4. But I cannot dismiss the testimony of Eusebius until I have recorded my own entire conviction that this Father is no more an original authority here than Jerome, or Hesychius, or Victor.(436) He is evidently adopting the language of some more ancient writer than himself. I observe that he introduces the problem with the remark that what follows is one of tho questions “for ever mooted by every body.”(437) I suspect (with Matthaei, [_suprà_, p. 66,]) that _Origen_ is the _true_ author of all this confusion. He certainly relates of himself that among his voluminous exegetical writings was a _treatise on S. Mark’s Gospel_.(438) To Origen’s works, Eusebius, (his apologist and admirer,) is known to have habitually resorted; and, like many others, to have derived not a few of his notions from that fervid and acute, but most erratic intellect. Origen’s writings in short, seem to have been the source of much, if not most of the mistaken Criticism of Antiquity. (The reader is reminded of what has been offered above at p. 96-7). And this would not be the first occasion on which it would appear that when an ancient Writer speaks of “_the accurate copies_”, what he actually _means is the text of Scripture which was employed or approved by Origen_.(439) The more attentively the language of Eusebius in this place is considered, the more firmly (it is thought) will the suspicion be entertained that he is here only reproducing the sentiments of another person. But, however this may be, it is at least certain that the precise meaning of what he says, has been hitherto generally overlooked. He certainly does _not_ say, as Jerome, from his loose translation of the passage,(440) evidently imagined,—“_omnibus __ Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus_:” but only,—“_non in omnibus Evangelii exemplaribus hoc capitulum inveniri_;” which is an entirely different thing. Eusebius adds,—“Accuratiora saltem exemplaria FINEM narrationis secundum Marcum circumscribunt in verbis ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ;”—and, “In hoc, fere in omnibus exemplaribus Evangelii secundum Marcum, FINEM circumscribi.”—The point, however, of greatest interest is, that Eusebius here calls attention to the prevalence in MSS. of his time of the very _liturgical peculiarity_ which plainly supplies the one true solution of the problem under discussion. His testimony is a marvellous corroboration of what we learn from Cod. 22, (see above, p. 230,) and, rightly understood, does not go a whit beyond it. 5. What wonder that Hesychius, because he adopted blindly what he found in Eusebius, should at once betray his author and exactly miss the point of what his author says? Τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον (so he writes) μέχρι τοῦ “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ,” ἔχει ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.(441)