My rejoinder is plain:--Not only am I of course willing to yield to external evidence, but it is precisely 'external evidence' which makes me insist on retaining [Greek: deuteroproto--apo melissiou keriou--haras ton stauron--kai anephereto eis ton ouranon--hotan eklipete]--the 14th verse of St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter--and the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny the cogency of the proposed proof, and I have clearly already established the grounds of my refusal. Who then is to be the daysman between us? We are driven back on first principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to meet on some common ground, and by the application of ordinary logical principles of reasoning to clear our view. [As to these we must refer the reader to the first volume of this work. Various cases of omission have been just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere. Accordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this large class of corruptions at the length which it would otherwise demand. But a few more instances are required, in order that the reader may see in this connexion that many passages at least which the opposing school designate as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students may be placed upon their guard against the source of error that we are discussing.] Sec. 4. And first as to the rejection of an entire verse. The 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printed at foot[265], is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers:--by Tischendorf it is rejected as spurious. We insist that, on the contrary, it is indubitably genuine; reasoning from the antiquity, the variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather, the general unanimity of its attestation. For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vulgate,--in the Peshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,--besides in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. It is found also in Origen[266],-- ps.-Tatian[267]--Aphraates[268],--Chrysostom[269],--Cyril Alex.[270],-- the Opus Imperfectum[271],--Jerome[272],--Augustine[273]:--in Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Theta][Symbol: Sigma]XZ[Symbol: Delta][Symbol: Pi]EFG HKLMSUV,--in short, it is attested by every known Codex except two of bad character, viz.--D, 33; together with five copies of the Old Latin, viz.--a b e ff^{1} ff^{2}. There have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or third century:--at least eight of the fourth:--at least seven if not eight of the fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of this verse is overwhelming. How could we be justified in opposing to such a mass of first-rate testimony the solitary evidence of Cod. D (concerning which see above, Vol. I. c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive and a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even although the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band?]