The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 5

What then, (I must again inquire,) are the grounds for the superst.i.tious reverence which is entertained in certain quarters for the readings of Codex B? If it be a secret known to the recent Editors of the New Testament, they have certainly contrived to keep it wondrous close.

II. More recently, a claim to co-ordinate primacy has been set up on behalf of the Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf is actually engaged in remodelling his seventh Leipsic edition, chiefly in conformity with the readings of his lately discovered MS.(129) And yet the Codex in question abounds with "errors of the the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in doc.u.ments of first-rate importance." On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.(130) "Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while that gross blunder ... whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament. Tregelles has freely p.r.o.nounced that 'the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as _very rough_.' "(131) But when "the first scribe" and his "very rough"

performance have been thus unceremoniously disposed of, one would like to be informed what remains to command respect in Codex ?? Is, then, _ma.n.u.script authority_ to be confounded with _editorial caprice_,-exercising itself upon the corrections of "at least ten different revisers," who, from the vith to the xiith century, have been endeavouring to lick into shape a text which its original author left "_very rough_?"

The co-ordinate primacy, (as I must needs call it,) which, within the last few years, has been claimed for Codex B and Codex ?, threatens to grow into a species of tyranny,-from which I venture to predict there will come in the end an unreasonable and unsalutary recoil. It behoves us, therefore, to look closely into this matter, and to require a reason for what is being done. The text of the sacred deposit is far too precious a thing to be sacrificed to an irrational, or at least a superst.i.tious devotion to two MSS.,-simply because they may possibly be older by a hundred years than any other which we possess. "Id verius quod prius," is an axiom which holds every bit as true in Textual Criticism as in Dogmatic Truth. But on that principle, (as I have already shewn,) the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are fully established;(132) and by consequence, the credit of Codd. B and ? sustains a severe shock. Again, "Id verius quod prius;" but it does not of course follow that a Codex of the ivth century shall exhibit a more correct text of Scripture than one written in the vth, or even than one written in the xth. For the proof of this statement, (if it can be supposed to require proof,) it is enough to appeal to Codex D. That venerable copy of the Gospels is of the vith century. It is, in fact, one of our five great uncials. No older MS. of the Greek Text is known to exist,-excepting always A, B, C and ?. And yet _no_ text is more thoroughly disfigured by corruptions and interpolations than that of Codex D. In the Acts, (to use the language of its learned and accurate Editor,) "it is hardly an exaggeration to a.s.sert that it reproduces the _textus receptus_ much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expanding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability."(133) Where, then, is the _a priori_ probability that two MSS. of the ivth century shall have not only a superior claim to be heard, but almost an exclusive right to dictate which readings are to be rejected, which retained?

How ready the most recent editors of the New Testament have shewn themselves to hammer the sacred text on the anvil of Codd. B and ?,-not unfrequently in defiance of the evidence of all other MSS., and sometimes to the serious detriment of the deposit,-would admit of striking ill.u.s.tration were this place for such details. Tischendorf's English "_New Testament_"-"with various readings from the three most celebrated ma.n.u.scripts of the Greek Text" translated at the foot of every page,-is a recent attempt (1869) to popularize the doctrine that we have to look exclusively to two or three of the oldest copies, if we would possess the Word of G.o.d in its integrity. Dean Alford's constant appeal in his revision of the Authorized Version (1870) to "the oldest MSS." (meaning thereby generally Codd. ? and B with one or two others(134)), is an abler endeavour to familiarize the public mind with the same belief. I am bent on shewing that there is nothing whatever in the character of either of the Codices in question to warrant this servile deference.

(_a_) And first,-Ought it not sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence to discover that _it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_? Now this is a plain matter of fact, of which any one who pleases may easily convince himself. But the character of two witnesses who habitually contradict one another has been accounted, in every age, precarious. On every such occasion, only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these _perpetual_ inconsistencies between Codd. B and ?,-grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones,-altogether destroy my confidence in either?

(_b_) On the other hand, discrepant as the testimony of these two MSS. is throughout, they yet, strange to say, conspire every here and there in exhibiting minute corruptions of such an unique and peculiar kind as to betray a (probably not very remote) common corrupt original. These coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish a real connexion between those two codices; and that connexion is fatal to any claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent witnesses.(135)

(_c_) Further, it is evident that both alike have been subjected, probably during the process of transcription, to the same depraving influences. But because such statements require to be established by an induction of instances, the reader's attention must now be invited to a few samples of the grave blemishes which disfigure our two oldest copies of the Gospel.

1. And first, since it is the omission of the end of S. Mark's Gospel which has given rise to the present discussion, it becomes a highly significant circ.u.mstance that the original scribe of Cod. ? had _also_ omitted the _end of the Gospel according to S. John_.(136) In this suppression of ver. 25, Cod. ? stands _alone_ among MSS. A cloud of primitive witnesses vouch for the genuineness of the verse. Surely, it is nothing else but the _reductio ad absurdum_ of a theory of recension, (with Tischendorf in his last edition,) to accommodate our printed text to the vicious standard of the original penman of Cod. ? and bring the last chapter of S. John's Gospel to a close at ver. 24!

Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two solemn verses wherein S. Luke describes our LORD's "Agony and b.l.o.o.d.y Sweat," together with the act of the ministering Angel.(137) As to the genuineness of those verses, recognised as they are by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Didymus, Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, by all the oldest versions, and by almost every MS. in existence, including Cod.

?,-it admits of _no_ doubt. Here then is proof positive that in order to account for omissions from the Gospel in the oldest of the uncials, there is no need whatever to resort to the hypothesis that such portions of the Gospel are not the genuine work of the Evangelist. "The admitted error of Cod. B in this place," (to quote the words of Scrivener,) "ought to make some of its advocates more chary of their confidence in cases where it is less countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance before us."

Cod. B (not Cod. ?) is further guilty of the "grave error" (as Dean Alford justly styles it,) of omitting that solemn record of the Evangelist:-"Then said JESUS, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." It also withholds the statement that the inscription on the Cross was "in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew."(138) Cod. ?, on the other hand, omits the confession of the man born blind (? d? ?f?, p?ste??, ????e; ?a?

p??se????se? a?t?) in S. John ix. 38.-Both Cod. ? and Cod. B retain nothing but the word ???? of the expression t?? ???? a?t?? t?? p??t?t????, in S. Matth. i. 25; and suppress altogether the important doctrinal statement ? ?? ?? t? ???a??, in S. John iii. 13: as well as the clause d?e???? d?? ?s?? a?t??; ?a? pa???e? ??t??, in S. John viii. 59.

Concerning all of which, let it be observed that I am neither imputing motives nor pretending to explain _the design_ with which these several serious omissions were made. All that is a.s.serted is, that they cannot be imputed to the carelessness of a copyist, but were intentional: and I insist that they effectually dispose of the presumption that when an important pa.s.sage is observed to be wanting from Cod. B or Cod. ?, its absence is to be accounted for by a.s.suming that it was also absent _from the inspired autograph of the Evangelist_.

2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or of ?, or of both, has clearly been _interpolated_. There does not exist in the whole compa.s.s of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our Redeemer's side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and Cod. ?, where it is introduced at the end of ver. 49,-in defiance of reason as well as of authority.(139) "This interpolation" (remarks Mr.

Scrivener) "which would represent the SAVIOUR as pierced while yet living, is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false."(140) Another singularly gross specimen of interpolation, in my judgment, is supplied by the purely apocryphal statement which is met with in Cod. ?, at the end of S. Matthew's account of the healing of the Centurion's servant,-?a?

?p?st?e?a? ? e?at??ta???? e?? t?? ????? a?t?? e? a?t? t? ??a, e??e? t??

pa?da ???a????ta (viii. 13.)-Nor can anything well be weaker than the subst.i.tution (for ?ste??sa?t?? ?????, in S. John ii. 3) of the following,(141) which is found _only_ in Cod. ?:-????? ??? e????, ?t?

s??ete?es?e ? ????? t?? ?a??.

But the inspired text has been depraved in the same licentious way throughout, by the responsible authors of Cod. B and Cod. ?, although such corruptions have attracted little notice from their comparative unimportance. Thus, the reading (in ?) ?a? de? e??a?es?a? ta e??a t??

pe?a?t?? ?a? (S. John ix. 4) carries with it its own sufficient condemnation; being scarcely rendered more tolerable by B's subst.i.tution of e for the second ?a?.-Instead of te?ee???t? ??? ?p? t?? p?t?a? (S.

Luke vi. 48), B and ? present us with the insipid gloss, d?a t? ?a???

????d?e?s?a? a?t??.-In the last-named codex, we find the name of "Isaiah"

(?sa???) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance of authority and of *fact*.-Can I be wrong in a.s.serting that the reading ? ????e??? ?e?? (for ????) in S. John i. 18, (a reading found in Cod. B and Cod. ? alike,) is undeserving of serious attention?-May it not also be confidently declared that, in the face of all MS. evidence,(142) no future Editors of the New Testament will be found to accept the highly improbable reading ? a????p??

? ?e??e??? ??s???, in S. John ix. 11, although the same two Codices conspire in exhibiting it?-or, on the authority of one of them (?), to read e? a?t? ??? est??(143) (for ?? a?t? ??? ??) in S. John i. 4?-Certain at least it is that no one will _ever_ be found to read (with B) ed?????ta d?? in S. Luke x. 1,-or (with ?) ? e??e?t?? t?? ?e?? (instead of ? ???? t?? ?e??) in S. John i. 34.-But let me ask, With what show of reason can the pretence of _Infallibility_, (as well as the plea of Primacy), be set up on behalf of a pair of MSS. licentiously corrupt as these have already been _proved_ to be? For the readings above enumerated, be it observed, are either critical depravations of the inspired Text, or else unwarrantable interpolations. They _cannot_ have resulted from careless transcription.

3. Not a few of the foregoing instances are in fact of a kind to convince me that the text with which Cod. B and Cod. ? were chiefly acquainted, must have been once and again subjected to a clumsy process of _revision_.

Not unfrequently, as may be imagined, the result (however tasteless and infelicitous) is not of serious importance; as when, (to give examples from Cod. ?,) for t?? ????? ?p??e?s?a? a?t? (in S. Luke v. 1) we are presented with s??a????a? t?? ?????:-when for ??? ?s?t?? (in S. Luke xv.

13) we read e?? ???a? a??a?; and for ?? ????s?????te? a?t?? (in S. Luke xxii. 25), we find ?? a????te? t?? [e????] e???s?a???s?? a?t??, ?a?, (which is only a weak reproduction of S. Matth. xx. 25):-when again, for s??t?a ?d? ??e???e? (in S. John vi. 17), we are shewn ?ata?ae? de a?t???

? s??t?a: and when, for ?a? t?? ?st?? ? pa?ad?s?? a?t?? (in S. John vi.

64) we are invited to accept ?a? t?? ?? ? e???? a?t?? pa?ad?d??a?.(144) But it requires very little acquaintance with the subject to foresee that this kind of license may easily a.s.sume serious dimensions, and grow into an intolerable evil. Thus, when the man born blind is asked by the HOLY ONE if he believes ?p? t?? ???? t?? Te?? (S. John. ix. 35), we are by no means willing to acquiesce in the proposed subst.i.tute, t?? ???? t??

a????p??: neither, when the SAVIOUR says, ????s??a? ?p? t?? ??? (S. John x. 14) are we at all willing to put up with the weak equivalent ????s???s?

e ta ea. Still less is ?a? e?? a?t??? ed??as any equivalent at all for ?a? t? ?? p??ta s? ?st?, ?a? t? s? ?? in S. John xvii. 10: or, a????

??s??s?? se, ?a? p???s??s?? s?? ?sa ?? ?e?e??, for ????? se ??se?; ?a?

??se? ?p?? ?? ???e??, in S. John xxi. 18. Indeed, even when our LORD is not the speaker, such licentious depravation of the text is not to be endured. Thus, in S. Luke xxiii. 15, Cod. B and Cod. ? conspire in subst.i.tuting for ???pe?a ??? ??? p??? a?t??,-a?epe?e? ?a? a?t?? p???

?a?; which leads one to suspect the copyist was misled by the narrative in ver. 7. Similar instances might be multiplied to an indefinite extent.

Two yet graver corruptions of the truth of the Gospel, (but they belong to the same category,) remain to be specified. Mindful, I suppose, of S.

James' explanation "how that _by works_ a man is justified," the author of the text of Codices B and ? has ventured to alter our LORD's a.s.sertion (in S. Matth. xi. 19,) "Wisdom is justified of _her children_," into "Wisdom is justified by _her works_;" and, in the case of Cod. ?, his zeal is observed to have so entirely carried him away, that he has actually subst.i.tuted e???? for t????? in the parallel place of S. Luke's Gospel.-The other example of error (S. Matth. xxi. 31) is calculated to provoke a smile. Finding that our SAVIOUR, in describing the conduct of the two sons in the parable, says of the one,-?ste??? d? etae???e??

?p???e?, and of the other,-?a? ??? ?p???e?; some ancient scribe, (who can have been but slenderly acquainted with the Greek language,) seems to have conceived the notion that a more precise way of identifying the son who "_afterwards_ repented and went," would be to designate him as ? ?ste???.

Accordingly, in reply to the question,-t?? ?? t?? d?? ?p???se? t? ????a t?? pat???; we are presented (but _only in Cod._ B) with the astonis.h.i.+ng information,-?e???s?? ? ?ste???. And yet, seeing clearly that this made nonsense of the parable, some subsequent critic is found to have _transposed the order of the two sons_: and in that queer condition the parable comes down to us in the famous Vatican Codex B.

4. Some of the foregoing instances of infelicitous tampering with the text of the Gospels are, it must be confessed, very serious. But it is a yet more fatal circ.u.mstance in connexion with Cod. B and Cod. ? that they are convicted of certain perversions of the truth of Scripture which _must_ have been made with deliberation and purpose. Thus, in S. Mark xiv, they exhibit a set of pa.s.sages-(verses 30, 68, 72)-"which bear clear marks of wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod. ?, only partially in Cod. B; the object being so far to a.s.similate the narrative of Peter's denial with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the c.o.c.k crowed _twice_. (In Cod.

?, d?? is omitted in ver. 30,'-?? de?t???? and d?? in ver. 72,-'and ?a?

????t?? ?f???se in ver. 68: the last change being countenanced by B.)"(145) One such discovery, I take leave to point out, is enough to destroy all confidence in the text of these two ma.n.u.scripts: for it proves that another kind of corrupting influence,-besides carelessness, and accident, and tasteless presumption, and unskilful a.s.siduity,-has been at work on Codices B and ?. We are constrained to approach these two ma.n.u.scripts with suspicion in all cases where a supposed critical difficulty in harmonizing the statements of the several Evangelists will account for any of the peculiar readings which they exhibit.

Accordingly, it does not at all surprise me to discover that in both Codices the important word ??e????sa? (in S. Matth. xxviii. 8) has been altered into ape????sa?. I recognise in that subst.i.tution of ap? for ??

the hand of one who was not aware that the women, when addressed by the Angel, were _inside the sepulchre_; but who accepted the belief (it is found to have been as common in ancient as in modern times) that they beheld him "sitting on the stone."(146)-In consequence of a similar misconception, both Codices are observed to present us with the word "_wine_" instead of "_vinegar_" in S. Matthew's phrase ???? et? ?????

e??????: which results from a mistaken endeavour on the part of some ancient critic to bring S. Matth. xxvii. 34 into harmony with S. Mark xv.

23. The man did not perceive that the cruel insult of the "vinegar and gall" (which the SAVIOUR tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct thing from the proffered mercy of the "myrrhed wine" which the SAVIOUR put away from Himself altogether.

So again, it was in order to bring S. Luke xxiv. 13 into harmony with a supposed fact of geography that Cod. ? states that Emmaus, (which Josephus also places at sixty stadia from Jerusalem), was "_an hundred_ and sixty"

stadia distant. The history of this interpolation of the text is known. It is because some ancient critic (Origen probably) erroneously a.s.sumed that _Nicopolis_ was the place intended. The conjecture met with favour, and there are not wanting scholia to declare that this was the reading of "the accurate" copies,-notwithstanding the physical impossibility which is involved by the statement.(147)-Another geographical misconception under which the scribe of Cod. ? is found to have laboured was that Nazareth (S.

Luke i. 26) and Capernaum (S. Mark i. 28) were _in Judaea_. Accordingly he has altered the text in both the places referred to, to suit his private notion.(148)-A yet more striking specimen of the preposterous method of the same scribe is supplied by his subst.i.tution of ?a?sa??a? for Saa?e?a?

in Acts viii. 5,-evidently misled by what he found in viii. 40 and xxi.

8.-Again, it must have been with a view of bringing Revelation into harmony with the (supposed) facts of physical Science that for the highly significant Theological record ?a? ?s??t?s?? ? ????? at the Crucifixion,(149) has been subst.i.tuted both in B and ?, t?? ?????

e???p??t??,-a statement which (as the ancients were perfectly well aware(150)) introduces into the narrative an astronomical contradiction.-It may be worth adding, that Tischendorf with singular inconsistency admits into his text the astronomical contradiction, while he rejects the geographical impossibility.-And this may suffice concerning the text of Codices B and ?.

III. We are by this time in a condition to form a truer estimate of the value of the testimony borne by these two ma.n.u.scripts in respect of the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. If we were disposed before to regard their omission of an important pa.s.sage as a serious matter, we certainly cannot any longer so regard it. We have by this time seen enough to disabuse our minds of every prejudice. Codd. B and ? are the very reverse of infallible guides. Their deflections from the Truth of Scripture are more constant, as well as more licentious by far, than those of their younger brethren: their unauthorized omissions from the sacred text are not only far more frequent but far more flagrant also. And yet the main matter before us,-_their omission of the last twelve verses of S.

Mark's Gospel_,-when rightly understood, proves to be an entirely different phenomenon from what an ordinary reader might have been led to suppose. Attention is specially requested for the remarks which follow.

IV. To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the oldest we possess, S. Mark's Gospel ends abruptly at the 8th verse of the xvith chapter, and that the customary subscription (???? ??????) follows,-is true; but it is far from being _the whole_ truth. It requires to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of _the next ensuing column_ to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of S. Mark's Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. He has left in this place one column entirely vacant.

It is _the only vacant column_ in the whole ma.n.u.script;-a blank s.p.a.ce _abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld. Why_ did he leave that column vacant? _What_ can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule?

The phenomenon,-(I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to it,)-is in the highest degree significant, and admits of only one interpretation. _The older MS._ from which Cod. B was copied must have infallibly _contained_ the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out,-and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank s.p.a.ce _in memoriam rei_. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex is made to _refute itself_ even while it seems to be bearing testimony against the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel, by withholding them: for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary circ.u.mstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By _leaving room_ for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of fifteen centuries and a half, _a more ancient witness than itself_. The venerable Author of the original Codex from which Codex B was copied, is thereby brought to view. And thus, our supposed adversary (Codex B) proves our most useful ally: for it procures us the testimony of an hitherto unsuspected witness. The earlier scribe, I repeat, unmistakably comes forward at this stage of the inquiry, to explain that _he_ at least is prepared to answer for the genuineness of these Twelve concluding Verses with which the later scribe, his copyist, from his omission of them, might unhappily be thought to have been unacquainted.

It will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting that the scribe of Cod. B. _may_ have copied from a MS. which exhibited the same phenomenon which he has himself reproduced. This, by s.h.i.+fting the question a little further back, does but make the case against Cod. ? the stronger.

But in truth, after the revelation which has been already elicited from Cod. B, the evidence of Cod. ? may be very summarily disposed of. I have already, on independent grounds, ventured to a.s.sign to that Codex a somewhat later date than is claimed for the Codex Vatica.n.u.s.(151) My opinion is confirmed by observing that the Sinaitic contains no such blank s.p.a.ce at the end of S. Mark's Gospel as is conspicuous in the Vatican Codex. I infer that the Sinaitic was copied from a Codex which had been already mutilated, and reduced to the condition of Cod. B; and that the scribe, only because he knew not what it meant, exhibited S. Mark's Gospel in consequence as if it really had no claim to those twelve concluding verses which, nevertheless, _every_ authority we have hitherto met with has affirmed to belong to it of right.

Whatever may be thought of the foregoing suggestion, it is at least undeniable that Cod. B and Cod. ? are at variance on the main point. They _contradict_ one another concerning the twelve concluding verses of S.

Mark's Gospel. For while Cod. ? refuses to know anything at all about those verses, Cod. B admits that it remembers them well, by volunteering the statement that they were found in the older codex, of which it is in every other respect a faithful representative. The older and the better ma.n.u.script (B), therefore, refutes its junior (?). And it will be seen that logically this brings the inquiry to a close, as far as the evidence of the ma.n.u.scripts is concerned. We have referred to the oldest extant copy of the Gospels in order to obtain its testimony: and,-"Though without the Twelve Verses concerning which you are so solicitous," (it seems to say,) "I yet hesitate not to confess to you that an older copy than myself,-the ancient Codex from which I was copied,-actually did contain them."

The problem may, in fact, be briefly stated as follows. Of the four oldest Codices of the Gospels extant,-B, ?, A, C,-two (B and ?) are _without_ these twelve verses: two (A and C) are _with_ them. Are these twelve verses then an unauthorized _addition_ to A and C? or are they an unwarrantable _omission_ from B and ?? B itself declares plainly that from itself they are an omission. And B is the oldest Codex of the Gospel in existence. What candid mind will persist in clinging to the solitary fact that from the single Codex ? these verses are away, in proof that "S.

Mark's Gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude it?"

Let others decide, therefore, whether the present discussion has not already reached a stage at which an unprejudiced Arbiter might be expected to address the prosecuting parties somewhat to the following effect:-

"This case must now be dismissed. The charge brought by yourselves against these Verses was, that they are an unauthorized addition to the second Gospel; a spurious appendix, of which the Evangelist S. Mark can have known nothing. But so far from substantiating this charge, you have not adduced a single particle of evidence which renders it even probable.

"The appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to MSS. It has been accepted. And with what result?

(_a_) "Those many Fathers whom you represented as hostile, prove on investigation to be reducible to _one_, viz. Eusebius: and Eusebius, as we have seen, _does not say_ that the verses are spurious, but on the contrary labours hard to prove that they may very well be genuine. On the other hand, there are earlier Fathers than Eusebius who quote them without any signs of misgiving. In this way, the positive evidence in their favour is carried back to the iind century.

(_b_) "Declining the testimony of the Versions, you insisted on an appeal to MSS. On the MSS., in fact, you still make your stand,-or rather you rely on _the oldest_ of them; for, (as you are aware,) _every MS. in the world except the two oldest_ are against you.

"I have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS.; and it has volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than itself-_the Codex from which it was copied_-was furnished with those very Verses which you wish me to believe that some older MS. still must needs have been without. What else can be said, then, of your method but that it is frivolous? and of your charge, but that it is contradicted by the evidence to which you yourselves appeal?

"But it is illogical; that is, it is unreasonable, besides.