Chapter XXIV: Appendix: Of Sacred Codices (4)

An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,—“The fragment must have
been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and
by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might
expect from a half-educated reader enunciating Milton for a
half-educated writer.”

746 See p. 324 _note_ 1.—Photius [cod. 48] says that “Gaius” was a
presbyter of Rome, and ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος. See Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii.
125.

747 Eusebius, _Hist. Ecol._ v. 28 (ap. Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii. 132-4).

748 Tregelles, Part ii. p. 2.

749 Scrivener’s prefatory _Introduction_,—p. xix.

_ 750 Ibid._ p. iii.

_ 751 On Revision_,—p. 47.

752 Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31 _exactly_ fills two columns
of cod. א. (See Tischendorf’s reprint, 4to, p. 24*.)

753 Clemens Al. (ed. Potter),—pp. 937-8.... Note, how Clemens begins §
v. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p.
336, note 3.

754 “This Text” (say the Editors) “is _an attempt to reproduce at once
the autograph Text_.”—_Introduction_, p. xxviii.

755 Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction_, pp. 112-3.

756 Besides,—All but L. conspire 5 times.
All but T. 3 times.
All but Tr. 1 time.
Then,—T. Tr. WH. combine 2 times
T. WH. RT. 1 time
Tr. WH. RT. 1 time
L. Tr. WH. 1 time
Then,—L. T. stand by themselves 1 time
L. Tr. 1 time
T. WH. 1 time
Lastly,—L. stands alone 4 times.
Total: 21.

_ 757 Twice_ he agrees with all 5: viz. omitting ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν in ver.
21; and in omitting ῆ γυναῖκα (in ver. 29):—_Once_ he agrees with
only Lachmann: viz. in transposing ταῦτα πάντα (in ver. 20).

758 On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits
peculiar readings of his own,—sides with _no one_.

_ 759 Q. R._ p. 360.

760 Article xx. § 1.

761 Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—S. John xvi. 13.

762 Theodoret, _Opp._ iv. 208.—Comp. Clinton, _F. R._ ii. _Appendix_, p.
473.

763 The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaye (of Lincoln)’s
_Account of the writings of Clement of Alexandria_,—and to read the
vith and viiith chapters.

764 Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται. (§ v.),—p. 938.

765 Alford’s N. T. vol. i. proleg. p. 92.

766 See p. 197 (§ 269): and p. 201 (§ 275-9):—and p. 205 (§ 280).

_ 767 Preface_ (1870), p. xv.

768 See above, pp. 79 to 85.

769 Pp. 359-60.

770 P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii.

771 Pp. 91-119 and pp. 133-146.

772 “I perceived _a large and wide basket_ full of old parchments; and
the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already
_committed to the flames._ What was my surprise to find amid this
heap of papers,” &c.—(_Narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic
Manuscript,_ p. 23.)

773 τὴν παρακαταθήκην.—1 Tim. vi. 20.

774 [While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my
papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented
Editor of Cyril,—Philip E. Pusey,—with whom I used to be in constant
communication:—“It is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from
outside, why B C L, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each
other, and therefore nearly = 1-½ MSS., are to be held to be
superior to A. It is still less obvious to me why —— showing up (as
he does) very many grave faults of B, should yet consider B superior
in character to A.”]

_ 775 Introduction_, p. 567.

776 Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, 6,
7, 8; 1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. 9 _bis_, iv. 7; v. 1 _bis_, 4, 18 _bis_.
_Why_ is it to be supposed that on this last occasion THE ETERNAL
SON should be intended?

777 A*, B, 105.

778 The paraphrase is interesting. The Vulgate, Jerome [ii. 321, 691],
Cassian [p. 409],—“_Sed generatio Dei conservat eum_:” Chromatius
[Gall. viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. 646],—“_Quia
(quoniam) nativitas Dei custodit (servat) illum._” In a letter of 5
Bishops to Innocentius I. (A.D. 410) [Galland. viii. 598 b], it
is,—“_Nativitas quæ ex Deo est._” Such a rendering (viz. “_his
having been born of_ GOD”) amounts to an _interpretation_ of the
place.

779 From the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D.

780 iv. 326 b c.

781 Gall. viii. 347,—of which the Greek is to be seen in Cramer’s _Cat._
pp. 143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the
present passage included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia
published by C. F. Matthæi [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7].

782 i. 94, 97.

783 In _Cat._ p. 124, repeated p. 144.

784 iii. 433 c.

785 ii. 601 d.

786 By putting a small uncial Ε above the Α.

_ 787 Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882.—[pp. 20] p. 19.

_ 788 Introduction_, p. 283. _Notes_, pp. 3, 22, and _passim_.

789 Sermons, vol. i. 132,—(“_A form of sound words to be used by
Ministers._”)

790 Quoted by ps.-Ephraem _Evan. Conc._ p. 135 l. 2:—Nonnus:—Chrys.
viii. 248:—Cyril iv. 269 e, 270 a, 273:—Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 242 l. 25
(which is _not_ from Chrys.):—_Chron. Paschale_ 217 a
(_diserte_).—Recognized by Melito (A.D. 170):—Irenæus (A.D.
177):—Hippolytus (A.D. 190):—Origen:—Eusebius:—Apollinarius Laod.,
&c.

791 This is the _true_ reason of the eagerness which has been displayed
in certain quarters to find ὅς, (not Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16:—just
as nothing else but a determination that CHRIST shall not be spoken
of as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, has occasioned the supposed doubt as to
the construction of Rom. ix. 5,—in which we rejoice to find that Dr.
Westcott refuses to concur with Dr. Hort.

792 See Dr. W. H. Mill’s _University Sermons_ (1845),—pp. 301-2 and
305:—a volume which should be found in every clergyman’s library.

793 Rev. xxii. 18, 19.

794 ἀφανισθήσονται.

795 This happens not unfrequently in codices of the type of א and B. A
famous instance occurs at Col. ii. 18, (ἂ μὴ ἑώρακεν
ἐμβατεύων,—“_prying into the things he hath not seen_”); where א* A
B D* and a little handful of suspicious documents leave out the
“_not_.” Our Editors, rather than recognize this blunder (so obvious
and ordinary!), are for conjecturing Α ΕΟΡΑΚΕΝ ΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ into ΑΕΡΑ
ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ; which (if it means anything at all) may as well
mean,—“proceeding on an airy foundation to offer an empty
conjecture.” Dismissing that conjecture as worthless, we have to set
off the whole mass of the copies—against some 6 or 7:—Irenæus (i.
847), Theodoras Mops, (in _loc_.), Chrys. (xi. 372), Theodoret (iii.
489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211)—against no Fathers at all (for
Origen once has μή [iv. 665]; once, has it not [iii. 63]; and once
is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the
diversity of reading, _but only to reject it_.—The Syriac versions,
the Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic and
Armenian—(we owe the information, as usual, to Dr. Malan)—are to be
set against the suspicious Coptic. All these then are with the
Traditional Text: which cannot seriously be suspected of error.

796 εὑρεθήσεται.

797 Augustin, vii. 595.

798 ii. 467: iii. 865:—ii. 707: iii. 800:—ii. 901. _In Luc_. pp. 428,
654.

799 ii. 347.

800 Preface to “Provisional issue,” p. xxi.

_ 801 Introduction_, p. 210.

_ 802 Ibid_. p. 276.

803 Apud Mai, vi. 105.

_ 804 Opp._ vii. 543. Comp. 369.

805 Ap. Cramer, _Cat._ vi. 187.

806 So, Nilus, i. 270.

_ 807 Interp._ 595: 607.

_ 808 Dem. Evan._ p. 444.

809 P. 306.

_ 810 Epist. ad Zen._ iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learned Cave considered
this to be a _genuine_ work of Justin M. (A.D. 150).

_ 811 Cantic._ (an early work) _interp._ iii. 39,—though elsewhere (i.
112, 181 [?]: ii. 305 _int._ [but _not_ ii. 419]) he is for leaving
out εἰκῆ.

812 Gall. iii. 72 and 161.

813 ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in the _Cat._ of Nicetas) _expressly_:
265.

814 i. 818 _expressly_.

815 ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome’s Latin translation, i. 240).

816 i. 132; iii. 442.

817 472, 634.

818 Ap. Chrys.

819 iii. 768: _apud Mai_, ii. 6 and iii. 268.

820 i. 48, 664; iv. 946.

821 Cramer’s _Cat._ viii. 12, line 14.

822 128, 625.

823 Gall. vi. 181.

824 Gall. x. 14.

825 Gall. vii. 509.

826 i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he was
84.

827 vii. 26,—“_Radendum est ergo_ sine causâ.” And so, at p. 636.

828 1064.

829 ii. 261.

830 ii. 592.

_ 831 Amphilochia_, (Athens, 1858,)—p. 317. Also in _Cat._

_ 832 Apophthegm. PP._ [ap. Cotel. _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ i. 622].

833 S. Matth. xv. 14.

_ 834 Gospel of the Resurrection_,—p. vii.

_ 835 Introduction_, pp. 300-2.

_ 836 Ibid._ p. 299.

_ 837 Appendix_, p. 66.

838 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 432.

_ 839 On Revision_,—p. 99.

_ 840 Speech in Convocation_, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.)

_ 841 On Revision_,—p. 205.

_ 842 Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,—p. 25.

_ 843 Ibid._,—p. 27.

_ 844 Considerations on Revision_,—p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May,
1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June.

We learn from Dr. Newth’s _Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881),
that,—“As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be
carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any
lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company
upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work” (p.
118) ... “The portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i.
to iv.” (p. 119) ... “The question of the spelling of proper names
... being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of
the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an
established method of procedure.”—“All proposals made at the first
Revision were decided by simple majorities” (p. 122) ... “_The
questions which concerned the Greek Text were decided for the most
part at the First Revision._” (Bp. Ellicott’s _Pamphlet_, p. 34.)

_ 845 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by two
Members of the New Testament Company_,—1882. Macmillan, pp. 79,
price two shillings and sixpence.

846 “To these two articles—so far, at least, as they are concerned with
the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers—our Essay is intended for an
answer.”—p. 79.

847 See above, pages 235 to 366.

848 Article III.,—see last note.

_ 849 Pamphlet_, p. 79.

_ 850 The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered in its
bearings upon the record of our __LORD’S__ Words and of incidents in
His Life_,—(1882. pp. 250. Murray,)—p. 232. Canon Cook’s temperate
and very interesting volume will be found simply unanswerable.

851 P. 40.

_ 852 Ibid._

853 As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40.

854 See above, pp. 348-350.

855 P. 40.

856 P. 40.

857 P. 77.

858 P. 41, and so at p. 77.

859 P. 41.

860 P. 5.

861 P. 3.

862 P. 77.

_ 863 On Revision_, pp. 47-8.

864 Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 423.

_ 865 Ibid._ p. 421.

866 “Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto
silentium,—sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum
viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto,
deque summâ Codicum dissonantiâ querelæ, nec non ipsæ corruptiones
inde a primis temporibus continuo propagatæ,—satis sunt documento,
neminem opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidiæ et
calumniis obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de
singulis locis disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in
rebus criticis fuisse.”—_Codd. MSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nova
descriptio, et cum textu vulgo recepto Collatio, &c._ 4to. Gottingæ,
1847. (p. 4.)

867 He proceeds:—“Hucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto,
continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium
singulorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium
testimonium pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero
aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum,
certum firmumque sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio
careamus.”—_Ibid._ (p. 19.)

_ 868 Commentarius Criticus in N. T._ (in his Preface to the Ep. to the
Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to
this. See by all means his _Revised Text of the first three
Gospels_,—pp. 4-8.

869 It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abbé to the
present writer,) the “Post-scriptum” of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from
p. 234 to p. 236,) is a _jeu d’esprit_ only,—intended to enliven a
dry subject, and to entertain his pupils.

870 It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott’s notice, (and yet the fact
well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and
Tregelles on the Church’s gratitude, are not by any means founded on
_the Texts_ which they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill,
Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that they _patiently accumulated
evidence_. “Tischendorf’s reputation as a Biblical scholar rests
less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the
chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the
world.” (Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 427.)

871 P. 12.

872 P. 13.

873 See above, pp. 12: 30-3: 34-5: 46-7: 75: 94-6: 249: 262: 289: 319.

874 P. 40.

875 P. 19.

876 P. 4.

877 Acts xix. 35.

_ 878 Suprà_, pp. 339-41.

879 P. 13.

880 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_, &c.—p. 30.

881 P. 15.

882 P. 16.

883 P. 17.

884 P. 18.

885 P. 19.

886 P. 19.

887 P. 20.

888 P. 21.

889 Pp. 23-4.

_ 890 Supra_, pp. 258-266.

891 Pp. 25-7.

892 See _Art._ III.,—viz. from p. 235 to p. 366.

893 You refer to such places as pp. 87-8 and 224, where see the Notes.

_ 894 Chronicle of Convocation_, Feb. 1870, p. 83.

895 See above, p. 368.

896 The clause (“and sayest thou, Who touched me?”) is witnessed to by A
C D P R X Γ Δ Λ Ξ Π and _every other known uncial except three of
bad character: by every known cursive but four_:—by the Old Latin
and Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the Æthiopic
Versions; as well as by ps.-Tatian (_Evan. Concord_, p. 77) and
Chrysostom (vii. 359 a). It cannot be pretended that the words are
derived from S. Mark’s Gospel (as Tischendorf coarsely
imagined);—for the sufficient reason that _the words are not found
there_. In S. Mark (v. 31) it is,—καὶ λέγεις, Τίς μου ἥψατο; in S.
Luke (viii. 45), καὶ λέγεις, Τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου. Moreover, this
delicate distinction has been maintained all down the ages.

897 Page 154 to p. 164.

898 You will perhaps remind me that you do not read ἐξελθοῦσαν. I am
aware that you have tacitly substituted ἐξεληλυθυῖαν,—which is only
supported by _four_ manuscripts of bad character: being disallowed
by _eighteen uncials_, (with A C D at their head,) and _every known
cursive but one_; besides the following Fathers:—Marcion (Epiph. i.
313 a, 327 a.) (A.D. 150),—Origen (iii. 466 e.),—the author of _the
Dialogus_ (Orig. i. 853 d.) (A.D. 325),—Epiphanius (i. 327
b.),—Didymus (pp. 124, 413.), in two places,—Basil (iii. 8
c.),—Chrysostom (vii. 532 a.),—Cyril (Opp. vi. 99 e. Mai, ii. 226.)
in two places,—ps.-Athanasius (ii. 14 c.) (A.D. 400),—ps.-Chrysostom
(xiii. 212 e f.).... Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text should be
put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are avowedly
(for see page 369) unskilled in Textual Criticism, and who were
appointed only to revise the authorized _English Version_?

899 This I make the actual sum, after deducting for marginal notes and
variations in stops.

900 I mean such changes as ἠγέρθη for ἐγήγερται (ix. 7),—φέρετε for
ἐνένκαντες (xv. 23), &c. These are generally the result of a change
of construction.

901 MS. communication from my friend, the Editor

902 I desire to keep out of sight the _critical impropriety_ of such
corrections of the text. And yet, it is worth stating that א B L are
_the only witnesses discoverable_ for the former, and _almost the
only_ witnesses to be found for the latter of these two utterly
unmeaning changes.

903 Characteristic of these two false-witnesses is it, that they are not
able to convey even _this_ short message correctly. In reporting the
two words ἔρχωμαι ἐνθάδε, they contrive to make two blunders. B
substitutes διέρχομαι for διέρχωμαι: א, ὦδε for ἐνθάδε,—which latter
eccentricity Tischendorf (characteristically) does not allude to in
his note ... “These be thy gods, O Israel!”

904 Rev. xxii. 19.

905 iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference is _not_
to S. Matt. x. 15.

906 P. 123.

907 Viz. vi. 7-13.

908 i. 199 and 200.

_ 909 In loc._

910 See above, pp. 347-9.

911 See above, pp. 79-85.

912 See above, pp. 409-411.

913 See above, p. 399.

914 Bp. Ellicott _on Revision_, p. 30.

915 The Bp. attended _only one meeting_ of the Revisers. (Newth, p.
125.)

916 Page 4.

917 See above, pp. 41 to 47.

918 Pages 17, 18.

919 See above, p. 37, note 1.

920 Pages 98-106.

921 Pages 64-76.

922 The exceptions are not worth noticing _here_.

923 N. T. ed. 2da. 1807, iii. 442-3.

924 i. 887 c.

925 Called _Ancoratus_, written in Pamphylia, A.D. 373. The extract in
_Adv. Hær._ extends from p. 887 to p. 899 (= _Ancor._ ii. 67-79).

926 ii. 74 b. Note, that to begin the quotation at the word ἐφανερώθη
was a frequent practice with the ancients, especially when enough
had been said already to make it plain that it was of the SON they
were speaking, or when it would have been nothing to the purpose to
begin with Θεός. Thus Origen, iv. 465 c:—Didymus on 1 John _apud_
Galland. vi. 301 a:—Nestorius, _apud_ Cyril, vi. 103 e:—ps-Chrysost.
x. 763 c, 764 c:—and the Latin of Cyril v.1 785. So indeed
ps-Epiphanius, ii. 307 c.

927 i. 894 c.

_ 928 Apud_ Theodoret, v. 719.

929 iv. 622 a,—_qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu_.

_ 930 De incarn. Unig._ v. part i. 680 d e = _De rectâ fide_, v. part ii.
b c.

_ 931 Ibid._ 681 a = _ibid._ 6 d e.

932 Page 98.

933 Note at the end of Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary on 1 Timothy.

934 Berriman’s MS. Note in the British Museum copy of his
_Dissertation_,—p. 154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian.

935 “Certe quidem in exemplari Alexandrino nostro, linea illa transversa
quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud
dubitarim ipse scriptum _ΟΣ_, quod proinde in variantes lectiones
conjeceram.... Verum postea perlustrato attentius loco, lineolæ, quæ
primam aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa
deprehendi, præsertim ad partem sinistram, quæ peripheriam literæ
pertingit,” &c.—_In loco._

_ 936 Clem. Rom._ ed. Wotton, p. 27.

937 Berriman, pp. 154-5.

_ 938 Ibid._ (_MS. Note._) Berriman adds other important testimony, p.
156.

_ 939 Dissertation_, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in
recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading
of the place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common
black ink, and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the θ. There
has been no attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could
deceive no one.

940 “Quanquam lineola, quæ Θεός compendiose scriptum ab ὅς distinguitur,
sublesta videtur nonnullis.”—N. T. p. 710.

941 Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report:—“Manibus hominum inepte
curiosorum ea folii pars quæ dictum controversum continet, adeo
detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere
possit ... Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuisse videntur,
ut primitivam illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent.”
(_Symb. Crit._ i. p. x.) The MS. was evidently in precisely the same
state when the Rev. J. C. Velthusen (_Observations on Various
Subjects_, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 1773.

942 As C. F. Matthæi [N. T. m. xi. _Præfat._ pp. lii.-iii.]
remarks:—“_cum de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui
dissimilior deprehenditur_.” Woide instances it as an example of the
force of prejudice, that Wetstein “apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ
adscripsisse, _quia eam abesse volebat_.” [_Præfat._ p. xxxi.]

943 “Patet, ut alia mittamus, e consensu Versionum,” &c.—ii. 149.

944 Woide, _ibid._

_ 945 Supra_, p. 100.

_ 946 Introduction_, p. 553.

_ 947 Introd._ p. 553.

948 Any one desirous of understanding this question fully, should
(besides Berriman’s admirable _Dissertation_) read Woide’s
_Præfatio_ to his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (§
87).—“Erunt fortasse quidam” (he writes in conclusion) “qui
suspicabuntur, nonnullos hanc lineolam diametralem in medio Θ
vidisse, quoniam eam videre volebant. Nec negari potest præsumptarum
opinionum esse vim permagnam. Sed idem, etiam Wetstenio, nec
immerito, objici potest, eam apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ
adscripsisse, quia eam abesse volebat. Et eruditissimis placere
aliquando, quæ vitiosa sunt, scio: sed omnia testimonia, omnemque
historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nec mirum
est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem
vidissemus, evanuerant.”

_ 949 Prolegomena_ to his ed. of Cod. C,—pp. 39-42.

950 “Ος habet codex C, ut puto; nam lineola illa tenuis, quæ ex Ο facit
Θ, non apparet.” (_In loc._) And so Griesbach, _Symb. Crit._ i. p.
viii. (1785).

951 “Quotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc biennium
sæpissime) mihi prorsus apparebat.” “Quam [lineolam] miror hucusque
omnium oculos fugisse.” [_Prolegg._ p. 41].... Equidem miror sane.

952 Page 75.

953 Pages 64, 69, 71, 75.—Some have pointed out that opposite _ΟΣ_ in
F—above _ΟΣ_ in G,—is written “quod.” Yes, but not “_qui_.” The
Latin version is independent of the Greek. In S. Mark xi. 8, above
ΑΓΡΩΝ is written “_arboribus_;” and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, ΑΓΩΝΙΖΟΜΕΘΑ is
translated by F “_maledicimur_,”—by G, “_exprobramur vel
maledicimur_.”

_ 954 Introduction to_ Cod. Augiensis, p. xxviij.

_ 955 E.g._ Out of ΟΜΕΝΤΟΙΣΤΕΡΕΟΣ [2 Tim. ii. 19], they both make Ο · μεν
· το · ισ · τεραιος. For ὑγιαίνωσιν [Tit. i. 13], both write υγει ·
ενωσειν:—for καινὴ κτίσις [2 Cor. v. 17] both give και ·
νηκτισις:—for ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες [1 Tim. iii. 10], both exhibit ανευ ·
κλητοιον · εχοντες (“nullum crimen habentes”):—for ὡς γάγγραινα
νομὴν ἕξει [2 Tim. ii. 17], both exhibit ως · γανγρα · ινα · (F G)
νομηνεξει, (G, who writes above the words “_sicut cancer ut
serpat_”).

956 He must be held responsible for ὝΠΟΚΡΙΣΙ in place of ὑποκρίσει [1
Tim. iv. 2]: ΑΣΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ instead of λογιζόμενος [2 Cor. v. 19]:
ΠΡΙΧΟΤΗΤΙ instead of πραότητι [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author
of ΓΕΡΜΑΝΕ in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of Ο δε πνευμα in 1 Tim. iv.
1.

But the scribes of F and G also were curiously innocent of Greek. G
suggests that γυναιξειν (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be “infinitivus”—(of
course from γυναίκω).

_ 957 Introduction_, p. 155.

958 Thirteen times between Rom. i. 7 and xiii. 1.

_ 959 E.g._ Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (_ο_ς and _ο_).
Those who have Matthæi’s reprint of G at hand are invited to refer
to the last line of fol. 91: (1 Tim. vi. 20) where Ὦ Τιμόθεε is
exhibited thus:—_Ο_ Ὦ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΕ.

960 Col. ii. 22, 23: iii. 2.

961 As 1 Tim. iii. 1: iv. 14: vi. 15. Consider the practice of F in 1
Thess. i. 9 (_Ο_; ΠΟΙΑΝ): in 2 Cor. viii. 11, 14 (_Ο_; ΠΩΣ).

962 Rarest of all are instances of this mark over the Latin “e”: but we
meet with “_spē_” (Col. i. 23): “_sē_” (ii. 18): _rēpēntes_ (2 Tim.
iii. 6), &c. So, in the Greek, ἡ or ᾗ written _Η_ are most
unusual.—A few instances are found of “u” with this appendage, as
“_domūs_” (1 Tim. v. 13): “_spiritū_” (1 Cor. iv. 21), &c.

963 This information is obtained from a photograph of the page procured
from Dresden through the kindness of the librarian, Counsellor Dr.
Forstemann.

964 See Rettig’s _Prolegg._ pp. xxiv.-v.

965 “You will perceive that I have now succeeded in identifying every
Evangelium hitherto spoken of as existing in Florence, with the
exception of Evan 365 [Act. 145, Paul 181] (Laurent vi. 36), &c.,
which is said to ‘contain also the Psalms.’ I assure you no such
Codex exists in the Laurentian Library; no, nor ever did exist
there. Dr. Anziani devoted full an hour to the enquiry, allowing me
[for I was very incredulous] to see the process whereby he convinced
himself that Scholz is in error. It was just such an intelligent and
exhaustive process as Coxe of the Bodleian, or dear old Dr. Bandinel
before him, would have gone through under similar circumstances.
Pray strike that Codex off your list; and with it ‘Acts 145’ and
‘Paul 181.’ I need hardly say that Bandini’s Catalogue knows nothing
of it. It annoys me to be obliged to add that I cannot even find out
the history of Scholz’s mistake.”—_Guardian_, August 27, 1873.

966 “_Whose_ word on such matters is entitled to most credit,—the word
of the Reviewer, or the word of the most famous manuscript collators
of this century?... Those who have had occasion to seek in public
libraries for manuscripts which are not famous for antiquity or
beauty or completeness (_sic_), know that the answer ‘_non est
inventus_’ is no conclusive reason for believing that the object of
their quest has not been seen and collated in former years by those
who profess to have actually seen and collated it. That 181 ‘is
non-existent’ must be considered unproven.”—Bp. Ellicott’s
_Pamphlet_, p. 72.

967 The learned Abbé Martin, who has obligingly inspected for me the 18
copies of the “Praxapostolus” in the Paris library, reports as
follows concerning “Apost. 12” ( = Reg. 375),—“A very foul MS. of
small value, I believe: but a curious specimen of bad Occidental
scholarship. It was copied for the monks of S. Denys, and exhibits
many Latin words; having been apparently revised on the Latin. The
lection is assigned to Σαββάτῳ λ᾽ (not λδ᾽) in this codex.”

968 “_Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiæ Cryptæ Ferratæ in Tusculano,
digesti et illustrati cura et studio_ D. Antonii Rocchi,
Hieromonachi Basiliani Bibliothecæ custodis,”—_Tusculani_, fol.
1882.—I have received 424 pages (1 May, 1883).

969 Not a few of the Basilian Codices have been transferred to the
Vatican.

970 In an APPENDIX to the present volume, I will give fuller
information. I am still (3rd May, 1883) awaiting replies to my
troublesome interrogatories addressed to the heads of not a few
continental libraries.

971 Rufinus, namely (_fl._ A.D. 395). _Opp._ iv. 465

972 MS. letter to myself, August 11, 1879.

973 MS. letter from the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s College, Oxford.

974 See above, page 429.

975 Page 71. And so p. 65 and 69.

976 MS. letter to myself.

977 See above, page 429.

_ 978 Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. Versionis Goth. fragmenta quæ
supersunt_, &c. 4to. 1843.

979 “Si tamen Uppström ‘_obscurum_’ dixit, non ‘_incertum_,’ fides illi
adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me
enim præsente in aula codicem tractabat.”—(Private letter to
myself.)

Ceriani proceeds,—“Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii.
16, nota 54 _Proleg._ Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens Θεός.
Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos
fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti ‘_Let me
recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references,
sir_.’ ”

The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the
former editor of the codex, was in favour of “GOD” in 1835, and of
“_soei_” (_quæ_ [ = ὅ], to agree with “_runa_,” _i.e._ “mystery,”
which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured
to print “_saei_” = ὅς. “Et ‘saei’ legit etiam diligentissimus
Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis Ambrosiani investigator et editor,
in opere _Codicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c._ Holmiæ
et Lipsiæ, 1868.”

980 Stuttgard, 1857.

981 Of the department of Oriental MSS. in the Brit. Mus., who derives
his text from “the three Museum MSS. which contain the Arabic
Version of the Epistles: viz. _Harl._ 5474 (dated A.D.
1332):—_Oriental_ 1328 (Xth cent.):—_Arundel Orient._ 19 (dated A.D.
1616).”—Walton’s Polyglott, he says, exhibits “a garbled version,
quite distinct from the genuine Arabic: viz. ‘_These glories
commemorate them in the greatness of the mystery of fair piety.
_GOD_ appeared in the flesh_,’ ” &c.

982 See above, pp. 271 to 294.

983 i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 a _bis_.—ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b
(these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615,
from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full, _supra_,
p. 101.]—iii. 39 b _bis_: 67 a b.—_Ap. Galland._ vi. 518 c: 519 d:
520 b: 526 d: 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these
places, I believe, exhibit ὁ Θεός,—which seems to have been the
reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four
instances of it,—(they will be found distinctly specified below,
page 493, _note_ 1),—are known to exist. More places must have been
overlooked.

Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name
Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for
Θεός; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read
thus:—τὸ μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη. Griesbach borrowed that
quotation and that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in
turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question are _not
the words of Gregory Nyss. at all_; but of Apolinaris, against whom
Gregory is writing,—as Gregory himself explains. [_Antirrh. adv.
Apol._ apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]

_ 984 De Trin._ p. 83. The testimony is express.

985 i. 92: iii. 657.-iv. 19, 23.

986 i. 313:—ii. 263.

987 i. 497 c d e.—viii. 85 e: 86 a.—xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.—(The first
of these places occurs in the Homily _de Beato Philogonio_, which
Matthæi in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited
from an independent source [_Lectt. Mosqq._ 1779]. Gallandius [xiv.
_Append._ 141-4] reprints Matthæi’s labours).—Concerning this place
of Chrysostom (_vide suprà_, p. 101), Bp. Ellicott says (p.
66),—“The passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer] does allege,
deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as an illustration
of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this passage
attests the reading θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest
the reading ὁ θεός in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator
has introduced it?”... I can but say, in reply,—“No, certainly not.”
May I be permitted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible
how Bp. Ellicott can show himself so _planè hospes_ in this
department of sacred Science as to be capable of gravely asking such
a very foolish question?

988 i. 215 a: 685 b. The places may be seen quoted _suprà_, p. 101.

989 The place is quoted in Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 59.

_ 990 Antirrheticus_, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77.

991 The full title was,—Ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ᾽
ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου. _Ibid._ 518 b, c: 519 a.

992 Apolinaris did not deny that CHRIST was very GOD. His heresy (like
that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the
Godhead with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret:—Α. Θεὸς Λόγος σαρκὶ
ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπον ἀπετέλεσεν Θεόν. Ο. Τοῦτο οὖν λέγεις θείαν
ἐμψυχίαν? Α. Καὶ πάνυ. Ο. Ἀντὶ ψυχῆς οὖν ὁ Λόγος? Α. Ναί. _Dial._
vi. _adv. Apol._ (_Opp._ v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.)

993 Cramer’s _Cat. in Actus_, iii. 69. It is also met with in the Catena
on the Acts which J. C. Wolf published in his _Anecdota Græca_, iii.
137-8. The place is quoted above, p. 102.

994 Cramer’s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.

995 P. 67.

996 P. 65.

997 P. 65.

998 See above, p. 429.

999 Bentley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and others adduce
“_Euthalius_.”

_ 1000 Concilia_, i. 849-893. The place is quoted below in note 3.

1001 “Verum ex illis verbis illud tantum inferri debet false eam
epistolam Dionysio Alexandrino attribui: non autem scriptum non
fuisse ab aliquo ex Episcopis qui Synodis adversus Paulum
Antiochenum celebratis interfuerant. Innumeris enim exemplis constat
indubitatæ antiquitatis Epistolas ex Scriptorum errore falsos
titulos præferre.”—(Pagi ad A.D. 264, apud Mansi, _Concil._ i.
1039.)

1002 εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ῶν ἐν τῷ Πατρι συναΐδιος λόγος, ἕν αὐτοῦ
πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεός, καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος; ΘΕῸΣ ΓᾺΡ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ ἘΝ
ΣΑΡΚΊ, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ γαστρὸς
πρὸ ἑωσφόρου—_Concilia_, i. 853 a.

1003 Cap. xi.

_ 1004 Ad Ephes._ c. 19: c. 7. _Ad Magnes._ c. 8.

1005 Cap. xii.

_ 1006 Contra Hæresim Noeti_, c. xvii. (Routh’s _Opuscula_, i. 76.) Read
the antecedent chapters.

_ 1007 Dialog._ ii. ’_Inconfusus._’—_Opp._ iv. 132.

1008 Cod. 230,—p. 845, line 40.

1009 vii. 26, _ap. Galland_. iii. 182 a.

1010 iii. 401-2, _Epist._ 261 ( = 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4
follows.

1011 μαθήσεται γὰρ ὅτι φύσει μὲν καὶ ἀληθείᾳ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ,
θεοτόκος δὲ δι᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ἡ τεκοῦσα παρθένος.—Vol. v. Part ii. 48 e.

1012 καὶ οὔτι που φαμὲν ὅτι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεὸς ἐν
σαρκὶ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γεγονώς.—_Opp._ V. Part 2, p. 124 c d. (=
_Concilia_, iii. 221 c d.)

1013 N. T. vol. xi. _Præfat._ p. xli.

1014 διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθέντος Θεοῦ.—_De Incarnatione Domini_, Mai,
_Nov. PP. Bibliotheca_, ii. 68.

1015 Earlier in the same Treatise, Cyril thus grandly paraphrases 1 Tim.
iii. 16:—τότε δὴ τότε τὸ μέγα καὶ ἄῤῥητον γίνεται τῆς οἰκονομίας
μυστήριον; αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ δημιουργὸς ἁπάσης τῆς
κτίσεως, ὁ ἀχώρητος, ὁ ἀπερίγραπτος, ὁ ἀναλλοίωτος, ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς φῶς, ἡ ζῶσα τοῦ Πατρὸς εἰκών, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς
δόξης, ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν φύσιν
ἀναλαμβάνει.—_Ibid._ p. 37.

1016 P. 153 d. (= _Concilia_, iii. 264 c d.)

_ 1017 Ibid_, d e.

1018 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἕνα τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς, καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον
Θεὸν ἐνηνθρωπηκότα διεκήρυξαν οἰ μαθηταί κ.τ.λ. Presently,—μέγα γὰρ
τότε τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ μυστήριον, πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς
ὢν ὁ Λόγος. p. 154 a b c.—In a subsequent page,—ὅ γε μὴν
ἐνανθρωπήσας Θεός, καίτοι νομισθεὶς οὐδὲν ἕτερον εἶναι πλὴν ὅτι
μόνον ἄνθρωπος ... ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ,
τετίμηται δὲ καὶ ὡς Υἱὸς ἀληθῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός ... Θεὸς εἶναι
πεπιστευμένος.—_Ibid._ p. 170 d e.

1019 Ἀναθεματισμὸς β᾽.—Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ σαρκὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἡνῶσθαι
τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, ἕνα τε εἶναι Χριστὸν μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας
σαρκός, τὸν αὐτὸν δηλονότι Θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἀνάθεμα
ἔστω.—vi. 148 a.

_ 1020 Ibid._ b, c, down to 149 a. (= _Concilia_, iii. 815 b-e.)

1021 Preserved by Œcumenius in his _Catena_, 1631, ii. 228.

1022 Ellis, p. 67.

1023 In loc.

_ 1024 Variæ Lect._ ii. 232. He enumerates ten MSS. in which he found
it,—but he only quotes down to ἐφανερώθη.

1025 In loc.

1026 P. 227 _note_.

1027 Pointed out long since by Matthæi, _N. T._ vol. xi. _Præfat._ p.
xlviii. Also in his ed. of 1807,—iii. 443-4. “Nec ideo laudatus est,
ut doceret Cyrillum loco Θεός legisse ὅς, sed ideo, ne quis si Deum
factum legeret hominem, humanis peccatis etiam obnoxium esse
crederet.”

1028 See Berriman’s _Dissertation_, p. 189.—(MS. note of the Author.)

1029 Not from the 2nd article of his _Explanatio xii. capitum_, as
Tischendorf supposes.

1030 See how P. E. Pusey characterizes the “Scholia,” in his _Preface_ to
vol. vi. of his edition,—pp. xii. xiii.

1031 Cyril’s Greek, (to judge from Mercator’s Latin,) must have run
somewhat as follows:—Ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ὁμολογουμένως μέγα φησὶν
εἶναι τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. Καὶ ὄντως οὔτως ἔξει; ἐφανερώθη
γὰρ ἐν σαρκί, Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος.

_ 1032 Opp._ vol. v. P. i. p. 785 d.—The original scholium (of which the
extant Greek proves to be only a garbled fragment, [see Pusey’s ed.
vi. p. 520,]) abounds in expressions which imply, (if they do not
require,) that Θεός went before: _e.g._ ___quasi Deus homo
factus:____—____erant ergo gentes in mundo sine Deo, cum absque
Christo essent:____—____Deus enim erat incarnatus:____—____in
humanitate tamen Deus remansit: Deus enim Verbum, carne assumptâ,
non deposuit quod erat; intelligitur tamen idem Deus simul et
homo,___ &c.

1033 P. 67.

_ 1034 Opp._ vi. 327.

1035 ii. 852.

1036 Matthæi, N. T. xi. _Præfat._ pp. lii.-iii.

1037 Vol. V. P. ii. pp. 55-180.

1038 “How is the Godhead of Christ proved?” (asks Ussher in his _Body of
Divinity_, ed. 1653, p. 161). And he adduces out of the N. T. only
Jo. i. 1, xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Jo. v. 20.—He _had_ quoted 1 Tim.
iii. 16 in p. 160 (with Rom. ix. 5) to prove the union of the two
natures.

1039 Burgon’s _Last Twelve Verses_, &c., p. 195 and note. See Canon Cook
on this subject,—pp. 146-7.

_ 1040 Suprà_, p. 102.

1041 Pp. 68-9.

_ 1042 Proleg. in N. T._,—§ 1013.

_ 1043 Opp._ (ed. 1645) ii. 447.

_ 1044 Concilia_, v. 772 a. I quote from Garnier’s ed. of the
_Breviarium_, reprinted by Gallandius, xii. 1532.

1045 iv. 465 c.

_ 1046 Concilia_, vi. 28 e [= iii. 645 c (ed. Harduin)].

1047 “Ex sequentibus colligo quædam exemplaria tempore Anastasii et
Macedonii habuisse ὅς Θεός; ut, mutatione factâ ὅς in ὡς,
intelligeretur _ut esset Deus_.” (Cotelerii, _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ iii.
663)—“Q. d. Ut hic homo, qui dicitur Jesus, esset et dici posset
Deus,” &c. (Cornelius, _in loc._ He declares absolutely “olim
legerunt ... ὅς Θεός.”)—All this was noticed long since by Berriman,
pp. 243-4.

1048 “Apost. 83,” is “_Crypta-Ferrat._ A. β. iv.” described in the
APPENDIX. I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta
Ferrata, the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe
the letter which conveyed information which the writer knew would be
acceptable to me:—“Clme Rme Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci
illius Paulini non modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his
ipsis variationes, adsequutus es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam,
descriptis prope sexcentis et quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel
MSS. Tres autem, quos primum nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad
Liturgicorum ordinem. Jam felici omine tuas prosoquere
elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et labore nimio valetudinem
tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. Maias, an. R. S.
MDCCCLXXXIII. ANTONIUS ROCCHI, Hieromonachus Basilianus.”

For “Paul 282,” (a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as “Arménien 9,”) I
am indebted to the Abbé Martin, who describes it in his
_Introduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T._, 1883,—pp. 660-1.
See APPENDIX.

1049 Prebendary Scrivener (p. 555) ably closes the list. Any one desirous
of mastering the entire literature of the subject should study the
Rev. John Berriman’s interesting and exhaustive _Dissertation_,—pp.
229-263.

1050 The reader is invited to read what Berriman, (who was engaged on his
“_Dissertation_” while Bp. Butler was writing the “Advertisement”
prefixed to his “_Analogy_” [1736],) has written on this part of the
subject,—pp. 120-9, 173-198, 231-240, 259-60, 262, &c.

1051 Apud Athanasium, _Opp_. ii. 33; and see Garnier’s introductory Note.

1052 “Audi Paulum magnâ voce clamantem: _Deus manifestatus est in carne_
[down to] _assumptus est in gloriâ_. O magni doctoris affatum!
_Deus_, inquit, _manifestatus est in carne_,” &c.—_Concilia_, vii.
p. 618 e.

1053 Theodori Studitæ, _Epistt_. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirmondi’s _Opera
Varia_, vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,—Venet. 1728.)

1054 Paul 113, (Matthæi’s a) contains two Scholia which witness to Θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη:—Paul 115, (Matthæi’s d) also contains two Scholia.—Paul
118, (Matthæi’s h).—Paul 123, (Matthæi’s n). See Matthæi’s N. T.
vol. xi. _Præfat._ pp. xlii.-iii.

1055 ii. 228 a.

1056 ii. 569 e: 570 a.

_ 1057 Panoplia_,—Tergobyst, 1710, fol. ρκγ᾽. p. 2, col. 1.

1058 Σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῶν φώτων.

1059 But in Apost. 12 (Reg. 375) it is the lection for the 30th (λ᾽)
Saturday.—In Apost. 33 (Reg. 382), for the 31st (λα᾽).—In Apost. 26
(Reg. 320), the lection for the 34th Saturday begins at 1 Tim. vi.
11.—Apostt. 26 and 27 (Regg. 320-1) are said to have a peculiar
order of lessons.

1060 For convenience, many codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of
“Apostolus”) which are rather Ἀπόστολο-εὐαγγέλια. Many again which
are but fragmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the
Epistles: such are Apostt. 97 to 103. See the APPENDIX.

1061 No. 21, 28, 31 are said to be Gospel lessons (“Evstt.”). No. 29, 35
and 36 are Euchologia; “the two latter probably Melchite, for the
codices exhibit some Arabic words” (Abbé Martin). No. 43 and 48 must
be erased. No. 70 and 81 are identical with 52 (B. M. _Addit._
32051).

1062 Viz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Menologies with a few Gospel
lections): 15: 16: 17: 19: 20: 24: 26: 27: 32: 37: 39: 44: 47: 50:
53: 55: 56: 59: 60: 61: 63: 64: 66: 67: 68: 71: 72: 73: 75: 76: 78:
79: 80: 87: 88: 90.

1063 Viz. Apost. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, 42 at Rome: 54
at St. Petersburg: 74 in America.

1064 Viz. Apost. 2 and 52 (Addit. 32051) in the B. Mus., also 69 (Addit.
29714 verified by Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: 7 at the
Propaganda (verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 at Paris
(verified by Abbé Martin): 13, 14, 18 at Moscow: 38, 49 in the
Vatican (verified by Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow (verified by
Dr. Young): 46 at Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besançon
(verified by M. Castan): 57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65 B-C (all
three verified by Scrivener): 58 at Ch. Ch., Oxford: 77 at Moscow:
82 at Messina (verified by Papas Matranga): 84 and 89 at Crypta
Ferrata (verified by Hieromonachus Rocchi).

1065 Viz. Apost. 34 (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Codex. The Abbé Martin
assures me that this copy exhibits μυστήριον; | θῢ ἐφανερώθη. Note
however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation,
proves that nothing else but θς was intended. This is very
instructive. What if the same slip of the pen had been found in Cod.
B?

1066 Viz. Apost 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv.)

1067 Viz. Praxapost. 85 and 86 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vii. which exhibits
μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφα | νερώθη ἐν σαρκί; and A. β. viii., which exhibits
μυστίριον; ὅς ἐ ... νερώθη | ἐν σαρκύ. [_sic._]). Concerning these
codices, see above, pp. 446 to 448.

_ 1068 Concilia_, ii. 217 c ( = ed. Hard. i. 418 b).

1069 He wrote a history of the Council of Nicæa, in which he introduces
the discussions of the several Bishops present,—all the product (as
Cave thinks) of his own brain.

1070 viii. 214 b.

1071 Cited at the Council of CP. (A.D. 553). [_Concilia_, ed. Labbe et
Cossart, v. 447 b c = ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.]

_ 1072 Concilia_, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d.

1073 Harduin, iii. 32 d.

1074 A Latin translation of the work of Leontius (_Contra Nestor. et
Eutych._), wherein it is stated that the present place was found in
_lib._ xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 660-99: the passage
under consideration being given at p. 694 c d]: but Mai (_Script.
Vett._ vi. 290-312), having discovered in the Vatican the original
text of the excerpts from Theod. Mops., published (from the xiith
book of Theod. _de Incarnatione_) the Greek of the passage [vi.
308]. From this source, Migne [_Patr. Gr._ vol. 66, col. 988] seems
to have obtained his quotation.

1075 Either as given by Mai, or as represented in the Latin translation
of Leontius (obtained from a different codex) by Canisius [_Antiquæ
Lectt._, 1601, vol. iv.], from whose work Gallandius simply
reprinted it in 1788.

_ 1076 Theodori Mops. Fragmenta Syriaca, vertit_ Ed. Sachau, Lips.
1869,—p. 53.—I am indebted for much zealous help in respect of these
Syriac quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,—who, I
venture to predict, will some day make his mark in these studies.

_ 1077 Ibid._ p. 64. The context of the place (which is derived from
Lagarde’s _Analecta Syriaca_, p. 102, top,) is as follows: “Deitas
enim inhabitans hæc omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam
gratia Spiritus Sancti adjuvabat ad hunc effectum, ut beatus quoque
Apostolus dixit: ‘_Vere grande ... in spiritu_;’ quoniam nos quoque
auxilium Spiritûs accepturi sumus ad perfectionem justitiæ.” A
further reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16 at page 69, does not help us.

1078 I owe this, and more help than I can express in a foot-note, to my
learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s.

1079 Pages 437-43.

1080 See above, p. 444.

1081 See above, pp. 446-8; also the _Appendix_.

1082 See pp. 426-8.

1083 See pp. 480-2.

1084 N. T. 1806 ii. _ad calcem_, p. [25].

1085 Page 76.

1086 See above, pp. 376-8.

1087 Viz. from p. 431 to p. 478.

1088 See above, pp. 462-4.

1089 Viz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit.
i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; iii. 11.

1090 From the friend whose help is acknowledged at foot of pp. 450, 481.

1091 Scholz enumerates 8 of these copies: Coxe, 15. But there must exist
a vast many more; as, at M. Athos, in the convent of S. Catharine,
at Meteora, &c., &c.

1092 In explanation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to
the APPENDIX at the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing
words have been in print I have obtained from Rome tidings of about
34 more copies of S. Paul’s Epistles; raising the present total to
336. The known copies of the book called “_Apostolus_” now amount to
127.]

1093 Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_, 3rd ed. p. 251): and
Paul 181 (see above, at pp. 444-5).

1094 Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg.

1095 Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): 15 (which is not in
the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener’s
_Introduction_): 209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are
no longer preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the
suppression of the Jesuits, is any one able to tell what has become
of them).

1096 Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (_Vat._ 165,—from Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: 64:
66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: 161:
162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (_Milan_ N. 272 _sup._,—from
Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (_Modena_ II. A. 13,—from Sig.
Cappilli [Acts, 195—_see Appendix_]): 286 (_Milan_ E. 2 _inf._—from
Dr. Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 287 (_Milan_ A. 241 _inf._—from Dr.
Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 293 (_Crypta Ferrata_, A. β. vi.—from the
Hieromonachus A. Rocchi [_see Appendix_]): 302 (_Berlin, MS. Græc._
8vo. No. 9.—from Dr. C. de Boor [_see Appendix_]).

1097 Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): and
Paul 261 (Muralt’s 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330).

1098 I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul’s Epistles at 1 Tim.
iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,—chiefly the result of the
labours of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matthæi, Scholz,
Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute
to the number,—thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names
follow:—

In the VATICAN (Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose
friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently
acknowledge. See the _Appendix_) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294,
295, 296, 297.—PROPAGANDA (Dr. Beyer) No. 92.—CRYPTA FERRATA (the
Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See the _Appendix_,) No. 290, 291,
292.—VENICE (Sig. Veludo) No. 215.—MILAN (Dr. Ceriani, the most
learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288,
289.—FERRARA, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.—MODENA (Sig. Cappilli) No.
285.—BOLOGNA (Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.—TURIN (Sig. Gorresio) No. 165,
168.—FLORENCE (Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.—MESSINA (Papas
Filippo Matranga. See the _Appendix_,) No. 216, 283.—PALERMO (Sig.
Penerino) No. 217.—The ESCURIAL (S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the
British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at
the instance of his Excellency, Sir Robert Morier, who is requested
to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.—PARIS (M.
Wescher, who is as obliging as he is learned in this department,)
No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164.—(L’Abbé
Martin. See the _Appendix_) No. 282. ARSENAL (M. Thierry) No.
130.—S. GENEVIEVE (M. Denis) No. 247.—POICTIERS (M. Dartige) No.
276.—BERLIN (Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, 300, 301.—DRESDEN
(Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.—MUNICH (Dr. Laubmann) No. 55, 125, 126,
128.—GOTTINGEN (Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.—WOLFENBUTTEL (Dr. von
Heinemann) No. 74, 241.—BASLE (Mons. Sieber) No. 7.—UPSALA (Dr.
Belsheim) No. 273, 274.—LINCOPING (the same) No. 272.—ZURICH (Dr.
Escher) No. 56.—Prebendary Scrivener verified for me Paul 252: 253:
255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: 277.—Rev. T. Randell, has
verified No. 13.—Alex. Peckover, Esq., No. 278.—Personally, I have
inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: 234: 235: 236: 240: 242:
249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: 269: 270: 279: 280: 281.

1099 Viz. Paul 37 (the _Codex Leicest._, 69 of the Gospels):—Paul 85
(Vat. 1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi:—Paul 93 (Naples 1. B.
12) which is 83 of the Acts,—noticed by Birch:—Paul 175 (Ambros. F.
125 _sup._) at Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See above, p. 456
_note_ 1.

1100 Viz. Paul 282,—concerning which, see above, p. 474, note 1.

1101 The present locality of this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218)
is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the
“Seminario” at Syracuse are an “Evst.” and an “Apost.” (which I
number respectively 362 and 113). My authority for Θεός in Paul 218,
is Birch [_Proleg._ p. xcviii.], to whom Munter communicated his
collations.

1102 For the ensuing codices, see the APPENDIX.

1103 Vat. 2068 (Basil. 107),—which I number “Apost. 115” (see APPENDIX.)

1104 Viz. by 4 uncials (A, K, L, P), + (247 Paul + 31 Apost. = ) 278
cursive manuscripts reading Θεός: + 4 (Paul) reading ὁ Θεός: + 2 (1
Paul, 1 Apost.) reading ὅς Θεός: + 1 (Apost.) reading Θῢ = 289. (See
above, pp. 473-4: 478.)

1105 The Harkleian (see pp. 450, 489): the Georgian, and the Slavonic (p.
454).

1106 See above, pp. 487-490,—which is the summary of what will be found
more largely delivered from page 455 to page 476.

1107 See above, pp. 448-453: also p. 479.

1108 See above, pp. 479-480.

1109 See above, pp. 452-3.

1110 See above, pp. 482, 483.

1111 See above, page 436, and middle of page 439.

1112 See his long and singular note.

_ 1113 Fresh Revision_, p. 27.

_ 1114 Printed Text_, p. 231.

1115 P. 226.

1116 “_Forte_ μυστήριον; ὁ _χς_ ἐθανατώθη ἐν σαρκί ... ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη
ἀποστόλοις.”—Bentleii _Critica Sacra_, p. 67.

_ 1117 Developed Criticism_, p. 160.

1118 Thus Augustine (viii. 828 f.) paraphrases,—“_In carne manifestatus
est_ FILIUS DEI.”—And Marius Victorinus, A.D. 390 (ap. Galland.
viii. 161),—“_Hoc enim est magnum sacramentum, quod_ DEUS
_exanimavit semet ipsum cum esset in_ DEI _formá:_” “_fuit ergo
antequam esset in carne, sed manifestatum dixit in carne_.”—And
Fulgentius, A.D. 513, thus expands the text (ap. Galland. xi.
232):—“_quia scilicet Verbum quod in principio erat, et apud_ DEUM
_erat, et_ DEUS _erat, id est_ DEI _unigenitus Filius_, DEI _virtus
et sapientia, per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia, ... idem_ DEUS
_unigenitus_,” &c. &c.—And Ferrandus, A.D. 356 (_ibid._ p.
356):—“_ita pro redemtione humani generis humanam naturam credimus
suscepisse, ut ille qui Trinitate perfecta_ DEUS _unigenitus
permanebat ac permanet, ipse ex Maria fieret primogenitus in multis
fratribus_,” &c.

_ 1119 MS. note in his interleaved copy of the N. T._ He adds, “Hæc
addenda posui Notis ad S. Hippolytum contra Noetum p. 93, vol. i.
_Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Opusculorum._”

1120 Page 29.

1121 P. 29.

1122 P. 30.

_ 1123 Address_, on the Revised Version, p. 10.

1124 See above, pp. 37 to 39.

1125 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 34.

1126 P. 231.

1127 Fifth Rule of the Committee.

1128 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 30.

1129 No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing
paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall
effectually protect me from being misunderstood.

Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the
Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All,
(for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and
attainment, as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in
early life, I numbered several professing Unitarians among my
friends. It were base in me to forget how wondrous kind I found
them: how much I loved them: how fondly I cherish their memory.

Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are
bound to seek help at the hands of _any_ who are able to render
help,—_who_ ever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,—if a
devotee of Buddha,—could contribute anything,—_who_ would hesitate
to sue to him for enlightenment? As for Abraham’s descendants,—they
are our very brethren.