{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4257", "width": "2397", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "1 V^\\nir\\\\\\n.0^\\nI 8\\nJS^ c\\nc-^T.\\no\\n.n\\nK\\n0^ s/\\nX\\n-k A o\\n^o.\\n.0^\\n4\\nOo\\nV\\n^f^M\\nc,\\n-x^^", "height": "4014", "width": "2334", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "O^ ^7 s^\\nv^\\nA\\nV-\\n.y\\no5 -^c^\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2s\\nxO^^.\\n-i\\nV\\n^^V c.\\nC\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0a\\nY\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a00\\nc, X C^ aV\\na-\\n-Ok A\\nX A-\\n5r ^r s^^ \\\\0\\nIB X\\no", "height": "4027", "width": "2334", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "REMARKS\\nUPON THE\\nSYSTEMATICAL CLASSIFICATION\\nO*\\nMANUSCRIPTS\\nADOPTED BY\\nGRIESBACH\\nIN HIS\\nEDITION OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.\\nV,\\nBY\\nRICHARD LAURENCE, LL. D.\\nRECTOR OF MERSHAM, AND OF STONE, IN THE COUNTY\\nOF KENT.\\nOXFORD,\\nAT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS FOR THE AUTHOR\\nSold by J. Parker; and by Messrs. Rivijtgton, London.\\n1814.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "3^\\n1)", "height": "4016", "width": "2334", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE\\nSIR WILLIAM SCOTT, M. P.\\nJUDGE OF THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY, c.\\nTHE AUTHOR OF THESE REMARKS\\nRESPECTFULLY DEDICATES THEM\\nNOT SOLELY, IN DECLARATION OF PRIVATE GRATITUDE;\\nTO AN EXALTED INDIVIDUAL,\\nWHO CONDESCENDS TO HONOUR HIM WITH A NOTICE,\\nWHICH HE PRESUMES NOT INDEED TO DESERVE,\\nBUT WHICH HE HOPES NEVER TO DISCREDIT,\\nAND WHO HAS CONFERRED UPON HIM OBLIGATIONS,\\nTOO GREAT TO BE REQUITED,\\nAND TOO FLATTERING TO BE FORGOTTEN\\nBUT ALSO,\\nIN TESTIMONY OF PUBLIC DEFERENCE,\\nTO AN ILLUSTRIOUS STATESjVIAN AND JUDGE,\\nEMINENTLY DISTINGUISHED BY SOLIDITY OF ARGUMENT\\nIN THE SENATE,\\nBY ACCURACY OF DECISION IN THE COURT,\\nAND\\nBY ELEGANCE AS WELL AS PERSPICUITY OF EXPRESSION\\nIN both;\\nAND, EVEN STILL MORE APPROPRIATELY,\\nTO AN ACCOMPLISHED SCHOLAR\\nOF CLASSICAL TASTE, AND DISCRIMINATION,\\nNOT LESS CONSPICUOUS\\nf OR THB POSSESSION, THAN CANDID IN THE DISPLAY\\nOF CRITICAL TALENTS.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS.\\nCHAP. I.\\nGriesbacHs Edition of the New Testament-\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nEffects produced by it. p. 1\\nCHAP. II.\\nOrigin of GrieshacHs Theory, JBengel, Semler,\\nNumber of Classes, Remarks upon their Li-\\nmitation to three. Inadequacy of the Result,\\np. 8.\\nCHAP. III.\\nGriesbacJis Mode of Classification, No standard\\nText, Principle of Classification fallacious^\\nInaccuracy of his Calculations, Corrected\\nStatement, p. 27 o\\nCHAP. IV.\\nMore correct Mode of ascertaining the Class of\\na Manuscript, Comparison of A with Origen^\\nWith G or the Western Text. Affinity of A\\nto the Byzantine greater than to the Western^\\nor the Alexandrine. p. 42^", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "vi\\nCHAP. V.\\nComparison of the Colbert Manuscript with A.\\nMistakes of Griesbach, Controverted Reading\\nof\\\\ Tim. iii. l6. Existence of the Alexandrine\\nText problematical. Conclusion, p. 64*\\nAPPENDIX.\\nReadings of Origen alone. Of A with Origen,\\nA C with Origen, Of A alone. Readings of\\nG alone. Of A with G, Of A alone. Re-\\nmarks upon the joint Readings of A C and\\nOiigen, Upon the general Coincidences of\\nOrigen with the Western Text, and with\\nother Alexandrine Writers, Affinity to the\\nWestern Text predominant, p. 95.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "Sold ly J. Parker^ Oxford and hy Messrs. Rivington^\\nSt, PauVs Church Yardy London,\\nI. Critical Reflections upon some important Misrepresen-\\ntations contained in the Unitarian Version of the New\\nTestament. By Richard Laurence, LL. D. Price 5s.\\nII. The metaphorical Character of the Apostolical Style,\\nand the predominant Opinion of the Apostolical ^ra, as\\nelucidating the Doctrine of Atonement, considered a\\nSermon, preached at the Visitation of his Grace the\\nArchbishop of Canterbuiy. By the same. Price Is. 6d.\\nIII. A Dissertation on the Logos of St. John, comprehend-\\ning the substance of Sermons preached before the Univer-\\nsity of Oxford. By the same. Price 3s.\\nIV. On Singularity and Excess in Philological Literature\\na Sermon preached before the University of Oxford. By\\nthe same. Price Is. fid.\\nALSO,\\nCritical Remarks on detached Passages of the Nevr Testa-\\nment, particularly the Revelation of St. John. By the\\nlate French Laurence, LL.D. M. P. c. Price 63.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "CHAP. I.\\nGrieshacHs Edition of the New Testament-^\\nEffects produced by it,\\niM O question, it is presumed, relative to the cri-\\nticism of the Greek Text in the New Testament,\\nthe original language of that inspired volume,\\nupon which our faith is founded, can be consi-\\ndered by Christians of any denomination as\\nwholly unimportant. The doctrine indeed of\\nits miraculous identity seems now completely\\nexploded for to suppose that a superintending\\nProvidence presided over the pen of every tran-\\nscriber from the first to the fifteenth century,\\npreventing the occurrence of those little lapses\\nto which human transcripts are liable, is surely\\nto suppose the existenbe of a miracle, not only\\nagainst direct proof, but without an adequate\\nnecessity.\\nOf all the critical editions of the Greek Text,\\nthe most celebrated is that of Griesbach. The\\npeculiar feature of his system, it is well known,\\nconsists in the arrangement of manuscripts un-\\nB", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "der certain heads or classes. The accuracy of\\nthis arrangement it is the object of the follow-\\ning pages to examine.\\nBut before I enter upon the investigation, I\\nmust be permitted to make a few preliminary\\nobservations upon the effects which have been\\nproduced by his repeated labours in critical\\ncorrection.\\nAs it is an incontrovertible truth, that opi-\\nnion must be regulated by the text, and not\\nthe text by opinion when it was known that an\\nauthor, so highly respected as Griesbach, was\\npreparing a second edition of his New Testa-\\nment, expectation was upon the tiptoe among\\nthose, who, conscious that the received text will\\nnot without a little straining satisfactorily\\nentwine with their favourite tenets, are always\\nanxiously anticipating the probable chances of\\nrelief, attainable by an unreserved use of the\\ncritical pruning knife. The Unitarians not only\\napplauded and patronised his undertaking, but\\nexerted every means in their power to carry the\\nwork with credit through the press, and to give\\nit publicity in this country. But what has been", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "the result As far as relates to doctrinal points,\\nthe great object of their contemplation, their\\nhopes have been completely frustrated for no-\\nthing more was omitted in the second, than\\nwhat had been exposed as illegitimate in the\\nfirst, edition. If it be asked, what were the\\npassages rejected, and what was the impression\\nmade upon the mind of him who rejected them;\\na better answer cannot be given than in the\\nwords of Griesbach himself, which occur in his\\npreface to the Apostolical Writings, published\\nin the year 177^\u00c2\u00bb Interim uni tamen dogmati\\neique palmario, doctrinae scilicet de vera Jesu\\nChristi divinitate, nonnihil a me detractum\\nesse videri posset nonnullis, qui non solum\\nlocum istum celebratissimum 1 Joh. v. 7\u00c2\u00bb e\\ntextu ejectum, verum etiam lectionem vulga-\\nrem loci 1 Tim. iii. l6. (ut et Act. xx. 28.)\\ndubitationi subjectam et lectorum arbitrio per-\\nmissam, invenient. Quare ut iniquas suspi-\\nciones omnes, quantum in me est, amoliar, et\\nhominibus malevolis calumniandi ansam prse-\\nripiam, primum publice profiteor atque Deum\\ntestor, neutiquam me de veritate istius dog-\\nB 2\\na\\na\\nce", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "a\\nce\\ncc\\na\\nce\\nmatis dubitare. Atque sunt profecto t am mu/ia\\net luculenta argumenta et ScripturcB loca, qui-\\nbus vera Deitas Christo vindicatur, ut ego\\nquidem intelligere vix possem, quomodo^ con-\\ncessa Scripturse sacrse divina auctoritate, et\\nadmissis justis interpretandi regulis, dogma\\nhoc in dubium a quoquam vocari possit. In\\nprimis locus ille Job. i. 1^, 2, 3. tarn perspicuns\\nest atque ormiihus exceptionibus major, ut ne-\\nque interpretum neque criticorum audacibus co-\\nnatihus unquam everti atque veritatis defen-\\nsoribus eripi possit.\\nFrom the preceding quotation therefore it ap-\\npears, that Griesbach felt it necessary to apolo-\\ngize in his first edition for only three peculiar\\nreadings as affecting opinion, out of the im-\\nmense number which he had collected viz. the\\nomission of 1 John v. 7\u00c2\u00ab and the substitution of\\nh for ^fo? in 1 Tim. iii. l6. as well as of nu^tou\\nfor S^fou in Acts xx. 28 readings, he might have\\nadded, which had been again and again contro-\\nverted before he himself was born. And what\\ndid he effect in his second edition Nothing\\nmore than subsequently to extirpate that which", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "he had previously marked for extirpation. Whe-\\nther indeed the decision of his judgment in the\\nthree instances alluded to be correct or not, is\\na question which I do not undertake to investi-\\ngate.\\nIt seems then than no new weapon of Unita-\\nrian warfare has been obtained from the critical\\narmoury of Griesbach, which once glittered in\\nthe latitudinarian eye with so much promise\\nbut that the integrity of the Trinitarian text,\\nin every undisputed passage of Scripture, re-\\nmains precisely in its former state unattacked,\\nand perhaps we must now presume unattack-\\nable. The ancient weapons however of the\\nparty, it may be remarked, have at least re-\\nceived a sharper edge but those who may thus\\nboast should recollect, that, in defence of the\\nsame hostile ground, which was originally as-\\nsumed by Clark, Whiston, Wetstein, and others,\\nthey have merely acquired the additional sup-\\nport of another individual of one whom they\\nhold in equal admiration and contempt ad-\\nmiration for his critical, and contempt for his\\ntheological, talents.\\nb3", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "6\\nAll men indisputably are not critics but all\\nmen, who feel a real attachment to the rehgion\\nwhich they profess, are alike interested in the\\nresult of critical investigation, when applied to\\nan object so important as the adjustment of\\nscriptural readings. It is natural therefore to\\nexpect, that every novel mode of ascertaining\\nthe validity of a reading will be at first received\\nwith caution, and long watched with jealousy.\\nAnd notwithstanding the ability which has been\\ndisplayed in the support of Griesbach s theory,\\nnotwithstanding the high tone which it has as-\\nsumed in the literary world, I must confess,\\nthat it is far from producing in my own mind\\ncomplete conviction. I shall not however, I\\nhope, be misapprehended, as arguing upon ex-\\nclusive principles against the general doctrine of\\na classification of manuscripts, if indeed an ac-\\ncurate classification be attainable; but shall only\\nbe understood as urging the propriety of cir-\\ncumspection upon the points of the practical\\nconception and application of Griesbach s par-\\nticular hypothesis. It is indeed true, that this\\neven in his patient hands has produced effects", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "only to the trifling extent alluded to^: but as\\nit is extremely liable to be misconceived as well\\nas misapplied is so intricate in its construc-\\ntion is so difficult to be detailed with precision,\\nor even to be made out in its subordinate ar-\\nrangements and is so readily convertible to\\nparty purposes surely we should again and\\nagain contemplate it, and that in every possible\\npoint of view, before we consent to admit the\\nconclusions which have been deduced from it\\ninto general currency.\\nGiiesbach himseliP remarks in tlie Prolegomena to the\\nfirst Tolunie of his last edition Nulla emendatio a recen-\\ntioribus editoribus tentata uUam Scripturae sacrae doctri-\\nnam immutat aut evertit paucae sensura sententiarum af-\\nficimit. P. xxxvii.\\nB 4", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "8\\nCHAP. II.\\nOrigin of GrieshacKs Theory, BengeL Semlerj^\\nNumber of Classes, Remarks upon their Li-\\nmitat ion to three. Inadequacy of the Result,\\nTHE critical talents of Griesbach have long\\nranked high in the estimation of the public\\nand an implicit confidence seems to be placed\\nin the rectitude of his judgment and in the ac-\\ncuracy of his statements. If I do not however\\nmistake the character of the man from his writ-\\nings, he is himself the last to claim infallibility\\nin the one case, or impeccability in the other.\\nHe certainly may be, and I believe he is^ what\\nDr. Marsh denominates him, the most con-\\nsummate critic that ever undertook an edition\\nof the New Testament^. But his perfection\\nwill still only be relative, upon a comparison\\nwith the merits of his predecessors in the same\\narduous department. Complete exemption from\\nerror eitlier in hypothesis or in collation is\\nMichaelis s Introd. vol. ii. p. 629.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "9\\nsurely what the vainest of verbal critics will\\nscarcely venture to arrogate. Wetstein accused\\nBengel of permitting his theological prejudices\\nto influence his criticism^ while Wetstein him-\\nAs the circumstance itself is curious, and not perhaps\\ngenerally known^ I shall subjoin it in the language of its\\nauthor. In a criticism upon Heb. ii. 9. Bengel had remarked,\\nHaec expositio non potuit placere iis^ quos etiam firmiora\\npro Deitate Jesu Christi argumenta urunt. Wetstein,\\nanimadverting on this passage, among other severe cen-\\nsures has the following Quaenam fuit ratio ex omni hu-\\nmano generi eos solos eligendi, quos etiam clariora de Dei-\\ntate Christi argumenta urunt, nisi ut animum malum pro-\\nderes, et immerenti invidiam conjiares Hie nigrae succus\\nloliginis, haec est aerugo mera. And in the subsequent\\nparagraph retorts upon Bengel in this singular and unex-\\npected manner Bengelius nomen Jesu, si recte calculum\\nposui, minimum vicies et quater contra plerosque codices\\nscriptos et contra plerasque editiones receptas, vel ex con-\\ntextu sacro ejecit, vel in margine toUendum esse pronun-\\ntiavit. Quid erat, quaeso, causae, cur nomen Jesu virum\\ndoctum atque jiium tantopere ofiFenderet r Si quis illi sua\\nverba hie regereret Hoc non potuit placere lis, quos etiam\\nJirmiora pro Deitate Jesu Christi argumenta urunt nonne\\nmajori specie id faceret? Absit autftn a me, ut convicium\\nconvicio rependam. Alia, si quid video, ejus erroris fuit\\noccasio. Vivit Bengelius inter eos, qui, quoties nomen\\nJesu vel proferunt vel proferri audiunt, caput aperire so-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "(C\\ne\\n10\\nself was more perhaps than suspected of being\\nbiassed in a similar manner by theological pre-\\njudices of a very different tendency but I do\\nnot think that this charge can be justly pre-\\nferred against Griesbach.\\nAlthough it be true, as the Authors of the\\nlate Unitarian Version justly remark, that of\\nthe hundred and fifty thousand various read-\\nings which have been discovered by the saga-\\ncity and zeal of collators, not one tenth, nor\\none hundredth part (and they might have\\nconceded much more) make any perceptible,\\nlent hinc fit, ut concionatores earn vocem raro pronun-\\ntient, lie aut frequent! repetitione aliquid emphasi detra-\\nhatur, aut caput alternis aperiendo, et operiendo vel mo-\\nlestia auditoribus creetur, vel attentio minuatur. Huic\\nmori a teneris adsuetus cum videret, gesticulationem eccle-\\nsiasticam et contextual sacrum non con venire, imprudens\\ncontextum ex gestibus correxit, cum juxta regulas sanioris\\ncriticae gestus potius ad voces contextus sacri accommodare\\ndebuisset*. What a whimsical display has Wetstein here\\nexhibited of the odium theologicum, and the nasus aduncus\\nof critical contempt\\nProlegomena, Ed. Semleri, p. 415. Upon this conceit of Wetstein\\nSemler remarks: Ejus rei non arbitror esse banc, quam prodit Wet-\\nstenius causam Bengelius, ut alii, ducitur suo quodam sensu cri-\\ntico. Ibid.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "11\\nat least any material variation in the sense\\nand although, with the exceptions before stated,\\nthese various readings are wholly unimportant\\nin a theological point of view yet the case is\\notherwise in a critical. The editor of an amend-\\ned text will not be biassed by the theological\\nimportance, but solely by the critical correctness,\\nof a reading. And to the attainment of this\\nobject it is possible that a systematical classifi-\\ncation of manuscripts may greatly conduce.\\nIt is admitted that the first writer, who points*\\ned out the utility of such a classification, was\\nBengel. In the Apparatus Criticus annexed to\\nhis edition of the New Testament he thus ex-\\npresses himself upon the subject Si quis\\nomnem codicum varietatem probe secum re-\\nputaverit, librarios Graecos in quasdam quasi\\nnationes s lve familias discessionem ante et-\\niam fuisse, quam versiones, de quarum anti-\\nquitate mox agemus, extitissent, casque dif-\\nferentias samel ortas, alia super alia lectionum\\ndivortia, variis ex causis, non uno tempore,\\ncumulaverunt. Rursum ex codicibus ita di-\\nc Preface, p. 27.\\nii\\n(C\\n(C", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "12\\nversis alii codices studio librariorum, quasi\\neclectico, sunt propagati sic tamen ut qu(L-\\nI lbet nat io sive fainilia certas originis suae no-\\ntas retineret. Tanta tamque confusa moles\\nquomodo discriminabitur? Id fiet si prius ver-\\nsionum ac patrum superadditus erit cumulus\\nAgain Turn videlicet nationes codicum quas\\n\u00c2\u00a7.31. discrevimus^ Aleocandriam, Ant iochiam^\\nCojistantinopolm, Hierosolymam, Romam, id\\nest totum orbem Christianum complexae po-\\ntiore certe sui parte, in unum conveniunt, co-\\npiasque suas invicto robore conjungunt. Hoc\\ntutiss imum omnis decisionis compendium hoc\\ncertissimum sanse lectionis criterium. Unius\\ngeneris codices, quamlibet multi, saepe aber-\\nrant. Non qualiscunque species codicum an-\\ntiquorum, bonorum, multorum, in censum ve-\\nnit; valet vero diversitas testium, qui a fonte,\\na prima manu, quam proxime absunt, et inter\\nse quam longissime distant, adeoque suo con-\\nsensu genuinam lectionem ostendunt, suoque\\ncomitatu semper et antiquitatem et bonitatem,\\net, exceptis singularibus quibusdam causis,\\nd Pars I. \u00c2\u00a7.3I.\\n(C", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "13\\npluralitatem complectuntur, vel ubi pluralitas\\ndeficit, defectum supplent, ipsisque codicibus\\nrecentioribus et inconstantioribus robur ad-\\ndunt. Quo pacto plerisque in locis decisio\\nearn firmitudinem nanciscitur, quae fit pro na-\\ntura rei, instar demonstrationis\\nThat Bengel indeed was the original projector\\nof the system alluded to, Griesbach himself was\\ntoo candid either to deny or to conceal. In a\\npublication previous to his last edition of the\\nNew Testament, and professedly written to ex-\\nplain the principles of his criticism, he thus ex-\\npresses himself; Palmam sine dubio omnibus\\nquos modo laudavi, praeripuit Joannes Albertus\\nBengelius, qui in Apparatu suo Critico prae-\\njudicatis opinionibus permultis mascule se op-\\nposuit, codicum, eorum praesertim, qui Epi-\\nstolas Paulinas continent c-v^vyia.; ac familias\\ndiligenter observavit, AfricarKB recensionis ab\\nAsiatica discrimen primus fere indigitavit, et\\nalia passim attigit, quae si colligantur in unum,\\net apte inter se jungantur, quaedam quasi ru-\\ndimenta historiae textus sacri continent. Atta-\\nIbid. \u00c2\u00a7.32. obs.31. i\\n(f\\nu", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "(e\\n14\\nmen egregie affectum opus neutiquam perfecit\\nvir sagacissimus, sed perfecisset forsitan si de-\\ncem aut quindecim annos Wetstenii volumina\\ndiligenti manu versare potuisset, et novis his\\nsubsidiis adjutus, praeconceptas opiniones non-\\nnullas exuisset, recensiones diversas, quae co-\\ndices Novi Testamenti omnes in classes ali-\\nquot sejungunt, accuratius observasset^ ac in\\nprimis ingens discrimen, quod inter Alexan-\\ndrinam recensionem et Occidentalem inter-\\ncedit^ perspexisset. Harum enim recensionum\\nomnium antiquissimarum et notatu dignissi-\\nmarum, distinctionem, cum cseteris criticis,\\nnegligens Bengelius^ in ipso Historiae limine\\nofFendit, et quo minus pedem tuto promovere\\nposset, saepenumero impeditus fuit V\\nBut Bengel was not the only predecessor of\\nGriesbach in the same path. The immediate\\nauthor of apparently the precise plan adopted\\nby him was Semler^ one from whose public in-\\nstructions he professes to have derived much\\nuseful information, and whose writings he held\\nin the highest esteem perhaps the more so,\\nCarae in Epist. Paulinas, c. A.D. 1777. sect. 1. 9.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "15\\nbecause that adventurous critic was certainly\\nnever suspected of treading in the beaten track\\nof preconceived opinion. How highly indeed\\nhe esteemed the labours of Semler will appear\\nfrom the following account which he gives of\\nthem Longe quam alii luculentius recensio-\\nnum discrimina demonstravit, vanas plero-\\nrumque de codicibus Grseco-Latinis, et aliis\\nrebus ad crisin sacram pertinentibus, persua-\\nsiones impugnavit^ versionis Latinae vetustioris\\nindolem curiose pervestigavit, aliaque innu-\\nmera fere incredibili diligentia coacervavit,\\nquae ad illustrandam textus Graeci historiam\\napprime faciunts. And in the preface to\\nhis last edition of the Testament he thus dis-\\ntinctly points to the authors of his theory\\nEgo vero doctis nonnullis Bengelii observa-\\ntionibus admonitus eam viam, quam Semlerus\\ningredi coeperat, quamque diuturno studio\\nedoctus unice veram esse perspexeram^ lon-\\ngius et ad metam usque persequi me debere\\nautumabam\\ncc\\n(C\\ng Curae in Epist. Paulinas, c. A.D. 1777. sect. 1. 9.\\nPrcf. p. V.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "16\\nBefore Griesbach undertook the task of cor-\\nrecting the received text upon the decisions of\\nhis own judgment, Semler had pubhshed a tract\\ncontaining observations upon the critical prin-\\nciples of Wetstein and Bengel, and another\\nupon what he termed The Hberal Interpreta-\\ntion of the New Testament. In these, as\\nwell as in the third volume of his Hermencu-\\ntische Vorbereitung, he distinctly characterized\\nwhat he denominated varias recensioiiesr A\\nfew short extracts will shew how much Gries-\\nbach was indebted to him. Commenting upon\\na passage in Bengel s Apparatus Criticus, he re-\\nmarked Codices nee sunt omnes e r una re-\\ncensione Grseca descripti, nee antiquioris re-\\ncens ionis (qua utebatur Origenes, Eusebius, et\\nLatina Translatio ante Hieronymum, ex qua\\net Copta fere est, et quae ex Syriaca posteriori\\nadnotatur) multa exempla ad nos venerunt L\\nHaec fuit simplicior, rudior, antiquior recen-\\nsio brevjor etiam et minus verbosa ab ea\\nrecedit alia, quae fere hoc eodem tempore Ori-\\ngenis sub initium certe seculi quarti in Orient\\ni(\\n5 Wetstenii Libelli ad Crisin, c. ed. 1766. p. 177.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "i;\\n(C\\nce\\na\\n(C\\ntis provinciis solebant jam describi^. Antio-\\nchicB et per Oriejitein seculo quarto obtinuerit\\nreccnsio Gv?tC2L alia,Yecexit\\\\ov,\\\\m^\\\\iY\\\\ov, Ckrys-\\nostomus et seriores scriptores hoc tantum tex-\\ntu utuntur^ et difFerunt fere ab eo^ quern se-\\ncutae erant vetustiores translationes Diversa\\nGraeca recensio, quae olim locum habuit, pro\\nprovinciarum diversitate fere obtinuit; Alexan-\\ndrinam facile distinguere licet, u^gypt iacis\\nscriptoribus et Origenis discipulis fere com-\\nmuuem, ad Syros Coptas iEthiopas etiam vul-\\ngatam alia per Orientem {AntiochicB atque\\ninde Constantinopoli c.) valebat alia per\\nOccidentem. Inde cum Origenis et Pelagii\\nodium crevisset, ecclesiastica qusedam et m2 27^a\\nrecensio sensim orta est e plurium provincia-\\nrum codicibus, qua adhuc uti solemus\\nSuch were the materials with which Gries-\\nbach erected the superstructure of his critical\\nsystem. He distinguishes after Semler three\\nk Ibid. p. 193. 1 Ibid. p. 198.\\nApparatus ad Liberalem N. T. Interpretationem ed,\\n1767. p. 45.\\ncc\\n(C", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "a\\n18\\ngeneral texts the Alexandrine, the Occidental^\\nand the By%antme or Oriental. At the same\\ntime however he admits the propriety of a more\\nextended division. For in his CurcB in Epistolas\\nPaulinas, to which he often refers in explana-\\ntion of his theory, he gives the following state-\\nment Detecta jam recensione una continuan-\\ndum est illud, quod supra descripsimus codi-\\ncum examen, donee nullus supersit notatu\\ndignus, quin ad certam aliquam codicum clas-\\nsem relatus sit. Quot vero constitui possunt\\nclasses, tot numerari debent recensiones, Ne\\ntamen praeter rem augeatur recensionum nu-\\nmerus, eo elaborandum est, ut codices omnes\\nin quinque aut sex classes generaliores dispes-\\ncantur, totidem recensiones insigniter inter se\\ndiiferentes, et tempore locove a se invicem se-\\njunctas, reprsesentantes. Quo facto classium\\nsingularum codices, si opus sit, in duas flu-\\nI use the word text for recensio as better expressing the\\nsense of it than the word edition. Should we not rather\\nterm the corrected text of Horace published by Bentley the\\ntext than the edition of Bentley? And that of the New Testa-\\nment published by Griesbach the text than the edition of\\nGriesbach\\n(C\\n(C", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "ce\\na\\n(C\\nit\\n19\\nresve familias porro distribui poterunt, qua-\\nrum quaeque codices propinquitate proximos\\ncomplectatur. Ssepe enim recensionis ejus-\\ndem plures et diversas iv^oiri^i discernere licet,\\nin lectionibus maxime ^^^a^ax^Tti^to-Tuta?, quibus\\nhaec recensio ab aliis distinguitur, plerumque\\nconsonantes sed multis tamen in locis ita\\ninter se dissidentes, ut nova quadam distribu-\\ntione opus esse videatur We here perceive,\\nthat he supposes the existence o^ five or six dis-\\ntinct classes but, in an edition of the Gospels\\npublished the same year, he acknowledges the\\nextreme difficulty of ascertaining their precise\\nnumber, and of referring to each its appropriate\\nmanuscripts. Quot^ is the language which\\nhe uses, fuerint recensiones Ubi, quando, et\\nqiiomodo, (\\\\n?tX\\\\het earum orta sit? Quantum,\\npretium cuivis statuendum sit Quodnam pon-\\ndus habeant ejus additiones, omissiones, mu-\\ntationes vocabulorum phrasiumque? Ad quam-\\nnam potissimum recensionem pertineat anti-\\nquiorum codicum quilibet? (nam recentiorum\\nfere omnium textus seque ac textus receptus e\\nSect. I. 19.\\n02\\n(C\\n(C", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "20\\npluribus recensionibus misere inter se mixtis\\ncompilatus est.) Ad quamnain recensionem re-\\nferenda sit, qucclibet e lectionibus ejus loci, de\\ncujus genuina lectione quaeritur Per harum\\naliarumque similium quaestionum solutionem\\npervenietur demum ad earn viam, quae ad ac-\\ncuratam atque certam sacri textus emendatio-\\nnem ducit. Sed haec via [quarti unice veram esse\\ncertissime mihi persuasum est) adeo est wipe-\\ndita hactenus, tantisque difficultatibus obstru-\\neta, ut aliam qucRvere inv itus sape cogererT\\nAgain: Inter omnes recensiones Evangelio-\\nrum, (de quibus solis hie loquimur) forte satis\\nmultas, C.P\\nBut, notwithstanding the consciousness of this\\nvariety, he confines himself solely to the triple\\ndivision of an Alexandrine, a Western, and a\\nByzantine, text.\\nMay we not therefore hence conclude, that,\\nfeeling the task of accurately fixing the true\\nnumber of classes greater than he expected he\\nP Prajf. p, xii,\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2J Indeed, in the first volume of his Symbola Critical he\\nunreservedly confesses, from a defect of materials, his inade-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "m\\nsatisfied himself with what he deemed an ap-\\nproximation to the truth, and was contented to\\nfinish, as he began, with only three But does\\nthis approximation afford a sufficiently solid ba-\\nsis for a durable superstructure Can it furnish\\nany thing like complete satisfaction It is ad-\\nmitted, that there exist more than three princi-\\npal texts, perhaps five or six but three only,\\nquacy to the undertaking. He published in 1777. his Cura\\nin Epistolas Paulinas, of which he thus speaks in his preface\\nto the second edition of the Gospels printed the same year\\nPrimas hujus theoriae lineas duxi in Curis meis in historiam\\ntextus Epidolarum Paulinarum Grceci, quarum specimen\\nprius nuper Jenae 1777. prodiit, posterlus mox sequetur.\\nPraef. p. 15. But in the first volume of his Symbolce Criticce,\\nwhich appeared in 1785, he thus applogizes for the non-ap-\\npearance of the second part of his Curae so long promised to\\nthe public Morem sic geram, ex parte saltem, viris doctis,\\na quibiis jam scepius, publice etiam, admonitus fui, ut ad\\nCurarum in historiam textus Grccci Epistolarum Paulina-\\nrum, quarum specimen primum, ante plures annos edidi,\\ncontinuationem me accingerem. Sed ingenue fateor, deesse\\nmihi adhuc subsidia nonnulla, quibus carere non potest,\\nqui discrimina non solum ac indolem, sed quod difficilius\\nest, historiam etiam, origines ac vicissitudines recensionum\\nveterum omnium ita declarare vult, ut asserta sua peritis\\narbitris probaturura se esse sperare baud immerito queat.\\nPraef.\\nc 3", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "22\\nfrom an avowed deficiency of materials, are\\nbrought under consideration. He states^ that the\\nonly true way of proceeding with confidence\\nand accuracy is to ascertain the number, anti-\\nquity, and value of all, and then to refer every\\nmanuscript to its appropriate text but that he\\nwas compelled, from the extreme intricacy and\\ndifficulty of the undertaking, to seek another path.\\nPerplexed however and obstructed as the true way\\nmay prove, it seems necessary to trace and pur-\\nsue it, if we are desirous of arriving at certainty\\nin our speculations. A plainer and a shorter\\ntrack may indeed be more practicable and less\\ntroublesome; but how can we be assured, that it\\nwill not lead us into error and delusion How\\ncan we confidently determine the exact classifi-\\ncation of a manuscript, when we have profess-\\nedly omitted to take into our computation two\\nor perhaps three texts, the existence of which\\nwe admit, but with the character of which we\\nare unacquainted Were we to suppose the pub-\\nlication of six different editions of the same\\nwork, all from incidental causes frequently va-\\nrying from each other^ and that a copy had", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "23\\nbeen taken from one of them, but from which of\\nthem we are ignorant should we, in ascertain-\\ning to which edition the copy belonged, think\\nour investigation perfect or satisfactory, if we\\nsimply compared it with only one half of the\\nnumber, neglecting altogether a comparison with\\nthe other half? And would not the difficulty be\\nconsiderably increased, if we found, that the\\ncopy to be compared (as is supposed to be the\\ncase in the particular instance under contempla-\\ntion) was not taken from one of the six editions\\nimmediately, but mediately, through the chan-\\nnel of other copies, which had for a long period\\nbeen successively transcribed from each other,\\nand had strangely confused together the read-\\ning s of one edition with those of another?\\nBut it may be said, that, although we possess\\nnot sufficient data to discover the precise text\\nfrom which a manuscript was indisputably de-\\nrived, it is at least of some importance that we\\nare enabled to ascertain its proximate relation\\nto one out of three. Theoretically perhaps this\\nspecies of comparative affinity may appear per-\\nfectly harmless not so the practical use to\\nc 4", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "24\\nwhich Griesbach apphes it. He every where\\nenumerates its readings as evidences of the text\\nto which he refers it^ and employs them to sup-\\nply the defect^ or augment the weight, of more\\ndirect testimony. But will so loose a line of\\nproceeding bear the touch of a rigid examina-\\ntion? Can its proximate be correctly represented\\nas its real affinity To prove that it cannot, I\\nwould argue in the following manner: Gries-\\nbach asserts, that the Alexandrine and Western\\ntexts have many readings in common. On the\\nsupposition therefore that a manuscript had one\\nhundred readings common to both texts, besides\\nfifty more peculiar to the Alexandrine, he would\\nimmediately pronounce it to be of the Alexan-\\ndrine class. But put the case, that the hundred\\nreadings, which the Alexandrine text possessed\\nin common with the Western, were lost, (and\\ngreater losses it is presumed have taken place,)\\nwhat would then prove his conclusion He\\nmust upon his own principles assign it to the\\nWestern class because it would be now dis-\\ntinguished by one hundred peculiar readings of\\nthis class, and by only fifty of the other and", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "25\\nbeing thus arranged^ it would side with the\\nWestern, even in direct opposition to the Alex-\\nandrine, text, to which it really belonged. If\\nsuch a result accrue from a deficiency in our\\nknowledge of a part of a text, less surely cannot\\nbe attributable to a deficiency in our knowledge\\nof a whole one and not of one only, but of two\\nor even three.\\nNothwithstanding therefore the great respect\\nwhich I entertain for the abilities of Griesbach,\\nI must be permitted to enter my protest against\\nthe substitution of absolute decision for con-\\njectural probability and it is principally to this\\npoint that my observations are directed. If ob-\\nstacles to a more complete investigation exist,\\nwe may lament, but cannot annihilate them\\nby shutting our eyes we shall indeed cease to\\nbehold, but not to surmount them. The only\\ntrue way of proceeding would be, as Griesbach\\nhimself admits, to establish a previous discri-\\nmination of every peculiar text otherwise it\\nis to be apprehended that we are treading not\\nupon solid ground, but upon a critical quick-\\nsand.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "26\\nI must not however be understood, either\\nhere or elsewhere, as expressing my own con-\\nviction relative to the existence of more texts\\nthan three, or even of that limited number. It\\nis the hypothesis of Griesbach which I am dis-\\ncussing, and not my own. To that therefore,\\nand to the tenor of his argument in defence of\\nit, I necessarily adapt both my language and\\nmy reasoning.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "27\\nCHAP. III.\\nGneshacKs Mode of Classification, No standard\\nText, Principle of Classification fallacious.\\nInaccuracy of his Calculations, Corrected\\nStatement,\\nI HAVE remarked, that the three texts, to\\nwhich Griesbach confines his attention, and to\\nwhich he refers all Manuscripts, Versions, and\\nFathers, are the Alexandrine, the W^estern, and\\nthe Byzantine. Under the last he ranks the\\nreceived text, which he considers as the most\\nrecent and least valuable of the three.\\nIn deciding upon the classification of a ma-\\nnuscript, he is guided by its various readings,\\nor departure from the received text. These he\\ncompares with what he conceives to be the va-\\nrious readings of the other texts, viz. the Alex-\\nandrine and the Western and in whichsoever\\nof the two he finds the sum of the agreements\\nto exceed the sum of the differences, to that he\\nassigns it. If the readings are few and not ge-\\nnerally coincident with either, of course it re-\\nmains with the Byzantine,", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "28\\nAn early and tolerably pure specimen of the\\nAlexandrine text he supposes to exist in the\\nquotations of Origen. These therefore, distin-\\nguishing their various readings even in the mi-\\nnutest points, he has taken the pains to collect,\\ndigest, and publish, as a general exemplar of\\nthat text, in passages where they occur. The\\nWestern he thinks discoverable in the Latin\\nversion, and several Greek manuscripts evidently\\nconformable with it.\\nTo point out the principal ground of his clas-\\nsification, it seems only necessary to give the\\nfollowing short extracts from his Symbolae Cri-\\nticae. Comparing with the quotations of Origen\\nthe various readings of the manuscript denoted\\nby the letter L, he thus expresses himself:\\nQuantus sit inter Origenem et codicem L con-\\nsensus, inde patet, quod conveniunt inter se\\n519ies (saltem 481), diiferunt autem non nisi\\n261 aut potius 202 locis. Hoc numero demto\\nab illo, supersunt consonantiae 317- Eandem\\nigitur recensionem exhibere codicem hunc at-\\nque Origenem, recte supra statuimus, praeser-\\ntim cum consentiant non in solis minutiis, id", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "c\\n(C\\n29\\nquod casu accidere potuisset, verum etiam in\\nlectionibus gravioribus, et characteristicis sed\\nneque in his tantum, quod suspicionem inter-\\npolationis ex Origenis scriptis movere forte\\nposset, verum in literarum quoque apicibus et\\nminutissimis discrepantiis In proof also\\nthat the manuscript marked A belongs to the\\nsame class in the Epistles of St. Paul, he thus\\nstates the affinities of its various readings E\\nvariantibus lectionibus e codice A decerptis,\\n110 consonant Origenianis, 6o autem ab his\\ndifferunt\\\\ Upon the excess therefore of the\\nagreements above the disagreements discoverable\\nin the various readings of a manuscript it is\\nthat his system is founded. Such then being\\nthe groundwork of his system, let us now con-\\nsider its accuracy.\\nThe various readings of a manuscript in its\\ndeparture from the received text might indeed\\nafford the surest basis for a classification, were\\nthe received to be considered as the standard\\ntext, with which all manuscripts generally ac-\\nVol.i. p. 125, 126. s Ibid. p. 135,", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "30\\ncorded, but from which they occasionally, and\\nonly occasionally, deviated. Upon this suppo-\\nsition the character of such occasional devia-\\ntions would seem to form the sole object of in-\\nvestigation. But Griesbach allows the existence\\nof no standard text, and argues that the re-\\nceived, as principally conformable with the By-\\nzantine, is the worst of the three. When there-\\nfore he stepped out of the path trodden by pre-\\nceding critics, and annihilated the credit of the\\nreceived text as a common standard, even as-\\nserting its inferiority to every other, ought he\\nnot likewise to have departed from their accus-\\ntomed mode of solely contemplating in manu-\\nscripts their variations from this because the\\nobject of his research simply appears to have\\nbeen, not the character of particular deviations\\nfrom any individual text, but the general coin-\\ncidences of a manuscript with one text above\\nanother\\nFew writers express themselves more dispas-\\nsionately than Griesbach, or more remarkably\\nunite modesty of statement with confidence in\\nopinion. If however my view of the subject be", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "31\\nright, his must indisputably be wrong, and con-\\nfidence itself should give way to conviction.\\nBut I may be told, that by confining his cal-\\nculations to the various readings of the received\\ntext, he did not mean to represent that text as\\na standard, and that the result would have been\\nprecisely the same, had he taken into considera-\\ntion the various readings of any other text.\\nTo this however I cannot assent. For, put-\\nting out of the question every idea of excellence\\nin the use of the word standard^ still I main-\\ntain, that had he limited his observations to the\\nvarious readings of another text instead of the\\nByzantine, the result would have been very dif-\\nferent. Let us try the experiment with the.\\nAlexandrine, which, being in his judgment the\\nmost ancient and valuable, we might have pre-\\nsumed would have been originally selected for\\nthis purpose.\\nThe manuscript marked A he represents as\\nbelonging to the Alexandrine class in the Epi-\\nstles of St. Paul, because out of one hundred\\nand seventy deviations from the received text, it\\nagrees one hundred and ten times with Origen,", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "32\\nand differs from him only sixty. Now let us\\nturn the scale^ and institute a comparison found-\\ned upon its variations, not from the received\\ntext, but from the Alexandrine, or the quota-\\ntions of Origen. Griesbach states, that the ma-\\nnuscript A differs both from Origen and from\\nthe received text sixty times. He also informs\\nus^, that it differs from Origen alone, when it\\nOrigenes dissentit a textu recepto 57ies, ubi e codici-\\nbus A et C nulla profertur lectionis varietas. His taraen\\naddi possunt lectiones 39^ in quibus Origenes sibi non\\nconstat. Inter has lectiones 96 sunt nonnuUae singulares,\\nquas nusquam nisi apudOrigenem in venire adhuc licuit j aliae\\nvero in aliis quoque codicibus, patribus et versionibus re-\\nperiuntur. Symbolae Criticae^ vol. i. p. 134. I have taken\\ninto the computation the inconstant readings of Origen, in\\nconformity with the example of Griesbach, for this plain\\nreason j because, vrhere he sometimes reads with and some-\\ntimes against the common text, it is most probable that the\\ninconstancy arose, not from Origen himself, but from the\\ncircumstance of his transcribers or editors having been most\\nconversant with the common text, and having therefore in-\\nadvertently, or perhaps from partiality, substituted it. Thus\\nGriesbach remarks, Si vero consentit cum textu vulgo re-\\ncepto, a librariis aut editoribus operum Origenis, vulgato\\ntextui adsuetis, invito Adamantio, obtrusa esse judicatur.\\nIbid. p. 131.\\niii", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "33\\nagrees with the received text, ninety-slx times.\\nAdding therefore these numbers together, we\\nperceive that the deviations of A from Origen,\\nor the Alexandrine text, amount to one hundred\\nand fifty-six in all. But is it not evident, that\\nout of these it agrees with the received or By-\\nzantine text, when it differs from Origen, ninety-\\nSIX times, and dissents from it only sixty The\\nconclusion therefore is unavoidable, and we\\nseem compelled upon this calculation to class\\nthe manuscript under the Byzantine text, as\\nwe were upon the other calculation under the\\nAlexandrine so that a diametrically opposite\\nresult takes place.\\nNor is the case different under similar circum-\\nstances with the Ephrem manuscript, marked\\nC, which Griesbach represents as completely\\nAlexandrine. This he states to have one hun-\\n^E codlce C laudantur lectiones 96 consonantes cum\\nOrigene, et 20 tantum discrepantes ab eo. Symbolae, vol. i.\\np. 135. I am- aware that this instance is not equally strong\\nbecause we cannot be so certain of the agreements of C with\\nthe received text^ as of those ascribed to A3 but it at least\\naffords presumptive evidence.\\nD\\nt", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "34\\ndred and sixteen various readings in the Epi-\\nstles of St. Paul, of which ninety-six accord with\\nOrigen, and twenty only dissent from him an\\napparently strong and sufficient proof of its\\nclassification. But if we take the Alexandrine\\ntext for the standard, and add to the twenty\\nreadings, in which C dissents both from Origen\\nand from the received text, ninety-six more al-\\nready quoted, in which C as well as A dissent\\nfrom Origen alone, when they agree with the\\nreceived text, it will then follow, that out of one\\nhundred and sixteen deviations of C from Ori-\\ngen, ninety-six accord with the Byzantine text,\\nand tiuenty only dissent from it, the exact pro-\\nportion which upon the adverse mode of calcula-\\ntion before proved it to belong to the Alexan-\\ndrine, but which now consigns it to the Byzan-\\ntine. And it should be particularly remarked,\\nthat these two are considered by Griesbach as\\nthe principal and least adulterated manuscripts\\nof the Alexandrine class in the Epistles of St.\\nPaul extant, and that by the degree of con-\\nformity with these he regulates the character of\\nother manuscripts.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "35\\nFrom the preceding observations therefore it\\nappears, that the principle adopted by Gries-\\nbach can only lead to a fallacious conclusion,\\nand that the same manuscript must by one\\nmode of applying it be attributed to one class,\\nand by another mode to another.\\nBut it may be further remarked, that Gries-\\nbach himself seems not perfectly satisfied with\\nhis own manner of computation for in a sub-\\nsequent part of his Symbolae Criticae he hints,\\nthat it would perhaps be proper to subjoin the\\ndifferences of a manuscript, when it reads with\\nthe received text against the Alexandrine, to its\\ndifferences when it reads against both, although\\nin the instances given he uniformly limits his\\ncalculations to the latter. He is ascertaining\\nthe character of the Colbert manuscript marked\\n17 for which purpose he compares it, not as\\nbefore with Origen, but with the readings of A\\nor C, considered as genuine representatives of\\nthe Alexandrine text. After having drawn his\\nconclusion in the usual manner, he adds At-\\nque si posterioribus (that is, the peculiar\\nreadings of the Colbert manuscript, dissenting\\nD 2", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "cc\\nce\\n36\\nfrom both texts) vel maxime addas lectiones\\ncu?n vulgar i textu contra Alexandrmos con-\\nsentientes^ nihilo tamen minus Alexandrina-*\\nrum lectionum multo major est^ quam dissen-\\ntium ab Alexandrinis^ numerus He does\\nnot indeed surmise that such an addition is ab-\\nsolutely necessary nor indeed is it but ap-\\npears at least to entertain a floating suspicion of\\nits propriety. Here, it is true, it would not, if\\ncalculated according to his numbers, have al-\\ntered the character of the manuscript imme-\\ndiately under consideration but apply it, even\\nthus calculated, to the manuscripts A C, which,\\ninstead of being simply esteemed accessaries to\\nOrigen, are at once elevated into the rank of\\nprincipals, and how will the case then stand?\\nThe manuscript A, we have seen, has ninety-\\nsix readings differing from one text alone, and\\nsixty differing from both texts. These numbers\\ncombined make one hundred and Jifty -sice read-\\nings, which, opposed to the one hundred and ten\\nagreements, leave a balance against the union\\nSymbolae Criticae^ vol. ii. p. 135.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0048.jp2"}, "49": {"fulltext": "37\\nwith Ori gen of ybr/y C also has ninety-six\\nreadings differing from one text alone, and\\ntwenty differing from both, which to 7^ether\\nmake one hundred and sixteen readings, and\\nthese opposed to the ninety-six agreements leave\\na balance against the same union of twenty.\\nThus, upon ground which he himself consi-\\nders as at least fairly admissible, he experiences\\nanother failure in the exemplification of his\\ntheory.\\nIn all the preceding references I have pre-\\nsumed upon the accuracy of Griesbach, and\\nconsidered the numbers which he assigns on\\nevery occasion as correct. I must now take the\\nliberty of stating, that we must not place too\\nmuch confidence in the supposed accuracy of\\nhis calculations. Far am I from suspecting his\\nfidelity but I must confess, that I more than\\nsuspect him of inadvertency. As I certainly can-\\nnot hope, and indeed ought not, to be believed\\nwithout proof^ I will endeavour to substantiate\\nthe charge.\\nA circumstance upon which he seems to lay\\nconsiderable stress, printing his account of it in\\nD 3", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0049.jp2"}, "50": {"fulltext": "38\\nitalics, is the union of the manuscripts A C with\\nOrigen in seventy-five out of eighty-eight places;\\nbut here he is indisputably inaccurate. His\\nvyrords are these Inter lectiones illas 88 codi-\\ncihus A et C coimnunes, sunt 75, quibus suffra-\\ngatur Origenes, et 13 tantum, a quibus ab-\\nhorret^r The thirteen differences alluded to\\nhe gives in detail but besides these, seventeen\\nmore at least appear to have escaped his eye,\\nwhich I have subjoined in a note^: so that in-\\nSymbolae Criticse, vol. i. p. 136. The following are the\\n13 readings given by Griesbach. Romans xiv. 9. where A C\\nhave xat f ^r^crfv, Origen has koli ocyecrtYj. 1 Cor. i. 28. )ca(,\\nix. 20. 4-/ o^ wv aurog vtto vo^qv. x. 2. sS aTrrto ^Tjcrav for\\nitctTtrKTOLvro. Ibid. 33. rvy.(po^oy for TV(^(p\u00c2\u00a3pov. xi.5. auryjs for\\nkavrrjS. Ibid. 29. aya^ w;. xv. 54. ^vr^rov rouro evSvcrY^raj rijv\\na^avaonav xoci ro (p^aprov rovro Bv^v(rr^ra\\\\ a p^a.p(TiOLv for ro\\n^oL^fov rovro EvSvcr/rajf cK^^oLpriav xoa ro ^vrjrov rovro ev^v-\\nG-rjrouj rYjV oc^avaa-^ccy. Galat. ii. 9.+/^ev\u00c2\u00ab iv. 23.=r^5 v. 19.\\n=zij^oi^\u00c2\u00a3ioLf, Ephes.iii. G.-f-Ivjcou after Xoirra;. iv. 8. )ca\\ny The seventeen readings omitted by him are these Ro-\\nmans vii. 14. (rapnivos for CQLpy.iY.05. xi. 21.=|XTj 7ra;^, Origen\\nhas zQ-ocroy ^a.\\\\Kov and Tsoruj inKzov, 1 Cor. i. 20. \u00e2\u0096\u00a0=rovrov.\\niv. 9. or/. Ibid. 21. ^\u00c2\u00a7a.vry)ros for G^pa.orrjros. (A C Dam. in\\nWetstein. Woide Cod. Alex unnoticed by Griesbach. It\\noccurs again Coloss. iii. 12. A C F 31, 39 unnoticed also\\nby Griesbach.) vii. 7. for q$ twice, ix, 20.4-,aT^ ooy (x-vrog uVd", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0050.jp2"}, "51": {"fulltext": "39\\nstead of only thirteen instances of discordance\\nhe should have given thirty Of the additional\\nseventeen some indeed may appear unimportant,\\nvoaov. Ibid. 21. xgpoavw for xs^^Tjcrcy. xii. 6.=\u00c2\u00a3 rr;. Ibid. 24.\\nv rrsfov[j.syM for u rrs\u00c2\u00a7ouvri. xiii. 8. uaitrei for sKitntrfi, 2 Cor.\\ni. 12. -hrou before ^sov. ii. 2. =ecrr v. Hahet Or: note of\\nGriesbach. Galat. iii. 10. -fort. iv. 24. =aL Philip, ii. 5.\\n(ppovaiTS for (ppovsicr^w. Ibid. 9. +ro. 2 Tim. ii. 21. =Ka\\nHahet Orig. ter. Note of Griesbach.\\nBesides the above there are nineteen more, in which Ori-\\ngen reads inconstantly, sometimes with A C, and sometimes\\nwith the received text. But Griesbach doubtless included\\nthese in the coincidences of A G with Origen) as he expressly\\nstates, that he included six others in the coincidences of A\\nwithout C Ex his 35 lectionibus sunt 6, in quibus Ori-\\ngenes inconstans est. Vol, i. p. 135.\\nThe extreme toil and irksomeness of making extracts of\\nthis kind is so apt to confuse the eye, and weary the mind,\\nthat the inaccuracy of Griesbach is not perhaps so remarkable\\nas it may at first appear. And as these discrepancies had es-\\ncaped him, it is possible that others also may have escaped\\nme. Nor will he be found always consistent with himself,\\nif a comparison be made between the passages alleged, and\\nthe notes of his own Testament. Thus in his reference to\\nEphes, iii. 6. he says in his Symbolae Criticae Post Xpia-TM\\nadjicitur lojcrou in A C Copt. Vulg. and ranks it among the\\ndisagreements of Origen with A C 3 but no such note occurs\\nin either edition of his New Testament. In Wetsteia how-\\never the circumstance is marked. I will add another instance\\nD 4", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0051.jp2"}, "52": {"fulltext": "40\\nbut they are not more so than several of those\\nwhich he has himself noticed for what can be\\nmore trivial than the change of the into o in the\\nword (7V[x(p\u00c2\u00a3^ov. But it should be recollected, that\\nhe regards minutiae of this sort as sometimes\\nstrongly characterizing the country, age, talent,\\nand fidelity of a transcriber, as well as the class\\nof a manuscript. Hujusmodi minutiae, he re-\\nmarks, utilissime a criticis in subsidium ad-\\nhibentur ad investigandum librarii, qui codi-\\ncem scripsit, ingenium, et ad indagandam ejus\\npatriam, aetatem, peritiam, fidem, necnon ad\\ncognoscendam exemplaris, e quo codex ductus\\nest, indolemV Indeed it is the trivial cha-\\nracter of the readings quoted which he himself\\nlabours particularly to point out, commencing\\nwith these words Pleraeque lectiones, in qui-\\nbus discedit Origenes a codicum A et C inter\\nse consentientium lectione, exigui aut nullius\\nmomenti sunt. This also may be the case\\na\\n6S\\nIn his New Testament, Phil. ii. 9. he remarks, -f-ro A B C\\nOrig. but in his Symbolae Critic2e he assigns no reading of\\nthe kind to Origen.\\nSymbolae Criticae, vol. i. p. 74,", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0052.jp2"}, "53": {"fulltext": "41\\nwith a few (I have remarked but one) of those,\\nwhich are added as having escaped his ob-\\nservation but certainly is not so with the re-\\nmainder, most of which are readings common\\nto A C with manuscripts of the Western text\\nand many of them readings which he himself\\ndeems preferable to those of the received text\\nand that no mistakes might occur in my ex-\\ntracts, I have taken care to verify them by the\\nvery text of Origen, which he selected and pub-\\nlished in his Symbolge Criticse.\\nyTo dwell minutely upon the inaccuracies of\\ny Accuracy however in collation, where it is easily ob-\\ntainable, may be expected. Griesbach complains, and justly\\ncomplains in this respect, of the mistakes of Wetstein but\\nis he himself altogether free from censure The Boernerian\\nmanuscript was, published by Matthaii many years before the\\nappearance of his last edition, and he notices the publication\\nof it in his preface. Yet have I observed, solely in those\\npassages of St. Paul s Epistles to which the quotations of\\nOrigen are applicable, more than ninety omissions of its\\nreadings, many of which at least should have appeared even\\nin a critical edition of the New Testament professedly\\nabridged. At other times variations are marked, not to be\\nfound in the manuscript. Thus 1 Cor. ii. 15. -f z a A D E F\\nG c. 2 Cor. iii. 10. ov for ou$b A C D E F G c. But the\\nmanuscript G has no such readings. Both are blunders co-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0053.jp2"}, "54": {"fulltext": "42\\nan author, engaged in so multifarious and per-\\nplexing an undertaking as Griesbach, may ap-\\npear perhaps a little fastidious. I will therefore\\ncontent myself with subjoining only one or two\\ninstances more, from many which I could col-\\nlect, to prove how cautious we must be in too\\nimplicitly trusting to his statements. The ar-\\nticle ccl before \u00c2\u00a7vo ^j\u00c2\u00ab^\u00c2\u00bbxai Gal. iv. 24. he rejects.\\nIn the first edition of his Testament he says,\\nA C D E F G c. Orig. In the last edition\\nit stands thus: =ABCDEFG c. Orig.\\n3IS. but, in his published quotations of Origen,\\nhe marks no variation at all from the received\\ntext. Now it seems, that in his first edition he\\npied from Wetstein. I make no remark upon numerous omis-\\nsions of G reading alone, or with F only but why is G\\nomitted in such readings as these 3 1 Cor. v. 7. srv^y) for\\ns^v^ri A D E F I 7, c. and vii. 13. a^sa-y} for apsasi A B D\\nE F 21. 46? It certainly coincides here: nor perhaps can a\\nsufficient reason be assigned, why Griesbach should adopt\\nfrom Wetstein so insignificant a rariation as this, 1 Cor viii.\\n5. ol X\u00c2\u00a3yo[j.\u00c2\u00a3voi for Xsyofj^svoi F G Mt. g and yet reject the\\nfollowing more important one, where G equally appears, (im-\\nportant 1 mean as indicative of its class 3) Galat. v. 25. iryBv-\\n{/.an ^oo^sv for ^WjU^sy Trvavf/.ccTi D E F G Vulg. unless indeed\\nhe overlooked it. But it seems probable that he never col-\\nlated the MS. at all.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0054.jp2"}, "55": {"fulltext": "43\\nrested his assertion of the omission of ai by Ori-\\ngen upon the authority of Wetstein, whose\\nwords are, Origenes contra Celsum, p. 193.\\nbut, upon turning to the passage in Spencer s\\nedition, which Wetstein used, we nevertheless\\nfind oci inserted in the text. Before his second\\nedition, we may presume, from the words Or,\\nMS, that he more fully investigated the fact,\\nand discovered that it was at least wanting in\\nFor the manuscript as well as printed readings of Ori-\\ngen, he depends upon the Benedictine edition. Evolventi\\nstatim pjitet utrum omnes operum Origenis editiones et\\nmanuscripti codices dictum biblicum, ab On gene excitatum,\\niisdem verbis exhibeant^ an vero lectionis discrepantia in ip-\\nsis observata sit a Benedictinis editoribus. Symb. Crit, v. ii.\\np. 231. But in the present instance at least he strangely mis-\\ntakes the evidence of the Benedictine editors. On another occa-\\nsion also he gives their evidence, not indeed incorrectly, but\\npartially. In Philip, iii. 10. on the word a viJ.iJ^op^ovy.evos he\\nremarks, (rviJiy.op(pi^oy.syo$ A B D Orig. MS, Now the Bene-\\n(^ictines print it rvfji.[j^op(poviJ.\u00c2\u00a3voif but add the following note\\nIta codd. Regius et BasiHensis. Duo codd. Anglicani et\\nHosschelius in textu crya/xop:pi^oju,\u00c2\u00a3vo^. He notwithstand-\\ning takes no notice of the Paris and Basil MSS. but gives\\nthe reading of the two English 6nes, as that of the MSS. in\\ngeneral without reserve, as well in his Symbolze Criticae as in\\nhis Testament.\\nf{", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0055.jp2"}, "56": {"fulltext": "44\\nmanuscripts. This we may presume, but the\\nvery reverse is the truth for the passage is not\\nonly found in the edition of Origen, which he\\nused with ocl^ as he himself correctly quotes\\nthe verse in his Symbolae, but a note also is\\nadded by the editors expressly stating, that, al-\\nthough Tarinus omits it, it nevertheless occurs\\nin manuscripts apud Tarinum dcsunt at $vo,\\nqu(B habentur in MSSr How could a writer\\nof Griesbach s talent and diligence blunder so\\negregiously! The reader perhaps will think a\\nsingle instance more sufficient.\\nThe preposition uVo is substituted for oltco Ro-\\nmans xiii. 1. by A, and Griesbach in his first\\nedition adds, by Origen but in his last he\\nsays, Orig. ap. JVetstein, Here is his authority.\\nIn examining however the passage as given in\\nSpencers Origen, p. 421. to which Wetstein re-\\nfers, we perceive not the least colour for a va-\\nrious reading, it being clearly printed ^tto and not\\nuTTo, precisely as it is in the Benedictine edition,\\nthe Symbolae of Griesbach himself, and the re-\\nceived text. It is the more singular, that he\\nVol. i. p. 171. and 537. where alone it is read.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0056.jp2"}, "57": {"fulltext": "45\\nshould have been misled by Wetstein in those\\ninstances in which he might have so easily cor-\\nrected him^ when he was conscious of that cri-\\ntic s inaccuracy on so many other occasions\\nfor in the readings of a single manuscript^ he\\nprofesses to have discovered numerous errors\\nand omissions Correximus igitur non solum\\nhaud paucos Wetstenii errores, sed protulimus\\netiam plus mille lectiones, ab illo plane omis-\\nsas\\nUnder the persuasion therefore of the little\\ndependence to be placed upon Griesbach s cal-\\nculations, I have taken the pains to go over the\\nsame heavy ground myself, and to compare the\\nvarious readings of the manuscript A with the\\ntext of Origen published in the second volume\\nof the Symbolae a text, he observes, prse\\naliorum patrum textibus dignum, qui quan-\\ntum fieri potest accuratissime cognoscatur^.\\nThese, with other various readings in illustration\\nof the same argument, will be found in the Ap-\\npendix and from a computation with them we\\nshall perceive, that a very different result, with\\nSymbolae Critic\u00c2\u00ae, vol. i. p. 73. Vol. ii. p. 229-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0057.jp2"}, "58": {"fulltext": "46\\nrespect to the amount of the numbers^ will take\\nplace. Griesbach calculates the agreements of\\nA and Origen in their deviations from the re-\\nceived text at one hundred and ten, and their\\ndisagreements at sixty, and therefore classes A\\nunder the Alexandrine text. I make the agree-\\nments one hundred and fifty-four, including\\nforty-eight inconstant readings, and the disagree-\\nments one hundred and forty so that thus,\\neven according to his mode of investigating the\\nclass, there appears little or no preponderance\\nof the Alexandrine. But if we shift the ba-\\nlance, there will be a very considerable prepon-\\nderance of the Byzantine for then the agree-\\nments of A with the received text in its devia-\\ntions from Origen will be found to be four hun-\\ndred and forty-four; {L e, one hundred and nine-\\nty-nine constant, and two hundred and forty-five\\ninconstant, readings:) and the disagreements\\nwill be only one hVmdred and forty, leaving an\\nexcess of three hundred and four in favour of\\nthe Byzantine, against the Alexandrine, text.\\nI have deemed it unnecessary to take similar\\ntrouble with the manuscript C, because it is im-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0058.jp2"}, "59": {"fulltext": "47\\npossible to reason from it with any tolerable ac-\\ncuracy. Griesbach states it to be effaced in the\\nextreme, the parts of it disorderly arranged, as\\nwell as miserably confused, and totally illegible\\nmany pages together; whence he concludes, that\\nwe can form no just inference respecting it from\\nthe silence of Wetstein\\nThe difference between the amount of my\\nenumeration and that of Griesbach, particularly\\nin the passages where Origen reads alone in op-\\nposition both to the manuscript A and the re-\\nceived text, is remarkable. It is the more so,\\nbecause he professes to have carefully marked\\nthe variations of Origen In prim is vero lec-\\ntiones, in Graecis Origenis operibus occurren-\\ntes, diligenter a me collectas, sedulo notav i\\nAnd that the source, from which he extracted\\nthese industriously noted readings, may not be\\nmistaken, he refers in a note to the second vo-\\nQuam ob causam, si quaeratiir cuinam inter plures lec-\\ntiones discrepantes liber noster patrocinetur? ad Wetstenii\\nsilentium provocare nuiiquam licet. Symbolae Criticae,\\nvol. i. p. 5.\\nPreface to the New Testament^ p. 55.\\n(t\\nt(", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0059.jp2"}, "60": {"fulltext": "48\\nluine of his Symbolae Criticae, which furnishes\\nalso the very materials upon which my extracts\\nare founded In so dry and dull an investiga-\\ntion^ error perhaps is more or less unavoidable.\\nI trust however that it does not often, if at all,\\noccur in my own case; and that, should it occur,\\nthe same apology will be admitted for me, which\\nI am persuaded may with propriety be made\\nfor him, that it has not been intentional.\\nf My numbers are indeed necessarily somewhat larger than\\nhis, because I have not omitted, as he has done, the consi-\\nderation of passages, in which C, as well as A and Origen,\\nis defective. C is stated to be defective from Romans ii. 5. to\\niii. 21. ix. 6. x. 14. xi. 31. xiii. 10. From 1 Cor. vii. 18.\\nto ix. 6. xiii. 8,\u00e2\u0080\u0094 xv. 40. From 2 Cor. x. 9. to Galat. i. 20.\\nFrom Ephes. i. to ii. 18. iv. 17. Philip, i. 22. From Philip,\\niii. 5. to the end. From 1 Thess. ii. 9. to the end. From 1\\nTim. i. to iii. 9. v. 20. to the end.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0060.jp2"}, "61": {"fulltext": "49\\nCHAP. IV.\\nMore correct Mode of ascertaining the Class of\\na Manuscript. Comparison of A with Origen,\\nJVith G or the TVestern Text. Affinity of X\\nto the Byzantine greater than to the Western,\\nor the Alexandrine.\\nHAVING endeavoured to prove^ that Gries-\\nbach s mode of investigation is unsatisfactory,\\nand his statement of the number of readings in-\\naccurate, I might now close my observations,\\nleaving to him or to others the task of discover-\\ning a better exemphfication of the theory. But\\nas I have proposed to subjoin in an Appendix\\na more correct statement of the number of read-\\nings, confining myself indeed to those of one,\\nbut that a very important, manuscript I shall\\nhere also attempt to describe what appears to\\nme a more satisfactory mode of investigation\\nthan that which he has prosecuted.\\nUpon the presumption of Griesbach s hypo-\\nthesis, that other texts besides the three par-\\nticularly pointed out by him have a real exist-\\nence, although I do not admit even these, I have", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0061.jp2"}, "62": {"fulltext": "50\\nalready remarked, that perfect conviction is un-\\nattainable. If we suppose the existence of five\\nor six, but bring only three to a comparison, it\\nis manifest, that we cannot possibly determine\\nto which of the five or six any manuscript pro-\\nperly belongs but merely, that it possesses a\\nclosei affinity to one, than to the other two, of\\nthe three compared. This will prove the ut-\\nmost extent of our inquiry; but this perhaps we\\nmay consider as a sort of approximation to fact.\\nI nevertheless doubt, whether so much can cor-\\nrectly be admitted for if, after having thus\\npartially classed a manuscript, we proceed to\\ntread in the steps of Griesbach, to use it, either\\nalone or in conjunction with another of the same\\ndescription, as an exemplar of its class for the\\ncomparison of other manuscripts and to repre-\\nsent its readings, in the defect, or to the aug-\\nmentation, of collateral evidence, as the readings\\nof the text to which it is appropriated I very\\nmuch fear, that, instead of approximating to\\ntruth, we shall only be employed in propagating\\nerror. This too, it should be remarked, is most\\nto be apprehended in Griesbach s favourite text.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0062.jp2"}, "63": {"fulltext": "51\\nthe Alexandrine because, if it really be a dis-\\ntinct text, which I much doubt, it is the least\\ncomplete of the three, the quotations of Origen,\\nwhich are published in the Symbolae, being\\nonly applicable to particular parts of the New\\nTestament, and not to the whole.\\nWith this caution therefore premised, that I\\ndo not attempt a perfect investigation, I proceed\\nto detail what I conceive to be a more correct\\nmode of ascertaining the relative classification\\nof a manuscript, than that which Griesbach has\\nadopted. And, in order to bring my remarks\\nwithin a moderate compass, I shall limit them\\nto the classification of the manuscript A^ in the\\nEpistles of St. Paul. I have particularly selected\\nA, because upon this manuscript, in conjunction\\nwith C, (which I do not take into computation\\nfor reasons already assigned, viz. the very mu-\\ntilated and illegible state of its copy,) Griesbach\\nprincipally depends for Alexandrine readings of\\nThis manuscript is commonly called the Alexandrian,\\n\\\\)\u00e2\u0082\u00accause it was brought into England from Alexandria but\\neven the knowledge of the country, in which it was originally\\nwritten, is only attainable by conjecture.\\nE 2", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0063.jp2"}, "64": {"fulltext": "52\\nmanuscript authority in St. Paul s Epistles,\\nand because it therefore assumes a prominent\\nrank in his development of the theory. I also\\nconfine myself, in imitation of his example, to\\nits affinities m the Epistles of St, Paul alone,\\nbecause it is only in this portion of Scripture\\nthat he represents it as Alexandrine, referring it\\nin the Gospels to the Byzantine, and in the\\nActs, as well as Catholic Epistles, to the West-\\nern text. His words are In Evangeliis ex-\\nhi bet recensionem Constantinopolitanam seu\\nAsiaticam, recentiorem, multisque nullius pre-\\ntii lectionibus refertam; in Epistolis vero Pau-\\nlinis repraesentat Alexandrinam recensionem,\\nilia longe vetustiorem et praestantiorem in\\nActis denique et Epistolis Catholicis textum\\nsequitur passim ad Occidentalem recensionem^\\nLatinae versioni simillimam, conformatum s.\\nAnd in addition, that I may likewise bring the\\nWestern text into some sort of comparison, I\\ntake into consideration the readings of the Boer-\\nnerian manuscript marked G, which I have se-\\ne Symbolae Criticae, vol. i. p. 9.\\ncc\\n66\\n6i", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0064.jp2"}, "65": {"fulltext": "53\\nlected for the purpose, because it has been pub-\\nlished throughout, and is consequently capable\\nof a complete examination. From this, the alli-\\nance of which to the Western text may readily\\nperhaps be admitted, as it is interlined with a\\nLatin version, and bears internal marks of hav-\\ning been written in the west of Europe^, I have\\ntaken the pains to collect every peculiar reading\\nwhich I could discover, and have inserted the\\nwhole in the Appendix. It cannot indeed be\\nregarded as a pure specimen of the text to\\nw^hich it seems evidently to belong nor will\\nthis be said of the quotations from Origen but\\nIn the Latin translation the letters r, s, and t corre-\\nspond to that form, which is found in the Anglo-Saxon\\nalphabet a proof, that this manuscript was written in the\\nwest of Europe. Note of Dr. Marsh to Michaelis, vol. ii.\\npart i. p. 676. It is indeed mutilated in a few passages,\\nwhere A has the followino^ four various readintrs 1 Cor. iii.\\n10. sSijxa for rs^siKO,. Ibid. 13. +a,vro. vi. 10. =ou. Coloss.\\nii. 8. srai vi^acs for y^a^ srcci. But even upon the suppo-\\nsition that both manuscripts coincided in all these read-\\nings, the augmentation to the number of G would be\\nvery inconsiderable a circumstance however not very pro-\\nbable.\\ni\\nE 3", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0065.jp2"}, "66": {"fulltext": "54\\neach may at least serve for the purpose of a ge-\\nneral comparison, in the defect of a better.\\nGriesbach s mode of ascertaining: the class of\\na manuscript is, as I have observed, to compute\\nits various readings or deviations from the re-\\nceived text and if they prove numerous, to\\ntake it from the Byzantine, and to rank it under\\nthat text which appears principally to partici-\\npate in them. The inadequacy of this mode to\\nthe end proposed I have sufficiently pointed\\nout, and shall therefore take the liberty of sug-\\ngesting another.\\nThe object simply seems to be, to determine,\\nwith which out of three texts a manuscript has\\nthe greatest conformity. And this J[ presume\\ncan only be effected, not by considering the cha-\\nracter of its deviations from one particular text,\\nbut the separate sums of its agreements or dis-\\nagreements with all three each contrasted with\\nthe other. If we possessed three different and\\ndissimilar editions of the same book, and a copy\\ntaken from one of them, but from which we\\nknew not, and were desirous of ascertaining the\\nfact, how should we proceed? Should we not\\n1", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0066.jp2"}, "67": {"fulltext": "ys\\n55\\ncompare it with them all separately, and in\\nwhichsoever we found its affinities more or its\\ndifferences less, to that assign it The reasoning\\nis so obvious, that I am at a loss to conceive\\nhow any other could have been adopted.\\nI use the words agreements or disagreements y\\nbecause we shall perceive that both modes of\\ncomputation lead precisely to the same result.\\nI shall subjoin an example of both, by way of\\nillustration in a comparison of A with the Alex-\\nandrine and Byzantine texts, according to the\\nnumbers of Griesbach.\\nThe agreements of A with Origen, in passages\\nwhere they deviate from the Byzantine text, are\\nstated by him at one hundred and ten. The\\nvarious readings of Origen, where A sides with\\nthe Byzantine text, or in other words the agree-\\nments of A with the Byzantine text, where both\\ndeviate from Origen, are stated at ninety-six.\\nNow the latter sum subtracted from the former\\nleaves a remainder of only fourteen in favour of\\nOrigen or the Alexandrine text. Such is the\\nresult of the agreements. With respect to the\\ndisagreements an inverse mode of calculation\\nmust be pursued. The agreements of A with\\nE 4", "height": "3808", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0067.jp2"}, "68": {"fulltext": "56\\nOrigen, which are also deviations from the By^\\nzantine tewt, amount to one hundred and ten.\\nBesides these, A is said to deviate from both\\nOrigen and the Byzantine text sixty times.\\nNow these deviations united make one hundred\\nand seventy, which form the disagreements of A\\nwith the Byzantine text. In the same manner\\nthe agreements of A with the Byzantine text,\\nwhich are hkewise deviations from Origen^ are\\nstated at ninety-six. These added to the sixty\\ndeviations of A from both texts make together\\none hundred and fifty-six, which form the dis-\\nagreements of A with Origen or the Alexandrine\\ntext. Now if we subtract the latter number\\nfrom the former, that is, one hundred and fifty-\\nsix from one hundred and seventy, the remain-\\nder will he fourteen, exactly as in the preceding\\ninstance so that as before there appeared on\\nthe side of A with Origen fourteen more coin-\\ncidences, so now there appears on the same side\\nfourteen fewer discrepancies. Such is the result\\nof the disagreements and thus the agreements\\nand disagreements are both found perfectly ac-\\ncordant with each other.\\nPlain and simple as this species of elucidation", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0068.jp2"}, "69": {"fulltext": "57\\nseems to be, it nevertheless escaped the pene-\\ntrating eye of Griesbach, who, too much dazzled\\nperhaps by the splendour of intricate and perplex-\\ning research, overlooked what lay immediately\\nbefore him. When he threw his critical bowl\\namong the established theories of his predeces-\\nsors, he too hastily attempted to set up his own,\\nwithout having first totally demolished theirs\\nforgetting, that the very nerve of his criticism was\\na principle of hostility to every standard text.\\nPresuming then that the mode of comparison,\\nwhich I have proposed, is the most correct, I shall\\nenter upon an enlarged exemplification of it.\\nIf I am told at the outset, that the exempli-\\nfication will be needless, because an excess of\\nfourteen still remains to prove that the manu-\\nscript A is of the Alexandrine class, my answer\\nwill be, that I am not contending for the alli-\\nance of A to one class in preference to another,\\nbut solely for the true method of classification.\\nAnd even granting that I were, still might I re-\\nmark, not only that there is some difference be-\\ntween the numbers fourteen and fifty, the op-\\nposite result of his method of calculation and", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0069.jp2"}, "70": {"fulltext": "58\\nmine, but that possibly a more accurate investi-\\ngation of readings may produce a still greater\\ndifference.\\nIn proof of which assertion I proceed to con-\\nsider, according to the figures which will be\\nfound in the Appendix, the affinities of A first\\nwith the Byzantine and Alexandrine texts, and\\nsubsequently with the Byzantine and Western\\nand, in order that the correctness of the mode\\nmay more fully appear, I shall compare the ma-\\nnuscript both in its agreements and disagree-\\nments.\\nUpon the former species of comparison, the\\nagreements of A with the Byzantine text, where\\nOrigen reads alone, will be found to be four\\nhundred and forty-four, (reckoning, for reasons\\npreviously given, the inconstant readings.) On\\nthe other hand^ the agreements of A with Ori-\\ngen, where the Byzantine text reads alone, are\\nstated at one hundred and fifty-four, which of\\ncourse constitute the agreements of A with the\\nAlexandrine text. Deducting therefore the lat-\\nter from the former, viz. one hundred and fifty-\\nfour from four hundred and forty-four, the re-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0070.jp2"}, "71": {"fulltext": "59\\nmainder will be two hundred and ninety in fa-\\nvour of the affinities of A with the Byzantine\\ntext. Nor will the result be adverse, if we cal-\\nculate the disagreements. Here the deviations\\nof A in conjunction with the Byzantine text\\nfrom Origen will be, as before given, four hun-\\ndred and forty-foiir and if to these numbers\\nwe add the deviations of A alone in opposition\\nto both texts, amounting to one hundred and\\nforty, they will combined make five hundred\\nand eighty-four, which will be the disagreements\\nof A with the Alexandrine text. After a similar\\nmode the deviations of A in union with Origen\\nfrom the Byzantine text will appear to be one\\nhundred and fifty-four to which if we sub-\\njoin the deviations of A alone in opposition to\\nboth texts, stated at one hundred and forty, the\\namount will be two hundred and ninety-four,\\nand these form the disagreements of A with\\nthe Byzantine text. Now by subtracting one\\namount from the other, that is two hundred and\\nninety-four from five hundred and eighty-four,\\nthere will remain two hundred and ninety^ ex-\\nactly as in the case of the agreements.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0071.jp2"}, "72": {"fulltext": "60\\nFrom the foregoing comparison therefore of A\\nwith the Byzantine and Alexandrine text, it\\nseems manifest that its affinity to the Byzantine\\nis considerably greater than to the Alexandrine\\nnamely, by the excess of two hundred and\\nninety-five coincidences, or by the defect of the\\nsame number of discrepancies.\\nHaving thus established its alliance in one\\ninstance, let us next turn to the other, and com-\\npare it in like manner with the Byzantine and\\nWestern texts.\\nThe agreements in this case of A with the\\nByzantine text, where G or the Western reads\\nalone, appear to be two hundred and eighty\\nwhile the agreements of A with G or the West-\\nern text, where the Byzantine reads alone, are\\none hundred and twenty-three, which sum sub-\\ntracted from the preceding leaves a remainder\\nof one hundred and fifty -seven in support of the\\nalliance of A to the Byzantine. Upon a similar\\ncomputation of the disagreements, the deviations\\nof A in conjunction with the Byzantine text\\nfrom G or the Western, amounting to two hun-\\ndred and eighty, being added to the deviations", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0072.jp2"}, "73": {"fulltext": "61\\nof A from both, stated at one hundred and\\nsixty-nine, make together four hundred and\\nforty-nine. So also on the other side the de-\\nviations of A in conjunction with G from the\\nByzantine, amounting to one hundred and\\ntwenty-three, subjoined to the deviations of A\\nfrom both, stated at one hundred and sixty-\\nnine, produce a total of two hundred and ninety-\\ntwo and this latter amount subtracted from\\nthe foregoing leaves, as before, a remainder of one\\nhundred and fifty-seven in support of the same\\nalliance.\\nFrom these remarks therefore it appears, that\\nthe affinity of the manuscript A is much greater\\nto the Byzantine text, than either to the West-\\nern or to the Alexandrine. And from a ge-\\nneral review of the whole we may conclude, that,\\nin instituting a comparison of the kind, it is a\\npoint of indifference, whether we calculate by\\nthe agreements or the disagreements. The na-\\nture of the agreements cannot well be mistaken,\\nand that of the disagreements will readily be\\ncomprehended, when we recollect, that what\\nforms the agreements pf the manuscript with", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0073.jp2"}, "74": {"fulltext": "62\\none text, constitutes its disagreements with the\\nother, the sums being only transferred from side\\nto side and that, ahhough the amount of the\\ndeviations of the manuscript from both texts he\\nsubjoined, it is subjoined to each of the trans-\\nferred sums respectively, augmenting indeed\\ntheir numbers, but leaving their differences pre-\\ncisely as it found them.\\nAmong the various readings which I have\\ncollected in the Appendix for the purpose of\\nthis examination, several perhaps may occur in\\nappearance altogether unimportant. But, as I\\nhave already remarked, minutiae are by no\\nmeans overlooked, but carefully enumerated by\\nGriesbach himself, who on a similar occasion\\nobserves Ne minutias quidem v. c. articulos\\nadditos aut omissos, mutatum verhorum ordi-\\nnem^ c. negleximus, ut amoliremur suspicio-\\nnem, quasi cupide in seligendis lectionibus\\negissemus Nor have I rejected any upon\\nthe presumption, that they were mistakes solely\\nimputable to the ignorance or inadvertency of\\nSymbolae Criticae, vol. i. p. 123.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0074.jp2"}, "75": {"fulltext": "63\\nthe transcriber^ because errors of the most tri-\\nvial species by being copied acquire importance,\\nand because it is as probable that they will be\\ncommitted on one side as on the other, so as\\nnot to affect the general result that the tran-\\nscriber of a Byzantine or a Western manuscript\\nor father is as likely to have transgressed in\\nthis respect, as the transcriber of an Alexan-\\ndrine.\\nIn computing the affinities of A to the Alex-\\nandrine text, I have, in imitation of Griesbach,\\nadopted Origen for my exemplar. He however,\\nfor a reason not perhaps very obvious, unless in-\\ndeed it be with a view of increasing the number\\nof his readings, departs in the second volume of\\nhis Symbolae Criticae from his own rule pre-\\nviously proposed, and, abandoning Origen, takes\\nA or C for his exemplar. The effect produced\\nby this new mode of propagating classes from\\nwildings, in contempt of established usage, I\\nshall next proceed to consider, at the same time\\nhowever entering my solemn protest against it.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0075.jp2"}, "76": {"fulltext": "64\\nCHAP. V.\\nComparison of the Colbert Manuscript with A,\\nMistakes of GriesbacL Controverted Reading\\nI Tim. iii. l6. Existence of the Alexandrine\\nText prohlematicaL Conclusion,\\nSO highly rank the manuscripts A and C^ as\\nexemplars of the Alexandrine text, in the esti-\\nmation of Griesbach, that he represents the\\nreadings observable in each of them as readings\\npecuharly Alexandrine, and by them regulates\\nthe alliances of other manuscripts. He even\\nproceeds further, and admits the w^eight of their\\ntestimony as Alexandrines in his calculation of\\nprobabilities^ improbabilities^ and certainties for,\\nnotwithstanding his theory of classification, in\\ndeciding upon the purity of a reading, he seems\\nprincipally guided by critical conjecture. Of\\nthe second volume of his Symbolae Criticae, he\\nemploys no less a portion than from page 89 to\\npage 148, and from page 62 1 to page 640, in\\ncomparing the Colbert manuscript 17 w^ith ei-\\nther A or C as representatives of the Alexan-\\ndrine, and w^ith either D E F or G as repre-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0076.jp2"}, "77": {"fulltext": "65\\nsentatives of the Western, text endeavouring\\nat the same time to point out, from general\\nmaxims of criticism, by investigating the inter-\\nnal marks of validity in their respective read-\\nings, the relative habits and value of both those\\ntexts. But, as I do not acknowledge his pre-\\nmises, I cannot subscribe to his conclusions.\\nAmong the readings of A or C, described as\\npeculiarly Alexandrine, occur occasionally some\\ncollected from the writings of the Western Fa-\\nthers yet is their Alexandrine peculiarity still\\nmaintained, because neither of the Western ma-\\nnuscripts D E F G is found in the catalogue.\\nThus in 1 Cor. ix. 1, a transposition of the\\nwords oux zkfxi BXtv^spog cux olttocttoXo; takes\\nplace in A B, in the Vulgate, and in the folloW\\ning TVestern writers, Tert, Ambrst. Aug. PeU\\nCassiod. Beda but this reading is denominated\\npeculiarly Alexandrine, because it is unsupport-\\ned by every manuscript of the Western class.\\nOn the other hand, in 1 Cor. vi. 9. (^oco-iXbiocu\\nis put for j3a rtA\u00c2\u00a3iav Biov in the manuscripts A D\\n17, 36, 37, without the concurrence of a single\\nFather or version of any class: but this is termed", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0077.jp2"}, "78": {"fulltext": "66\\na reading common to both texts, because it has\\nthe manuscript D united to that of A. Surely,\\nif the ground of his reasoning be inconsistent,\\nthe result of it must be unsatisfactory.\\nAs Griesbach flatters himself that, in his\\ncomparison of the Colbert manuscript, he has\\nfully illustrated the character and estimation\\nboth of the Alexandrine and Western texts, it\\nmay be presumed, that he has been correct in\\nthe number of his quotations. But to this pre-\\nsumption I cannot accede. He complains that\\nthe Colbert manuscript has been most negli-\\ngently collated. In the eighteen first chapters\\nof St. Matthew alone, he collected, he says, no\\nless than three hundred readings omitted by\\nMill and adds, that it has been as carelessly\\ntreated in the Epistles. He had not himself\\ntime, he observes, to make a complete collation\\nof it but he accurately examined the first Jive\\nchapters of the Romans, and the fifteenth of\\nthe first Epistle to the Corinthians^. To these\\nQuinque prioja Epistolae ad Romanes capita, et deci-\\nmum quintura prioris ad Corinthlos, denuo accurate con-\\ntuli. Symb. Crit. vol. ii. p. 88. In iis utriusque Epistolae", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0078.jp2"}, "79": {"fulltext": "67\\nchapters alone therefore I will limit my remarks^.\\nOf the readings peculiar to the Alexandrine\\ntext, he enumerates in these chapters fifteen\\nseven in which the Colbert manuscript agrees\\nwith A or C, and eight in which it dissents\\nfrom them But this enumeration is strangely\\nincorrect, as he omits one reading in the agree-\\nments, and not less than eighteen in the dis\\nagreements Besides the single agreement\\ncapitibus, quae, dum codicem tractarem, Integra perlegi et\\ncuratissime excmsi, c. Ibid. p. 132. Of the remainder he\\nonly says, Reliqua utriusque Epistolse capita cursim inspexii\\nposteriorem ad Corinthios et caiteras Paulinas hie ibi tan,\\nturn evolvi.\\nThe seven agreements are Rom. i. 24.==Haj A C. 17. Tb.\\n29.=7rop\u00c2\u00a3 a A C 17. ii. 2. ya\u00c2\u00a7 for 8s C 17. 1 Cor. xv. 5.\\nsirsircx, for siroc A 17. Ibid. 12. ev v^iv nvss for rivss sv vy^iv\\nA 17. Ibid. 38. ^i^wcriv avrcv for avrcv olSojo-i A. 17. Ibid.\\n55. y.svTpov and viko; cbange places. C 17.\\nThe eight disagreements are Rom. iii. 22. tai sin irccvfocg\\nA C. Ibid. 25 (5 iar7;; titrraoo^ A. Ibid. 30. siirsp for sitsiTrs^\\nA C. iv. 1. TtpoTfciropcc for itccrsccL A C. Ibid. 11. itspirowr^v\\nfor TTspirou^Yj; A C. Ibid. 19, oy A C. 1 Cor. xv. 36. ^ouoyO\\nvEiTOLi for ^woitoisi Tcci A. Ibid. 54. the order of the passage\\nreversed AC.\\nThe omitted agreement is Rom. i 27. a\u00c2\u00a7pcvs$ ev a\u00c2\u00a7pB(n\\nfor apasyss sv a^ffsa-i A 17.\\nF 3", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0079.jp2"}, "80": {"fulltext": "68\\nomitted, there is indeed another, which he has\\nconfused with the coincidences of the Western\\ntext. It is 1 Cor. xv. 31. where he notices the\\naddition of the word uhX(poi in A G 17? c. and\\naccordingly represents the reading as comnnon\\nto both the Alexandrine and Western texts.\\nBut the truth is, that the manuscript G has no\\naddition of the kind. It was a blunder of Wet-\\nstein, which Griesbach copied in the first edition\\nof his New Testament, but very properly cor-\\nrected in his second. In his reasoning however\\nupon the validity of this addition it is remark-\\nThe following are the omitted disagreements Rom. i. 17.\\nfor yap A. Ibid. 28. =:o^so$ A. ii. 1. accray.pivsi^ for xpiv\u00c2\u00a3i$\\nC. Ibid. 5. avraitohasvus for aTToxaAu^/sw^ A. Ibid. 14. Troiw-\\neriv for tsoii] A. Ibid. 16. t) for ors A. iii. 7. Ss for ya^ A.\\nIbid. 22. sv Xpitrtuj Iijcroufor Irjcrov X^icrrou A. Ibid. 29. y.i) for\\nij A. iv. ll.=Kai. Ibid. 15. 8s for ya,\u00c2\u00a7 A C. Ibid. 16.-f ij A.\\nV. 2. \u00c2\u00a3v A. Ibid. 3. y.ccvy^uiiJisvoi for ycav^uj^s^oL C. Ibid. 13,\\niXXoyoLro for sKXoysiro A. Ibid. 17.=ri5; SiKaioa-vvr^s C. 1\\nCor. XV. ly. KUi A. Ibid. 31. ^y^srs^ocv for vpLsrspav. And\\nyet of the reading Rom. ii. 14. iroiooa-iv for iroLyj Griesbach\\nwas aware, when he published his second edition of the New\\nTestament because in the Addenda be states, upon the au-\\nthority of Birch, that, in the manuscript under considera-\\ntion, the word is not iroiri as the received text has it, nor\\nflTOiwcriy as the manuscript A, but itoiei.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0080.jp2"}, "81": {"fulltext": "69\\nable, that he proves himself to have been aware\\nof another reading in the same verse in which\\nA and the Colbert manuscript 17 disagree, but\\nwhich he has not noticed in the disagreements.\\nHis words are, Additum ut videtur ad decla-\\nrandum TjfxsTt^otv jcaup^rictv, ne JjWfTEoa et iijw,ste^\u00c2\u00bb\\nconfundentur. At nihilo tamen secus code:e\\nAlex, et iEthiops y\\\\^i xi^0Lv exhibent^ etsi aSeX^oi\\naddunt By recurring to the omitted dis-\\nagreements which I have given in a note, we\\nfind the substitution of %ia\u00c2\u00a3t\u00c2\u00a3^o(,v for JjonTE^av,\\nwhich, like all the others, I w ill not say by de-\\nsign, because I do not believe it, but from haste\\nor inattention, he neglected to notice Adding\\nthen the whole together, we perceive, that, in^\\njstead of seven agreements and eight disagree-\\nments, as he makes them, there are in fact nine\\nof the former description, and twenty-six of the\\nlatter.\\nIt is to be presumed, that the instances of\\nomission, which I have referred to, could not\\nhave been overlooked by him as readings of little\\nSymbolae Criticae^ vol. ii. p. 105.\\nF 3", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0081.jp2"}, "82": {"fulltext": "ro\\nimportance, and therefore not worth recording,\\nbecause they are to be found in his own notes\\nupon the New Testament whereas two^, which\\nhe himself reckons among the seven agreements\\nabove alluded to^ were deemed too insignificant\\nfor insertion in the same notes of either edition.\\nThe conclusion therefore seems to be, that all of\\nmine are alike important, occurring in his own\\ncritical selection of readings but that some of\\nhis are not so.\\nI have confined my remarks to the five first\\nchapters of the Romans, and \\\\h fifteenth chap-\\nter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, be-\\ncause he represents these as the only chapters in\\nwhich he had made himself certain^ by a per-\\nsonal and accurate inspection, of the readings\\nattributed to the Colbert manuscript. He has\\nindeed himself, notwithstanding this assertion,\\ngrounded a calculation upon the general read-\\nings of the manuscript in every part of the Epi-\\nstles alluded to but it appears a loss of time\\nand labour to follow him step by step into so\\nViz. the transposition of r v\u00c2\u00a3; \u00c2\u00a3v \\\\)\\\\k.w in 1 Cor. xv. \\\\2.\\n-and that of aura; ^iiS wcri in 1 Cor. xv. 38.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0082.jp2"}, "83": {"fulltext": "71\\nwide a field, where complete conviction must be\\nimpossible, as certainty, according to his own\\nstatement, would be unattainable. In the Col-\\nbert manuscript he takes precisely what posi-\\ntion he best approves but this is not the case\\nwith respect to the manuscripts A and G, be-\\ncause both of these have been fully and faith-\\nfully published.\\nIt may perhaps be thought, that the assump-\\ntion of any manuscript as an exemplar of the\\nclass, to which it is supposed to belong, can\\nprove a circumstance of no great importance.\\nThis may in some measure be true, when the\\nobject is simply that of a general comparison\\nwith another manuscript but it is by no means\\na point of indifference, to assume its individual\\nreadings as characteristical of its class, in the\\nabsence of more direct testimony. Griesbach\\nhowever hesitates not to adopt so bold a mea-\\nsure. Generally indeed the result is of little\\nconsequence, not even in the slightest degree\\naffecting the sense of the passage but in one\\ninstance at least it is otherwise. I allude to the\\nfielebrated, the often discussed, and the long\\nF 4", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0083.jp2"}, "84": {"fulltext": "n\\ntortured reading of 1 Tim. iii. l6. in which he\\nproposes to substitute o? for S-co?.\\nIt is admitted, that all known manuscripts,\\nwith the exception of four y which have oj, read\\n5fo?. The readings of three more, A C D, have\\nbeen controverted but Griesbach states, that A\\nand C o /igi/ially read os^ and D neither k nor S-iof,\\nbut 0. With this persuasion is he so strongly\\nimpressed, that he gives the following as the\\nmanuscript authority, by which he is guided in\\nthe formation of his decision A C F G 1/^ 7^\\nlegunt 0?, D* habet o, ceeteri, quos novimus\\nomnes, etiam Matthseiani 13, Alteriani 8, et\\nBirchiani 32, exhibent ^m.^ And of the de-\\nductions, which from hence he draws, this is the\\nsum Tuentur banc lectionem (viz. anti-\\nquissimi omnium classium testes. Contra,\\nvero vulgatum S^eof nee Alexandrinae, nee Oc-\\ncidentalis recensionis primitiva lectio fuit,\\nsed juniorum tantum codicum, ad Constanti-\\nnopolitanam potissimum recensionem, perti-\\nnentium.\\nIt would be foreign to my purpose, were I to\\n\u00c2\u00a9nter at large into the prolix disputes which", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0084.jp2"}, "85": {"fulltext": "73\\nhave taken place respecting the true readings\\nof A and C in this passage or even to par-\\nticularize the arguments^ by which each party\\nbelieves that it has rendered its position im-\\npregnable. Griesbach discusses the question at\\nmuch length in his Symbolse Criticae; where,\\nalthough his own opinion remains by no means\\nproblematical, he nevertheless so expresses him-\\nself, as if he were contented to rank the manu-\\nscripts A and C as mere neutrals in the contest.\\nHe observes Certe opponi nobis nullo modo\\npotest hie codex (A), sed nisi a nostris parti-\\nbus stare judicetur, saltem neutrarum partium\\nesse censendus est. De codice C supra jam\\nvidimus, si vel maxime ad argumentum ab\\nomnium ejusdem familiae testium consensu\\nductum plane non attendatur, tamen, propter\\nvaria indicia in codice ipso oh\\\\ \\\\2iy probabilius\\nei tribui o? quam ^m p. In his notes however\\nto the New Testament, he admits neither neu-\\ntrality in one case, nor probability in the other\\nbut assumes certainty in both.\\np Symbols Criticaej vol, i. p. 25.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0085.jp2"}, "86": {"fulltext": "74\\nLet us now take a summary view of his ar-\\ngument. Every manuscript which he classes\\nas Byzantine uniformly has S^io?, F and G Wes-\\ntern manuscripts have og, and D has o but A C\\n17, 73 all have oj, and three of these he contem-\\nplates as more or less Alexandrine. The affi-\\nnity indeed of 17 he does not place in the high-\\nest rank but that of A and C he regards as a\\nvery close approximation. The proof therefore\\nthat his adopted reading belongs to the Alexan-\\ndrine text rests upon the classification of these\\nmanuscripts; and, pronouncing them to be A-\\nlexandrine, he concludes that their reading also\\nmust be Alexandrine. Doubt, however, but the\\nlegitimacy of his classification, and his con-\\nclusion instantly falls to the ground.\\nTo the Byzantine and Western Fathers, in\\ncorroboration of their respective readings, are\\nmade many satisfactory references but in his\\nappeal to the direct testimony of the Alexan-\\ndrine, Griesbach is not merely scanty, but de-\\nfective. Athanasius and others, he states, are\\nsilent. Clemens says, jotuo-Tii^tov /asS- ^fxoov \u00c2\u00a3i$ov ttl\\nnyyiXoi 70V ^kttov therefore it is to be supposed,", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0086.jp2"}, "87": {"fulltext": "75\\nthat Clemens certainly did not read ^iti^% be-\\ncause he substitutes p^^^to-rov for 5\u00c2\u00a3ov. Not that\\nit would have been conclusive had he read ^fo?,\\nbecause Gregory Thaumat. or rather Apollinaris,\\nuses indeed ^eof, (his words being 3^fo? iv a-ot^yn\\nq)uvs^u^ng,) but is notwithstanding represented as\\nmeaning ^pi rros. It is on Cyril, however, that\\nGriesbach principally depends, who indisputa-\\nbly quotes the passage more than once yet al-\\nthough the printed copies of that Father s works\\nhave S-fof, it is maintained that the context re-\\nquires a different reading. If we do not per-\\nceive a little wire- drawing in this species of\\nproof, which, being ingeniously deduced from\\nthe very materials furnished by the adverse\\nparty, was commenced by Wetstein, and com-\\npleted by Griesbach, we cannot surely admit it\\nas direct and decisive evidence of a reading at-\\ntributable to the Alexandrine Fathers. And not\\nthus admitting it, where among the Alexan-\\ndrines are we to look for the reading in ques-\\ntion, except it be in the manuscripts A C\\ni Nonnulli Patres Graeci eerie non legerunt ^eo;. Clem.\\nAlex. c.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0087.jp2"}, "88": {"fulltext": "76\\nIJ^ previously referred to, of which only one%\\nand that but generally allied, certainly reads o?,\\nwhile the other two, whatsoever their affinities\\nmay be, are at least doubtful? But this is not\\nall. Suppose but the neutrality of A and C, and\\nthe preponderance of manuscript authority on\\nthe side of the Alexandrine text will be thrown\\ninto the scale of the Byzantine, which invaria-\\nbly reads ^bos: for then there will remain only\\nthe manuscript 17 for the reading 0?, while that\\nof ^Bos will be supported by every other manu-\\nscript of the same class. Of these he enume-\\nrates the following: 6, 10, 23, 31, 37, 39, 46,\\nThe Upsal manuscript 73 Griesbach does not any where\\nrank as Alexandrine. He only says, that it sometimes coin-\\ncides with the best manuscripts, Interdum cum optimis li-\\nbris consentit Act. xx. 28. but of its general readings he\\nspeaks slightly.\\nOf the Colbert manuscript 17 he gives the following de-\\nscription Codex 17 Alexandrinis saepissime se adjungit in\\nlectionibus characteristicis aliisque, ut interdum tamen ad\\nalios, praesertim ad Occidentales, nonnunquam etiam ad\\nConstantinopolitanos se inclinat. Quamobrem ubi cum\\ncaeteris Alexandrinis consentit, pro Alexandrine habendus\\nest J ubi vero ah iis discrepitj dissensus ejus cceterorum con-\\nsensioni opponi non debet, sed a recta via deflexisse cense-\\nt)Lir. Symb. Crit. vol. i. p. 26.\\nec", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0088.jp2"}, "89": {"fulltext": "77\\nATy qui omnes, he says, cum nostro (viz.\\n17.) cognati sunt V particularly distinguish-\\ning the manuscript 31 as being intimately re-\\nlated, Admodum enim similis est codici 17 V\\nNow these, and all others of the Alexandrine\\nclass, if others exist attributable to it, read, with\\nthe Byzantine text, S-fo?, while only the Colbert\\nreads oj. It is unnecessary to point out the\\nconsequence.\\nBut it may be (Objected, that I forget to men-\\ntion the Alexandrine versions as affording cor-\\nroborative evidence. I answer, that I do not\\nforget their evidence, but that I cannot sub-\\nscribe to the propriety of its admission for, al-\\nthough I am aware that the classification of cer-\\ntain versions, as Alexandrine, has been asserted,\\nI know not that it has been proved and, were\\nit even more probable than it seems to be, I do\\nnot see how it could amount at best to any\\nthing more than mere presumptive testimony.\\nBesides, I am not convinced that any of them\\nread U but rather that all of them, in con-\\ncurrence with the whole stream of Western au-\\nt Symb. Crit. vol. ii. p, 134. lb. p. 150.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0089.jp2"}, "90": {"fulltext": "(e\\ntc\\nc\\n78\\nthorities, read o. The following is the statement\\nof Griesbach jE versionibus Arabica polygl. et\\nSlavonica MS. et ed. exhibent solae ^los, cae-\\nterae omnes non S^fo?, sed pronomen o? sive o\\nexprimunt. Nempe Copt. Sahid. et Syr. p.\\nin m. OS qui Vulg. vero et It. (clar. Boern.) o\\nquod Syr. utr. Erp. iEthiop. et Armen. al-\\nterutrum legerunt pronomen sive qui sive\\nquod He here distinctly states, that the\\nCoptic, Sahidic, and Philoxenian versions (the\\nlatter indeed only in its margin) read o? or qui\\nand that the Syriac, the Erpenian Arabic, the\\njEthiopic, and the Armenian all read either oj\\nor 0, qui or quod. But on the other hand I con-\\ntend, in the first place, that neither the Coptic,\\nthe Sahidic, nor the Philoxenian necessarily\\nread o; but more probably use a relative con^J\\nnected with an antecedent expressive of the\\nword mystery, in precise conformity with the\\nVulgate for, in both the Coptic and Sahidic,\\nthe word JULVCTHplon mystery is decidedly\\nproved to be masculine by the definitive article\\nmasculine ni in one case, and n in the other^\\nprefixed, so that the subsequent relative occurs\\ni", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0090.jp2"}, "91": {"fulltext": "79\\nof course in the same gender. A similar re-\\nmark, respecting the Piiiloxenian version^ is\\nmade by its Editor whom Griesbach very\\nproperly terms Whitius vir doctissi?nus^ and\\nwho correctly translates the passage myste-\\nrium pietatis, quod manifestatum est in carne.\\nHaving thus proved that the Coptic, the Sa-\\nhidic, and the Philoxenian versions do not ne-\\ncessar ily read oc, but most probably I I shall\\nnow show, that the Peshito, or vulgar Syriac,\\nthe Erpenian Arabic, and the iEthiopic, do not\\nindifferently read o? or o, but indisputably o. If\\n0? be the reading, it is evident that the following\\nclauses of the verse cannot be grammatically\\nconnected by a copulative^ but that the passage\\nmust be translated as the Unitarians translate\\nit, He^ who was manifested in the flesh, was\\njustified^ Sac But, in all the versions alluded\\nto, the subsequent clauses are grammatically\\nconnected by a copulative, in the Syriac by O,\\nThe antecedent here is h]; which is masculine. The re-\\nlative OCT means simply quij, not necessarily ille qui as Wet-\\nstein seems to have supposed and is more frequently so used\\nthan alone.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0091.jp2"}, "92": {"fulltext": "80\\nin the Arabic by and in the iEthiopic by (Df\\nthat is^ by the same letter waw in the different\\ncharacters of the different languages expressive\\nof the same conjunction and; so that the pas-\\nSage must unavoidably be rendered, which\\nwas manifested in the f^esh, and was justified\\nin the Spirit, c.\\nBut I may be reminded, that I have forgotten\\nthe Armenian version. I have not forgotten,\\nbut purposely omitted to mention, it and that\\nfor this plain reason because it reads neither\\nk or 0, but, in conjunction with the Byzan-\\ntine text, S^\u00c2\u00a3o?. For proof of this I refer to\\nthe edition pubHshed by Uscan at Amsterdam\\nin 1666, the princeps editio, and to a subse-\\nquent one in duodecimo by another editor at\\nthe same place in 1698 all, except the octavo\\nedition of 1668, (merely a republication of Us-\\ncan) with which we are acquainted. Now in\\nboth of these the reading certainly is lu^ God,\\nThis blunder is not solely imputable to Gries-\\nbach. It seems to have been first made by\\nMarsh s MichaeliSj vol. ii. part i. p. 103.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0092.jp2"}, "93": {"fulltext": "81\\nKuster, who, I apprehend, attempted no ne\\\\y\\ncollation of the versions, but simply republished\\nthat of Mill. Mill however does not name the\\nArmenian version in his note upon the passage\\nbut Kuster does^ probably inserting it by mis-\\ntake from the hurry of transcription. Wetstein\\nappears to have copied from Kuster, and Gries-\\nbach from Wetstein. Had Griesbach depended\\nupon manuscript and not printed authority, it is\\npresumed that he would have quoted it as such,\\nprecisely as in his note upon 1 John v. 7- But\\nin which way soever the blunder be accounted\\nfor, the fact of the reading is incontrovertible\\nand it is equally incontrovertible, that the anx-\\niety of accommodating their version to the Vul-\\ngate, which has been attributed to the Arme-\\nnians, to Uscan in the seventeenth, as well as\\nto Haytho, a king of Armenia, in the thirteenth,\\ncentury, whatsoever effect it might have else-\\nwhere produced, assuredly did not operate here.\\nOf every version therefore thus quoted, Gries-\\nbach s statement is incorrect for one, instead\\nof reading ej or o, reads 3-io? three others, in-\\nstead of necessarily reading o?, probably read h\\nG", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0093.jp2"}, "94": {"fulltext": "82\\nand the remaining three, instead of indifferently\\nreading c? or o, indisputably read o.\\nI have been the more particular in my remarks\\nupon this celebrated passage from Timothy, be-\\ncause it is one, in which the consequences, de-\\nducible from Griesbach s theory of the classifi-\\ncation and comparison of manuscripts, are most\\nconspicuous. He is deficient in the direct tes-\\ntimony of Fathers, and even upon his own state-\\nment but partially supported by the collateral\\none of versions yet he pronounces o? to be the\\nAlexandrine reading, principally influenced by\\nthe presumed authority of certain supposed\\nAlexandrine manuscripts then, annihijating\\nthe Western reading o, which is, in his judg-\\nment, a mere corruption of o?, (the very reverse\\nof Wetstein s argument,) he represents Ig as\\ncommon to both the Alexandrine and Western\\ntexts, and thus establishes a preponderance of\\nclasses against the Byzantine. Yet even ad-\\nmitting his principle, but correcting his inaccu-\\nracy, ought we not to draw a very different con-\\nclusion Should we not rather say, that, be-\\ncause the Byzantine text, with an infinity of", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0094.jp2"}, "95": {"fulltext": "83\\nmanuscripts and Fathers, reads Bios^ and because\\neight (viz. 6, 10, 23, 31, 37, 39, 46, 47.) out of\\neleven Alexandrine manuscripts coincide with\\nit, while only one certainly opposes it, the other\\ntwo being doubtful, therefore the preponderance\\nof classes is against the Western and that Sro?,\\nnot or oj, seems to be the genuine reading I\\nshall of course be understood as confirling my\\nobservations solely to the doctrine and effects of\\nGriesbach s classification. To discuss also the\\ndeductions of his conjectural criticism would\\nbe irrelevant to the subject before me.\\ny To one point however I must be here permitted slightly\\nto allude. Griesbach supposes that 02 was mistaken for\\n\u00c2\u00a9S, because the transcriber knew that the passage was\\nusually interpreted of God, the Word. Nimirum OS facile\\ntransiit in \u00c2\u00a92, cum librarii non ignorarent, locum hunc\\nvulgo de S-foy Aoycy intelligi. But surely transcribers by\\nprofession (and such, before the invention of printing, were\\nthose who transcribed manuscripts) are never in the habit of\\nreasoning upon the sense of what they copy. Ask a law-\\nstationer of the present day, after he has engrossed the con-\\nveyance of an estate with a long description of the title,\\nwhether that title accrued by descent or purchase j and he\\nwill perhaps be puzzled to answer the question. A tran-\\nscriber therefore, in the case under consideration, having\\n2", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0095.jp2"}, "96": {"fulltext": "84\\nUpon the hypothesis therefore under consi-\\nderation, which represents the Alexandrine text\\nhis attention rivetted to words and not to things, would be\\nmore likely, I apprehend, to commit an error by omission than\\nby addition to overlook the horizontal lines which distinguish\\n\u00c2\u00a9X from 05), than to supply them.\\nI cannot help adding another remark with respect to the\\nparticular reading of the manuscript A. Mill states, that at\\nfirst he suspected the reading of ^eos assigned to it j but that\\nafterwards he clearly distinguished the ancient traces of the\\nhorizontal line which formed the Verum postea perlus-\\ntrato attentius loco, lineolse, quae primam aciem fugerant,\\nductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa deprehendi, praesertim\\nad partem sinistram. Wetstein however conceives that Mill\\ndeceived himself, mistaking, for the horizontal line of the\\ntheta, that which belongs to an epsilon in a word on the op-\\nposite side of the leaf. Prolegomena, p. 22. But VVoide main-\\ntains this to be impossible, because the line of the epsilon in\\nquestion is not precisely at the back of the theta, but a little he-\\nlow it. Not. Cod. Alex. \u00c2\u00a7.87. The veracity of Mill, (to omit\\nthe testimony of others,) that he saw a line of this descrip-\\ntion, seems unimpeachable. Can it be deemed remarkable, that\\nit should have disappeared, after so long a lapse of years, in a\\nmanuscript perpetually examined in this particular place and\\ninjuriously treated, when it is considered, that Griesbach ad-\\nmits the possibility of the evanescence even of whole letters\\nin the Ephrem manuscript (sleeping quietly in the royal li-\\nbrary at Paris without molestation) between the short pe-\\nriod of Wetstein s time and his own Immo vocabula non-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0096.jp2"}, "97": {"fulltext": "85\\nas the most ancient and most valuable, common\\nprudence requires, that no manuscript be ad-\\nmitted into an alliance with that text, except\\nupon the most indisputable proofs of affinity.\\nIf an improper one be incautiously ranked with\\nit, the confusion introduced must be incalcula-\\nble for the single testimony of this manuscript\\nwill then be regarded as outweighing that of an\\nhundred others belonging to the Byzantine\\nclass. And if it moreover happen to be sup-\\nported by another of the Western, (no uncom-\\nmon occurrence,) its reading, as far as the pre-\\nponderance of classes is to be regarded, will be\\ndeemed extremely probable if supported by\\none or two more of its own class and of the\\nWestern together, indisputable. Quotquot\\nenim ad eandem recensionem pertinent, testes\\ninter se consentientes, pro unieo haberi de-\\nbent. Usu igitur venire potest ut duo tresve\\ncodices tantundem valeant, quantum alii een*\\nnulla, quae ego legere baud potui, assecutus erat ille, sive\\narmatis oculis ea perliistraverat, quod equidem baud fece-\\nram, Mve liter arum ductus ut credibile est, inde a Wetstenii\\ntempore magis etanuerint. Symb. Crit. vol. L p. 6.\\nG3", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0097.jp2"}, "98": {"fulltext": "86\\nturn Indeed the principal use to be derived\\nfrom the estabhshment of different texts, as\\nlaid down by Griesbach, is professedly the de-\\nfence of readings, approved by critical conjec-\\nture, but discoverable in only a few manuscripts,\\nagainst those of an almost innumerable crowd of\\nlater and inferior ones. Praecipuus vero recen-\\nsionum in criseos sacrae exercitio usus hie est,\\nut earum auctoritate lectiones bonas, sed in\\npaucis libris superstites defendamus adversus\\njuniorum et vulgarium codicum innumerabi-\\nlem paene turbam It seems evident then,\\nthat the arrangement of classes is not intended\\nto supersede, but to act in subordination to,\\nconjectural criticism. Thus we perceive in John\\nvii. 8. the word oux substituted for oMfrtMi (fyw o^nui\\navxQuivca us rnv Io^tiov rauriov) upon authority in this\\nrespect inferior; while in John i. 18. the word\\n^ioq is not substituted for uto?, (o fAovoyovns vlos) or\\neven consigned to marginal probability, although\\ncountenanced by authority of the kind every\\nway superior,\\nProlegomena, p. 79.\\nSyrabolae Criticae, vol. i. p. 122.\\na\\nc", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0098.jp2"}, "99": {"fulltext": "87\\nBut how is this design of Griesbach^ particu-\\nlarly in the Epistles of St. Paul, to be carried\\ninto full effect, if he be precluded from his ap-\\npeal to the Alexandrine text by a defect of evi-\\ndence? Or rather perhaps, when the appeal sole-\\nly applies to manuscripts, from all evidence\\nwhatsoever Yet this, if my statement and\\nmode of reasoning be more accurate than his,\\nappears to be the unavoidable result of my in-\\nquiry for, if A and C are not Alexandrine, the\\nclass of the others, determined only by a com-\\nparison with them, falls to the ground instantly.\\nIn all the preceding observations I have adopt-\\ned, after Griesbach, the supposed existence of\\nthree texts at least the Alexandrine, the West-\\nern, and the Byzantine but I must add, that\\nthe existence of the Alexandrine seems to me\\nvery problematical. That there is a frequent\\ndiversity of readings between the Latin version\\nand the received text is unquestionable and\\nthat this diversity is sufficient to constitute a\\ndistinct classification of readings may fairly per-\\nhaps be presumed. That there are also many\\nGreek manuscripts generally coinciding with\\nG 4", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0099.jp2"}, "100": {"fulltext": "88\\nthe Latin version (whether derived lineally or\\ncollaterally from the Greek original of that ver-\\nsion, or from some other Greek copy or copies\\nsubsequently rendered conformable with it, I\\ndo not apprehend makes any great difference in\\nthe question) will, I doubt not, be readily grant-\\ned. Nor will the argument be aifected by the\\npresumption, that the Latin version and its\\nrelatives are nothing more than illegitimate\\nbranches of an ancient Greek text because,\\nwhatsoever credit we may attach to their pecu-\\nliar readings, they nevertheless still afford us\\na separate classification but that there exists\\nan Alexandrine text, more valuable as well as\\nmore ancient than either the Byzantine or the\\nWestern, has in my judgment been never prov-\\ned. There is certainly no manuscript to be re-\\nferred to as containing any thing like a clear\\nspecimen of such a text. And what is the tes-\\ntimony of the Alexandrine Fathers Do they\\nall accord in appropriate readings of their own\\nOr do even two of them thus accord of any one\\ncentury? They indeed often coincide with the\\nreadings of the Western text; but do they often", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0100.jp2"}, "101": {"fulltext": "89\\nread against it? I do not mean simply against\\nthree or four Western manuscripts but also\\nagainst the Latin writers and the Latin ver-\\nsions For it seems not sufficient to demon-\\nThe possibility that manuscripts written in Alexandria\\nmight have been adapted to the Latin text^ is thus stated by\\nMichaelis in his remarks upon the manuscript A commonly\\ncalled the Alexandrian I confess that I am of the same\\nopinion j because the inquiry turns not so much on the\\nCodex Alexandrinus as on the more ancient manuscript,\\nof which this is a copy. For if this ancient manuscript\\nlatinized, the Cod. Alex, must do the same, in whatever\\ncountry it was written and since it is by no means ne-\\ncessary, that books constantly remain in the same countiy,\\nand they may be transferred from one library to another,\\nit is possible, that latinizing copies were brought from Italy\\nor the west of Africa into Egypt or Greece a faithful tran-\\nscript therefore from any one of these would likewise\\nlatinize, though written in Constantinople, Greece, or\\nEgypt, Vol. ii. part i. p. 196. The following is the note\\nof Dr. Marsh The possibility that Greek manuscripts in\\nAlexaTidria were altered from the Latin, no one can deny.\\nEven so early as the time of Origen single alterations\\nmight have taken place j for the learned Father, in a pas-\\nsage quoted by Wetstein in his note to Matt. viii. 28.\\ncomplains of erroneous readings sv foi$ lAAryvixoi^ avri^\\nYp!X(poi$, which clearly implies the use of manuscripts\\nwritten in some other language tban the Greek and, as\\nhe spent some time in Rome, it is not impossible that he\\nft", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0101.jp2"}, "102": {"fulltext": "90\\nstrate, that Origen, or any other Alexandrine\\nFather, has numerous variations from the By-\\nzantine text but also that these variations from\\nthe Byzantine do not coincide with the West-\\nern, that mighty rod of Aaron ever prepared to\\nswallow the feebler rods of Egypt nor even to\\nshew, that they are occasionally unconnected as\\nwell with the Western as with the Byzantine,\\nunless it can be proved, that their irregularities\\nin this respect are constant and peculiar not\\nmere anomalies arising from accidental causes,\\nand common to both the other texts. At pre-\\nsent we can only presume upon the frequent\\nrecurrence of characteristical readings, until a\\ncollection of them be made and published from\\nthe joint writings of the Alexandrine Fathers.\\nThis however is a task which has never been at-\\ntempted, although it seems to form an absolute\\npreliminary to decision and which, I appre-\\nhend, if ever undertaken, will at least prove as\\ndifficult in its accomplishment as hopeless in\\nits effect.\\nmade use of the established version of a church, which at all\\ntimes maintained the highest authority.\\n(C", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0102.jp2"}, "103": {"fulltext": "91\\nI am aware that the reflections which I make\\nrun counter to pubHc prejudice, to the opinion\\nof many whose Hterary talents concihate my\\nesteem, and whose critical acumen command\\nmy respect. But, in the republic of letters, no\\nsupremacy is admissible but that of truth and\\nI flatter myself, that I possess the same claim\\nto the candour of others, which Griesbach has\\nto mine. I shall not therefore, I trust, be mis-\\nconstrued as wishing unnecessarily to diminish\\nthe number of classes adopted by him, from\\nan overweening fondness for any pre-conceiv-\\ned system of my own, to which his allotted\\nnumber might be deemed inimical. On the\\nother hand, I sincerely wish that it could be\\naugmented, convinced that the rule of classifica-\\ntion would afford no inconsiderable advantages\\nto textual criticism, could it be in more in-\\nstances satisfactorily exemplified. I have ne-\\nvertheless censured what appears to me an im-\\nportant oversight in his argument; the presump-\\ntion of five or six classes, but the investigation\\nof only three, and that with the persuasion of as\\ndecisive an issue as if a perfect knowledge of the", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0103.jp2"}, "104": {"fulltext": "92\\nwhole had been attained for I cannot admit\\nthe accuracy of that reasoning, which, from de-\\nfective premises, attempts to draw complete con-\\nclusions. Instead of estabhshing five or six\\nclasses, I confess that I see not good ground for\\nthe admission of even three. I do not however\\ndeny, that these, or more than these, exist, be-\\ncause their existence is possible but I contend,\\nthat it has not been sufficiently proved.\\nThe idea of a classification of manuscripts\\non an extended scale is doubtless captivating,\\nfraught with hope, and pregnant with promise\\nbut the moment we commence its reduction to\\npractice, difficulties start up on every side, and\\nconjecture begins to supply the place of convic-\\ntion. By an intricate and involved analysis we\\nare tempted to exalt possibilities into probabili-\\nties, and probabilities into certainties we raise\\nclass over class in our system, as children pic-\\nture castle rising over castle in a stormy cloud,\\nsoon to be immerged in gloom and obscurity.\\nBut, although the prospect before us affords\\nenough to satiate, there is, I fear, little in it to\\nsatisfy. We find ample scope for the sportive", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0104.jp2"}, "105": {"fulltext": "93\\ngambols of imagination, but no very solid foot-\\ning for the soberer exertions of reason while\\nwe fancy ourselves to be walking in the broad\\nlight of day, we may prove to be but wildly\\nwandering in the dark, and stumbling at every\\nstep.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0105.jp2"}, "106": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0106.jp2"}, "107": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\nReadings of Origen alone^ where the Manuscript\\nA agrees with the received Text,\\nThe Extracts are taken from the second Volume of the\\nSymbolae Criticae, and limited to passages in which nei-\\nther Origen nor A is defective.\\nJlvOMANS i. I. X^idTs Irjo-tf for 1*3(78 Xpia-rs, Ibid. Il^\\n=T Ibid. v[ji,iv ^(^oipKrfjia. for yoLpiaiKot. vfiiv. Ibid. i8. on\\nfor yap. Ibid. 25. aAAa^avrsj for ^usraKKoL^aVT^, Ibid.\\n27. otpcsvss for agfsvsg, B D G Ed. ii. 8. xocxiu for\\noBixia. Ibid, g. xon, Ibid.=Ts. Ibid. 10. =\u00c2\u00a76 D et\\nMSS. Ibid. 16. \u00c2\u00a3V XoKTTco I j(rtf for ^tx I)j(r\u00c2\u00ab XpKTTov* iii,\\n19. Kuhsi for Aeya. Ibid. 21. t\u00c2\u00ab. Ibid. 2^. =sig svhi^iv\\nT 3J hxcuoavvr}^. Ibid. 30. 6. v. 3. }cotv^oo[/.\u00c2\u00a3voi for xaup^co-\\n/uts^a Tert. Ibid. 5. J-t8. Ibid. 7. jxoytj for jxoA j. Ibid.\\n4-Toy. Ibid. i3. r| before d[/,oipTiu, Ibid. 17. l2ot n\\\\svovG-^\\nfor /3a r/Aey(r80 K v i\u00c2\u00bb 4. X0H ruvevs(rTY}xi-v avTcp, vu.y, sp8-^\\nIj^sv, viii. 3. xaj Hilar. Amb. Ambrst. Ibid. 11. \u00c2\u00a7/a ro\\nevoixouv auToy Trvsuixoc for Sta rs sv^kovto; avrov 7rvsv[j,ocTOs D\\nE F G Vulg. It. Ibid. 22. j-sva^s* for o-yrsva^g* Vulg.\\nclar. Ambr. Pel. Ibid. 26. (rrsvixy^o^ aXccKriToig virspsv-\\nruy^oLVsi for UTrspgvryyp^avsi (TTSvexryiJiOig u\\\\a,X:^TOi$, Ibid. 36*\\nTtoKTocv for 6A 3V. ix. 7. oo oj for or e*(r*. Ibid. Travrw? for\\nTravTSf. Ibid.H-xai, Ibid. i2.^ayT)] D clar. Aug,", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0107.jp2"}, "108": {"fulltext": "96\\nAmbrst. Beda. Ibid. 13. xada^rep for xo^wj. Ibid. 23.\\nxai Vulg. Hier. Pel. Sedul. Fulg. Ibid. 33. \u00c2\u00a37r olutm\\n*x. 4. -|-xai Trgo^YjToov Cyril. **Ibid. 8. r) ygot^vi D E\\nF G Vulg. It. c. Cyr. Ibid. 10. jotsv for yap. xii. 14.\\nTouj ep^ ^8f y)ju.6oy for t\u00c2\u00abj Stcoxovraj ^ju,aj. Ibid. 16. u\\\\J/)jXo-\\n^gov8VTs$ for ra uv|/*jXa (ppovsvrsc, xiii. 2. o\u00c2\u00bb avdeftjxorgj for\\n6 ctVTnu(r(roixsvog. Ibid, av^ig-avrai for av3^ef jxev. Ibid. 9.\\n00 fovev(rsiS} ov fi.oi^sv(Tsi$ for 8 [j,oi^sv(rstg, a (povsvo sis Clera.\\nIbid.=:oux e%i^v[jLYi(T6ig Clem. Ibid, sv tco Xoyop tovtoo for\\nrovTco Tw Xoycjp D E F G. Ibid. la. sxBuo-ajxevoi for aTrodco-\\n/xe^a. Ibid. 13. ou for ]x j. Ibid, ou for jw.)j a second time,\\nxiv. 9. xa\u00c2\u00bb avs^Yiasv F G Vulg. xvi. 20. t))j sipv^vrig.\\nIbid. 25\u00c2\u00ab xa* TO TtYipuyiiu Itjcrou Xpia-Tov. Ibid. 26. xai\\nT jj \u00c2\u00a37ri(pav6iaj Ttf xu/5\u00c2\u00bb\u00c2\u00ab r^cov Iijcs X^tftf. Codd. ap. Hier,\\nThis addition occurs thrice.\\nI Corinthians i. 23.4-I 30 8v. ii. 2. firfisv sihvon for\\naSsVai T Ibid. 5. rijawv for ujotcov Clem. Mt. k. Ed.\\nIbid. II. w\u00c2\u00a7 8hig oihv for rig oihv, iii. I. ufjuv \\\\txXri Tat\\nfor KctXr}(roi.i vixiv Vulg. Chry. Cypr. Aug. Clemens.\\nIbid. aSgX poi. Ih id. 6. ev^v}(rsv for Yjv^oivsv. Ibid. ll. aX-\\n\\\\ov. Ibid. 12. oixo ^o[ji,si for e7ro xo5o/x,si. iv. 19. tov Trsi^ycrw-\\nftsvov for Tov 7re(pv(rioofji,svoov, v. 4. ^jtt\u00c2\u00ab;v Codd. Amb. Aug.\\nPel. Ibid. 13. s^M^sv for s^ca, vi. 3. Ibid. 4. eftfSevwjxs-\\nvoj for e^8^svT^[jLsvo5, Ibid. I9. ev ujxiv. Ibid, wro for aTro,\\nvii. siri^otpYi vfji,iv for -TTsipct^i^ viLotg, Ibid. 7.=xa Ibid.\\n12. xayco for eyo). Ibid. xai. Ibid. 32. ^sw for xy^iw Vulg.\\nTert. Cypr. Hier. c. viii. 13. xpsa for Ppa)fji.u, ix. a.\\nxat. Ibid. JU.OU T jj for t )j sjw-^js. Ibid. 14. \u00c2\u00a7\u00c2\u00bba^ )v for ;v.\\nIbid. 19.4 awTcov. Ibid. 22. xepS^jcrco for crojcrco Clem.\\nTert. Aug. Hier. x. 11. a-uvs^amv for a-ws^aivov. Ibid,\\nly. xaj. Ibid. 32. xa* sAX 3(n. xi. 4. sv^ofxsvog for tt^oct-\\nsv^o[ji,svos. Ibid. 25. sav for av. Ibid. 29. 5/5. Ibid. e\u00c2\u00aby-\\nII", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0108.jp2"}, "109": {"fulltext": "9;\\nTtt), xii. S. dsoy. Ibid, ll. ravTa le itoLVTct for Travret ^f\\nTiscara. Ibid. To D F. Ibid, x^q^f^y^y for 5 a pouv. Ibid.\\nt8 a D F G Vulg. It. Ambr. Hil. Ambrst. lb. 18.\\n8^eT0 6 de\u00c2\u00abj for ^soj s^sto. Ibid. sv. Ibid. 25* i 5^*l\\nfor |ut j. Ibid. 26. a for sits. F G Vulg. It. Ambr. Pel.\\nBeda. Ibid, xa* a for e T?. Ibid. jaeXoj ev for sv ^aeXof.\\nxiii. I. \u00c2\u00bbj for xa Ibid. 2. ^ravra ra jaug-i^piot for ra fjLVfvipicc\\nTzctvTu, Ibid. 12. S\u00c2\u00ab* scroTtTps xoii for 8/ sa-OTtrps, Ibid. 13.\\nra T^ia Travra before 9r\u00c2\u00bbf j sXttjj uycxnni instead of after.\\nxiv. 8. iile^s for rij. Ibid. 9rapa rxeyajsr\u00c2\u00abi for na.poLrrx.wa.\\niTSTui. Ibid. 2i. oTi, XV. 6. \u00c2\u00a3f. Ibid. 12. ex vsxpxv on\\nfor or* sx vexpcay. Ibid. 20. syriyspTon Xptcrroj for X^/ 7toj\\n^yriysprai. Ibid. 28. avTco rcc itoLyTo, liTtoTuyri for wTrorayij\\naoTco ra Travra. Ibid. xa D E G It. Hil. Hier. Victor*\\nIbid. 5i.=f(tev D Clar. germ.\\n2 Corinthians i. 7. oi^ajasv yap for B^lore^, Ibid. 7. or*.\\nIbid. 12. T8T0 yap ecrri ro xuv^t^i/,cx. y^i^mv for f| yap xaup^ijcij\\n^/xwv aurij ef Ibid. =r;/A\u00c2\u00ab;v. iii. i6, t\u00c2\u00bb^. iv. lo. xai.\\nxii. 9. gi^sv for eiprixev. xiii. 3. si for \u00c2\u00a3;ra.\\nGalatians i. 4. ui/.cipTui\\\\Mv for dfj^upnuiv, ii. 12. Iaxw^\u00c2\u00bb\\nfor Tivaj aTTO laxw^tf. iii. 3. cup^ctfLSvo} for svotp^a.[^svoi,\\n**Ibid. 19. ere^j) for TrpocrsTs^v} D F G Vulg. It. Patres\\nLatin. Clem. iv. i. koo\u00c2\u00a7 for eip* o(rov ^povov 0. Ibid,\\n27 wj ysypoiiTTOd for ysyponrToci yap, v. 2. ou8=y y^aj for\\nUjU-aj oy^ev. Ibid. 16. ^rj for oy jw, j. Ibid. STrtTsKeiv for rsAeiv\\nIbid. 17. jM-sv for yap. Ibid. 19. f^oi^sioti Tropveiut Sec. for\\n^LOi )(sia. TtopvsiOL C. Ibid. axa^ap(na. Ibid. 25. ftvzvu.aixi\\n^oofjt,sv for JctifAsv Trvsvpi-uTi, vi. 8.=layToy Cyril. Aug.\\nCassiod.\\nEphesians i. 4. H-s/j ro before eiva*. Ibid. 5.=Ti5(roy.\\nIbid. ly. Tow \u00c2\u00a3oy. Ibid. 21. i^^ovcwv for BwaiJi^soog. ii. 2.^\\nWTTO for xara. Ibid. 3. j|U.g^a for )jjw.sv. Ibid. 6,+r)(jLoig.\\nIbid. 12. ccKXorpiOi for ciTroXXwTfiaopLsvoi, Ibid, roy ^soy for\\nTijf e^rayyeAiaj. iii. lo ^yyv F G Vulg. cjar. Boern. Tert.\\nH", "height": "3828", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0109.jp2"}, "110": {"fulltext": "98\\nAug. :c. iv. T4.=T)jf. Ibid. 27. Jwre for SiSorf. v. 2.\\neawTOV TrapgSoJxev for Traps^coxsv exvrov. Ibid.=7rpocr po|5av xai.\\nIbid. 25. 60 J for xadcof. Ibid. ijyaTDjo-e. Ibid. 31. Ivexsi^\\nfor avT/. Ibid.=auTOu D G Vulg. It. Tert. Cypr. Hier,\\nPhilippians ii. 7. av^^coTrou for av^pooTrctiv, Ibid. 13. \u00c2\u00aba-\\nros for 6 ^soj. Ibid, r^fxiv for u/x-iv. iii. 14. tcov ottkt^sv for rat\\nfjisv OTiKT ji, Ibid. 1 9. 6 before ^soc. Ibid, 20. Ss for ya/j\\nVulg. It. Patres Latin. Clem. Chrys. Ibid. 2i.=t\u00c2\u00ab\\ntreioiJ^uTt,\\nColossians i. i6. fv ccvtm. Ibid. sits added twice.\\nIbid.=ra before ev roig D E F G Vulg. It. Ibid. ra\\nbefore ev rrig yvig Vulg. It. lb. 20, Si* awrou D F G\\nVulg. It. Patr. Lat. Chrys. Cyr. Ibid. 24. uvcntXripui for\\navTavamXripoi F G. Ibid. Trct^Yifj^uToov for At\\\\|/ecov. ii. 3.\\n7ravTej. Ibid. 9. eij 6v for cv aurw. Ibid. il. jju.\u00c2\u00ab;v\\nafter (roipxoi:, Ibid. too (yw^arog tcov dixugTtcov, Tert.\\nCypr. Cyr. Ibid. 14. ripiv for ijpxev D G. Ibid. 15.\\n^piay^Ssva-us \u00c2\u00a3V roo ^vkop for ^pnxix^^sucrug uvrovg ev ocutco. iii.\\n^,-\\\\-a(J s\\\\ YeioLV, Ibid. 9. exSuo-aju-svoi for ccnsy^vcruij^evoi*\\n1 Thessalonians ii. 7.=aAA.*. Ibid. 14. ra ayra for\\nTuvTu F G multi MSS. Chrys. iv. 13. (as for Ku^a)$, v,\\n19. oy (T^swuTUi for jxr^ c^swure. Ibid. 23. 6 Se dfioj for aa-\\nTo^ 8s 6^60$. Ibid.=T)35 sipv^vYi^,\\n2 Thessalonians ii. 2. Tap^ea;j. Ibid. 8ia Xoyov ftrjre\\n8i\u00c2\u00ab TrvsviJuuTog for 7rvsv[j.uro$ /xijre 8 Koyov,\\n1 Timothy i. 15. Irjo-oyj X^/oroj for X^kttoj I*jo-ouj.\\nii. 9. xoa-fxicos for noa-f/^icti D F G. Ibid. 15. sTrav |u.eiv j ev\\nfor SUV ixeivoo(nv ev, v. 9. e(TTco for xaraXeyscr^co. vi. 8. 8 a-\\nTpo^tiV for harpo^oLs D F G clar. Ibid. lo. e(rTiv. Ibid.\\n17. yvpvjXa (ppoveiv for u\\\\t/ 3Xo(ppoysiv. Ibid.=^jw-iv. Ibid*\\nwavra TrXovaricog for TrAoycico^ ^ravra D E multi MSS. Vulg,\\nclar. germ. Pel. Ibid. 18. aya^ijj for xaXoij. Ibid. 21.\\nEfauayrjcrav for ijo-Top^^ijtrav.\\n2 Timothy u ^.-{-(lov D E Vulg. clar. germ. Am.-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0110.jp2"}, "111": {"fulltext": "99\\nbrst. Pel. Cassiod. Ibid. jo. xvpiov for a-wr-ripog Ibid.\\n16. 6 xu^joj s\\\\so^ for lA?oj Kvpiog, Ibid. ]7. o-Troy^aicoj for\\niT ^ovdciiOTSpov D F G. ii. 21. a7ro rourwv. iii. II. \u00c2\u00a39ra^oy\\nfor jofcoi eysvsTO. iv. 2. 7rupuK(xXs rov for s 7riri[jt,Yi rov Trapptxa-\\nAeo-ov F G Vulg. It. Ambrst. Pel. Aug. Ambr.\\nTitus i. l^. yap for h. Ibid, s^ra for aAAa.\\nPhilemon i4.=c 199.\\nInconstant Headings of Origen alone^ where A\\nagrees with the received Text,\\nRomans i. 3. 4- to before xarc-Jt (rokpyict. Ibid. 5.-|-t )V.\\nIbid, 23. jjXAafavro for viWu^oiv. Cyr. Mt. g. k. 9, 3*\\nTheod. TheophyL **n.^, xui D multi MSS. Martin\\npapa. Theodul. Cyr. CEc. Chrys. Ibid. hKUioavvrig for\\nhxouoKpia-iu^. Ibid. 14. Ss for ya^. G Boern. utrumque*\\nIbid. Pi roiO jToi for outoi G Vulg. It. Ibid. 1^. to /SoyA^jaa\\nfor TO epyov. Ibid. iJ.a.gTupov ry^i for (rup,[ji,cipTupov(TYi^. iii. 2-\\nTTgwTOi for TTpMTov, Ibid 25. alfLUTi uuTov for aUTOU oclixotTt*\\nV. 8. OVTCOl/ TOJV a.yLOtpTO)KmV YI{J,C0V for U[JiCCgTC0X00V OVTCJOV YjfXUIV,\\nIbid. 13- y\u00c2\u00abg for Ss Germ. Cyr. Ibid. ly.^Tvi^ Sw-\\n^saj Aug. Beda, Ibid. Ku^ovts^ for ?\\\\Mi/.^oivovTsg, Ibid,\\n/SacTiXsuowcri for fioco iXsvo-ova-i, Ibid. Kpio-Tov iYi rov for I jcroy\\nXpia-Tou, vii. 9.=t\u00c2\u00bbjj. viiL 8. ^cyvxej for ovre^. ibid. 13.\\nT 3f rapx.os for tow rctfjxaToj D E F G Vulg. It. Tert. Patr.\\nLatini. Ibid. l5.=7raAiv. Ibid. 18. aTroTcahuTTTscr^cii for\\n\u00c2\u00ab7roxaAu p^ 3va *Ibid. 28^ 4- to before ayabov multi MSS.\\nMt. b. al. 5. Theophyl. Clem. Ibid. 29.4-^)5^ So| j?*\\nIbid. 3O.=T0UT0a^. ix. II. f^yihTrca for jO-rjTroj. Ibid.4-iW \u00c2\u00bb3T s\\nbefore yevv)3. \u00c2\u00a3VTajy. Ibid, fx-^jre for jutyj^s. Ibid. l2. auT\u00c2\u00bb2\\nD clar. germ. harl. Aug. Ambrst, Beda. Ibid. eA^r-\\nTfiVA for ihu rcrovt. Ibid. 13. xa^\u00c2\u00ab7re^ for xa^wg. Ibid. 18.\\nH H", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0111.jp2"}, "112": {"fulltext": "100\\n-f 6 ^20J. lb. 20. SCO. lb. 21,r=z(TXSVQg \u00e2\u0082\u00aci\u00c2\u00a7 TljU, ]V foF 11$ Tl-\\n|x )v (Txsuoj. X. 4. irXYipoifjuu for xeAoj Clem. once. lb. 6,\\nevT j KotghiA rov, Ib.=TOV. lb. 8. (r^o8pa. xi. II. exa-\\nvfiov for avToov, lb.=^. xlii. y, too to po/3ov to (po/3ov before\\ninstead of after rco to tsXo$ to reXog, lb. 9. toj Aoyw tOuto)\\nfor TouTw Tw Xoyw D E F G. Ib. \u00c2\u00a3v G Vulg. It.\\nPatr. Lat. Clem. xv. I9.=xai xuxAw, lb. ewj for fts-\\nI Corinthians i. 5. o 0(p\u00c2\u00bba for yvcaast. lb. 2i. auTw.\\nlb. 26. 8s for ya^. lb. 30. xa\u00c2\u00bb Sixaiocrovi) for 8 xa\u00c2\u00bboo-yv))\\nTl F G Cyr. Chrys. Ib. xai ayiua-fjiog, lb. %ctgct for airo.\\nii. 2. ey\u00c2\u00ab). lb. 4. \u00e2\u0080\u00a2cro^o/ for txra^oij Atb. It.\\nAmbrst. Lev. Ambr. Sedul. Ib.=av^pawr\u00c2\u00bbv j5 D E F\\nG Vulg. MS. It. Patr. Lat. Ath. Cyr. lb. ev aTroSafa 8f\\nju,aXXov for aXA ev a^roBafa. lb. twv Xoyoov for Koyoig, lb. 7.\\nSfxaicov for y)jxa)V. lb. 8. TOUToa tow aiaivog for tou aicovoj tow-\\nTou. lb. XpKTTov for xupiov, lb. 9.= a. lb. o 5s for eiS?.\\nlb. ii.=tou oLv^pcjoTTov F G Boern. Hil. Ambr. Vigil. lb.\\n6VOixoyv. lb. 12. UTTO for u^ro. lb. 13. -GrvevfjioiTixot \u00e2\u0080\u00a2crveu-\\n/xaTixoi^ for ijTvsu[JioiTixots crvsujtx.aTixa. lb. 14. eo Tiy aoTw for\\nctuTO) fcTTiv. iii. 3. (ragxtvoi for cra^xixoj D F G. lb. I5\u00c2\u00bb\\nlb. l9.=TooToy. iv. I.+Tojv. lb. II. xai. lb. 13.\\n=Tot;. V. lri rov Tert. Hilar. lb. 8. ov for ju. Ib, ev.\\nlb. Sg for ju, j5s. vii. 5\u00c2\u00ab ^oiv jji^i^ti for ci ju^vjti ccv. lb. (rv(ji(^covius\\nfor (njy.(^(avov, lb. 34. TrvsujW-aTi xa (Toifj^otTt for a co[jt,uri xai\\nwvsujxaTi. lb. 39. before the second avTj^. lb. ^povov d\\nav 3^ auTijj 5\u00c2\u00bb; for ^povov |tj avij^ oivtyi^, viii. 5. dsoi Xs-\\nyoy^Bvoi for Ksyoiuevoh ^soi. f lb. 6. xai y//ttfij aj auTOv\\nClem, z^/ videtur Cassiod. lb. 8. Trspia-asvofxe^a. for 7re-\\npi r(rsvo[/, :v. lb. ii. o before Xpia-Tos, ix. 9. ev to) vojxy\\nysyguTTTUi for ev yap tw jxajcrecoj vOjW-w yeyguTrrcti D E F G\\nIt. lb. 22. cravTug for uruvTcas Tivaj D E F G Vulg,\\nIt. Tert, Hier. Patr. Lat. Clem. lb. 27. xai SouAaywyai", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0112.jp2"}, "113": {"fulltext": "101\\nTO rcofji,x for to (rcofict xoti ZouXctyooyo). x. 4. tffsTpot h for\\n\u00c2\u00a7)j STSTpoc. lb. 6, lb. II. Si y)]xaj for cr^Of voy^scriav ^jxwv.\\nlb. 12. 6 (TTvixoov for ZoKoov so-Tavai In MSS. lb. I3. 0f,\\nlb. ai. xygioy rpwKs^Yis for rpuTrs^Yig xvpiov. lb. 3I. ti.\\nIb. 7ravTa. xi. 28. Ixafoj for av^pcoTros. lb. \u00c2\u00a3(r3/sTa) ex tow\\napTov for 6;c tou aprou sa-^isToo. xii. 8. T 3f, lb. 9. Sff\\nD E F G Vulg. It. Tert. Hilar. Ambrst. alii. Clem,\\nlb. 9. aXAw for Irepa). lb. 26, (ryvSofa^sTai for (TvyKCiipei,\\nlb. 27. fisXovs for jocspouf D Vulg. clar. germ. Ambrst.\\nPel. Ambr. Aug. Beda. Cyril. lb. 3i.=Ta. xiii. 2.\\n^KTTiv iroLO-ay for kolo olv T)jv 7r\u00c2\u00bb(rT v. lb. {^.\u00e2\u0096\u00a0=.yat.p, lb. lO.\\neav for orav. lb. 12. xuTOTTTpou for sa-orrTpov, lb. 12.\\nyiyfjLUTog for ev aiv/yjtJtaTi. xiv. 32.4-8?. xv. 25. for\\ncixp^S Ib.=7ravTaj. lb. =Touf before 7roSa$. lb. 28. yevyj-\\nTa for Ib. xai auTO^ 0. lb. 35. e^si 8s for uX\\\\*\\nipsi Ti\u00c2\u00a7. lb. o\u00c2\u00bb vsxpoi sysigovToii for syeipovTOLf oi Vcxpoi. lb.\\nxat -TTOiw for TTotM h. lb. 38. yap for 8s. lb. 42.=t\u00c2\u00ab;v. lb.\\n50. dwuTcti for 8yvavTa\u00c2\u00ab. lb. xXy3povo/xa.\\n2 Corinthians i. 5. sij ^jxa?. Ib. 8 a XpKrrov. ii. 7,\\nfji.il TroTs for fji^Yjircjo^, lb. l^. sv TravT* totto) Hilar. Aug.\\nsaepe. lb. i6.=Ta; ^soo, Ib. oo-|u,)j. iii. 6. va/. lb,\\ni^. aura)y. lb. 16. Toy before xupiov. lb. 18. tou be-\\nfore xupi\u00c2\u00bb. lb. xoty. Ib. e j. iv. 4. cov for sv oij 6. lb. ov-\\nTcov for Tcuv. lb. xaTayyacrot/ for ayya(r\u00c2\u00ab/ D E. lb. 6.=7rpoj,\\nlb. 7.=Tov before ^rjcaupov. lb. Xa/x\\\\[/ j u7rsp/3oX j T\u00c2\u00bb)f 80-\\nvuy,soog rov ^sov for uTrsp^oXYi t 3j 8uvajU,sa;j tou ^sou. xii.\\n7. xoXa(pKr j for xoAai^iJrj. xiii. 4. e/ yag for xm yap st, lb.\\nctTTS^ocvsv for eo-Taupw^yj.\\nGalatians i. 4. cuTro for ex. ii. i9.4- raj. lb. 20. 8e.\\niv. I. jXYjOsv for eSey. lb. 16. vpi^iv for u/jtcov. lb. y/x-iv ctXri^svcov\\nfor aA )^eua v ujxjy. lb. 21. tov vofji^ov uvoiyivcoa xovTs\u00c2\u00a7 for vtto\\nvofiov ^sXovTsg eivon. lb. avayivojo-xsTe for uxowsts B D E\\nF G Vulg. It. Hier. Ambr. Ambrst. Beda. Cyr. lb. 23.\\n\u00c2\u00ab3", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0113.jp2"}, "114": {"fulltext": "102\\nKui for akXu, V. 8. oyx D. Codd. Lat. ap. Hier. et Se-\\ndul. clar. germ. lb. 2:2. X^P*^ \u00c2\u00a3ip )v ayuTrr} for ayaitri\\n^apa s p 3vi3. lb. 22. xapTro* for KOLpito^, vi. 8. xa for 5g.\\nlb. i4.=^jX\u00c2\u00a3tfj/. lb. for a/xrj. lb. ^^^ttou \\\\y^ tov for Itjo-ov\\nEphefians i. 21. Toyrw .rw ajcov* for to; aicovi royro;. ii. 3.\\n8VSf yQvvT0\u00c2\u00a7 vuv for vuv evspyovvrog, lb. 7. XpYjaTorrjTog for\\ny^upiTOc. lb. 20. ojxoSojU, j. =vrej for eTroixoSojavj^evrgs lb. ray\\nbefore 7rpo pYircov. Ib. A*5ou D E F G Vulg. It. Tert.\\nalii. Ib.=iauToy, lb. H-tou xuptou r^fjLcov. iii. 5. OTrsp for 6.\\nIb. gy TTvsvfjLocTi. iv. g.=:ijuspYj D E F G It. Tert. Lucif.\\nHilar. Ambrft. Hier. lb. 10. ovtos for uvTog, lb.\\nl3. oI before 7ravre$ D F G Clem. lb. +to before /xe-\\nT^ov. Ib. T)jf before ^Aix aj. lb. 4-Toy (roofjuuTog Hilar,\\nsemel. lb. 14. v j 7rjOi. lb. ev tjj jxedoSeia for \u00c2\u00a3v Truvovpynx.\\nTcpog TTjy ju-g^oSsiav. lb. g7r rijv ^.v^sictv for \u00c2\u00a3v tjj xv^siu. lb.\\nTOU TTXoiVQVS for T)JV 7rA\u00c2\u00abV))f. lb. 27. TTOVYipcO foT dux^oXco.\\nPhilippians i. 23. xuXXiov avaXuo-at for ryjy gTridujOnay\\ns^f^ f TO avaAuo-a*. Ib. yoe^ D E F G Vulg. It. Aug.\\nPel. Cassiod. Beda. ii. ic-fx?*^ ^i\\n^ju^a^y.\\nGolossians i. 16. gxT o-rai for sxTJcrdi}. lb. =Ta before\\nopuTu and aopuru, lb. to; ou^avw for toij oupotvoig, Ib.=Ta\\nbefore ^avra. Ib. xa* after ogara. lb. 20. rctrs sv tt, yjj\\nxoti TCI iV TOig ovpciVQis for are tcc stti rrjs yr^$ etrs roc sv toij ou-\\npoivQis. Ib. S/ oivTov D F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Cyr.\\nlb. Toy o-raygoy. ii. 3. x\u00c2\u00ab{. Ib.=T jf before yvoiosoos\\nD. Clem, semel. lb. 8.=t\u00c2\u00ab;v. lb. 14. =xa^ ^jxwy. lb.\\n16. xpivsTM TIC ya\u00c2\u00abj for Tig viJiot; xpivsTM. lb. xa* for j. lb.\\n^i. ]u \u00c2\u00bbj twice for [XYjh Ambr. Aug. Ambrst. iii. 4. 6 be-\\nfore Xpio-roj. Ib. T j. lb. 10 =ayTOv. lb. gvSyojxevoi for\\nevSycra/jisvoi. iv. 6. onroKpivoKr^cn for u7roxpivs T^cx.i,\\nI Thessalonians ii. 7. gay for \u00c2\u00aby D E F in Wetstein.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0114.jp2"}, "115": {"fulltext": "103\\nG. lb. 14. h for yap, Ib.=aSeX(po/. lb. xat v^si^ sTtx^sTe\\nfor cTTo^rTs xcit vfjing. lb. 15. I jcroyy. lb. i6. ogyij ew*\\nuvTovs for stt avTov$ yj ogyv}, iv. r5. sv in MSS. lb. l5,\\n-^Tou before ^sov. lb. uyyeKou for up^^^ocyysXov, v. 2?i\\na7ro. lb. 23. Ty;^)jde y^ ev rp ^pitTTOu for^ev t\u00c2\u00bbj Kpio TOtj\\n3 Thessalonians ii. 3. avofxiug for ufiapTioig Tert. Ibj,\\n-}-xa/. lb. 4. sTtaipoixsvog for t 7rega ^o^evoj F G. Ib. As-\\nyofjisvov, lb. S. ^soj after xvgio;. lb. q. tow before \\\\[/\u00c2\u00a3y^\\n^oy^ lb. I2. ev D F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Cyr.\\n1 Timothy ii. i. u/xaj. Ib.=7ravTa)v F G Boern. Ibi\\n8. Toug ccv^ga; Trgoarsv^sa-^ai for Trpocreup^eo ai rouj uv^pois D\\nF G Vulg. in Wetstein. lb. oo-ius for 6cr ou^. lb. diaXo\\nyiG-fj^m for hoLKoyi TiJ.s FG multi MSS. Mt. 1. Boern. Hier,\\nlb. 9.=rflf5 before yvvctixoi$ D F G. iii. i^, Te D Vulg.\\nclar. Ambrst. lb. Kvpi8 for ^ea. lb. 6j for ^rij. iv. i,\\n-nrXavyj? for srXocvois multi MSS. Vulg. Ambr. Pel. Clem.\\nAth. Cyril. lb. a. oijcstav for *5/av. Ib. uyiouj. lb. 10.\\n4-xaj.\\n2 Timothy ii. 21. Tiju, jj for si; ripuriv, iii. 16. owo-a for\\nxa*. Ib. ecTTj, iv. 4. aTroorgefpovrsj ayryjv for rrjv axor^v\\nTitus iii. 3. 7roTs. lb. uvor^roi uTrei^sis for aTrsj^eij avo-\\n3T0 lb. =7rAav\u00c2\u00ab;ju,\u00c2\u00a3vo lb. ro^A\u00c2\u00ab*? ta*\u00c2\u00ab lb. 5\u00c2\u00ab+ roy. lb.\\n=:uyiov, 245 Constant 199\\nInconstant 245\\n444\\nTo these the following eleven should be added,\\nwhich were accidentally omitted in the calculation.\\nConstant, i Cor. ii. 27. kutukt^vvyi tsc aopng trans-\\nposed D Vulg. clar. germ. Cyr. lb. 28. tou xoo--\\nfwu. lb. 29. iva for ottmc. iii. 11. XpiG-jog Ikjo-okj for \\\\r,(T(jv$\\nH4", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0115.jp2"}, "116": {"fulltext": "104\\nX^/cTTo; D E Vulg. clar. germ. Patr. Lat. x. t. fjuoovs-riv\\nfor ju-cocDjy F G alii. Patr. xii. 6. xai for 6 h,\\nGalatians iv. 26.r=cravTcov D E F G Vulg. It.\\nTert. Ambrst. alii. Isidor. Cyr.\\nColossians iii. 5.=6^cyy Clem.\\nInconstant, i Corinthians xv. 4y. xvpiog D E F\\nG Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Ath. Cyr. Isidor. lb. xev-\\nrpov and viko$ transposed. Vulg. Tert. Hier. alii. Ath.\\nCyr.\\nI Thessalonians ii. 7. VYiTrm for Yi-Trm D F G Vulg.\\nIt. Ambrst. Pel. Aug. alii. Clem. Cyr.\\nThe whole number of the Constant readings will\\nthen amount to 207, and of the Inconstant to 248 of\\nboth, to 455.\\nN. B. A single asterisk denotes a passage in\\nwhich Origen agrees with one or more Alexandrine\\nwriters and two asterisks denote, when he agrees\\nnot only with one or two Alexandrine writers, but also\\nwith the Western text.\\nAgreements of A with Origen, where the re-\\nceived Text reads alone,\\nRomans i. 19. ^sog yap for 6 yap ^eog D E G\\nAth. lb. 27 oippsvs$ sv appecrt for otga^sve; sv otg(rs(ri 17,\\nal. 6. Clem. Theod. ii. 8. opyri xai ^uixog for ^vfxos xa* ogyy^\\nD E G Vulg. It. Patres Lat. lb. 14. ttoicoo-i for ttoiij\\n47, 67, 73. al. 2. Mt. b. Clem. viii. 26,=:u7rsp Yjfjccov\\nD F G clar. Boern. lb. 36. kvsxsv for kvsxa F G\\nClem. ix. II. pctu\\\\ov for xaxov. lb. vgo^sa-is ts ^ss for\\nTtf ds8 %po^i Tig D E F G Vulg. It. lb. 1 9. yap D E\\nF G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. lb. 33. =7r\u00c2\u00abjD E FG It. Patr.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0116.jp2"}, "117": {"fulltext": "105\\nLat, xi. 22. a TTOTOf/.itx. for a7roT0[Jnotv. xiii. 7 \u00c2\u00bbv D. Vulg*\\nMS. tol. Cypr. Cassiod, Ruf. lb. 8. olKKy^Kh^ ayctituv\\nfor otyoLTOLv aWYikovg D F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Cyr.\\nlb. 9. oy yl;suhfJLoigrupviG-si5 D E F G Vulg. MS. It,\\nClem. Cyr. Patr. Lat. lb. aeotvTov for suvrov D E alii.\\n1 Corinthians i. 2.=Y,fj.cov Tert. Ambrst. Pelag. ii.\\nI5.r=/x,sv D F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. v. 7. stv^yi for e^ud^j\\nD E F I multi MS. vi. 19. ra (rco^aroc. for to o-wj/x-a Pfeu-\\ndo Ath. Cyril. Vulg. Hier. Aug. Ambrst. **vii. 39.=\\nvojaoj D. clar. germ. harl. tol. Vulg. Patr. Lat. Clem,\\nviii. 5.=T)3f D E F G Cyr. ix. I. ovx, 6 /x,i eXsv^sgog ovh\\nsijxi wTTOs-oXog for ovx eifj^i wnog-oXog oux sifxi sXsv^spog flor.\\nVulg. Tert. Ambrst. Aug. Pel. Cassiod. Beda. Ib.=\\nXpicTTov Vulg. MS. Ambrst. lb. 22.=co^ Vulg. clar.\\ngerm. Patr. Lat. xiv. 8. (TuK-niy^ (pcavYjv for ^covijv a-ixX%iy^\\nunnoticed by Griesbach in his notes to the New Test.\\nlb. 38. uyvostToti( for uyvostrco D F G clar. germ. xv.\\n6. ijTKstovsg for ^Xstovs D E F G Cyril. lb. 7. sTrsiTot\\nfor siTct F G. lb. 12. sv u/xiv Tives for tivs^ sv v^liv unno-\\nticed by Griesbach in his notes on the New Test. **Ib.\\n2o. \u00c2\u00a37\u00c2\u00a3veT0 D E F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Cyr. lb. 21.\\nD. lb. 29. amuiv for tcov vsxpwv D E F G Vulg. It\u00c2\u00bb\\nAmbrst. Pel. Beda. Isidor. lb. 31. f^jxerspav for uft\u00c2\u00a3-\\nTSpotV,\\n2 Corinthians iii. i^. av after yivixu,\\nGalatians i. 4. Jtsgi for O Ttep D E F G Boern.\\nEphesians ii. 20. Xgic-roo I j roy for Ivia-ou Xgi(TTOv un-\\nnoticed in New Teft. v. 14. systgs for eysipoj D E F G.\\nlb. 2^. 6uvToov Clem, semel. Cyr. Chrys.\\nPhilippians ii. ji. s^ofji^oXoyric-sTai for s^ofLoXoyyio-riTOLi F\\nG alii. iii. 10. (rvi/.iJiop pi(^oiJi.svog for (ruju ju,op poy/jo\u00c2\u00a3Voj D 175\\n71, 6^, Two MSS. of Origen read o-ujx/Aop^iJojxsvoj, and\\ntwo others cryja^o^i^oyjxsyof.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0117.jp2"}, "118": {"fulltext": "106\\nI Thessaloniatis ii. i^. ihov$ D E F G Vulg. It.\\nTert. Pel. Ambrst. iv. 13. ^sXo[jiev for ^sXco D E F G\\nVulg. It. Patr. Lat. lb. xoijxw/xevcov for xexo^jowojicsvcov.\\n2 Thessalonians ii. 2, fxYjh for fXYjTi unnoticed in New-\\nTest, lb. Kvpiou for ^gi TTov D E F G Vulg. It. Patr.\\nLat. lb. 4. coj ^sov D Vulg. clar. germ. Patr. Lat.\\nCyr. lb. 6. ocura for kctuT8. lb. io.=Tri$ F G yi, 73, 80.\\n1 Timothy iii. ci, vYi(puKiov for vvjjpaXsov D alii. vi. ly,\\ns^i for ev D F G alii. Ib. Ta; ^oovri G alii Vulg. MS.\\nharl. tol. Hier. lb. tsravra mXov(nuis for \u00e2\u0096\u00a0cxXoucricoj Tff^ocvTcc\\nD E alii Vulg. clar. germ. Pel.\\n2 Timothy iii. 12. jv cucrs/Sco^ for suas^Mg )v.\\nAgreeinents of A with Origen, where Or igen\\nreads inconstantly^ agreeing both with A and\\nwith the received Text,\\nRomans vii. 14. Is for yap D E Hil. Ruf. Ambr.\\nAug. semel Beda. Cyr. viii. 28. -^so;. ix. 19. jw,o/ \u00c2\u00abv\\nfor ow /xo*.\\nI Corinthians ii. ii. av^pco7r\u00c2\u00ab;v Ath. Cyr. Vigil,\\ntaps. iv. 13. Su(r9 3|aouju,\u00c2\u00a3vc\u00c2\u00bbi for ^X(X(T pYifx,ov(j,evoi Clem,\\nCyril. V. 4.=\u00c2\u00bbXpjo-Toy D Vulg. clar. Ambrst. Hilar.\\nAug. Ambr. Pel. lb. 5.=^]xajy F G Vulg. Boern. Sed.\\nAmbr. Pel. Ambrst. Ih. XgiaTov D E F G Vulg.\\nIt. Ambrst. Sed. Ambr. Pel. vii. 3 ^s Vulg. MS.\\nCypr. alii. lb. ^g.=ctuTY}g Vulg. MS. Vig. taps.\\nCyr. viii. 8. Trupaa-rrio-i for Tra^jcrryjo-j Clem. Ath. x. 4.\\n=aoTO. lb. ii.=%civTu Cyr. Pacian. xii. 31. f/,si^ovot.\\nfor xpEiTTQvu, Vulg. Hier. xiii. io,=tots D F G Vulg.\\nIt. Ambrst. Aug. alii. xv. 25.=av D E F G MSS.\\nalii. lb. ayroy E Boern. harl. Tert. Vict. alii. lb. 38.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0118.jp2"}, "119": {"fulltext": "w\\ndi Baxriv etvTco for avTo) h ^ooo iv unnoticed by Griesbach in\\nNew Test.\\n2 Corinthians iil. i8. {ji\u00c2\u00a3rci{jiop(pov[jt.svoi for iizraiuop^Qr^\\nfjti^oi unnoticed in New Test. iv. 6.=:lr}(rou Tert.\\nGalatians i. 4. aicavo^ rs svsfcorog for t8 svss-cjoTog oncovos.\\nEphesians ii. 3. (puasi rstcvct for tsxvcc (pu(T\u00c2\u00a3i D E F G\\nVulg. It. Patr. Lat. lb. 7. to v-TtspfSuXXov TrXourog for tov\\nwrsplSocXovrci -TrXovrov D F G. vi. I2.=T0U oiioovo$ D F\\nG Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Clem. Ath.\\n2 Thessalonians ii. 8. avsXst for uvuXcoara D F. Ibid.\\nio. \u00c2\u00a3v D F G Vulg. It. Tert. Aug. Ambrst. alii.\\nIbid. 1 1 crsjaTra for \u00e2\u0080\u00a2ursfji.i/si D F G Vulg. MS. Ambrst.\\nIbid. 12. (XTTuvTsc for -sravrgj.\\nI Timothy ii. 9. xui for 3 before xpucria) D F G\\njclar. 29\\nAgreements of A C with Origen^ where the re-\\nceived Text reads alone,\\nRomans i. i6.=Toy y^pi(rrou A B C D E G\\nVulg. It. Cyr. Ibid. 2,4, kui A B C 17, 31, 47, 75.\\nVulg. iii. 22. xa* stti isuvtols ABC Codd. Lat,\\nAug. Clem. Cyr. Ibid. 30. si-psp for sTrsiTrsp A C,\\nClem. Cyr. Ibid. 31. laTuvoiJisv for la-Tcofxsv A B C F\\n(rTuvo[/.5v G Cyr. vi. i2. auT j sv A B C 4, 39, 47, 67,\\n80. Vulg. Hier. Aug. c. viii. 38. ovts svsa-Tooru ours\\njjisXXovTU OVTS hwocixsig for OUTS 8yva/xs j ovts svsa-Toyra. ovts\\nfj^sXXovTu A B C D E F G Boern. Hilar. Hier. Aug.\\nPel. Ambr. Fulg. Cyr. xi. 21. (psiasToti for (psta-YiTui A C\\nD F G al. 45. Mt. a. al. 8. Chrys. Aug. Ruf. **xiv.\\n9. xa/ A C D E F G 17, 73, 74, 76. al. 9. Vulg.\\nBoern. Cyr. Ibid. 2I.= 3 crKctvhuXi^sTui yj ao-^^^sva A C 67.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0119.jp2"}, "120": {"fulltext": "108\\nOrig. hue usque tan turn exeitans versum. Ruf. Aug.\\nsemel.\\nI Corinthians i. 23. e^vecri for IXX 3 n A B C D E\\nF G I 5, 10, 17, 23, 31, 37, 46, 71, 73, 80. Vulg. It.\\nPatr. Lat. Ath. Cyr. ii. 2.=toy A B C D E F G\\n5, 10, 37, 465 7I3 73, 74. These MSS. also have ov sx.piva.\\nTi siZevof, but Origen has sxgiva, /xrySsv aSsvo/. Cyr. Ibid. 3.\\nxayw for xa* eyw A C 37, 39, 46, 71, 73, 74. Mt. (1. k.\\nIbid. 7. ^\u00c2\u00a38 o-ocpiav for o-otpiav ^s\u00c2\u00ab A B C D E F G 37,\\n465 74, 80. Mt. k. f. 19. Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Clem.\\nCyr. **Ibid. j^.-uyiou AB CD FG 17,67, 71, 80.\\nVulg. It. Patr. Lat. Cyr. iii. i. xayw for xa/ syoo A C D\\nF G 17, 46, 73, 80. alii Mt. f. Clem. Ibid, a-otpxivoig for\\n(ragxixoif AB C D 67, 71. Clem. **Ib.3. xa/ S ^ofa(na/\\nA C 23, 46, 57, 71, 74. Vulg. Hier. Aug. Ambr. Clem.\\n**vii. 3. OipaXifjv for OJ^aXo/xevy^v euvoiav A B C D E F G 6,\\n17, 46, 67, 71. Vulg. It. Tert. Cypr. Ambrst. caeterique\\nLatini. Clem. **Ibid. 5.=t\u00c2\u00bbj vrjcrraa xai A B C D E F\\nG 9, 10, 17, 29, 46, 47, 67, 73. Vulg. It. Cypr. Ambrst.\\nPel. Hier. Aug. Ambr. Clem. Cyr. Ibid. rxoAao- jT\u00c2\u00a3 for\\n(TxoAaJijTs A B C D E F G 39, 46, 73, 74, 80. Dion. Isid.\\n**Ib. vjTs for avvsgx^a^s A B C D E F G Boern. Aug.\\nClem. Cyr. **Ib. y.,h for yap A C D F G 17, 23, 39,\\n46. It. Tert. Cypr. Hil. Ambrst. Pel. Ambr. Aug. Cyr.\\nIbid. \u00c2\u00a3p^a ^txpKTfxa, for ;^a/ji(rjxa s^si A B C D E F G\\nIt. Cypr. Clem. Cyr. ix. 8. r; xa/ 6 vofj,o\u00c2\u00a7 tuvtu ov \\\\syst\\nfor \u00c2\u00bb3 ou;)^i voju^oj TctuTu ksyst A B C D E.46. Vulg. clar,\\nAmbrst. Aug. Ibid. 10. o^aXa en eXTriSi for en eXnih\\no^aXaABC 17,31,37,46^ 80. Vulg. Aug. Pel. Beda.Cyr.\\nIbid, stt sXTTiSi T8 fxers^stv omitting the subsequent en\\nsXtt/Si ABC Vulg. Pel. Beda. Aug. Cyr. Ibid. 16. yup\\nfor Ss A B C D E F G 6, 10, 17, 23, 39, 46, 71. Vulg.\\nIt. Hier. Ambrst. Aug. Ambr. alii. Cyr. Ibid. 21.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0120.jp2"}, "121": {"fulltext": "109\\n^sou for ^e\u00c2\u00abj A B C D E F G 7, ly, 26, 31, 37, 42, 46,\\n6y, 73. Vulg. It. Ambrst. Hier. Aug. Pel. Cyr. Isid. lb.\\nTOUJ before otvofjiovs A B C D 17, 71, 73. editio Coli-\\nnaei. x. i. yap for Se A B C D E F G 17, 39^ 46, 73,\\n80. al. 6. Hilar. Clem. Cyr. Ibid. 11. tottikms\\nforruTro* A B C F lo, 17, 33, 31, 46, 47, 57, 71, 73,\\n80. In figura Vulg. It. Patres Latini. Cyr. Ibid.\\ni3.=u^\u00c2\u00abj AB C D E F G I 17, 32, 46, 47, 52, 6y,\\n73, 80. Vulg. It. Cyr. Ibid. 32. xa* louSaioij yivso-^s\\nfor yivea-^i xcn louSaioij ABC 17, 37^ 73. Cyr. xii. 21*\\n6 before o^^uXfxo^ A C D E F G I 23, 46, 48, 72, 73,\\n74, 80. al. 7. Mt. a. d. i. al. 6. xv. 49, pops rooijt,ev\\nfor ^ope roixev A C D E F G I 28, 37, 39, 47, 48, 67,\\n71, 72, 73, 80. al. 28. et Barb. 6. Mt. h. 19. al. 7. Vulg.\\nIt. Tert. Cypr. Hilar. Ambrst. Hier. Pel. caeterique La-\\ntini. Cyr.\\n2 Corinthians i. 7. cos for (oa- Trsp A C D E 31, 64, 73.\\nIbid. 12. dyioTYiTi for aTrXorijTi A B C 37, 64, 67, 73.\\nClem. ii. i6. \u00c2\u00a3x A C 10, 17, 31, ^y, 47, 80.\\nHilar. Clem. Cyr. *iii. 9. rj) ^lotxovict for 8\u00c2\u00abaxov/a A\\nC D F G 17, 3I5 39, 73, 74, 80. clar. germ. Rufin. Se-\\ndul. Ambrst. Cyr. Ibid. 10. for 8^\u00c2\u00a3 A C D E F G 12,\\n175 23, 31, 37, 46, 48, 72^ 73? 74- al. 25. Mt. a. al, 8.\\nHier. Aug. Ibid. 15. avayjvworxijrai for ctvuy ivoocrjcs-\\nTa\u00c2\u00ab A C D E 17, 31, 37, 48. al. 7. Mt. b. n. 9. Cyr.\\niv. io. xupoy A B C D F G 17, 18^ 31, 71, 80.\\nVulg. It. Tert. Ambrst. Aug. Cyr.\\nGalatians ii. 14. x\u00c2\u00ab/ ovx, lovdaiKoog ^^s for t^rjg xcn ouk\\nlovldixuig A B C F G 37^ 73. 80. Mt. f. Boern. harl.\\nVulg. MS. Hier. Aug. Beda. Ibid, rroog for t A B C\\nD E F G 31, 37, 39, S7 71. 73p ^o, Mt. f. Vulg. It.\\nPatres Latini.\\nEphesians iii. 5.=\u00c2\u00a3y A B C D E F G 17, S7i 73", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0121.jp2"}, "122": {"fulltext": "110\\nSo. al. 41. pluresve. Mt. a. al. 10. Vulg. It. Hier. alii.\\nClem. Ibid. 6, uvTorj A B C D 17, 73. Vulg. MS.\\nclar. germ. Hier. Pel. Cyr. Ibid. 8.=t\u00c2\u00ab;v A C D E\\nF G alii multi. Mt. a. m. al. 10. Cyr.\\nPhilippians i. 24. sv A C 19, 45, 47, 61, Mt.\\nc. k. Clem. Petr. Alex. Cyr.\\n**Colossians iv. i. spuvwfor spavois A B C 19, 31, ^y,\\n39, 57, 73. Mt. f. Edit. Colon. Fulg. unnoticed by\\nGriesbach. Clem.\\n2 Timothy iii. 6. ai^fxaXuiTi^ovreg for ui^fxotXooTsvovTeg\\nA C D E F G 17, 31, 47, S7 7U 72, 73 74- al. 8. Mt.\\nk. n. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. Ibid.=Ta A-C D E F G\\n57) 71? 72) 73? 74) 80, 87. al, 11. pluresque. Mt. a. al.\\n9. Chrys. Theophyl.\\nTitus i. 5. u KB Ki Kov for. kutsXittov A C D F G 17, 23,\\n3i 45 57^ ^7W3- Mt. a. 53.\\nAgreements of A C with Origen^ where Origen\\nreads inconstantly^ agreeing both with A C\\nand with the received Texts,\\nRomans i. 21. riv^upis-yia-av for euxo^pig-ria-eiv A C D E\\n17. Clem. Ath. Cyr. viii. 14. vloi ^eou zia-iv for e^(T^v v\\\\oi\\n^\u00c2\u00a3tf A C D 39, 47, 80. Vulg. MS. clar. germ. Cassiod.\\nI Corinthians i. 29. roy ^sou for uvtou A C D E F G I\\n17) 235 ^1^ 39^ 4 47) 48) 57) 6I) 72) 73^ 74) 80. al.\\n41 Mt. a, al. 1 1 It. Chrys. Aug. Ibid. 30. To^ia rjfiiv\\nfor y)fji,iv (ro(pici A C D E 37^ 46, 71. Vulg. MS. It. harl.\\nAmbrst. Cyr. a-o piu yhxiv F G. **ii. 11. syvooxev for oihv\\nA C D E 37, 39, 46, 7I5 74, 80. Vulg. It. Ambr. Hil.\\nalii. Ath. Cyr. syvco F G. iii. 2. ehmo-^s for ijSu-\\n\u00c2\u00bb6c(r^s A B C F G^7j 46, 48, ^y, 72. Mt. b. Clem.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0122.jp2"}, "123": {"fulltext": "Ill\\nCyr. Ibid.=:xa* A C 17, 23, 37, 39, 46, 73, 80.\\nMt. c. f. Vulg. Cypr. Hilar. Ambrst. Clem. Cyr.\\nIbid. 8^s for srs A B C D E F G 17, 39, 46, s7, 7 1^\\n73. Clem. Cyr. Ibid. 13. auTo A C 37^ 39, 4.6, 6y,\\n73, 80. Barb. i. Theodoret. v. j, u7rsp yi ^wv A C\\nD E F G 17, 46. Vulg. It. Tert. Cypr. Ambrst,\\nHier. Clem. Ath. Cyr. ix. :?3. t\u00c2\u00ab A B C D F G\\nClem. ^*xii. 3. Iijo-oyj for I 3crouy A B C 5^ 17, 46*\\nVulg. Ambrst. Pel. Ambr. Victor. Aug. Sedul. Bed.\\nCyr. Ibid. xy^*o; lri T8s for Kvpiov I)jo-\u00c2\u00abv A B C 6, 17,\\n31, 46, 67^ 73. Vulg. Pel. Ambr. Aug. Beda. Cyr.\\na, Corinthians i. 5.+Toy A C D E F G 17, 37, 46,\\n64, 71, 72, 74, 80. alii multi. Mt. a. al. 11. Chrys. iii.\\n7.=gyAB C D FG 17, 67^ 73, 80. Boern. **iv. 4.=au-\\nTOij A B C D F G 17, 23, 39, 73. It. harl. Vulg. MS.\\nAug. Vigil. Ambrst. Pel. Cyr.\\nGalatians vi. i4.=Taj before xoo-jw-w A B C D F G 17.\\nHier. Aug. Ambrst.\\nEphesians iii. 14. =tou xypis rj^u^wv lyjo-y X^*(rT8 A B\\nC 17, 67. Vulg. MS. Vigil. Aug. semel. Cassiod. Cyr.\\nColossians iii. 12. oiKripf/.8 for oixr/pjotwv A C D E F\\nO i7y 3h 37 y A^y 47? b7y 7^, 73 ^o- al. 23. Mt, a. al.\\nClem. 19.\\nAgreements of A with Origen 53\\ninconstant 29\\nAgreements of A C with Origen 53\\ninconstant 19\\nTotal agreements of A with Origen 154", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0123.jp2"}, "124": {"fulltext": "112\\nDeviations of A alone, in opposition both to Ori-\\ngen and the received Text,\\nRomans i. 17. 5s for re. Ibid. 28. 6 ^soj. ii. 5. av-\\nTaTToSoo-ccoj for wTroKoiXu^satg. iii. 4. v/x jo-eij for v\u00c2\u00abx )(r*jj un-\\nnoticed by Griesbach. A D 29, 30, 32. Wetstein. lb.\\n42. 6V KpKTTcti Ir)(rou for I)3crou Xg\u00c2\u00ab(rTOu. Ibid. 25. 8\u00c2\u00bba t j;\\nwicTTfooj. V. 13. eXXoyuTO for eXXoyeixo. Ibid. 15. 0UV. Ibr\\n17. 6v Ivi for Tw Tou evoj. Origen has ev hog. vii. 3.\\nbefore yuvrj. Ibid. 2^.=tco vofjt,(o ra voo? fjiov. viii. 30. xai\\nouj for 06$ 8s. Ibid. Tposyvu) for Trpocopias, Ibid. 39. tow\\nxvpiov for T\u00c2\u00abj xuptto, ix. J 6. eAfoovroj for \u00c2\u00abXsouvtoj. Ibid.\\n20. CO avd^coTTS fjLsvouvys for /tsvouvye ei uv^pwnc. xi. 20.\\nwv|/ jXa (ppovei for o\\\\|/ )A.o^^ovfi. Ibid. 26. xa(. xiii. I. utto\\nfor aTTO, Ibid.= gfowericti. Ibid.=TOo. Ibid. 9. e(rTiy lb.\\n12. ijyyKTsV for ijyyixev. Ibid, e^ya for bitXci, xiv. ]0. -^sou\\nior ^pi(T70\\\\), xvi. 20. cvvrpi^on for rvvTpt^st. Ibid, ev ra-\\np^ei WTTO Toyj TToSaj ^/iccv for utto rag Tro^ctg v^fLMV ev rcf/jEi.\\nI Corinthians i. 27 \u00c2\u00abva TO(pous xaTai(r;^uv xai ra\\na(r^ev j tou xoc/tou e^sXefaxo 6 ^50j, ii. 9. ocra for Ibid.\\nJj. Ta. iii. 7. ot/T6. Ibid. 10. e^ijxa for Tsdeixa. iv. 2.\\n\u00c2\u00ab8ff for 68e. Ibid. ?\u00c2\u00bb)T\u00c2\u00a3/ts for JijTgiTaj. v. 8. lopTa^Ojxev for\\nsopTot^ctifxsv, Ibid. )XixpiViaj for etXixpivsiois. Ibid. II. jxr;\\nfor jxijSs. vi. 10. ou for oure. Ibid. ou before xX)j^oyo/A j-\\n(Toua-i, Ibid. 15. fi/xcov for u/xa v. vii. 12. Xgyco gyco for syco\\nXeyui, Ibid. 32. a^ecr*j for ageasi. Ibid. 39. aTro-^avyj for\\nxo\u00c2\u00ab]tt j3ij. viii. 6. ujttiv for yi{jhv. Ibid. 8.=5yap. Ibid. jtJt- J\\nbefore the first ^ctyooiji^ev, and subsequently omitted, x.\\n3. TTveufj^otuxov s(puyov ^\u00c2\u00a7ai[xoi. for ^pcti[ji,u TzvsviLunyiOv s ^ayov.\\nIbid. auTo. xi. 5\u00c2\u00bb wacra for Tracra 8e. Ibid. 25, 6(ra-\\nxig av TTivriTs sig tjjv jjx ]v uvotfjivr^(nv\u00c2\u00bb xii. 26. sv. xiii. 4.\\nTTspTTOpsusTui for TrspTTspsusTcii. XIV, 1^, ff\u00c2\u00a7o(rsv^cti[jiui forTrpoo--\\npujojxai. Ibid. 21. iTg^wv for erspois, xv. 5. STretTa fer 5*Tat", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0124.jp2"}, "125": {"fulltext": "113\\nibid. 19. SV p(pia-TCp YlX TTUOTSg S(TIXSV (JiOVOV for -riKTTlTiOTSg \u00c2\u00a30 ]a=y\\nsy ^pKTTcp ij^ovov. Ibid. 2^.=^Tov. Ibid. 24. 7r\u00c2\u00abpaS for\\nTTupoi^cti. lb. 28.=Ta. Ih, ^J, ot.hX po I, lb. 36. a^pcov for\\nuppov, lb. Icaoyovsnoj for ^MOTTOisiroif. lb. 38. =.to. lb. 51.\\no\u00c2\u00ab. Ibid. 5^\u00c2\u00ab avacTTJjcrovTai for syep^i^a-ovTon. Ibid. 55.\\n7r8 crou a )j ro v ;iOc.\\n!Z Corinthians i. 12. ev. iii. 3. xotphotis for xapdiotg.\\nIbid. 9. ey. iv, 4. Siauyao-a* for uvyacron. Ibid. 10. (pave-\\np\u00c2\u00abj^ 3 ev TOO (Tctiu.ciTi Y}fji.oov for \u00c2\u00a3V TM (yu)[jt.aTi Yjixcov !puvepco^Yi,\\nxii. 7- =*v\u00c2\u00ab /xrj xjivspcupwixoLi, Ibid. 9. TeAs Ta\u00c2\u00bb for tsXsiou-\\nTui. Ibid. ld. sv Si\u00c2\u00ab;y/x,o\u00c2\u00abf.\\nGalatians ii. 9. xa x ](pa5. iii. 28. ej-s ^picrrov I\u00c2\u00bbjcroy\\nfor S5 ^i r Ir)(r\u00c2\u00ab. Ibid. aTTiStvrsj for Travrsc. Ibid.==aj.\\nVI. 14. xaup^ )(rao-^a tor xav^oKT^ai.\\nEphesians iv. 8. Y}^(/. xKMTcv rac for Yi^y,o(,KcoTsv(Tcv Ibid.\\n14. rac jxedoSeiaj for rtjv ju-s^oSciav. Ibid. 37. y^^^s for ]tJt jTe.\\nV. 31. T 5 yuvatxt for irgog rvjv yuvaixa,\\nPhilippians i. 29. rjjotjv for i/|a\u00c2\u00bbv. ii i^.-\\\\-hvcitji.sis.\\niii. 8- Ir^trou ^pKTTOv for -^pKyTOv Iyjo-qu. Ibid. 2i. sjj\\nTO y=V\u00c2\u00a3(r3a\u00c2\u00bb \u00c2\u00abuto. iv. 7. ^pKTTOu for deou. Ibid. I3.=p(^^i-\\n(TTCO.\\nColossians ii. j^.=tov. Ibid. i8.=jay3. iii. 4. cryv\\navTco.\\n1 Thessalonians iv. 13. Xu7rejo-^s for XuTnjcr^s.\\n2 Thessalonians ii. S. lvi ag.\\n1 Timothy i. i. p^picrrou lyjo-ou for li^o-ow ^pi rTOu, Ibid,\\n=:xvpiou. ii. 9. xai. Ibid. xaraTrAEyjU-acr/v for TrKEyfxacriv.\\nIbid. ^pv(Tiop for ^(^pucrw. iv. 2. HsnaucrTyjpjacrjaeywv for Ksxctv-\\nTYipia(r(j,5voov. v. 20.\\n2 Timothy i. 10. ^pic-TGu Ivjcry for Iijcroy y^gKTTov. Ibid*\\n16. STTaio-p^uv^rj for STryjO^p^uy^vj. Ibid. 17. (TTrovdonoTsgcos for\\n(TTToySatOTEpov. iii. 6, yion yi^qvoh^. Ibid. li. gygvovro for\\neysvero. iv. 7* xaXov cnyiavcx. for (xyoova. xoikov,\\nI", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0125.jp2"}, "126": {"fulltext": "114\\nTitus i. \u00c2\u00a37ri8iop^a)(r jf for sTn ^iop^Mo-r}, lb. 15. /itep\u00c2\u00ab-\\nl/,svoi$ for ixsi/.iu(ri/,svois, iii. 5. ro eXsoj for tov sXeov. lio\\nThe deviations of A C, in opposition both to Origen\\nand the received text, have been already given in a\\nnote, pp. 385 39. Their amount is 30, which, added\\nto the preceding no, makes 140, the total of the de-\\nviations of A alone.\\nHeadings of the Boernerian Manuscript G,\\nwhere A agrees with the received Text.\\nRomans i. 16. stti suuyysKiov for to evciyyEXiov. Ibid.\\nj cra)T 3p\u00c2\u00bbav. Ibid.rriTT^wTov. Ibid. 1 8. -|-t\u00c2\u00ab;v before av-\\n^pMTToov, Ibid. 19. oTi for ^ioti. lb. 20. bpara. for uoqccra..\\nIbid. 21. aoLptioL auTciiv for uvtmv xotpliot. Ibid. 26. \\\\-^pY}(nv.\\nii. 8.=ftev. Ibid. 9. lAAijv* for IXA }voj. Ibid. 14. rot e^vr}\\nfor e- v)j. iii. %.-=-yot.p. Ibid. 19. Asyei for XolKzi, v. 8. 6\\ndeof e\u00c2\u00abj ^/xac for eij fijw-a^ 6 ^eoj. Ibid. er* for st*. Ibid.\\n12. 6 j Tov xo(rju,ov a/xapxia sicryjX cV for a/xagria e tov\\nxoa-fjiov etcryjX ffv. Ibid. 6 before ^ocvctTo\u00c2\u00a7. Ibid. 6 ^avaroj\\nbefore SdjA^sv. Ibid. 14. [xoovasoo^ for ixooascos. Ibid. 15.\\n\u00c2\u00a3V. vii. 3. ^pr,fjLccTKrsi fjiOt^uXi; for [jLOiyotKis ^pr)fJiciTt(rsi,\\nIbid. auT 3f. Ibid. I5.=touto. viii. iy. xKi^govoixoi [xsv\\n^sou (TvyK} Yipovo[xoi. Ibid. 19. \u00c2\u00a3ou for tou ^sou. Ibid. 20.\\nou ^\u00c2\u00a3\\\\ov ru for oux 6xou ra. Ibid. 21. 5\u00c2\u00bbot for ot/. Ibid.=^\\nbefore xxicn^. Ibid, 22. ccSivs* for crvvoolivsi. Ibid. 26.\\nvpoasv^ofji^s^ci for irpoa-su^ooixs^u. Ibid. 32. 6j ouSe uloy i5 oy\\nfor 6(rye tou i5ioy olou oyx. Ibid. Ta before ttuvtu. Ibid.\\n35.+oyv. Ibid.=)) before S wyju,of. Ibid. 37. tov ayuTrri", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0126.jp2"}, "127": {"fulltext": "travTa for T8 ayaTDjo-avroj. Ibid. 38. ayyzXog for ayysAo*.\\nIbid. 39.=Ti?. ix. i. Tm for sv. Ibid. 4. before ulo^s-\\n(Tja. Ibid. 8.=T8 before ^zov. Ibid. 11. 15 for ju-rjSe. x. 8*\\nsfiv TO p\u00c2\u00bbj/Aa for ro pvj^a scrrtv. xi. 26. a7ro(7rp6\\\\|/aj for aTro-\\norpe^t/a, xii. l4. \u00c2\u00a3uXoy\u00c2\u00a3 r\u00c2\u00a3 T8? dicoxovTotg vfji^ctg. Ibid. 19.\\navraTraSco for avraTraSwcrw. xiii. I Tracatj s^Qu rion; for Traca\\n\\\\|/y;^)j s^ova-iong. Ibid, a^ro for utto. xiv. 2. 6? for 6* Ibid.\\ns(r^israi for \u00c2\u00a3(7^ e\u00c2\u00bb. Ibid. 15. oiiroXXvEiv for aTrokXvs, xv.\\n19. aTTo Ispouff-aXij/x /x-sp^p* rou IWupiMv xa\u00c2\u00bb kvtcXco for aTro\\nI Corinthians i. 2i.s\u00c2\u00b1yap, Ibid, tw ^eo) for ^so^^\\nIbid. 25* scTJv Tcov ctv^pooTrctiv for twv ocv^poiTraiv scrrtv. Ibid.\\n6 for TO. Ibid, 26. ovv for yap. Ibid.=:ou ttqXKoi SyvaTOi*\\nIbid. 30. -f^ before (ro pioi. ii. 2. j(^p crTov lyjcoyy for I^jcroyy\\nXpKTTov, Ibid. 3.= ev before po^\u00c2\u00ab;. Ibid.=:sv before Tpo-\\n|w,a). Ibid. 4.=Xoyoic. Ibid. 53= j before sv a-o^io.. Ibid,\\n6. 0u8\u00c2\u00a3 TWV app^OVTOJV Toy CUCUVGS TtfT8. Ibid, II. Ta \u00c2\u00a3V TO*\\ndew for Ta T\u00c2\u00ab ^\u00c2\u00a38. Ibid. 1 2. T8T8. Ibid, I3. a. Ibid.\\nryyxp\u00c2\u00abvo/x\u00c2\u00a3v for o-yyxp*vovTec. Ibid. i6. xupioy for ^pia-rotj,\\niii. i9.=Tw before sa iv. i. t8 before dss. Ibid. 2*\\nTig TTKTTog for TTKTTog Tig, Ibid. 5. 0^. Ibid, II. loj^ for\\nu^piT^gk Ibid. I2. xa V, 5, ayTOv for Tov TOioyrov. Ibid,\\n8. fropvsioLg for TropvYipictg. vi. 3. ocrcra; fjiotXXov for ju-rjTi ys.\\nvii. 2. Ttjv Tropvsioiv for Ta; Tropvsiug. Ibid, 7.+ Toy before\\n^\u00c2\u00a38. Ibid. 18. \u00c2\u00a3xX 3d 3 T j for T{j \u00c2\u00a3xX 3 5. Ibid. 39. xa\u00c2\u00ab,\\nIbid, yajw^vjdij for y\u00c2\u00abja ]ya Ibid. 40. s^oo for \u00c2\u00a3xs v, viii,\\n5.+0I. Ibid. 6. dsoj for .^:oj. Ibid. I2. xai. Ibid, 33.\\n=lJ^ov, ix. 9. r]iJ,M 7sig for (p jua;cr\u00c2\u00a3ic. Ibid. H-7r\u00c2\u00a3p\u00c2\u00bb. Ibid. 20.\\ns=coj. Ibid. 23.4-Ss yap F G in Wetstein. x. 2. \u00c2\u00a3v tij\\ndaA\u00c2\u00abo-(r\u00c2\u00bb] xai \u00c2\u00a3V ttj V\u00c2\u00a3 ^\u00c2\u00a3X 5 for \u00c2\u00a3V Tp vsi^eXii xai \u00c2\u00a3V t j daAacro-rj.\\nIbid. I2. r) before wsTpa. Ibid. 13. xaTaAa^ for sjAtji^sv,\\nIbid, p ](r\u00c2\u00a3i for \u00c2\u00a3a(r\u00c2\u00a3j. Ibidl4-oy before Syvao-^s. Ibid,\\n4-y^5V\u00c2\u00a3yx\u00c2\u00a3iv after the first ^woio-^s. Ibid, 20, ^cuimovK^v\\nI", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0127.jp2"}, "128": {"fulltext": "116\\nicoivcjov8\u00c2\u00a7 for coivwv8\u00c2\u00a7 Tcov lonii^Qvioiv, Ibid, sivai for yivicr^of.\\nIbid. 31. iroisiTe n for t ttoisits. Ibid. 7ro e\u00c2\u00abTS. Ibid. 32.\\n%ot(j-iv aoiTcx. tnoLVTx for -ara^ra u^txcnv. Ibid. -fro before tmv\\nTToWcov. xi. 4.=T j before xg(paA Ibid. I9. \u00c2\u00a3j/ Uja\u00c2\u00abv. xii.\\n3. AaX(a;v. Ibid. 25. ayid^hOLTa for Tyj T\\\\Lai.. Ibid, ra aura\\nfor TO ayro. Ibid. 28. \\\\Lz^i\\\\Lyct for jXc^jjxvwo-i. Ibid. 27. (tw-\\nju-a \u00c2\u00a3(rT= for e rTg trcyjxa. xiii. I. ev aju, ij yaXtLO^ for yeyovct\\n^otXxog. Ibid. 2. fJis^icrrixvoLi for /xe^KTravav. Ibid, ra be-\\nfore TTOCVTU. Ibid. 10. XOiTOCgyYj^YjOSTOLf TO \u00c2\u00a3K jXS^tfJ for TO \u00c2\u00a3X\\n|W,sg8j xixTapyi^^YlTeTOLf. Ibid. II. Tcd Ttf v j7rt\u00c2\u00ab xaTrjpyyjxa for\\nxaTYjpyrjxocTcc T8 VYi7ri8. Ibid. I3. vuvi. xiv. I5.=:8e. Ibid.\\n21. hepai^ y\\\\ui(r(rai$ for sregoyXootraoig. Ibid. 8h7roo for wS\\nowTcoj. Ibid. ei(rocx8(rcTOLf for eia-a.K8(rovTcLf. Ibid. 32. 7rv=UjU,a\\nfor CTvsvy.uTcc, xv. 5* evSexa for ScoSexa. Ibid. 6.-=^xoif,\\nIbid, 8.=Ta;. Ibid, xa/ \u00c2\u00a3ju,o for xuf/^oi. Ibid. 12. ex vsxgoov\\non for oTi ex vsxpMv. Ibid. 20.+t\u00c2\u00ab;v before nxpoov. Ibid.\\n23.4-0* sATTKravTej. Ibid. 25. auT\u00c2\u00ab. Ibid. 27. \u00c2\u00abyTaj.\\nIbid. ^6.-\\\\- GTpviT0v, Ibid. 40. (rtt;jU.aTa. Ibid. 41. 8e.\\nIbid. 5e for xot/. Ibid. 47* 8gotviog, Ibid. 48. xa/.\\nIbid. 8gotvtoi for 67r8guvioi, Ibid. 49. x\u00c2\u00ab/. Ibid. 50. yap\\nfor 5e. Ibid. BuvayToe/. Ibid. 52. poTrrj for p 7r j. Ibid.\\nfor TO. Ibid. =THTo, Ibid. 6tixv h to p^cx.pTov t8to\\ngvSucrijTrt/ a^dapcnaVj xot/ to ^V)}Toy towto \u00c2\u00a3v5i;cr jT\u00c2\u00ab/ \u00c2\u00ab^av\u00c2\u00ab-\\n2 Corinthians i. 5- iii* 7* 7p\u00c2\u00ab/X]aaT/ for ev ygccfj,-\\nlUOLdiV, Ibid. rvTruifLiVYj for evTSTUTrajjuteyy). Ibid. p. ecTTiv.\\nIbid. 15. xsiToii ETTi rrjv xapSiav ayrwv for e7r\u00c2\u00bb ttjv xup^iotv\\navTwv xsto/. Ibid. 16. OTav for r^vixa. Ibid. 18. aTroTTTpi-\\n|ojM.evo\u00c2\u00bb for xa.TO rrTpi^oi/.evoi, iv, 4. for 6j. Ibid. 5. xvpiov\\nI jo oyv for ^^^^icttov Irjcroyv xvpiOv. Ibid. 6. 6f. Ibid. ayTow\\nfor Tou deou. Ibid. 10. Ijjo-ou p^pio-Tou for T/jo-oy. xii. 9. a-\\nTTsv for oprjxey. Ib.=/xou. xiii. 3. KukovvTog sv spLoi for ev\\nSjtco* KaK8VT0 i, Ibid. 4,", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0128.jp2"}, "129": {"fulltext": "117\\nGalatians i. 15. o ^eo^. Ibid. 19. aSov oodsvu for ovx.\\nsfSov. ii. 9. isTSTpog for x 3(paj. Ibid. 12. ex S7spiro[XYicrovTa$\\nfor ex TTspiTOjxrjg. iii. 19. iir^a^aicov for ^jTixpot^ua-ewv. Ibid.\\nI9.=p^a^ v. Ibid. 24. l /0 y iv. 6. sv co xpu^oixsv for\\nTtpu^ov. Ibid. 10. svi(xuT8g xolj xaipoug for xaj^ou; x\u00c2\u00ab/ evtau-\\nT8^. Ibid. II. exoTTiaxa for KsxoTtiotxu. Ibid. 27. jtcrj for 8.\\nV. 6, ovTc 7:sgno[xv) t\u00c2\u00bb j(r;;^u\u00c2\u00a3 Ibid. 15. Saxvere xcq xaT-\\nsa-^isre aAAjjAouc for aXX-^Kovg SaxvsTS xctf xarecr^iSTe. Ibid.\\navaAwdy^TS utt ocXXriKcjov for utt uWYjXctiv avaXw^yjre. Ibid.\\n25. xay. vi. 8. rifj cra^xi for s/f tijv (rocpKoc,^ Ibid, aura for\\nkoLUTou. Ibid. \u00c2\u00abyT8.\\nEpheslans ii. 2. T\u00c2\u00abro. Ibid. 2.=t8. iii. 5. ayre aTro-\\n(TToXois for a.%Qa-TO\\\\oig otuTOU. Ibid.=Ta;. Ibid. 8. eXa^KTTw\\nfor s\\\\(x^K7roTepw, Ibid. 18. ti^ o? /Sa^oj for /Sa^oj xat\\no^/oj, iv. 8. ev. Ibid. =Toif. Ibid. 14. H-t j before Tra-\\nvoy^yia. Ibid. I9. coPyiXttikotss for onrYi\\\\yy]xors$, Ibid, -sra-\\ncr 3f axot^apcnag for ff,xa$5ap 7iixc -sjao-yjj. Ibid. 26. 5s after\\no^yi^ecde. v. 8. ^uvi for vuv. Ibid. 31. xoXXyj-^yjcrsTa* for\\n%po rxoK\\\\Yi^T^crsT(Xi, vi. 11. aj for \u00e2\u0096\u00a0ar^oj. Ibid. 12. v/xiv for\\nyjjMJV. Ibid.=7rpoj rag,\\nPhilippians i. 23. ttoo-o; for jtxaAXo). ii.9. 4-aj. Ibid. 11.\\n=z^pirrTog. iii. 14. a^ oe ra for to/^ Se. Ibid. 21. rov (rui^oL-\\nT0\u00c2\u00a7 for TOO (TMfLctTi. iv. 3. xat after jaera.\\nColossians ii. I5. t 5J cra^xa. Ibid.=Taj a^xaj xot/.\\nIbid. 16. 13 veo[XYjVio (ru^^aTo^ for vsof^Yiviag rj (rci(S(3aTcov,\\nIbid. 17. 6 for a. iii. 4. 4-xa/ after (pavspM^Yj. Ibid. U|aa;v,\\nfor y|jW,coy. Ibid. 5* SJ Asove^jav, \u00e2\u0080\u00a2sra^oj, sTri^ufxiav for -nra^Of,\\ni%i^v[xi(xv xoLXY^Vy xouf TT^v TrXsove^ixv, Ibid. 8, xaTa TravTa for\\nra TTavToc. lb. 10. civrov,\\nI Thessalonians i. i. nXf3uvog for nAouavoj. ii. 5. e\u00c2\u00abv\\nav. Ibid. 14. otTTQ for utto. Ibid. 16. cr\u00c2\u00ab;^yycroyT\u00c2\u00abi for (tco-\\n^wo-iv. Ibid. =Tou ^sov, iv. i3. oI before jtcvj s^ovrsg.\\nIbid. 14. 4- 5J-avT0T\u00c2\u00a3 7yv xy^ioj ecroju-eda. Ibid, x^xoifxr^ixsvov^\\n13", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0129.jp2"}, "130": {"fulltext": "118\\nior KoijjLYi^evTot^, Ibid. l7. o\u00c2\u00bb Trs^jXaTrojxsvoi. v. 14. vou^S\\nTEtV for VOU^cTSlTZ, Ibid. 14. ZS-UpU[J,l ^SiT\u00c2\u00a3 foF GTOLDU^tM-\\n2 Thessalonians ii. 2.=rov. Ibid. 4. sironpofjievo^ for\\nvTTspatpofxzvo; in Wetstein. Ibid. 7. eo^? av for lajj. Ibid.\\n10. e^s^s^ocvTO for e^e^avTO. Ibid. ll.==aur\u00c2\u00abj.\\nI TiiiJOthy ii. 2. ev. Ibid. 8. xa^ avSpa^ CT^oo-suygcr^a/\\nfor UTfO(rsvx^ ^^oii tovs avlgu;. iii. 2. Ss for \u00c2\u00abv. Ibid. 12.\\n4-85. V. io. 8e. Ibid. 17. =tuj before 3e\u00c2\u00ab;.\\nTitus iii. ^.\u00e2\u0096\u00a0+hix. Ibid. 10. /x,:t\u00c2\u00ab nt av vadso-iav xa/ Sey-\\nTe/3av for /xsra jotiav xot/ Scurepav V8^s(nxv, 234\\nTo these must be added the following 46 passages\\nalready given in the readings of Origen alone.\\nConstant. Romans i. 27. viii. 11. x. 8. xiii. 9. Ibid.\\n12. xiv. 9. I Cor. vii. 32. xii. ii. xv. 12. Ibid. 28.\\n2 Cor. xii. 9. Galat. iii. 19. v. 19. Ibid. 25. Coloss. i.\\n34. ii. 14. I Thess. ii. 14. iv. 13. i Tim. ii. 9. vi. 8.\\n2 Tim. iv. 2.\\nInconstant. Romans ii. 14. Ibid. viii. 13. xiii. 9.\\nIbid. I Cor. i. 26. Ibid. 30. ii.4. iii. 3. ix. 9. Ibid. 22.\\nx. 4. xii. 9. Galat. iy. 21. Ephes. ii. 20. iv. 9. Ibid. 13,\\nPhilip, i. 23. 1 Thess. ii. 7. 2 Thess. ii. 4. Ibid. 12.\\nI Tim. ii. i. Ibid. 8. Ibid. Ibid. 9.\\nThe whole number will then amount to 280.\\nAgreements of A with G, where the received\\nText reads alone,\\nN. B. In passages, in which A and Origen have the\\nsame readings, reference is only made to the chapter\\nand verse.\\nRomans i. i5. Ibid. 19. ii. 8. iii. 4. v x)j(r*3j for vix)j-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0130.jp2"}, "131": {"fulltext": "119\\nra^. V. 17. ev svi for too rov hoc. vii. 14. (Tapinvog for cra^-\\n3nx.o\u00c2\u00a7. viii. 26. Ibid. 36. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 39. rs xvpis\\nfor Tw xvpKJp. ix. 16. eAsjovTOf for eXXsovvrog. Ibid. II.\\nIbid. 19. Ibid. 33. xi. 31. Ibid. 26. xiii. i ef ouo-io/.\\nIbid. i.=T\u00c2\u00ab before ^58. Ibid. 8, Ibid. 9. xiv. 9. Ibid.\\n10. -S^Si? for %piO-T8.\\n1 Corinthians i. 23. Ibid. 27. Jva ra? (ro(p\u00c2\u00ab^ xar-\\natjtrp^^uyyj xcxy ra a^svyj rs xo(Tij,8 s^sXs^otTO 6 ^=05. Ibid. 28.\\nxa/- Ibid. 29. Ibid. 30. ii. 2. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 13. Ibid.\\n15. Ibid. Ta. iii. i. Ibid. 2. Ibid. 2. iv. 2. co h for 6\\nSg. Ibid. 2. )TaT= for ^yjra-ro/. Ibid. 9. on. v. 7. Ibid.\\n7. vii. 3. Ibid. 5. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 7. Ibid. Ibid.\\n6 fxev for og jxsv and 6 8s for 6g h. Ibid. 32. apscr for agg-\\ners, viii. 5. ix. 16. Ibid. svuyyiXKTooixcLj for suotyysXi^Mfxcq,\\nIbid. 20. +jw.\u00c2\u00bbj oov uvTos v-jTO vo^ixiv. Ibid. 21. Ibid. Ksphuvca\\nfor Ksp^^a-oi. Ibid. 22. x. l. Ibid. 2. s^aitTio-^i^G-ocv for\\ne^aTTT^cravTo. Ibid. 13. xi. 5* ayn^j for lauT xii. 5.\\nIbid. 21. xiii. 10. xiv. 15. Trpocreufwjxo/ for Trpoasv\\n^ofxoLi, Ibid. 38. XV. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 19. sv %^icrT\u00c2\u00ab3 )jX-\\nTTiXOTcJ cCTjtAsV for ]X7r X0TeJ eCTjOOgV \u00c2\u00a3V ^piTTCO, Ibid. 20. Ibid.\\n25. Ibid. 29. Ibid. 36. ajp^wv for cc(pgov. Ibid. 38.=to.\\nIbid. 49. Ibid. 51^* c ,va.fri 70VToLi for sysp^ria-ovTcq,\\n2 Corinthians i. 5. iii. 3. xctplion^ for xapdiotg. Ibid. 7.\\nIbid. 9. iv. 4. xii. 7. 4W jw, j uTtzpaipviy^oui, Ibid. 9. xgAa-\\nTO/ for rsXsi8T0Lj,\\nGalatians i. 4. ii. 14. Ibid. iii. lo or*. iv. 24. a/.\\nvi. 14.\\nEphesians ii. 3. Ibid. 7. iii. 5* Ibid. 8. iv. 8. x\u00c2\u00ab/,\\nlb. 27. jw-^jSs for ju,)5T6. v. 14. lb. 31. T 3 yuvaixi for -sr^oj\\nT ;v yuvaixa. vi. 12.\\nPhilippians ii. 5. ^govetre for fpovsi^a). Ibid. 11. iii. 21.\\nz=eig TO yzVs^oLf uuto.\\nColossians iii. 12.\\n14", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0131.jp2"}, "132": {"fulltext": "120\\n1 Thessalonlans ii. 15. iv. 13. Ibid. Ku7rci(r$rs for\\n2 Thessalonlans ii. 2. Ibid. Ibid. 8. I j(r8j. Ibid. 10.\\nIbid. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12.\\n1 Timothy i. i, x,vf i8. Ibid. %/5 crT8 Iyjo-b for \\\\ricr8\\n^qidTS, ii. 9. Ibid. p(^j5i;(r tt; for p^pucroj. vi. I7\u00c2\u00ab Ibid.\\n2 Timothy ii. 2i. x\u00c2\u00aby. iii. 6. Ibid. iv. 7. ^caKov ayo;-\\nva for otyoivot, kuKov.\\nTitus i. 5. Ibid. 15. [/,sy.iuix,iJ,=vo^ for i^bij^icktilzVo^, iii. 5*\\nTO eAeo$ for tov eXsov. 123,\\nDeviations of X alone, in opposition both to G,\\nand the received Text.\\nN. B. In passages, which are above given under the\\ndeviations of A, or of A C alone, in opposition both to\\nOrigen, and the received text, reference is only made,\\nas in the preceding instance, to the chapter and verse.\\nRomans i, 17. Ibid. 24. 3c\u00c2\u00ab/ A C. Ibid. 27. apgsvsg\\n61/ appea-i for ccgasves sv uparsdiv A. Ibid. 28. ii. 5* Ibid.\\n14. TTOJoio-i for 7roij5 A. iii. 22. Ibid. 22. koli ztti ^ravraj\\nA C. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 30. siirsp for sTrsiTrsg A C. Ibid.\\n31. l jTavo[/,sv for iVrccjagv A C. v. 13. Ibid. 15. vi, 12.\\n?=auT 3 A G. vii. 3. Ibid. 14. h for y\u00c2\u00ab^ A inconstant.\\nIbid. 23. viii. 14. vloi ^s8 si riv for sicnv vloi ^s8\u00c2\u00bb In G vioi\\nsi Tiv dc8 A C inconstant. Ibid. 28.4-6 -^soj A in. Ibid.\\n30. Ibid. ix. II. (pavXoy for xukov A. Ibid. 19. [/,oi v\\nfor \u00c2\u00abv /Aoi A in. Ibid. 20. In G=/x,ey8vye. xi. 20. Ibid.\\n21. Ibid. 22. Ihid. c/MOToixiu for wTTOTOfxiuv A. xiii.i. Ibid.\\n7. \u00c2\u00abv A. lb. 9. G-cuuTov for kuuTov A. lb. lb. 12. lb.\\nxiv. 2I.= (^TioLvluKilsTajj )j ac^evs* A C. xvi. 20. Ibid,", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0132.jp2"}, "133": {"fulltext": "121\\n1 Corinthians i. 2. ^ju,\u00c2\u00ab;y A. Ibid. 20. ii. 3. xayw for\\nsyoi AC. lb. 9. Ih. J I. oiv^poo7roov A in. lb. syvcoxsv for\\noihv A C in. Ibid. 15. iii. l. (ruffxivois for capxixoij A C,\\nIbid. 2. xa/ A C in. Ibid, \u00c2\u00a3ot/ ^ixoTTcctna^ A C.\\nIbid. 7. iv. 13, Sya (^Tja^ftsvoi for /SXacr^prj^aajtcsvoi A in.\\nIbid. 21-. V. 4. =o^^ c7-T^ A in. Ibid, ^j.rzi^/xwv A in.\\nIbid. 8. Ibid. Ibid. 11. vi. 15. Ibid. 19. ra (ra;a\u00c2\u00abT\u00c2\u00ab for\\nTO (Tw^a A. vii. 3. 8\u00c2\u00a3 A in. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 39. Ibid.\\nvo/;t\u00c2\u00ab; A. Ibid. ayr)5j A in. viii. 6. Ibid. 8. Ttxpufrjcrt\\nfor 57\u00c2\u00abj5if 3crt A in. Ibid. Tbid. ix. l. 8;c ajtjtj aTrog-oAo^\\n8x sjjTx* cAsu^s poj transposed A. ]hid.=^gis ov A. Ibid,\\n8. j x\u00c2\u00ab^ 6 voj^cf TixvToi Ksysi for j oup(^\u00c2\u00bb 6 vojaoj raura Asya\\nA C. Ibid. 10. 0(^SiXsi STT 6 y.7ridl for 67r gATTiSi 0(^SlK\u00c2\u00a3i A C,\\nIbid. OT sXTTidi m [JLSTs^siV for rvj^ gA^riSoc aurov {xste^siv A\\nC. Ibid. zi. T8\u00c2\u00a7 before avoy.8^ A C. Ibid. 22.=coj A.\\nX. 3. Ibid. Ibid. 4. au ro A in. Ibid. 4. -srvcUjU.aTtxov\\nETTiov 7rO|U,a for Trojxa jTvsvfx.otTiKov STTiov A C in. Ibid. II.\\n7ravra A in. Ibid, tvttixcc^ for tutto* A C. Ibid. 33.\\nxot/ Isduioig yiv= r^s for yiVccrds xoc/ lou ^oLioig A C. Ibid. 33.\\nxi. 5. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 29. xii. 3. I)jg-\u00c2\u00abj for Ivjcrav A C.\\nIbid.^ xugtog Ir^a-^g for cvptovlYi T8v A C. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 26.\\nxiii. 4. Ibid. 8. xiv. 8. craATriy^ (poj^ jv for (povYiv (raA7r*yf A.\\nIbid. 21. XV. 5. Ibid. 12. sv vixiv rivsg for t vs^ ev u/xiv A.\\nIbid. 21. 6 A. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24, Ibid. 28. Ibid.\\n31. Y)[jisTspotv for v[xsTspotv A. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 36. Ibid.\\n38. SiSwo-iv aurw for uuTcp SiScocnv A in. Ibid. ^1. Ibid.\\n54, Ibid. 55.\\n2 Corinthians i. 7. w^ for wa-Trsp A C. Ibid. 12. dyio-\\nTYjTi for aTrAoryjri A C. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 12. ii. 2. Ibid.\\ni6. sxAC. iii. 9. lb. 10. 8 for A C. lb. i5. av\\nA. lb. 15. avotyivooa-Kfircn for avcxyivuiO-xsTS A C. lb. 18.\\nlxsTct[j.og!pou[xsvoi for ixsrot.ixop pQvixs^a A in. iv. 4. Ibid. 6.\\nI)3 roy A in. Ibid. 10, xvgiQv A C, Ibid. 10. xii. 10,", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0133.jp2"}, "134": {"fulltext": "122\\nGalatians i. 4. cuoovo^ tov svea-Tcorog for rou evearMTog aioa-\\nvogAin. ii. 9. Ibid. 9. iii. 28. Ibid. Ibid. a8. iv. 23.\\nV. 19. vi. 14.\\nEphesians ii, 20. ^piarov Irjcrou for Ijjctou ^gia-rov A.\\niii. 6. uvTov A C. Ibid. Ibid 14. =tou xvpiov ijjxcov I\u00c2\u00bbjo-\u00c2\u00ab\\nX^icrroy A C in. iv. 8. Ibid. 14. Ibid. v. 2^. kuvTMv A.\\nPhilippians i. 24, cv A C. Ibid. 29. ii. 9. Ibid. 13.\\n111. 8. Ibid. 10. o-Uja/Aop^j^o^svo* for o-y/x/xop poujxsvo\u00c2\u00bb A. iv.\\n7, Ibid. 13.\\nColossians ii. 14. Ibid. 18. iii. 4. iv. i. oupuvw for ou-\\n^avoij A C.\\n1 Thessalonians iv. 13. xotfjicufx^svoov for xsxo /xyjju,gva;y A.\\nIbid. In A it is Xu7rgio-^e^ in G kv-rrsia-^cii,\\n2 Thessalonians ii. 4.=co^ ^sov A. Ibid. 6. uvtov for\\nlauToo A. Ibid. 8. ctvotXsi for uvuXcoo-ei A in.\\n1 Timothy ii. 9. Ibid. 9. iii. 2. v j(paXjov for vv^tpuXeov\\nA. G has Vc(p\u00c2\u00abX\u00c2\u00ab ov. iv. 2. v. 20. vi. 17. iravra TrXouciso;\\nfor TrXoua-ioog ttccvtu A. In G 7ravTa.\\n2 Timothy i. 10. Ibid. 16. In G xarajcrp^uy^r). Ibid.\\n17. In G a-TTOidotwg, iii. 6. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. ^\u00c2\u00bb)v su rs^a)g\\nfor svasSoos ^y)V A.\\nTitus i. 5. In G S/opSwcrr^f. iii. 5. 169.\\nIn the preceding extracts from the Boerne-\\nrian MS. many readings will occur not to be\\nfound in Griesbach. I have already observed,\\np. 41. that more than ninety omissions are dis-\\ncoverable even in the limited portion of St\u00c2\u00bb\\nPaul s Epistles under consideration. He pro-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0134.jp2"}, "135": {"fulltext": "123\\nbably contented himself with the references of\\nWetstein without revision or augmentation, al-\\nthough the manuscript had been previously\\nedited by Matthsei. The numerous errors in-\\ndeed of Wetstein, in references to the MS. A, he\\nseems to have carefully corrected but Woide,\\nin his publication of that MS. had given a\\nseparate collection of all its readings under\\nthe regular arrangement of chapter and verse,\\nin which Wetstein s notices were marked, and\\nthe word male in italics affixed to every inaccu-\\nracy. Matthaei did not take the same trouble\\nwith the Boernerian and Griesbach s avoca^\\ntions, it is to be presumed, prevented him from\\naccomplishing the task himself. The deficiency\\nhowever is here supphed in a part, at least, of\\nSt. Paul s Epistles.\\nIn order to form an exact parallel to the com-\\nparison of A with Origen, as an exemplar of\\nthe Alexandrine text, I have thus subjoined a\\ncomparison of A with the Boernerian manu-\\nscript, as an exemplar of the Western but I\\nam, nevertheless, far from considering either\\ncomparison as complete, either in its principle", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0135.jp2"}, "136": {"fulltext": "124\\nor application nor do I think that absolute\\nconviction is attainable with our present defec-\\ntive and undigested materials of investigation.\\nI have remarked, that the very existence of\\nthe Alexandrine text is at best out problemati-\\ncal and so, I apprehend, it must continue to\\nbe, until the contrary position be proved by a\\ncharacteristical collection of Alexandrine read-\\nings, contradistinguished from those, not only\\nof the Byzantine, but also of the Western, text.\\nWhen Griesbach undertook the arduous task of\\npreparing a critical edition, and even a corrected\\ntext, of the New Testament upon a novel hypo-\\nthesis, he ought surely to have placed its accu-\\nracy beyond the possibility of objection, before\\nhe attempted its reduction to practice as an un-\\nerring rule of textual criticism; not to have pro-\\nceeded upon the bare probability of conjecture,\\nbut to have previously grounded himself upon\\nsure demonstration. The Alexandrine text con-\\nstitutes the main pin, which holds together the\\ncomplicated machinery of his system. This\\ntherefore he should have first incontrovertibly\\nestablished but the position still remains ex-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0136.jp2"}, "137": {"fulltext": "125\\nposed to many great and serious objections.\\nWhen undertaking to confirm it, what is the\\nspecies of proof which he addu*ces He appeals\\nnot to the joint readings of Alexandrine writ-\\ners characteristically distinguished, but princi-\\npally to the joint readings of A and C, in con-\\njunction with those of Origen. Matthaei had\\ndenied the existence both of an Alexandrine\\nand a Western text. The former Griesbach\\nattempts to prove by a comparison and from a\\ncalculation which has been sufficiently detailed\\nand then subjoins the following result Quse\\ncum ita se habeant, extra ornnern duhitatlonis\\naleam positum esse videtur ^Lectiones, quas\\nA et C unanimi consensu exhibent, jz/r^ meri\\ntoque Alexandi ims et vetustis (donee contra-\\nrium probetur)\u00c2\u00abccf?^^^r^^ And again, Codex\\nC: Descriptionem ejus dedimus, tom. i. p. 3.\\nIbidem etiam p. 133. disputavimus de indole\\ntextus ejus in Epistolis Paullinis, atque osten-\\ndim us, mirifice consentire hunc librum cum\\nOrigine et codice A, adeoque eum exhibere\\nSymbolae Criticaej vol. i. pp. 137^ 138.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0137.jp2"}, "138": {"fulltext": "126\\ncc\\nvere Alexandrinam recensionem, ab Occiden-\\ntali omnino diversam\\nConvincing, however, as this supposed won-\\nderful coincidence may have appeared to him,\\nwhen we recollect that the reality of an Alexan-\\ndrine text is the point to he proved and not\\nto he presupposed^ v^Q^ shall have reason to sus-\\npect, and even more than to suspect, the accu-\\nracy of his conclusion. He enumerates seventy--\\nfive joint readings of A and C common to Ori-\\ngen I have myself been able to collect only\\nseventy-two which I have already given sepa-\\nrately, with the principal references to other\\nSymbolae Criticse, vol. ii. p. 31.\\nIt is possible that I may have overlooked three instances\\nof agreement observed by Griesbach, but I do not think it\\nprobable. I have however observed three instances of agree-\\nment incorrectly marked by him in his notes to the New\\nTestament. The first is Galatians vi. 15. zcrriv for i ry^vEi A\\nB C D E F G Or. but Origen has no such verse. The second\\nis Philippians ii. 9.-f ro A B C 17. Or. but no addition of\\nthe kind occurs in the Symbolae Criticae. The thinl is Titus\\ni. 15. |U,\u00c2\u00a3y A C D E F G Orig.\\\\\\\\ya,p Syr. Or. Here is a dou-\\nble reference j but the last is the true one, as y(x,p is substi-\\ntuted for y^sy, so that the first must be deemed incorr*;ct 5\\nnor is the verse quoted more than once by Origen.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0138.jp2"}, "139": {"fulltext": "127\\nmanuscripts and Fathers annexed. From a par-\\nticular inspection of these it will appear, that,\\nout of the whole number of seventy-two, there\\nare not more than seven readino;s which do not\\ncoincide as well with the Latin versions, or\\nsotne Western manuscript (viz. D E F G) or\\nwriter, as with A, C, and Origen. The seven\\nexceptions are Romans iii. 30. I Cor. ii. 3. iii.\\n13. X. 32. xii. 3. 2 Cor. i. 12. Philip, i. 24. Of\\nthese the first occurs in Clemens and Cyrill,\\nthe second and third in no Alexandrine Father\\nwhatsoever except Origen, the fourth in only\\nCyrill, the fifth in only Cyrill occasionally the\\nsixth in Clemens only, and the seventh in both\\nClemens and Cyrill in conjunction with Byzan-\\ntine MSS. and Chrysostom. While such is the\\ncharacter of the seven readings which do not\\ncoincide with the Western text, the sixty-five\\nothers, which do coincide with it, will be found\\ngenerally in alliance not with one version, ma-\\nnuscript, or Father only^ but with more, and\\nfrequently with versions^ manuscripts, and Fa-\\nthers united.\\nFrom these premises, it seems not very diffi-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0139.jp2"}, "140": {"fulltext": "128\\ncult to draw a satisfactory result, but it is one\\ndiametrically opposite to that of Griesbach. In-\\nstead of contemplating a great majority of the\\nreadings as peculiarly Alexandrine, because they\\nare found in the manuscripts A and C in con-\\njunction always with Origen, and somctirrfbs\\nwith one or two more Fathers of the same de-\\nscription, (which by the way is also improperly\\nrepresenting the classification of A and C, not,\\nas in truth it is, the final object, but the legiti-\\nmate means of investigation,) should we not\\nrather contend, that they are more probably\\nWestern They are certainly common to both\\nclasses, and seem likely to have been adopted\\nby one of them from the other but as the ex-\\nistence of an Alexandrine class has not been\\nproved, and as the stream of evidence is far\\ngreater on the side of the Western, it appears^\\nI apprehend, not unreasonable to conclude, that\\nthe latter exhibits the original, and the former\\nthe adopted, readings. The respect paid to the\\nWestern text was always considerable, and the\\nsphere of its action extensive rather therefore\\nshould we conceive, that, instead of gravitating", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0140.jp2"}, "141": {"fulltext": "129\\ntowards another, it attracted every thing within\\nits influence towards its own centre. If A and\\nC as well as Origen on most occasions coincide\\nwith the Western text^ why are their individual\\ncoincidences in any number of instances to be\\nconsidered as almost miraeiilous Is it not bet-\\nter to subtract the miracle, and to say, that it\\nis usual for those things, which generally parti-\\ncipate in a common resemblance, to be found\\nparticularly conformable with each other\\nBut it may justly be remarked, that, in order\\nto ascertain the true character of the readings of\\nOrigen, the whole of them together, and not a\\npartial selection, should be examined. With\\nthis impression, I have given all which a dili-\\ngent investigation enabled me to discover, in\\nthe Epistles of St. Paul, and have noted those\\nvi^hich ao^ree with other Alexandrine authorities,\\nor with the Western, or with both. The total\\namount of his readings is six hundred and nine^\\nout of which there are two hundred and jtwenty-\\nsix, which coincide with either Western or\\nAlexandrine authority, or with both. Of the\\nremainder^ many indeed, not unfrequently ac-\\nK", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0141.jp2"}, "142": {"fulltext": "130\\niord with the Byzantine^ but many more are\\nperfectly insulated. The number however of\\nthe latter may doubtless be very considerably\\nreduced, by making due allowances for the free-\\ndom of quotation, and for the errors of tran-\\nscription. And perhaps a still farther reduction,\\nif not an almost entire annihilation, might be\\neffected by our acquisition of completer colla-\\ntions of Fathers, manuscripts, and versions, than\\nwe at present possess. How numerous the col-\\nlateral readings of this kind are, with which we\\nare yet unacquainted, may be conjectured from\\nthe many additions not long since made by\\nMatthaei to those of Chrysostom alone and\\neven by the very quotations of Origen under\\nconsideration, of no contemptible part of which\\nwe were altogether ignorant, until they were\\nbrought to light by the laborious scrutiny of\\nGriesbach. But, notwithstanding the great ^m\\namount of this incongruous remainder, there\\nare found a sufficient number of congruous read-\\nings for the purpose at least of a comparative\\nexamination.\\nThere occur two hundred and twenty six y which", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0142.jp2"}, "143": {"fulltext": "131\\ncoincide with one or both of the classes al-\\nluded to. Of these^ one hundred and eighteen\\nare supported by Western authority alone, nine-\\nty by both Western and Alexandrine united,\\nand only eighteen by Alexandrine alone. Sup-\\nposing the existence of an Alexandrine text, we\\nmay presume, that Origen would frequently\\nhave associates of that description in peculiar\\nreadings but this presumption is far from be-\\ning warranted by fact. For in truth, the very\\nreverse takes place as, out of tivo hundred and\\ntiverity-six readings, Origen has but eighteen\\ndistinguishable from the Western text, in which\\nhe is joined by any other Alexandrine Father.\\nNor even in this limited number of eighteeny\\ndoes he read in conjunction with more th^n\\none Alexandrine, (sometimes with Clemens, and\\nsometimes with Cyrill,) except in the following\\nfive instances Rom. iii. 30. 1 Cor. iv, 13. viii, 8.\\nEphes. V. 25. Philip, i, 24. in which he receives\\na double support. On the other hand, his al-\\nliance with Western authority, in exclusion of\\nthe Alexandrine, is so intimate, that he reads\\nwith that alone, not eighteen^ but one hundred\\nK 2", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0143.jp2"}, "144": {"fulltext": "132\\nand eighteen times^ a full moiety of the whole\\namount. Neither does he here often read with\\none or two, but generally (the source indeed\\nbeing more prolific) with numerous associates.\\nThe conclusion deducible from this general state-\\nment seems obvious.\\nThat Origen should occasionally depart from\\na text, with which he usually accords, cannot\\nbe deemed remarkable. It is precisely the case\\nwith other writers, confessedly participating in\\nthe peculiarities of the Western, or of the By-\\nzantine. An exemplar, indeed, of neither text\\nexists in its original purity for the current of\\neach has become turbid from the soil over\\nwhich it has passed, during the lapse of so\\nmany centuries, and not unfrequently has their\\ndevious streams been united. Chrysostom some-\\ntimes departs from the received text, in con-\\njunction with other Fathers of a similar de-\\nscription but will any one on that account\\nmaintain, that the writings of Chrysostom af-\\nford a new classification Accidental varieties\\nnecessarily occur but the species still remains\\ndistinct and appropriate.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0144.jp2"}, "145": {"fulltext": "133\\nIf country is to be esteemed the true cri-\\nterion of classification, and the existence of\\nseparate texts in every considerable district to\\nbe presumed, I see no reason, why the number\\nshould not be augmented; why Syria, for instance,\\nand Asia Minor, should not have their separate\\ntexts, as well as Byzantium, Rome, and Egypt.\\nCappadocia alone produced three writers of dis-\\ntinguished character and credit, Basil with Gre-\\ngory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa and\\nIf these writers really followed a text different from\\nthat which has been denominated the Byzantine, it is evi-^\\ndent, that they cannot be properly taken into the computa-\\ntion of Byzantine authority. So also, if Eusebius and Da-\\nmascenus, one of Caesarea, the other of Damascus, be con-\\nsidered as adherents to the text of their own country, viz.\\nthe Syrian, and not, as Griesbach supposes, to the Alexan-\\ndrine, their testimony cannot be correctly classed under the\\nlatter text, and, if so classed, can only lead to a fallacious\\nresult. Griesbach, it is true, represents Eusebius as an ad-\\nmirer of the reasoning, and therefore a copier of the quota-\\ntions, of Origen 3 but admitting his premises, I cannot sub-\\nscribe to the legitimacy of his conclusion. Nor even, ad-\\nmitting both, should 1 be warranted in ranking Eusebius on\\nthe Alexandrian side in my calculation of testimonies for\\nmy argument applies not to writers, who repeat, but to those,\\nwho corroborate, the evidence of Origen.", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0145.jp2"}, "146": {"fulltext": "134\\nthese have not only common, but pecuHar read^\\nings why do we not form another text from\\ntheir quotations Basil, it is true, travelled to\\nEgypt, but so did Origen to Rome yet the\\nlatter is regarded as having been still attached\\nto the characteristical text (if such there were)\\nof his own country. Ought we not then, if the\\nprinciple be at all admissible, to assert the same\\nalso of the former?\\nBut, in truth, the existence of even three\\ntexts has never been proved analytically. Trans-\\nported with the love of synthetical combina-\\ntion, and with the pride of conjectural talent,\\nwe may give loose to unbridled Criticism, and\\npursue a favourite track, disdainful of the\\nrugged path, and the terrific precipice and\\nmay astonish the world with intricacy of re-\\nsearch, and with boldness of enterprize but\\nthe credit of our discoveries will scarcely be per-\\nmanent, unless the road, which leads to them^\\nbe secure and certain. Synthetical reasoning,\\nhow speciously soever it may dogmatize, sel-\\ndom convinces, being too often founded upon\\nthe unstable basis of mere gratuitous pre-", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0146.jp2"}, "147": {"fulltext": "135\\nsumption. Instead of pointing out the deduc-\\ntions of incontrovertible truth^ it not unfre-\\nquently indicates consequences deducible only\\nfrom preconceived error. It is by analysis alone,\\nthat we arrive at satisfactory conclusions and,\\nwhen the hypothesis of an extended classifica-\\ntion in manuscripts is, not synthetically pre-\\nsumed, but analytically demonstrated, I shall\\nmyself be the first to adopt, and the last to re\u00c2\u00bb\\nlinquish it.\\nTHE END,", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0147.jp2"}, "148": {"fulltext": "A", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0148.jp2"}, "149": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0149.jp2"}, "150": {"fulltext": "I*\\no\\nN\\n4-\\n8 I\\n0^ c\u00c2\u00ab^\\nV-\\n,V\\nV I\\n^0\\nA\\nl^.\\nC\\nN\\n-^C^.\\n3 N\\nO\\nV\\n^Ct^ ^0\\nr\\ns^\\\\^r^\\\\\\ny KS-o- it n t\\n.0^\\n^S\\nb 0^\\n^-fj\\nfcs\\n,v\\nV^\\nH -7-\\no N\\nc.\\n9 I A\\ni\u00c2\u00a5I sf\\n.0^ c\\nDeacidified using the Bookkeeper process.\\nNeutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide\\nG ~?^^f ^_. Treatment Date: June 2005\\nPreservationTechnologies\\nA WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION\\n1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive\\nCranberry Township. PA 16066\\n(724)779-2111", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0150.jp2"}, "151": {"fulltext": "N. MANCHESTER,\\nINDIANA\\nm^,^ a\\n^0\u00e2\u0096\u00a0\\n-6\\nr.\\n0^ s^ ^.v", "height": "3696", "width": "2053", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0151.jp2"}, "152": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4211", "width": "2481", "jp2-path": "remarksuponsyste00laur_0152.jp2"}}