as by the faithful and pious,
_this_ reading is not held to be genuine rather than _that_; 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 deceive those who are unable to verify the
quotation for themselves.

It has been urged indeed that Eusebius cannot have recognised the verses
in question as genuine, because a scholium 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 He appeared unto the Eleven as they sat
at meat." May I be permitted to declare that I am distrustful of the
proposed 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 obtaining 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 prominence 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 ({~HEBREW LETTER ALEF~}) sufficiently
establishes the contrary. Let it be freely conceded, (but in fact it has
been freely conceded already,) that there must have existed in the time of
Eusebius _many_ 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