6. This may suffice concerning the testimony of Eusebius.—It will be understood that I suppose Origen to have fallen in with one or more copies of S. Mark’s Gospel which exhibited _the Liturgical hint_, (ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ,) conspicuously written against S. Mark xvi. 9. Such a copy may, or may not, have there terminated abruptly. I suspect however that it _did_. Origen at all events, (_more suo_,) will have remarked on the phenomenon before him; and Eusebius will have adopted his remarks,—as the heralds say, “with _a difference_”—simply because they suited his purpose, and seemed to him ingenious and interesting. 7. For the copy in question,—(_like_ that other copy of S. Mark from which the Peshito translation was made, and in which ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ most inopportunely occurs at chap. xiv. 41,(442))—will have become the progenitor of several other copies (as Codd. B and א); and some of these, it is pretty evident, were familiarly known to Eusebius. 8. Let it however be clearly borne in mind that nothing of all this is in the least degree essential to my argument. Eusebius, (for aught that I know or care,) may be _solely_ responsible for every word that he has delivered concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Every link in my argument will remain undisturbed, and the conclusion will be still precisely the same, whether the mistaken Criticism before us originated with another or with himself. XII. But _why_, (it may reasonably be asked,)—_Why_ should there have been anything exceptional in the way of indicating the end of this particular Lection? _Why_ should τέλος be so constantly found written after S. Mark xvi. 8?