III. We are by this time in a condition to form a truer estimate of the value of the testimony borne by these two manuscripts in respect of the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. If we were disposed before to regard their omission of an important passage as a serious matter, we certainly cannot any longer so regard it. We have by this time seen enough to disabuse our minds of every prejudice. Codd. B and א are the very reverse of infallible guides. Their deflections from the Truth of Scripture are more constant, as well as more licentious by far, than those of their younger brethren: their unauthorized omissions from the sacred text are not only far more frequent but far more flagrant also. And yet the main matter before us,—_their omission of the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel_,—when rightly understood, proves to be an entirely different phenomenon from what an ordinary reader might have been led to suppose. Attention is specially requested for the remarks which follow. IV. To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the oldest we possess, S. Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly at the 8th verse of the xvith chapter, and that the customary subscription (ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ) follows,—is true; but it is far from being _the whole_ truth. It requires to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of _the next ensuing column_ to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of S. Mark’s Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. He has left in this place one column entirely vacant. It is _the only vacant column_ in the whole manuscript;—a blank space _abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld. Why_ did he leave that column vacant? _What_ can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule? The phenomenon,—(I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to it,)—is in the highest degree significant, and admits of only one interpretation. _The older MS._ from which Cod. B was copied must have infallibly _contained_ the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out,—and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank space _in memoriam rei_. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex is made to _refute itself_ even while it seems to be bearing testimony against the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, by withholding them: for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By _leaving room_ for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of fifteen centuries and a half, _a more ancient witness than itself_. The venerable Author of the original Codex from which Codex B was copied, is thereby brought to view. And thus, our supposed adversary