Chapter I: TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we (1)

have already furnished the reader with two notable and altogether dissimilar specimens. The first (viz. the omission of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 from certain ancient copies of the Gospel) seems to have originated in an unique circumstance. According to the Western order of the four, S. Mark occupies _the last_ place. From the earliest period it had been customary to write τέλος (“END”) after the 8th verse of his last chapter, in token that _there_ a famous ecclesiastical lection comes to a close. _Let the last leaf of one very ancient archetypal copy have begun at ver. 9; and let that last leaf have perished;—and all is plain._ A faithful copyist will have ended the Gospel perforce—as B and א have done—at S. Mark xvi. 8.... Our other example (S. Luke ii. 14) will have resulted from an accident of the most ordinary description,—as was explained at the outset.—To the foregoing, a few other specimens of erroneous readings resulting from Accident shall now be added.

(_a_) Always instructive, it is sometimes even entertaining to trace the history of a mistake which, dating from the IInd or IIIrd century, has remained without a patron all down the subsequent ages, until at last it has been suddenly taken up in our own times by an Editor of the sacred Text, and straightway palmed off upon an unlearned generation as the genuine work of the HOLY GHOST. Thus, whereas the Church has hitherto supposed that S. Paul’s company “were in all in the ship _two hundred threescore and sixteen souls_” (Acts xxvii. 37), Drs. Westcott and Hort (relying on the authority of B and the Sahidic version) insist that what S. Luke actually wrote was “_about seventy-six_.” In other words, instead of διακόσιαι ἑβδομηκονταέξ, we are invited henceforth to read ὩΣ ἑβδομηκονταέξ. What can have given rise to so formidable a discrepancy? Mere accident, we answer. First, whereas S. Luke certainly wrote ἦμεν δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαί, his last six words at some very early period underwent the familiar process of Transposition, and became, αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαὶ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ; whereby the _word_ πλοίῳ and the _numbers_ διακόσιαι ἑβδομηκονταέξ were brought into close proximity. (It is thus that Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, &c., wrongly exhibit the place.) But since “276” when represented in Greek numerals is ΣΟΣ, the inevitable consequence was that the words (written in uncials) ran thus: ΨΥΧΑΙΕΝΤΩΠΛΟΙΩΣΟΣ. Behold, the secret is out! Who sees not what has happened? There has been no intentional falsification of the text. There has been no critical disinclination to believe that “a corn-ship, presumably heavily laden, would contain so many souls,”—as an excellent judge supposes.(135) The discrepancy has been the result of sheer accident: is the merest blunder. Some IInd-century copyist connected the last letter of ΠΛΟΙΩ with the next ensuing numeral, which stands for 200 (viz. Σ); and made an _independent word_ of it, viz. ὡς—_i.e._ “about.” But when Σ (_i.e._ 200) has been taken away from ΣΟΣ (_i.e._ 276), 76 is perforce all that remains. In other words, the result of so slight a blunder has been that instead of “_two hundred_ and seventy-six” (ΣΟΣ), some one wrote ὡς ος´—_i.e._ “_about_ seventy-six.” His blunder would have been diverting had it been confined to the pages of a codex which is _full_ of blunders. When however it is adopted by the latest Editors of the N. T. (Drs. Westcott and Hort),—and by their influence has been foisted into the margin of our revised English Version—it becomes high time that we should reclaim against such a gratuitous depravation of Scripture.

All this ought not to have required explaining: the blunder is so gross,—its history so patent. But surely, had its origin been ever so obscure, the most elementary critical knowledge joined to a little mother-wit ought to convince a man that the reading ὡς ἑβδομηκονταέξ _cannot_ be trustworthy. A reading discoverable only in codex B and one Egyptian version (which was evidently executed from codices of the same corrupt type as codex B) _may always be dismissed as certainly spurious_. But further,—Although a man might of course say “about _seventy_” or “about _eighty_,” (which is how Epiphanius(136) quotes the place,) _who_ sees not that “about seventy-_six_” is an impossible expression? Lastly, the two false witnesses give divergent testimony even while they seem to be at one: for the Sahidic (or Thebaic) version arranges the words in an order _peculiar to itself_.

(_b_) Another corruption of the text, with which it is proposed henceforth to disfigure our Authorized Version, (originating like the last in sheer accident,) occurs in Acts xviii. 7. It is related concerning S. Paul, at Corinth, that having forsaken the synagogue of the Jews, “he entered into a certain man’s house _named Justus_” (ὀνόματι Ἰούστου). That this is what S. Luke wrote, is to be inferred from the fact that it is found in almost every known copy of the Acts, beginning with A D G H L P. Chrysostom—the only ancient Greek Father who quotes the place—_so_ quotes it. This is, in consequence, the reading of Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf in his 7th edition. But then, the last syllable of “name” (ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ) and the first three letters of “Justus” (ΙΟΥΣΤΟΥ), in an uncial copy, may easily get mistaken for an independent word. Indeed it only wants a horizontal stroke (at the summit of the second Ι in ΤΙΙΟΥ) to produce “Titus” (ΤΙΤΟΥ). In the Syriac and Sahidic versions accordingly, “Titus” actually stands _in place of_ “Justus,”—a reading no longer discoverable in any extant codex. As a matter of fact, the error resulted _not_ in the _substitution_ of “Titus” for “Justus,” but in the introduction of _both_ names where S. Luke wrote but one. א and E, the Vulgate, and the Coptic version, exhibit “_Titus Justus_.” And that the foregoing is a true account of the birth and parentage of “Titus” is proved by the tell-tale circumstance, that in B the letters ΤΙ and ΙΟΥ are all religiously retained, and a supernumerary letter (Τ) has been thrust in between,—the result of which is to give us one more imaginary gentleman, viz. “_Titius_ Justus;” with whose appearance,—(and he is found _nowhere_ but in codex B,)—Tischendorf in his 8th ed., with Westcott and Hort in theirs, are so captivated, that they actually give him a place in their text. It was out of compassion (we presume) for the friendless stranger “_Titus_ Justus” that our Revisionists have, in preference, promoted _him_ to honour: in which act of humanity they stand alone. Their “new Greek Text” is _the only one in existence_ in which the imaginary foreigner has been advanced to citizenship, and assigned “a local habitation and a name.” ... Those must have been wondrous drowsy days in the Jerusalem Chamber when such manipulations of the inspired text were possible!

(_c_) The two foregoing depravations grew out of the ancient practice of writing the Scriptures in uncial characters (_i.e._ in capital letters), no space being interposed between the words. Another striking instance is supplied by S. Matthew xi. 23 and S. Luke x. 15, where however the error is so transparent that the wonder is how it can ever have imposed upon any one. What makes the matter serious is, that it gives a turn to a certain Divine saying, of which it is incredible that either our SAVIOUR or His Evangelists knew anything. We have hitherto believed that the solemn words ran as follows:—“And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted (ἡ ... ὑψωθεῖσα) unto heaven, shalt be brought down (καταβιβασθήσῃ) to hell.” For this, our Revisionists invite us to substitute, in S. Luke as well as in S. Matthew,—“And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted (μὴ ... ὑψωθήσῃ;) unto heaven?” And then, in S. Matthew, (but not in S. Luke,)—“Thou shalt go down (καταβήσῃ) into Hades.” Now, what can have happened to occasion such a curious perversion of our LORD’S true utterance, and to cause Him to ask an unmeaning _question_ about the future, when He was clearly announcing a _fact_, founded on the history of the past?

A stupid blunder has been made (we answer), of which traces survive (as usual) only in the same little handful of suspicious documents. The final letter of Capernaum (Μ) by cleaving to the next ensuing letter (Η) has made an independent word (ΜΗ); which new word necessitates a change in the construction, and causes the sentence to become interrogative. And yet, fourteen of the uncial manuscripts and the whole body of the cursives know nothing of this: neither does the Peschito—nor the Gothic version: no,—nor Chrysostom,—nor Cyril,—nor ps.-Cæsarius,—nor Theodoret,—the only Fathers who quote either place. The sole witnesses for μὴ ... ὑψωθήσῃ in _both_ Gospels are א B, copies of the old Latin, Cureton’s Syriac, the Coptic, and the Æthiopic versions,—a consensus of authorities which ought to be held fatal to any reading. C joins the conspiracy in Matthew xi. 23, but not in Luke x. 15: D L consent in Luke, but not in Matthew. The Vulgate, which sided with א B in S. Matthew, forsakes them in S. Luke. In writing _both_ times καταβήσῃ (“thou shalt go down”), codex B (forsaken this time by א) is supported by a single manuscript, viz. D. But because, in Matthew xi. 23, B obtains the sanction of the Latin copies, καταβήσῃ is actually introduced into the Revised Text, and we are quietly informed in the margin that “Many ancient authorities read _be brought down_:” the truth being (as the reader has been made aware) that there are _only two manuscripts in existence which read anything else_. And (what deserves attention) those two manuscripts are convicted of having _borrowed their quotation from the Septuagint_,(137) and therefore stand self-condemned.... Were the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber all—saving the two who in their published edition insist on reading (with B and D) καταβήσῃ in both places—_all_ fast asleep when they became consenting parties to this sad mistake?

II. It is time to explain that, if the most serious depravations of Scripture are due to Accident, a vast number are unmistakably the result of DESIGN, and are very clumsily executed too. The enumeration of a few of these may prove instructive: and we shall begin with something which is found in S. Mark xi. 3. With nothing perhaps will each several instance so much impress the devout student of Scripture, as with the exquisite structure of a narrative in which corrupt readings stand self-revealed and self-condemned, the instant they are ordered to come to the front and show themselves. But the point to which we especially invite his attention is, the sufficiency of the _external evidence_ which Divine Wisdom is observed to have invariably provided for the establishment of the truth of His written Word.

(_a_) When our LORD was about to enter His capital in lowly triumph, He is observed to have given to “two of His disciples” directions well calculated to suggest the mysterious nature of the incident which was to follow. They were commanded to proceed to the entrance of a certain village,—to unloose a certain colt which they would find tied there,—and to bring the creature straightway to JESUS. Any obstacle which they might encounter would at once disappear before the simple announcement that “the LORD hath need of him.”(138) But, singular to relate, this transaction is found to have struck some third-rate IIIrd-century Critic as not altogether correct. The good man was evidently of opinion that the colt,—as soon as the purpose had been accomplished for which it had been obtained,—ought in common fairness to have been returned to “the owners thereof.” (S. Luke xix. 33.) Availing himself therefore of there being no nominative before “will send” (in S. Mark xi. 3), he assumed that it was _of Himself_ that our LORD was still speaking: feigned that the sentence is to be explained thus:—“say ye, ‘that the LORD hath need of him _and will straightway send him hither_.’ ” According to this view of the case, our SAVIOUR instructed His two Disciples to convey to the owner of the colt an undertaking from Himself _that He would send the creature back as soon as He had done with it_: would treat the colt, in short, _as a loan_. A more stupid imagination one has seldom had to deal with. But in the meantime, by way of clenching the matter, the Critic proceeded on his own responsibility to thrust into the text the word “_again_” (πάλιν). The fate of such an unauthorized accretion might have been confidently predicted. After skipping about in quest of a fixed resting-place for a few centuries (see the note at foot(139)), πάλιν has shared the invariable fate of all such spurious adjuncts to the truth of Scripture, viz.: It has been effectually eliminated from the copies. Traces of it linger on only in those untrustworthy witnesses א B C D L Δ, and about twice as many cursive copies, also of depraved type. So transparent a fabrication ought in fact to have been long since forgotten. Yet have our Revisionists not been afraid to revive it. In S. Mark xi. 3, they invite us henceforth to read, “And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The LORD hath need of him, and straightway _He_ (_i.e._ the LORD) _will send him_ BACK _hither_.” ... Of what can they have been dreaming? They cannot pretend that they have _Antiquity_ on their side: for, besides the whole mass of copies with A at their head, _both_ the Syriac, _both_ the Latin, and _both_ the Egyptian versions, the Gothic, the Armenian,—all in fact except the Æthiopic,—are against them. Even Origen, who twice inserts πάλιν,(140) twice leaves it out.(141) _Quid plura?_

(_b_) No need to look elsewhere for our next instance. A novel statement arrests attention five verses lower down: viz. that “Many spread their garments upon the way” [and why not “_in_ the way”? εἰς does not mean “upon”]; “and others, branches _which they had cut from the fields_” (S. Mark xi. 8). But how in the world could they have done _that_? They must have been clever people certainly if they “cut _branches_ from” anything except _trees_. Was it because our Revisionists felt this, that in the margin they volunteer the information, that the Greek for “branches” is in strictness “_layers of leaves_”? But what _are_ “layers of leaves”? and what _proof_ is there that στοιβάδες has that meaning? and how could “_layers of leaves_” have been suddenly procured from such a quarter? We turn to our Authorized Version, and are refreshed by the familiar and intelligible words: “And others cut down branches off the trees and strawed them in the way.” Why then has this been changed? In an ordinary sentence, consisting of 12 words, we find that 2 words have been substituted for other 2; that 1 has undergone modification; that 5 have been ejected. _Why_ is all this? asks the unlearned Reader. He shall be told.

An instance is furnished us of the perplexity which a difficult word sometimes occasioned the ancients, as well as of the serious consequences which have sometimes resulted therefrom to the text of Scripture itself. S. Matthew, after narrating that “a very great multitude spread their garments in the way,” adds, “others cut branches (κλάδους) from the trees and strawed them in the way.”(142) But would not branches of any considerable size have impeded progress, inconveniently encumbering the road? No doubt they would. Accordingly, as S. Mark (with S. Matthew’s Gospel before him) is careful to explain, they were _not_ “branches of any considerable size,” but “leafy twigs”—“_foliage_,” in fact it was—“cut from the trees and strawed in the way.” The word, however, which he employs (στοιβάδας) is an unique word—very like another of similar sound (στιβάδας), yet distinct from it in sense, if not in origin. Unfortunately, all this was not understood in a highly uncritical and most licentious age. With the best intentions, (for the good man was only seeking to reconcile two inconvenient parallel statements,) some Revisionist of the IInd century, having convinced himself that the latter word (στιβάδας) might with advantage take the place of S. Mark’s word (στοιβάδας), substituted this for that. In consequence, it survives to this day in nine uncial copies headed by א B. But then, στιβάς does not mean “a branch” _at all_; no, nor a “layer of leaves” either; but _a pallet_—_a floor-bed_, in fact, of the humblest type, constructed of grass, rushes, straw, brushwood, leaves, or any similar substance. On the other hand, because such materials are not obtainable _from trees_ exactly, the ancient Critic judged it expedient further to change δένδρων into ἀγρῶν (“_fields_”). Even this was not altogether satisfactory. Στιβάς, as explained already, in strictness means a “bed.” Only by a certain amount of license can it be supposed to denote the materials of which a bed is composed; whereas the Evangelist speaks of something “strawn.” _The self-same copies_, therefore, which exhibit “_fields_” (in lieu of “_trees_”), by introducing a slight change in the construction (κόψαντες for ἔκοπτον), and _omitting_ the words “and strawed them in the way,” are observed—after a summary fashion of their own, (with which, however, readers of B א D are only too familiar)—to dispose of this difficulty by putting it nearly out of sight. The only result of all this misplaced officiousness is a miserable travestie of the sacred words:—ἄλλοι δὲ στιβάδας, κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν: 7 words in place of 12!

But the calamitous circumstance is that the Critics have all to a man fallen into the trap. True, that Origen (who once writes στοιβάδας and once στιβάδας), as well as the two Egyptian versions, side with א B C L Δ in reading ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν: but then _both versions_ (with C) _decline to alter the construction_ of the sentence; and (with Origen) _decline to omit the clause_ ἐστρώννυον εἰς τὴν ὁδόν: while, against this little band of disunited witnesses, are marshalled all the remaining fourteen uncials, headed by A D—the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac; the Italic, the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Æthiopic as well as the Slavonic versions, besides the whole body of the cursives. Whether therefore Antiquity, Variety, Respectability of witnesses, numbers, or the reason of the thing be appealed to, the case of our opponents breaks hopelessly down. Does any one seriously suppose that, if S. Mark had written the common word στΙβάδας, so vast a majority of the copies at this day would exhibit the improbable στΟΙβάδας? Had the same S. Mark expressed nothing else but ΚΌΨΑΝΤΕΣ ἐκ τῶν ἈΓΡΩ´Ν, will any one persuade us that _every copy in existence but five_ would present us with ἜΚΟΠΤΟΝ ἐκ τῶν ΔΈΝΔΡΩΝ, καὶ ἘΣΤΡΏΝΝΥΟΝ ἘΙΣ ΤῊΝ ὉΔΌΝ? And let us not be told that there has been Assimilation here. There has been none. S. Matthew (xxi. 8) writes ἈΠῸ τῶν δένδρον ... ἘΝ τῇ ὡδῷ: S. Mark (xi. 8), ἘΚ τῶν δένδρων ... ἘΙΣ τὴν ὁδόν. The types are distinct, and have been faithfully retained all down the ages. The common reading is certainly correct. The Critics are certainly in error. And we exclaim (surely not without good reason) against the hardship of thus having an exploded corruption of the text of Scripture furbished up afresh and thrust upon us, after lying deservedly forgotten for upwards of a thousand years.

(_c_) Take a yet grosser specimen, which has nevertheless imposed just as completely upon our Revisionists. It is found in S. Luke’s Gospel (xxiii. 45), and belongs to the history of the Crucifixion. All are aware that as, at the typical redemption out of Egypt, there had been a preternatural darkness over the land for three days,(143) so, preliminary to the actual Exodus of “the Israel of GOD,” “there was darkness over all the land” for three hours.(144) S. Luke adds the further statement,—“_And the sun was darkened_” (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος). Now the proof that this is what S. Luke actually wrote, is the most obvious and conclusive possible. Ἐσκοτίσθη is found in all the most ancient documents. Marcion(145) (whose date is A.D. 130-50) so exhibits the place:—besides the old Latin(146) and the Vulgate:—the Peschito, Cureton’s, and the Philoxenian Syriac versions:—the Armenian,—the Æthiopic,—the Georgian,—and the Slavonic.—Hippolytus(147) (A.D. 190-227),—Athanasius,(148)—Ephraem Syr.,(149)—Theodore Mops.,(150)—Nilus the monk,(151)—Severianus, (in a homily preserved in Armenian, p. 439,)—Cyril of Alexandria,(152)—the apocryphal _Gospel of Nicodemus_—and the _Anaphora Pilati_,(153)—are all witnesses to the same effect. Add the _Acta Pilati_(154)—and the Syriac _Acts of the Apostles_.(155)—Let it suffice of the Latins to quote Tertullian.(156)—But the most striking evidence is the consentient testimony of the manuscripts, viz. _all the uncials_ but 3 and-a-half, and _every known Evangelium_.

That the darkness spoken of was a divine portent—_not_ an eclipse of the sun, but an incident wholly out of the course of nature—the ancients clearly recognize. Origen,(157)—Julius Africanus(158) (A.D. 220),—Macarius Magnes(159) (A.D. 330),—are even eloquent on the subject. Chrysostom’s evidence is unequivocal.(160) It is, nevertheless, well known that this place of S. Luke’s Gospel was tampered with from a very early period; and that Origen(161) (A.D. 186-253), and perhaps Eusebius,(162) employed copies which had been depraved. In some copies, writes Origen, instead of “and the sun was darkened” (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος), is found “the sun having become eclipsed” (τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος). He points out with truth that the thing spoken of is a physical impossibility, and delivers it as his opinion that the corruption of the text was due either to some friendly hand in order to _account for_ the darkness; or else, (which he,(163) and Jerome(164) after him, thought more likely,) to the enemies of Revelation, who sought in this way to provide themselves with a pretext for cavil. Either way, Origen and Jerome elaborately assert that ἐσκοτίσθη is the only true reading of S. Luke xxiii. 45. Will it be believed that this gross fabrication—for no other reason but because it is found in א B L, and probably once existed in C(165)—has been resuscitated in 1881, and foisted into the sacred Text by our Revisionists?

It would be interesting to have this proceeding of theirs explained. _Why_ should the truth dwell exclusively(166) with א B L? It cannot be pretended that between the IVth and Vth centuries, when the copies א B were made, and the Vth and VIth centuries, when the copies A Q D R were executed, this corruption of the text arose: for (as was explained at the outset) the reading in question (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος) is found in all the oldest and most famous documents. Our Revisionists cannot take their stand on “Antiquity,”—for as we have seen, _all the Versions_ (with the single exception of the Coptic(167)),—and the oldest Church writers, (Marcion, Origen, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Ephraem, &c.,) are _all_ against them.—They cannot advance the claim of “clearly preponderating evidence;” for they have but a single Version,—_not_ a single Father,—and but three-and-a-half Evangelia to appeal to, out of perhaps three hundred and fifty times that number.—They cannot pretend that essential probability is in favour of the reading of א B; seeing that the thing stated is astronomically impossible.—They will not tell us that critical opinion is with them: for their judgment is opposed to that of every Critic ancient and modern, except Tischendorf since his discovery of codex א.—Of what nature then will be their proof?... _Nothing_ results from the discovery that א reads τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος, B ἐκλείποντος,—except that those two codices are of the same corrupt type as those which Origen deliberately condemned 1650 years ago. In the meantime, with more of ingenuity than of ingenuousness, our Revisionists attempt to conceal the foolishness of the text of their choice by translating it unfairly. They present us with, “_the sun’s light failing_.” But this is a gloss of their own. There is no mention of “the sun’s _light_” in the Greek. Nor perhaps, if the rationale of the original expression were accurately ascertained, would such a paraphrase of it prove correct(168). But, in fact, the phrase ἔκλειψις ἡλίου means “an eclipse of the sun” and _no other thing_. In like manner, τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος(169) (as our Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means “_the sun becoming eclipsed_,” or “_suffering eclipse_.” It is easy for Revisionists to “emphatically deny that there is anything in the Greek word ἐκλείπειν, when associated with the sun, which involves necessarily the notion of an eclipse.”(170) The _fact_ referred to may not be so disposed of. It lies outside the province of “emphatic denial.” Let them ask any Scholar in Europe what τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος means; and see if he does not tell them that it can _only_ mean, “the sun _having become eclipsed_”! They know this every bit as well as their Reviewer. And they ought either to have had the manliness to render the words faithfully, or else the good sense to let the Greek alone,—which they are respectfully assured was their only proper course. Καί ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος is, in fact, clearly above suspicion. Τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος, which these learned men (with the best intentions) have put in its place, is, to speak plainly, a transparent fabrication. That it enjoys “_clearly preponderating evidence_,” is what no person, fair or unfair, will for an instant venture to pretend.

III. Next, let us produce an instance of depravation of Scripture resulting from the practice of ASSIMILATION, which prevailed anciently to an extent which baffles arithmetic. We choose the most famous instance that presents itself.

(_a_) It occurs in S. Mark vi. 20, and is more than unsuspected. The substitution (on the authority of א B L and the Coptic) of ἠπόρει for ἐποίει in that verse, (_i.e._ the statement that Herod “was much _perplexed_,”—instead of Herod “_did_ many things,”) is even vaunted by the Critics as the recovery of the true reading of the place—long obscured by the “very singular expression” ἐποίει. To ourselves the only “very singular” thing is, how men of first-rate ability can fail to see that, on the contrary, the proposed substitute is simply fatal to the SPIRIT’S teaching in this place. “Common sense is staggered by such a rendering,” (remarks the learned Bishop of Lincoln). “People are not wont to _hear gladly_ those by whom they are _much perplexed_.”(171) But in fact, the sacred writer’s object clearly is, to record the striking circumstance that Herod was so moved by the discourses of John, (whom he used to “listen to with pleasure,”) that he even “_did many things_” (πολλὰ ἐποίει) _in conformity with the Baptist’s teaching_.(172)... And yet, if this be so, how (we shall be asked) has “he was much perplexed” (πολλὰ ἠπόρει) contrived to effect a lodgment in _so many as three_ copies of the second Gospel?

It has resulted from nothing else, we reply, but the determination to assimilate a statement of S. Mark (vi. 20) concerning Herod and John the Baptist, with another and a distinct statement of S. Luke (ix. 7), having reference to Herod and our LORD. S. Luke, speaking of the fame of our SAVIOUR’S miracles at a period subsequent to the Baptist’s murder, declares that when Herod “heard _all things that were done_ BY HIM” (ἤκουσε τὰ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντα), “he _was much perplexed_” (διηπόρει).—Statements so entirely distinct and diverse from one another as _this_ of S. Luke, and _that_ (given above) of S. Mark, might surely (one would think) have been let alone. On the contrary. A glance at the foot of the page will show that in the IInd century S. Mark’s words were solicited in all sorts of ways. A persistent determination existed to make him say that Herod having “heard of _many things which _THE BAPTIST_ did_,” &c.(173)—a strange perversion of the Evangelist’s meaning, truly, and only to be accounted for in one way.(174)

Had this been _all_, however, the matter would have attracted no attention. One such fabrication more or less in the Latin version, which abounds in fabricated readings, is of little moment. But then, the Greek scribes had recourse to a more subtle device for assimilating Mark vi. 20 to Luke ix. 7. They perceived that S. Mark’s ἐποίει might be almost identified with S. Luke’s διηπόρει, by _merely changing two of the letters_, viz. by substituting η for ε and ρ for ι. From this, there results in S. Mk. vi. 20: “and having heard many things of him, _he was perplexed_;” which is very nearly identical with what is found in S. Lu. ix. 7. This fatal substitution (of ἠπόρει for ἐποίει) survives happily only in codices א B L and the Coptic version—all of bad character. But (calamitous to relate) the Critics, having disinterred this long-since-forgotten fabrication, are making vigorous efforts to galvanize it, at the end of fifteen centuries, into ghastly life and activity. We venture to assure them that they will not succeed. Herod’s “perplexity” did not begin until John had been beheaded, and the fame reached Herod of the miracles which our SAVIOUR wrought. The apocryphal statement, now for the first time thrust into an English copy of the New Testament, may be summarily dismissed. But the marvel will for ever remain that a company of distinguished Scholars (A.D. 1881) could so effectually persuade themselves that ἐποίει (in S. Mark vi. 20) is a “_plain and clear error_,” and that there is “_decidedly preponderating evidence_” in favour of ἠπόρει,—as to venture to _substitute the latter word for the former_. This will for ever remain a marvel, we say; seeing that _all the uncials_ except three of bad character, together with _every known cursive without exception_;—the old Latin and the Vulgate, the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, Æthiopic, Slavonian and Georgian versions,—are with the traditional Text. (The Thebaic, the Gothic, and Cureton’s Syriac are defective here. The ancient Fathers are silent.)

IV. More serious in its consequences, however, than any other source of mischief which can be named, is the process of MUTILATION, to which, from the beginning, the Text of Scripture has been subjected. By the “Mutilation” of Scripture we do but mean the intentional Omission—_from whatever cause proceeding_—of genuine portions. And the causes of it have been numerous as well as diverse. Often, indeed, there seems to have been at work nothing else but a strange passion for getting rid of whatever portions of the inspired Text have seemed to anybody superfluous,—or at all events have appeared capable of being removed without manifest injury to the sense. But the estimate of the tasteless IInd-century Critic will never be that of the well-informed Reader, furnished with the ordinary instincts of piety and reverence. This barbarous mutilation of the Gospel, by the unceremonious excision of a multitude of little words, is often attended by no worse consequence than that thereby an extraordinary baldness is imparted to the Evangelical narrative. The removal of so many of the coupling-hooks is apt to cause the curtains of the Tabernacle to hang wondrous ungracefully; but often _that_ is all. Sometimes, however, (as might have been confidently anticipated,) the result is calamitous in a high degree. Not only is the beauty of the narrative effectually marred, (as _e.g._ by the barbarous excision of καί—εὐθέως—μετὰ δακρύων—Κύριε, from S. Mark ix. 24):(175)—the doctrinal teaching of our SAVIOUR’S discourses in countless places, damaged, (as _e.g._ by the omission of καὶ νηστείᾳ from verse 29):—absurd expressions attributed to the Holy One which He certainly never uttered, (as _e.g._ by truncating of its last word the phrase τό, Εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι in verse 23):—but (I.) The narrative is often rendered in a manner unintelligible; or else (II.), The entire point of a precious incident is made to disappear from sight; or else (III.), An imaginary incident is fabricated: or lastly (IV.), Some precious saying of our Divine LORD is turned into absolute nonsense. Take a single short example of what has last been offered, from each of the Gospels in turn.

(I.) In S. Matthew xiv. 30, we are invited henceforth to submit to the information concerning Simon Peter, that “_when he saw the wind_, he was afraid.” The sight must have been peculiar, certainly. So, indeed, is the expression. But Simon Peter was as unconscious of the one as S. Matthew of the other. Such curiosities are the peculiar property of codices א B—the Coptic version—and the Revisionists. The predicate of the proposition (viz. “_that it was strong_,” contained in the single word ἰσχυρόν) has been wantonly excised. That is all!—although Dr. Hort succeeded in persuading his colleagues to the contrary. A more solemn—a far sadder instance, awaits us in the next Gospel.

(II.) The first three Evangelists are careful to note “the _loud_ cry” with which the Redeemer of the World expired. But it was reserved for S. Mark (as Chrysostom pointed out long since) to record (xv. 39) the memorable circumstance that _this particular portent_ it was, which wrought conviction in the soul of the Roman soldier whose office it was to be present on that terrible occasion. The man had often witnessed death by Crucifixion, and must have been well acquainted with its ordinary phenomena. Never before had he witnessed anything like this. He was stationed where he could see and hear all that happened: “standing” (S. Mark says) “near” our SAVIOUR,—“_over against Him_.” “Now, when the Centurion saw that it was _after so crying out_ (κράξας), that He expired” (xv. 39) he uttered the memorable words, “Truly this man _was_ the SON OF GOD!” “What chiefly moved him to make that confession of his faith was that our SAVIOUR evidently died _with power_.”(176) “The miracle” (says Bp. Pearson) “was not in the death, but _in the voice_. The strangeness was not that He should die, but that at the point of death He should _cry out so loud_. He died not by, but with a Miracle.”(177) ... All this however is lost in א B L, which literally _stand alone_(178) in leaving out the central and only important word, κράξας. Calamitous to relate, they are followed herein by our Revisionists: who (misled by Dr. Hort) invite us henceforth to read,—“Now when the Centurion saw _that He so gave up the ghost_.”

(III.) In S. Luke xxiii. 42, by leaving out two little words (τω and _κε_), the same blind guides, under the same blind guidance, effectually misrepresent the record concerning the repentant malefactor. Henceforth they would have us believe that “he said, ‘JESUS, remember me when thou comest in thy Kingdom.’ ” (Dr. Hort was fortunately unable to persuade the Revisionists to follow him in further substituting “_into_ thy kingdom” for “_in_ thy kingdom;” and so converting what, in the A. V., is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation,(179) into what would have been an indelible blot. The record of his discomfiture survives in the margin). Whereas none of the Churches of Christendom have ever yet doubted that S. Luke’s record is, that the dying man “said _unto _JESUS, LORD, remember me,” &c.

(IV.) In S. John xiv. 4, by eliminating the second καί and the second οἴδατε, our SAVIOUR is now made to say, “And whither I go, _ye know the way_;” which is really almost nonsense. What He actually said was, “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;” _in consequence of which_ (as we all remember) “Thomas saith unto Him, LORD, we know not ‘whither’ Thou goest, and how can we know ‘the way’?” ... Let these four samples suffice of a style of depravation with which, at the end of 1800 years, it is deliberately proposed to disfigure every page of the everlasting Gospel; and for which, were it tolerated, the Church would have to thank no one so much as Drs. Westcott and Hort.

We cannot afford, however, so to dismiss the phenomena already opened up to the Reader’s notice. For indeed, this astonishing taste for mutilating and maiming the Sacred Deposit, is perhaps the strangest phenomenon in the history of Textual Criticism.

It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has disappeared from codices א B L. The reader may not be displeased to listen to an anecdote which has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:—

“I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,”—(the words are Jerome’s in a letter to Nepotianus),—“to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke’s expression σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, literally the ‘_second-first_ sabbath.’ ‘I will tell you all about it in church,’ he replied. ‘The congregation shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,—either to stand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do not.’ ” But “_eleganter lusit_,” says Jerome(180). The point of the joke was this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word δευτερόπρωτον that the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods, quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [A.D. 360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370].

Ambrose(181) of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius(182) of Cyprus [370] does the same;—and so, Isidorus(183) [400] called “Pelusiota” after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius(184) also volunteers remarks on the word [A.D. 400?].—It is further explained in the _Paschal Chronicle_,(185)—and by Chrysostom(186) [370] at Antioch.—“_Sabbatum secundo-primum_” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to _its place in the Gospel_. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in _every codex extant_ except א B L, and half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got _omitted_ from a few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have _established itself universally_, if it were actually spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept _proclivi scriptioni præstat ardua_. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very consideration.(187) It got excised, however, here and there from manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke’s famous “second-first Sabbath” has been _thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists_.

But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex B (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex א,—3455 words: by codex D,—3704 words.(188)

As interesting a set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with, occurs within the compass of the last three chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel, from which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our Revisionists, or else served with “notice to quit.” We proceed to specify the chief of these:—

(1) S. Luke xxii. 19, 20. (Account of the Institution of the Sacrament of the LORD’S Supper,—from “which is given for you” to the end,—32 words.)

(2) _ibid._ 43, 44. (Our SAVIOUR’S Agony in the garden,—26 words.)

(3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passover,—8 words.)

(4) _ibid._ 34. (Our LORD’S prayer on behalf of His murderers,—12 words.)

(5) _ibid._ 38. (The record that the title on the Cross was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,—7 words.)

(6) xxiv. 1. (“and certain with them,”—4 words.)

(7) _ibid._ 3. (“of the LORD JESUS,”—3 words.)

(8) _ibid._ 6. (“He is not here, but He is risen,”—5 words.)

(9) _ibid._ 9. (“from the sepulchre,”—3 words.)

(10) _ibid._ 12. (The mention of S. Peter’s visit to the sepulchre,—22 words.)

(11) _ibid._ 36. (“and saith unto them, Peace be unto you!”—5 words.)

(12) _ibid._ 40. (“and when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet,”—10 words.)

(13) _ibid._ 42. (“and of an honeycomb,”—4 words.)

(14) _ibid._ 51. (“and was carried up into Heaven,”—5.)

(15) _ibid._ 52. (“worshipped Him,”—2 words.)

(16) _ibid._ 53. (“praising and,”—2 words.)

On an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances of unauthorized Omission, it will be perceived that the 1st passage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20) must have been eliminated from the Text because the mention of _two_ Cups seemed to create a difficulty.—The 2nd has been suppressed because (see p. 82) the incident was deemed derogatory to the majesty of GOD Incarnate.—The 3rd and 5th were held to be superfluous, because the information which they contain has been already conveyed by the parallel passages.—The 10th will have been omitted as apparently inconsistent with the strict letter of S. John xx. 1-10.—The 6th and 13th are certainly instances of enforced Harmony.—Most of the others (the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to have been excised through mere wantonness,—the veriest licentiousness.—In the meantime, so far are Drs. Westcott and Hort from accepting the foregoing account of the matter, that they even style the 1st “a _perverse interpolation_:” in which view of the subject, however, they enjoy the distinction of standing entirely alone. With the same “moral certainty,” they further proceed to shut up within double brackets the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th: while the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 13th, and 16th, they exclude from their Text as indisputably spurious matter.

Now, we are not about to abuse our Readers’ patience by an investigation of the several points raised by the foregoing statement. In fact, all should have been passed by in silence, but that unhappily the “Revision” of our Authorized Version is touched thereby very nearly indeed. So intimate (may we not say, _so fatal_?) proves to be the sympathy between the labours of Drs. Westcott and Hort and those of our Revisionists, _that whatever the former have shut up within double brackets, the latter are discovered to have branded with a note of suspicion_, conceived invariably in the same terms: viz., “Some ancient authorities omit.” And further, _whatever those Editors have rejected from their Text, these Revisionists have rejected also_. It becomes necessary, therefore, briefly to enquire after the precise amount of manuscript authority which underlies certain of the foregoing changes. And happily this may be done in a few words.

The _sole_ authority for just half of the places above enumerated(189) is _a single Greek codex_,—and that, the most depraved of all,—viz. Beza’s D.(190) It should further be stated that the only allies discoverable for D are a few copies of the old Latin. What we are saying will seem scarcely credible: but it is a plain fact, of which any one may convince himself who will be at the pains to inspect the critical apparatus at the foot of the pages of Tischendorf’s last (8th) edition. Our Revisionists’ notion, therefore, of what constitutes “weighty evidence” is now before the Reader. If, in _his_ judgment, the testimony of _one single manuscript_, (and _that_ manuscript the Codex Bezæ (D),)—does really invalidate that of _all other Manuscripts and all other Versions_ in the world,—then of course, the Greek Text of the Revisionists will in his judgment be a thing to be rejoiced over. But what if he should be of opinion that such testimony, in and by itself, is simply worthless? We shrewdly suspect that the Revisionists’ view of what constitutes “weighty Evidence” will be found to end where it began, viz. in the Jerusalem Chamber.

For, when we reach down codex D from the shelf, we are reminded that, within the space of the three chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel now under consideration, there are in all no less than 354 words omitted; _of which_, 250 _are omitted by_ D _alone_. May we have it explained to us why, of those 354 words, only 25 are singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for permanent excision from the sacred Text? Within the same compass, no less than 173 words have been _added by_ D to the commonly Received Text,—146, _substituted_,—243, _transposed_. May we ask how it comes to pass that of those 562 words _not one_ has been promoted to their margin by the Revisionists?... Return we, however, to our list of the changes which they actually _have_ effected.

(1) Now, that ecclesiastical usage and the parallel places would seriously affect such precious words as are found in S. Luke xxii. 19, 20,—was to have been expected. Yet has the type been preserved all along, from the beginning, with singular exactness; except in one little handful of singularly licentious documents, viz. in D a ff2 i l, which _leave all out_;—in b e, which substitute verses 17 and 18;—and in “the singular and sometimes rather wild Curetonian Syriac Version,”(191) which, retaining the 10 words of ver. 19, substitutes verses 17, 18 for ver. 20. Enough for the condemnation of D survives in Justin,(192)—Basil,(193)—Epiphanius,(194)—Theodoret,(195)—Cyril,(196)—Maximus,(197)—Jerome.(198) But why delay ourselves concerning a place vouched for _by every known copy of the Gospels except_ D? Drs. Westcott and Hort entertain “_no moral doubt_ that the [32] words [given at foot(199)] were absent from the original text of S. Luke;” in which opinion, happily, _they stand alone_. But why did our Revisionists suffer themselves to be led astray by such blind guidance?

The next place is entitled to far graver attention, and may on no account be lightly dismissed, seeing that these two verses contain the sole record of that “Agony in the Garden” which the universal Church has almost erected into an article of the Faith.

(2) That the incident of the ministering Angel, the Agony and bloody sweat of the world’s Redeemer (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44), was anciently absent from certain copies of the Gospels, is expressly recorded by Hilary,(200) by Jerome,(201) and others. Only necessary is it to read the apologetic remarks which Ambrose introduces when he reaches S. Luke xxii. 43,(202) to understand what has evidently led to this serious mutilation of Scripture,—traces of which survive at this day exclusively in _four_ codices, viz. A B R T. Singular to relate, in the Gospel which was read on Maundy-Thursday these two verses of S. Luke’s Gospel are thrust in between the 39th and the 40th verses of S. Matthew xxvi. Hence, 4 cursive copies, viz. 13-69-124-346—(confessedly derived from a common ancient archetype,(203) and therefore not four witnesses but only one),—actually exhibit these two Verses in that place. But will any unprejudiced person of sound mind entertain a doubt concerning the genuineness of these two verses, witnessed to as they are by _the whole body of the Manuscripts_, uncial as well as cursive, and _by every ancient Version_?... If such a thing were possible, it is hoped that the following enumeration of ancient Fathers, who distinctly recognize the place under discussion, must at least be held to be decisive:—viz.

Justin M.,(204)—Irenæus(205) in the IInd century:—

Hippolytus,(206)—Dionysius Alex.,(207)—ps. Tatian,(208) in the IIIrd.—

Arius,(209)—Eusebius,(210)—Athanasius,(211)—Ephraem Syr.,(212)—Didymus,(213)—Gregory Naz.,(214)—Epiphanius,(215)—Chrysostom,(216)—ps.-Dionysius Areop.,(217) in the IVth:—

Julian the heretic,(218)—Theodoras Mops.,(219)—Nestorius,(220)—Cyril Alex.,(221)—Paulus, bishop of Emesa,(222)—Gennadius,(223)—Theodoret,(224)—and several Oriental Bishops (A.D. 431),(225) in the Vth:—besides Ps.-Cæsarius,(226)—Theodosius Alex.,(227)—John Damascene,(228)—Maximus,(229)—Theodorus hæret.,(230)—Leontius Byz.,(231)—Anastasius Sin.,(232)—Photius:(233) and of the Latins, Hilary,(234)—Jerome,(235)—Augustine,(236)—Cassian,(237)—Paulinus,(238)—Facundus.(239)

It will be seen that we have been enumerating _upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom_, who recognize these verses as genuine; fourteen of them being as old,—some of them, a great deal older,—than our oldest MSS.—_Why_ therefore Drs. Westcott and Hort should insist on shutting up these 26 precious words—this article of the Faith—in double brackets, in token that it is “morally certain” that verses 43 and 44 are of spurious origin, we are at a loss to divine.(240) We can but ejaculate (in the very words they proceed to disallow),—“FATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” But our especial concern is with _our Revisionists_; and we do not exceed our province when we come forward to reproach them sternly for having succumbed to such evil counsels, and deliberately branded these Verses with their own corporate expression of doubt. For unless _that_ be the purpose of the marginal Note which they have set against these verses, we fail to understand the Revisers’ language and are wholly at a loss to divine what purpose that note of theirs can be meant to serve. It is prefaced by a formula which, (as we learn from their own Preface,) offers to the reader the “alternative” of _omitting_ the Verses in question: implies that “_it would not be safe_” any longer to accept them,—as the Church has hitherto done,—with undoubting confidence. In a word,—_it brands them with suspicion_.... We have been so full on this subject,—(not half of our references were known to Tischendorf,)—because of the unspeakable preciousness of the record; and because we desire to see an end at last to expressions of doubt and uncertainty on points which really afford not a shadow of pretence for either. These two Verses were excised through mistaken piety by certain of the orthodox,—jealous for the honour of their LORD, and alarmed by the use which the impugners of His GODhead freely made of them.(241) Hence Ephraem [_Carmina Nisibena_, p. 145] puts the following words into the mouth of Satan, addressing the host of Hell:—“One thing I witnessed in Him which especially comforts me. I saw Him praying; and I rejoiced, for His countenance changed and He was afraid. _His sweat was drops of blood_, for He had a presentiment that His day had come. This was the fairest sight of all,—unless, to be sure, He was practising deception on me. For verily if He hath deceived me, then it is all over,—both with me, and with you, my servants!”

(4) Next in importance after the preceding, comes the Prayer which the SAVIOUR of the World breathed from the Cross on behalf of His murderers (S. Luke xxiii. 34). These twelve precious words,—(“Then said JESUS, FATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do,”)—like those twenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been considering already, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of the “moral certainty” they entertain that the words are spurious.(242) And yet these words are found in _every known uncial_ and in _every known cursive Copy_, except four; besides being found _in every ancient Version_. And _what_,—(we ask the question with sincere simplicity,)—_what_ amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting confidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence of Authorities as this?... We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from Internal Evidence. True, that “few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the Truth of what they record, than this.” (It is the admission of the very man(243) who has nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But we reject his loathsome patronage with indignation. “Internal Evidence,”—“Transcriptional Probability,”—and all such “chaff and draff,” with which he fills his pages _ad nauseam_, and mystifies nobody but himself,—shall be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is forsaken thereby. How then about the _Patristic_ evidence,—for this is all that remains unexplored?

Only a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf. We find our SAVIOUR’S Prayer attested,—

In the IInd century by Hegesippus,(244)—and by Irenæus:(245)—

In the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,(246)—by Origen,(247)—by the _Apostolic Constitutions_,(248)—by the _Clementine Homilies_,(249)—by ps.-Tatian,(250)—and by the disputation of Archelaus with Manes:(251)—

In the IVth, by Eusebius,(252)—by Athanasius,(253)—by Gregory Nyss.,(254)—by Theodoras Herac.,(255)—by Basil,(256)—by Chrysostom,(257)—by Ephraem Syr.,(258)—by ps.-Ephraim,(259)—by ps.-Dionysius Areop.,(260)—by the Apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,(261)—by the _Acta Philippi_,(262)—and by the Syriac _Acts of the App._,(263)—by ps.-Ignatius,(264)—and ps.-Justin:(265)—

In the Vth, by Theodoret,(266)—by Cyril,(267)—by Eutherius:(268)

In the VIth, by Anastasius Sin.,(269)—by Hesychius:(270)—

In the VIIth, by Antiochus mon.,(271)—by Maximus,(272)—by Andreas Cret.:(273)—

In the VIIIth, by John Damascene,(274)—besides ps.-Chrysostom,(275)—ps. Amphilochius,(276)—and the _Opus imperf._(277)

Add to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to the front),—Ambrose,(278)—Hilary,(279)—Jerome,(280)—Augustine,(281)—and other earlier writers.(282)

We have thus again enumerated _upwards of forty_ ancient Fathers. And again we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12 words? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such counter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony from every part of ancient Christendom:—viz: “B D, 38, 435, a b d and one Egyptian version”—might really have been mistaken for a _mauvaise plaisanterie_, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually precludes the supposition. How could our Revisionists _dare_ to insinuate doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were _bound_ to know, there exists _no manner of doubt at all_?