HKB
“Northamptonshire,” vol. ii. p. 45, Oxon. 1791), in 1714, George I was induced to buy his books and manuscripts for the Library at Cambridge, amounting to 30,000 volumes, in acknowledgement of the attachment of the University to the House of Hanover. Every one remembers the epigram which this royal gift provoked. See “Cap and Gown,” p. 15.
231 “We often hear,” said a witty and most reverend Irish Prelate, “that the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is a gloss; and any one that will go into the College Library may see as much for himself.” It was a little bold in Mr. Charles Forster (“A New Plea,” &c., pp. 119, 120, 139), whose zeal in defence of what he held to be the truth I heartily revere, to urge the authority of Dr. Adam Clarke for assigning this manuscript to the thirteenth century, the rather since almost in the same breath, he stigmatizes the Wesleyan minister for a “self-taught philomath” (p. 122). Dr. Clarke tells us fairly the grounds on which he arrived at his strange conclusion (Observations on the Text of the Three Divine Witnesses, Manchester, 1805, pp. 8-10), and marvellously unsound they are. But what avails authority, quum res ipsa per se clamat? The facsimile made for Dr. Clarke nearly seventy years ago has been copied in Horne’s Introduction and twenty other books, and leaves no sort of doubt about the date of Codex Montfortianus.
232 This Froy or Roy is believed by Mr. Rendel Harris (Origin of Cod. Leic., p. 48) to be the forger of Cod. 61.
233 Another facsimile (Luke xxi. 36-John viii. 6) is given by Abbott in his “Collation of Four Important Manuscripts” (see Cod. 13). In all four the pericope adulterae follows Luke xxi. 38.
234 See the style of the Evangelistaria, as cited above, pp. 80-83; Matthaei’s uncials BH and Birch’s 178 of the Gospels, described below. So B.-C. ii. 13, to be described hereafter, reads in St. Matthew only ἀρχ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ ματθαῖον ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου. Compare also Codd. 211, 261, 357, and B.-C. iii. 5 in SS. Matthew and Mark.
235 Of the 183 manuscript volumes bequeathed by William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury [1657-1737] to Christ Church (of which he had been a Canon), no less than twenty-eight contain portions of the Greek Testament. They are all described in this list from a comparison of Dean Gaisford’s MS. Catalogue (1837) with the books themselves, to which Bp. Jacobson’s kindness gave me access in 1861. Corrected by E. M., to whom similar kindness has been shown. See also “Account of some MSS. at Christ Church, Oxford,” by the Rev. Charles H. Hoole, Student.
236 These formal revisions of the Latin Bible were mainly two, one made by the University of Paris with the sanction of the Archbishop of Sens about 1230, and a rival one undertaken by the Mendicant Orders, through Cardinal Hugo de St. Caro (see above, p. 69), and adopted by their general Chapter held at Paris in 1256. A previous revision had been made by Cardinal Nicolaus and the Cistercian Abbot Stephanus in 1150. A manuscript of that of 1256 was used by Lucas Brugensis and Simon (Wetstein, N. T. Prol. vol. i. p. 85). Canon Westcott calls attention to a Correctorium in the British Museum, King’s Library, 1 A. viii.
237 On fol. 4 we read ἡ βίβλος αὕτη (ἥδε 178) τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Προδρόμου | τῆς κειμένης ἔγγιστα τῆς Ἀε[αι]τίου | ἀρχαϊκὴ δὲ τῆ μονῆ κλῆσις Πέτρα. Compare Cod. 178 and Montfauc, Palaeogr. Graeca, pp. 39, 110, 305.
238 Noted “Ex libris Georgii Wheleri Westmonasteriensis perigrinatione ejus Constantinopolitanâ collect. Anno Domini 1676.” See Evan. 68; Evst. 3.
239 Cod. 101 better suits Bengel’s description of Uffen. 3 than 97: they are written on different materials, and the description of their respective texts will not let us suspect them to be the same. Wetstein never cites Cod. 101, but the addition of τὸν θεόν at the end of John viii. 27, the reading of the margin of Uffen. 3, has been erroneously ascribed in the critical editions to 97, not to 101.