ternal evidence than by external testimony. This verdict becomes the
more important because it proceeds from men of undoubted earnestness and
high ability; who cannot be suspected of being either unacquainted with
the evidence on which the point in dispute rests, nor inexperienced in the
art of weighing such evidence. Moreover, their verdict has been
independently reached; is unanimous; is unhesitating; has been eagerly
proclaimed by all three on many different occasions as well as in many
different places;(12) and may be said to be at present in all but
undisputed possession of the field.(13) The first-named Editor enjoys a
vast reputation, and has been generously styled by Mr. Scrivener, "the
first Biblical Critic in Europe." The other two have produced text-books
which are deservedly held in high esteem, and are in the hands of every
student. The views of such men will undoubtedly colour the convictions of
the next generation of English Churchmen. It becomes absolutely necessary,
therefore, to examine with the utmost care the grounds of their verdict,
the direct result of which is to present us with a mutilated Gospel. If
they are right, there is no help for it but that the convictions of
eighteen centuries in this respect must be surrendered. But if Tischendorf
and Tregelles are wrong in this particular, it follows of necessity that
doubt is thrown over the whole of their critical method. The case is a
crucial one. Every page of theirs incurs suspicion, if their deliberate
verdict in _this_ instance shall prove to be mistaken.

1. Tischendorf disposes of the whole question in a single sentence. "That
these verses were not written by Mark," (he says,) "admits of satisfactory
proof." He then recites in detail the adverse external testimony which his
predecessors had accumulated; remarking, that it is abundantly confirmed
by internal evidence. Of this he supplies a solitary sample; but declares
that the whole passage is "abhorrent" to S. Mark's manner. "The facts of
the case being such," (and with this he dismisses the subject,) "a healthy
piety reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as
Mark's what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn to have known nothing at
all about."(14) A mass of laborious annotation which comes surging in at
the close of verse 8, and fills two of Tischendorf's pages, has the effect
of entirely divorcing the twelve verses in question from the inspired text
of the Evangelist.