(3.) Then, further: when I scrutinize attentively the two portions of Scripture thus proposed for critical survey, I am not a little struck by the discovery that the VIth Article of the ancient Creed of Jerusalem (A.D. 348) is found in the one: the Xth Article, in the other.(317) If it be a purely fortuitous circumstance, that two cardinal verities like these,—(viz. “_He ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right Hand of _GOD”—and “_One Baptism for the Remission of sins_,”) should be found at either extremity of one short Gospel,—I will but point out that it is certainly one of a very remarkable series of fortuitous circumstances.—But in the thing to be mentioned next, there neither is, nor can be, any talk of fortuitousness at all. (4.) Allusion is made to the diversity of Name whereby the Son of Man is indicated in these two several places of the Gospel; which constitutes a most Divine circumstance, and is profoundly significant. He who in _the first_ verse (S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title “Ἰησοῦς” and “Χριστός,”—here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi. 19, 20) is styled for the first and for the last time, “Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ”—the LORD.(318) And why? Because He who at His Circumcision was named “JESUS,” (a Name which was given Him from _His Birth_, yea, and before His Birth); He who at His Baptism became “the CHRIST,” (a Title which belonged to _His Office_, and which betokens His sacred _Unction_);—the same, on the occasion of His Ascension into Heaven and Session at the Right Hand of GOD,—when (as we know) “all power had been given unto Him in Heaven and in Earth” (S. Matth. xxviii. 18),—is designated by His Name of _Dominion_; “the LORD” JEHOVAH ... “Magnifica et opportuna appellatio!”—as Bengel well remarks. But I take leave to point out that all this is what never either would or could have entered into the mind of a fabricator of a conclusion to S. Mark’s unfinished Gospel. No inventor of a supplement, I say, _could_ have planted his foot in this way in exactly the right place. The proof of my assertion is twofold:— (_a_) First, because the present indication that the HOLY GHOST was indeed the Author of these last Twelve Verses is even appealed to by Dr. Davidson and his School, _as a proof of a spurious original_. Verily, such Critics do not recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they _see_ it!