This writer is perfectly correct in his statement. In Chrysostom's 88th Homily on S. Matthew's Gospel, (Opp. vii, 825 C: [vol. ii, p. 526, ed. Field.]) is read as follows:—Ἐνόμισαν Ἠλίαν εἶναι, φησὶ, τὸν καλούμενον, καὶ εὐθέως ἐπότισαν αὐτὸν ὄξος: (which is clearly meant to be a summary of the contents of ver. 48: then follows) ἕτερος δὲ προσελθών λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τῆν πλευρὰν ἔνυξε. (Chrysostom quotes no further, but proceeds,—Τί γένοιτ ἄν τούτων παρανομώτερον, τί δὲ θηριωδέστερον, κ.τ.λ.)

I find it impossible on a review of the evidence to adhere to the opinion I once held, and have partially expressed above, (viz. at p. 202,) that the Lectionary-practice of the Eastern Church was the occasion of this corrupt reading in our two oldest uncials. A corrupt reading it undeniably is; and the discredit of exhibiting it, Codd. B, א, (not to say Codd. C, L, U, Γ,) must continue to sustain. That Chrysostom and Cyril also employed Codices disfigured by this self-same blemish, is certain. It is an interesting and suggestive circumstance. Nor is this all. Severus(574) relates that between A.D. 496 and 511, being at Constantinople, he had known this very reading strenuously discussed: whereupon had been produced a splendid copy of S. 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 veneration in consequence. It contained no record of the piercing of the SAVIOUR'S side: nor (adds Severus) does any ancient Interpreter mention the transaction in that place,—except Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria; into whose Commentaries it has found its way.—Thus, to Codices B, א, C and the copy familiarly employed by Chrysostom, has to be added the copy which Cyril of Alexandria(575) employed; as well as evidently sundry other Codices extant at Constantinople about A.D. 500. That the corruption of the text of S. Matthew's Gospel under review is ancient therefore, and was once very widely spread, is certain. The question remains,—and this is the only point to be determined,—How did it originate?

Now it must be candidly admitted, that if the strange method of the Lectionaries already explained, (viz. of interposing seven verses of S. John's xixth chapter [ver. 31-7] between the 54th and 55th verses of S. Matth. xxvii,) really were the occasion of this interpolation of S. John xix. 34 after S. Matth. xxvii. 48 or 49,—two points would seem to call for explanation which at present remain unexplained: First, (1) Why does only that one verse find place in the interpolated copies? And next, (2) How does it come to pass that that one verse is exhibited in so very depraved and so peculiar a form?

For, to say nothing of the inverted order of the two principal words, (which is clearly due to 1 S. John v. 6,) let it be carefully noted that the substitution of ἄλλος δὲ λαβών λόγχην, for ἀλλ᾽ εἶς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ of the Evangelist, is a tell-tale circumstance. The turn thus licentiously given to the narrative clearly proceeded from some one who was bent on weaving incidents related by different writers into a connected narrative, and who was sometimes constrained to take liberties with his Text in consequence. (Thus, S. Matthew having supplied the fact that "ONE OF THEM ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink," S. John is made to say, "AND ANOTHER—took a spear.") Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by Eusebius to have done: viz. "after some fashion of his own, to have composed out of the four Gospels one connected narrative."(576)

When therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient Critic who appears to have been familiarly acquainted with the lost "Diatessaron" of Tatian, comes before us with the express declaration that in that famous monument of the primitive age (A.D. 173), S. John's record of the piercing of our SAVIOUR'S side was thrust into S. Matthew's History of the Passion in this precise way and in these very terms,—(for, "Note," he says, "That into the Evangelical History of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other holy Fathers, is introduced [here] the following addition: 'And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out Water and Blood.' This, Chrysostom also says"),—it is even unreasonable to seek for any other explanation of the vitiated text of our two oldest Codices. Not only is the testimony to the critical fact abundantly sufficient, but the proposed solution of the difficulty, in itself the reverse of improbable, is in the highest degree suggestive as well as important. For,—May we not venture to opine that the same καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον,—as this Writer aptly designates Tatian's work,—is responsible for not a few of the monstra potius quam variae lectiones(577) which are occasionally met with in the earliest MSS. of all? And,—Am I not right in suggesting that the circumstance before us is the only thing we know for certain about the text of Tatian's (miscalled) "Harmony?"

To conclude.—That the "Diatessaron" of Tatian, (for so, according to Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled it,) has long since disappeared, no one now doubts.(578) That Eusebius himself, (who lived 150 years after the probable date of its composition,) had never seen it, may I suppose be inferred from the terms in which he speaks of it. Jerome does not so much as mention its existence. Epiphanius, who is very full and particular concerning the heresy of Tatian, affords no indication that he was acquainted with his work. On the contrary. "The Diatessaron Gospel," (he remarks in passing,) "which some call the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is said to have been the production of this writer."(579) The most interesting notice we have of Tatian's work is from the pen of Theodoret. After explaining that Tatian the Syrian, originally a Sophist, and next a disciple of Justin Martyr [A.D. 150], after Justin's death aspired to being a heretical leader,—(statements which are first found in Irenaeus,)—Theodoret enumerates his special tenets. "This man" (he proceeds) "put together the so-called Diatessaron Gospel,—from which he cut away the genealogies, and whatever else shews that the LORD was born of the seed of David. The book was used not only by those who favoured Tatian's opinions, but by the orthodox as well; who, unaware of the mischievous spirit in which the work had been executed, in their simplicity used the book as an epitome. I myself found upwards of two hundred such copies honourably preserved in the Churches of this place," (Cyrus in Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made Bishop, A.D. 423,)—"all of which I collected together, and put aside; substituting the Gospels of the Four Evangelists in their room."(580)

The diocese of Theodoret (he says) contained eight hundred Parishes.(581) It cannot be thought surprising that a work of which copies had been multiplied to such an extraordinary extent, and which was evidently once held in high esteem, should have had some influence on the text of the earliest Codices; and here, side by side with a categorical statement as to one of its licentious interpolations, we are furnished with documentary proof that many an early MS. also was infected with the same taint. To assume that the two phenomena stand related to one another in the way of cause and effect, seems to be even an inevitable proceeding.

I will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning the "Diodorus" of whom the unknown author of this scholion speaks: but I suppose it was that Diodorus who was made Bishop of Tarsus in A.D. 378. He is related to have been the preceptor of Chrysostom; was a very voluminous writer; and, among the rest, according to Suidas, wrote a work "on the Four Gospels."

Lastly,—How about the singular introduction into the Lection for Good-Friday of this incident of the piercing of the REDEEMER'S side? Is it allowable to conjecture that, indirectly, the Diatessaron of Tatian may have been the occasion of that circumstance also; as well as of certain other similar phenomena in the Evangeliaria?



POSTSCRIPT.

(PROMISED AT p. 51.)

I proceed to fulfil the promise made at p. 51.—C.F. Matthaei (Nov. Test., 1788, vol. iii. p. 269) states that in one of the MSS. at Moscow occurs the following "Scholion of EUSEBIUS:—κατὰ Μάρκον μετὰ τῆν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς." On this, Griesbach remarks (Comm. Crit. ii. 200),—"quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset:" the record in S. Mark xvi. 14, being express,—Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη. The epigrammatic smartness of Griesbach's dictum has recommended it to Dr. Tregelles and others who look unfavourably on the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel; and to this hour the Scholion of Matthaei remains unchallenged.

But to accept the proposed inference from it, is impossible. It ought to be obvious to every thoughtful person that problems of this class will not bear to be so handled. It is as if one were to apply the rigid mathematical method to the ordinary transactions of daily life, for which it is clearly unsuitable. Before we move a single step, however, we desire a few more particulars concerning this supposed evidence of Eusebius.

Accordingly, I invoked the good offices of my friend, the Rev. W. G. Penny, English Chaplain at Moscow, to obtain for me the entire context in which this "Scholion of Eusebius" occurs: little anticipating the trouble I was about to give him. His task would have been comparatively easy had I been able to furnish him (which I was not) with the exact designation of the Codex required. At last by sheer determination and the display of no small ability, he discovered the place, and sent me a tracing of the whole page: viz. fol. 286 (the last ten words being overleaf) of Matthaei's "12," ("Synod. 139,") our EVAN. 255.

It proves to be the concluding portion of Victor's Commentary, and to correspond with what is found at p. 365 of Possinus, and p. 446-7 of Cramer: except that after the words "ἀποκυλίσειε τὸν λίθον," and before the words "ἄλλος δέ φησιν" [Possinus, line 12 from bottom: Cramer, line 3 from the top], is read as follows:—

οχολ εὐσεβίου

κατὰ Μάρκον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὦφθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς: κατὰ Ματθαῖον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.

κατὰ Ἰωάννην: ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὁ Ἰησοῦς μέσος τῶν μαθητῶν μὴ παρόντος τοῦ Θωμᾶ ἔστη; καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας πάλιν ὀκτὼ συμπαρόντος καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ. μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς θαλασσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος.

κατὰ Λουκᾶν: ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως: καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ὤφθη τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ συνηγμένων τῶν λοιπῶν μαθητῶν: καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι: καὶ πάλιν ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν καὶ διέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν.

But surely no one who considers the matter attentively, will conceive that he is warranted in drawing from this so serious an inference as that Eusebius disallowed the last Section of S. Mark's Gospel.

(1.) In the first place, we have already [supra, p. 44] heard Eusebius elaborately discuss the Section in question. That he allowed it, is therefore certain.

(2.) But next, this σχόλιον εὐσεβίου at the utmost can only be regarded as a general summary of what Eusebius has somewhere delivered concerning our LORD'S appearances after His Resurrection. As it stands, it clearly is not the work of Eusebius.

(3.) And because I shall be reminded that such a statement cannot be accepted on my own mere "ipse dixit," I proceed to subjoin the original Scholion of which the preceding is evidently only an epitome. It is found in three of the Moscow MSS., (our Evan. 239, 259, 237,) but without any Author's name:—

Δεικνὺς δὲ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐκέτι συνεχῶς αὐτοῖς συνῆν, λέγει, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ὁ Κύριος μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν; οὐ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι μόνον τρίτον, ἀλλὰ τὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις παραλελειμμένα λέγων, τοῦτο ἤδη πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις τρίτον ἐφανερώθη τοῖς μαθηταῖς. κατὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὤφθη αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαιᾳ μόνον; κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἰωάννην, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων, μέσος αὐτῶν ἔστη ὄντων ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, μὴ παρόντος ἐκει Θωμᾶ. καὶ πάλιν μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, παρόντος καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ, ὤφθη αὐτοῖς, ἤδη κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν. μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ού τοῖς ΙΑ ἀλλὰ μόνοις ζ. κατὰ δὲ Λουκᾶν ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ, αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν, ὤφθη Σίμωνι. καὶ πάλιν ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν, ὅτε καὶ διέστη ἀναληφθεὶς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν; ὡς ἐκ τοῦτου παρίστασθαι ζ. εἶναι τοὺς μαθητὰς μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν γεγονυίας ὀπτασίας τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. μίαν μὲν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, τρεῖς δὲ παρὰ τῷ Ἰώαννῃ, καὶ τρεῖς τῷ Λουκᾷ ὁμοίως.(582)

(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,—the only thing in fact which I am concerned to point out,—is the notable circumstance that the supposed dictum of Eusebius,—("quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset,")—is no longer discoverable. To say that "it has disappeared," would be incorrect. In the original document it has no existence. In plain terms, the famous "σχόλιον εὐσεβίου" proves to be every way a figment. It is a worthless interpolation, thrust by some nameless scribe into his abridgement of a Scholion, of which Eusebius (as I shall presently shew) cannot have been the Author.

(5.) I may as well point out why the person who wrote the longer Scholion says nothing about S. Mark's Gospel. It is because there was nothing for him to say. He is enumerating our LORD'S appearances to His Disciples after His Resurrection; and he discovers that these were exactly seven in number: one being peculiar to S. Matthew,—three, to S. John,—three, to S. Luke. But because, (as every one is aware), there exists no record of an appearance to the Disciples peculiar to S. Mark's Gospel, the Author of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark perforce.... How so acute and accomplished a Critic as Matthaei can have overlooked all this: how he can have failed to recognise the identity of his longer and his shorter Scholion: how he came to say of the latter, "conjicias ergo Eusebium hunc totum locum repudiasse;" and, of the former, "ultimam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere:"(583) lastly, how Tischendorf (1869) can write,—"est enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, excludat:"(584)—I profess myself unable to understand.

(6.) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his Author,—besides enumerating all the appearances of our SAVIOUR which S. Luke anywhere records,—is further convicted of having injudiciously invented the negative statement about S. Mark's Gospel which is occasioning us all this trouble.

(7.) And yet, by that unlucky sentence of his, he certainly did not mean what is commonly imagined. I am not concerned to defend him: but it is only fair to point out that, to suppose he intended to disallow the end of S. Mark's Gospel, is altogether to misapprehend the gist of his remarks, and to impute to him a purpose of which he clearly knew nothing. Note, how he throws his first two statements into a separate paragraph; contrasts, and evidently balances one against the other: thus,—

κατὰ Μάρκον, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι,—κατὰ Ματθαῖον μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ὤφθη,—τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.

Perfectly evident is it that the "plena locutio" so to speak, of the Writer would have been somewhat as follows:—

"[The first two Evangelists are engaged with our SAVIOUR'S appearance to His Disciples in Galilee: but] by S. Mark, He is not—by S. Matthew, He is—related to have been actually seen by them there.

"[The other two Evangelists relate the appearances in Jerusalem: and] according to S. John, &c. &c.

"According to S. Luke," &c. &c.

(8.) And on passing the "Quaestiones ad Marinum" of Eusebius under review, I am constrained to admit that the Scholion before us is just such a clumsy bit of writing as an unskilful person might easily be betrayed into, who should attempt to exhibit in a few short sentences the substance of more than one tedious disquisition of this ancient Father.(585) Its remote parentage would fully account for its being designated "σχόλιον εὐσεβίου" all the same.

(9.) Least of all am I concerned to say anything more about the longer Scholion; seeing that S. Mark is not so much as mentioned in it. But I may as well point out that, as it stands, Eusebius cannot have been its Author: the proof being, that whereas the Scholion in question is a note on S. John xxi. 12, (as Matthaei is careful to inform us,)—its opening sentence is derived from Chrysostom's Commentary on that same verse in his 87th Homily on S. John.(586)

(10.) And thus, one by one, every imposing statement of the Critics is observed hopelessly to collapse as soon as it is questioned, and to vanish into thin air.

So much has been offered, only because of the deliberate pledge I gave in p. 51.—Never again, I undertake to say, will the "Scholion of Eusebius" which has cost my friend at Moscow, his Archimandrites, and me, so much trouble, be introduced into any discussion of the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. As the oversight of one (C. F. Matthaei) who was singularly accurate, and towards whom we must all feel as towards a Benefactor, let it be freely forgiven as well as loyally forgotten!



L'ENVOY

As one, escaped the bustling trafficking town, Worn out and weary, climbs his favourite hill And thinks it Heaven to see the calm green fields Mapped out in beautiful sunlight at his feet: Or walks enraptured where the fitful south Comes past the beans in blossom; and no sight Or scent or sound but fills his soul with glee:— So I,—rejoicing once again to stand Where Siloa's brook flows softly, and the meads Are all enamell'd o'er with deathless flowers, And Angel voices fill the dewy air. Strife is so hateful to me! most of all A strife of words about the things of GOD. Better by far the peasant's uncouth speech Meant for the heart's confession of its hope. Sweeter by far in village-school the words But half remembered from the Book of Life, Or scarce articulate lispings of the Creed.

And yet, three times that miracle of Spring The grand old tree that darkens Exeter wall Hath decked itself with blossoms as with stars, Since I, like one that striveth unto death, Find myself early and late and oft all day Engaged in eager conflict for GOD'S Truth; GOD'S Truth, to be maintained against Man's lie. And lo, my brook which widened out long since Into a river, threatens now at length To burst its channel and become a sea.

O Sister, who ere yet my task is done Art lying (my loved Sister!) in thy shroud With a calm placid smile upon thy lips As thou wert only "taking of rest in sleep," Soon to wake up to ministries of love,— Open those lips, kind Sister, for my sake In the mysterious place of thy sojourn, (For thou must needs be with the bless'd,—yea, where The pure in heart draw wondrous nigh to GOD,) And tell the Evangelist of thy brother's toil; Adding (be sure!) "He found it his reward, Yet supplicates thy blessing and thy prayers, The blessing, saintly Stranger, of thy prayers, Sure at the least unceasingly of mine!"

One other landed on the eternal shore! One other garnered into perfect peace! One other hid from hearing and from sight!... O but the days go heavily, and the toil Which used to seem so pleasant yields scant joy. There come no tokens to us from the dead: Save—it may be—that now and then we reap Where not we sowed, and that may be from them, Fruit of their prayers when we forgot to pray! Meantime there comes no message, comes no word: Day after day no message and no sign: And the heart droops, and finds that it was Love Not Fame it longed for, lived for: only Love.

CANTERBURY.



GENERAL INDEX.

Under "Codices" will be found all the Evangelia described or quoted: under "Texts" all the places of Scripture illustrated or referred to.

"Acta Pilati," p. 25.

ACTS, p. 199-200. See Texts.

Addit. See Codices.

Adler, J. G. C, p. 33-4.

Alford, Dean, p. 8, 13, 38, 77, 103, 164, 227, 244-5, 259.

Algasia, p. 52.

Ambrose, p. 27.

"Ammonian" Sections, p. 126-32, 295-311; in the four Gospels, p. 309; in S. Mark's Gospel, p. 311.

Ammonius, p. 125-32.

ἀνάγνωσις, p. 196.

ἀνάγνωσμα, p. 45, 196.

ἀναληφθῆναι, p. 166.

Andreas of Crete, p. 258.

Angelic Hymn, p. 257-63.

ἀντεβλήθη, p. 119.

ἀπέχει, p. 225, 6.

ἀφορμή, p. 127, 137.

Aphraates the Persian, p. 26-7, 258.

ἀπιστεῖν, p. 158-9.

Apocrypha, p. 301.

Apolinarius, p. 275, 277.

"Apostolical Constitutions," p. 25, 258.

ἀρχή, p. 224-5.

Armenian Version, p. 36, 239.

Ascension, The, p. 195. Lessons, p. 204-5, 238-9.

Assemani, p. 309-10, 315.

Asterisks, p. 116-8, 218.

Athanasian Creed, p. 3, 254.

Athanasius, p. 30, 275; how he read S. Jo. xvii. 15, 16, p. 74.

Augustine, p. 28, 198, 200.

Babington, Rev. C, p. 291.

Basil, p. 93-9, 275.

βαςιλίς, p. 275.

Basle, p. 283. See Codices.

Bede, Ven., p. 30.

Bengel, J. A., p. 17, 101-2, 185.

Benson, Rev. Dr., p. 101.

Βηθαβαρά and Βηθανία, p. 236.

Bibliotheque at Paris, p. 228-31, 278-83.

Birch's N. T., Andr., p. 5, 116-8, 311.

Βλάπτειν, p. 160.

Bobbiensis, Codex, p. 35, 124, 186.

Bodleian. See Codices.

Book of Common Prayer, p. 215.

Bostra, see Titus.

Bosworth, Rev. Prof., p. 262.

Broadus, Prof., p. 139, 155, 168, 174.

Caesarius, p. 133.

Canons, p. 127-31, 295-312. See Sections.

Carpian, Letter to, p. 126-8, 311-2.

Carthage. See Council.

Cassian, p. 193.

Catenaae, p. 133-5. See Corderius, Cramer, Matthaei, Peltanus, Possinus, Victor.

Chrysostom, p. 27, 85, 110, 179, 193, 198-9, 201-4, 223, 258-9, 275-7, 278, 314-6, 323.

Church, the Christian, p. 192. Festivals, p. 203.

Churton, Rev. W. R., p. 236.

"Circular," A, p. 101-5.

Citations, see Patristic.

Clemens Alex., p. 30.

Codices, depraved, p. 80-6, 217-24. See Corrupt readings, Dated, Syriac. 151, referred to p. 311.

CODICES. Codex א, p. 70-90, 77, 109-13, 218-22, 252, 257, 313; how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 88-90; omissions, 73-5, 79, 80; Ephes. i. 1, 91-109; interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6; affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24; sympathy with B, 78; not so old as B, 291-4; facsimile, p. ii. A, p. 220-1, 222, 257-9, 311. B, p. 70-90, 257, 202, 217-20, 222-3, 313; how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 86-90; omissions, 74-5, 79, 80; Ephes. i. 1, 91-109; interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6; affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24; sympathy with א, 78; older than א 291-4. C, p. 218, 221-2, 302, 311; depraved by the Lectionary practice, p. 220. D, p. 100, 219-25, 257, 262, 302. E, p. 305, 311. F, p. 302. G, p. 306, 311. H, p. 302, 306, 311. K, p. 197, 302, 311. L, p. 123-5, 218, 225, 311; facsimile, p. 124. M, p. 197, 305, 306, 311. P, Q, R, Y, Z, p. 302. S, V, Δ, Π, p. 311. Tb, p. 305. U, p. 218, 311. Wb, p. 302. Wd, p. 305. Γ, p. 218, 224, 311. Λ, p. 119, 122, 311. Codex 1, p. 120, 123, 125. Codex 7, p. 239. Codex 10, p. 224, 231. Codex 12, p. 122, 278, 288-9. Codex 13, p. 226. Codex 15, p. 119. Codex 19, p. 240, 278. Codex 20, p. 118-9 22, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2. Codex 22, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242. Codex 23, p. 120. Codex 24, p. 121-3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 288-9. Codex 25, p. 225, 280. Codex 27, p. 239. Codex 30, p. 231. Codex 33, p. 123. Codex 34, p. 66, 120, 121-3, 280. Codex 36, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9. Codex 37, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9. Codex 38, p. 121-3. Codex 39, p. 120, 121-3, 271, 281. Codex 40, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9. Codex 41, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9. Codex 47, p. 226. Codex 50, p. 271, 281. Codex 54, 56 and 61, p. 226. Codex 63, p. 240-1. Codex 69, p. 123, 226. Codex 72, p. 23, 218, 314. Codex 77, p. 283. Codex 90, p. 240. Codex 92 and 94, p. 283. Codex 108, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9. Codex 113, p. 218. Codex 117, p. 302. Codex 124, p. 226. Codex 129, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9. Codex 137, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9. Codex 138, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9. Codex 143, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. Codex 146, p. 286. Codex 181 and 186, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9. Codex 194, p. 284. Codex 195, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. Codex 197, p. 284. Codex 199, 206 and 209, p. 120, 1-3, 5. Codex 210, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. Codex 215, p. 285. Codex 221 and 222, p. 121-3, 285, 8-9. Codex 233, p. 286. Codex 237 and 238, p. 285, 8-9, 321. Codex 239, p. 321. Codex 253, p. 285. Codex 255, p. 285, 288-9, 319-23. Codex 256, p. 239, 286. Codex 259, p. 286, 288-9, 321. Codex 262, p. 119, 122, 305. Codex 263, p. 302, 304. Codex 264, p. 117, 305-6. Codex 265, p. 225. Codex 266, p. 238. Codex 267, p. 216. Codex 268, p. 231. Codex 270, p. 224. Codex 274, p. 124. Codex 282 and 293, p. 231. Codex 299, p. 122, 281, 288-9. Codex 300, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2. Codex 301, p. 282. Codex 304, p. 283. Codex 309, p. 239, 282. Codex 312, p. 282. Codex 329, p. 122, 282, 288-9. Codex 332 and 353, p. 286. Codex 373, p. 287. Codex 374, p. 122, 121, 2, 286, 288-9. Codex 379 and 427, p. 287. Codex 428 and 432, p. 286. Codex 436, p. 218. Codex 439, p. 226. Addit. 7, 157, p. 309. Addit. 12,141, p. 215. Addit. 14,449, p. 215, 306, 309. Addit. 14,450, p. 215, 306, 310. Addit. 14,451, p. 306. Addit. 14,452-4-5, p. 215, 306. Addit. 14,456, p. 215. Addit. 14,457-8, p. 215, 306, 309. Addit. 14,461, p. 215. Addit. 14,463, p. 215, 306. Addit. 14,464, p. 215. Addit. 14,469, p. 306. Addit. 14,485-8, p. 208. Addit. 14,492, p. 208. Addit. 17,113, p. 215, 306. Addit. 17,114-5-6, p. 215. Addit. 17,213, p. 310. Ambros. M. 93, p. 286. Basil., p. 283, (three Codd.) Bobbiensis, p. 35, 124, 186. Bodleian, see Codd. Γ, Λ, 47, 50, 54, Dawkins. Coisl. 19, p. 122, 282, 8-9. Coisl. 20, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9. Coisl. 21, p. 121-3, 281, 8-9. Coisl. 22, p. 281, 288. Coisl. 23, p. 271, 281, 288. Coisl. 24, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9. Coisl. 195, p. 66, 120, 1-3, 280. Dawkins 3, p. 306-9. Escurial Υ, ii. 8, p. 286. Florence, S. Mar. Ben. Cod. iv. p. 120, 1-3, 5. Harl. 1, 810, p. 218. Harl. 5,107, p. 226. Harl. 5,647, p. 23, 218, 314. Laur. vi. 18, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9. Laur. vi. 33, p. 284. Laur. vi. 34, p. 284, 288. Laur. viii. 14, p. 284. Matthaei's a, 286, 288-9, 321. Matthaei's d, p. 285, 288-9. Matthaei's e, p. 285, 288-9. Matthaei's 10, p. 285. Matthaei's 12, p. 285, 288, 319-23. Matthaei's 14, p. 239, 286. Meerman 117, p. 218. Middle Hill 13, 975, p. 287. Monacen. 99 and 381, p. 286. Monacen 465, p. 287. Moscow, see Matthaei. Reg. 14, p. 123. Reg. 50, p. 226. Reg. 53, p. 119, 122, 305. Reg. 61 p. 302, 304. Reg. 62, see Codex L. Reg. 64, p. 119. Reg. 65, p. 117, 305-6. Reg. 66, p. 225. Reg. 67, p. 238. Reg. 69, p. 216. Reg. 71, p. 239. Reg. 72, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242. Reg. 73, p. 231. Reg. 75, p. 224. Reg. 77, p. 120. Reg. 79, p. 124. Reg. 90, p. 231. Reg. 91, p. 224, 231. Reg. 100, p. 231. Reg. 115, p. 239. Reg. 117, p. 231. Reg. 177, p. 121, 281, 8-9. Reg. 178, p. 121, 3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 8, 9. Reg. 186, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2. Reg. 187, p. 282. Reg. 188, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2. Reg. 189, p. 240, 278. Reg. 191, p. 225, 280. Reg. 194, p. 283. Reg. 201, p. 239, 282. Reg. 206, p. 282. Reg. 230, p. 122, 278, 288-9. Reg. 703, p. 282. 2pe, p. 226. 7pe, p. 286. cscr, p. 226. iscr and sscr, p. 302. Tb, p. 305. Taurin. xx b. iv. 20, p. 286. Toledo, p. 286. Vat. 358, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9. Vat. 756-7, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9. Vat. 1,229 p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. Vat. 1,423, p. 287. Vat. 1,445, p. 122, 286, 288-9. Vat. 1,769, p. 287. Vat. Palat. 5, p. 286. Venet. 6, 10, p. 120, 121-3, 5. Venet. 27, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9. Venet. 495, p. 285. Venet. 544, p. 285. Vind. Kell. 4, Forlos. 5, p. 121, 3, 283, 288-9. Vind. Kell. Nep. 114, Lambec. 29, p. 283. Vind. Kell. 117, Vind. Kell. 38, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9. Vind. Kill. 118, 31, p. 226. Vind. Kill. 180, 39, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9. Wake, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, p. 311. Xavier de Zelada, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.

Cod. Evstt. 47 and 50, p. 197. Paul, 67, p. 99.

Collation of MSS. p. vii.-viii., 218.

Colossians, Ep. to, p. 101, 162. See Texts.

Commentaries, Ancient, p. 287.

Common Prayer, see Book.

Concordance test, p. 173.

Constantinople, p. 275.

Conybeare and Howson, p. 103.

Coptic Version, p. 35.

Copyists of MSS., p. 262, 273-4, 320-3.

Corderius, B., p. 44, 134, 270, 4, 7.

Corrupt readings in MSS., p. 100-1, 112, 262-3.

Cosmas Indicopleustes, p. 258.

Council of Carthage, p. 25, 249.

Cramer, Dr. J. A., p. 44, 60, 271-3.

Creed of Jerusalem, p. 184-5. see Athanasian.

Curetonian Syriac Version, p. 33.

Cyprian, 25, 249.

Cyprus, p. 315.

Cyril of Alex., p. 29, 60, 110, 198, 201, 258, 271, 5, 7, 9, 281, 315. Cyril of Jer., p. 184-5, 195, 258, 261.

Cyrus in Syria, p. 317, 8.

Damascene, John, p. 30.

Dated MSS., p. 208, 224, 309.

Davidson. Dr., p. 12, 38, 114, 133-5, 6; 142, 8; 153, 160, 1, 4; 185.

De Touttee, p. 184, 261.

δευτεροπρώτῳ, p. 75, 220.

Diatessaron, p. 126, 314-8.

Diodorus, p. 314-8.

Dionysius of Corinth, p. 245.

Dionysius Syrus, p. 41.

δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, p. 257-63.

Easter Lessons, p. 204-6, 238-9.

Eden, Rev. C. P., p. 3.

ἐγκύκλιον, p. 104-5.

ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ and ἀπό, p. 153.

ἐκεῖνος, p. 166-7.

ἔκλειψις, p. 86.

Ellicott, Bishop, p. 9.

Encyclical, p. 101-5.

Ephesians, Ep. to, p. 91-109. See Texts.

ἐπί, verbs compounded with, p. 163-4.

ἐπιφανία, τὰ, p. 204.

Epiphanius, p. 95, 132-3, 199, 202-3, 258.

Epiphany, Festival of, p. 204, 7; lessons, 199.

Erizzo, F. M. p. 34.

Ethiopic Version, p. 36.

εὐδοκία, p. 257-63.