anything like justice to such a document as this; and to his case Mr. Scrivener fairly applies the language of Matthæi, respecting the kindred Codex Boernerianus; "Etenim nec Kusterus nec Wetstenius satis accuratè omnia hujus Codicis singularia notaverant, nec vero etiam, nisi totum transcribere voluissent, potuerant. Plura enim prorsus singularia nullus inter Codices N. T. habet, nisi fortasse Evangeliorum et Actuum Bezæ seu Cantabrigiensis" (Præf. Cod. Boern.). Tischendorf was the first to pay attention to the Latin translation in F (denoted by f), remarkable, and in some measure perplexing, as it is. "Primus contuli et passim citavi" is his statement (Nov. Test. Proleg., p. 82); yet his citations are comparatively few (no less than eight variations being omitted in Rom. viii.), and convey no adequate representation of its peculiar character. Mr. Scrivener has grounds for asserting that this defect will be supplied in Tischendorf's seventh edition. In estimating the age and country of this manuscript we are scarcely left to conjecture. The style of writing both in its Latin and Greek columns, its manifest connexion with the Codex Boernerianus, and consequently with the Codex Sangallensis of the Gospels (4) published in lithograph fac simile by Rettig (Turici, 1836), no less than the extraneous matter it contains, all seem to point distinctly to the West of Europe, and the middle of the ninth century. This foreign matter consists of a Latin Prologue to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the only Argument in the Codex Augiensis, and a kind of Epilogue to the same Epistle, having, however, but little reference to it. Both the Prologue and the Epilogue are found in the works of Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mayence, who died A.D. 856. The Prologue is prefixed to that prelate's Commentary on the Hebrews (Migne, Patrologia, tom. cxii., Paris, 1851; Rabani Opera, tom. vi., p. 711); the Epilogue is annexed to Rabanus' Treatise "De Modo Pænitentia," comprising the twenty-third and concluding chapter of that work, with the title "Dicta Abbatis Pinophi" (Migne, Patrologia, tom. cxii., p. 1329); yet, as in the case of the Codex Augiensis, it has no special connexion with the preceding matter, only that it was manifestly familiar to Rabanus, who has employed its sentiments, and sometimes its very words, throughout his own treatise. Now when we consider that both the Prologue and the Epilogue are found in the columns of Rabanus, it need not materially modify our estimate of the date of the Codex Augiensis were we to learn that one or both of them has been traced separately to an earlier source. The Prologue is read almost verbatim, in the Codex Amiatinus edited by Tischendorf (1850, 1854), the most vener able existing MS. of the Latin Vulgate, the date of which is the sixth century; while a marginal note has been affixed by a modern hand to the Epilogue in the Cod. Aug. (fol. 139, p. 2), directing our attention to Cumianus, an Irish writer of the middle of the seventh century. On comparing the passage cited (Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima, Lugduni 1677, tom. xii., p. 42) with this postcript, the resemblance between them appears so slight and general that it is hard to believe that the writer of the note could have ever read both pieces throughout: in the few opening sentences alone is there any real similarity. There seems, therefore, at present, no reason for disturbing the general opinion which has assigned the date of this manuscript to the next generation after Charlemagne. There are no signs of the ordinary breathings and accents in this manuscript. The continuous mode of writing, with no space or division between the words, which prevailed in the elder Greek uncial copies, was by this time laid aside, and the scribe of the Codex Augiensis seems to have intended to place a middle point or stop (.) after the last letter of each word he wrote. These points Mr. Scrivener has faithfully retained in the transcript. Two other Codices are treated of in connexion with the one before us, the Codices Sangallensis and Boernerianus ; "which," says Mr. Scrivener, "I name together, for no one that has read Rettig's elaborate prolegomena to the former will hesitate to consider them as portions of one and the same document." From a close comparison of these with the Codex Augiensis, Mr. Scrivener comes to the conclusion that they were derived separately from some early Greek Codex. But the Latin versions of these documents are different, and on this subject the following extract will be found important: "The respective Latin versions are quite independent, and even more interesting than the Greek to a Biblical critic. 'Codex Augiensis latinam interpretationem eamque veterem vulgatam adscriptam habet, Boernerianus vero Græcis superscriptam eamque veterem italam,' is Tischendorf's decision. Tregelles again terms the Latin version of F a very good copy of that of Jerome, 'far superior to that generally current.' I am not sure that Dr. Davidson has closely examined this subject, as his description of this copy is not quite free from error, yet I conceive his view of the version to be more correct when he regards it as 'patched and mended so as to be a mixture of the old Latin and Jerome's.' But in fact, the internal history of the Latin Vulgate translation, and its relation to the Italic or old Latin, under the various forms wherein the latter has been preserved to us, remain yet to be investigated, nor is this the place to venture on so large a field of inquiry. The Latin portion of the Codex Augiensis, will, I believe, prove very useful to the scholar who shall undertake the thorough investigation of this question." Mr. Scrivener most minutely describes the document he has now published; what we have given being only a very small portion of the valuable matter he supplies. He mentions, moreover, "the remarkable readings and extraordinary grammatical inflexions which abound in this Codex;" but being "innumerable" he has not given a selection from them, since they will "be sure to arrest the interest and reward the best attention of every one into whose hands the volume is likely to fall.” One other paragraph we must quote, shewing as it does how more modern elements of difficulty than ancient MSS. contain are introduced to worry the critic, and render the task of improving the current text more doubtful. "As the Codex Augiensis exhibits throughout many traces of erasures and corrections, the reader will please, while using it, to make constant reference to the Annotationes Editoris, in which these alterations are carefully recorded. I only hope my notes may prove serviceable to others, in some proportion to the pains and anxiety I have expended on them. But no one versed in these studies is ignorant how much doubt and uncertainty often exists, as to whether a change has been introduced by the first penman or by some later hand. I have arranged these corrections into three classes, those primá manu, those secundá manu, and those again recenti manu, according as I conceive them to have been made by the original scribe, by a second, yet ancient corrector (and to him I impute the great mass of these changes), or by a recent critic, whose judgment should have no weight whatever. Alterations of the last kind are easily detected, but for the others I am sensible that another eye will often decide differently from mine. I have taken no notice of a mala seges of Latin annotations scribbled over the earlier leaves of this Codex by some one who must have been profoundly ignorant of its value; from the similarity of handwriting I fear the culprit is Mieg, one of the former possessors of this priceless treasure. Several places are also disfigured by grotesque sketches in ink, such as often offend the reverential student of Biblical MSS. I am inclined to think, however, that they are least frequently found in copies of the Holy Gospels." A photographed fac simile of a portion of the Codex is given with the volume, and it will sufficiently convince those who look at it, of the great toil, the improbus labor, of Mr. Scrivener's undertaking, now so happily completed. The type in which the Greek is printed is the common cursive character, which answers every purpose. The work is most elegantly executed by the Cambridge University press, and it will doubtless give satisfaction to the subscribers and the public at large, who may take any interest in such productions. So much respecting this Codex ;-we will now proceed to some observations on the place assigned by Mr. Scrivener to this and similar documents; that is to say, to the uncial manu scripts of the Greek Testament, in relation to the Cursives; a subject on which much difference of opinion exists, and is likely to do so. If perfect unanimity existed among all those who are competent to use the data furnished for the complete restoration of the text, the task would be even then beset with difficulties; but the entire discrepancy in the opinions they entertain as to the relative value and importance of the materials greatly complicates and impedes the inquiry. The fact is, that there is at present no agreement as to the principles on which a lucidus ordo may be expected to arise out of the great mass of documentary evidence for the restoration of the text, and until this locus standi is conceded, critics must be content to be mere collectors of the means by which their successors, should they ever agree, may pronounce such a judgment as may amount to a moral settlement of the matter. The pursuit of this object is called Comparative Criticism, which, though it has made great advances, is yet far from having the character of a science. The principles which men in the last generation, such as Griesbach, thought to be true, are now generally discarded, and we have no doubt that some others which are now more popular, will ultimately share the same fate. On this topic, and on Comparative Criticism generally, we quote from Mr. Scrivener. "The term 'Comparative Criticism' has been happily applied to that delicate and important process of investigation, whereby we seek to trace the relative value and mutual connexion of the authorities upon which the Greek Text of the New Testament is based, whether they be manuscripts of the original, early versions, or citations by the Christian Fathers. Our accurate acquaintance with these authorities is very limited, much that we know about them being due to the exertions of scholars yet living; but we are sufficiently aware of the extent of the subject, and the minute and perplexing inquiries which beset the Biblical student at every step, not to seize with hearty welcome any clue that may promise to guide us through a labyrinth thus dark and doubtful. To this natural feeling, far more than to any external evidence or internal probability of the theories themselves, I would ascribe the favour extended to the schemes of recension promulgated by Griesbach and his imitators in the last generation. Men wished such compendious methods of settling the sacred text to be true, and as demonstrated truths they accordingly accepted them. These systems, bold, ingenious, imposing, but utterly groundless, I have elsewhere discussed at length (Collation of the Holy Gospels, Introd., chap. i.); it were needless to revert to them, for I believe that no one at the present day seriously entertains any one of them." But, as Mr. Scrivener well remarks, as Griesbach's scheme and its subsequent modifications were gradually abandoned by critics, a more simple but probably a no less mistaken theory grew up in its place, which, under the seemly profession of recurring to ancient authorities alone for the remodelling of the text, deliberately refuses so much as to listen to the testimony of the vast majority of documents that freely offer themselves to the researches of patient industry. Hence the battle between the uncial and cursive manuscripts, or rather between those who do not agree as to the relative values of these two great classes of documents. The Uncials, written in capital letters, are most ancient, but they are few in number; the Cursives, those written in running hand, are mostly more modern, but their name is Legion. The advocates of the superior authority of the former rely on their age; those who defend the latter, take their number and other circumstances into account, and claim for them at least an honourable standing as materials of evidence. Mr. Scrivener defends the Cursives, and in doing so he places himself in opposition to contemporary critics to whom he thus refers. After speaking of those who refuse to listen to the Cursives, he says: “This certainly appears a short and easy road to Scriptural science, but, like some other short routes, it may prove the longest in the end; yet it is recommended to us by names I cannot mention without deference -and respect. The countenance which Dr. Davidson lends to this principle is neither unreserved nor supported by arguments he can well deem conclusive. Tischendorf practically adopted it in his earlier works, but even then made concessions amounting to nearly all a discreet adversary would be disposed to claim; in Dr. Tregelles, however, it finds an advocate learned, able, and uncompromising. In my endeavour to refute what I conceive to be erroneous in his views on this subject, I trust I shall not be betrayed into one expression which may give him pain. I honour the devotion and singleness of purpose he has brought to bear on these divine pursuits; I am sure that his edition of the New Testament, by reason of the large accession it will make to our existing store of critical materials, and of its great accuracy, so far as it has yet been tested, will possess, when completed, what he modestly hopes for it, distinctive value to the Biblical student.' I am not the less earnest in hailing the fruits of his long and persevering toil, because I fear that, as a clergyman of the English Church, I differ from him on matters of even more consideration than systems of comparative criticism." Dr. Davidson states that if the oldest MSS. are thoroughly and accurately collated, all the rest, or the great mass of juniors, may be dispensed with. "They are scarcely needed," he says, "because the Uncials are numerous; at present they do nothing but hinder the advancement of critical science, by drawing off to them time and attention which might be better directed to older documents." Mr. Scrivener concedes that the order proposed aboye must be assented to by every reasonable person, for there is a presumption beforehand that the older MSS. written in |