Part 5 (2/2)

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 pa.s.sed 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 ma.n.u.script 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 const.i.tutes ”weighty evidence” is now before the Reader. If, in _his_ judgment, the testimony of _one single ma.n.u.script_, (and _that_ ma.n.u.script the Codex Bezae (D),)-does really invalidate that of _all other Ma.n.u.scripts 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 const.i.tutes ”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 s.p.a.ce 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 compa.s.s, no less than 173 words have been _added by_ D to the commonly Received Text,-146, _subst.i.tuted_,-243, _transposed_. May we ask how it comes to pa.s.s 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 doc.u.ments, viz. in D a ff2 i l, which _leave all out_;-in b e, which subst.i.tute verses 17 and 18;-and in ”the singular and sometimes rather wild Curetonian Syriac Version,”(191) which, retaining the 10 words of ver. 19, subst.i.tutes 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 ent.i.tled 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 Ma.n.u.scripts_, 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)-Irenaeus(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.-Caesarius,(226)-Theodosius Alex.,(227)-John Damascene,(228)-Maximus,(229)-Theodorus haeret.,(230)-Leontius Byz.,(231)-Anastasius Sin.,(232)-Photius:(233) and of the Latins, Hilary,(234)-Jerome,(235)-Augustine,(236)-Ca.s.sian,(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 e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.e (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 succ.u.mbed 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. .h.i.therto 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 G.o.dhead freely made of them.(241) Hence Ephraem [_Carmina Nisibena_, p. 145] puts the following words into the mouth of Satan, addressing the host of h.e.l.l:-”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 n.o.body 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 Irenaeus:(245)-

In the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,(246)-by Origen,(247)-by the _Apostolic Const.i.tutions_,(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)

<script>