It seems exceedingly unlikely that the corrections would have no antiquity on their side. We may take it for granted that in this supposed revision earlier MSS. were used for correcting the text, as we know that such were used in the case of Jerome's Vulgate. I have consequently directed attention, in almost all cases of doubt, to the readings of the Syriac, just as I have to the Vulgate; and when the two agree, as they do in some of the most important various readings in the New Testament, I cannot but think that their joint testimony is greater than that of our oldest existing MSS.

There are two or three other later Syriac versions-the Philoxenian or Harklean and the Jerusalem, both of use to those who go deeply into New Testament textual criticism.

The New Testament was at a very early period translated into the Ancient Egyptian or Coptic, Bishop Lightfoot (in his account of the Coptic versions and MSS., in Dr. Scrivener's third edition of his "Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament") thinks before the conclusion of the second century.

There are three Coptic or Egyptian versions

1. The Memphitic, the dialect of Lower Egypt, called often simply the Coptic.

2. The Thebaic or Sahidic of Upper Egypt, only in fragments. 3. The Bashmuric, a dialect spoken by the herdsmen or Bucolici of the Delta, of which only a few fragments remain.

A full account of the MSS. and printed editions of these versions is contributed by the Bishop of Durham, Dr. Lightfoot, to Scrivener's Introduction, pp. 365-404. Of all the versions he considers the Memphitic the most valuable to the critic.

The Gothic version was made by Ulphilas, Bishop of the Goths in Mæsia, and an Arian, between 348 and 388. According to Scrivener it exists only in a fragmentary state, and approaches more nearly to the received text in respect of readings than the Egyptian and one or two versions of the same age.

The Armenian seems to belong to the fifth century; the Æthiopic to between the fourth and seventh centuries.

The last, but by no means the least important means for ascertaining the exact text of the Apostles and Evangelists, are quotations in the Fathers from the Sacred Scriptures. These quotations seem to me to be far more numerous in proportion than the citations of Scripture in the vast majority of modern writers. For instance,

in an Index to Irenæus, I counted 1,000 references to, or quotations from, the New Testament. In a similar index to the works of Clement of Alexandria, I counted above 1,200. In the works of Tertullian they seem still more numerous. In a very considerable number of cases these Fathers refer to readings which are now disputed, or which are not in the oldest MSS. In a few cases they refer to varieties of reading.

Such are the means of arriving approximately at what was writtenby the Apostolic writers. All this mass of material, however, was not known at the time of the publication of what is called the Received Text, and has only been gradually discovered since. Erasmus, the publisher of the first Greek text, made apparently little use of some of the manuscripts he was able to examine. The Codex Alexandrinus was not available till nearly a century after his time; the accurate knowledge of the contents of the Codex Vaticanus not till this century; and the Codex Sinaiticus was only discovered in 1859. Since that of Erasmus, various editions of the Greek text have been published, each one making such alteration as the discovery of fresh means of ascertaining the primitive text required. It may be sufficient to specify Mill, 1707; Wetstein, about 1730; Griesbach, 1796-1806; Lachmann, 1850; Tregelles, 1857-72; Tischendorf (8th ed.), 1869; Westcott and Hort, 1881.

It remains now to say a few words respecting the use of these materials in the short critical notes. I desire the reader most carefully to remember what I said respecting the design of these notes —which is, to give all readings of the original Greek, or renderings of that Greek which, having any authority worth notice, appreciably affect the sense. If I were to notice all the readings for which some manuscript or version might be cited, the notes would have filled the whole page.

(1.) My first illustration shall be Matthew v. 22: "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause." The important words "without a cause "(εikn) are omitted by , B., and the Vulgate, and two cursive MSS. 48 and 198, and by several Fathers.

They are contained in D. and in E., K., L. (which latter usually follows B.), M., S., U., V., T., A, by all the Cursives except two, the Old Latin, and the Syriac (both Cureton and Peshito): Which reading is the most probable, depends upon the value assigned to N and B. If the testimony of these two is all but overwhelming, then "without a cause" should be left out; if not, the true reading is very

probably that in the Rec. Text. The Fathers who cite it are divided; several of them notice both readings. Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort omit it; Tregelles prefers to retain it.

(2.) Matthew v. 44. Here N, B., three Cursives, 1, 22, 209, many MSS. of Old Latin, Vulgate, Cureton Syriac, Coptic, and some Fathers omit "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you;" but the words are retained by D., E., K., L., M., S., U., A, II, nearly all Cursives, some Old Latin, the Peshito, and other versions and quotations from Fathers. This place is supposed by those who omit the words to be an interpolation from Luke vi. 27, there always being a tendency amongst scribes to assimilate to one another divergent passages in the Gospels.

(3.) Matthew vi. 1. "Take heed that ye do not your alms," , B. (early correction), D., Cursives 1 and 209, and some others, Vulg., and Old Latin, read here "righteousness," instead of "alms;' but later Uncials, E., K., L., M., S., U., Z., A, II, most Cursives and Syriac, both Cureton and Peshito, read "alms," as in Rec. Text.

4. Matth. vi. 4, "openly" is omitted by Vulgate and Cureton Syriac, by, B., and D., but retained by E., K., L., M., S., U., X., by Old Latin and Peshito Syriac. The reader will notice that in all these cases the Vulgate sides with N and B. and in 3 and 4 with D., and is against Old Lat. in all four. In deciding these readings we have the assistance of neither A. nor C., but in every case L., which is supposed to represent or be copied from old MSS. of the type of B., is against Vulgate and B. I cannot help thinking that the testimony of the Vulgate is of very great weight in these and a vast number of other cases, and, as we shall see, in many cases, against the oldest MSS., and B., though here in their favour.

5. In Matth. vi. 13, the Vulgate sides with N, B., D., some of the Cursives which support B. (1, 17, 118, 130, 209), and the Oldest Latin, in not retaining the doxology, but both Syriacs retain it. It is supposed to be a very early interpolation from the Liturgies.

But if the reader will glance through the notes he will see what an independent position the Vulgate takes. It very frequently supports the readings of the earliest MSS., and B., as the reader must have already seen. It is founded on the Old Latin, and yet, while rejecting all the glaring Western interpolations, it sides with the earliest Fathers (Justin, Irenæus, Clement, Tertullian) and the oldest versions in bearing witness against the shocking mutilations of the sacred text which we have in Codex B.

The Vulgate seems to be the earliest and best witness to the settled text of Christendom: for we have to face this fact, that the farther back we go, the more unsettled the text seems to be. I will give a few instances. The Old Latin must have been derived from manuscripts far older than B., and yet it differs most materially from that (or those) from which B. must have been derived. D. and the Old Latin, and the oldest Syriac put into the Saviour's mouth sayings which the universal sense of Christendom, guided, I believe, by the Holy Spirit, has rejected as not being His words, whilst B. has rejected, or is unconscious of, sayings of His which it is impossible that any but He could have uttered. Again, a Father living so near to the times of the Apostles as Justin Martyr, must have used a manuscript or manuscripts as near to the original autographs as that or those from which & and B. are taken, and yet Justin Martyr bears most decisive witness to the fact that in his MS. of the Gospels there was the account of our Blessed Lord's Bloody Sweat, which is omitted by A., N, and B. Irenæus also bears his testimony to the same. Again, in an article in the "Quarterly Review" for April, 1882, on the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort, the writer shows the extraordinary corruption of a passage from St. Mark preserved to us in Clement of Alexandria.

In fact, the oldest text of the Gospels must have been the most unsettled, because it was brought out at a time when the teaching respecting our Lord's Life and Acts was in a great measure oral. The very first person into whose hands any one of the Apostolic autographs came must have known (or supposed he knew) many things about our Lord which were not in that particular copy.

I will now make a few remarks on four or five readings of considerable practical importance.

Matth. xvii. 21: "This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." The evidence for this reading is N [very early correction], C., D., E., F., G., H., K., L., M., S., U., in fact all the later Uncials, all the Cursives, the Vulgate, Peshito, and Old Latin; against it is N, B., one Cursive (33), and the Cureton Syriac [the Coptic MSS. seem divided]. The rejection of this verse is only consistent with giving B., supported by N, an overwhelming authority -in fact an authority which counterbalances Uncials, Cursives, and most ancient versions.1

1 The doctrine taught in the verse is the natural outcome of that in the Sermon on the Mount respecting fasting. "When thou fastest, anoint thine

66

xviii. 15. "Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass [against thee, tiç σè].” The difference here is very important on the bearing of this text on discipline. If the reading in the Textus Receptus be good, then the place has only to do with private quarrels; if the words against thee" are to be omitted, then it has to do with the whole remedial action of the Church against all sin, which one Christian may have knowledge of in his brother. Alford does not scruple here to impute bad faith to the writer of the Vat. MS. "An attempt has been made in the Vat. MS. to render the passage applicable to sin in general, and so to give the Church power over sins upon earth." This will serve to show the importance which commentators have attached to the reading. The evidence in favour of retaining "against thee" is all the available evidence of MSS., Uncial and Cursive, except three of the latter (1, 22, 234), the Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptics, and Cureton Syriac. The evidence for the omission of "against thee" is N, B., and the three Cursives I have mentioned. The omission of the words in this place also can only consist with making all other evidence whatsoever yield to that of and B.

xix. 9. "Whoso marrieth her that is put away doth commit adultery.", C.3, D., L., S., 15 or 16 Cursives, many oldest MSS. of Old Latin, Cureton Syriac, and MSS. of some Coptic versions omit this clause, whilst B., C., all later Uncials, the greater part of Cursives, some MSS. of Old Latin, Vulgate, and Peshito Syriac, retain it. The agreement of B., C*., and so many later Uncials with Vulgate and Peshito makes it, I think, imperative on us to understand it as a part of the text.

xix. 17. "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." Here N, B., D., L 1, 22, Old Latin (mostly), Vulgate, Cureton Syriac, and other versions read the first clause "Why askest thou me concerning the good? [or good] "C., E., F.,

head and wash thy face, that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee." (Matth. vi. 17, 18). Here sincere fasting, with a view to God's approval, is expressly mentioned as a means of grace parallel with prayer, in vi. 6. If that "kind" of evil spirit took peculiarly strong hold of its victims, it is only likely that our Lord would make its ejection to depend upon a means of grace which showed more self-denial and so more determination to be delivered from it.