h time that
one of these two claimants should be altogether dropped from this
discussion.

(2.) Again. Inasmuch as page after page of the same Homily is observed to
reappear, _word for word_, under the name of "Severus of Antioch," and to
be unsuspiciously printed as his by Montfaucon in his "Bibliotheca
Coisliniana" (1715), and by Cramer in his "Catena"(72) (1844),--although it
may very reasonably become a question among critics whether Hesychius of
Jerusalem or Severus of Antioch was the actual author of the Homily in
question,(73) yet it is plain that critics must make their election
between the two names; and not bring them _both_ forward. No one, I say,
has any right to go on quoting "Severus" _and_ "Hesychius,"--as Tischendorf
and Dr. Davidson are observed to do:--"Gregory of Nyssa" _and_ "Severus of
Antioch,"--as Dr. Tregelles is found to prefer.

(3.) In short, here are three claimants for the authorship of one and the
same Homily. To whichever of the three we assign it,--(and competent judges
have declared that there are sufficient reasons for giving it to Hesychius
rather than to Severus,--while _no one_ is found to suppose that Gregory of
Nyssa was its author,)--_who_ will not admit that no further mention must
be made of the other two?

(4.) Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that henceforth the name of
"Gregory of Nyssa" must be banished from this discussion. So must the name
of "Severus of Antioch." The memorable passage which begins,--"In the more
accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at 'for they
were afraid,' "--is found in _a Homily which was probably written by
Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem,--a writer of the vi_th_ century_. I
shall have to recur to his work by-and-by. The next name is

EUSEBIUS,

II. With respect to whom the case is altogether different. What that
learned Father has delivered concerning the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel
requires to be examined with attention, and must be set forth much more in
detail. And yet, I will so far anticipate what is about to be offered, as
to say at once that if any one supposes that Eusebius has anywhere plainly
"stated that it is _wanted in many MSS._,"(74)--he is mistaken. Eusebius
nowhere says so. The reader's attention is invited to a plain tale.

It was not until 1825 that the world was presented by Cardinal Angelo
Mai(75) with a few fragmentary specimens of a lost work of Eusebius on the
(so-called) Inconsistencie