in the Prolegomena to his several editions of the manuscript. Scrivener has added a considerable number in his Introduction to the 'Collation of Codex Sinaiticus,' in which B or D either stand alone with in supporting some characteristic reading, or are aided, if at all, by one or two other witnesses totally different from themselves in age and character. It was just this peculiarity of Cod. & which those, who for the moment were half disposed to advocate the strange claim of Simonides, found themselves utterly unable to account for. A clever forger shall devise means to fabricate vellum which may very well pass for ancient; the colour of half-faded ink may be reproduced with no great trouble; a skilful palæographer (which our adventurous Greek is not) may imitate with some success the mere forms of uncial characters of the fourth century; but internal proofs of genuineness are happily beyond the reach of fraud; they are in this instance too many, too minute, too recondite to be otherwise than real the attempt to construct a text which should pass for ancient would inevitably baffle, not only such a poor sciolist as Simonides, but the practised acumen of Tischendorf himself. We will try to add a few more instances to those hitherto noticed, in which Cod. & is countenanced by just one or two other documents, some sufficiently known, others, it may be, absolutely uncollated but a very few years ago. The reader is by this time familiar with our notation.

John xx. 29, kaì added before πεTíσTevкas in λ, 66, only, but subsequently erased in both. Cod. 66 is a cursive of the thirteenth century, left to Trinity College, Cambridge (0, 8, 3), by Thomas Gale, High Master of S. Paul's School; and this variation, overlooked by Mill, was first noted on its re-collation in 1862.

Matt. iv. 13, παρὰ θάλασσαν (for παραθαλασσίαν) Ν, Ρ, and the unpublished Wake 12, only. Thus in Matt. xxiv. 26 (ovv omitted), N, Wake 12, are supported only by the Latins, e, ff, g1,2, q, and the Latin version of Origen; while in Matt. XXV. 20 (first Táλavra, omitted) they stand absolutely alone, as also in Mark xiv. 31, oμoíws (for woaútws), and Luke xii. 53, καὶ added before μήτηρ.

Matt. xxiii. 35 is more important. Here vioù Bapaxíov, so perplexing to the interpreter, is omitted in N (though added by a later hand), and is passed over by Eusebius when he cites the passage. It was not till 1860 that it was known to be wanting in the original writing of 59 (Caius Coll. Cambridge, No. 403), Walton and Mill having overlooked this variation. All other known copies contain the words (hard as they are to be accounted for), except the Lectionaries, 6, 13, of Wetstein, and Scrivener's z. In our catalogue of lectiones singulares (pp. 5—12) we have

noted a goodly number of places in which & and B, or & and D, stand, nearly by themselves, against the evidence of all other authorities. The list with regard to each of these couples might be almost indefinitely enlarged, but we seem to have given examples enough of both to indicate the true state of matters.1 One feature of the case, however, we have failed to account for as clearly as we could wish, and so submit it to the better judgment of others. It is that N and B not unfrequently differ in some unusual and characteristic reading, where the one is assimilated to the other by some later pen. Thus for κaì èxdúσavтes, K.T.λ. (Matt. xxvii. 28), which Cod. & as well as the common text contains, Cod. B exhibits the very improbable variation kaì évdúoavres, while a scribe of about the seventh century alters « in Cod. & into v, as in Cod. B, and a still later hand restores «.

So again in Luke xxiv. 12, Cod. omits reípeva μóva, Cod. B omits relμeva only; the second of the two later hands just mentioned inserts μóva, but not reíμeva, in Cod. N.

In Luke xxiii. 34, Cod. B omits the whole verse down to TOLOûσw; a later hand, accordingly, in Cod. &, incloses that part of the verse within brackets, which a still later hand again destroys.

In Acts xxvii. 16, Cod. B and the Latin Vulgate alone are known to read Kavda for Kλaúdny, of the common editions; Cod. originally had kλavda, but the λ has been subsequently

erased.2

In Rom. ix. 8, ört is added after TOUTEσTIV both in & and B, by more recent hands; it is in neither of them primâ manu, and only in two cursive copies besides.

Such instances, to which not a few might be added if neces sary, certainly seem to indicate that these two chief documents of Scripture, resembling each other as they do in so many particulars both of outward form and of internal spirit, were, to some extent, compared with each other about twelve hundred years ago, or three centuries after they were respectively written. Codex Sinaiticus may easily have reposed at S. Catherine's from the foundation of that religious house by the Emperor Justinian (circ. A.D. 530); the history and location of the Vatican manuscript seem wholly unknown, but the great library which it enriches was founded by Pope Nicholas V. A.D. 1448.

Professor Tischendorf's own estimate of the critical merits of Cod. plainly appears in the language wherein he sums up his comparison of its peculiar readings with those of the other great authorities with which it so often agrees: Quibus omnibus

1 Such examples as the following are very frequent: Matt. xii. 4, ĕpayov, X, B, Scrivener's o, only; Mark ii. 22, BλNTéov omitted, N, B, 102, i.e. B: see p. 9, note. 2 See also Mark iii. 26, p. 11 supra.

'expositis vix opus erit ut addam, quem Codici Sinaitico in numero præstantissimorum codicum nostrorum deberi locum 'putem. Dignus videtur qui omnium principatum teneat. Quod etsi non ita intellegi velim ac si ubique, exceptis vitiis manifestis, textum sacrum ad normam Codicis Sinaitici edi jubeam, tamen nullus alius est quo tutiore fundamento textus constitu'endi uti possimus. Ut igitur in re exercenda critica primas 'huic libro partes deferendas, ita pristinam ex eo textus sacri 'integritatem non repetendam duco, nisi adhibitis simul diligenter ' religioseque Vaticano simillimisque summæ antiquitatis testibus reliquis' (Cod. Sin. Proleg. p. xxxix. ed. 1862). When Tischendorf first made this statement, on the publication in full of the entire manuscript, though we may have deemed the words we have printed in italics a little too strong, and his whole temper somewhat sanguine and over-confident, we saw in it nothing at which we were inclined to demur, due allowance being made for the exuberant feelings which naturally sprung from the consciousness of having conferred a great and indisputable benefit on sacred literature. We certainly did not anticipate that this happy addition of one item, however important, to our already large stock of extant materials, would suffice to effect a revolution in all our notions with regard to the inspired text. We had always supposed that the very multiplicity and variety of the documents which scholars have applied to the recension of the inspired volume gave it in this particular a vast advantage over ancient works of which only one or a few copies now survive; in that future discoveries, however intrinsically valuable and interesting to the learned, would only influence our decision in a select number of passages, wherein the diplomatic evidence might appear at variance with internal probabilities, or the proofs alleged for opposite variants was not unequally divided. It never occurred to us that a single manuscript, neither more correct nor materially older than several others previously known to us, ought to counterbalance the united testimony of all the rest, to the large extent that Tischendorf roquires us to believe; and that too, in cases where the reading displaced affords just as good and likely a sense as that substituted in its room. There are, indeed, changes made in this, his last edition, and those neither few nor slight, wherein he returns to the readings of his own third edition, or assents to those previously adopted by Lachmann or by Tregelles, or by both these critics, for the simple reason, that evidence he had once regarded as insufficient is now fortified by the authority of Codex Sinai

1 We computed above (p. 3) that he thus returned to his third edition in 168 places; he adopts readings of Lachmann and Tregelles united, in 142 passages,

396 Tischendorf's Latest Editions of the Greek New Testament.

ticus;1 and such an application of his favourite copy must be held to be perfectly sound in principle, even though we may not agree with his decision in each separate case. But if the accidental (or we would rather say with Tischendorf, the providential) discovery of a solitary manuscript is held sufficient to overturn so much that has long been regarded as settled, what hope can we have of ever forming a text of the Greek Testament on which we may place any reasonable dependence? What shall at any time hinder all our past labour and diligence from being brought to nought by the coming to light of some codex earlier than any yet known; perhaps of one that may have survived the terrors of Diocletian's persecution, the sharpest brunt of which that wary tyrant directed against the inspired records of our faith?

Our deep reverence for Professor Tischendorf, and a lively recollection of his great services, have rendered our present task a somewhat painful one; but if the recension of the sacred text which his eighth edition exhibits so far, be indeed as ill-considered and as unfaithful to the whole mass. of evidence as we conceive it to be, the sooner its real character is understood, the better for the good cause we have all at heart, the promotion of sound criticism, and an exact knowledge of Holy Scripture. The wellearned fame of Tischendorf will only tend to make a bad text proceeding from his hands all the more dangerous; especially in England, where we have somehow imbibed the foolish notion that German scholarship, just because it is German, must needs be the very perfection of all that is accurate and consistent, sagacious and profound. For our part, we must profess to look forward with much interest and some curiosity to the longpromised New Testament of Messrs. Westcott and Hort, which we have reason to think is now far advanced through the press. We shall probably find ourselves unable to assent to some of their conclusions; in fact, complete unanimity is hardly to be looked for where the results obtained are derived from the discussion of so many conflicting details; but the deliberate judgment of two such men on an important matter, which has long engaged their earnest attention, will assuredly command a deference and respect to which this last attempt of Tischendorf (we say it with sorrow) can have no rightful claim.

of Lachmann separately in 25, of Tregelles alone in 40, always on the evidence of Cod., which copy singularly confirms some of the peculiar readings of his own previous editions: e.g. Matt. xxi. 33, ètédeto; xxv. 16, ǹpyáσaтo; xxvi. 28, Kaivis omitted (N, B, L, Z, 33, 102 [i.e. B], Salid., Cyril).

.397

ART. VII.-The Life of Father Ignatius (the Hon. and Rev. George Spencer). By the Rev. FATHER PIUS, a Sp. Sancto Passionist. Dublin: Duffy. 1866.

No

IN times of mental activity we are led, whether we will or no, into speculations on the place and weight of conscience in things spiritual. All parties agree in a certain formula, giving supremacy to this power as Heaven's vicegerent. Dr. Newman is as ready as the most thorough-going stickler for private judgment to assert, that the claims of conscience are paramount,' but agreement of this general sort helps us very little to a solution of our difficulty. We still ask ourselves how is it that conscience in morals brings about a general consent and unity of opinion, and conscience in religion such extremes of divergence. They are treated as the same power acting in different fields,-- can they be actually and practically the same? is the compulsion they exercise of the same nature? If such books as the one before us provoke anew these trite and timeworn reflections, and every religious school has its biographies which do arouse them, they must somewhere suggest the answer. honest man ever changed his religion that he did not believe himself impelled to the step by conscience. But does the observer in such cases see with clearer vision than the actor? Is it conscience, or some more energising impulse acting for it and assuming its image, which rules certain natures with such indomitable force? There certainly does seem in some men a habit of looking out and watching for a peculiar guidance, whose work is to be ever suggesting something new, and making fresh demands; which might easily clash with that patient listening for and consulting the inner voice which we naturally understand by conscientiousness. What claims to be the spiritual conscience strikes one surely as vastly more sprightly and suggestive in its temper than the moral conscience; and its tones those rather of command than of warning. There is something in the mere idiom of the two, that tells something-the Thou shalt not' of the one, contrasting with the perpetual "Thou shalt' of the other. We think of the one as a judge holding its seat within us; of the other as a prompter at our elbow, always on the side of movement and change; from mere impetus occasionally carrying it over its rival if we may so express it the so-called spiritual conscience in full flow of selfassertion and implicit trust in some newly accepted opinion, not seldom making havoc of minor morals. Perhaps those most deeply influenced by this spiritual conscience will be ready to