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 [pg 082] 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 [pg 083] 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]