65. VII. NO TWO SCRITURES REPUGNANT

Dr. Tregelles says "it is one of the most valuable MSS, extant; none of the Texts published by Tischendorf is so important, with the single exception of the Palimpsest Codex Ephraemi."

It is noteworthy that we have the same confusion of readings in Rom. xiv. 15 as well as in 1 Cor. viii. 11. This difference of reading, therefore, must have been introduced at a very early date.

The one reading is μή ἀπολύται (mē apolutai), do not put away, separate not, do not put out.

The other reading is μή ἀπόλλοται (mē apollutai), do not destroy.

We will give the two passages separately, as the authorities are not the same for each.

In 1 Cor. viii. 11 the reading "Do not put away" (or "put out") is supported by "D" (see above), and was the original reading of that MS.; while the other reading is the subject of four various readings, showing the perplexity of the transcribers. The question is, How did all these Various Readings arise? There must surely have been some ancient original authority which was copied by Codex D, and this may have been a reading older than some of the MSS, which were written earlier than "D." We are quite aware that this is conjecture; but it is not without foundation. It is not as though we invented the idea out of our own head. It is something more than that; and the difference between the two spellings, with "L" or "LL," is so slight, that an error once made might well come, by being copied and re-copied, to be the recognized reading. But, if originally an error, the fact of its multiplication has no bearing on the point, or weight in the argument. There seems, then, to be room for another line of proof.

(1) There is the whole analogy of New Testament teaching as to the eternal preservation of God's Saints to which these two passages seem to be repugnant. Indeed, it seems as though a Pelagian copyist might well be tempted to add another "l," when, by so doing, he could so easily obtain a proof of his doctrine. 1 But even this is the subject of divergences in the MSS, which favour it.

THE WEAK BROTHER OF 1 COR. VIII. ROM. XIV.

(2) Then there is the Scope of each of the two passages to be considered according to our first Canon. If one reading suits the Scope perfectly, and the other is quite out of harmony with it, that would be a very weighty piece of evidence, sufficient of itself to settle the matter. To take 1 Cor. viii. 11 first, it is obvious that the Epistle is directed against the Divisions, Separations, Strifes, and Contentions of 1 Cor. i.—iii. Then, further, we have the truth of the one spiritual Body of Christ set forth, from which there can be neither amputation nor separation (1 Cor. xii.). The whole of this eighth chapter is directed as a warning against doing anything that would be a stumbling-block to a brother.

One point is dealt with concerning which enquiry had been made by the Saints at Corinth; viz., the eating of meat offered to idols, about which there were evidently differences of opinion likely to lead to, and end in, Division and Separation. These are dealt with, in the manner shown by the Structure: for we must apply our second Canon in order to find the Scope.

Two points are treated of:—

(1) The knowledge of different brethren (vv. 1-8).

(2) The liberty in the use of this knowledge (vv. 9-13).

1 Cor. viii.¹

Things enquired of Paul.

(1) The knowledge of different brethren (vv. 1-8).

A | 1-. "Touching things offered to idols."

B | -1, 2. The possession of knowledge.

C | 3. God's knowledge of the believer.

D a | 4-. Idols are nothing.

b | -4. There is one God.

D a | 5. Idols are many.

b | 6-. There is one God.

C | -6. The believer's knowledge of God.

B | 7-. The possession of knowledge.

A | -7, 8. Concerning "a thing offered to an idol."

¹ For the place of this member in the Structure of the Epistle as a whole, see The Church Epistles (p. 91), by the same author and publisher.

VII. NO TWO SCRIPTURES REPUGNANT

(2) Liberty in the use of this knowledge (1 Cor. viii. 9-13).

E | 9. Care lest liberty to eat causes stumbling.

F | c 10. Influence of thy "knowledge" on the weak brother.

d. 10. Effect of example on the conscience of a weak brother (singular).

F | c 11. Result of "thy knowledge" in the putting away of the weak brother.

d. 12. Result of the example on the consciences of the weak brethren (plural) who have put the brother away.

E | 13. Care lest liberty to eat causes stumbling.

Here, all seems quite clear. The abuse of knowledge leads to a bad influence on a weak brother, who is "put away" in consequence; and it leads also to trouble of the weak brethren, who have put him away.

The fact that Christ died for such an one should be sufficient to make them use the care which is enjoined.

In Rom. xiv. 15 the reading Do not put away is supported by the MS. described above, known as D¹ (the small numeral denoting the work of a corrector in Cent. viii.).

Another Codex, known as L, the Codex Angelicus Romanus, a MS. in the Anglican Library of the Augustinian Monks in Rome.

A Lambeth MS. (No. 1,182), Cent. xii., known as "a."

A British Museum MS. (Add. MSS., No. 11,837) known as "h," and dated 1157.

A Trinity Coll. Camb. MS. (B. x. 16) known as "k," and written about 1316.

Another Codex, known as Codex Leicestrensis, of about Cent. xii., known as "m."

To find the scope of the passage in which Rom. xiv. 15 occurs, we must, according to our Canon II., first find its place in the Epistle as a whole.¹ If we do this we find that the member of which it forms a part deals with practical matters: ¹ For the Structure of the Epistle as a whole and the place occupied by this member see The Church Epistles (p. 23), by the same author.