Part 28 (2/2)

To these 35, must be added 18 other ancient authorities with which the reader has been already made acquainted (viz. at pp. 44-5): all of which bear the self-same evidence.

Thus I have enumerated _fifty-three_ ancient Greek authorities,-of which _sixteen_ belong to the IInd, IIIrd, and IVth centuries: and _thirty-seven_ to the Vth, VIth, VIIth, and VIIIth.

And now, which of us two is found to have made the fairer and the fuller appeal to ”the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities:”

_you_ or _I_?... This first.

And next, since the foregoing 53 names belong to some of the most famous personages in Ecclesiastical antiquity: are dotted over every region of ancient Christendom: in many instances are _far more ancient than codices_ B _and_ ?:-with what show of reason will you pretend that the evidence concerning S. Luke ii. 14 ”_clearly preponderates_” in favour of the reading which you and your friends prefer?

I claim at all events to have demonstrated that _both_ your statements are unfounded: viz. (1) That _I_ seek for the truth of Scripture in the ”Textus Receptus:” and (2) That _you_ seek it in ”the consentient testimony of the _most ancient authorities_.”-(Why not frankly avow that you believe the Truth of Scripture is to be sought for, and found, in ”_the consentient testimony of codices_ ? _and_ B”?)

(_b_) Similarly, concerning THE LAST 12 VERSES OF S. MARK, which you brand with suspicion and separate off from the rest of the Gospel, in token that, in your opinion, there is ”a breach of continuity” (p. 53), (whatever _that_ may mean,) between verses 8 and 9. _Your_ ground for thus disallowing the last 12 Verses of the second Gospel, is, that B and ? omit them:-that a few late MSS. exhibit a wretched alternative for them:-and that Eusebius says they were often away. Now, _my_ method on the contrary is to refer all such questions to ”_the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities_.” And I invite you to note the result of such an appeal in the present instance. The Verses in question I find are recognized,

In the IInd century,-By the Old Latin-and Syriac Verss.:-by Papias;-Justin M.;-Irenaeus;-Tertullian.

In the IIIrd century,-By the Coptic-and the Sahidic Versions:-by Hippolytus;-by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage;-by the ”Acta Pilati;”-and by the ”Apostolical Const.i.tutions” in two places.

In the IVth century,-By Cureton's Syr. and the Gothic Verss.:-besides the Syriac Table of Canons;-Eusebius;-Macarius Magnes;-Aphraates;-Didymus;-the Syriac ”Acts of the Ap.;”-Epiphanius;-Leontius;-ps.-Ephraem;-Ambrose;-Chrysostom;-Jerome;-Augustine.

In the Vth century,-Besides the Armenian Vers.,-by codices A and C;-by Leo;-Nestorius;-Cyril of Alexandria;-Victor of Antioch;-Patricius;-Marius Mercator.

In the VIth and VIIth centuries,-Besides cod. D,-the Georgian and aethiopic Verss.:-by Hesychius;-Gregentius;-Prosper;-John, abp. of Thessalonica;-and Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem.... (See above, pages 36-40.)

And now, once more, my lord Bishop,-Pray which of us is it,-_you_ or _I_,-who seeks for the truth of Scripture ”in _the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities_”? On _my_ side there have been adduced in evidence _six_ witnesses of the IInd century:-_six_ of the IIIrd:-_fifteen_ of the IVth:-_nine_ of the Vth:-_eight_ of the VIth and VIIth,-(44 in all): while _you_ are found to rely on codices B and ? (as before), supported by a single _obiter dictum_ of Eusebius. I have said nothing as yet about _the whole body of the Copies_: nothing about _universal, immemorial, Liturgical use_. Do you seriously imagine that the testimony on your side is ”decidedly preponderating”? Above all, will you venture again to exhibit our respective methods as in your pamphlet you have done? I protest solemnly that, in your pages, I recognize neither myself nor you.

Permit me to declare that I hold your disallowance of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 to be the gravest and most damaging of all the many mistakes which you and your friends have committed. ”The textual facts,” (say you, speaking of the last 12 Verses,)-”have been placed before the reader, because Truth itself demanded it.” This (with Canon Cook(918)) I entirely deny. It is because ”the textual facts have” NOT ”been placed before the reader,” that I am offended. As usual, you present your readers with a one-sided statement,-a partial, and therefore inadmissible, exhibition of the facts,-facts which, fully stated and fairly explained, would, (as you cannot fail to be aware,) be fatal to your contention.

But, I forbear to state so much as _one_ of them. The evidence has already filled a volume.(919) Even if I were to allow that in your marginal note, ”the textual facts _have been_ [fully and fairly] _placed before the reader_”-what possible pretence do you suppose they afford for severing the last 12 Verses from the rest of S. Mark, in token that they form no part of the genuine Gospel?... This, however, is only by the way. I have proved to you that it is _I_-not _you_-who rest my case on an appeal to CATHOLIC ANTIQUITY: and this is the only thing I am concerned just now to establish.

I proceed to contribute something to the Textual Criticism of a famous place in S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy,-on which you have challenged me to a trial of strength.

[19] ”G.o.d was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16.

_A Dissertation._

In conclusion, you insist on ripping up the discussion concerning 1 Tim.

iii. 16. I had already devoted eight pages to this subject.(920) You reply in twelve.(921) That I may not be thought wanting in courtesy, the present rejoinder shall extend to seventy-six. I propose, without repeating myself, to follow you over the ground you have re-opened. But it will be convenient that I should define at the outset what is precisely the point in dispute between you and me. I presume it to be undeniably _this_:-That whereas the Easterns from time immemorial, (and we with them, since Tyndale in 1534 gave us our English Version of the N. T.,) have read the place thus:-(I set the words down in plain English, because the issue admits of being every bit as clearly exhibited in the vernacular, as in Greek: and because I am determined that all who are at the pains to read the present DISSERTATION shall understand it also:)-Whereas, I say, we have hitherto read the place thus,

”GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF G.o.dLINESS:-G.o.d WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, SEEN OF ANGELS, PREACHED UNTO THE GENTILES, BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY:”

_You_ insist that this is a ”_plain and clear error_.” You contend that there is ”_decidedly preponderating evidence_” for reading instead,

<script>