The problem may, in fact, be briefly stated as follows. Of the four oldest Codices of the Gospels extant,—B, א, A, C,—two (B and א) are _without_ these twelve verses: two (A and C) are _with_ them. Are these twelve verses then an unauthorized _addition_ to A and C? or are they an unwarrantable _omission_ from B and א? B itself declares plainly that from itself they are an omission. And B is the oldest Codex of the Gospel in existence. What candid mind will persist in clinging to the solitary fact that from the single Codex א these verses are away, in proof that “S. Mark’s Gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude it?” Let others decide, therefore, whether the present discussion has not already reached a stage at which an unprejudiced Arbiter might be expected to address the prosecuting parties somewhat to the following effect:— “This case must now be dismissed. The charge brought by yourselves against these Verses was, that they are an unauthorized addition to the second Gospel; a spurious appendix, of which the Evangelist S. Mark can have known nothing. But so far from substantiating this charge, you have not adduced a single particle of evidence which renders it even probable. “The appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to MSS. It has been accepted. And with what result? (_a_) “Those many Fathers whom you represented as hostile, prove on investigation to be reducible to _one_, viz. Eusebius: and Eusebius, as we have seen, _does not say_ that the verses are spurious, but on the contrary labours hard to prove that they may very well be genuine. On the other hand, there are earlier Fathers than Eusebius who quote them without any signs of misgiving. In this way, the positive evidence in their favour is carried back to the iind century. (_b_) “Declining the testimony of the Versions, you insisted on an appeal to MSS. On the MSS., in fact, you still make your stand,—or rather you rely on _the oldest_ of them; for, (as you are aware,) _every MS. in the world except the two oldest_ are against you. “I have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS.; and it has volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than itself—_the Codex from which it was copied_—was furnished with those very Verses which you wish me to believe that some older MS. still must needs have been without. What else can be said, then, of your method but that it is frivolous? and of your charge, but that it is contradicted by the evidence to which you yourselves appeal? “But it is illogical; that is, it is unreasonable, besides.