25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every

q ch. xx. 30.

25. This whole verse omitted by N, but retained by A., B., C., D., E., G., H., K., M., &c., Old Latin, Vulg., and, in fact, all other authorities. It is omitted by Tischendorf on the authority of N (but somewhat doubtful). According to Westcott and Hort, verse 25 stands not only in all other extant MSS. and versions, but in a considerable series of Fathers, including Origen, Pamphilus, Eusebius, Cyril, &c.

the truth of what is recorded by the Evangelist, either in this chapter, or in any other of the accounts of the Lord's words and works of which we have the record in the previous chapters of this Gospel.

....

Is it not the habit of this Evangelist all through his Epistle to alternate between the "I" and the "we?" He begins with the first person plural, "That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of Life, . we have seen it and bear witness." Now none who might have been then in St. John's company had thus “handled of the Word of Life." But in the next chapter he changes to the first person singular, "These things write I unto you that ye sin not;' then again he returns to the "we:" " Hereby we do know;" then in the seventh verse he resumes the "I:" "I write no new commandment," and so throughout the second chapter. Throughout the remainder, i.e., the third and fourth chapters, the "we" is used, but in the last chapter (verse 13) he again returns to "I:" "These things have I written unto you." So that the Apostle thus speaking of himself as solemnly avouching to the truth of what he says, is only in accordance with his manner and habit, and that any person should witness to the veracity of such an one in the matter of things of which they could have no personal knowledge, is incredible.

25. "And there are also many other things. . . . could not contain the books that should be written." This is an hyperbole, but it is one which, if properly understood, and devoutly contemplated, would lead us to consider what a very small fragment we have of the Life of Christ, and how infinite in the number of its incidents that Life must have been. For if the events related in all the Gospels were put one after another, they would not fill one month of His three years' active ministry. Let us remember how many notices we have of His teaching and preaching, of which teaching

one, "I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

Amen.

r Amos vii. 10.

See, for in

xix. 2. If

and preaching not one word has come down to us. stance, Matthew iv. 23, 24; ix. 35; xv. 29, 30; xvi. 21; the reader will take the trouble to refer to these places in one Gospel only, he will find that all of them imply days, in some cases weeks, of ministerial industry crowded with performances of miracles, and teachings, and preachings, and other incidents. Who can say what the record of the hours of a single day would extend to if everything that could interest, everything that could edify, everything that we should admire or wonder at in an ordinary man were put down? So that this is a fitting figure with which to conclude the Gospel narrative, to impress upon us how infinitely full, and varied, and crowded with holy deeds was the human Life of the Word made flesh.

66

EXCURSUS I.

ON THE READING, GOD ONLY BEGOTTEN," IN JOHN I. 18.

The reading, "God only begotten (μονογενὴς Θεός, without defnite article), is found in the MSS. of what is called by Westcott and Hort the Neutral text-i.e., it is found in B., &, C.*, and L., and in Cursives only in 33. It is found in the Peshito Syriac, and in the Harclean in margin (but not in the Cureton Syriac), and in the Coptic and Ethiopic.

The earliest Patristic evidence is somewhat as follows:

Taking into account the strangeness of the collocation, God, the self-existent nature, being joined with "begotten," a word implying coming into existence, or deriving existence, it was very probably known to Justin Martyr, who writes: "The Word of Wisdom, Who is Himself this God, begotten of the Father of all things." (Trypho. 61.) Justin would scarcely have invented the phrase; and it is not likely that he would use in conjunction two words-one implying eternal existence, the other coming into existencewithout authority; and the only authority we know of is this place.

Irenæus, in his book on Heresies, quotes the verse three timestwice as only begotten Son (III. chap. xi. sec. 6, and IV. chap. xx. sec. 6), once as only begotten God, as follows: "But His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show His Father's brightness, and explained His purposes; as also the Lord said, 'The only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him'" (IV. chap. xx. sec. 11). Harvey supposes that the MS. of Irenæus read "only begotten God;" and that, in the other places, the Latin translation had been conformed to the Old Latin or Vulgate, which reads "only begotten Son."

Clement of Alexandria: “And John the Apostle says, 'No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him'-calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom of God" (Miscell. V. chap. xii.). Clement also quotes the heretic Theodotus, "plainly calling Him God. The only begotten God, Who is," &c. Origen also quotes the verse, as having the word "God."

So that the reading of some of the MSS. used by Irenæus and Origen is "God only begotten," and of some "only begotten Son." The reading God," then, seems to be exceedingly ancient. On the contrary, it seems to have been almost universally rejected by the Church; "only begotten Son" being found in A.; all later Uncials, except L.; all the Cursives, except 33; all the Old Latin (a, b, c, e, f, &c.); the Vulgate, Armenian, Ethiopic (Platt), and Cureton Syriac.

Amongst later Fathers, "God" is read by Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria; but "Son " is read by Hippolytus, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, &c. For the places in these Fathers, the reader is referred to Tischendorf (8th edition), and Tregelles' "New Testament," on this passage.

That such a reading, having such authority, should have disappeared from all the later Uncials and Cursives, should not have been adopted by Jerome, to whom it must have been known, and not used by Athanasius (who died, 372 A.D.), though read by Cyril of Alexandria, long after his time (he died A.D. 440), is very perplexing, and shows, I think, that it is quite plain that we have not yet the materials for ascertaining the history of that text of the New Testament which, some time in the fourth century, superseded all others in the use of the Catholic Church.

EXCURSUS II.

ON THE RELATION OF OUR LORD'S WORDS IN JOHN III. 5 TO THE REGENERATION OF INFANTS IN BAPTISM.

Many who believe that the Baptism of Infants is according to the mind of Christ, and so continue the practice, are yet of opinion that our Lord, in His words to Nicodemus (John iii. 5), had in view the baptism of those of riper years only. But if so, the Catholic Church, in all its branches (and more especially the Church of England, as is proved by the first address in her office for the Baptism of Infants) has applied the teaching of this passage to the baptism of those for whom Christ did not intend it; and this is a very serious matter, when we consider that from very early times the practice of baptizing infants has been the rule, and the baptizing of those able to answer for themselves, the exception.

Our view of this matter will, of necessity, depend upon the view we take of the meaning and intention of these words of Christ. If we believe them to be intended to impress upon Nicodemus as a worldly and unconverted man the need of personal or spiritual religion, they will, of course, seem to us out of place when applied to infants, who cannot be pronounced regenerate if regeneration,— that is, a new birth of water and of the Spirit-be any form of conscious repentance or faith.

If, on the contrary, we believe with the Church that Christ meant by these words to set forth the mode of entrance into His kingdom, which kingdom is a kingdom of grace proceeding from Him as the Second Adam, answering to and designed to take the place of the kingdom of sin and evil we have been brought into by our union with the first Adam at our natural birth, then infants, as we shall see, are the fittest recipients of such grace as our Lord here alludes to. For, as has been well said, "Regeneration is the correlative and opposite of original sin. So the Catholic Church has ever taught, arguing by contraries from the one to the other: for example, as original sin is the transmission of a quality of evil (from Adam); so regeneration is the transfusion of a quality of good (from Christ); as original sin is inherited without the personal act of us who

are born of the flesh, so regeneration is bestowed without personal act or merit on infants who are brought to the font: as in the inheritance of original sin we are passive and unconscious, so in regeneration, as original sin precedes all actings of our will, so also may regeneration."

The analogy of the two Adams not only removes all difficulties out of the way of our believing the Baptismal Regeneration of Infants, but makes some such doctrine, if it be lawful to say so, necessary. For all men's doubts respecting the regeneration of infants in Baptism arise from the difficulty of supposing that the entrance into the Church of God as a spiritual kingdom can be granted to those who, owing to their tender years, cannot exercise repentance and faith; but they who are influenced by this objection forget that all men, without exception, enter into a state or kingdom of spiritual evil whilst they are in a state of unconsciousness, for whilst unable to exercise either faith or unbelief, all men are born into the first Adam, and so into a state of sin and death. Now, if Christ be the Second Adam, it seems only natural and fitting that He should, as the Second Adam, be the counterpart to the first Adam in the matter of the communication of grace from Himself— indeed of His own Nature, to those who are in a state of infancy, seeing that all such have, in a like state of infantile weakness, received evil with the nature of the first Adam.

This seems still more likely if we take into account that He has redeemed every one of them by His one all-sufficient Sacrifice.

It seems fitting also that to those who partake of sin and evil by their first birth, He should communicate grace by that second birth of water and of the Spirit which He has ordained as the entrance into His kingdom.

Especially does this seem fitting when we remember that He says of little children, "of such is the kingdom of God."

Besides this, all His words respecting children, and His demeanour towards them, would lead us to infer that He accounts them to be equally as fit for receiving union with Himself as those who are able, from mature years, to exercise conscious faith, for to His own Apostles, who were consciously believing in and following Him, He declares that "they must become as little children before they can enter into His kingdom."

Many of those who practise infant Baptism are too apt to look upon it as if it were an abnormal thing, which God tolerates in this