_ occasions
which admit of _no_ difference of opinion; or next to none. Let us
endeavour, I say, to ascertain _the character of the Witnesses_ by a
patient and unprejudiced examination of their Evidence,--not in one place,
or in two, or in three; but on several important occasions, and
throughout. If we find it invariably consentient and invariably truthful,
then of course a mighty presumption will have been established, the very
strongest possible, that their adverse testimony in respect of the
conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel must needs be worthy of all acceptation.
But if, on the contrary, our inquiries shall conduct us to the very
opposite result,--what else can happen but that our confidence in these two
MSS. will be hopelessly shaken? We must in such case be prepared to admit
that it is just as likely as not that this is only _one more occasion_ on
which these "two false witnesses" have conspired to witness falsely. If,
at this juncture, extraneous evidence of an entirely trustworthy kind can
be procured to confront them: above all, if some one ancient witness of
unimpeachable veracity can be found who shall bear contradictory evidence:
what other alternative will be left us but to reject their testimony in
respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with something like indignation; and to
acquiesce in the belief of universal Christendom for eighteen hundred
years that these twelve verses are just as much entitled to our
unhesitating acceptance as any other twelve verses in the Gospel which can
be named?

I. It is undeniable, in the meantime, that for the last quarter of a
century, it has become the fashion to demand for the readings of Codex B
something very like absolute deference. The grounds for this superstitious
sentiment, (for really I can describe it in no apter way,) I profess
myself unable to discover. Codex B comes to us without a history: without
recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces
of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original
transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence. "They are chiefly omissions,
of one, two, or three words; but sometimes of half a verse, a whole verse,
or even of several verses.... I hesitate not to assert that it would be
easier to find a folio containing three or four such omissions than to
light on one which should be without any."(123) In the Gospels alone,
Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times:(124)