(_a_) The adverb εὐθέως (or εὐθύς) is indeed of _very_ frequent occurrence in S. Mark’s Gospel. And yet its absence from chap. xvi is _proved_ to be in no degree a suspicious circumstance, from the discovery that though it occurs as many as 12 times in chap. i; and 6 times in chap. v; and 5 times in chap. iv, vi; and 3 times in chap. ii, ix, xiv; and 2 times in chap. vii, xi; it yet occurs only 1 times in chap. iii, viii, x, xv; while it occurs 0 times in chap. xii, xiii, xvi. (b) In like manner, πάλιν, which occurs as often as 6 times in chap. xiv; and 5 times in chap. x; and 3 times in chap. viii, xv; and 2 times in chap. ii, iii, vii, xi, xii; and 1 times in chap. iv, v; occurs 0 times in chap. i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi.(297) (1.) Now,—How can it possibly be more suspicious that πάλιν should be absent from _the last twelve_ verses of S. Mark, than that it should be away from _the first forty-five_? (2.) Again. Since εὐθέως is not found in the xiith or the xiiith chapters of this same Gospel,—nor πάλιν in the ist, vith, ixth, or xiiith chapter,—(for the sufficient reason that _neither word is wanted in any of those places_,)—what possible “suspiciousness” can be supposed to result from the absence of both words from the xvith chapter also, where _also_ neither of them is wanted? _Why_ is the xvith chapter of S. Mark’s Gospel,—or rather, why are “the last twelve verses” of it,—to labour under such special disfavor and discredit? (3.) Dr. Tregelles makes answer,—“I am well aware that arguments on _style_ are often very fallacious, and that _by themselves_ they prove very little: but when there does exist external evidence, and when internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression, and connection, are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming a judgment; then these internal considerations possess very great weight.”(298)—For all rejoinder, the respected writer is asked,—(_a_) But when there _does not_ exist any such external evidence: what then? Next, he is reminded (_b_) That whether there does, or does not, it is at least certain that _not one_ of those “proofs as to style,” &c., of which he speaks, has been able to stand the test of strict examination. Not only is the precariousness of all such Criticism as has been brought to bear against the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 excessive, but the supposed facts adduced in evidence have been found out to be every one of them _mistakes_;—being either, (1) demonstrably without argumentative cogency of any kind;—or else, (2) distinctly corroborative and confirmatory circumstances: indications that this part of the Gospel is indeed by S. Mark,—_not_ that it is probably the work of another hand. And thus the formidable enumeration of twenty-seven grounds of suspicion vanishes out of sight: fourteen of them proving to be frivolous and nugatory; and _thirteen_, more or less clearly witnessing _in favour_ of the section.(299)