The little handful of well-known authorities ([Symbol: Aleph]BDL, with a few copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian Versions[186]), conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the clause [Greek: hoti ego hypago pros ton Patera]: for which reason Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort omit those six words, and Lachmann puts them into brackets. And yet, let the context be considered. Our Saviour had said (ver. 16),--'A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the Father.' It follows (ver. 17),--'Then said some of His disciples among themselves, What is this that He saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me: and, _Because I go to the_ Father?'--Now, the context here,--the general sequence of words and ideas--in and by itself, creates a high degree of probability that the clause is genuine. It must at all events be permitted to retain its place in the Gospel, unless there is found to exist an overwhelming amount of authority for its exclusion. What then are the facts? All the other uncials, headed by A and I^{b} (_both_ of the fourth century),--every known Cursive--all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac, Gothic, Coptic, &c.)--are for retaining the clause. Add, that Nonnus[187] (A.D. 400) recognizes it: that the texts of Chrysostom[188] and of Cyril[189] do the same; and that both those Fathers (to say nothing of Euthymius and Theophylact) in their Commentaries expressly bear witness to its genuineness:--and, With what shew of reason can it any longer be pretended that some Critics, including the Revisers, are warranted in leaving out the words?... It were to trifle with the reader to pursue this subject further. But how did the words ever come to be omitted? Some early critic, I answer, who was unable to see the exquisite proprieties of the entire passage, thought it desirable to bring ver. 16 into conformity with ver. 19, where our Lord seems at first sight to resyllable the matter. That is all! Let it be observed--and then I will dismiss the matter--that the selfsame thing has happened in the next verse but one (ver. 18), as Tischendorf candidly acknowledges. The [Greek: touto ti hestin] of the Evangelist has been tastelessly assimilated by BDLY to the [Greek: ti estin touto] which went immediately before. Sec. 4.