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 [pg 078] 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 [pg 079] 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 [pg 080] 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 [pg 081] 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]