exist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament_ of a reading even probably correct in which the four following notes of spurious origin concur,—which nevertheless are observed to attach to the two readings which have been chiefly discussed in the foregoing pages: viz. 1. The adverse testimony of _all the uncial MSS. except two_. 2. The adverse testimony of all, or _very nearly all_, the cursive MSS. 3. The adverse testimony of _all the Versions_, without exception. 4. The adverse testimony of _the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers_. To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,— 5. _The highest inherent improbability_,—it is only because I desire to treat this question purely as one of _Evidence_. II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity _to account for_ the phenomenon on which we have been bestowing so many words. The endeavour is commendable; but I take leave to remark in passing that if we are to set about discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every corrupt reading which found its way into the sacred text during the first three centuries subsequent to the death of S. John, we shall have enough to do. Let any one take up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way, Cod. B shews marvellous sympathy(170),) and explain if he can why there is a grave omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost every page; and how it comes to pass that Cod. D “reproduces the ‘textus receptus’ of the Acts much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament; so wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”(171) Our business as Critics is not _to invent theories_ to account for the errors of Copyists; but rather to ascertain where they have erred, where not. What with the inexcusable depravations of early Heretics,—the preposterous emendations of ancient Critics,—the injudicious assiduity of Harmonizers,—the licentious caprice of individuals;—what with errors resulting from the inopportune recollection of similar or parallel places,—or from the familiar phraseology of the Ecclesiastical Lections,—or from the inattention of Scribes,—or from marginal glosses;—however arising, endless are the corrupt readings of the oldest MSS. in existence; and it is by no means safe to follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory to account for its existence. Let me be allowed to say that such theories are seldom satisfactory. _Guesses_ only they are at best.