where it is ascertained that their editors made use of Manu scripts. The author of the Canons approves of the Compluten- sian edition ; but he very frequently rejects its best readings.
15. From the character of the Manuscripts we must observe the character of the transcribers and their transcriptions, whether they are accustomed to err by omission, or by addition. See also Canons 30 and 31.
This character does little towards the actual Decision ; since that never depends on the character of one MS.
16. But if other words, or changes of words, inflexions, etc., occur in the parallel passages of the other Evangelists, as dis tinguished from the Evangelist whose text is under consideration, it is probable, that the various reading has crept in from thence.
This Canon has nothing different from Canon 24.
17. Citations by the Fathers of the Text of the New Testa ment ought seldom to establish a Various Reading, because, quoting as they frequently do from memory, they often employ not the very words,1 but such as are equivalent to them.
There is not a single citation from the Fathers in the Oxford Margin : this 17th Canon therefore, and the three that follow
it in this Crisis, remain dormant. The Fathers too are seldom cited even in the Notes : another great defect. For though, where the Fathers differ from the MSS., their words are not to be pressed, yet where the MSS. differ from each other, those MSS. have the greatest weight, which agree with the Fathers : and the more ancient the Fathers are, the greater weight is due to their support. It is frequently difficult to ascertain, what was the reading of the text, which the Fathers employed : it is often clear beyond question. The distinction is explained in the Apparatus Criticus, pp. 389, 390 (Ed. ii. p. 23).
18. Thus the Fathers frequently omit, what does not bear upon their present purpose.
In such a case, no man of sense will reject what the Fathers omit.
19. The Fathers also, from slip of memory, ascribe sometimes to one writer, what really belongs to another.
1 For some very interesting information on this and kindred subjects, see H. WESTCOTT on the Canon of Scripture, pp. 154-169. — (I. B.)