is of course, strictly speaking, a speculative opinion, not a result of criticism. But we venture to think that the processes of criticism which it has been our duty to consider and work out have given us some qualifications for forming an opinion as to the probabilities of the matter. There are, it ought to be said, a few passages of St Matthew's Gospel (xii 40; [xiii 35;] xxiii 35; xxvii 9) in which it is difficult to believe that all the words as they stand have apostolic authority: the second part of xxvii 49 would have to be added to the list, if sufficient reasons should be found for accepting the possible but doubtful view that it is not a Non-Western interpolation, but an original reading omitted without authority by the Western text. But the question which these passages raise is rather literary than textual, for we see no reason to doubt that, as regards the extant form or edition of the first Gospel, their text as it stood in the autograph has been exactly preserved.
369. It will not be out of place to add here a distinct expression of our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes. The licence of paraphrase occasionally assumes the appearance of wilful corruption, where scribes allowed themselves to change language which they thought capable of dangerous misconstruction; or attempted to correct apparent errors which they doubtless assumed to be due to previous transcription; or embodied in explicit words a meaning which they supposed to be implied. But readings answering to this description cannot be judged rightly without taking into account the general characteristics of other readings exhibited by the same or allied docu-
