246 Allusion is made to the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,—“Professor of Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,”—the author of an able and convincing paper entitled “Exegetical Studies” in “_The Baptist Quarterly_” for July, 1869 (Philadelphia), pp. 355-62: in which “the words and phrases” contained in S. Mark xvi. 9-20 are exclusively examined. If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor’s hands, he will perceive that I must have written the present Chapter _before_ I knew of his labours: (an advantage which I owe to Mr. Scrivener’s kindness:) my treatment of the subject and his own being so entirely different. But it is only due to Professor Broadus to acknowledge the interest and advantage with which I have compared my lucubrations with his, and the sincere satisfaction with which I have discovered that we have everywhere independently arrived at precisely the same result. 247 Dr. Kay’s _Crisis Hupfeldiana_, p. 34,—the most masterly and instructive exposure of Bp. Colenso’s incompetence and presumption which has ever appeared. Intended specially of _his_ handling of the writings of Moses, the remarks in the text are equally applicable to much which has been put forth concerning the authorship of the end of S. Mark’s Gospel. 248 S. Matth. viii. 1 (καταβάντι αὐτῷ):—5 (εἰσελθόντι τω Ἰ.):—23 (ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ):—28 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ):—ix. 27 (παράγοντι τῷ Ἰ.):—28 (ἐλθόντι):—xxi. 23 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ). _ 249 On the Creed_, Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.) 250 τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεῖ πάντα συνᾴδει τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ ψευδεῖ ταχὺ διαφωνεῖ τὰληθές. Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ I. c. vi. 251 Davidson’s _Introduction_, &c. i. 170. 252 And yet, if it were ever so “sententious,” ever so “abrupt;” and if his “brief notices” were over so “loosely linked together;”—these, _according to Dr. Davidson_, would only be indications that S. Mark actually _was_ their Author. Hear him discussing S. Mark’s “characteristics,” at p. 151:—“In the consecution of his narrations, Mark _puts them together very loosely_.” “Mark is also characterised by a _conciseness_ and apparent incompleteness of delineation which are allied to the obscure.” “The _abrupt_ introduction” of many of his details is again and again appealed to by Dr. Davidson, and illustrated by references to the Gospel. What, in the name of common sense, is the value of such criticism as this? What is to be thought of a gentleman who blows hot and cold in the same breath: denying at p. 170 the genuineness of a certain portion of Scripture _because_ it exhibits the very peculiarities which at p. 151 he had volunteered the information are _characteristic_ of its reputed Author? 253 N.T. vol. i. _Prolegg._ p. 38.