people, like ourselves, would call it oversight or inconsistency, had we not learnt in our controversy with Mr. Alford, that what plain people call unreal distinctions, are always proved by Mr. Alford to involve some objective or subjective significance. We therefore prefer saying that the reasons for the occasional introduction of the proper title are entirely beyond us, but that, nevertheless, we rejoice at this feeble ray of amelioration.

Let us now offer a few remarks on the Apparatus Criticus and the subsidies for the formation of the text. These Mr. Alford candidly avows are derived to a very great extent from Dr. Tischendorf. But there must be some limits even to this avowed appropriation of another's labours; and we cannot help thinking all parties will agree that they have here been exceeded. As far as our comparison has extended, it appears that so much of Dr. Tischendorf's digest of readings has been incorporated in Mr. Alford's Apparatus Criticus, as must infallibly injure the sale of Dr. Tischendorf's edition in this country. And this, after the very moderate price at which Dr. Tischendorf has put us in possession of his long labours, we should unfeignedly regret. Dr. Tischendorf is a man so entirely able to defend himself, and so eminently likely to do so, that we leave this part of the affair in his hands. We have no mala fides to complain of, but it certainly is a matter of question whether the evisceration of Dr. Tischendorf, though conducted according to all the rules of that unpleasant process, has not been a little too scientifically complete.

We next proceed to the consideration of the Text itself. Here indeed we cannot but feel that Mr. Alford comes before us under very disadvantageous circumstances. It is difficult to blot out of one's memory the unfortunate débût Mr. Alford made in sacred criticism, while the evidences of it are in full circulation: nor is it easy to resist the proofs afforded, not only by facts, but dates, that Mr. Alford is still a comparative novice in a task where the quick sagacity of instinctive perception, as well as the slow maturation of judgment, is so imperatively, so solemnly demanded. It is impossible not to feel all this; but we are resolved to let it in no way interfere with our judgment, and we shall examine the text as seriously and conscientiously as if it had been the first fruits of successful toil, and the result of the studies of long years. Our habitual mode of investigating the character of a text where minute collation is impossible, is first, to examine the nature of the principles on which the text is founded; secondly, to select from the more corrupted portion some instances of the application of the principles. We shall briefly follow this method in the present case. First then, what are the principles on which Mr. Alford's

text is founded? We fear we cannot give a very clear account; for here Mr. Alford is sadly at fault. Instead of a few clear, sharp, well-defined canons such as had emerged slowly one by one out of the very difficulties and perplexities of the task, and whose precision is vouched for by the long and arduous experiences they incidentally reveal; instead of this, we have a reprint of the well-known maxims of Griesbach, accompanied with a few remarks and illustrations. And it is on these rules we are told this present text is founded. It is of course a matter of opinion whether it was necessary to reprint rules so utterly familiar to all critical scholars, and in some parts so utterly to be condemned; but still conceding their introduction for the sake of students, we cannot conceive these as adequate exponents of Mr. Alford's own principles. It is plainly impossible in such a subject for a critic to project himself wholly into a system that grew up by the slow accretions of another's labour, and is tinged with the individualities of another's thought. A critic may in most cases wisely avail himself of the general guidance of a more experienced teacher, but it is with the sweat of his own brain that he must form his own rules; and it is the precision and perspicuity of these rules that afford us the surest measure of the trouble and care which was expended in their formation. How very much we wish that Mr. Alford would give up this sempiternal habit of trying to use other men's brains. All, then, we can state, is Mr. Alford's general object.

'In the present volume it has been attempted to construct the text on more worthy principles [than in first vol.], and to bring to bear on it both the testimony of MSS. and those critical maxims which appear to furnish sound criteria of a spurious or genuine reading.'-Ibid. p. 59.

These critical maxims are, as we have mentioned, those of Griesbach modified in two or three particulars. In one respect, however, this edition differs from some of the present current editions. The cursive MSS. have found in Mr. Alford a more liberal patron than they usually meet with, though we cannot say a more discerning one; for in the long lists Mr. Alford has given we do not see any marks or annotations discriminating those which are known to be less divergent (e. g. Acts, No. 13, 40, &c. S. Paul's Epp. No. 37, 137, &c.), from those which are found to be more divergent in character from the more ancient MSS. And this, we may observe, isa distinction which ought never to be lost sight of in using the different individuals which compose the genus. Upon the general question of the value of these cursive MSS. we cannot now enter; we may, however, retail Tischendorf's very sensible caution, Negligendos aut parvi æstimandos non esse sed non posse numerum eorum præ paucitate antiquiorum testium urgeri.'-Præf. cd. 2a. p. xiii.

6

We will now apply our second test to a few examples. All of these shall be taken from the Acts of the Apostles, as this portion of the New Testament presents greater varieties of reading than any other, and from some insufficiently explained cause has suffered more from the hands of transcribers. We shall discuss these examples as succinctly as possible, and without printing Mr. Alford's critical notes at length, for the abbreviations and symbols would render them totally unintelligible to any one except the professed critic. We shall be careful to state the results with scrupulous candour, but shall recommend those who take a deeper interest in the subject to refer to Mr. Alford's edition, or, what is just the same, to Tischendorf's. The critical reader need scarcely be reminded that the letters A, B, C, D, E, designate the Alexandrian, Vatican, Ephrem-Rescript, Cambridge (Beza's), and the valuable Laudian MS. G and H are imperfect MSS., supposed not to be earlier than the ninth century.

We will cite three only out of the many heads under which we have classed Mr. Alford's critical aberrations.

(a) Contradictory use of authorities on insufficient internal

grounds.

Acts vii. 26.-The two readings in evidence are ovvýλaoev and σvvýλaσσev. Mr. Alford adopts the former on the authoσυνήλλασσεν. rity of H.E., several Vv. and most Ff.,' against B.C.D. and some Vv. We do not agree with Mr. Alford, but we may suppose him swayed by the preponderance of Vv. and Ff. We look however a little further, and we see that in verse 56 Mr. Alford reads ἐκ δεξιῶν ἑστῶτα τοῦ Θεοῦ (in preference to the more natural order), on the authority of B.D., some Vv. and Ff., against A.E.C. and the preponderance of Vv. and Ff. It would thus really appear that C. is a negative testimony; for in the former case A.E. outweigh B.C.D., but in the latter A. E. and C. are outweighed by B. and D. alone. Can this be considered consistent? In Lachmann's opinion it certainly is not.

Acts viii. 16.-оvdéπ-оυTw. Here Mr. Alford very properly adopts the former reading on the authority of A.B.C.D.E. with great majority of Ff. against G.H. and Theophylact; the probability that each reading is a correction of the other being asserted. Only two verses lower the reading Ocao áμevos is positively maintained with G.H. and Theophylact against A.B. C.D.E. and the majority of Ff., who adopt the unquestionably right reading, idúv. The only internal ground for this extra

1 We use, for economy of space, the symbols Vv., Ff., for Versions and Fathers respectively; and MSS., мss., for uncial and cursive manuscripts respectively. NO. LXXXI.-N.S.

L

ordinary defiance of MSS. authority is that eaσáμevos is a more unusual word, and one implying more deliberate contemplation. Surely this is strange criticism.

Acts xxiii. 35.- Here Mr. Alford rejects éxéλevσé Te (as a correction for eλevσas), on the authority of A.B.E., the second Syriac version, some Mss. and Theophylact, against G.H., the majority of Vv. and Ff. Two or three verses lower (xxiv. 3), Stopowμáтwv is rejected (as a correction), with G.H., the apparent majority of MSS. and some Ff., against A.B E., some Mss. and Chrysostom. This we suppose is an endorsement of one of Dr. Tischendorf's alterations for the worse in his second edition.

(b) Adoption of readings on insufficient evidence.

Acts xi. 12.—Is it possible to defend, on the evidence only of D. and the second Syriac version, the omission of undev διακρινόμενον with E.G.H. &c. ; or μηδὲν διακρίναντα with A.B. &c.-because the number of variations are supposed to prove interpolation from x. 20? Dann aber,' as De Wette says, 'würde die LA nicht so schwanken.' Surely this is a use of the Marcionis spongia.

Acts xviii. 26.-We consider the omission of TOû coû on the authority of D. alone, against A.B., several мss. and Vv., and against G.H., Chrysostom and others, with the same words in a slightly changed order, quite unjustifiable. The appearance of variations in E., some Mss. and Vv., can never justify such a contempt of diplomatic authority.

Acts xxii. 25.-Here Mr. Alford, on the authority of D., second Syriac version, and Chrysost., rejects & Iaûλos, though supported by A.B.C.E., the Vulgate, and (with transpositions) many other Vv.-on the ground that the omission is so unaccountable.' Is it so very unaccountable a thing for a transcriber to leave out an apparently superfluous nominative by accident? This and the last are both Tischendorfian blunders.

Acts xxv. 7.-Surely it is here most hazardous to adopt the reading of a cursive manuscript, in opposition to that of A.B. C., or that of G.H., second Syriac version, and Ff. How natural does it seem that between the preposition and the verb in καταφέροντες (which we consider the true reading), τοῦ Пaúλou should have been inserted, and thence the transpositions and variations.

(c) Undue preference for the later Uncial MSS. on insufficient internal grounds.

Acts xvi. 6.-SLEXOóvTes—dinov. Here Mr. Alford supports the former, considering the latter an emendation to avoid

the repeated participial clauses on the authority only of G.H., apparent majority of MSS., the Vulgate and three Ff., against A.B.C.D.E., many мss., several Vv. and two Ff.

Acts xvi. 12.—ἐκεῖθέν τεκἀκεῖθεν. Mr. Alford maintains the former with H. only, majority of Mss., four Vv. and three Ff., against A.B.C.D.E., several мss. and Theophyl., on the ground of the latter reading being an alteration of the characteristic Te in S. Luke's style.

Acts xxi. 25. Tò aîμa.... aipa. The article, which appears to us perfectly superfluous, is intruded on the authority of G.H. and three Ff., against A.B.C.D. and other мss. Mr. Alford fancies that the article was omitted for the sake of conformity with xv. 29, a conclusion that we think no critic would arrive at who compared the two passages.

We have a vast number of other counts to prefer against this text, but in mercy to our readers we forbear. The few instances we have brought forward will be probably sufficient to justify our recording our opinion, that Mr. Alford lacks the requisite experience for the ambitious task of constructing an original text. Magnis excidit ausis. With two editors like Tischendorf and Lachmann by his side, and their apparatus critici before him, it would be strange indeed if Mr. Alford had rendered his text wholly unreadable. That we by no means wish to assert; but we do assert that it can never be received as a critically revised text. We observe that it differs seriously from the received text, and is as much in one extreme as the text of the four Gospels was in the other. De calcariá in carbonariam. This, however, though undesirable, would be admissible if it were the result of fixed principles of criticism. We often, for example, object to the readings of Lachmann; but then we always remember that in nine cases out of ten Lachmann is at unity with himself, that his principles are fixed, and his estimate of the critical value of the different MSS. persistent. We however also bear in mind, that from the nature of the task he proposed to himself, he was compelled to exclude certain kinds of testimony, both internal and external, which though in most cases of secondary, yet under certain circumstances become of primary importance. We feel, perhaps, in a certain instance, that such a case has arrived, and we dissent from Lachmann. Yet in doing so we tacitly acknowledge the great value of an edition, which by the fixity of its own principles has compelled us to define clearly to ourselves the nature and the amount of our dissent. Nothing, however, of this kind. can be predicated of the text of Mr. Alford. It is the record of an attempt to adjust the conflicting evidences of external and internal, primary and secondary testimonies; but it is also