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 ff^{2} 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[595] in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine times[596]; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as often[597]. It is quoted besides by Pacian[598], in the north of Spain (370),--by Faustus[599] the African (400),--by Rufinus[600] at Aquileia (400),--by Chrysologus[601] at Ravenna (433),--by Sedulius[602] a Scot (434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises[603] 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[604] (484) in North Africa,--by Gelasius[605], bp. of Rome (492),--by Cassiodorus[606] in Southern Italy,--by Gregory the Great[607], 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[608].' He calls attention to the fact that what is rendered 'sine peccato' is [Greek: anamartêtos] 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 autôn tas amartias],--a reading which survives to this day in one uncial (U) and at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth Gospel[609]. 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[610]) 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[611]. Ambrose, a quarter of a century earlier, had clearly intimated that danger was popularly apprehended from this quarter[612]: 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[613]. 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: archê]), 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: tê eschatê hêmera tê megalê], and ending--[Greek: to phôs tês zôês]: 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