2. Surely, a new and unexpected light already begins to dawn upon this subject! How is it that we paid so little attention before to the terms in which this ancient Father delivers his evidence, that we overlooked the import of an expression of his which from the first must have struck us as peculiar, but which _now_ we perceive to be of paramount significancy? Eusebius is pointing out that _one_ way for a man (so minded) to get rid of the apparent inconsistency between S. Mark xvi. 9 and S. Matth. xxviii. 1, would be for him to reject the entire “Ecclesiastical Lection”(433) in which S. Mark xvi. 9 occurs. Any one adopting this course, (he proceeds; and it is much to be noted that Eusebius is throughout delivering the imaginary sentiments of another,—not his own:) Such an one (he says) “will say that it is _not met with in all_ the copies of S. Mark’s Gospel. The accurate copies, at all events,”—and then follows an expression in which this ancient Critic is observed ingeniously to accommodate his language to the phenomenon which he has to describe, so as covertly to insinuate something else. Eusebius employs an idiom (it is found elsewhere in his writings) sufficiently colourless to have hitherto failed to arouse attention; but of which it is impossible to overlook the actual design and import, after all that has gone before. He clearly _recognises the very phenomenon to which I have been calling __ attention_ within the last two pages, and which I need not further insist upon or explain: viz. that _the words_ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ _were_ in some very ancient (“_the accurate_”) copies _found written after_ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ: although to an unsuspicious reader the expression which he uses may well seem to denote nothing more than that the second Gospel _generally came to an end_ there.