The force of what I am saying will be best understood if a few actual specimens of omission may be adduced, and individually considered. And first, let us take the case of an omitted word. In St. Luke vi. 1 [Greek: deuteroproto] is omitted from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and the Revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place as follows:--[Greek: Egeneto de en sabbato diaporeuesthai auton dia sporimon]. Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so very difficult and peculiar a word as this,--for indeed the expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained,--should have found its way into every known Evangelium except [Symbol: Aleph]BL and a few cursives, if it be spurious? How it came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible enough. (_a_) One has but to glance at the Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], [Greek: TO EN SABBATO] [Greek: DEUTEROPROTO] in order to see that the like ending ([Greek: TO]) in the superior line, fully accounts for the omission of the second line. (_b_) A proper lesson begins at this place; which by itself would explain the phenomenon. (_c_) Words which the copyists were at a loss to understand, are often observed to be dropped: and there is no harder word in the Gospels than [Greek: deuteroprotos]. But I repeat,--will you tell us how it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and known to be a _crux_ to commentators and others, should have crept into all the copies except a small handful?] In reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really I must yield to what is after all the weight of external evidence: that Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BL are not ordinary MSS. but first-class authorities, of sufficient importance to outweigh any number of the later cursive MSS.