As another instance of ancient Glosses introduced to help out the sense, the reading of St. John ix. 22 is confessedly [Greek: hina ean tis auton homologesei Christon]. So all the MSS. but one, and so the Old Latin. So indeed all the ancient versions except the Egyptian. Cod. D alone adds [Greek: einai]: but [Greek: einai] must once have been a familiar gloss: for Jerome retains it in the Vulgate: and indeed Cyril, whenever he quotes the place[402], exhibits [Greek: ton Christon einai]. Not so however Chrysostom[403] and Gregory of Nyssa[404].

Sec. 6.

There is scarcely to be found, amid the incidents immediately preceding our Saviour's Passion, one more affecting or more exquisite than the anointing of His feet at Bethany by Mary the sister of Lazarus, which received its unexpected interpretation from the lips of Christ Himself. 'Let her alone. Against the day of My embalming hath she kept it.' (St. John xii. 7.) He assigns to her act a mysterious meaning of which the holy woman little dreamt. She had treasured up that precious unguent against the day,—(with the presentiment of true Love, she knew that it could not be very far distant),—when His dead limbs would require embalming. But lo, she beholds Him reclining at supper in her sister's house: and yielding to a Divine impulse she brings forth her reserved costly offering and bestows it on Him at once. Ah, she little knew,—she could not in fact have known,—that it was the only anointing those sacred feet were destined ever to enjoy!... In the meantime through a desire, as I suspect, to bring this incident into an impossible harmony with what is recorded in St. Mark xvi. 1, with which obviously it has no manner of connexion, a scribe is found at some exceedingly remote period to have improved our Lord's expression into this:—'Let her alone in order that against the day of My embalming she may keep it.' Such an exhibition of the Sacred Text is its own sufficient condemnation. What that critic exactly meant, I fail to discover: but I am sure he has spoilt what he did not understand: and though it is quite true that [Symbol: Aleph]BD with five other Uncial MSS. and Nonnus, besides the Latin and Bohairic, Jerusalem, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions, besides four errant cursives so exhibit the place, this instead of commending the reading to our favour, only proves damaging to the witnesses by which it is upheld. We learn that no reliance is to be placed even in such a combination of authorities. This is one of the places which the Fathers pass by almost in silence. Chrysostom[405] however, and evidently Cyril Alex.[406], as well as Ammonius[407] convey though roughly a better sense by quoting the verse with [Greek: epoiese] for [Greek: tetereken]. Antiochus[408] is express. [A and eleven other uncials, and the cursives (with the petty exception already noted), together with the Peshitto, Harkleian (which only notes the other reading in the margin), Lewis, Sahidic, and Gothic versions, form a body of authority against the palpable emasculation of the passage, which for number, variety, weight, and internal evidence is greatly superior to the opposing body. Also, with reference to continuity and antiquity it preponderates plainly, if not so decisively; and the context of D is full of blunders, besides that it omits the next verse, and B and [Symbol: Aleph] are also inaccurate hereabouts[409]. So that the Traditional text enjoys in this passage the support of all the Notes of Truth.]

In accordance with what has been said above, for [Greek: Aphes auten; eis ten hemeran tou entaphiasmou mou tetereken auto] (St. John xii. 7), the copies which it has recently become the fashion to adore, read [Greek: aphes auten hina ... terese auto]. This startling innovation,—which destroys the sense of our Saviour's words, and furnishes a sorry substitute which no one is able to explain[410],—is accepted by recent Editors and some Critics: yet is it clearly nothing else but a stupid correction of the text,—introduced by some one who did not understand the intention of the Divine Speaker. Our Saviour is here discovering to us an exquisite circumstance,—revealing what until now had been a profound and tender secret: viz. that Mary, convinced by many a sad token that the Day of His departure could not be very far distant, had some time before provided herself with this costly ointment, and 'kept it' by her,—intending to reserve it against the dark day when it would be needed for the 'embalming' of the lifeless body of her Lord. And now it wants only a week to Easter. She beholds Him (with Lazarus at His side) reclining in her sister's house at supper, amid circumstances of mystery which fill her soul with awful anticipation. She divines, with love's true instinct, that this may prove her only opportunity. Accordingly, she 'anticipates to anoint' ([Greek: proelabe myrisai], St. Mark xiv. 8) His Body: and, yielding to an overwhelming impulse, bestows upon Him all her costly offering at once!... How does it happen that some professed critics have overlooked all this? Any one who has really studied the subject ought to know, from a mere survey of the evidence, on which side the truth in respect of the text of this passage must needs lie.

Sec. 7.

Our Lord, in His great Eucharistic address to the eternal Father, thus speaks:—'I have glorified Thee on the earth. I have perfected the work which Thou gavest Me to do' (St. John xvii. 4). Two things are stated: first, that the result of His Ministry had been the exhibition upon earth of the Father's 'glory[411]': next, that the work which the Father had given the Son to do[412] was at last finished[413]. And that this is what St. John actually wrote is certain: not only because it is found in all the copies, except twelve of suspicious character (headed by [Symbol: Aleph]ABCL); but because it is vouched for by the Peshitto[414] and the Latin, the Gothic and the Armenian versions[415]: besides a whole chorus of Fathers; viz. Hippolytus[416], Didymus[417], Eusebius[418], Athanasius[419], Basil[420], Chrysostom[421], Cyril[422], ps.-Polycarp[423], the interpolator of Ignatius[424], and the authors of the Apostolic Constitutions[425]: together with the following among the Latins:—Cyprian[426], Ambrose[427], Hilary[428], Zeno[429], Cassian[430], Novatian[431], certain Arians[432], Augustine[433].

But the asyndeton (so characteristic of the fourth Gospel) proving uncongenial to certain of old time, D inserted [Greek: kai]. A more popular device was to substitute the participle ([Greek: teleiosas]) for [Greek: eteleiosa]: whereby our Lord is made to say that He had glorified His Father's Name 'by perfecting' or 'completing'—'in that He had finished'—the work which the Father had given Him to do; which damages the sense by limiting it, and indeed introduces a new idea. A more patent gloss it would be hard to find. Yet has it been adopted as the genuine text by all the Editors and all the Critics. So general is the delusion in favour of any reading supported by the combined evidence of [Symbol: Aleph]ABCL, that the Revisers here translate—'I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished ([Greek: teleiosas]) the work which Thou hast given Me to do:' without so much as vouchsafing a hint to the English reader that they have altered the text.

When some came with the message 'Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master further?' the Evangelist relates that Jesus 'as soon as He heard ([Greek: eutheos akousas]) what was being spoken, said to the ruler of the synagogue, Fear not: only believe.' (St. Mark v. 36.) For this, [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] substitute 'disregarding ([Greek: parakousas]) what was being spoken': which is nothing else but a sorry gloss, disowned by every other copy, including ACD, and all the versions. Yet does [Greek: parakousas] find favour with Teschendorf, Tregelles, and others.

Sec. 8.

In this way it happened that in the earliest age the construction of St. Luke i. 66 became misapprehended. Some Western scribe evidently imagined that the popular saying concerning John Baptist,—[Greek: ti apa to paidion touto estai], extended further, and comprised the Evangelist's record,—[Greek: kai cheir Kyriou en met' autou]. To support this strange view, [Greek: kai] was altered into [Greek: kai gar], and [Greek: esti] was substituted for [Greek: en]. It is thus that the place stands in the Verona copy of the Old Latin (b). In other quarters the verb was omitted altogether: and that is how D, Evan. 59 with the Vercelli (a) and two other copies of the Old Latin exhibit the place. Augustine[434] is found to have read indifferently—'manus enim Domini cum illo,' and 'cum illo est': but he insists that the combined clauses represent the popular utterance concerning the Baptist[435]. Unhappily, there survives a notable trace of the same misapprehension in [Symbol: Aleph]-BCL which, alone of MSS., read [Greek: kai gar ... en][436]. The consequence might have been anticipated. All recent Editors adopt this reading, which however is clearly inadmissible. The received text, witnessed to by the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian versions, is obviously correct. Accordingly, A and all the uncials not already named, together with the whole body of the cursives, so read the place. With fatal infelicity the Revisers exhibit 'For indeed the hand of the Lord was with him.' They clearly are to blame: for indeed the MS. evidence admits of no uncertainty. It is much to be regretted that not a single very ancient Greek Father (so far as I can discover) quotes the place.

Sec. 9.

It seems to have been anciently felt, in connexion with the first miraculous draught of fishes, that St. Luke's statement (v. 7) that the ships were so full that 'they were sinking' ([Greek: hoste bythizesthai auta]) requires some qualification. Accordingly C inserts [Greek: ede] (were 'just' sinking); and D, [Greek: para ti] ('within a little'): while the Peshitto the Lewis and the Vulgate, as well as many copies of the Old Latin, exhibit 'ita ut pene.' These attempts to improve upon Scripture, and these paraphrases, indicate laudable zeal for the truthfulness of the Evangelist; but they betray an utterly mistaken view of the critic's office. The truth is, [Greek: bythizesthai], as the Bohairic translators perceived and as most of us are aware, means 'were beginning to sink.' There is no need of further qualifying the expression by the insertion with Eusebius[437] of any additional word.

I strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of 'Pyrrhus' into Acts xx. 4 as the patronymic of 'Sopater of Beraea,' is to be accounted for in this way. A very early gloss it certainly is, for it appears in the Old Latin: yet, the Peshitto knows nothing of it, and the Harkleian rejects it from the text, though not from the margin. Origen and the Bohairic recognize it, but not Chrysostom nor the Ethiopic. I suspect that some foolish critic of the primitive age invented [Greek: Pyrou] (or [Greek: Pyrrou]) out of [Greek: Beroiaios] (or [Greek: Berroiaios]) which follows. The Latin form of this was 'Pyrus[438],' 'Pyrrhus,' or 'Pirrus[439].' In the Sahidic version he is called the 'son of Berus' ([Greek: huios Berou]),—which confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed, if it was with some Beraean that the gloss originated,—and what more likely?—it becomes an interesting circumstance that the inhabitants of that part of Macedonia are known to have confused the p and b sounds[440].... This entire matter is unimportant in itself, but the letter of Scripture cannot be too carefully guarded: and let me invite the reader to consider,—If St. Luke actually wrote [Greek: Sopatros Pyrrou Beroiaios], why at the present day should five copies out of six record nothing of that second word?

FOOTNOTES:

[353] See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52.

[354] St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80.

[355] iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the [Greek: rhesis] in which the first three of these quotations occur seems to have been obtained by De la Rue from a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library (see his Monitum, iii. 1). A large portion of it (viz. from p. 3, line 25, to p. 4, line 29) is ascribed to 'I. Geometra in Proverbia' in the Catena in Luc. of Corderius, p. 217.

[356] ii. 345.

[357] ii. 242.

[358] The Latin is edissere or dissere, enarra or narra, both here and in xv. 15.

[359] iv. 254 a.

[360] In St. Matthew xiii. 36 the Peshitto Syriac has [Syriac letters] 'declare to us' and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, there being no various reading in either of these two passages.

The inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in each place, especially considering that in the only other place where, besides St. Matt. xiii. 36, v. 1., [Greek: diasaphein] occurs, viz. St. Matt. xviii. 31, they render [Greek: diesaphesan] by [Syriac letters]—they made known.

Since [Greek: phrazein] only occurs in St. Matt. xiii. 36 and xv. 15, we cannot generalize about the Peshitto rendering of this verb. Conversely, [Syriac letters] is used as the rendering of other Greek words besides [Greek: phrazein], e.g.

of [Greek: epiluein], St. Mark iv. 34; of [Greek: diermeneuein], St. Luke xxiv. 27; of [Greek: dianoigein], St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3.

On the whole I have no doubt (though it is not susceptible of proof) that the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, [Greek: phrason].

[361] In St. Mark vii. 3, the translators of the Peshitto render whatever Greek they had before them by [Syriac letters], which means 'eagerly,' 'sedulously'; cf. use of the word for [Greek: spoudaios], St. Luke vii. 4; [Greek: epimelos], St Luke xv. 8.

The Root means 'to cease'; thence 'to have leisure for a thing': it has nothing to do with 'Fist.' [Rev. G.H. Gwilliam.]

[362] Harkl. Marg. in loc., and Adler, p. 115.

[363] Viz. a b c e ff^{2} l q.

[364] [Greek: 'Opheilei psyche, en to logo tou Kyriou katakolouthousa, ton stauron autou kath' hemeran airein, hos gegraptai; tout' estin, hetoimos echousa hypomenein dia Christon pasan thlipsin kai peirasmon, k.t.l.] (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit, further on, he exhorts to constancy and patience,—[Greek: ton epi tou Kyriou thanaton en epithymiai pantote pro ophthalmon echontes, kai (kathos eiretai hypo tou Kyriou) kath' hemeran ton stauron airontes, ho esti thanatos] (ii. 332 e). It is fair to assume that Ephraem's reference is to St. Luke ix. 23, seeing that he wrote not in Greek but in Syriac, and that in the Peshitto the clause is found only in that place.

[365] [Greek: Akoue Louka legontos],—i. 281 f. Also, int. iii. 543.

[366] Pp. 221 (text), 222, 227.

[367] ii. 751 e, 774 e (in Es.)—the proof that these quotations are from St. Luke; that Cyril exhibits [Greek: arnesastho] instead of [Greek: aparn]. (see Tischendorf's note on St. Luke ix. 23). The quotation in i. 40 (Glaph.) may be from St. Matt. xvi. 24.

[368] Migne, vol. lxxxvi. pp. 256 and 257.

[369] After quoting St. Mark viii. 34,—'aut juxta Lucam, dicebat ad cunctos: Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum; et tollat crucem suam, et sequetur me.'—i. 852 c.

This is found in his solution of XI Quaestiones, 'ad Algasiam,'—free translations probably from the Greek of some earlier Father. Six lines lower down (after quoting words found nowhere in the Gospels), Jerome proceeds:—'Quotidie credens in Christum tollit crucem suam, et negat seipsum.'

[370] This spurious clause adorned the lost archetype of Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346 (Ferrar's four); and survives in certain other Evangelia which enjoy a similar repute,—as 1, 33, 72 (with a marginal note of distrust), 131.

[371] They are St. Matt. xvi. 24; St. Mark viii. 34.

[372] i. 597 c (Adorat.)—elsewhere (viz. i. 21 d; 528 c; 580 b; iv. 1058 a; v^(2). 83 c) Cyril quotes the place correctly. Note, that the quotation found in Mai, iii. 126, which Pusey edits (v. 418), in Ep. ad Hebr., is nothing else but an excerpt from the treatise de Adorat. i. 528 c.

[373] In his Commentary on St. Matt. xvi. 24:—[Greek: Dia pantos tou biou touto dei poiein. Dienekos gar, phesi, periphere ton thanaton touton, kai kath hemeran hetoimos eso pros sphagen] (vii. 557 b). Again, commenting on ch. xix. 21,—[Greek: Dei proegoumenos akolouthein to Christo toutesti, panta ta par autou keleuomena poiein, pros sphgas einai hetoimon, kai thanaton kathemerinin] (p. 629 e):—words which Chrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch. xvi. 24 (630 a).

[374] i. 949 b,—'Quotidie (inquit Apostolus) morior propter vestram salutem. Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria, Nisi quis tulerit crucem suam quotidie, et sequntus fuerit me, non potest meus esse discipulus'—Commenting on St. Matt. x. 38 (vol. vii. p. 65 b), Jerome remarks,—'in alio Evangelio scribitur,—Qui non accipit crucem suam quotidie': but the corresponding place to St. Matt. x. 38, in the sectional system of Eusebius (Greek and Syriac), is St. Luke xiv. 27.

[375] Viz. Evan. 473 (2^{pe}).

[376] ii. 66 c, d.

[377] See above, p. 175, note 2.

[378] Proleg. p. cxlvi.

[379] N.T. (1803), i. 368.

[380] Lewis here agrees with Peshitto.

[381] iv. 745.

[382] In Ps. 501.

[383] 229 and 236.

[384] vii. 736: xi. 478.

[385] ii. 1209.

[386] 269.

[387] 577.

[388] i. 881.

[389] Ap. Chrys. vi. 460.

[390] Ap. Greg. Nyss. ii. 258.

[391] Galland. vi. 53.

[392] ii. 346.

[393] ii. 261, 324.

[394] Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 429.

[395] i. 132.

[396] The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with interest how gracefully the third Evangelist St. Luke (ix. 5) has overcome this difficulty.

[397] Augustine, with his accustomed acuteness, points out that St. Mark's narrative shews that after the words of 'Sleep on now and take your rest,' our Lord must have been silent for a brief space in order to allow His disciples a slight prolongation of the refreshment which his words had already permitted them to enjoy. Presently, He is heard to say,—'It is enough'—(that is, 'Ye have now slept and rested enough'); and adds, 'The hour is come. Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.' 'Sed quia commemorata non est ipsa interpositio silentii Domini, propterea coartat intellectum, ut in illis verbis alia pronuntiatio requiratur.'—iii^{2}. 106 a, b. The passage in question runs thus:—[Greek: Katheidete to loipon kai anapauesthe. apechei; elthen he hora; idou, k.t.l.]

[398] Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion (Anon. Vat.) in Possinus, p. 321:—[Greek: apechei, toutesti, peplerotai, telos echei to kat' eme]. Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note.

[399] I retract unreservedly what I offered on this subject in a former work (Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 225, 226). I was misled by one who seldom indeed misleads,—the learned editor of the Codex Bezae (in loco).

[400] So Peshitto. Lewis, venit hora, appropinquat finis. Harkleian, adest consummatio, venit hora.

[401] [Greek: apechei]. Vg. sufficit. + [Greek: to telos], 13, 69, 124, 2^{pe}, c^{scr}, 47, 54, 56, 61, 184, 346, 348, 439. d, q, sufficit finis et hora. f, adest finis, venit hora. c, ff^{2}, adest enim consummatio, et (ff^{2} venit) hora. a, consummatus est finis, advenit hora. It is certain that one formidable source of danger to the sacred text has been its occasional obscurity. This has resulted,—(1) sometimes in the omission of words: [Greek: Deuteroproton]. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as [Greek: pygmei]. (3) Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, [Greek: to telos], as above.

[402] iii. 105: iv. 913. So also iv. 614.

[403] vi. 283.

[404] i. 307.

[405] viii. 392.

[406] iv. 696.

[407] Cramer's Cat. in loc.

[408] 1063.

[409] E.g. ver. 1. All the three officiously insert [Greek: ho Iesous], in order to prevent people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus from the dead; ver. 4, D gives the gloss, [Greek: apo Karyotou] for [Greek: Iskariotes]; ver. 13, spells thus,—[Greek: hossana]; besides constant inaccuracies, in which it is followed by none. [Symbol: Aleph] omits nineteen words in the first thirty-two verses of the chapter, besides adding eight and making other alterations. B is far from being accurate.

[410] 'Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My burying' (Alford). But how could she keep it after she had poured it all out?—'Suffer her to have kept it against the day of My preparation unto burial' (M^{c}Clellan). But [Greek: hina terese] could hardly mean that: and the day of His [Greek: entaphiasmos] had not yet arrived.

[411] Consider ii. 11 and xi. 40: St. Luke xiii. 17: Heb. i. 3.

[412] Consider v. 36 and iv. 34.

[413] Consider St. John xix. 30. Cf. St. Luke xxii. 37.

[414] Lewis, 'and the work I have perfected': Harkleian, 'because the work,' &c., 'because' being obelized.

[415] The Bohairic and Ethiopic are hostile.

[416] i. 245 (= Constt. App. viii. 1; ap. Galland. iii. 199).

[417] P. 419.

[418] Mcell p. 157.

[419] i. 534.

[420] ii. 196, 238: iii. 39.

[421] v. 256: viii. 475 bis.

[422] iii. 542: iv. 954: v^{1}. 599, 601, 614: v^{2}. 152.—In the following places Cyril shews himself acquainted with the other reading,—iv. 879: v^{1}. 167, 366: vi. 124.

[423] Polyc. frg. v (ed. Jacobson).

[424] Ps.-Ignat. 328.

[425] Ap. Gall. iii. 215.

[426] P. 285.

[427] ii. 545.

[428] Pp. 510, 816, 1008. But opere constummato, pp. 812, 815.—Jerome also once (iv. 563) has opere completo.

[429] Ap. Gall. v. 135.

[430] P. 367.

[431] Ap. Gall. iii. 308.

[432] Ap. Aug. viii. 622.

[433] iii^{2}. 761: viii. 640.

[434] v. 1166.

[435] Ibid. 1165 g, 1166 a.

[436] Though the Bohairic, Gothic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions are disfigured in the same way, and the Lewis reads 'is.'

[437] Theoph. 216 note: [Greek: hos kindyneuein auta bythisthenai].

[438] Cod. Amiat.

[439] g,—at Stockholm.

[440] Stephanus De Urbibus in voc. [Greek: Beroia].



CHAPTER XIII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

IX. Corruption by Heretics.

Sec. 1.

The Corruptions of the Sacred Text which we have been hitherto considering, however diverse the causes from which they may have resulted, have yet all agreed in this: viz. that they have all been of a lawful nature. My meaning is, that apparently, at no stage of the business has there been mala fides in any quarter. We are prepared to make the utmost allowance for careless, even for licentious transcription; and we can invent excuses for the mistaken zeal, the officiousness if men prefer to call it so, which has occasionally not scrupled to adopt conjectural emendations of the Text. To be brief, so long as an honest reason is discoverable for a corrupt reading, we gladly adopt the plea. It has been shewn with sufficient clearness, I trust, in the course of the foregoing chapters, that the number of distinct causes to which various readings may reasonably be attributed is even extraordinary.

But there remains after all an alarmingly large assortment of textual perturbations which absolutely refuse to fall under any of the heads of classification already enumerated. They are not to be accounted for on any ordinary principle. And this residuum of cases it is, which occasions our present embarrassment. They are in truth so exceedingly numerous; they are often so very considerable; they are, as a rule, so very licentious; they transgress to such an extent all regulations; they usurp so persistently the office of truth and faithfulness, that we really know not what to think about them. Sometimes we are presented with gross interpolations,—apocryphal stories: more often with systematic lacerations of the text, or transformations as from an angel of light.

We are constrained to inquire, How all this can possibly have come about? Have there even been persons who made it their business of set purpose to corrupt the [sacred deposit of Holy Scripture entrusted to the Church for the perpetual illumination of all ages till the Lord should come?]

At this stage of the inquiry, we are reminded that it is even notorious that in the earliest age of all, the New Testament Scriptures were subjected to such influences. In the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic there were heretical teachers not a few, who finding their tenets refuted by the plain Word of God bent themselves against the written Word with all their power. From seeking to evacuate its teaching, it was but a single step to seeking to falsify its testimony. Profane literature has never been exposed to such hostility. I make the remark in order also to remind the reader of one more point of [dissimilarity between the two classes of writings. The inestimable value of the New Testament entailed greater dangers, as well as secured superior safeguards. Strange, that a later age should try to discard the latter].

It is found therefore that Satan could not even wait for the grave to close over St. John. 'Many' there were already who taught that Christ had not come in the flesh. Gnosticism was in the world already. St. Paul denounces it by name[441], and significantly condemns the wild fancies of its professors, their dangerous speculations as well as their absurd figments. Thus he predicts and condemns[442] their pestilential teaching in respect of meats and drinks and concerning matrimony. In his Epistle to Timothy[443] he relates that Hymeneus and Philetus taught that the Resurrection was past already. What wonder if a flood of impious teaching broke loose on the Church when the last of the Apostles had been gathered in, and another generation of men had arisen, and the age of Miracles was found to be departing if it had not already departed, and the loftiest boast which any could make was that they had known those who had [seen and heard the Apostles of the Lord].

The 'grievous wolves' whose assaults St. Paul predicted as imminent, and against which he warned the heads of the Ephesian Church[444], did not long 'spare the flock.' Already, while St. John was yet alive, had the Nicolaitans developed their teaching at Ephesus[445] and in the neighbouring Church of Pergamos[446]. Our risen Lord in glory announced to His servant John that in the latter city Satan had established his dwelling-place[447]. Nay, while those awful words were being spoken to the Seer of Patmos, the men were already born who first dared to lay their impious hands on the Gospel of Christ.

No sooner do we find ourselves out of Apostolic times and among monuments of the primitive age than we are made aware that the sacred text must have been exposed at that very early period to disturbing influences which, on no ordinary principles, can be explained. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria,—among the Fathers: some Old Latin MSS.[448] the Bohairic and Sahidic, and coming later on, the Curetonian and Lewis,—among the Versions: of the copies Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph]: and above all, coming later down still, Cod. D:—these venerable monuments of a primitive age occasionally present us with deformities which it is worse than useless to extenuate,—quite impossible to overlook. Unauthorized appendixes,—tasteless and stupid amplifications,—plain perversions of the meaning of the Evangelists,—wholly gratuitous assimilations of one Gospel to another,—the unprovoked omission of passages of profound interest and not unfrequently of high doctrinal import:—How are such phenomena as these to be accounted for? Again, in one quarter, we light upon a systematic mutilation of the text so extraordinary that it is as if some one had amused himself by running his pen through every clause which was not absolutely necessary to the intelligibleness of what remained. In another quarter we encounter the thrusting in of fabulous stories and apocryphal sayings which disfigure as well as encumber the text.—How will any one explain all this?

Let me however at the risk of repeating what has been already said dispose at once of an uneasy suspicion which is pretty sure to suggest itself to a person of intelligence after reading what goes before. If the most primitive witnesses to our hand are indeed discovered to bear false witness to the text of Scripture,—whither are we to betake ourselves for the Truth? And what security can we hope ever to enjoy that any given exhibition of the text of Scripture is the true one? Are we then to be told that in this subject-matter the maxim 'id verius quod prius' does not hold? that the stream instead of getting purer as we approach the fountain head, on the contrary grows more and more corrupt?

Nothing of the sort, I answer. The direct reverse is the case. Our appeal is always made to antiquity; and it is nothing else but a truism to assert that the oldest reading is also the best. A very few words will make this matter clear; because a very few words will suffice to explain a circumstance already adverted to which it is necessary to keep always before the eyes of the reader.

The characteristic note, the one distinguishing feature, of all the monstrous and palpable perversions of the text of Scripture just now under consideration is this:—that they are never vouched for by the oldest documents generally, but only by a few of them,—two, three, or more of the oldest documents being observed as a rule to yield conflicting testimony, (which in this subject-matter is in fact contradictory). In this way the oldest witnesses nearly always refute one another, and indeed dispose of one another's evidence almost as often as that evidence is untrustworthy. And now I may resume and proceed.

I say then that it is an adequate, as well as a singularly satisfactory explanation of the greater part of those gross depravations of Scripture which admit of no legitimate excuse, to attribute them, however remotely, to those licentious free-handlers of the text who are declared by their contemporaries to have falsified, mutilated, interpolated, and in whatever other way to have corrupted the Gospel; whose blasphemous productions of necessity must once have obtained a very wide circulation: and indeed will never want some to recommend and uphold them. What with those who like Basilides and his followers invented a Gospel of their own:—what with those who with the Ebionites and the Valentinians interpolated and otherwise perverted one of the four Gospels until it suited their own purposes:—what with those who like Marcion shamefully maimed and mutilated the inspired text:—there must have been a large mass of corruption festering in the Church throughout the immediate post-Apostolic age. But even this is not all. There were those who like Tatian constructed Diatessarons, or attempts to weave the fourfold narrative into one,—'Lives of Christ,' so to speak;—and productions of this class were multiplied to an extraordinary extent, and as we certainly know, not only found their way into the remotest corners of the Church, but established themselves there. And will any one affect surprise if occasionally a curious scholar of those days was imposed upon by the confident assurance that by no means were those many sources of light to be indiscriminately rejected, but that there must be some truth in what they advanced? In a singularly uncritical age, the seductive simplicity of one reading,—the interesting fullness of another,—the plausibility of a thirds—was quite sure to recommend its acceptance amongst those many eclectic recensions which were constructed by long since forgotten Critics, from which the most depraved and worthless of our existing texts and versions have been derived. Emphatically condemned by Ecclesiastical authority, and hopelessly outvoted by the universal voice of Christendom, buried under fifteen centuries, the corruptions I speak of survive at the present day chiefly in that little handful of copies which, calamitous to relate, the school of Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles look upon as oracular: and in conformity with which many scholars are for refashioning the Evangelical text under the mistaken title of 'Old Readings.' And now to proceed with my argument.

Sec. 2.

Numerous as were the heresies of the first two or three centuries of the Christian era, they almost all agreed in this;—that they involved a denial of the eternal Godhead of the Son of Man: denied that He is essentially very and eternal God. This fundamental heresy found itself hopelessly confuted by the whole tenor of the Gospel, which nevertheless it assailed with restless ingenuity: and many are the traces alike of its impotence and of its malice which have survived to our own times. It is a memorable circumstance that it is precisely those very texts which relate either to the eternal generation of the Son,—to His Incarnation,—or to the circumstances of His Nativity,—which have suffered most severely, and retain to this hour traces of having been in various ways tampered with. I do not say that Heretics were the only offenders here. I am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as much to blame as the impugners of the Truth. But it was at least with a pious motive that the latter tampered with the Deposit. They did but imitate the example set them by the assailing party. It is indeed the calamitous consequence of extravagances in one direction that they are observed ever to beget excesses in the opposite quarter. Accordingly the piety of the primitive age did not think it wrong to fortify the Truth by the insertion, suppression, or substitution of a few words in any place from which danger was apprehended. In this way, I am persuaded, many an unwarrantable 'reading' is to be explained. I do not mean that 'marginal glosses have frequently found their way into the text':—that points to a wholly improbable account of the matter. I mean, that expressions which seemed to countenance heretical notions, or at least which had been made a bad use of by evil men, were deliberately falsified. But I must not further anticipate the substance of the next chapter.

The men who first systematically depraved the text of Scripture, were as we now must know the heresiarchs Basilides (fl. 134), Valentinus (fl. 140), and Marcion (fl. 150): three names which Origen is observed almost invariably to enumerate together. Basilides[449] and Valentinus[450] are even said to have written Gospels of their own. Such a statement is not to be severely pressed: but the general fact is established by the notices, and those are exceedingly abundant, which the writers against Heresies have cited and left on record. All that is intended by such statements is that these old heretics retained, altered, transposed, just so much as they pleased of the fourfold Gospel: and further, that they imported whatever additional matter they saw fit:—not that they rejected the inspired text entirely, and substituted something of their own invention in its place[451]. And though, in the case of Valentinus, it has been contended, apparently with reason, that he probably did not individually go to the same length as Basilides,—who, as well in respect of St. Paul's Epistles as of the four Gospels, was evidently a grievous offender[452],—yet, since it is clear that his principal followers, who were also his contemporaries, put forth a composition which they were pleased to style the 'Gospel of Truth[453],' it is idle to dispute as to the limit of the rashness and impiety of the individual author of the heresy. Let it be further stated, as no slight confirmation of the view already hazarded as to the probable contents of the (so-called) Gospels of Basilides and of Valentinus, that one particular Gospel is related to have been preferred before the rest and specially adopted by certain schools of ancient Heretics. Thus, a strangely mutilated and depraved text of St. Matthew's Gospel is related to have found especial favour with the Ebionites[454], with whom the Corinthians are associated by Epiphanius: though Irenaeus seems to say that it was St. Mark's Gospel which was adopted by the heretical followers of Cerinthus. Marcion's deliberate choice of St. Luke's Gospel is sufficiently well known. The Valentinians appropriated to themselves St. John[455]. Heracleon, the most distinguished disciple of this school, is deliberately censured by Origen for having corrupted the text of the fourth Evangelist in many places[456]. A considerable portion of his Commentary on St. John has been preserved to us: and a very strange production it is found to have been.

Concerning Marcion, who is a far more conspicuous personage, it will be necessary to speak more particularly. He has left a mark on the text of Scripture of which traces are distinctly recognizable at the present day[457]. A great deal more is known about him than about any other individual of his school. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus wrote against him: besides Origen and Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian in the West[458], and Epiphanius in the East, elaborately refuted his teaching, and give us large information as to his method of handling Scripture.

Another writer of this remote time who, as I am prone to think, must have exercised sensible influence on the text of Scripture was Ammonius of Alexandria.

But Tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity [appears to me to have caused alterations in the Sacred Text.]

It is obviously no answer to anything that has gone before to insist that the Evangelium of Marcion (for instance), so far as it is recognizable by the notices of it given by Epiphanius, can very rarely indeed be shewn to have resembled any extant MS. of the Gospels. Let it be even freely granted that many of the charges brought against it by Epiphanius with so much warmth, collapse when closely examined and severely sifted. It is to be remembered that Marcion's Gospel was known to be an heretical production: one of the many creations of the Gnostic age,—it must have been universally execrated and abhorred by faithful men. Besides this lacerated text of St. Luke's Gospel, there was an Ebionite recension of St. Matthew: a Cerinthian exhibition of St. Mark: a Valentinian perversion of St. John. And we are but insisting that the effect of so many corruptions of the Truth, industriously propagated within far less than 100 years of the date of the inspired verities themselves, must needs have made itself sensibly felt. Add the notorious fact, that in the second and third centuries after the Christian era the text of the Gospels is found to have been grossly corrupted even in orthodox quarters,—and that traces of these gross corruptions are discoverable in certain circles to the present hour,—and it seems impossible not to connect the two phenomena together. The wonder rather is that, at the end of so many centuries, we are able distinctly to recognize any evidence whatever.

The proneness of these early Heretics severally to adopt one of the four Gospels for their own, explains why there is no consistency observable in the corruptions they introduced into the text. It also explains the bringing into one Gospel of things which of right clearly belong to another—as in St. Mark iii. 14 [Greek: ous kai apostolous onomasen].

I do not propose (as will presently appear) in this way to explain any considerable number of the actual corruptions of the text: but in no other way is it possible to account for such systematic mutilations as are found in Cod. B,—such monstrous additions as are found in Cod. D,—such gross perturbations as are continually met with in one or more, but never in all, of the earliest Codexes extant, as well as in the oldest Versions and Fathers.

The plan of Tatian's Diatessaron will account for a great deal. He indulges in frigid glosses, as when about the wine at the feast of Cana in Galilee he reads that the servants knew 'because they had drawn the water'; or in tasteless and stupid amplifications, as in the going back of the Centurion to his house. I suspect that the [Greek: ti me erotas peri tou agathou], 'Why do you ask me about that which is good?' is to be referred to some of these tamperers with the Divine Word.

Sec. 3.

These professors of 'Gnosticism' held no consistent theory. The two leading problems on which they exercised their perverse ingenuity are found to have been (1) the origin of Matter, and (2) the origin of Evil.

(1) They taught that the world's artificer ('the Word') was Himself a creature of 'the Father[459].' Encountered on the threshold of the Gospel by the plain declaration that, 'In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God': and presently, 'All things were made by Him';—they were much exercised. The expedients to which they had recourse were certainly extraordinary. That 'Beginning' (said Valentinus) was the first thing which 'the Father' created: which He called 'Only begotten Son,' and also 'God': and in whom he implanted the germ of all things. Seminally, that is, whatsoever subsequently came into being was in Him. 'The Word' (he said) was a product of this first-created thing. And 'All things were made by Him,' because in 'the Word' was the entire essence of all the subsequent worlds (Aeons), to which he assigned forms[460]. From which it is plain that, according to Valentinus, 'the Word' was distinct from 'the Son'; who was not the world's Creator. Both alike, however, he acknowledged to be 'God[461]': but only, as we have seen already, using the term in an inferior sense.

Heracleon, commenting on St. John i. 3, insists that 'all things' can but signify this perishable world and the things that are therein: not essences of a loftier nature. Accordingly, after the words 'and without Him was not anything made,' he ventures to interpolate this clause,—'of the things that are in the world and in the creation[462].' True, that the Evangelist had declared with unmistakable emphasis, 'and without Him was not anything' (literally, 'was not even one thing') 'made that was made.' But instead of 'not even one thing,' the Valentinian Gnostics appear to have written 'nothing[463]'; and the concluding clause 'that was made,' because he found it simply unmanageable, Valentinus boldly severed from its context, making it the beginning of a fresh sentence. With the Gnostics, ver. 4 is found to have begun thus,—'What was made in Him was life.'

Of the change of [Greek: oude hen] into [Greek: ouden][464] traces survive in many of the Fathers[465]: but [Symbol: Aleph] and D are the only Uncial MSS. which are known to retain that corrupt reading.—The uncouth sentence which follows ([Greek: ho gegonen en auto zoe en]), singular to relate, was generally tolerated, became established in many quarters, and meets us still at every step. It was evidently put forward so perseveringly by the Gnostics, with whom it was a kind of article of the faith, that the orthodox at last became too familiar with it. Epiphanius, though he condemns it, once employs it[466]. Occurring first in a fragment of Valentinus[467]: next, in the Commentary of Heracleon[468]: after that, in the pages of Theodotus the Gnostic (A.D. 192)[469]: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus of the tenets of the Naaeseni[470], (a subsection of the same school);—the baseness of its origin at least is undeniable. But inasmuch as the words may be made to bear a loyal interpretation, the heretical construction of St. John i. 3 was endured by the Church for full 200 years. Clemens Alex, is observed thrice to adopt it[471]: Origen[472] and Eusebius[473] fall into it repeatedly. It is found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]CD: apparently in Cod. A, where it fills one line exactly. Cyril comments largely on it[474]. But as fresh heresies arose which the depraved text seemed to favour, the Church bestirred herself and remonstrated. It suited the Arians and the Macedonians[475], who insisted that the Holy Ghost is a creature. The former were refuted by Epiphanius, who points out that the sense is not complete until you have read the words [Greek: ho gegonen]. A fresh sentence (he says) begins at [Greek: En auto zoe en][476]. Chrysostom deals with the latter. 'Let us beware of putting the full stop' (he says) 'at the words [Greek: oude hen],—as do the heretics. In order to make out that the Spirit is a creature, they read [Greek: ho gegonen en auto zoe en]: by which means the Evangelist's meaning becomes unintelligible[477].'

But in the meantime, Valentinus, whose example was followed by Theodotus and by at least two of the Gnostic sects against whom Hippolytus wrote, had gone further. The better to conceal St. John's purpose, the heresiarch falsified the inspired text. In the place of, 'What was made in Him, was life,' he substituted 'What was made in Him, is life.' Origen had seen copies so depraved, and judged the reading not altogether improbable. Clement, on a single occasion, even adopted it. It was the approved reading of the Old Latin versions,—a memorable indication, by the way, of a quarter from which the Old Latin derived their texts,—which explains why it is found in Cyprian, Hilary, and Augustine; and why Ambrose has so elaborately vindicated its sufficiency. It also appears in the Sahidic and in Cureton's Syriac; but not in the Peshitto, nor in the Vulgate. [Nor in the Bohairic] In the meantime, the only Greek Codexes which retain this singular trace of the Gnostic period at the present day, are Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and D.

Sec. 4.

[We may now take some more instances to shew the effects of the operations of Heretics.]

The good Shepherd in a certain place (St. John x. 14, 15) says concerning Himself—'I know My sheep and am known of Mine, even as the Father knoweth Me and I know the Father': by which words He hints at a mysterious knowledge as subsisting between Himself and those that are His. And yet it is worth observing that whereas He describes the knowledge which subsists between the Father and the Son in language which implies that it is strictly identical on either side, He is careful to distinguish between the knowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator by slightly varying the expression,—thus leaving it to be inferred that it is not, neither indeed can be, on either side the same. God knoweth us with a perfect knowledge. Our so-called 'knowledge' of God is a thing different not only in degree, but in kind[478]. Hence the peculiar form which the sentence assumes[479]:—[Greek: ginosko ta ema, kai ginoskomai hypo ton emon]. And this delicate diversity of phrase has been faithfully retained all down the ages, being witnessed to at this hour by every MS. in existence except four now well known to us: viz. [Symbol: Aleph]BDL. The Syriac also retains it,—as does Macarius[480], Gregory Naz.[481], Chrysostom[482], Cyril[483], Theodoret[484], Maximus[485]. It is a point which really admits of no rational doubt: for does any one suppose that if St. John had written 'Mine own know Me,' 996 MSS. out of 1000 at the end of 1,800 years would exhibit, 'I am known of Mine'?

But in fact it is discovered that these words of our Lord experienced depravation at the hands of the Manichaean heretics. Besides inverting the clauses, (and so making it appear that such knowledge begins on the side of Man.) Manes (A.D. 261) obliterated the peculiarity above indicated. Quoting from his own fabricated Gospel, he acquaints us with the form in which these words were exhibited in that mischievous production: viz. [Greek: ginoskei me ta ema, kai ginosko ta ema]. This we learn from Epiphanius and from Basil[486]. Cyril, in a paper where he makes clear reference to the same heretical Gospel, insists that the order of knowledge must needs be the reverse of what the heretics pretended[487].—But then, it is found that certain of the orthodox contented themselves with merely reversing the clauses, and so restoring the true order of the spiritual process discussed—regardless of the exquisite refinement of expression to which attention was called at the outset. Copies must once have abounded which represented our Lord as saying, 'I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me and I know the Father'; for it is the order of the Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Lewis, Georgian, Slavonic, and Gothic, though not of the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian; and Eusebius[488], Nonnus, and even Basil[489] so read the place. But no token of this clearly corrupt reading survives in any known copy of the Gospels,—except [Symbol: Aleph]BDL. Will it be believed that nevertheless all the recent Editors of Scripture since Lachmann insist on obliterating this refinement of language, and going back to the reading which the Church has long since deliberately rejected,—to the manifest injury of the deposit? 'Many words about a trifle,'—some will be found to say. Yes, to deny God's truth is a very facile proceeding. Its rehabilitation always requires many words. I request only that the affinity between [Symbol: Aleph]BDL and the Latin copies which universally exhibit this disfigurement[490], may be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading receives no notice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers[491]].

Sec. 5.

Doctrinal.

The question of Matrimony was one of those on which the early heretics freely dogmatized. Saturninus[492] (A.D. 120) and his followers taught that marriage was a production of Hell.

We are not surprised after this to find that those places in the Gospel which bear on the relation between man and wife exhibit traces of perturbation. I am not asserting that the heretics themselves depraved the text. I do but state two plain facts: viz. (1) That whereas in the second century certain heretical tenets on the subject of Marriage prevailed largely, and those who advocated as well as those who opposed such teaching relied chiefly on the Gospel for their proofs: (2) It is accordingly found that not only does the phenomenon of 'various readings' prevail in those places of the Gospel which bear most nearly on the disputed points, but the 'readings' are exactly of that suspicious kind which would naturally result from a tampering with the text by men who had to maintain, or else to combat, opinions of a certain class. I proceed to establish what I have been saying by some actual examples[493].

St. Matt. xix. 29. [Greek: e gynaika,] —BD abc Orig.

St. Mark x. 29. [Greek: e gynaika,] —[Symbol: Aleph]BD[Symbol: Delta], abc, &c.

St. Luke xviii. 29. [Greek: e gynaika], all allow it.

[Greek: hotan de lege; hoti "pas hostis apheke gynaika," ou touto phesin, hoste aplos diaspasthai tous gamous, k.t.l.] Chrys. vii. 636 E.

[Greek: Paradeigmatisai] (in St. Matt. i. 19) is another of the expressions which have been disturbed by the same controversy. I suspect that Origen is the author (see the heading of the Scholion in Cramer's Catenae) of a certain uncritical note which Eusebius reproduces in his 'quaestiones ad Stephanum[494]' on the difference between [Greek: deigmatisai] and [Greek: paradeigmatisai]; and that with him originated the substitution of the uncompounded for the compounded verb in this place. Be that as it may, Eusebius certainly read [Greek: paradeigmatisai] (Dem. 320), with all the uncials but two (BZ): all the cursives but one (I). Will it be believed that Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort, on such slender evidence as that are prepared to reconstruct the text of St. Matthew's Gospel?

It sounds so like trifling with a reader's patience to invite his attention to an elaborate discussion of most of the changes introduced into the text by Tischendorf and his colleagues, that I knowingly pass over many hundreds of instances where I am nevertheless perfectly well aware of my own strength,—my opponent's weakness. Such discussions in fact become unbearable when the points in dispute are confessedly trivial. No one however will deny that when three consecutive words of our Lord are challenged they are worth contending for. We are invited then to believe (St. Luke xxii. 67-8) that He did not utter the bracketed words in the following sentence,—'If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I ask you, ye will not answer (Me, nor let Me go).' Now, I invite the reader to inquire for the grounds of this assertion. Fifteen of the uncials (including AD), and every known cursive, besides all the Latin and all the Syriac copies recognize the bracketed words. They are only missing in [Symbol: Aleph]BLT and their ally the Bohairic. Are we nevertheless to be assured that the words are to be regarded as spurious? Let the reader then be informed that Marcion left out seven words more (viz. all from, 'And if I ask you' to the end), and will he doubt either that the words are genuine or that their disappearance from four copies of bad character, as proved by their constant evidence, and from one version is sufficiently explained?

FOOTNOTES:

[441] [Greek: pseudonymou gnoseos] 1 Tim. vi. 20.

[442] 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.

[443] ii. 17.

[444] Acts xx. 29.

[445] Rev. ii. 6.

[446] Rev. ii. 15.

[447] Rev. ii. 13.

[448] Chiefly the Low Latin amongst them. Tradit. Text. chap. vii. p. 137.

[449] 'Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium, et suo illud nomine titulare.'—Orig. Opp. iii. 933 c: Iren. i. 23: Clem. Al. 409, 426, 506, 509, 540, 545: Tertull. c. 46: Epiph. 24: Theodor. i. 4.

[450] 'Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra' (De Praescript., ad calcem).

[451] Origen (commenting on St. Luke x. 25-28) says,—[Greek: tauta de eiretai pros tois apo Oualentinou, kai Basilidou, kai tous apo Markionos. echousi gar kai autoi tas lexeis en toi kath' heautous euangelioi]. Opp. iii. 981 A.

[452] 'Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor et Basilidem et omnes Haereticos qui vetus laniant Testamentum: tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, si saltem in novo continerent manus suas; et non auderent Christi (ut ipsi iactitant) boni Dei Filii, vel Evangelistas violare, vel Apostolos. Nunc vero, quum et Evangelia eius dissipaverint; et Apostolorum epistolas, non Apostolorum Christi fecerunt esse, sed proprias; miror quomodo sibi Christianorum nomen audeant vindicare. Ut enim de caeteris Epistolis taceam, (de quibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant, evaserunt, nonnullas integras repudiandas crediderunt); ad Timotheum videlicet utramque, ad Hebraeos, et ad Titum, quam nunc conamur exponere.' Hieron. Praef. ad Titum.

[453] 'Hi vero, qui sunt a Valentino, exsistentes extra omnem timorem, suas conscriptiones praeferentes, plura habere gloriantur, quam sint ipsa Evangelia. Siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum est, Veritatis Evangelium titulent.' Iren. iii. xi. 9.

[454] See, by all means, Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. xiii; also c. iii.

[455] 'Tanta est circa Evangelia haec firmitas, ut et ipsi haeretici testimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare doctrinam. Ebionaei etenim eo Evangelio quod est secundum Matthaeum, solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte praesumentes de Domino. Marcion autem id quod est secundum Lucam circumcidens, ex his quae adhuc servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solum existentem Deum ostenditur. Qui autem Iesum separant a Christo, et impassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Iesum dicunt, id quod secundum Marcum est praeferentes Evangelium; cum amore veritatis legentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes,' &c. Iren. iii. xi. 7.

[456] [Greek: Herakleon, ho tes Oualentinou scholes dokimotatos]. Clem. Al. p. 595. Of Heracleon it is expressly related by Origen that he depraved the text of the Gospel. Origen says (iv. 66) that Heracleon (regardless of the warning in Prov. xxx. 6) added to the text of St. John i. 3 (vii. after the words [Greek: egeneto oude en]) the words [Greek: ton en to kosmoi, kai te ktisei]. Heracleon clearly read [Greek: ho gegonen en auto zoe en]. See Orig. iv. 64. In St. John ii. 19, for [Greek: en trisi], he wrote [Greek: en trite]. He also read (St. John iv. 18) (for [Greek: pente]), [Greek: ex andras esches].

[457] Celsus having objected that believers had again and again falsified the text of the Gospel, refashioning it, in order to meet the objections of assailants, Origen replies: [Greek: Metacharaxantas de to euangelion allous ouk oida, he tous apo Markionos, kai tous apo Oualentinou, oimai de kai tous apo Loukanou. touto de legomenon ou tou logou estin egklema, alla ton tolmesanton rhadiourgesai ta euangelia]. Opp. i. 411 B.

[458] De Praesc. Haer. c. 51.

[459] [Greek: Outos de demiourgos kai poietes toude tou pantos kosmou kai ton en auto ... estai men katadeesteros tou teleiou Theou ... ate de kai gennetos on, kai ouk agennetos]. Ptolemaeus, ap. Epiph. p. 217. Heracleon saw in the nobleman of Capernaum an image of the Demiurge who, [Greek: basilikos onomasthe hoionei mikros tis basileus, hypo katholikou basileos tetagmenos epi mikras basileias], p. 373.

[460] [Greek: O Ioannes ... boulomenos eipein ten ton holon genesin, kath' en ta panta proebalen ho Pater, archen tina hypotithetai, to proton gennethen hypo tou theou, hon de kai huion Monogene kai Theon kekleken, en ho ta panta ho Pater proebale spermatikos. Hypo de toutou phesi ton Logon probeblesthai, kai en auto ten holen ton Aionon ousian, en autos hysteron emorphosen ho Logos.... Panta di' autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen; pasi gar tois met' auton Aiosi morphes kai geneseos aitios ho Logos egeneto].

[461] [Greek: En to Patri kai ek tou Patros he arche, kai ek tes arches ho Logos. Kalos oun eipen; en arche en ho Logos; en gar en to Huio. Kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon; kai gar he 'Arche; kai Theos en ho Logos, akolouthos. To gar ek Theou gennethen Theos estin].—Ibid. p. 102. Compare the Excerpt. Theod. ap. Clem. Al. c. vi. p. 968.

[462] Ap. Orig. 938. 9.

[463] So Theodotus (p. 980), and so Ptolemaeus (ap. Epiph. i. 217), and so Heracleon (ap. Orig. p. 954). Also Meletius the Semi-Arian (ap. Epiph. i. 882).

[464] See The Traditional Text, p. 113.

[465] Clem. Al. always has [Greek: oude hen] (viz. pp. 134, 156, 273, 769, 787, 803, 812, 815, 820): but when he quotes the Gnostics (p. 838) he has [Greek: ouden]. Cyril, while writing his treatise De Trinitate, read [Greek: ouden] in his copy. Eusebius, for example, has [Greek: oude hen], fifteen times; [Greek: ouden] only twice, viz. Praep. 322: Esai. 529.

[466] Opp. ii. 74.

[467] Ap. Iren. 102.

[468] Ibid. 940.

[469] Ap. Clem. Al. 968, 973.

[470] Philosoph. 107. But not when he is refuting the tenets of the Peratae: [Greek: oude hen, ho gegonen. en auto zoe estin. en auto de, phesin, he Eua gegonen, he Eua zoe]. Ibid. p. 134.

[471] Opp. 114, 218, 1009.

[472] Cels. vi. 5: Princip. II. ix. 4: IV. i. 30: In Joh. i. 22, 34: ii. 6, 10, 12, 13 bis: In Rom. iii. 10, 15: Haer. v. 151.

[473] Psalm. 146, 235, 245: Marcell. 237. Not so in Ecl. 100: Praep. 322, 540.

[474] [Greek: Anagkaios phesin, "ho gegonen, eni auto zoe en." ou monon phesi, "di autou ta panta egeneto," alla kai ei ti gegonen en en auto he zoe. tout' estin, ho monogenes tou Theo logos, he panton arche, kai systasis horaton te kai aoraton ... autos gar hyparchon he kata physin zoe, to einai kai zen kai kineisthai polytropos tois ousi charisetai]. Opp. iv. 49 e.

He understood the Evangelist to declare concerning the [Greek: Logos], that, [Greek: panta di' autou egeneto, kai en en tois genomenois hos zoe]. Ibid. 60 c.

[475] [Greek: Outoi de boulontai auto einai ktisma ktismatos. phasi gar, hoti panto di' autou gegone, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen. ara, phasi, kai to Pneuma ek ton poiematon hyparchei, epeide panta di' autou gegone]. Opp. i. 741. Which is the teaching of Eusebius, Marcell. 333-4. The Macedonians were an offshoot of the Arians.

[476] i. 778 D, 779 B. See also ii. 80.

[477] Opp. viii. 40.

[478] Consider 1 John ii. 3, 4: and read Basil ii. 188 b, c. See p. 207, note 4. Consider also Gal. iv. 9. So Cyril Al. [iv. 655 a], [Greek: kai proegno mallon he egnosthe par' hemon].

[479] Chrysostom alone seems to have noticed this:—[Greek: hina me tes gnoseos ison ton metron nomiseis, akouson pos diorthoutai auto tei epagogei; ginosko ta ema, phesi, kai ginoskomai hypo ton emon. all' ouk ise he gnosis, k.t.l.] viii. 353 d.

[480] P. 38. (Gall. vii. 26.)

[481] i. 298, 613.

[482] viii. 351, 353 d and e.

[483] iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.

[484] i. 748: iv. 374, 550.

[485] In Dionys. Ar. ii. 192.

[486] [Greek: Phesi de ho autos Manes ... ta ema probata ginoskei me, kai ginosko ta ema probata]. (Epiphan. i. 697.)—Again,—[Greek: herpasen ho hairetikos pros ten idian kataskeuen tes blasphemias. idou, phesin, eiretai; hoti ginoasousi] (lower down, [Greek: ginoskei]) [Greek: me ta ema, kai ginosko ta ema]. (Basil ii. 188 a, b.)

[487] [Greek: En taxei te oikeia kai prepodestate ton pragmaton ekasta titheis. ou gar ephe, ginoskei me ta ema, kai ginosko ta ema, all' heauton egnokata proteron eispherei ta idia probata, eith' outos gnosthesesthai phesi par auton ... ouch hemeis auton epegnokamen protoi, epegno de hemas proton autos ... ouch hemeis erxametha tou pragmatos, all' ho ek Theou Theos monogenes].—iv. 654 d, 655 a. (Note, that this passage appears in a mutilated form, viz. 121 words are omitted, in the Catena of Corderius, p. 267,—where it is wrongly assigned to Chrysostom: an instructive instance.)

[488] In Ps. 489: in Es. 509: Theoph. 185, 258, 260.

[489] ii. 188 a:—which is the more remarkable, because Basil proceeds exquisitely to shew (1886) that man's 'knowledge' of God consists in his keeping of God's Commandments. (1 John ii. 3, 4.) See p. 206, note 1.

[490] So Jerome, iv. 484: vii. 455. Strange, that neither Ambrose nor Augustine should quote the place.

[491] See Revision Revised, p. 220.

[492] Or Saturnilus—[Greek: to de gamein kai gennan apo tou Satana phesin einai]. p. 245, l. 38. So Marcion, 253.

[493] [The MS. breaks off here, with references to St. Mark x. 7, Eph. v. 31-2 (on which the Dean had accumulated a large array of references), St. Mark x. 29-30, with a few references, but no more. I have not had yet time or strength to work out the subject.]

[494] Mai, iv. 221.



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[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: 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[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?

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[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: monogenes uios]: once, [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenes uios Theos]: once, [Greek: ho monogenes uios Theou][514]: Clemens Alex., [Greek: ho monogenes 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 monogenes uios][517]: twice, [Greek: monogenes 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 monogenes 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 monogenes tou Theou logos][526]. Didymus has only [? cp. context] [Greek: ho monogenes Theos],—for which he once writes [Greek: ho monogenes Theos logos][527]. Cyril of Jer. seems to have read [Greek: ho monogenes 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.]

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[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: 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[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; anthropos 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 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[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].

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][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.

Sec. 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: 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[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 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 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 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][566] [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[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: hos kai Elias epoiese; strapheis de epetimesen autois. kai eporeuthesan eis hetepan komen][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 dokesei ton Christon pephenenai legontas].

[496] [Greek: To de paidion euxane, 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 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.