to light in 1855 among the Bentley manuscripts in Trinity College Library at Cambridge, was published at the expense of that great College in 1862 (Bentleii Critica Sacra), by Mr. A. A. Ellis, one of the Fellows. Rulotta's performance has been highly esteemed by some; but Tischendorf, who has, we suppose, the best means for knowing, says curtly enough, 'inter eos quorum studia ad correctiones pertinebant longissimè a vero aberravit Rulotta,' (Proleg. p. xv.) Nor is he much better pleased with the labours of Dean Alford (Alf.), who in 1861 was enabled to turn over the manuscript and to examine many passages, for the purposes of his own edition of the New Testainent. He especially censures them both (with what truth we can hardly say) for imputing to the original scribe (B) the changes introduced by that early pen which went over his whole work as the Stop@wrns, or corrector (B2): the manuscript was retraced by B3 (pp. 412, 423). Our specimen shall comprise all the doubtful passages of Codex B. in S. Peter's first epistle, it being remembered that the reading followed by (Tisch.) is that given in the volume now under review.

1 Pet. i. 1, Kai Biovviao omitted, Rul. Bi. Mai. (additur in margine secunda manu,' Mai 1: est in margine,' Mai 2, kaι βυθανιασ, Rul.). και βιθυνιασ, B2 et B, Tisch.

I. 4 fin. nuao, Lachmann alone, in error.

1. 7. τειμιωτερον, Μαί, ('secunda manus, τιμ. Μαΐ 2). τειμοτερον, Bent. Alf., et sic Tisch. (TiμOT. B3.)

I. 8. OVK ISOVтeo, Mai 1 (sic Mai 2, addens in marg. 'prim. manu ovx): castigatum ove a manu prima,' Rul. ovx idovтeo (OUK B3), Tisch.

I. 10. enрavvnoav, Rul. Mai, Tisch. ('eğevp. secund. manu,' Rul. Mai, B3 Tisch.)

I. 11. eρavvwvтes, Mai, Tisch. ('secund. man. epev.,' Mai, B3 Tisch.)

I. 13. vepovτeo prim. man. Mai 2, Rul. Tisch. ('Castigatum vηpovτeσ a manu prima ‘Rul. vnp. B3 Tisch.)

1. 14. συσχηματιζομενα, Μαΐ 1. συσχηματιζόμεναι, Lachmann, Mai 2, Tisch.

[I. 18. επιεικεσι αλλα (επιεικεσιν a manu secunda,' Rul. B3 Tisch.)

Ι. 19. συνιδησιν (συνειδησιν a manu secunda, Rul.; Tisch. after overlooking this in his text, assigns -e- to B3 in his notes).

II. 20. yap om. after TOUTO, Bent. Mai, Tisch., though Lachmann and Tischendorf in his 3d and 7th editions had assigned this addition to Codex B as well as to Codex A.

II. 21. Eжакoλovĺnonτai, Rul. Tisch., 'prim. man.' Mai; 'castigátum eπakaλovėŋonтe, a manu prima,' Rul., -onтe B3 Tisch.

II. 24. vμwv, Mai, Tisch. expressly.

Ibid. lantai Rul. Tisch.; castigatum tante a manu prima,' Rul., -TE B3 Tisch.

III. 1. Buttmann says that Muralt (p. 406), whose work we have not at hand, onits e: all the rest represent Codex B as reading it, though not the preceding κaɩ.

Ibid. Kepononowvтai, Mai, with the received text; but KEρononoоvтaι, Bent. Bi. Alf. Tisch.

III. 5. etσ Ov, Bent. Mai, Tisch., not eɩσ тov Ov, as Lachmann had been led to suppose from the silence of Bi.

III. 6. UπNKOVσeν, Mаi, úπηкоνev, Bart. (Bi. ex silentio), Bent. Alf. Tisch. We presune that Tischendorf's αγοθοποιουσαι in this verse is a misprint, since no one else notices the variation.

III. 7. is a hard passage. In ovv (ovy'a manu secunda,' Rul. Mai, B3 Tisch.) Kλпpovoμolσ is no doubt the reading of the retracer B3, and is given as that of the manuscript by Bent. Rul. Mai, whereas Bi. rejects the final σ. Tisch. cannot decide whether B3 traced over an original small σ at the end of the line, or added it himself, but inclines to the former opinion.

6

III. 10. Kaι yλwooav, Bart. et Mai, anno 1852, secundum Muralt.' Buttmann. Tηv ywooav, Mai, Tisch. την γλωσσαν,

III. 13. Here again we have a specimen of Muralt's blundering (p. 406). He imputes to Bart. the statement that Codex B reads εαν γενησθε with the received text. Bent. Bi. Mai, Alf. Tisch. all have ει γενοισθε.

6

III. 15. aɣıασETE B' Lachmann: ayıαoaтe Mai, Tisch.

Ibid. Se after aet, om. Mai, Tisch. Lachmann had supposed from the silence of previous collators, that Codex B must have read δε.

III. 20. wπeğedexero, Bi. Muralt,' Buttmann. Of course Mai, Tisch. have aπeğedexeто.

III. 21. init. o kaι vuao, Mai, Tisch. Here again Lachmann, depending on the silence of Bart. Bent. Bi., assigns to Codex B the reading o kai nμao, and for the same cause attributes to it Ev σaρk, ch. iv. 1, as does even Tischendorf in his third edition, though he is usually alive to this fallacy. Mai, Tisch. omit ev. IV. 3. ovovyloto, prima manu, Rul. Mai, Tisch. who thinks that B2 as well as B3 corrected -olo into -alo. however, says, castigatum οινοφλυγιαισ manu prima,' which is just the error Tischendorf imputes to him (p. 424).

6

Rul.

IV. 4. βλασφημούντεσ, Μαΐ 1, Μαΐ 2 text, but βλασφημοῦνται in the margin, as the reading of the first hand. Rul. has βλασφημούντασι and the correction -τεσ, both by the original scribe. Tisch. considers Bλaopnμovvraio (an itacism) as from the original scribe, -Teσ as a correction of B3.

1 Tregelles, New Testament in loco, says of Rul. Tai pr. man., -Teσ sec. man.' but we follow Mr. Ellis (p. 424).

IV. 8. Here, as in ch. ii. 20; iii. 21, Lachmann is misled by the negligence of Bart. Bi. (not Bent.) to represent πро πаνтшv Se as the reading of Codex B.; Mai, Tisch. omit de.

IV. 13. In TOU Xploтov, Bent. followed by Lachmann omits Tov. The article is retained in Mai, Alf. Tisch.

IV. 18. o de aσeßŋs prima manu, Mai, Tisch. Both B2 and B3 of Tisch. reject it.

V. 9. EπTITEλELσde prima manu (an itacism), Rul. Mai, Tisch. Here Rul. and Tisch. agree, the former imputing eñɩteλelodai to his 'manus secunda,' the latter to B3.

V. 12. Barov of Mai, queried by Tregelles, is confirmed by Tisch. Tou TOTOV, Mai, Tisch. whereas Bent. (by not noticing a peculiarity of the edition he employed for collation, that of Cephalæus, 1524) misleads Lachmann into the notion that Cod. B has not the article.

This continuous review of what has been done for a single Epistle will convey to the reader some notion of how much may be expected from Tischendorf's Codex Vaticanus. No doubt his examination of it was hasty, partial, and in some degree superficial; but from having familiarized himself beforehand with the points most needing observation, he was actually able to do in the space of thirty uninterrupted hours, and in perhaps as many wherein his attention was distracted and his spirits hurried, more than a person of less matured experience would have thought possible. For the resolution of the numerous questions which have been raised rather than solved by Tischendorf's recent investigations we must await, with what faith and patience we may the appearance of Vercellone's promised opus magnum (p. 410).

We subjoin, for the student's use, the decisions of Tischendorf on a very few other places, in which the evidence of Codex Vaticanus, as it came from the original scribe, has been variously represented.

The following readings from the first hand are noted by him, though overlooked by his predecessors. Mark xii. 1. eğedeto (but εξέδοτο, Β*). Luke i. 17. προσελεύσεται (προελ. Β' and B3). Ibid. 22. еорakeν (empaкev, B), and so in John i. 18; vi. 46, twice. Luke ii. 44. avyyevevaw (σvyyevea. B2 or B3). V. 29. μετ αυτου (μετ αυτων, Β'). Ibid. 30. εγεγγυζαν (-ζον, Β). ΙΧ. 18. συνήντησαν (συνησαν, Β' or B). Χ. 6. επαναTARGETAL (-Tava-, B3). John xix. 31. eken with the Elzevir text and a few copies: eRewou B3, as in Stephens' text, Codd. N, A, and the mass.

Matt. xxiii. 36. Mai, Alf., and after him Mr. Cure of Canterbury, read εκχυνομενον. The first hand gave εκχυννομενον, but for v over v at the end of the line has nearly faded, and B did not renew it.

Acts xx. 28. την εκκλησίαν του θυ. This indeed had been regarded as settled by the positive statement of Tregelles, who frankly says that he had expected to read under as the reading of the first hand, and did not find it. (Printed Text, p. 231, note.)

ΧΧΙ. 3. αναφαναντεσ, not αναφανεντεσ as Rul. Βι. Μαι, Αl. suppose. B3 of Tisch. first covered a of the first hand by e, then feeling doubtful of his own correctness, set a above e, præter

morem.'

ευρυ

XXVII. 14. evрakuλwv prim. man. Alf. Tisch., but evpvκλυδων, Β'. Here Tisch. supports Bi. against Rul. and Vercellone, both of whom, the latter with great positiveness (Mai's New Testament, 1859, Lectori, p. v.), assert that the original scribe wrote evpakudwv. Vercellone, however, has been brought to admit (1866) that the horizontal line changing A into A is the work of a corrector.

Rom. ix. 8. τουτεστιν ου τα τεκνα. The word oT is written over the line between TV and ov. Alf. thinks this addition original, Rul. as later. Tisch. imputes it to B2, which Alf. fails to acknowledge (p. 424). It is remarkable that Codex Sinaiticus contains the same addition, also 'secunda manu.'

Eph. i. 1. Codd. &, B are known to stand alone in rejecting εν εφεσω after τοισ ουσιν, though in both copies the words were subsequently annexed. Hug thought the addition in Codex B the work of the first scribe, a notion disclaimed by Tisch., who represents the passage in fac-simile.

And here we would fain close our notice of a work fraught with deep interest and instruction to the Biblical student, although (through no fault of its author) sadly imperfect and purely transitional. We would heartily condole with his disappointment, and admire the brave soul which has accomplished so much in spite of difficulties that might have deterred most men from the attempt. But Tischendorf has chosen that we cannot part thus. Not for the first time in his literary career, otherwise so full of honour, he has disfigured the pages of a volume he deems of permanent value by fretful complaints against two English authors in his own department of criticism, who have ventured to set him right in some particulars where they thought him mistaken. The few who will care to read at all the closely printed quarto page of small type which faces the first chapter of the Gospels in his volume, will be at once annoyed by the frivolous nature of the subjects of dispute,1

'One point, however, we cannot call frivolous; the question whether in the Sinai manuscript the last verse of S. John's Gospel is written by the original, or (as Tischendorf thinks) by a later hand. Yet it is strange he does not see that this doubt must be decided, not by the ipse dixit of anyone, but by renewed consultation of the document itself.

and grieved at the littleness of mind evinced by this illustrious scholar under contradiction. We are not going to enter upon the matters in debate; both the writers we refer to have pens, and can use them when they think it worth while. To one of them, Dr. Tregelles, the displeasure of Tischendorf is nothing new. We were startled some ten years ago by finding a sort of manifesto headed Ad arcendas calumnias prefixed to the third number of Tischendorf's seventh edition of the Greek Testament, full of bitter charges against our countrymen, for no particular cause which a dispassionate reader could understand; the summary of the whole diatribe being Sed tædet id genus plura videre. Scilicet hominem præ invidia cæcntientem nihil pudere planum est.' It is to the credit of the victim of this unreasoning abuse that he bore the attack with Christian patience, in the silence of one who knew how to respect himself. We are not aware that Tischendorf ever had the grace to withdraw his strictures, but he soon came to be ashamed of them. He offered Tregelles fresh civilities, which were civilly accepted. Especially in June, 1862, when Codex Sinaiticus was at Leipsic, and its transcript was passing through the press, he invited Tregelles to inspect it at his own house, 'animi in eum testificandi causa.' Of Tischendorf's animus, we fear, the least said the better: but those who remember the circumstances of that period, when Constantine Simonides was claiming to be the actual writer of Codex &, and Tischendorf's strange silence was lending some plausibility to his pretensions, will be of opinion that he could not well have done a wiser thing than to submit the suspected document to the examination of a most competent judge, who could have no prejudice in favour of its discoverer. In this country, we will engage to say, the positive evidence of Tregelles weighed far more in favour of Codex than all the Attic epistles Tischendorf could publish against the poor Greek pretender, though they told us of Toû aveρwπíσкоv τούτου ἡ παράτολμος ἀναίδεια, or assailed him with that argument so adinirably adapted to the taste of the English public, Ἴρου γὰρ πενέστερας ὁ δύστηνος ἦν (Tischend. Cod. Sin. Proleg. p. xli. 1863).

We are by no means sure, though, that Tregelles would have undertaken his journey to Leipsic, had he been aware of the implied condition on which he was admitted to a sight of Cod. Sinaiticus. If Tischendorf's present reproaches are not utterly unmeaning, nothing less than this was expected from the English critic, to see with the editor's eyes, and to take his judgment as the conclusion of the whole matter. That Tregelles has not done so, that he has embodied in his own Greek Testament readings which he believed, and still believes, to be found in Codex, otherwise than Tischendorf has given them, this is