[Symbol: Aleph]BCDL, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort entirely eject these five precious words from St.Mark's Gospel, Griesbach having already voted them 'probably spurious.' When it has been added that many copies of the Old Latin also, together with the Vulgate and the Egyptian versions, besides Eusebius, ignore their existence, the present writer scarcely expects to be listened to if he insists that the words are perfectly genuine notwithstanding.

The thing is certain however, and the Revisers are to blame for having surrendered five precious words of genuine Scripture, as I am going to shew.
1.

Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader, although to some there might seem to exist a _prima facie_ probability that the clause is spurious, yet even so,--it would not be difficult to convince a thoughtful man that the reverse must be nearer the truth.

For let the parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side by side:-- St.Matt.xxvi.

73.