CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 L I BRARY 
 
 The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz 
 Book Endowment for the Humanities 
 
 Class of 1924 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 3 1924 088 200 096 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924088200096 
 
THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF 
 THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK 
 
THE 
 
 LAST TWELVE VERSES 
 
 OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 
 
 S. MARK 
 
 VINDICATED AGAINST RECENT CRITICAL OBJECTORS 
 AND ESTABLISHED 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN W. BURGON B.D. 
 
 VICAR OF S. MARy-THE-VJKCIN'S, FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, 
 AND GRESHAM LECTURER IN DIVINITY. 
 
 WITH FACSIMILES OF CODEX K AND CODEX L 
 
 " 'Advice to you,' sir, 'in studying Divinity?' Did you say 
 that you ' wished 1 would give you a few words of advice, ' sir ? 
 . . . Then let me recommend to you the practice of always 
 vtyifyin^ your rifertmt!, sir!" 
 
 Cont'ersation of the late President Roi'th. 
 
 ©xforD "anb tkitilionj 
 
 JAMES PAB.KEpR^ ANJ^ CO. 
 1871. 
 
On tlic opposite page is exhibited au vxaci Fnc-simi/f, ob- 
 tained by Photography, of fol. 28 b of the Codex Sixaiticus 
 at S. Petersburg, (Tischendorf's k) : shewing the abrupt ter- 
 luiuntion of S. Mark's Gospel at the words e*obotnto tap 
 (chap. XVI. 8), as explained at p. 70, and pp. 86 — 8. The 
 original Photograph, which is here reproduced on a dimi- 
 nished scale, measures in height full fourteen inches and 
 one- eighth ; in breadth, full thirteen inches. It was pro- 
 cured for me through the friendly and zealous ofiBces of the 
 English Chaplain at >S. Petersburg, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, 
 P.D. ; by favour of the Keeper of the Imperial Library, who 
 has my hearty thanks for his liberality and consideration. 
 
 It will be perceived that the text begins at S. Mark xvi. 2, 
 and ends with the first words of S. Luke i. 18. 
 
 Up to this houi", every endeavour to obtain a Photograph 
 of the corresponding page of the Codex Yaticaxus, B, 
 (N». 1209, in the Vatican,) has proved unavailing. If the 
 present Vindication of the genuineness of Twelve Verses of 
 the everlasting Gospel should have the good fortune to ap- 
 prove itself to his Holiness, Pope Pius IX., let me be per- 
 mitted in this unadorned and unusual manner, — (to which 
 I would fain add some circumstance of respectful ceremony 
 if I knew how,) — very humbl)' to entreat his Holiness to 
 allow me to possess a Photograph, corresponding in size 
 with the original, of the page of Codex 13 (it is numbered 
 fol. 1303,) which exhibits the abrupt termination of the 
 Gospel according to S. Mark. 
 
 J. TV. B. 
 
 OBIEL COIXies, OZPOBD, 
 
 JuM 14, 1871. 
 
iixrK'N 
 
 > K>v' J KN.- Y **^*^' 
 
 e'-' v:o»*iT~><i GPi i-ro > 
 pfbTOyH^loy - I 
 
 /vi e p N-e KTH ce Y > 
 O Y i^ ^' ."i,*^-) r AFT*- 
 wi^<€.KY>^rtr»M eh4-'~ 
 
 Y" M W h4 M e I o Ktej > 
 
 KAPH MeMpKi'eKi' 
 -Tof cj>ve3: r oi if n et i 
 
 ^e RAH M t M O M-crfV 
 >i^ W >-= -Y KM W- KKI 
 
 CAvKJ 
 
 OKe xe T^* AY=3r>^ fti 
 
 TeTo h» ccVa-Y *" 
 J ijrn n" I -; O »-» »-f f e r 
 Off OY l-'»"C -Tl^v! » 
 
 PTI Q'J fe .© »i^ ■♦< *vKi > 
 >^-^ JssV.Y''r\ps^reT«f ^t 
 
 » .A > 1 "* o n i; I Y*^ 
 0*r l-n I <> \ I e rY ^ 
 M-W<? » CT J : ?».' r/v: 
 A* IVM*-t«-i:KGi> 
 
 ^^Y»1»?^' 
 
 «;-sJp>*j- » ot t Xiio ^i 
 
 T'o'i'K'l- • 5 »e|-oY' 
 
 • • > !>e«f>4 J,:,>Y>>.-YT'-' 
 
 Jr. 
 
 CTxe J o i<xi o Y' 
 A.e SI I o'.-.K.c M e » > 
 
 
 *ivv> v»^>> ■>■>>»- 
 
 
 M 
 
 >^<.x^->^J^ 
 
 XJ»> f.K-M> 
 
 A cneixH nt?rrioKX-i 
 
 ' entJXf ^^^^ox^-l*MK 
 
 Txxxcexi hJH rncj>j 
 
 neriTiuNnenxH' 
 
 fO'a>o fH Mew a>M; 
 
 e Ki H M i Ki n f V'M*^''-' 
 
 KXOU)eTlXr€XOCAN 
 
 H H I MOixr T^jxncxj' 
 Tin rrrxi kXi y" Hfc 
 TKi re»>ioi.i;6 woiity . 
 •Xo ro^GikOite kxmoi 
 •ri X| H KoxoYanK-ri 
 
 Kre» l.tUCK^^CiH.L- 
 CO 1 1 J-XYXI Kf XT >" !"• 
 
 Ax>ru7 NITH M XtxJj A. 
 
 MX:-- Grer-ie-tofeN 
 
 VY "»x<Jl A«^<^'>t ' ^'Hc 
 1 c »^=X>a^r«>€ TeYfTi- 
 
 eie4> » « *-+e r ' ^*^'*>*' ^ 
 
 -:-"■'>/ r-'YrJvTflcr )-! 
 
 ^i* ^1 TH c&xi cxr,»T 
 > irrXMXfiAj^^KXJp; XJ*. 
 <po^f7P^€H>*ma« 
 'rny& if noffeYOM 6« 
 
 e-IMH OAXlcKKi kj KM 
 
 , «> M xci i*rTb Y kyJ^ • 
 «*fH r.r ro I KXK)Y^si^' ' 
 ^YTra>»tT6KHi6>5K)#' 
 OTrri K N H 6Xe U-X|.'T 
 .erre?7XK>u AM<po • 
 l^ta I r* j-oKEfcH ko • : 
 TTPc-eNrrXlCHMeTXi' 
 }^*ia>UHtytrt- ,, • 
 
 rx:rGYe»M'xY^>J <?" 
 
 rHTX3t«-r*<C6<f>M 
 
 M€;nxcXf5'^naY«^>**^ 
 TJOKK iToyorirKxnX 
 *Ti»eooc^fMc»trxT'i 
 
 XcSsX^et^eyM 'X 
 
 c>.| ei ccxetDKieic' 
 -|"t>N w xo MTOY KY ■ 
 
 KWi ixfJToriXHoo* 
 
 II NTo Y*-xoYn f^pC'T 
 .x-oM c= H a w €Zar?wii> 
 
 j-xTo Y®YM » XM x^s -i 
 
 cucj^oHxeXYT'"*^"* 
 
 AO C KY^'^^TU? ce KX! 
 
 -j; riOKiTo ye Y<^'^^^ 
 f »oYTDY^ Y >^ • *>f^ 
 
 'lor KXll?T>J'.VXOrf' 
 
 '. vxxpxcjWoH »<>J 
 |^L»Eo<:eri€neceni 
 
 -nxY^o'^'' ' ■ -^ 
 CI 1 1 CM iuE n j^ocxyr- N 
 
 OXI -nt?XO CM H<i>-6r| 
 U?AXXflXi.(0-T76!'H 
 
 f'.OYOeH HXfHc;ic> 
 coy KXI H rvH Hic-y 
 exe I cxg.e'T^nG^>^^y+ 
 
 ,»ircGicTt>6M 9MXXY 
 '/r>Yioi>;.Kj i^f M KXie* 
 CTAJx>-rxcol KXiX 
 r> /.XiA-cic kX-j nox 
 \D I e r : n H rfcri Gcei 
 AY-n«Y>s>-flHGoVTvi 
 i-("7Xi r^k f Me rxr»^ 
 
 MOMTOLM*^t|Xoy 
 
 M WTi H ^vVin^c-v 
 oyTTXHce'Hc^^rXJe 
 
 *cYT«t^>Mnt*\V:y- 
 
 trrreS-eis-rj J Ki j-p 
 
 ewVvYstDK' t4Vj>y 
 
 - jPorHoe Ae*?=«»TAi 
 
 HeiHKeixenicnj* 
 -KM KXf Aixpr»XTe 
 /ct>H fin >Tq»^^>^»«>' 
 , r^tioejcaiippo 
 
 -lo: «.vr>j Kii a>kjM 
 
 oi-f i?ieMX>»^;>? 
 
ufijju yap \fya> v^'iv, 
 
 ecof iv Tvap^xer, 6 ovpapos Ka\ r, yij, 
 
 -ra ^ ^ f,la ,,pala ov ^^ ^apUdr, dno roO .6pov, 
 
 fcot av irdvTa yiurjrat. 
 
 (VKOiraiTfpov St (an 
 
 roi. ovpa^hu kui t^v yij^ napiXduu, 
 
 V Tov vofiov fii'au Kfpalav ireaelu. 
 
 o ovpavhs Koi tJ y^ TrapeXevaouTai, 
 01 S€ X6yoi fiov ov fiij TrapeXdcoa-i. 
 
 Kat fau ny d^aiprf 
 
 ani> rc2^ X6ycov fiifiXov rij, npo<pr}T(la, ra^rrj,, 
 
 ^(fiaiprjaii 6 Geoy to p.(pos airoD 
 
 CTTO fil^Xov TTJs' ^(orjs, 
 
 Kai fK rqs iroXicos ttjs ayia^, 
 
 Kai Tw yeypanp.ivav iv fiifiXicc rovTcp. 
 
 TO 
 
 SIR ROUNBELL PALMER, Q.C., M.P., 
 
 Sfc, 8,-c., 8fc. 
 
 Deab Sis Roiwdzll, 
 
 I do viy^elf ihe honour qfiiiscn'/jiiig this volume to you. Per- 
 mit inc to (xphin the rcasoii uhij. 
 
 It is not mereli/ that I may give expression to a sentiment of 
 private friendship tihich dates back from the pleasant time irhen 
 I im? Curate to your Father, — uhose memory I never recal 
 tritfiouf love and veneration ; — nor even in order to afford myself 
 the opportunity of testifying hoir much I honour you for the 
 hohlf example of conscientious uprightness and integrity which 
 you set us on a recent public occasion. It is for no such reason 
 that I dedicate to you this vindication of the last Tirelve Verses 
 (f the Gospel according to S. Mark. 
 
 It is because I desire supremely to submit the argument con- 
 tained in the ensuing ])ages to a practised Judicial intellect of the 
 lofricst stamp. Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that 
 thife " last Twelve Verses" arc not genuine. The Critics, almost 
 to a man, avow themselves of the same opinion. Popular Preju- 
 dice- has been for a long time past warmly enlisted on the same side. 
 I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse is the 
 truth. It is not even with vie as it is trith certain learned 
 friends of mine, icho, admitting tJie adversary's premisses, con- 
 tent themselves with denying the validity of his inference. How- 
 evxr true it may be, — and it is true, — that from those premisses 
 the proposed conclusion does not follow, I yet venture to deny the 
 correctness of those premisses altogether. I insist, on the con- 
 
VI 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 irarij, ihai the Evidcucc relied on is untrmticorthy, — untrusi- 
 H'orihy in crcry pnrticiilnr. 
 
 Ifoir, in the uuaritiinc, can such an one as I am hope to 
 jtcrsiiade the irorld that it is as I say, whik the most iUitstrioits 
 Biblical Critics at home and abroad arc agreed, and against me ? 
 Clearly, the first thing to be done is to secure for myself a full 
 and patient hearing. With this vieir, I have irrittcu a book. 
 But next, instead of icaitlng for the slow verdict of Public 
 Opinion, (ichich yet, I know, must come after many days,) I 
 desiderate for the Evidence I have collected, a competent and an 
 impartial Judge. And that is nhy I dedicate my book to you. 
 If I can but get this case fairly tried, I have no doubt whatever 
 about the result. 
 
 Wliether you arc able to find time to read these pages, or not, 
 it shall content me to hare shewn in this manner the confidence 
 frith which I advocate my cause ; the kind of test to tchich I 
 propose to bring my reasonings. If I may be allowed to say so, 
 — S. Mark's last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a 
 subject of dispute among men. / am able to prove that 
 this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be sjmrious on 
 irholly mistaken grounds : and this ought in fairness to close 
 the discussion. But I claim to have done more. I claim to have 
 shewn, from considerations uhich have been hitherto overlooked, 
 that its genuineness must needs be reckoned among the things 
 that are absolutely certain. 
 
 I am, with sincere regard and respect, 
 Bear Sir Roundell, 
 
 Very faithfully yours, 
 
 JOHN W. BURGON. 
 
 Oriel, 
 July, 1871. 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 mniS volun.o is n.y contribution towavcls the better 
 ^ understanding of a subject uhich is destined, 
 .-hen it shall have grown into a Science, to vindi- 
 cate for itself a mighty province, and to enjoy para- 
 Lnnt attention. I allude to the Textual Criticism 
 of the New Testament Scriptures. 
 
 That this Study is still in its infancy, all may see 
 The very principles on which it is based are as yet 
 only imperfectly understood. The reason is obvious. 
 It is because the very foundations have not yet been 
 l,ia, (except to a wholly inadequate extent,) on which 
 the future superstructure is to rise. A careful colla- 
 Hoii of every extant Codex, (executed after the man- 
 „er of the Kev. F. H. Scrivener's labours in this dc 
 p.utment,) is the first indispensable preliminary to 
 real progress. Another, is a revised Text, not to 
 !. a moi-e exact knowledge, of the oldest Versions. 
 Scarcely of inferior importance would be critically , 
 Lrect editions of the Fathers of the Clnirch; and 
 lose must by all means be furnished with far com- 
 pleter Indices of Texts tbau have ever yet been at- 
 tempted.-There is not a single Father to be named 
 Lose Works have been hitherto fui.ished wiUi even 
 „ tolerably complete Index of the places in which he 
 
Vlll 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 either quotes, or else clearly refers to, the Text of the 
 New Testament : while scarcely a tithe of the known 
 MSS. of the Gospels have as yet been satisfactorily 
 collated. Strange to relate, we are to this hour with- 
 out so much as a satisfactory Catalogue of the Copies 
 which are known to be extant. 
 
 But when all this has been done, — (and the Science 
 deserves, aud requires, a little more public encourage- 
 ment than has hitherto been bestowed on the arduous 
 and — let nie not be ashamed to add the word — unre- 
 munerativc labour of Textual Criticism,) — it Avill be 
 discovered that the popular and the prevailing Theory 
 is a mistaken one. The plausible hypothesis on which 
 recent recensions of the Text have been for the most 
 part conducted, will be seen to be no longer tenable. 
 The latest decisions will in consequence be gene- 
 rally reversed. 
 
 I am not of course losing sight of what has been 
 already achieved in this department of Sacred Learn- 
 ing. "While our knowledge of the uncial MSS. has been 
 rendered tolerably exact and complete, an excel- 
 lent beginning has been made, (chiefly by the Bev. 
 F. H. Scrivener, the most judicious living Master 
 of Textual Criticism,) in acquainting us with the con- 
 tents of about seventy of the cursive MSS. of the Kew 
 Testament. And though it is impossible to deny that 
 the published Texts of Doctors Tischendorf and Tre- 
 gelles as Texts are wholly inadmissible, yet is it 
 equally certain that by the conscientious diligence 
 with which those distinguished Scholars have respec- 
 
 TREFACr. 
 
 IX 
 
 tivelv laboured, they have erected monuments of then- 
 learning and ability which will endure for ever. Then- 
 Editions of the Kew Testament will not be super- 
 seded by any new discoveries, by any future advances 
 in the Science of Textual Criticism. The MSS. which 
 they have edited wiU remain among the most pre- 
 cious materials for future study. All honour to them ! 
 If in the warmth of controversy I shall appear to 
 bave spoken of them sometimes without becommg 
 deference, let me here once for all confess that I am 
 to blame, and express my regret. When they have 
 publicly begged S. Mark's pardon for the grievous 
 wrong they have done him, I will very humbly beg 
 their pardon also. 
 
 In conclusion, I desire to offer my thanks to the 
 Rev. John Wordsworth, late Fellow of Brasenose Col- 
 lege for his patient perusal of these sheets as they 
 ba°vc passed through the press, and for favouring me 
 with several judicious suggestions. To him may be 
 applied the saying of President Eouth on receiving 
 a visit from Bishop Wordsworth at his lodgings,— 
 «<I see the learned son of a learned Father, sir!''— 
 Let me be permitted to add that my friend inherits 
 the Bishop's fine taste and accurate judgment also. 
 
 And now I dismiss this Work, at which I have 
 conscientiously laboured for many days and many 
 nights ; beginning it in joy and ending it in sorrow. 
 The Colle-e in which I have for the most part written 
 it is designated in the preamble of its Charter and 
 in its Foundation Statutes, (which are already much 
 
^ rnEFACE. 
 
 more than half a thousand years old,) as CoUcf/ium 
 Schohrium in Sacra Theologid studcntium.—pcrpetuis 
 imporihus duraturum. Indebted, under God, to the 
 pious munificence of the Founder of Oriel 'for my 
 opportunities of study, I venture, in what I must 
 needs call evil days, to hope that I have to some 
 extent "employed my advantages," — (the expres- 
 sion occurs in a prayer used by this Society on its 
 three solemn anniversaries,) — as oui- Founder and 
 Benefactors "would approve if they were now upon 
 earth to witness what we do." 
 
 J. W. B. 
 
 Okiel, 
 July, 1871. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 DEDICATION 
 PREFACE . 
 
 p. Ill 
 p. V 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 The case of the last Tvtelte Verses of S. Make's GosrEL, 
 
 STATED. 
 
 These Venes geiieraUi/ suspected at the present iii,ie. The poputarit]/ of 
 this opinion accounted for . . . . . . p. 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 The hostile teedict of Biblical Cnrrics shetvs to be quite of 
 
 BECENT DATE. 
 
 O'ricsliaeh the first to deny the gemiiticness of these /f/ifi (p. 6). — Lach- 
 innnn's fetal principle (p. 8) the cine to the vnfatovrolle verdict of 
 Tischendurf (p. 9), of Treadles (p. 10), of Alford (p. 12) ; which has 
 been gencrallt/ adopted li/ snlseqiiciit Scholars and Dicities (p. 13). — 
 I'he nature of the present ingiiiry CTplained (p.lb). . . p. 5 
 
 CHAPTER 111. 
 The eahly Fathebs appealed to, akd obseeted to beab favoub- 
 
 ABLE -WITXESS TO THESE VekSES. 
 
 I'alristic evidence sonictinies the most important of any (p. 20). — The im- 
 portance of such ecideitce exjdained (p. 21). — Kinetecn Patristic iritaesses 
 to these Verses, produced {^. iZ). — Sui,i„i<irj/ {^.'iQ). . . p. 19 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The eably Veksioxs examised, and foukd to held cxfaltebikg 
 TESTiMOxr to the genxtikesess of these Verses. 
 
 The Peshilo, — the Curetoiiiau Syriac, — and the R'ccnuon of Thomas of 
 Hharkcl (p. Z'i).—The Vulgate {\i.H)—and the Veins llala (p.35),— 
 the Gothic (p.35) — and the Egyptian Versions (p- 35). — Renew of the 
 Ecidencr np to this point (p. 3G). . . . . p. 32 
 
xn 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHArTElJ V. 
 
 ThK AI.LKGED HOSTILK WITNESS OF CKBTAIN' OF THE EAKLY FaTHEBS 
 I-HOVED TO DE AN IMiGI.VATIOX OF THE ChITICS. 
 
 TIf hdstdke concerniiiff GrerjOTi/ of Kyssa (p.39).— T/^- uisconception con. 
 cerniiiff EuxelAiis (j). 41).— y/i? oternjht courerniiiff Jerome (p. 51); aho 
 coiicerning Uesyrhius of Jerusnlfm, (or ehe Hetenis of AnCtoch) (p. 57) ,- 
 — and ihe mis-statement conrerniiij Victor of Aiitioch (p. 59). . p. 3S 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 MaXTSCKIPT TESIIMOXY shewn to be OTEnirnELMIXGLT IN FATOrB 
 OF THESE VeHSES. PaBT I. 
 
 S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20, containei in etery MS. in the irorli except tieo,— 
 Irrational claim to Infallibilitj/ set tip on behalf of Cod. B (p. 73) and 
 Cod. S (p. 75). — These iico Codices iheiru to be full of gross Omissions 
 (p. 78), — Interpolations (p. 80), — Corruptions of the Text (p.Sl),—and 
 Perversions of the Truth (p. 83). — The testimony of Cod. B to S. Mark 
 xvi. 9 — 20, sheu:n to be favourable, noticithttandiiu/ (p. 86). . p. 70 
 
 CHAPTEE VII. 
 
 MaNTSCBIPI TESTIMONT shewn to be OTEEWHELMIKGLY in FATOrB 
 OF THESE VeBSES. PaKT II. 
 
 The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and H(r'>. the omission of the tcords 
 if 'Z<p(a<f from Ephes. i. 1) considered. — Antiquity unfaroiirable to the 
 omission of those tcords (p. 93). — The Modems infelicitous in their 
 attempts to account for their omission (p. 100). — Marcion probably the 
 author of this corruption of the Text of Scripture (p. 106). — Other pecu- 
 liarities of Codex S disposed of, and fheicu to be errors (p. 109). p. 91 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The PtTBPORT OF ANXIENT ScHOLIA AND NOTES IK MSS. ON THE 
 SrBJECT OF THESE VeBSES, SHEWN TO BE THE EETEESE OF WHAT IS 
 C0JI3I0NLT SUPPOSED. 
 
 Later Editors of the Keic Testament the victims of their predecessors^ in- 
 accuracies. — Birch's unfortunate Mistake (p. 117). — Schoh' serious 
 blunders (p. 119 and pp. 120-1). — Griesiach's siceepiny misstatement 
 (pp. 121-2). — The grave misapprehension tchich has resulted from all this 
 inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3). 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 xni 
 
 Codcrhh m.-.i'>:'"onius not the oulUr of the so-called " J^monian" 
 Code, L (,.. U ) ^^^^^ (1,132;.-" C^sarius," a m.nomer^-- 
 
 . p. 1 1 4 
 
 Hi'ctions (y,.\io).—Ej.iphan 
 
 " The Cal'''inr" misrepresented (p. 133). 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 1NIEBN.VE Ev„.r.NCE DEMONSTBATED TO BE_ THE VERY BEVKKBE OF 
 UNFATOrRABLE TO THESE \ EBSES. 
 
 The '- Style" and - Phrascologf of these fer.s "^^-^'^ ^f^'^;;,;:'^ 
 
 not SMark's.-lnsecurily of s.ch Cr,. ^/^ /^ -^^^^ ^9-20 
 
 Chan xvi 9-20 shcrn to be the sam- a> the style of chap. .. 
 tm)-The "Phraseology" examined ,. t.rnly.^cren parl.culars, and 
 ;i i be suspicious in none (p. 145),-.-^ .« /-J-.- ^- - - 
 >be,on to be the reverse (p. 170).-,S«./< 7--^-' >'":;' £,' ';^,L 
 Judged or by a truer, a more delicate andjh,losoph,cal Test, these Fers^^ 
 proved to be most probably genuine (\> A, 0). 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The testimony or the Leciionabies shewn to be absolttteiy 
 
 DECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE A ERSES. 
 
 The Lectionar, of the East shcrn to be a ,rork of extraordinary antiquity 
 l,^L-J'rLltobeolder than any extant MS. of the GospeUbyan 
 „u,Jto the raih.rs (p.l9S).-/« this l^ct.onary, (''«''«''»"' ";'■/^- 
 tLr, of the in.O '^" /"«' r.elre Verses of S Mark's Gospel have 
 from affir,. occupied a most conspicu... as trell as '^o.thonou^^ 
 place (.Wi).-Ko,e, this becomes the test.mony of ante-i.cene Chns- 
 tendom in Ih, ir favour, and is therefore decisive (p. 209). . P- 1^^ 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 The omission of these Twelve Vebses in certain ancient Copies 
 OF THE Gospels, explained and accounted fob. 
 
 The Text of cur five oldest Uncials proved, by an induction of instances, to 
 lave snfered depravation throughout by the operation of ^'ea^ 
 l^ctionary system of the Church (p.217).-M. om.sswn of S.Mark , 
 '•lastZh' Verses," (constituting an integral Ecclesiasttcal Lectton, 
 ,he,cn by an appeal to ancient MSS. to be probably only one «ore example 
 of Ihe same depraving influence (^.iU). ,,:.„„„d 
 
 Thi solution of the problem corroborated by the '7-^;^^;^^^^ 
 of Hesychius (p. 232) ; a,_ tvell as favoured by the Wester, order^^f^ 
 the Gospels (f.n^). ■ 
 
XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 GENEUiL BETIEW or THE QEESTION : SEMMAJIT OF THE ETTDEXCE ; 
 AKD COSCLUSIOX OF THE •WnOLE SmjECI. 
 
 Thh dii^riissioM narrowed to a iiwgle issue (p. 244). — Thai S. Mjri'i Gospel 
 teas iriijierfect from the ter^ first, a thing altogether inerediUe (p. 24G).' — 
 But that at some very Te„>ote period Copies hare suffered mutilation, 
 a supposition proLnlle in He highest degree (p. 24S). — Conseqvenees of 
 this admission {f. 252). — Farting Kords (fi.ihi). . . p. 243 
 
 APPENDIX (A). 
 
 On the Importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture. — The 
 correct Text of S.LrKE ii. 14, estallished (p. 257). 
 
 APPENDIX (B). 
 
 EusEsrus "ad Marinum" concerning the reconcilement 6/" S. Mark xvi. 9 
 Kith S. Matthew jtsviii. 1 (p. 265). 
 
 APPENDIX (C). 
 
 Proof that Hestchius is a Copyist only in what he says concerning the end 
 of S. Nark's Gospel (p. 267). 
 
 APPENDIX (D). 
 
 Some arcosnt of XlCTOJi or Aktioch's Commentary en S. Mart's Gospel; 
 together tcifh a descriptire enumeration of IfSS. uhieh contain Victor's 
 Work (p. 269). 
 
 APPENDIX (E). 
 
 Text of the concluding Scholion of VlcioH OF Asiioch's Commentary on 
 S. Mark's Gospel ; in ichieh Victor heart emphatic Testimony to the 
 Genuineness of "the last Ticehe Verses" (p.28S). 
 
 APPENDIX (F). 
 
 0* the relative antiquity of the Codex Vaticaxcs (B), and the Codex 
 SiKAITICUS (N) (p. 291). 
 
 C«X1 ENTT5. 
 
 XV 
 
 APPENDIX (G\ 
 
 On the ,0.caUed) "A^oMa." ^^^;fZl^'J^:^Z. 
 a Dissertation. With sor„e occou.it of the Tables oj Ji je 
 ally found in Greek and Syriac MSS. (p.29o). 
 
 APPENDIX (H;. 
 
 On the Interpolation of the Text ./Code. B ..^ Code. S, at S. Mat.l.ov 
 
 xxrii. 4S or 49 (p. 313). 
 
 POSTSCRIPT (p. 319). 
 L'E.yror. 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 The Tacsi^ule of Coi-zx K comes immediately before the Title. aa,d 
 '"ufSSc^l-L. wi.h its pa,e of description, comes imme- 
 dialclj aficr page 124- 
 
Subjoined, for coniDiiencr, are "the Last Twelve Verses. 
 
 Avairras fie Tzptot Trpuyrr] aajSjSdrou 
 t^aiTj TptoTov Mopi'a tj MaySaXiyvfl, 
 
 iKfiVT] ropfvBi'iaa mr^yytiXc xolr /i€t' 
 aiiToii yevo^ivois, vtvBuvat kqi icXai- 
 
 0ll(7«. lcdlC(T|/CI QKOVO-ain-fC OTL f?/ (cai 
 
 i6fa6r) vn' aiTrjc r]i;'iaTt]aav . 
 
 McTO fie Tai'Ta dfaif e£ avruv 
 ntpiiraToiJatv t<pavfpwdjj iv *Ttpa 
 liop<fi^, nopfvofiii'Ots fit aypov. Ka- 
 jcfifoi aTT('K66vTfS aTTTfyytiXav roTj 
 XoiTToTf' ovfit (KflvOtS f7ritrT€V(TaV. 
 
 YaTtpov avaKfiptifOii airroit roTf 
 cvficKa f<f>av(pu>6q, kqi iivftSiae r^u 
 airnrriav aiirav kqi <rK\r]poKapbtav, 
 oTi Toii Bfairapivois airtov iyiytp- 
 jifvov oi'K fTrloTfvaav. Km cin'cv 
 ovToir, " noptuflcVrf t «ir tov Kocfiov 
 anavTa, Ktipv^ati to trayycXioK jrdcrp 
 Tp KTitTfi. 6 TTitrrfvaas kqi ^anritT' 
 Bf'iS (Ta6q<r€Tai' 6 fie aTrioT^aaf Kara- 
 Kpi6ri<riTai. cri)/X(Ta Sf TOir Trtarei- 
 cratri Toura TrapoKoXovd^aci' eV ry 
 ovopari pov dai/iovia fK^aXoiai' 
 y\bO(Tffais XaX^fTouai Kaii/air* o^ftr 
 dpoviri' k£i/ davdatpof ri niuaiv, ov 
 fi^ avTois ^Xd^n* <Vi appuarovs 
 Xf'ipot iiriBTjtrovat, Ka\ KaXus c^ov- 
 
 'O /ifv oJx Kv/)10{, /J€Ta TO XoX^- 
 o-ai avTois, avt\i)<t>0ri tis t6i< ovpavbv, 
 KOI tKaSifTtv tK it^Lav Toil 6(oC' 
 iKflvoi 6( f^t\66vT€s tKTipv^av tjav- 
 
 TQXOVy ToO KvpiOV fTUfC^oOl^Or, KQI 
 
 Toi* Xdyov fit^aioitiTos fiia tuv eVa- 
 
 KoXovdoVVTUI' ITTjpttull. AftlJI'. 
 
 (9) Now when Ji;srs was risen 
 early the first dav of the week, 
 He appeared first to Mary Mag- 
 dalene, out of -whom He had cast 
 Bcven devils. (10) And she went 
 nnd told them that had been -with 
 Hiui, as they mounied and wept. 
 (11) And they, when they hod 
 heard that He was alive, and had 
 been seen of her, believed not. 
 
 (12) After that He appeared 
 in another form unto two of 
 them, as they walked, and •went 
 into the eountry. (13) And they 
 went and told it unto the residue : 
 neither believed they them. 
 
 (14) Afterward He appeared 
 unto the eleven as they sat at 
 meat, and upbraided them with 
 their unbelief and hardness of 
 heart, becau.se they believed not 
 them which had seen Him after 
 He was risen. (15) And He said 
 unto them, "Go ye into all the 
 world, and preach the Gospel to 
 every creature. (16) He that 
 believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved ; but he that believeth 
 not shall be damned. (17) And 
 these signs shall follow them that 
 believe ; In My Name shall they 
 cast out devils ; they shall speak 
 with new tongues; (18) they 
 shall take up serpents; and if 
 tliey drink any deadly thing, it 
 ehall not hurt them ; they ^all 
 lay hands on the sick, and they 
 shall recover." 
 
 (19) So then after the Lobd 
 had spoken unto them, He -was 
 received up into Heaven, and 
 sat on the Right Hand of God. 
 (20) And they went forth, and 
 preached every where, the Loed 
 working with them, and confirm- 
 ing the word ■with signs follow- 
 ing. Amen. 
 
 1 
 
 THE LAST TWELVE VEBSES OE THE 
 GOSPEL ACCOKDIKG TO S. MARK. 
 
 I 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES 
 OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL, STATED. 
 
 /; . .,n»erted at the present time. The popuhrity 
 These Tnfcs generalhj mpectea ai ^ 
 
 of this vpivion aemmted Jor. 
 
 T W U.^, bec.n.e .be «ion » jf^f *«„^:J f.'*: 
 1 Verses of the Gospel according to b. MarK, as u 
 „„ at e a -d fact that those verses constttute no ^nt.g a 
 r „f the Gocpel It seems to be generally supposed (1) 
 C t . ^1- of MSS. is altogether fatal to their c a.jn^ ; 
 (^)"; it "the early Fathers" witness P -b' J,^ t he 
 
 • c f\\ That from considerations ol internal 
 
 ^:^'^Il^^r.^ be given up. It shall be .y 
 
 ndeavour in'the ensui.g pages to she. on the contrary 
 ;tt manuscript evidence is so overwhelmingly m t^e^ 
 
 nvour that no room is left for doubt or suspicion :-That 
 
 ie i not so much as one of the Fathers, early or late. 
 
 wl^lives it as bis opinion that these verses are spurious .- 
 
 \l rlat the argument derived from internal considera- 
 
 i prove! 0^ inU ^o be baseless and unsubstantial as 
 
 " Bri hope that I shall succeed in doing more. It shall 
 be ny endeavour to shew not only that there really is no 
 reason whatever for calling in question the genuineness of 
 ■portion of Holv Writ, but also that there exist suffi- 
 ctnt'easons for f;eling confident that it --^ - d^ ^^ 
 genuine. This is clearly as much as it is possible for me 
 
Diflifoit groi'iiifi of Doubt 
 
 [cHAr. 
 
 to achieve. But wlicn Ibis has been done, I venture to hope 
 that the verses in dispute will for the future be allowed to 
 retain their place iu the second Gospel unmolested. 
 
 It will of course be asked, — And yet, if all this be bo, 
 how does it happen that both in very ancient, and also in 
 very modern times, this proposal to suppress twelve verses 
 of the Gospel has enjoyed a certain amount of popularity ? 
 At the two different periods, (I answer,) for widely different 
 reasons, 
 
 (1.) In the ancient days, when it was the universal belief 
 of Christendom that the Word of God must needs be con- 
 sistent witb itself in every part, and proA^e in every part 
 (like its Divine Author) perfectly "faithful and true," the 
 difficulty (which was deemed all but insuperable) of bring- 
 ing certain statements in S. Mark's last Twelve Verses into 
 harmony with certain statements of the other Evangelists, 
 is discovered to have troubled Divines exceedingly. " In 
 fact," (says Mr. Scrivener,) "it brought suspicion upon these 
 verses, and caused their omission in some copies seen by 
 Eusebius." That the maiming process is indeed attributable 
 to this cause and came about in this particular way, I am 
 unable to persuade myself; but, if the desire to provide an 
 escape from a serious critical difficulty did not actually 
 occasion that copies of S. Mark's Gospel were mutilated, it 
 certainly was the reason whj', in very early times, such 
 mutilated copies were viewed without displeasure b)' some, 
 and appealed to with complacency by others. 
 
 (2.) But times are changed. "We have recently been 
 assured on high authority that the Church has reversed her 
 ancient convictions in this respect : that 7ioic, " most sound 
 theologians have no dread whatever of acknowledging minute 
 points of disagreement" (i.e. minute errors) "in the four- 
 fold narrative even of the life of the Eedeemer °." There 
 has arisen in these last days a singular impatience of Dog- 
 matic Truth, (especially Dogma of an unpalatable kind,) 
 which has even rendered popular the pretext afforded by 
 these same mutilated copies for the grave resuscitation of 
 doubts, never as it would seem seriously entertained by any 
 
 • Abp. Tiiit'6 Barmont/ of Sevelation and the Sciences, (1864,) p. 21. 
 
 '•] 
 
 i), Amicnt and in Modern Tinm. 
 
 of the ancients ; and which, at all events for 1300 years and 
 upwards, have deservedly sunk into oblivion. 
 ^rVhih I write, thai "most divine explication of the 
 ehiefCst articles of our Christian belief," t ^ Athanasian 
 Creed \ is made the object of incessant assau ts^ But then 
 it is rlmcmbered that statements quite as •'-chantabl 
 as anv which this Creed contains are found in the 16th 
 erL of S. Mark's concluding chapter ; are m fact the words 
 of Him whose very Name is Love. The precious rcarnrng 
 ",„,., I sav, (miscalled "damnatory ^") which an imperti- 
 nent ^fficiousness is for glossing with a rubric and weaken- 
 in. with an apology, proceeded from Divine bps -at least 
 i these conducing verses be genuine. How shall th. incon- 
 venient circumstance be more effectually dea t with than 
 by accepting the suggestion of the most '•^^^Z'^^^^^' . ^^* 
 S Mark's concluding verses are an unauthorised addition 
 to his GoM>el? "If it be acknowledged that the passage 
 bas a harsl. sound," (remarks Dean Stanley,) "unlike the 
 u.ual utterances of Him who came not to condemn but to. 
 save, the discoveries of later times have shewn, almos be- 
 ■lui doubt, that it is not a part of S.Mark's Gospel, h.t 
 ■„„ „ddif;..n /,/ anoaer land; of which the weakness in the 
 external evidence coincides with the internal evidence in 
 proving its later origin '." 
 
 Modern prejudice, then,-added to a singularly exagge- 
 rated estimate of the critical importance of the testimony 
 
 » S« bv oil moans Hooker, E. P.. v. xlii. 11-13. 
 
 . Abp "Tui. i. of opiniou that it "sbould not retain .ts place m tbc publ, 
 Servtc of .be Church:" «T>d Pean Stanley gives suteen reason, for the 
 L,nc opi..-.on-tbo fifteenth of which is that "many excellent laj-men, m- 
 ZnTKi... Oeorgo III., have declined ^'>^;^^^ ^^"^'11,^ 
 
 (r.„„0 ^.,.r, of0.e B.„.l f;7;'«;;;i«:V;"X .-Xn</««n..o^ 
 < In tl.B words of « thouRhtful friend, (Kcx. L.. r. x-uc";. 
 In the «oras oi . i t, „„dcr6tand mvself, n uttenng these 
 
 i. iu«t what these clanses are »of. 1 unocistana u..> , „-%.,;„. 
 
 .i. „., ,„ ,-.« . ..... -.- -rjr«rr "vX^ 
 
 1.1. L.,.a. .to 1. ft. .'~ '-'P '< "•"'■•„'"■'■' ""; 7 
 
 Serine. Aug.. 1670, pp. 158, 159). 
 
 B 2 
 
Olrw"i Qiirxfions. 
 
 [CIIAP. I. 
 
 of our tuo oldest Cod.cc. (another of the "discoveries of 
 later ,r„es concern.ng ^hich I shall have more to say 
 
 tt' tt ';^7T"; "^^"" " '■^' '""^ °P'°^- '« -- popular 
 that the last twelve verses of S.Mark are a spurious ap- 
 pendix to his Gospel. ^ 
 
 Not ^hat Biblical Critics would have us believe that the 
 Evangebst left off at verse 8, intending that the words,- 
 
 afraid, should be the conclusion of his Gospel "Xoone 
 can imagine." (writes Griesbach.) "that Mark cut sh;rt the 
 thread of his narrative at that place V It is on all hands 
 eagerly admitted, that so abrupt a termination must be held 
 to mark an incomplete or else an uncompleted work. How 
 then ,n the original autograph of the Evangelist, is it sup! 
 posed that the narrative proceeded? This is what no one 
 has even ^^ntured so much as to conjectiire. It is assumed, 
 however, that tlie original termination of the Gospel, what- 
 ever it may have been, has perished, ^e appeal; of course, 
 to is actual termination: and.-Of what nature then, (we 
 ask,) IS the supposed necessity for regarding the last twelve 
 verses of S. Mark's Gospel as a spurious substitute for what 
 the Evangelist originaUy wrote? What, in other words 
 has been the history of these modern doubts; and by what 
 steps have they established themselves in books, and won 
 the public ear ? 
 
 To explain this, shall be the object of the next ensuing 
 chapters. ° 
 
 ' Comintnlarius Criticiis, ii. 197. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE HOSTILE AT:RDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN 
 TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE. 
 
 Grieilach f/ie fnt to deny (he genuineness of these Verses (p. 6). — 
 Lachmann's fatal princijile (p. 8) the clue to the unfaiouralle 
 verdict of Tischendorf (p. 9), of Trcyilhs (p. 10), of Alford 
 (p. 12); trhich has leen generally adopted ly tuhequent Scholars 
 and Divines {■p. 13). — T7ie nature of the present inquiry explained 
 (p. 15.) 
 
 It is only since the appearance of Griesbach's second edi- 
 tion [171)6—1806] that Critics of the New Testament have 
 permitted themselves to handle the last twelve verses of 
 S. Mark's Gospel with disrespect. Previous critical editions 
 of the New Testament are free from this reproach. " There 
 is no reason for doubting the genuineness of tlais portion of 
 Scripture," wrote Mill in 1707, after a review of the evi- 
 dence (as far as he was acquainted with it) for and against. 
 Twenty-scveu years later, appeared Bengel's edition of the 
 New Testament (1734) ; and AVetstein, at the end of another 
 seventeen years (17ol-2), followed in the same field. Both 
 editors, after rehearsing the adverse testimony in extenso, 
 left the passage in undisputed possession of its place. Alter 
 in 1780-7, and Birch in 1788% (suspicious as the latter evi- 
 dently was of its genuineness.) followed their predecessors' 
 example. But Matthaei, (who also brought his labours to 
 a close in the year 1788.) was not content to give a silent 
 suffrage. He had been for upwards of fourteen years a la- 
 borious collator of Greek MSS. of the New Testament, and 
 was so convinced of the insuflBciency of the arguments which 
 had been brought against these twelve verses of S. Mark, 
 
 • Quatvar Xtangelia Oraece cum variant ibus a texiu lectioniliia Codd. 
 MSS. Biblioihecae Yaticanae, etc. Jtissu el svmtilus regiis edidit Andreai 
 ■Birch, Earmiae, 1788. A copy of this very rare and sumptuous folio may be 
 «feu iu tlie King's Library (Brit. Uus.) 
 
Gn'evlne/i's vihl Theory 
 
 [chap. 
 
 that with no ordinarj- warmth, no common acuteness, he 
 insisted on their genuineness. 
 
 "With Griesbach,"(remarksDr.Tregclles'',) "Texts which 
 may be called really critical begin;" and Griesbach is the 
 first to insist tliat the concluding verses of S. Mark are spurious. 
 That he did not suppose the second Gospel to have always 
 ended at verse 8, we have seen already '. He was of opinion, 
 however, that "at some very remote period, the original 
 ending of the Gospel perished, — disappeared perhaps from 
 the ErangeHsf's own copy, — and that the present ending was 
 by some one substituted in its place." Griesbach further in- 
 vented the following elaborate and extraordinary hj'pothesis 
 to account for the existence of S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20. 
 
 He invites his readers to believe that when, (before the 
 end of the second century,) the four Evangelical narratives 
 were collected into a volume and dignified with the title of 
 " The Gospel," — S. Mark's narrative was furnished by some 
 unknown individual with its actual termination in order to 
 remedy its manifest incompleteness; and that this volume 
 became the standard of the Alexandrine recension of the 
 text : in other words, became the fontal source of a mighty 
 family of MSS. by Griesbach designated as "Alexandrine." 
 But there will have been here and there in existence isolated 
 copies of one or more of the Gospels ; and in all of these, 
 S. Mark's Gospel, (by the hypothesis,) will have ended 
 abruptly at the eighth verse. These copies of single Gos- 
 pels, when collected together, are presumed by Griesbach 
 to have constituted " the Western recension." If, in codices 
 of this family also, the self-same termination is now all but 
 universally found, the fact is to be accounted for, (Gries- 
 bach says,) by the natural desire which possessors of the 
 Gospels will have experienced to supplement their imperfect 
 copies as best they might. " Let this conjecture be ac- 
 cepted," proceeds the learned veteran, — (unconscious appa- 
 rently that he has been demanding acceptance for at least 
 balf-a-dozen whollj' unsupported as well as entirely gratui- 
 tous conjectures,) — "and every diflBculty disappears; and 
 
 ► Accoumt of the Printed Text, p. 83. 
 
 ' See above, p. 3. 
 
 „ 3 conccnumj thne Twchv Verses. " 
 
 it becomes perfectly intelligible how there has crept into 
 wTverv codex which has been written, from the second 
 entu V downwards, a section quite different from the or. 
 la and genuine ending of S.Mark, which disappeared 
 befo e the Lr Gospels were collected into a smgle volume 
 _lTo her words, if men will but be so accommodatmg as 
 ;: assume that the conclusion of S.Mark's Gospel d.sap- 
 pear;d before any one had the opportunity of ranscr.bmg 
 fh Evangelist's inspired autograph, they will have no 
 difficulty I. understanding that the P-nt conclusion of 
 S Mark's Gospel was not really written by S. Maik^ 
 
 1 should perhaps be stated in passing, that Gnesbach 
 .as drive" into this curious maze of unsupported conjecture 
 bv the exi-^encies of his " Recension Theory ;" which, inas- 
 1 h as it has been long since exploded, need not now occupy 
 r But it is worth observing that the argument already 
 xhi^ted. (such as it is,) breaks down under t^e weight of 
 the very first fact which its learned author is obhged to lay 
 ton £ Codex B..-the solitary manuscript witness fo 
 r;.., the clause in question (for ^f^^^^f^^^^^^ 
 been discovered,)-had been already claimed b> Gne.bacU 
 "fa chid- exponenTof his so-called " Alexandrine Recension. 
 But th ... on the Critic's own hypothesis, (as we have seen 
 fladv) Codex B. ought, on the contrary, to have con- 
 /i How was that inconvenient fact to be got over ? 
 GHesbach quietly remarks in a f-t-note that O^dex B- 
 "has atlwity with the Eastern family of MSS. -Ihe mis 
 fo une of being saddled with a worthless theory was surely 
 lever more apparent. By the time we have reached this 
 p^ n in the investigation, we are reminded of - bmg so 
 ^1 as of the weary traveUer -bo. having patiently- pur- 
 sued nn iejnis fatnus through half t^^/'eb'-teholds it at 
 Lst vanish; but not untQ it has conducted him up to hi. 
 
 ^'KeiUit^H^tnor Scholz his pupil.-who inl808 and 
 1830 ro pectivliy followed Griesbach with modifications of 
 his receiision-theory.-concurred in the unfavourable s n- 
 :ce which their illustrious predecessor ^ad passed on he 
 concluding portion of S.Mark's Gospel. The latter even 
 
Lachmann the Originafor of 
 
 [chap. 
 
 eagerly vindicated its genuineness*. But with Lachmann, 
 — whose unsatisfactory text of the Gospels appeared in 
 1842, — originated a new principle of Textual Revision ; 
 the principle, namely, of pa3'ing exclusive and absolute 
 deference to the testimony of a few arbitrarily selected 
 ancient documents ; no regard being paid to others of 
 the same or of yet higher antiquity. This is not tlie 
 right place for discussing this plausible and certainly most 
 convenient scheme of textual revision. That it leads to 
 conclusions little short of irrational, is certain. I notice it 
 only because it supplies the clue to the result which, as far 
 as S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20 is concerned, has been since arrived 
 at by Dr. Tischendorf, Dr. Tregelles, and Dean Alford', — 
 the three latest critics who have formally undertaken to 
 reconstruct the sacred Text. 
 
 They agree in assuring their readers that the genuine 
 Gospel of S.Mark extends no further than ch. xvi. ver. 8: 
 in other words, that all that follows the words i<f)o^ovvTo 
 rfap is an unauthorized addition by some later hand ; " a 
 fragment," — distinguishable from the rest of the Gospel not 
 less by internal evidence than bj' 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 unhesi- 
 tating; has been eagerly proclaimed bj' all three on many 
 different occasions as well as in manj' different places ' ; and 
 
 ' " Earn esse autheuticaiii rationes iuternaeet eiternne probant gravissimae." 
 • I find it difficult to say what distress the sudden reuioval of this aiui:ilile 
 and accomplished Scholar occasions me, just as I am finishing my task. 
 I consign these pages to the press with a sense of downright reluctance, — 
 (coustraiued however by the importance of the subject,) — seeing that he \3 no 
 lunger HUiong us eiiher to accept or to dispute a single proposition. All 1 can 
 <lo is to erase every word which might have occasioned him the least an- 
 noyance ; and indeed, as seldom as possible to introduce his respected name. 
 An open grave reminds one of the tothingness of earthly controversy; as 
 nothing else does, or indec<l can do. 
 
 ' Tischendorl', besides eight editions of his laborious critical revision of the 
 Ori-ek Text, has edited our English "Authorized Version" (Tauchnitz, 18G9,) 
 
 1 
 
 „.] „ f„l«l pri„rij>l><:f TfrlmlJItmim. « 
 
 „»v he Slid to be at present in »ll W undisputed possession 
 Tr J.e fi .. The iirst-nomed Mt.r enjof. . ™.. repuU- 
 
 :r:i,ru'ni.sv'xrti^:iirT^, .- 
 
 S eTs .0 help for it but that the conv.c.tons of e.ght^ n 
 centuries in this respect must be surrendered. But i li 
 Tend nd Tregelles are wrong in this particular t fo^- 
 
 otof necessity 'that doubt is thrown over t -hde ^ 
 
 tbeir critical method. T^^7/^,\^; ^^ e -^^* 
 pipe of theirs incurs suspicion, il their oeiioe 
 in //(IS instance shall prove to be mistaken. 
 """TlLhendorf disposes of the -boMuest.n .n a -^^^^^ 
 sentence. "That these verses were not written bj Maik, 
 
 .. . .. introduction ■ addres.d to --^J^^^'^lJ I^^T;^ 
 in,, of Codd. K B and A set down >" ^"f^ ^f ^ ;^ ;, ,„, ,„„ on the 
 Tregeiies. bcidcs his ed.t.o.. o Text o >.e ^^^^ ^.^_^^^^ .^^^^_„ ^^^ ^^ 
 
 subject of S. Mark xv.. 9-20, in Ins Ac __ ^^^^^^.^ 
 
 tis- Introduction to »>'« '^^f- ^" l^l^^/^ ^^^ o^^, Lament, and an 
 .„,ro<f.)-"- Alford. besies "^ ^^ ;^;° ^/.^^ %„,en .t the Univer- 
 .W,dg,ncnfforthe ""'" f°™ "J .f^'^^^^ English Readers," and three 
 sUies.- put forth ^wo ed.t.ons of a ^J'^ J^ ^,^^ ^^, „,,^^,, Greek 
 
 "r- ■ °d y\::X':^:^^-^^ -- «- -^^" -^^^ -- 
 
 and revised; — in everj one ui „,i,. *;„,«" 
 
 .. p...ably an addition, placed here m ve.y e 1 *-- ^^,,„.„^,^ „, „,. 
 . The Rev. F. H Scrivener Bp^ El -J^i P^^^^^ D.„i„„eluc.antly 
 able exceptions to this remark. The last na h^^self ;" 
 
 admitting that " this portion may not ^^^^^'^^ ^'^^^l ^^ ,,, „ot this 
 and Bi.h„p KUicott ^^'''-'^^^'^^S^;^ r-^^ alike reso- 
 VK,rtion h,.ve been written by S. Mark a la v ^^^ ^^ 
 
 utelj insist on its genuineness and canomcit)_ To the ho ^^^^ ^ 
 
 r„,ng master of Textual Criticism, f .«;; .'^^.^f "Jj 7^ i.tated that 
 ,J. to be understood to speak as a d.snpW ^^^^^ ,^,^,, 
 
 ,.e has never at any time «'-::. ^;^-';"f;l, „!!, Wing" he has uni- 
 this portion of the Gospel. TMtUout t B il„,roductio>: 
 
 formly maintained the genuineness of S. Mark i. 
 pp. 7 anil 429-32.) 
 
10 
 
 Br. TiHchoidorfa tcrdicl. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 (he saTS,) "admits of ealisfactoiy proof." He then recites 
 in detail the adverse external testimony which his prede- 
 cessors had accumulated ; remarking, that it is abundantly 
 confinned by internal evidence. Of this he supplies a soli- 
 tary sample ; but declares that the whole passage is " ab- 
 horrent" 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 ''." A mass of 
 laborious annotation which comes surging in at the close 
 of verse 8, and fills two of Tischendorfs pages, has the effect 
 of entirely divorcing the twelve verses in question from the 
 inspired text of the Evangelist. On the other hand, the evi- 
 dence infarottr of the place is despatched in less than twelve 
 lines. "Wliat can be the reason that an Editor of the New 
 Testament parades elaborately every particular of the evi- 
 dence, (such as it is,) against the genuineness of a consider- 
 able portion of the Gospel ; and yet makes summary work 
 with the evidence in its favour ? That Tischendorf has at 
 least entire]}' made up his mind on the matter in hand is 
 plain. Ebewhere, he speaks of the Author of these verses 
 as " Pseiido Marcus^." 
 
 2. Dr. Tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this 
 subject in his " Account of the Printed Text of the Greek 
 New Testament" (1854). The respected author undertakes 
 to shew "that the early testimony that S.Mark did not 
 write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments." 
 Accordingly, he announces as the resalt of the propositions 
 which he thinks he has established, "that the look of Mark 
 himself extends no further than iif)o^owTo yap." He is the 
 
 ** " Hsc noD a Marco scripta esse argnmentis probatur idoneis," (p. 320.) 
 "QuEe testimouia aliis corroborantur arguinenti^ ut quod coulatis prioribus 
 rersu 9. parum apte adduntur verba i^' f s ixfiffi. item quod siugnla niulti- 
 fai'iam a Marci ratione abborrent." (p. 322.) — I quote from the 7th Leipsic 
 ed. ; but in Tischendorf's 8th ed. (1866k PP- 403, 406,) the same verdict is 
 repeat«d, with the following addition: — "Quae quum ita siiit, saiise erga 
 sacrum textum pietati adversari videutor qui pro apostolicis venditare per- 
 gnnt quae a Marco aliena esse tarn luculenter docemnr." (p. 407.) 
 Erangelia Apocrypha, 1853, Proleg. p. Ivi. 
 
 ,..] 
 
 The rm/icf of Dr. TregcUcK. 
 
 11 
 
 I 
 
 onlv critic I have met with to whom it does not seem in- 
 credible that S. Mark did actually conclude his Gospel in 
 this abrupt way: observing that "perhaps we do not know 
 cuou-h of the circumstances of S.Mark when he wrote his 
 Go Jel to say whether he did or did not leave it with a coiii- 
 pletc termination." In this modest suggestion at least Dr. 
 Tre.'elles is unassailable, since we know absolutely nothing 
 whatever about " the circumstances of S. Mark," (or of any 
 other Evangelist,) "when be wrote his Gospel:" neither 
 indeed are we quite sure who S.Mark urn. But when he 
 goes on to declare, notwithstanding, "that the rcmaming 
 twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim 
 10 be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel; 
 and complains that "there is in some minds a kind of 
 timidity with regard to Holy Scripture, as if all our notions 
 of its authority depended on our knowing who was the 
 >> ritcr of each particular portion ; instead of simply seeing 
 and owning that it was given forth from Gon, and that it 
 is as much His as were the Commandments of the Law 
 written by His own finger on the tables of stone "^ ;"— the 
 learned writer betrays a misapprehension of the question 
 at issue, which we are least of all prepared to encounter in 
 such a quarter. We admire his piety but it is at the ex- 
 pense of his critical sagacity. For the question is not at all 
 one of authorship, but only one of gcmiinniesK Have the 
 codices been muUMed which do not contain these verses? 
 If they have, then must these verses be held to be gcnuwe. 
 But on the contrary. Have the codices been siijujkmenfed 
 which contain them ? Then are these verses certainly spu- 
 rious. There is no help for it but they must either be held 
 to bo an integral part of the Gospel, and therefore, in default 
 of any proof to the contrary, as certainly by S. Mark as any 
 other twelve verses wliich can be named; or else an nn- 
 aulhorize.1 addition to it. If they belong to the post-apo- 
 slolic age il is idle to insist on their Inspiration, and to 
 claim that this "authentic anonymous addition to what 
 Mark himself wrote down" is as much the work of God 
 "as were the Ten Commandments written by His own 
 <- pp. 253, 7—9. 
 
12 
 
 The opinion of Den n AlforH. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 finger on tte tables of stone." On the other hand, if they 
 "ought as much to be received as part of our second Gospel 
 as the last chapter of Deuteronomy (unknown as the writer 
 is) is received as the right and proper conclusion of the 
 book of Moses," — it is difficult to understand why the learned 
 editor should think himself at liberty to sever them from 
 their contest, and introduce the subscription kata mapkon 
 after Ter. 8. In short, " How persons who believe that 
 these verses did not form a part of the original Gospel of 
 Mark, but were added afterwards, can sa)' that they have 
 a good claim to be received as an authentic or genuine part 
 of the second Gospel, that is, a portion of canonical Scrip- 
 ture, passes comprehension." It passes even Dr. Davidson's 
 comprehension ; (for the foregoing words are liis ;) and 
 Dr. Davidson, as some of us are aware, is not a man to stick 
 at trifles '. 
 
 3. Dean Alford went a little furl her than any of his pre- 
 decessors. He saj-s that this passage " was placed as a com- 
 pletion of the Gospel soon after the Apostolic period, — the 
 Gospel itself having been, for some reason unknown to us, 
 left incomplete. The most probable supposition" (he adds) 
 "is, that Ihc last leaf of the original Gospel was torn aicai/." 
 The italics in this conjecture (which was originally Gries- 
 bach's) are not mine. The internal evidence (declares the 
 same learned writer) " preponderates vastly against the au- 
 thorship of Mark ;" or (as he elsewhere expresses it) against 
 " its genuineness as a work of the Evangelist." Accord- 
 ingly, in his Prolegomena, (p. 38) he describes it as " tfie 
 vtmarkahle fragmeni at the end of the Gospel." After this, 
 we are the less astonished to find that he closes the second 
 Go>y>e1 at rer. 8 ; introduces the Subscription there ; and en- 
 closes the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets. 
 Thus, whereas from the days of our illustrious countryman 
 
 ■ In bis first edition (IS-iS, vol. i. p. 1G3) Dr. Davidson pronounced it " mani- 
 festlv untenable" tbat S.Mark's Gospel n-as the last written; and assigned 
 l.D. 64 as " its most probable" date. In bis second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), be 
 
 jays: "\\Tien we consider tbat the Gospel teas not written till tie second 
 
 efiiluri/, internal evidence loses mucb of its force against tbe authenticity of 
 these verKi."— Introduction to If. T. 
 
 II.] Thomson , Green, Xorlon, Wisteoti, Meyer. 13 
 
 Mill (1707), the editors of the N. T. have cither been silent 
 on the subject, or else have whispered only that this section 
 of the Gcspel is to be received with less of confidence than 
 the rest,— it has been reserved for the present century to 
 convert the ancient suspicions into actual charges. The 
 latest to enter the field have been the first to execute Gries- 
 bach's adverse sentence pronounced fifty years ago, and to 
 load the blessed Evangelist with bonds. 
 
 It mi"ht have been foreseen that when Critics so con- 
 spicuous permit themselves thus to handle tlie precious 
 deposit, others would take courage to hurl their thunder- 
 bolts in the same direction with the less concern. "It is 
 probable," (says Abp. Thomson in the Bihle Dictionnnj,) 
 " that this section is from a different hand, and was annexed 
 to the Gospels soon after the times of the Apostles"'." — The 
 Rev. T. iS. Green ", (an able scholar, never to be mentioned 
 without respect,) considers that "tbe hypothesis of very 
 early interpolation satisfies the body of facts in evidence," — 
 which " point unmistakably in the direction of a spurious 
 origin."—" In respect of Mark's Gospel," (writes Professor 
 Norton in a recent work on the Genuineness of the Gospels,) 
 " there is ground for believing that the last twelve verses 
 were not vvritlen by the Evangelist, but were added by some 
 other writer to supply a short conclusion to the work, which 
 Foine cause had prevented the author from completing"." — 
 Professor Westcott — who, jointly with the Rev. F. J. A. Hort, 
 announces a revised Text— assures us that "the original 
 text, from whatever cause it may have happened, terminated 
 abruptly after the account of the Angelic vision." The rest 
 " was added at another time, and probably by another hand." 
 " It is in vain to speculate on the causes of this abrupt 
 close." " The remaining verses cannot be regarded as part 
 of tlie original narrative of S. Mark p."— Meyer insists that 
 this is an "apocryphal fragment," and reproduces all the 
 arguments, external and internal, which have ever been 
 
 ■" Vol. ii. p. 230. ° Devtloprd Criticism, [1857], p. 53. 
 
 " KJ. 1S17, i. p. 17. He reTOininends this view to bis reader's acceptance 
 in tivc p-mis, — p|i. 216 lo 221. 
 
 f lilt rod Hit io II to the Sliidi/ of the Gotpds, p. 311. 
 
u 
 
 Groinifh fif ihi- hosiUf rcrdhi. 
 
 [cHAr. 
 
 "■] 
 
 J/„ r, 'J I' ' r,, / Eri'f' HIT. 
 
 15 
 
 arrayed ngainst if, •without a particle of misgivini;. The 
 "note" with which he takes leave of the subject is even 
 insolent'). A comparison (he sa3's) of these "fragments" 
 (ver. 9 — 18 and 19) with the parallel places in the other 
 Gospels and in the Acts, shews how vacillating and various 
 were tlie Apostolical traditions concerning the appearances 
 of our Lonn after His Resurrection, and concernin'^ His 
 Ascension. ("Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?") 
 
 Such, then, is the hostile verdict concerning these last 
 twelve verses which I venture to dispute, and which I trust 
 I shall live to see reversed. The writers above cited will be 
 found to rely (1.) on the external evidence of certain ancient 
 MSS. ; and (2.) on Scholia which state " that the more 
 ancient and accurate copies terminated the Gospel at ver. 8." 
 (3.) They assure us that this is confirmed by a formidable 
 array of Patristic authorities. (4.) Internal proof is declared 
 not to be wanting. Certain incoherences and inaccuracies 
 are pointed out. In fine, "the phraseology and style of 
 the section" are declared to be "unfavourable to its au- 
 thenticity ;" not a few of the words and expressions being 
 "foreign to the diction of Mark." — I propose to shew that 
 all these confident and imposing statements are to a great 
 extent either mistakes or exaggerations, and that the slender 
 residuum of fact is about as powerless to achieve the purpose 
 of the critics as were the seven green withs of the Philistines 
 to bind Samson. 
 
 In order to exhibit successfully what I have to offer on 
 this subject, I find it necessary to begin (in the next chapter) 
 at the very beginning. I think it right, however, in this 
 place to premise a few plain considerations which will be of 
 use to us throughout all our subsequent inquiry ; and which 
 indeed we shall never be able to afford to lose sight of 
 for long. 
 
 The question at issue being simply this, — Whether it is 
 reasonable to suspect that the last twelve verses of S. Mark 
 are a spurious accretion and unauthorized supplement to his 
 Gospel, or not? — the whole of our business clearly resolves 
 itself into an examination of what has been urged in proof 
 1 Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186 — 92. 
 
 that the former alternative is the correct one. Our oppo- 
 nents maintain that these versos did not form part of the 
 original autograph of the Evangelist. But it is a known 
 rule in the Law of Evidence that the burthen of proof lies on 
 the party who asserts the aJUrmathe of the issue ' AVe have 
 therefore to ascertain in the present instance what the sup- 
 posed proof is exactly worth ; remembering always that m 
 this subject-matter a Aiy< <{e,Qree of probability is the only 
 kind of proof which is attainable. When, for example, it is 
 contended that the famous words in S.John's first Epistle 
 (1 S John V. 7, 8,) are not to be regarded as genuine, he 
 fact that they are away from almost every known Codex 
 is accepted as a proof that they were also away from the 
 autograph of the Evangelist. On far less weighty evidence, 
 in fact, wc are at all times prepared to yield the hearty 
 assent of our understanding in this department of sacred 
 
 And yet it will be fouud that evidence of overwhelming 
 weight, if not of an entirely different kind, is required in 
 theOTescnt instance : as I proceed to explain. 
 
 1 AM.cn it is contended that our Lord s reply to the 
 Younc ruler (S. Matt. xix. 17) was not TL fie \f/ets dyaOov ; 
 oiheh AyaOh.. e! fih eU, o eed.,-it is at the same time in- 
 sisted that // ,ra, Tl /^e epccTa, ^ep) toO ayaOov ; ei, eariv 
 o iyaduT It is proposed to omit the former words only be- 
 cause an alternative clause is at hand, which it is proposed 
 to substitute in its room. 
 
 2 A" .in When it is claimed that some given passage 
 of theVxtus Ileceptus,-S. Mark xv. 28, for example, 
 
 (Kai i-rrXvp'^er, v ypa4>h ^ ^^°^^«' ^''^ ^'^^ "''°''"'' .^'" 
 yiadv,) or the Doxology in S. Matth. vi. 13,-is spurious, 
 all that is pretended is that certain words are an unautho- 
 rized addition to the inspired text ; and that by simply 
 omitting them we are so far restoring the Gospel to its 
 original integritv.-The same is to be said concerning every 
 other charye of' interpolation which can be named. If the 
 celebrated "p;ricopa de adultcra," for instance, be indeed 
 
 balio qui .lioil. .>ou qui negat." T«vlor on the Law of Ev.dence.lS68, .. p. 369. 
 
16 
 
 T/if pfrii/iur nature of 
 
 [chap. 
 
 not genuine, wc have but to leave out those twelve verses 
 of S.John's Gospel, and to read chap. vii. 52 in close sequence 
 with. chap. viii. 12; and we are assured that we are put in 
 possession of the text us it came from the liands of its in- 
 spired Author. Jfor, (it must be admitted), is any difficulty 
 whatever occasioned thereby ; for there is no reason assign- 
 able wliy the two last-named verses should not cohere ; (there 
 is no internal improbability, I mean, in the supposition ;) 
 neither does there exist any a priori reason why a consider- 
 able portion of narrative should be looked for in that par^ 
 licular part of the Gospel. 
 
 3. But the case is altogether dififerent, as all must see, 
 when it is proposed to get rid of the twelve verses which 
 for 1700 years and upwards have formed the conclusion of 
 S. Mark's Gospel ; no alternative conclusion being proposed 
 to our acceptance. For let it be only observed what this 
 proposal practicall}'' amounts to and means. 
 
 (a.) And first, it does not mean that S. Mark himself, with 
 design, brought his Gospel to a close at the words i<f>o^ovvTo 
 rydp. Thai supposition would in fact be irrational. It does 
 not mean, I say, that by simply leaving out those last 
 twelve verses we shall be restoring the second Gospel to its 
 original integrity. And this it is which makes the present 
 a different case from every other, and necessitates a fuller, 
 if not a different kind of proof. 
 
 (b.) What then ? It means that although an abrupt and 
 impossible termination would confessedly be the result of 
 omitting verses 9 — 20, no nearer approximation to the ori- 
 ginal autograph of the Evangelist is at present attainable. 
 "Whether S. Mark was interrupted before he could finish his 
 Gospel, — (as Dr. Tregelles and Professor Norton suggest;) — 
 in which case it will have been published by its Author 
 in an unfinished state : or whether " the last leaf was torn 
 away" before a single copy of the original could be pro- 
 cured, — (a view which is found to have recommended itself 
 to Griesbach ;) — in which case it will have once had a dif- 
 ferent termination from at present ; which termination how- 
 ever, bj' the hypothesis, has since been irrecoverably lost ; — 
 (and to one of tliesc two wild hypotheses the critics are 
 
 ,..] 
 
 the required Eridenee. 
 
 17 
 
 logically reduced ;) — ihi>> we are not certainly told. The 
 critics arc onlj' agreed in assuming that S. Mark's Gospel 
 teas at first tcithout the rerse-i uhieh nf present conclude it. 
 
 But this assumption, (that a work which has been held 
 to be a complete work for seventeen centuries and upwards 
 was originally incomplete,) of course requires proof. The 
 foregoing improbable theories, based on a gratuitous assump- 
 tion, are confronted in limine with a formidable obstacle 
 which must be absolutely got rid of before they can be 
 thought entitled to a serious hearing. It is a familiar and 
 a fatal circumstance that the Gospel of S. Mark has been f 
 furnished with its present termination ever since the second, 
 centurj' of the Christian sera '. In default, therefore, of dis- 
 tinct historical evidence or definite documentary proof that 
 at some earlier period than that it terminated abruptly, no- 
 thing short of the utter unfitness of the verses which at pre- 
 sent conclude S. Mark's Gospel to be regarded as the work 
 of the Evangelist, would warrant us in assuming that they 
 arc the spurious accretion of the post-apostolic age : and as 
 such, at the end of eighteen centuries, to be deliberately 
 rejected. We must absolutely be furnished, I say, with in- 
 ternal evidence of the most unequivocal character ; or else 
 with external testimony of a direct and definite kind, if we 
 are to admit that ths actual conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel 
 is an unauthorized substitute for something quite different 
 that has been lost. I can onlj' imagine one other thing 
 which could induce us to entertain such an opinion ; and 
 that would be the general consent of MSS., Fathers, and 
 Versions in leaving these verses out. Else, it is evident 
 that we are logically forced to adopt the far easier supposi- 
 tion that, {not S. Mark, but) some copyist of the third century 
 left a copy of S.Mark's Gospel unfinished ; which unfinished 
 cop3' beciime the fontal source of the mutilated copies which 
 have come down to our own times *. 
 
 • This is frt'i'lj- allowed by all. " Certiores facti Eumus banc pericopam jam 
 in secundo bil'cuIo Icctam fuisse tauquaui bujns evaogelii partem." Tregelles 
 A', r. p. 214. 
 
 ' This ill flirt is how Bengel (X. T. p. 526) accounts for the phenomenon : — 
 " Fieri potiiit ut librarios, scripto versu 8, reliquanj partem Ecribere differret, 
 
 C 
 
18 
 
 JmoniihttiKy of (hi- Critic^. 
 
 [chap. II. 
 
 I have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully 
 at the outset; not in order to prejudge the question, (for 
 t/ini could answer no good purpose,) but only in order that 
 the reader may have clearly set before him the real nature 
 of the issue. "Is it reasonable to suspect that the conclud- 
 ing rerses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unautho- 
 rized supplement to his Gospel, or not ?" T/mt is the ques- 
 tion which we have to consider, — the one question. And 
 while I proceed to pass under careful review all the evidence 
 on this subject with which I am acquainted, I shall be again 
 and again obliged to direct the attention of my reader to its 
 bearing on the real point at issue. In other words, we shall 
 have again and again to ask ourselves, how far it is rendered 
 probable by each fresh article of evidence that S. Alark's 
 Gospel, when it left the hands of its inspired Author, was an 
 unfinished work ; the last chapter ending abruptly at ver. 8 ? 
 I will only point out, before passing on, that the course 
 which has been adopted towards S. Mark xvi. 9—20, by the 
 latest Editors of the New Testament, is simply illogical. 
 Either they regard these verses as pos>-ihhj genuine, or else 
 as certainly spurious. If they entertain (as they say they 
 do) a decided opinion that they are }wi genuine, they ought 
 (if they would be consistent) io banish them from the text". 
 Conversely, since they do not banish them from the text, they 
 have no right to pass a fatal sentence upon them ; to desig- 
 nate their author as " pseudo-Marcus ;" to handle them in 
 contemptuous fashion. The plain truth is, these learned men 
 are better than their theory ; the worthlessness of which they 
 are made to feel in the present most conspicuous instance. 
 It reduces them to perplexity. It has landed them in in- 
 consistency and error.— They will find it necessary in the 
 end to reverse their convictions. They cannot too speedily 
 reconsider their verdict, and retrace their steps. 
 
 et id exemplar, easu non perfectum, alii quasi perfectum eequereutur, praeser- 
 tim quum ea pars cum reliqua historia cvangelica minus coiigruerc ^•ideTetu^." 
 " It is tbus tliat Tiscbcnduif treats S. Luke ixiv. 12, and (iu bis latest edi- 
 tion) S. .TobD xxi. 25. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED 
 TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS. 
 
 rairislir ttidoicc tomctimcs the MOit imporiard of any (p. 20). — The 
 iniporiiiiice of tuch evidence exjildiiied (p. 21). — Kinef/en Patristic 
 icitiifffff to these Verses, produced (p. 23). — fiummary (p. 30). 
 
 ^ The present inquiry must be conducted solely on grounds 
 of Evidence, external and internal. For the full considera- 
 tion of the former, seven Chapters will be necessary " : for 
 a discussion of the latter, one seventh of that space will 
 suffice *". "We have first to ascertain whether the external 
 testimony concerning S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20 is of such a nature 
 as to constrain us to admit that it is highly probable that 
 those twelve verses are a spurious appendix to S. Mark's 
 Gospel. 
 
 1. It is well known that for determining the Text of the 
 New Testament, we are dependent on three chief sources of 
 informal ion : viz, (1.) on Manuscripts, — (2.) onYEKSioNS, — 
 (3.) on F.\THEKs. And it is even self-evident that the most 
 ancient MSS., — the earliest Versions, — the oldest of the Fa- 
 thers, will probably be in everj' instance the most trust- 
 worthy witnesses. 
 
 2. Further, it is obvious that a really ancient Codex of 
 the Gospels must needs supply more valuable critical help 
 in establishing the precise Text of Scripture than can pos- 
 sibly Ik" rendered by any Translation, however faithful: 
 while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive 
 authority, even than Versions. The reasons are chiefly 
 these : — [a.) Fathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not 
 licentiously ; and sometimes allude only when they seem to 
 quote. {}).) Thej' appear to have too often depended on their 
 memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and inac- 
 
 • Cliap. 111.— VlU., aUo Chap. X. 
 
 c2 
 
 >■ Chap. IX. 
 
20 
 
 Patristic citafioiia suppffincnt 
 
 [chap. 
 
 curate in their citations ; the same Father being observed 
 to quote the same place in different ways, (c.) Copyists and 
 Editors may not be altogether depended upon for the exact 
 form of such supposed quotations. Thus the evidence of 
 Fathers must always be to some extent precarious. 
 
 3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed 
 out that when, — instead of certifying ourselves of the actual 
 words cmptoi/ed by an Evangelist, their precise form and 
 exact sequence, — our object is only to ascertain whether 
 a considerable passage of Scripture is genuine or not ; is to 
 be rejected or retained ; was known or was not known in the 
 earliest) ages of the Church ; then, instead of supplying the 
 least important evidence, Fathers become by far the most 
 valuable witnesses of all. This entire subject may be con- 
 veniently illustrated by an appeal to the problem before us. 
 
 4. Of course, if we possessed copies of the Gospels coeval 
 with their authors, nothing could compete with such evi- 
 dence. But then unhappily nothing of the kind is the case. 
 The facts admit of being stated within the compass of a few 
 lines. We have one Codex (the Vatican, B) which is thought 
 to belong to the first half of the iv"" century ; and another, 
 the newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (at St. Petersburg, s) 
 which is certainly not quite so old, — perhaps by 50 years. 
 Next come two famous codices ; the Alexandrine (in the 
 British Museum, A) and the Codex Ephraemi (in the Paris 
 Library, C), which are probably from 60 to 100 j-ears more 
 recent still. The Codex Bezae (at Cambridge, D) is con- 
 sidered by competent judges to be the depository of a re- 
 cension of the text as ancient as any of the others. Not- 
 withstanding its strangely depraved condition therefore, — 
 the many " monstra potius quam variae lectiones" which it 
 contains, — it may be reckoned with the preceding four, 
 though it must be 50 or 100 years later than the latest of 
 them. After this, we drop down, (as far as S. Mark is con- 
 cerned,) to 2 uncial MSS. of the viii"" century, — 7 of the 
 
 of the ix"" or x*"" ', while cursives of the xi"" and xii"" 
 
 IX 
 
 th 
 
 ' Viz. E, L, [viii] : K, M, V, r, A, A (quaere), H (Tiscb. ed. 8va.) [ii] : 
 G, X, S, U [ix, x]. The roUowing uncials are defective here, — F (vcr. 9 — 19), 
 H (ver. 9—14), I. N. O. P, Q, E, T. W, Y. Z. 
 
 HI.] 
 
 our scanty MS. evidence. 
 
 21 
 
 centuries are very numerous indeed, — the copies incrensing 
 in number in a rapid ratio as we descend the stream of Time. 
 Our primitive manuscript witnesses, therefore, are but five 
 in number at the utmost. And of these it has never been 
 pretended tlmt tlie oldest is to be referred to an earlier date 
 than the besinning of the iv"" century, while it is thought 
 by competent judges that the last named may very possibly 
 have been written quite late in the vi"". 
 
 6. Are we then reduced to this fourfold, (or at most five- 
 fold,) evidence concerning the text of the Gospels, — on evi- 
 dence of not quite certain date, and yet (as we all believe) not 
 reaching further back than to the iv"' century of our aera ? 
 Certainly not. Here, F.\thers come to our aid. There are 
 perhaps as many as an hundred Ecclesiastical Writers older 
 'than the oldest extant Codex of the N. T. : while between 
 A.D. 300 and a.d. 600, (within whirh limits our five oldest 
 MSS. may be considered certainly to fall,) there exist about 
 two hundred Fathers more. True, that many of these have 
 left wondrous little behind them; and that the quotations 
 from Holy Scripture of the greater part may justly be de- 
 scribed as rare and unsatisfactory. But what then ? From 
 the three hundred, make a liberal reduction ; and an hun- 
 dred writers will remain who frequently quote the New 
 Testament, and who, when they do quote it, are probably 
 as trustworthy witnesses to the Truth of Scripture as either 
 Cod. S or Cod. B. We have indeed heard a great deal too 
 much of the precariousness of this class of evidence: not 
 nearlv enough of the gross inaccuracies which disfigure the 
 test of those two Codices. Quite surprising is it to discover 
 to what an extent Patristic quotations from the New Testa- 
 ment have evidently retained their exact original form. 
 What we chiefly desiderate at this time is a more careful 
 re^•ision of the text of the Fathers, and more skilfully 
 elaborated indices of the works of each : not one of them 
 having been hitherto satisfactorily indexed. It would be 
 easy to demonstrate the importance of bestowing far more 
 attention on this subject than it seems to have hitherto 
 enjoyed : but I shall content myself with citing a single 
 instance ; and for this, (in order not to distract the reader's 
 
22 
 
 Iiiij'Orfanef of Patnltic ciitiiions. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 attention), I shall refer him to the Appendix "". "\Yhat is at 
 least beyond the limits of controversy, whenever the genuine- 
 ness of a considcrabk jmmgc of Scripture is the point in dis- 
 pute, the testimony of Fathers who undoubtedly recognise 
 that passage, is beyond comparison the most valuable testi- 
 mony we can enjoy. 
 
 6. For let it be only considered what is implied by 
 a Patristic appeal to the Gospel. It amounts to this: — 
 that a conspicuous personage, probably a Bishop of the 
 Church, — one, therefore, whose history, date, place, are all 
 more or less matter of notoriet)', — gives us his written assur- 
 ance that the passage in question was found in that copy of 
 the Gospels which he was accustomed himself to employ ; 
 t?ie uncial codex, (it has long since perished) which lehnged to 
 Jiimself, or to the Church which he served. It is evident, in 
 short, that any objection to quotations from Scripture in the 
 writings of the ancient Fathers can only apply to the form 
 of those quotations ; not to their substance. It is just as 
 certain that a verse of Scripture was actually read by the 
 Father who unmistakedl}- refers to it, as if we had read it 
 with him ; even though the gravest doubts may be enter- 
 tained as to the 'ipsissima verba' which were found in his 
 own particular copy. He may have trusted to his memory : 
 or copyists may have taken liberties with his writings : or 
 editors may have misrepresented what they found in the 
 written copies. The form of the quoted verse, I repeat, may 
 have suffered almost to any extent. The substance, on the 
 contrarj', inasmuch as it lay wholl}' be)'ond their province, 
 may be looked upon as an indisputable /ac^ 
 
 7. Some such preliminary remarks, (never out of place 
 when quotations from the Fathers are to be considered,) 
 cannot well be withheld when the most venerable Ecclesi- 
 astical writings are appealed to. The earliest of the Fathers 
 are observed to quote with singular licence, — to allude rather 
 than to quote. Strange to relate, those ancient men seem 
 scarcely to have been aware of the grave responsibility they 
 incurred when they substituted expressions of their own for 
 the utterances of the Spirit. It is evidently not so much 
 
 ' See Appendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14. 
 
 in. i 
 
 rajW('',—Jiixtiit Mar/;/r,—Iren(i /(*. 
 
 23 
 
 Ilia! their rntmor!/ is in fault, as their Judgment,— in that 
 they evidently hold themselves at liberty to paraphrase, to 
 recast, to reconstruct ". 
 
 1. Thus, it is impossible to resist the inference that Papi.^s 
 refers to S. Mark xvi. 18 when he records a marvellous 
 tradition concerning "Justus surnamed Barsabas,"^ "how 
 that after drinking noxious poison, through the LoRn's grace 
 he experienced no evil consequence'." He does not give 
 t/,( icord^ of the Evangelist. It is even surprising how com- 
 pletely he passes them by ; and yet the allusion to the place 
 just cited is manifest. Kow, Papias is a writer who lived so 
 near the time of the Apostles that he made it his delight 
 to collect their traditional sayings. His date (according to 
 Clinton) is a.d. 100. 
 
 ' II. Justin Martyr, the date of whose first Apology is 
 A.u. 151, is observed to say concerning the Apostles^ tbat, 
 after our Lord's Ascension,— e^X^WTey iravjaxov iiciP"- 
 ^avf. which is nothing else but a quotation from the last 
 verse of S. Mark's Gospel,— eVeiwi Sa i^€\06v7e<; iK,]pv^av 
 ■^ravraxov. And thus it is found that the conclusion of 
 S. Maik's Gospel was familiarly known within fifty years 
 of the death of the last of the Evangelists. 
 
 III. When Iren;eus, in his third Book against Heresies, 
 deliberately quotes and remarks upon the 19th verse of the 
 last chapter of S.Mark's Gospel S we are put in possession of 
 
 • Cousidor how Ignatius {ad Sn,>/r«.. c. 3) quotes S.Luke xiiv.39; and 
 how hi- rcfors to S. John xii. 3 in his Ep. ad Ephes. c. 17. 
 
 ' -IffTop.: [sc. nairfas] U.pov iropriSofo.- irtpl 'lova-,ov ihy i^iKt^TiStyra Bap<ra- 
 pa, YOo'l' -evidently a slip of the fen for BapaaPay rhy ii,,KXveiyra •Iovotok 
 (<tv Acts i. 23, quoted hj Eusebius immediately after« ards.)-ij 87,\.rr«P«>- 
 ^^.ov it.m6yros Kal Ml5i«' iv^'S S.i tJ,. toC Kvplov xap'" ^o/'''«»^«- 
 EuKh. Bisl. Eccl iii. 39. t- » n 
 
 • Al-ol. 1. c. 45.— The supposed quoUtions in c. 9 froui the Fragment JJt 
 Jleturrectione (Wcstcott and others) are clearly references to S.Luke xiiv..- 
 nol to S. Mark ivi. . 
 
 ' hb. iii. c. X. ad Jin. (ed. Stieren, i. p. 402). "In fine autem Evaugehi ait 
 Murcuf, el quidem Domimis Jesus, posiqtiam locuUis est eh, receftus est m 
 cados, et sedet ad deTieram Dei." Accordingly, against S. Mark ivi. 19 in 
 H.rL MS. 5G47 (= Evan. 72) occurs the foUowing marginal schohum, whicn 
 Cr..mtr bus already published :—E;pii«Tot i tUp 'A^oariKi^y'^vdo-. *•' -"t 
 w^V. Til aipiaut y K6y<t toDto 4.-4«>»(>' Tb ^tjtoi- ij MopK*. ttpvi^'yoy. 
 
24 
 
 Irtnaufi, — Hippohjius, — r//" Council [chap. 
 
 the certain fact that the entire passage now under consi- 
 deration was estant in a copy of the Gospels which was 
 used b)' the Bishop of the Church of Lyons someti'.ne about 
 the year a.d. 180, and which therefore cannot possibly have 
 been written much more than a hundred years after the 
 date of the ETangclist himself: while it may have been 
 ' written by a contemporary of S. Mark, and probably nas 
 written bj- one who lived immediately after his time. — Who 
 sees not that this single piece of evidence is in itself suffi- 
 cient to outweigh the testinion}' of any codex extant? It is 
 in fact a mere trifling with words to distinguish between 
 "Manuscript" and "Patristic" testimony in a case like 
 this : for (as I have already explained) the passage quoted 
 from S. Mark's Gospel by Irenaeus is to all intents and pur- 
 poses a fragmeni from a dated manmcrijd ; and Ihat MS., 
 demonstrably older by at least one hundred and fifty years 
 than the oldest copy of the Gospels which has come down 
 to our times. 
 
 IV. Take another proof that these concluding verses of 
 S. Mark were in the second century accounted an integral 
 part of his Gospel. HI^poL^^us, Bishop of Portus near 
 Rome (190 — 227), a contemporary of Irenseus, quotes the 
 17th and 18th verses in his fragment IJepX Xapia /jAjcavK 
 
 ' First published as his by Fabricius (vol i. 245.) Its authorship has never 
 been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of Hippolytus (inscribed on the 
 chair of bis marble eiEgy in the Latcran Museum at Borne) is read, — nEPI 
 XAPlZMATflN ; and by that name the fragment in question is actually de- 
 signated in the third chapter of the (so called) " Apostolical Constitutions," 
 (rk fiiv olv vpura tvv \6yov i^(6ffif$a x*pl ruv Xapiapiaruv, k.t.A.), — in 
 which singular monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It 
 is in fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the " Apostolical Consti- 
 tutions;" of which the iv'' chapter is also claimed for Bippolytus, (though 
 with evidently far less reason,) and as such appears in the last edition of the 
 Father's collected works, (Uippoli/ti Rumani qua feruniur omnia Orace, 
 cd. Lagarde, 16oS,) — p. 74. 
 
 The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (e%-idently on the strength of the 
 heading, — AiarHtit ray avTuf aylur ' Airoar6\ay lepl x<'P°toi'iui', Sii 'Iirro- 
 \iTov,) is pjrt of the "Oetateucbus Clementinus," concerning which Lagarde 
 has several remarks in the preface to his lieliquia Juris JEccletiastici Antiquis- 
 lima, 1856. The composition in question extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the 
 last-named publication. The exact corresijondence between the " Oetateucbus 
 Clemeutiuos " and the Pseudo- Apostolical Constitutions will be found to ex- 
 
 1 
 
 111.] of Cnii/inge—Acia Pilati—Ap. CoiniUulioi,^. 25 
 
 Also in his Homily on the heresy of Noetus^, Hippolytus 
 lias n plain reference to this section of S. Mark's Gospel. 
 To an inattentive reader, the passage alluded to might seem 
 to be only the fragment of a Creed ; but this is not the 
 case. In the Creeds, Christ is imarially spoken of as 
 uvt\eovTa: in the Scriptures, imarinhly as ai/aXij^^eVra'. 
 So that when Hippolytus says of Him, avaKafi^averai el<! 
 ovpavov, Kal eV Be^iwv HaTpoi naei^eTai, the reference must 
 needs be to S. Mark xvi. 19, 
 
 V. At the Seventh Covxcil of Cakthage held under 
 Cj-prian, a.d. 256, (on the baptizing of Heretics,) Vincen- 
 tius, Bishop of Tbibari, (a place not far from Carthage,) in 
 the presence of the eighty-seven assembled African bishops, 
 quoted two of the verses under consideration " ; and Augus- 
 tine, about a century and a half later, in his reply, recited 
 the words afresh". 
 
 VI. The Apocryphal Acta Pilati (sometimes called the 
 "Gospel of Nicodemus") Tischendorf assigns without hesi- 
 tation to the iii'* century; whether rightly or wrongly 
 1 have no means of ascertaining. It is at all events a very 
 ancient forgery, and it contains the 15th, 16th, 17th and 
 18th verses of this chapter". 
 
 VII. This is probably the right place to mention that ver. 
 15 is clearly alluded to in two places of the (so-called) " Apo- 
 STOUCAi, CoNSTiTDTioNSi';" and that verse 16 is quoted (with 
 
 tend no further than the single chapter (the iv") specified in the text. In 
 the meantime the fragment irtpi xv "^M<'tw>' (containing S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,) 
 is identical throughout. It forms the first article in Lagarde's BeUqiiia, ex- 
 tending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there headed A.8oirKo\(a rCv ayluiy 'K-roa-riKuv 
 
 ' Ad Jin. See Routb's Opuscula, i. p. 80. 
 
 ' For which reason 1 cordially subscribe to Tischendorrs remark (ed. 8va. 
 p. 407), "Quod idem [Justinus] Christum 4«>ii\«fl.lTa tU rots oipivovs dicit, 
 lApol. I. c. 60 ?] minus valet." 
 
 " " In nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellit«," (Cyprian 0pp. 
 V. 237 iRtUqq. Sacr. iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,)-" /« vomine 
 «ifo daemonia ejicient super egrotos manu> imponent ct bene habebunt." 
 
 ■ Respoma ad Episcopos, c. 44, (Reliqq. v. 248.) 
 
 • Etang.lia Apocrnpha, ed. Tischendorf, 1853. pp. 243 and 851: also 
 Proleg. p. Ivi. , 
 
 ► In I. vii. e. 7 (adjin.),—\a$6yrn iyroKh" "p" <^»"' •"IP^i" ""^ ''"Tl'''""' 
 
26 
 
 KxxrJiiuK, — Mfiriiiiis, — Aphrnnlcs. 
 
 [CHA?. 
 
 no Tariety of reading from the Tr.rtiis trccpfiis'i) in an earlier 
 part of the same ancient work. Tlic "Constitutions" are 
 assigned to the iii"' or tlie iv"' century '. 
 
 VIII and IX. It will be shewn in Chapter V. that Euse- 
 Bivs, the Eiclesiastical Historian, was profoundly well ac- 
 quainted with these verses. He discusses them largely, and 
 (as I shall prove in the chapter referred to) was by no means 
 disposed to question their genuineness. Ilis Church History 
 was published a.d. 325. 
 
 ^SlAitiNUS also, (whoever that individual may have been,) 
 a contemporary of Eusebius, — inasmuch as he is introduced 
 to our notice by Eusebius himself as asking a question con- 
 cerning the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel without 
 a trace of misgiving as to the genuineness of that about 
 which he inquires, — is a competent witness in their favor 
 who has hitherto been overlooked in this discussion. 
 
 X. Tischendorf and his followers state that Jacobus Kisi- 
 benus quotes these verses. For " Jacobus Nisibenus" read 
 " Aphbaates the Persian Sage," and the statement will be 
 correct The history of the mistake is curious. 
 
 Jerome, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, makes 
 no mention of Jacob of Kisibis, — a famous Syrian Bishop 
 who was present at the Council of Nicaea, a.d. 325. Gen- 
 nadius of Marseille, (who carried on Jerome's list to the 
 year 495) asserts that the reason of this omission was Je- 
 rome's ignorance of the Syriac language; and explains that 
 Jacob »as the author of twenty-two Syriac Homilies*. Of 
 these, there exists a very ancient Armenian translation ; 
 which was accordingly edited as the work of Jacobus Nisi- 
 benus with a Latin version, at Rome, in 1756. Gallandius 
 reprinted both the Armenian and the Latin j and to Gallan- 
 dius (vol. V.) we are referred whenever " Jacobus Nisibenus" 
 is quoted. 
 
 «ij jAof riv K6ciiov : ami in /. viii. e. 1, — Titun toTs iiroor Aoit pfXAoi/oi rh 
 fvayyiKmr itoT«r> tXAcif iraffp if Kiiaii. Observe, this immediately follows 
 the quotation of verses 17, 18. 
 
 < Lib. vi. c. 15. — The quotation (at the beginning of lib. viii.) of the 17th 
 and ISA verses, has been already noticed in its proper place. Svpra, p. 24. 
 
 ' Scriiener'e Introduction, -p. 421. 
 
 • Ap«i Hieron. Opp. ei. Vallars., ii. 951 -4. 
 
 ....] 
 
 A»il>rosr,—CI,ryso-<to„i,—Jcromr 
 
 But the proposed attribution of the Homilies in question. 
 
 _tlH.u"h it has been acquiesced in for nearly 14(IU years, 
 
 i. incorrect. Quite lately the Syriac originals have come to 
 
 lipht, and they prove to be the work of Aphraates the 
 
 j.^,, „„ Sage,"-a Bishop, and the earliest known Father of 
 
 the Syrian Church. In the first Homily, (which bears date 
 
 A.n. 337), verses 16, 17, 18 of S. Mark xvi. are quot^ed ,- 
 
 vet not from the version known as the Curetonian Syr.ac, 
 
 .or vet from the Peshito exactly ".-Here, then, as another 
 
 wholly independent witness to the last twelve verses of 
 
 S.Mark, coeval certainly with the two oldest copies of the 
 
 Gosiicl extant,— B and K. , o- . qo-7N fr.^.Ur 
 
 XI AMimosE, Archbishop of Milan (a.d. 3.4-397) freely 
 
 quotes this portion of the Gospel,-citing ver. 15 four 
 
 times: verses 16, 17 and 18, each three times: ver. 20, 
 
 ""xn. The testimony of Chrvsostom (a.d. 400) has been 
 nil but overlooked. In part of a Homily claimed for him 
 by his Benedictine Editors, he points out that S. Luke 
 uione of the Evangelists describes the Ascension: S.Mat- 
 .,ew and S. John not speaking of it,-S. Mark record^g 
 the event only. Then he quotes verses li, 20. This 
 (he adds) '■ is the end of the Gospel. Mark makes no ex- 
 tended mention of the Ascension >." Elsewhere he has an 
 unmistakable reference to S. Mark xvi. 9 '. 
 
 XIII Jerome, on a point like this, is entitled to moie 
 attention than any other Father of t^^. CJ-^^- ^.^.^ 
 at a very early period, (for he was born in 331 and died in 
 4-,'0,)- endowed with extraordinary Biblical lf;";°g'- 
 a man of excellent judgment,-and a professed Editor of 
 
 . See Dr. Wright's ed. of " Aphraates." (V. 1869,) i. P- 21. I ana entirely 
 i„a..blod to ,-hc learned Editor's Preface for the informat.on m the text. 
 . Kron. Dr. Wright, and „,v brother Archdea«.n «ose. ^^^ 
 
 . Vol. i. 7% E and vol. ii. 461 D quote ver ^5 1^4 9 B q ^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ 
 10 : vol. ii. 603 B. C quotes ver. 15 to 8. A ol. .. l.< A q 
 Vol. i. C3;( E and vol. ii. 400 A quote ver. 1/, 18. ^ol. no q 
 viT. 20. 
 
 Chrvs. Oji: x. 355 B. 
 
28 Jerome, — AuriuHline, — Ktaioriv.s. [chap. 
 
 the New Testament, for the execution of which task he 
 enjoyed extraordinarj' facilities, — his testimony is most 
 weight}'. Not unaware am I that Jerome is commonly 
 supposed to be a witness on the opposite side: concerning 
 which mistake I shall have to speak largely in Chapter V. 
 But it ought to be enough to point out that we should not 
 have met with these last twelve verses in the Vulgate, had 
 Jerome held them to be spurious". He familiarly quotes 
 the 9th verse in one place of his writings •• ; in another place 
 he makes the extraordinary statement that in certain of the 
 copies, (especially the Greek,) was found after ver. 14 the 
 reply of the eleven Aposfles, when our Saviouk " upbraided 
 them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because 
 thej' believed not them which had seen Him after He was 
 risen '." To discuss so weak and worthless a forgery, — no 
 trace of which is found in any MS. in existence, and of 
 which nothing whatever is known except what Jerome here 
 tells us, — ^would be to waste our time indeed. The fact re- 
 mains, however, that Jerome, besides giving these last twelve 
 verses a place in the Vulgate, quotes S. ^lark xvi. 14, as 
 well as ver. 9, in the course of his writings. 
 
 XIV. It was to have been expected that Augustine would 
 quote these verses : but he more than quotes them. He 
 brings them forward again and again*, — discusses them as 
 the work of S. Mark, — remarks that " in diebus Pascha- 
 libus," S. Mark's narrative of the Resurrection was publicly 
 
 * " CogU " (lie says to Pope DaiuBSus) " nt post exeioplam Scripturarum 
 toto orbc dispersa quasi quidaiii arbiter sedeani ; et quia iuter se rariaot, quae 
 Eint ilia quae cum Gracca consentiaut veritate decernam. — Haec praesens 
 praefatinncula pollicetur quatuor £vaiigelia .... codicum Graeeorum emen- 
 data conlatione, sed et veterum." 
 
 •■ Vol. i. p. 327 C {ed. Vallars.) 
 
 • Contra Pelagianoa, II. 15, (0pp. ii. 744-5) : — " In qnibusdam eiemplaribua 
 et uiaiime in Graecis codicibus, juzta Marcum in fine Evangelii acribitur: 
 Posiea quuHi accnhuissent undecim^ apparuif el^ Jesus, ei exprohratU incre- 
 iulilatem et duritiam cordis coram, quia his qui riderani earn resvrgeniem, 
 non credideruti. X^t illi tatisfaciehant dicentes : Sacvlum ittud iniquilatis 
 et incredulitalit luhstanlia est, quae non sinit per immundot spiritus veram 
 Dei apprehendi virfutem : idcirco Jam nunc reeela justitiam tuam." 
 
 i c.g. ver. 12 in vol. ii. 515 C (Ep. 149) ; Vol. v. P88 C— A'crses 15, 16, in 
 vol. V. 391 E, 985 A : vol. i. 22 F. 
 
 ^^^-j Cyril,- Victor,-m-Hf>i'>s,-Sy>ioj>m. 29 
 
 road in the Church e. All this is noteworthy. Augustine 
 
 '''Xv'ind Xvf I^lther very important tesUmony to the 
 penuTneness of the concluding part of S- Mark's Gospe^^ 
 furnished by the unhesitating manner m which Nestobius, 
 e heresiarcb. quotes ver. 20; and ^^^^^ ;i. ^^^^^Z 
 accepts his quotation, adding a few words of his own'. Let 
 it be'borne?n mind that this is tantamount to he discovery^ 
 f L dated codices containing the last twe^e vei.es of 
 S.Ma,k,-and that date anterior (it is impossible to say by 
 how many years) to a.d. 430. 
 
 XVII. Victor of Antioch, (concerning whon. I Bhal 
 1 1 .„„!,. in rhaoter V.,) flourished about 
 
 have to speak very largely in Cbapter » .,; u 
 AD 425 The critical testimony which he bears to the 
 genuineness of these verses is n>ore emphatic than is to be 
 met with in the pages of any other ancient Father. It may 
 be characterized as the most conclusive testimony which it 
 was in his power to render. 
 
 XVIII Hesvchius of Jerusalem, by a singular oversight, 
 has been reckoned among the impugners of these verses. 
 He is on the contrary their eager advocate and champion^ 
 ft seems to have escaped observation t»>f /"-.^ta j;\7^ 
 of his "Homily on the Eesunection," (published n the 
 works of Gregory of Nyssa, and erroneously ascribed to 
 That Father,) Hesj chius appeals to the 19th verse and quotes 
 It as S. Mark's at length. The date of Hesychius xs un- 
 certain ; but he may, I suppose, teconsid-ed to belong to 
 the vi'- century. His evidence is discussed in Chapter V. 
 
 XIX Tliis list shall be brought to a close with a refer- 
 ence to the Sy>-opsis ScRiPTtiKAE SACBAE.-an ancient work 
 
 . Vol. V. 997 F, 098 B. C. ^^. ^„„^. 
 
 Ls c. OHlodo.0, : (Cjril. Alexand. adr. Xestor.a.. 0pp. vol. v,. 46 BO To 
 ...icb, C,ril replies.-., ..' ^'^'^ :rT%:^^T'^:^^^ 
 first noticed by Matlbaei (£»%"•• •ZV''161-) «.',„„,,_<« S.t.i.- 
 
 ToC eioC. Greg. Kyss. 0pp. ili. 415. 
 
30 li(UiCitr<itv Iii(/iris of Tc'ti. — Siunhiori/ [chap. 
 
 ascribed lo Athanasius '', but probably not the production of 
 that Fatlier. It is at all events of much older date than 
 any of the later uncials ; and it rehearses in detail the con- 
 tents of S. Mark xvi. 9—20 '. 
 
 It would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic 
 authorities ; as, by appealing to Gregentius in the yi"" century, 
 and to Gregory tlie Great, and Modestus, patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople in the yii"' ; — to Yen. Bade and John Damascene 
 in the viii"' ;— to Thcophylact in the xi"" ;_to Euthymius 
 in the xii"""^ : but I forbear. It would add no strength to my 
 argument that I should by such evidence support it ; as the 
 reader will admit when he has read my X"" chapter. 
 \ It will be observed then that i/nre competent Patristic 
 I witnesses of the ii'"' century,— ydwr of the iii"^"", — six of the 
 iv'\—four of the v"', — and firo (of uncertain date, but pro- 
 bably) of the vi"", — have admitted their familiarity with 
 these " last Twelve Verses." Yet do they not belong to one 
 particular age, school, or country. They come, on the con- 
 trarj', from every part of the ancient Church : Antioch and 
 
 •■ Athnnasii Opjy. vol. ii. p. 181 T, 182 A. See the Prcefat., pp. vii., viii. 
 
 ' Id dismissiug tliU cnumeratiou, let me be allowed to point out that there 
 must exist many more Patristic citations which I bare overlooked. The neces- 
 sity one is uuder, on occasions like the present, of depending to a great extent 
 on " Indices," is fatal ; so scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of 
 Texts that can be named. To judge from the Index in Oehler's edition of 
 Tertullian, that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times. 
 According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose docs not quote them so much 
 as once. Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes five of these verses no less than four- 
 teen times ; while Tertullian, as far as I am able to discover, does not quote 
 S. Mark xvi. 9—20 at all. 
 
 Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Diudorrs new Oxford ed. of 
 Clemens Alex, was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in Potter's ed. 
 But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3 (or 4), so remarkably 
 quoted in vol. iii. 433, 1. 8 : S. John i. 18, 50, memorably represented in vol. iii. 
 412, 1. 2G : S. Mark i. 13, interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6, 7 : 
 — are nowhere noticed in the Index: The Voice from Heaven at our Savioub'8 
 Baptism, — a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, 1.14), — does not appear in the 
 Index of quotations from S. Matthew (iii. 17), S. Mark (i. 11), or S. Luke 
 (iii. 22.) 
 
 ^ Gregentius apud Gallund. xi. C53 E. — Greg. Mag. (IIoui. xxix. in Evang.) 
 — Modestus apiid Pliotium cod. 275. — Joliannis Pamasccni 0pp. (ed. 1712) 
 vol. i. 608 E. — Bedc, and Theophylact (who quotes all the verses) and Euthy- 
 mius in loc. 
 
 n..J 
 
 of (hi. r,iti'<^tir EihUnee. 
 
 31 
 
 Constantinople,-IIierapolis,C^-=areaandEdessa,-Carthagc, 
 Alexandria and Hippo,_Rome and Portus. And thus, up- 
 wards of nineteen early codexes have been to all intents and 
 purposes inspected for us in various lands by unprejudu^ed 
 witncsses,-.s«r» of them at least of more ancient date than 
 the oldest copy of the Gospels extant. \ , .i, 
 
 I propose to recur to this subject for an instant when the 
 reader has been made acquainted with the decisive testimony 
 which ancient Versions supply. But the Versions deserve 
 n short Chapter to themselves. 
 
CHAPTER lY. 
 
 THE EAKLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD 
 UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF 
 THESE VERSES. 
 
 The Peshito, — the Ctireionian Syriac, — and He Recemion of Thomas 
 of Eharhl (p. 33.)— ^/'e Vulgate (p. ZA)—and the Vetus Itala 
 (p. 35) — the Gothic (p. 35) — and the Egyptian Veniom (p. 35). — 
 Sevicic of the Evidence up to this point, (p. 36). 
 
 It was declared at the outset that when we are seeking to 
 establish in detail the Text of the Gospels, the testimony 
 of Manuscripts is incomparably the most important of all. 
 To early Versions, the second place was assigned. To Pa- 
 tristic citations, the third. But it was explained that when- 
 ever (as here) the onlj' question to be decided is whether 
 a considerable portion of Scripture be genuine or not, then, 
 Patristic references yield to no class of eridence in import- 
 ance. To which statement it must now be added that second 
 only to the testimony of Fathers on such occasions is to be 
 reckoned the evidence of the oldest of the Versions. The 
 reason is obvious, (a.) We know for the most part the ap- 
 proximate date of the principal ancient Versions of the New 
 Testament : — {h.) Each Version is represented by at least one 
 very ancient Codex : — and (c.) It may be safely assumed that 
 Translators were never dependant on a single copy of the 
 original Greek when they executed their several Transla- 
 tions. Proceed we now to ascertain what evidence the oldest 
 of the Versions bear concerning the concluding verses of 
 S. Mark's Gospel : and first of all for the Syriac. 
 
 I. " Literary history," (saj's Mr. Scrivener,) " can hardly 
 afford a more powerful case than has been established for 
 the identity of the Version of the Syriac now called the 
 ' Peshito ' with that used by the Eastern Church long be- 
 fore the great schism had its beginning, in the native land 
 
 iv.l The " Curdonian" mid Philo.reviau Syriac. 33 
 
 of the blc-cd Gospel." The Peshito is referred by common 
 consent to tlie ii^'^ century of our ara ; and is found to con- 
 tain the verses in question. 
 
 II This, however, is not all. Within the last thirty years, 
 fragments of another very ancient Syriac translation of the 
 Golpels, (called from the name of its discoverer " The Cuke- 
 toman SVKIAC") have come to light" : and in this transla- 
 tion also the verses in question arc ^''''^^\- '^^^^ ^'""^^ 
 mcntarv codex is referred by Cureton to the middle of the V 
 century. M what earlier date the Translation may have 
 been executed,-as well as how much older the original Greek 
 copy mnv have been which this translator employed,— can 
 of course' only be conjectured. But it is clear that we are 
 listening to another truly primitive witness to the genuine- 
 ness of the text now under consideration ;— a witness (like 
 the hist) vastly more ancient than either the Vatican 
 Codex 15, or the Sinaitic Codex s ; more ancient, therefore, 
 tlian any' Greek copy of the Gospels in existence. We shall 
 not be thought rash if we claim it for the iii'* century. 
 
 III. Even this, however, does not fully represent the sum 
 of the testimony which the Syriac language bears on this 
 subject. Philoxenus, Monophysite Bishop of Mabug (Hiera- 
 polis) in Eastern Syria, caused a revision of the Peshito 
 Syriac to be executed by his Chorepiscopus Polycarp, a.d. 
 f/oS ; and bv the aid of three "^ approved and accurate Greek 
 manuscripts, this revised version of Polycarp was again re- 
 vised by Thomas of Hharkel, in the monastery of Antonia 
 at Alexandria, a.d. C16. The Hharklensian Revision, (com- 
 monly called the " Philoxeniak,") is therefore an extra- 
 ordinary monument of ecclesiastical antiquity indeed : for, 
 bein- ihe Revision of a revised Translation of the New 
 Testament known to have been executed fiom MSS. which 
 must have been at least as old as the v*" century, it ex- 
 • Dr. \Vriebt iufonus ac (1S71) that some more leaves of this Version have 
 just Iwou rciuvorod. 
 
 •■ By a h^i-i'v providence, one of the fragments contains the last four 
 
 vtTtes. 
 
 « In the murem, against S. Matth. isviii. 6, Thomas writes,-" /» tnbui 
 codicil,,, G,aci^. et in nuo Syriaco antiquae TersionU, uon inventom est 
 nom.!,, •NH7nrem.s.>"-Cf. ad ixvii. 35.-Adler*s if. T. Verss. Sj^-r., p. 97. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 Tho Jtrumhm Si/iinc. — T/ic Vnlgnte. 
 
 [CIIAP. 
 
 hibits the result of what may be called a collation of copies 
 made at a time when only four of our extant uncials were 
 in existence. Here, then, is a singularly important accumu- 
 lation of manuscript evidence on the subject of the verses 
 which of late years it has become the fashion to treat as 
 Bpurious. And yet, neither by Polycarp nor by Thomas 
 of Hliarkel, are the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel 
 omitted''. 
 
 To these, if I do not add the " Jerusalem version," — (as 
 an independent Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical Sec- 
 tions, perhaps of the v*'' century, is called ',) — it is because 
 our fourfold Syriac evidence is already abundantly sufficient. 
 In itself, it far outweighs in respect of antiquity anything 
 that can be shewn on the other side. Turn we next to the 
 Churches of the AVest. 
 
 IV. That Jerome, at the bidding of Pope Damasus (a.d. 
 382), was the author of that famous Latin version of the 
 Scriptures called The Vui.gate, is known to all. It seems 
 Bcarcelj' possible to overestimate the critical importance of 
 such a work, — executed at such a time, — under such auspices, 
 — and by a man of so much learning and sagacity as Jerome. 
 "When it is considered that we are here presented with the 
 results of a careful examination of the best Greek Manu- 
 scripts to which a competent scholar had access in the 
 middle of the fourth century,— (and Jerome assures us that 
 
 ' That among the 437 various readings and marginal notes on the Gospels 
 relegated to the Philoxcnian uiargiu, should occur the worthless supplement 
 which is only found besides in Cod. L. (see ch. viii.)— is not at all surprising. 
 Of these 437 readings and notes, 91 are not found in White's Edition; while 
 105 (the supplement in question being oue of them) arc found in White only. 
 This creates a suspicion that in part at least the Philoxenian margin must 
 eihibit traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the Syriac text. (So 
 Adlcr on S.Matth. xxvi. 40.) To unders'and the character of some of those 
 margin:ii notes and annotations, the reader has but to refer to Adlcr's learned 
 wort, (pp. 79 — 134) and examine the notes on the following places ;— S. Matth. 
 XV. 21 : XX. 28 ( = D) : iivi. 7. S.Mk. i. 16 : xii. 42. S. Lu. x. 17 (= B D) : 
 42 ( = B N L) ! xi. 1 : 53. S. Jo. ii. 1 [3] ( = N) : Jit- 26 : vii. 39 (partly 
 = B) ! X. 8, ic. ic. 
 
 • This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona, 1861-4, 
 under the following title: — Etangdiarium Mierosolj/mit auum ex Codice Vati- 
 cano Palaestino demprompait , edidil, Latiiie verlil, ProlegomenU et Olostario 
 adormavit. Comes FBiKCif crs Miniscaichi Ebizzo. 
 
 IV.] T/iC olrl Latin, the Gothic, and the Egi/ptian. 
 
 .'J") 
 
 lie consulted several,) — we learn to survej' with diminished 
 coni])lacency our own slender stores (if indeed any at all 
 exist) of corresponding antiquit3'. It is needless to add 
 tliat the Vulgate contains the disputed verses : that from 
 no copy of this Version are they awaj'. Now, in such 
 a matter as this, Jerome's testimon)' is very weighty indeed. 
 
 V. The Vulgate, however, was but the revision of a much 
 older translation, generally known as the Vetus Itai.a. 
 Tliis Old Latin, which is of African origin and of almost 
 Apostolic antiquit}', (supposed of tlic ii"'' century,) conspires 
 with the Vulgate in the testimonj' which it bears to tlie 
 pcnuincuess of the end of S. Mark's Gospel ^ : — an emphatic 
 witness that in the African province, from the earliest time, 
 no doubt whatever was entertained concerning the genuine- 
 ness of these last twelve verses. 
 
 VI. The next place may well be given to the venerable 
 version of the Gothic Bishop Ulphilas, — a.d. 350. Himself 
 a Cnjipadociau, Ulphilas probably derived his copies from 
 Asia Minor. His version is said to have been exposed to 
 crrlain corrupting influences ; but the unequivocal evidence 
 which it bears to the last verses of S. Mark is at least un- 
 inipoaihablc, aud must be regarded as important in the 
 highest degree*. The oldest ext:int copj' of the Gothic of 
 Ulphilas is assigned to the v"' or early in the vi"" century : 
 and the verses in question are there also met with. 
 
 VI Laud VIII. The ancient Egyptian versions call next 
 for notice : their testimon)' being so exceedingly ancient 
 and respectable. The Memphitic, or dialect of Lower 
 Egyjit, (less properly called the " Coptic" version), which 
 is as.signed to the iv"" or v"" centurj', contains S. Mark xvi. 
 ^ — -I'. — Fragments of the Thebaic, or dialect of Upper 
 ^e.^'P*' ('^ distinct version and of considerably earlier date, 
 
 ' It does not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that one 
 auciint c.Hlex, the " Codex Bobhiensis" (k), which Tregelles describes as 
 " a rf\ iM-d text, in which the influence of ancient MSS. is discernible," 
 ll'niiti,1 tfxt, ic. p. 170.] and which therefore may not be cited iu the present 
 '"""^'* •''">. — exhibits after ver. 8 a Latin translation of the spurious wordi 
 which lire aUo found in Cod. L. 
 
 ' " IJiukI Gothicum testimonium baud scio an critici satis agnovcrint, vel 
 prii dipnitiite aostiuiavcrint." Mai, Noia Patt. Bill. iv. 25C. 
 
 d2 
 
36 
 
 The Anmiiiaii, the Elhiopic, the Giort/laii. [chap. 
 
 less properly called the " Sabidic,") survive in MSS. of 
 very nearly (lie same ajitiquity : and one of these frag- 
 ments linppily contains the last verse of the Gospel accord- 
 ing to S. ilark. The Thebaic version is referred to the 
 iii'* century. 
 
 After this mass of evidence, it will be enough to record 
 concerning the Armenian version, that it yields inconstant 
 testimony : some of the MSS. ending at ver. 8 ; others 
 putting after these words the subscription, {evayyiXiov Kara 
 MapKov,) and then giA-ing the additional verses with a new 
 subscription : others going on without any break to the 
 end. This version may be as old as the v"" century ; but 
 like the Etbiopic [iv — vii ?] and the Georgian [vi ?] it 
 comes to us in codices of comparatively recent date. AH 
 this makes it impossible for us to care much for its testi- 
 mony. The two last-named versions, whatever their dis- 
 advantages may be, at least bear constant witness to the 
 genuineness of the verses in dispute. 
 
 1. And thus we are presented with a mass of additional 
 evidence, — so various, so weighty, bo multitudinous, so 
 venerable, — in support of this disputed portion of the Gos- 
 pel, that it might well be deemed in itself decisive. 
 
 2. For these Versions do not so much shew what indi- 
 viduals held, as what Churches have believed and taught 
 concerning the sacred Text, — mighty Churches in Syria 
 and Mesopotamia, in Africa and Italj', in Palestine and 
 Egypt. 
 
 3. "We ma}- here, in fact, conveniently review the progress 
 which has been hitherto made in this investigation. And 
 in order to bar the door against dispute and cavil, let us 
 be content to waive the testimony of Papias as precarious, 
 and tliat of Justin Martyr as too fragmentary to be decisive. 
 Let us frankly admit that the citation of Vincentius 4 
 Thibari at the vii"" Carthaginian Council is sufficiently in- 
 exact to make it unsafe to build upon it. The "Acta Pi- 
 lati" and the " Apostolical Constitutions," since their date 
 is somewhat doubtful, shall be claimed for the iv**" century 
 only, and not for the iii"*. And now, how will the evi- 
 dence stand for the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel ? 
 
 IV.] Rcrku- of the Etidcncc up to this point. 37 
 
 („) In the V'" centurv, to wliich Codex A and Codex C 
 are referred, (for Codex'P is certainly later,) at least three 
 faraoui Greeks and the most illustrious of the Latin Fathers, 
 _(7b.'r authorities in all,)— are observed to recognise these 
 
 VO'SOS. 
 
 II) In theiv'" centurv, (to which Codex B and Codex s 
 probablv belong, five Greek writers, one Syriac, and two 
 Latin Fathers,— besides the Vulgate, Gothic and Mem- 
 phitic Versions,— (r/rn« authorities in all,)-tcstify to fami- 
 liar acquaintance with this portion of S, Mark's Go>pel. 
 
 (,■) In the iii"' centurv, (and by this time MS. evidence 
 hn. entirely forsaken us,) we find Ilij.polytus, the Curetonian 
 Svriac and the Thebaic Version, bearing plam testimony 
 that ai that early period, in at least three distinct provinces 
 of primitive Christendom, no suspicion whatever attached 
 to those verses. Lastly, — 
 
 (,/) In the ii"" century, Irenieus, the Peshito, and the 
 Italic Version as plainly attest that in Gaul, in Meso- 
 potamia and in the African province, the same verses 
 ucre unhesitatingly received within a century (more or 
 less) of the date of the inspired autograph of the Evan- 
 gelist himself. _ r j i j 
 
 4 TLu« we are in possession of tlie testmiony of at lea^t 
 .,> independent witnesses, of a date considerably anterior to 
 the earliest extant Codex of the Gospels. They are all of 
 the best class. They deliver themselves in the most un- 
 equivocal way. And their testimony to the genumeness of 
 these Verses is unfaltering. 
 
 5 It is clear that nothing short of direct adverse evidence 
 of the weightiest kind can sensibly afi-ect so formidable an 
 arrav of independent authorities as this. What must the 
 evidence be which shall set it entirely aside, and induce us 
 to Ixlieve with the most recent editors of the inspired Text, 
 that the last chapter of S.Mark's Gospel, as it came from 
 the hands of its inspired author, ended abruptly at ver. 8 ? ^^ 
 
 The grounds for assuming that his " last Twelve Verses 
 are spurious, shall be exhibited in the ensuing chapter. 
 
CHAPTER Y. 
 
 THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE 
 EARLY FATHERS FROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF 
 THE CRITICS. 
 
 The misiale ccncer»i»g Gregory of Nyssa {p. 39). — The mincon- 
 cejifion eonctriting Euschius (/j. 41). — The oversight concerning 
 Jerome {^p. 51); — also concerning Sesychius of Jerusalem, (or else 
 Seterus of Antioch) (p. 51); — and concerning Victor of Antioch 
 (i>,59). 
 
 It would naturally follow to shew that manuscript evi- 
 dence confirms the e\'idence of the ancient Fathers and of 
 the earlj' Versions of Scripture. But it will be more satis- 
 factory that I should proceed to examine without more 
 dela3' the testimony, which, (as it is alleged,) is borne by 
 a cloud of ancient Fathers against the last twelve verses of 
 S.Mark. "The absence of this portion from some, from 
 many, or from most copies of his Gospel, or that it was not 
 written by S. Mark himself," (saj's Dr. Tregelles,) " is at- 
 tested by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, 
 Sererus of Antioch, Jerome, and by later writers, especially 
 Greeks '." The same Fathers are appealed to bj' Dr. David- 
 son, who adds to the list Euthymius ; and b}' Tischendorf and 
 Alford, who add the name of Ilesj'cbius of Jerusalem. They 
 also refer to "manj' ancient Scholia." "These verses" 
 (says Tischendorf) "are not recognised by the sections of 
 Ammonius nor by the Canons of Eusebius : Epiphanius and 
 Caesarius bear witness to the fact*"." "In the Catenae on 
 Mark" (proceeds Davidson) "the section is not explained. 
 Nor is there any trace of acquaintance with it on the part of 
 Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexandria;" — a remark 
 which others have made also ; as if it were a surprising cir- 
 cumstance that Clement of Alexandria, who appears to have 
 no reference to the last chapter of S. Mattheu's Gospel, should 
 
 • Account of the Prinled Text, p. 247. ' Or. Test. p. 322. 
 
 cuAF. v.] Tuchc allcjcd hostile WHun^^^- '^'^ 
 
 be also without any reference to the last chapter of S. J^Iork's: 
 Z if, too, it wer; an extraordinary, thing that Clen.ent of 
 Borne should have omitted to quote from the last chapter of 
 S Mark, -seeing that the same Clement does not quote 
 from S. Mark's Gospel at all. . . . The alacrity disphn ed b 
 arned writers in accumulating hostile evidence ,s ce. am 
 rthv of a Utter cause. Stra.ge, that their umted industry 
 should have been attended with such very unequal success 
 when their object was to_ exhibit the evidence u> fnmn of 
 the present portion of Scripture. 
 
 (1) Eusebius then, and (2) Jerome; (3) Gregory of >yssa 
 and (4) Hesvchius of Jerusalem ; (5) Severu^ of Antioch, 
 (6) Victor of Antioch, and (7) Euthymius :-Do the accom- 
 pl shed critics just quoted.-Doctors Tischendorf Tregelles 
 Ld Davidson, really mean to tell us that " it is a^ested b) 
 these seven Fathers that the concluding sec ion of S Ma ^ « 
 Gospel "was not written by S. Mark himself .< ^^ -}, there 
 is fot one of them who says so : while some of them say th 
 
 direct reverse. But let us go on^ I^^^ .Tt^The li t is 
 there are Twelve Verses to be demolished that th h^ is 
 fuither eked out with the names of (8) Ammonius, (9 Epi- 
 phanius, and (10) Ca3sarius,-to say nothmg of H) tbe 
 anlTmous authJs of Catena, and (12) "later writers, es- 
 
 ^T I'^sharexamine these witnesses one by one : but it will 
 be convenient in the first instance to caU attention to the 
 
 evidence borne by, 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa. 
 This illustrious Father is represented as expressing himsell 
 as follows in his second "Homily on the Re™^'°°;; - 
 .. In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark 
 has its end at 'for they were afraid.' In some eopes how 
 ever, this also is added,-' Now when He was risen ea ly the 
 first day of the week. He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, 
 out of whom He had cast seven devils.'" 
 
 .p.t,p<iTr, caPPir.. (sic) ^^^".-0-- "»,(, rj l^aytoKr,^ a^ *•**.*» " 
 M. iirri 8a.^^wa. Oj);). (ed. 1638) iii. 411 B. 
 
^isiuhc conccrmiuj Grt(jortj of Nj/ssa. [rii\r. 
 
 That this testimony should have been so often appealed 
 to as proceeding from Grcgor}' of Isyssa'', is little to the 
 credit of modern scholarsliip. One would have supposed 
 that the gravity of the subjeet, — the importance of the issue, 
 — the sacredness of Scripture, down to its minutest jot and 
 tittle, — would have ensured extraordinarj' caution, and in- 
 duced every fresh assailant of so considerable a portion of 
 the Gospel to be vcr)' sure of his ground before reiterating 
 what his predecessors bad delivered. And j-et it is evident 
 that not one of the recent writers on the subject can have 
 investigated this matter for himself. It is only due to their 
 known ability to presume that had they taken ever so little 
 pains with the foregoing quotation, they would have found 
 out their mistake. 
 
 (1.) For, in the first place, the second " Homily on the 
 Eesurrection" printed in the iii"" volume of the works of 
 Gregory of K3'ssa, (and which supplies the critics with 
 their quotation,) is, as everj' one may see who will take the 
 trouble to compare them, word for word the same Homih/ 
 which Combefis in his " Novum Auctarium," and Gallandius 
 in his "Bibliotheca Patrum" printed as the work of Hesy- 
 chius, and vindicated to that Father, respectively in 1648 
 and 1776*. Now, if a critic chooses to risk his own reputa- 
 tion by maintaining that the Homilj' in question is indeed 
 by Gregory of Nyssa, and is not by Hesychius, — well and 
 good. But since the Homily can have had but one author, 
 it is surely high time that one of these two claimants should 
 be altogether dropped from this discussion. 
 
 (2.) Again. Inasmuch as page after page of the same 
 Homily is observed to reappear, word for word, under the 
 name of "Severus of Antioch," and to be unsuspiciously 
 printed as his by Montfaucon in his " Bibliotheca Coisli- 
 niana" (1715), and by Cramer in his " Catena'" (1844),— 
 although it may very reasonablj"^ become a question among 
 critics whether Hesychius of Jerusalem or Severus of An- 
 
 * Tregelles, PrinteS Text, p. 24S, also in Home's Inirod. iv. 434-6. So Nor- 
 ton, Alford, Davidson, and the rest, following Wetstein, GrieSbaeli, Scliolz, &c. 
 
 • yot. Auct.u 743-74.— Jiif. Vett. PP. xi. 221-6. 
 ' IBM. CoUl. pp. 6S-75.— Catena, i. 243-51. 
 
 1 
 
 •] 
 
 T/ic Eridciicc of Eiinhin''- 
 
 41 
 
 lioch was the actual author of the Homily m question , yet 
 it is plain that critics must make their election between the 
 two names; and not bring them Loth forward. !^^o owe, 
 I sav, has any right to go on quoting " Severus and Hesj - 
 ehius"-as Tiscbendorf and Dr. Davidson are observed to 
 do:-" Gregory of Nyssa" and "Severus of Antioch, -as 
 Dr Tregelles is found to prefer. , , . 
 
 (3 ) In short, here are three claimants for the authorsh.p 
 of oiie and the same Homily. To whichever of the three 
 wc assign it,-(and competent judges have declared hat 
 there are sufficient reasons for giving it to Hesychius ra her 
 than to Severus,-while no one is found to suppose ha 
 Gregory of Nyssa was its autbor,)-"-/,o will not adm.t that 
 no further mention must be made of the other two? _ 
 
 ( n Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that henceforth 
 th name of "Gregory of Nyssa" must be banished from 
 this discussion. So must the name of " Severus of Antioch. 
 The memorable passage which begins,-^' In the more ac^ 
 curate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end 
 nt 'for they ^'ere afraid,' "-is found m . Eonnly wluch 
 ,-a. prohahhj written ly Hesychius. presbyter of Jerusalen,.-- 
 IwL of the r/- ccd.ry. I shaU have to recur to his work 
 bv-and^bv. The next name is 
 
 ECSEBIUP, 
 
 11 With respect to whom the case is altogether dif- 
 feren't What that learned Father has delivered concerning 
 the conclusion of S.Mark's Gospel requires to be examined 
 lith attention, and must be set forth much more m detail. 
 And yet, I will so far anticipate what is about to be offered, 
 as tola; at once that if any one supposes tbat Eusebms has 
 anywhere plainly "stated that it is ,canted ,„ >.>auy J/SS. . 
 -heismiLken Eusebius nowhere says so. The readei s 
 attention is invited to a plain tale. 
 
 It was not until 1825 that the world was presented by 
 
 ... .sS^(i.t.M^.>^----^^^ 
 
 (3. „. 50) to gWe this hon,il, to Severus^-M. y c^. ^no^ ^ ^P^^^ 
 nion on the Bubject. 
 
42 
 
 Th< IohI work bi/ Eitxcbiii'i of" Qiieesfioiics [chap. 
 
 Cardinal Angelo l^lai'' with a few fragmcntarj' specimens 
 of a lost work of Euscbius on the (so-Ciillcd) Inconsistencies 
 in the Gospels, from a 5IS. in the A'alican'. These, the 
 learned Cardinal republished more accurately in 1847, in 
 his "Nova Patruni IJibliothcca * ;" and hither we are in- 
 Tariably referred by those who cite Euscbius as a witness 
 against the genuineness of the concluding verses of the 
 second Gospel. 
 
 It is much to be regretted that we are still as little as 
 ever in possession of the lost work of Eusebius. It appears 
 to have consisted of three Books or Parts; the former two 
 (addressed "to Stephanas") being discussions of diflBculties 
 at the beginning of the Gospel, — the last ("to Marinus") 
 relating to difficulties in its concluding chapters'. The 
 Author's plan, (as usual in such works), was, first, to set 
 forth a difficulty in the form of a Question ; and straight- 
 way, to propose a Solution of it, — which commonlj' assumes 
 the form of a considerable dissertation. But whether we are 
 at present in possession of so much as a single entire speci- 
 men of these " Inquiries and Resolutions " exactly as it came 
 from the pen of Eusebius, ma)' reasonably be doubted. That 
 
 •i Scrlptonim Vett. Nova CoUeeiio, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1 — 101. 
 
 ' At p. 217, (ed. 1847), Mai designates it as " Codex Vat. Palat. cxx pul- 
 chemmos, ssculi ferme x." At p. 268, be numbers it rigbtly, — ccxx. We 
 are there informed tbat the work of Eusebius extends irom fol. 61 to 96 of 
 the Codex. 
 
 k A'ol. iv. pp. 219—309. 
 
 ' Sec SoTtt P. P. BilUoOieca, iv. 255. — Tbat it was styled " Inquiries with 
 their Resolutions " (Zirr^^oTa koX Avtrcis), Euscbius leiids us to suppose by 
 himself twice referring to it unJcr that name, (Demonslr. Etang. lib. vii. 3 : 
 also in the Preface to Marinus, Mai, iv. 255 i) which his abbreviator is also 
 observed to employ (UTai, iv. 219, 255.) But I suspect that be and others so 
 designate the work only from the nature of its contents; and that its actual 
 title is correctly indicated by Jerome, — De Evangeliorutn DiaphoniS : " Edi- 
 dit" (he says) "de Evangeliorum Diaphonia," {De Scripit. Illustt. c. 61.) 
 Again, Aicu^ucria Eva77€A(ii»', (Hieron. in Mattk. i. 16.) Consider also the 
 testimony of Latiuus Latinius, given below, p. 4-1-, note (q). 'Indicated* by 
 Jerome, I say: for the entire title was probably, Tltpl rijs toKovcn)t Iv ro7s 
 f Jo7-)fAioii K.T.X. Jio^a-i-foJ. The Author of the Catena ou S.Mark edited by 
 Cramer (i. p. 266), quotes an opinion of Euscbius iv rf -rphs Kap7vor -rip} rris 
 toKoitnis iv toTs €4a>7(A/oiJ irtpl -rns avaariafus Siaipuvlas : words which are 
 extracted from the same MS. by Simon, Biat. Crit. N. T. p. 89. 
 
 v.] 
 
 ad Slep/iaiiiim" and " ad ilariunm." 
 
 43 
 
 the work which Mai has brought to light is but a highly 
 condensed exhibition of the original, (and scarcely that,) its 
 very title shews ; for it is headed,—" An abridged selection 
 from the ' Inquiries and Resolutions [of difficulties] in the 
 Gospels' by Eusebius"." Only some of the original Ques- 
 tions, therefore, are here noticed at all : and even these have 
 been subjected to so severe a process of condensation and 
 abridgment, that in some instances amputation would pro- 
 bably\e a more fitting description of what has taken place. 
 Accordingly, what were originally two Books or Parts, are 
 at present represented by XVI. " Inquiries," &c., addressed 
 " to Stephanus ;" while the concluding Book or Part is re- 
 presented by IV. more, " to Marinus,"— of which, (he fnt 
 relates to our Lord's appearing to Mary Magdalene after 
 His Resurrection. Now, since the work which Eusebius ad- 
 dressed to Marinus is found to have contained " Inquiries, 
 with their Resolutions, concerning our Saviour's Death and 
 Resurrection","— whUe a quotation professing to be de- 
 rived from "the thirteenth chapter" relates to Simon the 
 Cyrenian bearing our Saviour's Cross °j— it is obvious that 
 the original work must have been very considerable, and 
 that what Mai has recovered gives an utterly inadequate 
 idea of its extent and importance p. It is absolutely neces- 
 
 » -ExXoyJ, iv crri^f i" t£. <r.^.e.W-- i-^ Et^.fl-'o. xpbs 2r.>a.o. [and 
 .pU M.p:...] ..Pl -^ ^y "■' E-77.A.'o.5 ivr,,ir.v Kal Kv...v. md 
 pn 219. 255.-(See the plate of facsimiles facing the t.tle of vol. .. ed, 1625.) 
 " Ziaie-os .... ivrah ^pU MapT.o. ^-rl ral, ircpl ToG S.-'ou TaBous /ral t,j 
 i.,.,Tj,... r.T««.. Kal iKKi..... K.T.X. I quote the place from the less 
 kn„wn Caf-na of Cr«ner, (ii. 389,) where it is assigned to Severus of Ant.och: 
 b»titoccursalsoinCbrdeWiCa(..«J<.a».p.436. (See ilai, iv. 299.) _ 
 
 « This pi«age is too grand to be withheld :-06 yip V «(.<ft t.i iv rp n6\u 
 •|o.5a(u,., (S.S <pr,a,v Ei«'|3.« K^f^Xal^.y ^P>>' Maplvov.) t» Kari t.S 8.«8rfXo„ 
 ^pi.a.ov .iv ara.ph. fiaarica, 4xV i ii hp't. ts Ml'" <-««...u,r,« rp 
 ««Ta Xpi»ToD M'a'f"'"'?- {Possiui Cat in Marcini, f.SiS.) 
 
 ' Mai iv p 'qg -The Catena;, inasmuch as their compilers are observed 
 to have been very curious in such questions, are evidently full o( diyecia ««».- 
 tra of the work. These are recognisable for the most part by tbe.r form ; but 
 sometimes they actually retain the name of their author. Accordingly, Catena, 
 have far.,lsl,ed Mai with a considerable boJy of additional materials ;wh.ch (as 
 far as a MS. Catena of Kicetas on S. Luke. [Cod. A. se„ Vat. 1611,] enabled 
 him,) be has edited with considerable industry; throwing tbem mto a kmd o. 
 Supplement, (^'ol.iv. pp. 268-282, and pp. 283-298.) It .s only Burpr.sn.g 
 
44 
 
 IIoiv Etinhiiifi ])rojiO'<(fl to rccoiH-ik 
 
 [chap. 
 
 Eary thai all lliis sliould be clearly appreliended by any one 
 who desires 1o know exactly wliat the alleged evidence of 
 Euscbius concerning the last chapter of S. Mark's Gospel is 
 worth, — as I will explain more fuUj' by-and-bv. Let it, 
 however, be candidly admitted that there seems to be no 
 reason for Bup]>osin'g that whenever the lost work of I^use- 
 bius comes to light, (and it has been seen within about 
 300 years',) it will exhibit anything essentially different 
 from what is contained in the famous passage which has 
 given rise to so much debate, and which may be exhibited 
 in English as follows. It is put in the form of a reply to 
 one " Mariuus," who is represented as asking, first, the fol- 
 lowing question : — 
 
 "How is it, that, according to Matthew [xxviii. 1], the 
 Saviouk appears to have risen ' in the end of the Sabbath ;' 
 but, according to Mark [xvi. 9], 'early the first day of the 
 week'?" — Eusebius answers, 
 
 " This difficulty admits of a twofold solution. He who is for 
 
 tbat with the stores at bis coiuinand, Mai has not coutrivcd to enlighteu us 
 a little more on this curious subject. It noald not be difEcuU to indicate sun- 
 dry passages which he has ovcrlooVed. Neither indeed can it be denied that 
 the learned Cardinal has executed his task in n somcnhat slovenly manner. 
 He does not seem to have noticed tbat what be quotes at pp. 357-8 — 262 — 2S3 
 — 295, is to be found in the Catena of Corderius iit pp. 44S-9 — 149 — J50 — 457. 
 ^He quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of John Xipbilinus, ( Cod. Tat. 
 p. IGO,) what be might bare found in I'ossinus ; and in Cramer too, (p. 446.) 
 He was eridcntly \uiacquainted with Cramer's work, though it had been pub- 
 lished 3 (if not 7) years before liis own, — else, at p. 299, instead of quoting 
 Shuon, be would have quoted Cramer's Cattiur, i. 2GC. — It was in his power to 
 solve bis cwii slireud doubt, (at p. 299, — concerning the text of a passage iu 
 Possinns, p. 3t3,) seeing that the Catena which Possinus published was tran- 
 scribed by Corderius from n 31 S. in the Vatican. (I'ossini Pro-fat. p. il.) In 
 the Vatican, too, he might have found the frai^ment he quotes (p. 300) from 
 p. 3C4 of the Catena of Possinus. In countless places be might, by such refer- 
 enccs, have improved Lis often manifestly faulty text. 
 
 4 Mai quotes the following from Latinus Lati'jius (0pp. ii. 116.) to Andreas 
 Itlasins. Sirletus (Cardinnlis) "scire te vnlt in Siciliu inventos esse ... libros 
 ties Kusebii Cacsariensis de Evangeliorum Diaphonid, qui nt ipse sperat breri 
 iu lucem prodibunt." The letter is dat«d 15G3. 
 
 I suspect tbat when the original of this work is recovered, it will be found 
 that Eusebius digested his " Questions" under heads : e.g. rtp] toC Tcupov, koI 
 TTif toKOt'irijs tia^uviai (p. 264) : ^fpl r^s taKoi/iT>)t ircp) ■rijs ifainaaius iia- 
 ^un'oi. (p. 299) 
 
 ■1 
 
 S. Jfat/Iieir xj-riii. 1 oii'l S. Mark rn. 9. 
 
 An 
 
 rtttinc rid of the entire passagc^ will say that it is not met 
 fvi.h in .// the copies of Mark's Gospel : the accurate copies, 
 „, till events, making the end of Murk's narrative come after 
 ,1,0 words of the young man who appeared to the women 
 M,d said, 'Fear not ye! Ye seek Jesus of ^azareth, &c : 
 ,o which the Evangelist adds,-' .\nd when they heard it, 
 ,1,0V fled, and said nothing to any man, for they were 
 afraid ' For at those words, in almost all copies of the 
 GoMK'l according to Mark, comes the end. What follows, 
 (which is met with seldom, [and only] in some copies, cer- 
 tainly not in all,) might be dispensed u^th ; especially if it 
 .houid prove to contradict the record of the other Evange- 
 lists This, then, is what a person wdl say who is for 
 evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem 
 
 "But another, on no account daring to reject anything 
 whatever which is, under whatever circumstances, met with 
 in the text of the Gospels, will say that here are two read- 
 in«rs (as is so often the case elsewhere;) and that lof/, are to 
 be r'eceivcd,-inasmuch as by the .faithful and pious, //.., 
 reading is not held to be genuine rather than ihaf ; nor that 
 
 *'' It Im be best to exhibit the whole of what Eusebius has 
 written on this subject,-as far as we are permitted to know 
 it —continuously. He proceeds :— 
 
 .' Well then, allowing this piece to be really genuine, our 
 business is to interpret the sense of the passage-. And eer- 
 tainlv if I divide the meaning into two, we shall find that 
 it is n<.t opposed to what Matthew says of our S.av.our s 
 Laving risen ' in the end of the Sabbath.' For Mark s ex- 
 
 . 1 translate according to the sense,-the text being manifestly corrupt. 
 T*,. JL <.a<rK«..a. «p.Ko^. is probably a gloss, explana orj of ^^ «^^^-- 
 IL m lictness, the K.,<i.-.o. begins at ch. xv. 42, and extends to the end 
 T^, fi 1 There are 4S such K.<(.aXo.a in S.Mark. But this term was 
 
 :^s:^-J^:^o.. Greek itthers. (. ^ ^^^^[^:^"^:i 
 
 to dcnol,. a passage of Scripture, and it is evidently so u ed here. ncp..o.^. 
 on the contrary, in this place seems to have its true tecbmcal meanmg, and to 
 denote the liturgical «c/;oii, or " lesson." . x .„„. 4„ h. 
 
 . 'A.iy...,a (like ..,..0^, spoken of in the foregon,g note,) eern t be 
 h.re usel in its technical sense, and to designate the bturg.cal .ect.on. or 
 " lectio." See Suicer, iii voce. 
 
4fi 
 
 Tlie (rificdl ^tiqqe.tliom of 
 
 [chap. 
 
 prcssion, ('Now Mlien He was risen early the first day of the 
 week,') \\-Q shall read with a pause, putting a comma after 
 ' Now when lie was risen,' — the sense of the words which 
 follow being kept separate. Thereby, we shall refer [Mark's] 
 'when ITc was risen' to ]\Iatthew's 'in the end of the Sab- 
 bath,' (for it was 1h<n that He ro)>() ; and all that comes 
 nftcr, expressive as it is of a distinct notion, we shall con- 
 nect with what follows ; (for it was ' earhj, the first day of the 
 week,' that 'He appeared to Mary Mayilahne.') This is in 
 fact what John also declares ; for he too has recorded that 
 'early,* 'the first day of the week,' [Jesl's] appeared to 
 the Magdalene. Thus then Mark also says that He ap- 
 peared to her early : not that He rose early, but long before, 
 (according to that of Matthew, ' in the end of the Sabbath :' 
 for though He rofiC then, He did not apjxar to Mary then, • 
 but ' early.') In a word, two distinct seasons are set before 
 us by these words : first, the season of the Eesurrection, — 
 which was ' in the end of the Sabbath ;' secondly, the season 
 of our Saviour's Appearing, — which was ' earh.' The for- 
 mer ', Mark writes of when he says, (it requires to be read 
 with a pause,) — ' Now, when He was risen.' Then, after 
 a comma, what follows is to be spoken, — 'Earlj-, the first 
 day of the week. He appeared to Mary Magdalene, out of 
 whom He bad cast seven devils".'" — Such is the entire pas- 
 sage. Little did the learned writer anticipate what bitter 
 fruit his words were destined to bear ! 
 
 1. Let it be freelj' admitted that what precedes is calcu- 
 lated at first sight to occasion nothing but surprise and 
 perplexity. For, in the first place, there really is no problem 
 to sohe. The discrepancy suggested by " Marinus" at the 
 outset, is plainly imaginary, the result (chiefly) of a strange 
 misconception of the meaning of the Evangelist's Greek, 
 — as in fact no one was ever better aware than Eusebius 
 himself. " These places of the Gospels w ould never have 
 occasioned any difficulty," he writes in the very next page, 
 
 ' Tlic text of Eusebius seems to Lave experienced stme disarraDgement 
 Bud deprnvatioD here. 
 
 • Mai, Bill. P.P. JVora, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the origuial 
 of tliis passage is given in tbe Api)endix (B). 
 
 ] 
 
 . -1 E'>iihii>% r( marled upon. ' 
 
 ibut it is the commencement of his reply to the second qucs- 
 .V M.rinus)-"if people would but abstain from as- 
 r-inl ; Maihew'sVhLe (3^^ .a^r..) refers to 
 Teevelung of the Sallatl.-day : whereas. (,n conformity with 
 te TstabLhed idiom of the language,) it oWsly ref 
 to an advanced period of the ensumg night . He pro 
 cecds-"The self-same moment therefore, or very nearly 
 self-same, is intended by tl^e Evangelists on 3- unde. 
 different names: and there is no discrepancy whatever be 
 :^en Matthew's,-' in the end of the Sabbath, as it began 
 to dawn toward the first day of the week ' «"d John s- 
 The first day of the week cometh Mary ^f^^^^^"^ 
 Jhen it was yet dark ' The Evangelists rndicat. b,' dif- 
 ferent expressions one and the -- " -^^^^^^ 
 in a broad and general way. And vet, 11 a. 
 
 1 this so well, why did he not say so at once, and dos^^e 
 discussion ? I really cannot tell ; except - -;j> ^"^ ^^^ ; 
 -which although at first it may sound somewhat ex raoidi 
 J3-the-eI«ofthemanerr.^^^^^^ 
 
 rr;s;^er;L^^rt:^nt^y,-"«^^^^^ 
 
 ZdZion : but that Eu.ebius, ha.-ing met with the sugges^ 
 t on u some older writer, (in Origen probably,) reproducd 
 "n language of his own.-doubtless because be thought 
 ng I^us and interesting, but not by -X '"-- ^^^^ 
 he regarded it as true. Except on some such theoij, I am 
 . t fy unable to understand how Eusebius can have writte. 
 To ii consistently. His admirable remarks just q-ted, a e 
 obv^us^y a full and sufficient answer,-the proper answ i 
 n flct-tothe proposed difficulty: and it is a memovab e 
 Ifumstance tb^t L -ents generally w^^ so -si^^^^ 
 of this, that they are found to have wvanahty substituted 
 
 X, • • 9r- So far i have given tbe substance only of wbat Eusebius 
 . Ma,, .V. 25/. So far, I ba e g ^.^^^ ^^^ ^.,^, ^^.5^, „..,. 
 
 ^V.-o. "rf »J "■'-* ";'''"';.'7/"r„J"e principal words in tbe text. 
 
 see the Appendix (B) adfn. „ , c v„,.,„n Avclnrium, col. 780. 
 
 .'l allude to tbe following places :_Combefis, ^ovum Auclnr.u 
 
48 
 
 Tliv fifmitgpiir'.ss of irhni Eu$<liu>i 
 
 [chap. 
 
 what Euscbius wrote in reply to the f^Kond question of 
 Marinus for what he wrote in reply to fhc fint ; in other 
 words, for the dissertation which is occasioning us all this 
 difficulty. 
 
 2. Hut next, even had the discrepancy been real, the 
 remedy for it which is here proposed, and which is advo- 
 cated with such tedious emphasis, would probably prove 
 satisfactory to no one. In fact, the entire method advocated 
 in the foregoing passage is hopelessly A-icious. The writer 
 begins hy advancing statements which, if he believed them 
 to be true, he must have known are absolutely fatal to the 
 verses in question. This done, he sets about discussing the 
 possibility of reconciling an isolated expression in S. Mark's 
 Gospel with another in S. Matthew's : just as if on that 
 depended the genuineness or spuriousness of the entire Con- 
 text : as if, in short, the major premiss in the discussion 
 were some such postulate as the following; — "Whatever 
 in one Gospel cannot be proved to be entirely consistent 
 with something in another Gospel, is not to be regarded 
 as genuine." Did then the learned Archbishop of Caesarea 
 really suppose that a comma judiciously thrown into the 
 empty scale might at any time suffice to restore the equili- 
 brium, and even counterbalance the adverse testimony of 
 almost every MS. of the Gospels extant ? Wh}' does he not 
 at least deny the truth of the alleged facts to which he 
 began by giving currency, if not approval ; and which, so 
 long as they are allowed to stand uncontradicted, render all 
 further argumentation on the subject simply nugatory ? As 
 before, I really cannot tell, — except on the hypothesis which 
 has been already hazarded. 
 
 3. Note also, (for this is not the least extraordinary fea- 
 ture of the case.) what vague and random statements those 
 arc which we have been listening to. The entire section 
 
 — Cod. Mosq. 13S, (printed by Mattliaci, Ancctt. Grac. u. 62.) — also Cod. 
 Jlosq. 130, (sec N. T. ix. 223-4.)— Cod. Coislin. 195 fol. 165.— Cod. Coislin. 23, 
 (published by Cramer, Call. i. 251.)— Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4, 
 fol. 169. — ^Cod. Bodl. Laud. Gr. 33, fol. 79. — Any one desirous of knowing 
 more on tliis subjeet will do well to begin by reading Simon Mist. Crit. du 
 y. T. p. 89. SfC Mai's foot-uote, iv. p. 257. 
 
 ^■•] 
 
 /((7S m^QCficl tvucernhxg tht^f Verses. 
 
 49 
 
 (S Mark xvi. 9—20,) " iittot met uiih in o// the copies:" at 
 all' events not " in the mcm-atv" ones. Nay. it is " met with 
 ,cUIom." In fact, it is ah^vt from " almost all" copies. But, 
 — Which of these four statements is to stand? The first is 
 comparntivelv unimportant. Not so the second. The last 
 two, on the contrary, would be absolutely fatal,— if trust- 
 worthy ? But are they trustworthy ? 
 
 To this question only one answer can be returned. The 
 exaggeration is so gro^s that it refutes itself. Had it been 
 mcr% asserted that the verses in question were wanting in 
 ,«««2/ofthecopies,-even had it been insisted that the best 
 copies were without them,-well and good : but to assert that, 
 in the beginning of the fourth century, from "almost all" 
 copies of the Gospels ther were away,— is palpably untrue. 
 What had become then of the MSS. from which the Synac, 
 the Latin, all the ancient Versions were made ? How is the 
 contradictory evidence o{ aery eoju, of the Gospels m exist- .'. 
 ntce hut t,ro io be accounted for ? With Irena^us and Hip- 
 polytus with the old Latin and the Vulgate, with the Synac, 
 and the Gothic, and the Egyptian versions to refer to, we 
 are able to assert that the author of such a statement was 
 cuilty of monstrous exaggeration. We are reminded of the 
 loose" and random way in which the Fathers,-(g.nnts in 
 Interpretation, but very children in the Science of Textual 
 Criticism )— are sometimes observed to speak about the state 
 of the Text in their days. We are reminded, for instance, 
 of the confident assertion of an ancient Critic that the true 
 reading in S. Luke xxiv. 13 is not «' three- score' but ;'«» 
 hundred and three-score ;" for that so "the accurate copies 
 used to read the place, besides Origen and Eusebius. ^ And 
 vet (as I have elsewhere explained) the reading c/carov Ka, 
 k^^lvra is altogether impossible. "Apud nos mixta sunt 
 omnia," is Jerome's way of adverting to an evil which, 
 serious as it was, was yet not nearly so great as he repre- 
 sents ; viz. the unauthorised introduction into one Gospel 
 of what belongs of right to another. And 60 in a multitude 
 of other- instances. The Fathers are, in fact, constantly ob- 
 served to nrnke critical remarks about the ancient copies 
 which simply cannot be correct. 
 
 E 
 
50 EiiscUks )iof aihcrKC to S. Mark xri. 9 — 20. [chap. 
 
 And yet the author of the exaggeration under review, be it 
 observed, is clearly tioi Eiaibinf:. It is evident that fie has 
 nothing to say against the genuineness of the conclusion of 
 S. Mark's Gospel. Those random statements about the copies 
 with which he began, do not even purport to express his 
 own sentiments. Nay, Eusebius in a manner repudiates 
 them ; for he introduces them with a phrase which separates 
 them from himself: and, "This then is what a person -will 
 say," — is the remark with which he finally dismisses them. 
 It would, in fact, be to make this learned Father stultify 
 
 . himself to suppose that he proceeds gravely to discuss a 
 portion of Scripture which he had already deliberately re- 
 jected as spurious. But, indeed, the evidence before us 
 eflFectuall}' precludes any such supposition. " Here are two 
 readings," he sa}'s, " (as is so often the case elsewhere ;) 
 both of which are to be received, — inasmuch as by the faith- 
 ful and pious, t/iis reading is not held to be genuine rather 
 than t/iat ; nor that than this." And thus we seem to be 
 presented with the actual opinion of Eusebius, as far as it 
 can be ascertained from the present passage, — if indeed he 
 is to be thought here to offer any personal opinion on the 
 subject at all ; which, for my own part, I entirely doubt. 
 But whether we are at liberty to infer the actual sentiments 
 of this Father from anything here delivered or not, quite 
 
 ( certain at least is it that to print only the first half of the 
 passage, (as Tischendorf and Tregelles have done,) and then 
 to give the reader to understand that he is reading the 
 adverse testimony of Eusebius as to the genuineness of the 
 end of S. Mark's Gospel, is nothing else but to misrepresent 
 the facts of the case ; and, however unintentionally, to de- 
 ceive those who are unable to verify the quotation for 
 themselves. 
 
 It has been urged indeed that Eusebius cannot have re- 
 cognised the verses in question as genuine, because a scho- 
 lium purporting to be his has been cited by Matthaei from 
 a Catena at Moscow, in which he appears to assert that 
 "according to Mark," our Saviour "is not recorded to have 
 appeared to His Disciples after His Resurrection :" whereas 
 in S. Mark xvi. 14 it is plainly recorded that " Afterwards 
 
 '••] 
 
 The Tcfiimoiij/ of Jerome. 
 
 51 
 
 He appeared unto the Eleven as thej' sat at meat." May 
 I be permitted to declare that I am distrustful of the pro- 
 posed inference, and shall continue to feel so, until I know 
 something more about the scholium in question ? Up to the 
 time when this page is printed I have not succeeded in ob- 
 taining from Moscow the details I wish for : but they must 
 be already on the way, and I propose to embody the result 
 in a "Postscript" which shall form the last page of the 
 Appendix to the present volume. 
 
 Are we then to suppose that there was no substratum of 
 truth in the allegations to which Eusebius gives such pro- 
 minence in the passage under discussion ? By no means. 
 The mutilated state of S. Mark's Gospel in the Vatican 
 Codex (B) and especially in the Sinaitic Codex (s) suffi- 
 ciently establishes the contrarj'. Let it be freely conceded, 
 (but in fact it has been freely conceded already,) that there 
 must have existed in the time of Eusebius }i)aiii/ copies of 
 S. Mark's Gospel which were without the twelve concluding 
 verses. I do but insist that there is nothing whatever in 
 that circumstance to lead us to entertain one serious doubt 
 as to the genuineness of these verses. I am but concerned 
 to maintain tlint there is nothing whatever in tlie evidence 
 which has hitherto come before us, — certainly not in the 
 evidence o/ EiifefAtis, — to induce us to believe that they are 
 a spurious addition to S. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 III. We liave next to consider what 
 Jehome 
 has delivered on this subject. So great a name must needs 
 command attention in any question of Textual Criticism : 
 and it is commonly pretended that Jerome pronounces em- 
 phatically against the genuineness of the last twelve verses 
 of the Gospel according to S. Mark. A little attention to 
 the actual testimony borne by this Father will, it is thought, 
 siifiice to exhibit it in a wholly unexpected light ; and in- 
 duce us to form an entirely different estimate of its prac- 
 tical bearing upon the present discussion. 
 
 It will be convenient that I should premise that it is in 
 one of his many exegetical Epistles that Jerome discusses 
 this matter. A lady named Hedibia, inhabiting the furthest 
 
 e2 
 
52 Jerome's actoiini of /lii uisiia) mvthod. [chap. 
 
 extremil)' of Gaul, and known to Jerome only by the ardoor 
 of her piety, had sent to prove him with hard questions. 
 lie resolves her difficulties from Bethlehem ^ : and I may 
 be allowed to remind the reader of what is found to have 
 been Jerome's practice on similar occasions, — which, to 
 judge from his writings, were of constant occurrence. In 
 fact, Apodcmius, who brought Jerome the Twelve problems 
 from Hedibia, brought him Eleven more from a noble 
 neighbour of hers, Algasia'. Once, when a single mes- 
 senger had conveyed to him out of the African province 
 a quantity of similar interrogatories, Jerome sent two Egyp- 
 tian monks the following account of how he liad proceeded 
 in respect of the inquiry, — (it concerned 1 Cor. xv. 51,) — 
 which they had addressed to him : — " Being pressed for 
 time, I have presented you with the opinions of all the 
 Commentators; for the most part, translating their very 
 words; in order both to get rid of your question, and to 
 put j'ou in possession of ancient authorities on the subject." 
 This learned Father does not even profess to have been in 
 the habit of delivering his o\vn opinions, or speaking his 
 own sentiments on such occasions. " This has been hastily 
 dictated," he says in conclusion, — (alluding to his constant 
 practice, which was to dictate, rather than to write,) — 
 " in order that I might lay before you what have been the 
 opinions of learned men on this subject, as well as the argu- 
 ments by which they have recommended their opinions, 
 ^ly own authority, (who am but nothing,) is vastly inferior 
 to that of our predecessors in the Lord." Then, after spe- 
 cial commendation of the learning of Origen and Eusebius, 
 and the valuable Scriptural expositions of many more, — 
 " M}' plan," (he says,) "is to read the ancients; to prove 
 all things, to hold fast that which is good ; and to abide 
 Btedfast in the faith of the Catholic Church. — I muot now 
 dictat-e replies, either original or at second-hand, to other 
 Questions which lie before me"." "We are not surprised, 
 after this straightforward avowal of what was the method 
 
 ' Ep. CXI. Opera, (ed. Vallara.) vol. L pp. 811— 43. 
 
 • Ibid. p. 844. 
 
 • Ibid. p. 793—810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810. 
 
 , .] //< (v >-t,iwn io be h(rc a Copyist of Etifichius. 53 
 
 on such occasions with this learned Father, to discover that, 
 instead of hearing Jerome addiessing ITedibia, — (vho had 
 interrogated him concerning the very problem which is at 
 i)rescnt engaging our attention,) — we find ourselves only 
 listening to Einebiiis over again, addressing Mariiius. 
 
 " Thii difficulty admits of a two-fold solution," Jerome 
 bi cins ; as if determined that no doubt shall be entertained 
 as to the source of his inspiration. Then, (making short 
 work of the tedious disquisition of Eusebius,)— " Either we 
 shall reject the testimony of Mark, which is met with in 
 scarcely any copies of the Gospel, — almost all the Greek 
 codices being without this passage :— (especially since it 
 seems to narrate what contradicts the other Gospels :) — or 
 else, we shall reply that both Evangelists state what is true : 
 Matthew, when he says that our Lord rose 'late in the 
 ^eek :' Mark, — v hen he says that Mary Magdalene saw Him 
 • earlv, the first day of the week.' For the passage must be 
 thus pointed,—' When He was risen :' and presently, after 
 a pause, must be added,—' Early, the first day of the week. 
 He appeared to Mary Magdalene.' He therefore who had 
 risen late in the week, according to Matthew, — Himself, 
 carlv the first day of the week, according to Mark, appeared 
 to Marv Magdalene. And this is what John also means, 
 shewiusi that it was early on the next day that He ap- 
 peared."— To understand how faithfully in what precedes 
 Jerome treads in the footsteps of Eusebius, it is absolutely 
 necessary to set the Latin of the one over against the Greek 
 of the other, and to compare them. In order to facilitate 
 this operation, I have subjoined both originals at foot of the 
 page : from which it will be apparent that Jerome is here 
 not so much adopting the sentiments of Eusebius as simply 
 traii^lfitiiiij his irords^. 
 
 ' " Hrjiis iiuKStionis duplex solutio est. [Toirov Smh iv tl-n ri Xu<rii.] Aut 
 eiiim ncn r> i-iiiimus JIarci testimonium, quod in raris fertur [airatius fc tuti 
 ^tpififia' Kviiugeliif, omnibus Griecia: libria pcne lice capituluiu [t* Kf<pa\aun' 
 QiniT in fill.' imn babentibus i [^i- toi/t<? yap ff^fS'"' '" *''«<" ^O'l a;'Ti7pi^oi5 
 T»r. HOTS NvKoi- itorrfXfou irtp.>t7pairToi t» tc'Aoj] J prffisertim cum diversa 
 atque coiitraria Evangclistis ceteris uarrare videntur [/ictXiaro fhfp lx<>'«»' 
 iniXo-iim Tf T.:.' Aomi)' tiayytKiariiv iiaprvpia.'^ Aut boo respondendum, 
 qnod utorviuf verum dixerit [ixaripay TrapaSiKrf'ap inrapxf'>'-<'"^X'-'P'>"l'^''"' 
 
54 
 
 JTidibid'it qnnlious to Jerome 
 
 [CHAV. 
 
 This, however, is not by any means the strongest feature of 
 the case. That Jerome should have availed himself ever so 
 freely of the materials which he found ready to his hand in 
 the pages of Eusebius cannot be regarded as at all extra- 
 ordinary, «fter what we have just heard from himself of his 
 customary method of proceeding. It would of course have 
 suggested the gravest doubts as to whether we were here 
 listening to the personal seutiment of this Father, or not ; 
 but that would have been aU. "WTiat are we to think, how- 
 ever, of the fact .that Hedihia's question to Jerome proves on 
 insi^ection to be nothing more than a translation of the very 
 qucHtion tchich Marinus had long before addressed to JEuseliiis ? 
 We read on, perplexed at the coincidence ; and speedily 
 make the notable discovery that her next question, and her 
 next, are also translations irord for word of the next two of 
 Marinus. For the proof of this statement the reader is again 
 referred to the foot of the page °. It is at least decisive : 
 
 (Tvai i\7)Soi/i.] Mattbaeas, quaudo Doniinus surrcxcrit vespere Babbati : Mar- 
 cus auleui, quaudo turn Tideril Maria Magdalena, id est, mane prima Eabbati. 
 Ita enim diBtiaguendum est, Cum aotcm resurrcxisset : [^era SiacrroX^s iva- 
 •yvuirtiov 'Acwras 5^:] et, pammpcr, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima 
 Eabbati mane apparuit Maria; Magdalena: : [iTra !moaTi\avT(i ^ii-riov, Tlput rp 
 fLif riv aafiPirmiy iipitii Mapiqi Tp Mo^SaXiii/p.] Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta 
 Matthsum suiiexerat, [xapa rf KarOatif, otf'i caBPaTuv' tot« ylip iyliyfpTO.'] 
 ipse mane prion eabbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Marise Magdaleuse. [irpwf 
 yip Tp fii^ Tou ra$0dTou iipdn) Maptf Tp MoySaXiji'p.] Quod quidem et Jo- 
 annes EvangeBita significat, mane Eum alterius diei visum esse demonstrans." 
 [toDto yovy iS^tcat Km 6 *luivviis vpwi Koi avrhi rp fitf rod aafifidrov &tp6at 
 avrhy napTvp-fjtrms,^ 
 
 For tbc Latin of tbe above, sec JJieronymi Opera, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. 
 p. 819 : for tbe Greek, with its context, sec Appendix (B). 
 
 * lipuras ^h vpvror, — Hbis Tapa fiiy t^ MaT0ai^' £ij/c oa^^druy ^af»'CTai 
 iytyfpfifyos t SfcTiip, "rapa tt t^ KipKif itpwi rp /119 Twv aa$^aTwy ; [Eusebius 
 ad JUarinum, (Mai, iv. 255.)] 
 
 Primura quois, — Cur Mattbaeus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati illucescente 
 in mia Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse ; et Marcus mane resurreetionein ejus 
 factam esse commemorat. [HieroDjnius ad Hedibiam, (0pp. i. 818-9.)J 
 
 riws, Hara rbr MarBatov, otf'i aafiBiruy if MayBaXtjyii Tcdca^ieVi; t^v ivitrraatyj 
 KUTa T^f 'lo'ii'i'^ 17 avT^ ijtwaa vXaff 1 rapa t^ fLvritifitf Tp ^la rov aapfiaTov, 
 [ Ut tvpra, p. 257.] 
 
 Quomodo, juxta Matthxum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit Domi- 
 num resurgentcm ; et Joannes Evaugelista refert earn mane una sabbati 
 juxta sepulcrum 4ere ? [17 rupra, p. 819.] 
 
 sheiin to Ulong to the region offnhlr. 
 
 ■!)0 
 
 .A Iho fict which admits of only one explanation, can be 
 . ] a bv ord V one practical result. It of course shelves 
 :; :: 1 uelrasL as t.. evidence of Jerome is con 
 "d Whether Iledibia was an actual personage or not, 
 ;:: to de idewho have considered more attentively than 
 b ever f^-Hen in my way to do that cunous proWem,- 
 Wha was the ancient notion of the allocable m Fiction? 
 r, d fllvent ideas have prevailed in different ages of th 
 .or Id s to where fiction ends and fabrication begins ;-that 
 "delv discrepant views are entertained on the subject ev n 
 • nil must be aware. I decline to investi- 
 
 irtrpXron rpresent occasion. I do but claim 
 fob-' established beyond the possibility of doub or ca^l 
 bat wha -e are here presented with /. not tl. t^tmony^ 
 T^lJ^Tot an It is evident that this learned Father amused 
 b : f iith translating for the benefit of ^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 r^nrt of the (lost) work of Eusebms j (which, by the way, 
 L'iom to havJ possessed in the same abridged fonn .n 
 tb h t has come down to ourselves :) -and he seems to 
 Lvr larded it as allowable to attribute to " Hedibia tbe 
 
 ^'''^ TZlL^^o^^^^<^^^ solutions of Scripture diffi- 
 'CrpeTstTo distinction, who possibly had never 
 Tea d ti thordifficulties before ; and even to representee 
 : rr gatories which suggested them as ongmattng^^th 
 r 1 oc T offer this only in the way of suggestion, and 
 themselves. I °°^y7 ° / . ^he only point 1 am con- 
 am not concerned to ^!f^^^ ^ l^^^'j^ ^ J ^ /,«,./.^or, not 
 eerned to -^^^^/f^^^r wd . tbat^t is Euselius who 
 ZrS::t:t^J^::^^- ^^ '. critic to pr^end that it 
 
 . - Ii< .raBBirwy V MaySaXrir}) M"i rn$ SxMjt Miopias 
 
 £,.„., Kaxi ri.y 'l.i.n,.. [Vt supra, P- 26-J ^^^. ^^^ ^Heri 
 
 Q„o„,.lo. juxta ^^f-^^-'^^l^'-^ZZL Joanuem,a«dient . 
 MaTi.4 advoluta sit pedibus SaUatons, cum 
 Domim., Noli me tangere. [P< supra, p.821.J 
 
56 Jn-omr xof a(hrrs( io S. Marl; xri. 9 — 20. [chap. 
 
 is in any sense the tesliinoiiy of Jerome which we are here 
 presented with ; that Jerome is one of those Fathers "who, 
 even though tliey copied from their predecessors, were yet 
 competent to transmit the record of a fact''," — is entirely to 
 misunderstand the case. The man who translates, — not 
 adopts, but translates, — the prolh-m as well as its solution : 
 who deliberately asserts that it emanated from a Ladj' inha- 
 biting the furthest extremity of Gaul, who nevertheless was 
 demonstrably not its author : who goes on to propose as 
 hers question after question rerhatim as he found them written 
 in the pages of Eusehius ; and then resolves them one by one 
 in the rery language of the same Father : — such a writer has 
 clearly conducted us into a region where his individual re- 
 sponsibility quite disappears from sight. We must hear no 
 more about Jerome, therefore, as a witness against the genu- 
 ineness of the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 On the contrarj'. Proof is at hand that Jerome held these 
 verses to be genuine. The proper evidence of this is supplied 
 by the fact that he gave them a place in his revision of the 
 old Latin version of the Scriptures. If he had been indeed 
 persuaded of their absence from "almost all the Greek codiees," 
 does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to 
 stand in the Vulgate ? If he had met with them in "scarcely 
 any copies of the Gospel," — do men really suppose that he 
 would yet have retained them ? To believe this would, again, 
 be to forget what was the known practice of this Father ; 
 who, because he found the expression "without a cause" 
 (ftVj;, — S. Matth. v. 22,) onlj' " in certain of his codices," but 
 not " in the true ones," omitted it from the Vulgate. Because, 
 however, he read "righteousness" (where we read "alms") 
 in S. Matth. vi. 1, he exhibits "justitiam" in his revision of 
 the old Latin version. On the other hand, though he knew 
 of 5ISS. (os he expressly relates) which read "works" for 
 "children" [epyuv ior reKvwv) in S. Matth. xi. 19, he does 
 not admit that (mauifestl)' corrupt) reading, — which, how- 
 ever, is found both in the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex 
 Sinaiticus. Let this suffice. I forbear to press the matter 
 further. It is an additional proof that Jerome accepted the 
 ' Trogelles, Printed Text, p. 247. 
 
 v.] Scierus of Aiitioch, or Ucsychius of Jirusohm. (Ti 
 
 conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel that he actually quotes it, 
 and on more than one occasion : but to prove this, is to prove 
 more than is here required '. 1 am concerned only to demo- 
 lish the assertion of Tischendorf, and Trcgelles, and Alford, 
 and Davidson, and so manv more, concerning the testimony of 
 Jerome ; and I have demolished it. I pass on, c-biming to 
 have shewn that the name of Jerome as an adverse witness 
 must ncA-cr again appear in this discussion. 
 
 IV. and V. But now, while the remarks of Eusebius are 
 vet fresh in the memorv, the reader is invited to recal for 
 "n moment what the author of the "Homily on the Resur- 
 rection," contained in the works of Gregory of Nyssa (above, 
 p. 39), has delivered on the same, subject. It will be re- 
 membered that we saw reason for suspecting that not 
 Severus of Axtioch, but 
 Hesychius of Jerusalem, 
 (both of them writers of the A-i'" century,) has the better 
 claim to the authorship of the Homily in question ',— which, 
 however, cannot at all events be assigned to the Ulustnous 
 Bishop of Nyssa, the brother of Basil the Great. "In the 
 more accurate copies," (says this writer,) " the Gospel ac- 
 cordiun- to Mark has its end at 'for they were afraid.' In 
 some copies, however, this also is added,— 'Now when He 
 was risen early the first day of the week. He appeared first 
 to Mnry Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils.' 
 This, however, seems to contradict to some extent what we 
 before delivered; for since it happens that the hour of the 
 ni"ht when our Saviour rose is not known, how does it come 
 to%e here written that He rose ' early ?' But the saying 
 will prove to be no ways contradictory, if we read with skill. 
 "We must be careful inteUigently to introduce a comma after, 
 
 • Now when He was risen :* and then to proceed,—' Early in 
 the Sabbath He appeared first to Mary Magdalene :' in order 
 that 'when He was risen' may refer (in conformity with 
 what Matthew says) to the foregoing season; while 'early ' 
 is connected with the appearance to Mary."*- 1 presume it 
 would be to abuse a reader's patience to offer any remarks 
 on aU this. If a careful perusal of the foregoing passage 
 
 • See above, p. 2a 'Sec above, p. 40-1. • See the Appendii (C) § 2. 
 
5S 
 
 HcjiihiHS also copiea Euscliua. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 does not convince him that Ilesychius is here only reproduc- 
 ing what he had read in Eusebius, nothing that I can say 
 will persuade him of the fact. The icords indeed are b)- 
 no means the same ; but the sense is altogether identical. 
 He seems to have also known the work of Victor of Antiocb. 
 However, to remove all doubt from the reader's mind that 
 the work of Eusebius was in the hands of Hesychius while 
 he wrote, I have printed in two parallel columns and trans- 
 ferred to the Appendix what must needs be conclusive ' ; for 
 it will be seen that the terms are only not identical in which 
 Eusebius and Hesj'chius discuss that favourite problem with 
 the ancients, — the consistency of S. Matthew's 6-^e r&v aajS- 
 ^drmv with the trptoi of S. Mark. 
 
 It is, however, only needful to read through the Homily 
 in question to see that it is an attempt to weave into one 
 piece a quantity of foreign and incongruous materials. It is 
 in fact not a Homily at all, (though it has been thrown into 
 that form;) but a Dissertation, — into which, Hesychius,, 
 (who is known to have been very curious in questions of 
 tliat kind*",) is observed to introduce solutions of most of 
 those famous diflBculties which cluster round the sepulchre of 
 the world's Redeemer on the morning of the first Easter 
 Day'; and which the ancients seem to have delighted in 
 discussing, — as, the number of the Marys who visited the 
 sepulchre ; the angelic appearances on the morning of the 
 Resurrection ; and above all the seeming discrepancy, already 
 adverted to, in the Evangelical notices of the time at which 
 our Lord rose from the dead. I need not enter more par- 
 ticularlj' into an examination of this (so-called) 'Homily': 
 but I must not dismiss it without pointing out that its author 
 
 « See llie Appendix (C) § 1. — For the rtatement in line 5, see § 2. 
 
 ' In the Sccl. Grac. Monumenia of Cotelerius, (iii. 1 — 53,) may be Been the 
 dis.'Ofsion of 60 problems, bended, — "ixnayayTi knopiSiv xal luiKuatinv, iKktyi7<ra 
 if i-wnopL^ 4k TTJs *vayyf\iKris avfi^vlas rov aytov *HtTvxiov irpfff0VT^pov 
 'Upoao\iiiut: From this it appears that Hesychius, following the example of 
 Eusebius, wrote a work on " Gospel Harmony," — of which nothing but an 
 abridgment has come down to us. 
 
 ' He says that he writes, — Uphs r^v toS viroKci/i/fou irpo/SA^fiaroi At'o-if, xal 
 Ta'i' i\Xa?>' rur kotI riir Hiraaiv Tur pr)juiv iva^voufvav fijT^ireiDj', (f.T.A. 
 Greg. Xyss. 0pp. iii. 400 C. 
 
 v.] 
 
 Victor of Aitiioc/i. 
 
 at all events cannot be thouglit to have repudiated the con- 
 cluding verses of S. Mark : for at the end of his discourse, 
 he quotes the 19th verse entire, without hesitation, in con- 
 finniition of one of his statements, and declares that the 
 words are written by S. Mark ^. 
 
 I shall not be thought unreasonable, therefore, if I contend 
 that Hesychius is no longer to be cited as a witness in this 
 behalf: if I point out that it is entirely to misunderstand 
 and misrepresent the case to quote n pw-'iiig allusion of Iiih to 
 uliaf Eusebius had long hforc (hUvcrcl on thv xanie subject, as 
 if it exhibited his own individual teaching. It is demon- 
 strable' that he is not bearing testimony to the condition of 
 the MSS. of S. Mark's Gospel in his own age : neither, in- 
 deed, is he bearing testimony at all. He is simply amusing 
 himself, (in what is found to have been his favourite way,) 
 with reconciling an apparent discrepancy in the Gospels; 
 and he does it by adopting certain remarks of Eusebius. 
 Living so late as the vi**" century ; conspicuous neither for 
 his judgment nor his learning ; a copyist only, so far as his 
 remarks on the last verses of S. Mark's Gospel are con- 
 cerned ;— this writer does not really deserve the space and 
 attention we have been compelled to bestow upon him. 
 VI. We may conclude, by inquiring for the evidence 
 
 borne by 
 
 Victor of Antioch. 
 And from the familiar style in which this Father's name 
 is always introduced into the present discussion, no less than 
 from the invariable practice of assigning to him the date 
 " A.D. 401," it might be supposed that "Victor of Antioch" 
 is a well-known personage. Yet is there scarcely a Com- 
 mentator of antiquity about whom less is certainly known. 
 Clinton (who enumerates cccxxii "Ecclesiastical Authors" 
 from A.i). 70 to a.d. 685™) does not even record his name. 
 The recent "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography" 
 is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest editor) 
 
 I" 6iu>ius H <col ri irapi Ti? WapK<f yfypanfiffoV "O fu)' olv ILvpios, it.T.X. 
 Greg. KysH. 0pp. iii. 415 D.— See above, p. 29, note (g). 
 ' See bulow, chap. X. 
 ■" Fasli Somatti, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. 395 — 195. 
 
60 
 
 Victor of Andoch, and /n'fi 
 
 [chap. 
 
 calls his very existence in question; proposing to attribute 
 Lis Commentary on S. Mark to Cyril of Alexandria". Kot 
 to delay the reader needlessly, — Victor of Antioch is an in- 
 teresting and unjustly neglected Father of the Church ; 
 whose date, — (inasmuch as he apparently quotes sometimes 
 from Cyril of Alexandria who died a.d. 444, and yet seems 
 to have written soon after the death of Chrysostom, which 
 took place a.u. 407), may be assigned to the first half of the 
 v"' century, — suppose a.d. 425 — 450. And in citing him 
 I shall always refer to the best (and most easily accessible) 
 edition of his work, — that of Cramer (1840) in the first 
 volume of his " Catenae." 
 
 But a far graver charge is behind. From the confident 
 air in which Victor's authority is appealed to by those who 
 deem the last twelve verses of S. Clark's Gospel spurious, 
 it would of course be inferred that his evidence is hostile 
 to the verses in question; whereas his evidence to their 
 genuineness is the most emphatic and extraordinary on 
 record. Dr. Tregelles asserts that " his tcsiimbny to the 
 absence of these twelve verses from some or many copies, 
 stands iu contrast to his own ojnnion on the subject." But 
 Victor delivers no " opinion :" and his " testimony " is the 
 direct reverse of what Dr. Tregelles asserts it to be. This 
 learned and respected critic has strangelj* misapprehended 
 the evidence ". 
 
 I must needs be brief in this place. I shall therefore 
 confine myself to those facts concerning " Victor of Antioch," 
 or rather concerning his work, which are necessary for the 
 purpose iu hand i*. 
 
 Now, his Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel, — as all must 
 see who will be at the pains to examine it, — is to a great 
 extent a compilation. The same thing may be said, no 
 doubt, to some extent, of almost every ancient Commentary 
 in existence. But I mean, concerning this particular work, 
 
 ■ Vol. L Prafat. p. xiviii. See below, note Qj). 
 
 • " Victor AntiocbeDus" («Tites Dr. Tregelles in his K. T. toL i. p. 214.) 
 " dicit irt vfvdBfvTtti th vaph KdpKi^ TfKtvraiov tv not <pfp6fifVov" 
 
 f For additional details concerning Victor of Antioch, and bis work, the 
 EtndiouB in Eucb matters are referred to the Appendix (D). 
 
 v.] 
 
 Catena on 8. Mark's Go-^j>cl. 
 
 01 
 
 that it proves to have been the author's plan not s much 
 o give the general results of his acquaintance with the 
 tSL of Origen, ApoUinarius. Theodorus of Mopsuestia. 
 EusWus, and Chrysostom; as, with or without acknow- 
 Sgm 1 . to transcribe largely (hut -^h great license 
 ffom one or other of these writers. Thus, the -^olc of h 
 lote on S.Mark xv. 38, 39, is taken, without any hint that 
 "t is not oric^inal. (much of it, ,cord /or uord.) from Chrj- 
 . ' Z^h Homily on R. Matthew's Gospel". The 
 ':T: to e sa"; of\he first twelve lines of his note on 
 S Ma I xvi. 9. On the other hand, the latter half of th 
 Lett mentioned professes to .'- the sul^tance o .ha 
 Euscliu. had written on the same subject It is m act an 
 eM from those very " Quaestlones ad Marmum con- 
 c en t -bich so much has been offered already. AH th s 
 houlh it does not sensibly detract from the mterest or the 
 tal^: of Victor's work, must be admitted entirely to eh nge 
 Ihe character of his supposed evidence. He comes before 
 us rather in the light of a CompUer than of an Author : his 
 :.oki rather a'' Catena" than a Commentary: and as 
 V f.nt it is irenerally described. Quite plam is it, at 
 :?itrnt Ut tlie'IIimLts contained in ^^f^^^^ 
 Xcd to, arc .ot Victor's at all. Tor one half of them 
 no one but Chrysostom is responsible: for the other half, no 
 
 °"Bu:i"!:::r'sl.miliar use of the writings of E^^^^^ 
 -especially of those Resolutions of hard Questions ' concern- 
 ;;;: the seeming Inconsistencies in the Evangelical accounts 
 oHh Resurrection," which Eusebius address^ to Marinus. 
 I n wbich the reader's attention is now to be concentrated^ 
 Victor cites that work of Eusebius by nam m the .ery first 
 !at of ti« Commentary. That his last page also contains 
 fauot tion from it, (also ?,/ na>nc), has been already pointed 
 our Attention is now in.-ited to what is found concerning 
 S Mark xvi. 9-20 in the ta-st page lut one (p. 444) of 
 
62 
 
 Victor of A))imh al^'O *hnni 
 
 [CHAI>. 
 
 Victor's vork. Il sliall be given in English ; because I will 
 convince unlearned as well us learned readers. Victor, (after 
 quoting four lines from the 89"" HomUy of Cbrysoslom'), 
 reconciles (exactly as Euscbius is observed to do') the notes 
 of time contained severally in S. Matth. xxviii. 1, S.Mark 
 w'\. 2, S. Luke xxiv. 1, and S. John xx. 1. After which, 
 he proceeds as follows : — 
 
 "In certain copies of Mark's Gospel, next comes, — 'Now 
 when [Jesl's] was risen early the first day of the week. He 
 appeared to Mary Magdalene ;' — a statement which seems 
 inconsistent with Matthew's narrative. This might be met 
 by asserting, that the conclusion of Mark's Gospel, though 
 found in certain copies, is spurious. However, that we ma)' 
 not seem to betake ourselves to an off-band answer, we 
 propose to read the place thus : — ' Now when [Jesus] was 
 risen:' then, after a comma, to go on, — 'early the first day 
 of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.' In this 
 way we refer [Mark's] 'Now when [Jesvs] was risen' to 
 Matthew's ' in the end of the sabbath,' (for then we believe 
 Him to have rken ;) and all that comes after, expressive as 
 it is of a different notion, we connect with what follows. 
 Mark relates that He wbo ' arose (according to Matthew) in 
 the end of the Sabbath,' uas seen by Mary Magdalene ' early' 
 This is in fact what John also declares; for he too has re- 
 corded that ' early,' ' the first day of the week,' [Jesus] 
 appeared to the Magdalene. In a word, two distinct seasons 
 are set before us by these words: first, the season of the 
 Eesurrection, — which was ' in the end of the Sabbath ; ' 
 secondly, the season of onr Saviovk's Appearing, — which 
 was 'early".'" 
 
 No one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate 
 to admit that he is here listening to Eusebius "ad Mari- 
 num" over again. But if any one really retains a particle 
 of doubt on the subject, he is requested to cast his eye to 
 the foot of the present page; and even an unlearned reader, 
 
 ' Compnrc Criinicr's Vicl. jli//. L p. 441^, line 6 — 9, with Field's Chrys. iii. 
 p. 539, line 7—21. 
 ■ Mai, iv. p. 257-8. 
 " Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 top. 445, line 4. 
 
 toUaCop^J\^iofEmehiH^■ 
 
 C3 
 
 ,be ^oA ■"/''"\!^° „ ' i„. .. wa, aotually lying ope« 
 cita in tho Evangttol ''»™*'"-;_ .,i„,a beyond dispute. 
 
 ;rp?e::=:erx:--i.n.o-bi™._ 
 
 . T1.0 following is the crijin.l of "'.'"j^^f "i'lrrL'Tj 4"^'? toD .aP- 
 pri.ou ,pu.t, l^i^ (see l>elo« •) Map'? ^ "J •,^^.^ g^. ^..,^,.„„, ., ,a,a 
 
 llrl, »»-- i->-"'M'«»- "*"■;"''! l;„;l^-." L LThe extract /rom 
 
 f.Jcol „: the left e.hibHi>>3"'e 
 
 /fj-< O/EUSEBIUB ' arf Jlf<"-'««»'- J 
 (VICTOB.) 
 
 (...,.t",.p"^ M.^-„r'"""" .=s.;..p-- '""''; ■■tv ^"■ 
 
 2a,Tiipo, ^...J..^-'". ^''' ^f"- ^.^^^^^ A^•TIOCH., .rf. Cramer, i. P- 
 
 [EusEKirB. apud ilai, iv. P- -ob.J . _^^ .^^ ^ j.^^ ^,,^jj ^„„„da. 
 
 <;o«, 0/ Me 'e^' /'•'"" Evan- ^'^■ 
 Keg. 178.)] 
 
 . ..... v.o. ... c.. -r;:i^::,t,':::~.^rnHS 
 
 ^--* "',:r;r.tr;r;c "til'^irvK-.. . cop,in.. see >.. .o..» ..p. 
 
64 
 
 Memorable Tatimoiii/ of Vicfor 
 
 [chap. 
 
 " I know very well," he 603-8, " what has been suggested by 
 those who are at Ihc paim io remore the apparent inconaistencics 
 in ffiis placed." But when writing on S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20, 
 he does more. After abridging, (as his manner is,) what 
 Eusebius explains with such tedious emphasis, (giving the 
 substance of five columns in about three times as many 
 Hues,) he adopts the exact expressions of Eusebius, — follows 
 him in his very mistakes, — and finally transcribes his words. 
 The reader is therefore requested to bear in mind that what 
 he has been listening to is not tlit tatimony of Victor at all: 
 but the tcitimony of Eusebius. This is hut one more echo 
 therefore of a passage of which we are all beginning b)' this 
 time to be weary ; so exceedingly rash are the statements 
 with which it is introduced, so utterlj- preposterous the pro- 
 posed method of remedying a diflSculty which proves after 
 all to be purely imaginary. 
 
 "XATiat then is the testimonj' of Victor .'' Does he offer any 
 independent statement on the question in dispute, from 
 which his own private opinion (though nowhere stated) may 
 be lawfully inferred ? Yes indeed. Victor, tliough fre- 
 quenth' a Transcriber only, is observed ever)' now and then 
 to come forward in his own person, and deliver his in- 
 dividual sentiment*. But nowhere throughout his work 
 does he deliver such remarkable testimony as in this place. 
 Hear him ! 
 
 " Notwithstanding that in very many eopies of the present 
 Gospel, the jmssagc beginning, ' Kow when \Jesvs\ was risen 
 early the fr-it day of the week, He ajipiared first io Mary Mag- 
 dalene,' be not found, — {eertain individuals having supposed it to 
 he spurious,) — yet irs, at all events, inasmuch as in very 
 
 MAXY ME HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE, OCT OF ACCU- 
 RATE COPIES, SUBJOINED ALSO THE A«OUXT OF OUR LoRD's 
 
 Ascension, (following the words 'for they were afraid,') 
 IN conformity with the Palestinian exemplar of Mark 
 
 T ovK iyvoi^' i( us ttaiit>^povs oinaatas yfyti'iiffffai ipaaiv ol riiv ioKovffav Sia- 
 ^uriav Sia\!!<rai aTovid^otTts. A'ict. Ant. ed. Cramer, vol. i. p. 445, L 23-5 : 
 referring to what Eu^ebius eajs ajiud Mai, iv. 2G4 aiidZGo (§ iiii) : 287 — 290 
 (§§ V. vi, vii.) 
 
 • e.g. in the passage last quoted. 
 
 v.] 
 
 to th, ,„uuinfuf'<'i ofthrse Vers, 
 
 C") 
 
 wniCI LXHIBITS -.HE GOSPUL VEK.TV: THAT IS TO SAY, FROM 
 
 rv.^DS. '>-0W W,.EN [Jk<U.] ^VAS RISEN EAULY THE 
 
 L D.V ;■ THE WEEK/ ^C DOWN TO ' WITH S.ONS FOL- 
 
 lowU: A>.HN ^'-And With these words Victor of Antioch 
 biin-- his Coum-.entarv on S. Mark to an end. 
 
 H^;. hen we tindU roundly stated by a h,gh y m.el- 
 Hg" Father, writing in the first half of the v- century^ 
 
 a ) That the reason why the last Twelve Verses of S Mark 
 are alent fL son.e ancient copies of his Gospel is beeause 
 theylmebeen d.hh,roiely omitted by Copy^^ls : 
 
 (2 ) That the ground for such onnssion was the subjeetne 
 JgLt of indi:iduals.-«o/ the result of any appea to 
 doclentary evidence. Victor, therefore, clearly held that 
 theTer'es n question had been e.punged in consequence of 
 iheiJSeniing; inconsistency with what is met w.th m the 
 
 "%';:fhe. on the other hand, bad convinced himself 
 by reference t^ "very many" and " accurate" copies, that 
 the verses in question are genuine : v- i, o„ 
 
 (4 That in particular the Palestinian Copy, ^hich en- 
 
 . • . J «r,i\ the deliberate testimony mIucU ne 
 
 z- „;tl ihe Ticihe Vert-es m d isjni t e ;—v>aicD. is a i-ttw= 
 gorical refutation of the statement frequently met with that 
 the work of Victor of Antioch is irMo«^ them. 
 
 We are now at liberty to sum up ; and to review the pro- 
 gress which has been hitherto made in this Inquiry. 
 ' S F he. of the Church have been examined who ar 
 commonly represented as beating hostile f^^.^J^^^l 
 last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel ; and thej have been 
 
 . Portt.e original of this re.ar.aWe passage tbe reader U referred to 
 Appenilix (K). 
 
66 
 
 The {siijipof-fcJ) fiofdk triiknce of 
 
 [chap. 
 
 casilj' reduced to one. Three of them, (Ilesychius, Jerome, 
 Yictor,) prove to be echoes, not roicts. The remaining two, 
 (Gregory of Nyssa and Severus,) are neither voices nor 
 echoes, but merely TKnius : Gkegory of Nvssa having really 
 no more to do with this discussion than Philip of Macedon ; 
 and " Severus" and " Hesychius" representing one and the 
 same individual. Only by a Critic seeking to mislead his 
 reader will any one of these five Fathers be in future cited 
 as witnessing against the genuineness of S. Mark x\-i. 9 — 20. 
 Eusebius is the solitary witness who survives the ordeal of 
 exact inquiry *■. But, 
 
 I. EusEBius, (as we have seen), instead of proclaiming his 
 distrust of this portion of the Gospel, enters upon an elabo- 
 rate proof that its contents are not inconsistent with what 
 is found in the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. John. His 
 testimony is reducible to two innocuous and whollj' uncon- 
 nected propositions : the first, — Tliat there existed in his 
 day a vast number of copies in which the last chapter of 
 S. Mark's Gospel ended abruptly at ver. 8 ; (the correlative 
 of which of course would be that there also existed a vast 
 number which were furnished with the present ending.) The 
 second, — That by putting a comma after the word 'AvaaTa<:, 
 S.Mark xvi. 9, is capable of being reconciled with S. Matth. 
 
 xxviii. 1 ' I profess myself unable to understand how 
 
 it can be pretended that Eusebius would have subscribed to 
 the opinion of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that the 
 Gospel of S. Mark was never finished by its inspired Author, 
 or was mutilated before it came abroad ; at all events, that 
 the last Twelve Verses are spurious. 
 
 ' How shrewdly was it remarked by Mattliaei, eighty years ago, — " Scholia 
 eerie, id quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatnr, omnia ex uno fonie pro- 
 tnanarunt. Ex codem foDte Hieronymum etiam hausisse intelligitur ex ejus 
 loco qnem laudavit Wetst. ad ver. 9. — Similiter Scholiastse omoes in principio 
 hajas Eraiigelii in disputationc de lectione ir 4<raia t^ ir/>i>4>4T>) ex nno pen- 
 dent. Jortasse Origenes atwior est hvjus dubiialioait." (N. T. vol. ii. p. 270.) 
 — The reader is invited to remcinber what was ofl'ered above in p. 47 
 (line 23.) 
 
 • Jt is not often, 1 think, that one finds in 5ISS. a point actually inserted 
 after 'Aratrras ii. Snch a point is found, however, in Cod. 34 (= Coisl. 195,) 
 and Cod. 22 (= Beg. 72,) and doubtless in many other copies. 
 
 •-] 
 
 S,> Fafhn-!^ of the C/nireh, revieurd. 
 
 07 
 
 II The observations of Eusebius are found to have been 
 adopted, and in part transcribed, by an unknown writer oi 
 the vi"> centurv,-whether IIesvchius or Sever'JS is not cer- 
 tainlv known:" but if it were Hesychius, then ,t was not 
 Seve"rus ; if Severus, then not Hesychius. 1 his writer, how- 
 ever, (whoever he may have been,) is careful to convince us 
 that individuals he entertained no doubt uhatern- about the 
 genuineness of "this part of Scripture, for he snys that he 
 frites in order to remove the (hypothetical) objections of 
 others, and to silence their (imaginary doubts ^a>, he 
 freelv quote, the rer.cs as ejcmunc, and declares that hey weie 
 read' ill his dav on a certain Sunday night m the public 
 Service of the"Church. ... To represent such anone,-(it 
 matters nothing. I repeat, whether we call him ■'Hesychius 
 of Jerusalem" or " Severus of Antioch,")-PS a hostile wit- 
 ness, is simply to misrepresent the facts of the case. He is 
 on the contrarv, the strenuous champion of the verses which 
 he is commonly represented as impugning. 
 
 Ill \s for Jerome, since that illustrious Father comes 
 before us in this place as a tmnsMor of Eusebius only, he is 
 no more responsible for what Eusebius says concerning 
 S Mark xvi 9-20, than Hobbcs of Malmesbury is respon- 
 sible for anvthing that Thucydides has related concerning 
 the Peloponnesia: war. Individually, however, it is cer a,n 
 that Jerome was convinced of the genuineness of S.Mark 
 xvi 9-20 : for in two difi-erent places of his writings he not 
 only quotes the 9th and 14th verses, but he exhibits aU the 
 twelve in the Vulgate. , 
 
 lY Lastlv, Victor of Aktioch, who wrote m an age when 
 Eusebius w;s held to be an infallible oracle on points of 
 Biblical Criticism, -having dutifully rehearsed Gike the 
 rest ) the feeble expedient of that illustrious Fath^^^f^'^J"^- 
 TonlL S.Mark xvi. 9 with the narrative of S.Matthew, 
 -is observed to cite the statements of Eusebius concerning 
 ike lost Tueke Verses of S.Mark, only in order to refuse 
 them. Kot that he opposes opinion to opinion,- for the 
 opinions of Eusebius and of Victor of Antioch on this be^ 
 h'alf were probably identical;) but statement he m^ts^ A 
 counter-statement,-fact he confronts with fact. Scarce!) 
 
 r2 
 
68 
 
 Till I'n'ii^t,',- (. ii/i i,ri- (li^>iii^f:(ll, icitll 
 
 [dlAI". 
 
 can aiijlliing be iiuagiued more emphatic than his testimony, 
 or more fonclusivc. 
 
 For the reader is requested to observe that here is an 
 Ecclesiastic, writing in the first half of the v''' century, who 
 r.ijirrssl;/ uitncse'i 1o lie yntiiiii(iir>'x of the Verses iu dispute. 
 lie had made reference, he says, and ascertained their 
 existence in very many 5ISS. (to? ev TrXeiaToi?). He had 
 derived his text from " accurate" ones : (ef uKpi^wv dim- 
 ypd^tov.) More than that: he leads his reader to infer that 
 he liad personally resorted to tlic famous Palestinian Copy, 
 ihc text of which was held to exhibit the inspired verity, 
 and had satisfied himself that the concluding section of S. 
 Mark's Gospel tcai ilicre. He had, therefore, been either to Je- 
 rusalem, or else to Caesarea ; had inquired for those venerable 
 records which had once belonged to Origen and Pamphilus*" ; 
 and had inspected them. Testimony more express, more 
 weightj', — I was going to say, more decisive, — can scarcely 
 be imagined. It may with truth be said to close the present 
 discussion. 
 
 With this, in fact, Victor lays down his pen. So also 
 may I. I submit that nothing whatever which has hitherto 
 come before us lends the slightest countenance to the modern 
 dream that S. Mark's Gospel, as it left the hands of its in- 
 spired Author, ended abruptly at ver. 8. Neither Eusebius 
 nor Jerome; neither Severus of Antioch nor Hesychius of 
 Jerusalem ; certainly not Victor of Antioch ; least of all 
 Gregorj' of Nyssa, — yield a particle of support to that mon- 
 strous fancy. The notion is an invention, a pure imagina- 
 tion of the Critics ever since the days of Griesbach. 
 
 It remains to be seen whether the MSS. will prove some- 
 V'hat less unaccommodating. 
 
 VII. For it can be of no possible avail, at this stage of 
 the discussion, to appeal to 
 
 EVTHYMIUS ZiGABENUS, 
 
 the Author of an interesting Commentarj', or rather Compi- 
 lation on the Gospels, assigned to a.d. 1116. Euthymius lived, 
 in fact, full five hundred jears too late for his testimony to 
 be of ihe slightest importance. Such as it is, however, it is 
 ' Scrivener's JniroSvrtion, pp.47, 125, 431. 
 
 v] 
 
 „ viihciut io Eidhuttum Zli/'il"',ii(s. 
 
 on 
 
 „ot un..vo«r.ble. He says,-" Some of the Commentators 
 .UAo tl.t here," (viz. at ver. 8.) "the Go.spel accord.ng to 
 Mark fini.V.es; and that what follows is a spurious add,- 
 iion " (^Vhich clearly is his version of the statements of one 
 or more of the four' Fathers whose testimony has already 
 occupied .. large a share of our attention.) " This portion we 
 ,nus also iir.etTret, however," (Euthymius proceculs,) since 
 there is no:hin. in it prejudicial to the truth ^'-But it 
 idle to linger ov^er such a writer. One might almost as well 
 quote '• Poli S,.opmr and then proceed to discuss it. ll>c 
 ca„.e mast indeed be desperate which seeks support from 
 a quarter like this. What po.ssible sanction can an Eccle- 
 siastic of the xi.<" century be supposed to yield to the hypo- 
 thesis that 5. Mark's Gospel, as it left the hands of its m- 
 spi red Author, was an unfinished work ? 
 
 I, remains to ascertain ^vhat is the evidence of the Mbb. 
 on thi= -.biect. And the ISISS. require to be the more 
 .utcnti'velv "studied, because it is to ifiem that our opponent 
 are accu.toiued most confidently to appeal On tliem in 
 l-.,ct thev r.lv. The nature and the value of the most ancient 
 Mnnusc'ripi "testimony available, shall be scrupulously in- 
 vestigated iu the next two Chapters. 
 
 in loc. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 IN&M l.N FAAOLK OF THESE VEHSES.-Pahi I. 
 
 «. Jr«.>t xvi. 9-20, c.«^«,„,^ /« ,,,,y MS. in the world except two,- 
 
 ■ Irrational Clam to InfallMity ut up on Uhalf of Cod. B (p. 73) 
 
 «»dCod.^(^.U).-nnet^o Codices shcun tolefullofgroL 
 
 Ommon, (p. I^^-Mnpolation. (p. ^Q),-Corrupliom of the 
 
 itxt (p. 81),_„W Terur,iom of the Truth (p. 83).-TAe teM- 
 
 71' n, ''/■ "". '' *'• ^'"■' ""■ '-'"' *^--' '" *^ Z"^"-*'^. 
 
 noticdhitandmg (p. 8C). 
 
 The two oldest Copfe. of the Gospek in existence are the 
 famous Codex in the Vatican Library at Rome, known as 
 Codex 11 ; and the Codex which Tischendorf brought from 
 Mount Sinai in 1859, and which he designates by the first let- 
 ter of the Hebrew alphabet (k). These two manuscripts are 
 probably not of equal antiquity \ An interval of fifty years 
 at least seems to be required to account for the marked dif- 
 ference between them. If the first belongs to the beginning 
 the second may be referred to the middle or latter part of 
 the iv'" century. But the two Manuscripts agree in this _ 
 that they are tcithout the last tuelrc verges of S.Mark's Gospel 
 lu both, after e'^o^5.ro ^^ (vor. 8), comes the subscription : 
 
 MAPKot' '* """'°'''' '" ^°^- «'-"ArrEA,ON KATA 
 
 Let it not be supposed that we have any more facts of this 
 class to produce. AU has been stated. It is not that the 
 endence of Manuscripts is one,-the evidence of Fathers 
 and Versions another. The very reverse is the case. Manu- 
 scripts, lathers, and Versions alike, are only not unanimous 
 in bearing consistent testimony. But the consentient witness 
 
 • For .ome remarks od this subject the reader is referred to the Ad- 
 pcudiji (F). '^ 
 
 m. Yi.] J/SS. only nol vmiuimons tonceruing thisc Ver^e^. 71 
 
 of the MSS. is even extraordinary. "With the exception of 
 the two uncial MSS. which have just been named, there is 
 tiot one Codex in existence, uncial or cursive, — (and we aie 
 acquainted with, at least, eighteen other uncials'", and about 
 six hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,) — which leaves out 
 the last twelve verses of S. Mark. 
 
 The inference whicL an unscientific observer would draw 
 from this fact, is no doubt in this instance the correct one. 
 He demands to be shewn the Alexandrine (A) and the Pari- 
 sian Codox (C), — neither of thcin probably removed by much 
 more than fiftj' years from the dale of the Codex Sinaiticus, 
 and both unquestionabl}' drririd from different originals; — 
 and he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of 
 those venerable monuments to the proposed omission of this 
 part of the sacred text, lie discovers that the Codex Bezae 
 (D), the only remaining verj' ancient MS. authority, — not- 
 withstanding that it is observed on most occasions to exhibit 
 an extraordinary sjinpathy with the Vatican (B), — here sides 
 with A and C against B and H. He inquires after all the 
 other uncials and all the cursive MSS. in existence, (some 
 of them dating from the x"" ceutuiy,) and requests to have it 
 explained to him irhy it is to be supposed that all these 
 manv witnesses, — belonging to so nianj' different patriarch- 
 ates, provinces, ages of the Church, — have entered into 
 a grand conspiracy to bear false witness on a point of this 
 magnitude and importance ? But he obtains no intelligible 
 answer to this question. How, then, is an unprejudiced 
 student to draw any inference but one from the premisses? 
 That single peculiaritj' (he tells himself) of bringing the 
 second Gospel abruptlj' to a close at the 8th verse of the 
 xvi'' chapter, is absolutelj' fatal to the two Codices in ques- 
 tion. It is useless to din into his ears that those Codices 
 are probably both of the iv"" century, — unless men are pre- 
 pared to add the assurance that a Codex of the iv"" centurj- 
 is of liicemty a more trustworthy witness to the text of the 
 Gospels, than a Codex of the v*. The omission of these 
 twelve verses, I repeat, in itself, destroj's his confidence in 
 
 •■ Viz. A, C [v] ; D [vi] J E, L [viii] J F. K, M, V, r, A. A (quarc), n [ix] ; 
 G, H, X, S, V [ix, x]. 
 
72 C/i'iniifiT of CoihJ. B and k 1o Ir amrlaiiml [chap. 
 
 Cod. R and Cod. S : for it is obvious that a copy of the Gos- 
 ]icls wliicli li:;s boon so seriously inutilafcd in one place may 
 liavc been slightly tnmpcrcd with in another. He is willing 
 to suspend his judgment, of course. The two oldest copies of 
 the Gospels in existence arc entitled to great reverence he- 
 raii'ir of their high antiquity. Tliey must bo allowed a most 
 jKiticnt, most unprejudiced, most respectful, nay, a most 
 indulgent hearing. But when all this has been freely ac- 
 corded, on no intelligible principle can more be claimed for 
 any two MSS. in the world. 
 
 The rejoinder to all this is sufficiently obvious. Mistru.st JV 
 will no doubt have been thrown over the evidence borne to 
 the text of Scripture in a thousand other places by Cod. B 
 and Cod. s, after dcmousiration that tliotc iico Codices exhibit 
 a mutilated text in the present place. But what else is this 
 but the very point requiring demonstration ? Why maj' 
 not these two be right, and all the other MSS. wrong ? 
 
 I propose, therefore, that we reverse the process. Proceed 
 wc to examine the evidence borne by these two witnesses 
 on certain other occasions which admit of no difference of 
 opinion ; or next to none. Let us endeavour, I say, to as- 
 certain the character of the Witnesses by a patient and unpre- 
 judiced 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 SISS. will be hojDelessly shaken ? 
 "We roust in such case be prepared to admit that it is just 
 as likely as not that this is onlj' one more occasion on which 
 these " two false witnesses" have conspired to witness falsely. 
 If, at this juncture, extraneous evidence of an entirely trust- 
 worthy 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 
 
 V,.] 
 
 Gnural Character of Codex B. 
 
 alternative will he left us but to reject their testimony in 
 respect of S. IMark xvi. 9—20 with something like indigna- 
 tion ; and to acquiesce in the belief of universal Christen- 
 dom 'for eighteen hundred years that these twelve verses arc 
 ju>t as much entitled to our unhesitating acceptance as any 
 other twelve verses in the Gospel wliich can be named? 
 
 I. It is undeniable, in the meantime, that for the last 
 quarter of a eenfurv, it has become the fashion to demand 
 for the readings of" Codex B something veiy like absolute 
 deference. The grounds for this superstitious sentiment, 
 (lor reallv I can describe it in no apt or way,) I profess 
 nivself unable to discover. Codex B comes to us without 
 a history : without recommendation of any kind, except that 
 of its antiquitv. It bears traces of careless transcription m 
 every pa'-c The mistakes which the original transcriber 
 mad^ are of perpetual recurrence. "They are chiefly omis- 
 sions, of one, two, or three words; but sometimes of halt 
 a verse, a whole verse, or even of several verses .... I hesi- 
 tate not to assert that it would be easier to find a folio con- 
 taining three or four such omissions than to light on one 
 which" should be without any^" In the Gospels alone. 
 Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 
 1491 times": of which by far the largest proportion is 
 found in S. Mark's Gospel. IMany of these, no doubt, are 
 to be accounted for by the proximity of a "like endmg'." 
 The Vatican MS. (like the Sinaitic') was ongmaUy de- 
 
 . VcrccUonc, - DeJ antichissimo Coiice Vaticauo deUa Billia Greca, 
 
 Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.) „ . , v c • „ Q<l 
 
 1 DMh, Vxiv. Mog- (Nov. 1859.) p. 620. quoted by Scnvener. p. 93. 
 
 . See Scrivo>.or-s I„f reduction to l.U ed. of the Codei Bezx. p. ixm. II..' 
 p..age refcrrct to reappear at the end of hU Preface to the 2ud «1. o Ins 
 Collation of the Cod. Si,,aHic..s.-AiA to his instances, th.s from S.Matth. 
 «>iii.2,3:- KAI6KA0HTO€ 
 
 nANti) ATTOT [HN Ae 
 H61AeAATT0T] CCC 
 ACTPAHH 
 It is philii «liy the scribe of S wrote .ttok. outou u-. aaTpax-j.-Tho next 
 
 is from S. l.nUo xsiv. 31 :— 
 
 AlHNTrH 
 
 CAN Ol OteAAMOl 
 
The ]>h(i of IhfaUihilHy rccoithj 
 
 [chap. 
 
 I VI.] M-< up for Codtl. B and K, itiimisouallc. 
 
 7o 
 
 rived from an older Codex which contained about twelve 
 or thirteen letters in a line ^. And it will be found that 
 Bome of its omissions which have given rise to prolonged 
 
 KAI [CntrNWCAN ATT6 
 KM] ATTOC A*AN 
 TOO er€N€TO 
 Hence the omission of nai » irf ■) mffoi' airroi- in K- — The following explains 
 the omission from ^ (and U) of the Ascension at S. Luke xxiv. 52 : — 
 An ATTfiON KAI [AN 
 €*€PeTO €IC TON 
 OTPANON KAI] AT 
 TCI nPOCKTNHCi 
 The neit explains why S reads rtpiKaXxnfiayrfs tirripuTuv auTov in S. Luke 
 iiii. 64 ; — 
 
 A£PONT£C KAI n€ 
 
 PIKAAT*ANTeC £ 
 
 [TTHTON ATTOT TO 
 
 npocconoN kai C] 
 
 nHPti)T&)N ATTo 
 The next explains why the words Kai Trot tii outjjc J3iaJ'cTai are »b>ent 
 in S (2»d G) at S. Luke xvL 16 : — 
 
 eTArr6 
 
 AlzeTAI [KAI nAC 
 
 £IC ATTHN Bl 
 AZeTAl] CTKOnO) 
 
 T6PON Af tCTlN To 
 ' In this nay, (at S. John xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt reading of 
 Cod. B (ico T7;(n)(ri)s avrovs *K To» Koafiov) — which, however, was the reading 
 of the copy used by Athanasius (0pp. p. 1035 : al. ed. p. 825) — is explained : — 
 
 CK TOT [nONHPOT. 
 
 CK TOT] KOCMOT 
 
 OTK CICIN KAemc 
 Thus also is explained why B (with K, A, D, L) omits a precious clause iu 
 S.Lukexxiv. 42:— 
 
 OnTOTMfPOC KAI 
 
 [AHO MCAICCI 
 
 OT KHPIOT KAI] 
 
 AABC0N CNCOniON 
 And why the same HGS. (all bat A) omit an important clause in S. Luke 
 liiv. 63 :— 
 
 (N T<>> I€Pa) [AIN 
 OTNTeC KAI] 6TAO 
 
 rOTNTfC TON eN 
 And why B (with K L) omits an important clause iu the history of the Temp- 
 tation (S. Luke iv. 6) : — 
 
 KAI ANAPAPCON AT 
 
 TON [61C OPOC TVH 
 
 AON] (AlZeN ATTCt) 
 
 discussion arc probably to be referred to nothing else but the 
 oscilancy of a transcriber with such a codex before him : 
 without having reconrse to any more abstruse hypothesis; 
 without any imputation of bad hith;-ccrtaMy wHhoiit 
 smming that ihe wonh omiUerl did not exld in ihc uispved 
 uidoarauh of ihc EvaugcU.f. But then it is undeniable that 
 some of the omissions in Cod. B are not to be so explained. 
 On the other hand, I can testify to the fact that the codex 
 is disfigured throughout with repetitious. The original scribe 
 is often found to have not only written the same words twice 
 over, but to have failed whenever he did so to take any 
 notice with his pen of what he had done. 
 
 What then, (I must again inquire,) are the grounds lor 
 the superstitious reverence which is entertained in certam 
 quarters for the readings of Codex B? If it be a secret 
 known to the recent Editors of the New Testament, they 
 have certainly contrived to keep it wondrous close. 
 
 II Jlore "recently, a claim to co-ordinate primacy has 
 been set up on behalf of the Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf 
 is actually engaged in remodeUiug his seventh Leipsic edi- 
 tion chiefly in conformity with the readings of his lately 
 discovered MS.' And yet the Codex in question abounds 
 with "errors of the eye and pen, to an extent not uu- 
 mrallcled. but happily rather unusual in documents of first- 
 rate importance." On many occasions. 10. 20, 30, 40 words 
 are dropped through veiy carelessness ^ "Letters and 
 ,,ords. even whole sentences, a.e frequently written twice 
 
 h In this way the famous omission (S, B, L) of the word l.^.po.fi.^, in 
 *; Luke vi. 1, is (U> say the least) capable of being explained :- 
 erCNCTO A € CN CAB 
 BATO) A[6TT€PO 
 
 npojTO) A]iAnop£Te 
 ceAi 
 
 and of ..ou B.pax.o. (K) » S. M"'^^*"; ^"^f^J" 
 AIMATOC ZAXAPIOT 
 
 [TIOT BAPAXIOT] 
 
 ON t*ON€TCAT€ 
 
 . He h,.s reached the 4S0tb page of vol. iL (1 Cor^ v^ 70 
 
 . 1.. this way U words have been -"^^^'^^^^J'^.X "xx 5 et -<1» 
 - . o -if^.i- i <io.A — 90 words in o. .lonu xx. o, o . »'^ 
 . jYi. 1 :— 19 words m S.Mark i. ^i-* ■ -" ""™° 
 
 in S. John xix. 20. 21. 
 
70 T/ic clniiit to ro-onliiKitc Pn'tKfUi/ icccut/y [ciiAr. 
 
 over, or begun and imiiicflinlely cancelled : while tint gross 
 blunder . . . wlicrcby a clause is omitted because it happens to 
 end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less 
 than 115 times in the New Testament. Tregelles has freclj- 
 pronounced that 'the state of the text, as proceeding from 
 the first scribe, m;iy be regarded as rcri/ rough '.' " But 
 when "the first scribe" and his " veiy rough" performance 
 have been thus unceremoniously disposed of, one would 
 like to be informed what remains to command respect in 
 Codex N ? Is, then, manuscript aiifliorifi/ to be confounded 
 with cdilorwl caprice, — exercising itself upon the corrections 
 of " at least ten different revisers," who, from the vi"" to tlie 
 xii"" century, haA'c been endeavouring to lick into shape 
 n text which its original author left " vcri/ rough f" 
 
 Tlie co-ordinate primacy, (as I must needs call it,) which, 
 within the last few years, has been claimed for Codex B 
 and Codex S, threatens to grow into a sjiccies of tyranny, — 
 from which I venture to predict there will come in the end 
 on unreasonable and uusalutary recoil. It behoves us, there- 
 fore, to look closely into this matter, and to require a reason 
 for what is being done. The text of the sacred deposit is 
 far too precious a thing to be sacrificed to an irrational, or 
 at least a superstitious devotion to two 3ISS., — simply be- 
 cause the)' maj' possibly be older by a hundred years than 
 anj' other which we possess. " Id verius quod prius," is an 
 axiom which holds every bit as true in Textual Criticism as 
 in Dogmatic Truth. But on that principle, (as I have already 
 shewn,) the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are fully 
 established"'; and b)- consequence, the credit of Codd. B 
 and K sustains a severe shock. Again, " Id verius quod 
 prius ;" but it does not of course follow that a Codex of 
 the iv"" century shall exhibit a more correct text of Scrip- 
 ture than one written in the v'"", or even than one written 
 in the x"'. For the proof of this statement, (if it can be sup- 
 posed to require proof,) it is enough to appeal to Codex D. 
 That venerable copy of the Gospels is of the vi"* century. 
 
 ' Scrivener's Full Cullalioii, &.c., \i. nv.; quoting Ticgciles' N. T. J'art II. 
 piigc ii.) 
 " See Cliap. IV. p. 37. 
 
 V,.] scf vp on brhnlf of Cod. S, unrtaHOunhlr. ~~ 
 
 It is, in fact, one of our five great uncials.^ No older MS. of 
 
 the Greek Text is known to exist,-cxcept.ng always A, B. O 
 
 n,>d s And yet no text is more thoroughly disfigured by 
 
 "eltrptions an^d interpolations than that of Codex D In he 
 
 Acts. (<o use the language of its learned and accurate Ld.tor,) 
 
 .-it is hardlv an exaggeration to assert that > reproduces 
 
 the fcrU. r'cccplus much in the same way that one of the 
 
 best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Jesta 
 
 ,nent ■ so wide are the variations in tie dict.on, so constant 
 
 ,nd inveterate the practice of expanding the narrative by 
 
 ,neans of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves 
 
 «s genuine by even a semblance of .nlernal P'J^^'l'* , 
 
 Where, then, is the a priori probability that two MSS of tb 
 
 iv<" century shall have not only a super, or claim .o be beard 
 
 but almost an exclusive right to dictate which readings are 
 
 ^°^:t::^^^r:^^editors of the New Testament 
 have shewn themselves to hammer the sacred text on he 
 anvil of Codd. B and S,-not unfrequently m defiance of the 
 evS nee of aU other MSS., and sometimes to the serious 
 detr .nent of the deposit.-would admit of striking lUustra- 
 tbi were this place for such details. Tischendorf's English 
 !;.rT..^«»<c;.,"-- with various readings from the three 
 Jrcelebrated manuscripts of the Greek Text" t^ijn.s ated 
 at the foot of every page,-is a recent attempt (1869) to 
 popularize the doctrine that we have to ^^^^ ^f^^^f^ ^^^ 
 Lo or three of the oldest copies, if we would pos ess the 
 7ord of Go. in its integrity. Dean Alford's eo- - "PP- 
 in his revision of the Authorized Version (l^JO) Jo th^ 
 oldest MSS..» (meaning thereby generally Codd^ S and B 
 with one or two others"), is an abler endeavour to lanai 
 U Hze the public mind with the same belief. I am bent on 
 shewing thL there is nothing whatever in the ch-acter o 
 dthe" of the Codices in question to warrant this servile 
 
 'trAnd first.-Ought it not sensibly to detract from our 
 
 n Scrivener's Introiuctio,, io Con. Be^ae, p.Hv. ^. ^, 
 
 o e.g. in S.John i. 42 (meaning only s- », L)- "•*'» l"- 
 (K,B,C,L)t vi. 22 (A, B. L). &c. 
 
78 
 
 Samjikf ofihf Oi)iis-^ioii? 
 
 [chap. 
 
 opinion of the value of tlicir evidence to discover thnt if is 
 easier to find iirocoitKcniiiic rerffs in uhich tlic iiro2lSS. differ, 
 the one from the othir, llirin tiro eonfreiifirc reraes in tr/iieli ihey 
 entirely agree ? Now this is a plain matter of fact, of which 
 any one who pleases may easily convince himself. But the 
 character of tTO witnesses who habitually contradict one 
 another has been accounted, in every age, precarious. On 
 every such occasion, only one of them can possibl}* be speak- 
 ing the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I con- 
 fess that these perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B 
 and H, — grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross 
 ones, — altogether destroy my confidence in either P 
 
 (i) On the other hand, discrepant as the testimony of 
 these two MSS. is throughout, they yet, strange to say, 
 conspire evevy here and there in exhibiting minute cor- 
 ruptions of such an unique and peculiar kind as to betray 
 a (probably not very remote) common corrupt original. 
 These coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extra- 
 ordinary as to establish a real connexion between those two 
 codices; and that connexion is fatal to any claim which 
 might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent 
 witnesses p. 
 
 (f) Further, it is evident that both alike have been sub- 
 jected, probably during the process of transcription, to the 
 same depraving influences. But because such statements 
 require to be established bj' an induction of instances, the 
 reader's attention must now be invited to a few samples of 
 the grave blemishes which disfigure our two oldest copies 
 of the Gospel. 
 
 1. And first, since it is the omission of the end of S.Mark's 
 Gospel which has given rise to the present discussion, it 
 becomes a highly significant circumstance that the original 
 
 f e.g. S. Mattb. i. 25 ; xii. 24, 27 : S. Luke xi. 15, 18, 19 (St tf.iSoi/X).— 
 1 Cor. xiii. 3 (fravx^frvM^i)* — S.James i. 17 (oTroaKUKr/iaToi). — Acts i. 5 {iv w. 
 Pot. 07.). — S. Mark vi. 20 {rinofti). — S. Mattli. xiv. 30 (mx^P'"')- — S. Luke iii. 
 32 (MtjX).— Acts i. 19 (ia/? omitted).— S. Mattb. xiv. 27 (to op-)upm).— 
 S. Mattb. xvii. 22 (o-wrrpt^ofurnii'). — S. Luke vi. 1 (Sjurfpoirpii'T^ omitted). — 
 See more in TiscbendorTs Prolegomena to liis 4to. rej)rint of the Cod. Sin. 
 p. xxxri. On this head the reader is also referred to Scrivener's very inter- 
 esting Collation of the Cod. Siuailicus, Introduetioii, p. xliii. seq. 
 
 ,-..] 
 
 t;i CodejT B and Codex H. 
 
 70 
 
 scribe of Cod. s had aho omitted the end of the Gospel accord- ^^ 
 ing to S. John "i. In this suppression of ver. 25, Cod. K stands 
 alone among MSS. A cloud of primitive witnesses vouch 
 for the genuineness of the verse. Surely, it is nothing else 
 but the re.ductio ad ahMiirdion of a theory of recension, (with 
 Tischcndorf in his last edition,) to accommodate our printed 
 text to the vicious standard of the original penman of Cod. K, 
 and bring the last chapter of S. John's Gospel to a close 
 at ver. 24 ! 
 
 Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two 
 solemn verses wherein S. Luke describes our Lord's " Agony 
 and bloody Sweat," together with the act of the ministering 
 An"-el'. As to the genuineness of those verses, recognised 
 as they are by Justin Martp, Irenajus, Hippolytus, Epipha- 
 nius, Didj'mus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Theo- 
 doret, by all the oldest versions, and by almost every MS. 
 in existence, including Cod. S, — it admits of no doubt. Here 
 then is proof positive that in order to account for omissions 
 from the Gospel in the oldest of the uncials, there is no need 
 whatever to resort to the hypothesis that such portions of 
 the Gospel are not the genuine work of the Evangelist. 
 " The admitted error of Cod. B in this place," (to quote the 
 words of Scrivener,) " ought to make some of its advocates 
 more chary of their confidence in cases where it is less 
 countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance be- 
 fore us." 
 
 Cod. B (not Cod. N) is further guilty of the " grave error" 
 (as Dean Alford justly styles it,) of omitting that solemn 
 record of the Evangelist : — " Then said Jesus, Father, for- 
 give them ; for they know not what they do." It also with- 
 holds the statement that the inscription on the Cross was 
 "in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew'." Cod H, on 
 the other hand, omits the confession of the man born blind 
 (6 Se edtr], Tnarevu) Kvpw icaX TrpoaeKvvtjaev axnui) in S. John 
 ix. 38. — Both Cod. N and Cod. B retain nothing but the 
 
 < See Tischendorf e note in hU reprint of the Cod. Sin., FroUgg. p. lix. 
 ' 'n^flri SJ owTif iY)i\os—Ka-aSM.vona hX t^v -fhv. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44. 
 • 6 ti 'IjjffoCj — ti iroioDai, (xiiii. 34) . — fpiiifuiaiv 'Z\KTii>tKo7s ko) 'Pw/ioikoij 
 Kol "E/SfioiKiiij, (xxiii. 38.) 
 
80 
 
 Siiiiipkv of ili(- Interpolations 
 
 [chap. 
 
 v.] 
 
 ill Codex B (incl Codex K. 
 
 81 
 
 word v\6v of tlie expression titv vlov avTiji toj' irpwroroKov, 
 in S. Matth. i. 25 ; ond suppress altogether the important 
 doctrinal stalenieut o mv ev tu ovpavu), in S. John iii. 13 : 
 as well as the clause huXOiov Sia fiecov aiirSiV koL Traptjyev 
 OOTO)?, in S.John viii. 59. Concerning all of which, let it 
 be observed that 1 am neither imputing motives nor pre- 
 tending to explain tJie design with which these several serious 
 omissions were made. All that is asserted is, that they can- 
 not be imputed to the carelessness of a copyist, but were 
 intentional : and I insist that they effectually dispose of the 
 presumption that when an important passage is observed to 
 be wanting from Cod. B or Cod. K, its absence is to be ac- 
 counted for by assuming that it was also absent from the 
 inspired autograpih of the Evangelist . 
 
 2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where 
 the test of B or of {^, or of both, has clearly been interpolated. 
 There does not exist in the whole compass of the New Testa- 
 ment a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished 
 by the transfer of th e incident of the piercing of our Re- 
 deemer's side from S. John six. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in 
 Cod. B and Cod. N, where it is introduced at the end of 
 ver. 49, — in defiance of reason as well as of authority'. 
 " This interpolation" (remarks Mr. Scrivener) "which would 
 represent the Saviouk as pierced while yet living, is a good 
 example of the fact that some of our highest authorities 
 nia)' combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false"." 
 Another singularlj' gross specimen of interpolation, in my 
 judgment, is supplied by the purely apocryphal statement 
 which is met with in Cod. N, at the end of S. Matthew's ac- 
 count of the healing of the Centurion's servant, — /cat vtto- 
 CTpeyfras o eKUTOvTap^oi en rov oikov avrov ev avrrj n] ccpa, 
 evpev TO!/ iraiha vyiaivovra (viii. 13.) — Nor can anything 
 well be weaker than the substitution (for ia-Tep^aapTo^ otvov, 
 in S. John ii. 3) of the following '', which is found only in 
 Cod.N : — oivov ovK ei-)(ov, oti avveTe\ea6r} o ouio<s rov yapov. 
 
 • sXAot if Xafiuv Aoyxi'' «'"'£«>' atnovriif irAtupar, km tl^KBti' vtap kui oi/ia. 
 Yet B, C. L and K contain this ! • Coll. of the Cod. Sin., p. xWii. 
 
 ' So, in the nDargin of tlie BharklenEian revision. 
 
 ^^ ' 
 
 But the inspired text has been depraved in the same 
 licentious way throughout, by the responsible authors of 
 Cod. B and Cod. s, although such corruptions have attracted 
 little notice from their comparative unimportance. Thus, 
 the reading (in k) ^/^a? hei epya^eaOai to epya tov irepfav- 
 Tos ■npo<: (S. John ix. 4) carries with it its own sufficient 
 condemnation; being scarcely rendered more tolerable by 
 B's substitution of pe for the second Tj/io?.— Instead of reOe- 
 pe\lwTO yip 67rl rijv -rhpav (S. Luke vi. 48), B and s pre- 
 sent us with the insipid gloss, ha to /caXta? oiKohopeiadai 
 auTTji'.— In the last-named codex, we find the name of 
 "Isaiah" {riaaiov) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance 
 of authority and of fact.— Can I be wrong in asserting that 
 the reading o fiovoyevrjs 0eoi (for w/os) in S. John i. 18, 
 (a reading found in Cod. B and Cod. K alike,) is undeserving 
 of serious attention ?— May it not also be confidently de- 
 clared that, in the face of all MS. evidence ^ no future 
 Editors of the New Testament will be found to accept the 
 highly improbable reading o avOpeoTros a Xeyopevos Irjaovf, 
 in°S. John ix. 11, although the same two Codices conspire 
 in exhibiting it ?— or, on the authority of one of them (s), 
 to read ev airrp ?&)»; eariv^ (for ev ainw ^toi] j» in S. John 
 i. 4?_Certain at least it is that no one will eicr be found 
 to read (with B) e^hopv^ovTa hvo in S. Luke x. 1,—or 
 (with h) o eK\eKTO<; rov deov (instead of o vm toO eeov, in 
 S. John i. 34.— But let me ask. With what show of reason 
 can the pretence of Infallihility, (as well as the plea of 
 Primacy), be set up on behalf of a pair of IMSS. licentiously 
 corrupt as these have already been 7;ro!e</ to be? For the 
 readings above enumerated, be it observed, are either criti- 
 cal depravations of the inspired Text, or else unwarrantable 
 interpolations. They eannot have resulted from careless 
 transcription. , , • j 
 
 3. Not a few of the foregoing instances are m fact ot a kind 
 
 ,. XoU- that it is a mistake for the advocates of this reading to claim the 
 
 Loll versions as allies. 'A-^pfeT, .'k.^oj, 'AKflp«.o, K.■,6,.,.o^ -yov, k.t.A. 
 
 is not -Kcspondit, lUe homo qui dicitur Jesus," (a, both r.scl.e,,.lorf and 
 
 TrepelU's nssume;) but " Eespcdit iUe, Hon.o." 4c..-as in verses 2o and 3G 
 
 rTbis reading >vill be found discussed in a footnote (p) at the end of 
 
 •^ G 
 
82 
 
 The hat of Coihx B and Codcjr K 
 
 [CHAr. 
 
 to conviiKC jnc that the test ^rith wbicli Cod. B and Cod. k 
 were chiefly acquainted, must have been once and again 
 eubjccted to a clumsy process of rciisloii. Not unfrequently, 
 as may be imagined, the result (however tasteless and in- 
 felicitous) is not of serious importance ; as when, (to give 
 examples from Cod. K,) for top oxKov iiriKelcrOat. avrw (in 
 S. Luke V. 1) we are presented with avvax^-qvai rov o-)(\.ov : — 
 when for ifwi' acruTus (in S. Luke xv. 13) we read et? ympav 
 fiuKpav; and for oi i^ovtrid^omes amdv (in S. Lukexxii. 25), 
 we find ot ap-)(0VTe<; tuv [edvwv] e^ovaia^ovaiv avrosv, xai, 
 (which is onl)' a weak reproduction of S. Mattb. xx. 25) : — 
 when again, for aKoria i^hij eyeyovei (in S. John vi. 17), we 
 are shewn KarekajSev 2e avrovs r) aKorta : and when, for 
 Koi ris icniv 6 nrapahmauiv airrov (in S. John vi. 64) we are 
 invited to accept /cat tk rjv o pteWav avrov "TrapaBiSovai^. 
 But it requires very little acquaintance with tbe subject to 
 foresee that this kind of license may easilj' assume serious 
 dimensions, and grow into an intolerable evil. Thus, when 
 the man born blind is asked by the Holy One if he believes 
 eirl Tov v'lov tov 6tov (S. John. is. 35), we are bj' no means 
 willing to acquiesce in the proposed substitute, tov viov tov 
 av6po)vov : neither, when the Saviour says, yivtoaKOfiai inro 
 tS)v e/ifov (S. John x. 14) are we at all willing to put up 
 with the weak equivalent yivwaKOvai fie to efia. Still less is 
 Kai e/iot avTovt eSuxas any equivalent at all for Kai to e/ui 
 •navTa tjd eoTi, koX to, aa ifid, in S. John x^"ii. 10 : or, aXXot 
 
 ' Tbe folloniug may be addi'd from Cod. K : — fKydAoi abTuv (iu S. Mark x. 
 42) cbuugcd into /3a(ri\(is : <itc» (id S. ilark xir. 58) substituted for ifiiut 
 IjKovaafitf aiiTou \iyoyros : ffiiofiijKoyra itaaapvv (iu S, Lu. ii. 37) for O75o7ifc : 
 and twpaKiv at (iu S. Jo. viii. 57) for tupana : — in all wbicli four readings 
 Cod. K is nitbout support. [Scrivener, Coll. Cod. Sin. p. li.] Tbe epitbet 
 fityay, introduced (in tbe same codex) before XlBor in S. Mark xv. 46 ; and koi 
 ■warpias inserted into tbe pbrase <{ oIkov Aa^iS iu S. Lu. i. 27, — are two. more 
 specimens of uiistuken ofiSciousness. In the same infelicitous spirit. Cod. B 
 and Cud. K concur in omitting laxvpif (S. Matt. liv. 30), and in substituting 
 irvKfa for wuyfif, and pavrtauiTai for fiaw^lau•^Tal in S. Mark vii. 3 and 4 1 — 
 wbile tbe iuterpol-ation of raaaofitvos after ilowriav in S. Matlb. viii. 9, because 
 of tbe parallel place iu S. Luke's Gospel; aud tbe substitution of vSpunos 
 avarijpos ei (from S. Luke xii. 21) for aiiKnp'us tl ifSpuvos iu S. Mattb. xiv. 24, 
 arc proofs that yet another kind of corrupting infiueuce has been here at work 
 besides those which have been already specified. 
 
 VI.] 
 
 /khs been tsciioicily eoniipted. 
 
 83 
 
 ^iucroro-n' ae, koi Troirjaovtnv aoi ocra ov 6e\eis, for a\\o<: ae 
 ftifffi. A-al olfffi 07701/ ov deXeti, in S. John xxi. 18. Indeed, 
 even when our Lord is not the speaker, such licentious 
 depravntion of the text is not to be endured. Thus, in 
 S.Lukc xxiii. 15, Cod. B and Cod. K conspire in substituting 
 for airrre/ii/ra yap vfia.<! -Trpos amiv.—aveireif^ev yap avTOv 
 irpoi V^n? ; which leads one to suspect the copyist was 
 misled by the narrative iu vcr. 7. Similar instances might 
 be multiplied to an inde6nite extent. 
 
 Tvco yet graver corruptions of the truth of the Gospel, 
 (but they belong to the same category,) remain to be spe- 
 cified. Mindful, I suppose, of S.James' explanation "how 
 that by trorh a man is justified," the autbor of the text of 
 Codicos B and r? has ventured to alter our Lord's assertion 
 (in S. Alatth. xi. 19,) " Wisdom is justified of her children," 
 into " "Wisdom is justi6ed by her trorks ;" and, in the case 
 of Cc-d. S, his zeal is observed to have so entirely carried 
 him away, that he has actually substituted epymv for TeKvav 
 in tbe parallel place of S. Luke's Gospel.— The other ex- 
 ample of error (S. Mattb. xxi. 31) is calculated to provoke 
 a smile. Finding that our Saviour, in describing the con- 
 duct of the two sous in the parable, says of the one,— 
 iffTepov ik fieratieXvGeh iTr^xeep, and of the other,-;.al 
 oi,Ka-r,',\eer; some ancient scribe, (who can have been but 
 slenderlv acquainted with the Greek language,) seems to 
 have conceived the notion that a more precise way of iden- 
 tifyins: the son who "afterwards repented and went," would 
 be to designate him as 6 vcnepos. Accordingly, in reply to 
 tbe question,— T.'s eV tuv Bvo i-iroiricep to 0i\vfia tov ira- 
 rpos: •sve are presented (but onhj in Cod. B) with the as- 
 tonishing information,— Xeyoufffi/ o voTepos. And yet, see- 
 ing clearly that this made nonsense of the parable, some 
 subsequent critic is found to have transposed the order of the 
 ftco f?ns : and in that queer condition the parable comes 
 down to us in the famous Vatican Codex B. 
 
 4 Some of the foregoing instances of infelicitous taraper- 
 ine'with the text of the Gospels are, it must be confessed, 
 verv serious. But it is a yet more fatal circumstance in 
 connexion with Cod. B and Cod. H that they are convicted 
 
 g2 
 
84 
 
 The texi of Co'M. B and K convldcd 
 
 [chap. 
 
 of certain perversions 'of the truth of Scripture which nntit 
 have been made with deliberation and purpose. Thus, in 
 S. Mark xiv, they exhibit a set of passages — (verses 30, 68, 
 72) — "which bear clear marks of wilful and critical correction, 
 thoroughly carried out in Cod. s, only partially in Cod. B ; 
 the object being so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's 
 denial with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress 
 the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed 
 Ucice. (In Cod. k, Si'r is omitted in ver. 30," — Ik Bevripov 
 and 8/s in ver. 72, — " and Koi aXeKTup i<f)d)VT]ae in ver. 68 : 
 the last change being countenanced by B '.") One such 
 discovery, I take leave to point out, is enough to destroy 
 all confidence in the text of these two manuscripts : for it 
 proves that another kind of corrupting influence, — besides 
 carelessness, and accident, and tasteless presumption, and 
 unskilful assiduity, — has been at work on Codices B and s. 
 We are constrained to approach these two manuscripts with 
 suspicion in all cases where a supposed critical difSculty in 
 harmonizing the statements of the several Evangelists will 
 account for any of the peculiar readings which they ex- 
 hibit. 
 
 Accordingly, it does not at all surprise me to discover 
 that in both Codices the important word i^ekOovaai (in 
 S. Matth. xxviii. 8) has been altered into airekOovaat. I 
 recognise in that substitution of airo for ef the hand of one 
 who was not avrare that the women, when addressed by the 
 Angel, were imidc Ihc scpiikfire ; but who accepted the be- 
 lief (it is found to have been as common in ancient as in 
 modern times) that they beheld him " sitting on the stone ''." 
 — In consequence of a similar misconception, both (bodices 
 are observed to present us with the word " nine" instead of 
 " riiicgar" in S. Matthew's phrase o^os fiera j^oX^r fie/iiy- 
 fiivov : which results from a mistaken endeavour on the 
 part of some ancient critic to bring S. Matth. xivii. 34 into 
 
 • Scrivener, Coll. Cod. Sin. p. xlvii. 
 
 *• Add to the autliorities comnionir appealed to for i^t\B. Cbrjra. ^ (twice,) 
 (also quoted in Cramer's Cal.'"). The mistake adverted to in tlie text is at 
 least as old as the time of Eusebius (Mai, iv. p. 264 = 287), wlio asks, — Uus 
 wapi T# KarBiiif tj May5a\ii>T| Mofi'o m'to t^j K\A))S Maplas f{v toC /u^/iaTO> 
 idpamr rhy fva <77«*<"' /»«<«9<M"'">' '"f ^'*r '">'' M>'<M<«toj, k.tA. 
 
 VI.] 
 
 of ddibrrote dej/rarafion. 
 
 85 
 
 harmony with S. Mark xv. 23. The man did not perceive 
 that the cruel insult of the "vinegar and gall" (which the 
 Saviour tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct 
 thing from the proflered mercy of the " myrrhed wine" 
 which the Saviour put away from Himself altogether. 
 
 So again, it was in order to bring S. Luke xxiv. 13 into 
 harmony with a supposed fact of geography that Cod. K 
 states that Eramaus, (which Josephus also places at sixty 
 stadia from Jerusalem), was "an hundred and sixty" stadia 
 distant. The history of this interpolation of the text is 
 known. It is because some ancient critic (Origcn probably) 
 erroneously assumed that NicopoUs was the place intended. 
 The conjecture met with favour, and there are not wanting 
 scholia to declare that this was the reading of "the accu- 
 rate" copies,— notwithstanding the physical impossibility 
 which is involved by the statemtst'.— Another geographical 
 misconception under which the scribe of Cod. s is found to 
 have laboured was that Nazareth (S. Luke i. 26) and Caper- 
 naum (S. Mark i. 28) were f» Judaa. Accordingly he has 
 altered the text in both the places referred to, to suit his 
 privite notion*.— A yet more striking specimen of the pre- 
 posterous method of the same scribe is supplied by his sub- 
 stitution of Kaiaapias for Safiapeias in Acts viii. 5, — 
 evidently misled by what he found in viii. 40 and xxi. 8. 
 — Aeam, it must have been with a view of bringbg Reve- 
 lation into harmony with the (supposed) facts of physical 
 Science that for the highly significant Theological record 
 Km ecKOTice-n 6 TjXios at the Crucifixion % has been sub- 
 Etituted both in B and K, rov Tfkiov €K\i7rovTo<;, — a state- 
 
 • Tachendorf accordingly u forced, for once, to reject the reading of his 
 oritur ft— 'f'""^ '° t^o^e^ '' ^^ ^y "^"K™ '"^ Eusebius. His discussion 
 of tbc text in this place is instructive and even diverting. How is it that such 
 an ii_<»3ce as the present docs not open the ejes of Prejudice itself to the 
 dasr;- of pinning iU faith to the consentient testimony even of Origen, of 
 
 Euieilci, aud of Cod. >< ? The reader is reminded of «hat was offered 
 
 abcTc. ic the lower part of p. 49. 
 
 ' A similar perversion of the truth of Scripture is found at S.Luke iv. 44, 
 (cf. iLi piiaUcl pl«». S. Matth. iv. 23 : S. Mark i. 39). It does not mend the 
 v:i'.u: tc find ^ supported this time by Codd. B, C, L, Q, R. 
 
 • S. La. liiii. 45 :—»«(> ovUroTt Tfiitpov awi$n, i^" *l '•' ^h^f t^^"""' 
 tr, rj .iffx« Tt\.-«reai t^(\\f itol yif Uttva. tolnwv TiSiroi ^v. (Chry«.TU.824 C.) 
 
80 
 
 The Vadcan Coikx B rccogid'scsi 
 
 [chap. 
 
 ment which (as the ancients were perfectly well aware') 
 introduces into the narrative an astronomical contradiction. 
 — It may be worth adding, that Tischendorf with singular 
 inconsistency admits into his text the astronomical contra- 
 diction, while he rejects the geographical impossibility. — 
 And this may suffice concerning the text of Codices B 
 and s 
 
 III. Wc are by this time in a condition to form a truer 
 estimate of the Aalue of the testimony borne by these two 
 manuscripts in respect of the last twelve verses of S. Mark's 
 Gospel. If we were disposed before to regard their omission 
 of an important passage as a serious matter, we certainly 
 cannot any longer so regard it. We have by this time seen 
 enough to disabuse our minds of every prejudice. Codd. B 
 and K are the very reverse of infallible guides. Their de- 
 flections from the Truth of Scripture are more constant, as 
 well as more licentious bj' far, than those of their younger 
 brethren : their unauthorized omissions from the sacred text 
 arc not only far more frequent but far more flagrant also. 
 And yet the main matter before us, — their omission of the la-it 
 ttrehe verses of S. Mark's Gospel, — when rightly understood, 
 proves to be an entirely diflerent phenomenon from what an 
 ordinary reader might have been led to suppose. Attention 
 is specially requested for the remarks which follow. 
 
 IV. To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is un- 
 questionably the oldest we possess, S. Mark's Gospel ends 
 abruptly at the 8th verse of the xvi"" chapter, and that the 
 
 ' twins si fill tlwuirt rivfs fKAfi^iv tlyai rh ytyfvrifi4voy, Ir rp rtaaapftTKaiSf- 
 Kcfrp Ti^t*pa Tijs af^TjfJts yiyovt ri 0x670$ : — 3t« XkKh^iv ffv^^rfvai afi^x^^'Of^* 
 So Victor of Antiocb, in bis Catena on S. Mark (ed. Possiu.) He makes the 
 remark twice : first (p. 351) in the midst of an abridgment of the beginning of 
 Cbr,v8ostom'E SStb Hoiuily on S. Matthew : next (p. 352) more fuUy, after quot- 
 ing " tlie great Uionysius" of Alexandria, See also an interesting passage on 
 the same sabjcct in Cramer's Catena in Matth. i. p. 237, — from whom de- 
 rived, I know not ; but professing to be from Chrysostom. (Note, that the 
 10 lines i^ iymyfiiitiov, boginning p. 236, line 33 = Chrys. vii. 824, D, E.) 
 The very next words in Cbrysostom's published Homily (p. 825 A.) arc as fol- 
 lows : — 'Oxf >4/> ovK ^K txKti'fiis, i\\' ipyh TC tal ayavi.KTri7is, oix iyrtvOey 
 li6vov SriXov Jjf, o\a4 Kal iirh toC icBif>aC- rpfts yiip Upas vapefuivev, q 3i (K\titfiis 
 iv itia ylytrai Kuipov ^oirf . — Anyone who would investigate this matter further 
 should by all means read Matthaei's louj} note on S. Luke xxiii. 45. 
 
 Ti.] ihc Coiicfiimii 0/ S. M<irl.'.i Gosj,rf. 87 
 
 customary subscription (kata mapkon) follows,-is true; but 
 it is far from being ihe uhole truth. It requires to be stated 
 in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been 
 to be-in every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the „cjrt 
 amdug cohmn to that which contained the concluding words 
 of the preceding book, has at the close of S. Mark s Gospel 
 deviated from his else invariable practice. He has left m 
 this place one column entirely vacant. It is the only vacant 
 column in the whole manuscript ;-a blank space al,n,rle,>M!/ 
 s,'jfic!e„i to contain the t,rehe terses uhich he neierthek.s ,nlh- 
 IM Why did he leave that column vacant ? Tf hat can have 
 induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from 
 his established rule ? The phenomenon,-(I believe I was the 
 first to caU distinct attention to it,)-is in the highest de- 
 cree significant, and admits of only one interpretation i-e 
 o/Ar MS. from which Cod. B was copied must have infallibly 
 contained the twelve verses in dispute. The coppst was in- 
 structed to leave them out,-and he obeyed: but he pru- 
 dently left a blank space in memoriam rci. Never was blanlc 
 more intelligible ! Never was silence more eloquent ! By 
 this simple expedient, strange to relate. the\atican Codex 
 is made to refate itself even while it seems to be bearing tes- 
 timony against the concluding verses of S.Marks Gospc^l. 
 bv withholding them: for it forbids the inference which, 
 u'nder ordinary circumstances, must have been drawn from 
 that omission. It does more. By leaving room for the 
 verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of 
 fifteen centuries and a half, a more ancient tcitness than ,tself. 
 The venerable Author of the original Codex f^on^/^ich 
 Codex B was copied, is thereby brought to view. And thus 
 our supposed adversary (Codei B) proves our most useful 
 allv • for it procures us the testimony of an hitherto unsus- 
 pe;ted witness. The earlier scribe, I repeat, unmistakably 
 comes forward at this stage of the inquiry, to explain that 
 he at least is prepared to answer for the genuineness of these 
 Twelve concluding Verses with which the later scribe, his 
 copyist, from his omission of them, might unhappily De 
 thought to have been unacquainted. 
 
 It will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting 
 
88 Cod. B ami Cod. n here contradict each other, [chap. 
 
 that the scribe of Cod. B. hunj have copied from a MS. which 
 exhibited the same phenomenon which he has himself re- 
 produced. This, by shifting the question a little further 
 back, does but make the case against Cod. s the stronger. 
 
 IJut in truth, after the revelation which has been already 
 elicited from Cod. B, the evidence of Cod. s may be very 
 summarily disp.osed of. I have already, on independent 
 grounds, ventured to assign to that Codex a somewhat later 
 date than is claimed for the Codex VaticanusK. My opinion 
 is confirmed by observing that the Sinaitic contains no such 
 blank space at the end of S. Mark's Gospel as is conspicuous 
 in the Vatican Codex. I infer that the Sinaitic was copied 
 from a Codex which bad been already mutilated, and re- 
 duced to the condition of Cod. B ; and that the scribe, only 
 because he knew not what it meant, exhibited S. Mark's 
 Gospel in consequence as if it really bad no claim to those 
 twelve concluding verses which, nevertheless, every authority 
 we have hitherto met with has affirmed to belong to it 
 of right. 
 
 Whatever may be thought of the foregoing suggestion, 
 it is at least undeniable that Cod. B and Cod. N are at vari- 
 ance on the main point. They contradict one another concern- 
 ing the twelve concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel. For 
 while Cod. k refuses to know anything at all about those 
 verses, Cod. B admits that it remembers them well, by vo- 
 lunteering the statement that they were found in the older 
 codex, of which it is in every other respect a faithful repre- 
 sentative. The older and the better manuscript (B), there- 
 fore, refutes its junior (n). And it will be seen that logically 
 this brings the inquiry to a close, as far as the evidence of 
 the manuscripts is concerned. We have referred to the 
 oldest extant copy of the Gospels in order to obtain its testi- 
 mony : and,—" Though without the Twelve Verses concern- 
 ing which you are so solicitous," (it seems to say,) " I yet 
 hesitate not to confess to you that an older copy than myself, 
 — the ancient Codex from which I was copied, — actually did 
 contain them." 
 
 The problem may, in fact, be briefly stated as follows. Of 
 • S*e above, p. 70, and tlie Appendix (F). 
 
 ,-..] 
 
 The Etidtnce uj) to this jmnt reritircf. 
 
 89 
 
 the four oldest Codices of the Gospels extant, — B, N, A, C, — 
 two (B and H) are icit/ioiit these twelve verses : two (A and C) 
 are vit/i them. Are these twelve verses then an unautho- 
 rized addition to A and C? or are they an unwarrantable 
 omission from B and N ? B itself declares plainly that from 
 itself they are an omission. And B is the oldest Codex of 
 the Gospel in existence. What candid mind will persist in 
 clinging to the solitary fact that from the single Codex H 
 these verses are away, in proof that " S. Mark's Gospel was 
 at first without the verses which at present conclude it ? " 
 
 Let others decide, therefore, whether tlie present discus- 
 sion has not already reached a stage at which an unpre- 
 judiced Arbiter might be expected to address the prosecuting 
 parties somewhat to the following effect : — 
 
 " This case must now be dismissed. The charge brought 
 by yourselves against these Verses was, that they are an un- 
 authorized addition to the second Gospel ; a spurious ap- 
 pendix, of which the Evangelist S. Mark can have known 
 nothing. But so far from substantiating this charge, you 
 have not adduced a single particle of evidence which ren- 
 ders it even probable. 
 
 " The appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to 
 MSS. It has been accepted. And with what result ? 
 
 (a) " Those many Fathers whom you represented as hos- 
 tile, prove on investigation to be reducible to one, viz. Euse- 
 bius : and Eusebius, as we have seen, does not i-ay that the 
 verses are' spurious, but on the contrary labours hard to 
 prove that they may very well be genuine. On the other 
 hand, there are earlier Fathers than Eusebius who quote 
 them without any signs of misgiving. In this way, the 
 positive evidence in their favour is carried back to the ii"* 
 centurj'. 
 
 (6) " Declining the testimony of the Versions, you insisted 
 on an appeal to MSS. On the MSS., in fact, you still make 
 your stand, — or rather you rely on the oldest of them ; for, 
 (as you are aware,) every MS. in the world except the ttro 
 oldest are against you. 
 
 • " I have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS. ; 
 and it has volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than 
 
90 
 
 TIk Verdict aniicipalcd. 
 
 [niAP. VI. 
 
 itself — ihe Coda from tchirh it irnx copied — was furnished 
 with those vcr_v A'^crsos which tou wish me to believe that 
 some older MS. still must needs have been without. ^Vhat 
 else can be said, then, of your method but that it is frivo- 
 lous? and of your charge, but that it is contradicted by 
 the evidence to which you yourselves appeal ? 
 
 " ]Jut it is illogical ; that is, it is unreasonable, besides. 
 
 " For it is high time to point out that even if it so hap. 
 pened that the oldest known MS. was observed to be without 
 these twelve concluding verses, it would still remain a thing 
 unproved (not to say highly improbable) that from the auto- 
 graph of the Evangelist himself they were also away. Sup- 
 posing, further, that no Ecclesiastical writer of the ii°* or 
 iii'* century could be found who quoted them: even so, it 
 would not follow that there existed no such verses for a pri- 
 mitive Father to quote. The earliest of the Versions might 
 in addition yield faltering testimony ; but even so, who would 
 be so rash as to raise on such a slender basis the monstrous 
 hj"pothesis, that S. Mark's Gospel when it left the hands of 
 its inspired Author was without the verses which at present 
 conclude it ? How, then, would you have proposed to ac- 
 count for the consistent testimony of an opposite kind jielded 
 by every other known document in the world ? 
 
 " But, on the other hand, what are the facts of the case ? 
 (1) The earliest of the Fathers, — (2) the most venerable of 
 the Versions, — (3) the oldest MS. of which we can obtain 
 any tidings, — all are observed to recognise these Venes. 
 'Cadit quaestio' therefore. The last shadow of pretext has 
 vanished for maintaining with Tischendorf that 'Mark the 
 Evangelist knew nothing of these verses : — with Tregelles 
 that ' The book of Mark himself extends no further than 
 €<j)o^ovvTo yap :' — with Griesbach that ' the last leaf of the 
 original Gospel tca^ probably torn aicai/.' ... It is high time, 
 I say, that this case were dismissed. But there are also costs 
 to be paid. God. B and Cod. s are convicted of being * two 
 false witnesses,' and must be held to go forth from this in- 
 quiry with an injured reputation." 
 
 This entire subject is of so much importance that I must 
 needs yet awhile crave the reader's patience and attention. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 MAKUSCRTPT TESTIMONY SHEUN" TO BE O^TKW^ELM- 
 IKGLY IN rAVOTIR OF THESE VERSES.-Pai»t H- 
 
 ne otler elief peculiarity of Co.ic. B ar, S (./. the '^^^/f ^^l^^ 
 
 favonralh to the omission of those •^'"•''* (?" 93).-rA. .Uorf r 
 if^icitous in their attempts to account fir the. --'- P") °); 
 Marcion prolahly the author of this corruption of the ^-j. / '^^^ 
 tare (p. I06).-0ther peculiarities of Mex S deposed of {v 109). 
 
 The subiect which exclusively occupied our attention 
 throughout the foregoing chapter admits of apt and power 
 ful ilLtration. Its vast importance ^^l^ ^J^^^'^^ 
 npoloKV for the particular disquisition which follov^s, and 
 n^tfhavc been 'spared, ^ut for the plain challenge of the 
 famous Critic to be named immediately. tischendorf 
 
 "There are two remarkable readings. (-J^^J^ ^ff ^J^; 
 addressing English readers on t us subject xn 1868,) wh ch 
 are very instructive towards determming }}^--^-^l^l^ 
 manuscripts [H and B], and thc^r aMor^y. He proceeds 
 
 ^"f Thl'Tbsence from both, of the last Twelve Verse, of 
 S. Mark's Gospel,-concerning which, the -dei^ pr^^^^^^ 
 
 thinks that by this time he has l?«'''-'';^°"°^- ,f '%. .,^ 
 
 2 He appeals to their omission of the words c. E J .«> 
 
 from fhe fiS verse of S. Paul's Epistle to the Eph«- 
 
 anoihcr peculiarity, in u:hich Codd. « and B stand ,ude alone 
 
 "'"rI!X an extraordinary note of sympathy between 
 ^^ of Z Z. Testament indeed. ^^^^Z 
 is it: and that it powerfully corroborates the general opi 
 
92 Oinimon fiom the icif of Ephes. i. 1. [chai-. 
 
 of their high antiquity, no one will deny. But how about 
 "their authorU ij" ? Does the coincidence also raise our 
 opinion of the fruifworf/iiness of the Text, which these two 
 MSS. concur in exhibiting? for that is the question which 
 has to be considered, — the oiili/ question. The ancientuess of 
 a reading is one thing : its genuineness, (as I have explained 
 elsewhere,) quite another. The questions are entirely dis- 
 tinct. It may even be added that while the one is really of 
 little moment, the latter is of all the importance in the 
 world. I am saying that it matters very little whether 
 Codd. N and B were written in the beginning of the iv"" 
 century, or in the beginning of the v"' : whereas it matters 
 much, or rather it matters everything, whether they exhibit 
 the T^^ord of God faithfullj^, or occasionally with scandalous 
 license. How far the reading which results from the sup- 
 pression of the last two words in the phrase 70is ayioi<: roh 
 ovatv cV 'E<f>eao), is critkaUij allowalk or not, I forbear to 
 inquire. That is not the point which we have to determine. 
 The one question to be considered is, — May it possibly be 
 the true reading of the text after all? Is it any way 
 credible that S. Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as 
 follows : — HavKoi aTrooroXo? 'Irjaov Xpiarov hia deXi'jfiaTOi 
 Qeov, ToU arfioii rols ovai xat inarol'; iv XpicrTw 'Irjaov ? . .. 
 If it be eagerly declared in reply that the thing is simply 
 incredible : that the words eV 'JB^eo-w are required for the 
 sense ; and that the commonl}' received reading is no doubt 
 the correct one: then, — there is an end of the discussion. 
 Two extraordinary notes of sympathj' between two Manu- 
 scripts will have been appealed to as crucial proofs of the 
 trusttrorthiuess of the Text of those ISIanuscripts : (for of their 
 high Antiquity, let me saj' it once more, there can be no 
 question whatever :) and it will have been proved in one 
 case, — admitted in the other, — that the omiasion is vnxrar- 
 rantable. — If, however, on the contrary, it be maintained that 
 the words iv 'E<f)€<r<p probably had no place in the original 
 copy of this Epistle, but are to be regarded as an unauthorized 
 addition to it, — then, (as in the case of the Twelve Yerses 
 omitted from the end of S. Mark's Gospel, aiid which it was 
 ako pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand 
 
 vn.] 
 
 Emhnec for the oh/'-'ioii stated. 
 
 93 
 
 to be shewn the evidence on ,be strength of which this 
 opinion is maintained, in order .hat we may ascertam what 
 
 it is precisely worth. , i. • r 
 
 Tischendorf.-the illustrious discoverer and champton of 
 Codex H, and who is accustomed to appeal tnumphan ly to 
 Us omission of the words h '£.^e<ra, as //,. other conclusive 
 proof of the trustworthiness of its te.t,-may be presumed to 
 be the most able advocate it is likely to meet with, as we 1 
 as the man best acquainted with what is to be urged in its 
 support. From him, we learn that the evidence for th 
 omLion of the words in question is as follows:- In e 
 beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read to the 
 saints which are at Ephesus;' but Marcion (A.n. 130-140), 
 Lnotfindthewoi.s.atI,h.us'inhis.p. T^^^^ 
 is true of Origen (a.d. Ibo— -'o^J , anu iioo i 
 (who died A.D. 379), affirmed that those words were wanting 
 n old conies. And this omission accords very well with 
 he lyS c 1 or general character of the Epistle At the 
 pr sent d y, our a'ncient Greek MSS., and all ancient Yer- 
 InscontaiL the words 'at Ephesus ;' yea (-^.;-" -- 
 knew no copv with a different readmg. ^ow onlj the 
 SnaTtic and'the Yatican correspc^ui with the o/. copies 
 Basil and those of Origen and Marcion". -This then 
 fhe sum of the evidence. Proceed we to examine it some- 
 
 what in detail. , , Ipnrned 
 
 (1) And first. I take leave to point out that ^^^^^^"^^ 
 wr r is absolutely without authority for his assertion hat 
 " M cion did not find the words iv ^E<t>eav m his copy of 
 S Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. Tischendorf s one pre- 
 L^rlor spying so is TevtuUian's statement thatcert^ 
 heretics (Marcion he specifies by name,) had f^^n to 
 SPau?s" Epistle to the Ephesians" the unauthorized tit e 
 of " Eni tie to the Laodicean. ^" This, (argues Tischendorf,) 
 Marclrcouid not have done had he found eV 'E<^ .^ m the 
 firs^versc^ But the proposed inference is clearly mvahd. 
 
 . Tische,.aorrs " LXro^ucUo,,- to bU ,T-hnUz) oai.ion of the EngU.h 
 e '"Tituliim emm ' aa liooaicenos 
 
94 
 
 11(1' )ni><((ihe qfxiijiportiiif/ ihol ilarciou [chap. 
 
 95 
 
 For, with wliat show of reason can Marcion, — whom Ter- 
 tullian taxes wilh having dared " tittthim intcrpolare" in the 
 case of S. Puul's " Epistle to the Ephesians," — he therefore, 
 assumed to have read the first verso differently from our- 
 selves P Rather is the directly opposite inference sug- 
 gested by the ver)' language in which TertuUian (who 
 ■was nil but the contemporary of Marcion) alludes to the 
 circumstance *•. 
 
 Those, however, who would reallj' understand the work 
 of the heretic, should turn from the African Father, — :(who 
 after all does but say that Marcion and his crew feigned 
 concerning S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephci-iaus, that it was 
 addressed to the Laodiceans,) — and betake themselves to the 
 pages of Epiphanius, who lived about a century and a half 
 later. This Father had for many years made Marcion's 
 work his special study', and has elaborately described it, 
 as well as presented us with copious extracts from it'. And 
 
 ita in Ealutatione verba if 'Eficiry omntiio uou Icgisse ccusendas est." (N. T. 
 in he.) 
 
 ' "Ecclesia- quidem veritote Epistol.im islam 'ad Ephesios' liabemus cinis- 
 saia, non 'ad Laodiceuos;' eed Uarcion ei titaluiu aliquando iiitcrpolare ges- 
 tiit, quasi et in isto diligentissiuios ciplorator." Adv. Marcion. lib. v. c. xni, 
 pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.) 
 
 * iuli Ituv iKavuv. (Epipbaa. Opp. i. 310 C.) 
 
 ' He describes its structure minutely at vol. i. pP' 3W — 310, and from pp. 
 312-7; 318 — 321. [Note, by the way, the gross blunder which has crept 
 into the printed text of Epiphanius at p. 321 s : pointed out long since by 
 Jones, On the Canon, ii. 38.] His plan is excellent, llarcion had rejected 
 every Gospel except S. Luke's, and of S. Paul's Eiiistles had retained only 
 ten, — viz. (Ist) Galatians, (2nd and 3rd) I and II Coriulhians, (4th) Bonians, 
 (5th and Ctli) I and 11 Thessalonians, (7tli) £j>liesiaits, (6th) Colossians, (9th) 
 Philemon, (10th) Philippians. Even these he hud mutilated and depraved. 
 And yet out of that one mutilated Gospel, Epiphanius selects 78 passages, 
 (pp. 312-7), and out of those ten mutilated Epistles, 40 passages more (pp. 318 
 — 21); by means of which 118 texts he undertakes to refu'e the heresy of 
 Marcion. (pp.322 — 50: HoO — 74.) [It will be.perceived that TertuUian goes 
 over Uarcion's work in much the same way.] . . Very beautiful, and well worthy 
 of the student's attention, (though it comes before us in a somewhat incorrect 
 form,) is the remark of Epiphanius concerning the living energy of God's Word, 
 even ivhen dismembered and exhibited in a fragmentary shape. 'OXov "lof) tov 
 atifiSLTOS ^uyros, &S «i<r€7i', t^i 0€tas ypaipfis, vo7ov rjvpiaKf (sc. Marcion) fif^os 
 i>f Kphv Kara t^'' outoC yviifnif, IfairapfiaayiyTi t^dSos Kara Tf,s ii\riefias ; . . . • 
 irapf'tfoi^c iroA\a ruv fifKuv, Kareax* ^^ ^^"^ '^"''^ *°P' iavrf-' «al aina Sf Ta 
 KaToavftftWo ^ti {wI'TO ov ivvarai vtKpodoBai, a\X* ^KfT ^Ji- to ^urtKhv ttis 
 t/Kpivfus, Kfy T« ftvplus rap' oiry (coro Afwriv oiroT/iTjPtiT). (p. 375 B.) 
 
 VII.] (lid noi find tin- <ronh iv 'E(})e<ra> in hi'i copy. 
 
 the account iu Epiphanius proves that Tischendorf is mis- 
 taken in the statement which he addresses to the English 
 reader, (quoted above ;) and that he would have better con- 
 sulted for his reputation if he had kept to the "ut videtur" 
 with which (in his edition of 1859) he originally broached 
 his opinion. It proves in fact to be no matter of opinion 
 at all. Epiphanius states distinctly that the Episllc to the 
 Ephe'^ioHH was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul which 
 Marcion reldhml In his " Apostolicon," or collection of 
 the (mutilated) Apostolical Epistles, the " Epistle to the 
 Ephesians," (identified by the considerable quotations which 
 Epiphanius makes from it",) stood (he says) .sr««//< in 
 order; while the (so called) "Epistle to the Laodiceans,"- 
 a distinct composition therefore,— had the tkrenth, that is, the 
 last place assigned to it ^ That this latter Epistle contained 
 a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epi- 
 phanius records the fact in two places'. But then it is to 
 be borne in mind that he charges Marcion with having 
 derived that quotation from the Apoeryphal Epistle to the 
 Laodieeaus^; instead of taking it, as he ought to have done, 
 from the genuine Epistle to the Ephesians. The passage, 
 when faithfully exhibited, (as Epiphanius points out,) by 
 its verv form refutes the heretical tenet which the context 
 of Marcion's spurious epistle to the Laodiceaus was mtended 
 to establish; and which the verse in question, in its inter- 
 polated form, might seem to favour'.-I have entered into 
 
 lie seems to say of Marcion,— 
 
 I'ool I to suppose thy ilisllow wits 
 
 Could quench a life Uke t'.ial. Go, learn 
 That cut into ten thousand bits 
 
 Vet every hit would breathe and bum ! 
 . He quotes Ephes. ii. 11,' 12, 13, 14: v. 14: v. 31. (See Epiphanius, 
 
 Oi.». i. p. 318 itnd 371-2.) 
 
 .^jj p. 318 C(= 371 B), and 319 A (=3,4 A.) 
 
 , I,;, \ 319 and 374. But note, tha, th.ough error .n the cop.es or else 
 through itlnavcrlence iu the Editor, the depravation commented on at p. 374 
 n,c, is lost sight of at p. 319 B. 
 
 I S..e below, at the end of the next note. 
 
 Aa„5.K.a..- ^^'^J2r «al 5m xi.... .ol i. «...." (Epiphan. Orp. 
 voTtp';"!? ie^c ut;:ouslv a hint of .... i...X«^ ^PX- '..."P^. -*' 
 
The Eridcnto of Origfn comidvyfd. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 this Avhole question more in detail perhaps than was ne- 
 cessar)' : but I was determined to prove that Tischendorf's 
 Bintemcnt that "Marcion (a.d. 130 — 140) did not find the 
 words 'at Ephesus' in his copy," — is absolute!}' without 
 foundation. It is even contradicted bv the known facts of 
 the case. I shall have something more to say about Marcion 
 by-and-by ; who, it is quite certain, read the text of Ephes, 
 i. 1 exactly as we do. 
 
 (2.) The onh/ Father who so expresses himself as to war- 
 rant the inference that the words iv 'E^eatp were absent 
 from his copy, is Origen, in the beginning of the third cen- 
 tury. " Only in the case of the Ephesians," (he writes), 
 " do we meet with the expression ' the Saints which are :' 
 and we inquire, — Unless that additional phrase be simply 
 redundant, what can it possibly signify ? Consider, then, 
 whether those who have been partakers of His nature who 
 revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I am, may not, 
 in consequence of such union with Him, be designated as 
 ' those which arc :' persons, called out, of a state of noU 
 being, so to speak, into a state of Icing •"." — If Origen had 
 read tols ay lots rots ovaip iv ^E^eaw iu his cop}', it is 
 to me incredible that he would have gone so very far out 
 of his way to miss the sense of such a plain, and in fact, 
 
 &\A^Xaf ixovffuv: [Ma/nrfwfos yap rov iiaraiotppovo^ iiiayfia, fts rp(7s &px^^ 
 T^i iiorapxtas To/iiji' Kal Sia(f>ciri>'. Athanas. i. 231 £.] but, (snys Kpipbanius), 
 oi/x ovTus ^x" V "^ov aytou 'Airo7TttAoi/ {nr66«ns ttal TjtrtpaXitrfifvov K-i\pvyiitL. 
 4ax4 &AAut irapet Ti aiv iroi^fu/ia. Tlicn he contrasts with tlie ' fabricat'on ' 
 of W»rcion, the inspired verity, — Eph. iv. 5: declaring iva Ocbv, t^v avrhii 
 waripa M&mwv, — rir ahrhv M itii^ui\ koi iv xaffi, k.t.A. — p. 374 C. 
 
 Epipbanius reproaches Marcion with having obtained inat«rialB ixTis tdu 
 Euay^cXfov koI toD *AiroffT0Aou' oh yap f5u{f t^ iXtfivordrifi KapKtuvt iiirh rijs 
 rphs 'E^firiovs tovtt}v tV f^aprvpiav \fyftVf (sc. the words qaoted above,) dAA& 
 rijs irpif AaoiiKtas, T^i iiii otarif Iv T^j 'fiVoCTiXif. (p. 375 A.) (Epiphanius 
 here uses 'AiriiffToAos in its technical sense, — viz. as synouymous with S. Paul's 
 Kpistles.) 
 
 " 'ClpiyivTis t( ^7)171, — 'Eirl nivuiv 'Eipfotuv fvpofifv Kiliitvov rh " toTi aylois 
 Tois ovoi''* Hat ^rrrovfifv, ci fi^ vapiXxn rpoaKtintvov Th *' ro7s ayiots To7y oSffi," 
 rt tvvttTat ariiiad'ttv i Spa oZv tl ^j) &ffirtp iv rfi *Ll6b{f Hvofid iprjatv iavrov 6 
 ;^pl}^aTi{fi)l' Mwff«i ri "HN ovtus oi fitrixovrti tov uitoi ytvovrat '* hvT(%" icaAo^- 
 pitvot olovti ix Tov fiT] that tls rh dvai. ** i^tKflmo yap i Qths to pii ivja" 
 iprtah 6 ainhs Iloi/Aoi, " Iko to ivra KOTopy^irp." — Cramer's Catena in Ephes. 
 i. 1,— vol. vi. p. 102. 
 
 vu.] 
 
 The Etid-ncc of Ba^il considcnd. 
 
 !I7 
 
 unmistakable an expression. Bishop Middleton, and Mi- 
 chaelis before him, — reasoning hoiccicr only from the place in 
 Basil, (to he quoted immediately,)— are unwilling to allow 
 that the words eV 'E<f>iao) were ever away from the text. It 
 must be admitted as the obvious inference from what Jerome 
 has dehvcred on this subject {infra, p. 98 note (s)) that he, too, 
 seems to know nothing of the reading (if reading it can bo 
 called) of Codd. B and s. 
 
 (3) The influence which Origcn'e writings exercised over 
 his own and the immediately succeeding ages of the Church, 
 was prodigious. Basil, bishop of Cajsarca in Cappadocia, 
 writing against the heresy of Eunomius about 150 years 
 later,— although he read iv 'E<f>ea^ in his own copy of 
 S. Paul's Epistles,— thought fit to avail himself of Origen's 
 suggestion. It suited his purpose. He was iroving the 
 eternal existence of the Sox of God. Even not to know God 
 (he remarks) is not to Ic: in proof of which, he quotes 
 S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. i. 28:— "Things which arc not, 
 hath God chosen." " Nay," (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul, 
 " in his Epistle to the Ephesians, inasmuch as he is address- 
 ing persons who by intimate knowledge were truly joined 
 to Him who ' is,' designates them specially as ' those which 
 are:' saying,- 'To the Saints which arc, and faithful in 
 Christ Jesvs.'" That this fancy was not original, Basil 
 makes no secret. He derived it, (he says,) from "those 
 who were before us ;" a plain allusion to the writings of 
 Origen. But neither was the reading his own, either. This 
 is evident. He had found it, he says,— (an asseveration in- 
 dispensable to the validity of his argument,)— but only after 
 he had made search ",— " f« the old cojncs •>." No doubt, 
 Origen's strange fancy must have been even vnintelligihle to 
 Basil when first he met with it. In plain terras, it sounds to 
 this day incredibly foolish,— when read apart from the muti- 
 lated text which alone suggested it to Origen's fervid ima- 
 
 " Consider S. John L 42, 44, 46 : v. 14 : is. 85 : xii. 14, &c. 
 
 • 'AAAo m! twj 'E^.ff.ois iTiaiiM.uv is yvrialai iKu/icVoij t^'Ovt. 8i' litt- 
 7.<r.>r.u,s, "ii-raj" oiroir. HiafoWa-t wv6pia,!fv, tUiy "toTi kyloit toTi ol<Ti, 
 Kal ^..TTors ir Xp.(7T»- -iTjaoC." «fT«' 7ip "l »' ^P^ ^''"'' '«P»5*8""'". *"';';•" '" 
 Tm ,aAa.or, t;.. i.,rtypi<^v ,ipi,Ka^^v. Kotc also what immediately foUows. 
 (Basil 0pp. i. p. 254 E, 255 A.) 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 W/i(i( Jerome ,w/v ou i/iis mbjed. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 VII.] 
 
 Summary of the ancient Erkknce. 
 
 99 
 
 gination.-But Mhat there is in all this to induce us to 
 suspect that Origen's reading 'nas after aU the right one, 
 and ours the wrong, I profess myself ^\io\\y at a loss to 
 discover. Origen himself complains bitterly of the depraved 
 Slate of the copies in his time ; and attributes it (1) to the 
 carelessness of the scribes : (2) to the rashness of correctors 
 of the text : (3) to the licentiousness of individuals, adopt- 
 ing some of these corrections and rejecting others, according 
 to their own private caprice i. 
 
 (4) Jerome, a man of severer judgment in such matters 
 than either Origen or Basil, after rehearsing the preceding 
 . gloss, (but only to reject it,) remarks that "certain persons" 
 had been "over-fanciful" in putting it forth. He alludes 
 probably to Origen, M-hose Commentary on the Ephesians, 
 in three boots, he expressly relates that he employed' : but 
 ho does not seem to have apprehended that Origen's text 
 vm mthout the xcorch eV '£</.€aa,. If he icas acquainted with 
 Origen's tert, (of ^^hich, however, his writings afiFord no indi- 
 cation,) it is plain that he disapproved of it. Others, he says, 
 understand S. Paul to say not " the Saints whieli are :" but, 
 _" the Saints and faithful which are at Ephesus ^" 
 
 (5) The witnesses have now all been heard : and I submit 
 that there has been elicited from their united evidence no- 
 thing at all calculated to shake our confidence in the uni- 
 versally received reading of Ephesians i. 1. The facts of the 
 case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully stated 
 in a single sentence. Two MSS. of the iv^^ century, (ex- 
 hibiting in other respects several striking notes of vicious 
 sympathy,) are found to conspire in omitting a clause in 
 Ephesians i. 1, which, (necessary as it is to the sense,) may 
 be inferred to have been absent from Origen's copy : and 
 
 , See tbe places quoted by Scrivener. Inirod. pp. 381-91; Particularly 
 p 385 ' Hieron. 0pp. vol. rii. p. 543 :-<' Ulud quoque m Pnefat.one 
 
 coB.n.oneo, ut sciatic Origenem tria volumiua in banc Epistolam conscnps.sse. 
 nuem ct nos ex parte Bequnti Bumus." 
 
 . "Quidau. curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod MojB. dictum et 
 ' Haec dices filiis Israel, Qn est niisit me,' etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt [>ote 
 i1,is Cf "qui sunt Epbcsi." r«?<,.] sancti ct fidcles, essentiae vocabolo nun- 
 
 li«. ■ ut «b Eo • qui e*t,' bi • qui sunt ' appellentur . . . . AUi vero s.m- 
 TcC nonVd eos -qui sint.' sed <qui Epbesi sancti et fideles sinf «riptum 
 arbitrantur." Hieron. 0pp. rii. p. 545 a. b. 
 
 Basil testifies that it was absent from " the old copies" to 
 which he himself obtained access. This is really the whole 
 of the matter : in which it is much to be noted that Origen 
 does not say that he approved of this reading. Still less does 
 Basil. They both witness to the fact that the words eV 
 'E(j>ia(i> were omitted from some copies of the iii"* century, 
 just as Codd. B and s witness to the same fact in the iv"". 
 But what then ? Origen is known occasionally to go out 
 of his way to notice readings confessedly wortlilcss; and, 
 why not here ? For not only is the text all but uii- 
 intelligihle if the words eV 'E<f>ia^ be omitted : but (what is 
 far more to the purpose) the direct evidence of all the copies, 
 whether uncial or cursive', — and of all the Versions, — is 
 against tbe omission. In the face of this overwhelming mass 
 of unfaltering evidence to insist that Codd, B and K must 
 yet be accounted right, and all the rest of Antiquity wrong, 
 is simply irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect of 
 this nonsensical reading, of two MSS. confessedly untrust- 
 worthy in countless other places, — against all the MSS. — 
 all the Versions, — is nothing else but an act of vulgar pre- 
 judice. I venture to declare, — (and with this I shall close 
 the discussion and dismiss the subject,) — that there does not 
 exist one finr/h ini^tance in the irhole of the New Testament of 
 a reading even probably correct in which the four following 
 notes of spurious origin concur, — which nevertheless are ob- 
 served to attach to the two readings which have been chiefly 
 discussed in the foregoing pages : viz. 
 
 1. The adverse testimony of all the uncial MSS. except 
 fuo. 
 
 2. The adverse testimon}' of all, or very nearly all, the 
 cursive MSS. 
 
 ' The cursive "Cod. S'.6/ ••" (or "ffp") is improperly quoted as "omit- 
 ting " (Tisoli.) these words. Tbe reference is to a MS. in tbe Imperial Library 
 at Vienna, piei-cl 302 : Lambcc 34, wbicb = our Paul 67), collated by Alter 
 (N. T. 17SC. vol. ii. pp. 415 — 558), who says of it (p. 490), — "cod. iv iipiaif 
 piinclU fiii/.if." The MS. must have B curious history. H. Trescbow de- 
 scribes it in bis Tentamen Detcriptionis Codd. aliquot Oraece, &c. Havn. 
 1773, pp. 62— 73.— Also, A. C. Hwiid in bis Libellus Criiicut de iitdole Cod. 
 MS. Graa-i S. T. Lamlfc. xxxiv. &c. Havn. 1785.— It appears to have been 
 corrected bv sniue Critic, — perhaps from Cod. B itself. 
 
 h2 
 
100 
 
 The ilotkrii'i iiifilkitom in their 
 
 [chap. 
 
 ^TI.] 
 
 fiifcDijits to (iccoui)t for this Omission. 
 
 101 
 
 3. The adverse testimony of af/ the Versions, without ex- 
 ception. 
 
 4. The adverse testimony of the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers. 
 To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might, — 
 
 5. The hiyfitst inherent inijirohalilitij, — 
 
 it is only because I desire to treat this question purely as 
 one of Evidence. 
 
 II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity to account 
 for the phenomenon on which we have been bestowing so 
 many words. The endeavour is commendable; but I take 
 leave to remark in passing that if we are to set about dis- 
 covering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for 
 every orrupt reading which found its way into the sacred 
 text during the first three centuries subsequent to the death 
 of S. John, we shall have enough to do. Let any cje take 
 up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way. Cod. B shews 
 marvellous sympathy",) and explain if he can why there 
 is a grave omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost 
 every page ; and how it comes to pass that Cod. D " re- 
 produces the ' textus receptus' of the Acts much in the same 
 way that one of the best Cbaldee Targums does the Hebrew 
 of the Old Testament ; so wide are the variations in the 
 diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expound- 
 ing the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom 
 recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of 
 internal probability*." Our business as Critics is not to 
 invent theories to account for the errors of Copyists; but 
 rather to ascertain where they have erred, where not. What ^ 
 with the inexcusable depravations of early Heretics, — the 
 preposterous emendations of ancient Critics, — the injudicious 
 assiduity of Harmonizers, — the licentious caprice of indi- 
 viduals ; — what with errors resulting from the inopportune 
 recollection of similar or parallel places, — or from the 
 familiar phraseology of the Ecclesiastical Lections, — or from 
 the inattention of Scribes, — or from marginal glosses; — 
 however arising, endless are the corrupt readings of the 
 oldest MSS. in existence; and it is by no means safe to 
 
 <■ So indeed does Cod. H occasionally. See ScmeneT'e Collation, p. xlix. 
 ■ Scrivener's Introduction to Coda JBezae, p. liv. 
 
 follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with 
 a theory to account for its existence. Let me be allowed to 
 say thnt such theories are seldom satisfactor)'. Guesses onlj' 
 they arc at best. 
 
 Thus, I profess mj'self wholly unable to accept the sugges- 
 tion of Fssher, — (which, however, found favour with Gar- 
 uier (Basil's editor), Bengel, Benson, and Michaelis; and 
 has since been not onl}- eagerly advocated by Conybearc and 
 Howson following a host of German Critics, but has even 
 enjoyed Mr. Scrivener's distinct approval j) — that tlie Ejjistlc 
 to the Ephesians " was a Circular addressed to other Asiatic 
 Cities besides the capital Ephcsus, — to Laodicca perhaps 
 among the rest (Col. iv. 16); and that while some Codices 
 may have contained the name of Ephcsus in the first verse, 
 others mnij hare had another city substituted, or the space after 
 Tots avail' left utterly raid's." At first sight, this conjecture 
 has a kind of interesting plausibility which recommends it 
 to our favour. On closer inspection, — (i) It is found to be 
 not only gratuitous ; but (ii) altogether unsupported and un- 
 sanctioned by the known facts of the case ; and (what is 
 most to the purpose) (iii) it is, as I humbly think, demon- 
 strably erroneous. I demur to it, — 
 
 (1) Because of its exceeding Improbability : for (a) when 
 S. Paul sent his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that 
 Tvchicus, the bearer of it', was charged with a di-sfinet 
 Epistle to the Colossians " : an Epistle nevertheless so singu- 
 larly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that it is scarcely 
 credible S. Paul would have written those two several Epis- 
 tles to two of the Churches of Asia, and yet have sent only 
 a duplicate of one of them, {that to the Ephesians,) furnished 
 with a diflerent address, to so large and important a place 
 as Laodicea, for example, (i) Then further, the provision 
 which S. Paul made at this very time for communicating with 
 the Churches of Asia which he did not separatelj' address is 
 found to have been different. The Laodiceans were to read 
 in their public assembly S. Paul's " Epistle to the Colossians," 
 which tlio Colossians were ordered to send them. The Colos- 
 
 f Scrivener, Coll. of Cod. Sin. p. ilv. 
 • K|)li. vi. 21, 22. • Colnss. iv. 7, K' 
 
102 The imy.rohahilHy thai S.Paul hft a blank [chap. 
 
 Bians in like manner were lo read the Epistle, — (to whom 
 addressed, we know not), — ■n-hich S. Paul describes as tjji' Ik 
 AaohiKiias^. If then it had been S. Paul's desire that the 
 Laodiceans (suppose) should read publicly in their Churches 
 his Epistle to the Ephesians, surely, he would have charged 
 the Ephesians to procure that his Epistle to them should be 
 read in the Church of the Laodieeans. Whj' should the 
 Apostle be gratuitously assumed to have simultaneously 
 adopted one method with the Churches of Colosse and Lao- 
 dicea, — another with the Churches of Ej)hesus and Laodicea, 
 — in respect of his epistolar)' communications? 
 
 (2) (a) But even supposing, for argument's sake, that 
 S. Paul did send duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians to certain of the principal Churches of Asia Minor, — 
 why should he have left the salutation hlank, {" carta bianca," 
 as Bengel phrases it ',) for Tychicus to fill up when he got 
 into Asia Minor ? And yet, by the hj^pothesis, nothing short 
 of this would account for the reading of Codd. B and K. 
 
 (i) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on 
 our good nature be clearly appreciated. We are required to 
 believe that there was (1) A copy of what we call S. Paul's 
 " Epistle to the Ephesians " sent into Asia Minor by S. Paul 
 with a blank address ; i.e. " with the space after rots ovcriv 
 left utterly void:" (2) That Tychicus neglected to fill up 
 that blank : and, (what is remarkable) (3) That no one was 
 found to fill it up for him. Next, (4) That the same copy 
 became the fontal source of the copy seen by Origen, and 
 (5) Of the " old copies" seen by Basil ; as well as (6) Of 
 Codd. B and n. And even this is not all. The same hypo- 
 thesis constrains us to suppose that, on the contrary, (7) One 
 other copy of this same " Encyclical Epistle," filled up with 
 the Ephesian address, became the archet)-pe of ereri/ other 
 
 copy of this Ejmtle in the uorld But of what nature, 
 
 (I would ask,) is the supposed necessity for building up such 
 a marvellous structure of hypothesis, — of which the top story 
 overhangs and overbalances all the rest of the edifice ? The 
 thing which puzzles us in Codd. B and N is not that we find 
 the name oi another City in the salutation of S. Paul's "Epis- 
 •■ Uln supra. ' Gnomon, in Epbes. i. 1, ad inil. 
 
 vn.] Ill some eopies of hi^ Ejmtle to the Ephcmn^. 103 
 
 tie to the Ephesians," but that v^e find the name of m city 
 at all ; nor meet with any vacant space there. 
 
 {(\ On the other hand, supiwsing that S. Paul actually did 
 address to different Churches copies of the present Epistle, 
 and was scrupulous (as of course he was) to fill in the ad- 
 dre^=e* himself before the i,recious documents left Ins hands, 
 -then, doubtless, each several Church would have received 
 cherbhed, and jealously guarded its own copy. But ,J tins had 
 been the case, (or indeed if Tychicus had fille<l up, the blanks 
 for the Apostle,) is it not simply incredible that we should 
 never have heard a word about the matter until now? unac- 
 countable, above all, that there should nowhere exist traces 
 of cr.,llicting testimony as to the Church to which S. Paul s 
 Epi'tie to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas all the 
 most ancient writers, without exccption,-(Marc,on himself 
 [a d HO"], the "Muratorian" fragment [a.t>. 170 or earherj, 
 Irenffus [a d. 175], Clemens Alexandrinus, TertuUian, Ongen, 
 Dionvsius Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Eusebius,)-and all copies 
 whe/esoever found, give one unvarying, unfaltering witness 
 Even in Cod. B. and Cod. K, (and this is much to be noted,) 
 the^uperseription of the Epistle attests that it was addressed 
 " to the Ephesians." Can we be warranted (I w-ould respcct- 
 fullv inquire) in inventing facts in the history of an Apostle s 
 pra"ctice. in order to account for what seems to be after all 
 only an ordinary depravation of his text'? 
 
 - "s« al>ove pp. 93-6. Asforthc ^apposed testimony o( Ignatius (<.«f Ephe.. 
 c lU) s« the notes, cd. Jacobson. Sec also Lnrdner, vol. n 
 
 "it" be clearly understood b, tbe advocates of this e.ped.ent for account- 
 !„. f!^ the state of the text of Codd. B. and S, that noth.ng whatever .s pa.ned 
 f:^ ;ldtf:I:set.o MSS.bytheiringe..uity. ^"U 'f « e gran J^^ 
 al th^" V the Codices in question remain, by their own .dm.ss.on, d/-"-'" 
 
 ::*:S' ; thetueft\^ing they can do. [For with Conybcare and Ho.son 
 
 A Yr«„J Letters of S. Paul »• 491), to eject the words " at Ephesus from 
 (i,/. and Letters of ^. . .^ ^^^^.^ ^^^^ ^j^^ ^^^j, ,„ 
 
 EpUUe »»s veritably addressed to the Sa,«ts .« Ephe.u,, 
 
104 
 
 W/iat the Ancients calhd an " £nci/clicnl" [chap. 
 
 (3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that euch 
 "a Circular" as was described above, (each copy furnished 
 with a blank, to be filled up with the name of a different 
 City,) would be a document without parallel in the annals of 
 the primitive Church. It is, as far as I am aware, essen- 
 tially a modern notion. I suspect, in short, that the sugges- 
 tion before us is only another instance of the fatal misappre- 
 hension which results from the incautious transfer of the 
 notions suggested bj'some familiar word in a living language 
 to its supposed equivalent in an ancient tongue. Thus, be- 
 cause KVKkioi or irfKvxXios confessedly signifies " circularis," 
 it seems to be imagined that iyKVKKios eTrtaroXri may mean 
 " a Circular Letter." Whereas it really means nothing of 
 the sort ; but—" a Catholic Epistle '." 
 
 An "Encyclical," (and that is the word which has been 
 imported into the present discussion), was quite a different 
 document from what we call "a Circular." Addressed to 
 no one Church or person in particular, it was Catholic or 
 General, — the common property of all to whom it came. 
 The General (or Catholic) Epistles of S. James, S. Peter, 
 S. John are " Encyclical b." So is the well-known Canonical 
 Epistle which Gregory, Bp. of Neocaesaraea in Pontus, in the 
 middle of the third century, sent to the Bishops of his 
 pro\^nce^ As for "a blank circular," to be filled up with 
 
 Church."'} In tbe former ease, they will be exbibiting a cariosity j viz. tbey 
 will be sbewing us bow (they think) a duplicate (" carta bianca") copy of the 
 Epistle looked with "the space after Tori oiai left utterly void :" in tbe latter, 
 they will be representing tbe archctypiil copy which was sent to the Metro- 
 politau SCO of Epbesus. But by printing the text thus, — rorj ayiois -rots olatv 
 [tv 'Zipiaif] itaj irtarois K.r.K., they are acting on an entirely different theory. 
 They arc merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS. in the world 
 except Codd. B and S- This is clearly to forsake the " Encyclical " hypothesis 
 altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the same footing as any other disputed 
 text of Scripture which can be named. 
 
 ' 'L-fKiKhioi' iTiBToXitv, vel iyKVKXia ypiiifiara Christophorsonus et alii intcr- 
 prctautur Uferat eirculares : ego cum viris doctis malim Episiolas vcl lilerat 
 puHictu, ad omnes fideles pertincntes, quas Graici ali^ vocant iirurroXas 
 KaBoMxis. — Suicer in voce. 
 
 f KafaAiKal Kiyovrat aurai, olocci V^KiiicXioi. — See Suicer iH voce, 'ZyKiK\ios. 
 
 ^ Routh'e Seliquia, vol. iii. p. 2GG. — " Tum ex ConcUiis, turn ex aliis Patrum 
 Bcriptis notum est, consuevissc piiuios Ecelesiae Patres acta ct decrcta Conci- 
 lioruni passim ad omues Dei Kcclesias mittcrc per cpistolas, quas non uni 
 
 vn.] is not irhat thi Modems call a " Circular:' 105 
 
 the words " in Ephesus," " in Laodicea," &c.,— its like (I re- 
 peat) is wholly unknown in the annals of Ecclesiastical 
 Antiquity. The two notions are at all events inconsistent 
 and incompatible. If S.Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians 
 was "a Circular," then it was not "Encyclical:" if it was 
 "Encyclical" then it was not "a Circular." 
 
 Are we then deliberately to believe, (for to this necessity 
 we are logically reduced,) that the Epistle which occupies 
 the fifth place among S. Paul's writings, and which from 
 the beginning of the second century, — that is, from the 
 very dawn of Ilistorical evidence,— has been known as 
 " the Epistle to the Ephesians," was an " Encyclic.il," " Ca- 
 tholic" or "General Epistle,"— addressed fols a'/iot<{ to'k: 
 olci, KaX TTtffToty eV Xptajm 'Iv<tov ? There does not live 
 the man who will accept so irrational a supposition. The 
 suggestion therefore by which it has been proposed to ac- 
 count for the absence of the words iv 'E<f>effw in Ephes. i. 1 
 is not only in itself in the highest degree improbable, and 
 contradicted by all the evidence to which we have access ; 
 but it is even inadmissible on critical grounds, and must 
 be unconditionally surrendered '. It is observed to collapse 
 before every test which can be applied to it. 
 
 privatim dicfirunt, scd publioe describi ah omnibus, dividi pas f im et pervuVai i, 
 atque com omnibus populis comraunic.ri voluerunt. Uac igitur cpisU.b.o 
 iyKiKMo, vocatac sunt, quia HvK\6a(, quoquJ. versum ct in omncm partem 
 mittcbantuT."— Suicer in roc. 
 
 1 "On the whole." says Bishop Middlcton, (Doctrine of ihe Greet Art. 
 p. 355) " I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (ou Col. iv. 10.) 
 —'that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tycbicus, who carried their 
 letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans; with an order to them to com- 
 municate it to the Coloisians.'"— Tliis suggestion is intended to meet another 
 difficultv, and leaves the question of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. 
 It proposes only to explain what S. Paul means by the enigmatical expression 
 which is found in Col. Iv. 16. 
 
 Mackui"hf8 suggestion, though it has found favour with many subsequent 
 Divines, appears to me improbable in a high degree. S. Paul is found not to 
 have sent the Colossiam "word by Tycbicus, who carried their letter, to send 
 a copy of it to the Laodiceans." He charged them, himself, to do so. ^Tiy, 
 at the same instant, is the Apostle to be thought to have adopted two such 
 diQercnt methods of achieving one and tbe same important end r And y.ln. 
 instead of this roundabout method of communication, were not the Ephesians 
 ordered -if not by S.Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,-to scud a copy ol 
 
106 
 
 Marcion the Jlcnfic jD-obahh/ the 
 
 [chap. 
 
 III. Altogether marvellous in the meantime it is !o me, — 
 if men must needs account for the omission of the words 
 (V 'Eipecru) from this place, — that thej' should have recourse 
 to wild, improbable, and wholly unsupported theories, like 
 those which go before ; while an easy, — I was going to say 
 the obvious, — solution of the problem is close at hand, aud 
 even solicits acceptance. 
 
 Marcion the heretic, (a.d. 140) is distinctly charged by 
 TertuUian (a.d. 200), and by Jerome a century and a half 
 later, with having abundantly mutilated the text of Scrip- 
 ture, and of S. Paul's Epistles in particular. Epiphanius 
 compares the writing which Marcion tampered with to 
 a moth-eaten coat''. "Instead of a stylus," (says Tertul- 
 lian,) " Marcion employed a knife." " What wonder if he 
 omits syllables, since often he omits whole pages'P" S.Paul's 
 Epistle to the Ejihesians, TertuUian even singles out bj' 
 name; accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a new 
 title. All this has been fully explained above, from page 93 
 to page 96. 
 
 Now, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul's Epistle " io 
 Ihe Ephiiiam" that Apostolical writing which stands fifth 
 in our Canon, (but which stood seventh in his,) is just as 
 certain as that he recognised as such S.Paul's Epistles to 
 the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Colos- 
 
 thcir Epistle to Colosse direct P And why do nc find the ColossianE charged 
 to read puhlicly tiiv Ik AooSixc/as, which (by the hypothesis) would bare heen 
 only n copy, — instead of t^*" /{ 'E<pfaov, which, (by the Bame hypothesis,) would 
 liavc been the original ? Kay, why is it not designated by S. Paul, 17(1' rpis 
 'E^f o/ovs, — (if indeed it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) 
 instead of Tqv ix AaoSiKilas ; which would hardly be an intelligible way of 
 indicating the doconicut ? Lastly, why arc not the Colossians ordered to com- 
 municate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Cburch of the EphetiaM 
 b1$o, which had been originally addressed by S. Paul ? If the Colossians must 
 needs read the Epistle (so like their o\vn) which the Apostle bad just written 
 to the Ephesians, surely the Ephesians must aUo be supposed to have required 
 a eight of the Epistle which S. Paul had at the same time written to the 
 Colossians ! 
 
 ■' Epiphan. 0pp. i. 311 D. 
 
 ■ " Marcion cierte et palam machxra non stilo usus est, qaoniam ad mate- 
 riain suam csedcm Scripturaruni confecit." (TertuUian Prascript. Ear. c. 38, 
 p. 50.) "Non miror ai syllabas suhtrahit, cum paginus totas plerumqne sub- 
 ducat." {Adv. Marcion. lib. v, c. xvii, p. 455.) 
 
 VII.] Author ofthi" t/cprnnitioii of Ephcs. i. 1. 
 
 107 
 
 sians, Philippians. All this has been fully explained in 
 a preceding page '". 
 
 But it is also evident that Marcion put forth as S. Paul's 
 another Epistle, — of which all we know for certain is, tliat it 
 contained portions of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and pur- 
 ported to be addressed by S. Paul " to the Laodiccans." To 
 ascertain with greater precision the truth of this matter at the 
 end of upwards of seventeen centuries is perhaps impossible. 
 Nor is it necessary. Obvious is it to su.«pcct that not only 
 did this heretical teacher at some period of his career prefix 
 a new heading to certain copies of the Epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians, but also that some of his followers iiidustriouslv erased 
 from certain other copies the words ev 'E<})eaa> in ver. 1, — as 
 being the only two uoriJs in the entire Epistle which efiectuall)' 
 refuted their Master. It was not needful, (be it observed,) 
 to multiply copies of the Epistle for the propagation of 
 Marcion's deceit. Only two words had to be erased, — the 
 teri/ two words whose omission ire are trying to account for, — 
 in order to give some colour to his proposed attribution of 
 the Epistle, (" quasi in isto diligentissimus exploraf or,") — to 
 the Laodiccans. One of these mutilated copies will have 
 fallen into the hands of Origen, — who often complains of the 
 corrupt state of his text : while the critical personages for 
 whom Cod. B and Cod. k were transcribed will probabU' 
 have been acquainted with other such mutilated copies. Are 
 we not led, as it were by the hand, to take some such view 
 of the case ? In this way we aceount satisfactorilj', and on 
 grounds of historic evidence, for the omission which has 
 exercised the Critics so severely. 
 
 I do not lose sight of the fact that the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians ends without salutations, without personal notices 
 of any kind. But in this respect it is not peculiar ". That, 
 — ^joined to a singular absence of identif\-ing allusion, — suf- 
 ficientlj' explains why Marcion selected this particular Epis- 
 tle for the subject of his fraud. But, to infer from this cir- 
 cumstance, in defiance of the Tradition of the Church Uni- 
 versal, and in defiance of its very Title, that the Epistle is 
 
 ■ See above p. 93, and sec note (f) p. 94. 
 
 " Sec, by nil nu<an;>, Alford on this subject, vol. iii. Protfgg. pp. 13 — 15. 
 
108 
 
 Then can be no iJoalt Unit the coutuion 
 
 [CHAV. I 
 
 ' Encyclical/ in tlic technical sense of that word ; and to go 
 on to urge this characteristic as an argument in support of 
 tlie omission of the words iv ^E<l>((roy, — is clearly the device of 
 an eager Advocate ; not the method of a calm and unpre- 
 judiced Judge. True it is that S. Paul, — who, writing to 
 the Corinthians from Ephcsus, says " the Churches of Axia 
 salute you," (1 Cor. xvi. 19,) — may have known very well 
 that an Epistle of his " to the Ephesians," would, as a mat- 
 ter of course, be instantly communicated to others besides 
 the members of that particular Church : and in fact this 
 may explain why there is nothing specially "Ephesian" in 
 the contents of the Epistle. The Apostle, — (as when he 
 addressed " the Churches of Galatia,") — may have had cer- 
 tain of the other neighbouring Churches in bis mind while 
 he wrote. But all this is wholl)' foreign to the question 
 before us : the one onh/ question being this, — Which of the 
 three following addresses represents what S. Paul must be 
 considered to have actually written in the first verse of his 
 " Epistle to the Ephesians " ? — 
 
 (1) Tot? ayioii TOif ovaiv iv 'Eipeffcfi Kal irto-Toi? iv X. 'I. 
 
 (2) Toty aylois TOt? oiiaiv iv Kal Tr/o-Tot? iv X. 'I. 
 
 (3) Tots 07/0*5 TOts overt, Kal TTjffTotj iv X. 'I. 
 
 What I have been saying amounts to this : that it is abso- 
 lutelj' unreasonable for men to go out of their way to invent 
 a theory wanting every element of probability in order to 
 account for the omission of the words iv 'E(piaa from 
 S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians ; while they have under 
 their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of 
 the ii°^ century that a certain heretic, named Marcion, " pre- 
 sumed to prefix an unauthorized title to that very Epistle," 
 (" Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit,") — which 
 title obviously could not stand unless those two words were first 
 erased from the text. To interpolate that new title, and to 
 erase the two words which were plainly inconsistent with it, 
 were obviously correlative acts which must always have been 
 performed together. 
 
 But however all this may be, (as already pointed out,) 
 the only question to be determined by us is, — whether it 
 be credible that the words iv 'E^iau) are an unauthorized 
 
 VI 1.] reading of Ephes. i. 1 /v the true reading. lO'J 
 
 addition ; foisted into the text of Ephes. i. 1 as far back as 
 the Apostolic age : an interpolation which, instead of dying 
 out, and at last all but disappearing, has spread and esta- 
 blished itself, untU the words are found in every copy,— are 
 represented in every translation,— have been recognised in 
 every country,— witnessed to by every Father,— received in 
 every age of the Church ? 1 repeat that the one question 
 which has to be decided is, not how the words eV 'E<\)icTU> came 
 to be put in, or came to be left out ; but simply whether, on 
 an impartial review of the evidence, it be reasonable (with 
 Tischcndorf, Tregclles, Conybeare and Ilowson, and so maiiy 
 more,) to suspect their genuineness and enclose them m 
 brackets ? Is it credible that the words iv 'E<i>iau> are a spu- 
 rious and unauthorized addition to the inspired autograph 
 of the Apostle?. . .We have already, as I think, obtained 
 a satisfactory answer to this question. It has been shewn, 
 as conclusively as in inquiries of this nature is possible, that 
 in respect of the reading of Ephesians i. 1, Codd. B and H 
 are even most conspicuously at fault. 
 
 IV. But if these two Codices are thus convicted of error 
 in respect of the one remaining text which their chief up- 
 holders have selected, and to which they still make their 
 most confident appeal,— what remains, but to point out that 
 it is high time that men should be invited to disabuse their 
 minds of the extravagant opinion which they have been so 
 industriously taught to entertain of the value of the two 
 Codices in question? It has aheady degenerated into an 
 unreasoning prejudice, and threatens at last to add one more 
 to the already overgrown catalogue of " vulgar errors." 
 
 V. I cannot, I suppose, act more fairly by Tischendorf 
 than by transcribing in conclusion his remarks on the four 
 remaining readings of Codex K to which he triumphantly 
 appeals : promising to dismiss them all with a single remark. 
 He says, (addressing unlearned readers,) in his " Introduc- 
 tion" to the Tauchnitz (English) New Testament » :— 
 
 " To these examples, others might be added. Thus, Ongen 
 says on John i. 4, that in some copies it was written, 'in 
 Him is life,' for ' in Him was life.' This is a reading which 
 
 - p. liv.— See above, pp. 8, 9, note (f). 
 
110 The &IIV readimj of S. John i. 4. — Other [chav. 
 
 we find in sundry quotations before the time of OiigcnP; 
 but now, muong all known Greek WSS. it is only in the 
 Sitiai/ir, null the /aitioiis old Coder Bczac, a copy of the 
 Gospels at Cambridge ; yet it is also found in most of the 
 early Latin versions, in the most ancient Syriac, and in 
 the oldest Coptic. — Again, in Matth. xiii. 35, Jerome ob- 
 
 f One is ratlier surprised to find tlie facts of the case so unfairly represented 
 in addressing unlearned readers; who are entitled to tlic largest amount of 
 iugcuuousness, and to entire sincerity of stutement. TLc facts are tbcsc : 
 
 (1) Valentt. (apud Irenivuni), (2) Clemens AJei., and (3) TLcodotus (apud 
 Clem.) read ta-ii: but tlieu (1) Irenaeus himself, (2) Clemens Alex., and 
 . (3) Thcodotus (apud Clem.) also read ^r. These testimonies, therefore, clearlv 
 neutralize each other. Cyprian also has both readings. — Hippolytus, on the 
 other hand, reads taji; hut Oiigeu, (though he remarks that to-ri is "perhaps 
 not BU improbable reading,") reads i)ii ten oreleeen iimei. 'Hi- is also the read- 
 ing of Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Tlicodoret, — of the 
 Vulgate, of the Slemphitic, of the Pcshito. and of the Philoxenian Versions ; 
 as wi'll us of U, A, C, — in fact of aU tlie JilSS. in the uorld, eicejit of K and D. 
 
 All that remains to be set on the other «ide are the Thebaic and Cureton'a 
 Syriac, together with most copies of the early Latin. 
 
 And now, with the evidence thus all before us, will any one say that it is 
 lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings must exhibit the 
 genuine text of S. John i. 4 ? (For 1 treat it as a question of authority, and 
 reason from the evidence, — declining to import into the argument what may ho 
 called logical considerations ; though I conceive them to be all on my side.) 
 I suspect, in fact, that the inveterate practice of the primitive age of reading 
 the place after the following strange fashion, — h ytyoftt' iy airrf (wi) ^v, was 
 what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril in his Commentary [heading of 
 lib. i, c. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3, 4. And to substitute ^itti (for ^r) in such 
 a sentence as that, was obvious. . . . Chrysostom's opinion is well known, "Let 
 us beware of putting the full stop" (he says) "at the words oiSS fi, — as do the 
 heretics." [He alludes to Valcntinus, Heraclcoii (Orig. 0pp. i. 130), and to 
 Theodotus (apud Clem. Alex.). I)ut it must be coufrssed that Ireiiaius, Hippo- 
 lytus (South, Oputc. i. CS), Clemens Alex., Origcn, Concil. Autioch. (a.d. 269, 
 South iii. 293), Theojihilus Antioch., Atlianasius, Cyril of Jer., — besides of the 
 Latins, Tcrtulliau, Lactantius, Victorinns (South iii. 459), and Augustine, — 
 point the place in the same way. " It is worth our observatiou," (says Pear- 
 son,) "that Eusebius citing the place of S. John to prove that the HoLT Ghost 
 was made by the Sos, leaves out those words twice together by which the 
 Catholics used to refiitc that heresy of the Arians, viz. t yiyovtv. "J 
 
 Chrysostom proceeds, — " In order to make out that THE Spibit is a crea- 
 ture, they read *0 yt'iofi, ip airif fw?; tjK,- by which means, the Evangelist's 
 language is made unintelligible." (Opp.y'm. 40.) — This punctuation is never- 
 theless adopted by Trfgcllcs, — but not by Tischeiidorf. The Peshito, Epipha- 
 nius (quoted in Pearson's note, referred to iiifra), Cyprian, Jerome and the 
 Vulgate divide the sentence as we do. — See by all meaus on this subject Pear- 
 son's note (r), Abt. viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also South's Opusc. i. 88-9. 
 
 vii.] jicculiar ratdin'iy in Coder Nj disposed of. 
 
 Ill 
 
 serves that in the third century Porphyrj', the antagoni>t 
 of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew 
 for having said, ' which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.' 
 A writing of the second century had already witnessed to 
 the same reading ; but Jerome adds further that well- 
 informed men had long ago removed the name of Esaias. 
 Among all our MSS. of a thousand years old and upwards, 
 there is not a solitary example eonfnining the name of Esaiaa in 
 the text referred to, — ixeept the Sinnltic, to wliich a few of 
 less than a thousand years old may be added. — Once more, 
 Origcn quotes John xiii. 10 six times; but only the Sinaitic 
 und serend aneieid Latin MSS. read it the same as Origcn : 
 ' He that is washed needeth not to wash, but is clean every 
 whit.' — In John vi. 51, also, where the reading is very difii- 
 cult to settle, the Sinaitie is alone among all Grech copies in- 
 dubitably correct ; and Tertullian, at the end of the second 
 century, confirms the Sinaitic reading : ' If any miin eat of 
 mj' bread, he shall live for ever. The bread that I will give 
 for the life of the world is my flesh.' We omit to indicate 
 further illustrations of this kind, although there are manj' 
 others like them '." 
 
 Let it be declared without offence, that there appears to 
 
 1 It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous Critic 
 of the text of the X. T. over the ground which he has himself chosen. He 
 challenges attention for the four following readings of the Codex Siiiaiticus : — 
 
 (1.) S. .lOUX i. 4 : fv atnu fa-Tj forty. — (2.) S. Matth. xiii. 35 : to ptiSfy 8io 
 ijcraiov Tov rpoipriTov. — (3.) S. JoHN xiii. 10: o XiXoufifvos ovx fX' XP^'"" "4""^' 
 6ai. — (4.) S. John vi. 51 : ay ris ^ayrj fx rov t/iov aprov, fijffti (is toy aiwya' — 
 o apTos 01' €■)<» luaic imp ttjs tou Koopiiiu fii!j)i ij aapl /lou toTtv. (And this. 
 Dr. Tischcndorf asserts to be " indubitably correct.") 
 
 On insjiection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might have been 
 anticipated from the aiinauncement that they are almost the private properly 
 of the single Codex K- The last three are absolutely worthless. They stand 
 Bclf-condeninod. To examine is to reject them : the second (of which Jerome 
 says something rcry difl'erent from what Tisch. pretends} and fourth being only 
 two more of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired 
 Text, of which this Codex contains so many sorry specimens : the third being 
 clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness of the transcriber. 
 Misled by the like ending (iu.oi<yriK(\noy) he has dropped a line: thus: — 
 
 OTX exi xpfiAN [ei 
 
 MH TOTC nOAAC] NI 
 
 ^ACeAl AAAA €CTIN 
 
 The first, 1 have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p. HO. 
 
112 Iii(i(!i)i(js iiol tnn- l-rdust Ihtif arc oh/. [chap. 
 
 exist in tlic mind of this illustrious Critic a hopeless con- 
 fusion between the nntiquifii of a Codex and the tahic of its 
 readings. I venture to assert that a reading is valuable or 
 the contrary, exactly in proportion to the probability of its 
 being true or false. Interesting it is sure to be, be it what 
 it may, if it be found in a very ancient codex, — interesting 
 and often instructive : but the editor of Scripture must 
 needs bring every reading, wherever found, to this test at 
 last: — Is it to be thought that what I am here presented 
 with is what the Evangelist or the Apostle actually wrote ? 
 If an answer in the negative be obtained to this question, 
 then, the fact that one, or two, or three of the early Fathers 
 appear to have so read the place, will not avail to impart to 
 the rejected reading one particle of tahtc. And yet Tischen- 
 dorf thinks it enough in all the preceding passages to assure 
 his reader that a given reading in Cod. « was recognised by 
 Origen, by Tertullian, by Jerome. To have established this 
 one point he evidently thinks sufficient. There is implied in 
 all this an utterly false major premiss : viz. That Scriptural 
 quotations found in the writings of Origen, of Tertullian, of 
 Jerome, must needs be the ipsissima rcrha of the Spirit. 
 Whereas it is notorious " that the worst corruptions to which 
 the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within 
 a hundred years after it was composed : that Irenseus and 
 the whole AVestern, with a portion of the Syrian Church, 
 used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, 
 or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when 
 moulding the Textus Heceptus'." And one is astonished 
 that a Critic of bo much sagacity, (who of course knows 
 better,) should deliberately put forth so gross a fallacy, — 
 not only without a word of explanation, a word of caution, 
 but in such a manner as inevitably to mislead an unsuspect- 
 ing reader. AVithout offence to Dr. Tischendorf, I must be 
 allowed to declare that, in the remarks we have been con- 
 sidering, he shews himself far more bent on glorifying the 
 "Codex Sinaiticus" than in establishing the Truth of the 
 pure Word of Gon. He convinces me that to have found 
 
 ' Scrivener's Introduction, p. 386. The wbole Cliapt«r dcEerres careftil study. 
 
. ^, , ] 
 
 
 O/lOyf rfrHKANAy 
 T^OH-^AAAAVnAri 
 Tf elnAT't'TMCMA 
 r^ HT^AI C AV iT fl y KaI 
 
 n/JOArnyMAf eif 
 
 TT|lNnAAJ;VAiAN» 
 
 flCfJAVTCNiwH 
 Tfrf ♦ KATtrWC/inP 
 
 Vf N^I^AV+ACTiH 
 
 CyNTr»IMWtf A" 
 rriAAN-^ Mf^A 
 
 ^f TTA Y»rA KAiAVTl 
 mT» AnCAN'lT^t^H' 
 KAIAVM^YfflVf 
 f^^An/cTTIA^H^l 
 aV JT W MT' J f f •«! 
 KAIA<|>refA«'r^ftl^ 
 
 pyriOu-*- ^hca'H 
 Niiyrw^HpiAC*^ 
 
 * VAVTAmepo,; 
 
 Tfik opjwsiJe page exhibits an crrirf Fnr-siiiiii/i; obfnincd bv 
 Photography, of fol. 113 of Evan. Coi). L, ("Oo.Ips Regius," 
 No. 62,) at Paris; containing S. Mark xvi. to 9 ; — as ex- 
 plained at pp. 123-4. The Text of that MS. has been pub- 
 lislied byDr.Tischendorf in his "Monumenta Sacra Inedila," 
 (1840, pp. 57—399.) See p. 206. 
 
 The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1809) by the 
 obliging permission of M. de Wailly, wlio presides over the 
 Manuscript Department of tlie " Bibliotheqne." He has jny 
 best thauks for the kindness with which he promoted my 
 wishes and facilitated ray researches. 
 
 It should perhaps be stated that f/w mnrgin of " Codex L" 
 is somewhat ampler than can be represented in an octavo 
 volume; each folio measuring very nearly nine inches, by 
 very nearly six inches and a half. 
 
VII.] A prediction concruing Codices D and ^. 113 
 
 au early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to Lave "taken 
 a gift." Verily, " H doili Hind the eyes of the wise'." 
 
 And w!ih this, I sball conclude my remarks on these two 
 famous Codices. I humbly record my deliberate conviction 
 that when the Science of Textual Criticism, ■which is at pre- 
 sent only in its infancy, comes to be better understood ; (and 
 a careful collation of ever}' existing Codex of the New Testa- 
 ment is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever 
 placed on a trustworthy basis;) a very different estimate 
 will be formed of the impoi-tance of not a few of those read- 
 ings which at present are received with unquestioning eub- 
 missiou, chiefly on the authority of Codex 11 and Codex N- 
 On the oiher hand, it is perfectly certain that no future colla- 
 tions, no I'uture discoveries, will ever make it credible that 
 the la;t Twelve A^'erses of S. Mark's Gospel are a spurious 
 Eupplemeui to the Evangelical Narrative ; or that the 
 words eV 'Eipeau) are an unauthorized interpolation of the 
 inspired Text. 
 And thus much concerning Codex B and Codex s- 
 I would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion 
 of the "Internal Evidence," but that the external testimony 
 commonly appealed to is not yet fully disposed of. There re- 
 main to be considered certain ancient "Scholia" and "Notes," 
 and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection 
 of ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive : and all this 
 may reasonablj' claim one entire Chapter to itself. 
 
 ■ Deut. xvi. 19. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 TIIZ PURPORT OF A^•CIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. 
 ON TIIE SUL1JECT OF THESE VERSES, SHEAVN TO BE 
 THE REATRSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED. 
 
 Lnicr Editort of the New Teetament the victhm of their predeceuort' 
 inaccuracies. — Birch's unfortunate mistake (p. 117). — Schoh' seri- 
 ous blunders (p. 119 ffwrf pp. 120-1). — Grieslach's sweeping mis- 
 statement (pp. 121-2). — The grate misapprehension which has re- 
 sulted from at! this inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3). 
 
 Codex L (p. 123). — Ammonius not the author of the so-called " Am- 
 monian" Sections {ji. 125). — Epiphatiius (p. 132). — " Caesarius," 
 a misnomer. — " The Catenae," misrepresented (p. 133). 
 
 In the present Chapter, I propose to pass under review 
 whatever manuscript testimony still remains unconsidered; 
 our attention having been hitherto exclusively devoted to 
 Codices B and s\ True, that the rest of the evidence may 
 be disposed of in a single short sentence : — The Twelve Versa 
 under discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels in er- 
 isience with the exception of Codices B and K. But then, 
 
 I. We are assured, — (by Dr. Tregelles for example,) — that 
 "a Note or a Scholion stating the absence of these verses 
 from wavy, from most, or from the most correct copies (often 
 from Victor or Severus) is found in twenty-five other cursive 
 Codices'." Tischendorfhasnearly the same words: "Scholia' 
 (he says) " in very many MSS. state that the Gospel of Mark 
 in the most ancient (and most accurate) copies ended at the 
 ninth verse." That distinguished Critic supports his asser- 
 tion by appealing to seven MSS. in particular, — and refer- 
 ring generally to "about twenty-five others." Dr. Davidson 
 adopts every word of this blindfold. 
 
 1. Now of course if all that precedes were true, this de- 
 partment of the Evidence would become deserving of serious 
 
 • Printed Teii, p.254. 
 
 1 
 
 ^V 
 
 \ c„..r. vn..] Later Editors tU ricfims of their predecessors. 115 
 
 t r" x""; "? } r^ •^' *"^ '^"^"''- I ^°^-eIj deny that 
 ^e " No e or Scholion" which these learned persons affi^ to 
 
 ' ^:L "f. 'T-'"' °""""'^^ ^^^ ^"3' existence whTteC 
 
 : -except in then- own i.naginations. On the other hand 
 
 assort tha notes or scholia which state the exact ever !' 
 (viz. that "in tie older" or "<t,„ . re\er»e, 
 
 ' ,.. . , , "*" °';*-' or the more accurate copies" the 
 
 . la.t twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel .,. containll ) re ur 
 
 even perpetually The plain truth is this :-These euL n 
 Frsons have taken their information at second-hanS 
 partly from Griesbach, partly from SchoC.ilutf 
 . Picion and without inquiry. I3ut then the • have 11] th 
 misrepresented Scholz; and Scholz (1830) slightly ^2 
 ood Gnoshach; and Griesbach (179G) took liberties whh 
 
 t..kes. ll'e consequence might have been anticipated The 
 Truth, once thrust out of sight, certain erroneous statement 
 ha^e usurped its p ace,-,vhich every succeeding Critic now 
 reproduces, evident y to his own entire satisfacL; tho^I 
 not, U must be declared, altogether to his own credit. Let 
 
 rue be allowed to explain in detail what has occurred 
 
 2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German 
 plan of setting down all the twenty-five MSS.- and all the 
 hve Patristic authorities which up to his time had been 
 cited as bearing on the genuineness of S. Mark xvi 9-20 • 
 giving the former in numerical order, and stating generallv 
 conceding them that in one or other of those authorities 
 It would be found recorded "that the verses in question 
 were anciently wanting in some, or in most, or in almost 
 all the Greek copies, or in the most accurate ones:- or else 
 that they y,- eve found '^ a few, or in the more accurate 
 copies, or in many, or in most of them, specially in the 
 Palestinian Gospel." The learned writer (who had made 
 up his mind long before that the verses in question are to 
 be rejected) no doubt perceived that this would be the most 
 couvenient way of disposing of the evidence for and against • 
 l>ut one IS nt a loss to understand how English scholars can 
 iiave acquiesced in such a slipshod statement for well nigh 
 
 ' Viz. Co,1.1. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37. 38, 39, 40, 41,-108, 129, 137. 138 
 U3, J81, ISO, li.5, 199, 200,209,210,221,222. 
 
 l2 
 
116 BMonj of the rrrov'i in Schofz' iwte (:). [chap. | 
 
 a hundred years. A very little study of the subject would 
 have ehewn them that Griesbach derived the first eleven of 
 his references from Wetstcin ', the last fourteen from Birch *. 
 As for Scholz, he unsuspiciously adopted Griesbach's fatal ' 
 
 enumeration of Codices ; adding five to the number ; and 
 onlv inferrupting the series here and there, in order to 
 insert the quotations which 'NVetstein had already supplied ' 
 
 from certain of them. TVith Scholz, therefore, rests the 
 blame of everj'thing which has been written since 1830 j 
 
 concerning the MS. evidence for this part of S.Mark's | 
 
 Gospel ; subsequent critics having been content to adopt his | 
 
 statements without acknowledgment and without examina- 
 tion. Unfortunately Scholz did his work (as usual) in such 
 a slovenly style, that besides perpetuating old mistakes he 
 invented new ones ; which, of course, have been reproduced 
 by those who have simply translated or transcribed him. 
 And now I shall examine his not* " (=) *", with which prac- 
 tically all that has since been delivered on tliis subject 
 by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is iden- 
 tical. 
 
 (1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two 
 MSS. in the Vatican Library ' the verses in question " are 
 marked with an asterisk." The original author of this 
 statement was Birch, who followed it up by explaining the 
 fatal signification of this mark*. From that day to this, 
 the asterisks in Codd. Vatt. 756 and 757 have been reli- 
 giously reproduced by every Critic in turn ; and it is uni- 
 versally taken for granted that they represent two ancient 
 
 ' ■\Vetstein quoted 14 Codices in all : but Griesbach makes no use of lii» 
 reference to Beg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242 ?) wbich = Evan. 15, 19, 
 299 (?) respectively. 
 
 ' rariae LectloMts, ic. (1801, ^ 225-6.)— He cites Codd. Vatt. 358. 756, 
 757, 1229 (=onr 129, 137. 138, 143) : Cod. Zelada (= 181) : Laur. vi. 18, 3* 
 (=186, 195): V™. 27 (=210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 39, Kol. 4 (=221, 222, 
 108): Cjd. iv. (leg. 6?) S. Maris Bened. Tlor. (=109) : Codd. Vcn. 6, 10 
 (= 206, 209.) 
 
 « iTor. Tett. vol. i. p. 199. 
 
 ' Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138. 
 
 t Quosiguo tamquam ccnsoria vii;gn1ii us! sunt librarii, qua Evangelistaruni 
 narratioues in oaanibus Codicibns non obvias, tamquam dubins notarcnt. 
 Var'iae Leeiionet, 4c. p. 225. 
 
 VIII.] 
 
 lilnh^s iiii/orfiiiiriti »>isf<i!,i 
 
 ir, 
 
 witnesses against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of 
 (he Gospel according to S. Mark. 
 
 And yet, (let me say it without offence,) a very little 
 attention ought to be enough to convince any one familiar 
 with this subject that the proposed inference is absolutely 
 inadmissible. For, in the first place, a wfitnn/ asterisk (not 
 at all a rare phenomenon in ancient MSS.''} has of necessity 
 no such signification. And even if it docs sometimes in- 
 dicate that all the verses which follow arc suspicious, (of 
 which, however, I have never seen an example,) it clearly 
 could not have that signification here,— for a reason whicli 
 I should have thought an intelligent boy might discover. 
 
 Well aware, however, that I should never be listened to, 
 with Birch and Griesbach, Scholz and Tischendorf, and in- 
 deed every one else against me, — I got a learned friend at 
 Kome to visit the Vatican Library for me, and inspect the 
 two Codices in question *. That he would find Birch right 
 in /lis facts, I had no reason to doubt; but I much more 
 than doubted the correctness of his proposed inference from 
 them. I even felt convinced that the meaning and purpose 
 of the asterisks in question would be demonstrably different 
 from what Birch had imagined. 
 
 Altogether unprepared was I for the result. It is found 
 that the learned Dane has here made one of those (venial, 
 but) unfortunate blunders to which every one is liable who 
 registers phenomena of this class in haste, and does not 
 methodize his memoranda until he gets home. To be brief 
 —there prores to he no asterisk at at/, — cit/ier in Cod. 756, 
 or in Cod. 757. 
 
 On the contrary. After €90poOvTO rdp, the former Codex 
 has, in the text of S. Mark xvi. 9 (fol. 150 b), a plain cross, 
 —{not an asterisk, thus -Hf or 5j< or >^ or >X<. hut a cross, 
 thus +),— the intention of which is to refer the reader to 
 an annotation on fol. 151 b, (marked, of course, with a cross 
 also,) to the effect that S. Mark xvi. 9—20 is undoubtedly 
 
 ' In Coil. 201 (= Paris 65) for instance, besides at S. Mk. xvi. 9, >^ occurs 
 at li. 12, lii. 3H, aud xiv. 12. On tbe other hand, no such sign occurs at the 
 periiope de ailiilterd. • Further obligations to the same 
 
 friend arc acknuwlcdgcd in the Appendix (D). 
 
118 Details concent ill ff Codices 20 aixl 300. [chap. 
 
 gciiuiiicK The evidence, therefore, not onlj' breaks hope- 
 lessly down ; but it is discovered that this witness has been 
 by accident put into the wrong box. This is, in fact, a witness 
 tiof for the plaintiff, but for the defendant ! — As for the other 
 Codex, it exhibits neither asterisk nor cross ; but contains 
 the same note or scholion attesting the genuineness of the 
 last twelve verses of S. Mark. 
 
 I suppose I may now pass on : but I venture to point 
 out that unless the Witnesses which remain to be examined 
 are able to produce very different testimony from that borne 
 •bj' the last two, the present inquiry cannot be brought to 
 a close too soon. (" I took thee to curse mine enemies, and, 
 behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.") 
 
 (2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as 
 follows : — " From here to the end forms no part of the text 
 in some of the copies. In the anciaif copies, hoiccver, it all 
 forms part of the text ''." Scholz (who was the first to adduce 
 this important testimonj' to the genuineness of the verses 
 now under consideration) takes no notice of the singular cir- 
 cumstance that the two MSS. he mentions have been exactly 
 assimilated in ancient times to a common model ; and that 
 they correspond one with the other so entirely ' that the 
 foregoing rubrical annotation appears in the icrong place in 
 both of them, viz. at the close ofver. 15, where it interrupts 
 the text. This was, therefore, once a echolion written in 
 the margin of some very ancient Codex, which has lost ita 
 way in the process of transcription ; (for there can be no 
 doubt that it was originally written against ver. 8.) And 
 let it be noted that its testimon}' is express ; and that it 
 avouches for the fact that "in the ancient copies," S.Mark 
 xvi. 9—20 "formed part of the text." 
 
 ' Similarly, in Cod. Coisl. 20, in the Paris Library, (which = onr 36,) 
 against S. Mark xvi. 9, if. this sign ^ It in intended (like an asterisk in a 
 modern book) to refer the reader to the self-same annotation which is spoken 
 of in the text as occurring in Cod. Vat. 756, and which is observed to occnr 
 in the margin of the Paris MS. also. 
 
 JvreCeev lac xoC icAouc «v riai tcov dvnrpdtpwv ov 
 KeTiar ev he to?c dpxaioic, navra dnapdAnnia Keixai. 
 
 —(Codd. ao and 300 = Pans lb», IbO.) 
 
 ' See more concerning this matter in the Appendix (D), ad Jin. 
 
 vni.] Scholz' serious misapprehenmns. jjg 
 
 (3.) Yet more important is the record contained in the 
 same two MSS., (of which also Scholz says nothing,) viz. 
 that they exhibit a text which had been "collated with \\ic 
 ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem"." What need to 
 point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in conjunc- 
 tion with the express voucher that " although some copies of 
 the Gospels are without the verses under discussion, yet that 
 in the ancient copies all the verses are found," is a critical 
 attestation to the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9 f o 20, far out- 
 weighing the bare statement (next to be noticed) of the un- 
 deniable historical fact that, " in some copies," S. Marh ends 
 at rer. 8, — but " in many docs not " ? 
 
 (4.) Scholz proceeds :— " In Cod. 22, after eipopoOvTO rdp 
 + TcAoc is read the following rubric :" — 
 
 cv Tioi Twv dvTirpdqjwv ?wc wbe nAHpoOrai 6 cuarreAio- 
 THc- €v noAAoTc be kqI TaOra (peperai". 
 
 And the whole of this statement is complacently copied by 
 all subsequent Critics and Editors,— cross, and "tIaoc," and 
 all, — as an additional ancient attestation to the fact that 
 " The End" (tIaoc) ofS. Mark's Gospel is indeed at ch. xvi. 8. 
 Strange, — incredible rather, — that among so many learned 
 persons, not one should have perceived that " t^Aoc " in this 
 place merely denotes that here a tcell-knoirn Ecclesiastical sec- 
 tion comes to an end .' . . . As far, therefore, as the present dis- 
 cussion is concerned, the circumstance is purely irrelevant " • 
 
 ■» At the end of S. Matthew's Gospel in Cod. 300 (at fol. 89) is found,— 
 cuarffAiov Kara Marealov £rpd9H ko! avTEpAHOH €k 
 Twv ' lepo(joAu)ioic naAaiwv dvTirpdtpoiv, €v oti)(oic aZ^ 
 
 and at tlic end of S. Mark's, (at fol. 147 A)— 
 
 ciarre^iov Kord MdpKOV erpdqiH koi dvxepAHeH djiiofwc 
 €K Twv eonoubaofievtov oti'xoic a(pc Kfq>aAaioic cAS 
 
 Tnis second colophon (though not the tirs:) is found in Cod. 20. JBoth reap- 
 pear in Cod. 202 ( = Paris 53), and (with an iuterestiog variety in the former 
 of the two) in [what I suppose is the first half of] the nncial Codex A. See 
 Scrivener's lulroduction, p. 125. 
 
 » = Paris li.fol. 107 b. He might have added, (for Wetstem had pointed 
 it out 79 ycnrs before,) that the same note precisely it found between verses 8 
 and 9 in Co<l. 1 6 ( = Paris 64,)/o/. 98 b. 
 
 * See more at the very end of Chap. XI. 
 
120 
 
 Schoh' nerioiis fitsiiic of mi^faJ.t 
 
 [chap. 
 
 and, (as I propose to sbew in Chapter XI,) tbe less said 
 about it by the opposite party, tbe better. 
 
 (5.) Scholz further states that in four, (he means three,) 
 other Codices very nearly the same colophon as the preced- 
 ing recurs, with an important additional clause. In Codd. I, 
 199, 20G, 209, (he says) is read,— 
 
 "In certain of the copies, tbe Evangelist finishes here; 
 vj) to tihkh place 'EuHthius ihc friend of Pnmphib.i.s canonized. 
 In other copies, however, is found as follows '." And then 
 comes tbe rest of S. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 I sball have more to say about this reference to Eusebius, 
 and what he "canonized," by-and-by. But what is there in 
 all this, (let me in the meantime ask), to recommend the 
 opinion that the Gospel of S. Mark was published by its 
 Author in an incomplete state ; or that the last twelve 
 verses of it are of spurious origin ? 
 
 (6.) The reader's attention is epeciallj' invited to the im- 
 posing statement which follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, (says 
 Scholz,) " contain these words of Severus of Antioch : — 
 
 " lu the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to 
 Mark has its end at ' for the}' were afraid.' In some copies, 
 however, this also is added, — * Now when He was risen,' 
 &c. This, however, seems to contradict to some extent 
 what was before delivered," &c. 
 
 It may sound fabulous, but it is strictlj* true, that every 
 word of this, (unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by every 
 Critic who has since gone over the same ground,) is a mere 
 tissue of mistakes. For first, — Cod. 23 contains nothing 
 irfiaterer pertinent to the present inquiry. (Scholz, evidently 
 through baste and inadvertence, has confounded his own 
 
 > Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (wiiicb = Venet.6and 10) coutain 
 «s follows : — 
 
 «v Tioi (Liev Toiv dvTirpd9aiv coic Jibe TTAHpoOrai 6 Euar- 
 fEAioTHC, eooc ou KOI ' Euoepioc 6 TTaiiipiAou eKovoviaev tv 
 dAAoic be TaOra jpepexar dvaordc, k.t.A. 
 
 But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. [lege S], accord- 
 ing to Bircli (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has only this : — 
 Iv Tioi Twv dvTirpt5<pwv 00 keTvtoi [?] ToCia. 
 
 VIM.] 
 
 G/'(V.vAr7f//'* iincpimj )iii>^stati nicnts. 
 
 121 
 
 "23" with "Coi'^/. 23," but " Coisl. 23" is his "39,"— of 
 •which by-nnd-by. This reference therefore has to be can- 
 celled.) — Cod. 41 contains a scholion of precisely the opposite 
 tendency : I mean, a scholion which avers that the accurate 
 copies of S. Marl's Gospel contain these last twelve rcrscs. 
 (Scholz borrowed this wrong reference from Wetstein, — who, 
 by an oversight, quotes Cod. 41 three times instead of twice.) 
 — There remain but Codd. 34 and 39 ; and in neither of 
 those two manuscripts, from the first f age of S. Jlark's Gos- 
 pel to tlic last, does there exist any "scholion of Secerns 
 of Antioch" trhatcrcr. Scholz, in a word, has inadvertently 
 made a gross misstatement ' ; and every Critic who has since 
 written on this subject has adopted his words, — without 
 
 acknowledgment and without examination Such is the 
 
 evidence on which it is proposed to prove that S. Mark did 
 not write tlie last twelve verses of his Gospel! 
 
 (7.) Suliolz proceeds to enumerate the following twenty- 
 two Codices :— 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 
 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222. And 
 this imposing catalogue is what has misled Tischendorf, 
 Tregelles and the rest. They have not perceived that it is 
 a mere transcript of Grieshach's list ; which Scholz interrupts 
 only to give from Cod. 24, (imperfectly and at second-hand,) 
 the weighty scholion, (Wetstein had given it from Cod. 41,) 
 which relates, on the authority of an eye-witness, that 
 S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20 existed in the ancient Palestinian Copy. 
 (About that Scholion enough has been offered already'.) 
 Scholz adds that very nearly the same words are found in 
 374. — "What he says concerning 206 and 209 (and he might 
 have added 199,) has been explained above. 
 
 But when the twenty MSS. which remain ' undisposed of 
 have been scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite 
 
 ' It originnled in this way. At the end of S. Matthew's Gospel, in both 
 Codices, arc fimnd tliosc large extracts from the "2nd Horn, on the Resurrec- 
 tion" which Montfauron imblished in the Bill. Cvisl. (pp.68— /o), and which 
 Cramer has since reprinted at the end of his Catena in S. Malth. (i. 243 — 
 251.) In Ciuhl. 3t and 39 they are ascribed to " Severus of Antioch." See 
 above (p. 40.) See also pp. 39 and 57. 
 
 ' See above, pp. 01, 65. • 22—3 (199, 206, 200) = 19 + 1 (374) = 20. 
 
122 
 
 The foregoing cn'deiice aliogdhcr favourahh'. [chap. 
 
 different from wliat is commonly supposed. One of them 
 (N". 38) has been cited in error : while tlie remaining nine- 
 teen are nothing else but copies of Victor of Antioch's com- 
 mentary on S. Mark, — no less than sirteeii of which contain 
 the famous attestation that in most of the accurate copies, and 
 in particular the authentic Palestinian Codex, the last twehe 
 tenes of S. Mark's Gospel were ForxD. (See above, pp. 64 
 and Go.) .... And this exhausts the eridence. 
 
 (8.) So far, therefore, as "Notes" and " Scholia" in MSS. 
 are concerned, the sum of the matter proves to be simply 
 this: — (a) Nine Codices* are observed to contain a note to 
 the effect that the end of S. Mark's Gospel, though want- 
 ing "in some," was yet found "in others," — "in many," 
 — " in the ancient copies." 
 
 [b) Next, four Codices* contain subscriptions vouching 
 for the genuineness of this portion of the Gospel by de- 
 claring that those four Codices had been collated with ap- 
 prored copies preserted at Jerusakm. 
 
 (c) Lastly, sixteen Codices, — (to which, besides that 
 alread}' mentioned by Scholz", I am able to add at least 
 five others, making twenty-two in all *,) — contain a weighty 
 critical scholion asserting categorically that in " very many" 
 and " accurate copies," specially in the " true Palestinian 
 exemplar," these verses had been found by one iclio seems to 
 hate verified the fact of their existence therefor himself. 
 
 (9.) And now, shall I be thought unfair if, on a review 
 of the premisses, I assert that I do not see a shadow of 
 reason for the imposing statement which has been adopted 
 by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that "there exist 
 about thirty Codices which state that from the more ancient 
 and more accurate copies of the Gospel, the last twelve 
 verses of S. Mark were absent ?" I repeat, there is not so 
 much as one single Codex which contains such a scholion; 
 
 • viz. Codd. L, 1, 199, 206, 209 :— 20. 300 :— 15, 22. 
 
 • Cod. A, 20, 2G2, 300. 
 
 • Evan. 374. 
 
 ■ «z. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137, 138, 
 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (Birch Farr. Leett. p. 225.) Add Evan. 
 874 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the Moscow Codex (qu. Eraii. 
 253 ?) employed by Matthaei. 
 
 vni.] 
 
 Some account of Coder L. 
 
 123 
 
 while twenty-four y of those commonly enumerated state 
 the exact rcane. — "VTe may now advance a step : but the 
 candid reader is invited to admit that hitherto the sup- 
 posed hostile evidence is on the contrary entirely in favour 
 of the verses under discussion. ("I called thee to curse 
 mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast altogether blessed them 
 these three times.") 
 
 II. Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.* This 
 is the designation of an uncial MS. of the viii"" or ix"" 
 century, in the Library at Paris, chiefly remarkable for the 
 correspondence of its readings with those of Cod. B and 
 with certain of the citations in Origen ; a peculiaritj- which 
 recommends Cod. L, (as it recommends three cursive Codices 
 of the Gospels, 1, 33, 69,) to the especial favour of a school 
 with which whatever is found in Cod. B is necessarily 
 right. It is described as the work of an ignorant foreign 
 copyist, who probably wrote with several MSS. before him ; 
 but who is found to have been wholly incompetent to deter- 
 mine which reading to adopt and which to reject. Certain 
 it is that he interrupts himself, at the end of ver. 8, to 
 write as follows : — 
 
 " Soyi£TEISG TO TUTS EFFECT 
 IS ALSO ilET WITB : 
 
 "All that was commanded them they immediatel}' rehearsed 
 unto Peter and the rest. And after these things, from East 
 even unto West, did Jescs Himself send forth by their means 
 the holy and incorruptible message of eternal Salvation. 
 " But tbis also js jiet with after 
 tee wouds, ' tor tbet were afraid .' 
 " Now, when He was risen early, the first day of the 
 week '," &c. 
 
 J 2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding note) 
 _ 24. * Paris 62, olim, 2861 and 1558. 
 
 ' Sec the racfimile. — The original, (which knows nothing of Tischendorra 
 crosses,) rends as follows : — 
 
 ; ♦epcie HOT 
 
 ; KAl TAtTA - i 
 
 n 
 
 ANTA ai TA nAPH 
 rrCAMfNA TOiC 
 
 ntPi TON nerpoN 
 
124 
 
 Arnmtii of C'vd'.r L, lOniiiivcd. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 It cannot be needful that I should delay the reader with 
 nny remarks on Euch a tcriuiuation of the Gospel as the 
 foregoing. It was evidently the production of some one 
 who desired to remedy the conspicuous incompleteness of 
 his own copy of S.Mark's Gospel, but who had imbibed so 
 little of the spirit of the Evangelical narrative that he could 
 not in the least imitate the EAangelist's manner. As for the 
 scribe who executed Codex L, he was evidently incapable 
 of distinguishing the grossest fabrication from the genuine 
 text. The same worthless supplement is found, in the margin 
 of the Hharklensian Syriac (a.d. 616), and in a few other 
 quarters of less importance '. — I pass on, with the single 
 remark that I am utterly at a loss to understand on 
 what principle Cod. L, — a solitary ^IS. of the \-iii"' or ix"" 
 century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious text, — is to 
 
 CTNTOMWC 6HH 
 rriAAN - M€TA 
 hi TATTA KAi AfrOC 
 6 rS, "Ano 'ANATGAHC 
 KAI 'AXPI AlCfCOC 
 
 ■eHAnecTiACN ai 
 
 ATTtON TO I^PON 
 KAi 'A4>eAFrON KH 
 PTFMA - THC Aid) 
 NIOT CblTHPlAC - 
 
 6CTHN Ae KAI 
 TATTA ♦ePO 
 MCNA MfTA TO 
 ^♦OBOTNTO 
 TAP - 
 
 y^NACTAc hi npcol 
 npcoTH cabbat8 . 
 
 i.e : — ipifitrai tov ho] toGto. 
 
 Tliyra S< ri ■wapirrytXiiffa ToTi irfp) rir Ilirpov evrr6iiai llrfyyt'^av firti tf 
 ravra Ka\ axnhs i 'lijaots iirh ivaro^^s Kal lijfpi tvo*a:s.i^ttirfaTfi\(y it* avrvf t^ 
 iiphy Ktti i^aprov iriipvyfia riji aiuftov auTtipiat. 
 
 ^EcTTif 8f leal Tavra ^epofitya fitra rh iipo^ovtrro tap. 
 
 'Ayairras ti wpu't tpiirp aa0PdTou. 
 
 • As, the C'odei Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two 
 JEthiopic MSS. — 1 am uuable to uiidcrstaud what Schilz and his copyists have 
 caid concerning Cod. 274. I nas as.^ured again and again at Paris that they 
 knew of no such codex as " Beg, 79'," which is Scholz" designation (ProUgg. 
 p. lux.) of the Cod. Evan, which, after him, we number " 274." 
 
 VI II .] '■ -A lit ,„o,< I 'IS " liteil (tH ail A itthoiitij. \ 25 
 
 be thought entitled to so much respectful attention on the 
 present occasion, rebuked as it is for the fallacious evidence 
 it bears concerning the last twelve verses of the second Gos- 
 pel by all the seventeen remaining Uncials, (three of which 
 are from 300 to 400 years more ancient than itself;) and by 
 evcrii cui-mf copy of He Gospels in cristoicc. Quite certain 
 at least is it that not the faintest additional probability is 
 established by Cod. L that S.Mark's Gospel when it left 
 the hands of its inspired Author was in a mutilated con- 
 dition. The copyist shews that he was as well acquainted 
 as his neighbours with our actual concluding Verses : while 
 he betrays his own incapacity, by seeming to view with 
 equal favour the worthless alternative which he deliberately 
 transcribes as well, and to which he gives the foremost 
 place. Kof S.Mark's Gospel, hnf Codex L is the sufferer 
 by this appeal. 
 
 III. I go back now to the statements found in certain 
 Codices of the x*^ century, (derived probably from one of 
 older date,) to the effect that " the marginal references 
 to the Eusebian Canons extend no further than ver. 8 :" — for 
 so, I presume, may be paraphrased the words, (see p. 120,) 
 ewe ou Eioepioc 6 nan9iAou {kovovioev, which are found 
 at the end of ver. 8 iu Codd. 1, 206, 209. 
 
 (1.) Kow this statement need not have delayed us for 
 many minutes. But then, therewith, recent Critics have 
 seen fit to connect another and an entirely distinct pro- 
 position : viz. that 
 
 Ammoxius 
 
 also, a contemporary of Origen, conspires with Eusebius in 
 disallowing the genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark's 
 Gospel. This is in fact a piece of evidence to which recently 
 special prominence has been given : every Editor of the 
 Gospels in turn, sinoe "Wetstein, having reproduced^ it j but 
 no one more emphatically than Tischendorf. " Neither by 
 ///(■ seetioii^ of AniMOiiius nor yet by the canons of Euse- 
 bius are these last verses recognised"." " Thus it is seen," 
 
 " Ncc Ammonii Soctionibus. ncc ErerBil C.n.ombns, ngnosrnntiir ullin.i 
 versus.— l-isili. -Vi-r. Tttl. {ed.Sra), p. 40C. 
 
12G 
 
 The loii •' Liatmarou" of 
 
 [CHAV. 
 
 proceeds Dr. TrcgcUcs, " tlint just as Eusebius found these 
 verses absent in Lis day from the best and most nume- 
 rous copies (»iV), so inis aho Ihc cnne trith Atniiwiiiiis when 
 he formed his Harmony in the preceding century '." 
 
 A new and independent authority therefore is appealed 
 to, — one of high antiquity and evidently verj' great im- 
 portance, — Ammonius of Alexandria, a.d. 220. But Ammo- 
 nius has left behind him no hnoirn writings uJiafsoncr. "V^Tiat 
 then do these men mean when they appeal in this confident 
 way to the testimony of " Ammonius?" 
 
 To make this matter intelligible to the ordinary English 
 reader, I must needs introduce in this place some account 
 of what are popularly called the "Ammonian Sections" and 
 the " Eusebian Canons :" concerning both of which, how- 
 ever, it cannot be too plainl}' laid do^vn that nothing what- 
 ever is known beyond what is discoverable from a careful 
 study of Ihe " Sections" and " Canons" themselves ; added 
 to what Eusebius has told us in that short Epistle of his 
 "to Carpianus," — which I suppose has been transcribed 
 and reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle 
 in the world. 
 
 Eusebius there explains that Ammonius of Alexandria 
 constructed with great industry and labour a kind of Evan- 
 gelical Harmony; the peculiarity of which was, that, re- 
 taining S. Matthew's Gospel in its integrity, it exhibited 
 the corresponding sections of the other three Evangelists 
 by the side of S. Matthew's text. There resulted this in- 
 evitable inconvenience; that the sequence of the narrative, 
 in the case of the three last Gospels, was interrupted 
 throughout; and their context hopelessly destroyed*. 
 
 The " Diatessaron " of Ammonius, (so Eusebius stj-les it), 
 has long since disappeared; but it is plain from the fore- 
 going account of it by a competent witness that it must 
 
 • Printed Text, p. 248. 
 
 ' Tbc reader is invited to test the accuracy of wliat precedes for himself: — 
 'Alifui'i'ios /iff i *A^flavSptvs, voWiiVf us cutis, ^iKowtrlav ical avovihi' tioaynO' 
 Y^s, T^ 5(ck TtaaJtpwv iiiuv KaruX^Xot-wtv tvayyihtmr, Ty Kara MarBeuov tos 
 i/ioipuvovs ruv Xoiwuv fvaYy'f^"^"" "P'KOTiis iropaedi, i/s i( hviyKris niiPvyai 
 rhv riji iucoXovtiat tip^ihv Tur -rfrnv ItaifBaprivai, tvop M -rif 6(pfi ■riiJ i^" 
 yviifffui. 
 
 viii.] ADDiioniiis of Alexandria, A.T>. 220. 127 
 
 have boon a most unsatisfactory performance. It is not 
 ea-sy to sec how room can have been found in such a scheme 
 for* entire chapters of S.Luke's Gospel; as well as for the 
 laroer part of the Gospel according to S. John : in short, for 
 any thins which was not capable of being brought into some 
 kind of^agreemcnt, harmony, or correspondence with some- 
 thing in S. Matthew's Gospel. 
 
 How it may have fared with the other Gospels in the 
 work of Ammonius is not in fact known, and it is profitless 
 to conjecture. What we know for certain is that Eusebius, 
 availing himself of the hint supplied by the very imperfect 
 labours'" of his predecessor, devised an entirely different ex- 
 pedient, whereby he extended to the Gospels of S. Mark 
 S Luke and S. John all the advantages, (and more than all,) 
 which Ammonius had made the distinctive property of the 
 first Go<pc^. His plan was to retain the Four Gospels m 
 their integrity; and, besides enabling a reader to ascertam 
 at a -lauce the places which S. Matthew has in common 
 with the other three Evangelists, or with any two, or with 
 any cue of them, (which, I suppose, was the sum of what 
 had Kvu exhibited by the work of Ammoniu8,)-to shew 
 which places S.Luke has in common with S. Mark,-which 
 with S John onlv; as well as which places are pccuhar to 
 each of the four EvangeUsls in turn. It is abundantly clear 
 therefore what Eusebius means by saying that the la- 
 bours of Ammonius had " suggested to him" his ONvn The 
 sicht of that Harmony of the other three Evangelists ^ith 
 S Matthew's Gospel had suggested to him the advantage 
 of establishing a series of parallels throughout all the Four 
 GonnU But then, whereas Ammonius had placed along- 
 side of S. Matthew the dislocated sections themselves ol the 
 
 . •!« a ..■tc.iyo. «1 T.D T« Ao.,S. J.- 8X0. a^^-arrf, r. ««1 .ip^ot. .!5.Va. 
 , .■.;!<;... Ui<rrov .iorr-A'^oD r6 .o.s, iy oh «ari ru,. aura,. v.^X' 
 
 "V x;;:s...s to represent .«c//y what E.«.bius means in this pUc. ^he 
 . near;.i:..-V.l>e,u-.valenttoi^,.«i."a V.nt." ^<>^''^^Z^f;X:t 
 V. 27. AUo the following =— .AXi. A.flrf..« a^op.i,. (^^/^ ,f . ,^.) 
 
128 
 
 TIk CflilOiiS O/'JEllsehillS. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 other tlircc Evangelists wLich are of corresponding purport, 
 Huscbius conceived the idea of accomplishing the same 
 object by means of a system of double numerical references. 
 lie invented X Canons, or Tables : he subdivided each of the 
 I'our Gospels into a multitude of short Sections. These lie 
 numbered ; (a fresh series of numbers appearing in each 
 Gospel, and extending from the beginning right on to the 
 end;) and immediately under every number, he inserted, 
 iu Vermillion, another numeral (I to X) ; whose oflScc it was 
 to indicate in which of his X Canons, or Tables, the reader 
 would find the corresponding places in any of the other 
 Gospels '. (If the section was unique, it belonged to his last 
 or X"" Canon.) Thus, against S. Matthew's account of the 
 Title on the Cross, is written ?p: but in the P' Canon 
 (which contains the places common to all four Evangelists) 
 parallel with 335, is found,— 214, 324, 199: and the Sec- 
 tions of S.Mark, S.Luke, and S. John thereby designated, 
 (which are discoverable by merely casting one's eye down 
 the margin of each of those several Gospels in turn, until 
 the required number has been reached,) will be found to 
 contain the parallel record in the other three Gospels. 
 
 AU this is BO purely elementary, that its very introduc- 
 tion in this place calls for apology. The extraordinary 
 method of the opposite party constrains me however to 
 establish thus clearly the true relation in which the fami- 
 liar labours of Eusebius stand to the unknown work of 
 Ammoniiis. 
 
 ' KUf^yat .... 2ifxapa{(j iroi tovs ^vorcToy^fVovs. Tliis at least is decisive 
 OS to the nutliorsliip of tbe Callous. Wlieii therefore Jerome b»vs of Ammo- 
 iiius, — ** ^vatyelicos canones excogiiavit quos postea eecutus est Eusebius 
 Cnjjariensis," (i)e Vir'n Illiist. c. Iv. vol. ii. p. 881,) we learn tlie aoiouiit of 
 attention to which sucli ofl'-bantl gain statements of this Father are entitled. 
 
 What else tan be inferred from the account nhich Eusebius gires of the 
 present sectional division of the Gospels but that it was also his own ? — Airrq 
 fi\v oZy ^ Twr inortmyiifiuv Kai'6vuv vir66tais' rj H aaipTjs airiiv iiTiyijaiS, 
 iffny ^Sc* *£^' txaartf ruv rtaaapuv fiiayytAluy iipiBfios tis wpSKfirat Kara 
 Itipot, iipxit^*"** i'^ ToP Tpiirou, tiro Sfuripov, Ka) rpiroi; Kai KaBilvs vpoTuP 
 Sr SAov fifXP' '«» TfAom ToS fiiB^iov. He proceeds to explain how the sections 
 thus numbered are to be referred to his X Canons : — koS' fxaaroy Si ipiBiihy 
 vwomifittutTis &■ Kiymftapeus wpiKfirat, SijXovira iv irotif fStv ficxa xavivuv Kil- 
 luvos i iiptenhs rvyxiyt- 
 
 VIII.] 
 
 " T/if Sections ofAinmoniirs", — irhat ? 
 
 12!» 
 
 For if that earlier production be lost indeed *, — if its pre- 
 cise contents, if the ver}' details of its construction, can at 
 this distance of time be only conjecturally ascertained, — 
 what right has any one to appeal to "the Sections of Am- 
 tiioiiiu:-," as to a known document ? Why above all do 
 Tischeudorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim " Am- 
 monius" for their ally on an occasion like the present ; 
 seeing that they must needs be perfectly well aware that 
 they have no means whatever of knowing (except from the 
 precarious evidence of Catena;) what Ammonius thouglit 
 about any single verse in an)' of the four Gospels ? At cvcrj- 
 stage of this discussion, I am constrained to ask myself, — 
 Do then the recent Editors of the Text of the New Testa- 
 ment really suppose that their statements will never be ex- 
 amined ? their reftrences never verified ? or is it thought 
 that they enjoy a monopoly of the learning (such as it u) 
 which enables a man to form an opinion in this department 
 of sacred Science? For, 
 
 (Ist.) Where then and tc/iai are those "Sections of Am- 
 monius" to which Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently 
 appeal ? It is even notorious that when they sai/ the " Sec- 
 tions of Ammonius," what they mean are the " Sections of 
 £iiid'iiis." — But, (2dly.) AMiere is the proof, — where is even 
 the probability, — that these two are identical? The Critics 
 cannot require to be reminded by me that we are absolutely 
 
 I '^ Frostra ad Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis prorocant. Qusa 
 supersunt vix qoicqoam cum Ammouio aut Tatiano commune babent." (Tis- 
 cbendjrf on S.Mark ivi. 8). — Dr. Mill (1707), — because he assumed that the 
 auonvmous work which Victor of Capna brought to light iu the vi"' cfntury, 
 and conjecturally arsigned to Tatian, was the lost work of Ammonius, (ProUg. 
 p. 63, § 660,) — was of course warranted in appexling to the authority of Am- 
 moniiis in nyport of tbe last twelve rerscs of S. Mark's Gospel. But in truth 
 Mill's sssuoiption cannot be maintained for a moment, as Wetstein has con- 
 viadnrlj shi-wn. (FroUg. p. 68.) Any one may easily satisfy himself of the 
 fact who will be at tbe pains to examine a frw of the chapters with attention, 
 beanc^ in mind what Eusebius has said concerning the work of Ammoniu«. 
 Cap. Uxiv, for instance, contains as fullows : — Mtt. xiii. 33, 34. Mk. iv. S3. 
 Mtt. xiii 34, 35 : 10, 11. Mk. iv. 34. Mtt. xiii. 13 to 17. But here it is 
 S.ilattkeic's Gospel which is dislocated, — for verses 10, 11, and 13 to 17 of 
 ch. liii, come after verses 33 — 35 ; while ver. 12 has altogetLtr disappiared. 
 
 Toe mast convenient edition for reference is Schmellcr's, — Ammouii AUz- 
 andrini g»<r et Taliani diciivr Hartuomia Evangeliomm. (\'ieiin«, lt>41.) 
 
130 Th, " Amimmiai" Scctiom, ffiv irork of Eiischius. [cHAr. 
 
 Avitliout proof tliat bo much as otic of the Sections of Atn- 
 nionius corresponded with one of those of Eusebius ; and yet, 
 {3dlv.) Who sees not that unless the Sections of Ammonius 
 nnd those of Eusebius can be proved to have corresponded 
 Ihrouirhout, the name of Ammonius has no business what- 
 cvci" to be introduced into euch a discussion as the present p 
 They must at least be told that in the entire absence of 
 proof of any kind, — (and certainly nothing that Eusebius 
 says warrants any such inference'',) — to reason from the 
 one to the other as if they were identical, is Avhat no sincere 
 inquirer after Truth is permitted to do. 
 
 It is time, however, that I should plainly declare that it 
 happens to be no matter of opinion at all whether the lost 
 Sections of Ammonius were identical with those of Eusebius 
 or not. It is demonstrable that thej' cannot have been so ; 
 and the proof is supplied by the Sections themselves. It is 
 discovered, by a careful inspection of them, that they imply 
 and prcsiijijjose ihe Ten Canons ; being in many places even 
 meaningless, — nugatorj', in fact, (I do not of course say 
 that they are jyyactically without ttsc,) — except on the theory 
 lh.it those Canons were already in existence'. Now the 
 Canons are confessedly the invention of Eusebius. He dis- 
 tinctl}' claims them J. Thus much then concerning the sup- 
 posed testimony of Ammonius. It is nil. — And now for 
 what is alleged concerning the evidence of Eusebius. 
 
 The starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by re- 
 marking), is the following memorandum found in certain 
 ancient MSS. : — "Thus far did Eusebius canonize'';" which 
 
 ^ Only by tbc merest license of interpretation can fiKqfiit iipopitis be 
 assumed to mean that Eusebius bad found tbc four Goepcls readjr divided to 
 bis band by Ammonius into exactly 1165 Ecctions, — every one of wbich be bad 
 simply adopted fur bis own. Mill, (wbo ncvertbeless bcid tbis strai^e opinion,) 
 nas obliged to invent tbe wild bypotbesis tliat Eusebius, besides tbc work of 
 Ammonius nbich be describes, must biive found in tbe library at Csesarea the 
 private cojiy of tbe Gospels wbicb belonged to Ammouius, — an unique volume 
 in nbicb tbe last-named Fatber (as be assumes) will bave numbered tbe Sections 
 and made tbem exactly 1165. It is not necessary to discuss such a notion. 
 We arc dealing nitb facts, — not witb fictions. 
 
 I For proofs of wbat is sLnted above, as well as for several remarks on the 
 (so-called) " Ammoniau" Sections, tbe reader is referred to tbe Appendix (G)- 
 
 I See above, p. 128, note (f). •■ See above, p. 125. — 
 
 VIII.] Fiifi/ifi/ of Ihe present argnnmitntion. \^\ 
 
 means cither: (1) That his Canons recognise no section of 
 S. Mark's Gospel subsequent fo g 233, (which number is 
 commonly set over against vcr. 8 :) or else, (which comes to 
 the same thing,)_(2) That no sections of the same Gospel, 
 after § 233, are referred to any of his X Canons. 
 
 On this slender foundation has been raised the following 
 precarious superstructure. It is assumed, 
 
 (1st.) That the Section of S. Mark's Gospel which Eusebius 
 numbers "233," and wbich begins at our ver. 8, cannot hare 
 crtcndai Injond yer. 8;— whereas it mav have exteuded, and 
 probably did extend, down to the end of ver. 11. 
 
 (2dly.) Tliat because no notice is taken in the Euscbian 
 Canons of any sectional mimhcr in S. Mark's Gospel sub- 
 sequent to § 233, no Section (with, or without, such a sub- 
 sequent number) can have existed .-—whereas there may 
 have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly num- 
 bered '. This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the 
 memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.), may have 
 canonized no further than § 233. 
 
 ^ I am not disposed, however, to contest the point as far as 
 Eusebius is concerned. I have only said so much in order 
 to shew how unsatisfactory is the argumentation on the 
 other side. Let it be assumed, for argument sake, that the 
 statement "Eusebius canonized no farther than ver. 8" is 
 equivalent to ih\s,—" Eusehins luimhered no Sections after 
 vcr. 8 ;" (and more it cannot mean :)— What then ? I am at 
 a loss to see what it is that the Critics propose to themselves 
 
 by insisting on the circumstance. For we knew before 
 
 it was in fact Eusebius himself who told us, — that Copies 
 of the Gospel ending abruptly at ver. 8, were anciently of 
 frequent occurrence. Nay, we heard the same Eusebius re- 
 mark that one way of shelving a certain awkward pro- 
 blem would be, to plead that the subsequent portion of 
 S. Mark's Gospel is frequently wanting. AVhat wjorc have we 
 learned wlien we have ascertained that the same Eusebius 
 allowed no place to that subsequent portion in his Canons ? 
 The new fact, (supposing it to be a fact,) is but the correla- 
 ' As a uinttor of fact. Codices abound in wbicb tbe Sections are noted viih- 
 out tbc Canons, tbrougbout See more on this subject in the Appendix (G). 
 
 k2 
 
132 
 
 The ajipenl to Epiphaniwi and to 
 
 [chap. 
 
 v.n.] 
 
 Canarius, nhevn to k trorlhkss. 
 
 tivc of the old one ; and since it was Eusebius who was the 
 voucher for that, what additional probability do we esta- 
 blish that the inspired autograph of S. Mark ended abruptly 
 at Ycr. 8, by discovering that Eusebius is consistent with 
 himself, and omits to "canouLse" (or even to "sectionize") 
 what he had already hypothetically hinted might as well be 
 left out altogether P (See above, pp. 44-6.) 
 
 So that really I am at a loss to see that one atom of pro- 
 gress is made in this discussion by the further discovery 
 that, (in a work written about a.d. 373,) 
 
 Epiphakius 
 states casually that " the four Gospels contain 1162 sec- 
 tions ■"." From this it is argued ° that since 355 of these 
 are commonly assigned to S. Matthew, 342 to S. Luke, and 
 232 to S. John, there do but remain for S. Mark 233 ; and 
 the 233rd section of S. Mark's Gospel confessedly begins at 
 ch. xvi. 8. — The probability may be thought to be thereby 
 slightly increased that the sectional numbers of Eusebius 
 extended no further than ver. 8 : but — Has it been rendered 
 cue atom more probable that the inspired Evangelist him- 
 self ended his Gospel abruptly at the 8th verse P That fact 
 — (the only thing which our opponents have to establish) — 
 remains exactly where it was ; entirely unproved, and in the 
 highest degree improbable. 
 
 To conclude, therefore. When I read as follows in the 
 pages of Tiscbendorf : — "These verses are not recognised by 
 the Sections of Ammonius, nor by the Canons of Eusebius : 
 Epiphanius and Cscsarius bear witness to the fact ;" — ' I am 
 constrained to remark that the illustrious Critic has drawn 
 upon bis imagination for three of his statements, and that 
 the fourth is of no manner of importance. 
 
 (1.) About the " Sections of Ammonius," he really knows 
 no more than about the lost Books of Livy. He is, therefore, 
 without excuse for adducing them in the way of evidence. 
 
 " riaaapa tiaiv mayyiXia Kc^aXafuf x<Aiwi> Ixarhy i^tiKoyTatio. The word* 
 urc most aneipectedly, (may I uot say tutpiciously ?), found in Epipb»niu», 
 Ancor. 60, (Ofip. ii. 54 B.) 
 
 ■ By Tiscbendorf, copying Mill's Proleg. p. 63, § 662 :— the foutal source, 
 by the way, ofibe twin riTereuccs to "Epiphanius and Cseiarius." 
 
 133 
 
 (2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either 
 as to the " Sections of Ammonius" or to " Canons of Euse- 
 bius," Tiscbendorf is perfectly well aware. So is my reader. 
 
 (3.) His appeal to 
 
 ClSARIUS 
 
 is worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate 
 the younger brother of Gregory of Nazianzus ; an eminent 
 physician of Constantinople, who died a.d. 308 j and who, 
 (as far as is known,) never irrotc anythiug. A work called 
 Utvam, (which in the x"> century was attributed to Cajsa- 
 rius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known ex- 
 cept that Cajsarius was certainly not its author,) is the com- 
 position to which Tiscbendorf refers. Even the approxi- 
 mate date of this performance, however, has never been 
 ascertained. And yet, if Tiscbendorf had condescended to 
 refer to it, (instead of taking his reference at second-hand,) 
 he would have seen at a glance that the entire context in 
 which the supposed testimony is found, is nothhg else hut 
 a condensed paraphrase of that part of Epiphanius, in which 
 the original statement occurs ". 
 
 Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of Ammonius, 
 of Epiphanids, and of Cjesarius on the subject of the last 
 Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel. It is exactly nil. In 
 fact Pseudo-Caesarius, so far from " bearing witness to the 
 fact" that the concluding verses of S.Mark's Gospel are 
 spurious, actually quotes the 16th terse as genuine f. 
 
 (4.) As for Eusebius, nothing whatever has been added 
 to what we knew before concerning his probable estimate 
 of these verses. 
 
 IV. We are now at liberty to proceed to the only head 
 of external testimony which remains undiscussed. I allude 
 to the evidence of 
 
 The Catek.1. 
 " In the Catenae on Mark," (crisply declares Dr. David- 
 son,) " there is no explanation of this section '." 
 
 • Comp. Epiph. lAncor. 60,) Opji. ii. 63 c to 55 A, with Galland. £ibl. vi. 
 26 c to 27 A. » GaUand. £iH. r\. 147 A. 
 
 *> Vol. i. 165 (ii. 112). — It is only fair to add that Davidson is not alone in 
 this statement. In substance, it has become one of the common-places of those 
 who uudciiiikc to prove tlint the end of S. Mark's Gosiwl is spurious. 
 
134 
 
 Dr. Diiikhoii's diduut concerning 
 
 [chap. 
 
 " The Catenae on Mark :" as if they were quite common 
 things, — "plenty, as blackberries!" But, — W/,kfi of "the 
 Catena;" may the learned Critic be supposed to bare ex- 
 amined ? 
 
 1. Not the Catena which Possinus found in the library of 
 Charles de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse, and which forms 
 the basis of his Catena published at Home in 1673 ; because 
 l/iaf Codex is expressly declared by the learned Editor to be 
 defective from ver. 8 to the end ■■. 
 
 2. Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the 
 Vatican Library and communicated to Possinus j because 
 in that Catena the 9th and 12th verses are distinctly com- 
 mented on '. 
 
 3. Still less can Dr. Davidson be thought to have inspected 
 the Catena commonly ascribed to Victor of Antioch,-^which 
 Peltanus published in Latin in 1580, but which Possinus 
 was the first to publish in Greek (1673). Dr. Davidson, 
 I say, cannot certainly have examined f/iaf Catena; inas- 
 much as it contains, (as I have already largely shewn, and, 
 in fact, as every one may see,) a long and elaborate disser- 
 tation on the best way of reconciling the language of S. Mark 
 in ver. 9 with the language of the other Evangelists '. 
 
 4. Least of all is it to be supposed that the learned Critic 
 has inspected either of the last two editions of the same 
 
 • See Possini Cal. p. 363. 
 
 ' 'E^einj vpurmf Mapl^ rp MaySoXiji-p. [^ v€r. 9.] TauTiji' Zvaf$Lof iv rms 
 wphs Map7vov irtfav Xtytt Kaplav irapa rhf Btaaafi4vi)v t)>v vtavlaKov. % *^ 
 iifi^&Tipat iK T^t Ha^SoAiji'^s ^aav. /<f ra fie ravra Svirlv ^{ ai/rwy -rfptvaTovmu 
 KUi TO <{5j [= vex. 12.] Tohs afi(p\ Thy KXioiray, KaBiis i AovKas Imopti, (Poi- 
 sini Cat. p. 361) : — Where it will be seen tbat Text (Kcf/xevoi) and Interpretm- 
 Hon (jp/iiifcfa) are confusedly thrown together, "Anonjmos [VaticannsJ* 
 also quotes S.MaA xvi. 9 at p. 109, arf/n.— Matthaei (X. T. ii. 269),— oto^ 
 looking the tact that " Anoiii/mus Vaticanas" (or Bimply " .^noaymo*") •'^ 
 " Anonymua ToUuanui" (or simply " Tolosanus") denote two distinct CodiM^ 
 — falls into a mistake himself while contradicting our learned countryman MiH 
 who says, — "Certe Victor Antioch. ac Auonymus Tolosanus hnc nsguc [«t 
 ver. 8] nee ultra eonimentantur." — Sclioh' dictum is, — " Commentatorum q»> 
 in cateuis SS. Patmrn ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pcricof* 
 exliibctur." 
 
 • Sec above pp.G2-3. The Latin of Peltanus inny be seen in such Collection! 
 as the Magna BiUiotluca Tell. PP. (1618,) vol. iv. p. 330, col. 2 E, F.— For 
 the Greek, sec Poani Catena, pp. 309- 61. 
 
 Vlll.] 
 
 " the Ciitmir on Mark," charactirmd. 
 
 135 
 
 Catena: viz. that of Matthaei, (Moscow 1775,) or that of 
 Cramer, (Oxford 1844,) from ]^ISS. in the Royal Library 
 at Paris and in the Bodleian. This is simply impossible, 
 because (as we have seen), in ///fsc is contained the famous 
 passage which categorically asserts the genuineness of the 
 last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel ". 
 
 Now this exhausts the subject. 
 
 To n-hich, then, of " the Catenie on Mark," I must again 
 inquire, does this learned writer allude? — I will venture to 
 answer the question myself; and to assert that this is only 
 one more instance of the careless, second-hand (and tliird- 
 rate) criticism which is to be met with in every part of 
 Dr. Davidson's book : one proof more of the alacrity with 
 which worn-out objections and worthless arguments are fur- 
 bished up afresh, and paraded before an impatient generation 
 and an unlearned age, whenever {fangiiam rile corpus) the 
 writings of Apostles or Evangelists are to be assailed, or the 
 Faith of the Church of Christ is to be unsettled and under- 
 mined. 
 
 V. If the Reader will have the goodness to refer back to 
 p. 39, he will perceive that I have now disposed of every 
 witness whom I originally undertook to examine. lie will 
 also, in fairness, admit that there has not been elicited one 
 particle of evidence, from first to last, which renders it in 
 the slightest degree probable that the Gospel of S. IMark, as 
 it originally came from the hands of its inspired Author, 
 was either an imperfect or an unfinished work. Whether 
 there have not emerged certain considerations which render 
 such a supposition in the highest degree wwlikely,— I am 
 quite content that my Reader shall decide. 
 
 Dismissing the external testimony, therefore, proceed we 
 now to review those internal evidences, which are con- 
 fidently appealed to as proving that the concluding Verses 
 of S. l^lark's Gospel cannot be regarded as really the work 
 of the Evangelist. 
 
 » See above, pp. 64-5, and Appendix (E). 
 
CH. IX.] "Slyk" and " Phrauoloyy" qfS. Math xvi. 9—20. 137 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY 
 REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE ATIRSES. 
 
 The " Style" and "Phraseology" of thete Vencs dtdarcd ly CrUics 
 to he not S.Mark'i. — Insecurity of such Criticiem (p. 140). — The 
 " Style" of chap. xvi. 9 — 20 shewn to he the sanu as the style of 
 chap. i. 9—20 (p. 142).— The "Phraseology" examined in ticenty- 
 seve7i particulars, and shewn io he suspicious in noM (p. 145), — 
 hut in twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the reierse (p. 170). — 
 Such RemarJiS fallacious (p. 173). — Judged of hy a truer, a more 
 delicate and philosophical Test, these Verses proved to be most pro- 
 hahly genuine (p. 175). 
 
 A DISTINCT class of objections remains to be considered. 
 An argument much relied on by those who deny or doubt 
 the genuineness of this portion of S. Mark's Gospel, is de- 
 rived from considerations of internal evidence. In the judg- 
 ment of a recent Editor of the New Testament, — These 
 twelve verses " bear traces of another hand from that which 
 has shaped the diction and construction of the rest of the 
 Gospel *." They are therefore " an addition to the narra- 
 tive,"- — of which "the internal evidence will be found to 
 preponderate vastly against the authorship of Mark." — "A 
 difference," (says Dr. TregeUes,) " has been remarked, and 
 truly remarked, between t/ie phraseology of this section and 
 the rest of this Gospel." — According to Dr. Davidson, — 
 " The phraseology arid siyk of the section are unfavourable 
 to its authenticity." " The characteristic peculiarities which 
 pervade Mark's Gospel do not appear in it ; but, on the con- 
 trary, terms and expressions," " phrases and words, are in- 
 troduced which Mark never uses ; or terms for which he 
 employs others ^" — So Meyer, — "With ver. 9, we suddenly 
 come upon an excerpting process totally different from the 
 previous mode of narration. The passage contains none of 
 Mark's peculiarities (no evBiias, no iroKiv, &c., but the bald- 
 
 • Alford on S.Mark xri. 9—20. 
 
 '' IntrodvetioH, 4c. ii. p. 113- 
 
 ncss and lack of clearness which mark a compiler ;) while in 
 single expressions, it is altogether contrary to Mark's man- 
 ner." — " There is" (says Professor Norton) "a difference so 
 great between tbe use of language in this passage, and its 
 use in the undisputed portion of Mark's Gospel, as to furnish 
 strong reasons for believing the passage not genuine." — No 
 one, however, has expressed himself more strongly on this sub- 
 ject than Tischendorf." " Singula" (he says) " multifariam a 
 Marci ratione abhorrent'." . . . Here, then, is something very 
 like a consensus of hostile opinion : although tho terms of the 
 indictment are somewhat vague. Difference of " Diction and 
 Construction," — difference of "Phraseology and Style," — 
 difference of " Terms and Expressions," — difference of " Words 
 and Phrases;" — the absence of S. Mark's "characteristic 
 peculiarities." I suppose, however, that all may be brought 
 under two heads, — (I.) Style, and (II.) Piiraseology : mean- 
 ing by "Style" whatever belongs to the Evangelist's man- 
 ner; and by "Phraseology" whatever relates to the words 
 and expressions he has employed. It remains, therefore, 
 that we now examine the proofs by which it is proposed to 
 substantiate these confident assertions, and ascertain exactly 
 what Ihey are worth bj' constant appeals to the Gospel. 
 Throughout this inquirj*, we have to do not with Opinion 
 but with Fact. The unsupported dicta of Critics, however 
 distinguished, are entitled to no manner of attention. 
 
 1. In the meantime, as might have been expected, these 
 confident and often-repeated asseverations have been by no 
 means unproductive of mischievous results : 
 
 Like ceaseless droppings, wliich at last are known 
 To leave tbeir dint upon the solid stone. 
 
 I observe that Scholars and Divines of the best type (as 
 the Rev. T. S. Green ""j at last put up with them. The wisest 
 however reproduce them under protest, and with apology. 
 The names of Tischendorf aud Tregelles, Meyer and David- 
 son, command attention. It seems to be thought incredible 
 that they can all be entirely in the wrong. They impose 
 upon learned and unlearned readers alike. " Even Barnab.is 
 
 ' Nor. Test. Ed. 8" i. p. 406. ■■ Developed Crit. pi". 51-2. 
 
138 
 
 Thv cj/lct of a popuhir outcry. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 has been carried nwnj- with their dissimulation." He has 
 (to my surprise and regret) two suggestions : — 
 
 {a) The one, — That this entire section of the second 
 Gospel may possibly have been written long after the rest ; 
 and that therefore its verbal peculiarities need not perplex 
 or trouble us. It was, I suppose, (according to this learned 
 and pious writer,) a kind of after-thought, or supplement, 
 or Appendix to S. Mark's Gospel. In this way I have seen 
 the last Chapter of S. John once and again accounted for. — 
 To which, it ought to be a sufiBcient answer to point out 
 that there is no apjycaraucc uliatcicr of any such interval 
 having been interposed between S. Mark xvi. 8 and 9 : that 
 it is highly improbable that any such interval occurred: 
 and that until the " vijrbal peculiarities" have been ascer- 
 tained to exist, it is, to say the least, a gratuitous exercise of 
 the inventive faculty to discover reasons for their existence. 
 Whether there be not something radicallj' unsound and 
 wrong in all such conjectures about " after-thoughts," " sup- 
 plements," "appendices," and "second editions" when the 
 everlasting Gospel of Jesus Chkist is the thing spoken of, — 
 a confusing of things heavenly with things earthly which 
 must make the Angels weep, — I forbear to press on the pre- 
 sent occasion. It had better perhaps be discussed at another 
 opportunity. But ^iXoi avBpes' will forgive my freedom in 
 having already made my personal sentiment on the subject 
 sufficiently plain. 
 
 (b) His other suggestion is, — That this portion may not 
 have been penned by S. Mark himself after all. By which 
 he clearly means no more than this, — that as we are content 
 not to know «7/o wrote the conclusion of the Books of 
 Deuteronomy and Joshua, so, if needful, we may well be 
 content not to know who wrote the end of the Gospel of 
 S. Mark. — In reply to which, I have but to say, that after 
 cause has been shewn why we should indeed believe that not 
 S. Mark but some one else wrote the end of S. Mark's Gos- 
 pel, we shall be perfectly willing to acquiesce in the new 
 fact: — but mi (ill then. 
 
 ' iudioiv yap Si'Tfc'i' ^fAoii', Sirioy nfoiiiiav tV ij<^9nati, — Arist. JElli- l*'^- 
 1. iii. 
 
 IX.] Rev. F. If. Stn'niter. — Pro/esvor Broadun. 
 
 139 
 
 2. True indeed it is that here and there a voice has been 
 lifted up in the way of protest' against the proposed in- 
 ference from the familiar premisses ; (for the self-same state- 
 ments have now been so often reproduced, that the eye grows 
 weary at last of the ever-recurring string of offending voca- 
 bles :) — but, with one honorable exception ", men do not seem 
 to have ever thought of calling the premisses themselves in 
 question : examiuing the statements one by one : contesting 
 the ground inch by inch : refusing absolutely to submit to 
 any dictation whatever in this behalf: insisting on bringing 
 the whole matter to the test of severe inquiry, and making 
 every detail the subject of strict judicial investigation. This 
 is what I propose to do in the course of the present Chapter. 
 I altogether deny the validit}' of the inference which has 
 been drawn from "the style," "the phraseology," "the dic- 
 tion" of the present section of the Gospel. But I do more. 
 I entirely deny the accuracy of almost every inilhiduat state- 
 ment from which the unfavourable induction is made, and the 
 hostile inference drawn. Even t/iis will not nearly' satisfy 
 
 ' To tlio honour of the K«v. F. H. Scrivener be it said, tliat ?ie at least "^ 
 absolute.'!)' refuses to pay any attention at all "to the argument agninst these 
 twelve verses arising from their allegol iliffen'ucc in atylc from the rest of 
 the Gospel." See bj all means his remarks on this subject. (lutrodudion, 
 pp. 431-2.) — One woold have thought that a recent coutroversy concerning 
 a short English Poem, — which some able men were couBdent might have 
 been wTitlen by Milton, irhile others were just as confident that it could not 
 possibly be his, — ought to have opened the eyes of all to the precarious nature 
 of such Criticism. 
 
 » Allusion is made to the Eev. John A. Broadus, D.D., — " Profe-sor of In- Ji- 
 terpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological 
 Seminary, Greenville, S.C.," — the author of an able and convincing paper 
 entitled "Esegetical Studies" in "The Baptist Quarterly" for July, 1809 
 (Philadelphia), pp. 355—62: in which "the words and phrases" contained in 
 S. Mark ivi. 9—20 are exclusively examined. 
 
 If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor's bands, be will 
 perceive that I must have written the preent Chapter before I knew of his 
 labours : (an advantage which I owe to Mr. Scrivener's kindness :) my treat- 
 ment of the subject and his own being so entirely diSerent. But it is only 
 due to Professor Broadus to acknowledge the interest and advantage with 
 which 1 have compared my lucubr;itioiis with bis, and the sincere safisfuc- 
 tion with which I have discovered that we have everywhere independently 
 arrived at precisely the same result. 
 
140 
 
 Fulluciomm fS ofjmhjingfvom 
 
 [CHAV. 
 
 me. I insist Hat one only result can attend the exact 
 analysis of this portion of tbe Gospel into its elements; 
 namely, a profound conviction that S. Mark is most cer- 
 tainl}' its Author. 
 
 3. Let me however distinctly declare beforehand that 
 remarks on "the style" of an Evangelist are singularly 
 apt to be fallacious, especiallj* when (as here) it is proposed 
 to apply them to a very limited portion of the sacred narra- 
 tive. Altogether to be mistrusted moreover arc they, when 
 (as on the present occasion) it is proposed to make them 
 the ground for possibly rejecting such a portion of Scripture 
 as spurious. It Iccomes a fatal objection to such reasoning 
 that fhe ttyle may indeed be exceedingly diverse, and yet 
 ffie Author be confessedly one and the same. How exceed- 
 iuglj- dissimilar in style are the Eevelation of S. John and 
 the Gospel of S. John ! Moreover, practicallj', the promised 
 remarks on "style," when the Authorship of some portion 
 of Scripture is to be discussed, are comnionly observed to 
 degenerate at once into what is really quite a different thing. 
 Single words, perhaps some short phrase, is appealed to, 
 which (it is said) does not recur in any part of the same 
 book ; and thence it is argued that the Author can no longer 
 be the same. "According to this argument, the recurrence 
 of the same words constitutes identity of style; the want 
 of Buch recurrence implies difference of style; — difference 
 of style in such a aense as compels us to infer diversity of 
 authorship. Each writer is supposed to have at his disposal 
 a limited number of ' formulfe' within the range of which 
 he must work. He must in each chapter employ these 
 formulae, and these onl}'. He must be content with one 
 small portion of his mother-tongue, and not dare to venture 
 across the limits of that portion, — on pain of losing his 
 identity ''." 
 
 4. How utterly insecure must be every approximation io 
 
 ^ Dr. Kay's Crisis Sugfeldiana, p. 34, — tlie most masterly and mrtructive 
 exposnre of Bp.Coleuso'« iucompetence and presumption which has ever ap- 
 peared. Intended EpceiaDj of his handling of the writings of Moses, the 
 rcmarls in the text arc equaliy applicable to much which has been put forth 
 concerning the authorship of the end of S.Mark's Gospel. 
 
 .X.] 
 
 " t/ic Sti/k'" of ticilvc verses of Script tire. 
 
 141 
 
 such a method of judging about the Authorship of any 
 twelve verses of Scripture which can be named, scarcely 
 requires illustration. The attentive reader of S. Matthew's 
 Gospel is aware that a mode of expression which is eix times 
 repeated in his viii"' and ix^'' chapters is perhaps only once 
 met with besides in his Gospel, — viz. in his xxi" chapter '. 
 The "style" of the 17th verse of his i"' chapter may be 
 thought unlike anything else in S. Matthew. S. Luke's five 
 opening verses are unique, both in respect of manner and 
 of matter. S.John also in his five opening verses seems to 
 me to have adopted a method which is not recognisable 
 anywhere else in his writings; "rising strangely by de- 
 grees," (as Bp. Pearson expresses it"",) "making the last 
 word of the former sentence the first of that ^hich fol- 
 loweth."— "iZf knoweth that he saith true," is the language 
 of the same Evangelist concerning himself in chap. xix. 35. 
 But, " ice know that his testimony is true," is his phrase in 
 chap. xxi. 24. Twice, and twice only throughout his Gospel, 
 (viz. in chap. xix. 35 : xx. 31), is he observed to address his 
 readers, and on both occasions in the same words : (" that 
 ye may believe.") But what of all this ? Is it to be sup- 
 posed that S. Matthew, S. Luke, S. John are not the authors 
 of those several places? From facts like these no inference 
 whatever is to be drawn as to the genuineness or the spuri- 
 ousness of a writing. It is quite to mistake the Critic's 
 vocation to imagine that he is qualified, or called upon, to 
 pass any judgment of the sort. 
 
 6. I have not said all this, of course, as declining the pro- 
 posed investigation. I approach it on the contrary right 
 willingly, being confident that it can be attended by only 
 one result. With what is true, endless are the harmonies 
 which evolve themselves: from what is false, the true is 
 equally certain to stand out divergent '. And we all desire 
 nothing but the Truth. 
 
 1 S. Malth. viii. 1 (.oTaearTi oJt#) :— B {€t<r€^e(^m rf •l.):—23 (ii^Piim 
 airv) -.-28 (Mfld^Ti .frrv) :-ii. 27 (Tapiyoyji t# 'I.) :-28 {M6yr,) !— xii. 23 
 ({\eilTt ahi). 
 
 ^ Oh tie Creed, Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.) 
 
 ' rf^ir-)apU^eu^iyra cv.iiu rli i,Ufx<»n^, -rV « *.^5.7 tbX" »«*•"•■«' 
 lixrieb. Ariitot. Eth. Sic. 1. c. vi. 
 
142 The 'Sii/k ami M(u,m,-' of S. Murh i. 9—20, [ciiap. 
 
 I. To begin llicn with Ibc "Style and manner " of 
 S. Mark in this place. 
 
 1. ^Vc are assured thai "instead of the graphic, dctaikd 
 description by which this Evangelist is distinguished, we 
 meet with an abrupt, sententious manner, resembling that 
 of brief notices extracted from larger accounts and loosely 
 linked together"," Surely if this be so, the onlj' lawful 
 inference would be that S. Mark, in this place, has " ex- 
 tracted brief notices from larger accounts, and loosely linked 
 them together :" and imless such a proceeding on the part 
 of the Evangelist be judged incredible, it is hard to see 
 what is the force of the adverse criticism, as directed against 
 the genuineness of the passage now under consideration. 
 
 2. But in truth, (when divested of what is merely a gra- 
 tuitous assumption,) the preceding account of the matter 
 is probably not far from the correct one. Of S. Mark's 
 practice of making "extracts," I know nothing: nor Dr. 
 Davidson either. That there existed any "larger accounts" 
 which would have been available for such a purpose, (except 
 the Gospel according to S. Matthew,) there is neither a par- 
 ticle of evidence, nor a shadow of probabilit)'. Ou the other 
 hand, that, notwithstanding the abundant oral information 
 to which confessedly he had access, S. Mark has been di- 
 vinely guided in this place to handle, in the briefest manner, 
 some of the chiefest things which took place after our Lord's 
 Resurrection, — is simply undeniable. And without at all 
 admitting that the style of the Evangelist is in consequence 
 either "abrupt" or "sententious"," I yet recognise the 
 
 " Davidson's Introduction, Ac. i. 170. 
 
 ■' Aiid yet, if it were ever so " seotcntious," ever bo "abrupt;" nnd if hij 
 "brief notices" were ever so "loose]}- liulied togetber;" — these, according to 
 Dr. Daridton, would only be indications that S. Mark actually teas tbi-ir 
 Antbor. Hear bim discussing S. Mark's " cbaracteristics," at p. 151 : — " 1° 
 the consecution of bis narrations, Mark puis them togellier very lootety! 
 "Mark is also cbaractcrised by a conciseness and apparent incompleteness of 
 delineation wliicli are allied to tbe obscure." "The abrupt introduction 
 of many of bis details is again and again appealed to by l)r. Davidson, auo 
 illustrated by references to tbo Gospel. What, in tbe name of comujon sense, -"• 
 is tbe value of sucb criticism as this ? What is to be thought of a gentleuian 
 who blows bot and cold in tbe same breath : denying at p. 170 the genuineness 
 
 IX.] and of S. 2faih xvi. 9 — 20, the uri/ same. 
 
 143 
 
 inevitable consequence of relating many dissimilar things 
 within very narrow limits; namely, that the transition from 
 one to the other forces itself on the attention. What wonder 
 that tlic same phenomenon should not be discoverable in 
 other jiarts of the Gospel where the Evangelist is not ob- 
 served to be doing the same thing ? 
 
 3. lUit wherever in his Gospel S. Mark is doing the same 
 thiua, he is observed to adopt the style and manner which 
 Dr. Davidson is pleased to call " sententious" and "abrupt." 
 Take twelve verses in his first chapter, as an example. 
 Betwoou S. Mark xvi. 9—20 and S. Murk i. 9— 20, I profess 
 myself unable to discern any real difference of style. I pro- 
 ceed to transcribe the passage which I deliberately propose 
 for comparison; the iircfre corresponding rerses, namelj', in 
 S. ^Maik's frst chapter, which are to be compared with the 
 twelve verses already under discussion, from his last; and 
 they may be just as conveniently exhibited in English as 
 in Greek: — 
 
 {S. Mask i. 9—20.) 
 (ver. 9.) " And it came to pass in those daj-s, that Jesus 
 " came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John 
 " in Jordan. (10.) And straightway coming up out of the 
 " wafer, He saw the heavens opened, and the Snuix like 
 " a dove descending upon Him : (11.) and there came a 
 " voice from heaven saying. Thou art Mj' beloved Son, in 
 " whom I am well pleased. (12.) And immediately the 
 " SriKiT driveth Him into the wilderness. (13.) And He 
 " was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan ; 
 " and was with the wild beasts ; and the Angels ministered 
 " unto Him. (14.) Now after that John was put in prison, 
 " Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the 
 " kingdom of God, (15.) and sajong. The time is fulfilled, 
 " and the Eiugdom of God is at hand : repent ye, and be- 
 " lieve the Gospel. (16.) Now, as He walked by the sea 
 " of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting 
 " a net iuto the sea : for they were fishers. (17.) And Jesus 
 
 of a cert."un portion of Scripture because it exhibits the very pcculiarilios 
 which at p. 151 be had volunteered the information arc characteristic of 
 its roput<^1 Author ? 
 
144 
 
 " Sli/fi and Mamm" of S. Mark i. 9—20. [chap. 
 
 " Baid unto them, Come ye after Mc, and I v ill make you 
 " to become fishers of men. (18.) And straightway they 
 " forsook their nets, and followed Ilim. (19.) And when 
 " He had gone a little farther thence. He saw James the 
 " son of Zebcdec, and John his brother, who also were in 
 " the ship mending their nets. (20.) And straightway He 
 " called them ; and they left their father Zebedee in the 
 " ship with the hired servants, and went after Him." 
 
 4. The candid reader roust needs admit that precisely the 
 self-same manner is recognisable in this first chapter of 
 S. Mark's Gospel which is asserted to be peculiar to the last. 
 Note, that from our Saviotjr's Baptism (which occupies 
 the first three verses) the Evangelist passes to His Temp- 
 tation, which is dismissed in two. Six months elapse. The 
 commencement of the Ministry is dismissed in the next two 
 verses. The last five describe the call of four of the Apo- 
 stles, — without any distinct allusion to the miracle which 
 was the occasion of it. . . . How was it possible that when 
 incidents considerable as these had to be condensed within 
 the narrow compass of twelve verses, the same " graphic, 
 detailed description" could reappear which renders S. Mark's 
 description of the miracle performed in the countrj' of the 
 Gadarenes (for example) so very interesting ; where a single 
 incident is spread over twenty verses, although the action 
 did not perhaps occupy an hour ? I rejoice to observe that 
 " the abnipi transUiom of this section" (ver. 1 — 13) have 
 also been noticed by Dean' Alford : who very justly accounts 
 for the phenomenon by pointing out that here " Mark 
 appears as an abridger of previous/!/ well-lnowii facts'." But 
 then, I want to know what there is in this to induce us to 
 suspect the genuineness of either the beginning or the end of 
 S. Mark's Gospel ? 
 
 5. For it is a mistake to speak as if "graphic, de- 
 tailed description" iniariably characterise the second Gospel. 
 S. Mark is quite as remarkable for his practice of occa- 
 sionally exhibiting a considerable tiansaclion in a highly 
 abridged form. The opening of his Gospel is singularly 
 concise, and altogether si/iWf/i. His account of John's preach- 
 
 • N. T. vol. i. ProUgg. p. 38. 
 
 IX.] The argument from " Words" and "P/ira'^a." 11 j 
 
 iiig (i. 1 — 8) is the shortest of all. Very concise is his ac- 
 count of our Saviour's Baptism (ver. 9—11). The brevity 
 of his description of our Lord's Temptation is even extra- 
 ordinary (ver. 12, 13.) — I pass on ; premising that I shiill 
 have occasion to remind the reader by-and-bv of certain 
 peculiarities in these same Twelve Verses, which seem to 
 have been hitherto generally overlooked. 
 
 II. Js'otbing more true, therefore, than Dr. Tiegcllcs' ad- 
 mission "that arguments on sti/te are often very fiillacious, and 
 that li/ ilamiehei they prove very little. But" (lie i)rocceds) 
 "when there does exist external evidence; and when in- 
 ternal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression, and con- 
 nection, are in accordance with such independent grounds of 
 forming a judgment ; then, these internal considerations pos- 
 sess very great weight." 
 
 I have alreadj' shewn that there exists no such external 
 evidence as Dr. Tregelles supposes. And in the absence of 
 it, I am bold to assert that since nothing in the " Style" or 
 the "Phraseology" of these verses ever aroused suspicion in 
 times past, we have rather to be on our guard against suffer- 
 ing our judgment to be warped by arguments drawn from 
 such precarious considerations now. As for determining 
 from such data the authorship of an isolated passage; assert- 
 ing or denying its genuineness for no other reason but 
 because it contains certain words and expressions which do 
 or do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel of which it forms 
 part ; — let me again declare plainly that the proceeding is 
 in the highest degree uncritical. AVe are not competent 
 judges of what words an Evangelist was likely on any given 
 occasion to emploj'. We have no positive knowledge of the 
 circumstances under which any part of any one of the four 
 Gospels was written ; nor the influences which determined 
 an Evangelist's choice of certain expressions in preference to 
 others. We are learners, — we can be only learners here. 
 But having said all this, I proceed (as already declared) 
 without reluctance or misgiving to investigate the several 
 charges which have been brought against this section of the 
 Gospel; charges derived from its Phraseology; and which 
 w ill be found to be nothing else but repeated assertions that 
 
146 Uf (xpm^ioit irpdrt) tra^^dTOv mmdmd. [chap. 
 
 a certain Word or Phrase,— (there are about twenty-four 
 Buch words aiul phrases in all p,)— " occurs nowhere in the 
 Gospel of Mark;" with probably the alarming asseveration 
 
 that it is "abhorrent to Mark's manner." The result of 
 
 the inquiry which follows will perhaps be not exactly what 
 is commonly imagined. 
 
 The first" difficulty of this class is very fairly staled by 
 one whose name I cannot write without a pang —the late 
 
 Dean Alford : — 
 
 (1.) The expression irpwrr, aa^^drov, for the " first day of 
 the week" (in ver. 9) "is remarkable" (he says) " as occur- 
 ring so soon after" /it'a aa^^drcov (a precisely equivalent 
 expression) in ver. 2.— Yes, it is remarkable. 
 
 Scarcek more remarkable, perhaps, than that S. Luke 
 in Ihc count of one and the same chapter should four times 
 designate the Sabbath to aa^^a-rov, and twice ta ad^^aia : 
 again, twice, to ff(i/3)3aT0i',— twice, ij vi^epa toO aafi^dTov,— 
 
 p It may be convenient, in this place, to enumerate the several words and 
 expressions aboat to bo considered : — 
 (i.) irpuTJi aofiBirov (wr. 9.)— Sec above, 
 (ii.) iitt>' fis i^tMifi *»Ta Impiivia {ver. 9.)— See p. 153. 
 (iu.) iK^iWay i.-it6 (rer. 9.)— See p. 153. 
 (iv.) iropetfffftu (vers. 10, 12, li.)—Ibid. 
 (v.) (11 (i«t' niroS •ft>'6iuroi {ver. 10.) — Sec p. 155. 
 (vi.) etiaecLi {rer. 11 and 14.)— See p. 156. 
 (vii.) Sioe^j-ai uit6 {ver. 11.) — See p. 158. 
 (viii.) aTio-Tttr {rer. 11 and 16.) — Illd. 
 (ix.) /if Ti Torra (r*^. 12.)— Sec p. 159. 
 (\.) tripos [rer. 12.)— See p. 160. 
 (xi.) iaripoy {rer. 14.) — Ibid. 
 (xii.) eKarTtof {rer. 18.)— Hid. 
 (xiii.) iron-ox*;; (rer. 20.)— Sec p. 161. 
 (xiv. and iv.) avyipyfie—PfPaiovv {ver. 20.)— Ibid. 
 (xvi.) Tafftt Jirrliri! {rer. 15.) — Hid. 
 (xvii.) in rf iriiiarl fiov {ver. IT.) — See p. 162. 
 
 (xviii. and lit) TopaKoKoueuf—iiraKaXouef^y {ver. 17 and 19.)— Sec p. J 
 (xx.) x«'C^' iVi»«icai irt riva {rer. 18.) — See p. 164. 
 (xxi. and xxiL) fiiv olv—i Kvptas {ver. 19 and 20.)— J4W. 
 (xxiii.) ifaXrrpeiirai {rer. 19.)— Sec p. 166. 
 
 (xxiv.) iKtUoi used in a peculiar way {verses 10, 11 [and 13 J].)— Ibid. 
 (ixv.) " Verses witliout a copulative," {verses 10 and ii.)— Ibid. 
 ixxvi. and xirii.) Absonic of fuBiu's and iroAic. — See p. 168. 
 
 )x.] The Eiaiif/(7kts jiioiic to vnnj their jJua^r. \^~ 
 
 and once, t« adff^ara i. Or again, that S. Matthew should 
 ill one and the same chapter five times call the Sabbath, t« 
 ad^^ara, and three times, to adfi^ajov'. Attentive readers 
 will have observed that the Evangelists seem to have been 
 fond in this way of varying their phrase ; suddenly intro- 
 ducing a new expression for something which they had de- 
 signated differently just before. Often, I doubt not, this is 
 done with the profoundest purpose, and sometimes even with 
 manifest design ; but the phenomenon, however we mav 
 explain it, still remains. Tlius, S. Matlliew, (in his account 
 of our Lonn's Temptation, — eh.np. iv.,) has 6 Eid^oXo<; in 
 ver. 1, and 6 ireipd^av in ver. 3, for him whom our Sa-\1()1 it 
 calls SaTavaf in ver. 10. — S. Mark, in chap. v. 2, lias Ta 
 fiVTjfifia, — but in ver. 5, ra fivi'ifiara. — S. Luke, in xxiv.l, has 
 TO fivP)fia ; but in the next verse, to fivqfiuov. — '£771 with an 
 accusative twice in S. Matth. xxv. 21, 23, is twice exchanged 
 for i-nl with a genitive in the same two verses : and epi<f>oi 
 (in ver. 32) is exchanged for epi^ia in ver. 33. — Instead of 
 apx<^f T^y avvay(Dyri<; (in S. Luke viii. 41) we read, in ver. 49, 
 ap-)(ttTVi'd'ya>yoi : and for 01 oTroaToXot (in is. 10) we find 
 o! ScoBtKa in ver. 12. — OD? iu S.Luke xxii. 50 is exchanged for 
 wTiov ill the next verse. — In like manner, those whom S.Luke 
 calls o! veunepoi in Acts v. 6, he calls veaitTKoi in ver. 10. . . . 
 All such matters strike me as highlj- interesting, but not in 
 the least as suspicious. It surprises me a little, of course, 
 that S. Mark should present me with irpoyri) aa^^arov (in 
 ver. 9) instead of the phrase fila aa^^drtov, which he had 
 employed just above (in ver. 2.) But it does not surprise me 
 much, — when I observe that fita aa^^drasv occiin only once 
 ill each of the Four Goipc/s^. AVhether surprised much or 
 little, however, — Am I constrained in consequence, (with 
 Tischciidorf and the rest,) to regard this expression (TrpcoTrj 
 (Tafi^drov) as a note of spiiriousiicfs ? That is the only thing 
 
 1 S. Lulie vi. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 : liii. 10, 14, 15, 16. S. Luke has, iu fact, all 
 the four diilercut designations for the Sabbath which are found in the Sep- 
 tuagint vcrbion of the O. T. Scriptures ; for, in the Acts (xiii. 14 : ivi. 13), he 
 twice calls it ri vh^P<^ 'ruv aa$0dTui'. 
 
 • S. Miilth. xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12. 
 
 ' Itocciirein S. Matth.xxviii.l. S. Mark xvi. 2. S. Luke xxiv. 1. S. John 
 XX. i. 19. Ucsidcs, only in Acts xx. 7. 
 
 l2 
 
148 The foniis au^^arov and aa^^ara [chap. 
 
 I have to consider. Am I, with Dr. Davidson, to reason as 
 follows :— " TrptiTj;, Mark would scarcely have used. It should 
 have been fiia, &c. as is proved by Mark xvi. 2, &c. The 
 expression could scarcely have proceeded from a Jew. It 
 betrays a Gentile author'." Am I to reason thus? ... I pro- 
 pose to answer this question somewhat in detail. 
 
 (1.) That among the Greek-speaking Jews of Palestine, 
 in the days of the Gospel, -q fiia Tmv aa^^driov was the esta- 
 blished method of indicating " the first day of the week," is 
 plain, not only from the fact that the day of the Resurrec- 
 tion is so designated by each of the Four Evangelists in 
 turn" ; (S. John has the expression twice ;) but also from 
 S. Paul's use of the phrase in 1 Cor. xvi. 2. It proves, 
 indeed, to have been the ordinary Hellenistic way of exhi- 
 biting the vernacular idiom of Palestlne^ The cardinal 
 (/itaffor the ordinal {-irpanTj) in this phrase was a known 
 Talmudie expression, which obtained also in Syriac y. Xdfi- 
 fiarov and o-a/3/3aTa,— designations in strictness of the Sab- 
 hafh-dai/.—hai come to be ako used as designations of the 
 ucfJ;. A reference to S. Mark xvi. 9 and S. Luke xviii. 12 
 establishes this concerning ad^fiarov : a reference to the 
 six places cited just now in note (') establishes it concerning 
 ffd^^ara. To see how indifferently the two forms (adB- 
 fiaTov and cd^^uTo) were employed, one has but to notice 
 that S. [Matthew, in the course of one and the same chapter, five 
 times designates the Sabbath as to. ffd^^ara, and three 
 times as to cd^^aTov'. The origin and history of both 
 words will be found explained in a note at the foot of the 
 page". 
 
 • Introduction, &c. i. 169. ° See the forcgoiug note (s). 
 
 • Sec BuxtorPs Lexicon Talmudicum, p. 2323. _ _ 
 
 7 Liglitfoot (on 1 Cor. ivi. 2) remarks concerning S. Paul's pbrasc Kori M'"' 
 ,aBpiru„:-"raB-2 ira [yhadVshallath.-] 'In the first [lit. one] 0/ '»<• 
 Sallath; would tbe TabuudisU say."— Professor Gandcll writes,— "in Svnac. 
 the (lavs of tbe week are similarly named. See Bernstein B. v. J^-A* • 
 . U*=. Ik^l . U»» ^il . U*» ^- Pit. one in the Salhath, t«:o i. 
 tlie HaObut/i, time 111 llie bauuath.y' 
 ■" • . S. Mark xiL 1, 2, 5, 8, 10. 11. 12. • , » ;; ,l\ ■ 
 
 ' The Sabbath-dav. in the Old Testament, is invariably HSW (xia"''"'^ 
 a word which the Greeks «uld not exhibit more nearly """'J'y ""^ "T^ 
 ,r<ipj8aT».. The Chaldee form of this word is KHatt? (,hahhatha:) tl> 
 
 ,X.] 
 
 explained, and (iccontilid for. 
 
 140 
 
 (2.) Confessedly, then, a double Hebraism is before us, 
 wliich must have been simply unintelligible to Gentile readers. 
 Mia TUP aa^^diuiv sounded as enigmatical to an ordinary 
 Greek ear, as "una salbatorum" to a Roman. A convinc- 
 ing proof, (if proof were needed,) how abhorrent to a Latin 
 reader was the last-named expression, is afforded b}' the old 
 Latin versions of S. Matthew xxviii. 1 ; where o^e aafi- 
 ^uTuv, rfj (TTi<}>wcrKovajj ft? filav aa^^druiv is invariabl}' 
 rendered, " Yespere sahhaii, qua lucescit in prima sahhali." 
 
 (3.) The reader will now be prepared for tlie suggestion, 
 that when S. Mark, (who is traditionally related to have 
 written his Gospel a1 lioinc^,) varies, in ver. 9, the phrase 
 
 final S (o) being added for emphasis, as in Abba, AoeManio, Bethcsda. 
 C'q)hn, Piischn, &c. : and this form, — (I owe the infomiatiou to my friend 
 Professor Gnndcll,) — because it was so familiar to the people of Palestine, (who 
 spoke Aramaic.) ^ai¥ rise 1o another form of the Grftk name for the Sallath, 
 — viz. <Ta8$ma: which, nntunilly enough, attracted the arliile (rij) into agree- 
 ment with its own (appiirently) plural form. By the Greek-speaking popula- 
 tion of Judiua, the Sabbath day was therefore ii.difi'erently called ri irajS^a- 
 70V and ri aiPBara : sometimes again, ri iftiipa toC ca^fiaTov, and sonietinies 
 7] yfitpa rwv ffafifiarwi', 
 
 2afl/8oTo, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense. (Ac- 
 oordingly, it is inrariably rendered " Sallatiim" in the Vulgate.) Thus, in 
 ]'^xod. xvi. 23, — aa^^ara ifd-ravtris ayta tif Kvpl(f : and 25, — Hitti yap aa0&aTa 
 ai'diravaii rtp Kvpiif.'. Again, — Tp 8« ht^*P^ t^ i^io^r) od^Bara. (Kx'od. xvi. 
 2C : xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 3.) And in the Gosptl, what took ]>laec on one 
 definite Sallalh-day, is said to have occurred ir Torj ad$B'^<" (!J. Luke xiii. 10. 
 S.Mark xii. ].) 
 
 It will, 1 believe, be invariably found that the form iy toTi aiBBaai is strictly 
 equivalent to tr t^ aa$$irip ; and was adopted for couveuicuce in contradis- 
 tinction to iy Ttiis aaPBirois (1 Chron. xxiii. 31 and 2 Chron. ii. 4) where 
 Sabbath daj/s arc spoken of. 
 
 It is not correct to say that iu Levit. xxiii. 15 nirci:? is put for "weeks;" 
 though the Septnagint translators have (reasonably enough) there rendered the 
 word ifiSofidSas. In Levit. ixv. 8, (where the same word occurs twice,) it is 
 once rendered imraians ; once, I /3Sii^i{Scs. Quite distinct is ^dT (shaaoa) 
 i e. ipSofidf ; nor is there any substitution of the one word for the other. But 
 inasmuch as the recuiTcnce of the Sallath-dai/ was what constituted a treek ; 
 in other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish division of 
 time, was the recurrence of the Jewish d.iy of rest; — -l ad$BaTor or t<J aa$- 
 floTo, the Hebrew name for the day of rest, became transferred to the trtti. 
 The former designation, (as explained in tbe text,) is used once by S. Mark, 
 once by S. Luke ; while the phrase /i(o Ttc caPBaruy occurs in the K.T., in 
 all, six times. 
 
 ' So Euscbius (rcc7. Hist. ii. 15), and Jerome {De Tlris Ilhst. ii. 827), on 
 
150 Tin c.rjirivsioii irptoTtj aa^^ujov, a sin'ling [ciiai-. 
 
 he had employed in vcr. 2, he does so for an excellent and 
 indeed for an obvious reason. lu vcr. 2, lie had conformed 
 to the prevailing usage of Palestine, and followed the exam- 
 ple set him by S. Matthew (xxviii. 1) in adojiting the eni<»- 
 maticul expression, ^ fita aa^^uTrnv. That this would be 
 idiomatically represented in Latin by the phrase " prima 
 sabbati," we have already seen. In ver. 9, therefore, he is 
 solicitous to record the fact of the Eesurrection afresh ; and 
 ihis time, his phrase is observed to be ihc Gird- cquiinknt 
 for fill- Latin "prima mblati ;" viz. irpcoTr] aaft^drov. How 
 strictly equivalent the two modes of expression were felt to 
 ■ be by those who were best qualified to judge, is singularly 
 illustrated by the fact, that the Si/rinc rendering of both 
 places is identical. 
 
 (4.) But I take leave to point out that this substituted 
 phrase, instead of being a suspicious circumstance, is on the 
 contrary a striking note of genuineness. For do we not 
 recognise here, in the last chapter of the Gospel, the very 
 same hand which, in the first chapter of it, was careful to 
 inform us, just for once, that " Juda3a," is " a country," 
 (i) 'lovBaia "x^mpa,) — and "Jordan," "a river," (o ^lopBdvtji 
 TOTafiog) ? — Is not this the very man who explained to his 
 readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar Jewish designa- 
 tion for " Friday," ij Trapaffxevi], denotes " t/ic day before 
 the Salhath' ?" — and who was so minute in informing us (in 
 chap. vii. 3, 4) about certain ceremonial practices of " the 
 Pharisees and all the Jews ?" Yet more, — Is not the self- 
 same writer clcarlj* recognisable in this xvi"" chapter, who 
 in chap. vi. 37 presented us with (rtreKovKaTwp (the Latin 
 xpiciilatur) for " an executioner ?" and who, in chap. xv. 39, 
 for "a centurion," wrote — not eKarovTapxo'!, but — kcvtv- 
 pt'av ? — and, in chap. xii. 42, explained that the two XeTrro 
 
 the autlioril}- of Clemens Alex, and of Papias. See also Eueeb. Mist. Bed. li- 
 14. — The colopliou in the Syriae Version shews that the same traditional 
 belief prevailed in the Eastern Church. It also finds record in the Si/iioj'sis 
 Scriptura (wTongly) ascribed to Albanasius. 
 
 ' -wapaaKfvii, S iatt Trpoaa$fiaTov.—OuT E. V. "preparation" is from Angus- 
 tine, — "Parasceue Latine pra'paratio est." — See Pearson's interesting not* 
 on the nord. 
 
 IX.] indication of the gcniiinohss of tliisr Virsi--. ]."<! 
 
 which the poor widow cast into the Treasury were equiva- 
 lent to KohpdvTi]s, the Latin qiiadrans ? — and in chap, vii, 
 
 4, 8, introduced the Roman measure i>cxtarins, (^e'crTrjs) ? 
 — and who volunteered the information (in chap. xv. IC) that 
 aiiXi) is only another designation of irpanoapiov {Pra-to- 
 riiiin) 1 — Yes. S. Mark, — who, alone of tlie four Evangelists, 
 (in chap. xv. 21,) records the fact that Simon the Cyrenian 
 was " the father of Alexander and Unfits," cvidcntlj' for tlic 
 sake of bis Latin readers*: S. Mark, — who alone ventures 
 to write in Greek letters {ova, — chap. xv. 21>,) the Latin in- 
 terjection "Vah !" — obviously because he was writing where 
 that exclamation was most familiar, and the forci' of it brst 
 underetood "■ : S. JIark, — who attends to the Roman division 
 of the day, in relating our Lord's prophecj' to S. Peter ' : — 
 
 5. Mark, I say, no doubt it was wlio, — having conformed 
 himself to the precedent set him bj' S. Matthew and the 
 familiar usage of Palestine ; and having written r^y fuias 
 a-a^fidrwv, (which he knew would sound like " una sabba- 
 toriini',") in ver. 2; — introduced, also for the benefit of his 
 Latin readers, the Greek equivalent for "prima aabbati," 
 (viz. trpdiTr) aa^^drov,) in ver. 9. — This, therefore, I repeat, 
 so far from being a circumstance " unfarourablc to its au- 
 thenticity," (by which, I presume, the learned writer means 
 its genuineness), is rather corroborative of the Cl)urch's con- 
 stant belief that the present section of S. Mark's Gospel is, 
 equally with the rest of it, the production of S. Mark. " Not 
 only was the document intended for Gentile converts :" 
 (remarks Dr. Davidson, p. 149,) "but there are also appear- 
 ances of its adaptation to the use of Roman Christians in 
 particular." Just so. And I venture to say that in the 
 whole of "the document" Dr. Davidson will not find a more 
 striking " appearance of its adaptation to the use of Roman 
 Christians," — and therefore of its genuineness, — than this. 
 I shall have to request my reader by-aud-by to accept it as 
 one of the most striking notes of Divine origin which these 
 verses contain. — For the moment, I pass on. 
 
 • Consider liom. xvi. 13. ' Tonnson's Discourses, i. 172. ' Ibid. 
 
 ' Sec the Vulgate transl. of S. Mark ivi. 2 and of S. John xx. 10. In the 
 same versiun, S. Luke xxiv. 1 and S. John xx. 1 are rendered " ««« tallati." 
 
1'J2 Th( cxjifcssion, d^' ?';? fV/Se/SXjjKei [chap. 
 
 (II.) Lcfs excusable is the coarseness of critical perccp- 
 lion betrayed by ibc next remark. It has been pointed out 
 as a suspicious circumstance tliat in ver. 9, "the phrase 
 a^ */? €K^c^\i'lKei e-ma haifiovia is attached to the name of 
 Mary Magdalene, although she had been mentioned three 
 times before without such appendix. It seems to have been 
 taken from Luke viii. 2 e." — Strange perversity, and yet 
 stranger blindness ! 
 
 (1.) The phrase cannot have been taken from S.Luke; 
 because S. Luke's Gospel was written after S. Mark's. It 
 mix not taken from S. Luke ; because ihert acf) rji Baifiovia 
 eiTTa i^e\i]\vO€i, — here, d^' ^j eKy8e/3Xj;Ke( cTna Baifiovia 
 is read. 
 
 (2.) More important is it to expose the shallowness and 
 futility of the entire objection. — Mary Magdalene " had 
 been mentioned three times before, wiihout such appendix." 
 "Well but,— "What ilun ? After twice (ch. xiv. 54, 66) using 
 the word avXi) without any " appendix," in the very next 
 chapter (xv. 16) S. Mark adds, o i<ni -Trpairwpiov.—The 
 beloved Disciple having mentioned himself without any 
 " appendix" in S. John xx.^, mentions himself with a very 
 elaborate "appendix" in ver. 20. But what of it?— The 
 sister of the Blessed Virgin, having been designated in chap. 
 XV. 40, as MapCa ij 'laKW^ov tov jMlicpov Ka\ 'laxrrj ix-qTrjp; 
 is mentioned with one half of that " appendix," (Mapia ij 
 'Jtuffj}) in ver. 47,' and in ihe very next verse, with the other 
 half {Mapia jj toO 'laKOiPov.) — I see no reason why the 
 Traitor, who, in S. Luke vi. 16, is called 'lovhas 'laKapitoTrjt, 
 should be designated as 'lovSav tov iiriKaXovfievov 'laKa- 
 pi<liTr)v in S. Luke xxii. 3. — I am not saying that such "ap- 
 pendices" are either uninteresting or unimportant. That 
 I attend to them habitually, these pages will best evince. 
 I am only insisting that to infer from such varieties of ex- 
 pression that a different author is recognisable, is abhorrent 
 to the spirit of intelligent Criticism! 
 
 (3.) But in the case before us, the hostile suggestion is pe- 
 culiarly infelicitous. There is even inexpressible tenderness 
 and beauty, the deepest Gospel significancy, in the reserva- 
 
 » Davidson's Introduction, &c. i. 169, ed. 1848 : (ii. 113, ed. 186S.) 
 
 IX.] 
 
 6— rd Baifiona, considered. 
 
 IVj 
 
 lion of (he clause "out of whom He had cast seven devils," 
 for lliis place. The reason, I say, is even obvious why un 
 "aj)i)cndis," which would have been meaningless before, is 
 inlroduced in connexion with Marj' Magdalene's august 
 privilege of being the first of the human race to behold 
 the risen Savioi'r. Jerome (I rejoice to find) has been 
 beforeliand with me in suggesting that it was done, in order 
 to convey by an example the tacit assurance tliiit "where 
 Sin had abounded, there did Grace niucli more abound''." 
 Arc we to be cheated of our birtliright by Critics' wlm, 
 entirely overlooking a solution of the difficulty (;>' difficulty 
 it be) IJivine as this, can see in the circumstance grounds 
 only for suspicion and cavil ? "Airaye. 
 
 (111.) Take the next example. — The very form of the 
 "appendix" which we have been considering (dcf)' ijg eV/36/3- 
 \i']Kei t-TTTa haifiovta) breeds offence. " Instead of iK^dWeiv 
 u-TTo," (oracularly remarks Dr. Davidson,) "Mark has eVy3d\- 
 Xeip fV •■." 
 
 Kothingofllie sort, I answer. S.Mark once has ck^uX- 
 Xeiu eV, and once eK^dXXfU' diro. So has S.Matthew, 
 (viz. in chap. vii. 4 and 5) : and so has S. Luke, (viz. in 
 chap. vi. 42, and in Acts xiii. 50.) — But wliat of all this ? 
 W/io sees not that such Criticism is simply nugatory F 
 
 (lY.) "We are next favoured with the notable piece of 
 information that the word iropevecrdai, "never used by 
 S. Mark, is three times contained in this passage ;" (viz. in 
 A-erses 10, 12 and 15.) 
 
 (1.) Yes. The uncompounded verb, never used cheir/iere 
 by S.Mark, is found here three times. But what then? 
 The conijiouiids of iropevecrBai are common enough in his 
 Gospel. Thus, short as his Gospel is, he alone has ei'tr- 
 •jTopevtaflaijiK-TropevecrOat, crv/J,-';ropev€a0ai,7rapa-7ropevea6ai, 
 qftcncr than all the other three Eiangclists put tor/ether, — viz. 
 twenty-four times against their nineteen : while the com- 
 
 '' "Itluriii Mag:dAlt?ue ipsa est '« qua septem dxmonia cxpulcrnt': til vbi 
 aluudarinit yeccttium, auperalinidaret gralia." (Uieron. 0pp. i. 327.) 
 
 ' So Tisilioudorf, — " Collatis prioribu?, p»rum npte adduntur verba i^' Jt 
 ^/(/Sf/3Ai'jK<i L J." (p. 322.) I am astonisLiJ to find tbc same remark reiterated 
 by uiost of the Critics : e.g. Rev. T. S. Greeu, p. 52. 
 
 ^ Infrodui-tioii, 4c. vol. i. p. 169. ' viz. in cliap. vii. 26. 
 
154 
 
 S.Marl;'^ iixr of -rropfiKoBai, (0U'<khrv(J. [chap. 
 
 pound TpoffTvopeveaOai is jicctiVinr to hi'< Gospel. — I am there- 
 fore inclined to suggest tbut Ibe presence of the verb iropeu- 
 ecrOai in these Twelve suspected Verses, instead of being an 
 additional clement of suspicion, is rather a circumstaDce 
 slightly corroborative of their genuineness. 
 
 (2.) But suppose that the facts had been different. The 
 phenomenon appealed to is of even perpetual recurrence, 
 aiid may on no account be represented as suspicious. Thus, 
 ■jrapovaia, a word used only by S. Matthew among the Evan- 
 gelists, is by him used four times; yet are all those four 
 instances found in one and the same ehapfcr. S.Luke alone 
 has •xapi^eadai, and he has it three times : but all three 
 cases are met with in one and the same chapter, S. John 
 alone has Xvirr), and he has it four times : but all the four 
 instances occur in one and the same chapter. 
 
 (3.) Such instances might be multiplied to almost any 
 extent. Out of the fifteen occasions when S. Matthew uses 
 the word rdXavrov, no less tlian fourteen occur in one 
 chapter. The nine occasions when S. Luke uses the word 
 fiva all occur in one chapter. S. John uses the verb avia- 
 Tavai transitively only four times : but all four instances 
 of it are found in one chapter. — Now, these three words 
 (be it observed) are peculiar to the Gospek in which they 
 scverallj' occur. 
 
 (4.) I shall of course be reminded that ToXavrov and fiva 
 are unusual words, — admitting of no substitute in the places 
 where they respectively occur. But I replj', — Unless the 
 Critics are able to shew me uhieh of the ordinary compounds 
 of iTopevofiai S. Mark could po'^'iihhj have employed for the 
 uucompounded A-erb, in the three places which have sug- 
 gested the present inquiry, viz. : — 
 
 ver. 10 : — eKeivr) iropevOelda aTn'jyyeiXe toii /xer' avTOV 
 yevofievoii. 
 
 ver. 12 : — Bvaiv ef avruv . . . iropevopevois ds aypov. 
 
 ver. 13 : — •jropev0ivTe<; et? jbv Koafiov airavja, Ktjpv^are 
 TO €vayyi\iov ; — 
 
 their objection is simply frivolous, and the proposed adverse 
 reasoning, worthless. Such, in fact, it most certainlj' is ; for 
 it will be found that -iropevdelaa in ver. 10, — iropevofievois in 
 
 i.\.] The c.rpi; --/■.;;/, o't fier' avjov yevofievoi, co),-id, nd. l.O") 
 
 ver. 12, — TTopnfiiTej in ver. 15, — n/so "admit of no sub- 
 stitute in the places where they severally occur;" and there- 
 fore, since tlic verb itself is one of S. ]\Iark's favourite verbs, 
 not only arc these three places above suspicion, but they 
 may be fairly adduced as indications that the same hand was 
 at work here which wrote all the rest of his Gospel "'. 
 
 (V.) Then further, — the phrase roty fier' avrov yevofte- 
 vots (in ver. lOj is noted as suspicious. "Though found in 
 the Acts (x.\. IS) it mnr occurs in the Go>^pek : nor does the 
 word fia6i}Tai in this passage." 
 
 (1.) The phrase ol fier' avrov yct'6/j.evoi occurs nowhere 
 in the Acts or in the Gospels, ijccjd hm. liuf, — Wliy 
 Khouhl it ap])car elsewhere? or rather,— How tunld it ? Now, 
 if the expression be (as it is) an ordinary, easy, and obvious 
 one, — uantcd in this place, where it )* met with ; but not 
 met with elsewhere, simply because elsewhere it is not 
 wanted ; — surely it is unworthy of any one calling himself 
 
 Critic to pretei^d that there attaches to it the faintest 
 shadow of suspicion ! 
 
 (2.) The essence of the phrase is clearly the expression 
 
 01 fier' avrov. (The aorist participle of yi'vofiai is added of 
 necessity to mark the persons spoken of In no otlicr, (cer- 
 tainly in no simpler, more obvious, or more precise) way 
 could the followers of the risen S.wiour have been dcsi"- 
 nated at such a time. For had He not just now "overcome 
 the sharpness of Death" ?) But this expression, which occurs 
 four times in S. Matthew and four times in S. Luke, occurs 
 also four times in S. Mark : viz. in chap. i. 36 ; ii. 25 ; v. 40, 
 and here. This, therefore, is a slightl)' corroborative circum- 
 stance, — not at all a ground of suspicion. 
 
 (3.) But it seems to be implied that S. Jfark, because lie 
 mentions rovi fiaOijrd'; often elsewhere in his Gospel, ought 
 to have mentioned them here. 
 
 («) I answer : — He does not mention rovt /xaBi^rds nearly 
 so often as S. Matthew ; while S. John notices them twice 
 as often as he does. 
 
 (i) Suppose, however, that he elsewhere mentioned them 
 five hundi'cd times, because he had occasion five hundred 
 
 " Profi'ssoi- Broados has eome very good remarks on tbis Buljcct. 
 
15G The c.rjm-nioi) ol fitj' avTov yevofievoi, considered, [chap. 
 
 times to speak of tlicni ; — what reason would i/iaf be for bis 
 mentioning tbeni here, wberc be is )wt speaking of tbem ? 
 
 (r) It must be evident to anj' one reading tbe Gospel 
 witb attention that besides ol fiaO-qrai, — (by which expres- 
 sion S. Mark always designates ihe Twelve AposllvK,) — there 
 was a considerable corapanj- of believers assembled together 
 throughout the first Easter Da)'". S.Luke notices this 
 circumstance when he relates how the Women, on their 
 return from the Sepulchre, " fold all these things unto the 
 Eleven, and fo all the re^t," (xxiv. 9) : and again when he 
 describes how Cleopas and his companion (Bvo e'f aincbv as 
 S. Luke and S. Mark call them) on their return to Jeru- 
 salem, " found the Eleven gathered together, and them that 
 Kcrc uith them." (xxiv. 33.) But this was at least as well 
 known to S. Mark as it was to S. Luke. Instead, therefore, 
 of regarding the designation " them that had been uith Jlim" 
 with suspicion, — are we not rather to recognise in it one 
 token more that tlie narrative in which it occurs is unmis- 
 takably genuine? "\Miat else is this but one of those delicate 
 discriminating touches which indicate the hand of a great 
 Master; one of those evidences of minute accuracy which 
 stamp on a narrative the impress of unquestionable Truth ? 
 
 (VI.) We are next assured by our Critic that OeaaOai "is 
 unknown to Mark j " but it occurs twice in this section, (viz. 
 in ver. 11 and ver. 14.) Another suspicious circumstance ! 
 
 (].) A strange way (as before) of stating an ordinary 
 fact, certainlj"! What else is it but to assume the thing 
 which has to be proved ? If the learned writer had said 
 instead, that the verb OeaaOai, here twice employed by 
 S. Mark, occurs noirhere eke in his Gospel, — he would 
 have acted more loyally, not to saj' more fairly by the 
 record: but then he would have been stating a strictly 
 ordinary phenomenon, — of no significancj', or relevancy to 
 the matter in hand. He is probably aware that irapa^atveiv 
 in like manner is to be found in two consecutive verses of 
 S. Matthew's Gospel; irapaKoveiv, twice in the course of one 
 
 " Consider tlie little society which was assembled on tlie occasion alluded 
 to, in Acts i. 13, 14. Note also what is clearly implied by ver. 21— €, as to 
 the persons who were kabiluallj/ present at such gatherings. 
 
 IX.] 6'. J/rtr/.'i- ttse of the icrli OeuaBai, coiisidtrcd. 157 
 
 verse : neither word being used on any other occasion eithi r 
 I;/ S. Mil ft heir, or by anij other Evajigell'it. The -sniiie thiiKj 
 jiricix Iv is to be said of ava^rjTelv and avTa-rroliSovat, of 
 aiTi—apepy^ecrdai and ScaTiOeaOai, ia S. Luke : of aV/crrnVat 
 and twii'vi'ai in S. John. But who ever drcaiucd of in- 
 siuuLiting that the circumstance is suspicious ? 
 
 (2.) As for OeaaOai, we should have rcmiiidod our Critic 
 that this verb, which is used seven times by S. Jolin, and 
 four times by S. Matthew, is used only tlircc times by 
 S. Luke, and only twice b}' S.Mark. And we should have re- 
 spectfully inquired, — What possible suspiiioii docs OcuaOai 
 throw upon the last twelve verses of S. ^Mark's Gospel? 
 
 (3.) None whatever, would have been the reply. Bui iu 
 the meantime Dr. Davidson hints that the verb oiajht to have 
 been employed by S. Mark in chap. ii. 14 °. — It is, I presume, 
 sufficient to point out thai S. Matthew, at all events, was 
 not of Dr. Davidson's opinion "^ : and I respectfully submit 
 that the Evangelist, inasmuch as he happens to be here 
 irriiiug nhoi't himself, must be allowed, just for once, to be 
 the better judge. 
 
 (4.) Iu the meantime, — Is it not perceived that Oeiiafiai 
 is the very word specially required iu these two places, — 
 though nowhere eke in S. Mark's Gospel i ? The occasion is 
 one, — viz. the 'beholding' of the person of the risen S.wjoi k. 
 Does not even natural piety suggest that the uniqueness of 
 such a 'spectacle' as that might well set an Evangelist on 
 casting about for a word of somewhat less ordinary occur- 
 rence? Tiie occasion cries aloud for this very verb 6eacr0at; 
 and I can hardly conceive a more apt illustration of a 
 darkened eye, — a spiritual faculty perverted from its lawful 
 purix)5e, — than that which only discovers " a stumbling-block 
 and occasion of falling" in expressions like the present which 
 " should have been only for their wealth," being so mani- 
 festly designed for their edification. 
 
 '' 5. Luke (v. 27) has iStdaaTo tcXiJitji'. S. Matthew (ix. P) and S.Mark 
 (ii. 14) have preferred tlhtv fifflpwiroi/ (Acutf thv rov 'A\^aiov) Kadijfjiffov irl 
 rh T.\a-.i(i). P Sec S. Matth. ix. 9. 
 
 ' Oue is rominded that S. Matthew, in like manner, carefully reserres the 
 verb <l(ay>«^^ (xxvii. 55: xxviii. 1) for the contemplation of the Satiovii's 
 Ci\>*< and of the SiVlocii's Sepulchre. 
 
158 
 
 Tilt iJjirC'xiou eOecWv irn aiiTrj^, — and \ni' 
 
 (A'll.) Rut,— (it is urged by a Critic of n very (lifrereiit 
 Btamp,) — cdeiiOr] vtt' avT)]<; (ver. 11) "is a construction only 
 found here in the New Testament." 
 
 (1.) Very likely ; but what then? The learned writer has 
 evidently overlooked the fact that the passive OeaaOai occurs 
 but i/irfc ti)ii(-< in the New Testament in al/i. S. Matthew, on 
 the tico occasions when he employs the word, connects it with 
 a dative'. AATiat is there SKopinious in the circumstance that 
 6ea(r6ai vtto should be the construction preferred by S.Mark ? 
 The phenomenon is not nearly so remarkable as that S.Luke, 
 on one solitary occasion, exhibits the phrase fit) (po^eiade 
 avo ", — instead of making the verb govern the accusative, as 
 he does three times in the very next rcrsc ; and, indeed, eleven 
 times in the course of his Gospel. To be sure, S. Luke in 
 Ibis instance is but copying S. Matthew, who also has (iri 
 ff)o^€ia0e airo once* ; and seven times makes the verb govern 
 an accusative. This, nevertheless, constitutes no reason 
 whatever for suspecting the genuineness either of S. Matth. 
 X. 28 or of S. Luke xii. 4. 
 
 (2.) In like manner, the phrase i«f>o^7]dr)cTav ^ofiov fieyav 
 •will be found to occur once, and once onfi/, in S. Mark, — 
 once, and once only, in S. Luke " ; although S. Mark and S. 
 Luke use the verb ^oySeto-^at upwards of fortj' times. Such 
 facts are interesting. They may prove important. But no one 
 who is ever so little conversant with such inquiries will pre- 
 tend that they are in the least degree suspicions. — I pass on. 
 
 (VIII.) It is next noted as a suspicious circumstance that 
 airtcTTflv occurs in ver. 11 and in ver. 16 ; but nowhere else 
 in the Gospels, — except in S. Luke xxiv. 11, 14. 
 
 But really, such a remark is wholly without force, as an 
 argument against the genuineness of the passage in which 
 the word is found : for, 
 
 (1.) AVhere else in the course of this Gospel could avi<rrav 
 have occurred? Now, unless some reason can be shewn why 
 the word should, or at least might have been emplo3ed else- 
 where, to remark upon its introduction in this place, uhcre ii 
 
 1 S. Matth. vi. 1 : xxiii. 5. S.Mark xvi. 11. 
 
 ' Upht ri BmBnvai airois, (vi. 1) ; and roij offlpwirais, xxiii. B). 
 
 • S. Luke xii. 4. ' S. JlutHi. x. 28. ° S. Murk iv. 41. S. Luke ii. 9- 
 
 IX.] S. Mark's use of the verb diriaTuv, considind. 1J9 
 
 could M'nrccly he disj)cnscd icifh, as a ground of suspicion, is 
 Eimply irrational. It might just as well be held to be a sus- 
 picious circumstance, in respect of verses 3 and 4, that the 
 verb aT70Kv\l^€iv occurs there, and there only, in this Gospel. 
 Nothing whatever follows from the circumstance. It is, in 
 fact, a point scarcely deserving of attention. 
 
 (2.) To be sure, if the case of a verb exclusively used by 
 the two Evangelists, S. Mark and S. Luke, were an unique, 
 or even an exceedingly rare phenomenon, it might have been 
 held to be a somewhat suspicious circumstance that the i)hc- 
 nomcuon presented itself in the present section. But nothing 
 of the sort is the fact. There are no fewer than forty-five 
 verbs exclusively tiscd by S. Mark and S. Luke. And wliy 
 should not aTriaTeip be, (as it is,) one of them ? 
 
 (3.) Note, next, that this word is used twice, and in the 
 course of his last chapter too, also by S. Luke. Nowhere 
 else docs it occur in the Gospels. It is at least as strange 
 that the word airiareiv should be found twice in the last 
 chapter of the Gospel according to S. Luke, as in the last 
 chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark. And if no 
 shadow of suspicion is supposed to result from this circum- 
 stance in the case of the third Evangelist, whj- should it in 
 the case of the second ? 
 
 (4.) But, lastly, the noun aiTKnla (which occurs in S. Mark 
 xvi 14) occurs in two other places of the same Gospel. And 
 this word (which S. Matthew uses twice,) is employed by 
 none of the other Evangelists. — '\^Tiat need to add another 
 word ? Do not many of these supposed suspicious circum- 
 stances, — this one for example, — prove rather, on closer in- 
 spection, to be confirmatory facts ? 
 
 (IX.) We are next assured that fiera ravra (ver. 12) "is 
 not found in Mark, though many opportunities occurred for 
 using it." 
 
 (1.) I suppose that what this learned writer means, is this ; 
 that if S. Mark had coveted an opportunity for introducing 
 the phrase /tiera Tavra earlier in his Gospel, he might have 
 found one. (More than this cannot be meant : for nowhere 
 before docs S. Mark employ any other phrase to express 
 "after those things," or "after this," or "afterwards.") 
 
IGO 
 
 neja TavTU, — trepoi, — varepov, comidcrcd. [chap. 
 
 T5ut what is the obvious inference fiom the facls of the case, 
 as stated by tlie learned Critic, except that the blessed Evan. 
 gcH.-)t muhl be jirciiiiiied io Ikiiv hccii iniconsdoiis of aiii/ desire 
 io iidrodiHc //«■ ixjircssion tiiidcr consideration on any other oc- 
 C(i'<ioii i.ri/jif the jircscnt ? 
 
 (2.) Then, further, it is worth observing that while the 
 phrase /xfrd lavra occurs five times in S. Luke's Gospel, it is 
 found only twice in the Acts; while S.Matthew never em- 
 ploi/s it (it (d1. ^Vhy, then, — I would respectfully inquire — 
 irhtj need S.Mark introduce the phrase more than onee ? Why, 
 . especially, is his solitary use of the expression to be repre- 
 sented as a suspicious circumstance ; and even perverted into 
 an article of indictment against the genuineness of the last 
 twelve verses of his Gospel ? " Would any one argue that 
 S. Luke was not the autlior of the Acts, because the author 
 of the Acts has emploj'ed this phrase only twice, — ' often as 
 he eoidd have used it?' (Mejer's phrase here'.)" 
 
 (X.) Another objection awaits us. — "Erepci also "is un- 
 knoAvn to Mark," says Dr. Davidson ; — which only means 
 that the word occurs in chap. xvi. 12, but not elsewhere in 
 his Gospel. 
 
 It so happens, however, that erepos also occurs once only 
 in the Gospel of S. John. Does it therefore throw suspicion 
 on S. John xix. 37 ? 
 
 (XL) The same thing is said of varepov (in ver. 14) viz. 
 that it "occurs nowhere" in the second Gospel. 
 
 But why not state the case thus?— ^'To-Tf/jof, a word which 
 is twice emplo3'ed b)' S. Luke, occurs only once in S. Mark 
 and Oiiic in S. John. — That would be the true way of stating 
 the facts of the case. But it would be attended with this 
 inconvenient result, — that it would make it plain that the 
 word in question has no kind of bearing on the matter in 
 hand. 
 
 (XII.) The same thing he saj's of ^dirreiv (in ver. 18). 
 But what is the fact? The word occurs OH/y twice in the 
 Gospels, — viz. in S. Mark xvi. 18 and S. Luke iv. 35. It is 
 one of the eighty- four words which are peculiar to S. Mark 
 
 • I'lofessor Broadus, uli supra. 
 
 IX.] 
 
 trapTa^ov — crvvepyelv — 0f^aiovv — K-icrts. 
 
 IGI 
 
 and S. Luke. What possible significancy would Dr. David- 
 son attach to the cii'cumstance ? 
 
 (XIII.) Once more. — " iravraxov" (proceeds Dr. David- 
 son) "is unknown to Mark;" which (as we begin to be 
 aware) is the learned gentleman's way of stating that it is 
 only found in chap. xvi. 20. 
 
 Tischcndorf, Tregelles, and Alford insist that it also occurs 
 in S. Mark i. 28. I respectfully differ from them in opinion : 
 but when it has been pointed out that the word is onhj tisid 
 besides in S. Lid,e ix. C, what can be said of such Criticism but 
 that it is simply frivolous ? 
 
 (XIV. and XV.) Yet again : — a-uvepyetv and ^e^aiovv are 
 also said by the same learned Critic to be " unknown to 
 Mark." 
 
 S. Mark certainly u<!es these two words only once, — viz. in 
 the last verse of the present Chapter : but what tliere is sus- 
 picious in this circumstance, I am at a loss even to divine. 
 He eouhl not have used them oftener ; and since one hundred 
 and fifty-six words are peculiar to his Gospel, why should 
 not avvepyeiv and ^e^aiovv be two of them ? 
 
 (XA'I.) " Ildda KTiGis is Pauline," proceeds Dr. Davidson, 
 (referring to a famous expression which is found in ver. 15.) 
 (1.) All very oracular, — to be sure: but uhy irdaa KTitrn 
 should be thought "Pauline" rather than " Petrine," I really, 
 once more, cannot discover ; seeing that S. Peter has the ex- 
 pression as well as S. Paul'. 
 
 (2.) In this place, however, the phrase is irdaa tJ icTiai':. 
 But even this expression is no more to be called "Pauline" 
 than "Marcine;" seeing that as S.Mark uses it once and 
 once only, so does S. Paul use it once and once only, viz. 
 in Eom. viii. 22. 
 
 (3.'> In the meantime, how does it come to pass that the 
 learned Critic has overlooked the significant fact that the 
 word Krlait occurs besides in S. Mark x. G and xiii. 19 ; and 
 that it is a word which S. Mark atone of the Erangelists uses ? 
 Its occurrence, therefore, in this place is a circumstance the 
 verj- reverse of suspicious. 
 (4.) But lastly, inasmuch as the opening, words of our 
 
 ' Col. i. 15,23. 1 S.Pet.ii. 13. 
 M 
 
102 
 
 A Coincithttct and a Conjecture. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 Lord's Ministerial Commission to the Apostles are these — 
 »f»jpvfaTe TO evayyeXiov vdar) -rrj Kjiaei (ver. 15) : 
 inasinueli, too, as S. Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians 
 (i. 23) almost reproduces those very words; speaking of the 
 Hope Tov evayyeXiov . . . toO Krjpvx^evTos ev vdar, 
 [Tfj] KTlaei -rf, inro rov ovpavov -."—Is it not an allowahle 
 conjecture that a direct reference to tliat place in S. I^Iavk's 
 Gospel is contained in this place of S. Paul's Epistle? that 
 the inspired Apostle " beholding the universal tendency of 
 Christianity already realized," announces (and from iinperidl 
 . Home !) the fulfilment of his Lokd's commands in his Loud's 
 own words as recorded by the Evangelist S. ^Mark? 
 
 I desire to be understood to deliver this only as a conjec- 
 ture. But seeing that S. Mark's Gospel is commonly thought 
 to have been written at Rome, and under the eye of S. Peter; 
 and that S. Peter (and therefore S. l^Iark) must have bton at 
 Kome before S. Paul visited that city in a.d. 01 ;— seeing, 
 too, that it was in a.tj. 61-2 (as Wordsworth and Alford arc 
 agreed) that S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, and 
 wrote it from Borne ;— I really can discover nothing unrea- 
 sonable in the epeculation. If, however, it be well founded, 
 —(and it is impossible to deny that the coincidence of ex- 
 pression may be such as I have suggested,)— then, what an 
 august corroboration would this be of "the last Twelve 
 Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark !" . . . If, inde«i, 
 the great Apostle on reaching Rome inspected S. Mark 8 
 Gospel for the first time, with what awe will he have recog- 
 nised in his own recent experience the fulfilment of h>9 
 Saviour's great announcement concerning the " signs whic > 
 should foUow them that believe \" Had he not himself '^casl 
 out devils? "—" spoken with tongues more than they aU • 
 and at Melita, not only " shaken ofif the serpent into the tore 
 and felt no barm," but also "laid hands on the sick" father 
 of Publius, " and he had recovered ? "... To return, however, 
 to matters of fact; with an apology (if it bs thought neces- 
 sary) for what immediately goes before. 
 
 (XVII.) Next,— e./ Tm ovo^arl fiov (ver. 17) is noticed m 
 another suspicious peculiarity. The phrase is supposed to occur 
 only in this place of S. Mark's Gospel ; the Evangelist else- 
 
 IX.] ep rw 6i>6fj.ari — Trap- and cV- oKoXovOetv. ]G3 
 
 where emploj-iug the preposition evi: — (viz. in is. 37 : ix. 39 : 
 xiii. 6.) 
 
 (1.) Now really, if it were so, tlie reasoning would be nu- 
 gatory. S. Ltilc also once, and once only, has ev 7u> ovofiarl 
 oov. his usage elsewhere being, (like S.Mark's) to use i-n-l. 
 Na}', in two consecutive verses of ch. ix, eirX tc3 ovofiari fiov 
 — GOV is read : and yet, in the very next chapter, his Gospel 
 exhibits an unique instance of the usage of e'l^. AVas it 
 ever thouglit that suspicion is tlicroby cast on S. Luke x. 17 ? 
 
 (2.) But, in fact, the objection is an ovcrsiglit of the 
 learned (and generally accurate) objector. Tlie jjlirase recurs 
 in S. Mark ix. 38, — as tlie text of that place has been revised 
 bj' Tischcndorfj bj' Tregclles and by himself. This is (here- 
 fore a slightl}' corrolorativc, not a suspicious circumstance. 
 
 (XVIII. and XIX.) "We are furtlier assured that irapaKO- 
 Xovdelv (in ver. 17) and eiraKoXovdeiv (in ver. 20) " are both 
 foreign to the diction ofMarh." 
 
 (1.) But what can the learned author of this statement 
 possibly mean ? He is not speaking of the uncompounded 
 verb aKoXovdelv, of course ; for S. Mark employs it at least 
 twenty times. He cannot be speaking of the compounded 
 verb ; for avvaKoXovdelv occurs in S. Mark v. 37. He can- 
 not mean that irapaKoXovGeXv, because the Evangelist uses 
 it only once, is euspicious ; for that would be to cast a slur 
 on S. Luke i. 3. He cannot mean general!)- that verbs com- 
 ]K)unded with prepositions are " foreign to the diction of 
 Mark ;" for there are no less than foriy-tico such verbs 
 which arc even peculiar to S. Mark's short Gospel, — against 
 thirty which are peculiar to S. Matthew, and seventeen 
 which arc peculiar to S. John. He cannot mean that verbs 
 compounded with irapd and eiri have a suspicious look ; for 
 at least thirty-three such compounds, (besides the two be- 
 fore us,) occur in his sixteen chapters '. What, then, I must 
 
 • vapaBi\\ii''[l quote from the Tt-xtus Beccptus of S. Mark iv. 30, — confirmed 
 as it is by tlic I'lisbito and tlie I'biloxenian, the Vetus and the Vulgate, the 
 Gothic and the Anncninn veiiious, — besides Codd. A and D, and all the other 
 uncials (except H, L, A, n,) and almost every cursire Codex. The evidence of 
 Cod. C and of Origen is doubtful. Who would subscribe to the difl'creut rend- 
 ing adopted on countless similar occaiions by the most recent Editors of the 
 N. T. f ] : irafioy)VAX«ii' : Trapdytir : vapayinaBai : tOfuSiUyv : TafaXai>.^atftiy : 
 
 M 2 
 
1G4 Thf pfirnii' ■)(eipai itrnidevai iiri — [chap. 
 
 really ask, can the learned Critic possibl}' mean ? — I re- 
 Bpectfully pause for au answer, 
 
 (2.) In the meantime, I claim tbat as far as such evidence 
 goes, — (and it certainly goes a very little w&y, yet, os far as 
 it goes,) — it is a note of S. Mark's authorship, that within the 
 compass of the last twelve verses of his Gospel these two 
 compounded verbs should be met with. 
 
 {XX. ) Dr. Davidson points out, as another suspicious cir- 
 cumstance, that (in ver. 18) the phrase ^et/sas iimidevai 
 iwi Tiva occurs ; " instead of x^'P"? €7riTi0evai rivi." 
 . (1.) But on the contrarj', the phrase "is in Math's man- 
 ner," says Dean Alford: the plain fact being that it occurs 
 no less than three times in his Gospel, — viz. in chap. viii. 
 25 : X. 16 : xvi. 18. (The other idiom, he has four times *.) 
 Behold, then, one and the same phrase is appealed to as 
 a note of genuineness and as an indication of spurious origin. 
 "What can be the value of such Criticism as this ? 
 
 (2.) Indeed, the phrase before us supplies no unapt illus- 
 tration of the precariousness of the style of remark which 
 is just now engaging our attention. Within the space of 
 three verses, S. Mark has hoih expressions, — viz. iiriOels to? 
 X^tpai avrm (viii. 23) and also eTridrjKe to? j^etpaj iiri (ve r. 
 25.) S. Matthew has the latter phrase once ; the former, 
 twice ^. Who will not admit that all this (so-called) Cr iti- 
 cism is the veriest trifling ; and that to pretend to argu e 
 about the genuineness of a passage of Scripture from such 
 evidence as the present is an act of rashness bordering o n 
 folly ? . . . The reader is referred to what was ofiered above 
 on Art VII. 
 
 (XXI. and XXII.) Again : the words fih ovv — o Kvpios 
 (ver. 19 and ver. 20) are also declared to be "foreign to the 
 diction of Mark." I ask leave to examine these two charges 
 separatel}'. 
 
 waparripflv ; irapaTi9fVai : wapa^ifuv : itapfpx"'^'" '• rapix't" ■ »«fii»Taioi.— 
 iirKyyiK\(a6ai : iwaicrxwfffSai : iiraviaraaBai : iwfpuTfy : iTiPih^ttf : iriT""' 
 OKfty : iwiypi<t>fiy : i»ifijT«K : iiriXaiiSii'Krdat : iriKavBdrtffBai : iTt\i(i>' '■ *"' 
 iriTTCii' : Ittfpiirrtiv : iiriamiiffiv : iirtiTTp(<t>uy : iiriawiyfiy : inaurrpfX"' * 
 inniaafW : tuntBiyai : iwnifiay : itirpiwuy. 
 
 • S. Mark v. 23 : vi. 5 : vii. 32 : viii. 23. 
 
 "• S. Matth. ix. 18 -.—xix. 13, 15. 
 
 .X.] 
 
 fi(p OVV— 6 Kvpia, co>isi(k)-cd. 
 
 ](;5 
 
 (1.) fiiv o^v occurs only once in S. Mark's Gospel, truly • 
 but then U occurs only once in S.Lnlc (iii. 18) ;— only tnicc 
 in S. John (xix. 24: xx. 30). --in S. Matthew, never" at all 
 What imaginable plea can be made out of such evidence 
 as this, for or against the genuineness of the lust Twelve 
 Verses of S. Mark's Gospel ?-Once more, I pause for on 
 answer. 
 
 (2.) As for o Kvpio<i being "fonir,,, to the didlon of Mark 
 
 in speaking of the Lord,''-I really do not know what 
 
 the learned Critic can possibly mean ; except tliat he finds 
 
 our Lord nouhvre called 6 Kvpios h,, S. Mark, cjcpl in this 
 
 place. 
 
 But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither docs 
 he find our Lord an3-n-here called by S. Mark " Jesis 
 Christ," except in chap. i. 1. Are we, therefore, to suspect 
 the beginning of S. Mark's Gospel as well as the end of it ? 
 By no means, (I shall perhaps be told :) a reason is assign- 
 able for the use of tliat expression in chap. i. 1. And so, 
 I venture to reply, there is a fully sufficient reason assign- 
 able for the use of t/iis expression in chap. xvi. 19 ^ 
 
 (3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our Loud 
 is called 'J»;ctoOs Xpiaros, — but f/i/y in the fir.sf Chapfcr of 
 their respective Gospels. By S. Luke nowliere. The ap- 
 pellation may, — or may not,— be thought "foreign to the 
 diction" of those Evangelists. But surely it constitutes no 
 reason whatever why we should suspect the genuineness 
 of the beginning of the first, or the second, or the fourth 
 Gospel. 
 
 (4.) S.John three times in the frit rerse of his first Chapter 
 designates the Eternal Son by the extraordinary title o 
 A6'T/o<!; but notchere eke in his Gospel, (except once in ver. 
 14,) does that Name recur. Would it be reasonable to re- 
 present this as a suspicious circumstance ? Is not the Divine 
 fitness of that sublime appellation generally recognised and 
 admitted *?— Surely, we come to Scripture to be learners 
 only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to 
 have spoken about God I When will men learn that " the 
 
 ' Sic li. low, pp. 181G. 
 
 '' Sio Tciirson on the Creed, (ed. Burton), vol. i. p. 151. 
 
ICG 
 
 ava\Tj<})dijvai— eVeei'oy, considered. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 ,x.] 
 
 A Setitciuc iriffioiii a cojmlalire. 
 
 Uu 
 
 Scripturc-phiasp, or hnu/iiagc of (lie Ilohj Gftost "^ " is as 
 much nbovc them as Heaven is above Earth ? 
 
 (XXIII.) Another complaint: — iii>d\T)<f>d7lvai, which is 
 found in ver. 19, occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. 
 
 (1.) True. S. ^lark has no fewer than seventy- four verbs 
 which " occur nowhere else in the Gospels :" and this hap- 
 pens to be one of them ? AYhat possible inconvenience can 
 be supposed to follow from that circumstance ? 
 
 (2.) But the remark is unreasonable. ' Ava\i)(})6 qvai and 
 apd>i.r]yfn<: are words proper to the Ascension of our Lord info 
 Ilcarcn. The two Evangelists who do not describe that 
 event, are uHhout these words : the two Evangelists who do 
 describe it, have them '. Surel)', tliese are marks of genuine- 
 ness, not grounds for suspicion ! 
 
 It is high time to conclude this discussion. — Much has 
 been suid about two other minute points : — 
 
 {XX IV.) It is declared that eKeiPos " is nowhere found 
 absolutelj' used by S. Murk :" (the same thing may be said 
 of S. Matthew and of S. Luke also :) " but always empha- 
 tically : whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely used*." 
 Another writer says, — "The use of eKelvos in verses 10, 11, 
 and 13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with o Be, is 
 peculiar *"." 
 
 (1.) Slightly peculiar it is, no doubt, but not verj', that 
 nn Evangelist who employs an ordinary word in the ordi- 
 nary way about thirty times in all, should use it " absolutely" 
 in two cousfecutive verses. 
 
 (2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among them- 
 selves as to uliic/i are precisely the offending instances, — 
 (for it is evidently a moot point whether eVeti/oy be em- 
 phatic in ver. 13, or not,)— we may be excused from a pro- 
 longed discussion of such a question. I shall recur to the 
 subject in the consideration of the next Article (XXV.) 
 
 (XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that " in the 
 10th and 14th verses there are sentences without a copula- 
 
 « Ibid. p. 183,— at the bcpinning of ilie ejiposition of " Our Lord." 
 
 I S. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix. 51. Acts i. 2. 
 
 r Alford. ' Davidsou. 
 
 tivc : whereas !Mark always has the copulative in such cases, 
 particularly Kai" But then, — 
 
 (1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other 
 sections of S. Mark's Gospel rcscmb/ing t/ie presenf, — (I mean, 
 passages in which S. Mark summarizes many disconnected 
 incidents, as he does here,) — is it not plain that such an 
 objection is wholly without point? 
 
 (2.) Two instances are cited. In the latter, (ver. 14), 
 Lachmann and Tregellcs read vcr-repov Be: and the reading 
 is not impossible. So that the complaint is really re- 
 duced to this, — That in ver. 10 the Evanpilist begins 
 'EKfii'T] iropevBilaa, instead of saying Ka\ tKcU't) tropiv- 
 6ilaa. And (it is implied) there is sometliing so abhorrent 
 to probability in this, as slightly to strengthen the suFpicion 
 that the entire context is not the work of the Evangelist. 
 
 (3.) Now, suppose we had S. Mark back among us : and 
 suppose that he, on being shewn this objection, were to be 
 heard delivering himself somewhat to the following effect : — 
 "Aye. But men may not find fault with ihat turn of phrase. 
 I derived it from Simon Peter's lip?. I have alwaj-s sus- 
 pected that it was a kind of echo, so to say, of what he 
 and 'the other Disciple' had many a time rehearsed in the 
 hearing of the wondering Church concerning the Magda- 
 lene on the morning of the Resurrection." And then we 
 should have remembered the familiar place in the fourth 
 Gospel : — 
 
 r^vvai ri icKateis; Ti'va trjTeis; 'EKEiNH BoKovaa k.t.\. 
 After which, the sentence would not have seemed at all 
 strange, even though it he " without a copulative :" — 
 
 a^' ^y eVySf/SXjJ/cet CTrra Baifiovta. 'ekeInh -TropevOelaa k.t.X. 
 
 (4.) For after all, the on/i/ question to be asked is, — Will 
 any one pretend that such a circumstance as this is «».<- 
 picioiis ? Unless that be asserted, I see not what is gained by 
 raking togciher, — {as one tasili/ might do in any section of amj 
 of the Gosptts,) — every minute peculiarity of form or expres- 
 sion which can possibly be found within the space of these 
 twelve verses. It is an evidence of nothing so much as 
 an ineoriigible coarseness of critical fibre, that every slight 
 variety of manner or language should be thus pounced upon 
 
1C8 
 
 The arjgrcgatr of twthii>g>^, /s hofhiufj. 
 
 [criAV. 
 
 and represented as a note of spuriousncss, — in the face of 
 [a) the unfiiltcring triidition of tlie Church universal that 
 the document has mrcr been liifhcrto suspected : and 
 {h) the known proclivity of all writers, as free moral and 
 intellectual agents, sorattimes to deviate from their else 
 invariable practice. — May I not here close the discussion ? 
 
 There will perhaps be some to remark, that however suc- 
 cessfully the foregoing objections may seem to have been 
 severally disposed of, yet that the combined force of such 
 a multitude of slightly suspicious circumstances must be not 
 only appreciable, but even remain an inconvenient, not to 
 Euy a formidable fact. Let me point out that the supposed 
 remark is nothing else but a fallacy ; which is detected the 
 instant it is steadily looked at. 
 
 For if there really had remained after the discussion of 
 each of the foregoing XXV Articles, a slight residuum of 
 susi)iciousness, then of course the aggregate of so manj' frac- 
 tions would have amounted to something in the end. 
 
 But since it has been jjroved that there is absolutely 
 twilling at all suspicious in atpj of the alleged circumstances 
 which have been hitherto examined, the case becomes alto- 
 gether different. The sum of ten thousand nothings is still 
 nothing '. This may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal 
 to the only charge which remains to be examined. 
 
 (XXVI. and XXVII.) The absence from these twelve 
 verses of the adverbs evOews and iraXiv, — (both of them 
 favourite •words with the second Evangelist,) — has been 
 pointed out as one more suspicious circumstance. Let us 
 take the words singly : — 
 
 (a) The adverb evdlaa (or ev.6vs) is indeed of very frequent 
 occurrence in S. Mark's Gospel. And yet its absence from 
 
 ' Kxactly so Professor Broadus :— " Now it will not do to say tbat wliilc 
 no one of these peculiarities would itself prove the style to be foreign to Mark, 
 tlie whole of them combined will do so. It is very true tbat the multiplication 
 of littla may amount to much; but not so the multiplication of nothinss- 
 And how many of the expressions which are cited, appear, in the light of our 
 examiuatiou, to retain the slightest real force as proving difierencc of •ullior- 
 ship ? Is it not true tbat most of them, and those the most inijiorlaut, are 
 reduced to absolutely nothing, while the remainder po.-sess scarcely any ap- 
 preciable significance?"— p. 3G0, (seeahove, p. 130, note g.) 
 
 ,X.] 
 
 <S'. Mnrl:'" ">< of evPeojs and i7a\iv. 
 
 JGO 
 
 chap, xvi is proml to be in no degree a suspicious circum- 
 stance, from the discovery that though it occurs as many as 
 12 times in chap, i; 
 
 and 6 
 
 
 chap. V ; 
 
 and 5 
 
 
 chap, iv, vi; 
 
 and 3 
 
 
 chap, ii, ix, xiv ; 
 
 and 2 
 
 
 chap, vii, xi ; 
 
 it yet occurs only 1 
 
 
 chap, iii, viii, x, xv ; 
 
 >vhile it occurs 
 
 
 chap, xii, xiii, xvi. 
 
 {h) In like manner, TraXiv, wl 
 
 ich occurs as often as 
 
 times in 
 
 chap. 
 
 xiv ; 
 
 and 5 „ 
 
 chap. 
 
 x; 
 
 and 3 ,, 
 
 chap. 
 
 viii, XV ; 
 
 and 2 
 
 chap. 
 
 ii, iii, vii, xi, xii ; 
 
 and 1 „ 
 
 chap. 
 
 iv, v; 
 
 occurs „ 
 
 chap. 
 
 i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi. ^ 
 
 (1.) Now, — How can it possibly be more suspicious that 
 vdXiv should be absent from tlic lasf tirelre verses of S. Mark, 
 than that it should be away from the first forty-five ? 
 
 (2.) Again. Since evOews is not found in the xii"" or the 
 xiii''' chapters of this same Gospel, — nor -ttoXiv in the i", vi"", 
 ix'*", or xiii"' chapter, — (for the sufBcient reason that mithcr 
 word is irniifed in any of t/io>-c places,) — what possible "sus- 
 piciousness" can be supposed to result from the absence of 
 both words from the xvi"" chapter also, where ako neither 
 of them is wanted ? Tflii/ is the xvi"" chapter of S. Mark's 
 Gospel, — or rather, why are "the last twelve verses" of it, 
 — to labour under such special disfavor and discredit ? 
 
 (3.) Dr. Tregelles makes answer, — " I am well aware that 
 arguments on style are often very fallacious, and that by ihem- 
 sehes they prove very little : but when there does exist ex- 
 ternal evidence, and when internal proofs as to style, manner, 
 verbal expression, and connection, are in accordance with 
 such independent grounds of fonuing a judgment; then these 
 internal considerations possess very great weight '." — For all 
 
 ^ S. John has loAic (47 times) much oftener than S. Mark (29 tiroes). And 
 yet, -niXty is not met with in the ii'^, or the iii"", or the v''', or the vii'^ or 
 thc.xi*"', or Ihr xvii" chapter of S.John's Gospel. 
 
 ' Printed T>.rl, p. 256. 
 
170 ' The Talks fumed' a'jniii^f f/ie Critics. [chap. 
 
 rejoinder, the respected writer is asked, — {a) But when 
 there docs not exist any such external evidence : what then ? 
 Next, he is reminded {b) That whether there does, or does 
 not, it is at least certain that not one of those "proofs as to 
 Btyle," &c., of which he speaks, has been able to stand 
 the test of strict examination. Kot only is the precarious- 
 ncss of all such Criticism as has been brought to bear against 
 the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20 excessive, but the 
 supposed facts adduced in evidence have been found out to 
 be every one of them mistalcs; — being either, (1) demon- 
 strably without argumentative cogenc}' of any kind; — or 
 else, (2) distinctly corroborative and confirmatory circum- 
 stances : indications that this part of the Gospel is indeed by 
 S. Mark, — not that it is probably the work of another hand. 
 
 And thus the formidable enumeration of twenty-seven 
 grounds of suspicion vanishes out of sight : fourteen of them 
 proving to be frivolous and nugatory ; and thirteen, more or 
 less clearly witnessing in favour of the section". 
 
 III. Of these thirteen expressions, some are even eloquent 
 in their witness. I am saying that it is impossible not to be 
 exceeding]}' struck by the discovery that this portion of the 
 Gospel contains (as I have explained already) so many in- 
 dications of S. Mark's undoubted manner. Such is the refer- 
 ence to fi KTun<i (in ver. 15) : — the mention of airiaria (in 
 ver. 14) : — the occurrence of the verb iropeveadai (in ver. 10 
 and 12), — of the phrase iu ru> ovofiari fiov (in ver. 17), — and 
 of the phrase ^^eipay eTriTide'vai iiri Tiva (in ver. 18) : — of the 
 Evangelical term for our Lord's Ascension, viz. aveXijtpffrj 
 (in ver. 19) : — and lastly, of the compounds TrapaKoXovOeiv 
 and ivaKoXovdelv (in verses 17 and 20.) 
 
 To these Thirteen, will have to be added all those other 
 notes of identity of authorship, — such as they are, — whicli 
 result from recurring identity of phrase, and of which the 
 assailants of this portion of the Gospel have prudently said 
 nothing. Such are the following : — 
 
 (xiv.) ^Avitrravat, for rising /ro«i the dead; which is one 
 
 " It will be foniid that of the former class (1) arc the following : — Article iii : 
 vii: ix: x: xi : xii : xiii : xiv: xv: xxi: xxiv: xiv : xxvi: xxvii. Of tlio 
 latter (2) : — Art. i : ii : iv : v : vi : viii : xvi : xvii : iviii : xix : xx : xxii : xxiii. 
 
 IX.] 
 
 Notes of identity of Authorship. 
 
 171 
 
 of S. Mark's words. Taking into account the shortness of 
 his Gospel, he has it thrice as often as S. Luke; tirchc times 
 as often as S. Matthew or S. John. 
 
 (xv.) The idiomatic expression iropevofievois ei? dypov, 
 of which S. Matthew does not present a single specimen ; 
 but which occurs three times in the short Gospel of S.Mark", 
 — of which ver. 12 is one. 
 
 (xvi.) The expression Trpat (in ver. 9,)— of which S. Mark 
 avails himself six times: i.e. (if the length of the present 
 Gospel be taken into account) almost five times as often as 
 either S.Matthew or S.John,— S.Luke never using the word 
 at all. In his first chapter (ver. 35), and here in his last 
 (ver. 2), S. Mark uses \Cav in connexion with Trpm. 
 
 (xvii.) The jihrase xr}pvaaeiv to evayyeXiov (in ver. 15) is 
 another of S. Mark's phrases. Like S. Matthew, he employs 
 it four times (i. 14 : xiii. 10: xiv. 9 : xvi. 15) : but it occurs 
 neither in S. Luke's nor in S. John's Gospel 
 
 (xviii.) The same irords singly are characteristic of his 
 Gospel. Taking the length of their several narratives into 
 account, S. Mark has the word Ki)pvaaeiv more than twice as 
 often as S. Matthew : three times as often as S. Luke. 
 
 (xix.) (i/ayyiXiov, — a word w hich occurs only in the first 
 two Gospels, — is found twice as often in S. Mark's as in 
 S. Matthew's Gospel : and if the respective length of their 
 Gospels be considered, the proportion will be as three to one. 
 It occurs, as above stated, in ver. 15. 
 
 (xx.) If such Critics as Dr. Davidson had been concerned 
 to vindicate the genuineness of this section of the Gospel, we 
 should have been assured that ^avepowBai is another of 
 S. Mark's words : by which they would have meant no more 
 than this, — that though employed neither by S. Matthew 
 nor by S. Luke it is used thrice by S. Mark, — being found 
 twice in this section (verses 12, 14), as well as in ch. iv. 22. 
 
 (xxi.) They would have also pointed out that akXrjpoKap- 
 Bla is another of S. Mark's words : being employed neither by 
 S. Luke nor by S. John, — by S. Matthew only once, — but 
 by S. Mark on tiro occasions ; of which ch. xvi. 14 is one. 
 
 " Cb. xiii. 10, — 6 fit ■'hr iyphv £>v : and ch. XV. 21, — Ipxiffo" *'' ^TP"''. — 
 nn cx]ircfsion which S. Luke religiously reproduces in the corics|>oiiding p'acc 
 of his (josi>e1, viz. iu ch. xxiii. 26. 
 
172 
 
 Tirol fi/-!i<fn) jiiir/lnihirs indic(itire 
 
 [chap. 
 
 (xxii.) In the Kanio spirit, tliey would liave bade us ob- 
 serve that Travraj^ov (ver. 20) — unknown to S. Matthew and 
 S.John, and employed only once by S.Luke, — is fnice used 
 by S. Mark ; one instance occurring in the present section. 
 
 Nor would it have been altogether unfair if thej' had 
 added that the precisely similar word vavTaxodev (or ttiIv- 
 Todfv) is only found in this same Gospel, — viz. in eh. i. 45. 
 
 (xxiii.) They would further have insisted (and this time 
 with a greater show of reason) that the adverb /taXw? (which 
 is found in ver. 18) is another favorite word with S. Mark: 
 occurring as it does, (when the length of these several nar- 
 ratiA-es is taken into account,) more than twice as often in 
 S. Mark's as in S. John's Gospel, — just three times as often 
 as in the Gospel of S. Matthew and S. Luke. 
 
 (xxiv.) A more interesting (because a more just) observa- 
 tion would have been that ex""' '° ^^ sense of " to be," (as 
 in the phrase koKCh exeiv, ver. 18,) is characteristic of 
 S. Mark. He has it oftener than anj' of the Evangelists, 
 viz. six times in all (ch. i. 32 ; 34 : ii. 17 : x. 23 : vi. 55 : 
 x\i. 18.) Taking the shortness of his Gospel into account, 
 be emploj's this idiom twice as often as S. Matthew ; — three 
 times as often as S. John ; — four times as often as S. Luke. 
 
 (xxv.) They would have told us further that appcoaTOs is 
 another of S. Mark's favorite words : for that he has it tfiree 
 times, — viz. in ch. vi. 5, 13, and here in ver. 18. S. Matthew 
 has it onl}' once. S. Luke and S. John not at all. 
 
 (xxvi.) And we should have been certainly reminded by 
 them that the conjunction of irevdoixri koI Kkaiovai (in 
 ver. 10) is characteristic of S. Mark, — who has KXaiovraf koi 
 a\a\d^ovras in ch. v. 38 : Bopv^eicrOe kcli KKaiere in the 
 very next verse. As for irevdeiv, it is one of the 123 words 
 common to S. Matthew and S. Mark, and peculiar to their 
 two Gospels. 
 
 (xxvii.) Lastly, " KajaKpivm (in ver. 16), instead of Kpli'o, 
 is Mark's word, (comp. x. 33 : xiv. 64)." The simple verb 
 which is used four times by S. Matthew, five times by 
 S. Luke, nineteen times by S. John, is never at all emplojed 
 by S. Mark : whereas the compound verb he has oftener in 
 proportion than S. Matthew, — more than twice as often as 
 either S. Luke or S. John. 
 
 IX.] 
 
 of iifciifi/i/ of AiifJiorn/iiji, Kjxrifici/. 
 
 ira 
 
 Strange,— that there should be exactly "xxvii" noles of 
 genuineness discoverable in these twelve verses, instead of 
 " XXVII" grounds of suspicion ! 
 
 But enough of all this. Here, we may with advantage 
 review- the progress hitherto made in this inquiry. 
 
 I claim to have demonstrated long since that all those im- 
 posing assertions respecting the " Style" and "Phraseology" 
 of this section of the Gosjjcl which were rehearsed at tlie 
 outset", — are destitute of foundation. But from this dis- 
 covery aloue there results a settled conviction which it will 
 be found difficult henceforth to disturb. A page of Scrij)- 
 ture which has been able to endure so severe un ordeal of 
 hostile inquiry, has been proved to be above suspicion. T/iaf 
 character is rightly accounted hhtmclciss which comes out 
 unsullied after Calumny has done her worst ; done it syste- 
 matically; done it with a will; done it for a hundred years. 
 
 But this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the 
 case in respect of the conclusion of S. ^Mark's Gospel. Some- 
 thing more is certain than that the charges which have been 
 so industriously brought against this portion of the Gospel are 
 without foundation. It has been also proved that instead of 
 there beiug discovered twentj'-seven suspicious words aud 
 phrases scattered up and down these twelve verses of the 
 Gospel, there actually exist exactlj' as many words and 
 phrases which attest with more or less certainty that those 
 verses are nothing else but the work of the Evangelist. 
 
 IV. Aud now it is high time to explain that though 
 I have hitherto condescended to adopt the method of my 
 opponents, I have only done so in order to shew that it 
 proves fatal to thenuehes. I am, to say the truth, ashamed of 
 what has last been written, — so untrustworthy do I deem the 
 method which, (following the example of those who have 
 preceded me in this inquiry,) I have hitherto pursued. The 
 " Concordance test," — (for that is probably as apt and intel- 
 ligible a designation as can be devised for the purely metha- 
 uical process whereby it is proposed by a certain school of 
 Critics to judge of the authorship of Scripture,) — is about 
 the coarsest as well as about the most delusive thai could be 
 
 " Sec above, p. 14(5. 
 
174 
 
 Th( faJlaciouincsH of such Rcmarhs 
 
 [ciiAr. 
 
 devised. By means of this clumsy and vulgar instrument, 
 especially wbcn applied, (as in the case before us,) without 
 skill and discrimination, it would be just as easy to prove 
 that the firat twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are of a sus- 
 picious character as the lastf. In truth, except in very 
 Bkilful hands, it is no test at all, and can only mislead. 
 
 Thus, (in ver. 1,) we should be informed (i.) that "Mark 
 nowhere uses the appellation Jesus Christ:" and (ii.) that 
 " eiiayyeXiov 'Ir^aov Xpitnov" is "Pauline." — "We should be 
 reminded (iii.) that this Evangelist nowhere introduces any 
 of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of 
 " Isaiah*" (in ver. 2) is a suspicious circumstance :— (iv.)that 
 a quotation from the Old Testament is " foreign to his man- 
 ner," — (for writers of this class would not hesitate to assume 
 that S. Mark xv. 28 is no part of the Gosjjel ;) — and (v.) that 
 the fact that here are quotations from two different prophets, 
 betrays an unskilful hand. — (vi.) Because S. Mark three times 
 calls Judxa by its usual name (lovSaia, viz. in iii. 7 : x. 1 : 
 xiii. 14), the tiuiqiie designation, tj 'louBaia X'^P"^ ("^ "^'^i"- ^) 
 would be pronounced decisive against " the authorship of 
 Mark." — (vii.) The same thing would be said of the unique 
 
 ' Tbe reader will be pcrliaps interested with the following passage in tbc 
 pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded to : — " It occurred to 
 mc to examine the twelre just preceding verses, (xv. 44 to xvi. 8,) and by 
 a curious coincidence, tbe words and expressions not elsewhere employed by 
 Mark, footed up precisely the same number, seventeen. Those noticed are tbe 
 fulloning (text of TregcUes) : — ver. 44, riBvriKty (elsewhere i.Toiri)aKu) : — 
 ver. 45, fvous iwi, a construction found nowhere else in the New Testament : 
 also iSupifffaTO and irru^ a: ver. 46, ivdKiitrfv, A^Xaro^ij^eVof, vtrpas, vpoff*' 
 Hv\t<rtpi — chap. xvi. ver, 1, iiaytyofitvovt and iptitfiarai ver. 2, fu^ twv ffa$' 
 fiiruv : — ver. 3, iir(>Ki/\{i;ci :— ver. 4, irfKCKuXto-Tai. Also, aipitpa, (Mark's 
 word is Ai'ai'.) Ver. 5, iv roit ic{io7f is a construction not found in Mark, or 
 the other Gospels, though the word Stji^i occnrs frequently : — ver. 8, «Ix«>'> 'U 
 this p.<rlicttlar sense, not elsewhere in the New Testament : 7p6itos. 
 
 "This list is pcrbaps not complete, for it wag' prepared iu a few hours — 
 nhout as much time, it may he slid, without disrespect, as Fritsche and Meyer 
 appear to have given to their collections of examples from the other passage. 
 It is not proposed to discuss the list, though some of the instances are curions. 
 It is not claimed that they are all important, but that tbcy are all real. And 
 as regards the single question of tbe number of peculiarities, they certainly 
 form quite an ofl'set to tbe number upon which Dean Alford has laid stress.'' 
 — p. 3G1. • Tischcndorf, Tregelles, Alfurd. 
 
 IX.] ^hcini, by applying them to S.Marh \.d—'2(y 170 
 
 expression, ei^ 'lophdvij iroTafiS, which is found in ver. 5, — 
 seeing th.it this Evangelist three times designates Jordan 
 Eimpfv as 'lopBdvvs (i. 9 : iii. 8 : x. 1).— (viii.) That entire 
 expression in ver. 7 {unique, it must be confessed, in the Gos- 
 pel,) ov ovK el/u lKav6s—vTrot7)fidT(oi> ainov, would be pro- 
 nounced " abhorrent to the style of Mark."— (ix.) to Tlvcvua 
 ticice, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we should be told is never 
 used by the Evangelist absolutely for the Holy Ghost: but 
 always to Ilvevfia to "Ayiov (as in ch. iii. 29 : xii. 30 : 
 xiiL 11). — (x.) The same would be said of o't 'lepoaoXvu'nai 
 (in ver. 5) for "the inhabitants of Jerusalem :" we should 
 be assured that S. Mark's phrase would rather be ol airo 
 'I(po(To\vncov,—as in ch. iii. 8 and 22.— And (xi.) the ex- 
 pression iriffreveiv iv tw evayye\ia> (ver. 15), we should be 
 informed " caunot be Mark's;" — who either employs els and 
 the accusative (as in ch. ix. 92), or else makes the verb take 
 a dative tas iu ch. xi. 31 : xvi. 13, 14.)— We should also pro- 
 bably be told that the ten following words are all " unknown 
 to Mark :"— (iii.) Tpix«,— (xiii.) BepfiaTlvt),—{\h.) oa^ii,— 
 (xv.) d/^p/S6y,— (xvi.) |t£\t,— (xvii.) aypic;, (six instances in 
 a single verse (ver. G) : a highly suspicious circumstance !),— 
 (xviiL) /fi^TTTftj^,- (xix.) .V«J — (XX.) vTzoh')^a7a, (aU three 
 instances in ver. 7 !)-(xxi.) riSoKel.',— (xxii.) Kai eyh-ero . . 
 ijXeev (vor. 9),— unique in S. Mark !— (xxiii.) ^aTTTj^ea^at 
 els (ver 9), another unique phrase!— (xxiv.) ol oipavol tiriee, 
 (viz. in verses 10, 11) yet elsewhere, when S.Mark speaks 
 of Heaven, (ch. vi. 41 : vii. 34: viii. 11 : xvi. 19) he always 
 uses the singular.— Lastly, (xxv.) the same sorry objection 
 which was brought against the "last twelve verses," (that 
 TTtiXii', a favourite adverb with S. Mark, is not found there.) 
 is here even more conspicuous. 
 
 Turning away from all this,— (not, however, without an 
 apology for hanng lingered over such frivolous details so 
 long,)"-!-! desire to point out that we have reverently to look 
 below the surface, if we would ascertain how far it is to be 
 presumetl from internal considerations whether S. Mark was 
 indeed the author of this portion of his Gospel, or not. 
 
 Y "We must devise, I say, some more delicate, more phdo- 
 sophical, more real test than the coarse, uncritical expedient 
 
17G 
 
 A more delicate (itid real Ti-sf at hand. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 which has been hitherto considered of asceitniniiig by refer- 
 ence to the i)a<j;e8 of a Greek Concordance whether a certain 
 word which is found in this section of the Gospel is, or is 
 not, used elsewhere by S. Mark. And I suppose it will be 
 generally allowed to be deserving of atteution, — in fact, to 
 be a singularl}' corroborative circumstance, — that within the 
 narrow compass of these Twelve Verses we meet with every 
 fin'iicipal eharacieridic of S. Mail's maimer : — Thus, 
 
 (i.) Though he is the Author of the shortest of the Gos- 
 pels, and though to all appearance he often merely repro- 
 duces what S. ^latthew has said before him, or else antici- 
 pates something, which is afterwards delivered by S. Luke, — 
 it is surprising hov,' often we are indebted to S. Mark for 
 precious pieces of information which we look for in vain 
 elsewhere. Now, this is a feature of the Evangelist's man- 
 ner which is susceptible of memorable illustration from the 
 section before us. 
 
 How many and how considerable are the neic eircumstances 
 which S. Mark here deliA'ers ! — (1) That Mary Magdalene 
 was the first to behold the risen Saviour : (2) That it was 
 He who had cast out from her the " seven devils :" (3) Hoio 
 the men were engaged to whom she brought her jo)'ful mes- 
 sage, — (4) who not only did not belicA'e her stor}*, but when 
 Cleopas and his companion declared what had happened to 
 themselves, " neither believed they them." (5) The terms of 
 the Ministerial Commission, as set down in verses 15 and 16, 
 are unique. (6) The announcement of the "signs which 
 should follow them that believe" is. even extraordinary. 
 Lastly, (7) this is the only place in the Gospel where The 
 Session at the right lland of God is recorded. ... So many, 
 and such precious incidents, showered into the Gospel Trea- 
 sury at the last moment, and with such a lavish hand, must 
 needs have proceeded if not from an Apostle at least from 
 a companion of Apostles. O, if we had no other token to 
 go by, there could not be a reasonable doubt that this entire 
 section is by no other than S. Mark himself ! 
 
 (ii.) A second striking characteristic of the second Evan- 
 gelist is his love of picturesque, or at least of striking details, 
 — his proneuess to introduce exceedingly minute particulars. 
 
 IX.] 
 
 &'. Mark't characteristics rccogui^ahk here. 177 
 
 often of the profonndest significancy, and always of con- 
 siderable interest. Not to look beyond the Twelve Verses 
 (chap. i. 9 — 20) which were originallj' proposed for com- 
 parison, — We are reminded (a) that in describing our Sa- 
 viour's Baptism, it is only S. :Mark who relates that " He 
 came from Nazareth" to be baptized. — (//) In his higlily 
 elliptical account of our Lord's Temptation, it is only he 
 who relates that "He was irith the wild lcaHti<''—(r) In his 
 description of the Call of the four Disciples, S. Mark alone 
 it is who, (notwithstanding the close resemblance of liis 
 account to what is found in S.Matthew,) records that the 
 father of S.James and S.John was left "in the ship iriih 
 the hired servants'^." — Now, of tliis characteristic, we have 
 also within these twelve verses, at least four illustrations: — 
 
 {a) Note in ver. 10, that life-like touch which evidently 
 proceeded from an eye-witness, — " irevOova-i koI KKaiovai." 
 S. Mark relates that when Marj' conveyed to the Disciples 
 the joyous tidings of the Lord's Resurrection, she found 
 them overwhelmed with sorrow, — " mourning and weeping." 
 
 (6) Note also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13 is re- 
 corded only there. 
 
 (c) Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disci- 
 ples were "going into the country," {vopevofitvoi eh aypiv', 
 ver. 12,) Jesus also "went with them" — (avv-eTopeveTO, as 
 S. Luke relates;) — but that it w;is as they actually "walked" 
 along {•n-epmaToiicriv) that this manifestation took place. 
 
 {d) Among the marvellous predictions made concerning 
 "them that believe;" what can be imagined more striking 
 than the promise that they should "take tip serpents;" and 
 suffer no harm even if thej* should "drink any deadly thing" ? 
 
 (iii) Next, — all have been struck, I suppose, with S.Mark's 
 proneness to substitute some expression of his own for what 
 he found in the Gospel of his predecessor S. Matthew : or, 
 when he anticipates something which is afterwards met with 
 in the Gospel of S. Lute, his aptness to deliver it in lan- 
 guage entirely independent of the later Evangelist. I allude, 
 for instance, to his substitution of evi^aXwv exXaie (xiv. 72) 
 
 1 S. Mark i. 9 : 14 : 20. ' The tame word U found alto 
 
 ill S. Luke's narrative of tLe same event, cli. jiiiv. 13. 
 
 N 
 
178 
 
 The chnrar/tristics of S. Murk 
 
 [chap. 
 
 for S.Matthew's eKKavat Trt/f/jwy (xxTi.75) ; — and of 6 rticron' 
 (vi. 3) for o ToO jiicrovo^ vios (S. Matth. xiii. 55). — The 
 "iroman of Canaan" in S. Matthew's Gospel (7111'^ Xava- 
 vaia, ch. xv. 22), is called "a Greek, a Syrophenieian by 
 nation " in S. Mark's (EXKrivis, ^vpo^otviaaa tw yivei, 
 ch. vii. 2G). — At the Baptism, "instead of the "opened" 
 heavens of S. ^Matthew (dvf^x^^°^'^^t ch. iii. 16) and S. Luke 
 {avfoyj^drjvtti, ch. iii. 22), we are presented by S. Mark with 
 the striking image of the heavens "clearing" or "being rent 
 asunder" {axi^ofiivovs * , ch. i. 10). — What S. ^Matthew calls 
 TO opia MayBakd (ch. xv. 39), S. Mark designates as to 
 /lepij AoKitavovOd (ch. viii. 10.) — In place of S. Matthew's 
 ^vfiT) SaBSovxalcov (ch. xvi. 6), S. Mark has ^vfJ^rj 'Hptohov 
 (ch. viii. 15.) — In describing the visit to Jericho, for the Bvo 
 rv(p\oi of S. Matthew (ch. xx. 29), S. Mark gives v'io<: Tifiaiov 
 BapTifiatoi 6 rvcfiXos .... TrpoaairSiv (ch. x. 40.) — For the 
 kKAIov^ of S. Matth. xxi. 8, S. Mark (ch. xi. 8) has aioi- 
 fidBav; and for the other's irplv oKeKTopa (fxcvrjaat (xxvi. 
 34), he has irplp ^ Bit (xiv. 30.) — It is so throughout. 
 
 Accordingly, — (as we have already more than once had occa- 
 sion to remark,) — whereas the rest say onlj' 17 fii'a Ta>v aafi- 
 ^ditov, S. Mark says vpdiTT] aafifidrov (in ver. 9). — "Whereas 
 S. Luke (viii. 2) says d(f>' ^? Bai/iovia eirTo. i^fXrjXvdei, — 
 S. Mark records that from her e>t/9e)3X7j«et eTrra Batfiovia. — 
 Very diflFerent is the great ministerial Commission as set 
 down by S.Mark in ver. 15, 16, from what is found in 
 S. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20. — And whereas S.Luke sajs "t/ieir 
 eyet were holdcn that they should not know Him," S. Mark 
 says that "He appeared to them in another fonn." ... Is it 
 credible that any one fabricating a conclusion to S. Mark's 
 narrative after S. Luke's Gospel had appeared, would have 
 ventured so to paraphrase S.Luke's statement? And jet, 
 let the consistent truthfulness of either expression be care- 
 fully noted. Both are historically accurate, but they pro- 
 ceed from opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly 
 side, (God's side), the Disciples' "eyes" (of course) "were 
 
 • On wliicb, Victor of Antiocli (if inded it be he) finely remarks,— 2x'{»"'" 
 ti a< tipavol, 9 Kara WatBaiov iLvotyoinai, %va rois ivSpiiirots d-roSoi-j il ovpayot 
 t iyiair/i^i, koi avya^Bp toT> inyttoit ri oipifm. — (Cramer i. p. 271.) 
 
 IX.] 
 
 recognisabie in these Verses. 
 
 179 
 
 holden ;" — viewed on the earthly side, (Man's side), the risen 
 Saviour (no doubt) " appeared in another form." 
 
 (iv.) Then further, S. Mark is observed to introduce many 
 expressions into his Gospel which confirm the prevalent 
 tradition that it was at Rome he wrote it ; and that it M°as 
 with an immediate view to Latin readers that it was pub- 
 lished. Twelve such expressions were enumerated above 
 (at p. 150-1); and such, it was also there shewn, most un- 
 mistakably is the phrase Trpdnj) aafipd-ov in ver. 9. — It is 
 simply incredible that any one but an Evangelist writing 
 under the peculiar conditions traditionally assigned to S. 
 Mark, would have hit upon such an expression as this, — 
 the strict equivalent, to Latin ears, for »} /i/a ca^^aTwv, 
 ■which has occurred just above, in ver. 2. Now this, it will 
 be remembered, is one of the hacknied objections to the ge- 
 nuineness of this entire portion of the Gospel; — quite proof 
 enough, if proof were needed, of the exceeding improbability 
 which attaches to the phrase, in the judgment of those who 
 have considered this question the most. 
 
 (v.) The last peculiarity of S. Mark to which I propose 
 to invite attention is supplied by those expressions which 
 connect his Gospel with S. Peter, and remind us of the con- 
 stant traditional belief of the ancient Chuich that S. Mark 
 was the companion of the chief of the Apostles. 
 
 That the second Gospel contains many such hints has 
 often been pointed out; never more interestingly or more 
 convincingly than bj' Townson • in a work which deserves 
 to be in tlie hands of everj' student of Sacred Science. In- 
 stead of reproducing any of the familiar cases in order to 
 illustrate my meaning, I will mention one which has per- 
 haps never been mentioned in this connexion before. 
 
 {a) Reference is made to our Lord's sayings in S.Mark vii, 
 and specially to what is found in ver. 19. Tliat expression, 
 "purging all meats" (Ka6apifytv^ irdvra rd Ppd>fiaTa), does 
 really seem to be no part of the Divine discourse; but the 
 Evangelist's inspired comment on the Saviock's words". 
 
 • Disc. V. Sect. ii. ' Thie appears to be the true reading. 
 
 • So ChryeOHtom —i H WdpKOS ipv'i', »Ti "Kaiapltuiy t4 fl/^^aro," raCra 
 t\,-)„- [vii. 626 a].— He leemi to hare derived tbat ren.ark from Orisen [i» 
 
 k2 
 
180 
 
 S. Marl's GvsjkI coiHHchil nillt S.Pifir. [chap. 
 
 Our Saviour (he explains) Ly that discourse of His — ipso 
 facto — " made nil mcata clean." How douhly striking a state- 
 ment, when it is remembered that probably Simon Peter 
 himself was the actual author of it ; — the same who, on the 
 house-top at Joppa, had been shewn in a vision that "Gon 
 had iiiaile clean" (6 0e6s tKaOapicre^) all His creatures ! 
 
 {b) Now, let a few words epoken by the same S. Peter on 
 a memorable occasion be considered : — " AVherefore of these 
 men which have conipanied with us all the time that the 
 Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from (he 
 Baptism of John, unto that same day that He iras iahen up 
 (ave\ij^67}) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness 
 with us of His Resurrection J." Does not S. Peter thereby 
 define the precise limits of our Saviour's Ministry, — shew- 
 ing it to have "begun" {ap^dfj-evo^) " from the Baptism of 
 John," — and closed with the Day of our Lord's Ascension? 
 And what else are those but the exact bounds of S. Mark's 
 Gospel, — of which the apx>} (ch. i. 1) is signally declared 
 to have been the Baptism of John, — and the utmost limit, 
 the daj' when (as S. Mark says) " Se was tahen up {a.ve\i](}>6i) 
 into Heaven," — (ch. xvi. 19)? 
 
 (c) I will only further remind the reader, in connexion 
 with the phrase, iraaj} tj) KTicrei, in ver. 15, — (concerning 
 which, the reader is referred back to page 162-3,) — that both 
 S. Peter and S. Mark (but no other of the sacred writers) 
 conspire to use the expression dv' dpxvs KTiofoa'. S. Mark 
 has besides KTt'<reQ3<; j}? cKTiae 6 ©eo? (ch. xiii. 19) ; whue 
 S. Peter alone styles the Almighty, from His work of Crea- 
 tion, o KTiarijs (1 S. Pet. iv. 19). 
 
 YI. But besides, and over and above such considerations 
 
 Mallh. ed. Haet.i. 249 »] :— Karek rhv Kipton (Ktyt ravra t ScfrV "«"9o/i(>' 
 rima t4 /B/kS^ioto."— From the Bame source, I suspect, Gregory "liauniaturpii 
 (Origcn's disciple), Bp. of Neocccsarea iu Po'ntus, a.d. 261, iSouti, iii- 2.><J 
 derived the following: — xa) 6 iuriip 6 "irivra KaBapl^uy ri ppifi^ri'" •* ''' 
 tiairopfvifjLivor, ^7)»1, koii o7 -rhv tv^parwov, aWa th ixiiopfviuivov, — See, M » 
 
 tneans. Field's most iutcrestmg Adtiotationes in CArys., vol. iii. P-H2 
 
 'EvTtvBfy (fiuely snys Victor of Antioch) S xaifhs ipx'Toi fSfios i w" 
 ■iryfvtia. (Cramer i. 335.) • Acts 1. 15. 
 
 ' Acts i. 22, 23. Cf. ver. 2, — ixf' 5' Vf'p" • • • dyf^^^Bn- 
 • S.Mark x. 6 : liii. 19.— 2 S.Pct. iii. i (Cf. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.) 
 
 ix.J ProbabilUy that these Verses irouhl be proricleil for. 181 
 
 as those which precede, — (some of which, I am aware, might 
 be considerably evacuated of their cogency; while others, 
 I am just as firmly convinced, will remain forcible witnesses 
 of God's Truth to the end of Time,)— I hesitate not to avow 
 my personal conviction that abundant and striking evidence 
 is garnered up within the brief compass of these Twelve 
 Verses tliat they are identical iu respect of fabric with the 
 rest of the Gospel ; were clearly manufactured out of the 
 same Divine materials, — wrought in the same heavenly loom. 
 
 It was even to have been expected, from what is found 
 to have been universally the method iu other parts of Scrip- 
 ture, — (for it was of course foreseen by Almighty God 
 from the beginning that this portion of His "Word would 
 be, like its Divine Author, in these last days cavilled at, re- 
 viled, hated, rejected, denied,)— that the Spirit would not 
 leave Himself without witness in this place. It was to have 
 been anticipated, I say, that Eternal Wisdom would care- 
 fully — (I trust there is no irreverence in so speaking of God 
 and His ways !) — would carefully make provision : meet the 
 coming unbelief (as His Angel met Balaam) with a drawn 
 sword : plant up and down throughout these Twelve Verses 
 of the Gospel, sure indications of their Divine Original,— un- 
 mistakable notes of purpose and design,— mysterious traces 
 and tokens of Himself; not visible indeed to the scornful 
 and arrogant, the impatient and irreverent ; yet clear as if 
 written with a sunbeam to the patient and humble student, 
 the man who "trembleth at God's Word'." Or, (if the 
 Reader prefers the image,) the indications of a Divine Ori- 
 ginal to be met with in these verses shall be likened rather 
 to thoee cryptic characters, invisible so long as they remain 
 unsuspected, but which shine forth clear and strong when 
 exposed to the Light or to the Heat ; (Light and Heat, both 
 emblems of Himself!) so that even he that gropeth in dark- 
 ness must now see them, and admit that of a truth " the 
 Lord is in this place" although he " knew it not ! " 
 
 (i.) I propose then that in the first instance we compare 
 the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel with the beginning of it. 
 "We did this before, when our object was to ascertain whether 
 
 • Is. livi. 2. 
 
182 Verbal coincidences Iclicecn i. 9-20 8f x\i. 9-20, [tHAr. 
 
 the Slyle of S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20 be indeed as utterly dis- 
 cordant from that of the rest of the Gospel as is commonlj- 
 represented. We found, instead, the most striking resem- 
 blance''. We also instituted a brief comparison between 
 the two in order to discover whether the Diction of the one 
 might not possibly be found as suggestire of rerbal doubts 
 as the diction of the other: and so we found it'. — Let us 
 for the third time draw the two extremities of this precious 
 fabric into close proximity in order again to compare them. 
 Nothing I presume can be fairer than to elect that, once 
 more, our attention be chiefly directed to what is contained 
 within the twelve verses (ver.9 — 20) of S. Mark's ^rsi chapter 
 ■whicb exactly correspond with the twelve verses of his hat 
 chapter (ver. 9 — 20) which are tlie subject of the present 
 volume. 
 
 Now between these two sections of the Gospel, besides 
 (1) the obvious rerbal resemblance, I detect (2) a singular 
 parallelism of essential structure. And this does not strike 
 me the less forcibly because nothing of the kind was to have 
 been expected. 
 
 (1.) On the verbal coincidences I do not propose to lay 
 much stress. Yet are they certainly not without argumenta- 
 tive weight and significancy. I allude to the following: — 
 
 (o) [pairriCav, /Saimtr/ui (i. 4) — (fl) ^aiXTiaBtis (xvi. 16) 
 
 Kai iPaiTTiCovTO (i. 5) — «/3djr- 
 
 Tura, ^airriati (i. 8)J — Koi «/3- 
 
 anriaOti (1. 9) 
 (J) [KJipiairav, tK^pvavc (i. 7)] (J) iKr/pv^av (xVl. 20) 
 
 (J and c) KTjpiaaav to tvayyiXiov (c) Kijpv^arf to tvayyt^'ov ^XVl. 
 
 (i. 14) — [o/JXI ''O" tvayytXlov 15) 
 
 (i- 1)3 ^ 
 
 (e and d) TKrrtvtTt iv ry tvay- (rf) rjrriimjvtui (xvi. 1 1 ) o*** 
 yeXi'p (i. 16) iTriarvtrav (xvi. 13) — rif 
 
 iiturr'tav, ovk inlarrmav (XVl. 
 
 14) — 6 mcrrciiTat, i airicn^<ro» 
 
 (xvi. 16) — Toir iriOT«w<ro<" 
 
 (xvi. 17.) 
 
 Now this, to say the least, shews that there exists an 
 
 unmistakable relation of sj'mpathy between the first page of 
 
 ' See above, p. 143-5. • S«e above, p. 174 6. 
 
 IX.] 
 
 anil >i'iiiJiiiifi/ uf ffy'tifint drnclurc 
 
 183 
 
 S. Mark's Gospel and the last. The same doctrinal phrase- 
 ology*. — the same indications of Divine purpose, — the same 
 prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both, 
 (i.) A Goyifl to be everywhere 7)rf(7c//«/; — (ii.) Faif/i, to be 
 of all requited; — {in.) Bnpiifm to be universally administered; 
 ("one Loud, one Faith, one Baptism:") — Is not i/iis the 
 theme of tlie beginning of S. Mark's Gospel as well as of 
 the end of it? Surely it is as if on comparing the two ex- 
 tremities of a chain, with a view to ascertaining whether 
 the fabric be identical or not, it were discovered thai those 
 extremities are even meant to c/a-j' f 
 
 (2.) IJiit the essential parallelism between S. Mark xvi. 9 
 — 20 and S. Mark i. 9 — 20 is a profounder phenomenon and 
 deserves even more attention. I proceed to set down side 
 by side, as before, what ought to require neither comment 
 nor explanation of mine. Thus we find, — 
 
 (a) in cli. i. 9 /o 11 :— OurLoED's {k] in ch. xvi. Q to W : — Our 
 Maiiifostation to the AVorld Lobd's appearance to Mary 
 
 {Int^mvua) on His "coming Magdalene (t'l^pwj) after His 
 
 up {ava^aivar) out of the Resurrection {ayao-nic) from 
 
 water" of Jordan : (having Dtatli : (of which Gob had 
 
 been " buried by Baptism," said, "Thou art My Son, this 
 
 asthcApostle Bpeaks :) wLcn day have I begotten Thee." 
 
 the Voice from Heaven pro- 12 to 14 : — Two other 
 
 claimed, — "Thou art My be- Manifestations (((^acryjudi;) to 
 
 loved Sox in whom I am Disciples. 
 
 well pleased." 
 
 (b) 12, 13:— Chbist's (b) 17, 18 :— Chbisi's 
 
 victory over Satan ; (where- promise that " they that be- 
 
 by is fulfilled the promise lieve" "shall cast out devils" 
 
 --- •' Thou shalt tread upon the and "Bhalltakeupserpents:" 
 
 lion and adder: the young (as [in S.Luke 1. 19 j He had 
 
 lion and the dragon shalt given the Seventy "power 
 
 Thou trample under feet") to tread on serpents and scor- 
 
 pions, and over idl the power 
 of the Encaiy.") 
 
 [(c) 8 :— The Pentecos- (c) 17 : — The chief 
 
 tal Gift foretold: "He shall Pentecostal Gift specified: 
 
 baptize you with the Holt " They shall speak with new 
 
 Ghost."] tongues." 
 
 • Mj attention was first drawn to tbis bj mv friend, tbe Eev. W, Ka>, DD. 
 
184 
 CO 
 
 Tiro Articles in the Creed of Jerusalem. [chap. 
 
 IX.] 
 
 The title 6 Kvpim reserved for this plaec. 
 
 185 
 
 »■« ch. i. U. 15:— CiniisT 
 " tomes into Galilte, preach- 
 ing tlic Gospel and say- 
 ing ... . lUjK'Dt TO, and be- 
 lieve the Gospel." 
 
 W 
 
 15: His announce- (e) 
 
 mcnt,that "The time is ful- 
 filled, and the Kingdom of 
 God is at hand " 
 
 w 
 
 • 16 <o 20:— The four (f) 
 
 Apostles' Call to the Minis- 
 try: (which [S. Luke v. 8,9] 
 is miraculously attested.) 
 
 (d) in ch. xvi. 15, 16 :— Ho com- 
 mands His Apostles to " go 
 into all the world and preach 
 the Gospel to every creature. 
 He that bclieveth and is bap- 
 tized shall be saved." 
 
 1 9 :— S. Mark's re- 
 
 cord concerning Him, that 
 "He was received up into 
 Heaven, and sat on the right 
 hand of God :" (where He 
 must reign till He hath put 
 all enemies under His feet.") 
 20:— The Apostles' 
 
 Ministry, which la every- 
 where miraculously attested, 
 — "The LoED working with 
 them, and confirming the 
 word by the signs that 
 followed." 
 It is surely not an unmeaning circumstance, a mere acci- 
 dent, that the Evangelist should at the very outset and at 
 the very conclusion of his Gospel, so express himself I If, how- 
 ever, it should seem to the Reader a mere matter of course, 
 a phenomenon without interest or significancy,— nothing 
 which I could add would probably bring him to a different 
 mind. 
 
 (3.) Then, further : when I scrutinize attentively the two 
 portions of Scripture thus proposed for critical survey, I am 
 not a little struck by the discovery that the Vlth Article 
 of the ancient Creed of Jerusalem (a.d. 348) is found in th* 
 one: the Xth Article, in the other -J. If it be a purely for- 
 
 The Creed itself, ("ei variia Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis coUectum,") 
 may be seen at p. 84 of De Touttte'a ed. of CjttI. Let the following be com- 
 pared : — 
 
 4«Xli^», f/jTi, obpav6,; «al iKi»i,t, (k 8.{.aii- toS e«5 (ch. xvi. 19.) 
 
 ANEAe6NTA eIs T0« OtPANOi-2, KaI KAeflANTA 'EK AEilfiN 
 TOT nATP02 (Aet. VI.) This ma, be seen in ,Uu at p. 224 c of Cyril. 
 
 Pirriaiia nfToroias us tifitiriv inapriuv (ch. i. 4.) 
 
 BAnxiSMA METANofAX El5 'A+EJIN 'AMAPTlfiN (Abt. X.) This m*J 
 be seen at p. 295 c of Cyril. 
 
 The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in ProfeMor 
 HeurUey's little work De Fide el Si/mbolo, 1869, p. 9. 
 
 
 tuitous circumstance, that two cardinal verities like those, — 
 (viz. " Jle auduled into Heaien, and sat down at the Right 
 Hand of God," — and "One Baptism for the Remission of sins,") 
 should be found at either extremity of one short Gospel, — 
 I will but point out that it is certainly one of a very re- 
 markable series of fortuitous circumstances.— But in the 
 thing to be mentioned next, there neither is, nor can be, 
 any talk of fortuitousness at all. 
 
 (4.) Allusion is made to the diversitj' of Name whereby 
 the Sou of Man is indicated in these two several places of 
 the Gospel ; which constitutes a most Divine circumstance, 
 and is profoundly significant. He who in the firnt vcr.se 
 (S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title "'Itjo-ovs" 
 and " Xpta-Tos," — here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi. 
 19. 20) is styled for the first and for the last time, " 'o ktpioz" 
 — the I-OKD '. 
 
 And why ? Because He who at His Circumcision was 
 named " Jesus," (a Name which was given Him from Sis 
 Birth, yea, and before His Birth) ; He who at His Baptism 
 became " the Christ," (a Title which belonged to His Office, 
 and which betokens His sacred Unction) ; — the same, on the 
 occasion of His Ascension info Heaven and Session at the 
 Eight Hand of God, — when (as we know) " all power had 
 been given unto Him in Heaven and in Earth" (S. Matth. 
 xxviii. 18), — is designated by His Name of Dominion ; " the 
 Lord" Jehovah ..." Magnifica et opportuna appellatio !" 
 — as Bengel well remarks. 
 
 But I lake leave to point out that all this is what never 
 either would or could have entered into the mind of a fabri- 
 cator of a conclusion to S. Mark's unfinished GospeL No 
 inventor of a supplement, I say, could have planted his foot 
 in this way in exactly the right place. The proof of my 
 assertion is twofold : — 
 
 (fl) First, because the present indication that the Holy 
 
 Ghost was indeed the Author of these last Twelve Verses 
 
 is even appealed to by Dr. Davidson and his School, as 
 
 a proof of a spurious original. Yerily, such Critics do not 
 
 recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they 
 
 see it ! 
 
 • See aljove,— p. 165-6. 
 
18C 
 
 Four more fiiigular notes of 
 
 [til* p. 
 
 (t) Next, as a matter of fact, we have a spurious Supple- 
 tuent to the Go.'pel, — the same which was exhibited above 
 at p. 123-4 ; and which may here be with advantage repro- 
 duced in its Latin form : — " Omnia autem quaecumquc prac- 
 ccpta erant illis qui cum Petro erant, breviter exposuerunt. 
 Post haec el ipse Iesus adparuit, et ab oriente usque in 
 occidenlem misit per illos sanctam et iucorruptam praedi- 
 cationem salutis aeternae. Amen '." — Another apocrj-phal 
 termination is found in certain copies of the Thebaic version. 
 It occupies the place of ver. 20, and is as follows: — "Ex- 
 euntes terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evange- 
 lium in mundo toto, Chris'tg operante cum iis in verbo con- 
 firmationem cum signis sequentibus eos et miraculis. Atque 
 hoc modo cognitum est regnum Dei in terra tota et in 
 mundo toto Israelis in testimonium gentium omnium ha- 
 rum quae exsistunt ub oriente ad occasum." It will be seen 
 that the Title of Dominion (o Kvpio<; — the Lord) is found 
 in neither of these fabricated passages; but the Names of 
 Nativity and of Baptism (IijaoOs and Xpiaroi — Jesds and 
 Christ) occur instead. 
 
 (ii.) Then further : — It is an extraordinary note of 
 genuineness that such a vast number of minute but im- 
 portant facts should be found accumulated within the nar- 
 row compass of these twelve verses ; and should be met with 
 nowhere else. The writer,— supposing that he had only 
 S. Matthew's Gospel before him, — traverses (except in one 
 single instance) wholly new ground ; moves forward with 
 unmistakable boldness and a^ rare sense of security ; and 
 wherever he plauts his foot, it is to enrich the soil with 
 fertility and beauty. But on the supposition that he wrote 
 after S. Luke's and S. John's Gospel had appeared,— the 
 marvel becomes increased an hundred-fold : for how then 
 does it come to pass that he evidently draws his information 
 from quite independent sources P is not bound by any of 
 their statements ? even seems purposely to break away from 
 their guidance, and to adventure some extraordinary state- 
 
 ' Cod. BolliemU Qa) : which hon-ever for "illis" has "et :" for "Petro," 
 "puero:" and for " occidcntem," "orieiitem." It also repeats "nequc." 
 1 have ventured to alter "ab oricntem" into "ab oriente." — Compare what 
 is found in the Philozeniau margin, as giren bj ^\'hite and Adler. 
 
 ,X.] 
 
 genuineness and reraciousnest. 
 
 187 
 
 mcnt of his own, — which nevertheless carries the true Gos- 
 pel savour with it ; and is felt to be authentic from the very 
 circumstance that no one would have ever dared to invent 
 such a detail and put it forth on his own responsibility ? 
 
 (iii.) Second to no indication that this entire section of 
 the Gospel has a Divine original, I hold to be a famous 
 expression which (like TrpojTij aa/S/SoTou) has occasioned 
 general offence : I mean, the designation of Mary Magdalene 
 as one " out of whom" the Lord " had cast seven devils ;" 
 and tltat, in immediate connexion with the record of her 
 august privilege of being the first of the Human Race to 
 behold His risen form. There is such profound Gospel sig- 
 nificancy, — such sublime improbability, — such exquisite 
 pathos in this record, — that I would defy any fabricator, be 
 he who he might, to have achieved it. This has been to 
 some extent pointed out already ^. 
 
 (iv.) It has also been pointed out, (but the circumstance 
 must be by all means here insisted upon afresh,) that the desig- 
 nation (found in ver. 10) of the little company of our Lord's 
 followers, — "rot? fier' airrov yevo/ievois," — is another rare 
 note of veracious origin. No one but S. Mark, — or just such 
 an one as he,— would or could have so accurately designated 
 the little band of Christian men and women who, uncon- 
 scious of their bliss, were "mourning and weeping" till after 
 sunrise on the first Easter Day. The reader is reminded of 
 what has been already offered on this subject, at p. 155-6. 
 
 (v.) I venture further to point out that no writer but 
 S.Mark, (or such an one as he*"), would have familiarly desig- 
 nated the Apostolic body as " ainoh rots evSeKU," in ver. 14. 
 The phrase ot Bdihexa, he uses in proportion far oftener than 
 any other two of the Evangelists '. And it is evident that 
 the phrase o/ evBeKa soon became an equally recognised de- 
 signation of the Apostolic body, — " from which Judas by 
 transgression fell." Its familiar introduction into this place 
 by the second Evangelist is exactly what one might have 
 
 • See alwve (Art. II.) p. 152-3. 
 
 ' Consdder S. Luke xxir. 9: 33. Acts ii. 14. 
 
 < S. Mitth. iiri 14, 29, 47.— S. Mark iv. 10 : vi. » : ii. 35 : x. 32 : xi. 11 : 
 liT. 10, 17. 20, 43.— S.Lnke vui. 1: ii. 1, 12: xviii. 81: xiii. 3. 47.— 
 S. John Ti. 87, 70, 71 : xi. 24. 
 
188 
 
 One more note of genuineness. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 looked for, or at least what one is fully prepared to meet 
 with, in him. 
 
 (vi.) I will close this enumeration by calling attention to 
 an unobtrusive and unobserved verb in the last of these 
 verses which (I venture to say) it would never have entered 
 into the mind of any ordinary .'writer to employ in that 
 particular place. I allude to the familiar word efeX^ovTes. 
 
 The precise meaning of the expression,— depending on the 
 known force of the preposition with which the verb is 
 compounded, — can scarcely be missed by any one who, on 
 the one hand, is familiar with the Evangelical method; 
 on the other, is sufficiently acquainted with the Gospel 
 History. Reference is certainly made to the final departure 
 of the Apostolic body out of the citi/ of Jerimkm\ And 
 tacitly, beyond a question, there is herein contained a re- 
 collection of our SAViotR's command to His Apostles, twice 
 expressly recorded by S. Luke, " that they should not depart 
 from Jerumlem, but wait for the promise of the Father." 
 "Behold," (said He,) "I send the promise of My Father 
 upon you : but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be 
 endued with power from on high '." . . . After many days 
 "Jhey went forth," or " out." S. Mark, (or perhaps it is 
 rather S. Peter,) expressly says so,— e'l^eX^on-ej. Aye, and 
 that was a memorable " outgoing," truly ! What else was 
 its purpose but the evangelization of the World ? 
 
 > II. Let this suffice, then, concerning the evidence de- 
 rived from Internal considerations. But lest it should here- 
 after be reckoned as an omission, and imputed to me as 
 a fault, that I have said nothing about the alleged Incon- 
 sistency of certain statements contained in these " Twelve 
 Terses" with the larger notices contained in the parallel 
 narratives of S. Luke and S. John, — I proceed briefly to 
 explain uhy I am silent on this head. 
 
 1. I cannot see for whom I should be writing; in other 
 
 '^ Compare S.Luke ixii. 39; and especially S.John xriii. 1,— where the 
 moment of departore/roni the cifj/ is marked : (for observe, they had left the 
 house and the npper chamber at ch. xit. 31). See a'.so ch. lU. 17,— where the 
 going vHhouf tie gate is indicated : (for ((w t5j irvAiji hmSt [Heb.xiii.l2.]) 
 So Matth.'iirii. 82. Consider S. Luke xii. 37. 
 
 ' S. Luke xiiv. 49. Acts i. 4. 
 
 IX.] Siip])0>>rd Inconsistencies not noticed: — and why. ISfi 
 
 words, — what I should propose to myself as the end to be 
 attained by what 1 wrote. For, 
 
 2. What would be gained by demonstrating, — (as I am 
 of course prepared to do,) — that there is really no incon- 
 si'ifciicii irhatcier between anything which S. Mark here says, 
 and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should have 
 proved that, — (assuming the other Evangelical narratives to 
 be authentic, i.e. historicall}' true,) — tlic narrative before us 
 cannot be objected to on the score of its not being authentic 
 also. But hi/ uhoni is such proof required ? 
 
 ((?) Isot by the men who insist that errors arc occasion:ill_v 
 to be met with in the Evangelical narratives. In thiir esti- 
 mation, the genuineness of an inspired urifiin/ is a thing not 
 in the least degree rendered suspicious bj' the erroncousness 
 of its statements. According to them, the narrative may 
 exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and may yet be the 
 work of S. Mark. If the inconsistencies be but " trifling," 
 and the inaccuracies " minute," — these " sound Theologians," 
 (for so they style themselves"",) "have no dread whatever 
 of acknowledging" their existence. Be it so. Then would 
 it be a gratuitous task to set about convincing them that 
 no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable within the 
 compass of these Twelve concluding Verses. 
 
 (i) But neither is such proof required by faithful Readers ; 
 who, for want of the requisite Scientific knowledge, are 
 unable to discern the perfect Harmony of the Evangelical 
 narratives in this place. It is only one of many places 
 where a prima facie discrepancy, though it does not fail to 
 strike, — yet (happily) altogether fails to distress them. 
 Consciously or unconsciously, such readers reason with them- 
 selves somewhat as follows : — " God's Word, like all God's 
 other Works, (and I am taught to regard God's Word as 
 a verv masterpiece of creative skill ;) — the blessed Gospel, 
 I sav, is /«'/ of difficulties. And yet those difficulties are 
 observed invariably to disappear under competent investi- 
 gation. Can I seriously doubt that if sufficient critical skill 
 were brought to bear on the highly elliptical portion of nar- 
 rative contained in these Twelve Verses, it would present no 
 
 " See above, p. 2. 
 
190 Rnicic of the foregoing Chapter. [chap. ix. 
 
 exception to a rule which is ohscrved to be else universal ; 
 and that any apparent inconsistency between S. Mark's 
 Etatcments in this place, and those of S. Luke and S. John, 
 •would also be found to be imaginary only?" 
 
 This then is the reason why I abstain from entering upon 
 a prolonged Inquiry, which would in fact necessitate a dis- 
 cussion of the Principles of Gospel Harmony, — for which the 
 present would clearly not be the proper place. 
 
 VIII. Let it suffice that, in the foregoing pages, — 
 
 1. I have shewn that the supposed argument from "Style," 
 (ii> itself a highly fallacious test,) disappears under inves- 
 tigation. 
 
 It has been proved (pp. 142-5) that, on the contrary, the 
 style of S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20 is exceedingly like the style of 
 S. Mark i. 9 — 20 ; and therefore, that it is rendered probable 
 by the Style that the Author of the beginning of this Gospel 
 was also the Author of the end of it. 
 
 2. I have further shewn that the supposed argument 
 from "Phraseology," — (in itself, a most unsatisfactory test ; 
 and as it has been applied to the matter in hand, a very 
 coarse and clumsy one;) — breaks down hopelessly under 
 severe anal^'sis. 
 
 • Instead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circum- 
 stances iu the Phraseology of these Twelve Verses, it haa 
 been proved (pp. 170-3) that in twenty-seven particulars there 
 emerge corroborative 'considerations. 
 
 3. Lastly, I have shewn that a loftier method of Criticism 
 is at hand ; and that, tested by this truer, more judicious, 
 and more philosophical standard, a presumption of the highest 
 order is created that these Verses must needs be the trork 
 of S. Mart 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE TISTIMONY OF THE LECTIONAHIES SHEWN TO BE 
 ABSOLUTELY DECISHT: AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF 
 THESE VERSES. 
 
 7/,f Di-'iiinary of the East shcicn in le a uork of (.rtraordinary an- 
 iiqui^u (p. 195). — Proved to le otdtr than any cxtmii MS. of i lie 
 Go'/:'*, by an appeal to the Fathers (p. 198).— /« this Ltetionnry, 
 {a,.d alfo iti the Ledionary of the West,) the last Tuehe T'enes (f 
 S. Mark's Gospel hare, from the fret, oerapiid a most co>npieuou>, 
 as vdl as most honourable place, (]i. 20-1.) — Xoii; this leivmis the 
 testimony of aiiie-Nicciie Christendom in their faronr (j). 209.) 
 
 I HAVE reserved for the last the testimony of the Lec- 
 TiONAKiEs, which has been hitherto all but entirely over- 
 looked * ; — passed by without so much as a word of comment, 
 by those who have preceded me in this inquiry. Tet is it, 
 when rightly understood, altogether decisive of the question 
 at issue. And why ? Because it is not the testimony reu- 
 dered by a solitary Father or by a solitary MS.; no, nor 
 even the testimony yielded by a single Church, or by 
 a single family of MSS. But it is the united testimony of rill 
 the Churches. It is therefore the evidence borne by a ' goodly 
 fellowship of Prophets,' a 'noble army of Martyrs' in- 
 deed ; as well as by MSS. innumerable which have long since 
 pcrish'.d, but which must of necessity once have been. And 
 Eo, it comes to us like the voice of many waters : dates, (as 
 I shall shew by-and-by,) from a period of altogether imme- 
 morial antiquity : is endorsed by the sanction of aU the suc- 
 ceeding a^es: admits of neither doubt nor evasion. This 
 subject, in order that it may be intelligibly handled, will be 
 
 • Tbe one iiiomcrable cxccptioD, which 1 have oiilj- lately met with, is sup- 
 plied hv the foll.Mviug remark of the thoughtful and accurate Mattbaei, made 
 in a piact whae it was almost safe to escape attention; vii. in a footnote 
 at the very eml of his Sov. Test. (ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748.—" Haec lectio in 
 tvangeliiHis el Synaxariis omnihus tcr notntur tribns maxime notahilibus 
 temporibci. Sivundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo legitur 
 Ki'pitwj Tir fivf^if'ipuiv, fls thy ipOpov. Secuudo, xi^i ipeptp t^j li'a\i.^tus. 
 Tertio, u! iuenif avaaTicifioy y'. Ve hoc loco ergo vetusfissimis tcniporibus 
 nullo moi.^ dubiuvit Ecclesia."- Matthaei had slightly anticipated this in 
 his «d. of 17SS, vol. a. 267. 
 
192 Thb ChrMian Church the coulimiaiion of the JeirUi. [uiav. 
 
 most coiivcuiently approached by Bomc remarks which ehuU 
 rehearse the matter from the beginning. 
 
 The Christian Church succeeded to the Jewish. The 
 Toungcr society inherited the traditions of the elder, not 1cm 
 UP a measure of necessity than as a matter of right ; and by 
 a kind of sacred instinct conformed itself from the very b< - 
 ginning in countless particulars to its divinely-appointed 
 model. The same general Order of Service went on un- 
 broken, — conducted by a Priesthood whose spiritual 6ucc«- 
 sion was at least as jealously guarded as had been the natural 
 descent from Aaron in the Church of the Circumcision ''. It 
 was found that " the Sacraments of the Jews are [but] type* 
 of ours'." Still were David's Psalms antiphonally recit^. 
 and the voices of " Moses and the Prophets" were heard in 
 the sacred assemblies of Gon's people " every Sabbath day." 
 Canticle succeeded to Canticle ; while many a Versicle simply 
 held its ground. The congenial utterances of the chosen 
 race passed readily into the service of the family of the re- 
 deemed. Unconsciously perhaps, the very method of the 
 one became adopted by the other : as, for example, the me- 
 thod of beginning a festival from the " Eve" of the pro- 
 ceding Day. The Sj-nagogue-worship became transfigured ; 
 but it did not part with one of its characteristic features. 
 Above all, the same three great Festivals were still retained 
 which declare " the rock whence we are hewn and the hole 
 of the pit whence we are digged :" only was it made a ques- 
 tion, a controversy rather, whether Easter should or should 
 not be celebrated irith the Jctrs "*. 
 
 But it is the faithful handing on to the Christian commu- 
 nity of the Ltctionary practiee of the Synagogue to which the 
 reader's attention is now exclusively invited. That the CUn»- 
 tian Church inherited from the Jewish the practice of read- 
 ing a first and a second Lesson in its public assemblies, i» 
 demonstrable. What the Synagogue practice was in I »' 
 time of the Apostles is known from Acts xiii. 15, 2*. 
 
 k Tit -riv Itpur drocriKuv tiaioxis,—aTe the firtt teordj of Ibe Ecd 
 tical Hiftory of Enseliius. 
 
 « See the heading of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorized Versiou. 
 '' See Binghaui'i Origints, Book xx. ch. v. §§ 2, 3, 4- 
 
 Justin 
 
 .\.] LcciioiKirij-jiracticc of the primittrc Church. lO.'l 
 
 Martyr, (a.d. 150) describes the Christian practice in his 
 lime as precisely similar*: only that for " the Law," there 
 is found to have been at once substituted "the Gospel." He 
 
 ' speaks of the writings of " the Apostles" and o{ "the Pro- 
 phets." Chrysostom has the same expression (for the two 
 Lessons) in one of his Homilies '. Cassian (a.d. 400) says that 
 
 j in Egypt, after the Twelve Prayers at Vespers and at Matins, 
 two Lessons were read, one out of the Old Testament and 
 the other out of the New. But on Safurdni/s and Suudiii/s, 
 and the fift}' days of Pentecost, both Lessons were from the 
 New Testament, — one from the Epistles or the Acts of the 
 Apostles ; the other, from the Gospels". Our own actual 
 practice seems to bear a striking resemblance to that of the 
 Christian Church at the earliest period: for we hear of (1) 
 " Moses and the Prophets," (which will have been the car- 
 
 ^ rying on of the old 83'nagogue-method, represented by our 
 
 ' first and second Lesson,) — (2) a lesson out of the " Epistles 
 or Acts," together with a lesson out of the " Gospels'"." 
 It is, in fact, universally received that the Eastern Church 
 has, from a period of even Apostolic antiquity, enjoyed a Lec- 
 tionarj-, — or established system of Scripture lessons,— of her 
 own. In its conception, this Lectionary is discovered to 
 have been fashioned (as was natural) upon the model of the 
 Lectionary of God's ancient people, the Jews : for it com- 
 mences, as theirs did, in the autumn, (in September ') ; and 
 
 , • T^ rov ijktov \fyofifyTi iif^^ptft irdvruv kotA ir6Ktis 1j dypovs fjifv6vrwv M rh 
 
 > avrb <rvvf\tvats ylvfrai, Hal ri dirofii'i]HovfV^aTa ruy &iroa'T(fAwf, ij to avyyptifx- 
 
 Mara Tuv irpoiprirui' ctroT'ii'iiffKfTai, A»fxp" ^yX'^P''- Then came the Seimon, — 
 
 llien, all Blood and prayed, — then followed Holy Commnniou. — Apol. i. c. 67, 
 
 t {fJ. Otto, i. 158.) 
 
 ' i fidriiif ^mavBa ufff\6dtv, tlni, t/s wpotp-ttnjs, wo7os iLir6ff7o\os ijfiiif clifitpoy 
 8.«Xi'x97), Kol wtp) -rlvuy; — (0pp. ix. p. 697 E. Field's text.) 
 • CaEsian writes, — " Veiierabilis Patrum senatus .... dccrevit hunc nnme- 
 ! ruin [sc. duodctiin Orationum] tarn in Vcspcrtinis quam in Koctum<s couven- 
 
 ticulis custodiri ; quibus lectiooes geminas adjungentes, id est, unam Yeteris 
 ct aljam Xovi Testament! .... In die vero Sabbati vel Douiinico utrasquc 
 de Xovo redtaiit Testaniento; id est, unam de Apostolo Tel Actibus Apos- 
 tolorum, et alium de Evangeliis. Quod etiam totis Quinquagesiuiae diebui 
 faciuDt hi, quibus lectio curae est, sen uieuioria Scripturarum." — Inttit. lib. ii. 
 e. 6. (ed. 1733, p. 18.) 
 ' Constitutlones Apostolicae, lib. ii. c. 57, 59 : v. 19: viii. 5. 
 ' See ScriveuiT's Inlroduction, p. 74, and the red', in note (k) overleaf. 
 
 O 
 
194 
 
 Aniiquity of the Lcctionaiy ."//■sfrm 
 
 [en 
 
 AT. 
 
 prescribes tv\o inimovable "Lections" for every Sattirdai/ (as 
 well as for every Sunday) in the year: differing chiefly in 
 this, — that the prominent place which had been hitherto as- 
 signed to "the Law and the Prophets''," was henceforth 
 enjoyed by the Gospels and the Apostolic writings. " Satur- 
 day-Sunday" lections — [aa^^aTOKvpiaKai, for bo these Lec- 
 tions were called,) — retain their place in the " Synaxarium " 
 of the East to the present hour. It seems also a singular note 
 of antiquity that the Sabbath and the Sunday succeeding it 
 do as it were cohere, and bear one appellation ; so that the 
 week takes its name — not from the Sunday with which it 
 commences ', but — from the Sabbath-and-Sunday with which 
 1/ concludes. To mention only one out of a hundred minute 
 traits of identitj' which the public Service of the sanctuary 
 retained: — Easter Eve, whicii from the earliest period to 
 this day has been called " fieya ad^^arov ■"," is discovered 
 to have borne the self-same appellation in the Church of the , 
 Circumcision". — If I do not enter more minutely into the 
 structure of the Oriental Lectionary, — (some will perhaps 
 think I have said too much, but the interest of the subject 
 ought to be a sufficient apology,) — it is because further de- 
 tails would be irrelevant to my present purpose; which is 
 only to call attention to the three following facts : 
 
 (I.) That the practice in the Christian Church of reading 
 publicly before the congregation certain fixed portions of 
 Holy Writ, according to an established and generally re- 
 ceived rule, must have existed from a period long anterior 
 to the date of any kno^vn Greek copy of the New Testament 
 Scriptures. 
 
 (II.) That although there happens to be extant neither 
 " Synaxarium," (i.e. Table of Proper Lessons of the Greek 
 
 ' EnglUh readers may be referred to Home's Introduction, 4c. (erf. 1856.) 
 vol. iii. p. 281-2. The learned reader is perhaps awnre of the importance of 
 the preface to Tan der Hooght'a Hebrew BibU, {ed. 1705) § 35 : in connciioo 
 with which, tee roL ii. p. 352 4. 
 
 ' Thus, the nvfioK-ii rrit rvpoipiyov is " Quinqnagesima Sunday;" but '** 
 meet of " the cheese-eater " is the week previotts. 
 
 ■ Sec Suicer's Tifsaurus, vol. ii. 920. 
 
 • "Apud Rabbinoa, bStiri n2t» SaUathum Magnum. Sic vocatur Sab- 
 battDoi proximum uite Pascha." — Buxtorf, Lexicon Talmud, p. 2323. 
 
 X.] 
 
 cshiUln/icd by an ujtpcal h the Fiilhir*. 
 
 ]f».: 
 
 Church), nor " Evangelistarium," (i.e. Book containing tlie 
 Ecclesiastical Lections in cztenso), of higher antiquity than 
 the viii"" century,— -yet that the scheme itself, as exhibited 
 by those monuments, — certainly in every essential particu- 
 lar, — is older than any known Greek JIS. which contains 
 it, by at leant four, in fact by full fire hundred years. 
 
 (III.) Lastly, — That in the said Lectionaries of the 
 Greek and of the Syrian Churches, the twelve concluding 
 verses of S. Mark which are the subject of discussion llirough- 
 out the present pages are observed ininrially to occupy the 
 same singularly conspicuous, as well as most honourable 
 place. 
 
 I. The first of the foregoing propositions is an established 
 fact. It is at least quite certain that in the iv"" century (if not 
 long before) there existed a known Lectionary system, alike 
 in the Church of the East and of the "West. Cyril of Jeru- 
 salem (a.d. 348,) having to speak about our Lord's Ascen- 
 sion, remarks that by a providential coincidence, on the 
 previous day, which was Sunday, the event had formed the 
 subject of the appointed lessons" ; and that he had availed 
 himself of the occasion to discourse largely on the subject. — 
 Chrysostom, preaching at Antioch, makes it plain that, in 
 
 • Ka) fl luv iHoKoviia t^j iitaaKaKlai [cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines lC-7] t^j rltrrtut 
 irpotrptrfv tlwdv Koi ra rtpl Tijs 'Aya\'ij\fi(ut' &\X* ij rov Giov x^^^ tfKovi^rtCt 
 TXijptffTaTd at iiKodaai, Karck tV ht^fTtpnv kaBivfiav, Tp x^i$ i]nfp^ Kara irjv 
 Kvpteuctiv' ifoT* otKovontav t^j Betas ■xiiptros, if rp Si/falci rrjs rwy tLvayvutrndruv 
 iuco\ov0ias T& rtpl Trjs f is ovpayolis iv6bov rod ^anripos i}fiuv rfptfx"v(r^s' iKtytio 
 ii tA \ry6pfva, fiiKtara fiiv ti^ wdyras, Kal tia rh tuv rtffruv dpov vX^0oi* 
 i^atpfrvs Si htd ac* ^TyrtTrat ii fl Tpoataxts To7s \fyofiffots. OTSas yap Sti ^ 
 ixoXoveia T^t nlcTfus tiiiiTKn at martutiv ci't t6n XNAZTA'NTA T$ TPfxH 
 Hm£pA- KAI 'ANEAedNTA eIs TOi-S O-rPANOtX KAt KAeiSANTA "EK 
 AESIAn tot nATP02 — liiXiata ftif oZy firtg/iofivciv ct vofiliti t^i iliiyiictut. 
 •Aiji' Vf wapatpopif Ka) yZv vnoiiifiyiiaKui at tuv (ipijfiiniii. (CyTil. Hicr. Cat, 
 liv. c. 24. Oj)p. p. 217 c, r.) — Of that Sennou of his, Cyril again and again 
 reminds bia auditory. M</i>'i)ao ii Ka) tuv tlpiiiiinDv /loi voXXiKis rtp} toE, ^k 
 St(iuv tot narphs Kafl/ftffSni t^k Tihy, — he says. Hid. p. 219 B. A little lower 
 down, Kvy ii vftas tnrofiyriartoy iKlywy, Twy 4k woWuy fipijfitywv vtp] rov, iK 
 it^iwv Tov naTp^5 Ka6t^ta6at rhy tidy. — Ibid. D. 
 
 From this it becomes plain wit/ Cj/ril nowhere quotes S. Itark xvi. 19, — or 
 S. Lule xxiv. 61, — or Acts i. 9. He must needs have enlarged upon those 
 three inecitable places of Scripture, the day before. 
 
 o 2 
 
lOG 
 
 The Fiitficr-s fjou rally appcnhd to. 
 
 [CHAI-. 
 
 tlie lafter part of the iv"" ccntur)-, the order of the lessons 
 which were publicly read in the Church on Satiu-ilai/s and 
 Sundays^ was familiarly known to the congregation : for he 
 invites them to sit down, and study attentively beforehand, 
 at home, the Sections {irepiicoTTas) of the Gospel which they 
 were about to hear in Church ■■. — Augustine is express in 
 recording that in his time proper lessons were appointed for 
 Festival days"^; and that an innovation which he had at- 
 tempted on Good Friday had given general offence '. — Now 
 by these few notices, to look no further, it is rendered cer- 
 tain that a Lectionarj' sj-stem of some sort must have been 
 in existence at a period long anterior to the date of any copy 
 of the New Testament Scriptures extant. I shall shew 
 by-and-by that the fact is established by the Codices (B, 
 K, A, C, D) themselves. 
 
 But we may go back further yet ; for not only Eusebius, 
 but Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, by their habitual 
 use of the technical term for an Ecclesiastical Lection (ttc- 
 pwoTTJj, avdyvwais, avdyvucrfia,) remind us that the Lec- 
 tionary practice of the East was already established in 
 their days '. 
 
 U. The Oriental Lectionary consists of " Synaxarion" 
 and " Eclogadion," (or Tables of Proper Lessons from the 
 Gospels and Apostolic writings daily throughout the j'ear ;) 
 
 f See al)Ove, p. 193 and p. 194. 
 
 ^ 'fiiTTC it fviiaOiaTtpov ytytirBat rhv Xiyov^ BtSfifBa Ka) irapaKoXovAifi'i i^*P 
 Ital M Tuv KWuv ypaipuv VfwOffjKafKv, irpoKaiiBavfiv, ttj** TfptKoti]y ntt 
 ypa^s tiv ty iiiWufity ^{Tji-eiffSai. — In Mattli. .ffoui. i. (0pp. r\i. 13 B.) — 
 Kara iiiay (rafifiaruyf ^ Kal Kara oafi^aroVf T^f fifWouaav iv t/fiiy avayyuaSriafffdai 
 ruy fvayytXiwy ircptiroir^i', touttji' wph tovtvv tuv rifitpuy fifrk X*'P'* Ao/i- 
 fiiyitr fKaff-Tot olxot xaBiuKyos iyayiyaaKtru." — III Joann. Som. ii, (Opji- 
 Tiii. 62 B.) 
 
 ' It caused bim (he says) to interrupt his leaching. " Sed quia nunc inter, 
 posita est Gollemnitas sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ei Evangelic lectionos 
 oportet in Ecclesi^ recitari, quae ita sunt annuae ut aliae esse noii possint; ordo 
 ille qnem susceperamus necessitate paullulum intermissus est, non amissus. 
 (Op;>.Tol. iii. P. ii. p. 825, Frol.) 
 
 ' The place will be found quoted below, p. 202, note (o). 
 
 ' See Soicer, (i. 247 and 9 : ii. 673). He is much more full and satisfactorj- 
 than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve attention, (iVor. Test. vol. i, 
 Frolegg. p. xxii.) See also above, p. 45, notes (r) and (s). 
 
 X.] 
 
 Difiitulii/ of diicovcfinri j/nr/iciihir jirorifa. 
 
 iri7 
 
 together with " Meuologion," (or Calendar of immovable 
 Festivals and Saints* Days.) That we are thoroughh' ac- 
 quainted with all of these, as exhibited in Codices of the 
 viii"', ix"' and x"" centuries, — is a familiar fact; in illus- 
 tration of which it is enough to refer the reader to the 
 works cited at the foot of the page ". But it is no less cer- 
 tain that the scheme of Proper Lessons itself is of much 
 higher antiquity. 
 
 1. The proof of this, if it could only be established by an 
 induction of particular instances, would not onlj' be very 
 tedious, but also very difficult indeed. It will be perceived, 
 on reflection, that even when the occasion of a Uomil}' (sup- 
 pose) is actually recorded, the Scripture references which 
 it contains, apart from the Author's statement that what 
 he quotes had formed part of tiiat day's Service, creates 
 scarcely so much as a presumption of the fact : while the 
 correspondence, however striking, between such references 
 to Scripture and the Lectionary as we have it, is of course 
 no proof whatever that we are so far in possession of tho 
 Lectionary of the Patristic age. Nay, on famous Festivals, 
 
 ° At the beginning of everj- volume of the first cil. of bis Jior. Test. {I'.ipa, 
 178S) Mattlwei has laboriouslv edited the " Loctioncs Ki iloiastica; " of the 
 Greek Church. Si>e iilso his Apiwndiccs,— viz. vol. ii. pii. 272—318 and 322 — 
 303. His 2iid ed. (Wittenberg, 18l>3,) is distinguished by the valuable jwcu- 
 liarity of iudicaliiig the Ecclesiastical sections throughout, in the manner of 
 nu ancient MS. ; and that, with citraordinarv fulness and accuracy. His ^i/i-o- 
 {opio (i. 723—08 and iii. 1—21) though not iutelligible perhaps to ordinary 
 readers, are very important. He derived them from MSS. which he desig- 
 nates '■ B" and " H," but which are o«r " Evstt. 47 and 50,"— uncial Evange- 
 listaria of the viii" century (See Scrivener's latrod. p. 214.) 
 
 Scholz, at the end of vol. L of his N.T. p. 453—93, gives in full the " Sy- 
 naxarium"nnd " Menologium " of Codd. K and M, (viii'* or ii" century.) 
 See also his vol. ii. pp. 456—69. L'nfortuuntely, (as Scrivener recognises, 
 p. 110,) all hero is carelessly done,— as usual with this Editor; and therefore 
 to a great extent useless. His slovenliness is cstraordinary. The " Gospels 
 of the Passion" (riy ayluy woea-r), he entitles Ti»- aytay vdyray (p. 472); 
 and so throughout. 
 
 Mr. Scrivener (Iiilroduciiot, pp. 68—75,) has given by far the most in- 
 telligible account of this matter, by cihibitiug iii JTw^/is* the Lectionary of 
 the Eastern Cliuich, (" gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 617, Parham 
 18, llarl. 5598, liurney 22, and Christ's Coll. Camb.") ; and supplying the re- 
 for'.nces to Scripture in the ordin.Tiy way. S.-e, bj all weans, bis IMruduc 
 lion, pp. 02—05 : also, pji. 211—225. 
 
198 
 
 The Hux/cni Lcctiouari/ iril/i uhich kc arc [chap. 
 
 the employment of certain passages of Scripture is, in 
 a manner, inevitable*, and maj' on no account be pressed. 
 
 2. Thus, when Chrj'sostomy and when Epiphanius", preach- 
 ing on Ascension Daj', refer to Acts i. 10, 11, — we do not 
 feel ourselves warranted to press the coincidence of such 
 a quotation with the . Liturgical section of the day. — So, 
 again, when Chrysostom preaches on Christmas Day, and 
 quotes from S.Matthew ii. 1, 2*; or on Whitsunday, and 
 quotes from S.John vii. 38 and Acts ii. 3 and 13 ; — though 
 both places form part of the Liturgical sections for the da)', no 
 jproo/ results therefrom that either chapter was actually used. 
 
 3. But we are not reduced to this method. It is dis- 
 covered that nearlj' three-fourths of Chrysostom's Homilies 
 on S. Matthew either begin at the first verse of a knotni 
 Ecclmanfical Lecfioii ; or else at the first ensuing verse after 
 the close of one. Thirteen of those Homilies in succession 
 (the C3rd to the 75th inclusive) begin with tfie firsf irords of 
 as many known Lections. " Let us attend to this delightful 
 section {irepucowij) which we never cease turning to," — are 
 the opening words of Chrj'sostom's 79th Homily, of which 
 "the text" is S. Matth. xxv. 31, i.e. the beginning of the 
 Gospel for Sexagesima Sunday. — Cyril of Alexandria's (so 
 called) "Commentary on S.Luke" is nothing else but a 
 series of short Sermons, for the most part delivered on knoint 
 Ecclesiastical Lections ; which does not seem to have been as 
 yet observed. — ^Augustine (a.d. 416) says expressly that he 
 had handled S. John's Gospel in precisely the same way •". 
 — All this is significant in a high degree. 
 
 ' Consider tlie following : — 'Zv rp in^ipf toS cravpov to rtp\ tov mavpov 
 
 . vcErra hvaytviaaHOittv, iv r^ eafifidrtp r^ iifyiK(f> waXtVf Sri TapfiSBrj Tjfivy o 
 
 Kipios, Sri iaraupuBii, in irfSavt rii Kara aipKa, Sri haipri' rleos oiy ivtKfy ««' 
 
 rits rpd^fis ruv awoffT6\wy 06 'fitrk tt*** tr(trr7jKoa77}y i-vaytvuiTKOfifyi firf «oi 
 
 iyiyoyro, Koi ipxh" ff^aPoy ; — Cbrj'B. 0pp. iii. 88. 
 
 AguiD : — (I yip T^Tf Ijp^ayro itokTv t4 in)/*(Ta oi iit6<rro\oi, Ifyow ^tri rfl' 
 Kvplov lydffraaiy, rirt (Sfi ko] ri PtBKloy ivayiyiiaKtaOai tovto. imp yap rJ 
 »f/)l TOV aravpov iy Tp rjiitpq aravpov iyayty^trKo^ty, Kul to iy t§ ^vatrraffti 
 iftotuit "oi TO iy ixJiffrTi ioprfi ytyoydra rp owrp vaKty avayivuffKOftty, ovtvs 
 iStt Kol ri $avfiaTa ra awoirro\iKa iy ra7s r/fifpats Twy iiiroffToXiKuy ffi^M"**' 
 iyayiyaiTKfatai. — Hid. p. 89 D. 
 
 ' Opp. ii. 454 B. D. » Opp. ii. 290 b. ■ 0pp. ii. 357 K- 
 
 •• " Meiniiiit 8.tnctita< vcstra £r»ngelium secundum Joaiineni ex ordine ««• 
 <:»......, „„c cnlfrp «nirtare." (Of p. iii. P. ii. 825 Prol.) 
 
 X.] acquainted, knoini to Chrymtom an'l Epijihaniui^. \W 
 
 4. I proceed, however, to adduce a few distinct proofs that 
 the existing Lectionary of the great Eastern Church,— as it 
 is exhibited by Matthaei, by Scholz, and by Scrivener from 
 MSS. of the viii"* century, — and which is contained in Syriac 
 MSS. of the vi'" and vii""— must needs be in the main 
 a work of extraordinary antiquity. And if I do not begin 
 by insisting that at least one century more may be claimed 
 for it by a mere appeal to the Ilierosolymitan Version, it is 
 only because I will never knowingly admit what may prove 
 to be untrustworthy materials' info my foundations. 
 
 (a) "Every one is aware," (says Chrysostom in a sermon 
 on our Saviouk's Baptism, preached at Antioch, A.u. 387,) 
 " that this is called the Festival of the Epiphany. Two 
 manifestations are thereby intended: concerning both of 
 which yon have heard this day S. Paul discourse in his Epistle 
 to Titus^." Then follows a quotation from ch. ii. 11 to 13, 
 —which proves to be the beginning of the lection for the 
 day in the Greek Menology. In the time of Chrysostom, 
 therefore, Titus ii. 11, 12, 13 formed part of one of the 
 Epiphany lessons,-as it does to this hour in the Eastern 
 Church AVhat is scarcely less interesting, it is also found 
 to have been part of the Epistle for the Epiphany in the 
 old Gallican Liturgy', the affinities of which with the 
 East are well known. 
 
 (b) Epiphanius (speaking of the Feasts of the Church) 
 says that at the Nativity, a Star shewed that the Word 
 had'become incarnate: at the " Theophania" (our "Epi- 
 phany") John cried, "Behold the Lamb of God." &c., and 
 a Voice from Heaven proclaimed Him at His Baptism. Ac- 
 cordiuglv, S. Matth. ii. 1-12 is found to be the ancient 
 lection f^r Christmas Day : S.Mark i. 9-11 and S. Matth. 
 iii. 13-17 the lections for Epiphany. On the morrow, was 
 read S. John i. 29—34. . 
 
 (r) In another of his Homilies, Chrysostom explains with 
 considerable emphasis the reason why the Book of the Acts 
 was read publicly in Church during the interval between 
 Easter and Pentecost; remarking, that it had been the 
 
 « Sec Sciivener'e Inirodiiciion, p. 246. ^ 
 
 - ChrVBOstom Opp. ii. 369 B, c.-Con.pare Scrivener, vl, .upro. V ^^■ 
 • Ed. Hiibillon, p. 116. 
 
-'00 Till- proposed Xcr Enfjlisl, Ln/iQiiKri/. [chap. 
 
 liturgical arrangement of a yet earlier age '.—After Biich an 
 announcement, it becomes a very striking circumstance that 
 Augustine also (a.d. 412) should be found to bear witness to 
 the prevalence of the same liturgical arrangement in the 
 African Cliurch «. In the old Gullican Lectionary, as might 
 have been expected, the same rule is recognisable. It ought 
 to be needless to add that the same arrangement is observed 
 universally to prevaU in the Lectionaries both of the East 
 and of the West to the present hour; although the fact 
 must have been lost sight of by the individuals who recently, 
 -under pretence of "making some adranfageoiis alteratiom" 
 in our Lectionarj', have constructed an entirely new one, 
 — vicious in principle and liable to the gravest objections 
 throughout, — whereby this link also which bound the Church 
 of England to the practice of Primitive Christendom, has 
 been unhappily broken ; this note of Catholicity also has 
 been effaced''. 
 
 Ojyj. vol. iii. p. 85 B: 68 a: — t/toj ccckh' oi Trartpts tiy,wv ivrf wtrr^- 
 Kocrfi rh $i0\{of ri* Trpi^un> ivaytviivKfaBat ivoiiotirriaav. — rtyos ivtutr ri 
 0i0Kloi> ruv irpi^ftav ruiv tMoaidKiaii in tif Kaip<f T^i iremj/coffTfli irayirm- 
 ffKfTai. 
 
 * " AnDiverEnrifi sollcmnitate post passionem Domini nostis ilium libnun 
 rccitiiri." Opp. iii. (P. ii.) p. 337 o. 
 
 ' I desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my deliberate con- 
 viction that the Lectioiiur; which, last year, was hurried with such indi-ccnl 
 haste through Convocation,— passed in a half-empty House by the casiing »ul« 
 of the Prolocutor, — and rudely pressed upon the Church'a acceptance by tk« 
 Legislature in the course of its present sessiou, — is the gravest calamity which 
 has beralleu the Church of England for a long time past. 
 Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered. 
 
 Appointed (in 1SC7) for an tntireli/ difl'erent purpose, (viz. the OmamcBt* 
 and A'^cstments question,) 29 Commissiouers (14 Clerical and 15 lay) '"""^ 
 themselves further instructed " to suggest aud report tchethtr any ama «■»* 
 alterations and amtudmeuli may be advautageously made in the •cleclKio o€ 
 Lessons to be read at the time of Divine Service." _ 
 
 Thereupon, these individuals,— (the Liturgical attainmenU of niDC-t*»l»« 
 of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself to eharactn-" 
 truthfully,)— at once imposed nimn themselves the duty of inventiug •• *•• 
 ^iVe/y neio Xnr/ionary for the Church of England. . 
 
 So to mutilate the AVord of God that it shall henceforth be quite impo-itW 
 to undcrstaud a single Bible story, or discover the sequence of • •iDgw «■"• 
 nected portion of narrative,— seems to have beeutheuuiiliDg principle of U"* 
 deliberations. With reckless eclecticism,— entire forgetfulness of the "S"'2" _,. 
 nients of the poor hrother.-strauge disregard for Catholic Tradition aud »- 
 
 X.] 
 
 Gnat aul'qiiit;/ of the Euitcrn Lcdlonaiij. 201 
 
 {(l) Tlie purel}- arbitrary arrangement, (as Mr. Scrivener 
 phrases it), by which the Book of Genesis, instead of the 
 Gospel, is appointed to be read ' on the iiech days of Lent, 
 is discovered to have been fully recognised in the time of 
 Chrysostom. Accordinglj-, the two series of Homilies on 
 the Book of Genesis which that Father preached, he preached 
 in Lent''. 
 
 {e) It will be seen in the nest chapter that it was from 
 a very remote period the practice of the Eastern Church 
 to introduce into tlie lesson for Thursday in Holy-week, 
 S. Luke's account (ch. xxii. 43, 44) of our Lord's " Agony 
 and blood}' Sweat," imuicdiatih/ after S. Matth. xxvi. 39. 
 That is, no doubt, the reason why Chrysostom, — who has 
 been suspected, (I think unreasonabl}',) of employing an 
 Evangelistarium instead of a copy of the Gospels in the 
 preparation of his Homilies, is observed to quote those same 
 two verses in that very place in his Homily on S.Matthew'; 
 which shews that the Lectionary system of the Eastern 
 Church in this respect is at least as old as the iv"" century. 
 
 (/) The same two verses used to be left out on the Tuesdaj' 
 after Sexagesima {jfi 7 r^y rvpoifxiyov) for which daj' S.Luke 
 xxii. 39 — xxiii. 1, is the appointed lection. And this ex- 
 plains why Cyril (a.d. 425) in his Homilies on S. Luke, 
 passes them by in silence ". 
 
 But we can carry back the witness to the Lectionar}' prac- 
 tice of omitting these verses, at least a hundred )ear6; for 
 
 claims of immemorial antiquity ; — these Commissioners, (evidently unconscious 
 of their own unfitness for their self-imposed task,) have giveu us a Lectionary 
 which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of novelty, — the impatieut, 
 — and the enemies of Divine Truth. 
 
 That the blame, tie guilt lies at the door of our Bishopt, is certain ; hut 
 the Church has no one but herself to thanl: for the injury which has been thus 
 deliberately inflicted npon her. She has suffered herself to be robbed of her 
 ancient birthright without resistance ; without remonstrance ; without (in her 
 corporate ca)wcity) so much as a word of audible dissatisfaction. Can it be 
 right in this way to de&and those who are to come after us of their law ful in- 
 heritance p . . . I am amazed and grieved beyond measure at w-hdt is taking 
 place. At loasf, (as on other occasions,) liberaci animam meant. 
 
 ' A trace of this remains in the old Galilean Liturgy, — pp. 137-8. 
 
 ' Uiugluini, xiT. iiL 3. ' Opp. vol. vii. p. 791 B. 
 
 •» Sec Demi Payne Smith's Transition, p. 863. 
 
202 Great (n,1iq„it!, of n,( Eastern Lcdionanj. [cuap. 
 
 Cod. B, (evidently for that same reason.) aho omits tbem 
 as was stated above, in p. 70. T],ey are wanting also in the 
 Thebaic version, which is of the iii"' century. 
 
 {a) It will be found suggested in the next chapter (pacre 
 218) that the piercing of our Lord's side, (S. John xix. 34) 
 —thrust into Codd. 13 and s immediately after S. Mattb' 
 xxvii. 40,-is probably indebted for its place in those two 
 MSS. to the Eastern Lectionary practice. If this sugges- 
 tion be well founded, a fresh proof is obtained that the Lec- 
 tionary of the East was fully established in the beginning 
 of the iv"' century. But see Appendix (H). 
 
 (//) It is a remarkable note of the antiquity of that 
 Oriental Lectionary system with which we are acquainted, 
 that S.Matthew's account of the Passion (ch. xxvii. 1—61,) 
 should be there appointed to be read alone on the evening 
 of Good Friday. Chrysostom clearly alludes to this prac- 
 tice"; which Augustine expressly states was also the prac- 
 tice in his own day. Traces of the same method are 
 discoverable in the old Gallican Lectionary p. 
 
 (»■) Epiphanius, (or the namesake of his who was the 
 author of a well-known Homily on Palm Sunday,) remarks 
 that "yesterday" had been read the history of the rising 
 of Lazarus 1. Now S.John xi. 1—45 is the lection for the 
 antecedent Sabbath, in all the Lectionaries. 
 
 (/•) In conclusion, I may be allowed eo far to anticipate 
 what will be found fuUy established in the next chapter, as 
 to point out here that since in countless places the text of 
 our oldest Evangelia as well as the readings of the prinii- 
 tive Fathers exhibit unmistakable traces of the corrupting 
 influence of the Lectionary practice, that very fact becomes 
 irrefragable evidence of the antiquity of the Lectionarj- 
 which is the occasion of it. Kot only must it be more 
 
 ■ Kori rh tLtyiX^v tov niaxa iairipap rajro irdyra ii/oyif.SanfTai.— Clirv*. 
 0pp. vii. 618 c. 
 
 • 'Passio .nutcm, qnin uno die legitur, non Bolet legi nisi securduni MbI- 
 thxuva. Volueram aliquaiido nt per sinpjos annos secundum omne8 Ev.ngv- 
 listas etiam Passio legcretur. Factum est. Kon audicrunt homines quod cun- 
 aueverant, et pcrturbati sujit." — 0pp. vol. v. p. 9S0E. 
 
 '' £d. ilalillon, pp. 130-5. i Ep')ih. Opp. ii. 152-3. 
 
 X.] 
 
 Great Festicah of the Church. 
 
 203 
 
 ancient than Cod. B or Cod. s, (which are referred to the 
 beginning of the iv* century), but it must be older than 
 Origen in the iii"* century, or the Vetus Itala and the Syriac 
 in the ii"''. And thus it is demonstrated, (1st) That fixed 
 Lessons were read in the Churches of the East in the im- 
 mediately post- Apostolic age ; and (2ndl3') That, wherever 
 we are able to test it, the Lectionar}' of that remote period 
 corresponded with the Lectionarj' which has come down to 
 us in documents of the vi"" and vii*'' century, and was in 
 fact constructed in preciselj' the same way. 
 
 I am content in fact to dismiss the preceding instances 
 with this general remark: — that a System which is found 
 to have been fully recognised throughout the East and 
 throughout the West in the beginning of the fourth centurj-, 
 must of fiecessifi/ hare been established very long before. It is 
 as when we read of three British Bishops attending the 
 Council at Aries, a.d. 314. The Church (we say) which 
 could send out those three Bishops must have been fully 
 organized at a greatly antecedent period. 
 
 4. Let us attend, however, to the great Festivals of the 
 Church. These are declared by Chrysostom (in a Homily 
 delivered at Antioch 20 Dec. A-U. 386) to be the five follow- 
 ing:— (1) Nativity: (2) the Theophania: (3) Pascha : (4) 
 Ascension: (5) Pentecost'. Epiphanius, his contemporary, 
 (Bishop of Constantia in the island of Cyprus,) makes the 
 same enumeration", in a Homily on the Ascension*. In 
 the Apostolical Constitutions, the same five Festivals are 
 enumerated". Let me state a few Liturgical facts in con- 
 nexion with each of these. 
 
 ' airys. Opp. i. 497 c. " Epiph. Opp. ii. 2S5-6. 
 
 ' The learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the perusal of 
 both passages. Ch-ysistom declares that Christmas-Day is the greatest 
 of Festivals ; since all the others are but consequences of the Incarnation. 
 
 Epiphanius remarks with truth that Ascension-Day is the crowning so- 
 lemnity of all : being to the others what a beautiful head b to the human body. 
 
 ■ Constt. Jpoftt. Ub. viii. c. 33. After the week of the Passion and the 
 week of (1) the Resurrection,— (2) Ascension-Day i» mentioned ;— (3) Peute- 
 enst;-(4) N«tivity;-(5) Epiphany. [Note this clear indication that this 
 viii"- Book of ihe CoLstitutions was written or interpolaUd at a sul.sequcnt 
 date to that commonly assigned to ihc work.] 
 
201 
 
 Cvicj'icuoiiK jilfuc occvjjiid by 
 
 [•IIAP. 
 
 It is plain that (lie preceding enuniciation could nol liavc 
 been made at any earlier jjcriod : for tbc Epiphany of our 
 Saviovu and His Nativity were originally but one Festival ^ 
 Moreover, tbc circumstances are well known under which 
 Chrysostom (a.d. 380) announced to bis Eastern auditory 
 that iu conformity with what bad been correctly ascertained 
 at Rome, the ancient Festival was henceforth to be disin- 
 tegrated '. But this is not material to the present inquiry. 
 We know that, as a matter of fact, "the Epiphanies" (for 
 TO. iiri^avia is the name of the Festival) became in con- 
 sequence distributed over Dec. 25 and Jan. 5 : our Lonn's 
 Bapfim being the event chiefly commemorated on the latter 
 anniversary*,— which used to be chiefly observed in honour 
 of His Birth '.—Concerning the Lessons for Passion-tide and 
 Easter, as well as concerning those for the Nativity and Epi- 
 phany, something has been oflered already; to which may 
 be added that Ilesychius, in the opening sentences of that 
 " Homily" which has already engaged so much of our atten- 
 tion "=, testifies that the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel was 
 in his days, as it has been ever since, one of the lections for 
 Easter. He begins by saying that the Evangelical narratives 
 of the Eesurrection were read on the Sunday night; and 
 proceeds to reconcile S. Mark's with the rest. — Chrysostom 
 once and again adverts to the practice of discontinuing the 
 reading of the Acts after Pentecost "•,— which is observed to 
 be also the method of the Lectionaries. 
 
 III. I speak separately of the Festival of the Ascension, 
 for an obvious reason. It ranked, as we have seen, iu the 
 estimation of Primitive Christendom, with the greatest Fes- 
 tivals of the Church. Augustine, in a well-known passage, 
 hints that it may have been of Apostolical origin' ; so ex- 
 
 ' Biiigbam's Origines, B. ix. c. iv. § 2. 
 
 ■ Chrjs. 0pp. ii. 355. (See the Monitum, p. 352.) 
 
 • Cbry*. Opp. ii. 3G0 D. b Epiphaniup, Adv. Hacr. ti, c. »ti. 
 
 (0pp. i. 439 A.) c gpe a\>o\e, pp. 68-9 ood 67. 
 
 *■ Opp. iii. 102 B. See Bingbam on this entire subject,— B. liv, c. iii. 
 
 ' " Ilia quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus,quae quidcm tolo terrarnui 
 orbe observnntur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis CouciliU 
 quorum in Ecelesia caluberrium autboritas, commcndata atque etatuta rt-ti- 
 uuri. Sicut quoil Domini Passio.et Bcsurroctio, et Asccusio iu ctulis, ut Advcn- 
 
 X.] S. Morh xvi. 9 — 20 ('» the Eastern Lcrtionanj. 2uj 
 
 ceedingly remote was its institution accounted in the days of 
 the great African Father, as well as so entirelj' forgotten hy 
 that time was its first beginning. I have to shew that in 
 the Great Oriental Lectiouarj' (whether of the Greek or of 
 the Syrian Church) the last Twelve ^''erses of S. Mark's 
 Gospel occupy a conspicuous as well as a most honourable 
 place. And this is easily done : for, 
 
 {a) The Lesson for Matins on A-'iccmion-Day in the East, 
 in the oldest documents to which we have access, consisted 
 (as now it does) of the last Iwchc Vcr<cs, — neither more nor 
 less, — of S.Mark's Gospel. At the Liturgy on Ascension was 
 read S.Luke xxiv. 36—53 : but at Matins, S.Mark xvi. 9—20. 
 The witness of the "Synaxaria" is constant to this eflect. 
 
 (i) The same lection preciselj' was adopted among the 
 Syrians by the Melchite Churches', — (the party, viz. which 
 maintained the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon ): and it 
 is found appointed also in the " Evangeliarium Hierosolymi- 
 tanumf." In the Evangelistarium used in the Jacobite, (i.e. 
 the Monophysite) Churches of Syria, a striking difierence 
 of arrangement is discoverable. "While S. Luke xxiv. 36 — 
 53 was read at Vespers and at Matins on Ascension Day, 
 the last #, en? verses of S. Mark's Gospel (ch. xvi. 14—20) 
 were read at the Liturgy^. Strange, that the self-same Gos- 
 pel should have been adopted at a remote age by some of 
 the Churches of the "West ', and should survive in our own 
 Book of Common Prayer to this hour 1 
 
 (c) But S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20 was not only appointed by the 
 Greek Church to be read upon Ascension Day. Those same 
 twelve verses constitute the third of the xi "Matin Gosjtek 
 of the Haiirrection," which were universally held in high 
 
 tus de cceIo Spiritns Sancti anniTersaria BoUemnitate cclebrantur." — Ep. ad 
 Januarlam, (Opp. ii. 124 B, c). 
 
 ' "Lect. fer. quint., quae etiam Festum Adsccnsionis Dni in caelos, ad mat. 
 eadem ac leci. tert. Resurrect, j in Eucbar. Icct. Bext. Resurrect." — But " Lect. 
 7 Kesurrectio-.iis" is " Marc. xvi. 9—20 :" "Lect. f," " Luc. xxiv. 36— 53." 
 —See Dean r=i\-ne Smith's Cafahgus Codd. Sgrr. (1804) pp. 116, 127. 
 
 « See above, p. 34, note (e). ' R. Pajne Smith's Catal. p. 148. 
 
 ' Sieronyiai Comes, {td. Pamel. ii. 31.)— Bat it U not the Gallican. (ed. 
 Mabillon, p. 155.) ... It strikes me as just possible that a clue may be in this 
 way supplied to the singular phenomenon noted above at p. 118, line 22-8. 
 
206 S. Mart: ivi. 9—20 rend at Easter. [cii Ar. 
 
 esteem by the Eastern Churches (Greek and Syrian*), and 
 were read successively on Sundays at Matins throughout the 
 year ; as well as daily throughout Easter week. 
 
 {(I) A rubricated copy of S. Mark's Gospel in Syriac*. cer- 
 idinly older than a.d. 583, attests that S. Mark xvi. 9—20 was 
 the "Lection for the great First Day of the week," (jieydX^ 
 KvptaK^, i.e. Easter Day). Other copies almost as ancient f 
 add that it was used " at the end of the Service at the dawn." 
 (e) Further, these same "Twelve Verses" constituted the 
 Lesson at Matins for the 2;id Sunday after Easter,— a. Sunday 
 which by the Greeks is called KvpuiK^ r&v iivpo<l,6pu>v, but 
 with the Syrians bore the names of "Joseph and Nicode- 
 mus '." So also in the " Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum." 
 (/)• Next, in the Monophysite Churches of Syria, S. Mark 
 xvi. 9—18 (or 9—20"') was also read at Matins on Easter- 
 Tuesday \ In the Gallican Church, the third lection for 
 Easter-Monday extended from S. Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 11 : for 
 Easter-Tuesday, from xvi. 12 to the end of the Gospel'. 
 Augustine says that in Africa also these concluding verses 
 of S. Mark's Gospel used to be publicly read at Easter tide*. 
 The same verses (beginning with ver. 9) are indicated in the 
 oldest extant Lectionary of the Roman Church '. 
 
 {g) Lastly, it may be stated that S. Mark xvi. 9—20 was 
 with the Greeks the Gospel for the Festival of S. Mary 
 Magdalene {rj fivpo^opos), July 22'. 
 
 EuottAio ivttcraaiiiii iutivL See Scrivener's Introduction, p. 72, Bud 
 B. P. Smith's Catal. p. 12?. See by aU means. Snicer's Thes. Eccl. i. 1229. 
 
 • Dr. Wright's Catal. p. 70, N». ex. (Addit. 14,464 : fol. 61 i.) 
 
 t Itid. K«. LXi (fol. 92 J), and i.xxn (fol. 87 4). 
 
 ' " Quae titulo Josephi et Xicodemi insignitnr." (R. Payne Smith's Catal. 
 p. 116.)— In the "Synaiarinm" of Matthaei (Nov. Test. 1803, J. p. 731) it 
 is styled K. ray /i. xal 'lKari<p toD StKalov. " Adler's If. T. Tern. S^rr. p. 71. 
 
 ■ Dean Payne Smith's Catal. p. 146. » Sd. Mabilton, pp. 144-6. 
 
 » " Besurrectio Domini nostri l.C. ex more legitar bis dicbus [Pascbalibn*] 
 ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii." (Opp. v. 977 c) — "Quoniam hoc moris «t 
 .... JUarci Evangelium est quod modo, com legeretnr, andivimns." " Quid 
 ergo andivimus Marcnm dicentem?" And be subjoins a quotation from 
 S. Miirk xvi. 12.— Hid. 997 P, 998 B. « Bieron. Comes (ed. Pamel. ii. 27.) 
 
 ' So Scrivener's Introduction, p. 75.— Little stress, however, is to be laid on 
 Saint's Day lessons. In Matthaei's " Menologium " (ICob. Test. 1803, i. p. 765), 
 I find that S. Luke viii. 1 — 4, or else S. John xx. 11 — 18 was the appointed 
 Lection. See his note (') at p. 750. 
 
 N.] 
 
 liciifir of the last foiiriceii jiage'i. 
 
 2(>7 
 
 III knows wondrous little about this department of Sacred 
 Science wlio can require to be informed that such a weight 
 of jnihlic testimony as this to the last Twelve Verses of 
 a Gospel is simply overwhelming. The single discoverv 
 thnt in the age of Augustine [385—430] tliis portion of 
 S. Clark's Gospel was nnquestionablj' read at Easter in the 
 Churches of Africa, added to the express testimony of the 
 Author of the 2nd Homily on the Resurrection, and of the 
 oldest Syriac MSS., that thej' were also read by the Oiicnlals 
 at Easter in the public services of the Church, must bu held 
 to be in a manner decisive of the question. 
 
 Let the evidence, then, which is borne bj' Ecclesiastical 
 usage to the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20, be summed 
 up, and the entire case caused again to pass under review. 
 
 (1.) That Lessons from the New Testament were publicly 
 read in the assemblies of the faithful according to a definite 
 scheme, and on an established sj'steni, at least as early as the 
 fourth century, — has been shewn to be a plain historical 
 fact. Cyril, at Jerusalem, — (and by implication, his name- 
 sake at Alex!indria,) — Chrj'sostora, at Antioch and at Constan- 
 tinople, — Augustine, in Africa, — all four expressly witness 
 to the circumstance. In other words, tliere is found to have 
 been at least at that time fully established throughout the 
 Churches of Christendom a Lectionary, which seems to have 
 been essentiiill)' one and the same in the West* and in the 
 East. That it must have been of even Apostolic antiquity 
 may be inferred from several considerations. But that it 
 dates its beginning from a period anterior to the age of 
 
 ■ Kote, (in addition to nil that has gone before,) that the Festivals are 
 artaallv de>i$n>)ted by Ihcir Greek names in the earliest L:itin Service Books : 
 notoulv '• Thixijihania," " Epipliauia," "Pascha," " I'entecoitcs," (the second, 
 third and fonrtli of which appellations snnive in the Church of the West, in me- 
 moriam, to the present hour ;) but " Hypapantc," which was the title t>estowed 
 by the Orient.ils in the time of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of the 
 Purification, or Presentation of CnElsr in the Temple-,) from the "Meeting" 
 of Symeon on llmt occasion. Fridiiy, or wapaaKfvri, was called " Paraieere" in 
 the West. (Mab. Lit. Gall. p. 129.) So entire was the sympsthy of the East 
 with the West in such matters in very early times, that when Rome decided to 
 celebrate the Nativity on the 25th December, Cbrysostom (as we have been 
 reminded) publicly announced the fact at Constantinople ; and it was drter- 
 luiued that in this matter East and West would walk by the same rule. 
 
208 Documents alone fail m in ihix Ingiiirif. [cmai'. 
 
 Eiiscliti.o.— tcf.ic/i is the age of Codices B and k, — at least 
 admits of no controversy. 
 
 (2.) Next,— Documents of the vi"' centurj' put us in pos- 
 BBSsion of the great Oriental Lectionary as it is found at 
 that time to have universally prevailed throughout the vast 
 unchanging East. In other words, several of the actual 
 Service Books, in Greek and in Syriac*, have survived the 
 accidents of full a thousand years : and rubricated copies 
 of the Gospels carry us back three centuries further. The 
 entire agreement which is observed to prevail among these 
 several documents,— added to the fact that when tested by 
 the allusions incidentally made by Greek Fathers of the iv**" 
 century to what was the Ecclesiastical practice of their own 
 time, there are found to emerge countless as well as highly 
 significant notes of correspondence, — warrants us in believ- 
 ing, (in the absence of testimony of any sort to the con- 
 trary,) that the Lectionary we speak of differs in no es- 
 sential respect from that system of Lections with which 
 the Church of the iv"" century was universally acquainted. 
 
 Nothing scarcely is more forcibly impressed upon us in 
 the course of the present inquiry than the fact, that docu- 
 ments alone are wanting to make ihat altogether demon- 
 strable which, in default of such evidence, must remain 
 a matter of inevitable inference only. The forms we are 
 pursuing at last disappear from our sight : but it is only the 
 mist of the early morning wbich shrouds them. We still 
 hear their voices : still track their footsteps : know that 
 others still see them, although we ourselves see them no 
 longer. AVe are sure that there they still are. Moreover they 
 may yet reappear at any moment. Thus, there exist Syriac 
 MSS. of the Gospels of the vii'*" and even of the vi"" century, 
 in which the Lessons are rubricated in the text or on the 
 margin. A Syriac MS. (of part of the Old T.) is actually 
 dated a.d. 464". Should an Evangelium of similar date 
 
 « From Professor Wright's Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in Ihe British Hum* 
 (1870) it appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is dated A.D. 824; tbe 
 oldest Nettorian, aj>. 662; the oldest Malkite, a.d. 1023. Tbe respcrti^* 
 numbers of the MSS. are 14,485 j 14,492 ; and 14,488.— See bis Catalos'f, 
 Part 1. pp.146. 178, 194. 
 
 " It is exhibited in tbe snine glass-case with tbe Cod. Aleiandrinus (A.) 
 
 X.] 
 
 These Vereses conntlftitc one integral Lection. 
 
 •200 
 
 ever come to light of which the rubrication was evidently by 
 the original Scribe, the evidence of the Lectionaries would 
 at once be carried back full three hundred years. 
 
 But in fact we stand in need of no such testimony. Ac- 
 ceptable as it would be, it is plain that it would add no 
 strength to the argument whatever. We are already able 
 to plant our footsteps securely in the iv"" and even in the 
 iii"" century. It is not enough to insist that inasmuch as 
 the Liturgical method of Christendom was nt least fully 
 established in the East and in the AVest at the clo5c of tlic 
 iv"" century, it therefore must have had its beginuing at 
 a far remoter period. Our two oldest Codices (U and «) 
 bear witness throughout to the corrupting iuflucncc of a sys- 
 tem which was evidently in full operation before the time 
 of Eusebius. And even this is not all. The reading's in 
 Origen, and of the earliest versions of the Gospel, (the old 
 Latin, the Syriac, the Egyptian versions,) carry back our 
 evidence on this subject unmistakably to the age immediately 
 succeeding that of the Apostles. This will be found established 
 in the course of the ensuing Chapter. 
 
 Beginning our survey of the problem at the opposite end, 
 we arrive at the same result; with even a deepened con- 
 viction that in its essential structure, the Lectionary of 
 the Eastern Church must be of truly primitive antiquity : 
 indeed that many of its leading provisions must date back 
 almost, — nay quite, — to the Apostolic age. From whichever 
 side we approach this question, — whatever test we are able 
 to apply to our premisses, — our conclusion remains still the 
 very same. 
 
 (3.) Into this Lectionary then, — so universal in its extent, 
 so consistent in its witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity, 
 — "the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to 
 S.Mark" from the verj' first are found to have won for 
 themselves not onlj' an entrance, a lodgment, an established 
 place ; but, the place of highest honour, — an audience on two 
 of the Church's chiefest Festivals. 
 
 The circumstance is far too important, far too significant 
 to be passed by without a few words of comment. 
 
 For it is not here, (be it carefully observed,) as when 
 
210 Tlif (iiiti-Nicciic Tfttiiiioiii/ fo l/u-fc Vcrxi-s [diav. 
 
 X.] 
 
 itiii qui local uikI dtvisiti. 
 
 211 
 
 we oj)j)(?al to some Patristic citation, tliat the recognition of 
 a phrase, or a verse, or a couplo of verses, must be acc'ej)lo(l 
 as a proof that the f-aino niicicnt Fallicr recognised tlic 
 context also in which tliosc words arc found. Not so. All 
 ihf Twchc Verses hi dispute arc f omul in cirri/ kiioini roji;/ 
 of tlie venerable Lectionarj' of the Ea't. Tlioie same Ticlrr 
 !'(/■.-( V, — neither more nor less, — arc obscncil to coiixlilutc 
 one iiitigral Lection. 
 
 But even this is not all. The most important fact seems 
 to be that to these Yerses has been assigned a place of the 
 higliest possible distinction. It is found that, from the very 
 fiist, S. ilark xvi. 9 — 20 has been everywhere, and by all 
 brunches of the Church Catholic, claimed for two of the 
 Church's greatest Festivals, — Easter and Ascension. A more 
 weijrhtv or a more significant circumstance can scarcelv he 
 imagined. To suppose that a portion of Scripture singled 
 out for such extraordinary honour by the Ciiurch universal 
 is a spurious addition to the Gospel, is purely irrational ; is 
 simply monstrous. No unauthorized "fragment," however 
 " remarkable," could by possibility have so established itself 
 in the regards of the East and of the "West, from the very 
 first. Xo suspected "addition, placed here in very early 
 times," would have been tolerated in the Church's solemn 
 public Service six or seven times a-j'ear. No. It is imj>os- 
 iible. Had it been one short clause which we were invited 
 to surrender: a verse: two verses: even three or four: — 
 the plea being that (as in the case of the celebrated perieopn 
 de udulteru) the Lectionaries knew nothing of them : — the 
 case would have been cntirel}' different. But for any one 
 to seek to persuade us that these Twelve Verses, which 
 exactly constitute one of the Church's most famous Lections, 
 are every one of them spurious : — that the fatal taint begins 
 with the first verse, and only ends with the last: — //"« >« 
 a demand on our simplicity which, in a less solemn subject, 
 would only provoke a smile. We are constrained to testify 
 astonishment and even some measure of concern. Have tuc 
 Critics then, (supposing them to be familiar with the evi- 
 dence which has now been set forth so much in detail ;)-- 
 Have the Critics then, (wc ask) utterly taken leave of their 
 
 senses? or do t!iey really suppose that we have taken have 
 of ours ? 
 
 It is time to close this discussion. It was declared at tlie 
 outset that tlie witness of the Lectionaries to the genuine- 
 ness of those Yerses, though it has been generally overlooked, 
 is the most important of any : admitting, as it docs, of no 
 evasion : being simply, as it is, decisive. I have now fullv 
 explained the grounds of that assertion. I have set the 
 Yerses, which I undertook to vindicate and establish, on 
 a basis from which it will be found impo.'isible any more 
 to dislodge them. "Whatever GricsbaL-h, and Tischendoif, 
 and Tregelles, and the rest, may think about the matter, — 
 the Holy luistern Church in her corporate capacity, has 
 never been of their opinion. Thtii may doubt. The uuli- 
 JVieeiic Fiif/iei-s at least never doubted. If " tlie last Twelve 
 A'erses" of S. Mark were dc^scriedli/ omitted from certain 
 Copies of his Gospel in the iv"' century, utterly incredible 
 is it that these same Twklve Yerses should liave been dis- 
 seminated, by their authority, througliout Christendom ; — 
 read, by their command, in all the Churches; — selected, by 
 tlicir collective judgment, from the whole body of Scripture 
 for the special honour of being listened to once and again 
 at Eastek time, as well as on Ascension-Day. 
 
 1-2 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN 
 ANCIENT COPIES OF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND 
 ACCOUNTED FOR. 
 
 7'lif Text of our fie oldest Uncials proved, ly an induction of in- 
 ttancet, to have suffered depravation throughout ly the operation of 
 the ancient Lectionary system of the Church (p. 217). — The omis- 
 sion of S.Mark's "last Twelve Verses" {constituting an integral 
 Ecclesiastical Lection,') sheun to he probably only one more example 
 of the same depraving influence (p. 224). 
 
 I7iis solution of the problem corroborated by the language of Euttlius 
 and of ITesyehius (p. 232) ; as well as favoured by the " Western" 
 order of the Gospels (p. 239). 
 
 I AM much mistaken if the suggestion which I am ahout 
 to offer has not alread}' presented itself to every reader of 
 ordinarj' intelligence who has taken the trouble to follow 
 the course of m}' argument thus far with attention. It re- 
 quires no acuteness whatever, — it is, as it seems to me, the 
 merest instinct of mother-wit, — on reaching the present 
 stage of the discussion, to debate with oneself somewhat as 
 follows : — 
 
 1. So then, the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel 
 were anciently often observed to be missing from the copies. 
 Eusebius expressly says so. I observe that he nowhere says 
 that their genuineness was anciently suspected. As for him- 
 self, his elaborate discussion of their contents convinces me 
 that individually, he regarded them with favour. The mere 
 fact, — (it is best to keep to his actual statement,) — that 
 " the entire passage •" was " not met with in all the copies," 
 is the sum of his evidence : and two Greek manuscripts, yet 
 extant, supposed to be of the iv*"* century (Codd. B and k). 
 mutilated in this precise wa}', testify to the truth of his 
 statement. 
 
 2. But then it is found that these self-same Twelve Terscs, 
 — neither more nor less, — anciently constituted an inleginl 
 
 ' The resder in requested to refer back to p. 45, and the note there.— The 
 iictnil irordt of £usebiua are given in Appendix (B). 
 
 CHAP. XI.] These Tuelre Verses, irhy aiicicittly omitted. 213 
 
 Eccksiastiral Lcetion; which lection, — inasmuch as it is found 
 to have established itself in every part of Christendom at 
 the earliest period to which liturgical evidence reaches back, 
 and to have been assigned from the very first to two of the 
 chiefest Church Festivals, — must needs be a lection of almost 
 Apostolic antiquity. Eusebius, I observe, (see p. 45), desig- 
 nates the portion of Scripture in dispute by its technical 
 name, — K€<f>dXaiou or irepiKoir^; (for so an Ecclesiastical lec- 
 tion was anciently called). Here then is a rare coincidence 
 indeed. It is in fact simply unique. Surely, I ma}- add 
 that it is in the highest degree suggestive also. It inevitably 
 provokes the inquiry, — ^lust not these two facts be not only 
 connected, but even interdependmt f AVill not the omission 
 of the Twelve concluding Verses of S. Mark from certain 
 ancient copies of his Gospel, have been in some way occa- 
 sioned by the fact that those same twelve verses constituted an 
 integral Church Lection ? How is it possible to avoid sus- 
 pecting that the phenomenon to which Eusebius invites 
 attention, (viz. that certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel in very 
 ancient times had been mutilated from the end of tlie 8th 
 verse onwards,) ought to be capable of illustration, — will 
 have in fact to be explained, and in a word accounted for, — 
 by the circumstance that at the 8th verse of S. Mark's xvi"" 
 chapter, one ancient Lection eoiue to an eifl, and another 
 ancient Lection began ? 
 
 Somewhat thus, (I venture to think,) must every unpre- 
 judiced Header of intelligence hold parley with himself ou 
 reaching the close of the preceding chapter. I need hardly 
 add that I am thoroughly convinced he would be reasoning 
 rightly. I am going to shew that the Lectionary practice 
 of the ancient Church does indeed furnish a sufficient clue 
 for the unravelment of this now famous problem : in other 
 words, enables us satisfactorily to account for the omission 
 of these Twelve Verses from ancient copies of the collected 
 Gospels. But I mean to do more. I propose to make my 
 appeal to documents which shall be observed to bear no 
 faltering witness in my favour. More yet. I propose that 
 Eusebius himself, the chief author of all this trouble, shall 
 be brought back into Court and invited to resyllable his 
 
214 Copin of the Goxpch uml ancic»fly io he [^■nAT. 
 
 Evidence; and I an, much mistaken if even he will not be 
 observed to let fall a Lint that we have at lust got on xZ 
 
 t'^k i.'T* ;T^"-" •"""'•^'^ ''■■"■"•^'^ ^°" this mistake 
 took Its first beg,„„,„g;_a„d, (what is not least to the 
 
 purpose.) have correctly apprehended what was his own real 
 meaning in what he himself has said. 
 
 The proposed solution of the difficulty.-if not the evi- 
 dence on which It immediately rests.-might no doubt be 
 exhibited withm exceedingly narrow limits. Set down 
 abruptly, however, its weight and value would inevitably 
 fail to be recognised, even by those who already enjoy some 
 fannharity w th tbese studies. Very few of the cinsid": 
 •ons which I shall have to rehearse are in fact unknown 
 to Critics: yet is it evident that their bearing on the pro- 
 blem before us has hitherto altogether escaped their notice. 
 Om the other hand, by one entirely a novice to this depart- 
 .nent of sacred Science. I eould scarcely hope to be so much 
 as understood. Let me be allowed, therefore, to preface what 
 1 have to say with a ie^ explanatory details which I pro- 
 mise shaU not be tedious, and which I trust ^iU not be 
 tound altogether without interest either. If they are any- 
 where else to be met with, it is my misfortune, not my fault, 
 that I have been hitherto unsuccessful in discovering the place. 
 i. l<rom the earliest ages of the Church, (as I shewed 
 at page 192-5.) it has been customary to read certain 
 defimte portions of Holy Scripture, det'ermined by Eccle- 
 siastical authority, publicly before the Congregation. In 
 process of time, as was natural, the sections so required for 
 public use were collected into separate volumes : Lections 
 Irom the Gospels being written out in a Book which was 
 CBi.\eA'' Ecauaelisfariumr {ei,a'^y,\c<yT6ptov.)-irom the Acts 
 and Epistles, in a book called " Praxaposfoh,,," [-Trpa^a-no- 
 cTToXos:). These Lectionary-books, both Greek and Syriac. 
 are yet extant in great numbers b, and (I may remark in 
 
 " S3Ctbecnomeration of Greek Service-Book, in Scrivener's 7»^™rf«r//<,., 
 r '''';, "7 J°" "'^ ^^■""'^ Loctionaries, see Dean Pavne Smith's Cala. 
 %». (18G4) pp. 114.29.31.45.8: also Professor V^r.^U'.' Catalogue, (1870) 
 pp 146 to 203.-I ava,I mjselfof this opportunity to thank both those learned 
 Scholars for their valuable assistance, always most obligingly rendered. 
 
 X..] 
 
 ii'/np/i 'I io Lnt'iOiiarij ptii-pose.- 
 
 21; 
 
 passing) deserve a far greater amount of attention than has 
 hitheito been bestowed upon them '^. 
 
 When the Lectionary first took the form of a sejiarate 
 book, has not been ascertained. That no copy is known to 
 exist (whether in Greek or in Syriac) older than the viii"' 
 century, proves notliing. Codices in daily use. (like the 
 Bibles used in our Churches,) must of necessity have been 
 of exceptionally brief duration; and Lectionaries. more even 
 than Biblical MSS. were liable to injury and decay. 
 
 II. But it is to be observed, — (and to explain lliis, is much 
 more to my present purpose,) — that besides transcribing llie 
 Ecclesiiistical lections into separate books, it became the 
 practice at a very early period io adapl copies of the Go!<j>eh 
 io kciioiian/ piirposif. I suspect that this practice began in 
 the Cliurches of Syria ; for Syriac copies of the Gospels (ai 
 leaiii of the vii"" century) abound, which have the Lections 
 more or less systematically rubricated in tlie Text*. There 
 is in the British Museum a copy of S. Mark's Gospel ac- 
 cording to the Peshito version, ceriainhj uriiien previoua io 
 A.D. 583, which has at least five or six rubrics so inserted 
 by the original scribe'. As a rule, in all later cursive Greek 
 MSS., (I mean tliose of the xii"" to the xv"" century,) the 
 Ecclesiastical lections are indicated throughout : while either 
 at the summit, or else at the foot of the page, the formula 
 with which the Lection was to be introduced is elaborately 
 inserted ; prefaced probably b)' a rubricated statement (not 
 always ver)- easy to decipher) of the occasion trhen the en- 
 suing portion of Scripture was to be read. The ancients, to 
 a far greater extent than ourselves', were accustomed, — 
 
 * " Evangclistarionim codices literis uncialibus script! nondum sic ut decet 
 in usuni rrilicuiu conversi sunt." Tisthendorf, quoted by Scrivener, [^Intro- 
 duclioH to Cod. Augiensit, — 80 pages which have l)oen sepirately published 
 and arc trrll deserving of study, — p. 4S,] who adds, — " 1 cannot even conjec- 
 ture why an Kvangelistarium should be thought of Icss value than another 
 WS. of the Biinie age." — See also Scrivener's Introiuelion, 4c. p. 211. 
 
 -• c.g. .J</.W. J/SS. 12,141 : 14,449: 14,430-2-4-5-0-7-8: 14,461-3: 17,113- 
 4-5-6:— (= 15 Codd. in all:) from p. 45 to p. 06 of Professor Wright's 
 Catalogtit, 
 
 • Adtlil. MS. 14,404. (See Dr. Wright's Catalogue, p. 70.) 
 
 'Add to the eight examples adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our ll>ok 
 of C. P., (Introduction, p. 11), the following :— Gospels for Quinquagc=inui, 
 
216 The Lcctiumry System fw< I, J to the [chap. 
 
 (in fact, they made it a r„k,)-io prefix unauthorized for- 
 luulfc to tbe.r public Lections ; and these are sometimes found 
 lo Lave established themselves so firmlv, that at last they 
 became as it were ineradicable; and later copyists of the 
 fourfold Gospel are observed to introduce them unsuspi. 
 ciously into the inspired text"'. All that belongs to this 
 subject deserves particular attention ; because it is Mm which 
 explains not a few of the perturbations (so to express one- 
 self) which the text of the New Testament has experienced 
 ^A e are made to understand how, what was originally in- 
 tended only as a liturgical note, became mistaken, through 
 the inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists, for a critical 
 siu/ffistion ; and thus, besides transpositions without number, 
 there has arisen, at one time, the insertion of something un- 
 authorized into the text of Scripture,-at another, the omis- 
 sion of certain inspired words, to the manifest detriment of 
 the sacred deposit. For although the systematic rubrication of 
 the Gospels for liturgical purposes is a comparatively recent 
 invention,— (I question if it be older in Greek MSS. than 
 the x"" century,)— yet will persons engaged in the public 
 Services of God's House have been prone, from the very 
 earliest age, to insert memoranda of the kind referred to, 
 into the margin of their copies. In this way, in fact, it may 
 be regarded as certain that in countless minute particulars 
 
 2nd S. .(Ict Ea.ter, 9tli, 12th, 22nd after TrinitT, Whitsunday. Aeccn.iou 
 Day, SS. Philip and James (see below, p. 220), AU Saints. 
 
 • Thus the words tUt ti i Kipto, (S.Luke yd. 31) which introducf on 
 i.ccU„a.lical Lection (Friday iu the iii'fwe^k of S.Lule,) inasmuch a> the 
 words are found in no uncial MS, and are omitted besides by the Syriac, Vul- 
 gate, Gothic and Coptic Versions, must needs be regarded as a liturgical inter- 
 polation.— The same is to be said of i -i^mC, in S. JIatth. liv. 22,-worJ. 
 which Origen and Chrysostom. as well as the Syriac versions, omit ; and which 
 clearly owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Teitus Receptus, in the 
 Vulgate and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the Gospel for the 
 IX' Sunday after Pentecost hegint at thai place.— It wiU be kindred to the 
 present inquiry that I should point out that in S. Mark ivi. 9, 'Ay^ri, i 
 Iva^ov, IS constantly met with in Greek MSS., and even in some copies of the 
 A ulgate; and yet there can be no doubt that here also the Holy Name i« an 
 interpolation which has originated from the same cause as the preceding. The 
 f.ict is. singularly iUustrated by the insertion of " 6 10 ' in Cod. 2«i7 
 (= Beg. 69,) rutro above tie tame contraction (for 6 -Incovs) iu the text. 
 
 X..] 
 
 tl,j>rnrafion of Codil. B, k. A, C, D. 
 
 2i: 
 
 the text of Scripture has been depraved. Let me not fail to 
 add, that by a judicious, and above all by an viijmjiitficetl 
 use of the materials at our disposal, it maj', even at this 
 distance of time, in every such particular, be successfully' 
 restored •■. 
 
 III. I now proceed to shew, by an induction of instances, 
 that crni in the oldest copies in exinteiice, I mean in Codd. ]{, 
 N, A, C, niid D, the Lcctionary system of the early Church 
 has left abiding traces of its operation. 'When a few such 
 undeniable cases have been adduced, all objections grounded 
 on prima facie improbability will have been satisfuctorily 
 disposed of. The activity, as well as the existence of such 
 a disturbing force and depraving influence, at lia-st as far 
 back as tlie beginning of the iv"" centur}-, (but it is in fact 
 more ancient by full two hundred years,)] will have been 
 established : of which I shall only have to shew, in conclu- 
 sion, that the omission of " the last Twelve A'^erses" of 
 S. Mark's Gospel is probably but one more instance, — 
 though confessedly by far the most extraordinary of any. 
 
 (1.) From Codex B then, as well as from Cod. A, tlie two 
 grand verses which describe our Lord's "Agony and Bloody 
 Sweat," (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44,) are missing. The same two 
 verses arc absent also from a few other important MSS., as 
 well as from both the Egyptian versions ; but I desire to fas- 
 ten attention on the confessedly erring testimony in this place 
 of Codex B. " Confessedly erring," I saj* ; for the genuine- 
 ness of tliose two verses is no longer disputed. Now, in 
 every known Evangelistarium, the two verses here omitted 
 by Cod. B follow, (the Church so willed it,) S. Matth. xxvi. 
 39, and are read as a regular part of the lesson for the 
 Thursday in Holy Week'. Of course they are also omitted 
 in the same Evangelistaria from the lesson for the Tuesday 
 
 ** Kot, of course, so long as the present senseless fashion prevails of regard- 
 ing Codex 11, (to which, if Cod. L. and Codd. 1, 33 and 69 are added, it is on/y 
 because they agree vlth £), as an all but infallible guide in settling the text of 
 Scripture ; and quietly taking it for granted that all the other IISS. in exist- 
 ence have entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive mankind. Until this 
 most uncritical method, this most unpliilosophical theory, is unconditionally 
 abandoned, progress in this department of sacred Science is simply impossible. 
 
 > See Matthaei'i uoU on S. Luke xxii. 43, {Not. Test. ed. 1803.) 
 
218 
 
 T(.HofCoil(l.]i,^,A,C,D(hpr(ticil [cimi-. xi.] hi/ 11.' oprinfion of ili( DcticDKuy Si/^lon- 
 
 210 
 
 after Scxagesiinn, (rri y rijy rvpo<f>uyov, as tlio Easterns call 
 that day,) wlicn S. Luke xxii. 39 — xxiii. 1 used to be read. 
 Moreover, in nil ancient copies of the Gospels which have 
 been accoinmodated to ecclesiastical use, f/ic readrr of S. Luhr 
 xxii. I's intaridUy (Urcclid hi/ a wanjitwl note to have out tho»r 
 tiro jv ;•«••-■, and to proceed jicr mltiim from ver. 42 to ver. 45 ^. 
 AVhat nioie obvious tliei efore than that the removal of the 
 paragraph from its proper place in S. Luke's Gospel is to be 
 attributed to nothing else but tlie Lectionary practice of the 
 primitive Church ? Quite unreasonable is it to impute he- 
 retical motives, or to invent any other unsupported theory, 
 while this plain solution of the difficulty is at hand. 
 
 (2.) The same Cod. B., (with which Codd. n, C, L, U and T 
 are observed here to conspire,) introduces the piercing of the 
 Saviour's side (S. Jolin xix. 34) at the end of S. Matth. 
 xxvii. 49. Kow, I only do not insist that this must needs 
 be the result of the singular Lectionarj' practice already* de- 
 scribed at p. 202, because a scholiou in Cod. 72 records the 
 singular fact that in the Dlatessaron of Tatian,' after S. Matth. 
 xxvii. 48, was read SXKo'; Se \a^u>v "Koyxrjv evv^ev airov t^v 
 
 ^ Tliis will be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript. In 
 Cod. EviiM. 436 (Meerman 117) nbicb lies before me, tbesc directions are 
 given as fullons. After t6 <rhv yfvtaSiD (i.e. tlie last words of ver. 42), is »rit- 
 ten {rnipfia tU t4 tJi 7. Then, at the end of ver. 44, is written — tp^ou t5» 7, 
 after which follows the text koI ivainas. Sic. 
 
 In S. Matthew's Gospel, at clinp. xxvi, which contains the Liturgical section 
 for Thursday in Holy Week (rp ii-)lq xa) /u7oAp «'), my Codex has been 
 only ini|)crfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be allowed to quote from Ilarl. 
 MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84, at the end of S. Matth. 
 
 xxvi. 30, reads as follows, immediately after the words, — i\\' at ov : '. S( 
 
 (i.e. vndfTa.) But in order to explain what is meant, the above rubricated 
 word and sign are re)>eated at foot, as follows : — Jj^ vndvTa t'ls -rh koto Aovrir 
 iv Kf^aKaiif p9. &<p0Ti St avTtp AyytKos : cTto arpatpfU ivravBa niKiVj h.iyf' ool 
 IpXfTai vpls Tovs naBriris — which arc the 6rst words of S. Matth. xxvi. 40. 
 
 Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after 
 S.Luke xxii. 42, besides the rubric already quoted, has the following: if(ev 
 rris iityiKris i. Then come the two famous verses (ver. 43, 44); and, after the 
 words iyacrris oirJ ttjs irpoatvx^s, the following rubric occurs : irai'Ta til t4 
 TTJs fityaKris t Mard, tpxtTtu »pis tovs fiafiijrds. 
 
 [With the help of my nephew, (Rev. W. ¥. Kose, Curate of Holy Trinity, 
 Windsor,) 1 have collated every syllable of Cod. 436. Its text most nearly 
 resembles the Itev. F. H. Scrivener's 1, m, n.] 
 
 ■jrXevpm- Afll f'fOXflei' vtcop Koi al/ia. (Chrysostom's codex was 
 evidently vitiated in iircrhclij the same nay.) This interpola- 
 tion therefore >/-'7//have resulted from the corrupting influence 
 of Tatian's (so-called) "Harmony." See Appendix (H). 
 
 (3.) To keep on safe ground. Cudd. B and D concur in what 
 Alford justly cr-lls the "grave error" of simply omitting 
 from S. Luke xxiii. 34, our Loitn's supplication on behalf of 
 His murderers, (o U 'Iijaov<; eXeye, Udrep, a<p€<! avToh' ov 
 yap o't^aai tI -TTOtovai). They are not quite singular in so 
 doing ; being, as usual, kept in countenance by certain 
 copies of the old Latin, as well as by both the Egyptian 
 versions. How is this "grave error" in so many ancient 
 MSS. to bo accounted for? (for a "grave error," or rather 
 "a fatal omission" it certainly is). Simply by the fact that 
 in the Eastern Church the Lection for the Thursday after 
 Sexagesiina lr,aJ.-'< of ahriipthj, iiiimedintcli/ before thc^e rery 
 iiorild, — to recommence at ver. 44 '. 
 
 (4.) Note, that at ver. 32, t/w eighth " Gospel of the Pas- 
 cion" t(;////.s,— which is the reason why Codd. B and S (with 
 the Egyptian versions) exhibit a singular irregularity in 
 that place ; and why the Jerusalem Syriac introduces the 
 established formula of the Lectiouaries (aw toJ 'Irjcrov) at 
 the same juncture. 
 
 (If I do not here insist that the absence of the famous 
 perieopn rfc adulferd (S. John vii. 53— viii. 11,) from so 
 manv M^S., is to be explained in precisely the same way, it 
 is only because the genuineness of that portion of the Gospel 
 is generally denied; and I propose, in this enumeration 
 of instam-cs, not to set foot on disputed ground. I am con- 
 vinced, nevertheless, that the first occasion of the omission 
 of those memorable verses was the lectionary practice of the 
 primitive Church, which, on "Whitsunday, read from S. John 
 vii. 37 to viii. 12, lenrhig out the tirelve rerfea in question. 
 Those verses, from the nature of their contents, (as Augus- 
 tine declares,) easily came to be viewed with dislike or sus- 
 picion. Tiie passage, however, is as old as the second century, 
 for it is found in certain copies of the old Latin. Moreover 
 Jerome deliberately gave it a place in the Vulgate. I pass on.) 
 
 I Sec by all means Mntthaci's yor>. Test. (ed. 1803,) i. p. 491, and 492. 
 
220 
 
 Ttit of CmhI. B,ti, A, C, IJ (lepra led 
 
 [chap. 
 
 (5.) The two oldest Codices in existence, — B and n, — 
 stand all but alone in omitting from S. Luke vi. 1 the unique 
 and indubitably genuine word ievTtpoTrpcoTq) ; which is also 
 omitted by the Peshito, Italic and Coptic rersions. And 
 j-et, when it is observed that an Ecclesta-iiical lection hegim 
 here, and that the Evangelistaria (which iiivarinbfi/ leave out 
 such notes of time) simply drop the word, — only substituting 
 for eV cra/9/3aTa) the more familiar tois aa^^aai, — everj' one 
 will be ready to admit that if the omission of this word be 
 not due to the inattention of the copyist, (which, however, 
 seems to me not at all unlikely™,) it is suflBciently explained 
 by the Lectionary practice of the Church, — which may well 
 date back even to the immediately post- Apostolic age. 
 
 (6.) In S. Luke xvi. 19, Cod. D introduces the Parable of 
 Lazarus with the formula, — eltrev S« koX eripav Trapaj3o\i^v ' 
 which is nothing else but a marginal note which has found 
 its way into the text from the margin ; being the liturgical 
 introduction of a Church-le-ison'' which afterwards began elirev 
 o Kvpios T7JI' vapa0o\r)v Tavrqv". 
 
 (7.) In like manner, the same Codex makes S. John xiv. 
 begin with the liturgical formula, — (it survives in our Book of 
 Common Prayer* to this very hour!) — KaX elirevroli |xa6r||^a^s 
 ainov : in which it is countenanced by certain MSS. of the 
 Vulgate and of the old Latin Version. Indeed, it may be 
 stated generally concerning the text of Cod. D, that it bears 
 marks throughout of the depraving influence of the ancient 
 Lectionary practice. Instances of this, (in addition to those 
 elsewhere cited in these pages,) will be discovered in S. Luke 
 iii. 23 : iv. 16 (and xix. 45) : v. 1 and 17: vi. 37 (and xviii. 
 15) : rii. 1 : x. 1 and 25 : xx. 1 : in all but three of which. 
 Cod. D is kept in countenance by the old Latin, often by the 
 Syriac, and by other versions of the greatest antiquity. But 
 to proceed. 
 
 (8.) Cod. A, (supported by Athanasius, the Vulgate, 
 Gothic, and Philoxenian versions,) for KaC, in S. Luke ix. 57, 
 
 "• See above, p. 75, note (h). • For the 6tb Sunday of S. Luke. 
 
 • SucL variations ai'e quite common. Matthaei, with his nsual accurarv, 
 points out several : e.g. A'ot. Teil. (1788) vol. i. p. 19 (note 26), p. 23 : vol. ii. 
 p. 10 (note 12), p. 14 (notes 14 and 15), &c. • SS. Philip and Janu-s. 
 
 XI.] /.// t/,( ojimi/ion of the Leclioiiari/ .Sy«7<7./. 22] 
 
 reads tyheTO Se',— which is the rending of the Textus Ecccp- 
 tus. Cod. D, (with some copies of the old Latin,) exhibits 
 Ka\ eyivfTo. All the diversity which is observable in this 
 place, (and it is considerable,) is owing to the fact that 
 an E'cch<ir..<tiral lection begins herev. In different Churche?, 
 the formula w4th which the lection was introduced slightly 
 
 differed. 
 
 (9.) Cod. C is supported by Chrysostom and Jerome, as 
 well as by the Peshito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syiiae, 
 and Eome MSS. of the old Latin, in reading o 'Irjaoin at the 
 beginning of S. :Matth. xi. 20. That the words have no busi- 
 ness there, is universally admitted. So also is the cause of 
 their interpolation generally recognized. The Eecl,siai<lical 
 lection for Wednesday in the iv"" week after Pentecost begins 
 at that phur ; and begins with the formula,— tV tu> icaipu 
 eVfiVw, vpSoTO 6 'Itjo-ov? oveihlfyiv. 
 
 (10.) Similarly, in S. Matth. xii. 9, xiii. 30, and xiv. 14, 
 Cod. C inserts 6 ''Irjaov^ ; a reading which on all three occa- 
 sions is countenanced by the Syriac and some copies of the 
 old Latin, and on the last of the three, by Origen also. And 
 ret there can be no doubt that it is only because Eccle- 
 'siastical lections begin at those places", ihat the Holy Name 
 
 is introduced there. 
 
 (11 ) Let me add that the Sacred Name is confessedly an 
 interpolation in the six places indicated at foot,-its presence 
 being accounted for by the fact that, in each, an Eecleswstical 
 lection bci,lns\ Cod. D in one of these places, Cod. A in 
 four is kept in countenance by the old Latin, the Syriac, the 
 Coptic and other early versions ;-convincing indications of 
 the extent to which the Lectionary practice of the Church 
 had established itself so early as the second century of 
 
 our tcra. . . 
 
 Cod D. and copies of the old Latin and Egyptian ver- 
 sions also read toO 'Iv<^ov, (instead of avrov.) in S. Mark 
 xiv. 3; which is only because a Church lesson begins there. 
 
 r vi.. coB^ir^- e: i.e. the ix'" Saturday in S. Luke.-Note that Cod. A also 
 
 't:Jt;:.'w"^tl:;^N Thur.aoy m the vi.' .eek after Pentecost 1 
 
 ilipviii'' SuiuUv after Pentecost. ■,,••■•, 
 
 V2. M^. 2 : «iv.36. S. John i. 29 (ri.a..,.): 44: V..14. ....... 
 
222 
 
 Trxt ofli, s, A,C,D 
 
 [chap. 
 
 (12.) The same Cod. D is nil but unique in leaving oul 
 that memorable verse in S. Luke's Gosi)cl (xxiv. 12), in 
 which S. I'eter's visit to the Sc])ulchre of our risen Loru 
 finds particular mention. It is only because tliat verse was 
 claimed both as the coiicfiision of the iv"' and also as the 
 hfgiiiniiiff of the v"' Gospel of the Resurrection: so that the 
 liturgical note apx'' stands at the beginning, — rcXoy at the 
 end of it. Accordingly, D is kept in countenance here only 
 by the Jerusalem Lectionarj' and some copies of the old 
 Latin. But what is to be thought of the editorial judgment 
 which (with Tregelles) encloses this verse within brackets ; 
 and (with Tischendorf) rejects if from the text altogether ? 
 
 (13.) Codices B, s, and D are ahiie among ^ISS. in omit- 
 ting the clause SieXOwv Bta fikaov axnCiv' Koi irapTyyev oCrwy, 
 at the end of the 59th verse of S. John viii. The omission 
 is to be accounted for by the fact that just there the Church- 
 lesson for Tuesday in the v"' Aveek after Easter came to. 
 an end. 
 
 (14.) Again. It is not at all an unusual thing to find 
 in cursive MSS., at the end of S. Matth. viii. 13, (with seve- 
 ral varieties), the spurious and tasteless appendix, — KaX 
 viroarpey^av 6 e/Karoi'Tap^o? ei? tov oIkov ainov iv avrfi rp 
 (opa evpev tov TT-alBa vyialvovra : a clause which owes its 
 existence solely to the practice of ending the lection for the 
 iv"" Sunday after Pentecost in that unauthorized manner'. 
 But it is not only in cursive MSS. that these words are 
 found. Thei/ are met with also in the Code* Sinnitictis (K) : 
 a witness at once to the inveteracj' of Liturgical usage in 
 the iv"" century of our a;ra, and to the conuptions which 
 the "Codex omnium antiquissimus" will no doubt have in- 
 herited from a yet older copy than itself. 
 
 —to which Bhould perhaps be added xxi. 1, where B, K, A, C (nolD) n»il 
 *lr}aovs. 
 
 • See by till means Matthaei's interesting note on the place, — Abr. Tetl- 
 (17SS) vol. i. p. 113-4. It Bhould be mentioned that Col C (and four other 
 uuciaU), together with the Philoxeiiian and Hierosolymitan versions, concur 
 in exhibiting the same spurious clause. Matthaei remarks, — " Origcnc* 
 (iv. 171 d) banc pericopaiu baud adeo diligentcr recenseiu termin«t euni «> 
 ytrtieiyrai aoi." Will not the disturbing Leciiouary-praelice of his day •"'• 
 ficicntly explain Origen's omission ? 
 
 drprawl hi/ Liliirijiciiljhnniildi' 
 
 2J:5 
 
 (1.3 , In conclusion, I may remark generally that there 
 ocur' instances, again and again, of perturbations of the 
 Text in our oldest MSS.. (corresponding somet.nies with 
 .e?dio"s vouched for by the most ancient of the lathers.) 
 ;;ch^aamit of no more intelligible or inoffcns.ve solut n 
 than by roforrlng the.n to the Lect.onary practice of the 
 nrimitive Church'. . „ , , ,» 
 
 ' Xs when instead of .al ava^aU^.v 6U.o.. e. Upo- 
 .o'Xv.a (S. Matth. XX. 17), Cod. B reads, and, .s_ aln . 
 unique in reading,) MeXX<«.. «. iva^airn^ o h,aov. , and 
 when Orison sometimes quotes the place ,n tl- "-e - . 
 
 t sometitnes is observed to ^^^-^^^^^^^ ^^^ .^'^^^^ 
 IlolvXame in the sentence; when "2-7-^,^^'^^:, 
 M^^ (and Origen once,) are observed to put the sau e 
 i.:: rf,r'Ie;oa6Xv^a: when, lastly, two of Field . 
 m".^ and one'of Matthaei's. (and I dare say a grea many 
 LVe 'if the truth were known,) omit the words I.aov. 
 Tt ;i :-'rAo sees not that the true disturbing force . 
 hi ^faco, from the ii- century of our a.ra downwards, h 
 Ce:!fiyL<ctionnr, practice of thepnm.tire f'''^'^ 
 fac that tl.nr the lection for the Thursday after the mu 
 tLayanerl.ntecostWan^-A,.Un.nia^ 
 
 IT It has been proved then, in b . 1 . ,1,.., 
 
 "" ''rrX™ X La "0. ot . peculiar k".d " -."« 
 exercised n aepraMug 1 ^ / ,1 /7,,\. ic the onlv pomt 
 
 t.xt of Scripture. ^-•^^rJ-1\^thl . ^n '"/ Zi.. 
 I „^ now concerned to establish), that 0,. ^. " J^.^ 
 
 of tic Go^j>cl.r-B and K as well as A. C and U 
 
 „o • lo. ixi 1— but the attentive student will iH. 
 • 1 r*ial t^. •'>'""»■ 29 : x>''- 1^ ■ "'• '. . , ., j„j similar 
 
 j-^.,,, .eh -'^-^ -- ;^: ::;:?u;:a -i^iL .hichtbe 
 
 pl.oe.. wbil. tbv phraseology .» "" ^'"J ^^j..^^' ,,,„„ ;, u discovered that 
 L. e.bibUs .... so exeee .ng ""^^^J^'^t^^.e that « e have ^^^^^ 
 a a.rch J..<.'..« begins .» Uu.se places.jo .naj 
 
 i. jo.^.i.u of the name of.be d-turb.ng force ^^_^ ^,_^^.^^ „f 
 
 Tvi,. K ami M. (Field's ar,.. p. ^^^^'^^^Xs. for cxanU-K'. -'■> 
 C„v..to:., «.v n,ade so litUc account of? »>J;_^|;^^.^_ ^, ,.,, ., .,.. 
 arc Itey ovalooUed entirely ? 
 
'2'2i JlSS./iinii^ficd trit/i LHi(rf/ica/ dinctioiix. [chap. 
 
 not a few traces of the mischievous agcncj' nlluded to ; 
 errors, nnd especially oiiii>'sioiif!, which sometimes seriously 
 affect the character of those Codices as witnesses to the 
 Truih of Scripture. — 1 proceed now to consider the case of 
 S. JIark xvi. 9 — 20 ; onl}- prefacing m)' remarks with a few 
 necessary words of explanation. 
 
 V, lie who takes into his hands an ordinary cursive MS. 
 of the Gospels, is prepared to find the Church-lessons regu- 
 larly indicated throughout, in the text or in the margin. 
 
 A familiar contraction, executed probably in verraillion "^ 
 
 ap, indicates the "beginning" (apxv) of each lection : a corre- 
 
 sponding contraction * f a. ^ .^ indicates its "end" 
 
 (reXo?.) Generally, these rubrical directions, (for they are 
 iiothing else,) are inserted for convenience into the body of 
 the text, — from which the red pigment with which they are 
 almost invariably executed, effectually distinguishes them. 
 But all these particulars gradually disappear as. recourse is 
 had to older and 3et older MSS. The studious in such 
 matters have noticed that even the memorandums as to the 
 "beginning" and tlie "end" of a lection are rare, almost 
 in proportion to the antiquity of a Codex. When they do 
 occur in the later uncials, the}' do not by any means always 
 seem to have been the work of the original scribe ; neither 
 has care been always taken to indicate them in ink of 
 a different colour. It will further be observed in such MSS. 
 that whereas the sign where the reader is to begin is gene- 
 rally — (in order the better to attract his attention,) — in- 
 serted in (lie Margin of the Codex, the note where he is to 
 leave off, (in order the more effectuall}' to arrest his pro- 
 gress,) is as a rule introduced info the body of the fext^. In 
 uncial MSS., however, all such sj'mbols are not onl}' rare, 
 but (what is much to be noted) they are exceedingly ir- 
 regular in their occurrence. Thus in Codex T, in the Bod- 
 leian Library, (a recently acquired uncial MS. of the Gos- 
 pels, written a.d. 844), there occurs no indication of the 
 "end" of a single lection in S.Luke's Gospel, until chap. 
 
 « e.g. in Cod. Evan. 10 and 270. 
 
 XI.] 
 
 "teaoc" or "to teaoc" i)i Gnd Evnn^ilin. 2J"> 
 
 xvi. 31 is reached ; after which, the sign abounds. In Codex 
 L, the original notes of Ecclesiastical Lections occur at the 
 following rare and irregular intervals : — S. Mark ix. 2 : 
 X. 46 : xii. 40 (where the sign has lost its way ; it should 
 have stood against ver. 44) : xv. 42 and xvi. 1 r. In the 
 oJdcf't uncials, nothing of the kind is discoverable. Even in 
 the Codex Bczx, (vi"' century,) not a single liturgical direc- 
 tion coeral nUh the MS. is anywhere to be found. 
 
 YI. And yet, although the practice of thus indicating the 
 
 i beginning and the end of a liturgical section, docs not socni 
 to have come iuto general use until about the xii"' century; 
 and although, previous to the ix"' century, sysiciiiatic litur- 
 gical directions are probably unknown'; the nnd of tbcm 
 must have been experienced by one standing up to read be- 
 fore the congregation, long before. The want of some re- 
 minder where he was to begin, — above all, of some hint 
 
 j where he was to leave off, — will have infallibly made itself 
 felt from the first. Accordingly, there are not wanting in- 
 dications that, occasionally, tcAoc (or to leAoc; was written 
 
 '■ in the margin of Copies of the Gospels at an exceedingly 
 remote epoch. One memorable example of this practice is 
 supplied by the Codex Bezaj (D) : where in S. Mark xiv. 41, 
 
 i instead of a-rrexec v^Oev r, wpa,— we meet with the un- 
 
 l intelligible anexti to teAoc kqi h wpa. Now, nothing 
 else has here happened but that a marginal note, designed 
 originally to indicate the end (to teAocj of the lesson for 
 
 / J In Bome cursive MSS. also, (which have been probaUy transcribed from 
 
 auciout originals), Uie eame phenomenon is observed. Thus, iu Evan. 205 
 {= Keg. CO), TEA only occurs, iu S. Mark, at ix. 9 and 41 : iv. 32 and 41 : 
 T\l 8. Apx ttt xvi. 1. It ir striking to observe that so Uttle were these tccle- 
 
 ' Elastical notes (embedded in the text) understood by the possessor of the IIS., 
 
 that iu the margin, over against ch. xv. 41, (where "TeA":" stands ■■ (he 
 teit) a somewhat Uter hand has ivTittcn,-Te>i>j] T[lt] <l>p>0- •* »'™''- 
 lar liturgical note may he seen over against ch. ix. 9, and elsewhere. Cod. 25 
 ( =Keg. 191), at the end of S. Mark's Gosfol, has only tiio notes of Utuigical 
 endings : viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42. 
 
 • Among the Si/r!ac Evaugelia, as explained above (p. 215), instances occur 
 of far more aueient MSS. which exhibit a text rubricated by tlic original scribe. 
 Even here, however, (as may he learned from Ur. Wright's Calaloffue, ly. 4C 
 —66,) such Rubrics hive been only irregularly inserted in the oldest copies. 
 
226 
 
 The nnifilailon acco'nitcd for 
 
 [aur. 
 
 the third day of the ii"" week of the Carnival, has lost iu 
 waj- from the end of ver. •J2, and got thrust into the t<?xt 
 of ver. 41, — to tlic manifest destruction of the sense'. I find 
 D's error hcic is shared («) by the Poshito Syriac, (i) by 
 the old Latin, and {c) by the Philoxenian : renerable part- 
 ners in error, truly ! for the first two probably carry back 
 this false reading to the second cfufuri/ of our ara ; and bo, 
 furnish one more remarkable proof, to be added to the fifteen 
 (or rather the forty) already enumerated (pp. 21 7-23), that the 
 lessons of the Eastern Church were settled at a period long 
 anterior to the date of the oldest MS. of the Gospels extant. 
 VII. Returning then to the problem before us, I venture 
 to suggest as follows :— What if, at a very remote period, 
 this same isolated liturgical note (to reAoc) occurring at 
 S.Mark xvi. 8, (which k "the end" of the Church-kclion 
 for the ii'"' Sunday after Easter,) should have unhappily 
 suggested to some cojjyist,— /caX\«ypoi/)('a? quam vel Criiiat 
 Sacra ret rcrum Liturgicarum pcrifior, — the notion that the 
 entire " Gospel according to S. Marl;" came to an end at 
 verse 8 ? .... I see no more probable account of the matter, 
 I say, than this :— That the mutilation of the last chapter 
 of S.Mark has resulted from the fact, that some very ancient 
 scribe tni=tnpprchcnded the import of the solitary liturgical note 
 TcAoc (or TO TcAoc) which he found at the close of verse 8. 
 IVue, that he will have probably beheld, further on, several 
 additional a-rixoi. But if he did, how could he acknow- 
 ledge the fact more loyally than by leaving (as the author 
 of Cod. B is observed to have done) one entire column blank, 
 before proceeding with S. Luke ? He hesitated, all the same. 
 
 • Note, that the Codei from which Cod. D was copied will have cihibittd 
 the text thns,— aneXCl TO TCAOC H\eev H wpa— which is the read- 
 ing of Cod. 13 (= llcg. 60.) But the scrilw of Cod. D, in order to im- 
 prove the sense, snhstitntcd for ijxfltv the word tat. Note tlie scholion lA»o». 
 Vaf] in Possinus, p. 321 -.—dirix". rovriari, itrX^rai, riKos (x'l rh iror' ifti. 
 
 Bos'dcs the said Cod. 13, the same reading U found in 47 and 64 (in the 
 Bodl.) : 50 (at Line. Coll.) : CI (i.e. Cod. Montfort.) : 69 (i.e. Cod. Lciccstr.) : 
 12i (i.e. Cod. Vind. Lamb. 31): c'" (i.e. Lambeth. 1177): 2'' (i.e. the Snd 
 of Muralt's S. Petersburg Codd.); and Cod. 439 (i.e. Addit. Brit. Mus. 6107). 
 All these clcTCD MSS. read aV/x" ri ttKot at S.Mark xiv. 41. 
 
 XU-] 
 
 of Codd. B and^, at S.Jfurl- xvi. 8. 
 
 227 
 
 to traincrihc any further, having before him, (as he thought,) 
 an assurance that "the end" had been reached at ver. 8. 
 
 YIII. That some were found in very early times eagprly 
 to acquiesce in this omission : to sanction it : even to mul- 
 tiply copies of the Gospel so mutilated ; (critics or commen- 
 tators intent on nothing so much as reconciling, the apparent 
 discrepancies in the Evangelical narratives:) — appears to 
 me not at all unlikely ^. Eusebius almost says as much, when 
 he puts into the mouth of one who is for getting rid of 
 these versos altogether, tlic remark that "the}' would be in 
 a manner superfluous ;/ // should apjunr that ihiir tcsliniony 
 i-1 at variance irith that of the other Ernixji )i>-tt '." (The ancients 
 were giants in Di^-initj- but children iu Criticism.) On the 
 other hand, I altogether agree with Dean Alford iu thinking 
 it highly improbable that the difiBcuIty of harmonizing one 
 Gospel with another in this place, (such as it is,) was the 
 cause wlij' these Twelve Verses were originall}' suppressed ''. 
 (1) First, because there reallj' was no need to withhold more 
 than three, — at the utmost, five of them, — if this had been 
 the reason of the omission. (2) Kext, because it would have 
 
 ' So Scliolz (i. 200) : — " Pericopa hn;c cam qvodam fors.Tn cicidurat a codicc 
 quodam Alcxnndrino; undo defcetus iste in alios libros tiaiisiit. Ncc niirniii 
 hunc defectum multis, immo in ccrlis regionibus pleri^quc scribis arrisissc : 
 confitciitur cnim ex ipsorum opinionc llarcum Matth.to rcpugnare. Cf. 
 niaxime Euscbium ad Marinum," &c. 
 
 ' irtpnrii av tti), Kol ^oXurra ffirtp txotn uyttXot'itui rp Tar Xotruiv (iiayyt- 
 KinTuti fia/nvpia. (Mai, Bill. P.P. Sova, vol iv. p. 256.) 
 
 * Alford's N. T. vol. i. p. 433, (ei. 18CS.)— And so TLn-hendorf, (ed. 8va. pji. 
 406-7.) "Talcui dissentioncm ad Mnrci librum tarn misere niuti):indum ad- 
 duxisse^quempiam, ct qnidcm tauto cum successu, prorsus incrcdibilc est, nee 
 ullo probari potest cxemplo." — TregcUes is of the same opinion. (Prinled 
 Text, pp. 2556.) — Matthaci, a competent judge, seems to have thought dif- 
 ferently. " Una autcm causa cur hie locus omitleretur fuit quod Marcus in 
 his repugnare ceteris vidctur Evangelistis." The general observation which 
 follows is true enough : — " Qua ergo vel obscura, vel repngnantia, vel param 
 decora quorundam opinionc habcbantur, ra olim ah Criticis et interpretibuB 
 nonnullis vel sublata, vel iu dubium vocata esse, ex aliis locis sanctorum 
 Evangcliorum intelligitur." (A'oc. Test. 178S, vol. ii. p. 266.) Presently, (at 
 p. 270,) — " In EummS. Videtur unus et item alt*r ex interpretibus, qui ha>c 
 exteris evangeliis rcpugnare opinehatur, in dubium vocasse. Hunc dcindc 
 plures tcmerc secnti sunt, ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus." Dr. 
 Davidson says the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more im- 
 portance.) Mr. Scrivener also. (Coll. Cod. Sim. p. xliv.) 
 
 q2 
 
2-28 
 
 The 2ISS. tficnisclves arc (liicotiird 
 
 [aiAP. 
 
 been easier far to introduce some critical correction of any 
 supposed discrepancy, than to sweep away the whole of the 
 unoflending context. (3) Lastly, because nothing clearly 
 •was gained by causing the Gosjiel to end so abruptly that 
 every one must see at a glance that it had been mutilated. 
 No. The omission having originated in a mistake, was per- 
 petuated for a brief period (let us suppose) only through 
 infirmity of judgment: or, (as I prefer to believe), only in 
 consequence of the religious fidelity of copyists, who were 
 evidently alwa3-s instructed to transcribe exactly what they 
 found in the copy set before them. The Church meanwhile 
 in her corporate capacity, has never known anything at all 
 of the matter, — as was fully shewn above in Chap. X. 
 
 IX. When this solution of the problem first occurred to 
 me, (and it occurred to me long before I was aware of the 
 memorable reading to teAoc in the Codex Bczse, already 
 adverted to,) I reasoned with myself as follows : — But if the 
 mutilation of the second Gospel came about in this parti- 
 cular way, the MSS. are bound to remember sonufhing of the 
 circumstance; and in ancient MSS., if I am right, I ought 
 certainly to meet with some confirmation of my opinion. 
 According to m}' view, at the root of this whole matter lies 
 the fact that at S. Mark xvi. 8 a well-known Ecclesiastical 
 lesson comes to an end. Is there not perhaps something 
 exceptional in the vray that the close of that liturgical 
 section was anciently signified ? 
 
 X. In order to ascertain this, I proceeded to inspect every 
 copy of the Gospels in the Imperial Library at Paris'; and 
 devoted seventy hours exactlj', with unflagging delight, to 
 the task. The success of the experiment astonished me. 
 
 1. I began with our Cod. 24 (= Reg. 178) of the Gospels: 
 turned to the last page of S. Mark : and beheld, in a Codex 
 of the xi*'' Century wholly devoid of the Lectionary ap- 
 paratus which is sometimes found in MSS. of a similar 
 date', at fol. 104, the word -H teAoc + conspicuously written 
 by the original scribe immediately after S. Mark xvi. 8, as 
 
 ' I have to (ickuowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M. de 
 Woilly, tlie chief of the Manuscript department. 
 ' Sec above, p. 224. 
 
 XI.] 
 
 fo ionfriii Its ill oi'r ojn'iiion. 
 
 22!) 
 
 well as at the close of the Gospel. It ocrtiirid biaiiku oiiJij 
 (d ch. ix. 0, (the end of the lesson for the Transfiguration.) 
 And yet there are at ltn>-t scrciifi/ occasions in tlie course 
 of S. Mark's Gospel where, in MSS. which have been ac- 
 commodated to Church use, it is usual to indicate the close 
 of a Lection. This discovery, which surprised me not a little, 
 convinced nie that I was on the right scent ; and every hour 
 I met with some fresh confirmation of the fact. 
 
 2. For the intelligent reader will readily understand tliat 
 three such deliberate liturgical memoranda, occurring soli- 
 tarj' in a MS. of this date, arc to be accounted for only in 
 one way. They infallibly represent a corresponding pcnu- 
 Uaritj' in some far more ancient document. The fact that 
 the word t£\0c is here {n) set down unabbreviated, (h) in 
 black ink, and (r) as part of the text, — points unmistakably 
 in the same direction. But that Cod. 24 is derived from 
 a Codex of much older date is rendered certain by a circum- 
 stance which shall be specified at foot '. 
 
 3. The very same phenomena reappear in Cod. SG*". The 
 sif n -f TtAoc +, (which occurs punctually at S. Mark xvi. 8 
 and again at v. 20,) is found besides in S. Mark's Gof]>tl 
 only at chap. i. 8'; at chap. xiv. 31; and (+ t€.\oc tou 
 KtepaA/) at chap. xv. 24 ;— being on every occasion incor- 
 porated with the Text. Kow, when it is perceived that in 
 the second and third of these places, TeXoc has clearly lost 
 its way, — appearing where no Ecclesiastical lection came to 
 an endj— it will be felt that the MS. before us (of the xi"" 
 century) if it was not actually transcribed from,— must at 
 least exhibit at second hand,— a far more ancient Codex ^. 
 
 t AMiereiis in the course of S. Matthew's Gospel, only two cianiples ot 
 + TCAOC + occur, (riz. at ch. xivi. 35 and iivii. 2,)— in the former case the 
 note lias eutirily lost its way in the process of transcription ; standing whirc 
 it has no business to appear. Ko Liturgical section ends thereabouts. 1 sus- 
 pect that the transition (ImlfPaa,!) anciently made at ver. SD, was the thing 
 to which the scribe desired to call attention. 
 
 •• =Coisl. 20. This sumptuous MS., which has not been adapted for 
 Church purposes, apiwai-s to me to be the work of the same scribe who pro- 
 duccd Reg. 178, (the codex described above) i but it exhibits a different Uxt. 
 Bound up with it arc some leaves of the LXX of about the viii"' century. 
 
 ' End of Iho Lection for the Sunday before Epiphany. 
 
 •■ lu S.Mftttliew's Gosiicl, 1 could find TCAOC so written only twice,— vii. 
 
230 Further confifwaiion from MSS. [ciur. 
 
 4. Only once more. — Codex 22 (= Picg. 72) was never 
 prepared for Church purposes. A rough hand has indeed 
 scrawled indications of the beginnings and endings of a few 
 of the Lessons, here and there ; but these liturgical note* 
 arc no paii of the original MS. At S. Mark xvi. 8, how- 
 ever, wc are presented (as before) with the solitary note 
 + TcAoc H — , incorporated with the text. Iiumediatelj' after 
 which, (in writing of the same size,) comes a memorable 
 statement ' in red letters. The whole stands thus : — 
 (popoOvTO rap + teAocH — 
 
 ^ £N TlCl TWN aNTirpdtpWN. 
 
 eojc toAe nAHpouTOi o eu 
 arrcAicTHC : £N noAAoTc 
 
 ie. Koi TQUTa q>cpeTai H 
 
 A vaoToio be. npujt npwTH oap^dTo^v. 
 
 And then follows the rest of the Gospel; at the end of 
 which, the sign + tcAoc + is again repeated, — which sign, 
 however, occurs now/zf/e clsein the MS. norat the end of any of 
 the other three Gospek, A more opportune piece of evidence 
 could hardly have been invented. A statement so apt and 
 so significant was surely a thing rather to be wished than 
 to be hoped for. For here is the liturgical sign teAoc not 
 only occurring in the wholly exceptional wav of which wo 
 have already seen examples, but actually followed by the 
 admission that " In certain copies, the Erangelkt proceeds no 
 further." The two circumstances so brought together seem 
 exactlj' to bridge over the chasm between Codd. B and K on 
 the one hand, — and Codd. 24 and 36 on the other ; and to 
 supply us with precisely the link of evidence which we re- 
 quire. For observe : — During the first six centuries of our 
 acra, no single instance is known of a codex in which tcAoc 
 is written at the end of a Gospel. The subscription of 
 
 nt cli. li. 23 and xxvi. 75 : iu S. Lute only once,— viz. at ch. viii. 39. Tbwo, 
 in all three instances, arc tbc coucladlng verses of famous Lcfsons, — rii. tiic 
 Sunday after Christmas Day, tbc iii"' Gospel of tUe Passion, the vi" Sundiy 
 of S. Luke. 
 
 ' This has already come before os in a different connection : (see p. HO ' 
 but it must needs be roproduicd here; and this time, it shall be cxbibiuJ *» 
 faithfully as my notes jjcrujit. 
 
 X..] 
 
 (fthc accuraey of our opinioti. 
 
 231 
 
 S. Mark for instance is ixmrinll;/ cither KATA A\APKON,— 
 
 (as in B and s) : or else GYArrCAION KATA A\APKON — 
 
 (as in A and C, and the other older uncials) : ucrer teAoc 
 
 But here is a Scribe who first copies the liturgical note leAoc, 
 
 —and then volunteers the f(v7iVv7^ observation that "in some 
 
 copies of S. Mark's Gospel the Evangelist proceeds no fur- 
 
 1 tlierl" A more extraordinar)- corroboration of the view 
 
 1 which I am endeavouring to recommend to the reader's 
 
 i acceptance, I really cannot imagine. Wliy, the ancient 
 
 [ -. Copyist actually comes back, in order to assure mc that 
 
 the suggestion which I have been already oQcring in cx- 
 
 plan.ation of the difficulty, is the true one ! 
 
 5. I am not about to abuse the reader's patience with 
 
 a prolonged enumeration of the many additional conspiring 
 
 circumslances,— insignificant in themselves and confessedly 
 
 unimportant when considered singly, but of which the cu- 
 
 ' mulntive force is unquestionably great,— which an examina- 
 
 '! tion of 09 MSB. of the Gospels brought to light™. Enough 
 
 I has been said already to shew, 
 
 \\ (1st.) That it must have been a customary thing, at 
 
 ] a very remote age, to write the word tcAoc against S. Mark 
 
 i xvi 8, even when the same note was withheld from the 
 
 ; close of almost everj- other ecclesiastical lection in tlie 
 
 I 'c-ndly.) That this word, or rather note, which no doubt 
 
 ' - (1) In Evan 282 (^Tittcn a-B. 1176),-a codci which has leen adapted to 
 
 ( Y Ledionnry purposos.-the sign t.»° and ^ strange to sav, is i,^erted into the 
 * lodv of the Text, only at S. Marl- xv. 47 and xvi. 8. , , . . 
 
 (o) Kvun 26S, (a tralv superb MS., evidently left unfinished, the pictures 
 of the KvaiiBclists only sketched in ink.) «as never prepared for Lcctio.iary 
 \ purpr..os; which makes it the more remarkable tbat, between l,p.6oi,-.oyif 
 
 and 4r«.T.(s. should be found inserted into the body of the text, tJ. m Rold. 
 
 (3) 1 have often met vrith copies of S.Matthew's, or of S.Luke's, or of 
 <! John's Go=pcl, unfurnished »ith a subscription in which -riXos occurs: but 
 scarcelv ever have I seen an instance of a Codex where the Gospel according 
 lo S ilark was one of two, or of three from which it was wanting ; much less 
 xvhere it stood alone in that respect. On the other hand, in the following 
 Codice. -Evan. 10 : 22 : 30 : 293,-S. Mark's is the only Gospel of the Four 
 which is furnished with the subscription, + -rtKosrovKartiKdpKov.iary'^iov-.- 
 or simply + Wxos + .... In Evan. 282, S.Matthew's Gospel .hares this 
 peculiarity with S.Mark's. 
 
232 Hiischitis iiailc'l to [chap. 
 
 was originall}' written as a liturgical niemorandam in the 
 margin, became at a very early period incorporated with the 
 text; where, retaining neither its use nor its significancy, it 
 was liable to misconception, and may have easily come to be 
 fatally misunderstood. 
 
 And although these two facts certainly prove nothing in 
 and by themselves, j'et, when brought close alongside of the 
 problem which has to be solved, their significancy becomes 
 immediatelj'^ apparent : for, 
 
 (3rdly.) As a matter of fact, there are found to have 
 existed before the time of Eusebius, copies of S. Mark's 
 Gospel which did come to an end at this very place. Now, 
 that the Erangelist left oflf there, no one can believe". Win/, 
 then, did the Scribe leave off? But the Reader is already 
 in possession of the reason why. A sufficient explanation of 
 the difficult}' has been elicited from the verj' ilSS. theii>- 
 selves. And surely when, suspended to an old chest which 
 has been locked up for ages, a key is still hanging which 
 fits the lock exactly and enables men to open the chest with 
 ease, the}' are at liberty to assume that the key belongs to 
 the lock ; is, in fact, the only instrument by which the chest 
 may lawfully be opened. 
 
 XI. And now, in conclusion, I propose that we summon 
 back our original "Witness, and invite him to syllable his 
 evidence afresh, in order that we may ascertain if perchance 
 it affords any countenance whatever to the view which I have 
 been advocating. Possible at least it is that in the Patristic 
 record that copies of S. Mark's Gospel were anciently defec- 
 tive from the 8th verse onwards some vestige may be dis- 
 coverable of the forgotten truth. Now, it has been already 
 fully shewn that it is a mistake to introduce into this discus- 
 sion any other name but that of Eusebius". Do, then, the 
 terms in which Eusebius alludes to this matter lend us any 
 assistance P Let us have the original indictment read over 
 to us once more : and this time we are bound to listen to 
 every word of it with the utmost possible attention. 
 
 ■ "Nemiui in meDtem venire potest Marcnm nairationis suae filum inept is- 
 sime abrupissc rerbis — i<po$ovi>TO yap." — Griesbach Comintnt. CriV. (i'- 19' ■) 
 So, in fact, vno ore all the Critics. " Chap. V. See above, pp. C6-7. 
 
 XI.] 
 
 vcyllahk his viidciicc. 
 
 233 
 
 1 A problem is proposed for solution. "There are two 
 ways of solving it," (Eusebius begins) -.-o fiev 7"P [to /ce./.«- 
 Xaiou avro] rSp' tovto ^acKovaav -^repiKO-rrhv a^exo.., e\-rroi uv 
 u,) iv airacLV avrljv <j>epea0a, roh ivr^ypacj>oi, tov Kara 
 McloKOV ,vayye\ioV ra yovv i>cpc^rj Toi.^ ivTcypd<}>a>v t6 TtA02 
 -rrepiypaieL rf,, Kara rhv MdpKOV laropla, iv Toh Xoyoi,^ 
 KT\. oh i-:n\kyu, " kcu ohUvl ovlh elirop, i<j>o^ovvTO yap. 
 'Ev TOVTCo axeSov iv ^Traa to« ,}vriypd<}>oi^ rov Kara MapKov 
 eiayyeXlov -^epcyiypa^rai to teacup. ... Let us halt here 
 
 for one moment. i i • i 
 
 2 Surely, a new and unexpected light already begins to 
 da^n. upon this subject ! How is it that we paid so little 
 attention before to the terms in which this ancient lather 
 delivers his evidence, that we overlooked the import of an 
 expression of his which from the first must have struck usas 
 peculiar but which «o-r we perceive to be of paramount sig- 
 nificancy ? Eusebius is pointing out that o»e way for a man 
 (so minded) to get rid of the apparent inconsistency between 
 S. Mark xvi. 9 and S. Matth. xxviii. 1, would be for him to 
 ■reject the entire " Ecclesiastical Lection-' in which S. Mark 
 xvi. 9 occurs. Any one adopting this course (be proceeds ; 
 and it is much to be noted that Eusebius is throughout deli- 
 vering the imaginary sentiments of another,-not his own :) 
 Such an one (he says) " will say that it is uot ,net udU ,n aU 
 the copies of S.Mark's Gospel. The accurate copies at all 
 events''-and then follows an expression in which this 
 ancient Critic is observed ingeniously to accommodate his 
 laneua.'e to the phenomenon which he has to describe, so as 
 covertly to insinuate something else. Eusebius employs an 
 idiom (it is found elsewhere in his writings) sufficiently 
 colourl ss to have hitherto failed to arouse attention ; but 
 of which it is impossible to overlook the actual design 
 and import, after all that has gone before. He clearly 
 Zogni's the rcnj phe.omuon to uhieh I hare been call.ug 
 
 P The English read.-r .-ill follow the text .itb sufficient exactness if be will 
 p lue r.uti ^ ^i^,,, line of p.4o, 
 
 refer back, .u.d read from the l..st hne ot p. « ...... The entire 
 
 taking care to see, in two places, for 'the end. - the 
 
 content oftbe Greek is given in theAppend.xa- ^,^^_ 
 
 q t^,, toSto <picKou<rav ^(p'KOTTiy. i lie nnieceuii i 
 
 aM,) 1 SLSIKCI must be an exrl-'-'n'o'-J- S^"^^' 
 
234 
 
 Etiachiiis ohcrvi d to sanction our rieir. 
 
 [chap. 
 
 attention within <he last two pages, and -nliich I need not 
 further insist upon or explain : viz. that t/ic words to xeAOC 
 iccrc in some ver)' ancient (" thv mcuvatc") copies /o/(//</ xrrit- 
 ton after €(f>o^ovvTo yap : although to an unsuspicious reader 
 the expression which he uses may well seem to denote 
 nothing more than that the second Gosjiel (jcncrally came 
 to an end tliere. 
 
 3. And now it is time to direct attention to the important 
 bearing of the foregoing remark on the main point at issue. 
 The true import of what Eusebius has delivered, and which 
 has at last been ascertained, will be observed really to set 
 his evidence in a novel and unsuspected light. From the 
 - days of Jerome, it has been customary to assume that Euse- 
 bius roundly states that, in his time almost all the Greek 
 copies were without our "last Twelve Verses" of S. Mark's 
 Gospel': whereas Eusebius really docs noichcre say so. Ho 
 expresses himself enigmatically, resorting to a somewhat un- 
 usual phrase' which perhaps admits of no exact English coun- 
 terpart : but what he says clearl}' amounts to no more than 
 this, — that "the accurate copies, at the words e^o^ovvro yap, 
 circumscribe the end (to tcaoc) of Mark's narrative :" that 
 thf^rc, " in almost all the Copies of the Gospel according to 
 Mark, is circumscribed the end." He says no more. Ho 
 does not say that there " is circumscribed the Gospel." As 
 for the twelve verses which follow, he merely declares that 
 thej' were " not met irith in all the copies ;" i.e. that some 
 copies did not contain them. But this, so far from being 
 
 ' " This tlicn is clear," (is Dr. Tregcllcs' comment,) •' that the greater part 
 of the Greek copies bad not tlic verses in question." — Printed Text, p. 247. 
 
 • Observe, the peculiarity of the expression in tliis place of Eusebius consist* 
 entirely in his iutroductioD of the words th tc'ao. Had he merely ssid ti! 
 aKptfi^i Twv dtniyp&tpbtv ri ^vayytKiov Kara MipKov wtpiypdipei iv To"f Xo7oif 
 
 K. T, A *Ei' Toinip yap trj^fihv iv &iraffi tois ttyriypi^ois wtpiyfyparrat t« 
 
 KOTO MipKov (tayytXtov, — there would have been nothing extraordinary in 
 the mode of expression. We should have been reminded of such places as the 
 following in the A\Titiug8 of Eusebius himself: — 'O KXiiprit • • • «" '^i*' Ko>irf8«v 
 TtAturV Tfpiypiipti rovs xP^^o^^t (Sisl. Heel. lib. vi. c. 6.) — 'lirr6\vrot . • • 
 /irl ri irpuToy (tos airoKpaTopos *AXt{<Jr8;>0K tows XP"''""' "f'T''"^"' C' 
 c. 22. See the note of Valosius on the place.) — Or this, referred to by Pto- 
 phanus (/« voce), — 'Evhs 8* ^ti fiinjaBtU vipiypdi^ta riy \6yov, {Praep. J^vamg. 
 lib. vi. c. 10, [p. 280c, ed. 1C2S].) But the substitution of t» Tt'Aoj for ri •■'■or 
 y4\tov wants explaining ; and can he only satisfactorily explained in one way- 
 
 XI.] 
 
 Origin sutsjuctcd. 
 
 235 
 
 .\ 
 
 a startling statement, is no more than what Codd. B and K in 
 themselves arc sufficient to establish. In other words, Euse- 
 bius, (whose testimony on this subject as it is commonly 
 understood is so extravagant [see above, p. 48-9,] as to carry 
 with it its own sufficient refutation,) is found to bear con- 
 sistent testimony to the two following modest propositions ; 
 which, however, are not adduced by him as reasons for re- 
 jecting S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20, but only as samples of n/mt 
 mi'jht be urged by one desirous of shchnng a difficulty sug- 
 gested by their contents ; — 
 
 (1st.) That from some ancient copies of S. Mark's Gos])tl 
 these last Twelve Verses were away. 
 
 (2nd.) That in almost all the copies, — (whether mutilated 
 or not, he does not state,) — the woi'ds to tcaoc were found 
 immediately after ver, 8 ; which, (he seems to hint,) let 
 those who please accept as evidence that there also is the end 
 of the Goq.(l. 
 
 4. But I cannot dismiss the testimony of Eusebius until 
 I have recorded my own entire conviction that this Father is 
 no more an original authority here than Jerome, or Hesy- 
 chius, or Victor'. He is evidently adopting the language of 
 some more ancient writer than himself. I observe that he 
 introduces the problem with the remark that what follows 
 is one of the questions " for ever mooted by every body "." 
 I suspect (with Matthaei, [supra, p. 6G,] ) that Origen is the 
 true author of all this confusion. He certainly relates of him- 
 self that among his voluminous exegetical writings was a trea- 
 tise on S. Mark's Gospel^. To Origen's works, Eusebius, (his 
 
 < See above, p. 66 and p. 67. " TJSpfiin i'C»' . . . rfis tip tixn li-v 
 
 amuv ToiTOTf ToTj Toiri fjiToiSjifyo [sic]. — Mai, vol. iv. p. 255. 
 
 » " Consontit antcm nobis ad traetatum quern fecimus de tcriplurd llarci." 
 
 Origen. {Opp. iii. 929 B.) Tract af. xxxv. ih Matlh. [1 owe the reference 
 
 to Cave (i. 116.) It seems to have escaped the vigilance of Huet.]— This serves 
 to eiplaiuwhy Victor of Antioch's Catena on S. Mark was sometimes anciently 
 attributed to Origon : as in Paris Cod. 703, [pUm 2330, 958, and 1048 : also 
 16.] whore is read (at fol. 247), 'Cipiytvous rp6Xoyos tU tV ipimvilav toD koto 
 KipKov tiKCYri\'"u. Note, that Reg. 937 is but a (xvi" cent.) counterpart of the 
 preceding ; n hich has been transcribed [xviii''' cent. ] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40. 
 
 Posscvinus [Apparat. Sac. ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet, Oriytniana, p. 274) 
 states tlial there is in the Library of C.C.C, Oxford, a Commentary on S. 
 Mark's Gospel by Origen. The source of this misstatement has been acutely 
 
23G 
 
 Origcn smjiccfcd to he the author 
 
 [CHAI'. 
 
 XI.] 
 
 ofuU the iimchicf. — Ilcsychim. 
 
 237 
 
 npologist and admirer,) is known to have habitually re- 
 Borted ; and, like many others, to have derived not a few 
 of his notions from that fervid and acute, but most erratic 
 intellect. Origcn's writings in short, eeem to have been 
 the source of much, if not most of the mistaken Criticism 
 of Antiquity. (The reader is reminded of what has been 
 offered above at p. 96-7). And this would not be the first 
 occasion on which it would appear that when an ancient 
 Writer speaks of "the accurate copien" what he actually 
 vieanfi is the text of Scr'qiture uhkh was employed or approved 
 by Origen '■. The more attentively the language of Euse- 
 bius in this place is considered, the more firmly (it is 
 thought) will the suspicion be entertained that he is here 
 onlj' reproducing the sentiments of another person. But, 
 however this may be, it is at least certain that the precise 
 meaning of what he says, has been hitherto generally over- 
 looked. He certainly does twt say, as Jerome, from his 
 loose translation of the passage*, e^'idently imagined, — " om- 
 
 poiutcd out to me by the Eev. W. K. Churton. James, in his "Ecloga Oxonio- 
 Ciiiitabj-ig.," (1600, lib. i. p. 49,) mentions " Eomiliae Origeiiis super Evan- 
 gelio Marcae, Stnbat ad monumentum." — Head instead, (with Rev. H. 0. 
 Coxe, "Cat. Codd. MSS. C.C.C.;" [>'». 142, 4,]) as follows :—" Origcnis 
 prcBb. Horn, in istad Jobanuis, Maria ttalal ad monumentum" &c. But what 
 actually led Possevinus astray, I perceive, was James's consummation of bis own 
 blunder in lib. ii. p. 49, — which Possevinus has simply appropriated. 
 
 ' So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading 'Rrfiafiofi. 
 
 Origcn (iv. 140) says that not only ax*^^'' f' "■"" Tors ivnypiipois, but also 
 that apud Heracleonem, (who wrote within 50 years of S. John's death,) he 
 found iriBaiila written in 8. John i. 2S. Moved by geographical considerations, 
 however, (as he explains,) for BijOavfa, Origen proposes to read BriBaPapi. 
 — Chrysostom (vlii. 96 D), after noticing the former reading, declares, — iaa ti 
 Tuv airnypd(puv i,Kpi^(a7tpov (x*^ ^^ BijdajSapa ipTjaiv : but he goes on to repro- 
 duce Origen'i reasoning; — thereby betraying himself. — The author of the 
 Catena in ilatth. (Cramer, i. 190-1) simply reproduces Chrysostom : — XP^ '• 
 yiviiiffKuv 0TI T& &Kpi3^ Tuv i^tniypA^uv iv BTtOaPapi vcpifx^*' And 60» other 
 Scholia ; until at last what was only due to the mistaken assiduity of Origen, 
 became generally received as the reading of the "more accurate copies." 
 
 A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the true read- 
 ing of that place is not " CO" hut " 160," — ovtus yip t4 ixpiS^ irtpUxfii ""i ^ 
 'npiytfous TTJs a\ri8flas 0ffia(uins. Accordingly, Euaebius also reads the place 
 iu the same erroneous way. 
 
 • Jerome says of himself (O/yi. vii. 537,) — "Non dignc GrascA in Latinum 
 trausfcro : aut Graecos lege (si cjusdem linguae babes scieutiam) But si tantum 
 
 N 
 
 viluii Gmaiii librispcne hoc eapitulum iu fine non haleutlhus :" 
 but only,—" nou in omnibus Erangelii cxeinplaribus hoc eapi- 
 tulum im-ihiri ;" which is an entirely different thing. Eus°- 
 bius adds,— " Accuratiora saltern exemplaria fixem narra- 
 tionis secundum Slarcum circumscribunt in verbis itpo^ovvTO 
 <ydp;"—aud, " In hoc, fere in omnibus exeraplaribus Evangelii 
 secundum Marcum, finem circumscribi." — The point, how- 
 ever, of "reatest interest is, that Eusebius here calls attention 
 to the prevalence in MSS. of his time of the very liturgical 
 peculiarity which plainly supplies the one true solution of 
 the problem under discussion. His testimony is a mar- 
 vellous corroboration of what we learn from Cod. 22, (sec 
 above, p. 230,) and, rightly understood, does not go a whit 
 beyond it. 
 
 5. What wonder that Hesychius, because he adopted 
 blindly what he found in Eusebius, should at once betray 
 his author and exactly miss the point of what his author 
 says ? Ti) Kara Mdpxov evayyiXiov (so he writes) /xexpt toO 
 " i4>ofiovi-TO •yap," ex^i t6 t€aoc ''. 
 
 6. This may suffice concerning the testimony of Eusebius. 
 —It will be understood that I suppose Origen to have fallen 
 in with one or more copies of S. Mark's Gospel which ex- 
 hibited thi Liturgical hint, (to tcaoc,) conspicuously written 
 against S.Mark'xvi. 9. Such a copy may, or may not, 
 have there terminated abruptly. I suspect however that it 
 did. Origen at all events, {more suo,) will have remarked 
 on the phenomenon before him; and Eusebius will have 
 adopted his remarks,— as the heralds say, " with a difcr- 
 f„f<./'_£iniply because they suited his puipose, and seemed 
 to him ingenious and interesting. 
 
 7. For the copy in question,— (like that other copy of 
 S. Mark from which the Peshito translation was made, and 
 in which to t6aoc most inopportunely occurs at chap. xiv. 
 41c,)_will have become the progenitor of several other 
 copies (as Codd. B and «) ; and some of these, it is pretty 
 evident, were familiarly known to Eusebius. 
 
 Latinus e=, noli de gratnito munere jndicare. et, ut vulgarc provcrbium est : 
 equi denies intpieere donali." 
 
 " See abjvo. pp. 57-9 : also Appendix (C), § 2. ' See above, pp. --o-C. 
 
238 
 
 The rcaaoH irfii/ reXo? is so often 
 
 [ciup. 
 
 X..] 
 
 found Kfifien nfiev S. Mark xri. 8. 
 
 239 
 
 8. Let it however be clearly borne in mind that nothing 
 of all this is in the least degree essential to my argument. 
 Eusebius, (for aught that I know or care,) may be solely 
 responsible for every word that he has delivered concerning 
 S. ^lark xvi. 9 — 20. Every link in my argument will re- 
 main undisturbed, and the conclusion will be still precisely 
 the same, whether the mistaken Criticism before us origi- 
 nated with another or with himself. 
 
 XII. But iclii/, (it may reasonably be asked,) — W/nj should 
 there have been anything exceptional in the way of indi- 
 cating the end of this particular Lection ? JJ^i)/ should 
 TeXo? be bo constantl)' found written after S. I^Iark xvi. 8P 
 
 I answer, — I suppose it was because the Lections which 
 respectively ended and began at that place were so manj-, 
 and were Lections of such unusual importance. Thus, — 
 (1) On the 2nd Sundaj' after Easter, {icvpiaici) y' t&v fivpo- 
 (fiopuv, as it was called,) at the Liturgy, was read S. Mark 
 XV. 43 to xvi. 8 ; and (2) on the same day at Matins, (by 
 the Melchite Syrian Christians as well as by the Greeks'",) 
 S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20. The severance, therefore, was at ver. 8. 
 (3) In certain of the Syrian Churches the liturgical section 
 for Easter Day was S. Mark xvi 2 — 8 " : in the Churches of 
 the Jacobite, or Monopbysite Christians, the Eucharistic 
 lesson for Easter-Day was ver. 1 — 8 '. (4) The second matin 
 lesson of the Resurrection (xvi. 1 — 8) also ends, — and (5) 
 the third (xvi. 9 — 20) begins, at the same place : and these 
 two Gospels (both in the Greek and in the Sj'rian Churches) 
 were in constant use not only at Easter, but throughout the 
 3'ear8. (6) T/iai same third matin lesson of the Resurrec- 
 tion was also the Lesson at Matins on Ascension-Day; as 
 well in the Syrian'' as in the Greek' Churches. (7) With 
 
 "• K. Payne Smith's Catal p. 116. ' See Adler's N. T. Vertt. 
 
 Sj/rr., p. 70. ' K. Payne Smitli'B Calal. p. 146. 
 
 « See p. 206, also note (k). ■■ K. Payne Smith's Calal. p. 117. 
 
 ' Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Keg. 6?) is read, at S. Mark 
 xvi. 8 (fol. 125), as follows : — i(l>oftQvino yip. [then, rulro,^ t/Aos TOii B' iuBliov, 
 leal T^f KvpioKris fuv fivpo^6puy. dpxl]. [then tlic text;] 'Afatrrcfs icT.A. • • • 
 After ver. 20, (at fol. 126 of tbe same Codex) is foand the following con- 
 cluding rubric : — TfAot toP T' luBlnv fvayyiXtov. 
 
 In the same place, (viz. at the end of S.Uark's Gospel,) is found in another 
 
 the Monopbysite Christians, the lection "feriae tertiae in 
 albis, lid primam vesperam," (i.e. for the Tuesday in Easter- 
 AVeek) was S.Mark xv. 37 — xvi. 8: and (8) on the same 
 day, at Matins, ch. x^^. 9 — IS*"'. — During eighteen weeks 
 after Easter therefore, the onhj parts of S. Clark's Gospel 
 publicly read were [a) the last thirteen [ch. xv. 43 — xvi. 8], 
 and {I) "the last iwehc" [ch. xvi. 9— 20] verses. Can it 
 be deemed a strange thing that it should have been found 
 iii'llxjHnsnhh' to mark, with altogether exceptional emjjhasis, 
 — to make it unmistakably ])lain, — whcie the former Lection 
 came to an end, and where the latter Lection began'? 
 
 XIII. One more circumstance, and but one, remains to 
 be adverted to in the way of evidence ; and one more sug- 
 gestion to be offered. The circuiostance is familiar indeed 
 to all, but its bearing on the present discussion has never 
 been pointed out. I allude to the fact that anciently, in 
 copies of the fourfold Gospel, the Gospel according to S. Mark 
 frequeutli/ stood last. 
 
 This is memorably the case in respect of the Codex Bezae 
 [vi] : more memorably yet, in respect of the Gothic version 
 of riphilas (a.d. 360) : in both of which MSS., the order 
 of the Gospels is (1) S. Matthew, (2) S. John, (3) S. Luke, 
 (4) S. ^lark. This is in fact the usual Western order. Accord- 
 ingly it is thus that the Gospels stand in the Codd. Yercel- 
 lensis {a), A''eronensis {h), Palatinus (e), Brixianus (/) of the 
 old Latin version. But this order is not exchisircly Western. 
 It is found in Cod. 309. It is also observed in Matthaei's 
 Codd. 13, 14, (which last is our Evan. 25G), at Moscow. And 
 
 Codex (Evan. 7 = Paris Reg. 71.) the following rubric : — t«Aoi toD rphov toD 
 txPlrov, Kol rot SpBpov rrj! afoA^i^cus. ' R. Payne Smith's Caial. p. 146. 
 
 ' Cod. 27 (xi) is not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and is \vritteu 
 continuously tliroughout : and yet at S. Mark xvi. 9 a fresh paragraph is 
 ob^rved t\> commence. 
 
 Not dissimilar is tiie phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies of the 
 Armenian version. " The Armenian, iu the edition of Zohrab, separates the 
 concluding 12 verses from the rest of the Gospel . . . Many of the oldest MSS., 
 after the words i<poPovvTo yip, put the final HayyiXiov icot4 MapKur, and then 
 give the additional verses with a new superscription." (Trcgelles, Printed 
 Tfxi, p. 25S). . . We are now in a position to understand the Armenian evi- 
 dence, which has been described above, at p. 86, as well as to estimate its 
 exact value. 
 
240 In some Cod'I., S. Marl's Goapcl siamh laat. [ciur. 
 
 in the Eame order Eusebius and others of the ancients"' ore 
 occasionallj' observed to refer to the four Gospels, — which 
 induces a suspicion that they were not unfamiliar with it. 
 Nor is this all. In Codd. 19 and 90 the Gospel according 
 to S. Mark stands last ; though in the former of these the 
 order of the three antecedent Gospels is (1) S. John, (2) S. 
 Matthew, (3) S.Luke* ; in the latter, (1) S.John, (2) S.Lukc, 
 (3) S. Matthew. "What need of manj' words to explain the 
 bearing of these facts on the present discussion ? Of course 
 it will have soDietimes happened that S. Maik xvi. 8 came to 
 be written at the bottom of the left hand page of a MS." And 
 .we have but to suppose that in the case of one such Codex 
 the next leaf, which would have been the fast, was missing, 
 — {the rcvy thing uhich has happened in respect of one of the 
 Codices at Moscow") — and what else conhl result when a 
 copyist reached the words, 
 
 E^OBOYNTO TAP. TO TEAOC 
 but the very phenomenon which has exercised critics so sorely 
 and which gives rise to the whole of the present discussion ? 
 The copyist will have brought S.'Mark's Gospel to an end 
 there, of course. "What else could he possibly do? ... . 
 Somewhat less excusably was our learned countryman Mill 
 betrayed into the statement, (inadvertently adopted by Wets- 
 tein, Griesbach, and Tischendorf,) that " the last verse of 
 S. John's Gospel is omitted in Cod. 63 :" the truth of the 
 matter being (as Mr. Scrivener has lately proved) that the 
 
 " Euseb. apud Mai, ir. p. 264 = p. 287. Again at p. 289-90.— So also tlie 
 nullior of tlie 2nd Uomily ou tbc Rcsurr. (Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 411-2.) — 
 And Bee tlie tbird of the fragments ascribed to Poljcarp. Palres Ajioslol., 
 (ed. Jacobson) ii. p. 515. 
 
 * 1 believe this will be fonnd to be tbe invariable order of tbe Gospels i« 
 the Lfctionaries. 
 
 » This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 {= Reg. 64). Scefol. 98 b. 
 
 ° I allnde of course to Mattbaei's Cod. g. (See the note in bis N. T. vol. 
 ix. p. 228.) Whether or no tbe learned critic » as right in bis conjecture 
 "aliquot folia excidisse," matters nothing. The left hand page ends at the 
 irords tipofiovrro yap. Ko«r, if TtXos had followed, how obvious would have 
 been the inference that the Gospel itself of S. Mark had come to au end there 1 
 
 Xote, that in the Codex Beza; (D), S. Mark's Gospel euds at ver. 15 : iu tbe 
 Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (n) proves to be imper- 
 fect from cb. I V. 15 ; Cod. Veron. (i) from xiii. 24 ; Cod. Urix. (/) from xiv. 70. 
 
 II. 
 
 The sum of the matter. 
 
 241 
 
 it.<l linf of Cod. 63, — on which the last verse of S.John's 
 Gospel was demonstrably once written, — has hetn lo^f^. 
 XIV. To sum up. 
 
 1. It will be perceived that I suppose the omission of 
 "the last Twelve Verses" of S.Mark's Gospel to have 
 originated in a sheer error and misconception on the pnrt 
 of some very ancient Copyist. He t^air to i€Aoc written after 
 ver. 8: he assumed that it was the Subscription, or at least 
 that it denoted "the End," ofth Go-p>I. 
 
 2. Wliether certain ancient Critics, because it was accept- 
 able to them, were not found (o promote this inislake, — 
 it is useless to inquire. That tliere may have arisen some 
 old harmonizer of the Gospels, who, (in the words of Euse- 
 bius,) was disposed to "regard what followed as super- 
 fluous from its seeming inconsistency with the testimony of 
 the other Evangelists';" — and that in this way the error 
 became propagated ; — is likely enough. But an error it 
 most certainly was : and to that error, the accident described 
 in the last preceding paragraph irould hare very materially 
 conduced, and it may have very easily done so. 
 
 3. I request however that it may be observed that the 
 " accident" is not needed in order to account for the " error." 
 The mere presence of lo reAoc at ver. 8, so near the end of 
 the Gospel, would be quite enough to occasion it. And we 
 have seen that in very ancient times the word tcAoc fre- 
 quently did occur in an altogether exceptional manner in 
 that very place. ISIoreover, we have ascertained that its 
 meaning was not understood by the transcribers of ancient 
 
 MSS. ' 
 
 4. And will any one venture to maintain that it is to him 
 a thing incredible that an intelligent copyist of the iii'* cen- 
 tury, because he read the words to reAoc at S. JIark xvi. 8, 
 can have been beguiled thereby into the supposition that 
 those words indicated "the End" of S.Mark's Gosj)el?-^ 
 Shall I be told that, even if one can have so entirely over- 
 looked the meaning of the liturgical sign as to suffer it 
 to insinunto itself into his text ', it is nevertheless so im- 
 
 ' Scrivener, Coll. Cod. Sin. p. lix. ' Sec p. 227. * See above, p. 226. 
 
 K 
 
•>42 
 
 Modern CrUka laiiyht in the old traji. [(.hap. xi. 
 
 probable as to pass all credence that another can have suppfjjiod 
 that it designated the terminafion of He Gospel of the eccond 
 Evangelist? — For all reply, I take leave to point out that 
 Scbolz, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Mai and the 
 rest of the Critics have, one and all, uil/ioiif exception, tui»- 
 uiidcmtood the same tcord occurring in the same place, and in 
 jirtcisehj the same uaij. 
 
 Yes. The forgotten inadvertence of a solitary Scribe in 
 the second or third century has been, in the nineteenth, delibe- 
 rately reproduced, adopted, and stereotyped by everj' Critic 
 
 . and every Editor of the New Testament in turn. 
 
 TVTiat wonder, — (I propose the question deliberately,) — 
 AVhat wonder that an ancient Copyist should have been mis- 
 led by a phenomenon which in our own days is observed to 
 have imposed upon two generations of professed Biblical 
 Critics discussing this very textual problem, and therefore 
 fully on their guard against delusion ' ? To this hour, the 
 illustrious Editors of the text of the Gospels are clearly, one 
 and all, labouring under the grave error of supposing that 
 " i(j)o^ovvTO fdp + TeXos," — (for which they are bo careful 
 to refer us to " Cod. 22,") — is an indication that there, by 
 rights, comes the "End" of the Gospel according to S.Mari. 
 They have failed to perceive that ^e^cc in that place is only 
 a liturgical sign, — the same with which (in its contracted 
 form) they are sufficiently familiar ; and that it serves no 
 other purpose whatever, but to mark that there a famous 
 Ecclesiastical Lection comes to an end. 
 
 With a few pages of summary, we may now bring this 
 long disquisition to an end. 
 
 ■ So Scbolz : — " hie [sc. 22] post yip + Tt'Xoi ; dein atraincnto rubro," te. 
 — Tiscbendorf,— " Testantor scbolia . . . Hard Erangelium . . . vcren 9 /!■«• 
 haluute. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, 22 babct : i<t>opci^ 
 yap + rf\os. «» tkti," Ac. — Tregelles appeals to copies, " sometimes with TtA»f 
 iuterposed after ver. 8," (p. 254.)— Mai (iv. 256) in the same spirit remarVs— 
 " Codex Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex quo Eusebium producimus, post octaTBB 
 versum hahet quidem vorem Tf Xos, nt alibi interdum obser>'atum fiiit i "" 
 iamen ibidem eadcm manu subscribitur iucremcntum cum progrcdientiW* 
 ccctioDum Dotis." 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 GENERAL REAIEW OF THE QUESTION : SUMMARY OF 
 THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE 
 SUBJECT. 
 
 This discHBsion narrowed to a single iisnc (p. 244). — Thnt S. Marl's 
 Gospel was imperfect from the rtri/ first, a thing altogether incre- 
 dible (p. 2-16): — But that at some rcry remote period Copies hare 
 suffered mutilation, a supposition probable in flic highest degree 
 (p. 248). — Consequences of this admission (p. 252). — Parting 
 teords (p. 254.) 
 
 This Inquiry has at last reached its close. The problem 
 was fully explained at the outset ". All the known evidence 
 has since been produced'', every Witness examined'. Counsel 
 has been heard on both sides. A just Sentence will assuredly 
 follow. But it may not be improper that I should in con- 
 clusion ask leave to direct attention to the single issue which 
 has to be decided, and which has been strangely thrust into 
 the background and practically kept out of sight, bj' those 
 who have preceded me in this Investigation. The case 
 stands simply thus : — 
 
 It being freely admitted that, in the beginning of the 
 iv"" century, there must have existed Copies of the Gos- 
 pels in which the last chapter of S. Mark extended no 
 i'urther than ver. 8, the Question arises, — How is this phe- 
 nomenon to be accounted for ? , . . The problem is not only 
 highly interesting and strictly legitimate, but it is even 
 inevitable. In the immediately preceding chapter, I have 
 endeavoured to solve it, and I believe in a wholly unsus- 
 pected way. 
 
 But tho most recent Editors of the text of the New Testa- 
 ment, declining to entertain so much as the possihility that 
 certain copies of the second Gospel had experienced mutila- 
 tion in vcnj early times in respect of these Twelve concluding 
 
 Chap. I. anil li. 
 
 1' Chap. IV, VI-X. 
 It 2 
 
 ' Chap. Ill, V,aiid ViU. 
 
244 UtinasoiHib/cncss o/nssumiiifj that S. Marl! [chap. 
 
 A'^erses, have chosen to occupy themselves rather with con- 
 jectures as to how it ma}' have happened that S. Mark's 
 Gospel uas uithout a conchtHion from the vcnj first. Persuaded 
 that no more probable account is to be given of the pheno- 
 menon than that the Evangelist himself put forth a Gospel 
 vhich (for some unexplained reason) terudnatcd abniptlii at 
 the norch i<^o^ovvTo yap (chap. xvi. 8), — they have un- 
 happilj' seen fit to illustrate the liveliness of this conviction 
 of theirs, by presenting the world with his Gospel mutilated 
 in this particular way. Practicallj', therefore, the question 
 has been reduced to the following single issue : — Whether 
 of the two suppositions which follow is the more reason- 
 able: 
 
 First, — That the Gospel according to S. Mark, as it left the 
 hands of its inspired Author, teas in this imperfect or unfinished 
 state ; ending abruptlj' at (what we call now) the 8th verse 
 of the last chapter : — of which solemn circumstance, at the 
 end of eighteen centuries. Cod. B and Cod. s are the alone 
 surviving Manuscript witnesses ? ... or. 
 
 Secondly, — That certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel haring 
 suffered mutilation in respect of their Twelve concluding 
 Verses in the post- Apostolic age, Cod. B and Cod. h are the 
 only examples of MSS. so mutilated which are known to 
 exist at the present day ? 
 
 I. Editors who adopt the former hypothesis, are observed 
 (r/) to sever the Verses in question from their context * : — (t) 
 to introduce after ver. 8, the subscription " kata mapkon • :" 
 • — (c) to shut up verses 9—20 within brackets'. Regarding 
 them as " no integi'al part of the Gospel f," — " as an au- 
 thentic anonymous addition to what ]\Iark himself wrote 
 down ''," — a " remarkable Fragment," " placed as a com- 
 pletion of the Gospel in very early times' ;" — they consider 
 themselves at liberty to go on to suggest that " the Evan- 
 gelist may have been interrupted in his work :" at any rate, 
 
 •■ Tischendorf, TregelleB, Alford. 
 ' Trcgelles, Alford. ' Alford. 
 
 ' " Hsec non a Marco ecripta esse argumenlie probatur idoneis." — See "" 
 ipst of Tischcndori's verdict, supra, p. 10 j aud opposite, p. 245. 
 •■ Tregellee' Account of the Printed Text, p. 259. 
 ' Alford'f Ketv lest. vol. i. Proleg. [p. 38] and p. 437. 
 
 XII. j 
 
 left his Gospil ill an unfinished state. 
 
 245 
 
 that " something may have occurred, (as the death of 
 S. Peter,) to cause him to leave it unfinished ''." But " the 
 most probable supposition" (we are assured) "is, that the 
 Inst leaf of the original Gospel was torn away '." 
 
 AVc listen w itli astonishment ; contenting ourselves with 
 modestly suggesting that surely it will be time to conjecture 
 nhy iS. Mark's Gospel was left by its Divinely inspired 
 Author in an unfinished state, when the fact has been esta- 
 blished that it probably itas so left. In the meantime, we 
 request to be furnished with some evidence of that fact. 
 
 But not a particle of E\4dence is forthcoming. It is not 
 even pretended that an)- such evidence exists. Instead, we 
 are magisteriallj' informed by " the first Biblical Critic in 
 Europe," — (I desire to speak of him with gratitude and re- 
 spect, but S. Mark's Gospel is a vast deal more precious to 
 me than Dr. Tischendorf 's reputation,) — that "a healthy pieiy 
 reclninii against the endearours of those icho are for palming 
 oft' as Mark's uhat the Erangclift is so plainly shewn [where?] 
 to hare hiioun nothing at all about ■"." In the meanwhile, it 
 is assumed to be a more reasonable supposition, — (o) That 
 S. Mark published an imperfect Gospel ; and that the Twelve 
 Verses with which his Gospel concludes were the fabrica- 
 tion of a subsequent age ; than, — ifi) That some ancient 
 Scribe having with design or by accident left out these 
 Twelve concluding Verses, copies of the second Gospel so 
 mutilated become multiplied, and in the beginning of the 
 iv'*" century existed in considerable numbers. 
 
 And j'et it is notorious that very soon after the Apostolic 
 age, liberties precisely of this kind were freel}' taken with 
 the text' of the New Testament. Origen (a.d. 185 — 254) 
 complains of the licentious tampering with the Scriptures 
 which prevailed in his day. " Men add to them," (he says) 
 "ov leave out, — as seems good to themselves"." Dionj'sius 
 of Corinth, yet earlier, (a.d. 168 — 176) remarks that it was 
 no wonder his own writings were added to and tahen from, 
 seeing that men presumed to deprave the Word of God 
 
 ^ So Norton, Trcgelles, and others. 
 This liuggestion, which was originally Grlesbach's, is foond in Alford's ISno 
 Test. vol. i. p. 433, {ed. 1868.)— See above, p. 12. The italics ore not mine. 
 " Vide supra, p. 10. ■■ 0pp. vol. iii. p. C71. 
 
246 IhtrcasonahkHPx^ of amimlng ihat S. Mark [c,u^ 
 
 in the same manner'. Ireuacus, his contemporary, (Uvinc 
 within seventy years of S. John's death,) complains of a cor 
 rupfed Texti-. We are able to go back yet half a centurr 
 and the depravations of Holy Writ become avowed an'd 
 flagranti. A competent authority has declared it "no 
 less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that i/,e tror*/ 
 corruptions io uhich ihc New Tcsfameiit has been ever tub- 
 jeded originated within a hundred years after it was com- 
 posed ^" Above all, it is demonstrable that Cod. B and 
 Cod. N abound in unwarrantable omissions very like the pre- 
 sent*; omissions which only do not provoke the same amount 
 of attention because they are of less moment. One such 
 extraordinary depravation of the Text, in uhich they aho 
 stand alone among MSS. and to a hich their patrons are ob- 
 served to appeal with triumphant complacency, has been 
 alrea-ly made the subject of distinct investigation. I am 
 much mistaken if it has not been shewn in my YII"' chapter, 
 that the omission of the words ep 'E4>ea^ from Ephes. i. 1,' 
 is just as unauthorized,— quite as serious a.blemish,— as the ■ 
 suppression of S. Mark xvi. 9—20. 
 
 Now, in the face of facts like these, and in the absence of 
 aui/ Evidence uhaicvcr to prove that S. Mark's Gospel was 
 imperfect from the first,— I submit that an hypothesis so 
 violent and improbable, as well as so wholly uncalled for, 
 18 simply undeserving of serious attention. For, 
 
 (1st.) It is plain from internal considerations that the 
 improbability of the hj^pothesis is excessive; "thfe contents 
 of these Yerses being such as to preclude the supposition 
 that they were the work of a post- Apostolic; period. The 
 very difficulties which they present afford the strongest pre- 
 sumption of their genuineness." No fabricator of a supple- 
 ment to S.Mark's Gospel would have ventured on intro- 
 ducing so many minute seeming discrepancies : and cer- 
 
 ° EuBcbius £ccl. Mist. iv. 23. Consider Bcv. uiL 18, 19. 
 
 If Note tbe remarkable adjuration of Irenteus, 0/.^. i. 621, presened by Eiue- 
 biuB. lib. V. 20.— See Scrivener's Introduction, p. 3S3-4. Consider the attesU- 
 tions at tbe end of tbe account of Poljcarp's martvrdom. PP. App. ii. 614-6. 
 
 1 Allusion is made to the Gnostics Basilides aiid Valentinus ; especiaUy to 
 tlie work of Marcion. 
 
 ' Scrivener's latroduclion, pp.881— 391. • Zx Cliap. VI. 
 
 X>I.] 
 
 hft hi< Gosj)cl in on nnfiiiinh/d slate. 
 
 ur, 
 
 tainly " his contemporaries would not have accepted and 
 transmitted such an addition," if he had. It has also been 
 shewn at great length that the Internal Evidence for the 
 genuineness of these Yerses is overwhelmingly strong '. But, 
 
 (2nd.) Even external Evidence is not wanting. It has , 
 been acutely pointed out long since, that the absence of ; 
 a vast assemblage of various Readings in this place, is, in ( 
 itself, a convincing argument that we have here to do with 
 no spurious appendage to the Gospel '. "\Ycre this a de- 
 servedly suspected passage, it must have shared the fate of 
 all other deservedly (or undeservedly) suspected passages. 
 It never could have come to pass that the various Readings 
 which these Twelve Yerses exhibit would be con-fidi-ralkj 
 fcKcr than those which attach to the last twelve verses of 
 anj' of the other three Gospels. 
 
 (3rd.) And then surely, if the original Gospel of S.Mark 
 had been such an incomplete work as is feigned, the fact 
 would have been notorious from the first, and must needs 
 have become the subject of general comment". It may be 
 regarded as certain that so extraordinary a circumstance 
 would have been largely remarked upon by the Ancients, and 
 that evidence of the fact would have survived in a hundred 
 quarters. It is, I repeat, simply incredible that Tradition 
 would have proved so utterly neglectful of her office as to 
 remain quite silent on such a subject, if the facts had been 
 such as are imagined. Either Papias, or else John the Pres- 
 byter, — Justin Martyr, or Hegesippus, or one of the " Seni- 
 ores apud Irenaeum," — Clemens Alexandrinus, or Tertullian, 
 or Hippolytus, — if not Origen, yet at least Eusebius, — if not 
 
 • Cliap. IX. 
 
 ' " Ad defeudendum hone locum in primis etiam valet miros Codicum con- 
 sensus in vocabnlis et loqnendi formulis singulis. Nam in locis wopfTTp^TToit, 
 etiam niulto brevioribus, quo plures sunt Codices, co plures quoque sunt varic- 
 tates. Coraparctur modo Act. it. 18, Mattb. viii. 13, et loca similin." — 
 C. F. Jlftttbaei's JS'or. Tut. (1788) vol. ii. p. 271. 
 
 • Spciikiug of tbe abrupt termination of tbe second Gospel at ver. 8, Dr. 
 Tregolli's atks, — " AVonld this have been transmitted as a fact by good wit- 
 nesses, if there bad not been real grounds for regarding it to be true F" — 
 (Printed Text, p. 257.) Certainly not, we answer. But ichere are the "good 
 witnesses" of tbe " transmitted fact ?" Thfre is not to mud ai one. 
 
248 Rcmomllemss o/ txippviitig that certain copies [cmkt. 
 
 Eusebius, yet certainly Jeiome, — fomc early Writer, 1 »av, 
 must certainly have recorded the tradition that S. Mark'» 
 Gospel, as it came from the hands of its inspired author, mm 
 an incomplete or unfinished work. The silence of the 
 Ancients, joined to the inherent improbability of the conjec- 
 ture, — {that silence so profound, this improbability so gross!) 
 — is enough, I submit, in the entire ahsenee of Evidence on the 
 other side, to establish the very contradictory of the alternntiTc 
 which recent Critics are so strenuous in recommending to 
 our acceptance. 
 
 (4tb.) But on the contrary. We have indirect j'et convinc- 
 ing testimony that the oldest copies of all did contain the 
 Verses in question * : while so far are any of the Writers 
 just now enumerated from recording that these verses were 
 absent from the early copies, that five out of those ten 
 Fathers actually quote, or else refer to the verses in question 
 in a way which shews that in their da)' they were the recog- 
 nised termination of S.Mark's Gospel'. 
 
 We consider ourselves at liberty, therefore, to turn our 
 attention to the rival alternative. Our astonishment is even 
 excessive that it should have been seriously expected of us 
 that we could accept without Proof of. any sort, — without 
 a particle of Evidence, external, internal, or even traditional, 
 — the extravagant hypothesis that S. Mark put forth an 
 unfinished Gospel ; when the obvious and easy alternative 
 solicits us, of supposing, 
 
 II. That, at some period sulsequent to the time of the 
 Evangelist, certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel suffered that 
 mutilation in respect of their last Twelve Verses of which 
 we meet with no trace whatever, no record of any sort, tintti 
 the beginning of the fourth century. 
 
 (i.) And the facts which now meet us on the very thresh- 
 old, are in a manner conclusive : for if Papias and Justin 
 Martyr [a.d. 150] do not refer to, yet certainly Irenaeus 
 [a.d. 185] and Hippolytos [a.d. 190—227] distinctly quote 
 Six out of the Twelve suspected Verses, — which are also met 
 Avith in the two oldest Syriac Versions, as well as in the old 
 Latin Translation. Now the latest of these authorities « 
 
 « See above, pp. 86 — 90. 
 
 ' See Chap. III. 
 
 XII.] (f S. Mark's Gof<pel sufcred mutilation. 249 
 
 earlier by full a hundred years than the earliest record that 
 the verses in question were ever absent from ancient MSS. 
 At the eighth Council of Carthage, (as C5-prian relates,) 
 [a.d. 2oG] Vincentius a Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven 
 African Bishops there assembled, quoted the 17th verse in 
 the presence of the Council. 
 
 (ii.) Nor is this all ^ Besides the Gothic and Egyptian 
 versions in the iV'' century ; besides Ambrose, Cyril of Alex- 
 andria, Jerome, and Augustine in the v'\ to say nothing of 
 Codices A and C ;-the Lectionary of the Church universal, 
 prohahlufrom the second century of our tera, is found to bestow 
 its solemn and emphatic sanction on cary one of these Twelve 
 Verses Thev are met with in every MS. of the Gospeh tn 
 existence , unci'al and cursiwe,-except t,co\ they are found in 
 cveri/ r. rmn ; and are contained besides in every hioicn Lec- 
 tionary, where they are appointed to be read at Easter and 
 on Ascension Day ". 
 
 (iii ) Early in the iv'" century, however, we are encoun- 
 tered by a famous place in the writings of Eusebius [a.d. 
 300—340], who, (as I have elsewhere explained',) is the only 
 Father who delivers any independent testimony on this sub- 
 ject at aE What he says has been strangely misrepre- 
 sented. It is simply as foUows :— 
 
 la) One, "Marinus," is introduced quoting this part of 
 S Marl's Gospel trithout suspicion, and enquiring, How its 
 openin- statement is to be reconciled with S. Matth. xxviu.l ? 
 Eusebius, in replv, points out that a man whose only object 
 ^as to <^t rid of the difficulty, might adopt the expedient of 
 Baying "that this last section of S. Mark's Gospel "is not 
 found in all the copies :" (jii, eV i-rraac ^.kpecdav.) Declining, 
 "however, to act thus presumptuously in respect of anything 
 claiming to be a part of Evangelical Scripture, {ovh ortov^ 
 ToXixci.. ieeretv tC>v b^ioaovv iv rg tw.. evayyeXioyp ypa4>r, 
 4,cpof.a-u^v,)-he adopts the hypothesis that the text^ is genuin^. 
 Kal Si) rovSe tov fJ^ipovi av^x">povp.kvov eivat aXi?0ou?, he 
 begins: and he enters at once without hesitation on an ela- 
 
 « Sec «l>ove, Chap. UL and IV. . . „ 
 
 . ..H»lvut periocham banc Codices Gneci. « nBum B exap.aa, omnes. 
 (ScboU. .d^ptlng tbe statement °^ «-bacbO-See above. P^^O^^^ 
 ' Sec ali>vc, Chap. a. 
 
250 ReaiOhabhtieis of siijipoiiiKj Hint cfrtain copirn [chai'. 
 
 borate discussion to shew lioir flic tiro places may he rccou- 
 cihd^. Wliat llicre is in this to countenance the notion that 
 in the opinion of Eusehius "the Gospel according to S.Mark 
 originallj' terminated at the 8th verse of the last chapter,"— 
 I profess myself unable to discover. I draw from his words 
 the precisely opposite inference. It is not even clear to me 
 that the Verses in dispute were absent from the copy which 
 Eusebius habitually employed. He certainly quotes one of 
 those verses once and again '. On the other hand, the ex- 
 press statement of Yictor of Antioch [a.d. 450?] ihat he 
 kiieir of ihe mutilation, but had ascertained by Critical research 
 the genuineness of this Section of Scripture, and had adopted the 
 Text of the authentic "Palestinian" Copy^, — is more than 
 enough to outweigh the faint presumption created (as some 
 might think) by the words of Eusebius, that his own copy 
 was without it. And yet, as already stated, there is nothing 
 whatever to shew that Eusebius himself deliberately rejected 
 the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel. Still less does 
 that Father anywhere say, or even hint, that in his judg- 
 ment the original Test of S. Mark was without them. If he 
 may be judged by his words, he accepted them as genuine : for 
 (what is at least certain) he argues upon their contents at 
 great length, and apparently without misgiving. 
 
 (b) It is high time however to point out that, after all, 
 the question to be decided is, not uhaf Eusebius thought on 
 this subject, but what is historically probable. As a plain 
 matter of fact, the sum of the Patristic Evidence against 
 these Verses is the hypothetical suggestion of Eusebius 
 already quoted ; which, (after a fashion well understood by 
 those who have given an}' attention to these studies), is ob- 
 served to have rapidly propagated itself in the congenial soil 
 of the v* century. And even if it could be shewn that Euse- 
 bius deliberately rejected this portion of Scripture, (which has 
 never been done,) — yet, inasmuch as it may be regarded as 
 certain that those famous codices in the library of his friend 
 
 •I See above, pp. 41 to 51 : also Appendix (B). 
 
 * Tbe reader is referred to Mai's Kov. PP. Bill, vol, iv. p. 2C2, line 12 : 
 p, 264 liue 28 : p. 301, line 3-^, and 6—8. 
 ' See above, p. 64-5: also Appendix (E). 
 
 XI..] 
 
 of S. M/irl.'s Goijut sufTrrod mutllalion. 
 
 2ol 
 
 Paniphilus at Csesarea, to which the ancients habitually re- 
 ferred, rccogittHcd it as genuine*, — the only sufferer from such 
 a conflict of evidence would snrelj' be Eusebius himself: (not 
 S. Mar);, I say, but Eusebius ;) who is observed to employ an 
 incorrect test of Scripture on many other occasions; and 
 must (in such case) be held to have been unduly partial to 
 copies of S. Mark in the mutilated condition of Cod. B or 
 Cod. K. His words were translated by Jerome''; adopted by 
 Hesychius' ; referred to by Victor^ ; reproduced " with a dif- 
 ference" in more than one ancient schoHon''. But they arc 
 found to have died away into a very faint echo when Eu- 
 Ihvmius Zigabeuus' rehearsed them for the last time in his 
 Commentary on the Gospels, a.d. 1116. Exaggerated and 
 misunderstood, behold them resuscitated after an interval of 
 seven centuries by Griesbach, and Tischeudorf, and Tre- 
 gellcs and tbe rest : again destined to fall into a conge- 
 nial, though very differentlj' prepared soil; and again des- 
 tined (I venture to predict) to die out and soon to be for- 
 gotten for ever. 
 
 (iv.) After all that has gone before, our two oldest Codices 
 (Cod. B and Cod. k) which alone witness to the truth of 
 Eusebius' testimony as to the state of certain copies of the 
 Gospels in his own day, need not detain us long. They are 
 thought to be as old as the iv**" century : they are ceitainly 
 without the concluding section of S. Mark's Gospel. But 
 it mav not be forgotten that both Codices alike are dis- 
 figured throughout by errors, interpolations and omissions 
 without number; that their testimony is continually di- 
 vergent ; and that it often happens that where thej' both 
 agree thej' are both demonstrablj' in error". Moreover, it is 
 a hi<^hly significant circumstance that the Vatican Codex 
 (B), which is the more ancient of the two, exhibits a vacant 
 column at the end of S.Mark's Gospel, — the only vacant column 
 in the irhole codex : whereby it is shewn that the Copyist was 
 aware of the existence of the Twelve concluding Verses of 
 S. Mark's Gospel, even though he left them out " : while the 
 
 t p. CS and note (d) ; p. 119 and note (ni). ' P. 51-7. ' P. 57-9. 
 
 i P. 6y— 66. "^ P- 114—125. ' P. G8-9. 
 
 ■" Cliiip. VI. " Sec above, pp. 86 to 88. 
 
252 The practical issue. — What results from [tuxr. 
 
 original Scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus («) is declared by 
 Tischendorf to have actually omitted the concluding tertt o/ 
 S. John's Goytil, — in which unenriable peculiarity it standi 
 alone among MSS.°- 
 
 (I.) And thus v,e are brought back to the point from 
 which we started. "We are reminded that the one thing 
 to be accounted for is the mutilated condition of certain copieit 
 of S. Marie's Gospel in the beginning of the fourth century ; 
 of which, Cod. B and Cod. n are the two solitary su^^^Ting 
 specimens, — Eusebius, the one historical witness. We have 
 'to decide, I mean, between the eridencc for this fact, — (namely, 
 that within the first two centuries and a-half of our sera, the 
 Gospel according to S. Mark suffered mutilation ;) — and the 
 reasonableness of the other opinion, namely, that S. Mark's 
 original autogrriph extended no farther than eh. xvi. 8. All 
 is reduced to this one issue; and unless any are prepared 
 to prove that the Twelve familiar Verses (ver. 9 to ver. 20) 
 with which S. Mark ends his Gospel cannot be his, — (I have 
 proved on the contrarj' that he must needs be thought to 
 have written themP,) — I submit that it is simply irrational 
 to persist in asseverating that the reason why those verses 
 are not found in our two Codexes of the iv''' century must 
 be because they did not exist in the original autograph of 
 the Evangelist. "What else is this but to set unsupported 
 opinion, or rather unreasoning prejudice, before the historical 
 evidence of a fact ? The assumption is not only gratuitous, 
 arbitrary, groundless ; but it is discountenanced by the evi- 
 dence of MSS., of Versions, of Fathers, (Versions and 
 Fathers much older than the iv"" century:) is rendered 
 in the highest degree improbable by every internal, every 
 
 ° Will it be believed that Tischendorf accordingly rejects tliai verse also as 
 spurious J and brings tlie fourth Gospel to an end at ver. 2i, as be brings the 
 second Gospel to an end at rer. 8 ? For my own part, — ^having (through the 
 kindness and liberality of the Keeper of the Imperial MSS. at S. Petersburg, 
 aided by the good offices of my friend, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, Chaplain at 
 S. Petersburg,) obtained a photograph of the last page of S. Jobn'i Gospel, — 1 
 must be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of Dr. Tiscben- 
 dorf's judgment in this particular. The utmost which can be allowed is that 
 the Scribe may have possibly changed his pen, or been called away from his 
 task, just before bringing the fourth Gospel to a close. ' See Chap. IX. 
 
 xii] the re-vstahlishment of S. Marl; xvi. 9 — 20. Qj-i 
 
 external consideration : is condemned by the delllcrate ju'hj- 
 nunt of the universal Church, — which, in its corporate capa- 
 city, for eighteen hundred j'ears, in all places, has not only 
 solemnly accepted the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gos- 
 pel as genuine, but has even singled them out for special 
 honour '. 
 
 (II.) Let it be asked in conclusion, — (for this prolonged 
 discussion is now happily at an end,) — Are any inconve- 
 niences likely to result from a frank and loyal admission, 
 {in th( nlsmec of ainj Evidence uhatcver to the eontrnri/,) that 
 doubtless the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel are 
 just as worthy of acceptation as the rest ? It might reason- 
 ably be supposed, from the strenuous earnestness with which 
 the rejection of these Verses is generally advocated, that 
 some considerations must surely be assignable why the 
 opinion of their genuineness ought on no account to be 
 entertained. Do any such reasons exist? Are any incon- 
 veniences whatever likel}' to supervene ? 
 
 Ko reasons whatever are assignable, I reply ; neither are 
 there aiii/ inconvenient consequences of any sort to be anti- 
 cipated, — except indeed to the Critics : to whom, it must be 
 confessod, the result proves damaging enough. 
 
 It will only follow, 
 
 (1st) That Cod. B and Cod. s must be henceforth allowed 
 to be i"/i one more serious particular untrustworthy and erring 
 witnesses. They have been convicted, in fact, of bearing 
 false witness in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20, where their 
 evidence had been hitherto reckoned upon with the most 
 undoubting confidence. 
 
 (2ndly) That the critical statements of recent Editors, 
 and indeed the remarks of Critics generally, in respect of 
 S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20, will have to undergo serious revision : 
 in every important particular, will have to be uncondition- 
 ally withdrawn. 
 
 (3rdly) That, in all future critical editions of the New Tes- 
 tament, these "Twelve Verses" will have to be restored to 
 their rightful honours : never more appearing disfigured 
 with brackets, encumbered with doubts, banished from their 
 1 Chapter X. 
 
2o4 rat-tiny Wotih. [chai-. xii. 
 
 context, or molested 'with notes of suspicion. On the con- 
 trary. A few words of caution against the resuscitation 
 of what has been proved to be a " vulgar error," will have 
 henceforth to be introduced in mcmoriam rei. 
 
 (4thly) Lastly, men must be no longer taught to look 
 with distrust on this precious part of the Deposit; and 
 encouraged to dispute the Divine sayings which it contains 
 on the plea that perhaps they may not be Divine, after all ; 
 for that prolahly the entire section is not genuine. They 
 must he assured, on the contrarj', that these Twelve Verses 
 are wholly undistinguishable in respect of genuineness from 
 the rest of the Gospel of S. Mark ; and it may not be amiss 
 to remind them the Creed called the "Athanasian" speaks 
 no other language than that employed by the Divine Author 
 of our Religion and Object of our Faith. The Church warns 
 her children against the peril incurred bj' as many as wil- 
 fully reject the Truth, in no other language but that of the 
 
 Great Head of the Church. No person may presume to ATDT^TTI^TIT^ 
 
 speak disparagingly of S. Mark xvi. 16, any more. ; il X X J^ 1> -I • 
 
 (III.) Whether, — after the foregoing exposure of a very 
 prevalent and highly popular, but at the same time most 
 calamitous misapprehension, — it will not become necessary 
 for Editors of the Text of the New Testament to reconsider 
 their conclusions in countless other places : — whether they 
 must not be required to review their method, and to remodel 
 their text throughout, now that they have been shewn the 
 insecurity of the foundation on which they have so con- 
 fidently builded, and been forced to reverse their verdict in 
 respect of a place of Scripture where at least thej' supposed 
 themselves impregnable; — I forbear at this time to inquire. 
 Enough to have demonstrated, as I claim to have now 
 done, that not a particle of doubt, that not an 
 atom of suspicion, attaches to " the 
 LAST Twelve Vehses of the 
 Gospel according to 
 S. Mark." 
 
 TO TfAOC. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 (A.) On ihe Iwporfance of attending to Patristic Citations 
 of Scripture. — The correct Text of S. LrxE ii. 14, esta- 
 hliihcd ' • P- 257 
 
 (B.) ErsEBius "ad Marinum" concerning the reconcile- 
 ment ofS. Mark xvi. 9 with S.Matthew xxviii. 1 . . p. 265 
 
 (C.) Proof that Hesichius is a Copyist only in tchat he says 
 
 concerning the end of S. Mark's Gospel p. 267 
 
 (D.) Some accoimt of Yictoh or Aktioch's Commentary on 
 S. Marl's Gospel ; together with a descriptive enumeration 
 of MSS. which contain Victor's Work p. 269 
 
 (E.) Text of the concludi)ig Scholion of Victob of Aktioch's 
 Commentary on S. 3farVs Gospel ; in which Victor bears 
 emphatic Testimony to ihe Genuineness of " the last 
 Twehe Verses" p. 288 
 
 (F.) On the relative antiquity of the Codex Vaticanus (B), 
 and the Codex Sikaiticus (k) p. 291 
 
 (G.) On the {so-called) "Ammokian" Sections and on the 
 ErszBiAN Cauoks : a Dissertation. With some account 
 of the Talles of Reference occasionally found in Greek 
 and Syriac MSS p. 295 
 
 (H.) On the Interpolation of the Text of Codex B and 
 
 Codex K, fl< S. Matthew sxvii. 48 or 49 p. 313 
 
 POSISCEIPT p. 319 
 
 L'ENroT. 
 
 Gexeeax Ltdei . p. 325 
 
 APPENDIX (A). 
 
 Oit the importance of attending to Palris/ic Cilaliont of Scripture. — 
 
 The correct Text ofS. Luke ii. 14, cddllideJ. 
 
 (Ikfcrrcd to at p. 22.) 
 
 In Chapter III. the importance of attending to Patristic 
 citations of Scripture has been largely insisted upon. The 
 controverted reading of S. Luke ii. 14 supplies an apt illus- 
 tration of the position tliere maintained, viz. that this sub- 
 ject has not hitherto engaged nearly as much attention as it 
 deserves. 
 
 I. Instead of iv avOpwiron eiSoxla, (which is the reading 
 of the " Textus reccptus,") Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregellcs 
 and Alford present us with ip avOpdinots eihoKlas. Their 
 authority for this reading is the consentient testimony of 
 
 THE FOUR OLDEST MSS. ^VHICH CONTAIN S. Luke ii. 14 (viz. 
 
 B, s, A, D) : THE Latin Versions generally {"in homi- 
 nihus bonne voluntatis ") ; and the Gothic. Against these are 
 to be set, Cod. A (in the Hymn at the end of the Psalms) ; 
 
 ALL THE OTHER UnCIALS J together with EVERY KNOWN CUR- 
 SIVE MS. ; and every other ancient Version in existence. 
 So fur, the evidence of mere Antiquity may be supposed 
 to pieponderate in favour of evBoxlai : though no judicious 
 Critic, it is thought, should hesitate in deciding in favour 
 of fi/BoKia, even upon the evidence already adduced. The 
 advocates of the popular Theory ask, — But why should the 
 four oldest MSS., together with the Latin and the Gothic 
 Versions, conspire in reading evBoicuif, it evSoKt'a be right? 
 That question shall be resolved by-and-by. Let them in 
 the mean time tell us, if they can,— How is it credible that, 
 in such a matter as this, eiert/ other MS. and every other 
 Version in the world should read evBoKla, if evSoKta be wrong f 
 But the evidence of Antiquity has not yet been nearly cited. 
 I proceed to set it forth in detail. 
 
258 
 
 Testlmo)!!/ of Early Fathers to 
 
 [Apr. 
 
 A.] 
 
 the true Rcadiug o/S. Luke ii. 14. 
 
 259 
 
 It is found then, that whereas (vEoKias is read by tunu 
 eiiZoKia is read by all the following Fathers : — 
 
 (1) OiiiGKN, in tliree places of his writings, [i. 374 i>: 
 ii. 714 It: iv. 15 b,— a.d. 240.] 
 
 (2) The Apostolical CoNSTrruxioNS, twice, [vii. 47 : viii. 
 12 a(lfii).,—n.V^ cent.] 
 
 (3) Methodius, [Galland iii. 809 b,— a.d. 290.] 
 
 (4) EusEHius, twice, [Dem. Ev. 1G3 c: 342 b,— a.d. 320.] 
 
 (5) Aphkaates the Persian, (for whose name [xuprd, 
 pp. 26-7] that of ' Jacobus of Nisibis' has been erroneously 
 substituted), twice, [i. 180 and 385, — a.d. 337.] 
 
 (G) Titus of Bostka, twice, [in loc, but esjjecially iu 
 S. Luc. xix. 29 (Cramer, ii. 141, line 20),— a.d. 350.] 
 
 (7) Gregory of Nazianzus, [i. 845 c, — a.d. 360.] 
 
 (8) Cyril of Jerusalem, [a.d. 370], as will be found ex- 
 plained below. 
 
 (9) Epipha.sius, [i. 154 d, — a.d. 375.] 
 
 (10) CiiRYsosTOM, four times, [vii. 311 b : 674 c : viii. 85 c: 
 xi. 374 B expressly, — a.d. 400.] 
 
 (11) Cyril of Alexandria, in three places, [Comw. on 
 S. Lithe, pp. 12 and 16. Also 0/;;;. ii. 593 a : vi. 398 c,— 
 a,d. 420.] 
 
 (12) Theodoret, \in Coloss.i. 20,— a.d. 430.] 
 
 (13) Theodotus of Ancyra, [Ga/tand. x. 446 b, — a.d. 430.] 
 
 (14) Proclus, Abp. of Constantinople, [GaU. x. 629 a, — 
 A.D. 434.] 
 
 To which maj' be added the evidence of 
 
 (15) Cosmas Indicopleustes, four times repeated, [Coll. 
 Nov. PP., (Montfaucon,) ii. 152 a, 160 d, 247 E, 269 c,— 
 A.D. 535.] 
 
 (16) EuLOGius, Abp. of Alexandria, [GaN. xii. 308 e, — 
 A.D. 581.] 
 
 (17) Andreas of Crete, twice, [Gall. xiii. 100 d, 123 c, 
 —A.D. 635.] 
 
 Now, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers 
 of the Church" all concur in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn 
 as our oirn Tcxttis Jieccptus exhibits it, — (viz. iv avOp^'"^"'^ 
 evSoKt'a,) — who does not see that the four oldest uncial autho- 
 
 ' Pseudo-Gregory Tbaumaturgus, Peeudo- Basil, Patricius, and Marios Mer- 
 cator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration. 
 
 ritics for euSo/e/ia? are hopelessly outvoted by authorities 
 vet older than themselves? Here is, to all intents and 
 purposes, a record of what was once found in tiro Codices of 
 the iii"* century ; in nine of the iv'*; in three of the v'*; — 
 ndded to the testimony of the two Syriac, the Egyptian, the 
 Ethiopic, and the Armenian versions. In this instance there- 
 fore the evidence of Antiquity is even overwhelming. 
 
 Most decisive of all, perhaps, is the fact this was the form 
 in which the Churches of the East preserved the Angelic 
 Hymn in their private, as well as their solemn public Devo- 
 tions. Take it, from a document of the v"' century : — 
 
 AOEA CN mUCTOlC 660) 
 
 KAi eni fHC eiPHNH 
 
 CN ANePCOnOlC eTAOKlA'. 
 
 But the text of this Hymn, as a Liturgical document, 
 at a yet earlier period is unequivocally established by the 
 combined testimony of the Apostolical Constitutions (already 
 quoted,) and of Chrj'sostom, who says expressly : — Ev)(apia- 
 rovvTCi \eyofiev, AoJ^a iv ir^iajois 0fa>, Koi iirl 7^? elpi]vr), 
 iv avBpdjTTOis evBoKia. [Ojjjj. xi. 347 b.] Now this incon- 
 testably proves that the Church's established tray of reciting the 
 Angelic Hymn in the iv'* century was in conformity with the 
 reading of the Textus Receptus. And this fact infinitely 
 outweighs the evidence of any extant MSS. which can be 
 named : for it is the consentient evidence of hundreds, — or 
 rather of thousands of copies of the Gospels of a date ante- 
 rior to A.D. 400, which have long since perished. 
 
 To insist upon this, however, is not at all my pre- 
 sent purpose. About the true reading of S.Luke ii. 14, 
 (which is not the reading of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tre- 
 gelles, Alford,) there is clearly no longer any room for 
 doubt. It is perhaps one of the best established readings in 
 the whole compass of the New Testament. My sole object is 
 to call attention to the two following facts : — 
 
 (1) That the/our oldest Codices irhich contain S. Lithe ii. 14 
 (B, N, A, D, A.D. 320—520), and two of the oldest Ver- 
 sions, conspire in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn incorrectly. 
 
 (2) That we are indebted to fourteen of the Fathers (a.d. 
 
 k Codex A,—vni'os iuBii'6s at tlie end of the Psaluis. 
 S2 
 
2G0 
 
 The Eikhncc of Innaus, of Origni, 
 
 All-. 
 
 uihI of Cyril, not ■lifiroif. 
 
 201 
 
 240—434), and to the rest of the ancient Tcrsions, for the 
 true reading of that memorable place of Scripture. 
 II. Against all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that,— 
 1 . IuenjEus sides with the oldest uncials. — Now, the Gntk 
 of the place referred to is lost. A Latin translation is all that 
 survives. According to tliat evidence, Irenaeus, having quoted 
 the place in conformity with the Vulgate reading (iii. c. x. 
 § 41,—" Gloria in cxcelsis Deo ct in terra pax hominibus honor 
 voluntatis,") presently adds,—" In eo quod dicuut, Gloria in 
 altissimis Deo et in terra pax, eum qui sit altissimorum, hoc 
 est, supercaelestium factor et eorum, quae super terrain 
 omniiun conditor, his sermonibus glorificaverunt ; qui suo 
 plasmati, hoc est hominibus suam benignitatem salutis dc 
 caelo misit." {ed. Stieren, i. 459). — But it must suffice to 
 point out (1) that these words really prove nothing : and 
 (2) that it would be very unsafe to build upon them, even if 
 they did ; since (3) it is plain that the Latin translator exhi- 
 bits the place in the Latin form most familiar to himself: 
 (consider his substitution of "excelsis" for " altissimis.") 
 
 2. Next, Origen is claimed on the same side, on the 
 strength of the following passage in (Jerome's version of) 
 his lost Homilies on S. Luke : — " Si scriptum esset, Siij>er 
 terrain pax, et hucusque esset finita sententia, recte quaestio 
 nasceretur. Nunc vero in eo quod additum est, hoc est, 
 quod post pacem dicitur, In hominibus bonae voluntatis, solvit 
 quaestionem. Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super 
 terram, non est pax bonae voluntatis." (0pp. iii. p. 946.) 
 "From this," (says Tischendorf, who is followed by Tro- 
 gelles,) "it is plain that Origen regarded evBoKlas as the 
 true reading ; not evSoxia — which is now thrice found in bis 
 Greek writings." — But, 
 
 Is one here more struck with the unfairness of the Critic, 
 or with the feebleness of his reasoning ? For, — (to say no- 
 thing of the insecurity of building on a Latin Translation *, 
 
 ' The old Latin Interpreter of Origen's Commentary on S. Matthew seemi 
 to have found in Origen'e text a quotation from S. Lute ii. 14 which u •»' 
 represented in the extant Oreek text of Origen. Here also \re are presented 
 with "liominibus bonae voluntatis." (Oj>p. iii. 637 c). We can say nothing 
 to such second-hand evidence. 
 
 rspccially in such a matter as the present,) — How can lesti- 
 moiiy like this bo considered to outweigh the three distinct 
 places in the original writings of this Father, where he 
 reads not ev^oKias but evSoKt'a ? Again. Wliy is a doubt 
 insinuated concerning the trustworthiness of those three 
 places, (" ut nunc reperitur,") where there really is no doubt ? 
 How is Truth ever to be attained if investigations like the 
 present are to be conducted in the spirit of an eager par- 
 tisan, instead of ■nith the calm gravity of an impartial 
 judge? 
 
 But I may as well state plainly that the context of thr 
 passage above quoted shews that Tischendorf's proposed in- 
 ference is inadmissible. Origen is supposing some one to 
 ask the following question : — " Since Angels on the night 
 when Chkist was born proclaijned 'on earth Peace,' — why 
 docs our Savioie saj', ' I am not come to send Peace upon 
 earth, but a sword? .... Consider," (he proceeds) "whe- 
 ther the answer may not be this:" — and then comes the 
 extract given above. Origen, (to esj^ress oneself with collo- 
 quial tnitl) fulness,) is at his old tricls. He is evidently ac- 
 quainted with the reading evBoiclas : and because it enables 
 him to ofl'cr (what appears to him) an ingenious solution of 
 a certain problem, he adopts it for the nonce : his proposal 
 to take the words elprivt) eiiBoKias together, being simplj' 
 preposterous, — as no one ever knew better than Origen 
 himself*. 
 
 3. Lastly, C^tsil of Jerusalem is invariablj' cited by the 
 latest Critics as favouring the reading evBoKias. Those 
 learned persons have evidentl)' overlooked the candid ac- 
 knowledgment of De Touttee, Cyril's editor, (p. 180, cf. 
 bottom of p. 162,) that though tie MSS. of Cyril exhibit 
 eihoKt'a, yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured to print 
 (vBoKias. This therefore is one more Patristic attestation 
 to the trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus in respect of 
 8. Luke ii. 14, which has been hitherto unaccountably lost 
 sight of by Critics. (May I, without offence, remind Editors 
 of Scripture that instead of copying, they ought in every in- 
 stance to rerifij their references ?) 
 
 '' Consider his cxactlj- limiliir method conctriiing Eph. i. 1. {Supra, pp. 90 — 90.) 
 
262 n^isfori/ 0/ the reading,— eihoKtai. [app. 
 
 III. The history of this corniption of the Text is not hard 
 to discover. It is interesting and instructive also. 
 
 (1.) In the immediately post-Apostolic age,— if not carlirr 
 still,— some Copyist will have omitted the eV before i,.(>f^ 
 ■nm. The resemblance of the letters and the si.uilarily 
 of the sound (cn, an.) misled him :— 
 
 eNANGPUnOIC 
 Every one must see at a glance how easily the thing may 
 have happened. (It is in fact precisely what has happened 
 in Acts IV. 12 ; where, for cV ip0p^^on. D and a few cur- 
 sive MSS. read ivdptiironf,— being countenanced therein by 
 the Latin Versions generally, and by them only.) 
 ^ (2.) The result however— (Sofa eV iy{rlaToi<i OfjS xal 
 eyri 7^, elpt^vTi ivepmroK! ciSow'a)— was obviously an impoB- 
 Bible sentence. It could not be allowed to stand. And yet 
 It was not by any means clear what had happened to it. In 
 order, as it seems, to force a meaning into the words, some 
 one with the best intentions will have put the sign of the 
 genitive (c) at the end of eihoKla. The copy so depraved 
 was destined to play an important part ; for it became the 
 fontal source of the Latin Version, which exhibits the place 
 thus:— ©for/a in altissimis Beo, et in terra pax hominibui 
 
 bonae voluntatis. It is evident, by the way, (if the quo- 
 
 tation from Irenaeus, given above, is to be depended upon,) 
 that IrensEus must have so read the place: (viz. elp^vri 
 avOpdairois eiSoKiat.) 
 
 (3.) To restore the preposition (cn) which had been acci- 
 dentally thrust oat, and to obliterate the sign of the geni- 
 tive (c) which had been without authority thrust in, was an 
 obvious proceeding. Accordingly, everi/ Greek EvangcUum 
 extant exhibits » avOpomoi^ : while ail but four (B, N, A, D) 
 read eiSoKi'a. In like manner, into some MSS. of the Vul- 
 gate (e.g. the Cod. Amiatinua,) the preposition ("in") baa 
 found its way back ; but the genitive (" bonae voluntatis") 
 has never been rectified in a single copy of the Latin ver- 
 sion.— The Gothic represents a copy which exhibited h> av- 
 dpwirotf: evSoKia<:*. 
 
 ' From the Bev. Professor Bjsworth. 
 
 A. 
 
 A litriii.'ii of the Gnik Text, rcjuircd. 
 
 2G3 
 
 The consequence is that a well-nigh untranslatable ex- 
 pression retains its place in the Vulgate to the present hour. 
 AVhetlicr (with Origon) we connect eiiBoKias with eip/jvij, — or 
 (with the moderns) we propose to understand " men of good 
 pleasure," — the result is still the same. The harmony of 
 the three-part Anthem which the Angels sang on the night 
 of the Nativity is hopelessly marred, and an unintelligible 
 discord substituted in its place. Logic, Divinitj-, Documents 
 are here all at one. The reading of Stephens is unquestion- 
 ably correct. The reading of the latest Editors is as ccr- 
 tainl}- corrupt. This is a case therefore where the value of 
 Patristic testimony becomes strikingly apparent. It affords 
 also one more crucial proof of the essential hollowness 
 of the theorj- on which it has been recently proposed by 
 Lachmnnu, Tischeudorf, TregcUes and the rest to recon- 
 struct the text of the Xew Testament. 
 
 To some, it ma)' perhaps seem unreasonable that so many 
 words should be devoted to the establishment of the text of 
 a single place of Scripture, — depending, as that text does, 
 on the insertion or the omission of a single letter. I am 
 content to ask in reply, — JJliaf is important, if not the 
 utterance of Heaven, when, at the la)'ing of the corner-stone 
 of the New Creation, " the Morning Stars sang together, 
 and all the Sons of God shouted for jo}' ? " 
 
 IV. Only one word in conclusion. 
 
 "Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to 
 revise her Authorized Version (1611), it will become neces- 
 sary tliat she should in the first instance instruct some of the 
 more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise 
 the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know 
 precisely what it is they have to translate before they can 
 pretend to translate it. As for supposing that Scholars who 
 have been appointed to revise a Translation are competent at 
 a moment's notice, as every fresh difiSculty presents itself, to 
 develope the skill requisite for revising the original Text, — 
 it is clearly nothing else but supposing that experts in 
 one Science can at pleasure shew themselves proficients in 
 another. 
 
 But it BO happens that, on the present occasion, that other 
 
264 
 
 licrisioii, the trorh of the Chiinh. 
 
 [afi. 
 
 Science is one of exceeding difficulty. Revisionists t'rt 
 will find it necessary altogether to disabuse their minds of 
 the Theory of Textual Criticism which is at present iLe do- 
 minant and the popular one, — and of which I have made 
 it my business to expose the fallaciousness, in respect of 
 several crucial texts, in the course of the present work. 
 
 I cannot so far forget the unhappy circumstances of the 
 times as to close this note without the further suggestion, 
 (sure therein of the approval of our trans- Atlantic brethren,) 
 that, for a Revision of the Authorized Version to enjoy the 
 confidence of the Nation, and to procure for itself accept- 
 ance at the hands of the Church, — it will be found neces- 
 sary that the work should be confided to Churchmen. The 
 Church ma3' never abdicate her function of being "a Wit- 
 ness and a Keeper of Holy Writ." Neither can she, with- 
 out ilagrani inconsistenc}' and scandalous consequence, ally 
 herself in the work of Revision with the Sects. Least of all 
 may she associate with herself in the sacred undertaking 
 an Unitarian Teacher, — one who avowedly [see the letter 
 \ of " One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.," in the "Times" of 
 July 11, 1870] denies the eternal Gonhead of her Lord. 
 That the individual alluded to has shewn any peculiar apti- 
 tude for the work of a Revisionist ; or that he is a famous 
 Scholar ; or that he can boast of acquaintance with any of 
 the less familiar departments of Sacred Learning;' is not 
 even pretended. (It would matter nothing if the reverse 
 were the case.) What else, then, is this but to ofier a deli- 
 berate insult to the Majesty of Heaven in the Divine Person 
 oi Him who is alike the Object of the Everlasting Gospel, 
 and its Author ? 
 
 APPENDIX (B). 
 
 KrsEBiis " ad Marinum" concerning the reconcilement vf S. Mark 
 
 xvi. 9 tcith S. Matthew xxviii. 1. 
 
 (Referred to at pp. 46, 47, 64, and 233.) 
 
 Subjoined is the original text of Euseiiius, taken from 
 the " Qun?stiones ad Marinum" published by Card. Mai, 
 in his " Nova Patrum Bibliothcca" (Romac, 1847,) vol. iv. 
 pp. 255-7. 
 
 I. JTwy Trapn ^kv rw MarBatw 6\jre aa^/SaTtav ^aivejai 
 iyeyepfiaw o StoT?;p, irapa Be rw MdpKU) Trpw'i tjj iita rSiv 
 
 TovTOvhn-n) av eir) i) Xvo-(?' 6 fiev yap [to KecfxlXaiov aino 
 del* P] T>;i' TOVTO (pdcTKOVffav irepiKOTrijv d6eTo)v, eiTroi av /j,r) iv 
 aira(Tiv ainijv (fiepeaOat toU dvTiypd<f)oi<: tov Kara MdpKov 
 evayyeklov' rd yovv aKpt^i) tijiv dvT.iypdcpwv rb rekos irepi- 
 ypdd>a Tijs Kara rov MdpKov laTopla^ ev to?? \6yoif rev 
 bd)devToi vcaviffKov tqis yvvai^l Kal elpTjKOTOs avrals " fit) 
 <f>o^fla0e, 'Itjctovi' fTyTetre tov Na^aprjvov." Kal Toh e^^js, ols 
 (TriKeyfi' " xal aKovcracrai €(f)vyov, Kal ovBevl ovSev eiTTOv, 
 eSoBovvTO yap." 'Ev TovTtp yap a^eBov iv airaai toZ? dvTi- 
 ypdAoHTOV Kara MdpKOV eiiayyeXiov TreptyeypaTTTai rb reXof 
 TO Be €f»)9 <rrravia)s ev ricriv dXX' ovk iv rrdcri ^epofieva rre- 
 pirra av e'r], Ka\ /j-dXiara eirrep exoiev avrCKoyiav rfi r<ov 
 \oiircov eiciyyeXtariiiv fiaprvpla. ravra ftev oiiv eirroi av ris 
 rrapairovpevos Ka\ rrdvri] dvaipwv rrepirrbv ipairijfia. 'AWos 
 Be rii ovB' ortovv roXpcav aderelv rS)v ottuxjovv iv rfj ruv 
 evayyeXia^v ypnAiJ tfjepofievosv, Bnr\r\v elvai <f>rjai. r^v dvay- 
 vwaiv, ws Ka\ iv erepois iroWols, eKurepav re irapaBeKreav 
 iiTrapYfii', rw fir) fiaWov ravrrjv iKeivrjs, fi iKelvrjv ravTr)<i, 
 rrapd rois Triaroh kcu evXa^eaiv iyKpiveaOai. 
 
 Kal Bi] rovBe rov fiepov^ avyxoipovfiivov elvai a\r)6ov<;, 
 rrpoa-qKei rov row Btepfjnjveveiv rov dvayvwcr fiaro';' el yovv 
 BieXoiaev r>]v rov Xoyov Bidvoiav, ovk av evpoifiev aiirrjv 
 ivavrlav to?? rrapd rov MarOalov otfre aa^^droyv iyi)yep0ai 
 rov Sa>rT]pn XeXeyfievoif rb yap " dvacrrds Be rrptot rfj iiia 
 • rid. mijira, p. 233. 
 
266 
 
 EcsiDirs " ad Marinum." 
 
 [kvv. 
 
 Tov ca^^drov" Kara tov MiipKov, fiera BtaaTo\T)<! aiayi-w- 
 trofitda' Ka] fiera to avaa-raf Bf,' vtroaTi^ofiev"' Ka\ tj/j- lid- 
 voiav a(f)opi^onai tcjv e^ns eTriXeyofievayv. tlra to /xtv uiioff. 
 ras &t>, iiriri]v Tzapa rtu Ma-Oaio) 6-dre aa^^cnav. Tort fan 
 ijtjyepTO- TO Be ef fj? eripai; ov havolas VTroaraTiKov, avidyfrio. 
 (lev Tois iniXeyofieiioir Trpw'i yap rj] fiia rov aa^^djov i<^,Utf 
 Mapia r^ MayhaXTjvfj. tovto yovv eS/jXaxre kal 6 'Iwdvi-rjt 
 •jrptj'i Koi ainoi rf) fita rov ca^^drov <x)cf>6ai avTov rri May- 
 BaXrivfj fiapTvpijcras. oCtw? ovp Kal irapd tw Mdpxifi irpuA 
 iif>avr) amfj. ov irpcoi dvaards, dWa iroXv irpoTepov Kara tov 
 MaTOalov 6-^i TOV aafi^drov. tote yap dvaa-Tai e<f)dii] tJ 
 Mapia, ov tots aWd Trpto'i. tos TrapiaTaaOav iv rovrott 
 Kaipoiis Bvo. TOV fiiv yap t"]s dvacndaews tov oi/re toO aafi- 
 fiuTov, TOV Be TrJ9 tov SuTr/pos e'in(j)aveia<;, tov 7rpm\, tv 
 eypai^ev 6 M.dpK0<; elirwv (o Kal fierd Stao-ToX^s dvayvuia- 
 Teov) dvaa-Td<i Be' elra inroaTi^avTes, to ffv? p-qrtov, vpuA 
 Tp fiia tov aa^fiaTov icpdvr] Mapia ttj MayBaXrjvfj, dtfi ^ 
 eKfiefi\.i]Kei ewTa Baifwvia. 
 
 II. Uws KaTO, TOV MoTdalov o-^p-e (ra^^aTcov 17 MayBdkijvi] 
 TeOeafievq ttjv dvdaraatv, Kara tov 'ladvvtjv rj airri] etrriaaa 
 K\aUi irapd tw fivrj^ei'to t!] fiiS tov aa^^aTov. 
 
 OvBev av f^riTTfBeiTj Kara tovi tottous, el to oyp-e o-aySySoTWi' 
 fir) TTjv kaTrepivrjv &pav ttjv fierd tijv fjfiepav tov aa^fiarov 
 XeyeaOai inroXd^oifiev, &s Tives vnei\ri<^aaiv, dXKd to ^paov 
 Kal otpe tT]s vvkto<; t?}? /u-era to ad^^aTov, k.t.\. 
 
 * P.S. I avail myself of this blank space to introduce 
 a passage from Theophvlact (a.d. 1077) which should have 
 obtained notice in a much earlier page: — 'AvaaTdt Be o 
 'iTjaovs' evTavBa ctI^ov, elra eiire' trpcot TrpdiTj) aafi^aTOV 
 e<f)dvri Mapia Ttj MaySaXrjvrj. ov yap dveaTt) irpcot {ris yap 
 olSe TTore dveaTt) ;) aXX' i<j>dv7] irpcoi KvpiaKij fip.epa {avn) 
 yap i) TtpuiTi) TOV ffa/S^SoTou, TOUTeoTt, t^j e^BoftdBo';,) i]V avto 
 eVaXeae fiiav tra^^dTtov' [Oj)p. vol. i. p. 263 c] 
 
 It must be superfluous to point out that Theophj'lact also, 
 — like Victor, Jerome, and Hesvchius, — is here onlj' repro- 
 ducing Eusebius. See above, p. 66, note (c). 
 
 APPENDIX (C). 
 
 rrorflLif Hesychics is a copyist oiihj in what he toys eoiiceniing 
 the end of S. Mark's Gospel. 
 (Rcftned to at rP- 57-58.) 
 
 § 1. It was confidently stated above (at p. 58) that ITe^y- 
 CHiis discussing the consistency of S. Mattliew's oype twv 
 aa^^dTwv (chap, xxviii. 1), with the 7rp«ui of S. Mark (cliap. 
 xvi. 9), is a copyist only ; and that he copies from the 
 " Quaestioncs ad Marinum" of Eusebius. The proof of that 
 statement is subjoined. It should perhaps be explained that 
 the extracts in the right-hand column have been dislocated 
 in order to shew their close rescuiblance to what is set down 
 in the left-hand column from Eusebius : — 
 
 (Erszurrs.) (Hestcitius, or Scvcrus.) 
 
 TO oV-t aaS^irav nn T^v f'ern-f piv^v ro Sc ofi aa^pdrav ov rijv iirri- 
 i>pav n-i- f«Ta T^.' i^iitpav ToO aa/3- pay rijv (l(t!i t^k hiaiv roO ijX.'ot; 
 ^OTOv XtytaBoi wroXd^oi/ifi- .... ^-J^^o'- • • • 
 
 aXXA TO ?paiv Ka\ o^i T^r wktos. aWa . . . . ri fipaUov Kai TrcXi 
 
 BuonjKot. . . . 
 oi'to, yop Ml ifi T^t &pas €\i>6a- «al yip tov .a'. oSrwr i,^\v xrlyr,- 
 fi,y Xf y..r, Ko, if € roC Kmpoi. Ka\ 6ts Xtyf .m, ii/.c toC Kmpoi napayiyo- 
 
 i^i T^t XP"'"" oi '■^'' '<'"'>'»■ *•»- ""' "''"" ^'^' "<""' "''"" '■^' ^''"'"' 
 Xoi'M-ft, oi«( TO^ pera ^Xi'ou Sv<rpas ovxi Tr,v ianipap, Kat tok pna ijXiov 
 XpiiO', " a c<j>6Spa Ppi&ioy Toirrif 6v(rpas XP"""" filXoDtrii-- aXXii ri 
 
 . ,- _„^^„> flpaSioc TOK rponov roirroii 
 
 injfioii'OiTtt TU rpoTTa i-r • r 
 
 pijvvovai. 
 
 Be,r itrrtp iupprjvdav aiiTos 6 Morflalot uairfp (ppjjvtiuv 
 
 iaiTor i ilareaiot ptra TO 6'i'i trafi- iavrbv, tn^yayt Tg iiTi(}>aaKoiffg tls 
 pirwr, ii^ayt ti (irKpuaKoiari ds piav aa^^muv. 
 piav <rQ^|3cTan'. 
 
 'E<'ot a oXijr T^K i^hopaba aa^- vi^^arov hi t^k itaaav t^hopaba 
 /SoTor «o>t:v. '"'^•'•' ■E/3paio« iSos.^ 
 
 Xwrai yof* irapa Toit EiayvfXta- avrUa yoCv ol tfayyeXtoTo'i Tg 
 Toir ri *»•? Til- oa^^araV f"? ''S.' (ra^^arav 4>aai- 
 
 Iv li TJ ciTijflcia, tfvripa aa^- ovra Bq ital .V Tg o-uvijfltio ««it- 
 ^iru,y, Kal rpini ca^^iTUP- XPW'^"' «'"">" oa^^aru,', "' 
 
 Tpirijv cra^^oTwr. 
 
 (Ev^LBirs ad Marinum, fli^urf (GKEG.NTBs.[i.jVf. »iy^ra, p. 39 
 Mm, vol. iv. p. 257-8.) tx) 41.] 0pp. vol. iii. p. 402. 
 
208 
 
 Hzsrcmrs, a Coj)i/i.s( only. 
 
 [ait 
 
 § 2. Subjoined, in the right-hand column, is the original 
 text of the passnge of Hesychius exhibited in En^lLsh nt 
 p. 57. The intention of setting doMn the parallel passa-oa 
 from EusEBius, and from Vicron of Antioch, is in order^to 
 shew the sources from which Hesychius obtained his mate- 
 rials, — as explained at p. 58 :— 
 
 (ErsEBirs.) (Hestchits, or Screnis.) 
 
 ^ T<i yo.,^ iKptfi-r, ri,v avTiyp,:c},<,p ,V ^.V ol„ rot. aVp./S.o-r.po.v dm- 
 TO raot v.piypA^u r^t Knrh tiv yp<J0u,t ri ^arA KipKou ciayyA.o^ 
 MnpKov ioTopta! iv ToTt Xo>,t k.tX. /icxp! roC " ,'<f,o8ov,^o yap," fv,. 
 oif t'TTtUyu- ..." Ka\ oi5e„; oW.V, tA T«Xot. 
 tmov, i<f>o^ovvTO yap." 
 
 (EusEBics ad Moriuum, ajntd 
 Mai, iv. p. 255.) 
 
 (YlCTOB OF AXTIOCH.) 
 iitfi^ hi Zv rial . . . vpooKfirai • t; ,,„ - , . 
 
 .^,-„ , . . . , , Avaaras k.t.\. touto Si ivav- 
 
 ""'^"' "i/a ao«n cvfii- TTDor to 
 tipTjpma, ... » /I ■ , 
 
 ' (pirpoaotv tiprj/ifna' 
 
 [Trjs yap wpas t^s PVKTOt ayvdxrrov 
 Tvyxavoiaris KaO' ^u 6 Sar^p iviani, 
 vas ivraiiBa avaarrivai "jrpcui" yl- 
 ypamat ; dXX' oiSiv I'vavrlov <f>av^ijt- 
 Tai TO pr)Tov, fil 
 
 /i€T tTntmjfii)! avayi>u>a6pf6a' KOI 
 yap vnotrr'i^ai Set crvmrii>t' " 'Avatr- 
 Tas Si,' Kai ovrat (Trayaynv, " npat 
 TTpaiTu tra^parav iipavri npuTovtilaplf 
 rfi MaySaXijKij." Iva to fiiv " afaa- 
 
 TOf" 
 
 l'XH ^'I" avatpopav (Tvp(j)u)va! tu 
 Mortfuiti), Tipos Tov ■npo'Ka^ovTa koi- 
 pot), TO Si " trpwi " npos rqv Trjt 
 Mapiac ycvofifvrjv iinif>dvciav arro- 
 SoSe'ijj.j 
 
 (Gbeg. Ntss. 0pp. vol. iii. p. 
 •Ill, B, c, d: which may be also 
 seen in Cramer's Catenae, [vol. i. 
 p. 250, line 21 to line 33,] as- 
 cribed to "SEVEKrs, Archbishop 
 of Antioch," IJiid. p. 243.]) 
 
 ovTas avayvaaoptSa' " 'Awiorar 
 Si," Ka\ t'ffooTif ai/Tf t inayapiv, "npui 
 Tfl pt^ Tav ffoftSaVoi/ i(f,iiri Mapla 
 VI MnySaX^Kfl'" "iva to piv " ivaa- 
 Tat"— 
 
 (VicTOE Antioch., ed. Cramer, 
 vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to line 27.) 
 
 APPENDIX (D). 
 
 .S/Wf arroioit of VicTOit of Antioch's CommcHtartj on S. Jfiirl's 
 Gofjit!; Uigdlier with an enumeration of MUS. trhiih cuutoin 
 Victor's Work. 
 
 (llofcrrcd to at p. CO.) 
 
 "Apres avoir examine avec soin les MSS. de la Biblio- 
 theque du Eoi," (says the Pere Simon in his Ilinl. Crit. 
 tilt J^^. T. p. 79,) "j'ai reconnu que cet ouvrage^' (he is 
 fl)eaking of the Comurentary on S. Mark's Gospel popularly 
 ascribed to Victor of Antioch,) "n'est ni d'Origene, ni de 
 Victor d'Antiocbe, ni de Cyrille, ni d'aucun autre auteur eu 
 particulicr. C'est un recueil de plusieurs Peres, dont on a 
 marque les noms dans quelques exemplaires; et si ces noms 
 ne se trouveut point dans d'autres, cela est assez ordinaire 
 a ces recueils, qu'on appelle c/iaincs "." It will be seen from 
 the notices of the work in question alreadj' offered, {siijirtj, 
 p. 59 to p. 65,) that I am able to jield only a limited acqui- 
 escence in this learned writer's verdict. That the materials 
 out of which Victor of Antioch constructed his Commentary 
 are scarcely ever original, — is what no one will deny who 
 examines the work \vith attention. 13ut the Author of 
 a compilation is an Author still ; and to put Victor's claim 
 to the work before us on a level with thai of Origen or of 
 CvrU, is entirely to misrepresent the case and hopelessly to 
 perplex the question. 
 
 Concerning Victor himself, nothing whatever is known 
 except that he was "a presbyter of Antioch." Concerning 
 his VTprk, I will not here repeat what I have already stated 
 elsewhere ; but, requesting the Reader to refer to what was 
 remarked at pp. 59 to 65, I propose to offer a few observa- 
 tions with which I was unwilling before to encumber the 
 
 • Kolhir, (editing Lambecius,— iii. 159, 114.) expresses tlic same opinion. — 
 Hnet (Ortgeniaua, lib. iii. c. 4, pp. 274-5,) bas a brief and unsatisfactory dissor- 
 tauoa ou tbe same subject; but be arrives at a far sbrcwdcr conclusion. 
 
270 
 
 PtUanus, Possinus, Matthaei, 
 
 [kVT. 
 
 1,.] 
 
 and Cratncr, edit Victos. 
 
 271 
 
 text; holding it to be a species of duty for those uho have 
 given any time and attention to a subject like the present to 
 contribute the result, (however slender and unsatisfactory it 
 may prove,) to the common store. Let abler men enlarge 
 the ensuing scanty notices, and correct me if in any respect 
 I shall have inadvertently fallen into error. 
 
 1. There exists a Commentary, then, on S. Mark's Gospel, 
 which generally claims on its front "Victor, Pkesb^ter 
 OF Aktioch," for its Author*. A Latin translation of this 
 work, (not the original Greek,) was, in the first instance, 
 published at Ingolstadt in 1580', by Theodore Peltanus. 
 His Latin version found its way at once into " Bibliothecte," 
 (or Collections of "Writings of the Fathers,) and has been 
 again and again reprinted. 
 
 2. The Greek text of Victor was first published at Home 
 by Fc*€r Possinus in 1G73, from a MS. existing somewhere 
 in Germany ; which Bathazar Corderius had transcribed and 
 presented to Possinus about thirty years before. Corderius 
 gave Possinus at the same time his transcript of an anony- 
 mous Commentary on S. Mark preserved in the Vatican ; 
 and Possinus had already in his possession the transcript of 
 a third Commentary on the same Evangelist (also anony- 
 mous) which he had obtained from the Library of Charles 
 de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse. These three transcripts Pos- 
 sinus published in a well-known volume. It is to be wished 
 that he had kept them distinct, instead of to some extent 
 blending their contents confusedly into one*. Still, the dis- 
 
 ' The copies wbich I have seen, are headed,— BIKTOPOC (sometimes BIK- 
 TWPOC) nPfCBTTCPOT ANTI0X61AC fPMHNeiA flC TO KATA MAPKOK 
 €TArrCA10N J or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no Author's 
 name 'a given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril, Origen, 4c.— 
 ride infra, K». iii, xii, liv, xii, ilviii. Also, N». ilvii (comp. ixviii.) 
 
 ' rictoris Anliocf^ni in Marcum, el Titi Sosirorum Epiicopi in ^rfl»- 
 gelium Lueae commeniarii ; ante lac quldem nunquam in lucem edtti, nunc 
 vera ttudio et operd Uieodori Peltani luce limul ei Latinitate donatt. In- 
 golstad. 15S0, 8to. pp. 510. 
 
 ' " Ex hoc ego, quasi metaUo triplici, una conflata massa, inde annulos for- 
 mavi, quos singulos Evangelici conteitus nrticnlis aptatos, inter eeque morsn 
 ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem producerem, quo, si possem consequi, 
 saiicto Evangelistae Marco decus et ornamcntum addcretur."— Pr<«/a<io ■• f™"" 
 which the particulars in the text are obtained. 
 
 located paragraphs of Victor of Antioch are recognisable by 
 the name of their author (" Victor Antiochenus"; prefixed 
 to each: while "Tolosanus" designates the Toulouse MS.: 
 " Vaticanus" (or simply " Anonymus") the Vatican. 
 
 3. At the end of another centurj*, (1775) C. F. Matthaei 
 put forth at JIoscow, with his usual skill and accuracy, 
 a new and independent Edition of Victor's Commentary*: 
 the text of which is based on four of the Moscow ^ISS. 
 This work, which appeared in two parts, has become of 
 extraordinary raritj'. 1 have only just ascertained (June, 
 1871,) that one entire Copy is preserved in this coimtr)-. 
 
 4. Lastly, (in 1840,) Dr. J. A. Cramer, in the first volume 
 of his Caii'iiac on the N. T., reproduced Victor's work from 
 independent MS. sources. He took for bis basis two Codices 
 in the Paris Library, (No. 18G and No. 188), which, however, 
 prove to have been anciently so exactly assimilated the one to 
 the other linfid, p. 279] as to be, in fact, but duplicates of one 
 and the same original. Cramer supplemented their contents 
 from Laud. Gr. 33, (in the Bodleian:) Coisl. 23: and Eeg. 
 178 at Paris. The result has been bj' far the fullest and 
 most satisfactory exhibition of the Commentary of Victor of 
 Antioch which has hitherto appeared. Only is it to be 
 regretted that the work should have been sufiered to come 
 abroad disfigured in everj' page with errors so gross as to be 
 even scandalous, and with traces of slovenlj' editorship which 
 are simply unintelligible. I cannot bring myself to believe 
 
 J tliat Dr. Cramer ever inspected the MSS. in the Paris 
 Library in person. Else would the slender advantage which 
 those abundant materials have proved to so leamc-d and ac- 
 complished a scholar, be altogether unaccountable. More- 
 over, he is incorrect in what he says about them ' : while 
 his reasons for proposing to assign the work of Victor 
 of Antioch to Cyril of Alexandria are undeserving of seri- 
 ous attention. 
 
 On a comparison of these four Editions of the same work, 
 it is discovered that the Latin version of Peltanus (1580), 
 
 • BIKT0P03 wpKr^urepov 'Amioxdas Kcii iXXuf twui' ayiuu Tar4pitv /{i/irijffit 
 «ii t4 Ktrii NipKuy iytoy tvayfiXiov : ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit C. K. Matthiei, 
 ilo4quae, 1775. ' ?• nvii— xxvUi. 
 
272 
 
 The Four E<lH!om of Victor, compared. 
 
 [ati: 
 
 D.] 
 
 LiherticH falrn ly Copi/ists and Editon. 
 
 273 
 
 reprcsoitii (he name Greek text which Possinus gave to the 
 world in 1G73. Peltanus translates very looselj-; in fact 
 he paraphrases rather than translates his author, and con- 
 fesses that he has taken great liberties with Yictor's text. 
 But I believe it will be found that there can have been no 
 considerable discrepancy between the MS. which Peltanus 
 employed, and that which Possinus afterwards published.— 
 Not so the text which Matthaei edited, which is in fact for 
 the most part, (though not invariably,) rather an Epitome 
 of Yictor's Commentary. On the other hand, Cramer's 
 text is more full than that of Possinus. There seem to be 
 only a few lines in Possinus, here and there, which are not 
 to be met with in Cramer ; whereas no less than twenty- 
 eight of Cramer's pages are not found in the work of Pos- 
 einos. Cramer's edition, therefore, is by far the most complete 
 which has hitherto appeared. And though it cries aloud 
 for revision throughout; though many important correc- 
 tions might easily be introduced into it, and the whole 
 brought back in countless particulars more nearly to the 
 8tate°in which it is plain that Victor originally left it;— 
 I question wkether more than a few pages of additional 
 matter could easily be anywhere recovered. I collated several 
 pages of Cramer (Oct. 1869) with every MS. of Victor in 
 the Paris Library; and all but invariably found that Cra- 
 mer's text was fuller than that of the MS. which lay before 
 rae Seldom indeed did I meet with a few lines in any 
 MS. which had not abeady seen the light in Cramer's edi- 
 tion. One or other of the four Codices which he employed 
 seems to fill up almost every hiatus which is met with m 
 any of the MSS. of this Father. 
 
 For it must be stated, once for aU, that an immense, ana 
 I must add, a most unaccountable discrepancy is observable 
 between the several extant copies of Victor: yet not w 
 much in respect of various readings, or serious modifacation 
 of his text; (though the transpositions are very f^eque . 
 and often very mischievous'' ;) as resulting from the boun - 
 
 . To understand ,^bat iB alluded to, the reader should ^^^^' l'\lJ'^J^, 
 and the lo,ver half of p. 442 in Cramer : noting that he has one and tb 
 "lution before him; but diversely exhibited. (The lower part of the V-^ 
 
 less license which every fresh copyist seems to have allowed 
 himself chiefly in abridging his author. — To skip a few lines : 
 to omit an explanatory paragraph, quotation, or digression : 
 to pass per taltiim from the beginning to the end of a pas- 
 sage : sometimes to leave out a whole page : to transpose : 
 to paraphrase: to begin or to end with quite a different 
 form of words ; — proves to have been the rule. Two copyists 
 engaged on the same portion of Commentary are observed 
 to abridge it in two quite different ways. I question whe- 
 ther there exist in Europe three manuscripts of Victor 
 which correspond entirelj' throughout. The result is per- 
 plexing in a high degree. Not unfrequently (as might be 
 expected) we are presented with two or even three different 
 exhibitions of one and the same annotation ''. Meanwhile, 
 as if to render the work of collation (in a manner) impos- 
 sible, — (1) Peltanus pleads guilty to having transposed 
 and otherwise taken liberties with the text he translated : 
 
 (2) Possinus confessedl}' welded three codices into one: 
 
 (3) Matthaei pieced and patched his edition out of four 
 MSS. ; and (4) Cramer, out of five. 
 
 The only excuse I can invent for this strange licentious- 
 ness on the part of Victor's ancient transcribers is this : — 
 They must have known perfectly well, (in fact it is ob- 
 vious,) that the work before them was really little else but 
 a compilation; and that Victor had alread}' abridged in the 
 same merciless way the writings of the Fathers (Chryso- 
 i stem chiefly) from whom he obtained his materials. We 
 are to remember also, I suppose, the labour which tran- 
 scription involved, and the costliness of the skins out of 
 which ancient books were manufactured. But when all 
 has been said, I must candidly admit that the extent of 
 license which the ancients evidently allowed themselves 
 quite perplexes me '. JFIig, for example, remodel the struc- 
 
 >s taken fiviu Cod. 178.) Besides transposing the sentences, tbe author of 
 Cod. 178 has suppressed the reference to Chrysostom, and omitud the name 
 of Apolinarins in fine 10. (Compare Field's ed. of Chn/s. UL 529, top of 
 the p.ige.) 
 
 ,*■ Thus till' two notes on p. 440 are found substantially to a^ree with the 
 note on p. 411, whkh = Chrys. p. 627. See also infra, p. 289. 
 ' Let any one, with Mai's edition of the " Qnaestioues ad MariLum" of £u- 
 
 T 
 
274 
 
 Some account of Victor's compilation 
 
 [aFI'. 
 
 275 
 
 ture of a sentence and needlessly vary its phraseology? 
 Never I think in my life have I been more hopelessly con- 
 fused than in the Bibliotheque, while attempting to collate 
 certain copies of Yictor of Antioch. 
 
 I dismiss this feature of the case by saying that if any 
 person desires a sample of the process I have been describ- 
 ing, he cannot do better than bestoiv a little attention on 
 the "Preface" {yiroOetjis) at the beginning of Victor's Com- 
 mentary. It consists of thirty -eight lines in Cramer's 
 edition : of which Possiuus omits eleven ; and Matthaei 
 also, eleven ; — but not the same eleven. On the other hand, 
 MatthaeiJ prolongs the Preface by eight lines. Strange to 
 relate, the MS. from which Cramer professes to publish, goes 
 on differently. If I may depend on my hasty pencilling, 
 after iKKKr^cxiais \^Cramer, i. p. 264, line 16,] Evan. 300, 
 [=Reg. 186, /o/. 93, line 16 from bottom] proceeds, — KX»/- 
 /tijy tv e/cTo) Twi/ VTroTVjrcoaewv, (thirty-one lines, ending) 
 j^apaKT^p iy^veTO. 
 
 On referring to the work of Possinus, " AnonjTnus Tati- 
 canus" is found to exhibit so admirable a condensation (?) 
 of the inroOeav^ in question, that it is difficult to divest one- 
 self of the suspicion that it must needs be an original and 
 independent composition ; the germ out of which the longer 
 Preface has grown .... We inspect the first few pages of 
 the Commentary, and nothing but perplexity awaits us at 
 every step. It is not till we have turned over a few pages 
 that we begin to find something like exact correspondence. 
 
 As for the Work, — (for I must now divest myself of the 
 perplexing recollections which the hurried collation of so 
 many MSS. left behind ; and plainly state that, in spite of 
 all, I yet distinctly ascertained, and am fully persuaded 
 that the original work was one, — the production, no doubt, 
 of "Victor, Presbyter of .Ajitioch," as 19 out of the 52 
 MSS. declare) : — For the Commentary itself, I say, Victor 
 explains at the outset what his method had been. Having 
 
 gebins before him, note how mercilessly they are abridged, mutilated, «mpa' 
 tated by enhsequent writers. Compare for iustouce p. 257 with Cramers 
 "Catenae," L p. 251-2; and this again with the "Catena in Joannem" of Cor- 
 derius, p. 448-9. ' With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree- 
 
 „.] from Origen, Eiinliii.^, ami C/injsoifom. 
 
 failed to discover any separate exposition of S. Mark's Gos- 
 ncl he had determined to construct one, by collecting the 
 occasional notices scattered up and down the writings of 
 Fathers of the Church''. Accordingly, he presents us in 
 the first few lines of his Commentary (p. 266) with a brief 
 quotation from the work of Eusebius "to Marmus, on he 
 seeming inconsistency of the Evangelical accounts of e 
 Resurrection;" following it up with a passage from the 
 vi'" [vii'" ?] tome of Origen's Excget.cs on S. John s Gospel.^ 
 We are thus presented at the outset with t,ro of Victors 
 favorite authorities. The work of Eusebius just named he 
 was evidently thoroughly familiar with'. I suspect that he 
 has many an unsuspected quotation from its pages. 'Toward 
 the end of his Commentary, (as already elsewhere explained,) 
 he quotes it once and again. 
 
 Of Ori^cn also Victor was evidently very fondj: and his 
 .ordson^.0 or three occasions seem to f ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^'f 
 recourse besides habitually to the exegetical labour, of Apo- 
 linarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Titus of Bostra". Pas- 
 sages from Cyril of Alexandria are occasionally met «ith , 
 Id once at 'least (p. 370) he has an extract from Basil. 
 The historian Josephus he sometimes refers to by name . 
 
 But the Father to whom Victor is chiefly mdebU^d is 
 Chrvsostom,-whom he styles " the blessed John, Bishop of 
 Sie'Boylcity;" (meaning Constantinople^), ^ot that 
 
 k „ OC3 line 3 to 13, mid in Posanus, p. 4. . ,- n- „ 9-» ^N 
 
 . L£us is again quoted at p. 4«. and referred to at p. Uo G-ne 23-5). 
 
 See espocU.ll.v p. 440. ^ 1 ) is a fumous place. (Cf. Huefs 
 
 ".Tsn^cIp-'ar^So's'^t L^^^ i. V with t.e sa.c edit of 
 n"-"' Izsn-^hich Victor is found to have abridged. Compare the 
 Uroi: on".. 3« with Orig. i. .S4 ..Jo., that ..X« ..' ,,.. (foot of 
 p. 427) is alBO Origcn. Of. PoEsinus, p. 324. 
 
 . e.g.tho hrst -<-- Pm) Comoro also Cramer, ,,.395 (l-e 16-22) 
 "'! r f ' ^"ZToZTiL part^f a note on p.315 is ascribed by Pes- 
 I^srioV- Athaius: whUe^ «Uolium at p. 321 and p. 359. has no 
 
 owner. 
 
 p c.g. p. 408, 411 (twice). , . , ,, .^, For inBtanccs of 
 
 , l„p 418,-JT;i. /3a^.^tto. 1^<!^«„ inh.oros I»ivn,s. 
 
 T 2 
 
276 
 
 Soitic accouut of Victor of Aniioch's 
 
 [api-. 
 
 Victor, strictly speaking, Iramcrihcs from Chrysostom ; at 
 least, to any extent. His general practice is sligbtly to 
 adapt liis Author's language to his own purpose; sometimct 
 to leave out a few words; a paragraph; half a page'. Then 
 he proceeds to quote another Father probably ; or, it may 
 be, to offer something of his own. But he seldom gives any 
 intimation of what it is he does : and if it were not for the 
 occasional introduction of the phrase o jiiv ^T)(n or aWo? It 
 <f)T}ai ', a reader of A'^ictor's Commentary might almost mis- 
 take it for an original composition. So little pains does thit 
 Author take to let his reader know when he is speaking in 
 his own person, when not, that he has not scrupled to retain 
 Clnysostom's phrases iyw Be olfiai^, &c. The result is that 
 it is often impossible to know to ichose sentiments we are 
 listening. It cannot be too clearly borne in mind that 
 aucient ideas concerning authorship differed entirely from 
 tliose of modern times ; especially when Holy Scripture was 
 to be commented on. 
 
 I suspect that, occasionally, copyists of Victor's work, 
 as they recognised a fragment here and there, prefixed to it 
 
 quotation from Chrysostom, comp. V. A. p. 315 witli Chrys. pp. 39S-9 : p. 376 
 with Cbrjs. pp. 227-8 : p. 420 with Chrys. p. 447, &c. 
 
 'Tale for example A'ictor'g Commcutary on the stitUog of the storm 
 (pp. 312-3), which is merely an abridged version of the first part of Chiyto- 
 Btoni's 28"" Homily on S. Matthew (pp. 395-8) ; about 45 lines being left ooL 
 Observe Victor's method however. Chrysostom begins as follows : — 'O >"' 
 olv AouKai, iL-naWdrTuv iavrhv tov kiratrri^vai ruv "xpivvv tV TO^ir, oSrirt 
 fTirei-. (Then follows S. Luke viii. 22.) koI i Mipicos dfiolm. Ovtos ti •*X 
 ovTuf aWi Koi iKo\ov0lav ivraOBa SiaTTjpcT. Victor, because he had S. M»f» 
 (not S. Matthew) to comment upon, begins thus : — 'O lilv KipKos iira\ximf' 
 iaurhv TOiJ dvamiBriyai ruv ;^($ra)C riiv Tdfif, otrrws cfrcf, 6ftoius if Koi A AovK*f 
 6 8c MarfiaTos oirx ovtus' aAAa ko.) dKoXovBlav ivravBa SiartipfT. 
 
 ' e.g. V. A. p. 422 (from i iniv ^aiv to «\\oj 8^ ^ijcrii') = Chrys. p. •JW. 
 Obser^•e the next paragraph also, (p. 423,) begins, iAAor ^ijo-ii-. — So again, V. 
 A. pp. 426-7 = Chrys. pp. 473-6 : where AWos li <tn\<ii, at the foot of p. 427 
 introduces a quotation from Origen, as appears from Possinus, p. 324^ — **^ 
 also p. 269, line 1, — which is from Chrys. p. 130, — ^ ij i SxAoj being the D*»t 
 words. — The first three lines in p. 316 = Chrys. p. 399. Then follows, <^»» •^ 
 ^aw. See also pp. 392 : 407 {<t>aal rii/tt — Utpai Si ^ticiv) : pp. 416 and 4SS. 
 After qaoting Eusebius by name (p. 446-7), Victor says (line 8) <AAef W 
 
 • e.g. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which = Chrys. p. 417. 
 
 ,..] 
 
 Coinmciittn-i/ o» S. Marh'ts Gosj/il. 
 
 27- 
 
 the name of its author. This would account for the ex- 
 tremely partial and irregular occurrence of such notes of 
 nuthorsliip ; as well as explain why a name duly prefixed 
 in one copy is often missing in another ". Whether Victor's 
 Commentar)- can in strictness be called a " Catena," or not, 
 must remain uncertain until some one is found willing to 
 undertake the labour of re-editing his pages ; from which, 
 bj' the way, I cannot but think that some highly interesting 
 (if not some important) results would follow. 
 
 Yet, inasmuch as Victor never, or ccrtainlj- very seldom, 
 prefixes to a passage from a Father flic iKtrnc of Ux Author ; 
 — above all, seeing that sometimes, at all events, he is ori- 
 ginal, or at least speaks in his own person ; — I think the 
 title of " Catena " inappropriate to his Commentar)-. 
 
 As favourable and as interesting a specimen of this work 
 as could be found, is supplied by his annotation on S. Mark 
 xiv. 3. He begins as follows, (quoting Chrysostom, p. 436) : 
 — " One and the same woman seems to be spoken of by all 
 the Evangelists. Yet is this not the case. By three of 
 them one and the same seems to be spoken of; not however 
 bj' S. John, but another famous person, — the sister of La- 
 zarus. This is what is said by John, the Bishop of the 
 Ro3'al City. — Origen on the other hand says that she who, 
 in S. Matthew and S. Mark, poured the ointment in the 
 house of Simon the leper was a different person from the 
 sinner whom S. Luke writes about who poured the ointment 
 on His feet in the house of the Pharisee. — Apolinarius * and 
 Theodorus say that all the Evangelists mention one and tho 
 same person ; but that John rehearses the story more ac- 
 curatelj' than the others. It is plain, however, that Mat- 
 thew, Mark, and John speak of the same indi^ndual; for 
 thej' relate that Bethany was the scene of the transaction ; 
 and this is a riUage ; whereas Luke [viii. 37] speaks of some 
 one else ; for, ' Behold,' (saith he) ' a woman in the ciii/ 
 which was a sinner,' " &c., &c. 
 
 ' e.g.Tlieod. Mops., (p. 414,) which name is absent from Cod. Beg. 201 : — 
 H:»sil, (p. 370) whoso name Possinus docs not seem to have read : — Cyril's nnme, 
 which Possinus found in a certain place (p. 311), is not mentioned in Lauii. 
 Gr. 33 /o/. 100 b, at tcp, 4c. 
 
 • So in the Catena of Cordcrius, in S. Joannem, p. 302. 
 
^^^ -Approxhiiati- duh of Tictoi: r 
 
 But Ihe most important instance by far of indcpcndciu 
 and sound judgment is supplied by that concluding nam 
 graph, already quoted and largely remarked upon, at p,.' 
 04-O ; in which, after rehearsing all that had been ^id 
 against the concluding verses of S. ]\Iark'8 Gospel Victor 
 vindicates their genuineness by appealing in his own pcr^„ 
 to the best and the most authentic copies. The Reader i, 
 referred to Victor's Text, which is given below, at p 288 
 
 It only remains to point out, that since Chrysostom, (whora 
 A ictor speaks of as 6 eV iyU,, [p. 4OS,] and 6 ^a.ap^o,, 
 Lp. 442,J) died in a.d. 407, it caiinof be right to quote " 401" 
 as the date of Victor's work. Rather would a d 450 bo 
 a more reasonable suggestion : seeing that extracts from 
 Cyril, who lived on till a.d. 444, are found here and thcro 
 in Victor's pages. TVe shall not perhaps materially err 
 • f we assign a.d. 430-450 as Victor of Antioch's approxi- 
 mate date. 
 
 I conclude these notices of an unjustly neglected Father, 
 by specifying the MSS. which contain his Work. Dry 
 enough to ordinary readers, these pages will not prove un- 
 interesting to the critical student. An enumeration of all 
 the extant Codices with which I am acquainted which con- 
 tain Victor of Akttoch's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel, 
 follows : — 
 
 (i.) Etan. 12 (=Reg. 230) a most leant if, <1 MS. 
 
 The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned to Victob by 
 name; being a recension very like that which Matthaei has pub- 
 lished. S. Mark's text is given in extam. 
 
 (ii.) EvAjf. 19 (=Eeg. 189: anciently numbered 437 and 
 1880. Also 134 and 135. At back, 1603.) A grand folio, vtU- 
 hound and splendidly written. Pictures of the Eiangelists in wf* 
 marvellous condition that ihe rery tools employed by a scribe might ht 
 reproduced. The ground gilded. Headings, ^c. and words fio» 
 Scripture all in gold. 
 
 Here also the Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel is assigned to 
 VicroH. The differences between this text and that of Cramer 
 (e.g. at fol. 320-3, 370,) are hopelessly numerous and complical«l. 
 There seem to have been extraordinaiy liberties taken wilh the 
 text of this copy throughout. 
 
 P.] 
 
 Cod. Jirr/. 186 n.,r/ Cod. Ilcg. 188. 
 
 279 
 
 (iii.) Evan. 20 (=Reg. 188: anciently numbered 1883.) A njdcn- 
 d yi foJio, — the urorli ofscifral handi and leaulifully uritttn. 
 
 A'ictoi's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel is generally consi- 
 tlrrcd to be claimed for CrniL of Alexakdbh by the following 
 voiJ? : 
 
 rnOOECIC EIC to KATA MAPKON AFION ETArrEAION 
 EK THC EIC ATTON EPMHNEIAC TOT EN AFIOIC 
 KTPIAAOT AAEEANAPEIAC. 
 
 Tlic correspondence between Evau. 20 and Evnn. 300 [infih, 
 X". xiv], ( = Ecg. 188 and 18C), is cxtraonlinaiy y. In S. M.irk's 
 (iospol, (which alone I examined.) every page Icgiiis uith the tame 
 KjUahk, both of Text and CoMmeuiary: (i.e. Kcp. 18C, fol. 01 to 197 
 = Ecg.188, fol. 87 to 140). Not that the number of words and let- 
 ters in every line corresponds : but the discrepancy is compensated 
 for by a blank at the end of each column, and at the foot of each 
 pngc. Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 seem, therefore, in some mysterious 
 way referable to a common original. The sacred Text of these two 
 IISS., originally very dissimilar, has been made identical through- 
 out ; some very ancient (the original ?) possessor of Reg. 188 having 
 carefully assimilated the readings of his MS. to those of Ecg. 186, 
 the more roughly written copy ; which therefore, in the judgment 
 of the possessor of Reg. 188, exhibits the purer text. But how 
 then docs it happen that in both Codices alike, each of the Gospels 
 (except S. Matthew's Gospel in Ecg. 188,) ends with the attestation 
 that it has been collated with approved copies ? Are we to suppose 
 that the colophon in question was added after the one text had been 
 assimilated to the other ? This is a subject which well deserves 
 attention. The reader is reminded that these two Codices have 
 already come before us at pp. 118-9, — where see the notes. 
 
 I proceed to set down some of the discrepancies between the 
 texts of these two MSS. : in every one of which, Reg. 188 has been 
 made conformable to Reg. 186 : — 
 
 (CoD. Reg. 186.) 
 
 (1) Matth. xxvi.70. avruv'Kiywv 
 
 (2) Mk. i. 2. 0.J 
 
 (3) „ 11. ^ 
 
 (4) ,, 16. jSdXXoiTar a/1^1- 
 
 /SXijo-Tpov 
 
 (Cod. Reg. 188.) 
 avrS)V navTuv \iyav 
 «ddci)c 
 aot 
 d/i(^tj3dXXoiTac dfi<^i/3Xi;(rrpoK 
 
 ' I believe it will be found that Cod. Beg. 186 corresponds exactly with Cod. 
 Itcg. 168: nlso that the contents of Cod. Reg. 201 correspond with those of 
 Cod. Rog. 20c ; to which last two, I believe is to bo added Cod. Ecg. 187. 
 
280 
 
 MSS. conlainiixj Victor's Commcnianj [app. 
 
 (Cod. Reg. 180.) 
 (6)Mk.ii.21. TTCikaia' il hi It}) yt 
 aipf'i an avTov to 
 7f\rjpufin 
 
 (6) „iii.lO. f'0tj)untV€v 
 
 (7) 11 17. ToC 'laKu,8nv 
 
 (8) ,, 18. Koi Mar Saiov Ka\B. 
 
 (9) ,, \i. 9. ftrj ivhvaj)a6( 
 (10) „ 10. ixivtrt 
 
 (Cod. Reg. 188.) 
 
 isakaiu' (I hi firi, aipn To vXr^^fux 
 
 iBepaTTfvtrei/ 
 
 Kai M. Toi/ TfXditirjp Kfli 6. 
 
 (fhihvffOat 
 
 lifivoTf 
 
 In the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th of these in?tauces, Tischendorf is found 
 (1869) to adopt the readings of Reg. 188 : in the last four, those of 
 Reg. 186. In the 1st, 4th, and 5th, he follows neither. 
 
 (iv.) EvAX. 24 ( = Reg. 178.) A most henutifully written fol. 
 
 Kote, that this Codex has heen mutilated at p. 70-1 ; from 
 S. Matth. xxvii. 20 to S. Mark iv. 22 heing away. It cannot there- 
 fore be ascertained whether the Commentary on S. Mark was hero 
 attributed to Yictor or not. Cramer employed it largely in his 
 edition of Victor (Catenae, vol. i. p. xxix.), as I have explained 
 already at p. 271. Some notices of the present Codex are given 
 above at p. 228-9. 
 
 (v.) Evan. 25 ( = Ecg. 191 : anciently numbered Colb. 2259: 
 
 1880. Folio : grandly written. 
 3 ) 
 
 Ko Author's name to the Commentary on S. Mark. The text of 
 the Evangelist is given in extenso. 
 
 (vi.) Evan. 34 ( = Coisl. 195.) A grand folio, eplendidly writ- 
 ten, and in splendid condition : the paintings as they came from the 
 hand of the artist. 
 
 At fol. 172, the Commentary on S.Mark is claimed for Yiciob. 
 It will be found that Coisl. 23 {infra, K°. ix.) and Coisl. 195 are 
 derived from a common original ; but Cod. 1 95 is the more per- 
 fect copy, and should have been employed by Cramer in prefw- 
 cnce to lie other (supra, p. 271.) There has been an older and 
 a more recent hand employed on the Commentary. 
 
 (vii.) EvAK. 36 ( = Coisl. 20.) A truly sumptuous Codex. 
 
 Some notices of this Codex have been given already, at p- 229. 
 The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor's, but is without any 
 Author's name. 
 
 u.] 
 
 /// t/(t Bibliolheque at Paris. 
 
 281 
 
 (viii.) Evas. ST ( = Coisl. 21.) Fol. 
 
 The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for Vicion at fol. 117. 
 It seems (o be very much the same recension which is exhibited by 
 Coisl. 19 (itifra, N". sviii.) and Coisl. 24 (/»/>«, K". xi.) The Text 
 is given in ixttmo: the Commentary, in the majgin. 
 
 (ix.) Evan. 39 ( = Coisl. 23.) A grand large fol The writing 
 sinqularhj allrniated. 
 
 The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for Victok : but is very 
 dissimilar in its text from that which forms the basis of Cramer's 
 editions. (Sec above, on K<>. vi.) It is Cramer's "T." (See his 
 Catenae, vol. i. p. xxviii ; and ride supra, p. 271 .) 
 
 (x.) EvAX. 40( = Coisl.22.) 
 
 No Author's name is prefixed to the Commentary (fol. 103); 
 which is a recension resembUng Matlhaei's. The Text is in extenso : 
 the Commentary, in the margin. 
 
 (xi.) Ev.ix. 41 (= Coisl. 24.) Fol. 
 
 This is a Commentary, not a Text. It is expressly claimed for 
 VicToB. The recension seems to approximate to tliat published by 
 Matthaci. (See on Iv". viii.) One leaf is missing. (See fol. 136 b.) 
 
 (xii.) EvAX. 50 ( = Bodl. Laud. Grace. 33.) 4to. The Com- 
 mentary here seems to be claimed for CvriL of ALEXAxnEU, but 
 in the same unsatisfactory way as K°. iii and xiv. (See Coxe's 
 Cat. i. 516.) 
 
 (xiii.) Ev-O". 299 ( = Reg- 177 : anciently numbered 2242'). 
 
 The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor's, but is without any 
 Author's name. The Text of S. Mark is given in extenso : Victor's 
 Commentary, in the margin. 
 
 (xiv.) EvAX. 300( = Reg. 186: anciently numbered 692, 750, 
 and 1882.) A nolle Codex : hit the work of different scribes. It is 
 most leauiifuUy written. 
 
 At fol. 94, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for Ctbh of 
 Alexakdeia' in the same equivocal manner as above in K». iii 
 and xii. The writer states in the colophon that he had di- 
 versely found it ascribed to Cyril and to Victor. (c7rX.,p<ift) alv 
 
 efi h ippr^vila ToC «ara HipKov iy.'ou .iayycXiou ini <J>B>^t, « "a.M 
 ,lpo, KupfXXov 'K\,iavipiu,t, iv 5XXo.t 6* B.Vropot irpta^vripov.) 
 
282 
 
 MS. copies of Victor's Comwoifari/ 
 
 [API-. 
 
 ...] 
 
 tit Pom, Silvio, Vioiiiri, lioMC. 
 
 283 
 
 Sec nbovc, the note on Evan. 20 (N". iii), — a MS. ubiih, a« 
 already explained, has been elaborately assimilated to the prtK-nt 
 
 (xT.) Etax. 301 (=I{cg. 187: nncienlly numbered 501, 637 
 and 1879.) A spJoidid fol. leautifully written throujlout . 
 The Commentary on S. Mark is here claimed for Vicion. 
 
 (xvi.) Evan. 309 ( =r Reg. 201 : anciently numbered 176 and 
 2423.) A very interesting little fol. : very peculiar in itt ttgU. 
 Draicings old and curious. Beautifully icrittcn. 
 
 The Commentary is here claimed for Yictok. This is not pro- 
 perly a text of the Gospel ; but parts of the text interwoven with 
 the Commentary. Take a specimen' : (S. Mark xvi. 8 — 20.) 
 
 Kai ££€\eouoa( eepufov ano tou jLivH^tiou. ti\ev he. outuc 
 rpojjoc KOI eKOTacic. ecoc bia tcov fnaKoAouSouvrtov om- 
 
 Over the text is ■written k6i ((cti/ifVov i.e. Text) and over the 
 Commentary cp (c'p^jijwio, i.e. Interpretation.) See the next. 
 
 (xvii.) Evan. 312 ( =Reg. 206 : anciently numbered 968, I05B, 
 2283; and behind, 1604. Also A. 67.) A leautiful little fol 
 
 Contains only the Commentary, "which is expressly assigned to 
 ViCTOB. This Copy of Victor's Commentar)- is very nearly indeed 
 a duplicate of Cod. 309, (N". xvi.) both in its contents and in its 
 method ; but it is less beautifully written. 
 
 (xviii.) Evan. 329 (= Coisl. 19.) A very grand fol. 
 The Commentary on S. Mark is Tictor's, but is without inj 
 Author's name. (See above, on X". viii.) 
 
 (xix.) Eeg. 703, (anciently numbered 958: 1048, and Beg. 
 2330 : also No. 18.) A grand large 4'°. 
 
 The Commentary is here claimed for Oeigek. Such at least ifl 
 probably the intention of the heading (in gold capital letters) of 
 the Prologue : — 
 
 npiFENOTC npoAoroc eic thn epmhneian tot 
 
 RATA MAPKON ETArFEAIOT. 
 
 See on this subject the note at foot of p. 235. 
 
 ■ Note, that this recurs nt fol. 145 of a Codex at Moscow nambcred 381 i* 
 iheSi/r.Cal. 
 
 
 (ss) EvA-x. 304 ( = Ileg. 194. TcUer 1892.) 
 
 The text of S. Mirk is hero interwoven with a Commentary 
 ^hicb I do not recognise. But from the correspondence of a note 
 nt the end with what is found in Possinus, pp. 361—3, I am led to 
 l„=pcct that the contents of this MS. will be found to correspond 
 with what Possinus published and designated as " Tolosanus." 
 
 (xsi.) EvA>-. 77 (Vind. Ness. 114, Lambcc. 29.) Victor's Com- 
 mentary is here nnonyraous. 
 
 (xxii ) Evan. 92 (which belonged to raesch of Pasle [sec Vit- 
 .tein's ProUg.-]. and which Hacn.l [p. 058 J] s:.ys is now ,n liable 
 Library) Wctstci.i's account of this Codix shews that the Com- 
 mcntnir on S. Mark is Iric distinctly ascribed to Victor. He says, 
 _" Continet Marcum et in eum Victoria Antioehcni Coumentarw^, 
 foliis 5 luutUos. Item Scholia in Epistolas Catholicas," &c. And 
 60 Hacncl. 
 
 fxxiii ) Evan. 94 (As before, precisely ; except that Haend's 
 rinaccJtc] notice is at p. 657 i.) This Codex contains Vicioe of 
 Antiorh's Commentary on S. Mark, (which is evidently here also as- 
 ^^ned to him ly na,ne ;) and Titus of Bostra on S- Luke Al.o 
 several SchoUa : among the rest, I suspect, (from what Hacncl 
 says), the Scholia spoken of mprh, p. 47, note (x). 
 
 fxxiv ) In addition to the preceding, and before mentioning 
 them, Hacnel says there also exists in the Library nt Bask,- 
 "' VicroKis Antioehcni Scholia in Evang. Marci : chart •. 
 
 (sxv ) EvA>-. 108 (Vind. Forlos. 5. Koll. 4.) Birch (p. 225) 
 refers to it for the Scholion given in the next article. (Append. E.) 
 
 (xxvi ) Evas. 129 (Vat. 358.) BIKOPOC. ifr ANTio fP €ic KATA 
 MAPKON The Commentary is written along the top and bott-^-m 
 md down the side of each page ; and there are references {a,p,y) 
 inserted in the text to the paragraphs in the margin,-as m some 
 of the MSS. at Paris. Prefixed is an exegetical apparatus by 
 
 ^ xtr'that of these five MSS. in the Vatican, (358, 756, 757, 
 1929 1445) the 3rd and 4th are without the prefatory section 
 (begilming .oUi. ,U to ..r'a M.)-A11 5 begin Mdp.o. 6 .ioyycXu,- 
 ;^, In all but the 4th, the second paragraph begins cra-^.or.po.. 
 
 . Maloiiu^ Librorum MSS. Mps. 1830, 4to, p CDG b. 
 
284 
 
 MS. copka of Vktoi's CoDiDinifari/ at Home, [a 
 
 rr. 
 
 The third passnge begins in all 5, 'laoSwaiiu roCro. Any one Nik- 
 ing to understand this by a reft rcncc to the editions of Cramer or of 
 Possinus -n-ill recognise the truth of what was stated above, p, 274 
 line 24 to 27. 
 
 (xxrii.) Evan. 137 (Vat. 756.) The Commentary is writlfn ai 
 in Vat. 858 (X". xxW) : but no Author's name is given. 
 
 (xxviii.) Etas. 138 (Vat. 757.) On a blank page or fly-leaf at 
 the beginning are these words : — 6 dvTiypa(poc (sic) oiVot iari, i 
 
 IlfTpot 6 T^t Aao!<Hiar oerrit Trpoijyfirai ran SWav i^i]yTiruv in-aiSa. 
 
 (Comp. N">. xlvii.) The Commentary and Text arc not kept di»- 
 tinet, as in the preceding Codex. Both are written in an ill-looking, 
 sloTcnly hand. • 
 
 (xxix.) Etak. 143 (Vat. 1,229.) The Commentary is WTitton a« 
 in Vat. 358 (N°. xxvi), but without the references ; and no Author's 
 name is given. 
 
 (zxx.) EvAK. 181 (Xavier, Cod. Zelada.) Birch was shewn thi» 
 Codex of the Four Gospels in the Library of Cardinal Xavier of 
 Zelada {Prolegomena, p. Iviii) : " Cujus forma est in folio, pp. 596. 
 In margine passim occurront scholia ex Fatrum Commentoriis 
 cxBcripta." 
 
 (zxxi.) EvAK. 186 (Laur. ri. 18.) This Codex is minutely de- 
 scribed by Bandini {Cat. i. 130), who gives the SchoUon {infra, 
 p. 388-9), and says that the Commentary is without any Author's 
 name. 
 
 (xxxii.) EvAK. 194 (Laur. ri. 33.) BiVropot Trpetrfivripov 'Aivto- 
 }(flat ipjirjvda (is ro Kara MapKov fiayytXiov. (SeC the description of 
 
 this Codex in Bandini's Cat. i. 158.) 
 
 (xxxiii.) Evan. 195 (Laur. ri. 34.) This Codex seems to cor- 
 respond in its contents with K°. xxxi. supra : the Commentary 
 containing the Scholion, and being anonymous. (See Bandini, 
 p. 161.) 
 
 (xxxiT.) EvAK. 197 (Laur.Tiii. 14.) The Commentary, (which is 
 Victor's, but has no Aathor's name prefixed,) is defective at the 
 end. (See Bandini, p. 355.) 
 
 (xxxv.) Etaw. 210 (Venet. 27.) " Conveniunt initio Commcn- 
 
 P.] 
 
 Flomice, Venice, Vienna, Moscotr. 
 
 2Sj 
 
 tarii cum iis qui Victori Antiocheno tribuuntur, progressu autcm 
 diicrqKmt." (Theupoli Graeca D. Marci liihl. Codd. MSS. A'euct. 
 1740.) 1 infer that the work is anonymous. 
 
 sxsvi.) Venet. 495. "Victobis Axtiocheni Preshyteri expo- 
 fitio iu Evangclium Marci, coUecta ex diversis Patribus." (I obiain 
 tlii reference from the Catalogue of Theupolus.) 
 
 (xxxvii.) Evas. 215 (Venet. 544.) I presume, from tlie dcfcrip- 
 tion iu the Catalogue of Theupolus, that this Codex also contains 
 a copy of Victor's Commentary. 
 
 (xxsviii.) Evas. 221 (Vind. Ne?s. 117, Lambcc.38). KoUar has 
 a lou" note (i.) [iii. 157] on the Commentary, which has no 
 Authors name prefixed. Birch (p. 225) refers to it for the purpose 
 recorded uuder K°. xxv. 
 
 (xxxix.) Evas. 222 (Vind. Ness. 180, Lambec. 39.) The Commen- 
 tary i? anonymous. Birch refers to it, as before. 
 
 Add the following six MSS. at Moscow, concerning which, see 
 Matthaoi's Kov. Test. (1788) vol. ii. p. xii. :— 
 
 (xl ) Evan 237 (This is Matthaei's d or n [described in his 
 A' T. ix. 242. Also Vict. Aid. ii. 137.] "SS. Synod. 42 :") and 
 is one of the MSS. employed by Matthaei in his cd. of Victor.— 
 The Commentary on S.Mark has no Author's name prefixed. 
 
 fxli ") Evan 238 (Matthaei's e or e [described in his N. T. ix. 
 200 Also r.V/.^«<.ii. 141.] " SS. Synod. 48.") This Codex 
 formed the basis of Matthaei's ed. of Victor, [See the Not. Codd. 
 MSS. at the end of vol. ii. p. 123. Also N. T. ix. 202.] The 
 Commentary on S. Mark is anonymous. 
 
 (xlu ) Evax. 253 (Matthaei's 10 [described in his iV. T. ix. 
 234.] It ^^as lent him by Archbishop Nicephorus.) Matthaei 
 savs (p. 230) that it corresponds with a {our Evan. 259). No 
 Author's name is prefixed to the Commentary on S. Mark. 
 
 (xliii ) EvA-v 255 (Matthaei's 12 [described in his N.T. ix. 222. 
 AUo rid. Ant. ii. 133.] "SS. Synod. 139." The Scholia on 
 S Mark are here entided i|,y,r..coi c'^Xoya.', and (as in 14) are few 
 in number. For some unexplained reason, in his edition of Victor 
 of Antioeh, Matthaei saw fit to designate this MS. as " a." IN. T. 
 ix 2-''4 «(''"•] See by aU means, infri, the "Postscnpt. 
 
286 
 
 Coj^ie-i of Vidor's Commc»far!,,—,chkt, ,ras 
 
 237. Also Hc^ ^«i!. li. 128.1 " SS. Srnod 45 '-> Tl ; • : 
 
 the MSS. employed by Matthi io bis ^^ Y.^to • ^^ ZZ^ 
 mme IS prefixed to the Commentary. JNo Author. 
 
 is ^W^ !"'■ ''' ^^""?- "^ * '^^ 2°-) ^'-t-'^ Comment^ 
 
 t.^Tv ^T. '" ^^^'''- "• '')= ^"' the same Commcn- 
 tary as Evan. 181, (i.e. K». xxx.) 
 
 (xMii.) Ev^v.374(Vat.HJ5.) Written continuously in a rery 
 nnnue character. The Commentary is headed (in a liter gLcT 
 
 ^TxxrSj "" '''"""^ Evangelist is that of Victor. (Sec 
 
 (xlix ) Ej^-. 428 (Monacensis 381. Augsburg 11): said to be 
 duplicate of Evan. 300 (i.e. of JC". xiv.) 
 
 • 1- «^*''' ^^^ (Monaceusis 99.) The Commentary contained 
 in this Codex is evidently assigned to Victok. 
 
 (li.) EvAK. 7« (ix. 3. 471.) A valuable copy of the Four Gm- 
 pele dated 1062 ; ^hich Edw. de Muralto (in his Catalogue of the 
 (ireck MSS. m the Imperial Library at S. Petersburg) says contains 
 the Commentary of Victoe Ajy-r. (See Scrivener's Introduction, 
 p. 178.) 
 
 (lii.) At Toledo, in the "Biblioteca de la Iglesia Mayor," Hoencl 
 [p. 885] mentions :-"Ticiok Antioche.vus Comm. Graec. in iv. [?] 
 Evangelia saec. xiv. membr. fol." 
 
 To this enumeration, (which could certainly be very extensively 
 increased,) wiU probably have to be added the following :— 
 
 Evan. 146 (Palatine- Vat. 5.) 
 
 Evan. 233 (Escurial Y. ii. 8.) 
 
 u] 
 
 a standard iiork uith the early Church. 
 
 287 
 
 Evas. 373 (Vat. 1423.) 
 Evan. 379 (Vat. 1769.) 
 EvA>-. 427 (Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10.) 
 
 lliddlo Hill, K°. 13,975,— a MS. in the collection of Sir Thomas 
 PhiUipps. 
 
 In conclusion, it can Bcarcely require to be pointed out 
 that Victor's Commentarj', — of which the Church iu her 
 palmiest days shewed herself so careful to multiply copies, 
 and of which there survive to this hour such a vast uumbor 
 of speciuicns, — must needs ancient]}' have enjoyed vety pecu- 
 liar favour. It is evident, in fact, that an Epitome of Chry- 
 sostom's Homilies on S. Matthew, together with Victob's 
 cojiijiil'ifioii on S.Mark, — Titus of Bostra on S.Luke, — and 
 a work iu the maia derived from Chrysostom's Homilies on 
 S. John ; — that these four constituted the established Com- 
 mentary of ancient Christendom on the fourfold Gospel. In- 
 dividual copyists, no doubt, will have been found occasionally 
 to abridge certain of the Annotations, and to omit others : 
 or else, out of the multitude of Scholia by various ancient 
 Fathers which were evidently once in circulation, and must 
 have boeu held in very high esteem, — (Irenseus, Origeu, 
 Ammonius, Eusebius, Apolinarius, Cyril, Chrysostom, the 
 Gregorys, Basil, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodore 
 of Heraclon,) they will have introduced extracts accord- 
 ing to their individual caprice. In this way, the general 
 sameness of the several copies is probably to be accounted 
 for, while their endless discrepancy in matters of detail is 
 perhaps satisfactorily explained. 
 
 These last remarks are offered in the way of partial elu- 
 cidation of the difficulty pointed out above, at pp. 272 — 4. 
 
APPENDIX (E). 
 
 Text of (he coiichiiiiiig Scliolion of Yictoh of Aktioch's Commentaiy 
 on S.Jl'irl's Gvupel ; in which Victor lenrs emphatic tutimvtiy to 
 tie geiiuineiiess of " the last Twelve Verses." 
 (Referred to at p. 65.) 
 
 I HA\"i: thought this very remarkable specimen of the me- 
 thod of an ancient and (as I think) unjustly neglected Com- 
 mentator, deserving of extraordinary attention. Besides 
 presenting the reader, therefore, with what seems to be a 
 fair approximation to the original text of the passage, I have 
 subjoined as many various readings as have come to my 
 knowledge. It is hoped that thej' are given with tolerable 
 exactness ; but I have been too often obliged to depend on 
 printed books and the testimony of others. I can at least 
 rel)' on the readings furnished me from the Vatican. 
 
 The text chiefly followed is that of Coisl. 20, (in the Paris 
 Library, — our Evan. 36 ;) supplemented by several other 
 MSS., which, for convenience, I have arbitrarily designated 
 by the letters of the alphabet as under ". 
 
 El Be Koi TO " 'Avaaras ^ Se irpcoi vpcoTfj o-a^^drov iipdit) 
 irpSiTOV Mapla ttj MaySaXrjvfj," Koi rd e'f ^? iirKfiepofieva, 
 ev T«5 Kara MdpKOV evayyeXio) irapa " TrXeiarois dvriypd^oK 
 ov KelvTui^, ((OS v69a yap ivo/iiaav ai/rd rives elvai^') aXX 
 
 • Seff. 177=A: 178 = B: 230 = C.—Coiil. 19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = r: 
 22 = G: 21= R.—Matihaei's i or D = I: /,iseorE = J : Am12 = K: *« 
 
 aorA = I To/. 358 = M: ?56 = N: 757 = 0: 1229 = P : 1445 = Q.— 
 
 rind. KoH. 4 Forhs. 5 = n.—Xav. de Zelada = S.—Zaur. 18 = T! 34 = 
 V.—reiiet. 27 = V.— Vii,d. Lamb. 38 = W : 39 = X. 
 
 ' So B — E (wliicli I chiefly follow) begins, — To $e ayavras. 
 
 ' B begins thus, — Ei S( xm to avaaras 5( vpui fiira to fnt^ipoiuvu waf- 
 It b at this word (tb^o) that most copies of the present scholion (A, C, D, '• 
 G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, B, S, T, U, V, W, X) begin. 
 
 ' So far (except iu its opening phrase) E. But C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L. M, 
 N, O, P, T, begin, — Tlapa irAfio-Toii avTiypaijiois ov Kcirroi [I, ov itfiTOiJ Jt •■* 
 riv S«] ravra to [M, O, T om. to] (iruptpoiifva (v [D, F, H cm. iv] t»' «"" 
 KofKoi/ [B, €» TK tapovri] fvayyfXuf. 
 
 ' So I, J, K, li, and H. P proceeds, — us voBa fofiiaeo^a riaa' timt. But 
 
 API". E.] 
 
 Victor of Axtioch'n tSchoViOii. 
 
 2.^'J 
 
 Tjneh f^ dxpi^cov dvTiypdcfim', coy ev irXelaTOis evpovies avTa', 
 Kara to UaXaianvalov evayyeXiov MdpKov, toy e^f' V dXq- 
 eeia, <TVvredeiicap.ev« Koi ti)v ev avTi3 iTTij>epopovr)V Beairo- 
 riKijv dvd(na(7iv, perd to " e^o^ovvTO ydp^" rovreaTtv diro 
 Tov " uvaard'; Be irpwCirpmri) aafilidrov," Kal Kaff e^rj^ pe'xpi 
 rov " Bid rCiV eiraKoXov6ovvTO)V ci]peio)V. 'Api]v\' 
 
 More pains than enough (it will perhaps be thought) 
 have been taken to exhibit accurately this short Scliolion. 
 And yet, it has not been without design (the reader mny be 
 sure)' that so many various readings have been laboriously 
 accumulated. Thcrcsult, it is thought, is eminently instruc- 
 tive, and (to the student of Ecclesiastical Antiqiiitj) impor- 
 tant also. 
 
 For it will be perceived by the attentive reader that not 
 more than two or three of the multitude of various read- 
 ings afforded by this short Scholion can have possibly re- 
 sulted from careless transcription'. The rest have been un- 
 mistakably occasioned by the merest licentiousness : every 
 fresh Copyist evidently considering himself at liberty to take 
 just whatever liberties he pleased with the words before 
 
 B C D E, F, G, M, N, O, T exhibit,— ws voSa vofnaunts oi/ra rwis [B oiu. 
 T.«s] ..'•'ai.' On the other hand, A and Q begin and proceed a5 fallows,— Hapa 
 i,\uaro^s avT^ypa^oiS Javra to [Q om. to] .r.,f,(poMera t. [A '.'.». .r] T<f. .ara 
 ^\apKOV .vayytf^w us i-oflo vopi.aayr.s t,«5 [Q, T.ras (a clerical error) : A om. 
 
 Tins'] ovK lOriKUV. I HI XT r» i> 
 
 ' So B, except that it omits us. So aho. A, D, E, F, G, H, J, M, >, 0, 1 , 
 Q T, excipl that they begin the sentence, t/m«'S ««■ 
 
 t So I), K, F, G, H, J, M, N, 0, P. T : also B and Q, except tLat they prefix 
 KOI to KOTO TO n. B is peculiar iu reading,— «j «X" V aXvBu^x ^lapmv (trans- 
 posing Mo: kou): while C and P read,-0M<.s W" •{ ""P'^"" cvriypa^uy Ka, 
 ^K.iCTuy ov p-no aXXa ko. fv Tf UaXaioTivai^ €U077.X.r M"/""" ^vpoyrts ai-ro 
 us fx<' 1 oA7|9»ia avvTtenKap.fV. 
 
 " So all, apparently: except that P reads €m'J></>om«".iv for .T.^.tpoM*'")" J »"'! 
 JI, after aycioTa<ny inserts ,lr,\uoa^ty. with a point (.) before m'to : while C 
 and P (after aya<TTaaiv,) proceed,-Ko< T,r [C, «to] ara\„|.;' ko. .aB^ipa, €k 
 l,iiuy -rov noTpoj <f irptTrt. „ Sojo ko. t, t.^I "w ««< «'* ■""" »'-■""■ »'""'• '*"'' 
 J [and I ll.inW, H] (after yap) proceeds.-S.o 5o£a^ o.ox.^|a/... t^ ayaoToyn 
 ,K ytKfuy X,H"TV TV Oey W" «/«> ^t' '"'"^V HoTp. Ka, faoxo.^ D.^vmot. yw 
 KOI an KOI (IS Tous Qiacos Tuv Oiuruv. ann", 
 ' So B. All, except B, C, 11, J, P seein to end at .^.^ou.'to yep. 
 ' e.g. ooit iji' 8^ for ov KfTKTOi. 
 
21)0 
 
 Vicfor of Aiifioch's SchoUott. 
 
 [Apr. t. 
 
 liim. To amputate, or otbcrwisc to mutilate ; to abridge • to 
 amplify ; to transpose ; to remodel ; — this lias been the mlr 
 ATith all. The ti/pca (so to speak) are reducible to (wo or 
 at most to three ; but the varieties are almost as nurncroiu 
 as the MSS. of Victor's work. 
 
 And 5'et it is impossible to doubt that this Scholion »u 
 originally one, and one only. Irrecoverable perhaps, in 
 some of its minuter details, as the actual text of Victor 
 may be, it is nevertheless self-evident that in ihc main *• 
 are in possession of what he actually wrote on this occasion. 
 In spite of all the needless variations observable in the roan- 
 ner of stating a certain fact, it is still unmistakably one and 
 the same fact which is every time stated. It is invariably 
 declared, — 
 
 (1.) That from certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel the lut 
 Twelve Verses had been left out; and (2) That this had 
 been done because their genuineness had been by certain 
 persons suspected : but, (3) That the Writer, con^anccd of 
 their genuineness, had restored them to their rightful placo ; 
 (4) Because he had found them in accurate copies, and in the 
 authentic Palestinian copy, which had supplied him with 
 his exemplar. 
 
 It is obvious to suggest that after familiarizing oursclrc* 
 with this specimen of what proves to have been the liccntioui 
 method of the ancient copyists in respect of the text of M 
 early Father, we are in a position to approach more intclli- 
 gentl}' the Commentarj' of Victor itself; and, to some ex- 
 tent, to understand how it comes to pass that so many libcr» 
 ties have been taken with it throughout. The Reader u 
 reminded of what has been already offered on this subject •( 
 pp. 272-3. 
 
 APPENDIX (F). 
 On the Rdatlrc aniiquitij of the Codex VATic.OTf (li;, nuil Ihc Coiiw 
 
 SlKAITICT:- (s)- 
 
 (Rcfcrred to at p. 70.) 
 
 I. " Vix differt aetate a Codice Sinaitico," says Tischen- 
 dorf, {cd. Bra, 1869, p. ix,) speaking of the Codex Vaticanus 
 (B). Yet does he perpetually designate his own Sinaitic 
 Codex (k) as " omnium antiquissimus." Now, 
 
 (1) The (all but unique) sectional division of the Text of 
 Codex B,— confessedly the oldest scheme of chapters extant, 
 is in itself a striking note of primitiveness. The author of 
 the Codex knew nothing, apparently, of the Eusebian method. 
 But I venture further to suggest that the following pecu- 
 liarities in Codex K unniistakably indicate for it a later date 
 than Codex B. 
 
 (2) Cod. K, (like C, and other later ilSS.,) is broken up' 
 into short paragraphs throughout. The Vatican Codex, on 
 the contrary, has very few breaks indeed : e.g. it is without 
 break of any sort from S. Matth. xvii. 24 to xx. 17 : whereas, 
 within the same limits, there are in Cod. K as many as thirtii 
 interruptions of the context. From S. Mark xiii. 1 to the 
 end of the Gospel the text is absolutely continuous in Cod. B, 
 except in one place : but in Cod. K it is interrupted upwards 
 oifffy times. Again : from S.Luke xvii. 11, to the end of 
 the Gospel there is but one break in Cod. B. But it is 
 broken into weU nigh an hundred and fifty shovt paragraphs 
 
 in Cod.K- 
 
 There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex B, 
 (resembling the style of the papyrus of Hyperida published 
 by Mr. Babington,) is the more ancient. The only places 
 where it approximates to the method of Cod. s, is where 
 the Commandments are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix. 18, 
 &c.), and where our Lord proclaims the eight Beatitudes 
 (S. Matth. V.) 
 
292 
 
 Cod. B move ftiicutif Ihau Cod. s. 
 
 [Arr. 
 
 (3) Again ; Cod. s is prone to exhibit, on extraordinary 
 occasions, a siixjlc iron/ in a line, as at — 
 
 S. Matid. XV. 
 
 30. 
 
 S. M.viiK X. 29. 
 
 S. Luke xiv. 13. 
 
 XCOAOTC 
 
 
 H AAfA*AC 
 
 nTCOXOTC 
 
 TT*AOTC 
 
 
 H nATfPA 
 
 ANAnHPOTC 
 
 KTAAOTC 
 
 
 H MHTfPA 
 
 XCOAOTC 
 
 KW*OTC 
 
 
 H TCKNA 
 H AFPOTC 
 
 TT*AOTC 
 
 This became a prevailing fashion in llie vi"' century; e.g. 
 when the Cod. Laudianus of the Acts (E) was written. The 
 only trace of anything of the kind in Cod. B is at the Ge- 
 nealogy of our Lord. 
 
 (4) At the commencement of every fresh paragraph, the 
 initial letter in Cod. k slightly projects into the margin, — 
 beyond the left hand edge of the column ; as usual in all 
 laicr MSS. This characteristic is onlj' not undiscoverablc 
 in Cod. B. Instances of it there are in the earlier Codpx; 
 but they are of exceedingly rare occurrence. 
 
 (5) Further ; Cod. k abounds in such contractions as anoc, 
 OTKoc (with all their cases), for ANeptanoc, otpanoc, &c. Kot 
 only hna, rinp, -Sep, iipA, iiipA (for pn^tma, nATHP-xfp-TfPA, 
 
 MHTfPA), but also CTP0H, iiTrt, IHAHM, for CTATPCoeH, ICPAMA, 
 lePOTCAAHM. 
 
 But Cod. B, though familiar with ic, and a few other of 
 the most ordinarj' abbreviations, knows nothing of thc«o 
 compendia: which certainly cannot have existed in the ear- 
 liest copies of all. Once more, it seems reasonable to sup- 
 pose that their constant occurrence in Cod k indicates for 
 that Codex a date subsequent to Cod. B. 
 
 (6) The very discrepancy observable between these two 
 Codices in their method of dealing with "the last twelve 
 verses of S. Mark's Gospel," (already adverted to at p. 88,) 
 is a further indication, and as it seems to the present writer 
 a very striking one, that Cod. B is the older of the two. 
 Cod. K is evidently familiar with the phenomenon which 
 astonishes Cod. B by its novelt)'' and strangeness. 
 
 (7) But the most striking feature of difference, after oil, 
 is only to be recognised by one who surveys the Codic« 
 themselves with attention. It is that general air of prnui- 
 
 >■■] 
 
 Ei(s<lius liicir notldti'j of Cud. N. 
 
 203 
 
 tiveness in Cod. B which makes itsolf at once fett. The even 
 fyrametry of the unbroken columns ; — the work of the prima 
 viniius everywhere vanishing through sheer antiquity; — 
 the small, even, square writing, which partly recals the stj'le 
 of the llerculanean rolls ; partly, the papyrus fragments 
 of the Oration against Dcuiosl/i'ius (published by Harris in 
 1848): — all these notes of superior antiquity infallibly set 
 Cod. B before Cod. k ; though it may be inipossible to deter- 
 mine whether by 50, by 75, or by 100 years. 
 
 II. It has been conjectured by one whose words arc al- 
 ways entitled to most respectful attention, that Codex Sinai- 
 ticus may have been " one of the fifty Codices of Holj' Scrip- 
 ture which Eusebius prepared a.d. 331, by Constantino's 
 direction, for the use of the new Capital." (Scrivener's 
 Collation of the Cod. Sin., Introd. p. sxxvii-viii.) 
 
 1. But this, which is rendered . improbable by the many 
 instances of grave discrepancy between its readings and 
 those with which Eusebius proves to have been most fa- 
 miliar, is made impossible by the discoverj* that it is with- 
 out S.Mark xv. 28, which constitutes the Eusebian Section 
 numbered " 216" in S. Mark's Gospel. [Quite in vain has 
 Tischendorf perversely laboured to throw doubt on this cir- 
 cumstance. It remains altogether undeniable, — as a far less 
 accomplished critic than Tischendorf may see at a glance. 
 Tischendorf's only plea is the fact that in Cod. M, (he 
 might have added and in the Codex Sinaiticus, which explains 
 the phenomenon in Cod. M), against rer. 29 is set the number, 
 (" 216,") instead of against ver. 28. But what then ? Has 
 not the number demonstrally lost its place? And is there 
 not still one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And ichich 
 can it possibli/ have been, if it was not S. Mark xv. 28 ?] 
 Again. Cod. s, (like B, C, L, TJ, F, and some others), gives the 
 piercing of the Saviour's side at S. Matth. xsvii. 49 : but if 
 Eusebius had read that incident in the same place, he would 
 have infallibly included S. John xix. 34, 35, with S. Matth. 
 xxvii. 49, in his vii"* Canon, where matters are contained 
 which arc common to S.Matthew and S.John, — instead 
 of referring S.John xix. 31 — 37 to his x**" Canon, which 
 
294 
 
 EHfih'tHs liieir not fling of Cod. s. 
 
 [ai'P. 
 
 r. 
 
 specifies things peculiar to each of the four Evangcliit*. 
 Eusebius, moreover, iu n certain place {Dtm. Ernn. x. 8 
 [quoted Xty Tisch.]) has nn allusion to the same transaction, 
 and expressly saj's that it is recorded hy S. John. 
 
 2. No inference as to the antiquity of this Codex can bo 
 drawn from the Eusebian notation of Sections in the mar- 
 gin : t/i(i( notation having been confessedly added at a sub- 
 sequent date. 
 
 3. On the other hand, the subdivision of Cod. h into pars- 
 graphs, proves to have been made without any reference to 
 the sectional distribution of Eusebius. Thus, there arc in 
 the Codex thirty distinct paragraphs from S. Matthew xi. 20 
 to xii. 34, inclusive ; but there are comprised within the 
 same limits only seventeen Eusebian sections. And yet, of 
 those seventeen sections only nine correspond with as many 
 paragraphs of the Codex Sinaiticus. This, in itself, is enough 
 to prove that Eusebius knew nothing of the present Codex. 
 Hifl record is express : — e^' eKacnat rwv reaaapuv evay- 
 yeXioov aptOfiOi Tts irpoKeiTai Kara fiipos k.t.X. 
 
 III. The supposed resemblance of the opened volume to 
 an Egyptian papyrus, — when eight columns (o-eXi'Ses) arc 
 exhibited to the eye at once, side by side, — seems to be a fal- 
 lacious note of high antiquity. If Cod. k has four columns 
 in a page,— Cod. B three, — Cod. A two, — Cod. C has only 
 one. But Cod. C is certainly as old as Cod, A. Again, 
 Cod. D, which is of the vi"" centurj-, is written (like Cod. C) 
 across the page : yet was it " copied from an older model 
 similarly divided in respect to the lines or verses," — and 
 therefore similarly written across the page. It is almost 
 obvious that the size of the skins on which a Codex was 
 written will have decided whether the columns should bo 
 four or only three in a page. 
 
 IV. In fine, nothing doubting the high antiquity of both 
 Codices, (B andw,) I am nevertheless fully persuaded that 
 an interval of at least half a century,— if not of a far greater 
 span of years, — is absolutely required to account for Uie 
 marked dissimilarity between them. 
 
 I 
 
 APPENDIX (G). 
 
 On the so-calkd " .^m^on.ak Sr.mo>s n» 
 
 (Hcfcrred to at p. 130.) 
 
 above (pp. 12/-^). cannoi ^^^ ^,,g 
 
 Alexandria [A.n. 220] -P'o^-/'-^^ J^^ ,,,,onstration. 
 invention of Ecsebiu. --^^"f J 'l^^gether insecure*. 
 On this subject, external t-timo. 8 
 
 The only safe appeal is to the Se .on l^.e ^^^^ ^^^^ 
 
 1. TheCaUof the Four Apost.s,des 3^^^.^ ^^_ 
 
 U„.ee Evangelists, -^hm 'he ^^^^^^^^^ g ,i,,k i. 16- 
 si-tivc Gospels:-S3 at he^-^^^^ draught of 
 
 20: S Luke l-^^*^;; ^^^^ ,,,^0 portions of narrative 
 
 ri;v:^-\r"eSrrd^:"tirnt:! 
 =:^u:r;^:siS^-pn^^^^^^ 
 
 , § 29, (V. 1-3) 
 
 (2.) §20,"(iv' §9, O-Hi-' 
 
 17, 18) 
 (3.) 
 (4) 
 (5.) 
 
 16) 
 
 §219,(xxi. 1-C) 
 § 222, (-^xi. 11) 
 
 ' § 30, (v. 4—7) 
 : § 30 (V. 4—7) 
 i§31, (V. 8— 
 
 1 i ^°^^ 
 
 (0.)§^2..(iv.§^0.(i.n.lB),|32,(v.l0i. 
 
 urcssiniHs- KA'^ '■"r nostca secutus est. tu»cu 
 
 riciisis. \"^ 
 
29G 
 
 Eiiichin'i must iicch hnvc hern 
 
 [ait. 
 
 o.] 
 
 /A./,-n..^-'irV"J».'«c,»m«"S'^'''>"- 
 
 207 
 
 It will be perceived from this, lliat EiSKitius Bubdividiit 
 these three portions of the sacred Narrative into ten Sw- 
 tioiis {"^§;") — of which three belong to S.Matthew, \it. 
 P§ 20, 21, 22 :— three to S. I^Iark, viz. ti§ 9, 10, 11 :— four to 
 S. Luke, viz. §§ 29, 30, 31, 32 : which ten Sections, Ja.sk- 
 ]iR's distributes over four of his Canons: referring throo 
 of them to his II""* Canon, (which exhibits what S. Mattlicw, 
 S. Mark, and S. Luke have in common) ; four of them to 
 his YI"' Canon, (which shews what S. Matthew and S. Mark 
 have in common) ; one, to his IX"", (which contains what 
 is common to S. Luke and S. John) ; two, to his X"", (in 
 which is found what is peculiar to each Evangelist.) 
 
 Now, the design which Evsebius had in breaking up thit 
 portion of the sacred Text, (S. Matth. iv. 18—22, S. Murk 
 i. IG — 20, S. Luke v. 1 — 11,) after so arbitrary a fashion, 
 into ten portions ; divorcing three of tliose Sections from 
 S. Matthew's Gospel, (viz. S. Luke's ^§ 29, 30, 31) ; and 
 connecting one of these last three (§ 30) irith iiro Section* 
 (P§ 219, 222) of S. John ;— is perfectly plain. His object 
 was, (as he himself explains,) to shew — not only (n) what 
 S. Matthew has in common with S. Jlark and S. Luke ; but 
 also (i) uhat S. Lvhe has in common trith S. John ; — as well 
 as (c) what S. Luke has peculiar to himself. But, in the 
 work of Ammonius, as far as ire hnoir anything about that 
 trork, all this would have been simplj' impossible, (i have 
 already described his " Diatessaron," at pp. 126-7.) Intent 
 on exhibiting the Sections of the other Gospels which corre- 
 spond with the Sections of <S. Maffheir, Ammoxius would not 
 if he could, — (and he could not if he would,) — have dis- 
 sociated from its context S. Luke's account of the first 
 miraculous draught of fishes in the beginning of our Lobi» » 
 Ministry, for the purpose of establishing its resemblance to 
 S. John's account of the second miraculous draught of fishes 
 which took place after the Resurrection, and is only found 
 in S. John's Gospel. These Sections therefore are " Eusk- 
 lUAN," not Ammokian. They are necessary, according to the 
 scheme of Eusebius. They are not only unnecessary and 
 even meaningless, but actually impossible, in the Ammoxian 
 scheme. 
 
 a more con^■incing instance. I am con e ^^ 
 
 the whole question to ^ ^^^^ ^^^ Ammo>..s 
 
 be shewn how xt -"^^^^^.^Ta into thr. rlisiinci Sec 
 canhavespbtup S.Johnxx.l-, 1 . ^^^^ ^^^^^ 
 
 iions ; and S. John xsi lo, 16, lo ", ^^^^ 
 
 so many injudicious d..nto^-at.ns of t^^^^^^^^ ^^^^.^^^ ^^ 
 
 ., 53 -edible that ^o-nha^- ^^^^^ .^^ 
 
 S. John XXI. 1^ to f'-^^"^'^ ,,en rcpcutnl subd.vi- 
 varied contents, <=°"^^-^^^J , f\7',i,i3 i^ abundantly plain, 
 sion ? . . . . Why E.sr.ns_ did » ^bis. i ^^^^^ 
 
 His peculiar plan -"f ;';"f ^.^^ " '15 16, 17-to his IX- 
 ^^-•^r'VtL a dVjotnl;; bought tog^^^ 
 Canon, where S. Luke ana ^^ ^^^^^.^^ ^^^ 
 
 (eV o5 0; 8vo Ta '^°P""'^\"'%''''' X\f of verses 15, 10, 17, 
 
 Iti^r half of --/^'T^^^i^ , : „^;"; ...... of S. John's 
 
 _,ogether with the whole f the /.s^^y^^^^^ .^ 
 
 Gospel, to f ^^; (-^^Xrsetdown, (.'v ^ .epl ..V.v 
 to each of the four En angeusi Ammonius, because 
 
 eW.o. al.C.. lli^^ °7''"t -^ J^/wasundernosuch 
 be confessedly r.c..'.--' .0 -'; ^"^;j,,„„,^. He there- 
 r^;:^lv^r;:;r^^;-^i same extraordinary 
 
 --^l^Sltter somewhat di^V.^^^ 
 
 Canons of LcsEBIU, a nothing else whatever is 
 
 „o.V'-(by wtich- --^f;- ^^;;j;Ta're discovered mu- 
 ,„„,, but the Sections » ^"^^^^^^^ Canons are without 
 t^ally to imply ^ ^t^^^^^^^ the sake of 
 
 meaning or use ^f^^ J^"^^^^^^ Those Sections, whatever 
 ,hich they were clearly i«^;°*^ ^^^ Canons, never- 
 
 eonveiiiencetheyrnaypo.es^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 theless are ^^ -;\^;; ^^^ P^.^em in order of time: to 
 
 depend upon them i-^'^' [ eccentricity of their ar- 
 to be even unaccountable in tbe "^ .,,„ent^ of 
 
 ^ngement, except when ^^^^^^l^^,J,^,^o..X sub- 
 the £t.sri.i^A' Canons, i saj -"'" ^ 
 
298 T/ic (so-cafkd) " Ammonuni" Srcfiom r^p,, 
 
 division, in other words, to which the epithet " Ammoman " 
 is popularly applied.— (applied however without authority 
 and in fact by the merest license,)— proves on careful in 
 epection to have been only capable of being devised by one 
 tr/io uns already in possesmn of f/ic Canons of Evsxr.irs In 
 plain terms, they are demonstrably the work of Erszujvs 
 hwrnlf—x^ho expressly claims The Canons for his own {*a- ' 
 y6va<: Se>ca t6v apiO^hv hiex^pa^i aa), and leaves it to bo 
 inferred that he is the Author of the Sections also. Wet- 
 stein (Prohg. p. 70,) and Bishop Lloyd (in the " Monitum" 
 prefixed to his ed. of the Greek Test. p. x,) so understand 
 the matter ; and Mr. Scrivener (Iniroduclion, p. 51) evidently 
 inclines to the same opinion. 
 
 II. I desire, in the next place, to point out that a careful 
 inspection of the Eusebian "Sections," (for Eusebius himself 
 calls them irtpiKoiral, not Ke^xxKaia,) leads inevitably to the 
 inference that they are only rightly understood when re- 
 garded in the light of " Margixal References." This has 
 been hitherto overlooked. Bp. Lloyd, in the interesting 
 " Monitum" already quoted, remarks of the Eusebian Canon*, 
 — "quorum haec est utilitas, ut eorum scilicet ope quivis, 
 nullo labore, Harmoniam sibi quatuor Evangeliorum possit 
 conficere." The learned Prelate can never have made the 
 attempt in this way "Harmoniam sibi conficere,"' or be 
 would not have so written. He evidently did not advert to 
 the fact that Eusebius refers his readers (in his III"' Canon) 
 from S. John's account of the Eealing of the Nohleman'n ton 
 to the account given by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the 
 Ilcalintj of the Centurion's servant. It is perfectly plain in fact 
 that to enable a reader " to construct for himself a Jlar- 
 mony of the Gospe/s," was no part of Eusebius' intention ; 
 and quite certain that any one who shall ever attempt to 
 avail himself of the system of Sections and Canons before us 
 with that object, will speedily find himself landed in hope- 
 less confusion ". 
 
 • There was published at tlie University Press in 1805, a handsome qaartt> 
 volume (pp. 21C) entitled Harmoiiia quatuor Evangeliorum juzia Srctiumrs 
 JmmoniaHas et Eusebii Caiionn. It is merely the contents of the X CunooJ 
 
 C] 
 
 tornsjiOiid irith our " Marginal Jieferences." 
 
 299 
 
 Bat in fuct there is no danger of his making much pro- 
 gress in his task. His first discoverj' would probablj' be 
 that S. John's weighty doctrinal statements concerning our 
 Lord's Ettnial GoLhead in chap. i. 1 — 5: 9, 10: 14, are 
 represented as parallel with the Unman Genealogy of our 
 Saviovr as recorded by S.Matthew i. 1 — IC, and by S.Luke 
 iii. 23—33 :— the next, that the first half of the Visit of 
 the Magi (S. Matthew ii. 1 — G) is exhibited as correspond- 
 ing with S. John vii. 41, 42. — Two such facts ought to open 
 the eyes of a reader of ordinary acutcness quite wide to 
 the true nature of the Canons of Eusebius. They are Tiihlts 
 ofJiif>rtiH\ onhj. 
 
 Eusebius has in fact himself explained his object in con- 
 structing them ; which (he says) was twofold : (1") To en- 
 able a reader to see at a glance, " which of the Evangelists 
 have said things of the same kind," (rives ra TTapaTrk-ijcna 
 etpi]Kaai : the phrase occurs four times in the course of his 
 short Epistle) : and (2"'^''^), To enable him to find out where 
 they have severally done so : {tovs oiKelov} eicda-Tov fvay- 
 7€XioToO roTovs, iv ol? kotu tuv airribv ^veyOrjaav elireip ; 
 Eusebius uses the phrase twice.) But this, (as all are aware) 
 is precisely the office of (what are called) " Marginal Refer- 
 ences.'" Accordingly, 
 
 (rt.) Whether referring from S. Matth. x. 40 (§ 98) ; S. 
 Mark ix. 37 (§ 96) ; or S. Luke x. 16 (§ 116) ;— we find our- 
 selves referred to the following si.r places of S. John, — v. 23 : 
 xii. 44, 45 : xiii. 20 : xiv. 21 : xiv. 24, 25 : xv. 23 i" (= §§ 
 40, 111, 120, 129, 131, 144'.) Again, 
 
 (h.) Whether we refer /row S. Matth, xi. 27 (§§ 111, 112,) 
 or S. Luke x. 22 (§ 119), — we find ourselves referred to the 
 following ekten places of S. John, — i. 18 : iii. 35 : v. 37 : 
 vi.46 : viL 28, 29 : viii. 19 : x. 15 : xiii. 3 : xv. 21 : xvi. 15 : 
 xvii. 25 (§^ 8, 30, 44, 61, 76, 87, 90, 114, 142, 148, 154.) 
 
 (c.) So also, from S.Matthew's (xvi. 13-16), S.Mark's 
 (viii. 27—29), and S.Luke's (ix. 18—20) account of S. 
 
 of EasolHUJ printed in eitenso, — and of course is no "Harmony " at all. It 
 would hive been a really useful book, notwithstanding ; but that the editor, 
 strango u *ay, has omitted to number the sections. 
 
 ' This List § according to Tischendorft ed. of the Eusebian Canons. 
 
300 The {so calkrj) " Ammoman" Sccthm f^^^ 
 
 Peter's Confession al Cnosnrea Thilippi, - ^e are refcrnj 
 
 ('fO From the mention of the last Passover by the thr^ 
 ea.a.er Evango is.s, (S. Matth. xxvi. ), 2: S.Markliv 7^ 
 
 5 Luke XX.. 1 we are referred to S.John's mention of the 
 /.«^ Passover („. 3= § 20); and of the sccon, (.j. ^l" 
 
 6 48) ; as well as of the fourth (xi. 55 = § 96 ) 
 
 J''^ ^;7tl^«7°^ds of Consecration ai the Last Supper 
 as recorded by S. Matth. (xxvi. 16). S. Mark (.iv. 22)rr„d 
 S^Luke (xxu. 19),-we are referred to the four follo.?„g 
 Sections of our Lord's Discourse in the Synagogue at CapTr! 
 i^aum recorded by S.John, which took place a year bofrr^ 
 -S^ John vx. 35 36 : 48 : 51 : 55 : (§§ 65. 63. 65. 67). ' 
 C/.) Nothing but the spirit in which "Marginal Refer- 
 cnces are made would warrant a critic in linking toge.hcr 
 three incidents like the foUowing.-similar, indeed, ^ en- 
 tirely distinct: viz. S. Matth. xxvii. 34: S.Mark xr. 24- 
 and b. John xix. 28, 29. 
 
 (O.) I was about to say that scarcely could such an excuse 
 be invented for referring a Eeader from S. Luke xxiL 32. 
 to b. John xxi. 15. and 16, and 17 (= §§ 227, 228 229 )— 
 but I perceive that the same three References stand in'tho 
 margin of our own Bibles. Not even the margin of the 
 English Bible, however, sends a Reader (as the IX«^ Cnon 
 of Eusebius does) from our Lord's eating "broUed fish and 
 honeycomb," in the presence of the ten Apostles at Jeru. 
 salem on the evening of the first Easter-Day, (S. Luke xxiv. 
 41-43 (= § 341,)) to His feeding the seven Apostles with 
 bread and fish at the Sea of Galilee many days after. 
 (S. John xxi. 9, 10: 12: 13 = §§ 221,223, 224.) -And 
 this may suffice. 
 
 It 18 at all events certain that the correctest notion of the 
 use and the value of the Eusebian Sections will be obtained 
 by one who will be at the pains to substitute ioT the Eiotbiau 
 Numbers in the margin of a copy of the Greek Gospels M<- 
 References which these numbers severally indicate. It will 
 then become plain that the sj-stem of Sections and Caaons 
 which Eusebius invented.— ingenious, interesting, and useful 
 
 lesi ii-c/iil f/iaii our Manjinal RcfircntTn. 
 
 301 
 
 as it certainly is ; highly important also, as being the known 
 work of an illustrious Father of the Church, as well as most 
 precious occasionally for critical purposes', — is nothing else 
 but a clumsy substitute for what is achieved by an ordinar\' 
 "riefercncc Bible": — participating in every inconvenience 
 incidental to the unskilfully contrived apparatus with which 
 English readers are familiar ■', and yet inferior in the follow- 
 ing four respects : — 
 
 (1st.) The references of Eusebius. (except those found in 
 Canon X.), require in every instance to be deciphered, before 
 they can be verified ; and they can onlj* be deciphered b}' 
 making search, (and sometimes laborious search.) in another 
 part of the volume. They are not, in fact, (nor do they pre- 
 tend to be,) references to the inspired Text at all ; but 
 only re/treiiccs to Hie Eusebian Canons. 
 
 (2ndly.) In their scope, they are of course strictly confined 
 to the Goq^els, — which most inconveniently limits their use, 
 as well as diminishes their value. (Thus, by no possibility is 
 Eusebius able to refer a reader from S. Lake xxii. 19. 20 to 
 1 Cor. xi. 23—25.) 
 
 (3rdly.) By the very nature of their constitution, reference 
 even to another part of the same Gospel is impossible. (Euse- 
 
 ' Thus, certain disputed passagos of importance arc proved to bave been re- 
 cognised «; least tv Eusebius. Our Lobd's Agony in Ibc Garden for instance, 
 (S. Luke uii. 43, 44 — wanting in Cod. B,) is by bini numbered § 283 : and 
 Ibat often ivjectcd verse, S. Mark xv. 28, be certainly numbered § 216, — 
 wliateviT Tii^bendorf may say to the contrary. (Sec p. 293.) 
 
 '' li is obvious to suggest Ibat, (1) whereas our Marginal Eefercnces follow 
 tlic order of the Sacred Books, tbey ought rather to stand in the order of their 
 
 ' iniportaneo, or at least of their relevancy to the matter in hand: — and that, 
 (2) actual Quotatious, and even Allusions to other parts of Scripture when they 
 arc undeniable, should be referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also 
 certain th»t, (3) to a far greater extent than at present, tets of References 
 niigbl be kept together ; not scattered nbout«in small parcels over the whole 
 Book. — Above all, (as the point most pertinent to the present occasion,) (4) it 
 is to be wished that ttrictit/ parallel places in the Gospels might be distin- 
 
 s guished from those which are illustrative only, or are merely recalled by their 
 
 similaritv of subject or expression. All this would admit of interesting and 
 useful illustration. While on this subject, let me ask, — Why is it no longer 
 possible to purchase a Bible with Keferenccs to the Apocrypha ? WJo 
 does not miss the reference to "Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12" at Gen. ix. 14? ITho 
 can uflbrJ to do without the reference to " 1 Mace. iv. 59" at S. John x. 22 ? 
 
302 The iroi/: o/EmiHns quite (fiflimit froiti t/nf U,, 
 
 bius is unable, for example, to refer a reader from S Jolin 
 lix. 39, to iii. 1 and vii. 50.) 
 
 But besides tbc preceding, which are disadvantages inhe- 
 rent in the scheme and inseparable from it, it will be foun<l 
 (4tl)ly), That Eusebius, while he introduces not n fewwhollr 
 undesirable references, (of which some specimens arc .up- 
 plied aboTc), is observed occasionally to withhold reference. ' 
 which cannot by any means be dispensed with. Thus Lc 
 omits to refer his reader from S. Luke's account of the viiit 
 to the Sepulchre (chap.xxiv. 12) to S. John's memorable ac- 
 count of the same transaction (chap. xx. 3—10) : not bocoutc 
 he disallowed the verse in S. Luke's Gospel,— for in a ccrtaiD 
 place he disciisws: its statements'^. 
 
 III. It is abundantly jjlain from all that has gone before 
 that the work of Eusebius was entirely different in its struc- 
 ture and intention from the work of Ammonius. Enough, in 
 fact, has been said to make it fully apparent that it it 
 nothing short of impossible that there can have been anv 
 extensive correspondence between the two. According to 
 ErsEDius, S.Mark has 21 Sections ' ;;m//(W»- to hin Gon/fl: 
 S. Luke, 72 : S. John, 97 e. According to the same Ecskiiius, 
 14 Sections*' are common to S.Luke and S. Mark oiili/: 21, 
 to S. Luke and S. John oiiti/. But those 225 Sections can 
 hare found no place in the work of Ammonius. And if, (in 
 some unexplained way,) room nas found for those parts of 
 the Gospels, Kith irfiat possibfc motive can Auhokivs hare tulf 
 (lin'ffed them into exactly 225 portions ? It is nothing else but 
 irrational to assume that he did so. 
 
 Not unaware am I that it has been pointed out by a most 
 judicious living Critic as a " ground for hesitation before wo 
 ascribe the Sections as well as the Canons to Eusebius, that 
 not a few ancient MSS. contain the former whUe they omit 
 the latter'." He considers it to be certainly indicated 
 thereby " that in the judgment of critics and trauBcribcrs, 
 
 ' Tiechendorf says 10 onlT. 
 •■ Tischcndorf fajs 13 odIj. 
 
 • Mai, vol. iv. p. 2S7. Sec also p. 293. 
 
 < Tiscbeiidorr snjE 96 ouly. ^.i^..>,u„„.. .-^ 
 
 ' ScriveDcr specifies tlic following Coild. C,F. H, I, P, Q, E, W, Y, Z, &'. 
 59, 60, 68, 440, i'", s-". Also D and K. (Corf. Stza. p. «, i"'d /•'"<'• 
 pp. 51, 2) Add Evao. 117 : (but I think nol 263.) 
 
 G.] of Aiiiiiioniun.—JIis Sectional dirision icr;/ nsrful. 303 
 
 (whatever that judgment may be deemed worth,) the Aramo- 
 nian Sections had a previous existence to the Eusebian 
 Canons, as well as served for an independent purpose." But 
 I respectfully demur to the former of the two proposed infer- 
 ences. I also learn with surprise that " those wlio have 
 studied them most, can the least tell what use the Aramo- 
 nian Sections can serve, unless in connection with Canons 
 of Harmony ''." 
 
 However irregular and arbitrarj' these subdivisions of the 
 Evangelical text are observed to be in their construction, 
 tlieir usefulness is paramount. The)' are observed to fulfil 
 ct^actly the same office as our own actual division of the Text 
 into 89 Chapters and 3780 Yerses. Of course, 11G5 sub- 
 divisions are (for certain purposes) somewhat less convenient 
 than 3780; — but on the other hand, a place in the Gospels 
 would be moie easily discovered, I suspect, for the most part, 
 by the employment of such a single set of consecutive num- 
 bers, than by requiring a Reader first to find the Chapter by 
 its Roman numeral, and then the Verse by its Arabic figure. 
 Be this as it maj-, there can be at least only one opinion as 
 to the supreme convenience to a Reader, whether ancient or 
 modern, of knowing that the copy of the Gospels which he 
 holds in his hands is subdivided into exactly the same 1165 
 Sections as every other Greek copj' which is likely to come 
 in his way ; and that, in every such copj', he may depend on 
 finding every one of those sections invariably distinguished 
 by the self-same number. 
 
 A Greek copj' of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin 
 furnished with the Eusebian Sectional notation, may be con- 
 sidered to correspond generally with an English copy merely 
 dinded into Chapters and Verses. The addition of the 
 Eusebian Canons at the beginning, with numerical refer- 
 ences thereto inserted in the margin throughout, does but 
 superadd something analogous to the convenience of our 
 Marginal Ke/ercnces, — and may just as reasonably (or just as 
 unreasonably) be dispensed with. 
 
 I think it not improbable, in fact, that in the preparation 
 of a Codex, it will have been sometimes judged commercially 
 
 ' Scrivi'iici'i Introduclion, pp. 51 and 52 : Cod. Beza, p. u. note [2.] 
 
304 
 
 TItv ancient Sectional Apparatus 
 
 [ait. 
 
 c] 
 
 at the foot of the Go-tpeh, explained. 
 
 305 
 
 expedient to leave its purchaser to decide whetlicr he would 
 or would not submit to the additional expense (which in the 
 case of illuminated MSS. must have been very considcruUc) 
 of having the Eusebian Tables inserted at the commcnccincut 
 of his Book*,— without which the References thereto would 
 confessedly have been of no manner of avail. In this way it 
 will have corae to pass, (as Mr. Scrivener points out,) th»l 
 " not a few ancient MSS. contain the Sections but omit the 
 Canons." Whether, however, the omission of References to 
 the Canons in Copies which retain in the margin the boc- 
 tional numbers, is to be explained in this way, or not, — 
 Amjuoxics, at all events, will have had no more to do wilh 
 either the one or the other, than with our modern divisioo 
 into Chapters and Verses, It is, in short, nothing else but 
 a " vulgar error" to designate the Eusebian Sections as the 
 "Sections of AitnoAirs." The expression cannot be too 
 soon- banished from our critical terminology. Whether 
 banished or retained, to reason about the lost work of Ammo- 
 Nius from the Sections of Eusebius (as Tischendorf and the 
 rest habitually do) is an offence against |historical Truth 
 which no one who values his critical reputation will probably 
 hereafter venture to commit. 
 
 IV. This subject may not be dismissed until o circum- 
 stance of considerable interest has been explained which baa 
 already attracted some notice, but which evidently is not yet 
 understood by Biblical Critics'. 
 
 As already remarked, the necessity of resorting to the 
 Eusebian Tables of Canons in order to make any use of 
 a marginal reference, is a tedious and a cumbersome process ; 
 for which, men must have early sought to devise a remedy. 
 They were not slow in perceiving that a far simpler expe- 
 dient would be to note at the foot of every page of a Gospel 
 ifte luimlers of the Sections of that Gospel contained »« «"- 
 tenso on the same page ; and, parallel with those numbers, to 
 exhibit the numbers of the corresponding Sections lu tno 
 
 • Kvan. 263, for instance, has certainly blank EuEcbian Tables at the begin- 
 ning : tlic/rofjif only. ' See Scrivener's Introduction, p. 61 ("ol* */' 
 — where Trcgellei (in Home's lutrod. iv. 200) is quoted. ' 
 
 other Gospels. Many Codices, furnished with such an ap- 
 paratus at the foot of the page, are known to exist". For 
 instance, in Cod. 262 ( = Reg. 53, at Paris), which is written 
 in double columns, at foot of the first page {foh 111) of 
 S. Mark, is found as follows : — 
 
 A o 
 
 B Z 
 
 JU 
 
 -e- 
 
 pr 
 H 
 
 r 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 o 
 
 JL A 
 
 -e- IB 
 
 lA 
 KH 
 
 The meaning ol this, every one will see who,— (remember- 
 ing what is signified by the monograms mp, a., lu, m©,") — will 
 turn successively to the 11"^ the I^', the V^^ and the P' of 
 the Eusebian Canons. Translated into expressions more 
 familiar to English readers, it evidently amounts to this: 
 that we are referred, 
 
 ^§ 1) From S.Marki. 1,2,— toS.Matth. xi. 10: S.Luke vii. 27. 
 (§2) .... i. 3,— to S. Matth. iii. 3 : S. Luke iii. 3—6. 
 (§3) .... i. 4, 5, 6,— to S. Matth. iii. 4—6. 
 (§4) .... i. 7, 8,— to S. Matth. iii. 11 : S. Luke iii. 16 : 
 
 S. John i. 15, 26-27, 30-1 : iii. 28. 
 
 (I venture to add that any one who will compare the 
 above with the margin of S. Mark's Gospel in a common 
 English " reference Bible," will obtain a very fair notion of 
 the convenience, and of the inconveniences of the Eusebian 
 system. But to proceed with our remarks on the apparatus 
 at the foot of Cod. 2G3.) 
 
 The owner of such a MS. was able to refer to parallel pas- 
 sages, (as above,) hi/ merely turning over the pages of his hook. 
 E.g. The parallel places to S.Mark's § 1 (A) being § 70 of 
 
 •eg Coda. M, 262 and 264. (I saw at least one other at Paris, but I have 
 not preserved a record of the number.) To these, Tregelles addi E ; (Scri- 
 vener'B I,.lro<luclion. p. 51, note R.) Scrivener adds W. and TUeheudorf 
 Vi, (Scrivener's Cvd. Sezae, p. xx-) 
 
 • The ordrr of these monograms requires eiplauatiou. 
 
 X 
 
306 
 
 Syriac Eiangclia, the source of tfiese 
 
 [Atr. 
 
 S.Luke (0) and § 103 of S. Matthew (P 0,— it was just u 
 easy for him to find those two places as it is for us to turn 
 to S. Luke vii. 27 and S. Matth. xi. 10 : perhaps easier. 
 
 Y. I suspect that this peculiar method of exhibiting tho 
 Ensebian references (Canons as well as Sections) at a glance, 
 was derived to the Greek Church from the Syrian Chris- 
 tians. TThat is certain, a precisely similar expedient for 
 enabling readers to discover Parallel Passage* prevails exten- 
 sively in the oldest Syriac Evangelia extant. There are in 
 the British Museum about twelve Syriac Evangelia furnished 
 with such an apparatus of reference ° ; of which a specimen 
 is 8ubjoined,^-derived however (because it was near at band) 
 from a MS. in the Bodleian p, of the vii"" or Tiii"" century. 
 
 Frozn this MS., I select for obvious reasons the last pago 
 but one {/ol. 82) of S. Mark's Gospel, which contains ch. 
 x\L 8 — 18. The Reader will learn with interest and sur- 
 prise that in the margin of this page against ver. 8, i* 
 
 281 
 written in rermilion, bi/ ilie original scribe, , : against 
 
 282 - 283 
 
 ver. 9,— 10 : against ver. 10,— |: against ver. 11,— 
 
 ^^ : against ver. 12,—^^^ : against ver. 13,— ^g®: against 
 
 ver. liy—^^Q-. against ver. 15,— ^g^: against ver. 16,— 
 
 ^^q: against ver. 19,— ^g^. That these sectional numbers', 
 
 with references to the Eusebian Canons subscribed, arc no 
 part of the (so-called) " Ammonian" system, will be re- 
 cognised at a glance. According to that scheme, S. Mark 
 
 233 
 xiv. 8 is numbered „ • But to proceed. 
 
 • Addit. MSS. 14,449 : 14,450, and 1. and 2, and 4, and 6, and 1, and 8 ' 
 14,463, and 9 : 17.113. (Dr. Wright's Catalogue, 4to. 1870.) Also Bich. 7,1»7. 
 The reader is referred to Asscmani j and to Adler, p. 62-3 : also p. 63. 
 
 r "Dawkins 3." See Dean Payne Smith's Catalogue, p. 72. 
 
 1 It will be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme, erery •«•'' 
 S. Mirk xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 15 inclusive, constitutes an independent ««- 
 tion (§§ 281—288) : ver. 16—18 another (§ 289); and veir. 19-80, *^°" 
 (§ 290), which U the last. The Greek scheme, as a rule, makes ""''l*^ **- 
 sections of vcir. 8, 9, 14, 19, SO; bnt throws together ver. 10— H • 1* 
 - - - —•' ■ - • p. 311.) 
 
 O.] 
 
 Tables of Sectional Eeferciiccn. 
 
 807 
 
 At the foot of the same page, (which is written in two 
 columns), is found the following set of rubricated references 
 to parallel places in the pther three Gospels : — 
 
 K'-x. .... oAi 
 
 
 
 .... OA^ jjk&i '■ \sn\ -^ rti^hy 
 
 • ■ • • I^^Z* • • ■ . 
 
 I .... A^ ... 
 
 The exact English counterpart of which, — (I owe it to 
 the kind help of M.Neubauer, of the Bodleian), — is sub- 
 joined. The Reader will scarcelj' require to be reminded 
 that the reason why §§ 282, 287, 289 do not appear in this 
 Table is because those Sections, (belonging to the tenth 
 Canon,) have nothing parallel to them in the other Gospels. 
 
 Luke 
 
 JJaHheto 
 
 Mark 
 
 Jolin 
 
 Luke 
 
 Mallheit 
 
 Mark 
 
 891 
 
 . . . 
 
 286 
 
 247 
 
 390 
 
 421 
 
 281 
 
 • • • 
 
 426 
 
 288 
 
 247 
 
 390 
 391 
 393 
 
 421 
 
 283 
 284 
 285 
 
 The general intention of this is suflSciently obvious : but 
 the Reader must be told that on making reference to S. Mat- 
 thew's Gospel, in this Syriac Codex, it is foimd that § 421 
 = chap, xxviii. 8 ; and § 426 = chap, xxviii. 19, 20: 
 
 That, in S.Luke's Gospel,— § 390 = chap. xxiv. 8—10: 
 § 391 = chap. xxiv. 11 ; and § 393 = chap. xxiv. 1.3—17 ' : 
 
 That, in S. John's Gospel, — § 247 = chap. xx. 17 {iropevov 
 down to 6(ov vfiuv'.) 
 
 ' Note that §^g^ = S.Luke xxiv. 12: §^j^„* = ver. 18-34: §^|5 = ver. 
 
 396 . : 
 
 396 
 
 35 . 5 "^ is incomplete, f Dr. Wright supplies the lacune for me, thus : § „ 
 
 397 
 — ver. 36 — 41 (down to Oaviia^dfrue) : § _ = thai alnois down to the end 
 
 of ver. 41 : § 'f = ver. 42 : § '^^ = ver. 43 : § ^ = ver. 44-50 : § ^^ 
 
 = 51: §^0= ver. 52, 3.] 
 
 Critical rciiders will be interested in comparing, or rather contrasting, 
 the Sectional sjetcm of a Syriac MS. with that which prevails in all Gretk 
 
 x2 
 
308 The Syriac Sectional 5y.b/c/H diffiimit Kp^ 
 
 So that, exhibited in familiar language, these Syriac 
 Marginal References are intended to guide a Reader, 
 (§281) From S. Mark xvi. 8,-to S. Matth. xx,-iii. 8: S.Luke 
 
 xxiv. 8— 10: S.John xx. 17 (,„. 
 pciov to the end of the terte). 
 
 (s -^^) xvi. 10,— to the same three place?. 
 
 (§284) xvi. 11,— to S. Luke xxiv. 11. 
 
 (§ -^^) xvi. 12,— to S.Luke xxiv. 1*— 17, 
 
 (S 286) xvi. 13,— to S.Lukc xxiv. 11. 
 
 (§ 288) xvi. 15,— to S. Matth. xxiv. 19, 20. 
 
 Here then, although the Ten Eusehian Canons arc faith- 
 fully retained, it is much to be noted that we are presented 
 with a different set of Sectional subdivisions. This wiU bo 
 best understood by attentively comparing aU the detaU* 
 which precede with the Eusehian references in the inner 
 margin of a copy of Lloyd's Greek Testament. 
 
 But the convincing proof that these Syriac Sections are 
 not those with which we have been hitherto acquainted from 
 Greek ilSS., is supplied by the fact that they are so many 
 
 Codices. S. Joho'B § 248 -^ „ ,g . ^.^ ^ 249 _ ^^^ ^^ ^ ^.^^ ^^^ .^ 
 
 250 
 ver. 21 : his § ^ = vet. 21 {KoBiis to the end of the veisc) : hii § ^^ 
 
 = ver. 22 : his § ^52 = ,er. 23 : his § ^^ = ver. 24-5 : his § g = T«r. 
 2«-7 : hU § 25jf = ver. 28 to the end of ixi. 4 : h's § ^56 ^ „; 5 ^ ,,;, 5 «57 
 = xii. 6 (to .ip^o^fT.) : his § 2^ = ver. 6, (r^oA.^ to the end) : hi. § (-^j 
 = ver. 7, 8 : his § gj = ver. 9 : his § %^ = ver. 10 = hi. J ^62 ^ ^„ j, , 
 ti« § g = first half of ver. 12 : his { 2°* is incomplete. 
 
 [But Dr. Wright, (remarking that in his MSS., which are evidently the 
 correcter ones. ^^ stands opposite the middle of ver. 12 [o48«li ti VroA^J and 
 g opposite ver. 13 [Ipxtrai uJr],) proceeds to supply the lacnne for mt, 
 thus: § g = ver. 13: §^/(f = ver.]4-5(do«Ti to^.A5«- Aryfiatr^): §*^ 
 =fl.V«Taipi'/a^<.u,(endofver.l5): § ^^J .-= ver. 16 (down to ^.X* «) : S ^ 
 = \iyu aiiif, Xlol^aivf ri irp60aTii /iou (end of ver. 16): § ^o* = '^«''- ^^ 
 
 (domi to 4,.\S irc) : § 2g°= A.'yt, airf i '1., p. ri ,. ^o„ (end of ver. 17) : { %' 
 = ver. 18 to 25.] 
 
 c] from that found in Gmh MSS. 309 
 
 more in number. The sum of the Sections in each of the 
 Gospels follows; for which, (the Bodleian Codex being muti- 
 lated,) I am indebted to the learning and obligingness of 
 Dr. "Wright". He quotes from "the beautiful JIS. Addit. 
 7,157, written a.d. 708 "." From this, it appears that the 
 Sections in the Gospel according to, — 
 
 S. Matthew, (instead of being from /are 426: (the last Section, 5 - ' 
 
 359 to 355,)) ... . in on \ 
 
 "[ consistmg of ver. 19, 20.) 
 
 §2Q0 
 
 consisting of ver. 19, 20.) 
 8. Lttke, ( 349 to 342,). . 402: (the last Section, § ^y^' 
 
 consisting of ver. 52, 53.) 
 S.John, ( 232,). . 271: (the last Section, ^j^' 
 
 consisting of ver. 18 — 25.) 
 
 The sum of the Sections therefore, in Sj/riacMSS. instead of 
 being between 1181 and 1162^, is found to be invariably 1389. 
 
 But here, the question arises, — ^Did the Syrian Christians 
 then retain the Ten Tables, dressing their contents afresh, 
 60 as to adapt them to their own ampler system of sectional 
 subdivision P or did they merely retain the elementary prin- 
 ciple of referring each Section to one of Ten Canons, but 
 substitute for the Eusehian Tables a species of harmony, or 
 apparatus of reference, at the foot of every page ? 
 
 The foregoing doubt is triumphantly resolved by a refer- 
 ence to Assemani's engraved representation, on xxii Copper 
 Plates, of the X Eusehian Tables from a superb Syriac Codex 
 (a.d. 580) in the Jledicean Library'^. The student who 
 
 • " I hnve examined for your purposes. Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458; and 
 7,157. Tlic first three arc K°'. liix, lii, aid Ini, in my own Catalogue : the 
 last, a Kcstorian MS., is K". xiii in the old Catalogue of Forsball and Rosen 
 (London, 1 838). All four agree in their nuxeration." 
 
 " See the preceding note. — Availing ity=elf of the reference given me by 
 my learned correspondent, I read as follow: in the Catalogue : — " Inter ipsa 
 textuB verhu, numeris viridi colore pictie, notatnr Canon hannoniae Ensehianae, 
 ad quern quiicvis scctio referenda est. Sic, { [i.e. 1] indicat canonem in quo 
 omnes Evnngclistae concurrunt," ic. &c 
 
 ' SnidiiB [a.d. 980], by giving 236 to S.Mark and 348 to S. Luke, makes 
 the sum of tlie Sections in Greek Erangelii 1,171. 
 
 * This shict was all but out of tlie jr.Ltr'j bands when llic pl-.icc in vol. !. 
 
310 The Euselian Talks found in Si/riac MSS. [ai-,. 
 
 inquires for Assemani's work will find that the numbor. • 
 the last line of each of the X Tables is os foUo'^ Z "' 
 
 Canon i 
 ii 
 
 Malliew 
 421 
 416 
 
 3fark 
 283 
 276 
 
 Zuke 
 390 
 383 
 
 John 
 247 
 
 iii 
 
 ir 
 
 V 
 
 134 
 394 
 319 
 
 212 
 
 145 
 262 
 
 178 
 223 
 
 ri 
 
 42G 
 
 288 
 
 
 
 vii 
 
 ■ viii 
 
 425 
 
 290 
 
 401 
 
 249 
 
 ix 
 
 X 
 
 424 
 
 289 
 
 399 
 402 
 
 262 
 271 
 
 The Synan Church, therefore, from a period of the re- 
 
 ZIT T'' Tr'' "''•^^"'^^'^ '"^^ ^-P^J« -to a Z 
 genter number of Sections than were in use among the 
 Greeks but also habituaUy employed Eusebian Tables Ihich 
 -idenfcal as they are in appearance and in the principle 
 of their arrangement with those with which Greek MSS. 
 ha e made us famil.ar.-yet differ materiaUy from these a. 
 to the numerical details of their contents 
 
 Let abler men follow up this inquiry to its lawful results, 
 n hen the extreme antiquity of the Syriac documents is con- 
 «dered. may it not almost be made a question whether 
 Eusebius himself put forth the larger or the smaller number 
 ot Sections ? But however that may be. more palpably pre- 
 carious than ever, I venture to submit, becomes the confident 
 assertion of the Critics that, "just as Eusebius found these 
 A erses [S.Mark xvi. 9-20] absent in his day from the best 
 and most nmnerous [s,c] copies, so u;as also the case with Am- 
 iioKiva when he formed his Harmony in the preceding cen- 
 tury ^ To speak plainly, the statement is purely mythical. 
 
 yi. Birch [Varr. Lectt. p. 226], asserts that in the best 
 Codices, the Sections of S. Mark's Gospel are not numbered 
 beyond ch. xvi. 8. Tischendorf prudently adds, "or ver. 9:" 
 
 of Assemani's Bibliotheoa Medicea. (fol. 1742,) «as sbcvn me by n.y learned 
 friend, P. E. Pusey, Esq, of Cb. Ck-Dr. Wright bad aU-eady most oblig- 
 ingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from tbe mutilated fragments of 
 tbe Canons, as well as of the Epistle to Carpianus in Add. 17,213 and 14,43a 
 • Dr. TreffeUes. (Vide tupri, pp. 125-6.) And so, Tischendorf. 
 
 o.] " Ammonian" Sections in Greek Evanyclia. 311 
 
 but to inlroduce that alternative is to surrender everji.hing. 
 I subjoin the result of an appeal to 151 Greek Evangelia. 
 There is written opposite to, 
 
 ver. C, . . § 232, in 3 Codices, (viz. A, U, 286) 
 
 — 8, . . § 233, . . 34 (including L, S)' 
 
 — 9, (?) § 234, . . 41 (including r, A, n)' 
 
 — 10, (?) § 235, .. 4 (viz. 67, 282, 331, 406) 
 
 — 12, (?) § 236, . . 7 . . . . (the number assigned by Suidas)' 
 
 — 14, (?) § 237, . . 12 (including a)"" 
 
 — 15, . . § 238, .. 3 (viz. Add. 19,387: 27,861, Ti=) 
 
 — 17, . . §239, .. 1 (viz. G) 
 
 — 19, . . § 240, . . 10 . . . . (including H, M, and the Codices 
 
 from which the Hliarklensian llerision, 
 A.B. 616, was made)* 
 
 — 20, . . § 241, . . 36 (including C, E, K, V)* 
 
 Thus, it is found that 114 Codices sectionize the last 
 Twelve Verses, against 37 which close the account at ver. 8, 
 or sooner. I infer — («) That the reckoning which would 
 limit the sections to precisely 233, is altogether precarious ; 
 and — (i) That the sum of the Sections assigned to S. Mark's 
 Gospel by Suidas and by Stephens (viz. 236) is arbitrary. 
 
 VII. To some, it may not be unacceptable, in conclusion, 
 to be presented with the very words in which Eusebius ex- 
 plains how he would have his Sections and Canons used. 
 His language requires attention. He says : — 
 
 El ovv avairrv^at h> ti rcjv reaffapav eiayyekiaiv orroiop- 
 S^irore, fiov\r)0eir)<; hna-nival tivi y ^ovXfi Ke<j;a\ai<fi, Koi 
 jvwvai rives ra irapavXriai.a elpijKaai, Kal Toix; olK€iov<s iv 
 
 ' The others are 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 82, 37, 40, 45, B2, 98, 113, 115, 127. 
 129, 132, 133, 134, 137. 169, 186, 188, 193, 195, 265, 269, 276, 371. Add. 
 18,211, CroniwcU 15, Wake 12 and 27. 
 
 • The others are 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 24, 29, 64 [more §§ ?], 65, 68, 111, 112, 
 114, 118. 1D7, 183, 190, 202, 263, 268, 270, 273, 277. 278. 284, 287, 294, 414, 
 438,439. llich 7.141. Add. 17.741 and 17.982. Cromw.l6. Canonic! 36 ojwi 
 112. Wake 21. • Viz. 184, 192, 264, h'". Add. 11,836. Ti«. M'ake 29. 
 
 >■ Tbe olhirs are 10, 20, 21, 36, 49, 187. 262, 266, 300, 364. Bawl. 141. 
 
 « ride supra, p. 33. Assemani, toI. j. p. 28. (Comp. Adler, p. 63.) The 
 others are 8. 26, 72, 299, 447. Bodl. Miscell. 17. Wake 36. 
 
 ' The others are 7. 27. 84, 38, 39, 46, 74, 89, 105, 116, 117, 135, 179, 185, 
 194, 198, 207. 212, 260, 261, 267, 275, 279, 293, 301, 445. k'". Add. 22,740. 
 Wake 22, 24, 30 ; and 81 in which, ver. 20 is numbered CMB. 
 
<312 Jerome transMes Eimcbin^ ad Carpianiim. [app. o. 
 
 eKUffToi TOTTOuf evpstv iv OK Kara tuv avrwv rivi-)^6T)aav, tk 
 eVe^^eiS vepiKOViji; avaXa^tov rov vpoKetfjievov apiOfLov, iiritn- 
 Tqaas "ri avTov evSov ip tw xavovi w ij hia rov Kivva^dptoi 
 vTrotTTjueiwais VTZo^efiKtjKev, etar} fiiv ev8vs fV tS>v eVi fierii- 
 TTov ToO icavopo^ •jrpoypa^cbv, oiroaoi Kai r/Ve? ravapaTrXijoia 
 elpriKaaiv eiriairiaas hi. Koi toIs tuiv Xoittuiv evayytKltop 
 api6fioi<; TO?? ip tw kupovi u i-rrexni apiOfiw -TrapaKei/iivotv, 
 eTTi^rjrtjcras re ainov^ epSop ip tois olicelois eKaarov tvay- 
 yeXlov TOTTOis, TO, •jtapaifKriaia XtyopTat evpi^aei^. 
 
 Jerome, — who is observed sometimes to exhibit the sense 
 of his author very loosely, — renders this as follows : — 
 
 " Cum igitur aperto Codice, verbi gratia, illud sive illud 
 Capituliim scire volueris cujus Canonis sit, statim ex sub- 
 jecto numero doceberis ; et recurrens ad principia, in quibus 
 Canonum est distincta congeries, eodemque statim Ganone 
 ex titulo frontis invento, illura quem quaerebas numerum, 
 ejusdem Evangelistse, qui et ipse ex inscriptione signatur, in- 
 venies ; atque e vicino ceterorum tramitibus inspectis, quos 
 numeros e regione habeant, annotabis. Et cum scieris, re- 
 curres ad volumina singulorum, et sine mora repertis nu- 
 nieris quos ante signaveras, reperies et loca in quibus vcl 
 eadem, vel vicina dixerunt." 
 
 This may be a very masterly way of explaining the use 
 of the Eusebian Canons. But the points of the original are 
 missed. What Eusebius actually says is this : — 
 
 " If therefore, on opening any one soever of the four Gos- 
 pels, thou desirest to study any given Section, and to ascertain 
 which of the Evangelists have said things of the same kind ; 
 as well as to discover the particular place where each has 
 been led [to speak] of the same things ; — note the number 
 of the Section thou art studying, and seek that number in 
 the Canon indicated by the numeral subscribed in vermilion- 
 Thou wilt be made aware, at once, from the heading of 
 each Canon, how many of the Evangelists, and which of 
 them, have said things of the same kind. Then, by attend- 
 ing to the parallel numbers relating to the other Gospels in 
 the same Canon, and by turning to each in its proper place, 
 thou wilt discover the Evangelists saying things of the 
 same kind." 
 
 APPENDIX (H). 
 
 On the Interpolation of thf text of Codex B and Codex H at 
 
 S. Matthew xxvii. 48 or 49. 
 
 (Referred to at pp. 202 and 219.) 
 
 It is well known that our two oldest Codices. Cod. B 
 and Cod. K, (see above, p. 80,) exhibit S. Matthew xxvu. 49, 
 as follows. After aojawv [Cod. Sinaii. <ra>aai] avTOP, they 
 
 read: — ■ _ . 
 
 (Cod. B.) (Cod. N-) 
 
 oAAoc be Aopw 
 Aorx"^ evuEev aurou 
 THv nAEupav KQi eiH\ 
 eev uboip KGi aino 
 
 aAAoc 
 be Aapwv AorxH 
 evuEev aurou th 
 nAeupav koi cEhA 
 eev ubcop KOt 01 
 MO 
 
 Then comes, o Be t? TaXtv npaia^ k.t.K. The same is 
 also the reading of Codd. C, L, U, T: and it is known to 
 recur in the following cursives,— 5, 48, 67, 115, 127 ». 
 
 Obvious is it to suspect with Matthaei, (ed. 1803, vol. i. 
 p 158,) that it was the Lectionary practice of the Orien- 
 tal Church which occasioned this interpolation. In S. John 
 xix 34 occurs the well-kmown record,— dXV els t<5v crpa- 
 
 T.0,™. xiyxu '^^"^ ^^^ '^'^^P^" '"f' t '"^^ *^f fr 
 alaa Kal vBwp: and it was the established practice of the 
 Easterns, in the Ecclesiastical lection for Good Friday, 
 (viz S Matth. xxvii. 1—61,) to interpose S.John xix. 31 
 to 37 between the 54th and the 55th verses of S.Matthew. 
 This will bo found alluded to above, at p. 202 and again at 
 pp. 218-9. 
 
 . But Cod. U inserts .««.<.. before .£,X9..; aud (at least two of tbe other 
 Codices, viz.) 48. 07 read aiixa «<u «iup. 
 
314 
 
 Rcmarlahle Scholmt in ErAif. 72, 
 
 [Apr. 
 
 After the pages just quoted were in t3'pe, while cxaiuiniug 
 Harl. MS. 6647 in the British Museum, {our Evan. 72,) I 
 alighted on the following Scholion, which I have eincc 
 found that Wetstein duly published; hut which has cer- 
 tainly not attracted the attention it deserves, and which i» 
 incorrectly represented as referring to the end of S. Mutth, 
 xxvii. 49. It is agaimi tor. 48 that there is written in the 
 margin, — 
 
 Qi" 'Oti €10 TO Koe' IcTopiav cuarfEAiov Aiabwpou Koi 
 ToTtavoO KQi aAAutv biacpopcov drioiv narepwv toOto 
 npoGKEiTQi : 
 
 ([h 'AaAoc be Aapdjv A6rx"v IvuEev ainoO thv nAcupdv . 
 KOI e£HAecv Obwp KQi ai)ja : toOto Aeret koi 6 
 
 XpuOOOTO/iOC. 
 
 This writer is perfectly correct in his statement. In 
 Chrysostom's 88th Homily on S. Matthew's Gospel, {0pp. 
 vii, 825 c: [vol. ii, p. 526, ed. Field.]) is read as follows: — 
 'Evofiiaav 'H\[av eluai, ^al, tov tcaXovpevov, koI ev0eai 
 fworiaav ainov o^os : (which is clearly meant to be a sum- 
 mary of the contents of per. 48 : then follows) erepos Se irpoa- 
 e\6cov yJr>ixv avrov t^v vXevpav ew^t. (Chrysostom quotes 
 no further, but proceeds,— Tt yt'oir &v tovtcov irapapofui- 
 repop, Ti Be BijpuoZiaTepov, k.t.\,) 
 
 I find it impossible on a review of the evidence to adhere 
 to the opinion I once held, and have partially expressed 
 above, (viz. at p. 202,) that the Lectionary-practice of the 
 Eastern Church was the occasion of this corrupt reading in 
 our two oldest uncials. A corrupt reading it undeniably is ; 
 and the discredit of exhibiting it, Codd. S, H, (not to say Codd. 
 
 ^ ^.Tiiuluats is what we call an "Annotation." [On tbe <ign in the 
 text, see the Catalogue of MSS. in the Turin Library, P. i. p. 93.] On the 
 word, and on arniftouaSat, (consider 2 Thess. iiL 14,) see the interesting re- 
 marks of Hnet, Origeniana, iii. § i. 4. (at the end of vol. iv. of Origeu's Opp, 
 p. 292-3.) — Enscbius (Hist. Heel. v. 20) uses ai»i(iutns in this sense. (See the 
 note of Valedus.) But it is plain from the rendering of Jerome and Rufinns 
 (ntbserij>tio),'that it often denoted a " signature," or signing of the name. 
 EnsebiuB to employs the word in lib. v. 19 ad Jin. 
 
 H.] 
 
 guotiiir/ t/ic lost Bialcsiaron o/Tatian. 
 
 315 
 
 C, L, TJ, r,) must continue to sustain. That Chr3'80stom 
 and Cyril also employed Codices disfigured by this self-same 
 blemish, is certain. It is an interesting and suggestive cir- 
 cumstance. Nor is this all. Sever us' relates that between 
 A.D. 496 and 511, being at Constantinople, he had known 
 this ver}' reading strenuousl)' discussed : whereupon had been 
 produced a splendid copy of S. Matthew's Gospel, tradition- 
 ally said to have been found with the bod)' of the Apostle 
 Barnabas in the Island of Cyprus in the time of the Em- 
 peror Zeno (a.d. 474 — 491) ; and preserved in the palace 
 with superstitious veneration in consequence. It contained 
 no record of the piercing of the Saviour's side : nor (adds 
 Severus) does an)' ancient Interpreter mention the trans- 
 action in that place, — except Chrysostom and Cyril of Alex- 
 andria; into whose Commentaries it has found its way. — 
 Thus, to Codices B, ^5, C and the copy familiarly employed 
 by Chrysostom, has to be added the copy which Cyril of 
 Alexandria * employed ; as well as evidently sundr)' other 
 Codices extant at Constantinople about a.d. 500. That the 
 corruption of the text of S. Matthew's Gospel under review 
 is ancient therefore, and was once very widely spread, is 
 certain. The question remains, — and this is the only point 
 to be determined, — How did it originate ? 
 
 Now it must be candidly admitted, that if the strange 
 method of the Lectionaries already explained, (viz. of inter- 
 posing seven verses of S. John's xix"" chapter [ver. 31 — 7] 
 between the 54th and 55th verses of S. Matth. xxvii,) really 
 were the occasion of this interpolation of S. John xix. 34 
 after S. Matth. xxvii. 48 or 49, — two points would seem to 
 call for explanation which at present remain unexplained : 
 First, (1) AMiy does only that one verse find place in the in- 
 terpolated copies P And next, (2) How does it come to pass 
 
 « He was Patriarch of Antioch, A.D. 612-9. — The extract (made by 
 I'ctrus junior, MoDopbjsite Patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 578,) purports to be 
 derived from the 26''' Epistle, (Book 9,) which Severns addressed to Thomas 
 Bp. of Geruinuicia after his exile. See Assemani, Bihl. Orient, vol. it. 
 pp. 81-2. 
 
 <" I cannot find the place in Cyril. I suppose it occurs in a lost Commentary 
 of this Father, — whose Works by the way are miserably indexed. 
 
316 The interpolation of Codd. B ami \i accounted for. [xtr 
 
 that that one verse is exhibited in bo very depraved and so 
 peculiar a form ? 
 
 For, to say nothing of the inverted order of the t«o 
 principal ^vords, (which is clearly due to 1 S.John v. 6,) 
 let it be carefully notied that the substitution of SWoi hi 
 Xa^wv \6yxvv, for aW fly twj; orTpaTitoruv \6yxD of the 
 Evangelist, is a tell-tale circumstance. The turn thus li- 
 centiously given to the narrative clearly proceeded from 
 some one who was bent on weaving incidents related by 
 different writers into a connected narrative, and who was 
 sometimes constrained to take liberties with his Text in 
 consequence. (Thus, S. Matthew having supplied the fact 
 that "one of them ran, and took a sponge, etui filled it 
 with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink," 
 S. John is made to say, " And another — took a spear.") 
 Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by Eusebius to 
 have done : viz. "after some fashion of his own, to have com- 
 posed out of the four Gospels one connected narrative *." 
 
 When therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient 
 Critic who appears to have been familiarly acquainted with 
 the lost " Diatessaron " of Tatian, comes before us with the 
 express declaration that in that famous monument of the 
 primitive age (a.d. 173), S. John's record of the piercing 
 of our Saviour's side was thrust into S. Matthew's History' 
 of the Passion in this precise way and in these very terms, — 
 (for, "Note," he says, "That into the Evangelical History 
 of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other holj' Fathers, 
 is introduced [here] the following addition : ' And another 
 took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out Water 
 and Blood,' This, Chrysostom also says"), — it is even un- ' 
 reasonable to seek for any other explanation of the vitiated 
 text of our two oldest (bodices. Not only is the testimony 
 to the critical fact abundantly sufficient, but the proposed 
 Bolution of the difficulty, in itself the reverse of improbable, 
 
 • 'O liivToi yt ■Kphffos airiy [viz. the tect of the Severiani] ipxVT^' 
 Ta7itLvhs trvpdiptiav rira Ha) avvayw^riv ovk oTS* iirws rwv tvayytXiuv avvBuSf t# 
 Sii raraipaiv tovto rpocar6fiaotr. *0 Kol Topi riaiy fiVcTi vw tptptrau l"* 
 next words are every way euggestive. ToD Si iTearSKou ^a<rl To\/i5<"" *""* 
 ainhv fUTaippdaai ^ufckt, iis iriSuaptoliiifvov atnuv r^v t^i ^picfo't auyroitr. 
 EusebiuB, Bist. Eccl. iv. 29, J 4. 
 
 H.] 
 
 Th'.odoret on the lout Diatesaaron of Tatian. 
 
 31 ; 
 
 is in the highest degree suggestive as well as important. 
 For, — May we not venture to opine that the same xaff" 'ktto- 
 plav evayyiXiov, — as this Writer aptly designates Tatian's 
 work, — is responsible for not a few of the monstra pofiiis 
 qiiam varine hctiones ' which are occasionally met with in 
 the earliest MSS. of all ? And, — Am I not right in sug- 
 gesting that the circumstance before us is the only thing 
 ire knoir for certain about the text of Tatiau's (miscalled) 
 "Harmony?" 
 
 To conclude.— That the "Diatessaron" of Tatian, (for so, 
 according to Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled 
 it,) has long since disappeared, no one now doubts*. That 
 Eusebius himself, (who lived 150 years after the probable 
 date of its composition,) had never seen it, may I suppose be 
 inferred from the terms in which he speaks of it. Jerome 
 does not so much as mention its existence. Epiphanins, 
 who is very full and particular concerning the heresy of 
 Tatian, affords no indication that he was acquainted with 
 his work. On the contrar}'. "The Diatessaron Gospel," 
 (he remarks in passing,) " which some call the Gospel ac- 
 cording to the Hebrews, is said to have been the production 
 of this writer ''," The most interesting notice we have of 
 Tatian's work is from the pen of Theodoret. After explain- 
 ing that Tatian the Syrian, originally a Sophist, and next 
 a disciple of Justin Martyr [a.d. 150], after Justin's death 
 aspired to being a heretical leader, — (statements which are 
 first found in Irena3U8,) — Theodoret enumerates his special 
 tenets. "This man" (he proceeds) "put together the so- 
 called Diatessaron Gospel, — from which he cut away the 
 genealogies, and whatever else shews that the Lord was 
 born of the seed of David. The book was used not only by 
 those who favoured Tatian's opinions, but by the orthodox 
 as well ; who, unaware of the mischievous spirit in which 
 the work had been executed, in their simplicity used the 
 book as an epitome. / ntyself found ujncardt oftico hundred 
 such cajtitf honourably jireserved in the Churches of this place," 
 (Cyrus iu Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made 
 
 ' Sec, for example, the readings of B or N, or botli, B.iecified fioin p. 60 to 
 p. 66. » fid. supra, p. 129, note (i;.) '' Ojip. vol. i. p. 391 D. 
 
318 
 
 T/uodoret. — Diodorus. — A nuggcstion. 
 
 [ait. m. 
 
 Bishop, A.D. 423,)—" all of which I collected together, ond 
 put aside ; suhstituting the Gospels of the Four £vangcliBt« 
 in their room '." 
 
 The diocese ofTheodorct (he says) contained eight hundred 
 Parishes *. It cannot be thought surprising that a work of 
 which copies had been multiplied to such an extraordinary- 
 extent, and which was evidently once held in high esteem, 
 should have had some influence on the text of the earliest 
 Codices ; and here, side by side with a categorical statement 
 as to one of its licentious interpolations, we are furnished 
 with documentary proof that many an early MS. also was 
 infected with the same taint. To assume that the two pho- 
 nomena stand related to one another in the way of cause 
 and effect, seems to be even an inevitable proceeding. 
 
 I will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning tho 
 " Diodorus" of whom the unknown author of this schoiion 
 epeaks : but I suppose it was that Diodorus who was made 
 Bishop of Tarsus in a.d. 378. He is related to have been 
 the preceptor of Chrj'sostom ; was a very voluminous writer ; 
 and, among the rest, according to Suidas, wrote a work " on 
 the Four Gospels." 
 
 Lastly, — How about the singular introduction into the 
 Lection for Good-Friday of this incident of the piercing of 
 the Redeemer's side? Is it allowable to conjecture that, 
 indirectly, the Diatessaron of Tatian may have been tho 
 occasion of that circumstance also; as well as of certain 
 other similar phenomena in the Evangeliaria P 
 
 ' Haeret. Fal. lib. i. c. xx. ( 0pp. iv. 208.) 
 
 *" Clinton, F. R. ii. Appendix, p. 473, quoting Thcodorefs " £p.ll3, p. HM. 
 [oi. voL iJL p. 986-7]." 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 (Pbomiseb at p. 51.) 
 
 I PKOCF.ED to fulfil the promise made at p. 51. — C. F. Mat- 
 thaei {Xor. Test., 1788, vol. iii. p. 269) states that in one of 
 the MSS. at ^foscow occurs the following " Schoiion of Euse- 
 BIUS : — Kara Mdpicov fiera t!]P avd<na<nv oil Xeyerai &(f>Oai 
 rols fiaPt)Tah." On this, Griesbach remarks (Comm. Crit. ii. 
 200), — " quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiara 
 agnovissot :" the record in S. Mark xvi. 14, being express, 
 — -ToTfpov avaxeifievois avTOis rots evBcKa i(f>avepw6r]. The 
 epigrammatic smartness of Griesbach's dictum has recom- 
 mended it to Dr. Tregelles and others who look unfavourablj' 
 on the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel ; and to this hour the 
 Schoiion of Matthaei remains unchallenged. 
 
 But to accept the proposed inference from it, is impos- 
 sible. It ought to be obvious to every thoughtful person 
 that problems of this class will not bear to be so handled. 
 It is as if one were to apply the rigid mathematical me- 
 thod to the ordinary transactions of daily life, for which 
 it is clearly unsuitable. Before we move a single step, 
 however, we desire a few more particulars concerning this 
 supposed e^•idence of Eusebius. 
 
 Accordingly, I invoked the good offices of my friend, the 
 Eev. W. G. Penny, English Chaplain at Moscow, to obtain 
 for me th<- entire context in which this "Schoiion of Eusebius" 
 occurs : little anticipating the trouble I was about to give 
 him. His task would have been comparatively easy had 
 I been able to furnish him (which I was not) with the exact 
 designation of the Codex required. At last by sheer deter- 
 mination and the display of no small ability, he discovered 
 the place, and sent me a tracing of the whole page : viz. fol. 
 286 (the lust ten words being overleaf) of Matthaei's " 12," 
 ("Synod. 139,") our Evan. 255. 
 
 It pro\-».>s to be the concluding portion of Victor's Com- 
 mentary, and to correspond with what is found at p. 365 of 
 
320 
 
 rOSTSCHIPT. 
 
 I'OSTSCltlPl'. 
 
 :jJl 
 
 Possinus, and p. 44G-7 of Cramer : except that after the 
 words " aiTOKvXiaeie rov \idov .'• -^j" and before the words 
 " aWo? h'f ^T}iriv" [Possinus, line 12 from bottom : Cramer, 
 line 5 front tin- toj)], is read as follows: — 
 
 0X0' KQir A\dpKOV METd thv dvdoTaoiv ou AercTOi Jxpeai 
 
 cuoe Tolc (jaSHTaic ; KOid AHarbmov jierd thv dvdoTaoiv tok 
 P'°" (LiaflHTak wtpGH kv th raAiAaia :■ 
 
 Kara "loodvvHV" €V auTH th H^epa thc dvaoTOoecoc twv 
 dupu>v KCKAeio/ievwv 6 'IhooCc (ueooc twv juaeHTwv jiH 
 napovTOc toG Ooomq Isth" koI fiee' H/iiepac ndAiv oktoj 
 oujjnapovTOc kqi toO 6coMd. M^Td TauTO ndAiv cq>dvH 
 GUTolc eni thc eaAaooHc thc Tipepidboc:- •"• 
 
 Kaid AgukSv d)(peH KAeoTTO ouv tw tTolpo) auroO quth 
 TH Hjicpa THC dvaordoecoc- ko! ndAtv iinooTpe\|/aoiv eic 
 'IcpouoaAHju u>(p6n TH aoTH HMcpa ouvHr/uevtov tcov AoinwA 
 MaeHTWv KQi JiqieH Zifiojvi- KQi ndAiv eEnrarcv auTOuc 
 eic BHOaviav kqi bicoTH dn" auTcav. 
 
 But surely no one who considers the matter attentively, 
 will conceive that he is warranted in drawing from this so 
 serious an inference as that Eusebius disallowed the last 
 Section of S. Mark's GospeL 
 
 (1.) In the first place, we have already [siiprd, p. 44] 
 heard Eusebius elaborately discuss the Section in question. 
 That he allowed it, is therefore certain. 
 
 (2.) But next, this o-;^o\iov evaefilov at the utmost can 
 only be regarded as a general summary of what Eusebius 
 has somewhere delivered concerning our Lord's appearances 
 after His Resurrection. As it stands, it clearly is not the 
 work of Eusebius. 
 
 (3.) And because I shall be reminded that such a state- 
 ment cannot be accepted on my own mere 'ipse dixit, 1 
 proceed to subjoin the original Scholion of which the pre- 
 ceding is evidently onl)' an epitome. It is found in three 
 of the Moscow MSS., (our Evan. 239, 259, 237,) but witliout 
 any Author's name : — 
 
 avToit {nifrjii, Xf'yfi, tovto ^6ij Tplrov TOIS /XOLUlJTaiS O)(h0Tj 6 Kvptot 
 UiTOi TTjV Cll'OL<TT(t(TlV "V tovto hfyuiv, on fiovov TpiTov, aKKa Ta 
 Toli oXXoit 7ra/)aXfXfi/i/i«Va X/yuK, roOro i}hr] rrpos toU SXXots rpiTov tij)a- 
 fepwSq Toit pa6i<Tatc. KOLTOL f^iv yup tok pliOLToOilOVj ix^Br) avToic 
 
 iv ry FaAiAata /lorav Kara *« tAv lcoai'i^i)i>, Iv avrfj 
 TT) rififpa rrjs avaaTaaiCds, rau 6vpwv KiKXeiafiffcou, 
 
 U.i(TOS avTiav ((XTTj, oirrniv tv UpovaaKrjp, fXTj TTaOOVTOS '*" 
 
 Qcofia. Koi TTaXiv fifO' rj/iepa^ oktco, jrapovTos koX 
 
 TOV Qoyiia, &(j}6l mVoIr, ^iij KiKKna-piviov tuv Ovpuv. fXtTOL TOLVTOL 
 
 im Ti;? 6a\daar)s rrjs Ti^epiaSof i(})ai>i) avToTy, 
 oil rots ra aWtt ^oKoir (. Kara fit AovKav cocbdrj KAeoTTCt avv 
 Tw iraipa) avTOV, avrfj rp rjfJ-e'pa Ttjf avaaraaecos. Kai 
 TTaXiv VTToa-Tpiy\ra(Tiv eJy 'hpovcraXrjfi avrfj rfj ijfJLepa, 
 avvrjypivcov rav fxaOi^rciv, m^dr) "S-ipLOivi. Kai rraXiv 
 i^ayaycov avrovs tis HrjOaviaUf ort Kai Sifarq d>'aXi;(/>flfit 
 
 O/T aVrCOU' i>t »'* toOtou vaplaratrBai f. (Ivat rat fir lovs padrjTas 
 pfTa T^v avtioTatriv ysyowlas onTatrtas Tov Swr^por rjp<ov Irjaov XpierroO. 
 plav /lie napa T«a MarSaiu), rpeTt 8c irapu Tai 'iwavyj), koi T^jfif Ta Aouxa 
 opoius *. 
 
 (4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here, — 
 the on/i/ thing in fact which I am concerned to point out, — 
 is the notable circumstance that the supposed dictum of 
 Eusebius, — ("quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam du- 
 biani agnovisset,") — is no longer discoverable. To saj' that 
 ' it has disnppeared,' would be incorrect. In the original 
 document it lias no existence. In plain terms, the famous 
 "<r;^oXioj' evae^lov" proves to be every wa)' a figment. It 
 is a worthless interpolation, thrust by some nameless scribe 
 into his abridgement of a Scholion, of which Eusebius (as 
 I shall presently shew) cannot have been the Author. 
 
 (5.) I may as well point out tchy the person who wrote 
 ihe longer Scholion says nothing about S. Mark's Gospel, 
 It is because there was nothing for him to saj'. 
 
 • Quottd hy Malfhaei, iV. T. (1788) vol. ix. p. 228, from g, a, d. 
 
322 
 
 POSTSCIlirT. 
 
 1'OSTSCRIPT. 
 
 He is enumerating our Lord's aj)pca ranees to Jlin /)/*. 
 cipks after His Resurrection ; and he discovers that these 
 were exactly seven in number : one being peculiar to S. ilat- 
 thew, — three, to S. John, — three, to S. Luke. But because, 
 (as CTcr)' one is aware), there exists no record of an appear- 
 ance to the Disciples peculiar to S. Mark's Gospel, the Au- 
 thor of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark perforce. 
 .... How so acute and accomplished a Critic as Matthaei 
 can have overlooked all this : how he can have failed to re- 
 cognise the identity of his longer and his shorter Scholion : 
 how he came to say of the latter, " conjicias ergo Eusebium 
 huQC totum locum repudiasse;" and, of the former, "ulU- 
 mam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere * :" lastly, 
 how Tischendorf (1869) can write, — " est enim ejusmodi ut 
 ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, cxclu- 
 dut '' :" — I profess myself unable to understand. 
 
 (G.) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his 
 Author, — besides enumerating all the appearances of our 
 Saviour which S. Luke anywhere records, — is further con- 
 victed of having injudiciously invented the negative state- 
 ment about S. Mark's Gospel which is occasioning us all 
 this trouble. 
 
 (7.) And yet, by that unlucky sentence of his, he certainly 
 did not mean what is commonly imagined. I am not con- 
 cerned to defend him : but it is only fair to point out that, 
 to suppose he intended to disallow the end of S. Mark's Gosjtel, 
 is altogether to misapprehend the gist of his remarks, and 
 to impute to him a purpose of which he clearly knew no- 
 thing. Note, how he throws his first two statements into 
 a separate paragraph ; contrasts, and evidently balances one 
 against the other : thus, — 
 
 Kara MdpKOv, juerd thv avdaraoiv ou Aeretai toqieai, — 
 KOTQ MareaTov (Jtrd thv dvaoiaoiv wtpGH, — loTc luaeHTOir 
 £v TH roAiAaio. 
 
 i'erlectiy eviUeut is it that the 'plena locutio' so to speak, 
 of the Writer would have been somewhat as follows: — 
 
 •[The first two Evangelists are engaged with our Sa- 
 viour's appearance to His Disciples in Galilee : but] by 
 ■ Ibid., u. 60, ami ix. 228. '' Noc. Test. (1860), p. 404. 
 
 323 
 
 S.Mark, He is ,,o/-by S. Matthew, He .^-related to have 
 been aclu;illy seen by them there. 
 
 ' [The other two Evangelists relate the appearances in 
 Jermnhm : and] according to S. John, &c. &c. 
 'According to S. Luke,' &c. &:c. 
 
 (8.) And on passing the "Quaestiones ad Marinum" 
 of Euseblus under review, I am constrained to admit that 
 the Scholion before us is just such a clumsy bit of writing 
 as an unskilful person might easily be betrayed into, who 
 should attempt to exhibit in a few short sentences the sub- 
 stance of more than one tedious disquisition of this ancient 
 Father'. Its remote parentage would fullv account for its 
 being designated " <tx6\iov eiaefflov," aU the same. 
 
 (9.) Least of all am I concerned to sav anything more 
 about the longer Scholion ; seeing that S. Mark is not so 
 much as mentioned in it. But I may as well point out that 
 as tt stands, Eusebius cannot have been its Author- the 
 proof being, that whereas the Scholion in question is a note 
 on S. John xxi. 12, (as Matthaei is careful to inform us )— 
 Its opening sentence is derived from Chry.ostom's Corn'men- 
 tary on that same rcrse in his 87"' Homily on S. John ^. 
 
 (10.) And thus, one by one, every imposing statement of 
 the Critics IS observed hopelessly to collapse as soon as it 
 18 questioned, and to vanish into thin air. 
 
 So much has been oflered, only because of the deliberate 
 pledge I gave in p. 51. -Never again, I undertake to say 
 will the "Scholion of Eusebius" which has cost my friend 
 at Moscow, his Archimandrites, and me, so much trouble be 
 introduced into any discussion of the genuineness of the last 
 Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark As the 
 oversight of one (C. F. Matthaei) who was sbgularly accurate 
 and towards whom we must all feel as towards a Benefactor' 
 let it be freely forgiven as weU as loyally forgotten ! 
 
 ' Let the raider examine his "Quaestio ii," (Mai, vol iv p 293 51 1 ■ 
 "QnacBtio i." (p. 295, last seven lines). See also p. 296 Une '9-32 '" 
 
 " See Cho-s. Opp vol. viii. p. 522 c :-«.. « „«J ^J,^-, l.^^^i,^,^^ „.,, 
 ^/.olut, htyu Kt. rpirov toi-to i,pi,n^ airoTs, Ir, iyipSr, i, n.pHy. 
 
 y2 
 
L'ENVOY 
 
 As one, escaped the bustling tiaflicking town. 
 Worn out and weary, climbs his favourite hill 
 And thinks it Heaven to sec the calm green fields 
 Mapped out in beautiful sunlight at his feet : 
 Or walks enraptured where the fitful south 
 Comes past the beans in blossom ; and no sight 
 Or scent or sound but fills his soul with glee : — 
 So I, — lejoicing once again to stand 
 AVhere Siloa's biook flows soft!)', and the meads 
 Are all enamell'd o'er with deathless flowers, 
 And Angel voices fill the dewy air. 
 Strife is so hateful to me ! most of all 
 A strife of words about the things of God. 
 Better by far the peasant's uncouth speech 
 Meant for the heart's confession of its hope. 
 Sweeter by far in village-school tlie words 
 But half remembered from the Book of Life, 
 Or scarce articulate lispings of the Creed. 
 
 And yet, three times that miracle of Spring 
 The grand old tree that darkens Exeter wall 
 Hath decked itself with blossoms as with stars, 
 Since I, like one that striveth unto death, 
 Find myself early and late and oft all day 
 Engaged in eager conflict for God's Truth ; 
 God's Truth, to be maintained against Man's lie. 
 And lo, my brook which widened out long since 
 Into a river, threatens now ut length 
 To burst its channel and become a sea. 
 
 O Sister, who ere yet my task is done 
 Art lying (my loved Sister !) in thy shroud 
 With a calm placid smile upon thy lips 
 As thou wert only " taking of rest in sleep," 
 Soon to wake up to ministries of love, — 
 Open those lips, kind Sister, for my sake 
 In the mysterious place of thy sojourn, 
 (For thou must needs be with the bless'd, — yea, where 
 The pure in heart draw wondrous nigh to God,) 
 And tell the Evangelist of thy brother's toil ; 
 Adding (be suie !) " lie found it his reward. 
 Yet supplicates thy blessing and thy prayers. 
 The blessing, saintly Stranger, of thy prayers. 
 Sure at the least unceasingly of mine !" 
 
 One other landed on the eternal shore ! 
 One other garnered into perfect peace ! 
 One other hid from hearing and from sight ! . . . 
 O but the days go heavily, and the toil 
 "WTiich used to seem so pleasant yields scant joy. 
 There come no tokens to us from the dead : 
 Save — it may be — that now and then we reap 
 Where not we sowed, and that may be from them, 
 Fruit of their prayers when we forgot to pray ! 
 Meantime there comes no message, comes no word : 
 Da)' after day no message and no sign : 
 And tl)e heart droops, and finds that it was Love 
 Not Fame it longed for, lived for : only Love. 
 
 CiKTKHBUBT. 
 
GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 Under " Codices" trill be found all tlie Evangelia detcriled or quoted: 
 under " Texts" all the placet of Scripture illustrated or referred to. 
 
 " Acta rUati," p. 25. 
 
 Acts, p. 199-200. See Texts. 
 
 Addit. See Codices. 
 
 Adlcr, J. G. C, p. 33-4. 
 
 Alford, Deaii, p. 8, 13, 38, 77, 103, 
 
 164, 227, 244-5, 259. 
 Algasia, p. 62. 
 Ambrose, p. 27. 
 "Ammonian" Sections, p. 12G-32, 
 
 295 — 311 ; in the four Gos|)c1e, 
 
 p. 309 ; in S. Mark's Gospel, p. 3 J 1. 
 Amnionins, p. 125 — 32. 
 iivi-yvu>atit, p. 196. 
 ii'cE^ruir/ui, p. 45, 196. 
 ivoKri^BTivat, p. 166. 
 Andreas of Crete, p. 258. 
 Angelic Hymn, p. 257 — 63. 
 iiTf/SA^Bi), p. 119. 
 irr/x". p. 225, 6. 
 4^op/i4 p. 127, 137. 
 Aphraates the Persian, p. 26-7, 258. 
 4irii»T«ri', p. 158-9. 
 Apocrypha, p. 301. 
 Apolinarins, p. 275, 277. 
 "Apostolical Constitations," p. 25, 
 
 258. 
 hxh, p. 224-5. 
 
 Armenian Version, p. 36, 239. 
 Ascension, The, p. 195. 
 
 Lessons, p. 204-5, 238-9. 
 
 Asscmani, p. 309-10, 315. 
 Asterisla, p. 116-8, 218- 
 Athanasian Creed, p- 3, 254. 
 Athaoasius, p. 30, 275 ; bow he read 
 
 S. Jo. xvii. 15, 16, p. 74. 
 Augustine, p. 28, 198, 200. 
 
 Babington, Eev. C, p. 291. 
 Basil, p. 93-9, 275. 
 Paaixis, p. 275. 
 Basle, p. 283. See Codices. 
 Bcde, Ven., p. 30. 
 
 Bengcl, J. A, p. 17, 101-2, 185. 
 Benson, Eev. Dr, p. 101. 
 BriBaBapi and BjiSocfa, p. 236. 
 Sibliothique at Paris, p. 228-31, 
 
 278-83. 
 Birch's N. T., Andr., p. 5, 116-8, 311. 
 PKiiTTny, p. 160. 
 
 Bobbiensis, Codex, p. 35, 124, 186. 
 Bodleian. See Codices. 
 Book of Common Prayer, p. 215. 
 Bostra, tee Titof . 
 Bosworth, Bev. Prof., p. 262. 
 Broadus, Prof., p. 139, 155, 168, 174 
 
 Caisarius, p. 133. 
 
 Canons, p. 127-31, 295-312. Set 
 
 Sections. 
 Carpian, Letter to, p. 126-8, 811-2. 
 Carthage. See Council. 
 Cassian, p. 193. 
 Catena;, p. 133-5. See Corderins, 
 
 Cramer, Mattbaei, Peltanus, P«- 
 
 sinus, Victor. 
 Chrysostom, p. 27, 85, 110, 179, 193, 
 
 198-9, 201-4, 223, 258-9, 276-7, 
 
 278, 814-6, 323. 
 Church, the Christian, p. 192. 
 
 Festivals, p. 203. 
 
 Churton, Eev. W. E., p. 236. 
 
 ••Circnlar,"A, p. 101-5. 
 
 Citations, tee Patristic. 
 
 Clemens Alex., p. 30. 
 
 Codices, depraved, p. 80-6, 217-2*- 
 
 See Corrupt readings. Dated, SjTiic 
 151, referred to p. 311. 
 
 CODICES. 
 
 Codex N, p. 70—90, 77, 109-13, 218- 
 22, 252, 257, 313 ; how it exhi- 
 bits the end of S. Mark, 88-90; 
 omissions, 73-6,79,80; Ephcs.i J, 
 81—109; interpolations and de- 
 
 GEXERAL INDEX. 
 
 327 
 
 pravations, p. 80-6 ; affected by the 
 LeclionaiT practice, p. 217 — 24; 
 synipntby with B, 78; not to old 
 as 11, 291-4 ; facsimile, p. iL 
 
 A, p. 220-1. 222, 257-9,311. 
 
 U, p. 70—90, 257, 202, 217-20. 222- 
 3, 813; bow it exhibits the end of 
 S. Mark, 86—90 ; omissions, 74-5, 
 79, 80; Ephes. i. 1,91—109; in 
 terpohilions and depravations, p 
 80-0 ; affected by the Lectioiiary 
 practic<i p. 217-24 ; sympathy 
 with K, 78 ; older than K. 2fll-4. 
 
 C, p. 218, 221-2, 302, 311 ; depraved 
 by tlic Lectionary practice, p. 220. 
 
 D, p. 100, 219-25, 257, 2G2, 302. 
 E; J). 305, 311. 
 
 F, J). 302. 
 
 G, p. 306, 911. 
 
 H, p. 302, 306, 311. 
 K, p. 197, 302, 311. 
 L, p. 123-5. 218, 225, 311 ; factimile, 
 
 p. 124. 
 M, p. 107, 305, 306, 311. 
 P, Q, K, Y. Z, p. 302. 
 S, V, A, n. p. 311. 
 T'', p. 305. 
 U, p. 218,811. 
 WS p. 302. 
 W"", p. 305. 
 r, p. 218,224, 311. 
 A, p. 119, 122, 311. 
 Codex l,p- 120, 123, 125. 
 
 7, p. 239. 
 
 10, pu 224, 231. 
 
 12, p. 122, 278, 288-9. 
 
 13, p. 226. 
 
 16, PL 119. 
 
 19, p.240, 278. 
 
 20. p- 118-9, 22, 271, 9, 280, 
 
 1.2. 
 
 22, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242. 
 
 23, p. 120. 
 
 24, p. 121-3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 
 
 268 9. 
 
 25, p. 225, 280. 
 
 27. 1>- 239. 
 
 30, p. 231. 
 
 33, p. 123. 
 
 31, p. «6, 120, 121-3, 280. 
 
 30, p. 118, 121-8, 229, 280, 8, 9. 
 
 Codex 37, p. 121-3, 281, 2S8-9. 
 
 38, p. 121-3. 
 
 39, p. 120, 121-3, 271, 281. 
 
 40, p. 121-3, 281, 28S-9. 
 
 41, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9. 
 
 47, p. 226. 
 
 50, p. 271, 281. 
 
 64, 56 a«(? 61, p. 220. 
 
 63, p. 240-1. 
 
 69, p. 123, 226. 
 
 72, p. 23, 218, 314. 
 
 77, p. 283. 
 
 90, p. 240. 
 
 92 and 94, p. 283. 
 
 108, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9. 
 
 113, p. 218. 
 
 ■; 117, p. 302. 
 
 124, p. 226. 
 
 129, p. 121-8, 283, 288-9. 
 
 137, p. 116-8, 121-8, 284. 288 9. 
 
 188, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288 9. 
 
 143, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. 
 
 146, p. 286. 
 
 181 and 186, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9. 
 
 194, p. 284. 
 
 195, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. 
 
 197, p. 284. 
 
 199, 206 and 209, p. 120, 1-3, 6. 
 
 210, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. 
 
 215, p. 265. 
 
 221 and 222, p. 121-3, 285, 8-9. 
 
 233, p. 286. 
 
 237 and 238, p. 285, 8-9, 321. 
 
 239, p. 321. 
 
 253, p. 285. 
 
 255, p. 285, 288-9, 319-23. 
 
 256, p. 239, 260. 
 
 859, p. 286, 288-9, 321. 
 
 262, p. 119, 122, 305. 
 
 263, p. 302, 304. 
 
 264, p. 117, 305-6. 
 
 265, p. 225. 
 
 266, p. 238. 
 
 267, p. 216. 
 
 268, p. 231. 
 
 270, p. 224. 
 
 274, p. 124. 
 
 282 and 293, p. 231. 
 
 299, p. 122, 281, 288-9. 
 
 : 300, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 
 
 280, 1, 2. 
 
328 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 Codex 301, p. 282. 
 
 ■ 3<M, p. 283. 
 
 • 300, p. 239, 282. 
 
 312, p. 282. 
 
 ■ 329, p. 122, 282, 288- 9. 
 
 332 and 353, p. 28G. 
 
 373, p. 287. 
 
 374, p. 122, 121, 2, 286, 288 9. 
 
 379 and 427, p. 287. 
 
 428 and 432, p. 286. 
 
 436, p. 218. 
 
 439, p. 226. 
 
 Addit. f,157, p. 309. 
 
 12,141, p. 215. 
 
 14,449, p. 215, 306, 309. 
 
 ' 14,450. p. 215, 806, 310. 
 
 14.451, p. 306. 
 
 14,432-4-5, p. 215, 306. 
 
 14,456, p. 215. 
 
 14,457-8, p. 215, 306, 309. 
 
 14,461, p. 215. 
 
 14,463. p. 215, 306. 
 
 14,464, p. 216. 
 
 14,469, p. 306. 
 
 14,485-8, p. 208. 
 
 14,492, p. 208. 
 
 17,113, p. 215, 300. 
 
 ■ 17,114-5-6, p. 215. 
 
 17,213, p. 310. 
 
 Ambros. M. 93, p. 286. 
 BasU., p. 283, (three Codd.) 
 Bobbiensis, p. 35, 124, 186. 
 Bodleian, «e Codd. r. A, 47, 50, 54, 
 
 Dawkins. 
 CoUl. 19. p. 122. 282. 8-9. 
 
 20. p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 
 
 8.9. 
 
 21. p. 121-3. 281. 8-9. 
 
 22. p. 281, 288. 
 
 23, p. 271, 281, 288. 
 
 24. p. 120. 121-3. 281. 288-9. 
 
 195. p. 66, 120, 1-3. 180. 
 
 Dawkins 3. p. 306-9. 
 
 EscDiial r, u. 8. p. 286. 
 
 Florence. S. Mar. Ben. Cod. iv, p. 120. 
 
 1-3,5. 
 HarL 1,810. p. 218. 
 
 5.10^, p. 226. 
 
 5.647, p. 23, 218, 314. 
 
 Laur. vi. 18, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9. 
 vi. 33, p. 284. 
 
 Laur. vi. 34, p. 284, 288. 
 
 viii. 14, p. 284. 
 
 MattLaci's a, 286, 2SS-9, 321. 
 d, p. 285, 288-9. 
 
 e, p. 285, 288-9. 
 
 10, p. 285. 
 
 12, p. 285, 288, 819-23. 
 
 14, p. 239, 280. 
 
 Mccrinau 117, p. 218. 
 
 Middle Hill 13, 975, p. 287. 
 
 Monacen. 99 and 381, p. 280. 
 
 465, p. 287. 
 
 Moscow, tee MattLaei.- 
 
 Eeg. 14, p. 123. 
 
 50, p. 226. 
 
 53, p. 119, 122, 305. 
 
 61 p. 302, 304. 
 
 62, 4ee Codex L. 
 
 64, p. 119. 
 
 63, p. 117, 305-6. 
 
 66, p. 225. 
 
 67, p. 238. 
 
 69, p. 216. 
 
 71, p. 239. 
 
 72, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242. 
 
 73, p. 231. 
 
 75, p. 224. 
 
 77 p. 120. 
 
 79*, p. 124. 
 
 90, p. 231. 
 
 91, p. 224, 231. 
 
 100. p. 231. 
 
 115, p. 239. 
 
 117, p. 231. 
 
 177, p. 121, 281, 8-9. 
 
 178, p. 121, 3, 228 9, 271, 3, 
 
 280, 8, 9. 
 
 186, p. 118 9, 122, 271. 4, 9, 
 
 280, 1, 2. 
 
 187. p. 282. 
 
 188, p. 118-9, 122, 271. 9, 280, 
 
 1.2. 
 
 189. p. 240, 278. 
 
 191, p. 225, 280. 
 
 194, p. 283. 
 
 201, p. 239, 282. 
 
 206, p. 282. 
 
 230, p. 122, 278, 28S-9. 
 
 703, p. 282. 
 
 2", p. 226. 
 71", p. 286. 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 329 
 
 c«", p. 220. 
 
 i«' and b"', p. 302. 
 
 V, p. 305. 
 
 Taurin. xx I. iv. 20, p. 286 
 
 Toledo, p. 286. 
 
 Vat. 358, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9. 
 
 7567, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 
 
 28S-9. 
 
 1,220 p. 121-3, 284, 283-9. 
 
 1,423, p. 287. 
 
 1,-115, p. 122.286,288-9. 
 
 1,700, p. 287. 
 
 Pul.ll. 5, p. 286. 
 
 Venet. G, 10, p. 120, 121-3, 5. 
 
 27, 1>. 121-3, 284, 288-9. 
 
 40.''., p. 285. 
 
 541, p. 285. 
 
 Vind. Kell. 4, Forlos. 5, p. 121, 3, 
 
 283, 2SS-9. 
 
 Ncp. 114, Lambec. 29, p. 283. 
 
 117, 38, p. 121-3, 
 
 285. 288-9. 
 
 118, 
 
 180, 
 
 - 31, p. 226. 
 
 - 39, p. 121-3, 
 285, 288-0. 
 
 Wake, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, p. 311. 
 Xavicr do Zelada, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9. 
 
 Cod. Evstt. 47 and 50, p. 197. 
 
 Paul, 67*». p. 99. 
 
 Collation of MSS. p. Tii.-Tiii., 218. 
 Colossians, Ej). to, p. 101, 102. See 
 
 TexU. 
 Comiuciitaries, Ancient, p. 287. 
 Common Prayer, tee Book. 
 Coiicordiincc test, p. 173. 
 Constautinople, p. 275. 
 Conjbcnrc and Howson, p. 103. 
 Coptic Version, p. 35. 
 Copyists of MSS., p. 262, 273-4, 320- 
 
 3. 
 Corderius, 11., p. 44. 134, 270, 4, 7. 
 Corrupt readings in MSS., p. 100-1. 
 
 112, 262-3. 
 Cosmos Indieoplenstes, p. 258. 
 Conncil of Cartilage, p. 25, 249. 
 Cramer, Dr. J. A., p. 44, 60, 271-3. 
 Creed of Jorusalem, p. 184-5. 
 
 , tee Atlianasiaii. 
 
 Ciiretoniiin Syriac Version, p. 33. 
 Cyprian, 25, 240. 
 
 Cyprus, p. 315. 
 
 Cyril of Alex., p. 29, 60, 110, 198, 
 201, 258. 271, 5, 7, 9, 281, 315. 
 
 of Jer., p. 184-6. 195. 258, 261. 
 
 Cyrus in Syria, p. 317, 8. 
 
 Damascene. Jolin, p. 30. 
 Dat«d MSS., p. 208, 224, 309. 
 Davidson, Dr., p. 12, 38, 114, 133-5, 
 
 6; 142, 8; 153, 160, 1. 4; 185. 
 De Touttie, p. 184, 201. 
 ttvT€poirp<ir^', p. 75, 220. 
 Diatessaron. p. 120, 314-8. 
 Diodorus, p. 314-8. 
 Dionysius of Corintli, p. 245. 
 Diouysius Syrus, p. 41. 
 Jiffa if viplttTois, p. 257 — 63. 
 
 Easter Lessons, p. 204-6. 238-9. 
 
 Eden. Bev. C. P., p. 3. 
 
 iyKvH\toVf p. 104 5. 
 
 iKpa?Oi.fiy Ik and iird, p 153. 
 
 iKUVOSf p. 160-7. 
 
 UKu^ts, p. 86. 
 
 Ellicott, Bisbop. p. 9. 
 
 Encyclical, p. 101-5. 
 
 Epbcsians, Ep. to, p. 91—109. See 
 Texts. 
 
 M, verbs compounded witb.p. 103-4. 
 
 im^avia, t&, p. 204. 
 
 Epipbanins, p. 95, 132-3. 199. 202-3, 
 258. 
 
 Epipbany, Festival of, p. 204, 7 ; les- 
 sons, 199. 
 
 Erizzo, F. M. p. 34. 
 
 Etiiiopic Version, p. 36. 
 
 (vSoxfa, p. 257-63. 
 
 Eulogius, p. 258. 
 
 Ensebius, p. 26, 41—51. 43, 61-4, 66. 
 84, 126-33, 332-8, 240. 249-52, 
 265-6, 267-8, 275, 314, 316,323; 
 knew nothing of Cod. S, P- 293-4 ; 
 was the Author of the " Ammo- 
 nian" Sections, p. 295 ; Euwbian 
 Tables in Syriac MSS.. p. 309-10 ; 
 Scholion wrongly ascribed to, p. 
 319-23. 
 
 tieiui, p. 168-9. 
 
 Enthymius Zig., p. 30, 68-9. 
 
 Evangolia, tee Codices. 
 
 Evangeliaria, p. 195, 197, 214-6. 
 
330 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 Erangelists vary their cipressioDE, 
 
 p. 147. 
 Evidence, Law of, p. 15. 
 iif\e6vTs, p. 188. 
 
 Facsimile of Cod. (^, p. ii. ; of Cod. L, 
 
 p. 124. 
 FatLers badly indexed, p. xU, 21, 30, 
 
 315 : tee Patristic. 
 Festivals of tUc Cburch, p. 203. 
 Field's ed. of Cbrysostom, p. 180. 
 Florence. See Codices, 
 Formula: of the Lectionaries, p. 215- 
 
 224,5. 
 
 Gandell. Rev. Prof., p. 148. 
 
 Garnier, J., p. 101. 
 
 Genesis, when read, p. 201. 
 
 Gennadins, p. 26. 
 
 Georgian Version, p. 8G. 
 
 Ol<)ria in ExceUis, p. 257-63. 
 
 Gothic Version, p. 35, 262. 
 
 Green, Rev. T. S., p. 13, 187, 153. 
 
 Gregentias, p. 30. 
 
 Gregory of Kaziauzus, p. 258. 
 
 of Nyssa, p. 29, 39—41, 66, 
 
 267-8. 
 
 ■ Thaninaturgus, p. 180. 
 - tlie Great, p. 30. 
 
 Gricshach, D. J. J., p. 4—7, 115-6, 
 232, 251, 319. 
 
 Harleian. See Codices. 
 Harmonia, S^c, Oxon. 1805, p. 298. 
 Harmony of S. Mark xvi. 9 — 20 with 
 
 the other Gospels, p. 188-90, 
 Tables of, in Greek MSS., 
 
 p. 304-6; in Syriac MSS., p. 306-11. 
 Harris, A. C, p. 293. 
 Hedibia, p. 61-6. 
 Hesychins of Jernsalem, p. 29, 40-1, 
 
 67-9, 67, 204, 237, 267-8. 
 Henrtley, Bev. Prof., p. 184. 
 Hbarklensian Bevision, p. 33, 124, 
 
 315. 
 Hicrosolymitan Version, p. 34, 199. 
 Hippolytus, p. 24-5, 248. 
 Hort, BcT. F. J. A., p. 13. 
 Huet, P. D., p. 269, 275, 314. 
 Hypapaut*, p. 207. 
 
 '\r\aovi XpiffTiJt, p. 165. 
 Indices, p. vii-viii, 21, 30, Sl5. 
 lutcrpolatioDB in U and ^ p. 80-6 ; 
 
 from the Lcctionary pruclicc, p. 
 
 217-24. 
 Ireuajus, p. 23, 246, 8, 260. 
 Itala, Vetus, p. 35. 
 
 Jacobns Bar-Salibi, p. 41. 
 "Jacobus Nisibenus," p. 26, 258. 
 James' Ecloga, p. 236. 
 Jerome, p. 26, 27-8, 34. 42, 49, 61-7, 
 
 67. 98, 106, 128. 153. 236. 260. 
 
 295, 312, 314. 
 Jerusalem.Version, p. 34, 199. Copies 
 
 at, p. 119. See Creed. 
 Jewish Church, p. 192. 
 Jewish Lcctionary, p. 194. 
 JoHK, S. See Texts. 
 John Damascene, p. 30. 
 Josephus, p. 275. 
 Justin Martyr, p. 23, 193. 
 
 Kaeapi^wv, p. 179-80. 
 Kvoriltiy, p. 120-1. 125. 
 Kay, Rev. Dr. W., p. 140. 183. 
 Kftfitvoy, p. 131, 282. 
 i((4>dAaioi', p. 45, 229, 298. 
 Eollar. p. 269. 
 KTlais, p. 161-2, 180. 
 Ki'fios, p. 165, 185. 
 
 Lachmann, C, p. 8, 259, 263.1 
 Laodiceans. Ep. to. p. 93—107. . 
 Latinus Latinius, p. 42-44. 
 Lectionary System, p. 191—211. 214- 
 
 6, 217-24. 240, 813-5. 318. 
 
 , Eastern, p. 196—211. 
 
 , Jewish, p. 192-4. 
 
 . Syrian, p. 205-8. 
 
 . the Kew. p. 200. 
 
 Lections, p. 238-9. See Lectionary 
 
 System. Syrian Lessons. 
 Lessons. See Lections. 
 Licentious. See Copyists. 
 Liturgical Formula;, p. 216-r-25. 
 Lloyd, Bishop C, p. 298. 
 A6yot, p. 165. 
 Luke, S. See Texts. 
 
 Mackuight, p, 105. 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 331 
 
 Mai, Card. A., p. 42-4, 242, 205. 
 Manuscripts. Ste Codices. 
 Marcion, p. 93-6, 103, 106-8. 
 Marginal references, p. 298 — 304. 
 Marinus, p. 20, 53-6, 249-50. 
 Mark, S., p. 161-2. 
 
 Make, S. (See TciU), p. 167. 176, 7, 
 9; Latinisms, 149-51; style of 
 ch. L 9—20, p. 143-4; phraseology 
 of ch. i. 1—12, p. 174-5 ; ch. xvi. 
 9—20, p. 86—73 J strncture of ch. 
 iri. 9— 20, p. 181-4. 
 
 ivi. 9 — 20, a Lection in the 
 
 Ancient Church, p. 204-11. 
 Matthaei, C. F., p. 5, 66, 191, 197, 
 227. 247, 271-3. 319-23. -See 
 Codices. 
 Matthew. S. See Texts. 
 ixiya aiPParor, p. 194. 
 Mecnnanll-, Cod., p.218. 
 Mcmphitic Version, p. 35. 
 Menologiuui, p. 197. 
 Methodius, p. 253. 
 Meyer, p. 13, 136, 160. 
 
 ruv aa$$dTtL'Vt p. 146-51. 
 Michaelis, J. D., p. lOL 
 Middle Hill, tee Codices. 
 Middleton, Bp., p. 105. 
 Mill, Dr. John, p. 129, 130, 2. 
 Modestus, p. 30. 
 Montfaucou, B. de, p. 121. 
 Moscow, tee Codices. Bcv. W. Q. 
 
 Penny. 
 Munich, tee Codices. 
 Muiatorian fragment, p. 103. 
 
 KatJvitT, Festival of, p. 199, 204. 
 Naiianius, tee Gregory. 
 Nestorius, p. 29. 
 Keubaner, M, p. 307. 
 Nisibenus, tee Aphraates. 
 Norton. Prof, p. 13. 137. 245. 
 Nyssa, »«■ Gregory. 
 
 Omissions in B and K p. 73-5, 79. 60, 
 
 91, &c. 
 
 inoaiTtXfvroy, p. 73, 4. 
 
 Order of the Gospels, p. 239-240. 
 
 Orid College, p. ix, x. 
 
 Origen, p. 47. 66. 85. 93-9. 107. 179. 
 
 222. 236. 245. 258. 200-1. 275, 
 277. 282 ; on S. Mark, 235. 
 
 Palestinian exemplar, p. 64-5, 121, 
 
 289. 
 riKiv, p. 168-9. 
 Palmer, Sir Roundcll. p. v. vi. 
 
 Bev. W. J., p. V. 
 
 Papias. p. 23. 
 
 ■napi, verbs comixjundcd with, p. 163 - 
 
 4. 
 Parallel passages. See Tables of Re- 
 ference. 
 vapaaKevfi, p. 150. 
 Paris, MSS. at, p. 228-31, 278-83 : 
 
 tee Codices, Coisl. aiii Reg. 
 Passion-tide Lessons, p. 202, 204. 
 " Patres App.." p. 240. 
 Patristic Citations of SS.. p. 20-3. 37. 
 
 257-63. 
 Paul. S., p. 161-2, 
 Peltanus, p. 134, 270-3. 
 Penny, Rev. W. G.. p. 319-23. 
 T(piypi(p(iv ri Tf'Xos, p. 233-4. 
 TtpiKoirh, p.45, 196, 8, 298. 
 Pesbito Version, p. 32. 
 Peter. S.. p. 161-2. 179, 180-1. See 
 Texts. 
 
 of Laodicca, p. 284, 286. 
 
 Petersbnrg. See Bev. A. S. Thomp- 
 son. 
 Petrus junior, p. 815. 
 Phillipps. Sir T. See Codices (Middle 
 
 Hill). 
 Pbiloxenian Version, p. 83. 4. 
 Phraseology of S. Mark xvi. 9—20. 
 
 p. 136—173. 146. 
 Pius IX.. p. ii. 
 Polycarp, p. 240. 
 iropf6tffdcu, p. 153. 
 Possevinus, p. 235. 
 Possinus. p. 44. 134. 22G. 270-4, 
 
 277. 290-2. 
 Prayer-Book, cee Book. 
 Proclns, p. 258. 
 Proper, tee Lessons. 
 vpiirti aaPfiirov, p. 146-51. 
 
 Reference Bibles, p. 800-1. 
 
 . ancient Tables of, p. 304- 
 
 11. 
 
332 
 
 GENERAL INDKX. 
 
 nevisioii of Auth. Version, p. 2C3-4. 
 
 — Gm-k Teit, p. 203. 
 
 Lcctioiiarv, p. 200-1. 
 
 Kosu, Vcu. Arclid., p. 27. 
 
 Hcv. W. v., p. 218. 
 
 Houtli, Rev. Preeidcut, p. ix. 
 Rufiiius, p. 314. 
 
 S. (G. V.) p. 264. 
 ffa&ParoKvpiaKai, p. 194. 
 aiBParuv — to, p. 146-51. 
 Suhidic Version, p. 36. 
 Saturday Lessons, p. 193, 4. 
 Scholia, p. 122, 236, 288-9, 314, 319- 
 , 23. 
 ScUolz, J. M. A., p. 7, 116-22, 197, 
 
 227, 242. 
 Scrivener, Rev. F. H., p. vii, viii, 
 
 9, 77. 139, 197, 215, 227. 246, 
 
 302-4. 
 ScctiouE n-itliout Canons in MSS., 
 
 p. 302 J tbcir use, 303-10. 
 
 ■ , see Ammonian. 
 
 atKlSts, p. 294. 
 
 Sevcros of Antiocb, p. 40-1, 57-9, 67, 
 
 121. 267-8, 315. 
 muifluais, p. 314. 
 Simon, P4re, p. 48, 269. 
 Sinaiticus, lee Code.\. 
 Sirletus, Card., p. 44. 
 Smith, Dean Payne, p. 41. 205-6. 214, 
 
 306. 
 Stanley. Dean A. P.. p. 3. 
 Style of S. Mark xvi. 9—20. p. 136- 
 
 45. 
 Subscription of Gospels, p. 230-1. 
 Suidas, p. 309, 311. 
 Synagogue norship, p. 192-3. 
 Synaxarinin. p. 197. 
 " Synopsis Script. S." p. 29. 
 Syriae MSS-, p. 208. 214-5, 225, 
 
 806-11. 
 Syrian Lessons, p. 205. 226, 238 9. 
 
 Tables of Reference in MSB, p. 304- 
 
 11. 
 Tail, Abp., p. 2. 3, 189. 314-8. 
 Tatian. p. 129, 814-8. 
 Tf'Aoi, p. 119-20. 224-42. 
 Tertullian. p. 30, 93-4, 106. 
 Textual Criticism, p. vii — ix, 113. 
 
 TEXTS. 
 
 S. Matthew i. lo. p. 178; 2.-. p. 
 80. 
 iii. 16, p. 178; 17, p- 30. 
 iv. 18— 22, p. 295-6. 
 viii. 9, 1). 82 ; 13, p. 80, 222. 
 li. 19, p. 83; 20, p. 221. 
 xii. 9, p. 221. 
 xiii. 35, p. 81, 110-1 J 36, p. 221 • 
 
 39, 55, p. 178. 
 xiv. 14. p. 221; 22. p. 216; 80, 
 
 p. 82. 
 XV. 22, p. 178. 
 ivi. 10, p. 177; 12. p. 178-9; IB, 
 
 p. 162. 
 XX. 17, p. 223 ; 29, p. 178. 
 xxi. 8, p. 178; 31, p. 83. 
 XXV. 24, p. 82. 
 
 iivi. 34, 75, p. 178; 39, p. 217-8. 
 xxtti. 32, p. 188; 34, p. 84; 35. 
 
 p. 75; 48, 49, p. 80. 218, 313-8 ; 
 
 64, 55, p. 315. 
 xiviii. 2, 8, p. 73 ; 8, p. 84; 19,20, 
 
 p. 178. 
 S.Mabk i. 1, p. 180, 185 ; 9—20, 
 
 p. 182; 10, p. 178; 11, 13, p. 30; 
 
 16—20, p. 295-6 ; 28, p. 85. 
 vi. 3. p. 178. 
 vii. 3. 4, p. 82; 19. p. 179; 26, 
 
 p 178. 
 viii. 10. 15. p. 178. 
 X. 6, p. 180 ; 42, p. 82 ; 4<i, p. 
 
 178. 
 xi. 8, p. 178. 
 xiii. 19, p. 180. 
 liv. 3, p. 221 ; 30, p. 178 ; 30, 68, 
 
 72. p. 84; 41, p. 225; 58. p. 82; 
 
 72. p. 177. 
 IV. 28, p. 301; 46, p. 82. 
 xvi. 8 and 9, p. 239 ; 8— 20. p. 306 ; 
 
 9. p. 152-3, 178-9. 187. 216; 
 
 9—20. p. 182. 224; 10, 14, p. 
 
 187. 319; 15. p. 180; 15. 16, p. 
 
 178 ; 19, p. 180. 195. 
 S. LuEE i. 26. p. 85 ; 27, p. 82. 
 ii. 14, p. 257-63; 37, p. 82. 
 iii. 22, p. 30,178; 23, p. 220. 
 iv. 5, p. 74; 16. p. 220; 44. p. 
 
 85. 
 
 f.];NKI(A.I, INDK.X. 
 
 3M.T 
 
 (S.LrsEl V. 1, |.. N2, 220; 1-11, 
 
 |..2;tMs 17, p. 220. 
 vi. 1, p.:.-.. 220; 37, p. 220; 48, 
 
 p. SI. 
 vii. 1. p. 220; 31, p. 216. 
 viii. 2, p. 152, 178. 
 ix. 57, p. 220. 
 
 X. 1, p.81, 220; 25, p. 220. 
 xiii. 2, p. 221. 
 
 IV. 13. p. 82. 
 
 Hi. 6. p. 178; 16, p. 74; 10, p. 
 
 220. 
 
 xviii. 15, p. 221.1. 
 
 xix. 4o, p. 220. 
 
 XI. 1, p. 220. 
 
 ixiL25, p. 82 J 43, 41, p. 79, 201, 
 
 2I7-S. 301 ; 64, p. 74. 
 ixiii. 15, p. 83; 34. p. 79, 219; 
 
 3S, p. "9 ; 45, p. 65-6. 
 ixiv. 12, p. 222; 13, p. 85, ?3G; 
 
 16, p. 17S-9; 31, p. 73 j 3b, 
 
 p. 221 ; 42, 52, 53, p. 74; 51, 
 
 p. 195. 
 S. Jobs i. 3, 4. p. 30, 110 j 3, 18, 50, 
 
 p. 3(.i; 4, p. 81, 109 11 ; 18. 
 
 p. 3.1, 81; 29. p. 236; 29, 44, 
 
 p. 221; 34, p. 81; 50, p. 30. 
 ii. 3. p. SO. 
 iii. 13, p. 80. 
 vi. 14, p. 221; 17, 61, p. 82; 61. 
 
 p.in. 
 
 vii.53-viii.ll,r. 219. 
 
 viii. 57, p. 82; 59, p. 80, 222. 
 
 ix. 4. 11. p. 81; 35, p. 82; 38, p. 79. 
 
 X. 14. p. 82; 29, p. 223. 
 
 xiii. 3, p. 221 ; 10. p. 111. 
 
 xiv.l.p.220;31. p.188. 
 
 xvillO, p.82; 15. 16. p. 76. 
 
 ivUL 1, p. 18S. 
 
 xix. 13, p. 223 ; 17. p. 188 ; 34, 
 
 p.21S, 313 5. 
 ixi.l, p. 221, 3; 1—6. 11. p. 295 6; 
 
 12.13, 15—17. p. 207 ; 18, p. 83 ; 
 
 2D.^79. 
 Aci«i-2,22.23.p.l80; 9, p.lDo. 
 
 iv. Ii p. 262. 
 viiLo,p-85. 
 X. 15. p. ISO. 
 xiii. 15, 27, p. 192. 
 KrnE5.i.l,l>.91-l»'!'- 
 vi. 21.2. p. 101. 
 
 Coi-OES. i. 23, p. 162. 
 iv. 7. 16. p- 101, 105. 
 
 1 S. Pet. ii. 13, p. 180. 
 iv. 19, p. 180. 
 
 2 S. Pet. iii. 4, p. 180. 
 
 Eccirs. xliii. 11. 12, p. 301. 
 1 Macc. iv. 59, p. 301. 
 
 ifaaeai, ji. 15G-8. 
 
 Tlicb:iic Version, ]>. 35. 
 
 Theodore of llopsuostiii, p. 275, 7. 
 
 Tbcodorcf, p. 258, 317-8. 
 
 Tliiodolus of Ancjra, p. 258. 
 
 Tlieopbnnia, p. 207. 
 
 Tlieopbylact, p. 30, 266. 
 
 BtwptiVf p- 157. 
 
 Thompson, Rev. A. S., p. ii, 252. 
 
 Thomson, Abp., p. 13. 
 
 Tischendorf, Ur., p. 8, 9, 10, 38. 77- 
 
 9. 65-6. 93. 109-14, 123, 125-33. 
 
 137. 153, 222, 7, 242, 4, 251 2, 9, 
 
 260-1. 280, 293, 311, 322, viii— 
 
 ix. 
 Titus of Rostra, p. 258, 275, 283. 
 Toledo, see Codices, 
 Townson, Rev. Dr., p. 151, 179. 
 Trcgellcs, Dr., p. 9, 10-12, 38, 9, 60, 
 
 76, 114, 126-9, 136. 145, 169, 222 3, 
 
 227, 231, 242, 4, 5, 7, 251, 9, 260, 
 
 319, viii — ii. 
 Turin, sec Codices. 
 
 Ulphilas, p. 35, 262. 
 
 Uncial 51SS. p. 20, 71. See Codices. 
 
 itietatt, p. 274-6. 
 
 Zartpov^ p. 160. 
 
 Vatican, p. 117, 283 4, 288-9: see 
 
 Codices. 
 Viiticnnus, see Codex. 
 Venice, see Codices. 
 Vcrccllonc, C, p. 73. 
 Versions, sec Armenian, &c. . 
 Veins Itda, p. 35. 
 Victor of Aiitioch, p. 29, 59—65, 67. 
 
 122, 134. 178, 180, 235, 250, 268, 
 
 269-67 ; Codicis, 278-87 ; Silio- 
 
 lion, 288 90. 
 
334 
 
 Victor of Capua, p. 12D. 
 Vienna, tee Codices. 
 VinccntiuB a Tbibari, p. 25. 
 Vulgate, p. 31. 
 
 Woslcott, ncv. Prof., p. 13, 23. 
 Welstcin, J. J., p. 121, 125, 129. 
 
 GENKIlAl, INDEX. 
 
 Wordsworth, Bisbop, p. \x, {». 
 
 liev. Jolin, p. ix. 
 
 AVriglit, Prof., p. 27, 33, 20C, 8, 21 1- 
 5, 225, 30G, 7, 8. 0, 10. 
 
 I Xnvicr dc Zelaila, sec Codices. 
 ' Xipbiliiius, John, p. 41. 
 
 TO TfAOC. 
 
 ST THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 A rL.\IN COMMENTARY ON THE FOUB HOLY GOS- 
 
 PELS, intended cbicfly for Devotional Beading. 6 voU., Fcap. 8vo., 
 cloth, £1 Is. 
 
 INSniaTION AND INTERPRETATION. Sctcu Sermons 
 
 prcacbcd before the University of Oxford; with an Introduction, being an 
 answer to a Volume entitled " Essays and Ecvicws." 8vo., dotb, 14s. 
 
 NINETY SHORT SERMONS FOR FAMILY READING: 
 
 following the Course of the Christian Seasons. First Series. 2 vols., 
 rc:ip. 8vo., cloth, 8s. 
 
 A TREATISE ON THE PASTORAL OFFICE, addressed chiefly 
 
 to Canilidates for Holy Orders, or to those who have recently undertaken 
 th* Cure of Souls. 8vo., 12s. 
 
 NINETY-ONE SHORT SERMONS FOR FAMILY READING: 
 following the Course of the Christian Seasons. Second Series. 2 vols., 
 Fcap. 6vo., cloth, 83. 
 
 THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE AND THE ENCYCLICAL. 
 
 A SEHMON preaclied at S. Mary-tlic- Virgin's, Oxford, on the Eighteenth 
 Sunday alter Trinity, (Oct. 20tli), 18G7, after publicly reading, by command 
 of the Lord Bisbop of the Diocese, the Pastoral Address of the Arclibisbops, 
 Biihojis, Metropolitans, and presiding Bishops assembled at the Lambeth 
 Conference. 8vo., Is. 
 
 DISESTABLISHMENT,— THE NATION'S FORMAL REIEC- 
 TlOX OF GOD AXD DENIAL OF THE FAITH. A SEKMON 
 preachetl nt S. Mary-tbe-Virgin's, Oxford, on the Nineteenth Sunday after 
 Trinity (Oct. 18, 1868). 8vo., Is. 
 
 THE ROMAN COUNCIL. A SERMON preached at S. Marj-- 
 
 the-A'irgin*s, Oxford, on the Third Sunday in Advent, Dec. 12, 1669 j being 
 the Sunday after the Death of JonK Pabsokb, Esq. 8vo., 6d. 
 
 THE REVIEAV OF A YEAR. A SERMON preached at 
 S. Mary -the- Virgin's, Oxford, on January 1, 1871. 8vo., 6d. 
 
 WOMAN'S PLACE. A SERMON preached at S. Mary-tlie- 
 Virgiu"*, Oxford, on Scxagesima Sunday, Feb. 12, 1871. 8vo., 4d. 
 
 OxFOBD and Lokdok : James Pabeeb and Co. 
 

 HprKMAN 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 BINDERY, 1 IN I.. 
 Bouod-To-Please* 
 
 DEC 00 
 
 N. MANCHESTCn, UlSlfiW. 1S»g?^ 
 
 1