2. Further, it is obvious that a really ancient Codex of the Gospels must needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text of Scripture than can possibly be rendered by any Translation, however faithful: while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive authority, even than Versions. The reasons are chiefly these:—(_a._) Fathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not licentiously; and sometimes _allude_ only when they seem to _quote_. (_b._) They appear to have too often depended on their memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and inaccurate in their citations; the same Father being observed to quote the same place in different ways. (_c._) Copyists and Editors may not be altogether depended upon for the exact form of such supposed quotations. Thus the evidence of Fathers must always be to some extent precarious. 3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed out that when,—instead of certifying ourselves of the _actual words employed_ by an Evangelist, their precise _form_ and exact _sequence_,—our object is only to ascertain whether a considerable passage of Scripture is genuine or not; is to be rejected or retained; was known or was not known in the earliest ages of the Church; then, instead of supplying the least important evidence, Fathers become by far the most valuable witnesses of all. This entire subject may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to the problem before us. 4. Of course, if we possessed copies of the Gospels coeval with their authors, nothing could compete with such evidence. But then unhappily nothing of the kind is the case. The facts admit of being stated within the compass of a few lines. We have one Codex (the Vatican, B) which is thought to belong to the first half of the ivth century; and another, the newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (at St. Petersburg, א) which is certainly not quite so old,—perhaps by 50 years. Next come two famous codices; the Alexandrine (in the British Museum, A) and the Codex Ephraemi (in the Paris Library, C), which are probably from 50 to 100 years more recent still. The Codex Bezae (at Cambridge, D) is considered by competent judges to be the depository of a recension of the text as ancient as any of the others. Notwithstanding its strangely depraved condition therefore,—the many “monstra potius quam variae lectiones” which it contains,—it may be reckoned with the preceding four, though it must be 50 or 100 years later than the latest of them. After this, we drop down, (as far as S. Mark is concerned,) to 2 uncial MSS. of the viiith century,—7 of the ixth,—4 of the ixth or xth,(29) while cursives of the xith and xiith centuries are very numerous indeed,—the copies increasing in number in a rapid ratio as we descend the stream of Time. Our primitive manuscript witnesses, therefore, are but _five_ in number at the utmost. And of these it has never been pretended that the oldest is to be referred to an