4. From Tischendorf's list of thirteen Fathers, serious deductions have to be made. Irenaeus and Victor of Antioch are clearly with the Textus Receptus. Serapion, Titus, Basil do but borrow from Origen; and, with his argument, reproduce his corrupt text of St. Mark i. 2. The last-named Father however saves his reputation by leaving out the quotation from Malachi; so, passing directly from the mention of Isaiah to the actual words of that prophet. Epiphanius (and Jerome too on one occasion[219]) does the same thing. Victorinus and Augustine, being Latin writers, merely quote the Latin version ('sicut scriptum est in Isaia propheta'), which is without variety of reading. There remain Origen (the faulty character of whose Codexes has been remarked upon already), Porphyry[220] the heretic (who wrote a book to convict the Evangelists of mis-statements[221], and who is therefore scarcely a trustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome and Severianus. Of these, Eusebius[222] and Jerome[223] deliver it as their opinion that the name of 'Isaiah' had obtained admission into the text through the inadvertency of copyists. Is it reasonable, on the slender residuum of evidence, to insist that St. Mark has ascribed to Isaiah words confessedly written by Malachi? 'The fact,' writes a recent editor in the true spirit of modern criticism, 'will not fail to be observed by the careful and honest student of the Gospels.' But what if 'the fact' should prove to be 'a fiction' only? And (I venture to ask) would not 'carefulness' be better employed in scrutinizing the adverse testimony? 'honesty' in admitting that on grounds precarious as the present no indictment against an Evangelist can be seriously maintained? This proposal to revive a blunder which the Church in her corporate capacity has from the first refused to sanction (for the Evangelistaria know nothing of it) carries in fact on its front its own sufficient condemnation. Why, in the face of all the copies in the world (except a little handful of suspicious character), will men insist on imputing to an inspired writer a foolish mis-statement, instead of frankly admitting that the text must needs have been corrupted in that little handful of copies through the officiousness of incompetent criticism? And do any inquire,--How then did this perversion of the truth arise? In the easiest way possible, I answer. Refer to the Eusebian tables, and note that the foremost of his sectional parallels is as follows:-- St. Matt. [Greek: e] (i.e. iii. 3). St. Mark. [Greek: b] (i.e. i. 3). St. Luke. [Greek: z] (i.e. iii. 3-6). St. John. [Greek: i] (i.e. i. 23)[224].