1. The absence from both, of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel,—concerning which, the reader probably thinks that by this time he has heard enough. Next,— 2. He appeals to their omission of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ from the first verse of S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians,—_another peculiarity, in which Codd._ א _and B stand quite alone among MSS._ I. Here is an extraordinary note of sympathy between two copies of the New Testament indeed. Altogether unique is it: and that it powerfully corroborates the general opinion of their high antiquity, no one will deny. But how about “their _authority_”? Does the coincidence also raise our opinion of _the trustworthiness of the Text_, which these two MSS. concur in exhibiting? for _that_ is the question which has to be considered,—the _only_ question. The ancientness of a reading is one thing: its genuineness, (as I have explained elsewhere,) quite another. The questions are entirely distinct. It may even be added that while the one is really of little moment, the latter is of all the importance in the world. I am saying that it matters very little whether Codd. א and B were written in the beginning of the ivth century, or in the beginning of the vth: whereas it matters much, or rather it matters _everything_, whether they exhibit the Word of GOD faithfully, or occasionally with scandalous license. How far the reading which results from the suppression of the last two words in the phrase τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, is _critically allowable_ or not, I forbear to inquire. That is not the point which we have to determine. The one question to be considered is,—May it _possibly_ be the true reading of the text after all? Is it any way _credible_ that S. Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as follows:—Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ?... If it be eagerly declared in reply that the thing is simply incredible: that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are required for the sense; and that the commonly received reading is no doubt the correct one: then,—there is an end of the discussion. Two extraordinary notes of sympathy between two Manuscripts will have been appealed to as crucial proofs of the _trustworthiness of the Text_ of those Manuscripts: (for of their high _Antiquity_, let me say it once more, there can be no question whatever:) and it will have been proved in one case,—admitted in the other,—that _the omission is unwarrantable_.—If, however, on the contrary, it be maintained that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ probably had no place in the original copy of this Epistle, but are to be regarded as an unauthorized addition to it,—then, (as in the case of the Twelve Verses omitted from the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, and which it was _also_ pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand to be shewn the evidence on the strength of which this opinion is maintained, in order that we may ascertain what it is precisely worth.