CHAPTER XIV.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

X. Corruption by the Orthodox.

§ 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 adiorthôtois 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[495].' '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: diorthôtês].

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[496], 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[497]'? 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[498], 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[499] quotes it three times and discusses the expression at length:--before the fifth, because, besides Cod. A, Cyril[500] Theodoret[501] and ps.-Caesarius[502] recognize the word:--before the fourth, because Epiphanius[503], Theodore of Mopsuestia[504], 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?

§ 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[505]. I am persuaded that the reading 'of My Father[506],'--with which Origen[507], Epiphanius[508], Athanasius[509], Chrysostom[510], Cyril Alex.[511], and Theodoret[512] 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[513],' &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: monogenês uios]: once, [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenês uios Theos]: once, [Greek: ho monogenês uios Theou][514]: Clemens Alex., [Greek: ho monogenês uios Theos monos][515]; which must be very nearly the reading of the Codex from which the text of the Vercelli Copy of the Old Latin was derived[516]. Eusebius four times writes [Greek: ho monogenês uios][517]: twice, [Greek: monogenês Theos][518]: and on one occasion gives his reader the choice of either expression, explaining why both may stand[519]. Gregory Nyss.[520] and Basil[521], though they recognize the usual reading of the place, are evidently vastly more familiar with the reading [Greek: ho monogenês Theos][522]: for Basil adopts the expression thrice[523], and Gregory nearly thirty-three times as often[524]. This was also the reading of Cyril Alex.[525], whose usual phrase however is [Greek: ho monogenês tou Theou logos][526]. Didymus has only [? cp. context] [Greek: ho monogenês Theos],--for which he once writes [Greek: ho monogenês Theos logos][527]. Cyril of Jer. seems to have read [Greek: ho monogenês monos][528].

[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[529]. 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[530]. 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[531]. None may read Holy Scripture just as the idea strikes them.]

§ 3.

All are familiar with the received text of 1 Cor. xv. 47:--[Greek: ho prôtos anthrôpos ek gês choikos; ho deuteros anthrôpos 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[532]' and who are known to have freely 'taken away from the words' of Scripture[533], 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[534]? 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][535].' It is thus that Marcion[536] (A.D. 130) and his followers[537] 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: anthrôpos] in ver. 47, that, early in the second century, the orthodox retaining [Greek: anthrôpos], 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[538] and Photinus; in contending with whom, Greg. Naz.[539] and Epiphanius[540] are observed to argue with disadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian[541], and Cyprian[542] 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[543], Chrysostom[544], Theodotus[545], Eutherius[546], Theodorus Mops.[547], Damascene[548], Petrus Siculus[549], and Theophylact[550]: and (2) The corrected (i.e. the maimed) text of the orthodox;--[Greek: ho deuteros; anthrôpos ex ouranou]: with which, besides the two Gregories[551], Photinus[552] 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[553], and (long after him) Cyril, employed _both_ readings[554].

(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 prôtos anthrôpos], St. Paul had set [Greek: ho deuteros anthrôpos]: against [Greek: ek gês]--[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[555], by Jerome[556] (and later by Augustine[557],) it established itself in the Vulgate[558], and is found in all the later Latin writers[559]. 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[560] 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].

§ 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 ôn en tô ouranô]); 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 ôn en tô ouranô][561]. 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]BLT^{b}), 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.

§ 5[562].

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: hôs kai Hêlias epoiêse]), 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[563]?' 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 anthrôpou ouk êlthe psychas anthrôpôn apolesai, alla sôsai]) 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 eipômen pyr katabênai apo tou ouranou, kai analôsai autous; strapheis de epetimêsen autois. kai eporeuthêsan dêsan eis heteran kômên].

Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] l g^{1} Cyr^{luc}[564], 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[565] (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 anthrôpou ouk êlthe psychas anthrôpôn apolesai, alla sôsai]) 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: êlthe gar ho huios tou anthrôpou zêtêsai kai][566] [Greek: sôsai to apolôlos].

(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: hôs kai Êlias epoiêsen]: 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[567]. 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[568].' 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[569]. 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[570] 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[571] 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[572],--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[573], ended thus,--[Greek: hôs kai Êlias epoiêse; strapheis de epetimêsen autois. kai eporeuthêsan eis hetepan kômên][574]. 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[575]. 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:

[495] [Greek: Pros tois dokêsei ton Christon pephênenai legontas].

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

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

[498] Opp. iii. 953, 954,--with suspicious emphasis.

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

[500] When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568),--"[Greek: To de paidion êuxane kai ekrataiouto PNEUMATI, plêroumenon SOPHIA kai CHARITI." kaitoi kata physin panteleios estin hôs Theos kai ex idion plêrômatos dianemei tois agiois ta PNEUMATIKA, kai autos estin ê SOPHIA, kai tês CHARITOS ho dotêr],--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 Euangelistês epsê "êuxane kai ekrataiouto" KAI TA EXÊS]. 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 Rectâ fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam.

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

[502] [Greek: Ei teleios esti Theos ho Christos, pôs ho euangelistês legei, to de paidion Iêsous êuxane kai ekrataiouto pneumati];--S. Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 (_ap._ Galland. vi. 17 c). And see Quaest. 30.

[503] ii. 36 d.

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

[505] [Greek: Hên êkousa para tou Theou]. Epiph. i. 463.

[506] Instead of [Greek: para tou Theou].

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

[508] i. 260, 463: ii. 49.

[509] i. 705.

[510] viii. 365.

[511] (Glaph.) i. 18.

[512] 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.

[513] Excerpt. Theod. 968.--Heracleon's name is also connected by Origen with this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, [Greek: on dê kai uion Monogenê kai Theon keklêken].

[514] Pp. 627, 630, 466.

[515] P. 956.

[516] '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 monoogenês huios Theos monos exêgêsato] (956), and in the Excerpt. Theod. we find [Greek: outos ton kolpon ton Patros exêgêsato ho Sôtêr] (969). But this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our Lord is often spoken of by the Fathers as [Greek: hê dexia tou hypsistou ... kolpos de tês dexias ho Patêr]. (Greg. Nyss. i. 192.)

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

[518] Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14.

[519] Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134.

[520] Opp. ii. 466.

[521] Opp. iii. 23, 358.

[522] Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 ([Greek: Theos pantôs ho monogenês, ho en tois kolpois ôn tou Patros, outôs eipontos tou Iôannou]). Also ii. 432, 447, 450, 470, 506: always [Greek: en tois kolpois]. Basil, Opp. iii. 12.

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

[524] Contra Eunom. _I have noted_ ninety-eight places.

[525] Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus:--[Greek: autos gar Theos ôn ho monogenês, en kolpois ôn tou theou kai patros, tautên pros hêmas epoiêsato tên exêgêsin]. Presently (p. 105), he says that St. John [Greek: kai "monogenê theon" apokalei ton huion, kai "en kolpois" einai phêsi tou patros]. But on p. 107 he speaks quite plainly: [Greek: "ho monogenês," phêsi, "Theos, ho ôn eis ton kolpon tou patros, ekeinos exêgêsato." epeidê gar ephê "monogenê" kai "Theon," tithêsin euthys, "ho ôn en tois kolpois tou patros."]--So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads [Greek: huios] in v. 365, 437: vi. 90.

[526] 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).

[527] De Trin. 76, 140, 37a:--27.

[528] P. 117.

[529] Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given.

[530] Who quoted Arius' words:--'Subsistit ante tempora et aeones _plenus Deus, unigenitus,_ et immutabilis.' But I cannot yet find Tischendorf's reference.

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

[532] 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.

[533] Rev. xxii. 19.

[534] [Greek: Epipêdôsin hêmin hoi hairetikoi legontes; idou ouk anelabe sarka ho Christos; ho deut. gar phêsin anthr. ho k. ex ouranou.] Chrys. iii. 114 b.

[535] [Greek: Tên gar kata sarka gênnêsin tou Christou anelein boulomenoi, enêllaxan to, ho deuteros anthrôpos; kai epoiêsan, ho deuteros Kyrios.] Dial. [_ap._ Orig.] i. 868.--Marcion had in fact already substituted [Greek: Kyrios] for [Greek: anthrôpos] 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. zô.] Dial. _ubi supra_. [Greek: edei gar autous, ei ge ta euangelia etimôn, mê peritemnein ta euangelia, mê merê tôn euangeliôn exyphelein, mê hetera prosthênai, mête logô, mête idia gnômê ta euangelia prosgraphein.... prosgegraphêkasi goun hosa beboulêntai, kai exypheilanto hosa kekrikasi.] Titus of Bostra c. Manichaeos (Galland. v. 328).

[536] Tertull. ii. 304, (_Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus de Caelo_).

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

[538] [Greek: To de pantôn chalepôtaton en tais ekklêsiastikais symphorais, hê tôn 'Apolinaristôn esti parrêsia.] Greg. Naz. ii. 167.

[539] ii. 168,--a very interesting place. See also p. 87.

[540] i. 831.

[541] ii. 443, 531.

[542] Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 (_primus homo de terrae limo_, &c.).

[543] iii. 40.

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

[545] iv. 1051.

[546] _Ap._ Thdt. v. 1135.

[547] _Ap._ Galland. viii. 626, 627.

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

[549] 'Adversus Manichaeos,'--_ap._ Mai, iv. 68, 69.

[550] ii. 228:--[Greek: ouch hoti ho anthrôpos, êtoi to anthrôpinon proslêmma, ex ouranou ên, hôs ho aphrôn Apolinarios elêrei].

[551] Naz. ii. 87 (=Thdt. iv. 62), 168.--Nyss. ii. 11.

[552] _Ap._ Epiphan. i. 830.

[553] 559 (with the Text. Recept.): iv. 302 not.

[554] 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 anthrôpou] in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 48) be safely pressed.

[555] _Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo caelestis_.--i. 1168, 1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. ii. 166, 437.

[556] ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296.

[557] The places are given by Sabatier _in loc_.

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

[559] 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.

[560] 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 amphoterôthen ouranios anthrôpos onomazetai]. And lower down,--[Greek: Kyrios, dia tên mian hypostasin; deut. men anthr., kata tên henômenên anthrôpotêta. ex ouranou de, kata tên theotêta].--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.'

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

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

[563] Proleg. 418.

[564] 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 chrê, hoti hôs mêpô tês neas kekratêkotes charitos, all' eti tês proteras echomenoi synêtheias, touto eipon, pros Êlian aphorôntes ton pyri kataphlexanta dis tous pentêkonta kai tous êgoumenous autôn], (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.

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

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

[567] 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').

[568] 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.

[569] 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 tôn logiôn chôrêsômen]. At pp. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirms what Tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven.

[570] Verba [Greek: hôs kai Ê. epoiêse] 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.)

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

[572] 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 mê dexamenous autous kata ton Êlian; Ouk oidate phêsi 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: Mêpô tês neas kekratêkotes charitos ... touto eipon, ton Êlian aphorôntes 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 anthrôpou]. De Trin. p. 188.

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

[574] See Matthaei, N.T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17.

[575] [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[576]. 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[577].

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[578] (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[579],' 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[580], 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[581] 'in an earthen vessel[582]'? 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 hydôr 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[583].' 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[584]. 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[585],' (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[586].' One, vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener) declares that 'on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the passage must needs be abandoned[587].' Tregelles is 'fully satisfied that this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel[588].' 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[589].' 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[590].' A yet more recent critic 'sums up,' that 'the external evidence must be held fatal to the genuineness of the passage[591].' 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[592].' 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[593] 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[594].

Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost: viz. from the word [Greek: katabainôn] 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