Though thousands of textual conjectures have been proposed by scholars over the last few centuries, today very few find any advocates. In the most widely used edition of the Greek New Testament (NA28), there are two places where the editors have left all the Greek manuscripts behind. These are Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10. In both places, there are a few versional witnesses in support of the adopted text.

John D. Meade & Peter J. Gurry, Scribes & Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible, 101.

In 1 Kings 4:33, the narrator presents Solomon in the mold of an ancient scribe or scholar who discoursed “about trees, from the cedar which is in Lebanon to the hyssop which grows in the wall, and . . . spoke about beasts, birds, reptiles, and fish.” Solomon had catalogued the trees from great to small and the animals according to their kinds, he could recite them as the scribes of the ancient Near East did.

John D. Meade & Peter J. Gurry, Scribes & Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible, 41.

The preeminent scribe in Israel’s history was Ezra. He was a priest who was also described as “a skilled scribe in the Torah of Moses” (Ezra 7:5-6; see also 7:10). In the ancient world, priests curated texts that were stored in the temple, which functioned as a national archive, and Israel was no exception to this custom (e.g., Deut. 31:24-26; see also 2 Kings 22:8) . . .

Israel also had scribes in the royal sphere. We mentioned above that Solomon was cast as a scribe. Deuteronomy 17:18 portrays each king of Israel as a scribe as he writes for himself a copy of the law.

John D. Meade & Peter J. Gurry, Scribes & Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible, 43.

William Symington’s Messiah the Prince (1838) most fully stated this doctrine [Christ’s Mediatorial Reign] through detailed Biblical exegesis. That God the Father appointed his son Jesus Christ the head of the church, all Protestant denominations accepted. Beyond this principle, however, Symington believed that scripture mandated belief in “the headship of Jesus, as Mediator, over the nations of the world, or the political associations of men.” The Bible, Symington held, specifically taught that Jehovah, God the Father, delegated to Christ his Son “mediatorial dominion” to rule the nations. The Father did not create and generally rule all nations as a matter of natural law; rather, he specificially “‘hath put all things in subjection under [Christ’s] feet,’ as respects his right of sovereignty” over human socities.

“Church and State in the Early Republic: The Covenanters’ Radical Critique” by Robert Emery in Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 25, Issue 2 (2009), 491.

In judging the text of these early codices we must not expect to find a uniform tradition running through all the component parts. We must remember that the various books, before being brought together into these huge volumes, circulated separately or in small groups, and so developed an individual textual history.

The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus (British Museum – Printed by Order of the Trustees – 1938), 34.

The law is that which puts a difference betwixt good and evil, betwixt just and unjust. If you take away the law, all things will fall into a confusion. Every man will become a law to himself, which, in the depraved condition of human nature, must needs produce great enormities.

Charles Firth, Oliver Cromwell and the Rule of the Puritans in England, 38.

While standard reference works give a date of ‘ca. 360 C.E.’ vel sim. for Codex Sinaiticus, this overly precise mid–fourth century date is more a matter of habit rather than the result of reasoned argumentation based on reliable evidence.

The Date of Codex Sinaiticus by Brent Nongbri (https://academic.oup.com/jts/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jts/flac083/6652265?searchresult=1&login=false)

Internal Evidence of Readings is of two kinds, which cannot be too sharply distinguished from each other; appealing respectively to Intrinsic Probability, having reference to the author, and what may be called Transcriptional Probability, having reference to the copyists. In appealing to the first, we ask what an author is likely to have written: in appealing to the second, we ask what copyists are likely to have made him seem to write. Both of these kinds of evidence are alike in the strictest sense internal, since they are alike derived exclusively from comparison of the testimony delivered, no account being taken of any relative antecedent credibility of the actual witnesses.

B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek with Notes on Selected Readings, 20.

Again, textual criticism is always negative, because its final aim is virtually nothing more than the detection and rejection of error. . . . and the primary work of textual criticism is merely to discriminate the erroneous variants from the true.

B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek with Notes on Select Readings, 3.

They [regarding visible/invisible church distinction] are not properly two churches, but one church, contemplated in two different aspects — an internal and an external. They do not occupy different spheres, but the same sphere. The visible church includes or contains the invisible, though, in its present imperfect condition, it has also mixed up with it some inferior elements, — some chaff, which will one day be separated from the wheat.

William Cunningham, Historical Theology, Vol. 1, 16.

The two most important questions that can call forth men’s interest, or exercise their faculties, are these two: first, Has God given to men a supernatural revelation of His will? and secondly, If so, what is the substance of the information which this revelation conveys to us? All subjects of investigation are subordinate to these.

William Cunningham, Historical Theology, Vol. 1, 4.