hens
(namely, in his third and chief edition) copied solely from the
fifth edition of Erasmus, except in the Revelation, where he
followed sometimes Erasmus, sometimes the Complutensian edition.
The text, therefore, in daily use, resolves itself at last into
the Complutensian and the Erasmian editions." Divinity Lectures,
part I, p. 111.

7. It requires but a moderate acquaintance with the history of textual
criticism to understand that the Elzevir text is not only not perfect,
but is more imperfect than that which has been elaborated by the help of
the abundant manuscripts, versions, and citations of the early fathers,
of which modern criticism has availed itself. It is no reproach to the
editors of the primary editions that, with their comparatively scanty
materials, they could not accomplish as much as we can with the rich and
varied means at our disposal. The _essential integrity_ of the received
text, we do indeed thankfully acknowledge and firmly maintain. Our
fathers had presented to them in this text the same divine and glorious
Saviour, the same way of salvation, the same holy system of doctrines
and duties, as we now find in the most carefully revised modern text.
Nevertheless, a true reverence for the inspired word must impel us to
the diligent use of all the means at our command for setting forth a
pure text, that is, a text conformed as nearly as possible to that of
the original autographs. Viewed in this light the modern critical
editions of the New Testament must possess a deep interest for all who
are able to read it in the original tongue. But to discuss the merits of
these would be foreign to the design of the present work.

Examples of the more important various readings occur in John
1:18; Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:16. The passage 1 John 5:7, 8, _in
heaven--in earth_, is generally rejected on the testimony of the
manuscripts (see the full discussion in Horne, vol. 4, ch. 36).
Among the passages which are regarded as more or less doubtful
may be mentioned John 5:4; 8:3-11; Acts 8:37. In regard to all
these the biblical scholar must be referred to the critical
commentaries. So also for the questions connected with the text
of Mark 16:9-20, which are of a peculiar character.

III. PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

8. The end proposed by textual criticism is to restore the sacred text
as nearly as possible to its primitive purity (Chap. 7, No.