The reader has, we trust, been furnished with the leading principles on which it is conceived that dialectic peculiarities should be treated in revising the text of the N. T. It would have been out of place to have entered into a more detailed account of variations which will readily be met with (and must be carefully studied) in any good Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Dr. Moulton’s translation of Winer ought to be in the hands of every student, and leaves nothing to be regretted, except that accurate scholarship and unsparing diligence should have been expended on improving another man’s work, by one who is well able to produce a better of his own(334). CHAPTER XII. APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS AND PRINCIPLES TO THE CRITICISM OF SELECT PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. In applying to the revision of the sacred text the diplomatic materials and critical principles it has been the purpose of the preceding pages to describe, we have selected the few passages we have room to examine, chiefly in consideration of their actual importance, occasionally also with the design of illustrating by pertinent examples the canons of internal evidence and the laws of Comparative Criticism. It will be convenient to discuss these passages in the order they occupy in the volume of the New Testament: that which stands first affords a conspicuous instance of undue and misplaced _subjectivity_. First Series. Gospels. 1. MATT. i. 18. Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ... is altered by Tregelles into Τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ, Ἰησοῦ being omitted: Westcott and Hort place Ἰησοῦ between brackets, and Τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ of Cod. B in the margin: Tischendorf, who had rejected Ἰησοῦ in his fifth and seventh editions, restored it in his eighth. Michaelis had objected to the term τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Acts viii. 37 (see that verse, to be examined below), on the ground that “In the time of the Apostles the word Christ was never used as the Proper Name of a Person, but as an epithet expressive of the ministry of Jesus;” and although Bp. Middleton has abundantly proved his statement incorrect (Doctrine of the Greek Article, note on Mark ix. 41), and Ἰησοῦς Χριστός(335), especially in some one of the oblique cases after prepositions, is very common, yet the precise form ὁ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός occurs only in these places and in 1 John iv. 3; Apoc. xii. 17, where again the reading is more than doubtful. Hence, apparently, the determination to change the common text in St. Matthew, on evidence however slight. Now Ἰησοῦ is omitted _in no Greek manuscript whatsoever_(336). The Latin version of Cod. D (_d_) indeed rejects it, the parallel Greek being lost; but since _d_ sometimes agrees with other Latin copies against its own Greek, it cannot be deemed quite certain that the Greek rejected it also(337). Cod. B reads τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, in support of which Lachmann cites Origen, iii. 965 _d_ in the Latin, but on very precarious grounds, as Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p.