B. From St. Mark we get, (1) i. 1, [Greek: Huiou tou Theou] and [Greek: Iesou Christou]; (2) i. 2, [Greek: emprosthen sou] and [Greek: pro prosopou sou] (cp. ix. 38); (3) iii. 15, [Greek: therapeuein tas nosous (kai)] and [Greek: ekballein ta daimonia]; (4) xiii. 33, [Greek: agrypneite] and [Greek: (kai) proseuchesthe]. All these instances turn out to be cases of the omission of only one of the parallel expressions. The omission in the first is due mainly to Origen (_see_ Traditional Text, Appendix IV): in the three last there is Western evidence on both sides. C. St. Luke yields us, (1) ii. 5, [Greek: gynaiki] and [Greek: memnesteumene]; (2) iv. 4, [Greek: epi panti rhemati Theou], or [Greek: ep' arto mono]; (3) viii. 54, [Greek: ekbalon exo pantas (kai)], or [Greek: kratesas tes cheiros autes]; xi. 4, [Greek: (alla) rhysai hemas apo tou ponerou], or [Greek: me eisenenkes hemas eis peirasmon]. In all these cases, examination discloses that they are examples of pure omission of only one of the alternatives. The only evidence against this is the solitary rejection of [Greek: memnesteumene] by the Lewis Codex. D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, [Greek: me apoletai], or [Greek: eche zoen aionion]; (2) iv. 14, [Greek: ou me dipsese eis ton aiona], or [Greek: to hydor ho doso auto genesetai en auto pege hydatos, k.t.l.]; (3) iv. 42, [Greek: ho Christos], or [Greek: ho soter tou kosmou]; (4) iv. 51, [Greek: kai apengeilan] and [Greek: legontes]; (5) v. 16, [Greek: kai ezetoun auton apokteinai] and [Greek: ediokon auton]; (6) vi. 51, [Greek: hen ego doso], or [Greek: hou ego doso]; (7) ix. 1, 25, [Greek: kai eipen] or [Greek: apekrithe]; (8) xiii. 31, 32, [Greek: ei ho Theos edoxasthe en auto], and [Greek: kai ho Theos edoxasthe en auto]. All these instances turn out to be single omissions:--a fact which is the more remarkable, because St. John's style so readily lends itself to parallel or antithetical expressions involving the same result in meaning, that we should expect conflations to shew themselves constantly if the Traditional Text had so coalesced. How surprising a result:--almost too surprising. Does it not immensely strengthen my contention that Dr. Hort took wrongly Conflation for the reverse process? That in the earliest ages, when the Church did not include in her ranks so much learning as it has possessed ever since, the wear and tear of time, aided by unfaith and carelessness, made itself felt in many an instance of destructiveness which involved a temporary chipping of the Sacred Text all through the Holy Gospels? And, in fact, that Conflation at least as an extensive process, if not altogether, did not really exist. Sec. 2. THE NEUTRAL TEXT. Here we are brought face to face with the question respecting the Neutral Text. What in fact is it, and does it deserve the name which Dr. Hort and his followers have attempted to confer permanently upon it? What is the relation that it bears to other so-called Texts?