(2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either as to the “Sections of Ammonius” or to “Canons of Eusebius,” Tischendorf is perfectly well aware. So is my reader. (3.) His appeal to CÆSARIUS 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. 368; and who, (as far as is known,) _never wrote anything_. A work called Πεύσεις, (which in the xth century was attributed to Cæsarius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known except that Cæsarius was certainly _not_ its author,) is the composition to which Tischendorf refers. Even the approximate date of this performance, however, has never been ascertained. And yet, if Tischendorf 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 nothing else but a condensed paraphrase of that part of Epiphanius_, in which the original statement occurs.(233) Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of AMMONIUS, of EPIPHANIUS, and of CÆSARIUS on the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. It is exactly _nil_. In fact Pseudo-Cæsarius, so far from “bearing witness to the fact” that the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel are spurious, _actually quotes the 16_th_ verse as genuine_.(234) (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 CATENÆ. “In the Catenæ on Mark,” (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,) “there is no explanation of this section.”(235) “The Catenæ on Mark:” as if they were quite common things,—“plenty, as blackberries!” But,—_Which_ of “the Catenæ” may the learned Critic be supposed to have examined? 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 Rome in 1673; because _that_ Codex is expressly declared by the learned Editor to be defective from ver. 8 to the end.(236) 2. Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the Vatican Library and communicated to Possinus; because in _that_ Catena the 9th and 12th verses are distinctly commented on.(237) 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 _that_ Catena; inasmuch as it contains, (as I have already largely shewn, and, in fact, as every one may see,) a long and elaborate dissertation on the best way of reconciling the language of S. Mark in ver. 9 with the language of the other Evangelists.(238)