But in fact the Western Church yields unfaltering testimony. Besides the three copies of the Old Latin which exhibit all the five clauses, the Vulgate retains the first, third, fifth and fourth. Augustine[316] quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3, 5: Ambrose[317] clauses 1, 3, 4, 5--1, 4, 5: Hilary[318], clauses 1, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5: Lucifer[319], clauses 1, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius[320] connects clauses 1, 3,--1, 3, 5: and Pacian[321], clauses 5, 2. Next we have to ascertain what is the testimony of the Greek Fathers. And first we turn to Chrysostom[322] who (besides quoting the fourth clause from St. Matthew's Gospel by itself five times) quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3--iii. 167; 1, 4--iv. 619; 2, 4--v. 436; 4, 3--ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654; 4, 5--ii. 258, iii. 341; 1, 2, 4--iv. 267; 1, 3, 4, 5--xii. 425; thus recognizing them _all._ Gregory Nyss.[323] quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5. Eusebius[324], clauses 4, 5--2, 4, 5--1, 3, 4, 5. The Apostolic Constitutions[325] (third century), clauses 1, 3, 4, 5 (having immediately before quoted clause 2,)--also clauses 2, 4, 1. Clemens Alex.[326] (A.D. 192), clauses 1, 2, 4. Athenagoras[327] (A.D. 177), clauses 1, 2, 5. Theophilus[328] (A.D. 168), clauses 1, 4. While Justin M.[329] (A.D. 140) having paraphrased clause 1, connects therewith clauses 2 and 4. And Polycarp[330] (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses 4 and 5. Didache[331] (A.D. 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 (pp. 5, 6). In the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed will any more be found to dispute the genuineness of the generally received reading in St. Matt. v. 44. 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.