But in fact take a single page of any ordinary copy of the Greek Testament,—Bp. Lloyd’s edition, suppose. Turn to page 184. It contains ten verses of S. Luke’s Gospel, ch. viii. 35 to 44. Now, proceed to collate those ten verses. You will make the notable discovery that, within those narrow limits, by codex D alone the text has been depraved 53 times, resulting in no less than 103 corrupt readings, 93 _of which are found only in_ D. The words omitted by D are 40: the words added are 4. Twenty-five words have been substituted for others, and 14 transposed. Variations of case, tense, &c., amount to 16; and the phrase of the Evangelist has been departed from 11 times. Happily, the other four “old uncials” are here available. And it is found that (within the same limits, and referred to the same test,) A exhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which are _peculiar to_ A.—B omits 12 words, 6 of which are _peculiar to_ B: substitutes 3 words: transposes 4: and exhibits 6 lesser changes—2 of them being its own peculiar property.—א has 5 readings (affecting 8 words) _peculiar to itself_. Its omissions are 7: its additions, 2: its substitutions, 4: 2 words are transposed; and it exhibits 4 lesser discrepancies.—C has 7 readings (affecting 15 words) _peculiar to itself_. Its omissions are 4: its additions, 7: its substitutions, 7: its words transposed, 7. It has 2 lesser discrepancies, and it alters the Evangelist’s phrase 4 times. But (we shall be asked) what amount of _agreement_, in respect of “Various Readings,” is discovered to subsist between these 5 codices? for _that_, after all, is the practical question. We answer,—A has been already shown to stand alone twice: B, 6 times: א, 8 times: C, 15 times; D, 93 times.—We have further to state that A B stand together by themselves once: B א, 4 times: B C, 1: B D, 1: א C, 1: C D, 1.—A א C conspire 1: B א C, 1: B א D, 1: A B א C, _once_ (viz. in reading ἐρώτησεν, which Tischendorf admits to be a corrupt reading): B א C D, also _once_.—The 5 “old uncials” therefore (A B א C D) combine, and again stand apart, with singular impartiality.—Lastly, they are _never once_ found to be in accord in respect of _any single _“various Reading”.—Will any one, after a candid survey of the premisses, deem us unreasonable, if we avow that such a specimen of the _concordia discors_ which everywhere prevails between the oldest uncials, but which especially characterizes א B D, indisposes us greatly to suffer their unsupported authority to determine for us the Text of Scripture?