13 The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp. Wordsworth, are honourable exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent Divine reluctantly admitting that “this portion may not have been penned by S. Mark himself;” and Bishop Ellicott (_Historical Lectures_, pp. 26-7) asking “Why may not this portion have been written by S. Mark at a later period?;”—both alike resolutely insist on its genuineness and canonicity. To the honour of the best living master of Textual Criticism, the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, (of whom I desire to be understood to speak as a disciple of his master,) be it stated that he has never at any time given the least sanction to the popular outcry against this portion of the Gospel. “Without the slightest misgiving” he has uniformly maintained the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. (_Introduction_, pp. 7 and 429-32.) 14 “Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,” (p. 320.) “Quæ testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod conlatis prioribus versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba αφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβ item quod singula multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.” (p. 322.)—I quote from the 7th Leipsic ed.; but in Tischendorf’s 8th ed. (1866, pp. 403, 406,) the same verdict is repeated, with the following addition:—“Quæ quum ita sint, sanæ erga sacrum textum pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt qua a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.” (p. 407.) _ 15 Evangelia Apocrypha_, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi. 16 Pp. 253, 7-9. 17 In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson pronounced it “manifestly untenable” that S. Mark’s Gospel was the last written; and assigned A.D. 64 as “its most probable” date. In his second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:—“When we consider that _the Gospel was not written till the second century_, internal evidence loses much of its force against the authenticity of these verses.”—_Introduction to N.T._ 18 Vol. ii. p. 239. _ 19 Developed Criticism_, [1857], p. 53. 20 Ed. 1847. i. p. 17. He recommends this view to his reader’s acceptance in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221. _ 21 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels_, p. 311. _ 22 Critical and Exegetical Commentary_, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186-92. 23 In the Roman law this principle is thus expressed,—“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.” Taylor _on the Law of Evidence_, 1868, i. p. 369. 24 This is freely allowed by all. “Certiores facti sumus hanc pericopam jam in secundo sæculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.” Tregelles _N.T._ p. 214.