left incomplete. The most probable supposition" (he adds) "is, that
_the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away_." The italics in this
conjecture (which was originally Griesbach's) are not mine. The internal
evidence (declares the same learned writer) "preponderates vastly against
the authorship of Mark;" or (as he elsewhere expresses it) against "its
genuineness as a work of the Evangelist." Accordingly, in his Prolegomena,
(p. 38) he describes it as "_the remarkable fragment_ at the end of the
Gospel." After this, we are the less astonished to find that he _closes
the second Gospel at ver._ 8; introduces the Subscription there; and
encloses the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets. Thus,
whereas from the days of our illustrious countryman Mill (1707), the
editors of the N. T. have either been silent on the subject, or else have
whispered only that this section of the Gospel 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 Griesbach's adverse sentence
pronounced fifty years ago, and to load the blessed Evangelist with bonds.

It might have been foreseen that when Critics so conspicuous permit
themselves thus to handle the precious deposit, others would take courage
to hurl their thunderbolts in the same direction with the less concern.
"It is probable," (says Abp. Thomson in the _Bible Dictionary_,) "that
this section is from a different hand, and was annexed to the Gospels soon
after the times of the Apostles."(18)--The Rev. T. S. Green,(19) (an able
scholar, never to be mentioned without respect,) considers that "the
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 written by the Evangelist,
but were added by some other writer to supply a short conclusion to the
work, which some cause had prevented the author from
completing."(20)--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