44 has been clearly established, then let the legitimate results of the foregoing discussion be loyally recognized.

The unique value of Manuscripts in declaring the exact text of Scripture--the conspicuous inadequacy of Patristic evidence by themselves,--have been made apparent: and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quotations are abundantly sufficient for their proper purpose,--which is, to enable us to decide between conflicting readings.

One more indication has been obtained of the corruptness of the text which Origen employed,-- concerning which he is so strangely communicative,--and of which B[Symbol: Aleph] are the chief surviving examples; and the probability has been strengthened that when these are the sole, or even the principal witnesses, for any particular reading, that reading will prove to be corrupt.
Mill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds favour with Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest,) that these three clauses have been imported hither from St.Luke vi.

27, 28.

But, besides that this is mere unsupported conjecture, how comes it then to pass that the order of the second and third clauses in St.Matthew's Gospel is the reverse of the order in St.Luke's?
No.