(5) That the moral tendency of the passage is somewhat doubtful, and that it seems to represent our Lord as palliating a heinous sin.
B ] The arguments in favour of the passage are as follows : —
(1) That it is found in many old manuscripts, if not in the very oldest and best.
(2) That it is found in the Vulgate Latin, and in the Arabic, Coptic, Persian, and Ethiopian versions.
(3) That it is commented on by Augustine in his exposition of this Gospel; while in another of his writings, he expressly re- fers to, and explains, its omission from some manuscripts: — that it is quoted and defended by Ambrose, referred to by Je- rome, and treated as genuine in the Apostolical constitutions.
(4) That there is no proof whatever that there is any im- moral tendency in the passage. Our Lord pronounced no opin- ion on the sin of adultery, but simply declined the office of a judge.
It may seem almost presumptuous to offer any opinion on this very difficult subject. But I venture to make the following re- marks, and to invite the reader's candid attention to them. I lean decidely to the side of those who think the passage is gen- uine, for the following reasons : —
1. The argument from manuscripts appears to me inconclusive. We possess comparatively few very ancient ones. Even of them, some favour the genuineness of the passage. — The same remark applies to the ancient versions. Testimony of this kind, to be conclusive, should be unanimous.
2. The argument from the Fathers seems to me more in favour of the passage than against it. — On the one side the reasons
• are simply negative. Certain Fathers say nothing about the passage, but at the same time say nothing against it. — On the other side the reasons are positive. Men of such high authority as Augustine and Ambrose not only comment on the passage, but defend its genuineness, and assign reasons for its omission by some mistaken transcribers.
Let me add to this that the negative evidence of the Fathers who are against the passage is not nearly so weigh y 9 it ap- pears at first sight. Cyril of Alexandria is one. But his com- mentary on the eight chapter of John is lost, and what we .have was supplied by the modern hand of Jodocus Clichtovoeus, a Parisiau doctor, who lived in the year 1510 a. d. (See Dup.n's Eccles. Hist. ) — Chrysostom's commentary on John consists of popular public homilies, in which we can easily imagine such a passage as this might possibly be omitted. — Theophylact was notoriously a copycr and imitator of Chrysostom. — Origen, the only remaining commentator, is one whose testimony is not of first-rate value, aud he has omitted many things in his ex-
JOHN, CHAP. VIII. ti7
position of St. John. — The silence of Tertullian and Cyprian is perhaps accountable, on the same principles by which Augus- tine explains the omission of the passage in some copies of this Gospel in his own time.
Some, as Calovius, Maldonatus, Flacius, Aretius, and Pisca- tor, think that Chrysostom distinctly refers to this passage, in his Sixtieth Homily on John, though he passes it over in expo- sition.
3. The argument from alleged discrepancies between the style and language of this passage, and the usual style of St. John's writing, is one which should be received with much caution. We are not dealing with an uninspired but with an inspired writer. Surely.it is not too much to say that an in- spired writer may occasionally use words and constructions and modes of expression which he generally does not use, and that it is no proof that he did not write a passage because he wrote it in a peculiar way.
I leave the subject here. In cases of doubt like this, it is wise to be on the safe side. On the whole I think it safest to regard this disputed passage as genuine. At any rate I prefer the difficulties on this side to those on the other.
The whole discussion may leave in our minds, at any rate, one comfortable thought. If even in the case of this notori- ously disputed passage— more controverted and doubted than any in the New Testament— so much can be said in its favour, how immensely strong is the foundation on which the whole volume of Scripture rests ! If even against this passage the arguments of opponents are not conclusive, we have no reason to fear for the rest of the Bible.
After all there is much ground for thinking that some critical difficulties have been purposely left by God's providence in the text of the New Testament, in order to prove the faith and patience of Christian people. They serve to test the humility of those to whom intellectual difficulties are a far greater cross than either doctrinal or practical ones. To such minds it is trying but useful discipline to find occasional passages involv- ing knots which they cannot quite untie, and problems which they cannot quite solve. Of such passages the verses before us are a striking instance. That the text of them is " a hard thing " it would be wrong to deny. But I believe our duty is not to reject it hastily, but to sit still and wait. In these matters " he that believeth shall not make haste."
The following passage from Augustine (De conjug. Adult.) is worth notice. Having argued that it well becomes a Chris- tian husband to be reconciled to his wife, upon her repentance after adultery, because our Lord said, "Neither do I condemn thee : go and sin no more," — he says, " This, however, rather shocks the minds of some weak believers, or rather unbelievers