All must see that if the text familiarly known in the age immediately after that of the Apostles had been indeed the bald, curt thing which the critics imagine, viz.
[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon, kai proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas,--] by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to St.Matt.

v.
44 have freely mentioned 'blessing those who curse,--doing good to those who hate,--and praying for those who despitefully use.' Since there are but two alternative readings of the passage,--one longer, one briefer,--every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed clause in the larger reading necessarily carries with it all the rest.
This result of 'comparative criticism' is therefore respectfully recommended to the notice of the learned.

If it be not decisive of the point at issue to find such a torrent of primitive testimony at one with the bulk of the Uncials and Cursives extant, it is clear that there can be no Science of Textual Criticism.

The Law of Evidence must be held to be inoperative in this subject-matter.

Nothing deserving of the name of 'proof' will ever be attainable in this department of investigation.
But if men admit that the ordinarily received text of St.Matt.v.