(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 antic.i.p.ated 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 pa.s.sage 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 Pes.h.i.tto, 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 ma.s.s 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 surrept.i.tiously 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 ill.u.s.tration is here afforded of the amount of consensus which subsists between doc.u.ments of the oldest cla.s.s. 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 Pes.h.i.tto, 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 Ant.i.theses) set pa.s.sages of the New Testament against pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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, Pes.h.i.tto, Clement, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,--not with [Symbol: Aleph]B the Vulgate or Curetonian. The second and third clauses are found with Old Latin, Vulgate, Pes.h.i.tto, 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 pa.s.sage; 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 pa.s.s 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 const.i.tutes 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.

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

[502] [Greek: Ei teleios esti Theos ho Christos, pos ho euangelistes legei, to de paidion Iesous euxane kai ekrataiouto pneumati];--S.

Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 (_ap._ Galland. vi. 17 c). And see Quaest. 30.

[503] ii. 36 d.

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

[505] [Greek: Hen ekousa para tou Theou]. Epiph. i. 463.

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

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

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

[509] i. 705.

[510] viii. 365.

[511] (Glaph.) i. 18.

[512] iv. 83, 430. But both Origen (i. 705: iv. 320, 402) and Cyril (iv.

554: v. 758) quote the traditional reading; and Cyril (iv. 549) distinctly says that the latter is right, and [Greek: para tou patros]

wrong.

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

[514] Pp. 627, 630, 466.

[515] P. 956.

[516] 'Deum nemo vidit umquam: nisi unicus filius solus, sinum patris ipse enarravit.'--(Comp. Tertullian:--'Solus filius patrem novit et sinum patris ipse exposuit' (Prax. c. 8. Cp. c. 21): but he elsewhere (ibid. c. 15) exhibits the pa.s.sage in the usual way.) Clemens writes,--[Greek: tote epopteuseis ton kolpon tou Patrus, hon ho monoogenes huios Theos monos exegesato] (956), and in the Excerpt.

Theod. we find [Greek: outos ton kolpon ton Patros exegesato ho Soter]

(969). But this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our Lord is often spoken of by the Fathers as [Greek: he dexia tou hypsistou ...

kolpos de tes dexias ho Pater]. (Greg. Nyss. i. 192.)

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

[518] Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14.

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

[520] Opp. ii. 466.

[521] Opp. iii. 23, 358.

[522] Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 ([Greek: Theos pantos ho monogenes, ho en tois kolpois on tou Patros, outos eipontos tou Ioannou]). Also ii.

432, 447, 450, 470, 506: always [Greek: en tois kolpois]. Basil, Opp.

iii. 12.

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

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