In the Vth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria,(105) on no less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret(106) on 4;—(18) Theodotus of Ancyra(107) on 5 (once(108) in a homily preached before the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);—(19) Proclus(109) archbishop of Constantinople;—(20) Paulus(110) bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);—(21) the Eastern bishops(111) at Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431 (an unusually weighty piece of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil of Seleucia.(112) Now, let it be remarked that _these were contemporaries of codex_ A. In the VIth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the voyager,(113) 5 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,(114)—(25) Eulogius(115) archbishop of Alexandria: _contemporaries, be it remembered, of codex_ D. In the VIIth,—(26) Andreas of Crete(116) twice. And in the VIIIth,—(27) Cosmas(117) bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,—and his pupil (28) John Damascene,(118)—and (29) Germanus(119) archbishop of Constantinople. To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain date, but _all_ of considerable antiquity; and some(120) are proved by internal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,—in short, to be of the date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among whose genuine works their productions are probably _not_ to be reckoned. One of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:(121) a second, for (31) Methodius:(122) a third, for (32) Basil.(123) Three others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be (33, 34, 35) Athanasius.(124) One has passed for (36) Gregory of Nyssa;(125) another for (37) Epiphanius;(126) while no less than eight (38 to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,(127) some of them being certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,(128) and (47) the author of the apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,—and it will be perceived that 18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time when A B א D were written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom themselves.(129) _For our present purpose_ they are _Codices_ of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more than _forty-seven_ ancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation that the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is _the true reading_, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off upon us is _a fabrication and a blunder_. Will any one be found to maintain that the authority of B and א is appreciable, when confronted by the first 15 _contemporary Ecclesiastical Writers_ above enumerated? or that A can stand against the 7 which follow?