The New Testament is contained in vol. iii. The copy I use has the date 1743 on the title-pages of three volumes, but there is a note at the end, p. 1115, which says, “E prelo exiit hic tomus anno 1749.” Romæ, 1713-19, in _TiGr._, p. 1350, is a misprint. The imprimaturs of the first volume are dated 1737. The work was reprinted with new title-pages at Paris by Fr. Didot, 1751. Copies now cost from £15 to £25. Footnote 106: The word Coptic is not derived from the town in Upper Egypt called Coptos, but is a modification of the Greek word Αἰγύπτιος. Footnote 107: The spelling Bahiric is due to a wrong vocalisation of the word. Footnote 108: On the Middle Egyptian, see W. E. Crum in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. 3 (April 1900), pp. 416 ff. Footnote 109: Westcott, _Canon_, Part II., chapter ii., § 1 _sub finem_. Footnote 110: H. Hyvernat, _Un fragment inédit de la version sahidique du Nouveau Testament_ (Ephes. i. 6-ii. 8_b_). _Revue Biblique_, April 1900, pp. 248-253. The fragment is of the eighth or ninth century. Footnote 111: See also the Greek and Middle Egyptian manuscript published by Crum and Kenyon, referred to above, p. 70. Footnote 112: The dates of Ulfilas’ birth and death are uncertain. He certainly lived till autumn 381 or 383. The date of his life is variously given as 310-380 or 318-388. According to Kauffmann, the Synod at which Ulfilas was consecrated Bishop was that of Antioch, _De Encaeniis_, 341. Footnote 113: Or 1115 according to the Armenian reckoning. Footnote 114: Celsus’s polemic against Christianity has perished, but considerable fragments are embedded in Origen’s Reply. See _Ante-Nicene Christian Library_, vol. xxiii., (Clark, Edin.). Footnote 115: Clement of Alexandria cites Matt. xviii. 3 in four different ways. He quotes Matt. v. 45 six times, and only once accurately. Footnote 116: Petropol. gr. 254, formerly cited as Paris. coisl. 212, written in the year 1111, the oldest manuscript that Lagarde was able to use for his edition of the _Apostolic Constitutions_. Further examples of the untrustworthiness of manuscripts and printed editions will be found in the small print at the end of this section. Footnote 117: See extended note (2) at the end of the chapter, p. 149. Footnote 118: On the question whether Clement of Rome knew the second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, see J. H. Kennedy, _The Second and Third Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians_. London, 1900, p. 142 ff. Footnote 119: Westcott, _Canon_, Part I., c. ii. 7. Footnote 120: _Ibid._, Part II., c. i. 1.; c. ii. 4. Footnote 121: