Eusebius, for the
statement rests solely with him, declares that anciently many copies
were without the verses in question, our two oldest extant MSS. conspire
in omitting them. But, I reply, the latter circumstance does not conduct
to the inference that those verses are spurious. It only proves that the
statement of Eusebius was correct. The Father cited did not, as is
evident from his words[259], himself doubt the genuineness of the verses
in question; but admitted them to be genuine. [He quotes two
opinions;--the opinion of an advocate who questions their genuineness,
and an opposing opinion which he evidently considers the better of the
two, since he rests upon the latter and casts a slur upon the former as
being an off-hand expedient; besides that he quotes several words out of
the twelve verses, and argues at great length upon the second
hypothesis.

On the other hand, one and that the least faulty of the two MSS.
witnessing for the omission confesses mutely its error by leaving a
vacant space where the omitted verses should have come in; whilst the
other was apparently copied from an exemplar containing the verses[260].
And all the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursives which
propose a manifestly spurious substitute for the verses,--together with
all the versions, except one Old Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, two
Armenian MSS. and an Arabic Lectionary,--besides more than ninety
testimonies in their favour from more than 'forty-four' ancient
witnesses[261];--such is the evidence which weighs down the conflicting
testimony over and over and over again. Beyond all this, the cause of
the error is patent. Some scribe mistook the [Greek: Telos] occurring at
the end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at the close of chapter xvi. 8 for
the 'End' of St. Mark's Gospel[262].

That is the simple truth: and the question will now be asked by an
intelligent reader, 'If such is the balance of evidence, how is it that
learned critics still doubt the genuineness of those verses?'

To this question there can be but one answer, viz. 'Because those
critics are blinded by invincible prejudice in favour of two unsafe
guides, and on behalf of Omission.'

We have already seen enough of the character of those guides, and are
now anxious to learn what there can be in omissions which render them so
acceptable to minds of the present day. And we can imagine nothing
except the halo which has gathered round the detection of spurious