But then, if the phrase be a gloss,--it is obvious to inquire,--how is its existence in so many quarters to be accounted for? Its origin is not far to seek. Chrysostom, in a certain place, after quoting our Lord's saying about taking up the cross and following Him, remarks that the words 'do not mean that we are actually to bear the wood upon our shoulders, but to keep the prospect of death steadily before us, and like St. Paul to "die daily"[376].' The same Father, in the two other places already quoted from his writings, is observed similarly to connect the Saviour's mention of 'bearing the Cross' with the Apostle's announcement--'I die daily.' Add, that Ephraem Syrus[377], and Jerome quoted already,--persistently connect the same two places together; the last named Father even citing them in immediate succession;--and the inference is unavoidable. The phrase in St. Luke ix. 23 must needs be a very ancient as well as very interesting expository gloss, imported into the Gospel from 1 Cor. xv. 31,--as Mill[378] and Matthaei[379] long since suggested. Sincerely regretting the necessity of parting with an expression with which one has been so long familiar, we cannot suffer the sentimental plea to weigh with us when the Truth of the Gospel is at stake. Certain it is that but for Erasmus, we should never have known the regret: for it was he that introduced [Greek: kath hemeran] into the Received Text. The MS. from which he printed is without the expression: which is also not found in the Complutensian. It is certainly a spurious accretion to the inspired Text. [The attention of the reader is particularly invited to this last paragraph. The learned Dean has been sneered at for a supposed sentimental and effeminate attachment to the Textus Receptus. He was always ready to reject words and phrases, which have not adequate support; but he denied the validity of the evidence brought against many texts by the school of Westcott and Hort, and therefore he refused to follow them in their surrender of the passages.] Sec. 3. Indeed, a great many 'various readings,' so called, are nothing else but very ancient interpretations,--fabricated readings therefore,--of which the value may be estimated by the fact that almost every trace of them has long since disappeared. Such is the substitution of [Greek: pheugei] for [Greek: anechoresen] in St. John vi. 15;--which, by the way, Tischendorf thrusts into his text on the sole authority of [Symbol: Aleph], some Latin copies including the Vulgate, and Cureton's Syriac[380]: though Tregelles ignores its very existence. That our Lord's 'withdrawal' to the mountain on that occasion was of the nature of 'flight,' or 'retreat' is obvious. Hence Chrysostom and Cyril remark that He '_fled_ to the mountain.' And yet both Fathers (like Origen and Epiphanius before them) are found to have read [Greek: anechoresen].