The evidence of the Fathers, and of ancient versions other than Latin, may help to confirm the proof.

These, then, are the two features of Bentley's conception: the appeal from recent documents to antiquity— viz., to the first five centuries; and the appeal to Greek and Latin consent.

In the particular application of these ideas Bentley laboured under certain disadvantages which were either almost or altogether inseparable from the time at which he worked. First, it was then scarcely possible that he should adequately realise the history of the Greek text previous to his chosen date, the Council of Nice. The Alexandrine manuscript, of the fifth century, containing the whole of the New Testament in Greek capital letters, had been presented to Charles I. by Cyril Lucar, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in 1628. This was believed to be, as Bentley calls it, "the oldest and best in the world." It was regarded as the typical ancient manuscript, not only by the earlier English editors, Walton, Fell, and Mill, but by Bengel in his edition of 1734. This view has since been modified by data, some of which were not then available. Not less than two or three generations before the Council of Nice (325 A.D.), according to the more recent investigations, two influential types of text had already diverged from the apostolic original. These have been called the 66 Western " and the "Alexandrian." Both are "Pre

Syrian" to use the convenient term adopted by Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort-in distinction from the "Syrian" Greek text formed at Antioch at some time between 250

and 350 A.D. The "Syrian" text was eclectic, drawing on both the aberrant Pre-Syrian types, "Western" and "Alexandrian," as well as on texts independent of those two aberrations. In a revised form the Syrian text finally

prevailed; a result due partly to the subsequent contraotion of Greek Christendom, partly to its centralisation at Constantinople, the ecclesiastical daughter of Antioch.

Four manuscripts of the "uncial" class (written in capitals, as distinguished from "cursive ") stand out as the oldest Greek copies of the New Testament. Two belong probably to the middle of the fourth century. One of these is the Vatican manuscript, of which Bentley had no detailed knowledge at the time when he published his "Proposals." Its text is Pre-Syrian, and thus far unique, that in most parts it is free from both Western and Alexandrian corruptions. The other fourth century manuscript is the Sinaitic, of which the New Testament portion first came into Tischendorf's hands in 1859. This also is PreSyrian, but with elements both Western and Alexandrian. The Codex Alexandrinus, which Bentley's age deemed the oldest and best, is fundamentally Syrian in the Gospels: in the other books it is still partially Syrian, though PreSyrian readings, Western and Alexandrian included, are proportionally more numerous. Thus it contains throughout at least one disturbing element which is absent from the Sinaitic, and at least three which in most of the books are absent from the Vaticanus. The fourth of the oldest uncials is one which Wetstein twice collated at Paris for Bentley that known as the Codex Ephraemi, because some writings attributed to Ephraem Syrus have been traced over the New Testament. It is coeval with the Alexandrinus, belonging to the fifth century; and, while partly Syrian, it also contains much derived from the earlier texts. In addition to the general but erroneous belief as to the unique value of the Alexandrine manuscript, a singular accident (noticed by Dr. Hort) must have greatly strengthened Bentley's belief in the decisiveness of the

agreement between that document and the Vulgate. Jerome, in preparing the Vulgate, appears to have used a Greek manuscript which happened to have many peculiar readings in common with the Alexandrinus, and to have been partly derived from the same original.

The reader will now be able to imagine the effect which must have been gradually wrought on Bentley's mind, as he came to know the Vaticanus better. With his rare tact and insight, he could hardly fail to perceive that this was a document of first-rate importance, yet one of which the evidence could not be satisfactorily reconciled with the comparatively simple hypothesis which he had based on the assumed primacy of the Alexandrine. For his immediate purpose, it. was of far less importance that he was partly in error as to his Latin standard. His view on that subject is connected with a curious instance of his boldness in conjectural criticism. Referring to "interpretationes" or versions of the Bible, Augustine once says, "Let the Italian (Itala) be preferred to the rest, since it combines greater closeness with clearness" (De Doctr. Chr. II. 15). Bentley, with a rashness which even he seldom exceeded, declared that the "Italian version is a mere dream" Itala, in Augustine, should be illa. Archbishop Potter's usitata, viewed merely as an emendation, was far more intrinsically probable; but Cardinal Wiseman's arguments in his letters (1832-3)-reinforced by Lachmann's illustrations-have placed it beyond reasonable doubt that Augustine really wrote Itala. As to his meaning, all that is certain is that he intended to distinguish this "Italian text from the "African" (codices Afros) which he mentions elsewhere. Of a Latin version, or Latin versions, prior to Jerome's—which was a recension, with the aid of Greek MSS., not a new and original version-Bentley M 8*

12

could scarcely know anything. The documents were first made accessible in Bianchini's Evangeliarium Quadruplex (1749), and the Benedictine Sabatier's Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae (1751). It must be remembered, however, that Bentley's aim was to restore the text as received in the fourth century; he did not profess to restore the text of an earlier age.

Bentley's edition would have given to the world the readings of all the older Greek MSS. then known, and an apparatus, still unequalled in its range of authorities, for the text of the Latin Vulgate New Testament: but it would have done more still. Whatever might have been its defects, it would have represented the earliest attempt to construct a text of the New Testament directly from the most ancient documents, without reference to any printed edition. A century passed before such an attempt was again made. Bentley's immediate successors in this field did not work on his distinctive lines. In 1726 Ben

gel's Greek Testament was almost ready for the press, and he writes thus: "What principally holds me back is the delay of Bentley's promised edition. . . . Bentley possesses invaluable advantages; but he has prepossessions of his own which may prove very detrimental to the Received Text:" this "received text" being, in fact, the Syrian text in its mediæval form. Bengel's text, published at Tübingen in 1734, was not based on Bentley's principles, though the value of these is incidentally recognised in his discussions. Wetstein's edition of 1751-2 supplied fresh materials; in criticism, however, he represents rather a reaction from Bentley's view, for his tendency was to find traces of corruption in any close agreement between the ancient Greek MSS. and the ancient versions. Griesbach prepared the way for a properly critical text by

seeking an historical basis in the genealogy of the documents.

But it was Lachmann, in his small edition of 1831, who first gave a modified fulfilment to Bentley's design, by publishing a text irrespective of the printed tradition, and based wholly on the ancient authorities. Lachmann also applied Bentley's principle of Greek and Latin consent. As Bentley had proposed to use the Vulgate Latin, so Lachmann used what he deemed the best MSS. of the Old Latin-combined with some Latin Fathers and with such Greek MSS. as were manifestly of the same type. Lachmann compared this group of witnesses from the West with the other or "Eastern" Greek authorities; and, where they agreed, he laid stress on that agreement as a security for the genuineness of readings. Bentley had intended to print the Greek text and the Vulgate Latin side by side. Lachmann, in his larger edition (18401852), so far executed this plan as to print at the foot of the page a greatly improved Vulgate text, based chiefly on the two oldest MSS. For Lachmann, however, the authority of the Vulgate was only accessory ("Hieronymo pro se auctore non utimur"), on account of the higher antiquity of the Old Latin. Those who taunted Lachmann with "aping" Bentley ("simia Bentleii ") misrepresented both. It is to Lachmann and to Tregelles that we primarily owe the revived knowledge and appreciation in this country of Bentley's labours on the New Testament, to which Tischendorf also accords recognition in his edition of 1859.

Bentley's place in the history of sacred criticism agrees with the general character of his work in other provinces. His ideas were in advance of his age, and also of the means at his disposal for executing them. He gave an