1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader, although to some there might seem to exist a _prima facie_ probability that the clause is spurious, yet even so,--it would not be difficult to convince a thoughtful man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. For let the parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side by side:-- St. Matt. xxvi. 73. St. Mark xiv. 70. (1) [Greek: Alethos kai su] (1) [Greek: Alethos] (2) [Greek: ex auton ei.] (2) [Greek: ex auton ei.] (3) [Greek: kai gar] (3) [Greek: kai gar Galilaios ei,] (4) [Greek: he lalia sou delon se poiei] (4) [Greek: kai he lalia sou homoiazei.] What more clear than that the later Evangelist is explaining what his predecessor meant by 'thy speech bewrayeth thee' [or else is giving an independent account of the same transaction derived from the common source]? To St. Matthew,--a Jew addressing Jews,--it seemed superfluous to state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee which betrayed Simon Peter. To St. Mark,--or rather to the readers whom St. Mark specially addressed,--the point was by no means so obvious. Accordingly, he paraphrases,--'for thou art a Galilean and thy speech correspondeth.' Let me be shewn that all down the ages, in ninety-nine copies out of every hundred, this peculiar diversity of expression has been faithfully retained, and instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress St. Mark's (fourth) explanatory clause with its unique verb [Greek: homoiazei], I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent inquiry,--What is the state of the text hereabouts? What, in fact, the context? This at least is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. 1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with several copies of the Old Latin (a b c ff^{2} h q, &c.), only removes clause (4) from its proper place in St. Mark's Gospel, in order to thrust it into the parallel place in St. Matthew,--where it supplants the [Greek: he lalia sou delon se poiei] of the earlier Evangelist; and where it clearly has no business to be. Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimilate St. Matthew's Gospel to St. Mark,--for D also omits [Greek: kai su] in clause (1). 2. The Ethiopic version, on the contrary, is for assimilating St. Mark to St. Matthew, for it transfers the same clause (4) as it stands in St. Matthew's Gospel ([Greek: kai he lalia sou delon se poiei]) to St. Mark. 3. Evan. 33 (which, because it exhibits an ancient text of a type like B, has been styled [with grim irony] 'the Queen of the Cursives') is more brilliant here than usual; exhibiting St. Mark's clause (4) thus,--[Greek: kai gar he lalia sou delon se homoiazei]. 4. In C (and the Harkleian) the process of Assimilation is as conspicuous as in D, for St. Mark's third clause (3) is imported bodily into St. Matthew's Gospel. C further omits from St. Mark clause (4).