to the nineteenth is in itself proof of its superiority, since the Church must have been Divinely guided in its dealings with the sacred Word of God; (2) that, apart from such considerations, it can be shown to be both older and intrinsically better than its rival, which they call the “neologian” text.1 Now if the first of these propositions is true, finita est quaestio; for Hort admits, no less than Burgon claims, that the Traditional or Received Text has been at first prominent and ultimately dominant