Skip to main content

Full text of "A guide to the textual criticism of the New Testament"

See other formats






Page 2, line 20, read\\\\'. ^iforwxw 15. 
Page 3, line 9, read the for its. 
Page 7, line 2, r^a^!' affected yi?;* effected. 
Page 9, line 20, r^fl' manuscript yi?rnianusciipt^. 
Page 13, line 21, rt'^ffli' appeared yi?/- apeared. 
Page 17, line 17, read ^ for ^. 
Page 21, line 14, ;raa' manuscriptsy^r manuscrij)!. 
Page 27, line 4, read Ano-xx for Asian. 
Page 54, note 3, read ix. 14 /i?;' ii. 14, 
Page 56, note 2, ?r«^ collating/^r collecting. 
Page 73, line 23, read The for That. 
Page 93, note, 7V<7rt^ contravened yi?;* controvened. 
Page 95, line 6, 7rad 'Lwc^v for Lucas. 
Page 112, note 3, read t, for <\. 
2,^ Page 121, line 20, read Itacism yi?;- Italicism. 

Page 128, line 23, ;rar/ authenticityy^^r authencity. 









OJ Xoyot Mof oh fit) TzafjkXQojai. — St. Matt. xxiv. 35. 
' ' Truth crushed to earth shall rise again. " — Bryant. 









CJis little ^uatm 






The Genuine Words of Holy Scripture. 


THE ensuing treatise is intended to be a brief Manual 
on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament for 
ordinary students of the Bible, and to induce those who 
may be disposed to enter more deeply into the important 
subject of it to prosecute further research in "The Plain 
Introduction " of Dr. Scrivener, the learned works of Dean 
Burgon, and in other well-known sources of information upon 
Textual Criticism. 

The foot-notes will ordinarily indicate how much 1 have 
been indebted to the labours of other men in a work which 
pretends to be little more than a faithful representation of 
stores accumulated by the learned, and an independent esti- 
mate of the conclusions drawn by them. 

To the Dean of Chichester I am indebted for many pre- 
vious hints which I have found invaluable during my prose- 
cution of a task both laborious and difficult. The under- 
taking of it was originally pressed upon me from without, 
and I am myself convinced that some such assistance as is 
here offered to the general Reader is greatly needed at this 
time. But I lay down my pen with the conviction derived 
from the accomplishment of my work, that every Reader 
who would really understand, and form an opinion for him- 
self upon the great questions at stake, must bestow on the 
problem which has suddenly emerged into prominence a 


considerable amount of individual, unprejudiced attention. 
He will be able to see with which of the contending parties 
the Truth must lie : but he must approach the problem in a 
calm, judicial spirit, must require Proof (as far as Proof is 
attainable) instead of putting up with Hypothesis, and above 
all must never cease to exercise a large amount of vigilant 
sagacity, — in fact, of Common Sense. 

My thanks are also due to the Rev. R. Hutchison, M.A., 
Rector of Woodeaton, and late Scholar of Exeter College, 
Oxford, who has kindly helped me in correcting the proof 

E. M. 

BucKNELL Rectory, 

Eviber Week, Sept., 1885. 



■^ JUL ^ l«M '^ 


Officii Sf^ 



Introduction. Importance of the Subject. 

The question stated — seven instances of serious change — others also 
advocated — the number introduced into the Revised Version — more 
into other editions — the subject not generally known — importance of it 
— plan of the work pp. 1-5. 


history of textual criticism. 

First Part. Earlier Stages. 

The natural growth of the science influenced by investigation and 
discovery ......... pp. 6-7. 

I. Infancy : — The New Testament not printed till the sixteenth 
centuiy — I. Complutensian Polyglott. 2. Erasmus. 3. Robert Stephen, 
Theodore Beza, and the Elzevirs — the Received Text . pp. 7-12. 

II. Childhood: — Introduction of various readings, i. Bishop Walton, 
Codex A, Courcelles, and Fell. 2. Mill. 3. Bentley, Codex B. 

4. Bengel, Wetstein, Matthsei, Birch, Alter, and Moldenhawer. 

5. Griesbach, families and recensions of manuscripts, and Scholz — 
the free advance of boyhood ...... pp. 12-19. 


HISTORY OF textual CRITICISM {conthiued). 

Second Part. Contemporary Growth . p. 20. 
III. Youth : — Impatience under an overwhelming mass of materials — 


Extreme Textualism. i. Lachmann— rejects all but a few witnesses. 
2. Tregelles — follows Lachmann — great services in collating and edit- 
ing. 3, Tischendorf— amazing labours— discovers the Sinaitic — zigzag 
course. 4. Drs, Westcott and Hort — develop Lachmann's principles 
—extreme deference to B — surprising results — followed mainly by Two 
Members of the Revisers' Company — must we follow them ? pp. 20-30. 

IV. Signs of Coming Maturity : — Opposition, i. Dr. Scrivener — 
his published works— large-minded principles. 2. Dean Burgon — his 
works — misrepresented — his sound and wide principles. 3. Canon 
Cook — The Bishops Wordsworth, J. G. Reiche, Kuenen and Cobet, 
Dr. Michelsen, Vercellone, Ceriani, Abbe Martin — other Roman 
Catholics . pp. 30-37. 



The origin attributed by the leading masters to Lachmann . p. 38 

A. Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. i. Knowledge of Documents 
derived from date and character a prior requisite : B and n are the best 
MSS. 2. Importance of Genealogy, under which these two MSS. are 
brought back nearly to the Apostolic autographs. 3. Four families, 
sc. (a) Syrian, made in a recension at Antioch, {h) Western, {c) Alexan- 
drian, and(fl^) Neutral, which is the best. 4. Of these, two are corrupt 
{b and c) ; the Neutral alone reaches back to earliest times ; Syrian 
shewn to be worthless by analysis, want of antiquity, and internal 
evidence. 5. Hence N B together nearly always right, and B alone 
seldom wrong pp. 38-44. 

B. Refutation, i. Too easy to be true, grounded on only part of 
the evidence, and destitute of real proof. 2. Sound sense is violated, 
anxl opinion unsupported by facts is balanced by opinions of other 
nipsters. 3. Genealogy affords an unsafe analogy, and in fact points 
the opposite way. B and K are also condemned for want of descendants. 
4, The theory about Families is disallowed by other Doctors, and 
lacks evidence. 5. The " Syrian," or Traditional Text, is not proved 
to be posterior, whether by an imaginary recension, or by a fanciful 
theory of conflation, or by ignoring proof of early existence, or by sup- 
posed internal evidence. 6. The characters of B and K not superfine ; 


they were rejected by the Church, were the products of Semiarian times, 
are condemned by experts, and are full of blunders . pp. 44-59. 



The tenets of the Rival School already implied — i. They do not 
maintain the Received Text, and are not indiscriminate in the use of 
authorities. 2. Insist that all authorities should be weighed and em- 
ployed ; and thus widen the basis. 3. They maintain the Traditional 
Text, which the Church of all ages has acknowledged, and no age 
therefore can reject — extreme importance of this part of the contention ; 
hence the need of a history of the Traditional Text — the question 
depends upon a just estimate of proportion . . . pp. 60-64. 



Difference between Sacred and Classical Textual Criticism, i. Con- 
jectural Emendation inadmissible. 2. God the Holy Ghost the Pre- 
server as well as Inspirer of the Holy Scriptures. 3. Corporate as 
well as individual productions ..... pp. 65-68. 

Early Corruption derived from oral teaching, tampering with the text 
by heretics, carelessness of scribes, ignorance of Greek or of doctrine — 
Gnosticism — Marcion — Tatian — evidence of corruption . pp. 68-72. 

Exceeding care employed by the faithful — Traditional Text — Peshito 
— Old Latin Versions — Egyptian pp. 72-77. 

Alexandria — Origen — followers of Origen — Eusebius — persecution of 
Diocletian — celebrated order of Constantine — transcription of B and N 

PP- 77-83- 

Proofs of the Traditional Text in this period found amidst corruption 
in its subsequent supremacy, in the MSS. used by the Fathers, and in 
contemporaneous Versions . .... pp. 83-85. 




The previous period an era of speculation — the great Patristic Era — 
commentaries, dictionaries, and grammars — punctuation — breathings — 
spelling — improvement in the art of Transcription — monasteries — 
ibraries — canon of Holy Scripture— supremacy of the Traditional Text 

pp. 86-94. 

Gothic Version — Codex Alexandrinus (A) — Parisian Codex (C) — the 
Fathers not uncritical — Uncial manuscripts — Versions — Vulgate — 
Armenian — Georgian— Ethiopian — other Uncials . pp. 94-100. 

Cursive manuscripts — their value— their agreement with the Uncials 
— Lectionaries — other Versions — undisputed predominance of the Tra- 
ditional Text pp. 100-104. 



I. {a) Uncial manuscripts — in Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, 
Pauline Epistles, and Apocalypse .... pp. 105-106. 

((^) Cursive manuscripts — their value and vast number pp. 106-107. 

Table of Uncials pp. 108-109. 

II. Lectionaries and Liturgies — lectionary-system — their value — 
influence in mischief — Evangelistaria — Praxapostoli — Liturgies 

pp. 1 10- II 2. 

III. Versions — Table — value^Kirawbacks — Old Latin pp. 113-115. 

IV. Ecclesiastical Writers — drawbacks — value — the oldest class of 
manuscripts, but at second hand .... pp. 116-117. 

The field to be explored — MSS. at first hand wanting in antiquity 

p. "7. 



No evidence must be discarded — responsibility of the Church — 


I. The first object the discovery of the Traditional Text — begin with 
the Received Text. 2. All evidence must be mastered — and followed. 
3. Internal Evidence not on a par with External proof— seven canons — 
conclusion ........ pp. 1 18-122. 

Appendix I. The last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel 

pp. 125-127. 

II. The First Word from the Cross . pp. 127-128. 

III. The Record of the strengthening Angel, the Agony, 
and the Bloody Sweat . . pp. 128-130. 

IV. The Angelic Hymn . . . pp. 130- 131. 
V. The Doxology in the Lord's Prayer pp. 131- 133. 

VI. The Son of God's Eternal Existence in Heaven 

pp. 133-134. 
VII. God manifested in The Flesh . pp. 134-137.- 



introduction . 

Importance of the Subject. 

WHAT is the genuine Greek — what the true Text of 
the New Testament ? Which are the very words 
which were written by the Evangehsts and Apostles of our 
Lord Jesus Christ under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost ? 
Have we up to this period received and used for the infor- 
mation of our faith and the guidance of our lives a Form 
of Text, which in a vast number of particulars, many of 
which are of great importance, has been fabricated by the 
device or error of men ? 

This question has been raised in the research of recent 
times, which has brought to light an amount of evidence 
residing in ancient copies and translations of the New 
Testament, that has led many eminent scholars to reject, as 
being in their estimation corruptions of the pure Text, 
various passages which have endeared themselves to Chris- 
tians in the course of centuries. Thus, according to prin- 
ciples largely adopted, 

(a) The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to 



St. Mark must be cast aside, and an abrupt close made 
after the words, ' for they were afraid.' 

(b) In the Lord's Prayer as given by St. Luke (xi. 2-4), 
the following clauses must be excised : — ' Our .... 
which art in Heaven'; 'Thy will be done, as in 
Heaven, so on earth ' ; — ' but deliver us from evil.' 

(c) The Doxology must be omitted from the Lord's 
Prayer in St. Matthew (vi. 13), and so all record of it 
lost in the Gospels. 

(d) Vv. 43, 44 must no longer be reckoned in the 22nd 
chapter of St. Luke, and thereby the account must 
disappear of the strengthening Angel and the ' Bloody 
Sweat,' as well as the evangelical record of ' the Agony in 
the Garden.' 

(e) The first of our Lord's seven Sayings from the Cross 
(St. Luke xxiii. 34) must be regarded as unauthentic, 
* Father, forgive them, for they knew not what they 

(f) Also St. Luke's assertion of the Ascent into Heaven 
(xxiv. 15), — an omission of the more importance, 
because St. Mark's account of the same event, which 
included also the session at the Right Hand of God, is 
supposed under these principles to have vanished with 
the last twelve verses of his Gospel. 

(g) St. Luke's recital of the Institution of the Holy Sacra- 
ment (xxii. 19, 20) must be lost, except as far as ' This 
is My Body.' 

These seven instances, which might be multiplied ex- 
tensively by the addition of other omissions, — such as of the 
descending angel and the cure wrought in the pool of 
Bethesda, of the last cry in St. Mark's description of the 
centurion's faith, of the greater part of St. Luke's account of 


the Inscription on the Cross, of St. Peter's visit to the 
Sepulchre in the same Gospel, of the salutation ' Peace be 
unto you,' of the Lord shewing His Hands and His Feet, of 
the word 'broken,' whereby a gash is made and a blank 
space left in St. Paul's grand version of the Institution of the 
Holy Sacrament, and others too numerous to recount here 
— not to do more than allude to startling statements, such 
as that our Lord's Side was pierced before death, and that 
the sun was eclipsed at its full,^ — may teach all who revere 
and love the Word of God what precious points are at 
stake. If the changes advocated by the modern school leave 
enough behind in Holy Writ to support without doubt the 
essentials of the Faith of Christendom, yet they are so 
momentous in themselves as to produce a painful wrench in 
earnest affections which have attached themselves to words 
familiar and deeply loved from childhood, and to prove that, at 
least to first appearance, general and special attention should 
be directed to what may really be a corruption of the Holy 
Scriptures. Besides this, the number of alterations, amounting 
in the most moderate of the new recensions to 5,337,'^ reveals 
the formidable nature of the operations that are threatened. 
If the majority of these alterations are small, it must be 
remembered that the instance taken is one which presents 
much less change than other editions of the New Testa- 

^ St. John V. 3, 4 : St. Mark xv. 39 : St. Luke xxiii. 38 : xxiv. 12 : 
xxiv. 36 : xxiv. 40 : I Cor. ix. 24, /cXw^utvor : St. Matt, xxvii. 49 : 
St. Luke xxiii. 45. iKkii-KovToq, which, as Dean Burgon truly says 
("Revision Revised," p. 65), ' means an eclipse of the sun and no other 
thing,' though the Revisers translate it *the sun's light failing.' 

^ The number of changes in the Greek Text of the Revised Version 
as estimated by Dr. Scrivener (Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 
405). The changes in the English of the Revised Version are said to 
amount to 36,191. 


ment. Enough is shown to establish beyond doubt that 
it is the duty of all Christians, who take an intelligent inte- 
rest in the controversies of their day, not to sit still when 
such concerns are in jeopardy. 

Yet at the present time there are comparatively few per- 
sons, clerical or lay, who have an intelligent acquaintance 
with the grounds on which this important question rests. 
The subject at first sight presents a forbidding aspect to 
most minds : — the exceedingly valuable treatises on it are 
too full of learning, and too long for such as are not really 
students to master : — and the hurry and haste of modern 
life demand a simpler mode of treatment. 

It is therefore with the hope of presenting the chief 
features of Textual Criticism, or such elementary con- 
siderations as are immediately involved in determining 
the Greek Text of the New Testament, to readers in a 
clear and not uninteresting way, that in deference to the 
urgent solicitations of some who enter deeply into the 
controversy, the composition of this little treatise has been 
undertaken. Inexpressibly dear to all true Christians, 
whether they range themselves on the one side or the other, 
must be the very expressions, — the sentences, the phrases, 
the words, and even the rhythm and the accents, — of the 
genuine utterance of the Holy Spirit of God. The general 
sentiment of Christianity has applied with plenary enlarge- 
ment the warning given at the close of the last Book in the 
Bible against addition or omission.' ' Let no man add to 
the words of the Holy Scriptures or detract anything from 
them,' said one of the most renowned of the Fathers.' ' Let 

^ Rev. xxii. i8, 19. 

' Athanasius, "Ex Festali Epistola," xxxix. (t. ii. p. 39, Eil, Colon). 


them fear the woe which is destined for them who add to or 
take away,' was the consentient admonition of another.^ 

The leading points in the contention on either side will 
be given in the Narrative. The questions in debate are 
questions of fact, and must be decided by the facts of 
history, the origin and nature of the documents on which 
they depend, and due regard to the proportion of the 
Christian Faith. They cannot be settled piecemeal. 
All the counts of the case must be before the court. An 
attempt will therefore be now made to represent with all 
candour the chief grounds on which opinion should rest, 
as they have been set forth in the career of the Science of 
Textual Criticism, in the principal arguments employed by 
the Rival Schools of the present day, in the history of the 
transmission of the New Testament from age to age, and in 
the leading Materials of Criticism ; and it will be our duty 
to deduce in conclusion the main principles that ought to 
regulate critical operations in any endeavour to revise and 
remodel the Sacred Text. 

^ Tertullian, "Adv. Hennogenem," xxiu 


history of textual criticism. 

First Part. Earlier Stages, (i) Infancy : — Forma- 
tion OF THE ' Received Text.' (2) Childhood : — 
Critical Operations before 1830. 

THE Science of sacred Textual Criticism is the child of 
circumstances, and has been fostered by the zeal and 
industry of learned men. It has arisen from the large 
number of existing Copies of the New Testament, which has 
now, so far as inquiry has extended, reached no less than some 
two thousand.^ These primary sources of information are 
further augmented by Translations into various languages, 
and by quotations occurring in the works of early Ecclesias- 
tical Writers. Accordingly, as these numerous witnesses 
render evidence which is discordant in thousands of parti- 
culars, there is plainly a need of guiding principles and of a 
recognised system in estimating their testimony. Thus the 
Science of sacred Textual Criticism has been gradually grow- 
ing almost since the time of the invention of printing. 

And as was natural, its growth and tendency have been 
largely influenced from time to time by the materials that 
research and discovery have continually produced. When 
new Manuscripts have been brought to light, or the verdict 
of old ones has been ascertained by the slow process of col- 

^ 2003. Burgon, **The Revision Revised," p. 521. Dean Burgon 
added 374 in 1883. Dr. Scrivener, including these 374, reckons 2094. 
" Plain Introduction," Appendix, p. xxx, 3rd edition. 


lation, the importation of fresh evidence has necessarily 
effected the conclusions previously drawn. A science de- 
pending upon facts that can be ascertained only after pro- 
tracted processes of investigation, cannot but be late in 
coming to maturity. At the present time, hundreds of 
Manuscripts are waiting to be collated, various Versions 
need re-editing, and indexes have to be provided of the 
quotations in the Fathers, before all that is to be said upon 
controverted points can be collected with exact accuracy. 
Besides that, the relative value of the various classes and 
subdivisions of evidence cannot yet be determined so as to 
meet with universal acceptance. 

Four Periods in the history of Textual Criticism may be 
distinguished, so far as it has been yet evolved, viz.. Infancy, 
Childhood, Impetuous Youth, and Incipient Maturity. 

I. The Infancy. 

Although a folio edition of the Bible in Latin was printed 
by Gutenberg as early as a.d. 1455, none in the original 
Greek appeared till the beginning of the sixteenth century. 
The demand at the time was not great. Greek Scribes 
dependent upon employment for their living abounded in 
Europe after the capture of Constantinople in 1453. Print- 
ing would be much more difficult in the unfamiliar Greek 
type : and the prevalence of clever and graceful abbrevia- 
tions made the work of copying at once more rapid and 
more artistic. Therefore half a century passed by before the 
Church saw the accomplishment of a task so formidable, of 
which the want was at once so easily and so well supplied. 

I. Cardinal Ximenes, founder of the University of Alcalk, 
and an eminent patron of literature, was first in the field. In 


the course of his advancement he had passed from a dungeon, 
where he had spent six years of his Hfe, to the Archbishopric 
of Toledo and the Regency of Castile; and in his later days 
laid out the vast income of his See upon charitable or public 
objects. Having collected together as many Manuscripts 
as he could, he set Lopez de Stunica and other learned 
editors to the work in 1502, on which he expended more 
than 50,000 ducats, or about ;;^2 3,000. It was intended to 
commemorate the birth of Charles V. But many years 
elapsed ere the completion of the New Testament in Greek 
and Latin on Jan. 10, 1514; and the book was not pub- 
lished till 1520, after Ximenes' death, and did not get into 
general circulation till two years after. 

The Complutensian Polyglott — for such was the title, 
derived from the Latin name {Co?nplutu??i) of Alcalk — was 
said by the editors to have been constructed from selected 
Manuscripts of great age and accuracy, supplied by Pope 
Leo X., who was the patron of the undertaking. Attempts 
have been made without success to ascertain what these 
Manuscripts were. The only result is that we must abide by 
the assertion of the editors and the character of the work. 
The Complutensian is admitted to be a fair but not by any 
means a faultless edition of the text that had already been 
in vogue, as is universally admitted, for upwards of a thou- 
sand years. 

2. But the Complutensian Polyglott was actually antici- 
pated in publication by a Greek Testament in Germany. 

Froben, the printer of Basle, hearing of the operations in 
Spain, and wishing to forestall them, sent to Erasmus, who 
was then staying in England, and pressed him earnestly to 
undertake the office of editor. Erasmus received the first 
overtures on April 17, 15 15. But such was the haste made 


that the New Testament was printed before the end of 
February, 15 16. Erasmus had however, as it appears, made 
some preparations of his own before he heard from Froben. 
He seems to have used what copies he could procure, but 
in a few cases where he either found or supposed his Greek 
authorities to be deficient, he translated from the Vulgate 
into Greek.^ 

Erasmus' first edition made its way into Spain, where the 
Coraplutensian was lying complete, but awaiting the Pope's 
imprimatur for publication. Stunica found fault with it in 
the spirit of rivalry : but the fine old Cardinal replied, 
* Would that all the Lord's people were prophets ! produce 
better if thou canst ; condemn not the industry of another.' ^ 

Erasmus was, however, attacked by Stunica, and also by 
Edward Lee, afterward Archbishop of York, because he had 
omitted the testimony of the heavenly Witnesses in i John v. 
7, as well as on other grounds. Erasmus rephed that he could 
not find the passage in his Greek manuscripts, and that 
even some Latin copies did not give it. But at length he 
promised that if any Greek manuscripts were produced 
containing the words, he would in future insert them. It is 
remarkable that the celebrated Vatican Codex (B) was 
on this occasion for the first time appealed to on a point of 
textual criticism.^ In course of time the Codex Montfor- 
tianus, now at DubHn, was brought forward, and in conse- 
quence the passage was printed by Erasmus in his third 
edition in 1522. A fourth edition exhibited the text in three 
parallel columns, the Greek, the Latin Vulgate, and a recen- 
sion of the latter by Erasmus. The last in 1535 contained 

' This was notably the case in the last six verses of the Revelation. 
^ Scrivener's "Plain Introduction," p. 431. 
^ Tregelles, " Printed Text," p. 22. 


only the Greek. Each successive edition underwent cor- 
rection, but the last did not differ much from the fourth. 
Erasmus died at Basle in 1536. 

3. The editions of Robert Stephen, Theodore Beza, and 
the Elzevirs, complete this period. 

The two first of Stephen, published at Paris respectively 
in 1546 and 1549, were most elegantly printed with type 
cast at the expense of Francis L, and are known to connois- 
seurs by the title ' O mirificam ' from the opening words ex- 
pressing an encomium upon that king's liberality. The third, 
in folio, came out in 1550, and for the first time in the his- 
tory of editions of the Greek Testament contained various 
readings. Reference was made to sixteen authorities, viz., 
the Complutensian Polyglott and fifteen manuscripts, 
amongst which the Codex Bezae (D), now at Cambridge, is 
thought to have been numbered.' Erasmus is not mentioned, 
although Stephen's two earliest editions were mainly grounded 
upon Erasmus' readings ; and his third, according to Dr. 
Scrivener's computation, differs from them conjointly in only 
361 places."-^ Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities 
himself, but employed the services of his son Henry. 

His record of readings in the margin of his folio caused 
great offence to the doctors of the Sorbonne, and Stephen 
withdrew to Geneva to escape their enmity. Here he pub- 
lished in 1 55 1 his fourth edition, almost unchanged in the 
Greek text from the previous one, but with one remarkable 
alteration. The chapters, into which Cardinal Hugo, of 
Santo Caro, had divided the books of the Bible in the 
thirteenth century, were in this edition first subdivided into 

' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 121, 438. 
- " Plain Introduction," p. 436 ; i.e., 334 times in the text, and 27 
in punctuation. 


verses. His son Henry said that his father made the sub- 
division 'whilst riding' from Paris to Lyons, probably 
during the intervals of his exercise. His object was to 
facilitate reference in a Concordance which he had in 

Beza's text did not differ much from Stephen's. He pub- 
lished five editions, slightly varying upon one another, and 
ranging from 1565 to 1598. Of these the fourth, published 
in 1589, has the highest reputation, the fifth having been 
produced in 'extreme old age.' Besides the advantage of 
Stephen's collections, Beza was the possessor of two very 
important MSS., the one already mentioned (D of the 
Gospels and Acts), which was presented by him to the 
University of Cambridge, and the Codex Claromontanus 
(D of St. Paul's Epistles) at Paris, both of which con- 
tained Greek and Latin texts, being therefore ' bilingual ' 

The Elzevirs — Bonaventure and Abraham — brought out 
two editions at their celebrated press, one in 1624, and the 
other in 1633. Their text was made up from those of 
Stephen and Beza. The latter edition was remarkable from 
the expression ' Received Text ' occurring for the first time. 
Addressing the reader they said, ' So you have now a text 
universally received, in which we give no alteration or 
corruption.' " 

The text of Stephen, which was afterwards carefully repro- 

^ This is the ordinary account. Dr. Gregory however (" Prolego- 
mena," pp. 164-66) maintains that Stephen Langton was the author of 
the present division into Chapters, as usual in the West. Some sort of 
division had been in existence from the first (Ibid. pp. 140-163). 

^ ' Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil 
immutatum aut corruptum damus,' referring to the edition of 1624. 


duced by Mill, has been generally taken in England as the 
standard or ' Received ' text, and that of the Elzevirs has 
been thus regarded on the continent. The translators, how- 
ever, of our Authorized Version did not adhere exclusively 
to any one of the chief editions.^ When their authorities 
were at variance, they sometimes in their interpretation of 
the ' Received Text ' followed Beza, sometimes Stephen, 
sometimes the Complutensians, Erasmus, or the Latin 

11. The Childhood. 

In the period hitherto indicated, there was hardly any 
weighing of opposed readings. Such as presented themselves 
were ordinarily accepted with impHcit confidence. The free 
instincts of infancy guided the Science mainly along a track 
that had previously been trodden with the continued approval 
of the Church for centuries. It would be reckless haste, 
not discerning judgment, that would off-hand condemn 
results thus reached. The copies chiefly followed were 
known to be specimens more or less exact of what had been 
preserved in the Church as the recognised form of the 
inspired Word." 

The Received Text of the sixteenth and seventeenth 

' Dr. Scrivener has collected 252 passages, out of which the trans- 
lators follow Beza against vStephen in 113, Stephen against Beza in 59, 
the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and 
Beza in 80. — "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible," &c., 
by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Cambridge, 18S4, 
Appendix E. 

2 This is acknowledged by both the Rival Schools of the present day. 
See Westcott and Hort, "Introduction," pp. 91, 92, no, 142, 145, 
146. Vol. i., pp. 547, 550, 551. Burgon, "The Revision Revised," 
pp. 257, 258. 


centuries represented with general, but far from invariable 
accuracy, the Traditional Text of the previous ages of the 
Church. But, on the other hand, the Church of later times 
could not properly rest without ascertaining, by all such wide 
and deep inquiry as was possible, whether these instinctive 
processes had issued in well-grounded conclusions. What 
was right would be proved to be right in full and free investi- 
gation, if candour and largeness of mind and firmness in 
faith kept away prejudice and narrowness and unbelief. 

I. In 1657, Brian Walton, afterwards Bishop of Chester, 
published a Polyglott, to which were appended some various 
readings both in the fifth and sixth volumes. In company 
with some colleagues he had devoted himself to this work 
for twelve years during the dark troubles that had befallen 
the Church of England. He included various readings from 
the Codex Alexandrinus (A), now in the British Museum, 
which had been presented by Cyril Lucar to Charles I. 
in 1628. There were comprised in his pages also the results 
of collations of sixteen Manuscripts made by Archbishop 

In the next year apeared at Amsterdam a New Testament 
by Curcellaeus or Courcelles, marked by Socinian tendencies. 
And soon after, in 1675, Dr. John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, 
published a small edition, in which collations from fresh 
Manuscripts were given, and citations were added from the 
Memphitic or ancient Version of Lower Egypt, and the 
Gothic, which was made soon after the Goths settled on the 
confines of the Roman Empire. 

2. But a greater and stronger start was made at the end 
of the seventeenth century. In large measure through the 
help of Bishop Fell, who during his lifetime supplied 
impetus and funds, Dr. John Mill devoted the labour of 


thirty years to the preparation of a grand New Testament 
which was intended to surpass Stephen's in beauty as well 
as in other respects. The good bishop's death in 1686 
seems to have delayed the work : and it was not till 1707, 
three years after Archbishop Sharpe obtained for the 
struggling editor a stall at Canterbury and Royal aid in the 
prosecution of his purpose, that the volume came out. Mill 
himself died just a fortnight after the publication. Thence- 
forward the science of Textual Criticism proceeded upon a 
new career. 

Mill only attempted to reproduce the text of Stephen, 
though he has departed from it in a few particulars.^ But 
he added some 30,000 readings, and an invaluable Prole- 
gomena. He far excelled all his contemporaries and prede- 
cessors in accuracy of collation and comprehensiveness of 
method. " Of the criticism of the New Testament in the 
hands of Dr. John Mill it may be said, that he found the 
edifice of wood, and left it marble." ^ 

3. We now come to the grand design of the great Richard 
Bentley, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, which broke 
forth with lofty promise but never reached realization. He 
unfolded his plan to Archbishop Wake in a long letter, in 
which after explaining his own studies he professes his 
belief that he should be able to restore the Text of the New 
Testament to the form in which it was couched at the time 
of the Council of Nicaea. He was led in his enthusiasm to 
add, * so that there shall not be twenty words, or even par- 
ticles, difference.' After describing the history of the Vul- 
gate, and the editorial labours since the invention of printing, 

^ Dr. Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 450 and note, has speci- 
fied instances of this deflection. 

'^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 448. 


he concludes : ' In a word, I find that by taking 2000 errors 
out of the Pope's Vulgate, and as many out of the Protestant 
Pope Stephen's, I can set out an edition of each in columns, 
without using any book under 900 years old, that shall so 
exactly agree word for word, and, what at first amazed me, 
order for order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures can 
agree better.' ^ 

This was in 17 16, and in four years his plan was definitely 
made up. John Walker, fellow of Trinity College, who had 
already been employed in collating MSS. in Paris for the 
edition, was announced as ' overseer and corrector of the 
press.' John Walker continued to labour ; and Bentley 
himself too, so far as other occupations and the strife with 
the Fellows of his College would allow him : but the edition 
never came out. He bequeathed a valuable collection of 
papers to his nephew, who made no use of them. After the 
death of the latter, they were published, including amongst 
several collations one which he had procured, and had got 
afterwards corrected, of the Vatican Manuscript (B). This 
vv'as transcribed by Woide and printed. 

4. A step in advance was next made by Bengel in 1734. 
The large number of authorities that had now come to light 
had created embarrassment. Were they all equally to be 
trusted ? Did revision simply consist in a process of mar- 
shalling the witnesses on the right and left, and then counting 
heads? or had these witnesses special characters of their 
own, which must be investigated and known in order to the 
formation of a true estimate of their credibility ? 

Bengel therefore suggested that inquiries should be made 
into the origin of each,^ ' whether taken smgly or in pairs, or 

^ Ellis, " Bentleii Critica Sacra," Introductory Preface, p. xv. 


associations, or families, tribes, and nations : ' ^ so that they 
should be reduced to a genealogical table illustrating their 
several features and relationships. He divided manuscripts 
generally into African and Asiatic. In his text he was the 
first to depart on principle from the received standard." He 
introduced the division of the New Testament into para- 
graphs, with which we have become familiar. 

Bengel was followed by Wetstein, who enlarged greatly 
the materials ready for criticism. He spent many years in 
collation, including in these labours about one hundred and 
two Manuscripts. He was the first to cite the Manuscripts 
under their present designation, quoting from A to O of the 
Uncials in the Gospels, and i — 112 of the Cursives.^ He 
attached great importance to the Codex Alexandrinus (A), 
the oldest then generally known. He shed much light upon 
the Versions, or early Translations into other languages. 
And he also laboured, though it is thought not so success- 
fully, upon the Fathers. His services were so considerable 
that Bishop Marsh was of opinion that he had accomplished 
more than all his predecessors put together.* His edition 
of the Greek Testament came out in 1751-2. 

Most important service was rendered in the collection and 
collation of existing manuscripts by C. F. Matthaei, Andrew 
Birch, and others. Matthasi, a Thuringian by birth, who 
held the Professorship of Classical Literature at Moscow, 
found in that capital a large number of Manuscripts brought 

^ Bengel, "Apparatus Criticus," p. 387. 

2 Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 457. 

^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 460. Uncial Manuscripts are 
those which are written in Capital Letters : Cursives, in the running 
hand of ordinary writing. Uncials are designated for convenience by 
capital letters, and Cursives by numerals. 

^ Tregelles, "Printed Text," p. 77. 


in the seventeenth century from Mount Athos, both Biblical 
and Patristic. ^ He collated with an accuracy which has drawn 
down strong praise ^ seventy copies, consisting of these and 
some others ; and besides he assembled the citations from 
Holy Scripture contained in about thirty manuscripts of St. 
Chrysostom's works. His Revision of the Greek Text was 
exclusively founded upon the manuscripts of his own 
examining. Whatever may prove to be its critical value, no 
difference of opinion can be entertained about the remark- 
able accuracy of method and scholarship, in which he has 
set a bright example to all who come after him. His colla- 
tions will remain a treasure for all time." 

About the same period Alter was doing work at Vienna, 
similar in kind, but inferior in degree. And Birch, with the 
assistance of Adler and Moldenhawer, laboured in Italy, 
Germany, and Spain. 

4. Thus a large mass of evidence grew up : what seemed 
vast in the days of Mill was extensively multiplied. And 
in consequence another attempt was made to classify the 
accumulated materials of criticism. John James Griesbach, 
a pupil of Semler, following out, though with corrections, 
what his master had begun, urged that three great families 
of manuscripts existed, each of which was founded upon a 
special ' Recension,' or edition. He distinguished these as 
respectively Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine. He 
considered that the testimony of two of these classes should 
prevail against the third. His theory was no doubt grounded 
upon a certain, or rather an uncertain, amount of truth. But 
as he carried it out, it was overthrown by Archbishop 
Laurence. And as to his 'recensions,' as J. G. Reiche 

' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 463. 

^ Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 246. 



afterwards shewed/ there was no ground for them beyond 
speculation. Nothing that can be termed historical evidence 
has been produced for any such operations having been ac- 
complished as would account for Griesbach's classes. 

But Griesbach also carefully edited a Greek Testament, 
and thoroughly examined the citations of Holy Scripture 
made by Origen. This latter operation, of which the results 
may be seen in his SymbolcB. Criticce^ affords a specimen of 
what must be done in the case at least of the more important 
Ecclesiastical Writers before all the evidence adducible can 
be brought to bear upon controverted points. 

Griesbach carries us into the present century : he died in 
1812. The work was continued by John Martin Augustine 
Scholz, who added, though with much incorrectness, a large 
amount of materials to the stores previously known. His 
contribution consists of no less than 616 Cursive manus- 
cripts. But confidence cannot be reposed in his productions, 
as has been shewn more than once.^ It is remarkable that he 
modified Griesbach's theory of supposed Recensions of 
manuscripts, including the Western of Griesbach amongst 
the Alexandrian, and thus making two instead of three. 
" In the Alexandrian family," says Dr. Scrivener, " he in- 
cluded the whole of Griesbach's Western recension, from 
which, indeed, it seems vain to distinguish it by any broad 
line of demarcation." ^ 

' Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 3S0 and notes. Cook, "Re- 
vised Version," pp. 4-7. J. G. Reiclie, " Commentarius Criticus," 
torn, iii., Observatio Prcevia. 

- Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 474, and note, in which he 
quotes from Dean Burgon's letters to the "Guardian." 

^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 475. 'The untenable point of 
Griesbach's system, even su])posing that it had historic basis, was the 
impossibility of drawing an actual line of distinction between his 


Such was the growth of the Science till towards the 
middle of the present century. It was the natural develop- 
ment of boyhood, invigorated and enlarged by constant 
action, and extending freely on all sides. There was con- 
tinually an amplification of materials, and operations were 
progressively prosecuted over wider and wider fields. Theory 
was pursued less actively, and with not so happy results. 
Different minds succeeded in different provinces ; hardly 
any one in all. ' We are thankful,' says Dr. Davidson, ' to 
the collators of manuscripts for their great labour. But it 
may be doubted whether they be often competent to make 
the best critical text out of existing materials. . . . We should 
rather see the collator and the editor of the text dissociated. 
We should like to have one person for each department.' ^ 

Alexandrian and Western recensions.' — Tregelles, "Printed Text," 

p. 91- 

^ 'Biblical Criticism," vol. ii., pp. 104-5, quoted by Tregelles, 
" Printed Text," p. 172. 



Part II. Contemporary Growth. (3) Youth : — Lach- 


School. (4) Signs of Maturity : — Other Doctors. 
Widening of the Basis. 

BUT now came a change. The impetuosity of youth 
lacked the patience to await a further growth of the 
Science, and to abstain from drawing conclusions till all the 
evidence had been gathered out of all quarters, thoroughly 
examined, sorted, and duly valued. A short and easy 
method of decision was sought and taken. It was too hard 
a lot to leave the inheritance of the promised land to a 
coming generation. If the evidence were too unwieldy 
to be managed in the mass, some was valuable, and some 
not at all. Why not select the valuable, and be guided 
by the verdicts it gave ? 

So arose the School of Extreme Textualism. 

I. Lachmann, the celebrated philologist and critic, pub- 
lished with the aid of Philip Buttmann, an edition of tlie 
New Testament in two volumes, one of which came out in 
1842, and the other in 1850, and both of them at Berlin, 
where he was a professor. His first principle, at which he had 
hinted in a small edition eleven years before, was to discard 


the readings of the ' Received Text,' as being in his opinion 
only about two centuries old ; whereas they conflicted with 
what he conceived to be better authority. His main object 
was to restore, according to the design of Bentley, the text 
of the fourth century, which he supposed had been lost. 
For this purpose he laid aside all the later manuscripts, and 
confined himself to the few older ones. He also admitted 
the earliest Latin versions which existed before St. Jerome 
effected the Vulgate revision. And lastly, he employed 
the testimony of a few of the oldest Fathers. 

Thus in the Gospels he had the guidance of the Alexan- 
drian (A.), the Vatican (B.), the Parisian (C), and four 
fragments,' besides an occasional use of the Cambridge 
manuscript (D) : — the old Italian manuscript in Latin: — 
and the quotations of St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Origen, 
Lucifer, and Hilary. He made a clean sweep of all the 
rest, — a very satisfactory process as far as easiness of revi- 
sion was concerned, — choosing a 'voluntary' and comfort- 
able ' poverty ' of materials, with a haughty disregard of the 
earnest labours of his predecessors." Of his manuscripts, 
only one, the Vatican B, really conducted him into the 
fourth century, and of that he could then use only imperfect 
collations. The most important part of his work has been 
considered to be the toil which he expended upon the old 
Latin texts, and his vindication of their critical value, 
though that is not now held to be quite so high as his esti- 
mate would make it. 

2. Lachmann was succeeded by Samuel Prideaux Tre- 
gelles, whose labours were much more prolific. Brought up 

' P, Q, T, Z. 

^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 478, 9. Tregelles, "Printed 
Text," p. 104. 


amongst the Society of Friends, he passed through the body 
of Plymouth Brethren into the position of a lay member of 
the Church of England/ The most important part of his 
work is to be found in his editions, and especially his colla- 
tions of manuscripts. He edited two, the " Codex Zacyn- 
thius"(S7), belonging to the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
and the fragment O. He collated with great accuracy- 
eighteen Uncials, and thirteen Cursives. And he devoted 
much attention to Versions and Fathers, especially to Origen 
and Eusebius."^ 

He discussed Lachmann's method, in his " Account of 
the Printed Text of the New Testament," and accepted 
unreservedly the first principle. ' To Lachmann must be 
conceded this, that he led the way in casting aside the so- 
called Textus Receptus, and boldly placing the New Testa- 
ment wholly and entirely on the basis of actual authority." 
With this utter disregard of the Received Text, Tregelles 
went on to the endorsement of the next principle, which was 
found in drawing a line of demarcation between the critical 
aids that are to be neglected as valueless, and those upon 
which dependence was to be placed. He divided manu- 
scripts into three classes. The assent of those which were 
anterior to the seventh century was held by him to be 
essential for the settlement of any reading. The Cursives, 
dating since the tenth century, were erroneously regarded by 
him as in general opposed to the ancient copies. And the 
later Uncials, between the seventh and the eleventh centuries, 
appeared to him to be divided in their agreement between 
the modern and the ancient. So that the only trustworthy 

^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 4S7. 

2 "Plain Introduction," p. 486. 

3 Ibid. ' " Printed Text," p. 99. 


authorities were the oldest of these. ^ In a similar spirit, he 
attended to none but the earliest Versions, and to those 
sparingly, and cited no Fathers later than Eusebius in the 
earlier half of the fourth century. The reasons for this latter 
Hmitare : (i) because Eusebius ' is on the Hne of demarcation 
between the earlier text, and that which afterwards became 
widely diffused ; and (2) because of the absolute necessity of 
confining such an examination between such limits as it might 
be practicable for one individual to reach in any moderate 
number of years.' ' Tregelles died in 1875, before his Greek 
Testament was fully out. 

3. But the most conspicuous figure in this school was 
Constantine Tischendorf, a man of the most remarkable 
energy and success, who in the services that he rendered in 
assembling materials for Textual Criticism, and in present- 
ing them for employment to establish the genuineness of 
any reading, has out-topped even the most considerable 
figures in the long Une of his predecessors. The eighth 
edition of his Greek Testament is an amazing monument of 
the incessant toil which occupied a life that ended on Dec. 
7, 1874, shortly before the completion of his sixtieth year. 

A record of his contributions to the critical aids to 
Textual Criticism has been given by Dr. Caspar Rene 
Gregory, who with some assistance from Professor Ezra 
Abbot, has written the first part of the " Prolegomena " to 
Tischendorfs Greek Testament. Tischendorf^ discovered 

' "Printed Text," p. 180. "Prolegomena to Greek New Testa- 
ment," ix. He virtually rejected all Uncials later than the end of 
the sixth century, except L. X., A., 9, and all Cursives whatever, 
except I, 33, 69, i.e., all that sided with the Textus Receptus. 

* "Prolegomena," xviii. Home and Tregelles "Introduction to 
the New Testament," p, 342, ^ P. 91. 

24 YOUTH. 

fifteen Uncials, including the great Sinaitic manuscript ({<), 
besides using for the first time twenty-three ; he edited 
twenty-one, copied out four, and collated thirteen, not to 
reckon much labour spent upon more than thirty others, 
and toil of a smaller kind that is scarce recorded. 

In the year 1844, whilst travelling under the patronage of 
Frederick Augustus King of Saxony, in quest of manu- 
scripts, Tischendorf reached the Convent of St. Catherine, 
on Mount Sinai. Here observing some old-looking docu- 
ments in a basketful of papers ready for lighting the stove, 
he picked them out, and discovered that they were forty- 
three vellum leaves of the Septuagint Version. He was 
allowed to take these : but in the desire of saving the other 
parts of the manuscript of which he heard, he explained 
their value to the monks, who being now enlightened would 
only allow him to copy one page, and refused to sell him 
the rest. On his return he published in 1846 what he had 
succeeded in getting, under the title of the " Codex Fride- 
rico-Augustanus," inscribed to his benefactor. In 1859, he 
was again in the East, being sent by Alexander II., Em- 
peror of Russia, and was received at the convent as an 
emissary from the Great Protector of the Eastern Church. 
One night in a conversation with the steward, he was 
shewn a manuscript, ' written on loose leaves and wrapped 
in a red cloth,' and was allowed to examine it. He sat up 
all night with his treasure, for as he said, ' it seemed wicked to 
sleep.' He found a complete New Testament, a large portion 
of the Septuagint, the Epistle of St. Barnabas, and a fragment 
of the Shepherd of Hermas. After this, he was allowed to 
copy the manuscript, and the Codex was in course of time 
presented to the Emperor, and is now at St. Petersburg.^ 

' "Christian Remembrancer," xlvi., p. 194. Scrivener's "Plain 


Before the discovery of this important manuscript, Tis- 
chendorf had issued seven editions of his Greek Testament. 
In these, so far as the third, he had paid scarcely any 
attention to the Cursive manuscripts. After that edition, 
the course of his studies led him to introduce their record 
into his lists of authorities on passages. The consequence 
was that his seventh edition has been calculated to differ from 
the third in 1,296 instances, 'in no less than 595 of which 
(430 of the remainder being mere matters of spelUng) he 
returned to the readings of the Received Text, which he had 
before deserted, but to which fresh materials and larger 
experience had brought him back.' ^ The eighth edition 
was constructed with the help of the newly discovered 
Sinaitic manuscript (^) and his attachment to the treasure 
that he had rescued proved too much for him. He altered 
his seventh edition in no less than 3,369 instances, generally 
in compliance with the Sinaitic copy, * to the scandal,' as 
Dr. Scrivener justly remarks, 'of the science of Comparative 
Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discern- 
ment and accuracy.'" 

Much therefore as we may and must ever feel indebted to 
Tischendorf for the invaluable results of his labours, we 
cannot regard him as a man of sober and solid judgment. 
I lis zigzag course does not impress us with the soundness of 
any position upon w^hich he found himself throughout it. 

4. But the principles of this School of Textualists have 
reached their most complete exposition in the " Introduction 
to the Greek Testament," edited by Professors Westcott and 
Hort. This edition was founded upon labour in the case 

Introduction, pp. 87, 88. Tischendorf, " Codex Sinaiticus, " Proleg., " 
p. xxii. Scrivener, "Codex Sinaiticus," vii — ix. 

' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 529. '^ Ibid. 

26 YOUTH. 

of both those erudite men extending through nearly thirty 
years, including the period when as Revisers they were 
assisting in the Revision of the English Translation. 
Copies were however printed privately and placed in the 
hands of all the Revisers. It was not till the revision was 
out that they became public property. And shortly after- 
wards an elaborate and ingenious Introduction was pub- 
lished, from the hand, as is stated, of Dr. Hort.^ 

The object of the Introduction is evidently to reduce to a 
definite system the principles of Lachmann, and to advance 
grounds upon which the testimony of a few authorities 
standing by themselves may be accepted in preference to 
the verdict of the great majority of witnesses. Accordingly 
it is argued that a text which is found in the fourth century, 
although it was rejected and lay in all but oblivion through- 
out the succeeding ages,' is the genuine form and therefore 
must be followed. This doctrine leads to the exaltation of 
B and K — but especially B ^ — into such an unique [)Osition, 
that after an examination of these principles and their appli- 
cation, an observer unacquainted with the history of manu- 
scripts would imagine that these two very far surpassed all 
others both in antiquity and in an indisputable purity of 
expression. And indeed an attempt is made, based upon a 
large amount of speculation, but the very slenderest degree 
of evidence, to add a couple of centuries to their virtual 
age. But it must ever be remembered that A and C are 
nearly as ancient as B and K. Indeed, one opinion makes 

' P. 1 8. Yet it is true that, ' barely the smallest vestige of historical 
evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accom- 
plished editors.' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 531. 

■^ Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," pp. 91, 92, no, 142. Vol. i., 

PP- 547. 550- 

^ Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," pp. 171, no. 


A only about fifty years younger than B the eldest of the 
pair.^ Besides which, according to dates now admitted, B 
and probably {^ were produced under the dark gloom of 
Asian ascendency ; A and C in the light of the most intel- 
lectual period of the early Church. 

This deference to B, amounting almost to a superstitious 
adulation,- leads the two learned Professors to follow it when- 
ever it is supported by only slight testimony from other quar- 
ters.^ Thus they adopt all the readings already enumerated 
in the Introduction to this little Treatise, and a vast number 
of others of the same kind.^ 

For example, they make St. Mark ' declare that the 
dancing-girl who demanded the head of John the Baptist was 
Herod Antipas' own daughter, and that her name was Hero- 
dias, in flat contradiction to the account in St. Matthew as 
edited by themselves, and at variance also with the his- 
tory of the family, as given by Josephus.*^ Again, the Lord 
is represented by them in St. Luke ' as preaching in the 
synagogues of Judea at the very time which He is said by 
St. Matthew and St. Mark to have spent in doing the same 
in the synagogues of Galilee, and when He ought to have 
been in the latter part of the Holy Land according to the 
context of the passage itself. Also in Acts x. 19, the Holy 
Spirit is described as telling St. Peter that two men were 

' Cooke, " Revised Version," p. 185. 

- Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," pp. 529, 530. 

■' Westcott and Hort, "Introduction, 230-246. 

* Pp. 2, 3: — Occasionally, as in St. Luke xxii. 19, 20; xxiv. 3, 6, 
9, 12, 36, 40, 52, even against the authority of B and N. 

'' St. Mark vi. 22. avTov for avrtig. The context in St. Mark is 
against this reading, which is besides ungrammatical. 

^ St. Matt. xiv. 6. Josephus, " Antiq.," xviii., 5, §§. I, 2, 4. 

' St. Luke iv. 44. 'lovdaiag for TaXiXaiac. St. Matt. iv. 23, St. 
Mark i. 39. 

28 YOUTH. 

seeking Him, when the seventh verse had made it clear that 
there were three, viz., two of CorneHus' servants and a sol- 
dier who was his constant attendant.^ And in Acts xii. 25, 
St. Paul and St. Barnabas are said to have returned from 
Jerusalem to Jerusalem, when they were really going back 
from Jerusalem to Antioch. Lastly, — not to make thesj3eci- 
men instances too numerous, — the Professors omit, and the 
Revisers too, 'the precious verse' (St. Matt. xvii. 21) 
* which declares that this kind goeth not out but by prayer 
and fasting,' notwithstanding that only three manuscripts, B 
and N and 33, testify by themselves for the omission against 
a very host of varied witnesses.^ 

This servile submission to B, in the face of copious testi- 
mony, may be also seen in their presentment of proper names. 
Such are Melitene for Melita, evidently a transcriptional blun- 
der,^ Nazara in two places only for Nazareth,' Beezebul for 
Beelzebul,' Joanes for Joannes,^ the uncouth trunks Koum 
and Golgoth,'' and — also a transcriptional mistake — the 
singular appellative Titius Justus.^ They have also, with 

' Also Acts xi. II. 

^ Dean Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 91, 92, supplies these 
witnesses. Omission of verses is very common with these editors. 

^ MELITIiHNH202. By eliding the article »'/, and attaching the 
first syllable of i^jjcroc to MtX/r??. Acts xxviii. i. See Burgon, "Re- 
vision Revised," p. 177. The letters in the oldest Uncial Manuscripts 
had no spaces between them. 

** St. ?klatt. iv. 13 : St. Luke iv. 16. They read elsewhere Na^opjf^ 
and No^rtpar. 

^ E. g. St. Matt. X. 25. 

^ Though only due to the scribe of B, /. c. also in the parts of n 
written by that scribe. " Introduction," p. 159. 

' St. Mark v. 41 : St. Matt, xxvii. 33 : St. Matt. xv. 22 : St. John 
xix. 17. 

8 ONOMATIIOUiiTOU. Insert a second T between the last syl- 


more reason and authority on their side, but with needless 
eccentricity, changed the order of Books, placing the 
CathoHc Epistles before those of St. Paul. 

To such results as these Professors Westcott and Hort 
have been guided in obedience to inexorable theory. Never- 
theless, they have here and there sacrificed their consistency 
to some extent, as, for example, when they have shrunk from 
disfiguring St. Paul's exquisite description of Charity by the 
assertion that Charity ' seeketh not what is not her own,' and 
therefore that she adds to numerous sublime traits a freedom 
from gross violations of the eighth and tenth commandments. 
But this fitful courage does not keep them from admitting 
that such a bathos as this might possibly not have ofl:ended 
the inspired taste of St. Paul, inasmuch as they have placed 
in their margin this stupid blunder of the scribe of B.^ 

The Theory of the Cambridge Professors that leads to 
such results will be explained and sifted in the next chapter. 
But one feature in it must be noticed here. The authors 
adduce the slenderest support from actual evidence : in- 
genious as it is, their course of reasoning is ' entirely destitute 
of historical foundation.' " Dr. Hort gives no array of autho- 
rities in text or notes, and does not build up his theory upon 
acknowledged or produced facts. 

The system thus unfolded has derived greater prominence 
from its having been mainly adopted by ' Two Members of 
the New Testament Company ' in their defence of the 

lable of ovofiari and the first two of 'lovcrrov, and Tiriov is made imme- 
diately, and is due alone to B. 

^ oi) ZrjTH TO. fxi) tavTrjg after a faulty MS. used by Clement of 
Alexandria (252 Potter, 92 Migne), who, however (947 Potter, 345 
Migne), gives the true words. 

' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 537. 


Revisers' Greek Text. No one can read their pamphlet/ 
or examine the readings admitted by a majority of the 
Revisers and defended by them, without seeing that, although 
their action is in some respects independent of Drs. Westcott 
and Hort, they generally uphold the principles advocated by 
those learned men. Indeed, alterations depending only upon 
B and J>^, and sometimes upon B alone with some other 
support, are frequently preferred in the Revised Version 
before readings of the Textus Receptus, notwithstanding 
that the latter are so numerously and strongly attested, that 
on no other grounds except extreme deference to those 
Uncials could such a verdict be rejected. 

The championship and support of men so learned and 
illustrious must carry great weight. And the question arises 
whether it be not so strong as to lead all who admire their 
great qualities to abide by their conclusions. Or is it 
possible, that as in the history of much human opinion, even 
they may have been induced to take a wrong turn in early 
days, and that they have been led into a valley attractive in 
itself but whence the best views have been excluded ? Strange 
as such a conclusion might seem, the results of the present 
inquiry seem to point imperatively in no other direction. 
And such is the contention of men quite as eminent in this 
province as the upholders of the opinions just described. 

IV. Signs of Coming Maturity. 

Textual Criticism would not be governed by the principles 
that underlie all movements of human thought, if the 
strenuous pursuance of so limited a course as the one 

' "The Revisers and The Greek Text of the New Testament," by 
Two Members of the New Testament Company, 1882. 


recently followed did not provoke a departure in another 
direction. Accordingly strong opposition was made within 
the Revisers' Company by a stout minority headed by Dr. 
Scrivener the first textual critic of the day, and tacitly sup- 
ported by Members of the Company who had ceased to act, 
as well as by other deep students of the subject, such as 
Dean Burgon and Canon Cook. And their advocacy has 
been developed into the teaching of a Rival and rising 
School, under which the basis is widened, and the building 
is being constructed out of all the materials within reach. 

I. The labour spent by Dr. Scrivener upon Textual 
Criticism is well known from his admirable Introduction 
to the Science, a handbook ^ which leaves hardly anything, 
if anything, to be desired. Dr. Scrivener's candour, and 
patient and conscientious consideration of every point that 
presents itself, and of every opinion resting upon intelligence, 
are conspicuous in all that he has written upon this subject. 
And his accuracy, a matter of extreme importance in these 
matters, stands at the very top of editorial and collational 
work. ' Let the truth be told,' says the Dean of Chichester, 
*■ C. F. Matthaei and he [i.e. Dr. Scrivener] are the only two 
scholars who have collated any considerable number of 
sacred codices with the needful amount of accuracy.' " 

In 1853, Dr. Scrivener published 'A full and exact Colla- 
tion of about twenty Greek manuscripts of the Holy Gospels.' 
In his Introduction he said : 'The following pages comprise 
a humble yet earnest attempt to revive among the country- 
men of Bentley and Mill some interest in a branch of 

"' "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for 
the use of Biblical Students," by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., 
LL.D., tVc, 3rd edition, 1883. 

- "The Revision Revised," p. 246. 


Biblical learning which, for upwards of a century, we have 
tacitly abandoned to continental scholars.' The success of 
this attempt, if limited in these earlier days of Dr. Scrivener's 
influence to comparatively a small band of scholars, never- 
theless has been conspicuous. This work was followed in 
1859 by 'An exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis . . . 
to which is added a Full Collection of Fifty Manuscripts.' 
To both of these works valuable Introductions are prefixed, 
explanatory of the principles of the Science, and containing 
discussions upon controverted questions, such as whether 
there are families of Manuscripts, and against the partial use 
of only a few authorities, as advocated by Lachmann and 
Tregelles. In 1864, he published 'A Full Collation of the 
Codex Sinaiticus' (K), with corrections of errata in Tischen- 
dorf 's editions of the same manuscript. And in the same 
year he edited for the University of Cambridge a handsome 
volume containing the great Cambridge manuscript (D). 
Such, with his ' Plain Introduction ' already noticed, have 
been his chief, but by no means his only works. 

The line taken by Dr. Scrivener has uniformly been that 
all evidence must be employed in comparative or Textual 
Criticism. Yet not all indiscriminately; but each being 
assigned its proper value. Thus he by no means accedes 
to the proposal of neglecting the Received Text. But, on 
the other hand, he has ever admitted that revision is required, 
and has been ready to submit to the clear verdict of evidence. 
He would proceed with far-sighted and wide-viewed caution ; 
and would urge that everything possible should be done to 
make all documents of whatever sort ready to minister in 
their several places to well-pondered conclusions. 

2. Of about the same age as Dr. Scrivener, but in the en- 
joyment of better health, the Dean of Chichester is a re- 


doubtable champion upon the same side. His first Book in 
this department was a vindication of " The Last Twelve 
Verses of St. Mark's Gospel/' published in 1871, in which ac- 
cording to the award of the first living judge, he ' has thrown 
a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous 
tone of his book misbecome one who is conscious of having 
triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to 
him.' Even so unfavourable a judge as Mr. Hammond 
admits the cogency and success of his arguments.^ Another, 
marked with the natural impetuosity of Dean Burgon's contro 
versial style, but bristling with learning, and built upon re- 
markably strong and detailed foundations, which, as it 
appears, many of his opponents have not the patience to 
examine accurately, is "The Revision Revised," a republica- 
tion of Articles in the " Quarterly Review," with additions, 
chiefly upon the disputed text in the First Epistle to St. 
Timothy." Besides these books the Dean is constantly at 
work, and is beUeved to have copious materials for future 
publication. And his "Letters from Rome" (1862), and 
sundry letters from time to time in the " Guardian " news- 
paper, as well as contributions to editions of Dr. Scrivener's 
" Plain Introduction," to the last of which he has added 
particulars of three hundred and seventy-four manuscripts 
previously unknown to the world of letters, are results of toil 
which has been continued for many years. 

Dean Burgon has incurred much misrepresentation. He 
does not maintain the faultlessness of the Received Text ; 
he is not a devoted adherent of the Alexandrian Codex (A) ; 

^ "Outlines of Textual Criticism," &c., by C. E. Hammond, 
M.A., 3rd ed., pp. 116-23. 

- I Timothy iii. 16. Geog instead of the advocated oq or b. See 
below, "Appendix," vii. 



he does not simply count his authorities, or follow the largest 
number, irrespectively of their weight and value. But he 
urges that all should be taken into account ; 'that the Truth 
of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the 
consentient testimony of the largest number of the best 
Copies, Fathers, Versions ; ' ^ that that is the Truth which 
* enjoys the earliest, the fullest, the widest, the most respect- 
able, and — above all things — the most varied attestation ; ' ^ 
that all the existing Copies must be assembled and accu- 
rately collated, the Versions edited, and the Fathers indexed 
before a revision of the Greek Text can be successfully ac- 
complished ; ^ that evidence and examination prove con- 
vincingly that the Vatican (B)and the Sinaitic (K) manuscripts 
exhibit really bad, instead of good, texts ; ^ and that all must 
be rested upon definite external attestation, not upon the 
shifting sands of conjecture, opinion, taste, and other internal 
sources of inference.^ It should be added, that Dean Burgon 
surpasses everyone in acquaintance with Patristic evidence of 

3. Another learned maintainer of this view of the contro- 
versy is Canon Cook, the editor in chief of the " Speaker's 
Commentary." His controversy with the Bishop of Durham 
upon the rendering of the last petition in the Lord's Prayer, 
on which his last and longest letter has remained as yet 
unanswered, and his treatise upon the " Revised Version of 
the First Three Gospels," have been important contributions 
to the literature of this subject. Calm, moderate, weighty in 
argument, learned, persuasive, he has controverted the main 
positions of the opposed School in the latter of these two 

^ " The Revision Revised," p. 51S, 

^ Ibid., p. 339. ■'' Ibid., pp. 125, 247, note. 

* Ibid., pp. 11-17, 249, 262-265. ' Ibid., pp. 19-20, 253. 


works with great cogency. He maintains that the Vatican 
(B) and Sinaitic (N) Codices have been unduly exalted ; 
that the Alexandrian (A), which in the Gospels fairly repre- 
sents the text used by St. Chrysostom and his great contem- 
poraries, is superior to them ; that the former two were 
probably written under the direction of Eusebius ; and that 
the theories and arguments of Drs. Westcott and Hort are 
destitute of solid foundation. 

Also those eminent Scholars, Bishops Christopher and 
Charles Wordsworth — ' Par nobile Fratrum ' — the loss of 
the first of whom we are now deploring,^ have spoken upon 
the same side in Charges delivered to the Clergy of their 
Dioceses, deprecating amongst other things ' too much 
confidence in certain favourite manuscripts.' ^ 

Nor is this contention without contemporary support upon 
the Continent. In 1862, Dr. J. G. Reiche warned scholars 
against the dangerous principles introduced by Lachmann, 
and the almost superstitious veneration that was then paid to 
Lachmann's text. And especially he spoke against the prac- 
tice introduced by that learned scholar of consulting only a 
few witnesses, observing especially that several of the Ver- 
sions are older than any manuscripts.^ In i860, writing from 
Leyden, A. Kuenen and C. G. Cobet, in the Preface to an 

^ Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, Charge, Nov. 1881. 

^ I cannot pass on without a tribute to the fearless faithfulness, the 
vast mass of learning ever at hand, the open munificence, and the 
administrative capacity of that great man. 

' Cui Pudor, at Justitise sorer, 
Incorrupta Fides, nudaque Veritas, 
Quando ullum invenient parem ? ' 

^ " Commentarius Criticus," Tomus iii. Ep. ad Heb. et Ep. Cath. 
continens. Observatio prsevia. Cook, "Revised Version," pp. 4-7. 
Burgon, "The Revision Revised," pp. 380-Sl. 


edition of the Vatican Codex, protested against the notion 
that because that was the oldest manuscript it therefore pos- 
sessed an authority paramount to that of all others. On the 
contrary, they asserted, proving the assertion with a copious 
array of evidence, that ' there is no kind of error that is not 
frequently found in that manuscript as in all the rest.' ^ 
Also at the beginning of 1884, Dr. J. H. A. Michelsen, in 
the " Theologisch Tijdschrift," a monthly magazine pub- 
lished at Leyden, submitted the text of B and K to a vigorous 
examination. From internal proofs, such as glosses intro- 
duced from other passages, readings plainly bad where better 
exist, and omissions of verses and paragraphs, all copiously 
illustrated, he drew the conclusion that the so-called Neutral 
Text is not so good as the advocates of it claim, and directed 
attention to the dangerous traversing of the principle, ' Quod 
semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,' which is involved 
in the acceptance of that form of Text. 

Besides these, we may reckon the strong sentiment pre- 
vailing in the Roman Branch of the Church. Vercellone, 
the editor of B, now no more, held no such opinions as those 
of Extreme Textualism. Ceriani, of Milan, and a learned 
writer in the "Dublin Review,"^ seem to represent what is 
held in those quarters. And the Abbe Martin, of Paris, in 
his elaborate " Fascicules " maintains the same side of the 

It will be seen from this sketch, that so far from ques- 
tions being already settled amongst the learned and ripe 
for a general decision which would enjoy universal assent, 
two Rival Schools are now contending for the ascendency. 

^ "Novum Testamentum, ad fid. Cod. Vat., ed. A. Kuenen et 
C. G. Cobet," Praefatio, p. xiii. &c. 

^ Jan. 1884. On " New Testament Vaticanism." 


The one, of German origin, is strongly and ably maintained 
in England, and reckons large support amongst Biblical 
Scholars. The other, headed by the first Textual Critic of 
the day, and earnestly advocated by accomplished Theolo- 
gians, counts also among its adherents Roman Catholics 
in England and on the Continent, including experts in Italy 
and elsewhere. Therefore careful and respectful considera- 
tion is further necessary, in order that after contrasting and 
weighing the several characteristics of both Schools, we 
may know from solid considerations which of the two to 


the school of extreme textualism. 
Theory of Westcott and Hort explained and 


' A NEW period began in 1831, when for the first time a 
jr\ text was constructed directly from the ancient docu- 
ments without the intervention of any printed edition, and 
when the first systematic attempt was made to substitute 
scientific method for arbitrary choice in the discrimination 
of various readings.' So the leading masters in the First of 
the Rival Schools attribute its foundation to Lachmann.^ 
Drs. Westcott and Hort began with Lachmann's principles,' 
and after many years have brought them to their natural 
and extreme development in the elaborate system which they 
have constructed, and which is in the main accepted and 
upheld by other adherents of this School.'' 

Therefore the chief characteristics of the teaching of this 
School, so far as they have been hitherto unfolded in public, 
may be derived from Dr. Hort's elaborate Introduction. 

So far as they are peculiar to the School, they are suscep- 
tible of classification under the following heads : — Internal 

^ Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 13. 

2 Ibid., p. 16. 

3 So the two members of the Revisers' Company ; Professor Sanday 
in the " Contemporaiy Review," Dec. 1881 ; Archdeacon Farrar, "Ex- 
positor," 1882 ; and a writer in the " Church Quarterly,'' Jan. 1882. 


iLvidence, Genealogy, Families or Groups, the worth lessness 
of the Syrian Text (so-called), and the super-eminent excel- 
lence of B and the other representatives of the (so-termed) 
Neutral Text/ 

I. In dealing with the divergent evidence which is con- 
stantly presented in different passages, two main considera- 
tions, so Dr. Hort tells us, offer themselves, viz.. Which is 
in itself the most probable reading? and, What is the cha- 
racter of the documents by which it is supported ? Now a 
reading may in the first place be recommended by its own 
likeHhood. It may make better sense than the rival word, 
or phrase, or clause, or sentence. It may be more in keep- 
ing with the author's style of writing, or his matter of com- 
position, as gathered from other passages. But Dr. Hort 
lays no stress on all this, and urges that the most important 
part of what is called Internal Evidence consists in acquaint- 
ance with the character of the Documents themselves in 
which the readings are found. Hence his first principle : — 
' Knowledge of Documents should precede Final Judgments 
upon Readings.' 

Now the character of a Document, he says, depends, 
ia) chiefly upon its date, {b) next upon the purity or cor- 
ruption of its text. The character of the text may be dis- 
covered by a large comparison of its readings with other 
ascertained readings, according to careful methods." Judged 
in this manner, the Vatican MS. especially, and the Sinaitic 
also, are predominant, not only by reason of their un- 

' These terms, Syrian, Alexandrian, Neutral, as used by the two 
Professors, can only be employed under protest, till they can be proved 
to have anything but an imaginary existence. 

' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," pp, 30-39. The entire ac- 
count is too involved to give here. 


rivalled antiquity, but also because of the excellence of 
their text. 

2. But now, as Dr. Hort argues, another important factor 
comes into sight. Scribes transcribed from documents, 
and thus one document became the parent of the next. 
So we are introduced to the use of arguments derived 
from Genealogy. ' All trustworthy restoration of corrupted 
texts is founded upon the study of their history, that is of 
the relations of descent or affinity which connect the several 
documents.'^ In this way, one manuscript may be found, 
as Dr. Hort thinks, to have proceeded from another, and 
the weight of authority from both becomes only the weight 
of authority possessed by the earlier of the two. Again, 
two or more documents are observed to be so similar to one 
another that they must have been transcribed either directly, 
or through one or more intervening ancestors, from a 
common original. Accordingly, their united authority, 
how many soever they are, does not exceed the authority of 
their single original. But ' identity of reading implies iden- 
tity of origin ; ' and the outlines of such a common original 
may be deciphered in the resemblances of manuscripts, and 
the purity of a text inferred in discarding individual traces 
of corruption. Thus Dr. Hort concludes, upon close exami- 
nation, that B and K were derived from a common original 
much older than themselves, ' the date of which cannot be 
later than the early part of the second century, and may 
well be yet earlier.' This would bring our chief documen- 
tary authority nearly back to the Apostolic autographs, and 
would invest it with paramount importance. 

3. The same conclusion is reached by Dr. Hort from a 
consideration of the families or groups into which docu- 
' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 40. 


ments are divided by him. History shews that one mainly 
uniform text has prevailed from the present time as far back 
as the second half of the fourth century. This he denomi- 
nates the ' Syrian' text (i.), which he declares to have derived 
its origin from a recension made at Antioch, and to have 
come thence to Constantinople, since Antioch was the ' true 
ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople.'^ Enthroned thus 
in the Eastern capital, it became dominant in the Christian 
world. But there are said by him to have been three other 
texts ' which can be identified through numerous readings 
distinctively attested by characteristic groups of extant 
documents.' These are called by Dr. Hort (ii.) the Western, 
which was found in Italy, Africa, and other parts of the 
West, as well as originally in Syria, and dealt largely in 
paraphrase and interpolation, as may be seen in the Cam- 
bridge Codex Bez?e (D), its chief existing representative ; 
(iii.) the Alexandrian, of which but little evidence remains; 
and (iv.) the Neutral, which is free from the peculiarities of 
either, and of which there are traces, ' indubitable and signi- 
ficant,' 'in the remains of Clement and Origen, together 
with the fragment of Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria,' 
and ' in a certain measure in the works of Eusebius of 
Cajsarea, who was deeply versed in the theological literature 
of Alexandria.' ' 

4. It appears, therefore, Dr. Hort continues, that of these 
four types of text, two are affected with peculiar traces of 
corruption, viz., the Western which degenerated into para- 
phrase, and ' incorporation of extraneous matter,' and the 
Alexandrian, which is oppressed with minor faults, such as 
'incipient paraphrase and skilful assimilation.' The Neutral 
alone of the remaining two reached back to earliest times. 

' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 143. - Ibid., p. 127, 


The Syrian is represented as worthless, because it was made 
up in the fourth century, as is attempted to be proved in the 
following manner : — 

(i.) The analysis of certain passages, of which eight are 
given, is declared by Dr. Hort to prove that the ' Syrian ' 
Text was made up by an eclectic combination of the read- 
ings of other texts into one ' conflate ' reading. For instance, 
in St. Mark vi. 33, at the end of the verse, the 'Neutral' 
reading is said to be Ka\ TrpoiiXSov avrov(, the '^Vestern' 
avvriXdov avrov, both of which are supposed to be com- 
bined in the 'Syriac' into Kal TrpoiiXdoy avrovi;, teal avvrjXQov 
irpoQ avTov. Dr. Hort argues at some length that the last 
phrase spoils St. Mark's diction. And from this and similar 
instances he draws the conclusion that at some authori- 
tative revision the other texts were blended into a 'form 
lucid and complete, smooth and attractive, but appre- 
ciably impoverished in sense and force, more fitted for 
cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent 

(2.) The same conclusion is supposed to be reached by 
the evidence of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, none of whom — it 
is contended — exhibit a 'Syrian' Text. The Latin Fathers, 
of course, quote the Western ; and they are said to be fol- 
lowed by Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Hippolytus, Methodius, 
and Eusebius.^ In the works of Clement of Alexandria, it 
is maintained that non-Western as well as Western quota- 
tions are discoverable, but no 'Syrian;' and in those of 
Origen all the other kinds of texts can be found, but none, 
Dr. Hort thinks, of a distinctively ' Syrian ' character. 

(3.) This position, as Dr. Hort argues, is confirmed by 

' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 113. 


the internal evidence of various passages, though it is ad- 
mitted that the authors of the ' Syrian ' Text ' may have 
copied from some other equally ancient and perhaps purer 
text now otherwise lost.' ^ But Dr. Hort says that examina- 
tion shews that this text was made up by revisers from the 
rest, sometimes by following one or other, sometimes by 
modification, or by combination, or pruning, or by intro- 
ducing changes of their own when they had none to follow.^ 

Hence, Dr. Hort concludes that 'all distinctively Syrian 
readings may be set aside at once as certainly originating 
after the middle of the third century, and therefore, as far 
as transmission is concerned, corruptions of the apostolic 
text.' He even asserts that they can attest nothing by 
themselves, and do not always add strength to attestations of 
the other texts, because they may themselves be only derived 
from the original autographs through those very texts. 

5. It follows, he thinks, that the Neutral, where it can be 
verified, remains as alone the pure representative of the un- 
alloyed Scriptures of the New Testament. It has been 
already declared that, in his opinion, B and ^^, the leading 
MSS. which set forth this text, enjoy a special pre-eminence, 
because of their superior antiquity, and by reason of their 
purity of text. 

Accordingly, with slight exception, 'readings of K B should 
be accepted as the true readings until strong internal evidence 
is found to the contrary, and no readings of K B can safely 
be rejected absolutely, though it is sometimes right to place 
them only on an alternative footing, especially where they re- 
ceive no support from Versions or Fathers.' Of the two, B 
is the purer, which ' must be regarded as having preserved 

' Westcott and Hort, "Introduction," p. 115. ^ Ibid., p. 118. 


not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of very 
ancient text,' ' K having on its way fallen upon ' at least two 
early aberrant texts.' ' When therefore B stands with any 
other leading manuscript alone without {<, its readings nearly 
always ' have the ring of genuineness.' ' And * even when 
B stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly re- 
jected.' * 

Such, so far as the present limits will admit, are the lead- 
ing points in the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. If it 
has been improperly portrayed, this is not due to any want 
of desire to do justice to it. 

And indeed even what has been here said, and still more 
the elaborate treatises in the Introduction and at the end of 
the text of the Greek Testament, must impress all persons 
deeply with the patient ingenuity, the critical acumen, and 
the mastery of the subject evinced by those distinguished 

But whether this Theory has a strong and solid foundation, 
and will endure the shock of the long examination and 
vigorous analysis that it is sure to encounter, or indeed 
whether it has any foundation at all, is quite another matter. 
The solution which it offers in all difficulties is too suspi- 
ciously easy. It almost amounts to this : — ' Do not trouble 
yourself about other authorities, but attend to B and J<, which 
will supply all you want.' How can it be right to cast to the 
winds at least four-fifths of the evidence — if it be not vastly 
more — and to draw the inferences solely from the remainder ? 
Such a course cannot but carry with it its own condemna- 
tion. And on studying and testing the Theory, the first 
thing that strikes a man of logical mind is, that he sees an 

' Westcott and Hort, "Introduction," p. 251. - Ibid., p. 249.^^'^^ 
^ Ibid., p. 227. ^ Ibid., Preface, p. 557. 


ambitious and lofty outline, which upon closer examination 
turns out to be merely cloud reared upon cloud. There 
is no firm footing for the feet of an inquirer. The impal- 
pable and shadowy nature of the investigation contrasts 
strangely with the gravity and earnestness of the writer. 
There is abundance of considerations, surmises, probabili- 
ties, generalizations, made both from known particulars of 
history and from details lying in the memories or in the 
private note-books of the authors ; but an array of facts 
strong enough to establish satisfactorily each stage in ad- 
vance is wholly wanting, whilst the leaps made in ardent 
speculation here and there over wide chasms reveal the in- 
security of the country traversed. Proofs are required : and 
no real proofs are offered. Seldom indeed has a theory been 
advanced with so few facts for its basis. 

Passing now to the examination of the general considera- 
tions that are presented, we find too litde stress laid upon 
such Internal Evidence as is grounded upon clear facts or 
sound sense, and too much upon a classification of docu- 
ments which rests exclusively upon individual opinion. The 
real judge of Internal Evidence is the sanctified intellect, 
applying the conclusions, not of separate minds of a peculiar 
cast, not of single schools of opinion neutralized by other 
schools, but of the corporate thought of the Church, resting 
upon a clear foundation of sense or fact, ascertained in a 
vigorous exercise of mental power. And the illumination of 
the sanctified intellect proceeds from the Great Inspirer of 
the Holy Scriptures themselves, the true Interpreter of their 
form and meaning, the Source of all the mental strength in 
the world, the Holy Spirit of the Eternal God. But we do 
not hear from the Extreme Textualist School of any such 
judgment, and so they leave their common sense behind 


them, and we are told that the Lord's side was pierced 
before death, that the sun was ecHpsed when the moon was 
full, and that it is possible that St. Paul may have added to 
the high traits of Charity that she actually refrains from 
seeking what is not her own. On the other hand, such in- 
ferences as are drawn from the natural or known proclivities 
of copyists must be employed sparingly, and cannot support 
much weight in the face of positive attestation. And judg- 
ments upon the Internal character of documents, unless 
generally accepted within the boundaries of the Science, or 
supported by definite, produced, clear reasons, cannot be 
accepted as foundations to build upon. Even pure anti- 
quity, when evidence is scanty, is too rude an instrument of 
relative decision. The comparative assessment of the value of 
ancient origin is not of necessity measured by centuries or de- 
cades, because some of the associations ofthe earliest ages were 
far from good, and any document may reflect them, whilst 
another of later date may be more free from such disturbing 
influences. We do not go back merely to Ante-Nicene times for 
the Canon of Scripture, or we might find cause to include the 
Epistle of St. Barnabas in the list of books. At the same 
time, if we light upon a pure strain of the best antiquity, 
we cannot fail to be on the right track. Again, there may 
be a great variety of opinions upon the purity of any text. 
Drs. Westcott and Hort, and others, rate B and K very high. 
It may perhaps be more than doubted whether such would 
be the verdict of critics, if they approached them without 
knowing what they were. Dr. Scrivener, in his calm and 
dispassionate manner, places the estimate some way down. 
Dean Burgon, upon plain and definite grounds, rates them 
very low. Kuenen and Cobet say that B is full of errors. 
Till agreement is reached, it is evident that reasons so shift- 


ing and unstable can constitute no real pillar of support for 
any superstructure/ 

Next of Genealogy. Here evidently lurk the pitfalls which 
are involved in an analogy made the groundwork of an 
argument. The reasoning is correct, so far as it is impos- 
sible for a good copy to be made from a bad exemplar, 
though to a slight extent external influence, such as the re- 
collection in the copyist of a better guide, may somewhat 
improve the offspring, like good companionship or the effects 
of study ; or secondly, as to the probability that better as 
well as worse features will be reproduced in the copies made 
from it. Again, we are told that, ' so far as genealogical re- 
lations are discovered with perfect certainty,' ' being directly 
involved in historical facts,' ' their immediate basis is his- 
torical, not speculative.' " But indeed inasmuch as ' no single 
step in the descent can be produced, in other words, no 
genealogical evidence exists,'^ all is precarious instead of 

' Dr. Hort goes so far as to admit the use of conjectural emenda- 
tion. (" Introd.," p. 7.) Well may Dean Burgon say, 'Conjectural 
Emendation can be allowed no place whatever in the Textual Criti- 
cism of the New Testament.' This is an established principle 
(Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 490-1.) It is too dangerous an 
instrument in the hand of any man, and wholly devoid of authority, 
which is of the essence of Holy Writ. Besides, the wealth of illustra- 
tion makes it scarce anywhere needed. " When ... it was clear 
that the channels of transmission was sufficient to supply evidence on 
the text, there was no one thing as to which critical editors were more 
unanimous than in the rejection of all conjecture in the formation of 
a text." — Tregelles, "Introduction to the Critical Study," &c., pp. 
149, 150. 

- Westcott and Hart, "Introduction," p. d'l. 

* Dean Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 256. The Dean 
further shows (p. 257) that close relationship is known only in three 
instances, (i) F. and G. ; (2) 13, 69, 124, and 346; and (3) B and 
H ; and that these are related as brothers (or sisters) or cousins, not in 


being historical, and there are no premisses and therefore 
no inference. Between the actual facts and the supposed 
conclusion often lies a long space into which speculation is 
but too apt to enter. 

For instance, when Dr. Hort argues that the similarity to 
one another of those numerous Uncials in what he terms the 
Syrian class shows that they came from one ancestor, and 
that although they largely outnumber X and B, they can 
therefore have at the best only the authority of one ancestor 
set against another ancestor, he entirely disregards the pre- 
sumption that a larger number of descendants came from a 
larger number of ancestors, and that the majority may be 
only thrust back from one generation to a previous one. 
In truth, the argument from genealogy — such as it is — con- 
ducts the unprejudiced inquirer to results the very opposite 
to those of Dr. Hort. 

Again, when it is assumed that the common ancestor of 
K and B came into existence in the early part of the second 
century, there is, so far as genealogy is concerned, a lofty 
disregard of the obvious truth that generations might be 
propagated as fast as the pens of scribes would admit ; and 
that after the wholesale destruction of copies in the persecu- 
tion of Diocletian and Galerius, it is almost certain that 
transcription must have proceeded at a rapid rate. Gene- 
alogy therefore is misleading, for it supplies no warrant for 
any conclusion as to time, and in fact suggests an untrue 
analogy. If on other grounds this is a speculative inference, 
the instinct of such experienced scholars as Drs. Westcott 
and Hort is entitled to respectful consideration. But it 

any direct line of genealogy. To these three instances must now be 
added, since the discovery of 2, the affinity between i: and N. Scrive- 
ner, "Plain Introduction," p. 159. 


cannot be endorsed by other students than themselves, 
until it is proved to have foundation in well-authenticated 
facts duly represented. 

But the principle of Genealogy must be regarded on the 
side of descendants as well as of ancestors. Manuscripts in 
high repute ought to have been largely copied. Was the 
great era of Chrysostom, of Basil, of the Gregories, when the 
Canon of Scripture was settled, and the Faith of Christen- 
dom fixed, so innocent of the value of pure Texts, that the 
learned let the true type preserved in at least two pre- 
eminently good ones languish in obscurity and disuse ? Yet 
whilst the other form of Text numbers its many hundreds, 
Dr. Hort reckons only twelve Neutral MSS. in all of the 
Gospels.^ Can this fact be accounted anything else than a 
deliberate and unremitting condemnation of the tv/o docu- 
ments under investigation ? Incidental proofs are not want- 
ing that the character of disputed passages and of manuscripts 
came under careful discussion during this and the succeed- 
ing ages.^ It is inconceivable that, amidst the wealth of 
dissident documents, and at a time when the literary intellect 
of the world was occupied with ecclesiastical questions, and 
the monuments of past authorship were being stored, there 
could have existed such neglect of the purity of the sacred 
writings of the Church as is taken for granted by Dr. Hort. 
The abundance of contemporary commentaries forbids such 
a supposition. Therefore the Vatican and Sinaitic manu- 
scripts cannot but receive very serious discredit from their 
want of following. 

' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 171. These are B, h, 
'T of St. Luke and St John, S of St Luke, L., 33, ^ (in St. Mark), 
C, Z of St. Matthew, R of St. Luke, Q, and P.' 

^ See below, Chapter VIL 



Again, the theory of Families, or groups, of manuscripts 
cannot stand in any definite or clearly cut shape. Since it 
was first proposed by Bentley, it has passed through constant 
modifications. The foundations laid by one master hav^e 
been disturbed by his successor, whose own excavations and 
masses of cement have been re-made by the next. The 
difficulties to which the constructors of an inexorable theory 
have been driven are shown by the severing of one manu- 
script, after the example of Solomon's award, into portions 
supposed to belong to three Families. Dr. Scrivener is 
surely right in describing this process as ' that violent and 
most unlikely hypothesis, that Cod. A follows the Byzantine 
class of authorities in the Gospels, the Western in the Acts 
and Catholic Epistles, and the Alexandrian in St. Paul.' ^ 

But it may be asked, is there then no truth at all in the 
assignment of characters to manuscripts, or in any sort of 
grouping ? And the answer of a candid inquirer must be 
that there may perhaps be an amount of justice in the con- 
notation of characteristic features, but that great care must 
be taken not to lay too much stress upon it, and certainly 
not to draw a few broad and dark lines separating one 
province from another. And especially, generalizations con- 
structed upon such induction as the case admits, must be 
employed most sparingly in deductive arguments, or logic 
will stand aghast. 

And as to the Families, or groups, suggested by Dr. West- 
cott and Hort, there are no doubt a number of documents 

' " Plain Introduction," p. 472. 'Qure cum ita sint, sequitur exercen- 
tibus rem criticam summa opus esse cautione in adhibenda classium sive 
recensionum distinctione : quam ut summam normam aut fundamentum 
ponere et temerarium et frustra est.' — Tischendorf, quoted by Dr. Caspar 
Rene Gregory, Prolegomena, 1884, p. 196. 


which ordinarily support the Traditional Text, there are also 
others which make for what they call the Neutral Text, and 
others which support Western readings. And there are many 
that take different sides : and most of those which are gene- 
rally found on one, occasionally appear on the other. There 
are also Western readings and Alexandrian readings. But 
the existence of an 'Alexandrian' text, as distinct from their 
* Neutral ' text, is more than doubtful. Dr. Hort's descrip- 
tion of it is of the vaguest, and the materials of proof, which 
are all that he can point to, are of the scantiest. 

We now come to the position resting upon the supposed 
posteriority of the so-called Syrian Text. Here again we are 
in the region of pure speculation unsustained by historical 
facts. Dr. Hort imagines first that there was a recension of 
the early Syrian Version, which this School maintains was 
represented by the Curetonian Version, somewhere between 
250, A.D., and 350, at Edessa, or Nisibis, or Antioch.^ The 
result of this recension is said to have been the Peshito Ver- 
sion, which has hitherto been referred to the second century. 
We may remark, by the way, that the Peshito must be got rid 
of by Extreme Textualists, or it would witness inconveniently 
before the Fourth century to the 'Syrian' Text. Well 
indeed may Dr. Hort add 'even for conjecture the materials 
are scanty.' It would have been truer to the facts to have 
said, ' for such a conjecture there are no materials at all, and 
therefore it must be abandoned.' " 

But Drs. Westcott and Hort also maintain that an authori- 
tative recension of a much larger character was made after 

^ Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," pp. 136, 137. 

•^ See Dr. Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 233-4, and Dean 
Burgon's elaborate proof of the groundlessness of the supposition of any 
authoritative recension at all, in "The Revision Revised," pp. 272-281. 


this at Antioch, and resulted in the formation of the ' Syrian ' 
Text of the Gospels in Greek, which was formed upon the 
Vulgate, or common Syriac Version. What proof exists any- 
where of such an important proceeding ? A recension, 
be it observed, so thorough and so sweeping in its effects, 
that, according to the theory under consideration, it must 
have placed the text it produced in such a commanding 
situation that it has reigned for fifteen centuries without a 
rival. How could this have occurred without an achieve- 
ment so great and famous that the report of it must have 
gone abroad ? Surely this must have been another Council 
of Nicaea, or at least a Council of Ariminum. Such results 
could not have issued from a mystery like that of the view- 
less wind. Yet there is positively no record in the history — 
not to speak of a Council of the Church — but of any single 
incident justifying the assumption that such an authoritative 
revision ever took place. ^ Never surely was there such an 
attempt before made to foist such pure fiction into history. 
But besides that, the arguments for the formation of a new 
text in the Fourth century thoroughly break down. 

(i.) The evidence in only the eight' instances given is 
certainly not enough to establish the existence of such a 
' conflation,' or a combination of supposed other texts into 
one eclectic reading throughout the New Testament. But 
supposing for a moment that these eight were specimens of 
what constantly occurs, who, from internal evidence alone, 
can say dogmatically which is posterior — the entire text, or 
the respective portions of it ? Surely the integral whole, 

^ See Burgon's, "The Revision Revised," pp. 272-88; and Cook's 
" Revised Version," pp. 195-204. Dr. Scrivener calls the two supposed 
recensions 'phantom revisions.' "Plain Introduction," p. 534. 

^ Westcott and Hort, Introduction. 


which Dr. Hort (p. 134) admits to possess 'lucidity and 
completeness,' and to be ' entirely blameless on either lite- 
rary or religious grounds as regards vulgarized or unworthy 
diction,' has the better title to be held to have been the 
original form than any of the separate portions. Omission 
must be a possible fault with all copyists ; ^ and indubitable 
instances show that the scribes of K and B were habitual 
offenders in this respect. With reference to the character 
of the texts, many scholars would not agree with Drs. West- 
cott and Hort in the value which they set upon a Thucydidean 

(2.) As to the alleged absence of readings of the Tradi- 
tional Text from the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 
Dr. Hort draws largely upon his imagination and his wishes. 
The persecution of Diocletian is here also the parent of 
much want of information. But is there really such a dearth 
of these readings in the works of the Early Fathers as is 
supposed? Dr. Scrivener^ maintains that Dr. Hort speaks 
much too sweepingly. Besides this, Dean Burgon has cited 
against the readings advocated by the New School more than 
fifty authorities from Ante-Nicene writings upon five pas- 
sages.' Are these ten testimonies on an average to each 

' St. Jerome traces transcriptional error to three sources : — 
(i) Vel a vitiosis interpretibus male edita, 

(2) Vel a presumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius, 

(3) Vel a librariis dormitantibus addita sunt.' 

Prcefatio ad Damasum. 

^ See note at the end of the chapter. 

^ " Plain Introduction," pp. 533-540. 

^ Last twelve verses of St. Mark ; i Tim. iii. 16 ; St. Luke xxii. 
43, 44; xxiii. 34; ii. 14. 'The number of Early Fathers,' ending 
always with Eusebius, is about 100. Burgon, "Last Twelve Verses," 
p. 21 ; " The Revision Revised," p. 290. See below. Chapter VL, 
end. Dean Burgon's command of Patristic evidence is simply mar- 


passage to be reckoned as alien to the Traditional Text, or 
not rather as evident indications of an earlier origin reach- 
ing back to the Apostolic age ? Besides the Fathers, some 
of the Versions — notably the Peshito, which is referred by 
the best critics to the second century ' — that are older than 
any MSS., give frequent support to the readings of the 
Traditional Text. 

(3.) What is said about Internal Evidence is much too 
vague and misty to sustain so strong a conclusion. And it 
is balanced with the candid admission, that after all the 
peculiar readings of the Received Text may perhaps be 
derived from ' some equally ancient and perhaps purer text 
now otherwise lost.'" What seems to Dr. Westcott and Dr. 
Hort to constitute internal evidence in each instance does 
not seem so to others. Where is the rock amidst this peri- 
lous sand-drift ? 

We are driven therefore to the characters of N and B as 
the last refuge of the Theory under examination. 

And we cannot but be struck with the great argument in 
their favour. They are the oldest MSS. in existence. They 
are extremely handsome, and in some respects are complete.^ 
Their verdict in the opinion of nearly all judges is entitled 
to respectful attention. 

But besides that they are not much older than A and C, 
how can Drs. Westcott and Hort get over the central fact 
that these MSS. have hardly any following in the ages after 

vellous. It is to be hoped that he will communicate to the Church the 
treasures that he must have been long amassing. 

^ See below, Chapter VI. 

^ Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 115. 

^ N is the only complete Uncial copy of the New Testament. B ends 
at Heb. ii. 14, but is complete so far, except in its numerous omissions. 


them, and so have been condemned by Catholic antiquity ? 
They were probably produced about a.d. 330-340/ a short 
time before the Canon of Holy Scripture was settled, when 
the general subject of the Holy Scriptures must have come 
under discussion. They just antedated the most intelligent 
period of the early Church, when the finest intellects in the 
world were engaged in ascertaining the exact lineaments of 
' The Faith once delivered to the saints.' How could these 
men have escaped from spending particular care upon the 
Sacred Text ? We learn that St. Jerome did so upon the 
Latin Versions. And the fact, acknowledged over and over 
again by Dr. Hort, that one uniform text has prevailed from 
that period till now, surely alone constitutes a decisive con- 
demnation of this so-called ' Neutral Text.' 

The period too of the production of these two MSS. is in- 
structive. It was when the Church was all but Semiarian : 
of this there is no doubt. But it appears also extremely 
probable that they were made under the direction of Euse- 
bius of Csesarea, a leader of the Semiarian party. The scribe 
of the Vatican B is supposed by Tischendorf, with the agree- 
ment of Dr. Scrivener and by the admission of Dr. Hort, to 
have written part of the Sinaitic K.^ The date of the execu- 
tion, as fixed upon other grounds, was about the time when 
Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to prepare fifty 
manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures, and send them to Con- 
stantinople. These two MSS. stand unrivalled for the beauty 
of their caligraphy, and of the vellum on which they are 
written, and in all respects are just what we should expect 

' See Cook, "Revised Version," p. 160. 

- I.e., ' six conjugate leaves of Cod. N, being three pairs in three 
distant quires, one of them containing the conclusion of St. Mark's 
Gospel.' "Plain Introduction," p. 92, note 1. 


to have been produced in obedience to an imperial man- 

And, as has been already stated, the text of these two 
manuscripts is not so perfect as would be necessary, if they 
were worthy to be placed upon the high pedestal that is 
prepared for them by their ardent advocates. Dean Burgon 
after collations extending through many years has supplied 
figures which it seems impossible to withstand." The marks 
of carelessness spread over them, especially prevailing in K,are 
incompatible with perfection. Tischendorf, after collating B, 
speaks of the blemishes that occur throughout.^ Dr. Dobbin 
reckons 2,556 omissions in B as far as Heb. ix. 14, where 
it terminates.' Vercellone, the editor, tells of ' perpetual 
omissions,' 'of half a verse, a whole verse, and even of 
several verses.' ' This is just what examination reveals : 
and K is unquestionably worse. Yet doubtless in the tem- 
perate words of Dr. Scrivener, ' we accord to Cod. B at 
least as much weight as to any document in existence.' ^ 
But we cannot agree with those who rate either it or the 
Sinaitic extravagantly high : and the fact that these two are 
frequently found with a few others in a small minority must 

^ See below, Chapter VII, Canon Cook, "The Revised Version," 
pp. 159-183, argues this admirably. Dean Burgon thinks otherwise. 

- "Revision Revised," p. I4, 94-5, 249, cf. 376,384-6. My own 
figures, derived from a smaller collation of the five Uncials, agree 
mainly with those of the Dean, who says that * the task of laboriously 
collecting the five "old uncials" throughout the Gospels, occupied me 
for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely.' (P. 376.) 
" Universa Scriptura; Vatican^ Vitiositas." 
Dublin University Magazine," 1859, p. 620. Dr. Dobbin calcu- 
lates 330 in St. Matthew, 365 in St. Mark, 439 in St. Luke, 357 in St. 
John, 384 in the Acts, and 681 in the Epistles. 

^ Burgon's " Lettere from Rome," p. 18. 

" See "Plain Introduction," p. 116. 

4 (I 


make us always examine their testimony, unless it is strongly 
supported, with suspicion and care/ 

^ Character of B. 

Judged by the ordinary rules of criticism, the text of B is far from 
being of such a superior character as to wai-rant the excessive submis- 
sion that Extreme Textualists claim for it. Thus, besides serious 
blemishes which have been already mentioned (above, pp. 27-29), we find 
in the face of superior readings well attested : — 

(i.) Omissions of an entire verse, or of a longer passage, having all 
the appearance of being intrinsically genuine : — 

Matt. xii. 47 ; xvi. 2, 3 (a verse and eight words) ; xviii. 1 1 ; xxiii. 
14 ; Mark vii. 16 ; ix. 44, 46 ; xi. 26 ; Luke xvii. 36 ; xxiii. 17 ; John v. 
3, 4 (a verse and five words) ; Acts xxiv. 6, 7, 8 (a verse and fourteen 
words) ; xxviii. 29 ; Rom. xv. 24. 

(2.) Similar omissions of more than three words : — 

Matt. V. 44 (12 words) ; xx. 16 (7) ; 22 (6) ; 23 (7) ; xxviii. 9 (7) ; 
Mark vi. 11 (15) ; 33 (4) ; 36 (4) ; viii. 26 (6) ; x. 7 (6) ; 24 (5) ; xi. 
8 (5) ; xii. 30 (4) ; 33 (5) ; Luke i. 28 (angelic salutation, 4), iv. 4 (5) ; 
5 (5) ; vi. 45 (5) ; viii. 16 (6) ; 43 (6) ; ix. 55, 56 (24); x. 22 (8) ; xi. 44 
(4) ; xvii. 19 (5) ; 24 (4) ; xxii. 64 (6) ; xxiv. i (4) ; 42 (4) ; John i. 27 
(7) ; iii. 13 (5) ; viii 59 (7) ; xiii. 32 (6) ; xvi. 16 (6) ; Acts xv. 18 (7) ; 
24 (6) ; xviii. 21 (11) ; xxi. 22 (4) ; 25 (6) ; Col. iii. 6 (5) ; i Thess. i. 
I (8) ; Heb. ii. 7 (9); vii. 21 (4). 

(3.) Short but important omissions : — 

Matt. i. 25. avTijg tov irpojToroKov ; v. 22. tlKt] ; vi. 4, 18. kv T(^ 
tpavtptfi ; xxvi. 28. icaivijg (Words of Institution) ; Mark ix. 29. icai 
yqcTTeig,; x. 6. 6 Qe6(; ; 21. dpag tov crravpov ; xiii. 18. ?'/ cpvyt) vfioJv ; 
xiv. 22-24. (payeTc-rb-KaLvfjg (Words of Institution) ; 6S. Kal I'jXtKTUjp 
i(P(jjvi]<TEv ; Luke vi. I. davTepoTrpcjTq) ; 26. o'l TraTspeg avroJv ; xxiv. 53. 
aivovvreg Kai ; John vi. 51. rjp tyu) duxroj ; xiv. 4. Kai . . o'iSare ; Acts 
iii. 6. tyeipai Kai ; x. 30. vj](Ttsv(>)v kui ; 2 Cor. v. 14. ei ; Eph. i. I. Lv 
'E<l>s<Ttft ; 15. TT^v dyarrijv Tt)v. Also the frequent omissions of the 
article, of ahrbc, of Yivpiog, of 6 lr]aovg, and of similar subjects, imports 
an ungraceful baldness into the text. That many of these omissions, 
at the least, came from carelessness is shown by several passages being 
written twice over. — Scrivener, p. 116. 

(4. ) Readings inferior to those of the Traditional Text : — 

Matt. xi. 16. iraidioig . . . a, k.t.X. instead of agreeing participles. 


The arguments therefore advanced by the School of Ex- 
treme, or as perhaps it should be called, Extravagant 
-Textualism, break down all along the line. And we are 

Matt. XV. 13. omission of rt'0\wv. 

xvi. 12. TMV dpT(i)v for tov aprov. 

xvii. 22. <jvaTpi.(po}.ikv(x)v for avaaTpt( 
23. Ti) Tpu]j.iip(}. for ry Tpny I'liJ^ip^. 
Mark ii. 5, 9. atpierrai for tKptuJrTcu, i.e., bis sins were not then ac- 
tually forgiven ! 

iii. 29. tvoxog alu^viov afiapTt'inaroc for icpiaeiog. 

xvi. 4. dvaKiKtikiaTca for diroK^KvKiaTai. 
Luke ii. 14. Iv dvi^pMiroig eucoKidt;. No rhythm and inferior sense. 

xii. 56. Clumsy repetition of o<''/c o'idciTt doKi/jidZtiv for coKijid'CtTt. 

xxii. 55. Trtpiaxl/dvTOJV dk Trvp for d\l/dvTu)V. 
Acts xxvii. 13. TTepifXoi^Teg for TrepitXOovTSc. 
Rom. v. I. adpKivog for aapKiKoc. 

1 Cor. iii. l. aapKivoig for (rapKiKoTc. 
James i. 20. tpya^erai for Karfpyrt^'trat. 

2 Pet. ii. 12. jcaj (p9api)(7ovrai for KaTCKpOapijcrovTai. 
5. Changes obviously injurious to the sense : — 

Matt. xi. 23. Too like a jeer, instead of dignified sorrow. 

xiv. 29. i]\Oev for tXOeiv. St, Peter failed in the coming, 
xxviii. 19. (BaTTTitravTeQ for jSaTrri'C — supposing that disciples 
were to be made after, instead of by, Baptism. 
Mark vii. 3. cid "^iduji'oc. A geographical solecism. 
Luke X. 42. oXiyijJV ce XP^'" ^<^t"' V *>'0f- 

xvi. 12. I'lfifrepoi' for vn'iTfpov, — a patent blunder. 
Acts XXV. 13. d(T7raadi.ievoi for a(T7roo-o)t<ti'o/, i.e., greeted Festus first, 

and then went to see him ! 
I Cor. xiii. 3. Kav\i](ru)i.iai for 
I Thess. ii. 7. vqTrioi for 1)17101. 
Tit. ii. 5- oiKovpyovg dyaridc, for oiKovpovc. 

(6) Changes spoiling or injuring the Grammar : — 
Matt. viii. 5, slaeXOovrog aurov TrpoaijXOei' avT(jj. 

XV. 32. iifi'fpai for yfn'ipag. Awkward change of grammatical 
39- Tuv TrXdlov. 
xxi. 19. ov fitjKtTi yevtjrai. 
Mark iii. 28. /3Xoo-(/»rjjtt«a( oaa tdv ^Xan<pt}pii(Tu)(Tii' {oaag dv). 


driven to seek a secure position amongst the entrenchments 
of the Rival School. 

Mark vi. 21. dvyarphq 6pxT}<TafikvT]Q the subject to ijpetrti'. 
xi. 19. oral' kyivero. 

22. idv tliry. 
xiii. 14. TO (3ds\vyiJia . . . tCTrjKOTa, 
xiv. 35. tTriTTTev for tirtatv : — glaringly the wrong tense. 
Luke xvii. 6. li ^x^rt (for dx^ri) tXkyere dv. 
Acts xvi. 13. of' ki'OfiiCofiev (for kvo/uiiZ^To) Trpocevxr] dvai. 

xiii. 7. raij' ^apiaaibiv Kai (omit rwr) Soc^owKaiwv. 
Rom. V, I. txwjufr for txofiiv. 

I Pet. iii. I. 'Iva KepdijOijaovrat (for — (Twrrai). So Luke xiv. 10. 
tra Ipsl. 

This list might be easily and largely increased, besides that bad 
spelling — to call a spade a spade — is constant in this manuscript. See 
Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 543-552. Burgon, " The Revi- 
sion Revised," pp. 315-31 7> ^^^ reff. there given. Cook, " Revised 
Version," pp. 136-141. Michelsen, in " Theologisch Tijdschrift," 
Jan. 1844. See also Kuenen and Cobet, " Novum Test, ad fidem Cod. 
Vaticani." Leyden, i860. Prcefatio. N is admitted everywhere, except 
in the fond eyes of Tischendorf and of a few admirers here and there, to 
be greatly inferior to B. 


the rival school. 

Tenets of the Rival and Sound School stated and 

IN treating of Extreme Textualism, so much has been 
borrowed from the representations of the Rival School, 
which of late years has perhaps been chiefly known in re- 
sistance to aggressive tenets, that much less explanation of 
the principles maintained in it is now needful than would 
otherwise have been required. Nevertheless the position of 
the chief doctors in this School must be defined. Their 
attitude has been frequently and indeed strangely misrepre- 
sented. Besides which, their teaching is given, not merely 
in opposition or protest, but in clear and definite expression 
of principles. 

I. And first, it must be remarked, that it is unjust to in- 
sinuate that they are set against all revision of the Greek 
Text. They would not be Textualists at all if they were 
not ready to adopt what are really the verdicts upon all the 
evidence. ' Again and again,' says Dean Burgon, ' we shall 
have to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correc- 
tion." ' No one can read Dr. Scrivener's " Plain Introduc- 
tion," a work which every clergyman should possess and 
study, without observing that so stiff an adhesion to the 
Text received from the last three centuries has no place in 
^ " The Revision Revised," p. 21, note. 


his thoughts. Quotation or proof of so notorious a circum- 
stance are absolutely unnecessary. 

Nor again must it be imagined that discrimination in the 
employment of authorities is repudiated by them. Whilst 
Dr. Scrivener rejects the idea of families of manuscripts, he 
allows that grouping in a moderate manner is necessary in 
order to judge of their character and value. 'Now that 
theories about the formal recensions of whole classes of 
these documents have generally been given up as purely 
visionary, and the very word fajnilies has come into disre- 
pute by reason of the exploded fancies it recalls, we can 
discern not the less clearly that certain groups of them have 
in common not only a general resemblance in regard to the 
readings they exhibit, but characteristic peculiarities attach- 
ing themselves to each group.' ^ It is inevitable that one 
document should have a high reputation, and another be 
rated deservedly low. The relative antiquity, the circum- 
stances attending the production so far as they are known, 
the nature of the text so far as it reveals itself to clear and 
definite criticism, are admitted as demanding to be taken 
into account. Objection is felt to * the glorification ' of a 
few, so as to make them almost ' objects of superstition and 
iaolatry : ' but there the objection ceases. 

2. The leading principle of the School is that all autho- 
rities should be fairly and relatively weighed. The old 
Uncial manuscripts according to their age and character, 
the later Uncials of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, 
the Cursive manuscripts from the tenth century onwards ; 
the Versions with reference to their antiquity and excellence ; 
Lectionaries, as they were accredited and agreed with one 
another and with other manuscripts; and quotations from 
^ "Plain Introduction," pp. 553, 4. The italics are Dr. Scrivener's. 


Fathers after their ascertained merit.^ There is much work 
to be done in editing, collating, and indexing before this vast 
mass of evidence is ready for use. Thus these men widen the 
basis, and endeavour to build their superstructure upon the 
broadest and surest foundation. If it be objected that the 
work of revision is indeed formidable and must be delayed 
under this method of proceeding for many years, the answer 
is ready. It is dangerous to meddle with the Holy Scrip- 
tures, which are bound up so closely with the Faith. The 
changes proposed are numerous and momentous : and what 
if they are found to be really corruptions and depravations 
of the Sacred Deposit ? Reverence and caution are essen- 
tial in the things of God. Whatever is done must by all 
means be well done. A few years, or a life-time or two, 
long indeed in our sight, are little in the history of mankind, 
and still less in the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. 
It is better to aid humbly in a steady and wise advance than 
to attempt hastily to settle questions, and to end by un- 
settling them. 

3. Such is the general system of this school of Sound 
or High Textualists. But in one grand point the school 
is at issue with the last. Extreme Textualism seems 
to look upon any support derived from the Traditional 
or Received Texts as merely supplying to readings a 
title to be abused and spurned,^ instead of securing for 
them considerations of respect. Yet the fact, admitted 
several times by Drs. Westcott and Hort,'' that the Tradi- 
tional Text is fifteen hundred years old, ought surely 

' For particulars, see below, Chapters VIII. IX. 
^ Any reading labelled by Dr. Hort as * Syrian,' is summarily 
rejected by him with something very like ignominy. 
^ See above, p. 26, note 2. 


to ensure for it other treatment. Is is probable that St. 
Chrysostom, the Gregories, and St. Basil, amidst an abun- 
dance of early manuscripts, with which our present stores 
could not be mentioned on the same day in comparison for 
antiquity and value, would all have been led away in the 
company of their great contemporaries to prefer an inferior 
strain of copies ? Is it likely, that if they had missed the 
right turn, their successors in the following ages would not 
have discovered that they were on the wrong road, and 
would have failed to work back into the Royal Highway ? 
Is it indeed possible that the great King of the new King- 
dom, Who has promised to be with His subjects 'alway 
even unto the end of the world,' should have allowed the 
true text of the written laws of His Kingdom to lurk in 
obscurity for nearly fifteen hundred years, and a text vitiated 
in many important particulars to have been handed down 
and venerated as the genuine form of the Word of God ? 
Could the effect of the sacred Presence of the Holy Ghost 
in the Church be looked for in any more important and 
peculiar province, than in the preservation of the fashion 
and lineaments of that body of written records and teaching 
which He Himself has inspired? 

Therefore the Rival School of Sound or High Textualists 
is right in attributing the greatest importance to the Tradi- 
tional Text, as the Text undoubtedly handed down in the 
Church, and importance also to the Received Text, as an 
excellent though by no means an exact exponent of the 
former of the two. This is a matter of so much moment, that 
the present inquiry would be far from complete, even in the 
limited scope which belongs to a concise guide to the main 
features of Textual Criticism, if it did not include a descrip- 
tion of the salient points in the history of the Sacred Text, 


SO far as it is known. Error usually arises from our ignoring 
some essential element. And the question really is, whether 
we ought to make a clean sweep of the past, except so much 
as dates of documents are concerned, and rest solely upon 
the uncertain glimmer of criticism formed centuries after the 
materials for that criticism were produced, or whether we 
cannot indeed discover in the course of actual events, so far 
as they have been made known to us, the virtual determina- 
tion of this important controversy, and solid grounds of 
judgment which may compel and sustain a mature and sound 

But before entering upon a brief view of such history, one 
remark is needed as to the nature of the points at issue. 

They depend upon an estimate of proportion, — how much 
value we ought to attribute to this point, and how much to 
that. The evidence is mainly before us, and its existence is 
undisputed. This indeed is the pivot upon which judg- 
ments must turn. As in sculpture, symmetry and beauty of 
form depend upon each limb and feature being represented 
in due measure, and he carries about with him the true 
sculptor's eye, who with readiness and precision sees where 
any part of the outline is enlarged or diminished or out of 
place; so in our decisions, whether of a pettier or a more 
weighty kind, the greater part of them are involved in the 
stress that we lay, or do not lay, upon the particulars pre- 
sented to us — in fact, upon the proportion which they seve- 
rally assume in our view. We may indeed err from insuffi- 
ciency of evidence, or narrowness of survey : but more often 
our success or failure is determined by correctness or error 
in laying emphasis, or else by just or false discernment in the 
formation of our estimate. 



Early Corruption. A Pure Line. Early Versions. 
Rise within the Church of Semi-Sceptical Philo- 
sophy, and Production of a Vitiated Text. Proof 
OF the Prevalence of the Traditional Text. 

COMPARATIVE Criticism must not be prosecuted in 
the case of the writings of the New Testament upon 
exactly the same principles as those which prevail in ascer- 
taining the text of Classical Authors. It is true that gene- 
rally speaking what is sound in the one case cannot be gain- 
said in the other. The verdict of the manuscripts must be 
taken according to the principles dictated by critical acumen 
and established by experience. But Sacred criticism super- 
adds some considerations of a very grave nature. 

In the first place, the mass of materials of criticism is so 
vast, and the wealth of attested readings is so great, that 
there is no need of any Conjectural Emendation. The sole 
duty of the Textual Critic is found in assembling, weighing, 
and balancing the different kinds of evidence that can be 
brought to bear upon the passage under review. There is 
no demand therefore for conjecture; it is an ascertainment 
of facts : besides that conjecture or surmise are entirely ex- 



eluded by reason of the peculiar dignity and loftiness of the 

Secondly, the position of the Holy Scriptures as inspired 
by God the Holy Ghost must never be allowed to pass out 
of recollection. The great Inspirer of the Writings is also 
Himself the great Guide of the Church. Accordingly, the 
overruling care exercised by Him according to promise is a 
factor all through the history which must ever be borne in 
mind. Not of course that evil has been excluded from co- 
existing along with the good — such is the universal expe- 
rience : but nevertheless the Church, as the ' Witness and 
Keeper of Holy Writ,' has, under His direction, cast out 
the evil from time to time, and has kept to a generally 
defined course. Serious errors might have been committed 
in the transmission of the works of Homer, or of Thucy- 
dides, or of Aristotle : and indeed many of the books of the 
last of these are supposed to have perished. But it can 
hardly be conceived that the Holy Ghost, after communi- 
cating His Inspiration in the composition of books, would 
in the midst of His overruling care have allowed those books 
to be varied according to changing winds of human opinion 
and human action, without the maintenance throughout of a 
form mainly at least free from error. It can scarcely be but 
that a succession of copies pure from any great corruption 
must have existed, and existed too in predominance, all 
down the Church's history. 

Thirdly, although the separate books of the New Testa- 

^ See above, p. 47, note i. Indeed, Conjectural Emendation in 
editing classical writings must ever be hazardous, and is not now rated 
nearly so high as it used to be. Dindorf's earlier text of Sophocles is 
much better than his later one. Successive editors usually return to 
the unamended text. 


ment were unquestionably the productions of separate 
authors, and bear the traces of a distinct personality in each 
instance, it would be nevertheless wrong to regard them — 
especially the Gospels — as solely individual compositions. 
In their corporate, apart from their individual aspect, they 
were embodiments of a Teaching and Faith, which had 
been imparted to the Church, and taught by the Church, 
before those books were severally written. Immediately 
after the Lord's Ascension and the coming of the Holy 
Ghost, there came into operation a continual exercise of 
oral teaching, which must have gradually assumed definite 
system and recognised fashion and form. Since the events 
of our Lord's Life must have been related continually in all 
evangelizing action, and there must of necessity have been a 
large number of eager narrators, and since the subject too 
was one that must have enlisted all the reverence in their 
souls, there must also have been at work a never-ceasing 
corrective criticism, under which the stories told must have 
become, so to speak, almost stereotyped with few variations.^ 
In course of time, when either the converts demanded 
manuals for elementary information, or Lections were needed 

' The accordance in so many respects with one another of the 
Synoptic Gospels has been explained upon three main theories : — 

(i) That the Evangelists made use of a common document, or 
common documents, (Eichhorn), 

(2) That the later Evangelists made use of the writings of their 
predecessor, or predecessors, (Townson), 

(3) That each Gospel was made up from a permanent type of oral 
teaching, (Gieseler.) See Lee on " Inspiration," Appendix L. 

The last seems to me to be the best explanation, as being truest to 
the facts. Cf, St. Luke i. 1-4. Ty lv^pa<^t{> rod Oeiov KrjpvYfiaroQ ^iSa<y- 
KaXiq^ Euseb. "Hist. Eccl." ii. 15. Papias, ra Trapd Z,ioai]Q (pujvijg, 
Eus. " H. E." iii. 39. Irenceus, Aovkuq ... to vtt' tK^it'ou Ki)pv(sa6^uvof 
i-iayy'fXiov tv /Si/^Xtr/j KaTfOero. Eus. " H. E." v. S. 


in the celebrations of the Holy Eucharist or in services of 
Common Worship, or when the want of authorized writings 
was felt in the studies of the faithful or in arguments with 
heretics, written records became requisite. The care of the 
Tradition and of reducing it to writing fell upon a body of 
men told off for the purpose under the special name of 
Evangelists.^ The foundation of all was public : and it is 
therefore the more probable, as it is on all grounds possible, 
that alterations of a lesser kind might have been introduced 
in what may have been practically successive editions of the 
Holy Gospels. Besides this, in the presence of such an 
amount of oral teaching, which had been rendered necessary 
by the absence of accredited writings for some years, it 
could scarcely be but that in an early multiplication of 
copies, w^hen those writings had been made, mistakes of 
various kinds would be extensively introduced, and would 
be very hard to expel. 

Very soon, therefore, after the books of the New Testa- 
ment were written, corruption began to affect them. Error 

^ Eph. iii. II. Acts xxi. 8. 2 Tim iv. 5. The two functions of 
Evangelists, i.e. to preach and to have the special care of the Word 
(rjyr tCov Beiujv tvayyeXiojv TrapadiSovai ypa(pi}v) is declared by Eusebius, 
" H. E." iii. 37. St. Matthew wrote for the Hebrew Christians, St. Mark 
for the Church at Rome — in compliance with request (Eus. "H. E." ii. 15) 
— and St. Luke for the Corinthian Church. So the couplet attributed 
to Gregory Nazianzen — 

y\aTdcuo£ i-dv typa-^tv 'Ei3paioig Oavfiara XpiffTOv, 
MapKOf d' 'iraXiy, AovKag 'Axaiidci, 

I.e., for Italy and Achaia, as 'E/3pajoie shows, not as Townson takes 
it, in each of those places. St. Luke, as it appears to me, most pro- 
bably wrote his Gospel during St. Paul's imprisonment at Caesarea, 
when that Providential arrangement gave a pause in labour, and an 
excellent opportunity of collecting materials upon the spot over Judara, 
Galilee, and Samaria. 


has been said to have arisen from four other sources. First, 
there was a determined wish to alter the Holy Scriptures, so 
that they might witness to the heretical doctrines that were 
from time to time taken up.^ Then, on the other hand, it has 
been asserted that the orthodox have not been free from a 
form of doing evil that good might come, in that they may 
perchance have tampered with the sacred Text, in order to 
convict of error assailants of the Faith. But in recent times 
especially, this species of error has been vastly exaggerated :" 
and as far as it did exist it was chiefly found in the middle 
ages, and on occasions w^hen holiness and uprightness had 
descended for the moment to lower levels. Next, a great 
deal of debasement must be attributed to the carelessness of 
scribes, chiefly before the act of transcribing was brought to 
the perfection which it was reaching after the seventh century. 
And lastly, and especially in early times, ignorance of the 
Greek language, or of the doctrine delivered, was a fruitful 
cause of error. 

In the first years, the scarcity of written records cannot 
have failed to produce much inaccuracy. And the slowness 
with which the true Faith on the subject became established 
amongst the newly converted, many of whom were Christians 
in name more than in anything reaching as far as sound 
belief, affected not only an universal acceptation of the Ca- 
nonical Books, but a reception of the text of those books. 
Gnostic doctrines were soon found in conflict with the words 

diptTiKibv av^pS}V ava-K\a.(y\iara. Eus. " H. E." iii. 25. 
- Mr. Hammond ("Outlines of Textual Criticism") remarks that 
* there appears no strong ground for the suggestion, ' that any ' altera- 
tions for dogmatic reasons' exist. See Scrivener, "Plain Introduc- 
tion," p. 18, note. This is almost a bete noire with some writers, who 
have rested it upon supposition, rather than authentic facts. See below, 
Chapter IX. 


and composition of the New Testament. And indeed this 
could not have been otherwise. For Gnosticism was an at- 
tempt to combine the existing philosophy with the newly- 
revealed Christian Teaching. As soon therefore as Christian 
Doctrines were expr-essed in an authoritative shape, Gnos- 
ticism found itself in opposition to them. Thence arose 
constant attempts to mould the writings that came forth 
into such form and expression as would not be at va- 
riance with tenets agreeing with, or not so repugnant as 
Christianity to, the old philosophy and the ideas previously 

The Books of the New Testament did not exist soon 
enough for Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and the other heresi- 
archs of the first period of Gnosticism, to direct their assaults 
upon them. But Basilides, who lived in the earlier half of 
the second century,^ a native of Alexandria, the chief seat and 
centre of Gnosticism, rejected the Pastoral Epistles and the 
Epistle to the Hebrews," and added other books to those 
which were canonically recognised.^ After him Valentinus 
is said by Tertullian to have corrected the text and to have 
boldly maintained that readings introduced by him were 
older than the words generally received.' Marcion went 
much further. He divided the New Testament into two 
parts, ' The Gospel,' and ' The Apostolicon.' Of these, 'the 
Gospel was a recension of St. Luke with numerous omissions 
and variations from the received text. The Apostolicon 
contained the Epistles of St. Paul, excluding the Pastoral 

' Probably about 117-138 A.D. Wordsworth, "Church History." 
vol. i., p. 195. 

^ See Westcott, " On the Canon," p. 296. 

•' Euseb. "H. E.,"iv. 7. 

* " De Prcescriptione Ilwreticorum," § 30. 


Epistles and that to the Hebrews.' ^ According to Tertul- 
lian and Epiphanius, he ' mutilated and depraved ' the 
text both of Epistles and Gospels.' The followers of these 
men, as was natural, went beyond their leaders. Nor 
must Tatian be omitted, a disciple of Justin Martyr, and 
founder of the Sect of the Encratites. His " Diatessaron," 
or Harmony of the Gospels, had such a circulation that 
Theodoret in the fifth century found in the churches of his 
diocese alone upwards of two hundred copies, and objected 
50 much to the mischievous spirit in which the work had 
been executed, that he substituted in their room the Gospel 
of the Four EvangeUsts.^ It is surely not wrong to trace to 
these influences much of the corruption which is repeatedly 
declared by writers about the end of the second century to 
have vitiated the sacred Text. 

Thus Dionysius of Corinth says that he must not be sur- 
prised when people altered his writings by additions and 
omissions, if they tampered in like manner with the Holy 
Scriptures."* St. Irenseus tells the same story, and appears 
to have had the same fear.^ Clement of Alexandria complains 

' Westcott, "On the Canon," p. 314. Burgon's "Last Twelve 
Verses," p. 95. 

- Westcott, p. 314. The learned Professor doubts however whether 
this was really true as to the Epistles. Burgon, "-Last Twelve Verses," 
p. 94, note. Dean Burgon, " Revision Revised," pp. 34, 35, traces the 
mutilation of the Lord's Prayer in St. Luke by B and n to Marcion. 

' See Burgon's "Last Twelve Verses," pp. 317, 318. The Dean 
quotes from "Hceret. Fab.," i., 20 (0pp. Iv., 208), which I have veri- 
fied. On the authority of a scholion, the Dean traces to Tatian (and 
Diodorus) the strange insertion by B and H of the piercing of the spear 
into the account of St. Matt, xxvii. 49, before the record of our Lord's 

' Euseb., "H. E.," iv., 23. 

■' Euseb., " H. E.," v., 20. Irenaeus, "Contra Haeres," iv. 6, i. 


of people who introduce change into the Gospels/ An un- 
known writer, quoted by Eusebius, inveighs against heretics 
who laid hands without fear upon the Divine Scriptures, 
under the pretence of correcting them." Origen speaks of 
the disagreement between the various manuscripts; and 
adds, *But now, great in truth has become the diversity of 
copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from 
the evil daring of some who correct what is written, or from 
those who in correcting add or take away what they think 
fit; ' 

And yet indications are not wanting that exceeding care 
was taken by the orthodox to preserve the Holy Books in 
their genuine and unimpaired form. Tertullian, in arguing 
with heretics, bids them consult the autographs of the 
Apostles at Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus, or Rome, 
where they are preserved and read in pubHc.^ St. Irenaeus 
refers in one place to ' the approved and ancient copies ' for 
settling the number 666 in the Revelation ; and in another 
gives most particular directions as to the careful and correct 
copying of a book of his own.' We cannot be wrong in 
seeing in this latter instance, " as well as in the signatures 
attached with extreme care to the end of the account of the 

' Stromata, iv. , 6. Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 508 note. 

■^ Euseb., "H. E.," v., 28. Probably Caius: Mill, " Prolegomena," 
p. Ixii., Routh, " Reliquiae sacr?e." 

^ "Comment, on Matt.," Tom. iii., p. 671, Dc la Rue, quoted by 
Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 509. I have thought it well to give 
unaltered Dr. Scrivener's translation, but have verified the quotation. 

* " Ipsse Authenticce Literse. De Prescript. Ha;ret.," p. 36, and 
Routh'sNote, *' Opuscula," pp. 205, 6, which Dean Purgon kindly points 

Toit; (Tirovdaioig Kal ap^^aiuig dvTiypcKpoig. "Contra Hccres," v. 30, I. 
Euseb., *' H. E," v. 20. 


Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, a reflection of the conscientious 
accuracy, fortified in every way, which must have directed 
the copying out of the best and accredited manuscripts. And 
the deep and loving reverence, in which the Holy Scriptures 
were held, is shewn later on in the severe condemnation of 
those who gave them up during the violent persecution under 
Diocletian, and in the fact that a Sect ^ arose upon the ques- 
tion of the amount of punishment which should be meted 
out to such betrayers " of the Sacred Books. 

But the original autographs perished, and nothing has de- 
scended to us about them after the expressions employed by 

We are, however, not left to secondary evidence for proof 
that the Traditional text was used and handed on in Ante- 
Nicene days. The witness of separate ecclesiastical writers 
ui)on controverted passages, proving that they had in their 
possession manuscripts agreeing with the Text afterwards 
adopted generally in the Church, and the renderings of the 
early Versions, especially the Syriac and Italic, establish 
satisfactorily this position, as will subsequently appear. 

Early in the second centur^^ development in the spread of 
the Holy Scriptures was made in two directions. 

That robustness of the stem of the Church which grew up 
at Antioch is indicated in two striking particulars recorded 
in the Scriptural account. The religion in that place was so 
genuine and characteristic, that the name was first applied 
there to the converts which the followers of the Lord have 
kept ever since. And from that city, replete with vice and 
degradation but the site of a structure of wondrous holiness 
and zeal, — preferred as the source of such evangelization 

^ Donatists. 

^ ' Traditores,' the technical name which was used. 


before Damascus and even Jerusalem, — the great Apostle 
of the Gentiles was sent forth on his ever famous journeys. 

In the same spirit, the Holy Scriptures were in very early 
times, whether at Antioch, or in Palestine, or elsewhere, 
translated into 'a tongue understanded of the people.' No 
record remains of the occasion when this translation was 
effected, or of the mode of action, or of the actors. The 
good was to be wrought, and it was done. Aramaic, or 
Syriac, was a more flexible language than the Hebrew. The 
Peshito, or ' Simple ' Version has remained certainly since 
the sad divisions wrought in the Syrian Church during the 
fifth century, because the Nestorians and Monophysites, as 
well as the Christians of St. Thomas in India and the Maro- 
nites of Lebanon, all use it to this day, and prove therefore 
by such use that we must go back for its origin at least to 
the time when they had not separated. And it appears most 
probable, that it was that which was read at the first in 
Syria. ^ Hegesippus, in the second century, seems to speak 

^ Since the discovery of the Curetonian Version in Syriac by Arch- 
deacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, Extreme Textualists have 
maintained that it was older than the Peshito on these main grounds : — 

1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshito cannot have been the 

original text. 

2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would 

have demanded revision. 

3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the Vulgate 

suggests an authoritative revision between A.D. 250 and 350. 
These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and in- 
ternal evidence. 

The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory : — 

1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but none 

of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in 

2. There was an ' infmita varietas ' (" August. De Doctr. Christ.," ii. 


of a Syrian translation/ and Melito quotes ' the Syrian ' in 
170- A.D. Ephraem of Edessa speaks of this Version as 
used familiarly for the national Scriptures in the fourth 
century.^ The Peshito resembles the Received Text. It may 
have been actually in the hands of St. John.' It did not 
include all the Catholic Epistles, or the Revelation. The 
Peshito has been called ' The Queen of Versions.' 

Soon afterwards, or about the same time, other Versions 
were made in the West. It was not likely that the great 
Latin Branch of the Church should continue long without 
translations of her own. There appear to have been a large 
number of translations made independently of one another, 
from the expressions used by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. 
' There are almost as many standards of the text as there 

11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is 
3. Badness in Latin Texts is just what we shoukl expect amongst 
people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. 
The Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had 
been known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within 
reach of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a Version 
should be made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards. 
As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by 
the opinion of other experts (see Abbe Martin, " Des Versions Sy- 
riennes," Fasc. 4, obligingly lent me by Dr. Scrivener). The position of 
the Peshito as universally received by Syrian Christians, and believed to 
date back to the earliest times, is not to be moved by mere conjecture, 
and a single copy of another Version. The Abbe Martin, after minute 
examination, assigns the Curetonian to the opening of seventh century. 
^ Euseb., " H. E.," iv., 22, tov "EvpiaKov tvayysXiov. 
- Mill, " Prolegomena," p. cxxvii, 6 'Evpog. 
' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 312, 321-4. 
' Bishop EUicott, " On Revision," pp. 26, 27, quoted by Dean 
Burgon, " The Revision Revised," p. 9. The Peshito omits the 2nd 
Ep. of St. Peter, the 2nd and 3rd of St. John, the Epistle of Jude and 
the Revelation. MSS. exist from early in Cent. V. 


are manuscripts,' said St. Jerome.^ And St. Augustine 
speaks of ' the infinite variety of Latin translations,' and 
again of * the multitude of translators.' ^ Both of those great 
Fathers tell of the untrustworthiness of the Versions. And 
no wonder. Whilst in Syria Greek was well understood, 
and it must have been easy there to get at the autographs 
themselves, or at excellent copies made directly from the 
autographs, in Italy, Africa, and in the other parts of the West, 
accurate acquaintance with Greek was comparatively rare, 
and the distance must have led to a large crop of mistakes. 
Much obscurity hangs over the old Latin Versions : but it 
appears probable that they included three groups, African, 
European, and Italian. The Italian was preferred by St. 

Later than the Syrian and Latin translations, but probably 
dating back as far as the end of the Second Century,' we find 
the Memphitic and Thebaic Versions. Alexandria very soon 
became one of the most active centres of Christian teaching. 
Philosophy and Christianity there came into collision. 

' " Prefatio ad Damasum :" 'Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est 
adliibenda, respondeant quibus : tot enim sunt exeniplaria pene quot 

- "De Uoctrina Christiana," ii., ii, 15. He speaks again and again 
of ' diversitates interp return,' and so forth. 

^ " Old Latin BibHcal Texts," i., Introduction, p. xxx, by Professor 
Wordsworth, who adopts the classification of Westcott and Hort. Pro- 
fessor vSanday, in " Some Further Remarks on the Corbey St. James 
(ff.)," No. XI. of the Oxford *' Studia Biblica," p. 236, which he has 
courteously sent me, considers that there were two fundamental main 
stocks, the African and the European. The f family, otherwise called 
Italian, the Professor supposes, after scholarly and minute analysis, to be 
a revision of the European. Dr. Hort too considers the Italian class to 
consist of Revisions. 

' Bishop Lightfoot, in Scrivener's "Plain Introduction," p. 371. 


The Memphitic, or Bahiric, sometimes but with not so 
much propriety called the Coptic, Version was the produc- 
tion of Lower Egypt. It is, speaking broadly, a fair render- 
ing of the Greek, but generally agrees with B and K and 
the it\Y MSS of that class. It omits the Apocalypse. 

The Thebaic or Sahidic, was the Version of Upper Egypt. 
This translation is generally of a character similar to the 
Memphitic, but having had its field away from Alexandria, 
does not resemble the class of MSS just mentioned so much 
as its neighbour does. The Apocalypse appears not to have 
formed part of it. 

' Alexandria may be called the mother of systematic theo- 
logical science.' ^ Situate near to an isthmus uniting two 
continents and dividing two seas, from a commanding posi- 
tion of unrivalled convenience it attracted to itself the litera- 
ture of East and West. Greek language and art had settled 
down with a ' remarkable after-growth ' into what was termed 
Alexandrinism.' Asia contributed much of her dreamy 
philosophy. The traditions of Egyptian lore had not 
perished. There flourished here a colony of Jews so strong 
and so greatly Hellenized that they required a translation 
for themselves of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.'^ And 
as the instance of Philo shews, they had learned to mingle 
a tone of Platonism with their Jewish belief. 

It was not unnatural therefore that the celebrated Catecheti- 
cal School should rise in such a place. Alexandria was soon 
known as one of the headquarters of the Early Church. 

' Bishop Chr. Wordsworth, " Church Histor)' to Council of Niccea," 
p. 251. 

- See Monimsen's " History of Rome," vol. iv. pp. 575, 6. 

^ The Septuagint, from the seventy-two translators, six for each 


From the time of St. Mark, said to have been the first bishop, 
to the middle of the second century when the school 
emerged into celebrity under Pantaenus, Christianity was 
active there. And it was only to be expected, that as the 
philosophy of the period had in Gnosticism already simu- 
lated to some extent the form of Christianity, so it would 
now pursue a second course of action, and would in the 
next place endeavour to modify the Faith from within the 

Such is the probable account of the rise of Origenism ; 
and though Origen was no Arian, yet a later offshoot of the 
same great stock was found in Arianism. And no one can 
wonder if a line of inferior texts can be traced — with a class 
of readings which were afterwards thrown aside in the 
Church — from Origen onwards till the time of the close of 
the Arian heresy. Debased doctrine, and readings of Holy 
Scripture afterwards to be rejected, would naturally go hand 
in hand. 

The employment of corrupt manuscripts has been detected 
in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, the immediate 
predecessor of Origen in the Catechetical School, by Dean 
Burgon. The Dean has produced Clement's quotation of 
fifteen verses (Mark x. 17-31), and discovers in the 297 
words of them 1 1 2 variations from the Received Text, or a 
discordance reaching to 38 per cent.^ Origen must have 
used several copies and of various kinds." Indeed, it is very 
questionable whether he did not execute an edition, or 

' The same passage differs from Westcott and Hort's Text in 130 
words, or 44 per cent. See Burgon, " The Revision Revised," pp. 

- Abp. Laurence. " Remarks on the Classification of iMSS. adopted 
by Griesbach," chap, iii., iv., Appendix. 


recension, of the works of the Evangelists and Apostles. It 
is certain that he did something like this upon the Old 
Testament, and there is a probability that at least to some 
extent he continued the same mode of treatment on to the 
New.' His authority was widely venerated and followed in 
later time.«=.'" He was a copious and precise commentator 
upon Holy Scripture. From numerous facts of history, he 
may be said to have founded a School. 

Among those whom we know unfavourably at this period 
was Hesychius, probably an Egyptian bishop, who is said by 
St. Jerome to have introduced bad alterations into copies 
which went by his name. Another is Lucian, presbyter of 
Antioch, against whom the same charge is made.^ Again, 
Pamphilus, bishop of Caesarea, the great friend of Eusebius, 
from whom the latter took his second name (Eusebius Pam- 
phili) and who set up the famous library at Caesarea, copied 
out the works of Origen, and kept them there. He was 

' Origen, on Matt. xix. 19. He speaks of the disagreement of the 
copies, wg ■KCLvra ra Kara Mar9aiov /u;) avvq.^HV dWt'iXoig, ofioiujg dk Kai 
ra Kara ra Xoiira EiiayyiXia. He adds that he has corrected in the 
Old Testament from other copies, keeping to their consentient testi 
mony, and has put asterisks where the Hebrew did not give the expres- 
sion, not liking to expunge entirely, and leaving others to adopt his 
reading or not, as they thought fit. 

^ Burgon, " Last Twelve Verses," p. 97 ; " The Revision Revised," 
p. 292. Cook, "The Revised Version," pp. 155-7. "Letter to Bp. of 

' '* Pnefatio ad Damasum." See also Jerome, " Catalogus Scrip- 
torum Ecclesiasticorum," p. 77. Cook, " Revised Version," p. 152, 
note. St. Jerome tells us that three editions of the Old Testament 
existed, viz., one of the Septuagint by Hesychius, which was followed 
in Egypt ; another by Lucian, which was used from Antioch to Con- 
stantinople ; and the third in Palestine, derived from Origen, and pub- 
lished by Pamphilus and Eusebius. " Praefatio in Librum Paralipo- 
Mienon." Bingham, xiv. 3, 17. 


said by his disciple and friend ' to have surpassed all of 
Eusebius' contemporaries in disinterested study of the Holy 
Scriptures, and in untiring and loving toil in anything that 
he undertook/ ^ Records of his labours undergone in con- 
junction with Eusebius still remain.' Pierius, a disciple of 
Origen, is also known as a diligent student of Holy Scrip- 
ture,^ and to have had, as well as Origen, copies that were 
called by his name.' He was the teacher of Pamphilus, 
Head of the School in Alexandria, and not wholly orthodox.^ 
So we are brought from Origen to Eusebius. And indeed, 
the veneration and affection entertained by the latter for the 
great teacher has been expressed by him frequently in his 
history. Csesarea was the adopted home of the latter days of 
Origen. He must have spent most of his last twenty years 
in that city. It was his refuge after troubles in Alexandria : 
there he was at length ordained. His spirit must have lived 
on amongst his admirers : and in Eusebius of Csesarea we 
see a virtual successor to his main opinions and tenets.® 

^ Euseb., " H. E." " De Martyr. Fairest.," p. ii. Scrivener, 
"Plain Introduction," pp. 512, 3. 

- " Codex Friderico-Augustanus," subscription to Book of Ezra and 

^ Euseb., "H. E.," vii., 32. 

' Jerome on Matt. xxiv. 36 ; Gal. iii. i. See vScrivener, " Plain 
Introduction," p. 516. 

■' Euseb., "H. E.," vii. 32. Routh, " Reliquia: Sacrre," iii., pp. 
211-12, 265 (1814). 

^ Jerome, "Contra Rufinum," vol. i,, § 8. Cook, "Revised Ver- 
sion," p. 168. Eusebius must have been a great student of Holy Scrip- 
ture. It is to him that we owe the ' Eusebian Canons,' and as is pro- 
bable also the so-called ' Ammonian Sections.' Fault being found with 
Tatian's " Diatessaron," because he omitted parts of the Gospels, Am- 
monius tried to construct a Harmony by arranging the other Gospels in 
parallel columns with the first, and cut them up into sections in order 
to bring them into parallelism with St. Matthew. The particulars of his 


But during the lifetime of these men a catastrophe 
occurred which must have affected very greatly the trans- 
mission of the Holy Scriptures. The persecution of Diocle- 
tian and Galerius, notwithstanding the care taken and the 
firmness shewn even unto death, must have caused the de- 
struction of a large number of manuscripts. Hesychius, 
Lucian, and Pamphilus suffered martyrdom. And after the 
storm passed over, there must have been a serious lack of 
copies of the Holy Scriptures for use in the Church, espe- 
cially where the large increase of converts added to the 
number of congregations, and caused the building of fresh 

Towards the end of this long period of history, and\vhilst 
Constantine was in the midst of his Semiarian stage, he 
gave the celebrated order to Eusebius, probably between 
A.D. 330 and 340,^ to send him fifty magnificent copies of 
the Holy Scriptures. They w^ere to be written on the best 
vellum by skilful and accompHshed penmen, and in a form 

Sections seem to have perished : but Eusebius tells us (Epist. ad Car- 
pianum, init.) that he himself took the hint from Ammonius, and so 
constructed his ten Canons, and as it appears the Ammonian Sections. 
He cut up the Gospels into these Sections, St. Matthew containing 355, 
St. Mark 233 (or more), St. Luke 342, St. John 232, The Gospels ran 
continuously throughout, but the Sections marked in the margin afforded 
a power of reference, and the Canons or Tables supplied an Index accor- 
ding to which the parallel Sections could be brought together. The first 
Canon gives 71 places in which all four Evangelists combine : the next 
three, where three agree, (2) Matt., Mark, Luke ; (3) Matt., Luke, John; 
(4) Matt., Mark, John : the next five, where two coalesce ; and the last 
supplies 251 places peculiar to some one or other of the Evangelists. A 
reference to the Canon was given in the margin under the number of 
the Section, thus: i^^. See Burgon, "Last Twelve Verses," pp. 
125-132, 295-312. Scrivener, pp. 56-62. 
' Cook, " Revised Version," p. 160. 



well fitted for use. Orders were at the same time issued to the 
Governor of the province to supply the materials for the 
work, which was to be accomplished with all possible speed. 
Two carriages were placed at the disposal of Eusebius for 
conveying the copies to Constantinople, and he sent them 
off soon under the charge of a deacon.^ 

Now there are various reasons for supposing that B and 
{^ were amongst these fifty manuscripts. They are referred 
by the best judges to about the period of Constantine's 
letter, to speak generally. In Tischendorf s opinion, which 
is confirmed by Dr. Scrivener," the scribe of B wrote six 
'conjugate leaves' of K. These manuscripts are unrivalled 
for the beauty of their vellum and for their other grandeur, 
and are just what we should expect to find amongst such as 
would be supplied in obedience to an imperial command, 
and executed with the aid of imperial resources. They are 
also, as has been already stated, sister manuscripts, as may 
be inferred from their general resemblance in readings. 
They abound in omissions, and show marks of such care- 
lessness as would attend an order carried out with more 

' Eusebius sent them, rpiaad Kai rerpafrcni. " Vit. Const.," iv. 37. 
There are three interpretations of these words: (i) ' in triple or qua- 
druple sheets,' in that case it would have been probably rpiirXoa Kai 
TiTpdirKoa : (2) ' written in three or four vertical columns respectively' 
(Canon Cook), which would exactly describe N and B, only a preposition 
would be wanted to turn the adjectival into an adverbial expression : 
(3) combined with TrtiT/'/icorra aojixdnatv OKpOipanj tyKaraaKtvoig (c. 36), 
' we sent abroad the collections [of writings] in richly adorned cases, 
three or four in a case ' (Archdeacon Palmer, quoted by Dr. Scrivener). 
After examining the letters, I am convinced that my friend Archdeacon 
Palmer is right. See Cook, " Revised Version," p. 162, 3 ; Scrivener, 
p. 513, note. 

* Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 92. " Christian Remem- 
brancer," October, 1867. 


than ordinary expedition. And even the corrector/ who 
always followed the copyist, did his work with similar care- 
lessness to the scribe whom he was following." Besides 
which, it is expressly stated in K that it was collated with 
a very old manuscript corrected by Pamphilus after the 
Hexapla of Origen.^ And Caesarea was the place where 
manuscripts of Pamphilus and Origen would be found. 

There is therefore very considerable foundation for the 
opinion entertained by many that these two celebrated 
manuscripts owe their execution to the order of Constantine, 
and show throughout the effects of the care of Eusebius, and 
the influence of Origen, whose works formed the staple of. 
the Library of Pamphilus, in the city where they were most 
likely written.* 

Such was probably the parentage, and such the produc- 
tion of these two celebrated manuscripts, which are the main 
exponents of a form of Text differing from that which has 
come down to us from the Era of Chrysostom, and has since 
that time till very recent years been recognized as mainly 
supreme in the Church. And the question arises, which of 
the two was the generally accredited Text in the period which 
has just passed under review. 

I. Now it must first be remembered that the traces of 
corruption were very widely spread in the first ages of the 
Church. It was impossible but that oral transmission from 
one to another, inaccuracy and unskilfulness in writing, de- 

' Siop9ioTT]g. 

' Tischendorf, "Novum Testamentum Vaticanum," Prolegomena, 
xxiv. Cook, " Revised Version," p. 174. 

^ Subscriptions to Ezra and Esther. It is true that these are in a hand 
of the seventh century. Scrivener, "Plain Introd.," p. 53, note. 

■* Dean Burgon however does not agree with this conclusion, but places 
H at least half a century after B. " Last Twelve Verses," pp. 293, 4. 


fective apprehension of the Faith, and unbelief in various 
phases and degrees, must have given rise to a prolific 
progeny of error. Such indeed is the story that we hear in 
many quarters. But meanwhile, the amazing health and 
vigour of fresh Faithfulness in those early days found effect 
in the tree, that though hidden in part at first amidst the 
rank upgrowth of error shot out in course of time, and at 
length permanently overtopped the stunted plants that were 
doomed soon to decay. 

2. Accordingly, in the next period we shall find the Tra- 
ditional Text ere long indisputably in the ascendant. Now 
how could it have been thus supreme, if it had no true 
title ? Unlawful usurpation must have been soon discovered. 
The fact that the supremacy was acknowledged and not 
gainsaid, lays a heavy burden of proof upon those who, 
fifteen centuries after, seek to question the right and deny 
the sway. 

3. But there is remaining even now to us sufficient de- 
monstration of the existence and use of the Traditional Text 
in the first ages. The witness borne by the early Fathers to 
controverted readings proves that they used Manuscripts 
belonging to the Traditional Class which were much older 
than any now in existence. Take, for example, fifteen pas- 
sages which are at the present time under discussion, and 
the following Fathers are found to testify upon them to the 
Traditional readings:^ — Ignatius (i), Papias (i), Justin 
Martyr (5), Irenaeus (6), Tertullian (7), Theophilus of 

^ The passages are, Matt. i. 18; i. 25; v. 22; v. 44; xvii, 21; Mark 
vi. 20; xvi. 9-20; Luke ii. 14; xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 34; xxiii. 45; xxiv. 
40; John iii. 13; v. 3, 4 ; Acts xx. 28 ; i Tim. iii. 16. The above are 
almost entirely Dean Burgon's quotations. It is hard to see how any 
such support can be adduced for the readings of B and ^{. 


Antioch (i), Hegesippus (i), Athenagoras (i), Vincentius (i), 
Marcion (i), Clement of Alexandria (3), Hippolytus (6), 
Acta Pilati (2), Origen (11), Dionysius of Alexandria (3), 
Apostolical Constitutions (6), Ps. Tatian (2), Cyprian (i), 
Macarius Magnes (2), Julius Africanus (i), Titus of Bostra 
(2), Archelaus with Manes (i), Ps. Justin (i), Clemen- 
tine Homilies (i), Arius (i), Eusebius (9), Athanasius (8), 
Aphraates the Persian (4), Didymus (10), Epiphanius (11), 
Ephraem Syrus (6), Ps. Ephraem (i), Gregory Nazianzen 
(9), Gregory of Nyssa (26), Basil (8), Cyril of Jerusalem (2), 
Lucifer (2), and Leontius (i). That is to say, in 165 places 
as relating to only 15 chance passages in Holy Scripture 
Ecclesiastical Writers living before the Era of St. Chrysostom 
are proved to have followed Manuscripts thus witnessing to 
the Traditional Text. It should be borne in mind that it 
was only at the close of this period that K and B, the two 
oldest manuscripts now existing, were produced. 

4. In a similar manner, the Peshito and Italic Versions 
— including under the latter class the best of the Old Latin 
Versions ^ — were made two hundred years before those two 
^Manuscripts, and — especially the former — support the Tra- 
ditional Text. Nor is occasional evidence subsequently 
wanting in the Egyptian Versions which, as has been seen, 
c?me out later in the same period. 

There is therefore, as these specimens show, no warrant 
for asserting that the Traditional Text is not traceable back 
as far as the earliest age of the Church. The vestiges of it 
in Ante-Nicene times are of a character agreeing with its 
unquestionable ascendency in the future. 

^ "August. De Doctr. Christ.," ii. § 15. 


history of the traditional text from the era of 
st. chrysostom till the invention of printing. 

The Great Patristic Era. Improvement in the Art 
OF Transcribing. Ancient Libraries. Parallel 


Age of Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers, and 
Lectionaries. Eventual supremacy of the Tra- 
ditional Text. 

THE period of history that we have just surveyed in 
brief includes the early struggles of the Church. 
Though there were Christians who had received in trans- 
mission from the Apostles the Faith in its entirety and in its 
varied life, and had learned to realize it, and were firm in 
maintaining it, yet the Church had not yet come through- 
out her length and breadth to understand and hold it in all 
its proportion and detail. The work of the great men of the 
time ' was to construct and not to define. And thus the 
age was an age of research and thought, but at the same 
time it was an age of freedom. The fabric of Christian 
doctrine was not yet consolidated, though the elements 
which had existed at first separately were already combined. 
An era of speculation preceded an era of councils ; for it 
was necessary that all the treasures of the Church should be 


regarded in their various aspects before they could be rightly 

But the period that immediately succeeded was vastly dif- 
ferent. The world of the time had entered at least in name 
into the Catholic Church. And with the disposition to 
half-faith which it caiTied along with it, and which was 
severely felt for at least two quarters of a century, it brought 
besides a sense of law and rule and order, as well as also a 
greater width of observation, and a desire of definition and 
system and of more uniformity in ritual and belief. 

This period was perhaps the most remarkable of all in 
the history of the Church. Religious questions were the 
great questiorrs of the day : the most eminent writers of the 
time were churchmen : and the subjects of their writings 
were those of the Catholic Faith. Their great object was to 
ascertain and unfold the exact lineaments of that which was 
once for all" delivered to the saints. The Creeds and the 
Canons of great Councils remain as the grand monuments 
of their united labour. And the works of Athanasius, Cyril 
of Jerusalem, Hilary, Basil, the Gregories, Ambrose, Chry- 
sostom, Augustine, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the 
Great, and others, (if we may mention also some of those 
who immediately preceded this era) are as beacon-fires still 
chining to later ages, and telling of the greatness of the men 
who kindled them. 

Another point in a sister field throws light upon the settle- 
ment of the Sacred Text which must have silently been 
effected at this time by the rejection of alien variations. 

' Westcott, " On the Canon of Holy Scripture," p. 406. 

- St. Jude, p. 3. uTra?. " August. Contra Donatist.," iv. 24. 'Quod 
universa tenet Ecclesia nee conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, 
non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.' 


Classical literature was in the condition which always ensues 
when a lengthened period of production is succeeded by a 
time of rest. The treasures of the past are then stored, 
studied, and regulated. The expressions of the old writers 
are noted, their style is analysed, and commentators flourish 
in congenial soil. It is a time of dictionaries and grammars. 
Accordingly at this time Hesychius — a different man from 
the Textual editor ^ — wrote his celebrated lexicon : and the 
great Grammarians, Charisius, Diomedes, Donatus, and 
Priscian, pursued their researches and built up their system. 
And the stirring events of the world, under which literature 
was surrendered to the studious few, who as time went on 
worked more and more in retirement from the turmoil of 
life, caused this period to be long protracted, so that it was 
not till the eighth or ninth century that the system upon 
which they laboured reached the measure of perfection that 
it ultimately attained. 

Thus with regard to punctuation. ' In the papyri of 
Hyperides, there are no stops at all, in the Herculaneum 
rolls exceeding few : Codd. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus . . . 
have a single point here and there on a level with the letters, 
and occasionally a very small break.' ^ It was not till about 
the seventh century, that the single point alone was used at 
the head, middle, and foot of letters, to indicate a full-stop, 
half-stop, or comma respectively. Points were afterwards 
multiplical (: : . , : :) to express different powers. ' The 
Greek interrogation (;) first occurs in the ninth century, 
and (,) used as a stop a little later.' ^ In the early manu- 

^ Cf. Dr. Schmidt, in Smith's " Dictionary of Biography, " s. v. 
' See Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 46. 

^ See Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 47. " Globe Encyclo- 
poedia," s. v. Manuscripts. 


scripts, there is also no separation of space between the 

Again, Breathings do not occur in Greek Manuscripts of 
the Holy Scriptures till the end of the seventh century, nor 
indeed Accents. In the ninth century they are found, with 
slight exception, but not affixed with accuracy. In the 
seventh or, eighth centuries breathings and accents were in- 
serted in the older manuscripts, Yet they were said to have 
been originally invented, or more probably reduced to system, 
by Aristophanes, librarian at Alexandria about 240 b.c.^ 

Besides this, the spelling in the early manuscripts shewed 
a great defect in the art of expressing sounds by letters, and 
a want of recognised system in the employment of adopted 
methods. We find both rough variations of consonants,^ 
and confusion between the several vowels and diphthongs.^ 
The latter peculiarity is so common that it has earned for 
itself the special title of Itacism.' There is a tendency just 
at the present day amongst editors to substitute some of 
these ruder types of words for those which were previously 
received, and which are more in accordance with the ortho- 
graphy now accepted in Classical writings." But surely this 
is rather to roll back the wheels of progress. 

So that it would appear that the Art of Writing manuscripts 
did not reach anything Hke maturity till about the eighth 
century. And this is, in truth, held to be the fact. It was 
perfected in the Monasteries. The first care of St. Benedict 

^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 44. 

"^ Thus ot't/tv for 01/^61^ ; aapKivoi^iox aapKiKoq'^ Ma96aiov for Mar0aiov. 

^ Thus tyetpe or tynpaL ; Ictre or eidere ; n-a KavOijaiOfxai or KavOijGOfiai. 
Scrivener, p. 11. 

^ See " Prologomena " to Tischendorf, 8th edition by Dr. Caspar 
Rene Gregory, pp. 71-116. Also Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 
10, 12, 14. 


was that there should be a library in each newly formed 
monastery. At Monte Cassino there was a large library 
which was burnt by the Saracens in the ninth century. 
Bobbio was famous for its palimpsests. St. Gall was also 
widely known. The Irish Missionaries, such as Columba, 
Aidan, Boniface, Kilian, were great cultivators of the art, 
and indeed the Irish, like the Lombards and Anglo-Saxons, 
had a style of their own.^ The beautiful manuscripts, now 
preserved as invaluable treasures, shew the pitch of perfec- 
tion to which the art was brought in later times. Manuscripts 
formed the field of painting : and the schools of modern 
painters issued originally from the bodies of artistic 

But besides the learning, study, and ability spent by the 
Churchmen of the era succeeding the Arian struggle, the 
men of that time had special advantages which have not de- 
scended to our own age. Owing to the jealous and coura- 
geous care of the Church, a large number of manuscripts 
must have survived the persecution of Diocletian. These 
must have been copied, re-copied, and copied again and 
again, and indeed large libraries existed in various places. 

The libraries of Alexandria were especially celebrated. In 
the time of Ptolemy Euergetes, the library in the Bruchium 
contained 490,000 volumes, and that at Serapeum 40,000. 
The Emperor Aurelian in 273 a.d. destroyed the Bruchium, 
and probably one of the Hbraries perished at that time. But 
though the Serapeum was afterwards pulled down by the 
command of Theodosius, the libraries in that city were en- 
larged and increased till the troubles in connection with the 
Saracens ensued, and they perished in a.d. 640. 

' Westwood, " Palceographia Sacra Pictoria." Silvestre's " Palaeo- 
graphy," ed. Sir F. Madden. 


A library was formed at Constantinople by command of 
Constantine, and though small at first, it must have grown at 
length to a great size. Burnt in 477 under the Emperor 
Zeno, it was again restored. And as the imperial library, it 
enjoyed a high reputation in the middle ages till the capture 
of the city by the Turks. 

The library of Pamphilus at Cssarea is said to have been 
increased by Eusebius to 30,000 volumes. This library also 
fell a victim to the Saracens. In later times, Buda under 
Matthaeus Corvinus is reported to have possessed 50,000 
manuscripts, till the city sank into the hands of the Turks 
in 1527, when the library was destroyed. 

It seems surely clear from these considerations that we of 
the present time are so inferior to the Churchmen of the 
age of St. Chrysostom and of the succeeding ages, both in 
the furniture of our 'apparatus criticus' and in the knowledge 
of early manuscripts, that it would be rash in the extreme to 
overrule the verdict which they passed. And this conclu- 
sion is surely strengthened almost to demonstration, when we 
take into consideration the overruling care of the Holy 
Ghost in the Church. For the Church does not act by 
Councils alone, or solely in Canons or Creeds, but expresses 
her decisions in the universal operations of her common life. 
When therefore we are told, and find the information to be 
true as we shall see, that the text used at Constantinople 
and by St. Chr^'sostom became 'the standard New Testa- 
ment of the East,' ^ and that ' the fundamental text of late 
extant Greek MSS. generally is beyond all question identical 
with the dominant Antiochian or Grseco-Syrian text of the 
second half of the fourth century,' we find ourselves face 
to face with a silent action of the Church in one of her 
' Westcott and Hort, "Introduction," p. 143; vol. i., p. 550. 


grandest periods, and we cannot but yield to her virtual 

' Slow experience and spiritual instinct decided the prac- 
tical judgment of the Church. Step by step the books which 
were stamped with Apostolic authority were separated from 
the mass of other works which contained the traditions or 
opinions of less authoritative teachers. Without controversy 
and without effort " the Gospel and the Apostles " were recog- 
nised as inspired sources of truth in the same sense as " the 
Law and the Prophets." In both cases the judgment ap- 
peared as the natural manifestation of the life of the Chris- 
tian body, and not as a logical consequence of definite 
principles.' ^ 

This striking description by Dr. Westcott of the settle- 
ment of the Canon of Holy Scripture is more than illustra- 
tive of the manner, in which the form of text, which now 
asserted itself victoriously and for ever, must have come to 
be generally acknowledged as supreme. The other species 
of readings went down before it. Practically and as far as 
recorded use goes, though the Codex Beza (D) was written 
later, the Western text vanishes. 'The most remarkable 
fact, standing out in striking contrast to the previous state 
of things, is the sudden collapse of the Western text after 
Eusebius.'" The Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts had ap- 
peared, but writers are not found to have quoted them, and 
they have had in succeeding centuries so far as we know only 
a follower here and there, who again are left successively in 
rejection and solitude. 

Indeed, so far does this conclusion carry us, that we are 
led to call in question the excessive value assigned by some 

' Westcott, "On the Canon," p. 350. 

2 Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 141. 


Textualists to the mere antiquity of manuscripts. And 
taking into account the gro\yth of the art of transcribing, and 
the lapse of time during the gradual expulsion of error from 
the text of the New Testament, we are driven to the conclu- 
sion, that the relative value of manuscripts is not determined 
by rude antiquity ; but that a manuscript of the seventh or 
eighth century, or even of later production, may be superior 
to one of the fourth or fifth, especially if the earlier bear indi- 
cations of suspicious parentage, or be produced under he- 
retical associations. Such a manuscript though inferior to 
another in actual age, yet may deliver a testimony which is 
virtually much older : because it may witness to Traditional 
teachings which may be supported by evidence dating back 
to the earliest times. We can understand some German 
critics, who deeply learned as they are, have no sense of any 
Catholic authority ^ or of any guidance of the Church by the 
Holy Spirit, and who are haunted with the vision of a 
Church of the future constructed by pressing latent essence 
out of texts of Scripture and evolving hidden truths out of 
germs concealed within the secret consciousness of genius, 
which shall not have too much connection with the past, 
paying no attention to the silent condemnation of their 
theory passed by fifteen centuries. With them antiquity is 
valued according to its distance from now, and its nearness 
to the original autographs. But when the closest proximity 
attainable is a matter of nearer three than two centuries, and 
the Church of the time, with advantages with which those 
of the present day cannot be compared for a moment, has in 

^ Dr. Michelsen however, writing at Leyden, expressly rejects the ex- 
treme Textual theory because it controvenes the principle, Quod semper^ 
quod ubiqite, ab qtiod omnibus, " Theologisch Tijdschrift," Jan., 


tacit but consistent action pronounced upon the question, 
is it not difficult to see how those who acknowledge the in- 
fluence of the Holy Ghost in the Church can follow such 
guidance, except from omission to observe the wide-spread- 
ing reach of this truth and its application to the problem 
before us? If such a judgment is universally accepted as 
valid in the case of the Canon, why has it not equal force 
in the determination of the Sacred Text ? 

The earliest fact of great importance in the history of this 
period was one of striking interest in the spread of the Church. 
In the fourth century the Goths, upon their advance from the 
wilds of the north to the fair south, were dwelling in Moesia, 
and in one of their raids into the Roman empire carried off" 
a Cappadocian family. Ulfilas was afterwards born amongst 
them, and Gothic became his native language. Brought 
up as a Christian, he and other Goths were forced to leave 
their native country by persecutions on account of their 
religion, and they went under the leadership of Ulfilas 
within the confines of the Roman Empire. He was after- 
w^ards consecrated bishop by Eusebius, and passed the 
first seven years of his episcopate amongst the Goths in 
succession to Theophilus their first bishop. The last 
thirty-three he spent within the borders of the Roman 
Empire, where he migrated again with a larger number of 

Finding the need of the Holy Scriptures in his native 
tongue, he translated into Gothic the Septuagint Version 
of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New. He was 
an Arian, but his Version is nearer to the Traditional Text 
than to any other. Afterwards when the Goths were in 

^ Max MUller, " Lectures on the Science of Language," 4th edition, 
pp. 188-192. 


Italy, it was corrupted to some extent from Latin sources.^ 
Its date is about 360 a.d. 

Towards the end of this century, or at the beginning of 
the fifth,^ the great Codex Alexandrinus (A), now in the 
British Museum, was produced, afterwards the splendid gift 
of Cyril Lucas, Bishop of Alexandria, to Charles I. This 
great manuscript is admitted by Westcott and Hort to repre- 
sent fairly the text used by the great writers of its time. It 
may be regarded as the oldest, and yet an independent, ex- 
ponent of the Traditional Text as eventually received.'^ The 
divergence between A on the one side and B and K on the 
other, if we may regard those discordant witnesses as one, is 
greatest in the Gospels. In the Epistles there is much more 
agreement between them. 

At some time in the fifth century the Codex Ephraemi 
(C), now at Paris, was executed. It is a palimpsest written 
over in the twelfth century with some of the works of St. 
Ephraem the Syrian, according to the custom introduced 
from very early times on account of the scarcity of vellum.^ 

^ Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 405. 

- ' I venture to maintain that the limits on both sides may be A.D. 
380 and A.D. 410, and that the earlier date is more nearly correct.' — 
Cook, "Revised Version," p. 185. The whole chapter should be con- 
sidered. Dr. Scrivener is inclined to refer A to the beginning, or else 
the middle of the fifth century — ' certainly not much later than the end 
of the fourth century. ' — "Plain Introduction," p. 97. Cf, Hort, "In- 
troduction," p. 75, * referred by the best judges to the fifth centuiy.' 

^ ' The serious deflections of A from the " Textus Receptus," amount 
in all to only 842 (in 1 1 1 pages) : whereas in C they amount to 1 798 : 
in B. to 2370: in ^f, to 3392: in D, to 4697. '— Burgon, "Revision Re- 
vised," p. 14. My own figures — over a smaller area — are similar. 

^ Palimpsests were used in the days of Cicero and Catullus. Cicero, 
"' Fam." vii. p. 18, 2 ; " Catullus,'" xxii. 5. Plutarch, "Moralia," ii. 
504 D, 779 C. 


The original letters were in Bentley's time so difficult to de- 
cipher, that Wetstein, to whom Bentley paid ^50 to collate 
this manuscript, complained that it took him two hours to 
make out one page. The writing was renewed in 1834 by 
chemicals. This manuscript consists of fragments through- 
out the New Testament, amounting nearly to two-thirds of 
the whole. It lies as to character of text about midway be- 
tween A and B, inclining somewhat to the latter.^ 

Various indications, occurring as if by chance here and there 
amidst discussions, prove that the learned men of this period 
were quite aUve to the variations of manuscripts, and exer- 
cised critical judgment in deciding between conflicting read- 
ings. Thus St. Basil at Caesarea, misled by his authorities 
as to the correct reading at the opening of the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, refers to the oldest of his manuscripts." Again, 
Victor of Antioch,in the earlier half of the fifth century, tells 
how not finding the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel 
in several copies, he searched amongst accurate ones, where 
he found it, and that he especially discovered the passage in 
a Palestinian exemplar of St. Mark's Gospel.^ And Severus, 
at the end of the same century, describes how 'being at Con- 
stantinople he heard the passage about the piercing of our 
Lord's side, as supposed to be related by St. Matthew 

^ Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 120. Dean Burgon, whilst 
preferring it to B and ^f, suggests that it was used as a palimpest because 
it was thought to be of slight value (" Revision Revised," p. 325). It is 
hard to conceive such an use being made of it, if it had been rated high. 
It was also corrected at different times by three revisers, — another proof 
of want of confidence in it. 

^ Burgon, " Last Twelve Verses," p. 93. " Basil," opp. i., p. 254 E, 
255 A. 

^ Burgon, "Last Twelve Verses," p. 64. Appendix E., p. 288, 
where the Scholion is given in full. 


strenuously discussed : whereupon had been produced a 
splendid copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, traditionally said to 
have been found with the body of the Apostle Barnabas in 
the island of Cyprus in the time of the Emperor Zeno (a.d. 
474-491); and preserved in the palace with superstitious 
reverence in consequence. It contained no record of the 
piercing of the Saviour's side.' ^ It will be observed in these 
instances that nothing is said about any individual opinion 
as to what ought to be the reading, but that the question is 
treated as exclusively one of authority, — what in those days 
when many ancient copies existed was the verdict of the 
oldest and best manuscripts." 

It will be remarked that up to the end of the fifth century 
we have four large manuscripts. Of these K alone supplies 
the entire New Testament. Of A the greater part of St. 
Matthew has perished, that is, as far as xxv. 6, about two 
chapters in St. John, and about eight in the Second Epistle 
to the Corinthians.^ B is perfect (except for omissions) 
down to Heb. ix. 14, not including the Pastoral Epistles, 
which were often placed after the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
that thus came near the middle of St. Paul's Epistles. C is 
full of large gaps, and, as has been already stated, contains 
not two-thirds of the whole. Besides these, five other frag- 

^ Burgon, "Last Twelve Verses," p. 315, who refers to Assemanni, 
"Bibl. Orient.," ii., pp. 81, 82. 

- See also Lee "On Inspiration," Appendix G, who quotes Julius 
Africanus, a.d. 220 (Routh, " Rell. Sacr.," ii., p. 226), Cassiodorus, a.d. 
469, " De Institutione Divinarum Literarum," Pref. ii., 538, St. Augus- 
tine (besides as already quoted), " De Consensu Evangelistarum," ii., 
14, iii. 7, adding that ' similar illustrations of the critical spirit with which 
the Fathers conducted their critical investigations might be multiplied 
to any extent.' 

'" From John vi. 50 to viii. 52, and from 2 Cor. iv. 13 to xii. 6. 



merits ^ are extant from the fourth and fifth centuries, of which 
Q is the largest, containing fragments of 235 verses from the 
two last Gospels.^ 

It should be remarked, that these are only the earliest 
according to actual discovery. It is quite within the bounds 
of possibility that research may bring even older manu- 
scripts to light. The cases of ^? and of the Codex Rossanensis 
(2), which was found at Rossano in Calabria in 1879 by 
Messrs. Oscar von Gebhart and Adolf Hamach, seem to 
point to some increase accruing to our transcriptional 

It must also be remembered that some of the Versions are 
older than any existing manuscripts that have fallen into our 
hands. The Peshito probably dates ^ from early in the second 
century : the old Latin Versions from nearly the same anti- 
quity : the Memphitic and Thebaic from the end of the same 
century : the Bashmuric, another Egyptian Version, from the 
next : and the Curetonian Syriac, of which the date is uncer- 
tain, must have been made before the Traditional Text was 
generally received, and indeed as would appear probable, 
about the latter end of the third or the beginning of the 
fourth centuries.* Next we come to the Gothic, a contem- 
porary of B and K, though a few years their junior. And 
the Vulgate meets us about a.d. 384 or 385. 

In 382, Pope Damasus, in consequence of the variety of 

1 Viz., Nb, T and T', which are parts of the same MS., V, P, 
and Q. 

^ Scrivener, *' Plain Introduction," p. 138. See below, Chapter 

^ See above, p. 74. 

* I hazard the suggestion that it was made under the influence of the 
copies of Lucian, with which St. Jerome finds so much fault. The 
Curetonian shows great traces of Western corruption. 


readings and the extensive corruption that prevailed in the 
Old Latin copies, committed the revision of them to St. 
Jerome. That great scholar and theologian entered upon 
his work, which included the Old Testament as well as the 
New, with great care and prudence, being anxious to make 
as few alterations as possible. With his Latin copies he 
compared some ancient Greek exemplars. He soon finished 
the New Testament, but his translation of the Old was not 
completed till the beginning of the next century, and was 
not considered so successful as the former. By degrees his 
translation won its way, and continued till the time of the 
Council of Trent to be the recognised Version of the Western 
Church. In obedience to a decree of that Council, a Re- 
vision was made under Sixtus V., but was found so faulty, 
that only two years afterwards the Clementine Bible was 
issued under Clement VIIL (1592, a.d.), and has held its 
place to the present day. 

Besides these Versions, the New Testament was translated 
into Armenian in the fifth century, soon after the Council of 
Ephesus in a.d. 431 ; into Georgian about the same time;^ 
and also into Ethiopian at a date which is so uncertain that 
this Version has been assigned by Dillman to the fourth 
century, and by Gildemeister and other Orientalists to the 
sixth or seventh.^ 

In the sixth century the Cambridge Manuscript Codex 
Bezae (D) was produced. It contains the Gospels and the 
chief part of the Acts but with several omissions, and is one 
of those which are called ' bilingual ' manuscripts, that is, 

^ Dr. Malan(" Select Readings," p. 18), shews this from the standard 
'•Histor>' of Georgia," published at St. Petersburg in 1849, and other 

^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 409. 


containing both a Greek and a Latin version. It is supposed 
to represent the Western Text, and is extremely inaccurate 
and full of interpolations. It is said to have six hundred 
bold and extensive interpolations in the Acts alone.^ Its 
place in St. Paul's Epistles is considered to be filled by the 
Codex Claromontanus, so called from having been found 
at Clermont (D. of St. Paul), but as far as the Greek ver- 
sion is concerned, much more correct than its sister. 

To this time also is referred the Codex Rossanensis 
(2), which contains the whole of St. Matthew, and St. Mark 
down to xvi. 14, and is remarkable as the earliest MS. that 
gives the doxology for the Lord's Prayer in St. Matthew.^ 
Also the Codex Laudianus (E of the Acts), now in the 
Bodleian library, and various fragments, amongst which are 
the palimpsest Z at Dublin, and others. 

The seventh century does not appear to be rich in the 
production of extant copies, unless it be at the end. But in 
the eighth, ninth, and tenth they not only abound, but with 
the exception of L, H of St. Luke, and A in St. Mark,^ wit- 
ness to a now settled agreement in the Traditional Text. 
Perhaps the most noticeable amongst them is the Codex 
Basiliensis (E) now at Basle, which is usually referred to the 
eighth century, but is considered by Dean Burgon to belong 
to the seventh." 

In the tenth century, cursive writing came into vogue, and 

' Sciivener, p. 126. 

^ But the Doxology has much earlier authority in the Peshito and 
Thebaic, not to mention the Curetonian, in the Liturgies, and in the 
Apostolic Constitutions, and the Teaching of the Apostles. See Malan, 
'* Select Readings," p. 26. And below. Appendix v. 

^ Westcott and Hort, "Introduction," p. 171. 

•* Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 127. Burgon, "Guardian" 
newspaper, Jan. 29, 1873. See below, Chapter VIII. 


was used thenceforwards do\vn to the time when copying 
gave way to printing. No less than 1997 cursive copies are 
now known to exist in all kinds, that is, inclusive of Gospels, 
Acts and Catholic Epistles, St. Paul, Apocalypse, and Lec- 
tionaries of the Gospels and of the Apostles.^ With hardly 
any exception the Cursives witness to the Traditional Text. 
Only a few, such as i, t^t^^- as well as 13, 69, 124, 346, 
and a very few others here and there, follow B and ^. Thus 
it would appear that the text of those Uncials was advocated 
by a small minority, and that it was nevertheless condemned, 
not because it was not known, but on account of its faulty 

The question naturally arises, What is the value of the 
Cursive Manuscripts ? They were produced so many cen- 
turies after the Apostles' time, that serious doubts have been 
entertained about their possessing any critical value at all. 

Now a moderate application of the principle of Genealogy 
here comes into action. The Cursive Manuscripts were the 
representatives, not only of a long line of ancestors, but as 
must follow from the circumstances attending them, of a long 
line of respectable ancestors, whose character as revealed in 
their extant descendants proves them not to have degene- 
rated — speaking generally of them in the mass — in any very 
considerable degree, unless it be in a few particulars. Their 
overwhelming number supplies a presumption, and indeed 
more than a presumption, that their ancestors were also 
numerous. And their general agreement amongst themselves 
proves that they express the settled conviction of the Church 
of their time, whilst their consonance with the mass of the 

^ Scrivener, " Plain Introduction, " p. xxx. 

' Only I and 33 are quoted by Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," 
p. 171. 


Uncials that went before them demonstrates their unbroken 
unison with the ages that lately preceded them. 

But to dream of arraying the Cursives as a body on the 
one side against the Uncials as an army on the other would 
be abhorrent to Textual Criticism, and such a notion could 
only be suggested or imputed by those who are innocent of 
the facts of the case as well as of the principles accepted by 
Textual Critics. The Cursive Manuscripts, be it never for- 
gotten, follow the main body of the Uncials with a very 
remarkable unanimity. Always excepting some half-dozen — 
those just mentioned — they bear generally the same wit- 
ness. As exponents of the Traditional Text, they acquiesce 
in the lead of the elder testimony which is supplied by Uncial 
Manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers, and add confirmation to 
what is otherwise attested. As well suppose that the rank 
and file of the English Army may be drawn up against the 
officers, as imagine a general conflict between the Cursives 
and the Uncials. It should be remembered, though too much 
stress must not be laid upon this truth, that in the age of the 
Cursives the Art of Transcribing reached its highest point of 

It would not be right to leave this long period from the 
Era of St. Chrj^sostom, even in a short sketch like the pre- 
sent, without lingering for a moment upon a very important 
and peculiar class of Manuscripts. Of the Lectionaries the 
number discovered and catalogued has now mounted up to 
more than five hundred. These manuscripts date back at 
least as far as the eighth century, and represent a tradition 
much earlier than that. 

Lectionaries have evidently a peculiar value because of 
their use in Public Worship, where they would be subjected 
necessarily to continual criticism. Faults would be corrected, 


and a general accuracy ensured ; though no doubt such 
errors as might happen to creep in would keep an obstina.te 
hold when once in possession. 

As to Versions, there are two in Syriac to be noticed 
since the beginning of the sixth century, and some of an un- 
scientific order. That called the Jerusalem, of which only 
one manuscript exists, dates back certainly as far as the sixth 
and perhaps to the fifth century. A more important version 
was the Philoxenian, or Harclean. This was made by 
Polycarp, a Rural-Bishop (^wpfTrtcKro^og), for Xenaias or Phi- 
loxenus, Monophysite Bishop of Mabug, or Hierapolis, in 
A.D. 508. About a hundred years after (a.d. 616) it was 
revised by Thomas of Harkel. ' It is probably the most 
servile version of Scripture ever made.' ^ The other Versions 
are : — the Slavonic, of the ninth century ; the Anglo-Saxon, 
from the eighth to the eleventh ; a Prankish of the ninth ; two 
Persic, of the Gospels only, and of uncertain date; and 
some Arabic translations of small critical value. 

The witness of the Fathers in the early part of this period 
has been stated to be consentient, and to be consistently in 
favour of the Traditional Text. It has been calculated that 
there are about a hundred Fathers who wrote before the pro- 
duction of B, and about two hundred more till the end of 
the sixth century. 

We have now reached the era when printing was applied 
to the New Testament, and when therefore the periods cease 
during which materials were manufactured for the subsequent 
use of Textual Criticism. 

A few words in retrospect are here necessary. 

The great feature in this period was the rise of the Tra- 
ditional Text into a predominance which was scarcely dis- 
' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 328. 


puted. Corruption of a manifold kind had been infused in 
the earliest times into the Sacred Writings. When they 
were hardly emerging from the rude depravation to which 
they were subjected in many places, they experienced the 
influence of a School of Semi-sceptical philosophy within 
the Church, and a small Class of copies varying from the 
Text afterwards accepted was produced in the times, if not 
as it appears under the supervision, of a party that was not 
wholly orthodox. Then ensued an era when the Faith of 
the Church and the Holy Scriptures were subjected to long 
and anxious consideration. The main features of the Faith 
once delivered were defined in Creeds. No special enact- 
ments embodying formal definition were made upon the 
Canon or the Text of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless 
the number of genuine Books, and the true Form of Text, 
were settled quietly and yet decisively. Divergent tongues 
were scarcely heard afterwards except to be silenced. The 
* still small Voice ' was making Itself felt and acknowledged 
throughout the whole Body, without rising into loud tones of 
command, or causing laws to be written down in special or 
general legislation. 



I. Manuscripts (a) Uncial, (d) Cursive; II. Lec- 


THE research of modern times has collected, as has 
been already seen, a vast amount of varied evidence 
upon the Text of the New Testament. We may best 
arrange their evidence under four Heads, viz., Manuscripts 
Uncial and Cursive, Lectionaries and Liturgies, Versions, 
and the Quotations that are found in Ecclesiastical Writers. 

I. (a) Uncial Manuscripts. 

The New Testament was formerly divided into four parts, 
viz.. Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, PauHne Epistles, 
and the Apocalypse. 

Uncial Manuscripts were originally made up of continuous 
writing in large letters without any space between the 
words or sentences. The most ancient letters were upright 
and square : afterwards they became narrow, or oblong, or 
leaning ; and the writing gradually assumed a more elaborate 
and artistic form. The copies of the New Testament that 
have descended to us are not wTitten upon the reed papyrus, 
or on wax tablets, or the bark of trees, or any such perish- 


able substance, but generally on either vellum or the skins 
of very young calves, or else on parchment or the skins of 
sheep and goats. The Sinaitic is made up of the skins of 

The dates in the following Table (see pp. io8, 109) are 
taken from Dr. Scrivener's " Plain Introduction," with the 
exception of E, with respect to which I have followed Dean 
Burgon, who has carefully examined that manuscript. 

Besides the Uncial Manuscripts which are mentioned in 
the Table, there are several smaller fragments, which with 
the others make up the following number in all : — 

Gospels .... 

. 61 

Acts and Catholic Epistles . 

. 14 

Pauline Epistles . 

. 22 

Apocalypse .... 

• 5 

But in this calculation, as will be observed, inasmuch as the 
number of authorities in each class is given, those Manu- 
scripts which include parts of more than one class are 
reckoned under each. Thus A and K are reckoned in all 
four classes, B in three, and D in two. Subtracting these, 
viz., 7 repetitions in the Acts, 8 in St. Paul, and 4 in the 
Apocalypse, we have a general total of Z^ Uncials. 

{l?) Cursive Manuscripts. 

The vast amount of Manuscripts included in this impor- 
tant class, — important because of their number, of their 
general consentience in rendering, of the strong body of 
ancestors which they represent, of the perfection of the art 


with which they were executed, and of the generally accepted 
conclusions of which they are the signs and tokens, — with 
the one weighty drawback of defect in antiquity — prevents 
any possibility of a list of them being given in a small work 
like the present. The most celebrated are the handful of 
dissentients that follow B and K (see above, p. loi), which 
have been thereby lifted into a prominence beyond their 
real importance, and the following : — 

13. Regius, collated by Professor W. H. Ferrar. 

20. Regius, 188. 

61. Codex Monrfortianus (above, p. 9). 

66. Codex Galei Londinensis. 

69. Codex Leicestriensis. 

71. Lambeth, 528. 
113. Codex Harleianus, 18 10, Brit. Mus. 
124. Caesar- Vindobon. Nessel. 188, Lambec. 31. 
237 — 259. Collated by C. F. Matthaei. 
507 — 517. Collated by Dr. Scrivener. 
603. &c. &c. &c. 

Dr. Scrivener and Dean Burgon have raised the number 
of known Cursives to — 


. 739 

Acts and Catholic Epistles . 

. 261 

Pauline Epistles .... 

• 338 

Apocalypse . . . . 

. 122 


It is improbable, that a list has been yet obtained of all the 
surviving treasures of this Class. Yet on the other hand, it 
is scarcely conceivable, that any future discoveries will affect 
their general testimony to the Traditional Text. 





= 1 

< < 







•w S 3 

1 1 

1 M 

1 1 1 Q S 1 








1 1 

1 1 

1 w 1 



fa fi: ?r 

^ i III 

t : ^ ^f. 

!-•- w.i: u £ > S^ 
^ > >- > > S 5 



P3% <! U C Wp (In NfiJIZi [2 f2 



J _„ J 

w 1 ^ 



S S 



1 II 

1 ! 

i jl 1 III 1 !sl 











All, except Matt. iv. 22— 
V. 14 ; xxviii. 17-20. 
Mark x. 16-30; xv. 2-20. 
John xxi. 15-25. 
All, except Matt. v. 44 — 
vi. 12 ; ix. 18— X. 1 ; 
xxii. 14 — xxiii. 35. 
John xxi 12-25. 
After John vii. 39, in 
John xvi. 3— xix. 41. 
Luke i. I— xi. 33. 


Full of hiatus. 

All Luke, Mark except 105 
verses, 531 of the rest. 

All, except Johnxix. 17-35. 

All, except Matt. iii. 12— 
iv. 18 ; xix. 12 — XX. 3 ; 
John viii. 6-39. 


With serious defects. 


J > ><w 1 X'-^ 'Z '- < c ^x \ ^c/3o ' 



Bible Society 









St. Gall 



St. Petersburg 

St. Petersburg 



Brit. Museum 



Vaticanus, 2066 

Wolfii B 





Tischendorfianus IV. 

Mosquensis, 98. 








Nanianus I. 
Vaticanus, 354 




J> ^ O— y 
t3 I U g J 

I i §1 f 

■- o-'.s s 

t«j, > hO° 

• n 'N^ ■«-'• c V 

o~ u o 6 
V -'2 V o 

— C U •- Q, 




II. Lectionaries and Liturgies. 

The value of this class of evidence, the full force of which 
was first advocated and explained by Dean Burgon in his 
'Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel/^ is very con- 
siderable and peculiar. 

It is evident that what is constantly read under authority 
in public must have a far greater weight than the writings of 
any individual author. Such texts must have been con- 
tinually exposed to general criticism. Whilst therefore it is 
quite possible that some of the MSS. that have descended 
to us may not have been subjected to such searching ex- 
amination, and indeed that in the natural wear and tear of 
time the best accredited may have been most used and 
therefore have soonest perished, whilst those that were least 
in repute may have been preserved because of general neglect, 
Lectionaries and Liturgies emerge from the full light and 
the never-ceasing life of the Early Church. Add to this, 
that both these species of evidence date from the earliest 
times. The Lectionary-system of the * Unchangeable East ' 
has remained from very ancient antiquity, and can be traced 
back beyond B and K to the times at least of Origen and 
even Clemens Alexandrinus at the end of the second century. 
The Manuscripts go back as far as the eighth century : but 
numerous indications in the works of Ecclesiastical writers 
carry the reference without doubt to the period just men- 

This Lectionary-system was drawn upon the main lines of 
the practice that previously prevailed in the Synagogues of 

' Pp. 191-211, 214-5, 217-24, 240, 313-5, 318. 
^ Burgon, " Last Twelve Verses, " pp. 191-211. 


the Jews. There were in their Services, as in ours, two 
Lessons, one from each of their great divisions of the Old 
Testament. St. Paul and St. Barnabas found at Antioch in 
Pisidia the ordinary custom in operation of reading both 
from the Law and the Prophets.^ This habit was continued in 
the Liturgies by the selections then made both from the 
Epistles and Gospels, and in the daily Morning and Evening 
Prayers by the Lessons from the Old and New Testaments. 
Accordingly, Justin Martyr, writing about a.d. 150, records 
in his Apology that there were readings during Divine Ser- 
vice from the Apostles and the Prophets." The new Lec- 
tionary-system was thus, as well as in other particulars,'^ 
grounded upon the old. And thus Lectionaries, as well as 
Liturgies, constitute a most valuable source of true informa- 
tion and evidence. 

Several errors may be traced to this influence. Thus the 
omission of the last twelve verses of St, Mark's Gospel in 
certain copies, of which B and {< are the only extant speci- 
mens, is probably due to the fact that those verses consti- 
tuted by themselves a Lection, which exactly filHng the last 
page of the Gospel (for St. Mark stood last according to the 
Western arrangement) dropped off perforce with the last 
leaf. A copyist, charged to transcribe a copy so mutilated, 
not unnaturally mistook the end {teXoq) marking the close 
of the previous Lection for the end of the entire Gospel. 
Again, the two verses in St. Luke that describe the minister- 
ing Angel and the agony and bloody sweat ^ were omitted in 
the ordinary reading of the rest of the passage on the Tues- 

' Acts xiii. 15. 

^ " ApoL," i. p. 67. Burgon, " Last Twelve Verses," p. 193 note. 

^ E. g., both began in September. Burgon, p. 193. 

* Luke xxii. 43, 44. 


day after Sexagesima, and were inserted after St. Matt, 
xxvi. 39 on Maundy Thursday. As marks were put in the 
Evangelistaria directing the omission, it was even obvious 
that some copyist would be sure to leave the two verses out 
altogether. So again, the fourteenth chapter of St. John is 
made to commence with the words, * And Jesus said unto 
his disciples,' as any one may see by referring to the Gospels 
in our Prayer-Book for St. Philip and St. James' day.^ 
Similar introductions and insertions were not uncommon, 
and have crept into the Uncial Manuscripts." 
Lectionaries were of two kinds : — 

1. Evangelistaria, or Evangeliaria, consisting of Lessons 
from the Gospels. Of these 415 Manuscripts are known. 

2. Praxapostoli or Apostoli, containing Lessons from the 
Acts and Epistles, and amounting to 128, as hitherto 

The value of the Quotations in Liturgies rests upon much 
the same foundation as the verdicts of the Lectionaries. 
They 'record the witness, not of individuals, but of Churches.' 
But the quotations are rare. Such however is the render- 
ing of the ' Gloria in Excelsis ' in the Liturgy of St. 
Clement and in that of St. James. Such again is the general 
witness in favour of the Doxology as a recognized termina- 
tion of the Lord's Prayer. 

The Liturgies reach at least as far back as the 4th or 5 th 

^ Compare the Gospels for the second, third, and fourth Sundays after 

^ See Burgon's "Last Twelve Verses," chapter xi., for numerous 
instances of this kind. 

* Daniel, "Codex Liturgicus," Tom. iv,, Prolegom., pp. 28-31. 



III, Versions. 

The chief Versions have been already noticed. The 
general dates of them all may be seen together in the fol- 
lowing Table : — 




Single Versions. 

II. :Peshito(i) Old Latin (i) I 

1 sc. 

a. African 

b. European ] ? Memphitic, or 
I Bahiric (2) 

; I ? Thebaic, or 

I Sahidic (2) 


? Memphitic and 

Bashmuric, or 
Elearchian (3) 

IV. ? Curetonian (3) 

Vulgate (2) 

Jerusalem (3) 
I Karkaphensian (3) ; 

VI. Philoxenian (3) 
A.D. 508. 

VII. Harclean(3) 

A.D. 616, 

Gothic (2) 

Armenian (2) 
Georgian (3; 
Ethiopian (2)! 

I Revision 

A,D, 1592, 

Slavonic (3) IXth. 
Anglo-Saxon (4) Vlllth- 

Prankish (4) IXth. 
Persic (4) IXth. 
Arabic (several) Vlllth, 



The figures here attached to the names of the several Ver- 
sions denote their relative scale of excellence in a critical 
light according as Dr. Scrivener has classed them. Some of 
the Arabic, and one Persic Version, may be ranked in the 
third class. But the other Persic (and perhaps one Arabic) 
version being derived from the Peshito Syriac, and the Anglo- 
Saxon or old English from the Latin Vulgate, can be applied 
only to the correction of their respective primary trans- 

The value of this kind of evidence is patent upon an in- 
spection of the Table above. Versions present the most 
ancient form of continuous text. Some of them are of much 
earlier date than the oldest Uncials. But to this lofty posi- 
tion some drawbacks are attached. 

I. The exact reading of a Version may perhaps be very 
difficult to ascertain. Questions as to the true form of the 
text may come into them as they do into the original Greek 
Text. Old Latin affords an instance before all others,^ since 
it is rather a Group of Versions, African, European, and 
Italian,^ than a single Translation like the rest that can be 

^ "Plain Introduction," p. 309. 

'^ "Old Latin Biblical Texts," i., by Professor Wordsworth, Intro- 
duction, p. XXX. The chief Texts for Jerome's Vulgate, which Professor, 
soon to be Bishop, Wordsworth is engaged in editing, are 

Codex Amiatinus, about A.D. 541. am. 
next, ,, Fuldensis Vlth. . . fuld. or fu. 

perhaps, ,, Forojuliensis Vlth. . . for. 

^ Of these Professor Sanday considers the Italian to be a Revision of 
the European. See also, pp. 75, 76. Dr. Hort's classification is — 

I. African, e, k, &c. 

II. European, a, c,ff, h, i, &c. 

III. Italian, / g, &c. 

"Introduction," pp. 78-84. Wordsworth, p. xxx. 

But no certain conclusions have been reached on this point. 



determined with more or less accuracy. Thirty-eight codices 
exist, out of which the highest in repute are : — 



Cod. Vercellensis . 



„ Veronensis . 

IV. or V. 


„ Colbertinus . 



„ Palatinus 

IV. or V. 


„ Brixianus 



„ Corbeiensis (2) . 

VIII. . 


„ Sangermanensis (2) 



„ Claromontanus . 

IV. or V. 


,, Vindobonensis . 

V. or VI. 


„ Bobbiensis . 

IV. or V. 


„ Mai's Speculum . 

VI. or VII. 


,, Monacensis. 



This drawback is not so great in the case of the others, but 
subtracts from the value of all. 

2. From the nature of Translations, which, to be good, 
must adhere to the idiomatic expression of the language into 
which they are made, it follows that great uncertainty must 
prevail as to the original Greek words. Versions, therefore, 
do not always render decisive evidence upon the question 
of a single Greek expression. On the other hand, the 
authority of a Version as to the authenticity of a clause, 
sentence, or longer passage, is unquestionable, and may be 
much higher than that of a single manuscript, since it has 
presumably a public character, varying however according to 
circumstances, and may have a much higher antiquity. 

3. It is evident that only a master of the language can at 
first hand pronounce upon the Version. 


IV. Ecclesiastical Writers. 

Ecclesiastical writers may be said to surpass even Versions. 
in reaching back to early, or rather the earliest Antiquity. 
Their authority, especially in confirmation of what is attested 
by good evidence of other kinds, is often of the highest im- 
portance. Their variety and number, as representing various 
parts and epochs of the Church, add greatly to their weight. 
And the positions, opportunities, and abilities of very many 
amongst them render their witness nearly always entitled to 
respectful attention. But some points subtract from their 
authority in this province. 

Their testimony is seldom continuous, but fragmentary,. 
and sometimes not to be had when we most need it. They 
often quote if from memory. Sometimes they cite 
from the copy that they happen to have at the moment, and 
so the same passage is found in different forms at different 
places in their writings. 

But for all this, they furnish a most valuable kind of 
evidence. It is not necessary to attribute to them severally 
any critical acumen, though there is reason for inferring that 
more of this was to be found in earlier times than many 
people suppose. Their chief value is as witnesses to facts. 
Their evidence may be described as that of Manuscripts at 
second hand, of which the greater part are either older than, 
or about as old as, the oldest Manuscripts in existence. 
They often confirm readings by witnessing to the copies 
used by them with (so far) unquestionable accuracy. In- 
deed, this has been the most neglected and undervalued 
help to criticism, and nevertheless promises to be one of the 
most important. Unfortunately, their works want to be 


edited with this view and indexed, before all the treasures 
that lie hid at present are ready to the hand of Textual 
Critics. When that is done, supplies will have been pro- 
vided for a fresh and real advance. 

Such is the vast field that must thoroughly be explored 
before a Revision of the Greek Text can be satisfactorily 
accomplished. Trust must not be reposed in one class of 
evidence alone. Even Manuscripts of the Greek Testament, 
superior as they are in most respects to all the other classes, 
can by no means support a claim to the highest antiquity. 
Single Manuscripts are actually surpassed in this respect 
by Versions^ and Fathers, and virtually also by Lectionaries 
and Liturgies. 

^ It should be observed, with reference to the age of the Peshito, 
that MSS. of it exist as far back as to A.D. 411, the date of Cod. Add. 
12150, which is nearly also the date of A. See "An Account of a 
Syriac Biblical MS.," &c., No. viii. in the Oxford " Studia Biblica," 
by the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, who has courteously sent me a copy. 



(i) The Traditional Text, (2) External Evidence, (3) 
The Seven Canons of Internal Evidence. Conclusion. 

AS the chief parts of the province of the Textual Criti- 
cism of the New Testament have now been reviewed, 
we are in a position to arrive at definite conclusions with re- 
spect to the principles that ought to guide us in the revision 
of the Sacred Text. 

And first, there can be no sort of question that it would 
be culpably wrong to throw aside any portions of the exist- 
ing evidence. Besides the illogical nature of a process that 
would take no note of materials that must have weight in 
constructing the premises and determining the conclusion : 
— to go no further than the formidable project of extirpating 
the vast mass of multiform proof both known and increasing of 
a Text other than the one which it is sought in some quarters 
to establish, and a very questionable attempt to get rid of 
inconvenient testimony : — the Church is answerable before 
Almighty God for making due use, and for the preservation 
from generation to generation, of the materials collected for 
the maintenance of His Inspired Word. If it be repHed that 
it is not possible for any one age to deal with so large an 
amount of matter, the answer is ready that it is our duty in 
such a case, where we are dealing, not with human circum- 


stances but with the things of God, to reverse the poets' 
maxim, and to say 

Non mihi res, sed me rebus subjungere conor. 

We cannot carve for ourselves the witness of the Sacred 
Word, but we must conform our deaHngs to what we find 
existing. Far better is it to Hnger in wise and reverent 
caution, than perhaps to rush in where angels might fear to 
enter, and to pull down with hasty profanity instead of 
strengthening the pillars of the Temple. The Great Giver 
of the Inspired Word is also the Preserver of it in the witness 
and keeping of Holy Writ. He has spoken during all the 
the ages, though in the still gentle Voice that He is pleased 
to use, yet by definite and manifest signs and tokens. We 
must gather these together as far as we are able, and whilst we 
shrink from refusing to hear their testimony, and from pre- 
judicing or forcing their decision, we must dutifully and 
practically collect their verdict. 

I. It will therefore follow that the first object of a Textual 
Critic should be to discover what is in deed and in fact The 
Traditional Text. How far does the Received Text 
accord with it ? For with the Text as now ' Received ' 
operations must be begun. The burden of proof Hes with 
alterations. Then, in what particulars has human infirmity 
vitiated in any one age, period, or epoch, that pure Text 
which may become clear to the view upon a comparison of 
all the ages? In the assemblage of the entire body the 
errors of any individual may be made manifest. General 
Councils used to correct the mistakes of single bishops.^ 
The Holy Ghost does not eliminate all weakness, but He 

' See especially. "Concilium Hispalense (a. D. 619), Mansi,'' x. 
p. 558. Canon VI. 


guides the awards of the whole Church. Any Father, 
or Version, or even Lectionary, or copy, however ancient, 
however hkely on all grounds to have escaped blundering, 
may yet have gone astray. But in the union of them all, 
and in testimony varied, multiplied, and mainly consentient, 
there is not only the proverbial strength, but there is also the 
promised Presence, that descended after the Lord left the 
earth, and is immanent in the Church onwards to the end. 

II. Hence secondly, all Testimony should be mustered, 
and due importance assigned to every item in it. The more 
variety of converging evidence there is found, the more 
perfectly that all provinces in the Church, and all periods — 
especially the oldest of them — concur in attestation, so much 
the greater is the weight. The sources of decision will be 
discovered in the classes described in the last chapter. There 
is never (speaking practically) a lack of sufficient evidence : 
and the conclusions will follow which, whether from in- 
trinsic importance, or from variety, or from number, are 
found after wise, enlightened, and discriminating examina- 
tion to be in the ascendant. 

III. Internal evidence of either kind is a long way inferior 
to external proof, on which the authenticity of passages will 
be established, but it is useful in its place. Such are the 
Seven Canons, viz. ; 

1. The harder the reading, the less likely is it to have 
been invented, and the more likely to be genuine. ' Pro- 
clivi lectioni praestat ardua ' (Bengel). Thus f£i/rf,oo7rpwrw, 
'second first,' in St. Luke vi. i, could hardly have been 

2. The more concise reading is better than the more dif- 
fuse. ' Brevior lectio praeferenda est verbosiori ' (Griesbach). 
So St. Luke xii. 56, 'Ye hypocrites, ye know how to interpret 



the face of the earth and the heaven : but how is it that ye 
know not how to interpret this time ? ' ^ The second ' ye 
know not how to interpret ' {ovk o'i^are doKi/na^siv) spoils the 
simplicity of the text. 

3. That reading is preferable, which will explain the origin 
of the variation (Tischendorf). Thus Melita (MeXin) ) for 
Melitene (Acts xxviii. i), as has been before explained.^ 

4. The reading which is characteristic of the author is the 
more probable. Great caution should be exercised in apply- 
ing this canon, as such varying estimates are formed of 
authors' styles. But it affords strong confirmation of the 
authenticity of the celebrated section of the adulteress 
(' Pericope adulter^e') since the style of the passage (John vii. 
53, viii. 11) is just that of St. John. 

5. The special genius and usage of each authority must be 
taken into account in estimating the weight that it ought to 
bear. Accordingly we must always suspect the omissions 
of B, the carelessness of ^, and the interpolations of D. 

6. ' Apparent probabilities of erroneous transcription, per- 
mutation of letters, itakcism and so forth,' will naturally be 
taken into account. So ire'poic (Matt. xi. 16) is evidently for 
tTdinoic : and the readings 'Titius' or ^ Titus Justus ' have 
plainly arisen from a reiteration of letters.^ 

7. Whatever makes nonsense, or injures the meaning or 
construction, is probably not the true reading. '^ For example, 

■ " Revised Version." Contrast the neatness of the Authorized. 
Above, p. 28, note 3. 
Above, p. 29, note i. 
' The seventh usually given is Griesbach's, viz., that suspicion must 
ever rest upon such readings as make especially for orthodoxy. Arch- 
bishop Magee and Dr. Scrivener have fully disproved the soundness of 
this imputation cast by sceptics upon the orthodox. " Plain Introduc- 
tion," pp. 497-9. See above, p. 69, and note 2. The canon which I have 


' the last ' (6 eVxarot) in St. Matt. xxi. 31, the reading of D, 
making the son who went not to be the obedient son, cannot 
have been the true production of the Evangehst. 

But all these considerations must be wisely dealt with, and 
kept in their place. Exaggeration in the estimate of any one 
of them may lead to false deduction, and authority, as 
declared in external evidence, must mainly decide ail 

The true Guide in all is God the Holy Ghost, Who, reve- 
rently sought in purity of heart, humility of soul, and wisdom 
of mind, will in His Own due time and after His Own per- 
fect counsels lead the Church and Her children to ascertain 
with sureness, from clear and decisive evidence, the real Form 
and Outline of that Sacred Word Which He Himself taught 
His servants by His Holy Inspiration to deliver. 

May He so receive and direct all our study of His Divine 
Sayings through the Lord Jesus Christ ! 

placed in the text surely carries its own recommendation. Whatever human 
element is found in the Inspired Word of God (see Lee on "Inspiration"), 
nonsense or solecism have no place there. It would be well if more 
weight were always attributed in Sacred Textual Criticism to sound 
sense. The best critics employ it with manly strength. For instances, 
see above, pp. 27-29, and p. 57, note i. 



\N examination of a few important passages is here ap- 
pended, which may serve to illustrate the controversy now 
existing, and to exhibit in their operation the principles already 

The evidence adduced is mainly derived from the eighth 
edition of Tischendorf 's " Novum Testamentum Grasce," Dr. 
Scrivener^s '' Plain Introduction," Dean Burgon's " The Revision 
Revised " and " The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark/' Canon 
Cook's " Revised Version of the First Three Gospels," and Drs. 
Westcott and Hort's " The New Testament in Greek." 

I. The Last Twelve Verses of St, Mark's Gospel. 

A. Against their authenticity, as alleged : — 

1. ^<B. L inserts a short and manifestly spurious conclusion 
before the Twelve Verses. 

2. No Cursives, A few follow L. 

3. One Old Latin MS, (k), two Armenian MSS ; two 
yEthiopic, and an Arabic Lectionary. 

4. Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus of Antioch, are also 
quoted. These verses are said to be omitted in the 
Ammonian Sections. 

5. (a) About twenty-one words and phrases, not found in 
the rest of St. Mark, are said to occur in these verses, 
as TTopfvoficti, toIq fit-' avTov ytvoyitvoiQ, dtdofiai, fitra ravra. 

(b). The description of Mary Magdalene, a(p' ijg i/c^e/3/}(cet 
ivTa cainuvia, is said to be a sign of the introduction of a 


new passage not containing what had gone before, where 
she has been recently mentioned. 

(c). The note of time TrpwV Trpwry aa^i^drov is thought 
to be needless, and out of place. j>j, 

B. For :— ^/<:^>»4»;/'^ 

1. All other Uncials, i.e. ACDEFGHKMSUVX0An2 :— 
also L. /-^^v*^* i'V. 0//1., oyw^ 

2. All Cursives. />- A ^i. '-Z 

3. (a) Peshito, Harclean. Jerusalem, and Curetonian Syriac. 

(b) All Old Latin except k, and Vulgate. 

(c) Memphitic, and Thebaic. 

(d) Gothic, yEthiopic (except two MSS), Georgian, Ar- 

menian (except two MSS.), Arabic. 

4. All Lectionaries. This passage was read everywhere 
during the Season of Easter and on Ascension Day. 

5. Fathers : — 

Cent. II. Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian. 

„ III. Hippolytus, Vincentius at 7th Council of Car- 
thage, Acta Pilati. 

„ IV. Syriac Table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius 
Magnes, Aphraates, Didymus, Syriac Acts of 
the Apostles, Epiphanius, Leontius, Pseudo- 
Ephraem, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, 

„ V. Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of 
Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator. 

„ VI. and VIII. Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, 
John (Abp. of Thessalonica), Modestus 
(Bp. of Jerusalem). 

B leaves a whole blank column — 'the only blank one in the 
whole volume ' — i.e., of the New Testament, as well as the rest 
of the one containing v. 8, thus showing that a passage was left 
out. Either t^ was here simply copied from B, a supposition 
probable on other grounds, and confirmed by Tischendorf 's and 
Scrivener's opinion that the Scribe of B wrote this part of i^, in 



which case we have merely B over again, but without its mute 
confession of error ; or they both followed here the common 
archetype from which they were confessedly derived. Eusebius 
elsewhere witnesses for the verses, and here only mentions 
loosely that some copies omit them. Jerome and Severus only 
copy Eusebius' expressions. 

The alleged internal evidence has been demonstrated to be 
visionary, — a m.ere mistake : and is accordingly no longer urged 
by the critics. 

Besides all this, the cause of the omission by careless or in- 
competent scribes is evident. The error of B and i^ was clearly 
derived from a copy of St. Mark, which had lost its last leaf. 
A mark stood here in the Western copies of the Gospel. It is 
further not improbable that some scribe mistook the * End ' of 
the Lection, TeXoc, for the End of the Gospel, and a few others 
followed him. The error was ere long discovered. 

This evidence plainly leaves no sort of doubt. No Court of 
Law could decide against the verses. It is difficult to see how- 
it can be otherwise than discreditable to Textual Science, that 
the question should be held in some quarters to lie still open. 

II. The First Word from the Cross. 
(St. Luke xxiii. 34.) 

A. Against their authenticity : — 

1. b*^ (first corrector), B, D* (first reading). 

2. 38, 82, 435. 

3. Two or three MSS. of Italic (a, b, d ?), Thebaic, two 
MSS. of Memphitic. 

4. Arethas. 

B. For :— 

1. ^** ''"'^ ^ (first reading and third corrector), ACD ^' ^ 
(second corrector), FGHKLMOSUVrAAn. E puts an * ; 
— these are all the other Uncials. 

2. All other Cursives. 

3. All other Versions, including the Syrian, and the other 
Itahc and Memphitic MSS. 


4. Ecclesiastical Writers : — 
Cent. II. Hegesippus, Irenaeus. 

„ III. Hippolytus, Origen, Apostolic Constitutions, 
Clementine Homilies, ps.-Tatian, Archelaus' 
disputation with Manes. 
„ IV. Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theo- 
dorus of Heraclea, Basil, Chrysostom, Eph- 
raem Syrus, ps.-Ephraem, ps.-Dionysius Areo- 
pagita. Acta Pilati, Syriac Acts of the Apostles, 
Ps.-Ignatius, ps.-Justin. 
„ V. Theodoret, Cyril, Eutherius. 
„ VI. Anastasius Sinaita, Hesychius. 
„ VII. Antiochus Monachus, Maximus, Andreas 

„ VIII. John Damascene, ps. -Chrysostom, ps.-Am- 
philochius, Opus Imperfectum. 
Besides Latin Writers, such as Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, 

Augustine, &c., &c. 
6. This would be a most unlikely interpolation in all ways. 
The internal evidence is also admitted (Hort, 68) to make 
eminently for the genuineness of the passage. 
Evidence is clearly not evidence, if any doubts about the 
authencity of this passage remain. The errors of a few scribes, 
in the face of the notorious depravation of the Sacred Text in 
early times, are no foundation for doubt. 

III. The Record of the Strengthening Angel, the 
Agony, and the Bloody Sweat. 

(St. Luke xxii. 43, 44.) 

A. Against : — 

1. ABRT. In r the verses are obelized, and they are 
marked with asterisks in ESVaft. 

2. None (see below). Obelized in five, and asterisks in five. 
A scholion in 34 says that the verses are omitted in some 


3. Most Memphitic codices, some Thebaic, some Armenian, 
and f of Old Latin. Some Armenian insert v. 43. 

4. Hilary and Jerome say that some Greek and Latin MSS. 
omit the passage. Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria 
did not mention it when they might. John Damascene 
in one passage omits it. 

For :— 

1. t^^DFGHKLMQUXL. Also ESVAH and r (see above). 

2. All Cursives. But 13,69, 124,346, insert the verses after 
St. Matt. xxvi. 39, instead of in St. Luke. 13 inserts v. 43 
in the right place. 

3. Peshito, Curetonian, Harclean, Jerusalem, Ethiopic, 
some Thebaic, some Memphitic, some Armenian, all but 
one Old Latin, and the Vulgate. - 

4. They are thus transferred in all Evangelistaria, the reason 
being that they were ordered to be read with the passage 
in St. Matthew on Maundy Thursday, and to be omitted 
on the Tuesday after Sexagesima. 

5. Cent. II. Justin, Irenaeus. 

„ III. Hippolytus, Dionysius of Alexandria, ps. 

„ IV. Arius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Ephraem Syrus, 
Didymus, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Chry- 
sostom, ps. Dionysius Areopagita. 

„ V. Julian the Heretic, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, 
Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Paulus of Emesa, 
Gennadius, Theodoret, Oriental Bishops in 
Council, Ps. Caesarius, Theodosius of Alexandria, 
John Damascene, Maximus, Theodorus the 
Heretic, Leontinus of Byzantium, Anastasius 
Sinaita, Photius ; besides the Latins, — Hilary, 
Jerome, Augustine, Cassian, Paulinus, Facundus ; 
— i.e. in all ' upwards of forty famous personages 
from every part of ancient Christendom.' '^ 

^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 599, note. 
* Malan, "Select Readings," p. 26. 

' Burgon, "Revision Revised," pp. 80, 81. These lists of the 



6. The verses bear every trace of genuineness. Even Dr. 
Hort admits (p. 67) that ' it would be impossible to regard 
these verses as a product of the inventiveness of scribes.' 
The omission by some scribes, and the obela and asterisks 
inserted by others — evidently as guides in reading — are satis- 
factorily explained by the Lectionary usage of omitting the 
verses in St. Luke, and reading them with the parallel passage 
in St. Matthew. Even A inserts the mark of the Ammonian 
Section, and thereby confesses the omission. In the face of so 
much evidence, it is impossible that any doubt at all should 

IV. The Angelic Hymn. 

iv ch'QpujTroic; evdoKiag 


iv m'OpioTToiQ EvSoKia, 

(St. Luke ii. 14.) 

A. For the alteration : — 

1. «* AB* D. 

2. No Cursives. 

3. Old Latin, Vulgate, and Gothic. 

4. Irenaeus (but see below), Origen (see however below), 
Hilary, and the Latin Fathers. 

5. Mozarabic and Ambrosian Liturgies. 

B. Against : — 

1. ««= B ^ EGHKLMPSUVFAAS, i.e. all the rest. 

2. All Cursives. 

3. Peshito, Harclean, Jerusalem, Memphitic, Ethiopic, 
Georgian, Armenian, Slavonic, Arabic.^ 

4. Cent. II. Iren2?us. 

„ III. Origen (3), Apostolic Constitutions (2). 

„ IV. Eusebius (2), Aphraates (2), Titus of Bostra 

Ancient Writers are extracted from the work of the learned Dean, ■ 
who gives the references in every case. 
^ Malan, "Select Texts," p. 49. 


(2), Didymus (3), Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of 
Jerusalem, Epiphanius (2), Gregory of Nyssa (4), 
Ephraem Syrus, Philo of Carpasus, Chrysostom 
(9), an Antiochian. 
Cent. V. Cyril of Alexandria (14), Theodoret (4), Theo- 
dotus of Ancyra (5), Proclus, Paulus of Emesa, 
Council of Ephesus, Basil of Selencia. 
„ VI., VII., VIII.— 13 testimonies.^ 

5. The Liturgies of St. James and St. Clement, and the 
Morning Hymn attached to the Psalms in A. 

6. The rhythm of the hymn would be destroyed, since it con- 
sists of three parallel and contrasted members, making up 
one stanza. 

This evidence speaks for itself. The opposed reading is a 
Western one, which was just strong enough to make itself felt in 
the East, as the witness of A shows, but got no further. The 
only consistent MS. evidence for it is found in the Western D. 

V. The Doxology in the Lord's Prayer. 
(St. Matt. vi. 13.) 

A. Against the Passage : — 

1. j^BDZ. 

2. I, 17, 118, 130,209. Some scholia exist to the effect that 
these words are omitted in some copies. 

3. Nearly all the Old Latin MSS., Vulgate, most Memphitic, 
Persian of Wheelocke. 

4. Mozarabic, Ambrosian, and other Latin Liturgies. 

5. The silence of the following Fathers : — 
Tertullian (De Orat. 8). 

Cyprian (De Orat. Dom. 27). 
Origen (De Orat. 18). 
Augustine (Epist. Class, iii. 12). 

(De Serm. D. in Monte). 

(Serm. 56-59). 

(Enchiridion, 115, 116). 
' Burgon, " Revision Revised," pp. 420, i. 


Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xxiii.) (Myst. 5, 18.) 
Maximus (Expos. Orat. Dom.) 

Gregory of Nyssa (De Orat. Dom., v. end) may be said 
to be doubtful. 
6. It is held that the Doxology was probably introduced, as 
some writers confessedly quote it, from the Greek Litur- 
gies, where too it was separated by the ' Embolismus,^ or 
intercalated paraphrase on ' Deliver us from Evil,' from 
the last petition in the Lord's Prayer. 
B. For :— 

1. SEGKLMSUVAn. [ACPr are deficient here] . 

2. All other Cursives, even ^iZi which usually sides with ^*B. 

3. Peshito, Old Latin, (k, f, g\ q), Thebaic, Curetonian, 
Harclean, Jerusalem, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Geor- 
gian, Slavonic, Erpenius' Arabic, Persian of Tawos.^ 

4. Greek Liturgies. The 'Embolismus' was confessedly 
intercalated between integral parts of the Lord's Prayer, 
as a paraphrase of a petition. The following have the 
doxology, though with occasional variations, St. James, 
St. Peter, St. John, St. Mark, St. Clement, St. Dionysius, 
St. Ignatius, St. Julius, St. Eustathius, St. Chrysostom, 
St. Marutha, St, Cyril of Philoxenus, Philoxenus of 
HierapoliSjDioscorus, James Baradatus, Matth^us Pastor, 
James (bp. of Botna), James of Edessa, Moses Bar-Cepha, 
Philoxenus (bp. of Bagdad), &c., »&:c.- 

5. Fathers : At^axv, 31 (Bryennius) with variation. 

Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 18) (vii. 25 with varia- 
Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24.^) 
Cassarius (Dial. I. 29.^) 

86-92 ; Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 571-3. 

2 Renaudot, " Liturg. Or.," vol. ii. ; Malan, "Select Readings," 
p. 26. 

3 St. Ambrose, in " De Sacra.," v. 4, professedly quotes St. Luke. 

* Cf. In "S. Greg. Libr. Sacram. Notae, Migne, Bibl Petr. Lat." 
78, p. 291. 


Chrysostom (In Orat. Dom.) (Horn, in Matt. xix. 13.) 
Opus Imperfectum (Horn, in Matt, xiv.) 
Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 24.) 
Theophylact (in Matt vi. 13.) 

Euthymius Zigabenus (in Matt. xi. 13.) (Contra Mas- 
salianos, Anath. '] }) 
6. (a). Under any circumstances, with two Forms, there 
must have been many omissions by writers who followed 
the shorter Form. Those who dispute the authenticity 
of the Doxology as part of the Lord's Prayer, have not 
only to prove the use of the Prayer without the Doxology, 
but must also disprove the existence of the Doxology as 
an integral member of the Prayer ; — the omission of it not 
only by St. Luke, but by St. Matthew also. 

(b). The admitted omission of the Doxology in St. Luke, 
and the fact that the Lord's Prayer in its other Form is 
complete without the Doxology would satisfactorily account 
for its being left out by some scribes also in St. Matthew, 
besides that this might have arisen solely from the inter- 
calation of the Embolismus. 
The evidence is too strong and too ancient, reaching back 
unintemiittedly to the second century, as in the Peshito, the 
Aicaxn, some Old Latin, and the Thebaic, to allow hesitation in 
receiving the Doxology as an authentic part of the Lord's 
Prayer, and of St. Matthew's Gospel. The omission is due to a 
Western reading, of a similar character to the last, though some- 
what more strongly supported. 

VI. The Son of God's Eternal Existence in Heaven. 

'O 'Qv iv T(p Ovpavqi. 
(St. John iii. 13.) 

A. Against the genuineness of the words : — 
I. t^BLT \ iov is omitted by A.* 
-• 33- 

' Wrongly quoted by Tischendorf on the other side. 


3. 'Q-v is omitted by Evangelistarium 44. 

4. Ethiopic (?), one MS. of the Memphitic. 

5. Armenian versions of Ephraem's Tatian, Eusebius (2) (?), 
Cyril of Alexandria (?), Origen (?). 

B. For :— 

1. AEGHKMSUVrAAn. CDF fail us here. 

2. All Cursives, except 33. 

3. All Evangelistaria. 

4. Peshito, Curetonian, Harclean, Jerusalem, Old Latin, 
Vulgate, Memphitic (except one MS.), Ethiopic (?), 
Georgian, Armenian. 

5. Origen (2), Hippolytus, Athanasius, Didymus, Aphraates, 
Basil, Epiphanius, Nonnus, ps. Dionysius Alex., Eusta- 
thius, Chrysostom (4), Theodoret (4), Cyril of Alexandria 
(4), Paulus of Emesa, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, John 
Damascene (3), Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, and 
eighteen others, &c.^ 

6. The hardness of the words renders it impossible for them 
to have been invented. 

This evidence precludes all doubt. 

VII. God Manifested in the Flesh. 
(i Tim. iii. 16.) 
There are three readings, viz., eS {i.e. ef6e),"0s, and"o. 

A. Evidence for "OS, as claimed : — 

1. t** A-:= (.?) C=:^(?) F.'G.? 

2. 17,73, 181? 

3. Apostolus 12, 85, 86. 

4. Gothic, Peshito t Memphitic ? Thebaic ? Armenian 1 
Ethiopic .'' Arabic of Erpenius .? 

5. Cyril of Alexandria ? Epiphanius 1 Theodorus of Mop- 
suestia .'* 

B. Evidence for "o, as claimed : — 

I. D* of St. Paul (Claromontanus). 

^ Burgon, " Revision Revised," p. 133. 


2. No Cursives. 

3. Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshito? Memphitic ? Thebaic? 
^thiopic ? Armenian ? 

4. Gelasius of Cyzicus, and an Unknown Writer (App. to 

C. Evidence claimed for Q^bc, (eS) : — 

1. A? KLP. 

2. 260 Cursives, i.e. all except two. 

3. 36 copies of the Apostolus. 

4. Harclean, Georgian, Slavonic. 

5. Cent. III. Dionysius of Alexandria. 

„ IV. Didymus, Gregory Nazianzen, Diodorus of 
Tarsus, Gregory of Nyssa (22 times), Chr>'SOS- 
tom (3), a Book ITfpi Biiaq aapKU)ae(DC. 

„ Y. Cyril of Alexandria (2), Theodoret of Cyrus (4) 
an anonymous author, Euthalius, jNIacedonius. 

,, VI. Severus of Antioch. 

, VIII. &c. John Damascene, Epiphanius of Catana 
Theodorus Studita, some Scholia, CEcumenius, 
Theophylact, Euthymius. 

(I) Evidence for "OS : — _ 

I. The question whether A witnesses for"Og or for eS must 
depend upon the answer to the prior question whether the 
two cross lines were originally there or not. Now Patrick 
Young, Huish, Bp. Pearson, Bp. Fell, Mill, Bentley, John 
Creyk, Berriman, Bengel, Woide in 1765, say that the 
reading was eS. On the other hand, Griesbach, in 1785, 
and since that time Davidson, Tregelles, Dr. Westcott, 
Dr. Hort, and Bp. Ellicott, — Dr. Scrivener in i860 dis- 
sents—pronounce against the Hnes. But 

(a.) Berriman added, ' If therefore at any time hereafter 
the old line ' {z'.e. inside the 6) ' should become alto- 
' getherundiscoverable, there never will be just cause 
' to doubt but that the genuine and original heading 
'of the MS. was eS.' 


(b) Woide in 1785 declared that he could not see the 
lines which he had actually seen in 1765. 

(c) Any one may convince himself by inspection that 
the MS. is too far gone to admit of any trustworthy 
opinion being now formed, and as is probable in 
many a past year. 

There can be no real doubt, therefore, that A did witness 
for 6fot'. The adverse testimonies have been given since 
Woide spoke ; and indeed Griesbach said in 1785 that 
curious fingers had then rendered any certain conclusion 

2. As to C, Wetstein, Griesbach, and Tischendorf on one 
side are balanced by Woide, Mill, Weber, and Parquoi, 
on the other. A palimpsest is a most unsuitable witness 
in such a delicate question. C must be held to be 

3. Both F and G, which are admitted to be copies of the 
same MS.,^ have here a straight line above the two letters 
slightly inclining upwards. The question is, whether it 
be the aspirate, in which case they would witness for "Of, 
or the sign of contraction, as for Otog. The arguments 
appeared to be balanced. F and G must therefore be set 
aside as neutral. 

4. Cursive ' 181 ' cannot be found. 

5. The Peshito, Memphitic, Thebaic, and Ethiopic Ver- 
sions, probably witness to "O. 

6. The Armenian and Arabic are indeterminate. 

(II.) The evidence for"0 is admitted not to be very strong. 
Such as it is, it is against both of the other readings and cannot 
be held to be confirmatory of either. 

(III.) The comparison of "OS with Ofog remains : — 

I. ' Proclivi lectioni prasstat ardua.' "OS is the harder gram- 
matically, but Ofoc is decidedly the harder if the sense is 
consulted, since there could hardly be a more audacious 
change than to foist this word wrongly into the text. 

^ See above, p. 47, note 3. 


2. "OS is likely to be a degeneration from eS : but not eS 
from "Of. 

3. When admitted, Ofog explains nv<TTi)piov, and makes better 

4. But the burden of decision must, as always, rest upon 
the evidence. Now 

a. There is no strong leaning either way of Uncials 
or Versions, though the inclination of Uncials is 
towards Oeog. 

b. The very remarkable unanimity of the Cursives in- 
dicates a practical decision of the Church before 
manuscripts had reached their most perfect condition, 
i.e. in Uncial times. 

c. The overwhelming testimony of Fathers to MSS. in 
their use, reaching back further than any existing 
MSS., adds a very powerful witness. 

On the whole, the evidence decidedly shows that Beog is 


\For Alexandrian MS., Vatican MS., &^c., and A, B, &^c., see under 
Codex : and for Peshito, Vulgate, ^c. , see under Versions. ] 


ABBOT, professor Ezra , 23 
Accents 89 

Acta Pilati 85 

Acts and Catholic Epistles loi, 

106, 107 

Agony and Bloody Sweat 2, ill, 


Aidan, St 90 

Alexander II., the emperor . 24 
Alexandria, 77-8, 70, 89— 

libraries at 90 

Alexandrian readings ... 51 
Alexandrian text (so-called) 41, 51 

Alter 17 

Ambrose, St 87 

Ammonian Sections . 80 note 6 
Angelic Hymn, the . . . 130-1 
Angelic Salutation .... 57 
Anglo-Saxon Scribes ... 90 

Antioch 5i> 73 

Apocalypse . . . loi, 106, 107 

Apostoli 112 

Apostolical Constitutions . . 85, 

100 note 2 

Aphraates 85 


Archilaus with Manes ... 85 

Arianisni 78, &c. 

Ariminum, Council of . . . 52 

Aristophanes 88 

Arius 85 

Athanasius, St 85, 87 

Athenagoras 85 

Athos, Mt 17 

Augustine, St 75, 87 

Aurelian 90 

Authorized Version, from what 

text 12 

Autographs, the .... 72, 93 

Barnabas, St., 97 — his epistle 46 

Basil, St 62,, 85, 87, 97 

Basilides 70 

Beezebul 28 

Benedict, St S9 

Bengel 15, 16 

Bentley . 14-15, 21, 31, 50, 96 

Beza lo-ii, 12 

Bilingual manuscripts . . n, 99 

Birch 17 

Boniface 90 




Breathings 88 

British and Foreign Bible 

Society 22 

Bruchium 90 

Buda 91 

Burgon, Dean, his works, 33 — 
misrepresented, 30 — prin- 
ciples, 34 — great Patristic 
knowledge, 53 note. Also 
31, 46, 47 notes I and 2, 
52 note, 56, 60, 71 note, 78, 

100, 106, 107, no, 117 
Buttmann, Philip .... 20 

Ccesarea 83 

Caius 71 

Canon of Holy Scripture . . 104 
Catholic Antiquity .... 93 

Ceriani 36 

Cerinthus 70 

Charisius 88 

Childhood of Textual Criticism 

Chrysostom, St., 17, 35, 63,83 

87, 102 — age of . . . 86-91 
Church, the, silent action of, 

91— duty of .... 1 18-19 
Clement of Alexandria 41, 71, 77 
Clementine Homilies ... 85 

Cobet 35 

Codex — see also Manuscripts. 
A (Alexandrinus) pre- 
sented by Cyril Lucar, 
1 3 — when produced and 
character, 95. Also 16, 
21, 26, 33, 35, 50, 97, 106 
B (Vaticanus) when pro- 
duced, 81-3 — character, 
54-9 — blunders, 26-29 

Codex — see also Manuscripts 
— {continued). 

— how estimated, 43-4, 

27, 34. 35. 46, 56. 
Also 9, 15, 21, 36, 39, 
40, 48 &c., 88, 92, 95, 
97, loi, 103, 106, 107, no 

K (Sinaiticus) how found, 
24-5 — when produced, 
81-3 — character, 54-9 
— carelessness, 53 — 
how estimated, 26, 34, 
35, 46. Also 26, 36, 39, 
40, 48 &c., 88, 92, 95, 

97, loi, 106, 107, no 

C (Ephraemi, Parisian) 
date, 95-6 — character, 
96 . . . Also 21, 26, 97 

D (Bezae, or Cambridge), 
date, 99 — character, 
100 . Also II, 41, 92, 106 

D of St. Paul (Claromon- 
tanus) II, 100 

E (Basiliensis) . . 100, 106 

E of the Acts (Laudia- 
nus) 100 

F of St. Paul (Augiensis) 32, 
47 note 3. 

L (Regius), 23 note i, 

49 note I, 100 

\ (Sangallensis) in St. 
Mark 100 

Z (Zacynthius) . . 22, 100 

2 (Rossanensis) 48 note, 98, 

Friderico-Augustanus . 24 

Montfortianus (61) . 9, 107 

See also Table, 108, 109, 
and 21 note i, 22, 49 




Codex — see also Manuscripts 
— {cotitimied). 

note I, 98, 100, and 
Uncial Manuscripts, and 
Cursive Manuscripts. 

Columba 90 

Complutensian Polyglott, 7-8, 10, 12 
Conjectural Emendation . 65-6, 47 
note I 
Constantine . . . 81-3, 55, 90 
Constantinople, library at . 91 
Cook, Canon, 34-5, 27, 31, 51 

note, 56 note 
Cornelius' servants .... 28 
Courcelles, or Curcellseus . 13 
Corruption of Text, causes 

and extent of ... . 68-72 
Cr)', Our Lord's last ... 2 
Cure in pool of Bethesda . . 2 
Cursive Manuscripts, 106-7 — 
number of, loo-i — value of, 
loi -2— follow the Uncials, 
102 . . . Also 16, 18, 22, 61 

Cyprian, St 21, 85 

Cyril of Alexandria, St. . . 87 
Cyril of Jerusalem, St. . . 85, 87 
Cyril Lucar 13 

Damasus 98 

Dancing-girl 27 

Davidson, Dr 19 

Diatessaron, Tatian's ... 71 

AiSaxi] 100 note 2 

Didymus 85 

Diocletian, persecution of, 48, 73, 90 

Diomedes 88 

Dionysius of Alexandria . 41, 85 
Dionysius of Corinth ... 71 
Dobbin, Dr 55 


Donatus 88 

Doxology in the Lord's Prayer, 

131-3, loo, 112 

Eclipse of the sun 
Edessa .... 
Elzevir, Abraham 


Encratites . . 
Ephraem, St. 

Ps. . . . 

Epiphanius . . 
Erasmus . . . 
Eucharist, Holy . 
Eusebian Canons 
Eusebius . 79-83 






, 12 


80 note 6 

22, 23, 35, 41, 

55, 71, 85, 91 

Evangelistaria, or Evangeliaria, 1 12 

Evangelists .... 68 and note 

Evidence, External . 61-2, 32, 34, 

118, 120 

Internal, place of, 45-6, 

120 — seven canons, 120-22. 

Also 39, 54 

Extreme Textualism . . 20-30 

Families of MSS. (so-called), 

40-1, 50-1, 16, 17, 18, 61 
Fathers, 116-7 — their value, 
1 16 — Manuscripts at second 
hand, 116 — older than any 
existing MSS., 117 — not 
uncritical, 96-7 — mainly 
support the Traditional 
Text, 91, 103 . Also 7, 16, 21, 
22, 34, 62, 73 

Fell, bp 13 

Ferrar, Professor W. H. . . 107 
Frederic Augustus .... 24 
Froben 8 




Gebhart, Oscar von ... 98 
Genealogy ... 40, 47-9, loi 
Ghost, God the Holy 66, 119, 122 
Gloria in Excelsis . . I12, 130-1 

Gnosticism 7o> 7^ 

God manifested in The Flesh 134-7 

Golgoth 28 

Gospels, Synoptic, whence rose 
their accordance, 67 note — 
why written, 68 note — 
number of MSS. of . 106, 107 
Gregory, Dr. C. R. . n note, 23 

Nazianzen, St., 63, 

68 note, 85, 87 

of Nyssa, St. . . 63, 85, 87 

Griesbach 17? 1 8 

Gutenberg 7 

Gwilliam, Rev. G. H. . 115 note 

Harkel, Thomas of ... 103 
Harnach, Adolph .... 98 

Hegesippus 85 

Hesychius 79> 81 

— — the Lexicographer . . 88 

Hilary, St 21, 87 

Hippolytus 85 

Hort, Professor, 25-30, 35, 

38-59, 76 note 3, 1 14 note 3 

Hugo, Cardinal 10 

Hyperides 88 

Ignatius, St 84 

Inscription on the Cross . . 3 
Infancy of Textual Criticism 1-12 
Institution of Holy Eucharist 3, 57 
Interna] Evidence, see Evi- 
Ireneeus, St. . . . 21, 71, 72, 84 

Irish Missionaries .... 90 
Itacism 89 

Jerome, St. . 21, 53 note i, 55, 75, 
87, 98-9 

Joanes 28 

Julius Africanus 85 

Justin Martyr . . . 71, 84, in 
Ps 85 

Kilian, St 90 

Koum 28 

Kuenen 35 

Lachmann, 20-1, 22. 26, 32, 35, 38 

Laurence, abp 9 

Lectionaries, value of, 102-3, 
1 10-12 — their great virtual 
antiquity, no, 117 — a cause 
of error . . 109, 61, lOI, 1 17 

Lections 67 

Lee, abp 9 

Leo the Great, St 87 

Leontius 85 

Liturgies 110-12, 100 note 2, 117 
Lombard Scribes .... 90 
Lord's Prayer, the, 2 — doxo- 

logy in . . . 131 -3, 100, 112 
Lucian . . . . 79, 81, 98 note 4 

Lucifer 85 

Luke, St., why he wrote his 
gospel 68 note 

Macarius Magnes .... 85 
Manuscripts, 87-90 — relative 

value of, 93, 117. Also 6, 

7, 17. See Codex. 
Marcion 7©, 85 




Mark, St., 78 — why he wrote 
his gospel, 68 note — last 
twelve verses . 125-7, i, 33, 96, 

Marsh, bp 16 

Martin, Abbe 36 

Matthxi, C. F., 16-17, lo?— 

his accuracy . . . . 16, 31 
Matthew, St., why he wrote 

his gospel 68 note 

Melitene 28, 121 

Michelsen, Dr 36 

Mill, Dr. John . . 13-14, 17, 31 

Moldenhawer 17 

Monasteries 89 

Monte Cassino 89 


Neutral Text (so-called) . 41, 
New Testament, passages quo- 
ed from — 
St. Matt. 

iv. 13 

— 23 

V. 22 

— 44 

VI. 4 

— 13 • 

— 18 

viii. 5 

X. 25 

xi. 16 

— 23 

xu. 47 

xiv. 6 

— 29 

XV. 13 

— 22 . 



New Testament, passages 

quoted from — {continued). 

St. Matt. XV. 32 . 

— 39 • 
xvi. 2, 3 

— 12 . 
xvii. 21 

— 22 . 

— 23 . 
xviii. II 
XX. 16 . 

— 22 . 

— 2Z . 
xxi. 19 

— 31 • 
xxiii. 14 
xxvi. 28 

— 39 
xxvii. 33 

— 49 • 
xxviii. 9 

— 19 . 
St. Mark i. 39 . . 

ii. 5 . 

— 9 • 
iii. 28 . 

— 29 . 
V. 41 . 
vi. II . 

— 21 . 

— 22 . 

-z^ . 

vii. 3 . 

— 16 . 
viii. 26 
ix. 29 . 

— 44 • 
-46 . 











New Testament, passages 
quoted from — [continued). 
St. Mark x. 6 
— 7 


— 21 

— 24 
„ xi. 8 

— 19 

— 22 

„ -26 
,, xii. 30 

— 33 
, xiii. 14 

„ - 18 
,, xiv. 22 

-68 , 
XV. 39 
xvi. 4 

— 9-20 

St. Luke i. 28 . 
ii. 14 

iv. 4 . 

— 5 • 

— 16 . 

— 44 • 
vi. I. . 

— 26 . 

— 45 . 
viii. 16 

— 43 • 
ix. 55, 56 
X. 22 . 

— 42 . 
xi. 2-4 
xii. 56 . 
xiv. 10 


23 &c. 

• 57 
53, 58, 
25 &c. 









New Testament, passages 

quoted from- 


St. Luke 

xiv. 44 . 

• 57 


xvi. 12 

. 58 


xvii. 6 . . 

• 59 


— 19 . . 

■ 57 


-36 . . 

• 57 

— 24 . . 

• 57 

xxii. 19, 20 

. 2, 27 


— 43,44 

• 2,53, 


28 &c. 


-55 . • 

• 58 


-64 . . 

• 57 


xxiii. 17 . 

• 57 


— 34 • 2, 5 

3, III, 


27 &c. 


-38 . . 



- 45 • . 



xxiv. I 

. 57 


3 • • 

. 27 


— 6 . . 

. 27 


— 9 • • 

• 27 


— 12 , . 

• 3, 27 


— 15 • . 



-36 . . 



— 40 . . 



— 42 . . 



-52 . . 

• 27 


-53 • • 

• 57 

St. John 

i. 27 . . 

• 57 


iii. 13 . . 

■ 57, 
[33 cVc. 


V. 3, 4 • 

• 3, 57 


vi. 51 • • 

. 57 


vii. 53 — vi 

ii. II 


viii. 59 • 

• 57 


xiii. 32 . 



xiv. I . 






New Testament, passages 
quoted from — {contimied). 

St. John 


XIV. 4 . 

xvi. 16 

xix. 17 

iii. 6 . 

X. 19 



XI. II . 

xii. 25 
xiii. 7 . 
XV. 18 . 

— 24 . 
xvi. 13 
xviii. 7 

— 21 . 
xxi. 22 

— 25 . 

xxiv. 6, 7 
XXV. 13 
xxvii. 13 
xxviii. I 

— 29 

V. I 

XV. 24 

I Cor. 




24 . 



3 . 



5 . 

2 Cor. 

V. 14 . 

Eph. i 


. . 

„ — 


. . 

Col. ii 

. 6 


I Thess. i. 




• 7 . 

I Tim 


16 . 

Tit. ii. 



Heb. ii. 7 









134 &c. 


New Testament, passages 
quoted from — {continued). 
Heb. vii. 21 
James i. 20 

1 Pet. iii. I 

2 Pet. ii. 12 
I John v. 7 

Nic£ea, Council of 
Nisibis .... 

14, 52 


Oral teaching 67 

Origen . 18, 21, 22, 71, 78-80, 85 

Origenism 78 &c. 

Orthodox, no evidence that 
they depraved Holy Scrip- 
ture 69, 121 note 5 

Pamphilus, 79, 80, 81, 83— 
library of ... . , 91 

Pantcenus 78 

Patristic Era .... 86 &c., 104 
Paragraphs, bible, due to Ben- 
gel 16 

Paul, St., Pauline Epistles 
loi — number of MSS. of, 106,107 



Peace be unto you .... 
Pericope adulterse .... 
Peter of Alexandria .... 



Piercing of our Lord's Side . 


Polycarp, St., Martyrdom of. 

translator 103 

Praxapostoli . . . . , II2 

Priscian 88 

Ptolemy Euergetes .... 90 

Question, nature of the 





Quotations from Ecclesiastical 
Writers I16-7 

Received Text, when first so- 
called, II — nature of, 12 — 
relation to Traditional Text, 
12, 63, 119 — rejected by 
Lachmann, 21 — by Tregel- 
les, 22 — how treated by Tis- 
chendorf, 25 — by Westcott 
and Hort, 27, 30 — by Sound 
Textualists 32, 33 

Reiche, J. G 17, 35 

Revised Version, number of 
changes in, 3 note — mainly 
follows Westcott and Hort, 
29-30. Also 26, 28, 34, 38 note 

Roman Catholic opinion . . 36 

Sand ay. Professor, 38 note, 

76 note 3, 1 14 note 3 

Saracens 90> 91 

Scholz 18 

Scriptures, the Holy, corpo- 
rate as well as individual 

productions 67 

Scrivener, Dr., his works and 
opinions, 30-32, ii, 12 
note, 18 and notes 2 and 3, 
26 note I, 46, 50, 52 note, 
55, 56, 60, 61, 69 note 2, 

82, 106, 107, 114 

Semler 17 

Serapeum 90 

Severus 96 

Sharpe, abp 14 

vSimon Magus 70 

Sinai, Mt 25 

Son of God, the, Eternal 
Existence of ... . 133*4 


Sound Textualism . 30-37, 60-4 
Stephen, Robert, his editions, 

10, II, 12, 14, 15 

Henry 10, ii 

Stunica 8, 9 

Syrian Text — no foundation 

for this term, 39 note, 51-54. 

See Traditional Text. 

Tatian, his diatessaron, 71, 

80 note 6 

Tatian, Ps 85 

TertuUian . . . 71, 72, 73, 84 
Textual Criticism, prevailing 

ignorance of, 4 — history of 6-37 
Textualism, Sacred, how dif- 
fers from Classical . . .65-8 

Theodoret 71 

Theodosius 90 

Theophilus of Antioch ... 84 
Tischendorf, his great works 
and labours, 23-25 — not a 
trustworthy judge of prin- 
ciples, 27 . . Also 55, 56, 82 
Titius or Titus Justus . . 28, 121 

Titus of Bostra 85 

Traditional Text, not the same 
as the Received Text, 12, 
I3> 63, 119— when settled, 
91 &c. — the great object of 
discovery, 119-20 — the true 
Text, 62-4 — admitted by 
Extreme Textualists to go 
back to St. Chiysostom, 23 
— called "Syrian" and 
treated as worthless by 
Westcott and Hort, 42-3 — 
— not a late invention, 51, 




53-4— dates from the first, 
73, 83-5. Also 51, loi, 

102, 107 
Transcribing, art of, 7, 88-90, 

93, 102 
Tregelles, S. P., his labours 
and books . . . . 21-3, 32 

Uncial Manuscripts, 105-6— 
table of, 108-9 — opposition 
of Cursives to, a figment, 
102 .... Also 16, 22, 60 

Uncouth names in B . . . 28 

Vercellone 36, 56 

Versions, 1 1 3-15— tableof, 113 
— older than manuscripts, 
117— value of, 1 14.5. Also 
6, 7, 22, 16, 34, 43, 61, 73, 102 
Anglo-Saxon .... 103 

Arabic 103 

Armenian 99 

Bahiric, see Memphitic. 

Bashmuric 98 

Curetonian Syriac, 51, 

74 note, 100 note 2 
Elearchian, see Bashmuric. 

Ethiopian 99 

Frankish 103 

Georgian 99 

Gothic . . . 94.5, 13, 98 

Harclean 103 

Italic, see Old Latin. 
Latin, Old, 76 and note 3, 

21, 85, 98, 115 
Memphitic . . 76-7, 13, 98 


Versions — [continued). 

Persic 103 

Peshito, 74-5, 51, 85, 98, 

100 note 2 
Philoxenian .... 103 
Sahidic, see Thebaic. 

Slavonic 103 

Thebaic, 76-7, 98, 100 note 2 

Vulgate 98-99 

Victor of Antioch .... 96 
Vincentius 85 

Wake, abp 14 

Walker, John 15 

Walton, bp 13 

Westcott, Professor, 25-30, 

38-59, 35 
Western Readings . . . 41, 51 

Wetstein 16, 96 

Woide 15 

Word, the first from the Cross 

127-8, 2 
Wordsworth, Bp. Christopher 

35 and note 2, -]-] 

Bp. Charles .... 35 

Bp. John . . . ^^ note 3 

Worship, Common .... 68 
Written records, scarcity of 
at first 71 

Xenaias 103 

Ximenes, cardinal .... 7.9 

Youth of Textual Science . 20-30 

Zacynthius, see Codex. 

Zeno, emperor 97 


Recent Works by the Same Attthor. 



Two Vols. Large Post Zvo^ Cloth, Price 2^s. 

■■ Mr. Miller has brought to his work the rare qualities of unmistakable fairness 
and candour, a thoroughly philosophical mind, untiring patience in research, and a 
calm spirit of charity, which must go far to render his volumes pleasant and profitable 
reading to the philosophically-minded student of religious phenomena ; whilst to the 
clergy, and others whose daily duties or charity may lead them to cross the path of 
the adherents of this remarkable but undoubtedly fast-decaying sect, the amount of 
information presented, and the great acumen with which the author unravels the 
mysterious intricacies and sophistry of the system of Irvingism, will prove of perma- 
nent value ; and last, but by no means least, the spirit and tone of the work cannot 
fail to appeal to Irvingites themselves, whether ministers or people. Mr. Miller will, 
at least, never be accused of rashness of statement, of unfair inference, or of imper- 
fect information ; whilst his incisive, although quiet and masterly, logic must com- 
mend itself, and in many instances casry conviction, to the followers of this nine- 
teenth century 'restored apostolate.' .... The above is a powerful passage, and 
sets forth a somewhat difficult subject in its true theological aspect, but it by no means 
stands alone as a sample of Mr. Miller's grasp of doctrine and generally literary 
ability. The volumes possess a capital index, and in various appendices will be found 
sundry documents, such as the ' Testimonies,' which have from time to time emanated 
from the Irvingite authorities. The work is extremely well printed, and cannot fail 
to become a standard book of reference wherever the history and doctrines of Irvingism 
are in question." — Church Review. 

" Mr. Miller has done his work very thoroughly indeed. His first volume is narra- 
tive and historical ; his second theological and controversial The work alto- 
gether is as complete as could be desired, and seems to us a repertory of information 
on the whole subject. Nor must we forget to add, that it is written as with a con- 
scientious resolve to ascertain everything honestly and state it impartially, so with 

an evident desire to be just and even kindly There is no one other book 

which contains on such matters information so complete and so readily available." — 

" It is the best and most patient examination of these doctrines that we have as yet ; 
the theological learning, philosophical insight, and calm and steady patience in dealing 
with the adverse argument are most admirable, and the work must for long be a 
standard one."— Liierary Churchjnati. 

"Very ably treated We feel bound to say, after a careful study of Mr. 

Miller's book, that we think he has done good service to the cause of truth by the able 
and impartial manner in which he has executed his task. We had ourselves, pre- 
viously, by an independent course of reading and enquiry, and with access to other 


very important sources of information, arrived, in almost all respects, at identical con- 
clusions, and we can endorse the accuracy of Mr. Miller's statements of fact." — 
Ckiirch Qicarterly Review. 

"The book is thoroughly interesting from the first page to the last, and every one 
should read it who is interested in one of the most curious phases of the revival of 
religious activity which the nineteenth century has seen. "— /£?/*« Bull. 

"Mr. Miller has executed his work with great moderation, with much ability, and, 
we are persuaded, with substantial accuracy."— CA«rf/i Tu>ies. 

" This is a well-written, sensible, and, as it appears to us, an impartial narration of 
the ver^' remarkable movement which began about the year 1830, and was connected 
with, though by no means originated by, the preaching of the celebrated Edward 
Irving. " — Contemporary Review. 

"The author cites a great number of authorities, and has evidently given to his 
subject much time and thought. "—yJ/^rw/w^ Post. 

"A more vigorous exposure of quasi-hierarchical tyranny, combined with the 
most fatuous enthusiasm, has rarely been placed before the public eye, and to the 
multitudes who know nothing of the origin, progress, decay, and now imminent 
downfall of this superstition, the facts of the case will be especially interesting, while 
the wise charity vvherewith the false doctrines involved are tenderly and reasonably 
argued down, will commend itself to all who seek for instruction as well as amuse- 
ment." — RocA. 

"Mr. Miller has done well in presenting us, in a compact and continuous form, 
with the completest record of the history and doctrines of the Irvingite community 

which has yet appeared His tone is temperate and courteous throughout, and 

he seems to have taken great pains to acquaint himself with the facts." — Saturday 

" There never were published two goodly volumes more full of personal interest to 
the myriads who know next to nothing of this sect, or more rightly seasoned with 
charity and wise teaching, than these of Mr. Miller."— Cz/y Press. 

" It is rare to meet with a book, the main object of which is necessarily polemical, 
which is written with so much sobriety, moderation, and gentleness as is this book of 
Mr. Miller's. " — Exaviipier. 

" His style is clear, his judgment candid, his statements always moderate." — Theo- 
logical Review. 

" We believe that every source of information on the subject has been carefully and 
thoroughly investigated, and the author has invested the subject with a charm which 
renders it peculiarly attractive." — Leatnington Spa Courier. 

"We cannot but be struck with the ability and conscientiousness with which the 
whole is ^Qr\v\&(^."-— Liverpool IVeekly Albion. 

"After a very careful and interested study of this book, we are enabled to say that 
it has been written with all the fairness and candour demanded by the importance of 
the subject under discussion." — Yorkshire Post. 

"Mr. Miller writes with great ease— sometimes with eloquence. He is, at the 
same time, thorough and painstaking, and also he is clear and honest, both in state- 
ment and argument." — Noucon/onnist. 

" Mr. Miller has no great difficulty in exposing the baselessness and vanity of the 
pretensions of the so-called Catholic and Apostolic Church."— lyestminster Review. 

C. Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., i. Paternoster Square. 



Price ys. 6d. 

" To those who desire to understand the true position of the Church and State 
question at the present time, we would earnestly recommend an attentive perusal of 

rtie Rev. Edward Miller's able, thoughtful, and timely essay Mr. Miller has 

not been content with a surface knowledge— he has gone down to the foundation. 
.... From the above brief summary of Mr. Miller's volume, it will be seen that 
he has taken great pains to present the whole subject to the public in a manner speci- 
ally calculated to wrest their attention at the present moment ; and we earnestly trust 
that this valuable addition to the present literature on the Church and State question 
will meet with that success which it so entirely deserves." — National Church. 

"The historical student will find much to interest him as well as to instruct in the 
remarkably able chapters here devoted to an historical survey of the Anglican Church 
from its first plantation in this country to the present day. " — Examiner. 

"The writer is not content with a constitutional and historical survey of the condi- 
tion of the Church in its relation to the Laymen of the nation, but he proceeds to a 
calm and searching e.xamination of the cause of present embarrassments, and con- 
cludes with the suggestion of remedies which may diminish, even if it does not remove, 
the friction which prevents the harmonious working of these two forces on the due 
adjustment of which depend the well-being and the continuance of our national life." 
—John Bull. 

" His style is clear and his treatment exhaustive." — Liverpool Albion. 

" VVe thank Mr Miller very cordially for his very seasonable volume, and for the 
manly and hopeful spirit in which he has handled the very difficult and complicated 
subject on which he writes." — Churchman' s Companion. 

" It is well that so candid and able a champion of Church Defence has come for- 
ward." — Rock. 

" This is a short but very effectual chapter to examine historically and logically into 
the nature of the present and past relation of the Church and State, practically with 
a view to ameliorate the condition of both, and to do more justice to the mission and 
function of the Church as a Divine institution." — Literary Churchman. 

"This book is thoughtful, comprehensive, liberal, and loyal to the old paths of the 
Church of Christ, as it is also undoubtedly loyal to the English const\l\xt\on."— Church 

" The author of this volume is the same who gave us lately the most useful mono- 
graph on Irvingism which has yet appeared, and having thus attested his capacity, 
he IS entitled to be heard with attention on the highly complicated question he has 
now chosen to discuss. We do not profess to say that we believe him to have solved 
all its difficulties, but he has certainly contributed something towards its ventilation, 
and to a more intelligent inquiry into its details than is by any means usual amongst 
either clergy or laity." — Church Times. 

_ "The work goes very thoroughly and practically into all the great Church ques- 
tions and problems of the day, and fully discusses, solely in the interests of the Church, 
and from no party standpoint, the most effectual remedies for the present condition of 
the Church. "—Ecclesiastical Gazette. 

"Written from the Author's point of view with decided z):yiX\x.\ ." —Westminster 


" Mr. Miller's volume is a learned, painstaking, and conscientious attempt to 
settle several very difficult matters, and to those interested in the questions of which 
it treats, perusal will afford both profit and pleasure." — Leamington Spa Courier. 

" Mr. Miller writes on the whole as a High Churchman, but he is sensible and con- 
ciliatory. He has availed himself largely of the researches of the Oxford school of 
early English history, and he has treated his subject in a way which must, we think, 
command the respectful consideration of those who differ most widely from his con- 
clusions." — Spectator. 

C. Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., i, Paternoster Square, London. 


Second 500. Price Twopence. 

London : Xovello, Ewer, and Co., i, Berners Street, W., 

and 80 and 81, Queen Street, E.C. 

Boston, New York, and Philadelphia : Ditson and Co. 

[Pronounced by good Judges to be an appropriate setting of the 
sense and changes of this great Hyf?m of the Church., and 
at the same time tu7ieful and easy for Choirs. '\ 

York Street, Covent Garden, 
October 1884. 





ALFORD (Dean). The Greek Testament. With a 

critically revised Text ; a Digest of various Readings ; Marginal 
References to Verbal and Idiomatic Usage ; Prolegomena ; and 
a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. For the Use of Theo- 
logical Students and Ministers. By the late Henry Alford, D. D., 
Dean of Canterbur}'. 4 vols. 8vo. 5/. 2s. Sold separately. 

The New Testament for English Readers. Con- 
taining the Authorised Version, with additional Corrections of 
Readings and Renderings, Marginal References, and a Critical 
and Explanatory Commentary. In 4 Parts. ?/. 145-. 6d. Sold 

BARRETT (A. C.) Companion to the Greek Tes- 
tament. For the Use of Theological Students and the Upper 
Forms in Schools. By A. C. Barrett, M.A., Caius College. 
4//? edition, revised. Fcap. 8vo. 5^. 

BARRY (Dr.) Notes on the Catechism. For the 
Use of vSchools. By the Rev. Canon Barry, D.D., Principal of 
King's College, London. 6t/i. edition. Fcao. 2s. 

BLEEK (F.) An Introduction to the Old Testament. 
ByF. Bleek. 2 vols. los. See Bohn's Libraries. {Catalogues 
free on application.) 

BLENCOWE (E.) Plain Sermons by the Rev. 

E. Blencowe. Vol. I. dth edition. Fcap, Svo. 6^-. 
BLUNT (J. S.) Readings on the Morning and 

Evening Prayer and the Litany. By J. S. Blunt, yd edition. 

Fcap. Svo. y. 6d. 

Life after Confirmation. Revised editioji. i8mo. \s. 

CARTER (T. T.) The Devout Christian's Help to 
Meditation on the Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Containing 
Meditations and Prayers for every day in the year. Edited by 
the Rev. T. T. Carter, Rector of Clewer. 2 vols. Fcap. Svo. 
\2s. Or in five Parts. Part I. 7.s. 6d. ; Part II. 2s. ; Part 
III. 2s. : Part IV. 2s. 6d. ; Part V. 2s. 6d. 

George Bell and Sons' 

COWLEY-BROWN (G. J.) Daily Lessons on 

the Life of our Lord on Eartli, being llie (iospel Narrative in 
the Words of the Evangelists. With a short Exposition ar- 
ranged for Daily Reading in the Household. Dy the Rev. 
G. J. Cowley-Brown, Incumbent of St. John's, Edinlnirgli. 
Two vols, demy 8vo. lis. 

DAVIES (G. J.) Homilies, Ancient and Modern. 
]jy the late Rev. ('.. J. Davies. A vSelection from the Writings 
of the great Sermon-writers of the Past, chiefly between 
1800 and 1840, with short Memoirs and Essays on iheir 
Characteristics. In Four Parts, in stiff wrapper, 2s. dd. each. 

No. I.— Sermons ox Spfxial Occasions, Original, Selected, 
and Adapted. Sunday Schools, Church Restoration, Benefit 
Clubs, ^lissions, Hospital Sunday, Funeral, Harvest Thank.-.- 
giving, Assizes, Holy Communion. (Twenty Sermons.) 

No. II. — Rev. Charles Wolfe, 1791-1823, Author of tlie 
' Ode on the Burial of Sir John Moore.' 

No. III. — Rev. E. Cooper, 1770-1835. 

No. IV. — Rev. Edward Blencowe, 1805 43. 
ra])ers on Preaching, yd editiou. Revised anil 

enlarged. \\ ide fcap. 8vo. 6-r. 

' A perfect museum of valuable observations and illustrations. It ouglit 
to be studied by evcrj" clergyman who desires to irake the most of what i> 
certainlj- one of the most effectual means of usefulness that lie within hi-, 
reach.' — Spcctatoi: 

Successful Preachers. Partly reprinted from the 

Guardian. Wide fcap. y.* 

DAVIES (T. L. O.) Bible-English. Chapters on 
Words and Phrases in the Authorized Version and the Book 
of Common Prayer, no longer in common use. By the Rev. 
T. Lewis O. Davies, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary-extra, South- 
ampton. Small crown 8vo. 5^. 

' We can heartily commend this book.' — Saturday Review. 

DENTON (W.) A Commentary on the Gospels and 

Epistles for the .Sundays and other Holy Days of the Christian 
Year. By the Rev. W. Denton, M.A., Worcester College, 
Oxford, and Incumbent of St. Bartholomew's, Cripplegatc. 
Vol.1. Advent to Easter, -^rd edition. iSs. Vol.11. Easter 
to the Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity. 3;'^/ edition. i8j. 
Vol. HI. .Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity to Advent; and 
Holy Days, yd edition. i8j. Epistles. Vol. I. Advent to 
Trinity. 8to. 2nd edition. \%s. Vol. II. 2nd edition. i8.v. 

List of Theological Works. 

DENTON (W.) A Commentary on the Acts of the 
Aj)o.stIes. Vol. I, i8j. Vol. II., completing the work, 14^-. 

These Commentaries originated in Notes collected by the 
compiler to aid in the composition of expositor}' sermons. They 
are derived from all available sources, and especially from the 
wide but little known field of theological comment found in the 
* Schoolmen ' of the Middle Ages. They are recommended to 
ihe notice of all young Clergymen, who frequently, while inex- 
perienced, are called upon to preach to educated and intelligent 
congregations. The special nature of the sources from which 
they have been derived ought to make them indispensable to all 
who wish to expound the Holy Scriptures with the same under- 
standing as may be obtained by extraneous help. 

EUSEBIUS. Ecclesiastical History. 5^-. See Bo/m's 
Libraries. {Catalogues free on application.) 

GARNIER (T. P.) Church or Dissent? An 
Appeal to Holy Scripture, addressed to Dissenters. By T. P. 
(iarnicr, late Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford. 2nd edition. 
( rown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

GOODWIN (Bp.) A Guide to the Parish Church. 
Hy the Right Rev. Harvey Goodwin, Bishop of Carlisle. C)th 
I (I it ion, revised. Fcap. 8vo. y. 6d. 

Plain Sermons on Ordination and the Ministry of 

the Church. Preached on divers occasions. Crown Svo. 6s. 

Parish Sermons. First Series, -^rd editio7i. i2mo. 

6j. Second Series {out of print). Third Series, yd edition. 
i2mo. 7J-. Fourth Series. i2mo. ^s. Fifth Series, with 
Preface on Sermons and Sermon-writing. 7^. 

Sermons Preached before the Universities of Oxford 

.'ind Cambridge. Crown Svo. 6s. 

Lectures upon the Church Catechism. i2mo. 4J-. 

Plain Thoughts concerning the ^Meaning of Holy 

Baptism, ind edition. 2d., or 25 for y. 6d. 

- Confirmation Day. A Book of Instruction for 
Young Persons how to spend that day. %th thousand. 2d., or 
25 for IS. 6d. 

— The Worthy Communicant ; or, ' Who may come 
to the Supper of the Lord ?' Zth thousand. 2d., or 25 for 3J. 6d. 

George Bell and Sons* 

HARDWICK (C. H.) History of the Articles of 

Religion. 5^. Str Bohii's Libraries. {Catalogues free on ap- 

H AWKIN S (Canon). Family Prayers : — Containing 
Psalms, Lessons, and Prayers, for every Morning and Evening 
in the Week. By the late Rev. Ernest Hawkins, B.D., Pre- 
bendary of St. Paul's. i2>th edition. Fcap. 8vo. is. 

HOOK (W. F.) Short Meditations for Every Day in 
the Year. Edited by the late Very Rev. W. F. Hook, D.D., 
Dean of Chichester, Revised edition. 1 vols. Fcap. 8vo. 
Large type. 14^. Also 2 vols. 32mo. Cloth, 5^. ; calf, gilt 
edges, 9^. 

The Christian Taught by the Church's Services. 

Revised edition^ to accord with the A^rio Lectionary. i vol. 
Fcap. 8vo. Large type. 6s. 6d. Also i vol. Royal 32mo. 
Cloth, 2s. 6d. ; calf, gilt edges, /s^. 6d. 

Holy Thoughts and Prayers, arranged for Daily 

Use on each Day of the Week, according to the stated Hours 
of Prayer. S^h edition, with additions. i6mo. Cloth, red 
edges, 2J-. ; calf, gilt edges, 3^-. Cheap edition, 3^/. 

Verses for Holy Seasons. By C. F. Alexander. 

Edited by the late Very Rev. W. F. Hook, D.D. 5M edition. 
Fcap. '^s. 6d. 
HUMPHRY (W. G.) An Historical and Explana- 
tory Treatise on the Book of Common Prayer. By W. G. 
Humphry, B.D., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, 
Prebendary of St. Paul's, and Vicar of St. >Lartin-in-the- 
Fields. dth edition. Fcap. 8vo. 4^. 6d. 

The New Table of Lessons Explained, with the 

Table of Lessons and a Tabular Comparison of the Old and 
New Proper Lessons for Sundays and Holy Days. By W. G. 
Ilumphr}-, J3.D. Fcap. i^. 6d. 

JOHNSTONE (R.) Parochial Addresses and Les- 
sons. A Scries of Readings for such as are tried by Sickness, 
Infirmity, and Age. By Richard Johnstone, INLA., Assistant 
Curate of Moreton Say. Fcap. 8vo. limp cloth, for the 
pocket, 3^-. 

LEWIN ^T.) The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. By 

the late t. Lcwin, ISLA., F.S.A., Trinity College, Oxford, 
Barrister-at-Law. With upwards of 350 Illustrations finely en- 
graved on Wood ; Maps, Plans, <S:c. In 2 vols, /^th edition. 
Demy 4to. 2/. 2s. 

List of Theological Works. 

LEWIN (T.) Fasti Sacri; or, a Key to the Chro- 
nology of the New Testament. 4to. 21^-. 

LUMBY (J. R.) History of the Creeds. By J. 
Kawson Lumby, D.D., Norrisian Professor of Divinity, and late 
Fellow of Magdalene College. Cambridge. 2nd edition. Crown 
Svo. 7^. (id. 

MILL (Dr.) Lectures on the Catechism. DeUvered 
in the Parish Church of Brasted, in the Diocese of Canterbury. 
IJy W. H. Mill, D.D., formerly Regius Professor of Hebrew in 
the University of Cambridge. Edited by the Rev. B. Webb, 
M.A. Fcap. Svo. ds. 6d. 

Observations on the attempted AppUcation of 

Pantheistic Principles to the Theory and Historic Criticism 
of the Gospels. By W. H. Mill, D.D. 27id edition, with the 
Author s latest notes and additions. Edited by his Son-in-law, 
the Rev. B. Webb, M.A. Svo. I4i-. 

MONSELL (Dr.) Simon the Cyrenian, and other 
Poems. By the late Rev. J. S. B. Monsell, LL.D., Vicar of 
St. Nicholas, Guildford. 2nd thousand. 32mo. 5^. 

Watches by the Cross. Short Meditations, Hymns, 

and Litanies on the Last Seven Words of our Lord. 4//^ edition. 
Cloth, red edges, \s. 

Near Home at Last. A Poem. %th thousand. 

Cloth, red edges. Imp. 32mo. 2s. 6d. 

Hymns of Love and Praise for the Church's Year. 

2nd thousand. Fcap. Svo. 3^-. 6d. 

Our New Vicar ; or. Plain Words about Ritual and 

Parish Work. Fcap. Svo. loth edition, ^s. 

The Winton Church Catechism. Questions and 

Answers on the Teaching of the Church Catechism. 4/// editiojt. 
32mo. cloth, 3J-. Also in Four Parts. Part I. 6d. ; Parts H. 
IIL and IV. gd. each. 

PEROWNE (Dean). The Book of Psalms: a 

New Translation, with Introductions and Notes, Critical and 
Explanatory. By the Very Rev. J. J. Stewart Perowne, D.D., 
Dean of Peterborough. Svo. Vol. I. 5//i edition. iSj. Vol. II. 
$th edition, ids. 

The Book of Psalms. An abridged Edition for 

Schools and Private Students. Crown Svo. 4/// edition, iof-. 6d- 

George Bell and Sons' 

PEARSON (Bp.) The Creed. 55-. See Bohn's 

Libraries. {Catalogues free on application.) 

PHILO-JUDAEUS. Works. 4 vols. 5^. each. ^V^ 

Bohiis Lil>ranes. ( Catalogues free on application. ) 

SADLER (M. F.) The Gospel of St. Matthew. By 
the Rev. M. Y. Sadler, Rector of Iloniton and Prebendary of 
Wells. With Notes, Critical and Practical, and Two Maps. 
Crown 8vo. 7^'. 6d. 

' It is far the best practical comineiUaiy we know, being plain-spoken, 
fearless, and definite, and containing matter verj' unlike the milk and water 

which is often served up in (so-called) practical commentaries 

Throughout the whole book the writer is ever on the watch for general 
principles and teaching, applicable to the wants of our own day, which may 
legitimately be deducted from the (Jospel narrative.' — Church Quarterly 

The Gospel of St. John, with Notes, Critical and 

Practical. Crown 8vo. "js. 6d. 

' There is a vigour, a freshness, an originality about his treatment of the 
sacred words, which are interesting and attractive, and which always make 
his Commentary well worth consulting.' — Guardian. 

'This is admirably done, being exactly what is wanted for that large and 
increasing class of readers, who need the results of genuine scholarship and 
sound vigorous thought ; but who are repelled by any surface display of 
erudition, and still more by dryness of treatment.' — Church Times. 

The Gospel of St. Mark. Crown 8vo. [Just published. 

Church Doctrine — Bible Truth. 32;/^ tJioiisand. 

Fcap. Svo. 35-. dd. 

' Mr. Sadler takes Church Doctrine, specifically so called, subject by 
subject, and elaborately shows its specially marked Scripturalness. The 
objective nature of the faith, the Athanasian Creed, the B.iptismal Services, 
the Holy Eucharist, Absolution and the Priesthood, Church Government 
and Confirmation, are some of the more prominent subjects treated. And 
Mr. Sadler handles each with a marked degree of sound sense, and with a 
thorough mastery of his subject.' — Guardian. 

' We know of no recent work professing to cover the same ground in 
which the agreement of our Church Services with the Scriptures is more 
amply vindicated.'— From an adverse review in the Christian Obscrz'cr. 

The Church Teacher's Manual of Christian In- 
struction. Being the Church Catechism expanded and explained 
in Question and Answer, for the use of Clergymen, Parents, 
and Teachers. 28/// thousand. Fcap. Svo. 2s. 6d. 

' Far the best book of the kind we have ever seen. It is arranged in two 
portions; a longer and more thorough Catechism, and then, along with each 
>ection thereof, a shorter and more elementary set of questions on the sainc 
subject, suited for less advanced pupils. ... Its thoroughness, its careful 
explanation of words, its citation and exposition of Scripture passages and 
their full meaning, in cases where that full meaning is so often explained 
away, make it a most valuable handbook.' — Literary Churchman. 

List of TJieological Works. 

SADLER (M. F.) Emmanuel; or, The Incarnation 
of ihe Son of God, the Foundation of Immutable Truth. Revised 
ami Cheaper edi/io):. Fcap. Svo. 5jr. 

The One Offering. A Treatise on the Sacrificial 

Nature of the Eucharist. Fcap. "ji/i thousand. 2s. 6d. 

' There cannot be a more grave and religious objection to the doctrine of 
an Eucharistic Sacrifice than the belief that it in some way militates against 
the completeness of the sublime satisfaction once for all made upon Mount 
Calvary'. . . . Mr. Sadler points out with force and discrimination how 
mistaken an accusation it is when it is brought against the teaching of the 
Fathers and of Anglican divines, or even against the more moderate school 
of Roman Catholics. Its quotations are most apt and pertinent. '^CZ/wnVi: 

The Second Adam and the New Birth; or, the 

Doctrine of Baptism as contained in Holy Scripture, ^th edition. 
Fcap. Svo. 4J-. 6d. 

' The most striking peculiarity of this useful little work is that its author 
argues almost e.xclusively from the Bible. We commend it most earnestly 
to clergy and laity, as containing in a small compass, and at a trifling cost. 
a body of sound and Scriptural doctrine respecting the New Birth, which 
cannot be too widely circulated.' — Guardian. 

The Sacrament of Responsibility; or, Testimony 

of the Scripture to the Teaching of the C'hurch on Holy Baptism, 
with especial reference to the Cases of Infants ; and Answers to 
Objections. 2'jth thotisand. 6d. 

The Sacrament of Responsibility. With the addi 

tion of an Introduction, in which the religious speculations 
of the last twenty years are considered in their bearings on 
the Church doctrine of Holy Baptism ; and an Appendix, giving 
the testimony of writers of all ages and schools of thought in 
the Church. On fine paper, and neatly bound in cloth. 4//: 
edition. 2s. 6d. 

Sermons. Plain Speaking on Deep Truths. 6//^ 

edition, ds. Abundant Life, and other Sermons. 6s. 

Scripture Truths. A Series of Ten Tracts on Holy 

Baptism, The Holy Communion, Ordination, &c. ^d. per set. 
Sold separately. 

The Communicant's Manual; being a Book of 

. Self-examination, Prayer, Praise, and Thanksgiving. Royal 

32mo. I'^th thousand. Roan, 2s. ; cloth, \s. 6d. In best 
morocco, Ts. 

*^(.* A Cheap Edition in limp cloth. %d. 

A Larger Edition on fine paper, red rubrics. Fcap. 

8vo. 2s. 6d. ; roan, 5^. 6d. ; morocco, ys. 

List of Theological Woj-ks. 

SCRIVENER (Dr.) Novum Testamentum Gr^cum, 

Textus Stephanici, 1550. Accedunt varire lectiones editionum 
Bezce, Elzeviri, Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, et Tregellesii. 
Curante F. H. Scrivener, M.A., LL.D. i6mo. 4J. 6r/. 

Rci'iscd Edition, with "^^QO Alterations and Additions, giving 
for the first time all the Readings of Tregelles and of Tischendor/'s 
eighth edition. 

An Edition with wide Margin for Notes. 4to. half bound, 


Codex Bezas Cantabrigiensis. Edited, with Prole- 
gomena, Notesand Facsimiles, by F. H. Scrivener,M.A,,LL.D., 

Prebendary of Exeter. 4to. 26s. 

A Full Collation of the Codex Sinai ticus with the 

Received Text of the New Testament ; to which is prefixed a 
Critical Introduction. 2nd edition, revised. Fcap. 8vo. ^s. 

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New 

Testament. With Forty Facsimiles from Ancient M:. .uscripts. 
Containing also an Account of the Egyptian Versions by Canon 
Lightfoot, D.D. For the Use of Biblical Students. Third 
edition, thoroughly revised. Demy 8vo. i8,f. 

Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament 

and the ancient Manuscripts which contain it. Chiefly addressed 
to those who do not rtc 1 Greek. \Yith Facsimiles from MSS. 
&c. Crown Svo. 6s. 

SOCRATES' and SOZOMEN'S Ecclesiastical 

Histories. 5 j-. each. See Bohns Libraries. {Catalogues free on 

THOMAS A KEMPIS. On the Imitation of Christ. 
A New Translation. By the Rt, Rev. II. (ioodwin, D.D. 3;?/ 
edition. With fine Steel Engraving after Guido, 3^, 6d. ; without 
the Engraving, 2s. 6d. Cheap edition, is. cloth ; 6d. sewed. 

WIESELER. Chronological Synopsis of the Gospels. 

5.5. Sec Bohns Libraries. {Catalogues free.) 

YOUNG (Rev. P.) Daily Readings for a Year on 
the Life of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. By the Rev. 
Peter Young, M.A. dth editign. 2 vols. Svo. \l. is. 

Lessons on Confirmation. Revised editioji. Fcap. 

Svo. 2S. 6d. 

London : Printed by S trangkwavs and Sons, Tower Street, St. Martin's Lane. 

Date Due '^j 


' 1 



m 1 ■ ■'■" 




tfttHT '