who, on other grounds, thought that the whole section required to be moved from its original position.

That the suggestion of Satanic agency, as an explanation of our Lord's miracles, was one frequently made at a later period of our Lord's ministry, would have been another argument for the later date of the incident as certain to suggest itself then as it has done in late years.

Again, the great similarity between xi. 33-36 and viii. 16-18 might at first sight make the former look like a contradictory and incorrect version of the latter, and so give it an appearance not only of meaningless repetition. but of inaccuracy, an appearance which would be at once got rid of by the narratives being removed from their original juxtaposition, and one of them relegated to an altogether later period.

Required to prove

6.

That, the displacement once made, the advantages of the fresh arrangement of the text would be so much more obvious than the contradictions it entailed that MSS. containing the original arrangement would very quickly be discredited.

It will be obvious that, supposing the displacement to have taken place as soon as the several Gospels began to be compared, as was probably the case, all existing MSS. would have been altered at the same time, and the error have thus been at once stereotyped.

But even assuming it to have been made at a later date,

H. G.

h

the error is one which, from the causes already enumerated, would give the revised version such an air of credibility that the assumption of its correctness would have been certain. Supposing MSS. with the original order to have existed for some time, the argument that it would be absurd to alter an arrangement which, at the point at which the alteration was to be made seemed perfectly consistent with that of the other Evangelists, to one which at once introduced several apparent contradictions between them, would manifestly have been irresistible either by copyists or revisers,. In fact the illusive nature of the original alteration was such that nothing short of a definite 'principle of reconstruction' could ever allow it to be shewn to be an error, even had any evidence of another order been preserved.

The remaining six items of proof, involving as they do a somewhat more detailed statement of facts, may perhaps be best dealt with in separate chapters.

1 The language held by Dr Scrivener with regard to the reading of Galilee for Judæa in S. Luke iv. 44 (see p. 70) affords a striking illustration of the truth of the above remarks.

If one of the most distinguished, and withal careful, of Nineteenth Century Critics could so set evidence on one side on the ground of a hastily assumed impossibility, is it at all likely that First or Second Century Copyists or Revisers would be more scrupulous?

CHAPTER III.

THE FOUR PICTURES.

THE next 'proof of displacement' which we have to deal with is the following

That, from the nature of the case, there being three other pictures with which to compare the one supposed to have been tampered with-absolutely conclusive evidence, especially with regard to the present as compared with the original order of events at the several points where the narrative must have been disconnected and reunited, would be forthcoming; and that this evidence would be as conspicuously absent in the case of the wrong, as it would be conspicuously present in the case of the right order.

The case may be put thus:

Suppose we have four pictures, which all deal with the same general subject, but which, whilst they do not all portray the same details, have all certain details in common. And suppose that, from the difficulty of reconciling them all to each other, it should be suggested that one of them had, at some time or other, been cut into four distinct sections, and had been put together again with sections two and three transposed. In this case the other three pictures would necessarily afford abundant evidence of

what had been done. A whole series of details would be order in three pictures, and in a

found to be in one

different order in the fourth. Detailed representations,

all of the three, would

Thus, for instance, it

forming a complete whole in one or be found cut in two in the fourth. might happen that the stern of a boat might be found in one part of the picture and the bow in another, whilst other less marked incongruities would be at once detected by any minute comparison of the several sections.

At the same time, supposing that any one was inclined, in spite of such evidence, to maintain that no such tampering with the one picture had in fact taken place, he would not only be entirely unable to account for the contradictions to the other three that it afforded, but he would find that, beyond the fact of the two sections in question actually occupying the position in which they were found, there was not one jot or tittle of evidence afforded by the other pictures to support that position.

Suppose the picture said to have been tampered with to be divided thus:

and the other three pictures to be divided in a similar manner; it is evident that, if sections B and C in the one picture have been transposed, it must be possible to shew that section B in the suspected picture corresponds with section C in each of the other three, and conversely that section C in the suspected picture corresponds in a similar manner with section B in all the others. (See Table, p. xiv.)

Nor would this be the only proof which ought to be available, and which may therefore reasonably be required,

when the integrity of a great masterpiece of antiquity is called in question.

Along each line where the dissecting knife originally passed, there will be evidence of its having cut asunder objects which in the other pictures are grouped together, whilst the restoration of the parts to what is claimed as their original position must at once attest the necessity for such restoration by bringing these groups into the same position which they occupy in the other pictures.

Thus, in the picture supposed to have been tampered with, the connexion or arrangement of incidents must, if the supposition of displacement be correct, be contradicted. by the connexion observable in the other pictures at three separate points, i. e. both where the original connexion with the left and right-hand sections of the picture was destroyed, and where the reversal of the sections created a new connexion in the centre of the picture. In other words, at the points (1) between A and B, (2) between B and C, and (3) between C and D, a comparison of all four pictures must necessarily reveal either agreement or disagreement, and that to an extent which must be absolutely conclusive as to the question whether the disputed alteration has or has not been made.

But it will be seen that, conclusive as the evidence thus far obtainable would be, further demonstration may be obtained by testing the restored connexions in the same way as those alleged to require restoration; i. e. we can go through the above processes of proof with regard also to the 'restored' connexion (4) between A and C, (5) between B and D, and (6) between C and B.

That all the above requirements in the way of proof are met in the present case to the very fullest extent, will be