menon 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 unquestionably the
oldest we possess, S. Mark's Gospel ends abruptly at the 8th verse of the
xvith chapter, and that the customary subscription ({~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA~} {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER NU~})
follows,--is true; but it is far from being _the whole_ truth. It requires
to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been
to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of _the next ensuing
column_ 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 in this place one column entirely vacant.
It is _the only vacant column_ in the whole manuscript;--a blank space
_abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless
withheld. Why_ did he leave that column vacant? _What_ can have induced
the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule?
The phenomenon,--(I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to
it,)--is in the highest degree significant, and admits of only one
interpretation. _The older MS._ from which Cod. B was copied must have
infallibly _contained_ the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was
instructed to leave them out,--and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank
space _in memoriam rei_. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was
silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the
Vatican Codex is made to _refute itself_ even while it seems to be bearing
testimony against the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel, by
withholding them: for it forbids the inference which, under 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 witness than
itself_. The venerable Author of the original Codex from which Codex B was
copied, is thereby brought to view. And thus, our supposed adversary
(Codex B) proves our most useful ally: for it procures