“In certain copies of Mark’s Gospel, next comes,—‘Now when [JESUS] was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene;’—a statement which seems inconsistent with Matthew’s narrative. This might be met by asserting, that the conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, though found in certain copies, is spurious, However, that we may not seem to betake ourselves to an off-hand answer, we propose to read the place thus:—‘Now when [JESUS] was risen:’ then, after a comma, to go on,—‘early the first day of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ In this way we refer [Mark’s] ‘Now when [JESUS] was risen’ to Matthew’s ‘in the end of the sabbath,’ (for _then_ we believe Him to have _risen_;) and all that comes after, expressive as it is of a different notion, we connect with what follows. Mark relates that He who ‘_arose_ (according to Matthew) _in the end of the Sabbath_,’ _was seen_ by Mary Magdalene ‘_early_.’ This is in fact what John also declares; for he too has recorded that ‘early,’ ‘the first day of the week,’ [JESUS] appeared to the Magdalene. In a word, two distinct seasons are set before us by these words: first, the season of the Resurrection,—which was ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ secondly, the season of our SAVIOUR’S Appearing,—which was ‘early.’ ”(112) No one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate to admit that he is here listening to Eusebius “ad Marinum” over again. But if any one really retains a particle of doubt on the subject, he is requested to cast his eye to the foot of the present page; and even an unlearned reader, surveying the originals with attention, may easily convince himself that _Victor is here nothing else but a copyist_.(113) That the work in which Eusebius reconciles “seeming discrepancies in the Evangelical narratives,” was actually lying open before Victor while he wrote, is ascertained beyond dispute. He is observed in his next ensuing Comment to quote from it, and to mention Eusebius as its author. At the end of the present note he has a significant allusion to Eusebius:—“I know very well,” he says, “what has been suggested _by those who are at the pains to remove the apparent inconsistencies in this place_.”(114) But when writing on S. Mark xvi. 9-20, he does more. After abridging, (as his manner is,) what Eusebius explains with such tedious emphasis, (giving the substance of five columns in about three times as many lines,) he adopts the exact expressions of Eusebius,—follows him in his very mistakes,—and finally transcribes his words. The reader is therefore requested to bear in mind that what he has been listening to is _not the testimony of Victor at all_: but _the testimony of Eusebius_. This is but one more echo therefore of a passage of which we are all beginning by this time to be weary; so exceedingly rash are the statements with which it is introduced, so utterly preposterous the proposed method of remedying a difficulty which proves after all to be purely imaginary.