(_a_) D introduces the LORD'S Prayer by interpolating the following paraphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:-"_Use not vain repet.i.tions as the rest: for some suppose that they shall be heard by their much speaking. But when ye pray_" ... After which portentous exordium,

(_b_) B ? omit the 5 words, "_Our_" "_which art in heaven_," Then,

(_c_) D omits the article (t?) before "name:" and supplements the first pet.i.tion with the words "upon us" (?f? ???). It must needs also transpose the words "_Thy Kingdom_" (? as??e?a s??).

(_d_) B in turn omits the third pet.i.tion,-"_Thy will be done, as in heaven, also on the earth;_" which 11 words ? retains, but adds "_so_"

before "_also_," and omits the article (t??); finding for once an ally in A C D.

(_e_) ? D for d?d?? write d?? (from Matt.).

(_f_) ? omits the article (t?) before "_day by day._" And,

(_g_) D, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes "_this day_" (from Matt.): subst.i.tutes "_debts_" (t? ?fe???ata) for "_sins_" (t?

?a?t?ata,-also from Matt.): and in place of "_for [we] ourselves_" (?a?

??? a?t??) writes "_as also we_" (?? ?a? ?e??, again from Matt.).-But,

(_h_) ? shows its sympathy with D by accepting two-thirds of this last blunder: exhibiting "_as also [we] ourselves_" (?? ?a? a?t??).

(_i_) D consistently reads "_our debtors_" (t??? ?fe???ta?? ???) in place of "_every one that is indebted to us_" (pa?t? ?fe????t? ???).-Finally,

(_j_) B ? omit the last pet.i.tion,-"_but deliver us from evil_" (???? ??sa?

??? ?p? t?? p??????)-unsupported by A C or D. Of lesser discrepancies we decline to take account.

So then, these five "first-cla.s.s authorities" are found to throw themselves into _six different combinations_ in their departures from S.

Luke's way of exhibiting the LORD'S Prayer,-which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yet _they are never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:_ while _only once_ are more than two of them observed to stand together,-viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of 32 (out of the 45) words, _they bear in turn solitary evidence_. What need to declare that it is _certainly false_ in every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries of Bare all taken for gospel. Besides omitting the 11 words which B omits jointly with ?, Drs.

Westcott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious words which are omitted by B only. And in this way it comes to pa.s.s that the mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic reduced the LORD'S Prayer some 1730 years ago,(74) (for the mischief can all be traced back to _him!_), is palmed off on the Church of England by the Revisionists as the work of the HOLY GHOST!

(A) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning-as Dr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) does, when explaining the method and results of their labours-with what we hold to be the gravest blot of all, viz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last Twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian antic.i.p.ate that-

"The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it is marked off by a considerable s.p.a.ce from the rest of the Gospel.

A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation of this."(75)

A _very_ brief "explanation" certainly: for the note _explains_ nothing.

Allusion is made to the following words-

"The two oldest Greek ma.n.u.scripts, and some other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel."

But now,-For the use of _whom_ has this piece of information been volunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known to all, that codices B and ? _alone of ma.n.u.scripts_ (to their own effectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But then scholars know something more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have been made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300 pages,-which treatise has now been before the world for a full decade of years, and for the best of reasons has never yet been answered. Its object, stated on its t.i.tle-page, was to vindicate against recent critical objectors, and to establish "the last Twelve Verses" of S. Mark's Gospel.(76) Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author had succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.(77) _Can_ it then be right (we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust of twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be named?

The question arises,-But how did it come to pa.s.s that such evil counsels were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber? Light has been thrown on the subject by two of the New Test. company. And first by the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to describe the method which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us) was as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks-

"Whether any _Textual_ Changes are proposed? The evidence for and against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (_sic_) two members of the Company, who from their previous studies are specially ent.i.tled to speak with authority upon such questions,-Dr. Scrivener and _Dr. Hort_,-and who come prepared to enumerate particularly the authorities on either side. Dr.

Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case, and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr.

Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call for notice; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener's estimate of the weight of the evidence, gives his reasons and states his own view.

After discussion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the proposed Reading accepted or rejected. _The Text being thus settled_, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering."(78)

And thus, the men who were appointed to improve _the English Translation_ are exhibited to us remodelling _the original Greek_. At a moment's notice, as if by intuition,-by an act which can only be described as the exercise of instinct,-these eminent Divines undertake to decide which shall be deemed the genuine utterances of the HOLY GHOST,(79)-which _not_.

Each is called upon to give his vote, and he gives it. "_The Text being thus settled_" they proceed to do the only thing they were originally appointed to do; viz. to try their hands at improving our Authorized Version. But we venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such "rough and ready" process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical problems-the truth of Scripture-to be "settled."

Sir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description above given "of the process by which the Revisionists 'settled' the Greek alterations, is not a kind of joke, it is quite enough to 'settle' this Revised Greek Testament in a very different sense."(80) And so, in truth, it clearly is.-"Such a proceeding appeared to me so strange," (writes the learned and judicious Editor of the _Speaker's Commentary_,) "that I fully expected that the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be given which might remove the very unpleasant impression."(81) We have since heard on the best authority, _that_ namely of Bishop Ellicott himself,(82) that Dr. Newth's account of the method of "settling" the text of the N. T., pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct.

But in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, a definite part of the Programme. The chairman of the Revisionist body, Bishop Ellicott,-when he had "to consider the practical question,"-whether "(1), to construct a critical Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though not exclusively, some current Text: or (3), _simply to proceed onward_ with the work of Revision, whether of Text or Translation, making the current _Textus Receptus_ the standard, and departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary,-in fact, _solvere ambulando_;" announces, at the end of 19 pages,-"We are driven then to the third alternative."(83)

We naturally cast about for some evidence that the members of the New Testament company possess that mastery of the subject which alone could justify one of their number (Dr. Milligan) in a.s.serting roundly that these 12 verses are "_not from the pen of S. Mark himself_;"(84) and another (Dr. Roberts) in maintaining that "the pa.s.sage is _not the immediate production of S. Mark_."(85) Dr. Roberts a.s.sures us that-

"Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not found in the best copies."(86)

Will the learned writer permit us to a.s.sure him in return that he is entirely mistaken? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says nothing of the sort-_says __ nothing at all_ concerning these verses: that Victor of Antioch vouches emphatically for their _genuineness_: that Severus does but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random expressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius himself _nowhere_ "testifies that these verses were not written by S. Mark." So far from it, Eusebius actually _quotes the verses_, quotes them as _genuine_. Dr. Roberts is further a.s.sured that there are _no_ "other writers" whether Greek or Latin, who insinuate doubt concerning these verses. On the contrary, besides _both_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac-besides the Gothic and the _two_ Egyptian versions-there exist four authorities of the IInd century;-as many of the IIIrd;-five of the Vth;-four of the VIth;-as many of the VIIth;-together with _at least ten_ of the IVth(87) (_contemporaries therefore of codices_ B _and_ ?);-which actually _recognize_ the verses in question. Now, when to _every known Ma.n.u.script but two_ of bad character, besides _every ancient Version, some one-and-thirty Fathers_ have been added, 18 of whom must have used copies at least as old as either B or ?,-Dr. Roberts is a.s.sured that an amount of external authority has been acc.u.mulated which is simply overwhelming in discussions of this nature.

But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to this point nothing has been said, is alone sufficient to determine the controversy. We refer to the fact that _in every part of Eastern Christendom_ these same 12 verses-neither more nor less-have been from the earliest recorded period, and still are, a _proper lesson both for the Easter season and for Ascension Day_.

We pa.s.s on.

(B) A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in the Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek text (?? ?????p??? e?d???a?) impossible, but the English of the Revisionists ("_peace among men in whom he is well pleased_") "can be arrived at" (as one of themselves has justly remarked) "only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it."(88) More than that: the harmony of the exquisite three-part hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry destroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence into one. Singular to relate, the addition of _a single final letter_ (?) has done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able at the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its calamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the old Latin translation was made, (for the Latin copies _all_ read "_pax hominibus bonae voluntatis_,") the preposition ?? was evidently away,-absorbed apparently by the ?? which immediately follows. In order therefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without ??, are simply unintelligible, e?d???a was turned into e?d???a?. It is accordingly a significant circ.u.mstance that, whereas there exists _no_ Greek copy of the Gospels which _omits_ the ??, there is scarcely a Latin exhibition of the place to be found which contains it.(89) To return however to the genuine clause,-"Good-will towards men" (?? ?????p???

e?d???a).

Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the pa.s.sage-irrespectively of internal considerations-ought to be the consideration that it is vouched for _by every known copy_ of the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only ? A B D: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (A) is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive "Morning-hymn" (given in another page of the same codex, and containing a quotation of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found.

D's complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained sympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, aethiopic, Slavonic and Arabian versions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to this:-We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the Gospels,-every known Lectionary,-and (not least of all) the ascertained ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,-on the one hand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character, which concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his allegiance?

Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is available on the present occasion:-

In the IInd century,-we have the testimony of (1) Irenaeus.(90)

In the IIIrd,-that of (2) Origen(91) in 3 places,-and of (3) the _Apostolical Const.i.tutions_(92) in 2.

In the IVth,-(4) Eusebius,(93)-(5) Aphraates the Persian,(94)-(6) t.i.tus of Bostra,(95) each twice;-(7) Didymus(96) in 3 places;-(8) Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus,(97)-(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,(98)-(10) Epiphanius(99) twice;-(11) Gregory of Nyssa(100) 4 times,-(12) Ephraem Syrus,(101)-(13) Philo bishop of Carpasus,(102)-(14) Chrysostom,(103) in 9 places,-and (15) a nameless preacher at Antioch,(104)-all these, _contemporaries (be it remembered) of_ B _and_ ?, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the commonly received text.

In the Vth century,-(16) Cyril of Alexandria,(105) on no less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also;-(17) Theodoret(106) on 4;-(18) Theodotus of Ancyra(107) on 5 (once(108) in a homily preached before the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);-(19) Proclus(109) archbishop of Constantinople;-(20) Paulus(110) bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);-(21) the Eastern bishops(111) at Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431 (an unusually weighty piece of evidence);-and lastly, (22) Basil of Seleucia.(112) Now, let it be remarked that _these were contemporaries of codex_ A.

In the VIth century,-the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the voyager,(113) 5 times,-(24) Anastasius Sinaita,(114)-(25) Eulogius(115) archbishop of Alexandria: _contemporaries, be it remembered, of codex_ D.

In the VIIth,-(26) Andreas of Crete(116) twice.

And in the VIIIth,-(27) Cosmas(117) bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,-and his pupil (28) John Damascene,(118)-and (29) Germa.n.u.s(119) archbishop of Constantinople.

To these 29 ill.u.s.trious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain date, but _all_ of considerable antiquity; and some(120) are proved by internal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,-in short, to be of the date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among whose genuine works their productions are probably _not_ to be reckoned.

One of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:(121) a second, for (31) Methodius:(122) a third, for (32) Basil.(123) Three others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be (33, 34, 35) Athanasius.(124) One has pa.s.sed for (36) Gregory of Nyssa;(125) another for (37) Epiphanius;(126) while no less than eight (38 to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,(127) some of them being certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,(128) and (47) the author of the apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,-and it will be perceived that 18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time when A B ? D were written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom themselves.(129) _For our present purpose_ they are _Codices_ of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more than _forty-seven_ ancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation that the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is _the true reading_, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off upon us is _a fabrication and a blunder_. Will any one be found to maintain that the authority of B and ? is appreciable, when confronted by the first 15 _contemporary Ecclesiastical Writers_ above enumerated? or that A can stand against the 7 which follow?

This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically, and note that, besides 1 name from Gaul,-at least 2 stand for Constantinople,-while 5 are dotted over Asia Minor:-10 at least represent Antioch; and-6, other parts of Syria:-3 stand for Palestine, and 12 for other Churches of the East:-at least 5 are Alexandrian,-2 are men of Cyprus, and-1 is from Crete. If the articulate voices of so many ill.u.s.trious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of ancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message,-if _this_ be not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now before us, then pray let us have it explained to us,-What amount of evidence _will_ men accept as final? It is high time that this were known.... The plain truth is, that a case has been established against ? A B D and the Latin version, which amounts to _proof_ that those doc.u.ments, even when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be depended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:-_It emerges into notice in the IInd century; and in the Vth, disappears from sight entirely._

Enough and to spare has now been offered concerning the true reading of S.