But at this juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down: and when it is discovered that every other uncial and every other cursive in existence may be appealed to in its support, and that the story of its liturgical origin proves to be a myth,--what must be the verdict of an impartial mind on a survey of the entire evidence?
The whole matter may be conveniently restated thus:--Liturgical use has indeed been the cause of a depravation of the text at St.Matt.vi.

13; but it proves on inquiry to be the very few MSS.,--not the very many,--which have been depraved.
Nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier period than is attainable by existing liturgical evidence; and to suggest that then the doxology used by the priest may have been the same with that which is found in the ordinary text of St.Matthew's Gospel.

This may have been the case or it may not.

Meanwhile, the hypothesis, which fell to the ground when the statement on which it rested was disproved, is not now to be built up again on a mere conjecture.

But if the fact could be ascertained,--and I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is possible,--I should regard it only as confirmatory of the genuineness of the doxology.