And this is a fair sample of that 'singular agreement' which is sometimes said to subsist between 'the lesser group of witnesses.' Is it not plain on the contrary that at a very remote period there existed a fierce conflict, and consequent hopeless divergence of testimony about the present passage; of which 1,700 years[571] have failed to obliterate the traces?
Had [Symbol: Aleph]B been our only ancient guides, it might of course have been contended that there has been no act of spoliation committed: but seeing that one half of the missing treasure is found with their allies, ACD, Clement Alex., Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,--the other half with their allies, Old Latin, Harkleian, Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine[572],--it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be set up.
The endeavour to establish agreement among the witnesses by a skilful distribution or rather dislocation of their evidence, a favourite device with the Critics, involves a fallacy which in any other subject would be denied a place.

I trust that henceforth St.Luke ix.

54-6 will be left in undisputed possession of its place in the sacred Text,--to which it has an undoubted right.
A thoughtful person may still inquire, Can it however be explained further how it has come to pass that the evidence for omitting the first clause and the two last is so unequally divided?
I answer, the disparity is due to the influence of the Lectionaries.
Let it be observed then that an ancient Ecclesiastical Lection which used to begin either at St.Luke ix.

44, or else at verse 49 and to extend down to the end of verse 56[573], ended thus,--[Greek: hos kai Elias epoiese; strapheis de epetimesen autois.

kai eporeuthesan eis hetepan komen][574].