(2.) Indeed, the phrase before us supplies no unapt illustration of the precariousness of the style of remark which is just now engaging our attention. Within the space of three verses, S. Mark has _both_ expressions,—viz. ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ (viii. 23) and also ἐπέθηκε τὰς χεῖρας ἐπί (ver. 25.) S. Matthew has the latter phrase once; the former, twice.(289) _Who_ will not admit that all this (so-called) Criticism is the veriest trifling; and that to pretend to argue about the genuineness of a passage of Scripture from such evidence as the present is an act of rashness bordering on folly?... The reader is referred to what was offered above on Art. VII. (XXI. and XXII.) Again: the words μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (ver. 19 and ver. 20) are also declared to be “_foreign to the diction of Mark_.” I ask leave to examine these two charges separately. (1.) μὲν οὖν occurs only once in S. Mark’s Gospel, truly: but then _it occurs only once in S. Luke_ (iii. 18);—only twice in S. John (xix. 24: xx. 30):—in S. Matthew, never at all. What imaginable plea can be made out of such evidence as this, for or against the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel?—Once more, I pause for an answer. (2.) As for ὁ Κύριος being “_foreign to the diction of Mark_ in speaking of the LORD,”—I really do not know what the learned Critic can possibly mean; except that he finds our LORD _nowhere called_ ὁ Κύριος _by S. Mark, except in this place._ But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither does he find our LORD anywhere called by S. Mark “JESUS CHRIST,” except in chap. i. 1. Are we, therefore, to suspect the beginning of S. Mark’s Gospel as well as the end of it? By no means, (I shall perhaps be told:) a reason is assignable for the use of _that_ expression in chap. i. 1. And so, I venture to reply, there is a fully sufficient reason assignable for the use of _this_ expression in chap. xvi. 19.(290) (3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our LORD is called Ἰησοῦς Χριστός,—but _only in the first Chapter_ of their respective Gospels. By S. Luke nowhere. The appellation may,—or may not,—be thought “foreign to the diction” of those Evangelists. But surely it constitutes no reason whatever why we should suspect the genuineness of the beginning of the first, or the second, or the fourth Gospel. (4.) S. John _three times in the first verse of his first Chapter_ designates the Eternal SON by the extraordinary title ὁ Λόγος; but _nowhere else in his Gospel_, (except once in ver. 14,) does that Name recur. Would it be reasonable to represent _this_ as a suspicious circumstance? Is not the Divine fitness of that sublime appellation generally recognised and admitted?(291)—Surely, we come to Scripture to be learners only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to have spoken about GOD! When will men learn that “the Scripture-phrase, or _language of the Holy Ghost_”(292) is as much above them as Heaven is above Earth?