a Latin version which is still highly esteemed. In his first edition, Erasmus laboured under considerable disadvanges. He was very much hurried by the printer, and he had only four Greek manuscripts, and those of no great antiquity, and containing each of them only a part of the New Testamentbesides, a manuscript of Theophylact, containing his commentary on the Gospels, Acts and Epistles, together with the Greek text, and several copies of the Latin Vulgate. For his second edition he had more leisure, besides a fifth Greek manuscript, and he accordingly made a considerable number of alterations in the text, amounting, according to Mill, to four hundred. In his third edition, 1522, having increased materials, he made one hundred and eighteen additional alterations. In this edition he first admitted the text, 1 John v. 7, on the authority of a British manuscript, though not without suspicion. In 1527 Erasmus published a fourth edition, in which he still further improved his text by adopting the readings of the Complutensian, which was now made public, in a hundred and six places; to which, in his fifth edition, printed in 1535, a year before his death, he added a few more. Thus we have seen that Erasmus' fifth and principal edition varied very considerably from the first, and was probably much superior to it. That it was not perfect we may very well allow.

Robert Stephens, to whom the next place is due, published at Paris, in 1546, his first edition of the New Testament, which was chiefly compiled from the Complutensian and the fifth of Erasmus, with occasional readings from other editions, and from fourteen or fifteen manuscripts. In this edition he differed from the Complutensian in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles, according to Mill, five hundred and eighty-one times, of which three hundred and sixty-one contained the genuine reading. In the Revelation he followed Erasmus. Stephens' second edition in 1549, varied from the first in only sixty-seven places. In 1550 was printed his third and principal edition, in a splendid folio, which from its elegance and supposed correctness, was generally adopted as the standard, and became the basis of the present received text. This varied from both the former, according to Mill, in two hundred and eighty-four places. In this edition Stephens inclined more to the text of Erasmus. In the margin he gave various readings from fifteen manuscripts, and the Complutensian. Of the latter he noted five hundred and ninety-eight, to which Miil says may be add

See Long, Bib. Sac. ed. Masch. P. i. vol. i. pp. 281-292, and Mill. Prolegom. in N. T. §1116, sqq.

+ Mill. Prolegom. in N. T. §1220.-Le Long. Bib. Sac. ed. Masch. p. 209.

ed seven hundred more not noted by him, making in all thirteen hundred places in which this edition differed from the Complutensian,* of which more than four hundred, or one third, were in the Revelation alone.

Theodore Beza next, in 1565, published an edition of the Greek Testament with a revised text, a new Latin version and notes, which was repeated with alterations in 1582, 1589, and 1598. In his several editions Beza had the use of Robert Stephens' collection, containing, as he asserts, the readings of about twenty-five manuscripts, together with two very valuable manuscripts of his own, the Codex Bezæ or Cantabrigiensis, and the C. Claromontanus. But he seems to have made very little use of these advantages. He altered Stephens' text, according to Wetstein, in only about fifty places, and in those not always for the better. His last edition printed in 1598, being considered as the most accurate edition of the New Testament then in being, was adopted as the basis of the English version published by authority, in 1611.

We now come to the Elzevir edition, printed at Leyden in 1624, and often reprinted, in which the Greek text, previously fluctuating, became at length fixed and stable. The elegance and correctness of the productions of the Elzevir press caused this edition to be generally received and adopted as the standard text, a distinction which it has maintained for two centuries. To this text, Wetstein, Griesbach, and other critics have adapted their various readings, and this it is which they have undertaken to amend. Some judgment may be formed of its relation to the principal preceding editions, and of its intrinsic merits, in the opinion of those at least who are none of its friends, from the summary genealogy which has been given of it by Griesbach, and his follower Bishop Marsh.

"We may now," says Griesbach,‡ "give the genealogy of the received text in three words. The later editions follow that of Elzevir: this was compiled from the editions of Beza and the third of Stephens. Beza, likewise, copied the third of Stephens, except in a few places, which he altered at his pleasure, and without sufficient authority. Stepheus' third edition closely follows the fifth of Erasmus, if we except a few places and the Revelation, in which he preferred the Complutensian; and Erasmus formed his text, as well as he could, from a very few manuscripts, and those recent, without any other aids than the interpolated Latin Vulgate, and some inaccurate editions of a few of the fathers."

Mill. Prolegom. 1226. + Griesb. Prolegom. in N. T. p. xxxii. lbid, p. xxxiÏÌ.

Bishop Marsh expresses himself in almost the same terms.* Griesbach further states, that the received text varies from that of Beza in only about fifty places; from that of Stephens in about a hundred ; and from both Erasmus and the Complutensian at once, in scarcely as many. It finally resolves itself, then, into these two last editions.

Subsequently to the publication of the Elzevir edition in 1624, the stores of biblical criticism were greatly augmented by the collection of various readings from manuscripts, the ancient versions, and the works of the fathers; and its laws developed and established by various editors and writers; but the the text itself remained unchanged. We cannot undertake to notice all the works of this kind which had appeared previous to the publication of Griesbach's edition, but shall endeavour, briefly to indicate the principal sources from which he drew his materials. Walton, in the celebrated London Polyglot, published in 1657, and which still remains the best work of the kind, gave the first copious collection of various readings, together with the principal ancient versions. These were further augmented in the edition of Dr. Fell, printed at Oxford in 1675; to whom we are yet more indebted for the succeeding edition of John Mill, which was undertaken at his suggestion, and prosecuted under his patronage. Mill's edition was published at Oxford in 1707, and entirely eclipsed all the preceding editions. It was the fruit of thirty years' labour, and contained thirty thousand various readings. Mill, having reaped his harvest of glory, survived its publication but fourteen days. This was a noble monument―ære perennius. Mill was the first who collected the quotations of the early Greek fathers, which are of considerable use; and in his valuable Prolegomena and notes, he established many important rules of sacred criticism; he classified the preceding editions of the New Testament, accurately described his manuscripts, and estimated the value of their readings, though he reprinted Stephen's text unaltered. Bengel, in his edition published at Tübingen, in 1734, undertook to give an amended text, but he confined his choice of readings to such as were to be found in some printed edition, except in the Revelation. He still further enlarged Mill's collection of various readings, and established the laws of criticism in his Prolegomena. The editions of Mill and Bengel, though not wholly superseded, were greatly surpassed by that of John James Wetstein, published at Amsterdam, in 1751 and 1752, in

* Marsh's Lect. on Div. Lect. vi. p. 108.

+ Griesb. Prolegom. in N. T. p. iii.

Ibid. p. v.

two volumes, folio-the most important of all the editions of the New Testament. Wetstein reprinted the Elzevir text, but gave in his margin such various readings as he thought preferable to it, together with the authority on which they rested. These readings, however, according to Bowyer, who has given a catalogue of them, if we except the Revelation, amount only to three hundred and thirty-four variations from the text of Mill or Stephens, many of which are of no importance. Wetstein collated and procured extracts from a great number of additional manuscripts and versions, and very largely augmented the previous collections; and his Prolegomena and notes contain a treasure of sacred criticism, though not without some things which have, perhaps, justly brought him under censure.*

We come now to the edition of Griesbach. In 1774, he published at Halle, in Saxony, where he was professor of theology, the first part of the New Testament, containing the first three Gospels, in the form of a synopsis or harmony, with an amendcd text and select various readings. This was followed the next year by a second part, containing the Gospel of John and the Acts of the Apostles; and shortly afterwards, by a second volume containing the Epistles and the Revelation, edited in the same manner.† In 1777, he reprinted the first three Gospels in the usual order. These publications constitute the first edition of his New Testament. The first volume of his second edition, containing the four Gospels, was published at Halle in 1796; the second volume, completing the New Testament, was not published before 1806. In the Prolegomena to his first volume, he reviews at some length the history of the received text-explains the design of his work, and the rules of criticism by which he was governed, and gives a catalogue of the manuscripts, versions and fathers, which were used for his edition. The second volume, likewise, contains a similar catalogue. In this second edition, Griesbach availed himself of the valuable accessions which the stock of critical materials had received subsequently to the publication of his first, in the editions of Matthæi, Alter and Birch, and the collations of Sabatier and Blanchini, Knittel, Woide, Georgi, and Münter, Bredenkampf, Dobrowsky, White and others. An edition of the New Testament with an amended text, was published by Professor Matthæi at Riga, betweeen 1782 and 1788, in twelve octavo volumes, with various readings, chiefly collected from manuscripts found at Moscow. Professor Alter likewise, in his edition published at Vienna in 1786 and 1787, from a single manuscript, gave

See Le Long. Bib Sac. ed. -Masch. P. i. vol. i. p. 244, sqq. + Ibid. p. 247.

various readings from manuscripts in the imperial library, and from several versions. And Professor Birch published at Copenhagen in 1788, an edition of the Gospels, containing various readings collected from the three Syriac versions, and from Greek manuscripts in the principal libraries in Germany, Italy, France and Spain. The other critics above named furnished the readings of some additional manuscripts, and of the Latin, Sahidic, Coptic, Armenian, Sclavonic and Gothic versions. In his second volume, Griesbach was likewise assisted by an edition of the New Testament published by Dr. Knapp at Halle, in 1797, containing an amended text. This edition has obtained a wide circulation, and is by many preferred to that of Griesbach himself. It supports the received text in opposition to his most important alterations. To the materials derived from these sources, and from the previous labours of Walton, Mill, Wetstein, Bengel, and others, Griesbach added some collected by himself. He diligently collated the quotations from the New Testament found in the works of Origen, and partially those of Clemens Alexdrinus; and he visited Great Britain and France for the purpose of inspecting the manuscripts preserved in the public libraries of those countries. The result of these researches he gave to the public in 1785 and 1793, in a work in two volumes, entitled Symbola Critica. He distinctly states, however, † that the only manuscript which he examined throughout, was that marked by him Codex L, a manuscript of the ninth century, containing the Gospels, and preserved in the royal library at Paris. The rest he only examined in small portions, or consulted in the more important places. His object was less to collect new readings, than to ascertain the character of the manuscripts, and the fidelity of those who had previously collated them. The whole number of Greek manuscripts from which readings were collected for Griesbach's edition, was, in the Gospels, by his enumeration, 355; in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles, by our computation, 133; in the Epistles of St. Paul, 160; and in the Revelation, 56. It must not be supposed, however, that all these were complete copies. Many, and among them the most ancient, were more or less mutilated; some contained only fragments of a book or chapter; and the greater part were, as Griesbach candidly states, only partially or cursorily collated. Still, however, it must be admitted that the materials possessed by him vere very respectable, and far more abundant than had been collected for any previous edition.

Symbola Criticæ ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T. lectionum collectiones. Accedit multorum N. T. Codicum Græcorum Descriptio et Examen. 2 vols. 8vo. Hale. 1785-1793. Prolegom. in N. T. p. liv. n. 67

VOL. VI.-NO. 12.