selves in order to answer the objections, which may have prevailed with the translators in favour of their omission. If the omissions had been made in a critical edition, and the reasons for the rejection of the passages clearly given, we should have had a much easier task; we should only have had a negative argument to maintain, and if we could have answered the objections stated, our work would have been done. As it is, a more difficult task devolves upon us, but we do not waive the onus probandi. We proceed therefore to consider the passages in order, with a view of coming to a decision as to their claims to be retained in the book of holy writ.

John v. 4. This passage, or part of it, is omitted by a few MSS. of high authority. Of these the chief are the Alexandrian (A. Griesb.), Vatican. 1209 (B.), Regius 9, (C.), Stephani (L.), and the Cambridge or Beza's MS. (D.)

The Alexandrian and Vatican MSS. are two of the highest authority; but in estimating the value of their joint testimony, we ought to bear in mind that according to Dr. Scholz the latter is of the same recension and indeed, excepting in the Gospel of Matthew, is almost a literal transcript of the former. C. or the Codex Ephræmi is also of the Alexandrine recension. Stephani, though highly praised by some critics, is admitted by all to be very incorrect in many passages; errors in orthography occur in every page; moreover on account of its almost undeviating agreement with the Alexandrian it can scarcely be allowed to have any authority apart from it in regard to those readings in which they agree. The Cambridge MS., though acknowledged by all critics to be of very high antiquity, is not generally considered capable of giving much weight to its readings. Matthæi calls it editio scurrilis. Bishop Middleton, who used the greatest care in collating it, while he considers that it is a copy of a lost MS. of the very highest antiquity, admits that for critical purposes its readings are not of great value. We have mentioned A. and C. as wanting it, although it is written in their margins. Different scholars may attach different degrees of importance to these emendations. We believe the generality of critics will not set much value by them and therefore we shall not. The other MSS. quoted by Griesbach in favour of the omission, belong to the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and therefore make nothing for the argument one way or other.

The authority for the omission then resolves itself into that of the Alexandrian MS. alone, one of the best MSS. unquestionably, but by no means sufficient to warrant such a violation of the sacred text, supported as the passage is by a

host of other MSS. of equal or scarcely inferior value*, by quotations in the Fathers, and by all the oldest versions.

The passage is marked with an asterisk or obelus in the following manuscripts; viz. S., 21, 24, 36, 145, 161, 166, 230, Regius 3423, 3424,, Reg. 2242. This mark may mean any thing whatsoever, as well as a doubt concerning the genuineness of the reading. Indeed as the MS. copies of the scriptures were written for ordinary daily use, though now only consulted for critical purposes, it is very much more likely, that a passage inserted cum nota should be so marked for many other reasons than a doubt of its genuineness. The passage in question is one of considerable difficulty in regard to its interpretation, and it might very probably be marked by parties possessing the various MSS. with a view to further consideration, or consultation with others, as to its meaning. We have little doubt that Griesbach had his own elaborate system of notation so thoroughly engrafted in his mind, that he occasionally forgot that an obelus in a MS. has not necessarily the same value that it possesses in his own system. We have often thought that critics have fallen into errors from overlooking the fact, that MSS. were originally written for the purpose of ordinary practical and devotional reading. Though they have been providentially preserved to us as the most important critical apparatus, this was not their original purpose, and we believe some of the conclusions drawn from them would be considerably modified, were this fact borne in mind. Both Mill and Griesbach, it ought not to be concealed, express suspicion of the genuineness of the verse. The former in his Prolegomena writes thus in regard to it. "Mihi quidem vehemens suspicio est, irrepsisse eum ex evangelio secundum Hebræos. Utcunque se res habet, certum est eum in corpus contextûs admissum fuisse ante tempora Tertulliani." Now how is Dr. Mill's "vehement suspicion" borne out by his premises? Had he any MS. so old, or nearly so old, as the time of Tertullian? He knew only of two MSS. in which it is omitted; viz. the Cambridge and Colbert. 8, and surely the want of it in these two was not sufficient ground on which to base a vehement suspicion. Griesbach, who had so much better opportunity of examining manuscripts, is much more moderate; he admits the passage with the mark of an inferior degree of uncertainty. Those who are well acquainted with the work of this most laborious and profound scholar, are aware that his theology is sometimes allowed to gain the ascendancy

"The verse (says Valpy) is wanting in some MSS. and is repudiated by some as being supposed to have been a marginal gloss. But it is found in the most celebrated MSS. and its authenticity is fully established."

over his criticism, and that this is precisely a passage of that kind that he would have been most desirous to omit. But he was too honest a man and too rigorous a critic to take so bold, and by his own shewing, so unwarranted a step. The perpetration of this atrocity was left to the Benares translators, who have perpetrated it on their own responsibility, in defiance of the highest critical authority.

In addition to the external arguments for retaining the passage, the necessity of the context imperatively demands it. All MSS. and versions have the seventh verse of the chapter entire; now this latter verse depends so intimately upon the former, that for our part we find it impossible to conceive that the one should be genuine and the other spurious. We consider this argument as decisive of the question. When it is said that we can get no information from any other quarter respecting the healing virtue communicated to this bath, and that Dr. Lightfoot has read many Hebrew works with direct reference to this point, and has found not the least allusion to it, and when all this is brought as an argument against the passage, we must take leave to say that we cannot see the conclusiveness of the argument; yea more, we think the legitimate conclusion is all in our favour. There is in the 7th verse an allusion to the moving of the waters; this cannot be denied. But in the Jewish writings, no mention is made of such a thing; now we hold it impossible to conceive that the Spirit of God should have left such a verse as the 7th of this chapter in a state of perfect inexplicability (for we maintain that without the 4th verse, the 7th is inexplicable); and therefore we hold it as demonstrated that the verse in question is part of the inspired word of God. It is easy to account for the absence of the verse from some MSS. It is confess

edly a difficult text. The fact stated in it does seem at first sight to bear affinity to some heathenish legends and Jewish traditions; and therefore it is not to be wondered at that some of the early Christians should have shrunk from the defence of it, and unjustifiably omitted it in transcribing the autographs or old copies of the gospel. But the watchful providence of God has not allowed the record of such a miracle to be lost to the church; nor will it ever be lost, despite the efforts of such men as the authors of the translation before us.

John vii. 53—viii. 11. This passage is marked with an asterisk in some MSS. and omitted in A*, B, C, L, (in

* We have stated the Alexandrian MS. as one of those that omit the passage, although we might well, if so inclined, dispute the point. Two leaves are altogether lost, and it is only by counting the words in other two leaves, that it is supposed to be found that the MS. did not contain it.

which there is a vacant space left, no doubt in order to shew the uncertainty of the transcriber as to the propriety of the omission) T., 3, 9, (which has it on a separate leaf), 15 (has it in the margin), 18 ap. Wetst., and about 70 small letter MSS. of no antiquity or authority. It is found entire, or with trifling variations of reading, in D; G; H; K; M; U; 2; 5; 6; 7; 10; 11; 12; 16; 17; Colb. 22, 23, and 26; 25; 27; 28, and about 140 of less authority, but each quite as good as each of the 70 that omit the verses.

Thus the authorities in favour of the passage greatly preponderate over those which make against it. Accordingly, Dr. Mill, in his notes ad locum, defends the passage, although we ought not to conceal that with most singular and unaccountable inconsistency, he states in his Prolegomena a strong suspicion that it has crept into the text from the spurious gospel according to the Hebrews. Michaelis strenuously defends the passage. Bishop Pearce (whose work we do not possess) is said by Dr. Campbell to answer the objections of Wetstein and others. Dr. Campbell himself does not give any opinion, though we suppose that he was inclined to be against it. Whitby, in a few sentences, ably defends it; Griesbaca gives the passage as probably, though by no means certainly, to be rejected. Beza and Wetstein are the only critics of great name that oppose it, for we attach no manner of importance to its rejection by Rosenmüller and the whole race of modern German Neologians. Rosenmüller's scholarship we admire, and have very often consulted his commentary with advantage; but on many points he is deceptive, and in none is he to be really confided in. Beza's objections (quoted apparently with approbation by Campbell) are unworthy of both these accomplished critics; they are sufficiently answered by the writers named. They are chiefly internal objections. The external are conclusively set aside by Griesbach's citation of MSS.

We wish we could afford space to present our readers with the convincing defence of the narrative taken by Dr. Bloomfield from Stanlin and Kuinoel; and by them taken chiefly from a dissertation by Lampe. We beg to refer our readers to Dr. Bloomfield's work, and shall content ourselves with a brief abridgment of the chief arguments employed, not restricting ourselves to the arguments used, but substituting others if we think proper.

This can be at the best but a suspicion; because granting that there is not room in the space of two leaves for the whole matter, that is in the textus receptus, the want may be in any other verses as well as these.

1. INTERNAL ARGUMENTS.

Obj. 1. It is improbable that the Pharisees and lawyers would so far honour Jesus as to make him judge of a matter which the law placed under their jurisdiction.

Ans. The question was not proposed by the chief priests and Pharisees, but by the Scribes and Pharisees; therefore there is no necessity for supposing that they who proposed it, were members of the Sanhedrin. It was not referred to him in order to do him honour, but for the purpose of insulting and tempting him.

Obj. 2. It is improbable that such a crime should have been committed during the festival; or if it had, it is not likely that the Pharisees would have instituted the process at this time.

Ans. The first part of the objection is frivolous, as those who are willing to break through one of the most solemn commands of the moral law, are not likely to be restrained by respect to any ceremonial ordinances; provided they entertain the hope that their crime shall not be known. As to the latter part of the objection, it is all but certain on comparing chap. vii. 37, with the first verses of chap. viii., that the occurrence took place after the feast was ended and not during the feast, as the objection presupposes.

Obj. 3. It is said that there was nothing captious in the question; that if Jesus had answered that she ought, according to the law of Moses, to be put to death, but that in the existing state of the Jewish polity, the sanction of the Roman procurator must be obtained, else the punishment could not be inflicted, the Jews could neither accuse him of setting aside the law of Moses, nor delate him before the magistrate as refusing the jurisdiction of the Romans.

Ans. The Roman law did not admit of death by stoning. If therefore Jesus had said that the culprit ought to be dealt with according to the Mosaic law, he might have been accused before the Roman governor; if he had recommended to hand over the case to the Roman authorities, he would have lost credit with the Jews as acknowledging the jurisdiction of a Gentile power in opposition to their own judicial ordinances. Thus it appears that the question was exactly similar in its import and design to that proposed to him regarding the payment of tribute to Cæsar.

Obj. 4. It is said that stoning was not ordered by the law of Moses as the punishment of an unfaithful wife.

Ans. Although the law says no more than that the adulteress should be put to death, yet it can be proved that stoning was intended. In Exod. xxxi. the punishment of