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] “GOD 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 [pg 425] 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 godliness:—God 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,
“Great Is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,” &c.:
Which contention of yours I hold to be demonstrably incorrect, and proceed to prove is a complete misconception.