m 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■1 
 
 
 UC—NRLF ..,,„„„. Mil 
 
 
 '!'"iir"!iiii 
 
 
 B 2 7^2 2fi7 
 
 
 
 •■■f,-, ^ -".?■■, i. f. 
 
 
 ^/i r«'„:i;^/^.>ri.m^ 
 
 HE PlilNTED GREEK TEXT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 J\EW TESTAMEI^T 
 
?^ 
 
 S2- 
 
 V/.J 
 
 ^rr/ 
 
 
 7/'///r///// 
 
 W^/^J .M^.£ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 //r/t^/^^t./ Am^K 
 
THE HISTOE-Y 
 
 THE PRINTED GREEK TEXT 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE FOR ITS REVISION, 
 CONSIDERED; 
 
 A LECTURE DELIVERED AT THE HARTLEY INSTITUTION, 
 SOUTHAMPTON, JAN. 30th, 1865, 
 
 WILLETT L. ADYE, ESQ. 
 
 RIVINGTONS: LONDON, OXFORD, & CAMBRIDGE; 
 SOUTHAMPTON: SHARLAND, HIGH-STREET. 
 
 MDCCCLXV. 
 
 PRICE TWO SHILLINGS. 
 
 l^ 
 
S332>2^1^ 
 
 SOUTHAMPTON : 
 
 TCCKKR AND SON, PRIKTEF 
 
 HIGH-STKKET. 
 
 

 Hartley Institution, 
 
 January SOth^ 1865. 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies, and Gentlemen, 
 
 In coming before this assembly on the present 
 occasion, I feel son* ;;, diffidence on many grounds : there 
 may be accomplished scholars present standing but little in 
 need of information on the subject proposed ; others 
 naturally in fear of having their religious convictions 
 shaken by enlarging on a topic apparently affecting a 
 discussion of the grounds of their Christian faith ; while 
 a third class of persons may be indifierent to anything 
 which seems <tbstruse and out of the common way. I 
 have to remark at the outset, that I shall abstain from 
 mere scholastic disquisition, which (were I ever so well 
 qualified in that respect) would be quite out of place in 
 addressing the members of this Institution. My desire is 
 simply to give, in a small compass, useful information on a 
 subject not generally understood, as it seems to me, but 
 which cannot be deemed unimportant. 
 
 Now, it is notorious what difficulty has been expe- 
 rienced in fixing the true Text of even Shakespere, an 
 author only 300 years old ; and it is well known to 
 scholars how much imcertainty exists in determining the 
 
 382 ^ 
 
sense of the writers of Classical Antiquity arising from the 
 paucity of extant documents. With the New Testament 
 it is widely different ; and it must prove interesting to 
 every candid mind to know that ample means are at hand 
 for an examination into what have been termed the " Title 
 Deeds of our Christian inheritance" — far more ample 
 materials for the restoration of the Text of the New 
 Testament, than we have in the case of any other work of 
 similar antiquity. 
 
 It may be surmised by some, that, in entering upon 
 such enquiries, due reference will be made to the claims of 
 Revealed Religion on our acceptance ; or that we shall 
 have to enter upon a history of the circumstances under 
 which the Sacred Books were recognised and made into a 
 collection for use in the churches during a primitive age ; 
 or that we shall necessarily glide into questions affecting 
 the interpretation or application of the contents. But it 
 IS NOT so. Independently of my being debarred from 
 touching upon points of a purely religious or polemical 
 nature, I hold that the three above-mentioned topics con- 
 stitute each a distinct class by themselves. Let those who 
 wish to study the " Evidences " so called, refer to the 
 standard works already before the world ; or those who 
 wish to learn something about the history of the " Canon," 
 avail themselves of Christopher Wordsworth's or Mr. 
 Brooke Foss Westcott's labours ; especially the article by 
 the latter scholar given in Dr. Smith's " Dictionary of the 
 Bible." Questions about interpretation we must leave to 
 the commentators, who are sufficiently numerous. 
 
 There is, however, one other topic, which seems to 
 
3 
 
 come very nearly before us this evening ; I allude to tlie 
 " Authorised English Version," with its excellences or 
 defects, dwelt upon respectively by those who advocate its 
 retention or revision. I confess this is to me a very 
 interesting question, my views thereon being very much 
 shaped by a perusal of the present Archbishop of Dublin's 
 excellent little treatise. It will be impossible to go into ' 
 such a wide field this evening ; suffice it to remark that 
 any investigation into, or modification, however slight, of 
 the standard Ancient Text, seems likely to carry with it 
 corresponding changes in our really beautiful translation — 
 I do not propose to dwell upon such reflections now — But 
 I cannot help, at the risk of breaking faith with the 
 Council of this noble Institute, saying that the present age 
 is much characterised by a disposition to form hasty 
 generalisations and deductions. An instance of this 
 tendency is to be discerned in Dean Alford's disposition to 
 fix a charge of discrepancy in the case of the four 
 EvangeUsts, when recording the accusation of Jesus on the 
 Cross. It is satisfactory to find the late Mr. Forshall 
 setting the matter in its true light. This truly learned and 
 excellent man shows that, while the '* superscription " or 
 title was placed in three languages — Hebrew, Greek, and 
 Latin, — St. John has rendered the Hebrew, St. Mark the 
 Latin, St. Luke has given the very words of the Greek ; 
 and St Matthew, in recording the " accusation," has made 
 a selection fi:om the other three, not only, as Mr. Forshall 
 observes, " with perfect fidelity, but with marvellous 
 appropriateness and exactitude." — (Preface to Gospel of St. 
 Mark.) It seems singular that a man of such talent as 
 Dr. Alford is known to possess, should have so far com- 
 mitted himself. 
 
We must now turn to the subject actually before us ; 
 and, I would fain liope that, however imperfect may be 
 my treatment of it, by reason of the multifarious details 
 involved, and the very limited space of time allowed in a 
 lecture, some interest may be awakened. 
 
 My observations will be given under three heads : — 
 
 I. — Outline of the History of the Printed Greek 
 Text. 
 
 II. — Account of certain important Greek MSS. 
 extant. 
 
 III. — Application of the evidence borne thereby in 
 reference to certain selected passages with 
 various readings. 
 
 I.— Firstly, then, we glance at the History of the 
 standard Text of the Greek Testament as now adopted by 
 the Christian Chui'ch. 
 
 The Latin Bible of 1452 was the first production of 
 the new-born printing press. (The standard " Clementine 
 Vulgate" appeared about 140 years afterwards.) Certain 
 small portions of the Greek New Testament were printed 
 at the end of the 15 th and the begining of the 16th 
 centuries. About this time. Cardinal Ximenes conceived 
 the plan of the first Polyglott Bible. Having founded a 
 
University at Alcala, in Spain, he entrusted to certain 
 professors there the task of producing from available MSS. 
 a complete copy of the New Testament in the original 
 Greek. It has long been debated what classes of MSS. 
 were used for this purpose ; certainly not the most ancient 
 ones known to exist. It seems now pretty clear that the 
 celebrated one in the Vatican was not accessible. The 
 work, many years in course of being printed^ was not 
 actually published or circulated till the year 1522. The 
 Latin designation of Alcala is Complutum, hence the 
 edition alluded to, is styled the " Complutensian." The 
 name of the principal editor was Stunica. But the learned 
 Erasmus had already undertaken a similar task. His Greek 
 New Testament was by six years the earlier published, 
 though it was printed two years later than the " Complu- 
 tensian." For though the old Testament portion was not 
 finished by the Complutensian editors till 1517, the memor- 
 able year in which Martin Luther affixed to the door of 
 the Electoral Chapel at Wittenberg his theses against the 
 Romish doctrine of indulgences, yet the New Testament 
 portion of the Polyglott was ready in 1514. 
 
 The MSS. which Erasmus used for his purpose were 
 few; and neither ancient nor particularly valuable. He 
 had at hand but one manuscript of the Apocalypse, and 
 that one was defective in the last few verses. Erasmus in 
 this case adopted the bold expedient of translating from the 
 Latin! Traces of this unauthorised re-translation remain 
 in the modern received text. His first edition was pub- 
 lished in February, 1516. He lived to publish four more 
 editions. After the publication of his first two editions, 
 he was attacked by Stunica, the principal Complutensian 
 
Editor, with having omitted to insert the famous passage, 
 1 John, V. 7 & 8. The conduct of Erasmus in this matter 
 proved his critical faithfulness — he knew no Greek MS, 
 containing the passage in question. In his third edition 
 he admitted the verses on the single authority of a manu- 
 script, now deposited in the Dublin University Library, 
 under the designation of the " Montfort Codex." But this 
 exemplar was then a comparatively modern production, 
 written probalDly less than a hundred years before, and 
 now known to be of no critical value whatever, though 
 acquiring notoriety from its relation to the above-mention- 
 ed controversy. ' 
 
 The first edition of Erasmus had found its way to 
 Spain while Cardinal Ximenes was yet living; and 
 although he saw that his own edition was anticipated, he 
 had the nobility of spirit to repress the remarks by which 
 Stunica sought to deprecate the work which a rival scholar 
 had edited. " I would," he said, " that all might thus 
 prophesy (referring to Num. xi. 29.) ; produce what is 
 better, if thou canst ; do not condemn the industry of 
 another." * Some of Stunica's criticisms on Erasmus are 
 singularly amusing. The Complutensian Text had spelt 
 Spain in Rom. XV. lairavia as it stands in the later MSS. ; 
 Erasmus had spelt it ^iravia : it is scarcely credible that 
 Stunica should have charged Erasmus with casting an 
 intentional slight upon his country, by taking away one of 
 the letters with which it is spelt. 
 
 * " And Moses said unto him, enviest thou for my sake ? Would God that all 
 the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon 
 them !" 
 
It should be remarked tliat Erasmus's Greek Text was 
 accompanied by a revised Latin translation. And lie gives 
 a curious account of the effect which the change of a single 
 word produced in England among some. In his first 
 edition he retained in the beginning of St. John's Gospel the 
 expression of the Vulgate Latin, " in principio erat verhumr 
 In 1519, however, he followed the phraseology of the early 
 Latin fathers, substituting sermo for verbum. This was 
 deemed almost if not quite a heresy. A bishop (whose 
 name he suppresses), was preaching at " Paul's Cross" when 
 he went out of his way to attack Erasmus's new transla- 
 tion. " It was a shameful thing," the bishop said, " for 
 those who had been so long Doctors of Divinity, to have 
 to go to school again, — for such to receive instruction from 
 a mere Greekling." At length his zeal waxed so warm 
 that he called on the Lord Mayor of London who was 
 present, and on the citizens for aid, that they would shew 
 themselves men, and not suffer such new translations 
 to obtain further currency, as subverting the authority 
 of Holy Scripture I 
 
 Other editions of the Greek Testament now began to 
 swarm, in some of which the testimony of MSS. is believed 
 to have been followed ; others presenting an eclectic 
 mixture of the Complutensian and Erasmian Texts. The 
 most important editions at this time are those of Kobert 
 Stephens. His third issue (a fine folio vol ,ume) was the 
 earliest printed with critical apparatus. His authorities 
 were declared to be sixteen, the first being the Compluten- 
 sian, the remaining fifteen being MSS. most of which are 
 identifiable at this day. The date of this publication was 
 1550 ; and it may be considered to represent the modern 
 
Received Text in England. His smaller edition, published 
 at Geneva, in 1551, differed little from the preceding one ; 
 but in it we first find our present division of the New 
 Testament into verses, Stephens having taken for his model 
 the short verses into which the Hebrew Bible had already 
 been divided in the preceding century. 
 
 We need here but briefly allude to the fiYQ editions of 
 Theodore Beza, which bring us down to the end of the 16th 
 century. They appear to differ little from Stephens's folio, 
 and from .each other. In the year 1624 appeared a small 
 neatly printed Greek Testament, from the printing press of 
 the brothers Elzevir at Leyden ; and another edition from 
 the same source in 1633. Of the person who superintend- 
 ed these issues nothing is known, but the Text given 
 follows closely that of Stephens and Beza, and is that 
 generally adopted on the Continent as the Received Text. 
 For, the plan of issuing a kind of stereotyped Text of the 
 Greek New Testament was practically adopted by Beza in 
 his first edition, 1565 ; and this by a kind of tacit consent 
 was admitted as a principle, when the Elzevirs, printers at 
 Leyden, published their small and convenient editions. A 
 high ground is assumed as to the Text which is thus pre- 
 sented. The reader is told in the preface of the Elzevirs — 
 " Thou hast the Text now received by all, in which we give 
 nothing altered or corrupted " — From this expression in 
 the preface has arisen the phrase " Textus receptus," " Re- 
 ceived Text," as applied to the Text of the Greek Testa- 
 ments in common use, at any rate on the Continent, in the 
 supposition that they were accurate reprints of the Elzevir 
 Editions. We have stated that Stephens's Folio of 1550 
 represented the modern "received Text" in England. But 
 
9 
 
 his Text was edited without intentional variation by Mill 
 in 1707, and hence Mill's Text has been commonly 
 reprinted in this country, and thus become our current 
 Text. 
 
 The Greek .Testament having been printed, various 
 readings began to be observed ; and thus, though little 
 was understood then respecting true principles of Textual 
 Criticism, or of their uniform application, something of 
 the kind was practised whenever any variation in copies 
 was noticed, and a choice had to be made between such 
 differences. 
 
 It is not our intention to touch upon the labors of the 
 celebrated men who during the next 150 years contributed 
 largely to the stores of Biblical criticism. It would be 
 impossible in the space allotted to us, neither does it enter 
 our purpose to do more than mention the names of Brian 
 Walton, Mill, Bentley, Bengel, Wetstein, Michaelis, Birch, 
 and Griesbach, whose extensive learning and unwearied 
 industry in collecting materials by collation of MSS. will 
 ever be remembered in connection with the study of the 
 New Testament. One of the most notable points in 
 relation to the labors of the last-mentioned critic is his 
 " Theory of Recensions." We cite in reference to this 
 subject an extract from an admirable work (Scrivener's 
 Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.) 
 " From Bengel and Semler, he (Griesbach) had taken up 
 the belief that MSS. versions and ecclesiastical writers 
 divided themselves, with respect to the character of their 
 testimony, into races or families. This principle he strove 
 to reduce to practice by marshalling his authorities under 
 
10 
 
 their respective heads, and then regarding the evidence, 
 (not of individuals, but) of the classes to which they belong. 
 The advantage of some such arrangement is sufficiently 
 manifest, if only it could be made to rest on grounds in 
 themselves certain, or, at all events, probable. We should 
 then possess some better guide in our choice between 
 conflicting readings than the very rough and unsatisfactory 
 process of counting the number of witnesses on either side. 
 It is not that such a mode of conducting critical enquiries 
 would not be very convenient that Griesbach's theory is 
 universally abandoned by modern scholars, but that there 
 is no valid reason for believing it to be true." Scholz, who 
 followed, adopted a modification of Griesbach's principles. 
 
 II. — We are now prepared to enter (very briefly) 
 upon the second division of our subject. 
 
 All ancient writings whatever, which have come 
 down to us in several copies, contain various readings ; 
 that is, places in which one copy differs more or less from 
 another. The causes of such various readings are many ; 
 but they all bear the same relation to MSS. which errata 
 and variations made by compositors and press correctors 
 do to printed books. 
 
 The original MS. autographs of the New Testament 
 books perished at an early day. They were written 
 partly by the Apostles themselves, and partly by scribes 
 and amanuenses. The most ancient transcripts or copies, 
 as well as the MSS. in general which ensued, were formed 
 either by the eye or the ear ; in other words, the writer 
 either directly copied from his original, or he wrote down 
 
11 
 
 what was read to him by another. Hence arose many- 
 errors — some from the mistakes of the eye, others from the 
 mistakes of the ear. These errors, however, are not so 
 considerable as to place in doubt, or to modify any doctrine 
 of the New Testament. Sometimes words were purposely 
 changed by the transcribers in order to explain the sense. 
 A word or note made in the margin may afterwards have 
 been taken into the text. But these variations are infre- 
 quent or unimportant so far as vital points are concerned ; 
 and undoubtedly the Text of the New Testament has been 
 transmitted to us without falsification, and without material 
 change. 
 
 The MSS. were not rolls like those of the Old Testa- 
 ment, but unbound books, somewhat like our pamphlets^ 
 and consisted either of sheets of vellum or of paper. In 
 the earliest MSS. of the New Testament now extant, 
 vellum is the material employed. . The style of writing 
 and the shapes of the several letters varied widely in 
 different ages, and form the simplest and surest criteria for 
 approximating to the date of the documents themselves. It 
 will be sufficient to adhere to the two- fold division into 
 Uncial and Cursive. The former term comprises what we 
 understand by capital letters formed separately, having no 
 connection with each other, and (in the earlier specimens) 
 without any space between the words, the marks of 
 punctuation being few. The cursive, or running hand, 
 implies letters more easily and rapidly made, those in the 
 same word being usually joined together with a complete 
 system of punctuation, not widely removed from our 
 printed books. Speaking generally, and limiting our state- 
 ment to Greek MSS. of the New Testament, uncial letters 
 
12 
 
 prevailed from the fourtli to the tenth or (in the case of 
 liturgical books) as late as the eleventh century. Cursive 
 letters were employed as early as the ninth or tenth 
 century, and continued in use until the invention of print- 
 ing superseded the humble labors of the scribe. The 
 uncial MSS. are usually indicated by the capital letters of 
 the Enghsh and Greek alphabets, which thus serve the 
 purpose of abbreviated titles. We shall speak shortly of 
 some of the most important. A few of these contain the 
 New Testament entire ; others of the greater part ; while 
 a large majority contain only portions or fragments. Many, 
 especially those of later date, are written with extraordi- 
 nary care and skill, for the monks devoted much time and 
 trouble to tasks of this kind. 
 
 We begin with A. — Codex Alexandrinus — was con- 
 veyed by Sir Thomas Eoe as a present to Charles I. from 
 Cyril Lucar, patriarch first of Alexandria and afterwards of 
 Constantinople. It is now in the British Museum : having 
 belonged to the King's private collection (from 1628) it was 
 in 1753 transferred to the public library, and is now publicly 
 shown in the manuscript room, carefully guarded, however, 
 by lock and key, in a glass case, an open page being 
 exhibited. It is written two columns to a page. The 
 Text is divided into numerous paragraphs, each paragraph 
 marked by a large initial letter. This celebrated manu- 
 script, the earliest of first-rate importance applied by 
 scholars to the criticism of the Text, has been assigned to 
 the fifth century. It was probably written at Alexandria, 
 and commences at Matt. xxv. 6. In 1786 it was published 
 in folio by subscription, the editor being Charles G. 
 Woide, preacher at the Dutch Chapel Eoyal, and 
 
la 
 
 assistant librarian to the Britisli Museum. This edition is 
 fairly accurate, and has been adopted as a model in a 
 recent reprint. 
 
 B. — Codex Vaticanus is one of the oldest vellum 
 MSS. in existence, and the glory of the Vatican Library 
 at Eome, where it was brought by Pope Nicholus Y. who 
 died in 1455, nothing being known of its previous history. 
 Certain missing portions of the MS. are said to have been 
 supplied in a later hand than the original writing. This 
 remarkable production has been guarded with such jealous 
 watchfulness by its official custodians, that a history might 
 be written of the various attempts to collate it. What the 
 Papal authorities would not entrust to others, they have at 
 least the merit of attempting themselves. Within the last 
 thirty years. Cardinal Mai, a renowned European scholar, 
 undertook to prepare an edition of it. But the execution 
 was objectionable on the whole, carelessly and injudicious- 
 ly carried out. Although ten years (from 1828 to 1838) 
 were expended in superintending the edition of this vener- 
 able MS., Mai devoted to the task but his scanty spare 
 hours, and even then worked so carelessly that after 
 cancelling a hundred pages for their incurable want of 
 exactness, he was reduced to the shift of making manual 
 corrections with moveable types, and projected huge tables 
 of errata which his friend, the sub-editor, has in some 
 measure tried to supply. When once it is stated that the 
 type was set from some printed Greek Testament, the 
 readings of the Codex itself being inserted as corrections, 
 and the whole revised by means of an assistant who read 
 the proof sheets to the Cardinal while he inspected the MS., 
 no one will look for accuracy from a method which could 
 
14 
 
 not possibly lead to it. As in the case of tlie preceding? 
 a cheaper reprint has recently appeared. It is almost the 
 oldest MS. of the New Testament, and is deemed to have 
 been written towards the close of the fourth century, or 
 earlier. An accurate edition of this venerable document 
 is as imperatively needed as ever. For this information 
 respecting Codex B. and indeed all the ancient MSS. I 
 am indebted more or less to the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, 
 whose labours in this branch of Biblical learning are 
 beyond all praise. 
 
 C. — Codex Ephrcemij a palimpsest or rescript, so 
 called on account of the ancient writing having been 
 nearly removed to make room about the twelfth century 
 for some Greek works of St. Ephraem, the great Syrian 
 Father. A chemical preparation has been applied to 
 restore much that was nearly illegible, and with some 
 success. It contains fragments of every portion of the 
 New Testament ; amounting on the whole to two-thirds of 
 the volume. The MS. was brought to Florence from the 
 East at the beginning of the sixteenth century, and came 
 thence to Paris with Catherine de Medici. The older 
 writing was first noticed about two centuries ago. It has 
 been examined and collated by various persons, and in 
 1843 was edited and published in a masterly form by 
 Tischendorf. It is probably as old as the fifth century, 
 and is preserved in the Imperial Library of Paris. The 
 Text it exhibits may be fairly said to lie between A. and B. 
 Three correctors at least have been at work on Codex C, 
 greatly to the perplexity of the critical collator. 
 
 D. — Of the Gospels and the Acts : Codex Bezce^ a 
 
16 
 
 Groeco-Latin manuscript belonging to the University of 
 Cambridge, the internal character of which is a most 
 difficult, and indeed an almost inexhaustible theme. No 
 known MS. contains so many bold and extensive interpo- 
 lations. Dr. Davidson says that " its singularly corrupt 
 text, in connection with its great antiquity, is a curious 
 problem, which cannot be easily solved." But as a long- 
 expected edition of this remarkable document has recently 
 appeared from the pen of the Eev. F. H. Scrivener, a 
 most accurate and painstaking scholar, we are induced to 
 give some particulars respecting it. 
 
 High as our expectations were raised, they have not 
 been disappointed. His critical introduction to the Codex 
 Bezce (D) is masterly and exhaustive. Probably nothing 
 of the kind has been attempted and carried out in this 
 country in so complete a form. It would be impossible in 
 the short space allotted to us, to do any thing Hke justice 
 to this scholarly performance. The MS. here transcribed 
 with matchless fidelity is now known to be one of the 
 sixteen authorities adopted by Stephens in his edition of 
 1550. In 1793, Dr. Thomas Kipling was entrusted by the 
 University of Cambridge with the onerous task of editing 
 and publishing Codex D. Of this transcript Mr. Scrivener 
 charitably says the editor has laboured faithfully and not 
 wholly in vain to approach correctness as nearly as may be. 
 It must be confessed, however, that Dr. Kipling's costly 
 folios were not up to the mark ; and every BibHcal scholar 
 must welcome with pleasure the present accessible and 
 complete volume. Mr. Scrivener discusses with minute- 
 ness and ability the peculiarities of the ancient writing, as 
 also the probable origin and date of the MS. The first 
 
16 
 
 point is illustrated by three beautiful fac-simile plates. It 
 is impossible for us to follow out in this brief space Mr. 
 Scrivener's elaborate views on sucb a subject, involving as 
 it does so much delicate criticism. But we may record 
 roughly the opinion given of the probable origin and date 
 of the manuscript, which seems to have been taken from a 
 document nearly a contemporary, and similarly divided 
 into lines or short verses (according to the sense), and 
 which contained a corresponding Latin version made 
 expressly from the Greek, line for line, as closely as pos- 
 sible. We gather that this was an independent Latin 
 translation made by a previous or contemporary scribe, who, 
 however, might have been influenced by the old Latin 
 version, or Jerome's vulgate, having retained much of the 
 latter in his memory. Moreover, that the Greek text thus 
 reproduced was from a model older still, dating perhaps 
 as early as, or older than the time of Origen. Our author 
 says that circumstances might induce him to assign to the 
 MS. now extant, full as high a date as the Codex Alexan- 
 drinus, (early in the fifth century,) were it not for the 
 debased dialect of the Latin version, which would seem to 
 have been executed in some remote province, most pro- 
 bably in Gaul, about the time of the Frankish invasion. 
 Thus, while the Latin version is assigned to a date not 
 higher than the fifth century, the MS. now in our posses- 
 sion may be of the sixth century, though the Greek text 
 bears traces of an origin far more remote, the third century at 
 the latest. The chief difficulty in editing documents of this 
 age and class, arises from those numerous changes brought in 
 by later scribes, in the document under discussion, judged 
 to be some ten or twelve in number. In this portion of his 
 arduous task, the editor has done himself infinite credit. 
 
17 
 
 E. of the Acts : was presented to the University of 
 Oxford in the year 1636, by Archbishop Laud, hence styled 
 Codex Laudianus. It is a Latin-Greek copy of the end of 
 the sixth century. A not very accurate edition ef it was 
 pubhshed by Thomas Hearne, the antiquary, in 1715. 
 This MS., containing only the Acts of the Apostles, was 
 probably among the Greek volumes brought into England 
 by the fellow-countryman of St. Paul, — Theodore of 
 Tarsus, who came to England as Primate at the age of 66, 
 A.D. 668, and died 690. It- is to be hoped that Mr. 
 Scrivener will be entrusted with the task of re-editing this 
 remarkable MS. 
 
 D°^- of the Pauline Epistles, a Greek-Latin copy, one 
 of the most ancient and important in existence ; pubhshed 
 by Tischendorf in 1852- It once belonged to Beza, who 
 styled it Codex Claromontanus, from Clermont near Beau- 
 vais, where it is said to have been preserved. It is now in 
 the Imperial Library of Paris. It is supposed to have been 
 written about the middle of the sixth century. 
 
 The three following MSS. appear to bear a remark- 
 able relation to each other ; being all three, in the opinion 
 of scholars, derived from the same Greek original ; that is, 
 from some much older document, not now in existence. 
 Moreover, the second and third, though now separate, and 
 preserved in different parts of Europe, seem originally to 
 have belonged to each other as parts of one and the sam© 
 document. 
 
 F. Codex Augiemis of the Pauline Epistles in the 
 Library of Trinity College, Cambridge ; is a Greek-Latin 
 
18 
 
 MS. called from the Monastery of Augia Dives or Major 
 (denoting in its German designation a " ricli Meadow" ) on 
 a fertile Island in the lower part of Lake Constance, in 
 Baden, to whicli it long appertained, and where it may 
 even have been written, a thousand years since. In 1718 
 Bentley was induced to buy it at Heidelberg for 250 Dutch 
 florins. On the death of his Nephew, in 1787, it was placed 
 where it now is. In 1859 Scrivener produced an edition 
 of it in common type, with a critical introduction, and a 
 Photograph of one page. The continuous mode of writing 
 with no space or division between the words, which 
 prevailed in the elder Greek uncial copies, was by this 
 time laid aside, and a singular looking stop or point at the 
 end of each word prevails pretty uniformly in all parts of 
 the MS. 
 
 Several places are disfigured by grotesque sketches in 
 ink, common to many biblical MSS. Mr. Scrivener 
 mentions an example in a Bodleian MS'L. wherein a poor 
 priest is portrayed in a humorous and triumphant attitude 
 pointing to 1 Tim. v. 1 9 ( " against an Elder receive not an 
 accusation, but before two or three witnesses," ) a text 
 which had doubtless proved of some use to him when in 
 difiiculties. 
 
 G. of the Epistles; Codex JBoarnerianus, — so called 
 from a former possessor, but now in the Royal Library at 
 Dresden. It was published in full in 1791 by Matthsei, in 
 common type with two facsimile pages. His edition is 
 beheved to be very accurate. The Greek uncial letters 
 are coarse and peculiar — the punctuation is chiefly com- 
 prised in a stop between words. Its affinity with the 
 
19 
 
 preceding ( Codex Augiensis) has no parallel in this branch 
 of hterature ; in those places where they agree they must 
 not be estimated as two distinct authorities, but as one ; 
 the surviving representatives of an older MS. now lost, as 
 before stated. Tliis is true as regards the Greek Text : 
 but their respective Latin versions are quite independent. 
 (Latin version interlinear). 
 
 A — of the Gospels — Codex Sangallensis was made fully 
 known by the admirable edition of Kettig, pubhshed at 
 Zurich in 1836. It is preserved and was probably tran- 
 scribed a thousand years since in the great monastery of 
 St. Gall in the N.E. of Switzerland. It is rudely written 
 in a very peculiar hand with an interlinear Latin version 
 in cursive letters as in the previous case : contains the 
 four Gospels complete, except 18 verses in the xix. chap, 
 of St. John's Gospel. There is no question that this 
 document was written by Latin (most probably Irish) 
 Monks in the west of Europe during the ninth century, 
 and that it once formed part of the same volume with the 
 preceding. 
 
 N. —of the Gospels — Codex Purpureus. Only twelve 
 leaves of this copy remain (as was thought till lately) 
 containing fragments of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. 
 John. It seems pretty clear that they were stolen from 
 St. John's Convent at Patmos, and were separated into 
 three portions by some not very honest vendor, who 
 calculated that more might be made from three purchasers 
 than from one : four leaves being now in the British 
 Museum, six in the Vatican, two at Vienna. Tischendorf 
 copied and published them in 1846, assigning them to the 
 
20 
 
 sixtli century. This scholar has since obtained, from the 
 above-mentioned Monastery, other leaves containing frag- 
 ments of St. Mark (being portions of the same MS.) 
 These will shortly be published. This MS, is written on 
 the thinnest vellum, dyed purple, hence its name, 
 " Purpureus." 
 
 H — Codex Zacynthius^ being Greek palimpsest fragments 
 of the Gospel of St. Luke, obtained in the Island of Zante 
 by General CoHn Macaulay, and now in the Library of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society. The older writing, 
 containing large portions of the Gospel to chapter xi. 33, 
 is accompanied by a Catena or Commentary consisting of 
 large patristic extracts. The Text, in large character, 
 seems at first to be of the sixth century ; and the catena, 
 in smaller character, of the eighth. But the arrangement 
 of the matter makes it certain that the commentary is 
 contemporaneous : and that both must be attributed to the 
 later period. This copy must be regarded as the earliest 
 known furnished with such a catena ; which indeed com- 
 prises extracts from nine Ecclesiastical writers cited by 
 name ; of these Chrysostom, Origen, and Cyril are the best 
 known. And it would appear that wherever and when- 
 ever this MS. was written, or its prototype, the name and 
 teaching of Cyril of Alexandria was held in high estimation. 
 One of the writers cited in the catena is Severus, there 
 designated a Saint, and archbishop of Antioch. But the 
 name of Severus has been at some time carefully erased. 
 This circumstance is worthy of notice. Severus had 
 succeeded Flavian in the See of Antioch a.d. 512. He was 
 expelled seven years afterwards on account of certain 
 opinions held by him ; and in the year 536, under the 
 
21 
 
 Emperor Justinian, an enactment was put forth, proscri- 
 bing the writings of Severus. These were to be burned, 
 and no one was to possess or copy them. It might be 
 difficult to shew how long this legislation of the sixth 
 century produced practical effects, but, in whatever age 
 this MS. was altered by the erasion of the name of 
 Severus, then at least there seems to have been still a dread 
 of the law of Justinian. The MS. might have been written 
 by some one who was ignorant of the proscription : or it 
 might have been executed in some place where the edict 
 was not enforced : but at least, the writer himself or some 
 subsequent possessor shewed his caution by erasing (not 
 the extracts themselves, but) the name only. I have 
 ventured to supply these interesting particulars from the 
 statements of Dr. Tregelles, who copied and published 
 the fragments of St. Luke's Gospel in 1861. The later 
 writing is a Greek Lectionary of the four Gospels, 
 probably of the thirteenth century ; and has been 
 disregarded. The ancient patristic extracts, too, are not 
 given (indeed it is said they cannot be deciphered without 
 the adoption of chemical means). The mere deciphering 
 of the Evangelic fragments seems to have occupied 
 Dr. Tregelles four months, every clear day being used for 
 the purpose. 
 
 Z. Codex Duhlinensis^ contains 290 verses of St. 
 Matthew's Gospel in twenty-two fragments. It was 
 discovered in 1787 by Dr. John Barrett, of Trinity 
 College, Dublin, under some cursive writing of the tenth 
 century or later, consisting of certain patristic and other 
 works. The older or uncial writing was published by 
 
22 
 
 Barrett in 1801, with moderate accuracy. Is is as old as 
 tlie sixth century. 
 
 B^^ a Vatican MS. of the Apocalypse, numbered 2066 
 in that Library. It probably belongs to the beginning of 
 the eighth century. The scarcity of old copies of the 
 Apocalypse renders this uncial of considerable importance. 
 
 ^>. — (Aleph) Codex Sinaiiicus^ now at St- Petersburg; 
 the justly-celebrated copy which has recently attracted such 
 general attention in the learned world. The discovery of 
 this precious relic of antiquity, in the Convent of St. 
 Catherine, on Mount Sinai, by Tischendorf, forms a most 
 interesting history. It is the most ancient and important 
 MS. of the New Testament in existence, being^ referred to 
 the middle of the fourth century. It contains the New 
 Testament entire, each page comprising four columms. 
 Correctors of all periods have disfigured the MS., some as 
 early probably as the sixth or seventh century. With 
 regard to the important question as to the class of readings 
 supported by this venerable authority, it cannot be said to 
 give in its exclusive adherence to any of the witnesses 
 hitherto examined. It was published in 1862, by Tischen- 
 dorf, in a superior manner at the expense of the Emperor of 
 Russia. A cheaper copy, in modern type, has since ap- 
 peared, column -after column. 
 
 The Manuscripts we have now so briefly described are 
 exclusively of the uncial class ; and have been selected on 
 account of their interest and importance. 
 
 Recently an attempt has been made by the University 
 
23 
 
 of Oxford to render certain of the first-class uncials better 
 known, and available for critical purposes. The execution 
 of this task was entrusted to Mr. Hansell, a resident 
 professor of the University, and one in every respect 
 competent to undertake the editorship. The following 
 extract from the prospectus originally presented to the 
 delegates will afford some idea of its nature : — " It seems 
 desirable to print in full the Greek Text of the New 
 Testament as it is found in the earliest MSS. in a form 
 admitting of being easily read, and if possible at such a 
 price as to be generally accessible to students." We further 
 read in the preface as follows * * * * " To enable 
 students to judge of the general character of a MS. Text, 
 or to appreciate the meaning of a passage according to the 
 readings of a particular Codex, it is important that the 
 Text should admit of being easily and continuously read, 
 without the attention being distracted in diciphering the 
 continuous uncial writing. * * * * It seems the best 
 course to combine the several ancient Texts in one volume, 
 so as to allow of their being easily compared with one another 
 * * ♦ * for this purpose the printing in parallel columns appears 
 most convenient." Hence, it was also determined that the 
 character should be the modern cursive. The structure of 
 the work is as follows — the Gospels are given in four 
 parallel columns, each column representing the Text of the 
 MS. employed, viz. Codex Alexandrinus (A) ; Codex 
 Vaticanus (B) ; Codex Ephrajmi (C) ; Codex Bezsc (D) ; 
 the first-mentioned being deficient up to Matt. xxv. 6, the 
 Dublin Codex (Z) is brought into requisition for that 
 portion in the first column. The Acts are given in the 
 same way fi'om A, B, C, D, and also from Codex Laudia- 
 nus (E). The Catholic Epistles in three columns from 
 
24 
 
 A. B. C. ; the Pauline Epistles in four columns from A, B, C. ; 
 and the Codex Claromontanus (D^^) ; the Apocalypse in 
 three colimis from A. C; and the Vatican Codex 2066 
 
 It will be observed with regret that the great Sinaitic 
 Manuscript has no place here. We presume it to have 
 been a question of time. Mr. Hansell's labors were 
 commenced awhile ago, and this great and all-important 
 Codex was not accessible till the work was too far 
 advanced to admit of its being included. We are, how- 
 ever, presented with a full collation of it with the Text of 
 Stephens in an appendix. Throughout the body of the 
 work, the deviations of the different MSS. from the Text 
 of Stephens are indicated by means of a system of symbols. 
 The most remarkable of these uncial MSS. in respect of 
 the Text presented, is undoubtedly Codex D. " It's most 
 striking feature," as we are reminded by Mr. Scrivener, " is 
 its perpetual tendency to interpolation, by which term we 
 understand the practice of adding to the received Text 
 passages (often of some length), -which, whether genuine 
 or spurious, are found in this document, either alone or in 
 company with a very few others." For example, after 
 Matthew xx. 28, are appended no less than twelve lines or 
 short verses quite foreign to St Matthew's style, and read 
 in no other Greek MS. Yet something like the passage 
 is contained in certain Syriac and Latin codices. This 
 and other considerations might lead us to believe, with 
 Dr. Cureton, that " it certainly belongs to the most ancient 
 times of Christianity," though not necessarily anterior to 
 the second century. 
 
26 
 
 The Text of the Great Vatican Codex B. presents in one 
 respect a marked contrast to that of Codex D. While the 
 one is startling, on account of its numerous glosses and inter- 
 polations, constituting as it were something Hke a paraphrase 
 of the sacred authors, the other is equally remarkable for its 
 disposition to curtness, and tendency to omission, inducing 
 one critic to speak of it as " an abbreviated Text of the 
 New Testament," words or clauses being apparently 
 omitted in numberless cases. Some of these instances 
 may, as Mr. Scrivener observes, be due to the carelessness 
 of the scribe, who seems to have repeatedly written words 
 and clauses twice over. This circumstance has lately come 
 to light. For, as we before observed. Codex B. is not yet 
 fully known to critics, hy^t reason of the imperfect way 
 in which it has been edited by the Papal authorities. 
 
 Of Codex A. Mr. Scrivener says that " it is of the 
 very greatest importance to the critic, inasmuch as it 
 exhibits a Text more nearly approaching that found in 
 later copies than is read in others of its high antiquity." 
 
 Something has already been said about the adequacy 
 of the means at our disposal for obtaining an accurate Text 
 of the Greek Testament ; and this, too, as compared with 
 the case of other ancient books. About fifteen MSS. of 
 the history of Herodotus are known to critics : and of 
 these several are not of higher antiquity than the middle 
 of the fifteenth century. One copy in the Imperial 
 Library (there are in that collection five or six), appears 
 to belong to the twelfth century. There is one in the 
 Vatican, and one in the Florentine Library attributed to 
 the tenth century. One in the Library of Emmanuel 
 
26 
 
 College, Cambridge, formerly tlie property of the Arch- 
 bishop Sancroft, which is believed to be very ancient. 
 The Libraries of Oxford and Vienna contain also MSS. of 
 this author. This amount of copies may be taken as more 
 than the average number of ancient MSS. of the classic 
 authors ; for although a few have many more, many have 
 fewer. A Yirgil in the Vatican claims an antiquity as 
 high as the fourth century.' There are a few similar 
 instances ; but, generally, the existing copies of the classics 
 are attributed to periods between the tenth and fifteenth 
 centuries. 
 
 Now with respect to the New Testament, we are 
 enabled to calculate that there are little short of one 
 thousand MSS. proper (including Lectionaries) of the 
 Gospels, and about another thousand of all the other books 
 put together ; whereof those of St. Paul are more numer- 
 ous, those of the Apocalypse fewer than those of the Acts 
 and Catholic Epistles. That is, when one MS. (as often 
 occurs) belongs to more than one class or set of the sacred 
 writers, its distinct parts are numbered separately, so that 
 the whole New Testament will appear in four lists and be 
 reckoned four times over. 
 
 Those extant written in uncial characters are, 
 (comparatively) few in number. In the Gospels, they 
 amount to thirty-four; but far the greater part of these are 
 fi:agments, most of them of inconsiderable length ; in the 
 Acts they are ten ; in the Cathohc Epistles six ; in the 
 PauHne Epistles fourteen (many of them fragments) ; in 
 the Apocalypse only four — somewhat less than seventy in 
 all. A few of these have been already described to you 
 
27 
 
 this evening, their dates ranging jfrom the fourth to the 
 ninth century. 
 
 The later MSS. in cursive character, as may be in- 
 ferred, are very numerous indeed. Not having received 
 from critics the notice they deserve, comparatively few of 
 them have been examined and collated. 
 
 We have seen that the documents written in the 
 uncial character are designated by capital letters. On the 
 other hand the cursive MSS. in each class are designated 
 by the numerals in common use. Some of these, how- 
 ever, which have lately accrued are noted in a different 
 manner — as in the case of an important copy of the Acts 
 discovered by Tischendorf, and sold by him to the British 
 Museum, designated lo*'- Again a'"'' and b^*''' etc. for 
 those collated by F. H. Scrivener. We shall do little 
 more than mention a few of these. 
 
 No. 1 of the Gospels contains also the Acts of the 
 Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul. It is of the tenth 
 century, and contains prologues to each book : is illumi- 
 nated with pictures. Among the illuminations are what 
 appear to be pictures of the Emperor Leo the Wise, and 
 his son Constantine (886-911). A calendar of the daily 
 lessons throughout the year is given. This copy is written 
 on vellum, size 8vo., containing thirty-eight Hnes in each 
 page. In the Gospels the text is very remarkable, 
 adhering pretty closely to Codex B. of the Vatican. It 
 was known to Erasmus, who but little used or valued it. 
 It was recently collated by Tregelles. 
 
28 
 
 No. 33^ — Folio, written on vellum, contains all tlie New 
 Testament except the Apocalypse. It lias been styled the 
 Queen of the MSS. in Cursive Letters, from the critical 
 value of its Text. It is of the eleventh century, has been 
 laboriously collated by Tregelles, in 1850, who says of 
 this copy " none has ever been so wearisome to the eyes 
 and exhaustive of every faculty of attention." This arose 
 in consequence of the damaged state of the MS. The ink, 
 by reason of the damp, has often left its proper page blank, 
 so that the writing can only be read, set off^ on the opposite 
 page, especially in the Acts. 
 
 No. 38 of the Apocalypse; date the thirteenth century; 
 on cotton paper; has been inspected and collated by 
 several scholars. Its Text closely resembles that of 
 Codd A.C. 
 
 No. 69, Codex Leicestrensis^ folio, of the fourteenth 
 century, belonged to one William Chark, in 1582. In the 
 year 1640, Thomas Hayne, m.a. of Trussington, in Leices- 
 tershire, presented it to the Library of the Town Council 
 of Leicester, where it now remains ; written on vellum 
 and coarse paper, in series of two vellum followed by three 
 paper leaves, evidently from previous calculation how far 
 the more costly material would hold out. There are thirty- 
 eight lines in a page. The instrument employed seems to 
 have been a reed rather than a pen, and the style of 
 writing is very singular, yet certainly neither elegant nor 
 remarkably perspicuous. The wide variations of this copy 
 from the received editions are well known. A corrector's 
 hand has been busy throughout the document, which Mr. 
 Scrivener, who has examined it very carefully, deems to 
 
29 
 
 be by a second hand, but nearly as old as the original 
 scribe. It contains the whole of the New Testament 
 except a few passages lost. 
 
 lo*^ (or p'°^) This copy contains only the Acts of the 
 Apostles in a mutilated conditioii ; but it is unquestionably 
 the most valuable cursive MS. of that book yet known. 
 It was obtained in Egypt by Tischendorf, who sold it to the 
 British Museum in 1854. It bears a date, viz. 20th April, 
 1044, and was written by one John, a monk, in small 
 quarto. In a few remarkable readings it stands quite 
 alone ; but in a general way it supports those of the prin- 
 cipal uncials A. B. C. D. E. against the Received Text. 
 
 An idea has not unnaturally gained ground from time 
 to time amongst scholars, some of them very eminent men, 
 that the true representatives of the ancient Text of the 
 New Testament are to be found in the oldest codices 
 extant. Bentley's views on this subject are well known. 
 He expressed his belief that the oldest MSS. of the Greek 
 original and of Jerome's Latin version coincide in all 
 points, even the minutest. No one need wonder at a 
 strong agreement subsisting between these in a general 
 way ; but experience has shewn the fallacy of expecting 
 anything like a fulfilment so exact as that contemplated. 
 Lachmann (who died in 1851) rejected all but the very 
 few ancient documents in carrying out his scheme of 
 restoring the sacred Text to the condition in which it 
 existed during the fourth century, regardless whether the 
 sense produced be good or bad, likely or unlikely. The 
 plan propounded by Dr. Tregelles, though not absolutely 
 identical with that of Lachmann, is yet very similar. He 
 
30 
 
 avers (Account of printed Text p. 138), " The mass of 
 recent documents {i.e. those written in cursive characters 
 from the tenth century downwards^ possess no determining 
 voice in a question as to what we should receive as genuine 
 readings." No reasonable person would think of setting 
 up testimony exclusively modern against the unanimous 
 voice of antiquity. But, on this point we are reminded by 
 Mr. Scrivener {Plain Introduction p. 398) "That the 
 evidence of these ancient authorities is anything but 
 unanimous, that they are perpetually at variance with each 
 other, even if you limit the term ancient within the 
 narrowest bounds," perpetually divided, tw9 against three, 
 or perhaps four againt one. Tischendorf himself, though 
 originally disposed to favor the above-mentioned theory, 
 has of late greatly modified his early views on this subject, 
 as a comparison of his New Testament of 1849 with that 
 of 1859 will show. In his critical apparatus attached to 
 the later edition, the more recent codices have their due 
 place. 
 
 III. The last division of the subject will now engage 
 our attention for a few moments. 
 
 Allusion has been already made in a general way to 
 variations in the MSS. naturally arising during the process 
 of copying. When a clause ends in the same word or 
 words as closed the preceding sentence, and the transcriber's 
 eye has wandered from one to the other, there may result 
 the entire omission of the whole passage lying between 
 them. This is very commonly observed by all examiners 
 of ancient MSS., and sometimes forms a source of 
 error more serious than might be supposed. A genuine 
 
31 
 
 clause may tlius be lost sight of. In 1 John ii. 23, a clause 
 is omitted in many MSS. and is not contained in our 
 received Greek Text, and even in the authorized English 
 version is printed in ItaUcs. The whole verse Luke xvii. 
 36, though but slenderly supported, may possibly have been 
 early lost through the same cause. Numerous variations 
 occur in the order of words, the sense being slightly or not 
 at allitifected — The order of the sacred names Jesus Christ 
 is perpetually clianged. Sometimes the scribe has mis- 
 taken one word for another, which differs from it only in 
 one or two letters. This happens chiefly in cases where 
 the uncial (or capital) letters, in which the oldest MSS. 
 are written, resemble each other, except in some fine 
 stroke which may have decayed and become invisible 
 through age. Also, the style of the most ancient 
 writing being continuous, not a few various readings 
 may result therefrom : for example, a string of three 
 words might by a very sHght alteration be converted 
 into two, and vice versa. An extensive and perplexing 
 species of various readings arises from bringing into 
 the Text of one (chiefly of the three earher) Evangehsts, 
 expressions or whole sentences which of right belong 
 not to him, but to one or both of the others. This 
 natural tendency to assimilate the several Gospels must 
 have been aggravated by the laudable efforts, begun at a 
 very early period, (as early as the second century) to con- 
 struct a satisfactory harmony of them alL Sometimes 
 transcribers quote passages from the Old Testament more 
 fully than the original writers of the New Testament 
 judged necessary for their purpose. Again, synonymous 
 words are often interchanged, and so form various readings, 
 the sense undergoing some slight and refined modification, 
 
32 
 
 or else heing quite unaltered. An irregular, obscure, or 
 ineomplete construction will often be explained or supplied 
 by the transcriber in the margin, by words that are 
 subsequently brought into the Text. Hence arises the 
 habit of changing ancient dialectic forms into those more 
 in vogue in the transcriber's age. Lastly, the copyist may 
 be tempted to forsake his proper functions for that of a 
 revisor or critical corrector : he may simply omit what he 
 does not understand, or may attempt to get over a difficulty 
 by inversions or other changes. 
 
 It would be impossible, in the limited space allowed, 
 to cite instances in detail of the operation of all the several 
 causes whereby changes arise, many of them merely verbal, 
 or, at any rate often unimportant. But, by way of 
 illustration, a few of the more prominent examples can be 
 given. 
 
 Matt. vi. 13, the question is as to the doxology. It 
 is wanting in K B. D. Z. — A. and C. happen to be deficient 
 here. The Complutensian Editors passed it over; for 
 though in their Greek copies, it was not supported by the 
 Latin version; the question is nearly evenly balanced — the 
 passage being contained in nearly all the later copies, 
 though with some variation. The later uncials have it: 
 and, of the cursives, ^ye only are known to omit the 
 clause, though in some it is obelised in the margin, while 
 comments in certain other copies indicate its doubtful 
 character. No. 33 (called the " Queen of the Cursives ") 
 has it. No. 69, the Leicester MS., is defective here. 
 
 John v. 3 and 4. The last clause of the third verse. 
 
33 
 
 and the whole of the fourth verse are wanting in the best 
 MSS. both Greek and Latin. The last clause of the third 
 verse is, however, better supported than that which 
 follows. But we have the entire passage cited by Ter- 
 tulHan, the first witness for its presence. The Baptismal 
 Angel, a favorite thought with him, was here foreshewed 
 and typified (Trench.) It might have originated first in a 
 marginal note, and then at a very early period found its 
 way into the Text, probably at Alexandria first. Those 
 copies which do contain it have an asterisk or other mark 
 to indicate its doubtfulness ; added to which, it is accom- 
 panied with such variations as to indicate marks of growth 
 engendering suspicion as to its genuineness. The aspect 
 which the narrative wears when the disputed portion is 
 omitted must strike the reader. For, it presents, thus, 
 not the form adopted by a carefiil and practised historian, 
 but an inartificial one, having many parallels in the 
 Gospels, where the language is unconsciously made to 
 reflect the writer's familiarity with localities and scenes, 
 rather than framed to meet the absence of that condition 
 on the part of the general reader — a circumstance, how- 
 ever, which is a vivid evidence of the artless truthfiilness 
 of an eye witness. 
 
 John vii. 53 to viii. 11. On all inteUigent principles 
 of criticism, this entire narrative must be abandoned as 
 forming an integral part of St. John's Gospel — seeing that 
 it is wanting in all the first-class uncials. A. and C. are 
 deficient here; but, by measuring the space in each of these 
 two cases, it has been shown that the section could not 
 have been contained in either. Codex D. is the oldest 
 witness for its presence. Certain cursive documents give 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 the wliole passage at the end of Luke xxi. But the 
 narrative, as it stands in the received Text, may be 
 defended on internal grounds; just as John xx. 30 and 31, 
 show signs of having been the original conclusion of this 
 Gospel, and chapter xxi. may be a later supplement by the 
 Apostle's own hand, so in the present case this most edify- 
 ing christian narrative may have found its true place. 
 
 Acts viii. 37. Mr. Scrivener here says {Plain Intro- 
 duction) "we cannot question the spuriousness of this 
 verse, which seems to have been received from the margin, 
 where the formula 'I believe,' &;c. had beeii placed, ex- 
 tracted from some Church Ordinal." It is supported by 
 about eighteen MSS., one of which only is of the uncial 
 class ; Codex D,^ which might be expected to contain it, 
 being defective at this place. It, however, as in another 
 case, early found its way into the Text, being cited by 
 Irenseus both in Greek and Latin. Though given in our 
 Eeceived Text, the Complutensian Editors did not insert 
 it. The passage exhibits various shiftings of shape in those 
 codices which contain it. Thus — ^its best authority E. (the 
 Laudian MS. in the Bodleian) instead of " thou mayest," 
 would read "thou shalt be saved;" and, instead of, ^^that 
 Jesus Christ is the Son of God," " on Christ the Son of 
 God." The other seventeen (cursives, one of them being 
 the Leicester MS.) differ considerably in the actual read- 
 ings they exhibit. 
 
 Acts XV. 34. — This verse is omitted in most of the 
 great uncial MSS. It is present, however, in C. and D. 
 with variations in the reading. It is, no doubt, an un- 
 authorised addition, probably taking its rise from a marginal 
 
35 
 
 gloss designed to explain how, notwithstanding the terms 
 of verses 32 and 33, (Judas and Silas " were let go in peace 
 from the brethren unto the Apostles "J, Silas was at hand 
 in verse 40 conveniently for St. Paul to choose him as a 
 companion in travel. 
 
 1 Tim. iii. 16. — One word in this verse has given rise 
 to more discussion than almost any other part of the New 
 Testament. The question, as it stands, lies mainly between 
 " God manifest in the flesh," and " who manifest," &c. 
 The difficulty arises from the circumstance of the Greek 
 word for " God " in its contracted form so nearly re- 
 sembling the pronoun, that all the uncial MSS. have been 
 subjected to a severe mechanical scrutiny with the view of 
 determining their actual reading — the difference between 
 the two words consisting only in the presence or absence 
 of two horizontal strokes. The British Museum has been 
 repeatedly visited solely for the purpose of testing Codex A. 
 on the point. And even here an uncertainty exists from 
 the way in which the manuscript has been handled at 
 various periods, for Mr. Green asserts that the first 
 scribe wrote " who " (Developed Criticism), Mr. Cowper, 
 in his recent reprint of the manuscript, is of opinion it now 
 certainly favors the Received Text, whatever the original 
 reading, and moreover that " no one will think it possible, 
 either with or without a lens, to ascertain the truth of the 
 matter by any inspection of the Codex ;" Mr. Scrivener 
 differs so far from Mr. Cowper as to state positively his 
 conviction, with the earlier collators, that the Codex A. 
 read the word as given in the ordinary Text, and translated 
 in our English version. But he decides, in reference to all 
 the MS. authorities, that the ordinary reading of the more 
 
36 
 
 recent many, should give way to tliat of the ancient few. 
 In reality, lie virtually rejects the ordinarily received 
 reading in favour of the other. 
 
 The great Sinaitic MS., which ought to have great 
 weight here, gives the pronoun by the original scribe; 
 though, according to Tischendorf, a late corrector about 
 the twelfth century has tampered with the word, yet in 
 such a manner as to leave the ancient writing intact and 
 quite distinguishable. Codex C, too, bears a similar testi- 
 mony against the common text in its primitive reading, 
 though here again a subsequent corrector has been at 
 work to change the word with a different colored ink. 
 The great Vatican MS. (B.) is defective here. 
 
 I John V. 7 and 8. — The long controversy to which 
 this celebrated passage gave rise, will ever be remembered 
 in connection with critical studies of the New Testament. 
 We have already adverted to the dispute arising on the 
 subject between Erasmus and the principal Complutensian 
 Editor. Dr. Dobbin, in his account of the Montfort 
 Codex, expresses himself thus : — " To suppose that the 
 passage ever existed in ancient Greek MSS. is contrary to 
 the rules of probabihty founded on actual experience ; * * * 
 that the origin of the passage may be clearly traced to the 
 Latin version." He also decides that, down to the ninth 
 century, the passage was wanting even in the Latin copies. 
 It must therefore be given up as entirely spurious. The 
 two verses in our authorised version, when corrected, 
 should run thus — " For there are three that bear record, 
 the spirit and the water and the blood, and these 
 three," &c. 
 
87 
 
 Luke xxii. 43 and 44. — This passage is cited by us 
 on account of the variance subsisting between the great 
 Vatican (B.) and the Sinaitic MS. Until the verdict of 
 the latter great authority was obtained, some lingering 
 doubt hung over the authenticity of these verses. The 
 following omit the verses: — Codex A. (though circum- 
 stances induce us to believe that the scribe was acquainted 
 with the passage). Codex B. (just mentioned) and others. 
 Codex C. is defective here, but the passage stands in the 
 margin of that MS. (by a correcting hand). It is read, 
 however, in the Codex Sin, (K.) Codex D., and most of 
 the cursives. 
 
 James i. 17. — There is no real or tangible variation 
 here, except the curious circumstance that the two oldest 
 MSS., the Vatican and the Sinaitic, agree in a false 
 accidence in the word translated " shadow," an indefensible 
 reading which makes nonsense of the passage. 
 
 The two last quotations are sufficient to convince any 
 candid mind of the utter uselessness of narrowing our field 
 of criticism by an appeal to a few documents, however 
 ancient. In the one case, the two most ancient documents 
 clash ; and that too, at a most important place : and in the 
 other coincide in an intolerable reading. 
 
 In concluding our review of a subject so deeply 
 interesting to every right thinking member of the Christian 
 Church, it is but natural to enquire what particular Text 
 was adopted by the EngUsh divines who made our admira- 
 ble translation ? Some affirm it to be Beza's fifth edition 
 of 1598. It seems evident, however, that other editions 
 
38 
 
 were likewise consulted, and that Stephens's edition of 1550 
 held a foremost place in their estimation. Notwithstanding 
 the vast store of materials accumulated since by the 
 industry of scholars, and the improved methods resulting 
 from increased knowledge, it is very doubtful if any of the 
 Texts or systems lately propounded are greatly, if at all, to 
 be preferred to the standard Text, which, in the opinion of 
 those best able to judge, appears on the whole to approach 
 nearest to the sacred autographs. It must be admitted, as 
 a consequence of the investigations now recorded, that 
 numerous readings are open to discussion : yet, with a very 
 few marked exceptions, there is Uttle of vital import which 
 we should wish to see rescinded. One thing is certain, 
 viz., that our accurate acquaintance with the Greek 
 original of the New Testament is in but a transition state ; 
 and that if we work quietly on, another generation may see 
 the sacred Text settled on a firmer basis than we can hope 
 to witness. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 TUCKER AND SON, PRINTEES, HIGH-STREET, SOUTHAMPTON. 
 
A. Sim^LEMElSTT 
 
 TO THE HISTOKY OP 
 
 THE PRINTED GREEK TEXT 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT, &c. 
 
 W. L. A, 
 
 SOUTHAMPTON: TUCKER AND SON, PRINTEBS, 79, HIGH-SIREET. 
 
 MDOCCLXV. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 Lecture, page 4, 
 
 The Vulgate, 
 
 ' The term " Vulgate," as applied to the Bible, comprehends, 
 in its widest signification, the Text of the Holy Scriptures current 
 during the earlier periods of the Christian Era, a time when Latin 
 and Greek respectively were the ordinary tongues employed for 
 the diffusion of literature, sacred as well as secular. 
 
 There can be no doubt, however, that the term "Vulgate" was 
 subsequently restricted to the Latin Version of the Bible. It 
 is impossible at present to say by whom the earliest version was 
 executed. Its history is lost in complete obscurity. That it was 
 made in Africa may be regarded as certain, Tertullian being the 
 principal witness for its existence. Though we naturally identify 
 it with the Roman Church, yet it must not be forgotten that, 
 during the first two centuries, that Church was essentially Greek. 
 The earliest Roman Liturgy was Greek. The few remains of the 
 Christian Literature of Rome are Greek. Still, in the absence of 
 all evidence, it is hard to say how far the Christians of the Italian 
 Provinces used the Greek or Latin language habitually. 
 
 We gather from the above-mentioned Latin Father the 
 general currency of a Latin version of the New Testament, which 
 even in his time had been able to mould the popular language. 
 St. Augustine, too, says " any one in the first ages of Chris- 
 tianity who gained possession of a Greek MS. and fancied that he 
 had a fair knowledge of Greek and Latin, ventured to translate 
 it." Thus the version of the New Testament appears to have 
 arisen from individual and successive efforts. Though the case 
 of the Old Testament is less clear, a preparation for a Christian 
 
Latin dialect was already made when the Gospel was introduced 
 into Africa. Moreover, the substantial similarity of the different 
 parts of the Old and New Testament version establishes a real con- 
 nection between them, and justifies the belief that there was one 
 popular Latin version of the Bible current in Africa in the last 
 quarter of the second century: f Brooke Foss WestcottJ, And, that 
 it was literally made from the original, so far as the New Testament 
 was concerned, is evident from the accurate reflection of the words 
 of the original: the very forms of Greek construction being in many 
 cases retained in violation of Latin usage. In the Old Testament, 
 it may be observed that the translation was made from the ancient 
 Greek Septuagint. The old Latin version then having received 
 a definite shape, was jealously guarded by ecclesiastical use, and 
 underwent no changes or revision. This statement, however 
 holds good only with reference to the African Churches, where this 
 version was retained long after the subsequent version by Jerome 
 was elsewhere universally received. 
 
 In Italy the case was different. In the fourth century, a 
 definite ecclesiastical recension, (at first of the Gospels) appears to 
 have been made by reference to the Greek, recommended by 
 Augustine on the ground of its perspicuity and accuracy: and 
 this was termed the Italic version. Other revisions were made 
 for private use, changes being introduced according to the taste 
 of scribe or critic. Then these various revisions became inter- 
 mixed, the result being a serious deterioration of the Text which 
 continued up to the close of the fourth century. 
 
 Jerome. — This eminent and learned Father (bom a.d. 329) 
 having gone to Rome a.d. 382, became attached to the service of 
 Pope Damasus. His active biblical labours now commenced. 
 The great desideratum at that time was an original and complete 
 version of the Scriptures for use in the Latin Churches : for the 
 execution of this task he was highly qualified. His first attention 
 was directed to the New Testament in the old Latin : in which 
 case he aimed at effecting a revision, not a new version, commenc- 
 
ing with the Gospels, by the help of the Greek original. The 
 greater number of changes introduced by liim consisted in the 
 removal of interpolations by which the three first Gospels were 
 disfigured ; and he rendered important service by checking the 
 perpetuation of Apocryphal glosses. Some have doubted whether 
 he revised other portions of the Latin New Testament. But he 
 enumerates (a.d. 398) among his works, " the restoration of the 
 " Latin version of the New Testament," in harmony with the 
 original Greek." And a letter of his to Marcella (a.d. 385) is 
 still more conclusive: for, with reference to certain charges 
 brought against him for introducing changes in the Gospels, he 
 adduces three passages in the Epistles, in which he asserts the 
 superiority of the present Vulgate reading to the old Latin. But 
 the reality and character of the revision have been established by 
 documentary evidence, which at the same time reveals the fact of 
 the revision having been hasty and imperfect in some places. 
 
 But, at this period, Jerome also undertook the first revision 
 of the Psalms : this he effected, though not very completely or 
 carefully, by the help of the Greek Septuagint. This revised 
 Text was called the " Roman Psalter." At length he commenced 
 a new and more thorough revision. The first revision (or Roman 
 Psalter) continued in use in certain Italian Churches, especially 
 in Rome, till the Pontificate of Pius V. (a.d. 1566) who introduced, 
 at any rate into Roman use, the second revision which obtained a 
 wide popularity ; and this, from having been brought from Rome 
 by Gregory of Tours into the public services in France, obtained 
 the name of the "Galilean Psalter." Although " revised " Texts 
 of the Psalter and Job alone are extanjt, yet it is probable that he 
 revised the Latin Texts of all the Canonical Scriptures. 
 
 Jerome having, when past middle life, commenced the study 
 of Hebrew, soon turned his knowledge to good account. He first 
 issued his new version of the books of Samuel and the Kings. 
 In the year 393, the sixteen Prophets were issued, and about the 
 same time the book of Job, and afterwards other books. The 
 
6 
 
 remainder were completed a.d. 404. This new translation of the 
 Old Testament into Latin was at first received with disfavour. 
 But the Latin Bible of Jerome^ as it passed gradually into use, 
 was not by any means uniform. Moreover, his Psalter from the 
 Hebrew was never adopted by the Eoman Church as a substitute 
 for what has been termed the revised Galilean Psalter. 
 
 Thenceforward, owing to the simultaneous use of the old and 
 new versions, much deterioration of both Texts ensued. In this 
 juncture, Charlemagne (about a.d. 802) entrusted to Alcuin the 
 task of revising the Latin Text for public use : and this measure 
 was productive of some good in preserving a pi;ire Latin version. 
 At length the first book that emanated from the printing press 
 was the Mazarin Vulgate, issued in 1452, or about 1455, which 
 presents the common Text of the fifteenth century. Other editions 
 followed in rapid succession : among them that of the Complu- 
 tensian Polyglott in 1522. The Text therein presented is said to 
 be superior to those which preceded: but still far from pure. 
 The editions of E,. Stephens are very important, especially the 
 one of 1540, for which he used about twenty MSS. 
 
 But an authorized edition became a necessity for the Roman 
 Church. One of the Decrees of the Council of Trent had 
 reference to this question. So many difficulties, however, stood 
 in the way, that considerable delay took place in the production 
 of an authorized Text. The Theologians of Belgium did 
 something to meet the want. The edition of Hentenius at 
 Louvain and the Antwerp Polyglott subsequently appeared, the 
 former based upon the Stephanie edition of 1540 and the collation 
 of Latin MSS., the Latin Text of the latter borrowed from the 
 Complutensian. 
 
 A nearer approach to the requirements of the Tridentine 
 decree was furnished by the Antwerp editions of the Vulgate 
 (1573-4), the Text of Hentenius being adopted with copious 
 readings by Lucas Brugensis. But a Papal Board was already 
 
engaged upon the work of revision. In the second year of the 
 Pontificate of Sixtus V. an edition of the Greek Septuagint 
 version appeared ; and immediately afterwards, this Pope devoted 
 himself to an authorised edition of the Vulgate Latin, — a task 
 which had been left upwards of fifty years to the enterprize of 
 private persons. Sixtus made some pretensions to scholarship, 
 and his imperious disposition enabled him to face an undertaking 
 from which others in ofiice had shrunk. But he had to learn that 
 there is no Papal road to criticism. His authorised edition 
 appeared in 1590 : and was soon found so faulty as to be called 
 in to make room for a further edition published by Clement VIII. 
 in 1592. Another edition followed in 1593, and a third in 1598, 
 with a triple list of errata, one for each of the three editions : and 
 here the history of the authorised Latin Text properly concludes. 
 
 Mr. Brooke Foss Westcott, in his admirable article on the 
 "Vulgate," given in Dr. Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible," has 
 furnished an elaborate list of the best known MSS. of the Latin 
 versions, distinguished under the several classes of the African, 
 Italic, and Hieronymian Texts, with an independent system of 
 notation. But, inasmuch as Scrivener, Tregelles, and Tischendorf 
 agree in a separate method of classification and notation, more 
 usually followed, a few of the most commonly recognised codices 
 will be specified here according to the method of the three above- 
 mentioned scholars. 
 
 Ante-Hieronymian Text of the Latin New Testament. 
 
 MSS. of the Gospels. 
 
 a. Cod. Vercellensis, of the fourth century, at Vercelli, said to 
 have been written by Eusebins the martyr. Bishop of Vercellae : — 
 Mutilated throughout. Edited by J. A. Irici. Milan 1748 — 
 and by Blangini. (Old African version). 
 
 h. Codex Veronensis, of the fourth or fifth century, at Verona. 
 Mutilated. Edited by Blangini. (Old African version). 
 
8 
 
 c. Codex Colbertinus, of the eleventh century, in the 
 Imperial Library at Paris. Edited by Sabatier. (Old African 
 version; but beyond the Gospels the version is Jerome's, and in a 
 later hand). 
 
 d. Codex Bezse, its Latin version, of the sixth century. 
 (Old African version, or more probably exhibiting a mixed Text). 
 
 e. Codex Palatinus, of the fourth or fifth century, at Yienna. 
 On Purple Vellum, with gold and silver letters ; edited by 
 Tischendorf, 1847 ; contains St. John and St. Luke nearly entire, 
 and considerable parts of the other Gospels. A very important 
 MS. (presenting the old African version). ^ 
 
 f. Codex Brixianus, of the sixth century, at Brescia. Edited 
 by Blangini (Italic revision, best form). 
 
 ff^ ff^ Codices Corbeienses, very ancient, once at the Abbey of 
 Corbey in Picardy : (probably a mixed Text). 
 
 g^ g^ Codices Sangermanenses : — very ancient, once at the 
 Abbey of St. Germain des Prez, near Paris, (probably a mixed 
 Text). 
 
 h. Codex Claromontanus, fourth or fifth century, bought for 
 the Vatican by Pius VI. 1774-99 (contains a great part of St. 
 Matthew mainly in the old African Latin version, the other 
 Gospels in Jerome's revision). 
 
 i. Codex Vindobonensis, of the fifth or sixth century, brought 
 from Naples to Vienna, contains fragments of St. Mark and St* 
 Luke. Edited by Alter, in certain German periodicals. (Old 
 African version). 
 
 k. Codex Bobbiensis, of the fourth or fifth century, brought 
 from Bobbie to Turin. Imperfectly edited by Tischendorf; 
 
9 
 
 contains parts of St. Matthew and St. Mark. (Old African 
 version, revised). 
 
 /. Codex Rhedigerianus, of tlie seventh century, at St. 
 Elizabeth's Church, Breslau. 
 
 m. Readings extracted by Mai from a " Speculum " of the 
 sixth or seventh century, ascribed to St. Augustine, and which 
 contains extracts from nearly the whole of the New Testament. 
 Wiseman drew attention to it as containing 1 John v. 7, in two 
 different places (Italic revision) 
 
 q. Codex Monacensis, of the sixth century, at Munich. 
 Transcribed by Tischendorf. An important copy (Italic revision). 
 
 In the Acts we have 
 
 d.m. of the Gospels. e. the Latin portion of Codex 
 Laudianus (E), &c. 
 
 In the Catholic Epistles, 
 
 ^. (Martianay)* of St. James, and m, as in the Gospels, &c. 
 
 For the Pauline Epistles, 
 »7i. as in the Gospels. 
 
 d.e.f.g. are the Latin versions in the great uncial Greek 
 Codices, D (Claromontanus), E (Sangermanensis), F (Augiensis), 
 G (Boemerianus), &c. 
 
 For the Apocalypse 
 
 Only m. of the Gospels, and early quotations especially from 
 Primasius, an African writer of the sixth century. 
 
 The above list of the Old Latin comprises about three-fourths 
 of those known to exist. 
 
 * Otff^ T. Martianay edited St. Matthew and 8t. James. Paris, 1695. 
 
10 
 
 Jerome's Eevised Text. 
 
 The copies contained in the Libraries of Western Europe 
 are countless. They surpass in number those of the Greek New 
 Testament, and probably of any other work whatever. 
 
 A few of the most important may be mentioned. 
 
 am. Codex Amiatinus brought into the Laurentian Library 
 at Florence from the Cistercian Monastery of Monte Amiatino, in 
 Tuscany. It contains both Testaments, nearly perfect, written by 
 the Abbot Servandus about ad. 54L Correctly edited by 
 Tischendorf in 1854. Was rightly valued by the Sixtine correc- 
 tors, as being the best authority for the Vulgate Latin. 
 
 fuld. Codex Fuldensis, of the sixth century, in the Abbey 
 of Fulda, Hesse Cassel, contains the New Testament, written by 
 order of Victor, Bishop of Capua, who himself corrected it, and 
 subscribed the date to the Acts, a.d. 546. The Gospels are 
 arranged in a kind of harmony which diminishes their critical 
 value. An edition of it has been undertaken by Ern. Eanke 
 (^am. and. field, apparently derived from the same source). 
 
 toL Codex Toletanus in Gothic characters of about the 
 eighth century, now at Toledo, — a good collation of the MS. 
 especially for the New Testament very desirable. 
 
 for. Codex Forojuliensis, of the sixth century, at Friuli. 
 Much mutilated. St. Mark's Gospel is partly at Venice in a 
 wretched condition. 
 
 harl. Codex Harleianus, of the seventh century. The 
 Gospels partly edited by Griesbach. 
 
11 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 Lecture page 7. 
 
 Documentary basis of the three Primary editions. 
 
 The Primary Printed Texts of the Greek New Testament 
 being the Complutensian, the Erasmian, and the Stephanie, much 
 interest naturally attaches itself to any investigation of the materials 
 employed (or presumed to be employed) in each of these cases. 
 
 Unfortunately, we seem cut off from all hope of obtaining 
 direct information as to the age, character, and present locality of 
 the MSS. employed for the Complutensian Text. The only MS. 
 specified by Stunica is No. 52 of the Acts and General Epistles 
 (Paul 50) styled Codex Rhodiensis; which has entirely 
 disappeared. One or two remarkable readings of the Compluten- 
 sian Text are found in but one or two MSS. viz. : 
 
 No. 140 of the Gospels, a Vatican Codex of twelfth century: 
 also 
 
 No. 251 of the Gospels. Cod. Tabularii Imperial. At Moscow, 
 of eleventh century, collated by Matthaei; both these MSS. 
 support a unique reading at Luke I. 64. 
 
 No. 76 of the Gospels (Acts 43, Paul 49), of eleventh 
 century, alone supports a peculiar reading of the Complutensian 
 and Elzevir Texts at Luke II. 22. 
 
 No. 42 of the Acts and General Epistles (Paul 48, Apoc. 13), 
 of eleventh century, at Frankfort-on-the-Oder. This copy 
 (called SeidePs Codex) often agrees closely with the Compluten- 
 sian Text throughout. 
 
 No. 51 of the Gospels (Acts 32, Paul 38), of thirteenth 
 
century, in tlie Bodleian, is a copy to whicli the Complutensian 
 seems to adhere closely, more particularly in the Acts and Epistles; 
 less in the Gospels. 
 
 No. 4 of the Gospels of twelfth century, in the Imperial 
 Library at Paris, exhibits an affinity to the Complutensian edition, 
 and also to the Latin version, (it is one of Stephens' 16 authorities). 
 
 The MSS. presumed to have been used by Erasmus are the 
 following : — 
 
 No. 1 of the Gospels (Acts 1, Paul 1), of the tenth century, 
 as described at page 27 of Lecture. 
 
 No. 2 of the Gospels, fifteenth century. The Monks at 
 Basle had bought it for two Khenish florins ; and dear enough, in 
 Michaelis' judgment. (Scrivener). 
 
 No. 2 of the Acts and General Epistles (Paul 2), twelfth 
 century, once belonged to the preaching Friars, then to Amerbach, 
 a printer of Basle, where it now remains. 
 
 No. 4 of the Acts and General Epistles (Paul 4), fifteenth 
 century, elegantly written, collated by Wetstein. Erasmus made 
 some use of it for revising his Text. 
 
 All the above four MSS. are now deposited at Basle. 
 
 For the book of Eevelation, the only one used by Erasmus 
 was No. 1 of the Apocalypse, styled Codex Reuchlini, now lost : 
 it contained the commentary of Andreas of Caesar ea : and was 
 mutilated chap. XXII. 16-21 inclusive. 
 
 The sixteen authorities used by Stephens appear to be as 
 follow : — 
 
 P- — Complutensian Text. 
 
13 
 
 20— Cod. D. (Beza). 
 
 30. — jq-Q 4 of the Gospels, much mutilated, mentioned ahove, 
 in connection with the Complutensian Text. 
 
 40. — j^o, 5 of ii^Q Gospels (Acts 5, Paul 5), twelfth century, 
 in the Imperial Library as Paris. 
 
 5°-— No. 6 of the Gospels (Acts 6, Paul 6), eleventh century, 
 in the Imperial Library at Paris : — in Text, it resembles Codd 4 
 and 5 of the Gospels. 
 
 QO. — j^Q^ 7 of the Gospels, eleventh century, in the Imperial 
 Library at Paris. 
 
 7*^' — Said to be No. 8 of the Gospels, eleventh century. 
 But, as this Codex contains only the Gospels, and Stephens cites 
 his 7th authority in the Acts (once), and in the Epistles through- 
 out, it is said that the following should be substituted for it, viz : 
 
 No. 18 of the Gospels (Acts 113, Paul 132, Apoc. 51), 
 written at Constantinople, a.d. 1364, one of the nineteen foreign 
 copies enumerated by Scholz as containing the whole of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 . 8^- — L of the Gospels, in the Imperial Library at Paris, an 
 uncial MS. of eighth century: — carelessly written, abounding 
 with errors of the scribe, who was more probably an Egyptian 
 than a Native Greek. This Codex published in Monumenta 
 Sacra, 1846. — Tischendorf. 
 
 90— Thought by Wetstein to be No. 38 of the Gospels, 
 (Acts 19, Apoc. 23), written by the Emperor Michael Palaeologus* 
 
 ♦It was this Greek Emperor who, having expelled the Latins from Constanti- 
 nople, in violation of the compact of Union with the Latins, which was settled at 
 the council of Lyons under Gregory X., found it necessary, in order to establish 
 his empire and secure the friendship of the Roman Pontiff, to send Ambassadors 
 
14 
 
 in thirteenth century, contains all the New Testament except St. 
 Paul's Epistles. And it must be deemed a remarkable circum- 
 stance that Stephens cites this Codex repeatedly in St. Paul which 
 it does not contain, and never in the Apocalypse which it does. 
 
 lOO- — No. 7 of the Acts and General Epistles (Paul 9), tenth 
 century, in the Imperial Library at Paris. Cited by Stephens in 
 the Gospels twice in error. 
 
 110. — j^Q^ g of the Acts and General Epistles (Paul 10), now 
 missing and unknown. 
 
 12^' — No. 9 of the Gospels, dated a.d. 1168, in the Imperial 
 Library at Paris, once belonged to Peter Stella. 
 
 IS^-— No. 9 of the Acts and General Epistles (Paul 11), 
 tenth century, in the University Library at Cambridge, twice 
 quoted by Stephens in the Gospels through oversight. 
 
 14^' — No. 120 of the Gospels, wanting St. Mark, thirteenth 
 century, in the Imperial Library at Paris. 
 
 15^— No. 10 of the Acts and General Epistles (Paul 12, 
 Apoc. 2), tenth century, in the Imperial Library, Paris. Its 
 value in the Apocalypse is great. 
 
 16^- — No. 3 of the Apocalypse, now missing and unknown. 
 
 to Rome, declaring Ms readiness to conclude a Peace. But lie was excommunicated 
 by Pope Martin IV. Michael, who was governed entirely by political motives, on 
 seeing that all his plans were frustrated, would gladly have re-traced all his steps 
 if he could have done so under any plausible pretext. 
 
15 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 Lecture page 9. 
 
 Labours of the Critical Editors. 
 
 Mr. Westcott (Art: "New Testament:' — Dr. Smith's Diet, 
 of the Bible J divides the history of the Printed Text of the New 
 Testament into three periods : the first extends from the labors of 
 the Complutensian Editors to those of Mill : the second, from 
 Mill to Scholz : the third, from Lachmann to the present time. 
 
 The following remarks on the characteristics of some few of 
 the great men whose names are included in the above classifica- 
 tion, will now supply a little information which, however essential, 
 would have unduly swelled a paper originally intended for oral 
 delivery. 
 
 R. Estienne, (generally styled R. Stephens) early commenced 
 his useful career as a Printer at Paris. His labors were under 
 the patronage and protection of Francis I. and his son Henry II. 
 Hence the principal MSS. used for his three first editions were 
 contained in the Imperial Library there. In his third edition, 
 known as the " Regia," a systematic collection of various readings 
 is given for the first time ; but these were negligently and 
 capriciously applied to the emendation of the Sacred Text. 
 
 Theodore Beza (1519-1605) was much more distinguished as 
 a commentator than as a critic ; and when his Text varies from 
 Stephens' folio, he appears to choose readings in harmony with 
 his own theological opinions. On the whole, the Greek Texts of 
 the New Testament (including the Elzevir issues) seemed so 
 precariously based upon MS. authority as to induce Bentley to 
 remark " The Text stood as if an Apostle were R. Stephens' 
 compositor !" 
 
16 
 
 The first important collection of various readings (putting 
 that of R. Stephens' on one side as too imperfect to be cited) was 
 given by Brian Walton in the 6th volume of his Polyglott. 
 Besides the Syriac, Arabic, jEthiopic, and Persian versions, also 
 collations of certain important Greek MSS., some of these produced 
 under the care of Archbishop Ussher. Thus very considerable 
 additions were made to the existing stock of materials, yet the 
 time had not arrived for attempting to form a corrected Text. 
 
 The readings of the Coptic and Gothic versions were first 
 given by Bishop Fell, Oxford edition of 1675. But Fell's greatest 
 service was rendered in his liberal encouragement to Mill, whose 
 edition of 1707 remains a splendid monument of the labors of a 
 life. This able and laborious critic (Mill) was born in 1645. In 
 1685, he became principal of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford, and 
 died suddenly a fortnight after the publication of his Greek 
 Testament. The industry and care bestowed by him on MSS. 
 versions, the Fathers, and ancient writers, who have used or cited 
 Scripture were immense. His zeal was unflagging, and his 
 principles of criticism applied with judgment, sagacity, and 
 moderation. He did not, however, introduce any change into the 
 Printed Text of Stephens, which he reproduced with very slight 
 and unimportant alterations. His work, however, forms an epoch 
 in the history of the New Testament Printed Text. 
 
 At this time there appeared E,. Bentley, the greatest of 
 English scholars. He expressed generous admiration of Mill, 
 who had " accumulated various readings as a promptuary to the 
 judicious and critical reader :" he (Bentley) would *' make use of 
 that promptuary." He announced in 1716 his intention of 
 publishing an edition of the Greek Testament on the authority of 
 the oldest Greek and Latin MSS., " exactly as it was in the best 
 examples at the time of the Council of Nice, so that there shall 
 not be twenty words, nor even particles difference." 
 
 The proposals were immediately assailed by Middleton. 
 
IT 
 
 But Bentley continued his labors till 1729. The conception of 
 Bentley was in advance, both of the spirit of his age, and of the 
 materials at his command, and his project was never carried on to 
 its completion. 
 
 During this time, German scholars were in the ascendant. 
 For, as Mr. Scrivener truly remarks f Plain Introduction, p. S21J 
 " original research in the science of Biblical criticsm, so far as the 
 New Testament is concerned, seems to have left the shores of 
 England to return no more for upwards of a century." 
 
 The New Testament of John Albert Bengel appeared in 
 1734. Though better known as a critical commentator, and 
 though as a collator of MSS. his merits were not high, yet peculiar 
 importance attached to his edition of the Greek New Testament, 
 on account of the principles of Textual criticism developed therein. 
 He first enunciated that theory of families or recensions, which 
 was afterwards extended by J. S. Semler (1725-91), and grew to 
 such formidable dimensions in the skilful hands of Griesbach. 
 Bengel's Text presents the earliest important attempt at departure 
 from the Tezttis Meceptus, 
 
 The next step in advance was made by John James Wetstein 
 (1693-1754), a native of Basle. He commenced his critical 
 studies at a very early age. At 20, he was encouraged to examine 
 MSS. in different Libraries, visiting Paris, and subsequently 
 coming to England, he sold his collations to Bentley, by whom he 
 was for a time employed to collate MSS. at the French capital. 
 Being afterwards requested to publish a revised Text of the 
 Greek Testament, and urged by his relatives, the publishers at 
 Amsterdam, to anticipate, if possible, the forthcoming edition of 
 Bengel, he made preparations for producing the prolegomena with 
 a specimen of the edition. This was published anonymously at 
 Amsterdam in 1730, "Wetstein being deposed from his pastorate at 
 Basle for holding Arian views. He was constantly accumulating 
 fresh materials. After long preparations, and many hindrances, 
 
18 
 
 partly occasioned by theological differences, Wetstein's edition 
 
 appeared in 1751-2 in two vols, folio. His Text, (that of Elzevir) 
 
 stood at the upper part of the page, next below such variations as 
 
 were approved by Wetstein; and then the various readings 
 
 accumulated by collations of MSS. The lower part of the page 
 
 is occupied by a copious mass of illustrative quotations drawn 
 
 from every source. Some of these have doubtless proved useful ; 
 
 while others (according to Tregelles) only excite surprise at their 
 
 being found on the same page as the Text of the New Testament. 
 
 Twenty years having elapsed since the publication of his original 
 
 prolegomena, a remarkable change of opinions is observable, partly 
 
 arising out of his controversies with Bengel. At first he had 
 
 thought of using the Text of Codex Alexandrinus as his basis ; 
 
 but the subsequently published prolegomena accompanying his 
 
 Greek Testament broach strange theories — certain Grseco- 
 
 Latin MSS. had been considered by critics to Latinise; that 
 
 is, to have been accommodated in the Greek to the prevalent 
 
 Latin versions. This was a possible supposition in the case of 
 
 some documents ; but "Wetstein carried his charge of Latinising 
 
 farther than all had done before him, for he applied it to exsery one 
 
 of the more ancient MSS. It may, however, be said of Wetstein, 
 
 in respect of the services rendered by collecting materials, that he 
 
 made as great an advance on Mill as Mill had made on those who 
 
 preceded him. 
 
 The Younger (J.D.) Michselis (1717-91) now reigned 
 supreme, chiefly sitting in judgment on the labors of others. 
 
 Christian Frederic Mattheei, a Thuringian, (1744-1811) 
 professor of classical literature at Moscow, was considered by 
 Middleton as " the most accurate scholar who ever edited the 
 New Testament." He found deposited at Moscow a large 
 number of MSS. biblical as well as patristic, brought from Athos. 
 These were quite uncollated, and unknown in Western Europe. 
 With materials so abundant to hand, he formed the scheme of 
 publishing an edition of the New Testament, which appeared at 
 
19 
 
 Riga in 12 vols. (1782-88). His merits chiefly lay as a collator of 
 MSS. but his want of acquaintance with the labors of previous 
 collators often led him into great mistakes and misconceptions. 
 His Greek Text was accompanied with the Latin version from a 
 MS. he met with in Russia. His second edition in 3 vols, 
 (without the Latin, and most of the critical notes) bears date 
 1803-7. 
 
 The services of Alter and Birch now came into play, the 
 former as a collator of MSS. at Vienna; while the latter was 
 engaged in a similar task, principally in Italy and Spain, at the 
 expense of the King of Denmark. 
 
 The researches of John James Griesbach (1745-1812) now 
 began to attract general notice. In 1769, he made a literary tour 
 in England ; and when about 30 years of age, produced his first 
 edition of the New Testament. It will be seen that the materials 
 at hand ready to be applied for critical purposes were by this time 
 considerably increased, he himself not being idle in the examina- 
 tion of MSS. But his aim was to select and compare, so as to 
 enable the student to form an accurate judgment on the merits 
 of particular readings. For, up to this period, there was an 
 indefinite idea of vastness thrown over the whole subject. The 
 first vol. of Griesbach's second critical edition appeared in 1796, 
 and the concluding vol. in 1806. The system of recensions 
 (mentioned elsewhere, page 9 of the lecture) as laid down by him 
 occasioned much discussion, some scholars making it the starting 
 point of theories of their own. Even though Griesbach's views 
 on this particular head have been long abandoned, yet the 
 influence which his labors exercised upon criticism was most 
 important. For, though facts may be accounted for wrongly, 
 they still xemmn facts. "Wctstein having cast discredit on all the 
 most ancient MSS. Griesbach sought, in some measure to restore 
 those venerable documents to the consideration which they had 
 received from Bentlcy and Bengcl. He seems to have 
 altered the received Text, instead of re-constructing the 
 
 D 
 
Text, an erroneous proceeding on his part, according to the 
 opinion of Mr. Westcott. 
 
 J. M. A. Scholz was Eoman Catholic Dean of Theology in 
 the University of Bonn. After many years spent in arranging 
 and collating materials, he published his critical edition in two 
 volumes, in 1830-36. His work, according to Mr. Westcott, is 
 very inaccurate, and his own collations' singularly superficial. 
 A follower in the steps of Griesbach, he assumed a classification 
 of MSS. under families; and, after rejecting his first theory, 
 adopted only two recensions, the Alexandrine and the Constan- 
 tinopolitan ; but he differed from Griesbach in giving the 
 preference to the latter class, or more modern documents, over 
 the other or more ancient — still, his judgment occasionally led 
 him in the reverse direction. He died in 1852.^ 
 
 Charles Lachmann, one of the most celebrated Philologists of 
 his time, published, in 1831, a small edition of the New 
 Testament, the result of five years close labor. It presented an 
 attempt to cast aside the received Text, and to edit in such a 
 manner as if it never existed. The prescriptive right of the 
 Textus Heceptus was wholly abandoned, and the Text in every 
 part was regulated by ancient authority. Lachmann now felt 
 himself encouraged to undertake a larger edition with a Latin Text 
 added: — together with a fuU statement of the authorities on which 
 he relied in forming his Text: the Greek authorities were 
 arranged by Buttmann, the Latin by Lachmann himself, and both 
 relied on the combined evidence of Greek and Latin readings. 
 
 The first volume appeared in 1842 and the second in 1850. 
 The neglect of primary Cursives often necessitated absolute 
 confidence on slender MS. authority. Indeed, the chief defects 
 of this edition arise from deficiency of authorities. Lachmann 
 died in 1851. 
 
 The last two critics which remain to be mentioned are living. 
 
21. 
 
 Constantine Tischendorf has devoted upwards of twenty years 
 to enlarging our knowledge of ancient MSS. In his early editions 
 of the New Testament 1841-49 he fuUy accepted the great 
 principles of Lachmann (though widening the range of ancient 
 authorities), that the Text " must be sought solely from ancient 
 authorities and not from the so-called received editions." 
 Tischendorf subsequently prosecuted his labors as a collator with 
 unwearied diligence : and in 1855-59, published his seventh 
 edition with copious Prolegomena and critical apparatus. The 
 Text for the most part exhibits a retrograde movement from the 
 most ancient testimony. We may accept Mr. Scrivener's estimate 
 of this publication as " being beyond question the most full and 
 complete edition of the Greek Testament." But the reputation 
 of Tiscliendorf rests quite as much on the Texts of the chief 
 Uncial authorities which he has issued in rapid succession. His 
 edition of Cod : Ephraemi (C) is most masterly. In 1846 he 
 issued his first series of Monumenta Sacra Inedita, containing 
 transcripts of Codd L (of the Gospels) ; B^p (Vatican 2066) ; N 
 of the Gospels (Cod. Purpureus) ; also the later fragments 0. of 
 St. Matthew, seventh century ; W* of St. Luke, eighth century ; 
 Y of St. John, eighth century ; and F* seventh or eighth century. 
 Then followed a second series of various MS. authorities in three 
 volumes, &c. &c. all in facsimile ; and lastly a transcript of the 
 celebrated Cod. Sinaiticus. 
 
 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles was born about the year 1813 or 
 1814. He first became known as the editor of " The Book of 
 Bevelation in Greek, edited from ancient authorities : with a new 
 English version in 1844." He had, however, as early as* 1838, 
 conceived the plan of a Greek Testament. He now engaged in a 
 thorough collation of all the Greek MSS. he could meet with, in 
 the compass of his design. Then in 1854, he published a formal 
 exposition of his principles of Textual Criticism in a volume 
 entitled "An account of the printed Text of the Greek New 
 Testament," in which his views are sharply defined, and urged with 
 an advocacy both earnest and eloquent. But his Opus Magnum 
 
lies in tis Greek New Testament, the Text of which, he bases 
 exclusively on the authority of the "Ancient Witnesses, MSS. 
 and Versions, with the aid of the earlier citations." The four 
 Gospels only have as yet appeared, Dr. Tregelles being hindered 
 in the prosecution of his scheme by serious illness. Though all 
 the conclusions drawn by this indefatigable and learned man may 
 not be acquiesced in by those most competent to form an accurate 
 judgment, yet it cannot be denied that this is one of the most 
 remarkable and important contributions to the criticism of the 
 Greek Testament which has yet appeared. 
 
 An opinion has been expressed, at the close of this Lecture, 
 to the effect of its being inadvisable hastily to Reject the Textus 
 Receptus in favor of any hitherto published system designed more 
 accurately to re2)resent the sacred autographs. It will be observed 
 the greatest living critics are much at variance on the question at 
 issue. Tischendorf, the greatest modern scholar in this depart- 
 ment, seems, by the result of his recent labors, to adopt a middle 
 view. His eighth critical edition of the Greek New Testament 
 is now in course of publication. Mr. Westcott, our most active 
 English scholar, is putting forth an edition on principles which 
 apparently support Dr. Tregelles' theory, viz : that of adhering 
 closely to the most ancient Codices, as being certainly preferable 
 to the whole remainder. Mr. Scrivener, on the other hand, seems 
 disposed to widen the field of criticism, by appealing to more recent 
 documents, in confirmation, and often as corrective of the more 
 ancient authorities, when these latter clash with each other: — 
 And it would appear that he is now engaged upon a work chiefly 
 devoted to giving the results of the agreement between critical 
 editors, or, as he himself expresses it, a conservative Text, 
 wherein those changes only shall be made which aU sober critics, 
 of whatever school, may approve. 
 
 The unfinished fragment of St. Matthew's Gospel commenced 
 with critical apparatus and commentary by Mr. For shall, and 
 published after his decease, only excites our regret that he did 
 
2S 
 
 not live to complete the one Gospel at least. His main object seems 
 to have been to rescue the Text of Stephens from the obloquy- 
 cast upon it by recent critics, especially by Alford, Tregelles, 
 Lachmann, and Tischendorf. Mr. Forshall's intimate acquaintance 
 with the internal character of all MSS.; together with his accurate 
 scholarship, invest this essay with a peculiar value. No prolego- 
 mena are given, a circumstance to be regretted, inasmuch as we 
 should then have been furnished with some clue to his estimate of 
 the respective value of MSS. ; for, in the notes we find some of 
 our previous opinions of the importance of the Uncials completely- 
 overturned. For example, at Chapter i. 12. Mr. Forshall virtually 
 condemns the Great Vatican Codex, as being entirely at variance 
 with the best MS. authorities on a grammatical inflexion: and the 
 same thing is adduced in the eighteenth verse with reference to 
 the order of the sacred names Jesus Christ. In one place he 
 determines that " B.C.L.A.2. are inexact and inaccurate MSS. 
 inconsistent with themselves," and in the point cited " entitled to 
 no authority." Of Cod 2. he says, " this MS. continually commits 
 orthographic blunders." He also evidently leans to the opinion 
 that Cod D was accommodated in the Greek to the Latin. In 
 the first chapter alone, he sums up forty alterations of the received 
 Text, as made by the above-mentioned four editors, of which he 
 considers one only as justified by evidence. Probably these 
 exceptions may be deemed by some of minor importance, one way 
 or the other, but it cannot be denied that, had the work been 
 brought to its completion, important principles of criticism would 
 have been developed, highly interesting to the careful student of 
 the New Testament. 
 
24 
 
 APPENDIX D. 
 
 ^ Lecture, page 27. 
 
 Enumeration of the Uncial MSS. 
 
 The following will be found a nearly complete list of all tlie 
 known Uncial Greek MSS. of the New Testament, classed 
 according to date : — 
 
 Fourth Century. 
 ^. Codex Sinaiticus. 
 
 B. Cod. Yaticanus. 
 
 Fifth Century. 
 
 A. Cod. Alexandrinus. 
 
 C. Cod. Eplirsemi. 
 
 Some fragments, comprising :— 
 
 Q. Cod. Guelpherbytanns (b), being palimpsest fragments of 
 St. Luke and St. John edited by Tischendorf. 
 
 T. Cod. Borgianus (1), being leaves of St. Luke and St. 
 John, now in the Propaganda at Rome, inspected by Tischendorf ; 
 the Uncial letters are very Coptic in appearance. 
 
 T^ A few leaves containing 85 verses of St. Luke and St. 
 John. It appears that these fragments and the preceding T are 
 parts of the same MS. evidently the handiwork of a Coptic 
 scribe, who has, according to Tischendorf, blundered much over 
 the Greek. 
 
25 
 
 I. Cod. Tischendorf ii. at St. Petersburgh: palimpsest 
 fragments found by Tischendorf "in the dust of an Eastern 
 Library " and published by him (Monumenta Sacra 1855). They 
 compose fragments of seven different MSS. containing 190 verses 
 of the Gospels. The first two fragments in the collection (I) are 
 as old as Codd. A.C. 
 
 N^ Musei Brittannici (Additl. 17136) 16mo. contains the 
 hymns of Severus in Syriac and is one of the Books recently 
 brought from the Nitrian desert. It is a palimpsest of a double 
 kind, a second Syriac work being written below the first ; and 
 under both on four leaves were decyphered with great difficulty 
 by Tischendorf and Tregelles, fragments of 16 verses of St. John^s 
 Gospel in Uncial Greek letters: these have been published in 
 Monumenta Sacra, second series, volume I. 
 
 Sixth Century. 
 
 D. Cod. Bezse. 
 
 P. Cod. Guelpherbytanus (a) being palimpsest fragments 
 of the four Evangelists ; published by Tischendorf. 
 
 N. Cod. Purpureus. 
 
 N° Eragmenta Mosquensia. Now at Moscow. And 
 used in the tenth century in binding a volume of Gregory 
 Nazianzen — described by Matthsei ; contain only 12 verses of the 
 of the Epistlej5 to the Hebrews. 
 
 K. Cod. Nitriensis. British Museum Addl. 17211, being 
 palimpsest fragments of St. Luke : transcribed by Tregelles and 
 Tischendorf, and published by the latter in 1855 {Monumenta 
 Sacra, &c.) 
 
 E. (of the Acts). Cod. Laudianus. 
 
26 
 
 D^P (Pauline Epistles), Cod. Claromontanus. 
 
 Z. (of the Gospels), Cod. Dublinensis. 
 
 H. (Pauline Epistles), Cod. Coislinianus, 202, a precious 
 fragment of 14 leaves, 12 being in the Imperial Library at Paris, 
 2 having found their way to St. Petersburgh — an accurate edition 
 promised by Tischendorf. 
 
 Three fragments (comprised under I. Cod. Tischendorf ii.) 
 containing portions of the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles. 
 These three and the two other fragments comprised under I. Cod. 
 Tisch. II. must be placed in the first rank as critical authorities. 
 
 0° being a Magnificat in the Yerona Psalter (the Greek 
 written in Latin Letters), published by Blangini — aftdr-the-faiinw- 
 LU//oJm.^ fragments not yet noted, brought from the East by Tischen- 
 dorf in 1859, and now deposited at St. Petersburg, — 
 
 1° Two large leaves containing 1 Cor. i. 20 — ii. 12. 
 
 2° Six 8vo. leaves: Coptic shaped Uncials with vacant 
 spaces instead of stops — comprising John i. 25-42 ; ii. 9 — ^iv. 50, 
 two columns to a page. 
 
 3° Six leaves torn piecemeal from the binding of another 
 book ; contain parts of Matthew xxii. xxiii. Mark iv. v. 
 
 4P One folio leaf, in style of writing resembling N ; contains 
 Matt. xxi. 19-24. 
 
 T^ A fragment of St. John in six leaves, discovered at St. 
 Petersburg, characterised by its Coptic looking Uncials, and so far 
 resembling the Borgian fragment, (Cod. T. at Kome.) 
 
 Seventh Century. 
 
 — Cod. Tischendorf i. brought from the East by Tischendorf 
 
27 
 
 and published by him (Monumenta Sacra, 1846), contains about 40 
 verses of St. Matthew, in four 4to. leaves, all imperfect. 
 
 Two fragments (comprised under I. Cod. Tischendorf ii.) 
 containing portions of the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 One 8vo. leaf torn from the wooden cover of a Syriac book, 
 contains Acts ii. 45 — iii. 8, described by Tischendorf (now at St. 
 Petersburg). 
 
 O*^ In the great purple and silver Turin Psalter, contains the 
 three hymns. Magnificat, Benedictus, and Nunc dimittis. 
 
 F* Cod. Coislin 1, first made known by Montfaucon, contains 
 various parts of the New Testament, published by Tischendorf 
 
 (Monumenta Sacra, 8^c.J 
 
 « 
 
 Eighth Century. 
 
 E. (of the Gospels) Cod. Basiliensis, an important secondary 
 Uncial MS. collated fully by Tischendorf and Tregelles; deserves 
 to be published at length. 
 
 L. (of the Gospels) Cod. Begins 62. Imperial Library at 
 Paris — a remarkable document of its age and class : published by 
 Tischendorf in 1846 fMofiumenta Sacra. J 
 
 A. Cod. Tischendorf iii. Bodleian — contains the Gospels of 
 St. Luke and St. John complete : described by Tischendorf. 
 
 E Cod. Zacynthius — ^being palimpsest fragments of St. Luke. 
 
 B*P (of the Apocalypse) Cod. Vaticanus, 2066. 
 
 Y. Cod. Barberini 225 at Rome — contains on six large leaves 
 137 verses of St. John's Gospel : published by Tischendorf in 
 1846 (Monumenta Sacra.) 
 
 W* Cod. Eegius. Paris 314 — two leaves containing 23 
 verses of St, Luke's Gospel: published by Tischendorf in 1846. 
 
 £ 
 
"W^ (once R) — being IS or 14 leaves of a Palimpsest in the 
 Royal Library at Naples under a Ritual of the Greek Church of 
 the I4th century — contains fragments of the three first Evangelists. 
 
 W^ Three leaves containing 85 verses of St. Mark and St. 
 Luke, published by Tischendorf. Half a leaf in two columns, 
 containing Luke xi. 3T-45 : described by Tischendorf—- (now 
 deposited at St. Petersburg). 
 
 V. Cod. Mosquensis of the Holy Synod ; is known chiefly 
 through Matthsei's coUation ; contains the four Gospels written 
 stichometrically : somewhat resembles Cod. M of the ninth 
 century. r 
 
 P^ A Palimpsest containing the Acts, all the Epistles, and 
 the Apocalypse ; this MS. is all the more important as comprising 
 only the Jifth Uncial copy known of the Revelation of St. John 
 (discovered at St. Petersburg). 
 
 Ninth Century. 
 
 F (of the Gospels) Cod. Boreeli : now in the Public Library, 
 at Utrecht. Once the property of John Boreel, Dutch Ambassador 
 at the Court of King James I. Wetstein obtained some readings 
 from it. It has been looked through by Tischendorf, examined 
 by TregeUes, and fuUy collated by Professor Heringa. 
 
 K. Cod. Cyprius. Imperial Library at Paris. A complete 
 copy of the four Gospels ; brought into the Colbert Library from 
 Cyprus 1673 : has been independently collated by Tischendorf 
 and Tregelles. 
 
 M. (of the Gospels) Cod. Campianus. In the Imperial 
 Library at Paris; given by the Abbe Francis des Camps to 
 Louis XIV. Contains the four Gospels complete. Collated by 
 Wetstein, Scholia, and TregeUes : transcribed by Tischendorf (is 
 perhaps of the tenth century. 1 
 
29 
 
 X. (of the Gospels) Cod. Monacensis : in the University- 
 Library at Munich : thoroughly examined by Tischendorf and 
 Tregelles. 
 
 A. Cod. Sangallensis. 
 
 H. (of the Acts) Cod. Mutinensis. In the Grand Ducal 
 Library at Modena : collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles. 
 
 G. (of the Acts and General Epistles) identical with L of 
 Tischendorf, N.T. 1859. Cod. Angelicus belongs to the Augus- 
 tinian Monks at Rome : collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles. 
 
 F. (Pauline Epistles) Cod. Augiensis. 
 
 G. (Pauline Epistles) Cod. Boernerianus. 
 
 K. (General and Pauline Epistles) Cod. Mosquensis. Came 
 from the Monastery of St. Dionysius on Mount Athos : collated 
 by Matthaei. 
 
 M. (Pauline Epistles) Cod. E-uber, remarkable for the 
 brilliant red color of the ink. The Text is of great critical value, 
 published by Tischendorf (Anecdota Sacra and Prof ana, 1855)' 
 
 2. (of the Gospels) 350 leaves in small 4to. contains all the 
 Gospels except 77 verses. Its recent possessor was persuaded by 
 Tischendorf to present it to the Emperor of Russia. It is yet 
 uncollated, but extracts have been given by Tischendorf. 
 
 r. Cod. Tischendorf iv. consists of 158 leaves in large 4to. 
 from an Eastern Monastery — ^bought for the Bodleian Library — 
 99 additional leaves of the self-same MS. were subsequently 
 conveyed to St. Petersburg. This copy of the Gospels, though 
 unfortunately in two distant Libraries, is nearly complete : at the 
 end is an inscription which seems to furnish the date, a.d. 844. 
 
30 
 
 0* Magnificat and Benedictus at Wolfenbuttel : published 
 by Tiscliendorf. 
 
 O^ in the Bodleian, — contains the two hymns, and Nunc 
 Dimittis. 
 
 0® at St. Gall, partly in Greek, and partly in Latin; contains 
 the three hymns. 
 
 W^ Four leaves of an Uncial Greek MS. picked out at 
 Trinity College Library, Cambridge, from the binding of a copy 
 of Gregory Nazianzen, brought from Mount Athos, contains 
 about 32 verses of St. Mark, in bold Uncials one quarter of an 
 inch high, leaning slightly to the right, presents *»€^-tj«iio unique 
 readings. 
 
 Tenth Century. 
 
 G. and H. (of the Gospels) being Codd. "Wolfii a and b, 
 brought from the East by Andrew Erasmus Seidel, and presented 
 to J. C. "Wolff, who sent some leaves to Bentley ; now in Trinity 
 College Library, Cambridge. G. passed subsequently into the 
 Harleian Collection, British Museum. H., long missing, turned 
 up in the Public Library at Hamburgh, in 1838. H. may be of 
 ninth century. Both have been thoroughly collated by Tischen- 
 dorf and Tregelles. 
 
 S. Cod. Vaticanus 354 contains the four Gospels entire : and 
 is the earliest dated MS. of the Greek Testament {i.e. a.d. 946) 
 except Cod. T described above : collated by Birch : inspected 
 only by Tischendorf and Tregelles. 
 
 U. Cod. Nanianus, so called from a former possessor : now 
 in the Library of St. Mark's, Venice ; contains the four Gospels 
 entire : collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles. 
 
 E. (of St. Paul's Epistles), Cod. Sangermanensis ; in Greek 
 
31 
 
 and Latin ; takes its name from the Abbey of St. Germains des 
 Prez near Paris ; supposed, in the Greek, to be a bad copy of 
 Cod. Claromontanus ; and now of no critical value ; though the 
 Latin version is said to be of some importance. 
 
 The above list comprises over sixty MSS. ; or, counting in 
 their several places, those which are common to two or more 
 divisions of the sacred Books, (as explained in Lecture page 26) 
 about eighty authorities ; excluding Service Books.* 
 
 *In the enumeration of Uncial MSS. given in the Lecture, reliance was placed 
 upon the computation of Scrivener : on subsequent careful analysis the number 
 was found to be larger ; and indeed numerous acces^ons have lately accrued, 
 chiefly, though not exclusively, through the discoveries of Tischendorf who, at the 
 commencement of his newly appearing 8i»\" Critical Edition, gives over 50 author- 
 ities for the Gospels alone ; the present appendix will be found to comprise scarcely 
 fewer in that division. 
 
33 
 
 APPENDIX E. 
 
 Lecture, page 36. 
 
 The ^''Tliree Heavenly Witnesses^ 
 
 Altliougli tlie celebrated controversy about the ^^^The Three 
 Heavenly Witnesses " is, at this day, mainly set at rest among 
 critics, the subject is not quite forgotten: and there may be some 
 persons, slenderly informed on the matter, who desire a more 
 explicit notice of the questions raised, than could, be accorded in 
 the body of the Lecture. 
 
 Among the ablest supporters of the controverted passage 
 stands Bengel, who earnestly contends for the clause on account 
 of its great doctrinal significance; and this leads him to the 
 adoption of a not very happy hypothesis in explanation of its 
 absence from all the ancient Greek Copies. The language contains 
 a deep mystery which had to be withdrawn from general contem- 
 plation under the secret discipline of the Church f Disciplina 
 Arcanijj and hence the passage became gradually lost from the 
 Text of the Epistle. This was, in substance, Bengel's opinion ; 
 but one which would carry little weight in the present day. 
 
 It need not occasion surprise that, at the time when the 
 discussion was rife in England, a period not remarkable for the 
 diffusion of accurate critical knowledge oi?. Biblical subjects, except 
 amongst a few, — very rough opinions should occasionally be 
 advanced by partizans. Even Dr. Edward Tatham, Kector of 
 Lincoln College, Oxford (1791-1834) writing in 18^7, speaks of a 
 Greek MS. in his College Library, which exhibited the passage, 
 but is now missing, as having been once seen by him, and Dr. 
 Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough. It seems likely that he alluded to 
 No. 33 (Acts and General Epistles) a cursive MS. of the eleventh 
 
85 
 
 or twelftK century, which does not give the passage, but has long 
 been known to be a prototype of the Cod. Montfort which does. 
 Archdeacon Travis, in his discussion with Professor Porson, 
 appears as an advocate of the passage, possessed of respectable 
 abilities ; but he was weighed down by the inherent weakness of 
 his cause; and, yet more, thoroughly discomfited, as being opposed 
 to an adversary, the greatest philologist of his age, who, curiously 
 enough, is said to have lost a legacy in consequence of the bitter- 
 ness of his invectives ! Dr. Burgess, Bishop of Salisbury, was 
 the last individual in the English Church who defended the 
 outposts after the battle had been fairly lost. 
 
 The first point of enquiry, would naturally be, as to what 
 Greek MSS. (if any) could be produced in support of the two 
 verses. 
 
 They are not met w^ith in any of the extant Uncials. 
 
 But there is a small show among the Cursives : Westwood, 
 C PalceograpMa Sacra Pictoria "^ gives five cursive MSS. in 
 support as follows : — 
 
 Cod. Montfort (61 of the Gospels, Acts 34, Paul 40, Apoc. 
 92) of fifteenth or sixteenth century. 
 
 Cod. Vatic. Ottobianus 298 (162 of the Acts and Catholic 
 Epistles), fifteenth century. 
 
 Cod. Ravianus Berolinensis (110 of the Gospels) at Berlin; 
 contains all the New Testament : of the sixteenth century. 
 
 Cod. Neapolitanus (173 of the Acts and General Epistles) 
 at Naples : eleventh century. 
 
 Cod. Guelpherbytanus, at Wolfenbiittel, a written copy of 
 St. John, with Latin and other versions added : seventeenth century ! 
 
 With regard to the first-mentioned, (the Montfort Codex) it 
 
34 
 
 once acquired, (as stated, at Lecture, page 6) much notoriety in 
 reference to the passage in dispute. It was first heard of between 
 1519 and 1522 ; seems to have been made up from other MSS. ; 
 the Acts and Epistles from the Lincoln College MS. before 
 mentioned, the Apocalypse from the Leicester Codex. Those 
 documents do not contain the passage, which was probably 
 adapted from the Latin (perhaps of the Complutensian Polyglott) 
 by one ill acquainted with Greek — and so formed an integral part 
 of the Montfort Codex.* 
 
 Cod. Vaticanus Ottohianus has attracted much attention from 
 the circumstance of its being the only unsuspected Witness for 
 the Text. It contains a parallel Latin Version with the Greek, 
 which latter seems to harmonise unduly with the Latin. This 
 very modern MS. (fifteenth century) suits, in respect of the clause 
 in question, the Complutensian Text better than the others cited do. 
 
 The Berlin MS. (sixteenth century) is now admitted to be a 
 mere transcript of the Complutensian Printed Edition (with 
 various readings from Stephens, Erasmus, &c. &c.) and conse- 
 quently of no critical authority whatever. 
 
 The Naples MS. (eleventh century) does not contain the 
 disputed clauses in the body of the document ; only in the margin 
 hy a hand as late as the sixteenth century. 
 
 The Wolfenbiittel document is a written copy of 1 John 
 made about 100 years after the issue of the first printed Edition 
 of the Greek Testament; in fact, so modern as to contain the 
 Latin translation of Theodore Beza (a.d. 1556) and, consequently, , 
 no manuscript at all in the true sense of the term. 
 
 * " Had the Dublin MS. by some accident fallen into Bentley's hands, it would 
 •undoubtedly have been flung aside as one of the most worthless of those scrubh 
 MSS. and scoundrel copies, which OUR mastee scorned even to look into 1 See the 
 Pamphlet in reply to Middleton's * Kemarks ' by a Member of Trinity College ; 
 supposed to be Bentley himself, and I think we may discover the Lion's claw.'^ 
 (Crito Cantahrigiensis, page 162, Note.) 
 
85 
 
 The result is not materially altered by turning to the versions. 
 The disputed passage is not to be found in any MS. of the 
 Peshito, nor in the best editions of it. The Philoxenian, 
 Thebaic, Memphitic, JEthiopic, Arabic, are all without it in any 
 shape : the Armenian Codices do not give it, (with one exception 
 only) a few recent Sclavonic copies do contain it, the margin of a 
 Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it. 
 
 The Latin versions alone lend the passage any support ; and 
 even these are much divided. The chief Complutensian Editor, 
 in controversy with Erasmus, virtually admits that it was trans- 
 lated from the Latin, not derived from Greek sources : — 
 
 " Be it understood " (he says) " that the Greek Codices have 
 been corrupted ; but that ours (i.e. the Latin ones) contain the 
 verity itself."* It is of course found in the Printed Latin Vulgate, 
 and in most of its MSS. but not in the best, such as Codd 
 Amiatinus, Fuldensis (both sixth century), and full fifty others. 
 In some of the most ancient which contain it, such as Codd di 
 Cava (eighth century), Toletanus (eighth century), Demidov. 
 (twelfth century), verse 8 precedes verse 7; so also with a Codex, 
 (eighth century,) cited by Lachmann. In the margin of Cod. di. 
 Cava is written in Latin, " Let Arius hear this and others also,'*, 
 as if the genuineness of the passage was unquestioned. There is, 
 for the most part, very considerable variety of reading, and often 
 the doubtful words stand only in the margin. Professor Person's 
 inference here is " that a passage which so often adds, omits, or 
 alters particular words ; which now precedes, now follows the 
 unsuspected part of the Text ; which is sometimes seen in the 
 body of the work, sometimes in the margin ; sometimes by the 
 
 ♦The value set upon the Latin Vulgate by the Complutensian Editors may be 
 seen by the arrangement adopted in their Old Testament Polyglott where that 
 version occupies the central column, having the Hebrew original on one side, and 
 the Greek Septuagint version on the other. This they compare to the position of 
 Christ as crucified between two thieves, the unbelieving synagogue of the Jews, 
 and the Schiamatical Greek Church! 
 
36 
 
 same, sometimes by a diiFerent hand ; sometimes after an erasure ; 
 which, in short, changes shapes faster than Proteus or Empusa," 
 may fairly warrant a disbelief in its genuineness. f Parson's 
 Letters, pp. U2-U3J 
 
 The most important, and perhaps the oldest authority in its , 
 favor is Wiseman's Speculum (sixth or seventh century). The 
 passage probably crept into some of the Latin copies as early as 
 the sixth century and perhaps at a still earlier period into the 
 African Latin copies first. In the Ulm MS. (a Latin copy 
 originating at St. Gall about the ninth century or earlier) the 
 passage runs thus : — Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, Spiritus, 
 et Aqua, et Sanguis, et tres unum sunt, Sicut in ccelo 
 tres sunt. Pater, Verb urn, et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt. 
 This momentous sicut explains how the words, from being a gloss 
 or illustration, crept into the Text {see Porson's Letters, p, 148). 
 
 It seems, moreover, that the passage in question was trans- 
 planted from the Latin to the Greek Church in the thirteenth 
 century. In 1215 a Lateran council was held by Pope Innocent 
 III. to condemn a work of the Abbot Joachim against the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, as being addressed to Lombard, Archbishop of 
 Paris. The Acts of the Council, with the quotations of the 
 Vulgate, were translated into Greek, and sent to the Greek 
 Churches, with a view to promote a union, this being a subject 
 debated in the council. About a hundred years afterwards the 
 Greeks began to quote 1 John v. 7, and not till then. The first 
 Greek writer quoting the passage is Calecas (fourteenth century) ; 
 he was succeeded by Bryennius in fifteenth century; and by others 
 of the Greek Church down to the present day. 
 
 The Patristic testimony in favor of the passage is entitled to 
 some consideration. No one of the Greek Fathers has cited it — the 
 same may be said of the great early Latin Fathers down to Augus- 
 tine and Jerome. On the other hand, certain African Fathers of 
 fifth and sixth century appeal to the '^ Three Heavenly Witnesses " 
 
37 
 
 as a genuine portion of St. John's Epistle, viz : — ^Vigilius Thap- 
 sensis, at the end of the fifth century ; and Fulgentius of Ruspoe, 
 — in two places. Moreover, we may accept the testimony of Victor 
 Vitcnsis, who records that the passage was insisted on in a con- 
 fession of faith drawn up by Eugcnius, Bishop of Carthage, at 
 the end of the fifth century, and presented to Adrian Hunneric, 
 King of the Vandals — from that period the clause became well 
 known in the regions of the West, and was in time generally 
 accepted throughout the Latin Church (Scrivener). Lastly, 
 Tertullian and Cyprian have been much relied on in support. 
 As regards the language of the former. Bishop Kaye decides that 
 " far from containing an allusion to 1 John v. 7, it furnishes most 
 decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse." It seems 
 candid to admit that the latter (Cyprian) did read verse 7 in his 
 copies. Though even here Dr. Turton {Crito Cantahrigiensis p, 
 381) expresses a conviction to the contrary. Such testimony, 
 however, would be quite insufficient to establish the genuineness 
 of the clause. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 ZUCKEa AND SUN, PEINTE&S, Hiaa-STKKST, SOVTUAXi'TOy. 
 
GENERAL LIBRARY -U.C. BERKELEY 
 
 BD0Dflai'17T