at which our LORD rose from the dead. I need not enter
more particularly into an examination of this (so-called) "Homily": but I
must not dismiss it without pointing out that its author at all events
cannot be thought to have repudiated the concluding verses of S. Mark: for
at the end of his discourse, he quotes the 19th verse entire, without
hesitation, in confirmation of one of his statements, and declares that
the words are written by S. Mark.(102)

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 _a passing allusion of his to what Eusebius had long before
delivered on the same subject_, as if it exhibited his own individual
teaching. It is demonstrable(103) that he is not bearing testimony to the
condition of the MSS. of S. Mark's Gospel in his own age: neither, indeed,
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 vith 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 concerned;--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 Commentator of antiquity about whom less is certainly known. Clinton
(who enumerates cccxxii "Ecclesiastical Authors" from A.D. 70 to A.D.
685(104)) does not even record his name. The recent "Dictionary of Greek
and Roman Biography" is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest
editor) calls his very existence in question; proposing to attribute his
Commentary on S. Mark to Cyril of Alexandria.(105) Not to delay the reader
needlessly,--Victor of Antioch is an interesting and unjustly neglected
Father of the Church; whose date,--(inasmuch as he apparently quotes
sometimes from Cyril of Alexandria who died A.D. 4