once passed over by her direction on Whitsunday as incongruous, and appointed by the Church to be read on October 8, as appropriate to the occasion?

(3) But further. How is it proposed to explain why one of St. John's after-thoughts should have fared so badly at the Church's hands;—another, so well? I find it suggested that perhaps the subject-matter may sufficiently account for all that has happened to the pericope de adultera: And so it may, no doubt. But then, once admit this, and the hypothesis under consideration becomes simply nugatory: fails even to touch the difficulty which it professes to remove. For if men were capable of thinking scorn of these twelve verses when they found them in the 'second and improved edition of St. John's Gospel,' why may they not have been just as irreverent in respect of the same verses, when they appeared in the first edition? How is it one whit more probable that every Greek Father for a thousand years should have systematically overlooked the twelve verses in dispute when they appeared in the second edition of St. John's Gospel, than that the same Fathers should have done the same thing when they appeared in the first?

(4) But the hypothesis is gratuitous and nugatory: for it has been invented in order to account for the phenomenon that whereas twelve verses of St. John's Gospel are found in the large majority of the later Copies,—the same verses are observed to be absent from all but one of the five oldest Codexes. But how, (I wish to be informed,) is that hypothesis supposed to square with these phenomena? It cannot be meant that the 'second edition' of St. John did not come abroad until after Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]ABCT were written? For we know that the old Italic version (a document of the second century) contains all the three portions of narrative which are claimed for the second edition. But if this is not meant, it is plain that some further hypothesis must be invented in order to explain why certain Greek MSS. of the fourth and fifth centuries are without the verses in dispute. And this fresh hypothesis will render that under consideration (as I said) nugatory and shew that it was gratuitous.

What chiefly offends me however in this extraordinary suggestion is its irreverence. It assumes that the Gospel according to St. John was composed like any ordinary modern book: capable therefore of being improved in the second edition, by recension, addition, omission, retractation, or what not. For we may not presume to limit the changes effected in a second edition. And yet the true Author of the Gospel is confessedly God the Holy Ghost: and I know of no reason for supposing that His works are imperfect when they proceed forth from His Hands.

The cogency of what precedes has in fact weighed so powerfully with thoughtful and learned Divines that they have felt themselves constrained, as their last resource, to cast about for some hypothesis which shall at once account for the absence of these verses from so many copies of St. John's Gospel, and yet retain them for their rightful owner and author,—St. John. Singular to relate, the assumption which has best approved itself to their judgement has been, that there must have existed two editions of St. John's Gospel,—the earlier edition without, the later edition with, the incident under discussion. It is I presume, in order to conciliate favour to this singular hypothesis, that it has been further proposed to regard St. John v. 3, 4 and the whole of St. John xxi, (besides St. John vii. 53-viii. 11), as after-thoughts of the Evangelist.

1. But this is unreasonable: for nothing else but the absence of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11, from so many copies of the Gospel has constrained the Critics to regard those verses with suspicion. Whereas, on the contrary, there is not known to exist a copy in the world which omits so much as a single verse of chap. xxi. Why then are we to assume that the whole of that chapter was away from the original draft of the Gospel? Where is the evidence for so extravagant an assumption?

2. So, concerning St. John v. 3, 4: to which there really attaches no manner of doubt, as I have elsewhere shewn. Thirty-two precious words in that place are indeed omitted by [Symbol: Aleph]BC: twenty-seven by D. But by this time the reader knows what degree of importance is to be attached to such an amount of evidence. On the other hand, they are found in all other copies: are vouched for by the Syriac and the Latin versions: in the Apostolic Constitutions, by Chrysostom, Cyril, Didymus, and Ammonius, among the Greeks,—by Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine among the Latins. Why a passage so attested is to be assumed to be an after-thought of the Evangelist has never yet been explained: no, nor ever will be.

(5) Assuming, however, just for a moment the hypothesis correct for argument's sake, viz. that in the second edition of St. John's Gospel the history of the woman taken in adultery appeared for the first time. Invite the authors of that hypothesis to consider what follows. The discovery that five out of six of the oldest uncials extant (to reckon here the fragment T) are without the verses in question; which yet are contained in ninety-nine out of every hundred of the despised cursives:—what other inference can be drawn from such premisses, but that the cursives fortified by other evidence are by far the more trustworthy witnesses of what St. John in his old age actually entrusted to the Church's keeping?

[The MS. here leaves off, except that a few pencilled words are added in an incomplete form. I have been afraid to finish so clever and characteristic an essay.]

FOOTNOTES:

Compare 1 Sam. xxiv. 22:—'And Saul went home: but David and his men gat them up into the hold.' 1 Kings xviii. 42:—'So Ahab went up to eat and to drink: and Elijah went up to the top of Carmel, and he cast himself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees.' Esther iii. 15:—'And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed.' Such are the idioms of the Bible.

Ammonius (Cord. Cat. p. 216), with evident reference to it, remarks that our Lord's words in verses 37 and 38 were intended as a viaticum which all might take home with them, at the close of this, 'the last, the great day of the feast.'

So Eusebius:— [Greek: Ote kata to auto synachthentes hoi ton Ioudaion ethnous archontes epi tes Hierousalem, synedrion epoiesanto kai skepsin opos auton apolesosin en ho hoi men thanaton autou katepsephisanto; heteroi de antelegon, os ho Nikodemos, k.t.l.] (in Psalmos, p. 230 a).

Westcott and Hort's prefatory matter (1870) to their revised Text of the New Testament, p. xxvii.

So in the LXX. See Num. v. 11-31.

Ver. 17. So the LXX.

2 Cor. iv. 7: v. 1.

Compare ch. vi. 6, 71: vii. 39: xi. 13, 51: xii. 6, 33: xiii. 11, 28: xxi. 19.

Consider ch. xix. 19, 20, 21, 22: xx. 30, 31: xxi. 24, 25.—1 John i. 4: ii. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26: v. 13.—2 John 5, 12.—3 John 9, 13.—Rev. passim, especially i. 11, 19: ii. 1, &c.: x. 4: xiv. 13: xvii. 8: xix. 9: xx. 12, 15: xxi. 5, 27: xxii. 18, 19.

Westcott and Hort, ibid. pp. xxvii, xxvi.

Novum Testamentum, 1869, p. 829.

Plain Introduction, 1894, ii. 364.

Printed Texts, 1854, p. 341.

Developed Criticism, p. 82.

Outlines, &c., p. 103.

Nicholson's Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 141.

Scrivener, ut supra, ii. 368.

I insert this epithet on sufficient authority. Mr. Edw. A. Guy, an intelligent young American,—himself a very accurate observer and a competent judge,—collated a considerable part of Cod. A in 1875, and assured me that he scarcely ever found any discrepancy between the Codex and Woide's reprint. One instance of italicism was in fact all that had been overlooked in the course of many pages.

It is inaccurate also. His five lines contain eight mistakes. Praefat. p. xxx, Sec. 86.

ii. 630, addressing Rufinus, A.D. 403. Also ii. 748-9.

i. 291, 692, 707, 1367: ii. 668, 894, 1082: iii. 892-3, 896-7.

i. 30: ii. 527, 529-30: iii1. 774: iii2. 158, 183, 531-2 (where he quotes the place largely and comments upon it): iv. 149, 466 (largely quoted), 1120: v. 80, 1230 (largely quoted in both places): vi. 407, 413: viii. 377, 574.

Pacian (A.D. 372) refers the Novations to the narrative as something which all men knew. 'Nolite in Evangelio legere quod pepercerit Dominus etiam adulterae confitenti, quam nemo damnarat?' Pacianus, Op. Epist. iii. Contr. Novat. (A.D. 372). Ap. Galland. vii. 267.

Ap. Augustin. viii. 463.

In his translation of Eusebius. Nicholson, p. 53.

Chrysologus, A.D. 433, Abp. of Ravenna. Venet. 1742. He mystically explains the entire incident. Serm. cxv. Sec. 5.

Sedulius (A.D. 435) makes it the subject of a poem, and devotes a whole chapter to it. Ap. Galland. ix. 553 and 590.

'Promiss.' De Promissionibus dimid. temp. (saec. iv). Quotes viii. 4, 5, 9. P. 2, c. 22, col. 147 b. Ignot. Auct., De Vocatione omnium Gentium (circa, A.D. 440), ap. Opp. Prosper. Aquit. (1782), i. p. 460-1:—'Adulteram ex legis constitutione lapidandam ... liberavit ... cum executores praecepti de conscientiis territi, trementem ream sub illius iudicio reliquissent.... Et inclinatus, id est ad humana dimissus ... "digito scribebat in terram," ut legem mandatorum per gratiae decreta vacuaret,' &c.

Wrongly ascribed to Idacius.

Gelasius P. A.D. 492. Conc. iv. 1235. Quotes viii. 3, 7, 10, 11.

Cassiodorus, A.D. 514. Venet. 1729. Quotes viii. 11. See ii. p. 96, 3, 5-180.

Dialogues, xiv. 15.

ii. 748:—In evangelio secundum Ioannem in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud Dominum.

[Greek: henos hekastou auton tas hamartias]. Ev. 95, 40, 48, 64, 73, 100, 122, 127, 142, 234, 264, 267, 274, 433, 115, 121, 604, 736.

Appendix, p. 88.

vi. 407:—Sed hoc videlicet infidelium sensus exhorret, ita ut nonnulli modicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei, (credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis), illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis: quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit, 'Iam deinceps noli peccare;' aut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico Deo illius peccati remissione sanari, ne offenderentur insani. De coniug. adult. ii. cap. 7. i. 707:—Fortasse non mediocrem scrupulum movere potuit imperitis Evangelii lectio, quae decursa est, in quo advertistis adulteram Christo oblatam, eamque sine damnatione dimissam. Nam profecto si quis en auribus accipiat otiosis, incentivum erroris incurrit, cum leget quod Deus censuerit adulterium non esse damnandum.

Epist. 58. Quid scribebat? nisi illud Propheticum (Jer. xxii. 29-30), Terra, terra, scribe hos vivos abdicatos.

Constt. App. (Gen. in. 49). Nicon (Gen. iii. 250). I am not certain about these two references.

Two precious verses (viz. the forty-third and forty-fourth) used to be omitted from the lection for Tuesday before Quinquagesima,—viz. St. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1.

The lection for the preceding Sabbath (viz. St. Luke xxi. 8-36) consisted of only the following verses,—ver. 8, 9, 25-27, 33-36. All the rest (viz. verses 10-24 and 28-32) was omitted.

On the ensuing Thursday, St. Luke xxiii was handled in a similar style: viz. ver. 1-31, 33, 44-56 alone were read,—all the other verses being left out.

On the first Sabbath after Pentecost (All Saints'), the lesson consisted of St. Matt. x. 32, 33, 37-38: xix. 27-30.

On the fifteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv. 1-9, 13 (leaving out verses 10, 11, 12).

On the sixteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv. 34-37, 42-44 (leaving out verses 38-41).

On the sixth Sabbath of St. Luke,—the lesson was ch. viii. 26-35 followed by verses 38 and 39.

'This celebrated paragraph ... was probably not contained in the first edition of St. John's Gospel but added at the time when his last chapter was annexed to what had once been the close of his narrative,—xx. 30, 31.' Scrivener's Introduction to Cod. D, p. 50.

In an unpublished paper.

It is omitted in some MSS. of the Peshitto.

APPENDIX II.

CONFLATION AND THE SO-CALLED NEUTRAL TEXT.

Some of the most courteous of our critics, in reviewing the companion volume to this, have expressed regret that we have not grappled more closely than we have done with Dr. Hort's theory. I have already expressed our reasons. Our object has been to describe and establish what we conceive to be the true principles of Sacred Textual Science. We are concerned only in a secondary degree with opposing principles. Where they have come in our way, we have endeavoured to remove them. But it has not entered within our design to pursue them into their fastnesses and domiciles. Nevertheless, in compliance with a request which is both proper and candid, I will do what I can to examine with all the equity that I can command an essential part of Dr. Hort's system, which appears to exercise great influence with his followers.

Sec. 1.

CONFLATION.

Dr. Hort's theory of 'Conflation' may be discovered on pp. 93-107. The want of an index to his Introduction, notwithstanding his ample 'Contents,' makes it difficult to collect illustrations of his meaning from the rest of his treatise. Nevertheless, the effect of Conflation appears to be well described in his words on p. 133:—'Now however the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to a text different from all.' In other words, by means of a combination of the Western, Alexandrian, and 'Neutral' Texts—'the great lines of transmission ... to all appearance exclusively divergent,'—the 'Syrian' text was constructed in a form different from any one and all of the other three. Not that all these three were made to contribute on every occasion. We find (p. 93) Conflation, or Conflate Readings, introduced as proving the 'posteriority of Syrian to Western ... and other ... readings.' And in the analysis of eight passages, which is added, only in one case (St. Mark viii. 26) are more than two elements represented, and in that the third class consists of 'different conflations' of the first and second.

Perhaps I may present Dr. Hort's theory under the form of a diagram:—

Western Readings. Other Readings. — Syrian Text.

Our theory is the converse in main features to this. We utterly repudiate the term 'Syrian' as being a most inadequate and untrue title for the Text adopted and maintained by the Catholic Church with all her intelligence and learning, during nearly fifteen centuries according to Dr. Hort's admission: and we claim from the evidence that the Traditional Text of the Gospels, under the true name, is that which came fresh from the pens of the Evangelists; and that all variations from it, however they have been entitled, are nothing else than corrupt forms of the original readings. Our diagram in rough presentation will therefore assume this character:—

Traditional Text.— - -Western Readings. -w -x -y -z -etc. -Alexandrian Readings.

It should be added, that w, x, y, z, &c., denote forms of corruption. We do not recognize the 'Neutral' at all, believing it to be a Caesarean combination or recension, made from previous texts or readings of a corrupt character.

The question is, which is the true theory, Dr. Hort's or ours?

The general points that strike us with reference to Dr. Hort's theory are:—

(1) That it is very vague and indeterminate in nature. Given three things, of which X includes what is in Y and Z, upon the face of the theory either X may have arisen by synthesis from Y and Z, or X and Z may owe their origin by analysis to X.

(2) Upon examination it is found that Dr. Hort's arguments for the posteriority of D are mainly of an internal character, and are loose and imaginative, depending largely upon personal or literary predilections.

(3) That it is exceedingly improbable that the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries, which in a most able period had been occupied with discussions on verbal accuracy, should have made the gross mistake of adopting (what was then) a modern concoction from the original text of the Gospels, which had been written less than three or four centuries before; and that their error should have been acknowledged as truth, and perpetuated by the ages that succeeded them down to the present time.

But we must draw nearer to Dr. Hort's argument.

He founds it upon a detailed examination of eight passages, viz. St. Mark vi. 33; viii. 26; ix. 38; ix. 49; St. Luke ix. 10; xi. 54; xii. 18; xxiv. 53.

1. Remark that eight is a round and divisible number. Did the author decide upon it with a view of presenting two specimens from each Gospel? To be sure, he gives four from the first two, and four from the two last, only that he confines the batches severally to St. Mark and St. Luke. Did the strong style of St. Matthew, with distinct meaning in every word, yield no suitable example for treatment? Could no passage be found in St. John's Gospel, where not without parallel, but to a remarkable degree, extreme simplicity of language, even expressed in alternative clauses, clothes soaring thought and philosophical acuteness? True, that he quotes St. John v. 37 as an instance of Conflation by the Codex Bezae which is anything but an embodiment of the Traditional or 'Syrian' Text, and xiii. 24 which is similarly irrelevant. Neither of these instances therefore fill up the gap, and are accordingly not included in the selected eight. What can we infer from this presentment, but that 'Conflation' is probably not of frequent occurrence as has been imagined, but may indeed be—to admit for a moment its existence—nothing more than an occasional incident? For surely, if specimens in St. Matthew and St. John had abounded to his hand, and accordingly 'Conflation' had been largely employed throughout the Gospels, Dr. Hort would not have exercised so restricted, and yet so round a choice.

2. But we must advance a step further. Dean Burgon as we have seen has calculated the differences between B and the Received Text at 7,578, and those which divide [Symbol: Aleph] and the Received Text as reaching 8,972. He divided these totals respectively under 2,877 and 3,455 omissions, 556 and 839 additions, 2,098 and 2,299 transpositions, and 2,067 and 2,379 substitutions and modifications combined. Of these classes, it is evident that Conflation has nothing to do with Additions or Transpositions. Nor indeed with Substitutions, although one of Dr. Hort's instances appears to prove that it has. Conflation is the combination of two (or more) different expressions into one. If therefore both expressions occur in one of the elements, the Conflation has been made beforehand, and a substitution then occurs instead of a conflation. So in St. Luke xii. 18, B, &c, read [Greek: ton siton kai ta agatha mou] which Dr. Hort considers to be made by Conflation into [Greek: ta genemata mou kai ta agatha mou], because [Greek: ta genemata mou] is found in Western documents. The logic is strange, but as Dr. Hort has claimed it, we must perhaps allow him to have intended to include with this strange incongruity some though not many Substitutions in his class of instances, only that we should like to know definitely what substitutions were to be comprised in this class. For I shrewdly suspect that there were actually none. Omissions are now left to us, of which the greater specimens can hardly have been produced by Conflation. How, for instance, could you get the last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, or the Pericope de Adultera, or St. Luke xxii. 43-44, or any of the rest of the forty-five whole verses in the Gospels upon which a slur is cast by the Neologian school? Consequently, the area of Conflation is greatly reduced. And I venture to think, that supposing for a moment the theory to be sound, it could not account for any large number of variations, but would at the best only be a sign or symptom found every now and then of the derivation attributed to the Received Text.

3. But we must go on towards the heart of the question. And first to examine Dr. Hort's eight instances. Unfortunately, the early patristic evidence on these verses is scanty. We have little evidence of a direct character to light up the dark sea of conjecture.

(1) St. Mark (vi. 22) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld our Saviour and his disciples on their way in a ship crossing to the other side of the lake, ran together ([Greek: synedramon]) from all their cities to the point which He was making for ([Greek: ekei]), and arrived there before the Lord and His followers ([Greek: proelthon autous]), and on His approach came in a body to Him ([Greek: synelthon pros auton]). And on disembarking ([Greek: kai exelthon]), i.e. ([Greek: ek tou ploiou], ver. 32), &c. It should be observed, that it was only the Apostles who knew that His ultimate object was 'a desert place' (ver. 31, 30): the indiscriminate multitude could only discern the bay or cape towards which the boat was going: and up to what I have described as the disembarkation (ver. 34), nothing has been said of His movements, except that He was in the boat upon the lake. The account is pictorial. We see the little craft toiling on the lake, the people on the shores running all in one direction, and on their reaching the heights above the place of landing watching His approach, and then descending together to Him to the point where He is going to land. There is nothing weak or superfluous in the description. Though condensed (what would a modern history have made of it?), it is all natural and in due place.

Now for Dr. Hort. He observes that one clause ([Greek: kai proelthon autous]) is attested by B[Symbol: Aleph] and their followers; another ([Greek: kai synelthon autou] or [Greek: elthon autou], which is very different from the 'Syrian' [Greek: synelthon pros auton]) by some Western documents; and he argues that the entire form in the Received Text, [Greek: kai proelthon autous, kai synelthon pros auton], was formed by Conflation from the other two. I cannot help observing that it is a suspicious mark, that even in the case of the most favoured of his chosen examples he is obliged to take such a liberty with one of his elements of Conflation as virtually to doctor it in order to bring it strictly to the prescribed pattern. When we come to his arguments he candidly admits, that 'it is evident that either [Symbol: delta] (the Received Text) is conflate from [Symbol: alpha] (B[Symbol: Aleph]) and [Symbol: beta] (Western), or [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta] are independent simplifications of [Symbol: delta]'; and that 'there is nothing in the sense of [Symbol: delta] that would tempt to alteration,' and that 'accidental' omission of one or other clause would 'be easy.' But he argues with an ingenuity that denotes a bad cause that the difference between [Greek: autou] and [Greek: pros auton] is really in his favour, chiefly because [Greek: autou] would very likely if it had previously existed been changed into [Greek: pros auton]—which no one can doubt; and that '[Greek: synelthon pros auton] is certainly otiose after [Greek: synedramon ekei],' which shews that he did not understand the whole meaning of the passage. His argument upon what he terms 'Intrinsic Probability' leads to a similar inference. For simply [Greek: exelthon] cannot mean that 'He "came out" of His retirement in some sequestered nook to meet them,' such a nook being not mentioned by St. Mark, whereas [Greek: ploion] is; nor can [Greek: ekei] denote 'the desert region.' Indeed the position of that region or nook was known before it was reached solely to our Lord and His Apostles: the multitude was guided only by what they saw, or at least by vague surmise.

Accordingly, Dr. Hort's conclusion must be reversed. 'The balance of Internal Evidence of Readings, alike from Transcriptional and from Intrinsic Probability, is decidedly' not 'in favour of [Symbol: delta] from [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta],' but 'of [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta] from [Symbol: delta].' The reading of the Traditional Text is the superior both as regards the meaning, and as to the probability of its pre-existence. The derivation of the two others from that is explained by that besetting fault of transcribers which is termed Omission. Above all, the Traditional reading is proved by a largely over-balancing weight of evidence.

(2) 'To examine other passages equally in detail would occupy too much space.' So says Dr. Hort: but we must examine points that require attention.

St. Mark viii. 26. After curing the blind man outside Bethsaida, our Lord in that remarkable period of His career directed him, according to the Traditional reading, ([Symbol: alpha]) neither to enter into that place, [Greek: mede eis ten komen eiselthes], nor ([Symbol: beta]) to tell what had happened to any inhabitant of Bethsaida ([Greek: mede eipes tini en te kome]). Either some one who did not understand the Greek, or some matter-of-fact and officious scholar, or both, thought or maintained that [Greek: tini en te kome] must mean some one who was at the moment actually in the place. So the second clause got to be omitted from the text of B[Symbol: Aleph], who are followed only by one cursive and a half (the first reading of 1 being afterwards corrected), and the Bohairic version, and the Lewis MS. The Traditional reading is attested by ACN[Symbol: Sigma] and thirteen other Uncials, all Cursives except eight, of which six with [Symbol: Phi] read a consolidation of both clauses, by several versions, and by Theophylact (i. 210) who is the only Father that quotes the place. This evidence ought amply to ensure the genuineness of this reading.

But what says Dr. Hort? 'Here [Symbol: alpha] is simple and vigorous, and it is unique in the New Testament: the peculiar [Greek: Mede] has the terse force of many sayings as given by St. Mark, but the softening into [Greek: Me] by [Symbol: Aleph] shews that it might trouble scribes.' It is surely not necessary to controvert this. It may be said however that [Symbol: alpha] is bald as well as simple, and that the very difficulty in [Symbol: beta] makes it probable that that clause was not invented. To take [Greek: tini en te kome] Hebraistically for [Greek: tini ton en te kome], like the [Greek: tis en hymin] of St. James v. 19, need not trouble scholars, I think. Otherwise they can follow Meyer, according to Winer's Grammar (II. 511), and translate the second [Greek: mede] nor even. At all events, this is a poor pillar to support a great theory.

(3) St. Mark ix. 38. 'Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, ([Symbol: beta]) who doth not follow us, and we forbad him ([Symbol: alpha]) because he followeth not us.'

Here the authority for [Symbol: alpha] is [Symbol: Aleph]BCL[Symbol: Delta], four Cursives, f, Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the Lewis MS. For [Symbol: beta] there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin but f and the Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i.e. the whole passage, A[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives but six, the Harkleian (yet obelizes [Symbol: alpha]) and Gothic versions, Basil (ii. 252), Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. i. 365), Theophylact (i. 219): and Augustine quotes separately both omissions ([Symbol: alpha] ix. 533, and [Symbol: beta] III. ii. 153). No other Fathers, so far as I can find, quote the passage.

Dr. Hort appears to advance no special arguments on his side, relying apparently upon the obvious repetition. In the first part of the verse, St. John describes the case of the man: in the second he reports for our Lord's judgement the grounds of the prohibition which the Apostles gave him. Is it so certain that the original text of the passage contained only the description, and omitted the reason of the prohibition as it was given to the non-follower of our Lord? To me it seems that the simplicity of St. Mark's style is best preserved by the inclusion of both. The Apostles did not curtly forbid the man: they treated him with reasonableness, and in the same spirit St. John reported to his Master all that occurred. Besides this, the evidence on the Traditional side is too strong to admit of it not being the genuine reading.

(4) St. Mark ix. 49. 'For ([Symbol: alpha]) every one shall be salted with fire, ([Symbol: beta]) and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.' The authorities are—

[Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta], fifteen Cursives, some MSS. of the Bohairic, some of the Armenian, and the Lewis.

[Symbol: beta]. D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. of the Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. viii. 338).

Trad. Text. AC[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N and twelve more Uncials, all Cursives except fifteen, two Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, some MSS. of Ethiopic and Armenian, Gothic, Victor of Antioch (Cramer's Cat. i. 368), Theophylact (i. 221).

This evidence must surely be conclusive of the genuineness of the Traditional reading. But now for Dr. Hort.

'A reminiscence of Lev. vii. 13 ... has created [Symbol: beta] out of [Symbol: alpha].' But why should not the reminiscence have been our Lord's? The passage appears like a quotation, or an adaptation, of some authoritative saying. He positively advances no other argument than the one just quoted, beyond stating two points in which the alteration might be easily effected.

(5) St. Luke ix. 10. 'He took (His Apostles) and withdrew privately

[Symbol: alpha]. Into a city called Bethsaida [Greek: (eis polin kaloumenen] B.).

[Symbol: beta]. Into a desert place ([Greek: eis topon eremon]), or Into a desert place called Bethsaida, or of Bethsaida.

Trad. Text. Into a desert place belonging to a city called Bethsaida.'

The evidence for these readings respectively is—

[Symbol: alpha]. BLX[Symbol: Xi], with one correction of [Symbol: Aleph] (Ca), one Cursive, the Bohairic and Sahidic. D reads [Greek: komen].

[Symbol: beta]. The first and later readings (Cb) of [Symbol: Aleph], four Cursives?, Curetonian, some variant Old Latin ([Symbol: beta]2), Peshitto also variant ([Symbol: beta]3).

Trad. Text. A (with [Greek: eremon topon]) C + twelve Uncials, all Cursives except three or five, Harkleian, Lewis (omits [Greek: eremon]), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact (i. 33).

Remark the curious character of [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta]. In Dr. Hort's Neutral Text, which he maintains to have been the original text of the Gospels, our Lord is represented here as having withdrawn in private ([Greek: kat' idian], which the Revisers shirking the difficulty translate inaccurately 'apart') into the city called Bethsaida. How could there have been privacy of life in a city in those days? In fact, [Greek: kat' idian] necessitates the adoption of [Greek: topon eremon], as to which the Peshitto ([Symbol: beta]3) is in substantial agreement with the Traditional Text. Bethsaida is represented as the capital of a district, which included, at sufficient distance from the city, a desert or retired spot. The group arranged under [Symbol: beta] is so weakly supported, and is evidently such a group of fragments, that it can come into no sort of competition with the Traditional reading. Dr. Hort confines himself to shewing how the process he advocates might have arisen, not that it did actually arise. Indeed, this position can only be held by assuming the conclusion to be established that it did so arise.

(6) St. Luke xi. 54. 'The Scribes and Pharisees began to urge Him vehemently and to provoke Him to speak of many things ([Greek: enedreuontes thereusai]),

[Symbol: alpha]. Laying wait for Him to catch something out of His mouth.

[Symbol: beta]. Seeking to get some opportunity ([Greek: aphormen tina]) for finding out how to accuse Him ([Greek: hina eurosin kategoresai]); or, for accusing Him ([Greek: hina kategoresosin autou]).

Trad. Text. Laying wait for Him, and seeking to catch something ([Greek: zetountes thereusai ti]) out of His mouth, that they might accuse Him.'

The evidence is—

[Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Cyril Alex. (Mai, Nov. Pp. Bibliotheca, ii. 87, iii. 249, not accurately).

[Symbol: beta]. D, Old Latin except f, Curetonian.

Trad. Text. AC + twelve Uncials, all Cursives (except five which omit [Greek: zetountes]), Peshitto, Lewis (with omission), Vulgate, Harkleian, Theophylact (i. 363).

As to genuineness, the evidence is decisive. The reading [Symbol: Alpha] is Alexandrian, adopted by B[Symbol: Aleph], and is bad Greek into the bargain, [Greek: enedreuontes thereusai] being very rough, and being probably due to incompetent acquaintance with the Greek language. If [Symbol: alpha] was the original, it is hard to see how [Symbol: beta] could have come from it. That the figurative language of [Symbol: alpha] was replaced in [Symbol: beta] by a simply descriptive paraphrase, as Dr. Hort suggests, seems scarcely probable. On the other hand, the derivation of either [Symbol: alpha] or [Symbol: beta] from the Traditional Text is much easier. A scribe would without difficulty pass over one of the participles lying contiguously with no connecting conjunction, and having a kind of Homoeoteleuton. And as to [Symbol: beta], the distinguishing [Greek: aphormen tina] would be a very natural gloss, requiring for completeness of the phrase the accompanying [Greek: labein]. This is surely a more probable solution of the question of the mutual relationship of the readings than the laboured account of Dr. Hort, which is too long to be produced here.

(7) St. Luke xii. 18. 'I will pull down my barns, and build greater, and there will I bestow all

[Symbol: alpha]. My corn and my goods.

[Symbol: beta]. My crops ([Greek: ta genemata mou]). My fruits ([Greek: tous karpous mou]).

Trad. Text. My crops ([Greek: ta genemata mou]) and my goods.'

This is a faulty instance, because it is simply a substitution, as Dr. Hort admitted, in [Symbol: alpha] of the more comprehensive word [Greek: genemata] for [Greek: siton], and a simple omission of [Greek: kai ta agatha mou] in [Symbol: beta]. And the admission of it into the selected eight shews the difficulty that Dr. Hort must have experienced in choosing his examples. The evidence is—

[Symbol: alpha]. BTLX and a correction of [Symbol: Aleph](ac), eight Cursives, Peshitto, Bohairic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic.

[Symbol: beta]. [Symbol: Aleph] D, three Cursives, b ff i q, Curetonian and Lewis, St. Ambrose (i. 573).

Trad. Text. AQ + thirteen Uncials. All Cursives except twelve, f, Vulgate, Harkleian, Cyril Alex. (Mai, ii. 294-5) bis, Theophylact (i. 370), Peter Chrysologus (Migne 52, 490-1) bis.

No more need be said: substitutions and omissions are too common to require justification.

(8) St. Luke xxiv. 53. 'They were continually in the temple

[Symbol: alpha]. Blessing God ([Greek: eulogountes]).

[Symbol: beta]. Praising God ([Greek: ainountes]).

Trad. Text. Praising and blessing God.'

The evidence is—

[Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BC L, Bohairic, Palestinian, Lewis.

[Symbol: beta]. D, seven Old Latin.

Trad. Text. AC2 + twelve Uncials, all Cursives, c f q, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, Armenian, Ethiopic, Theophylact (i. 497).

Dr. Hort adds no remarks. He seems to have thought, that because he had got an instance which outwardly met all the requirements laid down, therefore it would prove the conclusion it was intended to prove. Now it is evidently an instance of the omission of either of two words from the complete account by different witnesses. The Evangelist employed both words in order to emphasize the gratitude of the Apostles. The words are not tautological. [Greek: Ainos] is the set praise of God, drawn out in more or less length, properly as offered in addresses to Him. [Greek: Eulogia] includes all speaking well of Him, especially when uttered before other men. Thus the two expressions describe in combination the life of gratitude exhibited unceasingly by the expectant and the infant Church. Continually in the temple they praised Him in devotion, and told the people of His glorious works.

4. Such are the eight weak pillars upon which Dr. Hort built his theory which was to account for the existence of his Neutral Text, and the relation of it towards other Texts or classes of readings. If his eight picked examples can be thus demolished, then surely the theory of Conflation must be utterly unsound. Or if in the opinion of some of my readers my contention goes too far, then at any rate they must admit that it is far from being firm, if it does not actually reel and totter. The opposite theory of omission appears to be much more easy and natural.

But the curious phenomenon that Dr. Hort has rested his case upon so small an induction as is supplied by only eight examples—if they are not in fact only seven—has not yet received due explanation. Why, he ought to have referred to twenty-five or thirty at least. If Conflation is so common, he might have produced a large number of references without working out more than was enough for illustration as patterns. This question must be investigated further. And I do not know how to carry out such an investigation better, than to examine some instances which come naturally to hand from the earlier parts of each Gospel.

It must be borne in mind, that for Conflation two differently-attested phrases or words must be produced which are found in combination in some passage of the Traditional Text. If there is only one which is omitted, it is clear that there can be no Conflation because there must be at least two elements to conflate: accordingly our instances must be cases, not of single omission, but of double or alternative omission. If again there is no Western reading, it is not a Conflation in Dr. Hort's sense. And finally, if the remaining reading is not a 'Neutral' one, it is not to Dr. Hort's liking. I do not say that my instances will conform with these conditions. Indeed, after making a list of all the omissions in the Gospels, except those which are of too petty a character such as leaving out a pronoun, and having searched the list with all the care that I can command, I do not think that such instances can be found. Nevertheless, I shall take eight, starting from the beginning of St. Matthew, and choosing the most salient examples, being such also that, if Dr. Hort's theory be sound, they ought to conform to his requirements. Similarly, there will come then four from either of St. Mark and St. Luke, and eight from St. John. This course of proceeding will extend operations from the eight which form Dr. Hort's total to thirty-two.

A. In St. Matthew we have (1) i. 25, [Greek: autes ton prototokon] and [Greek: ton Huion]; (2) v. 22, [Greek: eike] and [Greek: to adelpho autou]; (3) ix. 13, [Greek: eis metanoian]; (4) x. 3, [Greek: Lebbaios] and [Greek: Thaddaios]; (5) xii. 22, [Greek: typhlon kai] and [Greek: kophon]; (6) xv. 5, [Greek: ton patera autou] and [Greek: (he) ten metera autou], (7) xviii. 35, [Greek: apo ton kardion hymon] and [Greek: ta paraptomata auton]; and (8) xxvi. 3, [Greek: hoi presbyteroi (kai) hoi Grammateis]. I have had some difficulty in making up the number. Of those selected as well as I could, seven are cases of single omission or of one pure omission apiece, though their structure presents a possibility of two members for Conflation; whilst the Western element comes in sparsely or appears in favour of both the omission and the retention; and, thirdly, in some cases, as in (2) and (3), the support is not only Western, but universal. Consequently, all but (4) are excluded. Of (4) Dr. Hort remarks, (Notes on Select Readings, p. 11) that it is 'a case of Conflation of the true and the chief Western Texts,' and accordingly it does not come within the charmed circle.

B. From St. Mark we get, (1) i. 1, [Greek: Huiou tou Theou] and [Greek: Iesou Christou]; (2) i. 2, [Greek: emprosthen sou] and [Greek: pro prosopou sou] (cp. ix. 38); (3) iii. 15, [Greek: therapeuein tas nosous (kai)] and [Greek: ekballein ta daimonia]; (4) xiii. 33, [Greek: agrypneite] and [Greek: (kai) proseuchesthe]. All these instances turn out to be cases of the omission of only one of the parallel expressions. The omission in the first is due mainly to Origen (see Traditional Text, Appendix IV): in the three last there is Western evidence on both sides.

C. St. Luke yields us, (1) ii. 5, [Greek: gynaiki] and [Greek: memnesteumene]; (2) iv. 4, [Greek: epi panti rhemati Theou], or [Greek: ep' arto mono]; (3) viii. 54, [Greek: ekbalon exo pantas (kai)], or [Greek: kratesas tes cheiros autes]; xi. 4, [Greek: (alla) rhysai hemas apo tou ponerou], or [Greek: me eisenenkes hemas eis peirasmon]. In all these cases, examination discloses that they are examples of pure omission of only one of the alternatives. The only evidence against this is the solitary rejection of [Greek: memnesteumene] by the Lewis Codex.

D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, [Greek: me apoletai], or [Greek: eche zoen aionion]; (2) iv. 14, [Greek: ou me dipsese eis ton aiona], or [Greek: to hydor ho doso auto genesetai en auto pege hydatos, k.t.l.]; (3) iv. 42, [Greek: ho Christos], or [Greek: ho soter tou kosmou]; (4) iv. 51, [Greek: kai apengeilan] and [Greek: legontes]; (5) v. 16, [Greek: kai ezetoun auton apokteinai] and [Greek: ediokon auton]; (6) vi. 51, [Greek: hen ego doso], or [Greek: hou ego doso]; (7) ix. 1, 25, [Greek: kai eipen] or [Greek: apekrithe]; (8) xiii. 31, 32, [Greek: ei ho Theos edoxasthe en auto], and [Greek: kai ho Theos edoxasthe en auto]. All these instances turn out to be single omissions:—a fact which is the more remarkable, because St. John's style so readily lends itself to parallel or antithetical expressions involving the same result in meaning, that we should expect conflations to shew themselves constantly if the Traditional Text had so coalesced.

How surprising a result:—almost too surprising. Does it not immensely strengthen my contention that Dr. Hort took wrongly Conflation for the reverse process? That in the earliest ages, when the Church did not include in her ranks so much learning as it has possessed ever since, the wear and tear of time, aided by unfaith and carelessness, made itself felt in many an instance of destructiveness which involved a temporary chipping of the Sacred Text all through the Holy Gospels? And, in fact, that Conflation at least as an extensive process, if not altogether, did not really exist.

Sec. 2.

THE NEUTRAL TEXT.

Here we are brought face to face with the question respecting the Neutral Text. What in fact is it, and does it deserve the name which Dr. Hort and his followers have attempted to confer permanently upon it? What is the relation that it bears to other so-called Texts?

So much has been already advanced upon this subject in the companion volume and in the present, that great conciseness is here both possible and expedient. But it may be useful to bring the sum or substance of those discussions into one focus.

1. The so-called Neutral Text, as any reader of Dr. Hort's Introduction will see, is the text of B and [Symbol: Aleph] and their small following. That following is made up of Z in St. Matthew, [Symbol: Delta] in St. Mark, the fragmentary [Symbol: Xi] in St. Luke, with frequent agreement with them of D, and of the eighth century L; with occasional support from some of the group of Cursives, consisting of 1, 33, 118, 131, 157, 205, 209, and from the Ferrar group, or now and then from some others, as well as from the Latin k, and the Egyptian or other versions. This perhaps appears to be a larger number than our readers may have supposed, but rarely are more than ten MSS. found together, and generally speaking less, and often much less than that. To all general intents and purposes, the Neutral Text is the text of B-[Symbol: Aleph].

2. Following facts and avoiding speculation, the Neutral Text appears hardly in history except at the Semiarian period. It was almost disowned ever after: and there is no certainty—nothing more than inference which we hold, and claim to have proved, to be imaginary and delusive,—that, except as represented in the corruption which it gathered out of the chaos of the earliest times, it made any appearance.

3. Thus, as a matter of history acknowledged by Dr. Hort, it was mainly superseded before the end of the century of its emergence by the Traditional Text, which, except in the tenets of a school of critics in the nineteenth century, has reigned supreme ever since.

4. That it was not the original text of the Gospels, as maintained by Dr. Hort, I claim to have established from an examination of the quotations from the Gospels made by the Fathers. It has been proved that not only in number, but still more conclusively in quality, the Traditional Text enjoyed a great superiority of attestation over all the kinds of corruption advocated by some critics which I have just now mentioned. This conclusion is strengthened by the verdict of the early versions.

5. The inferiority of the 'Neutral Text' is demonstrated by the overwhelming weight of evidence which is marshalled against it on passages under dispute. This glaring contrast is increased by the disagreement among themselves of the supporters of that Text, or class of readings. As to antiquity, number, variety, weight, and continuity, that Text falls hopelessly behind: and by internal evidence also the texts of B and [Symbol: Aleph], and still more the eccentric text of the Western D, are proved to be manifestly inferior.

6. It has been shewn also by evidence, direct as well as inferential, that B and [Symbol: Aleph] issued nearly together from the library or school of Caesarea. The fact of their being the oldest MSS. of the New Testament in existence, which has naturally misled people and caused them to be credited with extraordinary value, has been referred, as being mainly due, to their having been written on vellum according to the fashion introduced in that school, instead of the ordinary papyrus. The fact of such preservation is really to their discredit, instead of resounding to their honour, because if they had enjoyed general approval, they would probably have perished creditably many centuries ago in the constant use for which they were intended.

Such are the main points in the indictment and in the history of the Neutral Text, or rather—to speak with more appropriate accuracy, avoiding the danger of drawing with too definite a form and too deep a shade—of the class of readings represented by B and [Symbol: Aleph]. It is interesting to trace further, though very summarily, the connexion between this class of readings and the corruptions of the Original Text which existed previously to the early middle of the fourth century. Such brief tracing will lead us to a view of some causes of the development of Dr. Hort's theory.

The analysis of Corruption supplied as to the various kinds of it by Dean Burgon has taught us how they severally arose. This is fresh in the mind of readers, and I will not spoil it by repetition. But the studies of textual critics have led them to combine all kinds of corruption chiefly under the two heads of the Western or Syrio-Low-Latin class, and in a less prominent province of the Alexandrian. Dr. Hort's Neutral is really a combination of those two, with all the accuracy that these phenomena admit. But of course, if the Neutral were indeed the original Text, it would not do for it to be too closely connected with one of such bad reputation as the Western, which must be kept in the distance at all hazards. Therefore he represented it—all unconsciously no doubt and with the best intention—as one of the sources of the Traditional, or as he called it the 'Syrian' Text. Hence this imputed connexion between the Western and the Traditional Text became the essential part of his framework of Conflation, which could not exist without it. For any permanent purpose, all this handiwork was in vain. To say no more, D, which is the chief representative of the Western Text, is too constant a supporter of the peculiar readings of B and [Symbol: Aleph] not to prove its near relationship to them. The 'Neutral' Text derives the chief part of its support from Western sources. It is useless for Dr. Hort to disown his leading constituents. And on the other hand, the Syrio-Low-Latin Text is too alien to the Traditional to be the chief element in any process, Conflate or other, out of which it could have been constructed. The occasional support of some of the Old Latin MSS. is nothing to the point in such a proof. They are so fitful and uncertain, that some of them may witness to almost anything. If Dr. Hort's theory of Conflation had been sounder, there would have been no lack of examples.

'Naturam expellas furca: tamen usque recurret.'

He was tempted to the impossible task of driving water uphill. Therefore I claim, not only to have refuted Dr. Hort, whose theory is proved to be even more baseless than I ever imagined, but by excavating more deeply than he did, to have discovered the cause of his error.

No: the true theory is, that the Traditional Text—not in superhuman perfection, though under some superhuman Guidance—is the embodiment of the original Text of the New Testament. In the earliest times, just as false doctrines were widely spread, so corrupt readings prevailed in many places. Later on, when Christianity was better understood, and the Church reckoned amongst the learned and holy of her members the finest natures and intellects of the world, and many clever men of inferior character endeavoured to vitiate Doctrine and lower Christian life, evil rose to the surface, and was in due time after a severe struggle removed by the sound and faithful of the day. So heresy was rampant for a while, and was then replaced by true and well-grounded belief. With great ability and with wise discretion, the Deposit whether of Faith or Word was verified and established. General Councils decided in those days upon the Faith, and the Creed when accepted and approved by the universal voice was enacted for good and bequeathed to future ages. So it was both as to the Canon and the Words of Holy Scripture, only that all was done quietly. As to the latter, hardly a footfall was heard. But none the less, corruption after short-lived prominence sank into deep and still deeper obscurity, whilst the teaching of fifteen centuries placed the true Text upon a firm and lasting basis.

And so I venture to hold, now that the question has been raised, both the learned and the well-informed will come gradually to see, that no other course respecting the Words of the New Testament is so strongly justified by the evidence, none so sound and large-minded, none so reasonable in every way, none so consonant with intelligent faith, none so productive of guidance and comfort and hope, as to maintain against all the assaults of corruption

THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.

FOOTNOTES:

Dr. Hort has represented Neutral readings by [Symbol: alpha], Western by [Symbol: beta], as far as I can understand, 'other' by [Symbol: gamma], and 'Syrian' (=Traditional) by [Symbol: delta]. But he nowhere gives an example of [Symbol: gamma].

Introduction, p. 103.

Cp. St. Luke xviii. 2, 3. [Greek: Tis] is used with [Greek: ex], St. Luke xi. 15, xxiv. 24; St. John vi. 64, vii. 25, ix. 16, xi. 37, 46; Acts xi. 20, xiii. 1, &c.

Thus [Greek: epainos] is used for a public encomium, or panegyric.

An attempt in the Guardian has been made in a review full of errors to weaken the effect of my list by an examination of an unique set of details. A correction both of the reviewer's figures in one instance and of my own may be found above, pp. 144-153. There is no virtue in an exact proportion of 3: 2, or of 6: 1. A great majority will ultimately be found on our side.

GENERAL INDEX.

A.

[Symbol: Aleph] or Sinaitic MS., 2, 196.

Accident, 8; pure A., 34-35.

Addition, 166-7, 270.

Ages, earliest, 2.

Alexandrian error, 45; readings, App. II. 268, 284.

Alford, passim.

Ammonius, 200.

Antiquity, our appeal always made to, 194-5.

Apolinarius, or-is (or Apoll.), 224, 257.

Arians, 204, 218.

Assimilation, 100-127; what it was, 101-2; must be delicately handled, 115

Attraction, 123-7.

B.

B or Vatican MS., 2, 8, 196; kakigraphy of, 64 note: virtually with [Symbol: Aleph] the 'Neutral' text, 282.

Basilides, 195, 197-9, 218 note 2.

Blunder, history of a, 24-7.

Bohairic Version, 249, and passim.

C.

Caesarea, library of, 284.

Cerinthus, 201.

Clement of Alexandria, 193.

Conflation, 266-82.

Correctors of MSS., 21.

Corruption, first origin of, 3-8; classes of 8-9, 23; general, 10-23; prevailed from the first, 12; the most corrupt authorities, 8, 14; in early Fathers, 193-4.

Curetonian Version, passim. See Traditional Text.

Cursive MSS., a group of eccentric, 283; Ferrar group, 282.

D.

D or Codex Bezae, 8.

[Symbol: Delta], or Sangallensis, 8.

Damascus, 5.

Diatessarons, 89, 96-8, 101. See Tatian.

Doxology, in the Lord's Prayer, 81-8.

E.

Eclogadion, 69.

Epiphanius, 305, 211-2.

Erasmus, 10.

Error, slight clerical, 37-31.

Euroclydon, 46.

Evangelistaria (the right name), 67.

F.

Falconer's St. Paul's voyage, 46-7.

Fathers, passim; earliest, 193.

Faustinus, 218.

Ferrar group of Cursives, 282.

Field, Dr., 28 note 5, 30 and note 2.

G.

Galilee of the Gentiles, 4-5.

Genealogy, 22. See Traditional Text.

Glosses, 94-5, 98, 172-90; described, 172.

Gospels, the four, probable date of, 7.

Guardian, review in, Pref., 150-2, 283 note.

Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., 115 note.

H.

Harmonistic influence, 89-99.

Heracleon, 190, 202, 204, 215 note 2.

Heretics, corruptions by, 199-210; not always dishonest, 191; very numerous, 199 &c.

Homoeoteleuton, 36-41; explained, 8

I.

Inadvertency, 21, 23.

Internal evidence, Pref.

Interpolations, 166-7.

Irenaeus, St., 193.

Itacism, 8, 56-86.

J.

Justin Martyr, St., 193.

L.

L or Codex Regius, 8.

Lachmann, passim.

Last Twelve Verses, 72, 129-30.

Latin MSS., Old, passim; Low-Latin, 8. See Traditional Text.

Lectionaries, 67-81; ecclesiastical prefaces to, 71.

Lewis MS., passim, 194.

Liturgical influence, 67-88.

M.

Macedonians, 204.

Manes, 207.

Manichaeans, 206.

Manuscripts, six classes of, 12; existing number of, 12; frequent inaccuracies in, 12; more serious faults, 20-1; and passim.

Marcion, 70, 195, 197, 199, 200, 219.

Matrimony, 208.

Menologion, 69.

N.

Naaseni, 204.

'Neutral Text,' 267, 282-6.

O.

Omissions, 128-156; the largest of all classes, 128; not 'various readings,' 128; prejudice in favour of, 130-1; proof of, 131-2; natural cause of corruption, 270.

Origen, 53-5, 98, 101, 111-3, 190, 193, 209.

Orthodox, corruption by, 211-31, misguided, 211.

P.

Papyrus MSS., 2. See Traditional Text.

Parallel passages, 95.

Pella, 7.

Pericope de Adultera, 232-65.

Peshitto Version, passim. See Traditional Text.

Porphyry, 114.

R.

Revision, 10-13.

Rose, Rev. W. F., 61 note 3.

S.

[Greek: Sabbatokuriakai], 68.

Sahidic Version, 194.

Saturninue, or Saturnilus, 208 and note 3.

Scrivener's Introduction (4th Ed.), Miller's, passim.

Semiarianism, 2.

Substitution, 164-5, 270, 277.

Synaxarion, 69.

T.

Tatian's Diatessaron, 8, 98, 101, 196, 200.

Textualism of the Gospels, different from T. of profane writings, 14.

Theodotus, 205, 214.

Tischendorf, 112-3, 176, 182, and passim; misuse of Assimilation, 118.

Traditional Text, 1-4; not = Received Text, 1. See Volume on it.

Transcriptional Mistakes, 55.

Transposition, 157-63; character of, 163, 270.

Tregelles, 34, 136, 138.

U.

Uncials, 42-55.

V.

Valentinus, 197-9, 201, 202-5, 215, 218 note 2.

Various readings, 14-16.

Vellum, 2.

Vercellone, 47 note.

Versions, passim.

Victorinus Afer, 218.

W.

Western Readings or Text, 6, 266-85.

Z.

Z or Dublin palimpsest, 8.

INDEX II.

PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DISCUSSED.

St. Matthew: i. 19 209 iii. 6 102 16 170-1 iv. 23 51-2 v. 44 144-53 vi. 13 81-8 18 171 vii. 4 102 viii. 9 102 13 167-8 26 103 29 102 ix. 24 104 35 74 x. 12 103 xi. 23 27 xii. 10 117 xiii. 36 173 44 80-1 xv. 8 136-44 xvi. 8 103 xix. 9 39 16 103 xx. 24 103 28 175 xxi. 9 99 44 134-6 xxii. 23 49-50 xxiii. 14 38 xxiv. 15 116 31 179-80 36 169-70 xxv. 13 171 xxvii. 15 103 17 53-5 25-6 91 35 171

St. Mark: i. 2 111-5 5 157-8 ii. 3 158-9 iv. 6 63-4 v. 36 188 vi. 11 118-9, 181-2 32 32-3 33 271-3 vii. 14 35 19 61-3 31 73-3 viii. 1 34 26 273-4 ix. 38 271 49 275 x. 16 48 xii. 17 48 xiv. 40 48 41 182-3 70 119-22 xv. 6 32 28 75-8 xvi. 9-20 72, 129-30

St. Luke: i. 66 188-9 ii. 14 21-2, 31-2 15 36 iii. 14 201 29 165 iv. 1-13 94 v. 7 108 14 104 vi. 1 132-3 4 167 26 153 vii. 3 174 21 50 ix. 1 74 10 275-6 54-6 224-31 x. 15 28 25 75 xi. 54 276-7 xii. 18 277-8 39 155 xiii. 9 160-1 xiv. 3 117 xv. 16 117 17 43-5 24 61 32 61 xvi. 21 40 25 60 xvii. 37 48-9 xix. 21 103 41 212 xxii. 67-8 210 xxiii. 11 50-1 27 51 42 57 xxiv. 1 92-4 7 161 53 278

St. John: i. 3-4 203 18 215-8, 165 ii. 40 212-4 iii. 13 223-4 iv. 15 48 v. 4 50 27 162 v. 44 45 vi. 11 37-8 15 38, 178 55 153-4 71 124 viii. 40 214-5 ix. 22 183 x. 14-15 206-8 29 24-7 xii. 1, 2 57-9 7 184-6 13 99 xiii. 21-5 106-11 24 179 25 60 26 124 37 35 xvi. 16 105 xvii. 4 186-8 xviii. 14 180-1 xx. 11 90-2

Acts: ii. 45-6 159 iii. 1 78-80 xviii. 6 27 xx. 4 190 24 28, 124-5 xxvii. 14 46-7 37 27 xxviii. 1 28

1 Cor.: xv. 47 219-23

2 Cor.: iii. 3 125-7

Titus: ii. 5 65-6

Heb.: vii. 1 53

2 Pet.: i. 21 52-3

Rev. i. 5 59-60

THE END.