pretend that it is in _any_ sense the testimony of Jerome which we are here presented with; that Jerome is one of those Fathers “who, even though they copied from their predecessors, were yet competent to transmit the record of a fact,”(95)—is entirely to misunderstand the case. The man who translates,—not adopts, but _translates_,—_the problem_ as well as its solution: who deliberately asserts that it emanated from a Lady inhabiting the furthest extremity of Gaul, who nevertheless was demonstrably not its author: who goes on to propose as hers question after question _verbatim as he found them written in the pages of Eusebius_; and then resolves them one by one _in the very language of the same Father_:—such a writer has clearly conducted us into a region where his individual responsibility quite disappears from sight. We must hear no more about Jerome, therefore, as a witness against the genuineness of the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. On the contrary. Proof is at hand that Jerome held these verses to be genuine. The proper evidence of this is supplied by the fact that he gave them a place in his revision of the old Latin version of the Scriptures. If he had been indeed persuaded of their absence from “_almost all the Greek codices_,” does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to stand in the Vulgate? If he had met with them in “_scarcely any copies of the Gospel_”—do men really suppose that he would yet have retained them? To believe this would, again, be to forget what was the known practice of this Father; who, because he found the expression “without a cause” (εἰκή,—S. Matth. v. 22,) only “in certain of his codices,” but not “in the true ones,” _omitted_ it from the Vulgate. Because, however, he read “righteousness” (where we read “alms”) in S. Matth. vi. 1, he exhibits “_justitiam_” in his revision of the old Latin version. On the other hand, though he knew of MSS. (as he expressly relates) which read “works” for “children” (ἔργων for τέκνων) in S. Matth. xi. 19, he does not admit that (manifestly corrupt) reading,—which, however, is found both in the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Let this suffice. I forbear to press the matter further. It is an additional proof that Jerome accepted the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel that he actually quotes it, and on more than one occasion: but to prove this, is to prove more than is here required.(96) I am concerned only to demolish the assertion of Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Alford, and Davidson, and so many more, concerning the testimony of Jerome; and I have demolished it. I pass on, claiming to have shewn that the name of Jerome as an adverse witness must never again appear in this discussion.