aspect of this book. Those who wish for a short and easy method of reply to the arguments which Bishop Colenso has succeeded in making so popular, should by all means look into Dr. Mc Caul's Examination.

The Ordinances of Spiritual Worship, their history, meaning, and end considered. In a series of essays from the writings of the Rev. E. T. MARCH PHILLIPS, M. A., late Rector of Hathern, and Chancellor of the Diocese of Gloucester. Selected and edited by his DAUGHter. London: Longmans. 1863.

THE title of this work will shew that it deals with theological and ecclesiastical questions; we can, therefore, only say that it is written in a thoroughly religious spirit, and will be valued by those who knew him as a lasting memorial of the teachings of a good man.

On the Polyphony of the Assyrio-Babylonian Cuneiform Writing. A Letter to Professor Renouf from EDWARD HINCKS, D.D. From the Atlantis, Vol. IV. Dublin: J. F. Fowler.

THIS is a very able and learned letter upon a subject of much importance. We have been greatly pleased with it, and rejoice to see it reprinted in a separate form. The author has dealt skilfully and intelligibly with problems which few or none have mastered better than himself, and we hope many will avail themselves of the opportunity of reading what he has here written. We are not able to give an outline of the arguments and facts of the letter, but we believe it to be a very valuable contribution to a class of studies which is gradually claiming attention and rising into importance. The students of Biblical and ancient history cannot afford to remain altogether ignorant of the progress which is making in Assyrian studies. New light is coming in, and things which were doubtful or unknown are being revealed. We thank Dr. Hincks for this fresh proof of his zeal and proficiency.

1. What is that world from which we, as Christians, are exhorted to come out and be separate? By DANIEL BENHAM. London :

Printed for private circulation, 1859.

2. The Redemption of Man. By the Rev. J. R. TITCOMB, M.A. London: James Nisbet and Co. 1860.

3. On the Qualifications for Religious Enquiry. London: James Nisbet and Co. 1861.

4. On the Jews' Return to Palestine. By DANIEL BENHAM. London: Printed for private circulation. 1862.

5. An attempt to remove those Objections of Dr. Colenso which are contained in the second chapter of his work. By Daniel Benham. London: G. Norman. 1862.

6. Bishop Colenso's Fallacies. By THOMAS DE MESCHIN, LL.D., F.S.A., of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. London: Hatton and Son. 1863.

7. General Observations on the Preface and Introductory Remarks to Bishop Colenso's Work. By HENRY GEORGE, M.R.C.S. London: Griffith and Tanan.

8. The Pentateuch viewed from a Christian standpoint. Nisbet and Co. 1863.

London:

SEVEN out of the eight publications in the preceding list were read at the meetings of the Christian Union Institute, at 8 St. Martin's Place. Our readers will gather from the mere titles of the above essays, that the gentlemen, lay and clerical, who meet at the Institute, are anxious for the elucidation of subjects of importance to Biblical students, and that they agree in holding evangelical sentiments, however they may differ on speculative questions. The papers sent us shew much care in their preparation, and some of them are exceedingly good. We believe that an institution which aims at the free and candid discussion of important topics by the combination of laity and clergy is one which deserves encouragement, and may be the means of much good. Our space will not allow us to criticize the papers enumerated, but we have much pleasure in notifying their existence, and the circumstances under which they have been produced.

*The following Works have also reached us, but mostly too late for notice in this

number.

The New Testament for English Readers; containing the Authorized Version. With marginal corrections of readings and renderings, marginal references, and a critical and explanatory commentary. By Henry Alford, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. In Two Vols. Vol. I., Part I. The three first Gospels. London: Rivingtons.

Our readers will join us in thanking Dean Alford for this convenient and useful aid to the study of the New Testament, to the appearance of which we very cordially invite attention.

A Commentary, critical, experimental, and practical, on the Old and New Testaments. Vol. V., Matthew-John. By Rev. David Brown, D.D. Glasgow: W. Collins. The commentary of which Dr. Brown's volume forms a part is exceedingly cheap, and this portion of it, at least, seems to be remarkably well executed.

Ausgewählte Psalmen im Anschlusse an die Evangelien des Kirchenjahrs, Ausgelegt von F. Schaubach. Halle: R. Mühlmann.

The Nullity of Metaphysics as a science among the sciences. Set forth in six brief Dialogues. London: Longmans.

The Evangelic Theory; or, Christianity-not Theism-most in accordance with moral development. A popular appeal adapted to the times. London: H. J. Tresidder. A Charge delivered to the Clergy and Churchwardens of the Archdeaconry of Sudbury. By Lord Arthur Hervey, M.A. London: Simpkin and Co.

Inaugural Address delivered before the Annual Assembly of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. By Enoch Mellor, M.A. London: Jackson, Walford, and Hodder.

Past and present treatment of Roman Catholic children in Scotland by the Board of Supervision for the relief of the Poor. By R. Campbell, Esq. London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate.

The Tubingen School and its Antecedents. A review of the history and present condition of Modern Theology. By R. W. Mackay, M.A. London and Edinburgh Williams and Norgate.

MISCELLANIES.

The Codex Sinaiticus and Simonides. We continue from our last number the letters which have appeared in this controversy, only observing that we have endeavoured to include in the series all the more inportant documents. On January 17, the Parthenon printed a letter by a writer calling himself "Causidicus," in consequence of which the following came out in the numbers for January 24 and 31.

CODEX SINAITICUS.

The following is a translation of Professor Tischendorf's letter in the Allgemeine Zeitung of December 23, 1862, alluded to by "Causidicus" in our last number :-

"The Codex Sinaiticus written in 1839.-Any one in Germany who recollects the palimpsest forgeries of Simonides, by means of which, notwithstanding previous brandings and imprisonments in Greece, he contrived to outwit some of the most renowned German savants, until he was unmasked by myself towards the end of January, 1856, and arrested as a forger in consequence of similar convictions obtained against him simultaneously in Berlin, will probably find it incredible that this same [we refrain from translating the epithet used in the original] should yet at this present moment find in England papers ready to print his insane fancy, that he had in his youthful days (in 1856 he gave his age as thirty-three years; see Lycurgos's Enthüllungen, p. 45,) the pleasure of writing the Codex Sinaiticus; and it will be equally incredible that he should by these phantasies actually puzzle some people. The splendid edition of the manuscript, in four volumes, which has just left the press, and of which one hundred copies are for sale, will at once convince every competent judge who may still entertain any doubt upon the matter, that Simonides could not have chosen a more unfavourable subject for his impudent inventions. He pretends to have taken a Moscow Bible manuscript as the basis, and to have compared manuscripts from Mount Athos. But in the New Testament alone the Sinaitic text differs essentially (principiell) iu several thousand places from all the Moscow editions, and all the manuscripts which have been written within the last thousand years; occasionally it stands quite alone in its readings; sometimes it agrees only with the Vatican or the Cambridge manuscripts, and contains many readings which must appear gross heresies in a copy destined as a present to the orthodox emperor. Again, in the Old Testament, the text of Tobit and Judith, for example, are of quite a different recension-a recension still preserved principally in old Latin and old Syraic documents. How could this have been taken from the Moscow edition? or how could it be brought into it? Equally unfortunate with this assertion about the source is his fable of the initials which he says he painted on the margin, and of which there is not the slightest trace in the manuscript. A clumsy misconception of my words only has given rise to this fable.

"But instead of heaping up proofs-which are within easy reach of every amateur with some little leisure at his command-against this bold fabulist and rival of Palæphatus, it is more to the purpose to invite every one who is still really deceived to an inspection of the Leipsic Codex Friderico-Augustanus, at least if a journey to St. Petersburg is too much to ask.

"Simonides certainly took good care, during his long stay at Leipsic, not to say that he was the writer of this much prized treasure of the University library, where he was a constant visitor; since, in that case, a place would doubtless soon have been found for him in a lunatic asylum.

"But sound eyes and ordinary common sense are quite sufficient for the purpose of seeing the absurdity of the Simonidean tale, even if there should be people who still believe in the genuineness of his palimpsests and of all his former and later fabrications, the genuineness of which is still unflinchingly upheld by himself. But then, 'mundus vulti decipi,' and 'volent non fit injuria.'

"TISCHENDORF."

"Sir, Your correspondent 'Causidicus' has stated what he conceives to be the points at issue in the controversy between Simonides and Tischendorf. With his evident desire to be impartial, it is to be regretted that he has not made himself master of the facts of the case. Allow me to restate two of the difficulties on Simonides' side of the question, which ‘Causidicus' has represented wrongly or imperfectly. 1. Simonides does not claim to have written the Codex Sinaiticus in twenty but in eight months; in the interval, namely, between November, 1839, and August, 1840, when his uncle died. 'Rookwood' is not a parallel case. Tischendorf not only professes to have seen the manuscript in 1844, but to have brought part of it to Europe, which he deposited in the Leipzig University library, and published in facsimile in 1846. As Simonides says he saw the manuscript entire in 1852, you will perceive that this considerably increases the difficulty of believing his story. We have, therefore, in this case something more than 'conflicting statements.'

2.

"Your correspondent is unjust to Tischendorf in describing him as a man previously obscure.' He has been honourably known to the world of Biblical criticism for at least twenty-five years; for the greater part of that period he has been highly distinguished.

"The question at issue is not a theological one, as 'Causidicus' seems to imagine; it is simply a question of truth, and resolves itself into this, 'Is the Codex Sinaiticus a genuine ancient manuscript, or was it written by Simonides when he was fifteen years old?'

Causidicus' makes himself merry with 'the old rag,' as he is pleased to call it, in which Tischendorf found the remainder of the manuscript in 1859. Tischendorf tells us himself he found it wrapped in a cloth. I saw, about a year and a half ago, a Samaritan Pentateuch, which had been brought from Nablus in exactly the same kind of covering: it is now in the library of the Comte de Paris. It was wrapped in a cloth for precisely the same reason as the Codex Sinaiticus, because there was not a vestige of binding, and the leaves were all loose.

"In one part of his letter 'Causidicus' contradicts himself. I will quote two sentences, and leave your readers to judge. He asks, 'Who ever heard of a manuscript Bible being enveloped in an old rag in a convent of monks? Is not this quite as improbable as any part of the story of Simonides?' In another paragraph, after referring to the description which Burckhardt gave of the character and ignorance of the monks of Sinai, he adds-' Under such circumstances, can we wonder that the ‘librarian' of the year 1852 should have been ignorant of the advent of the manuscript in question, which might probably have been thrown carelessly into the 'library' several years before his arrival, and on which the good monks would never have bestowed a second glance?' 'Causidicus' has unconsciously supplied the solution of his former difficulty.

"The question at issue between Simonides and Tischendorf is of a very grave nature. It cannot be settled without leaving a dark stain upon the character of one of two men. Meanwhile, I venture to express the opinion that the manner in which it has been treated by 'Causidicus' will not help towards bringing it to a conclusion.—I am, etc.,

"Trin. Coll., Cambridge, Jan. 19.”

"W. ALDIS WRIGHT.

"To the Editor of the Parthenon.'-Sir, permit me to lay before you the following extract from Burckhardt's Travels:-'In the room anciently the residence of the archbishop, which is very elegantly paved with marble and extremely well furnished, though at present unoccupied, is preserved a beautiful ancient manuscript of the Gospels in Greek, which, I was told, was given to the convent by an emperor called Theodosius.' It is written in letters of gold upon vellum, and ornamented with portraits of the apostles' (Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, p. 551).

"This passage, with a brief account of the manuscripts in the library of the convent of Mount Sinai, immediately follows the words quoted by 'Causidicus'

in the Parthenon of the 17th ultimo, in proof of the ignorance of the monks of Sinai.

"The visit of Burckhardt to Sinai took place in the spring of 1816.

"After this, it may be superfluous to add that I myself saw the manuscript in March, 1837, and described it-sufficiently, I think, to establish its identity -in my Letters on Egypt, Edom, and the Holy Land, published in 1838."

"The reason why Pococke and others did not find the manuscript in the library of the convent was, that it was not kept there, but in the treasury, or archbishop's apartment, as mentioned by Burckhardt. It was in consequence of what Burckhardt had said, that I applied for permission to see it. The manuscript was certainly cherished with great care, and was (I think) entire when I examined it.

"The facts and dates here submitted may be of assistance to your readers in forming their opinion on the merits of the pending controversy.

"I have the honour to remain, your obedient servant,

"LINDSAY.

"P.S.-I should have said somewhat on the subject of Oriental manuscripts being wrapt in old rags,' if Mr. W. Aldis Wright had not noticed it sufficiently in your last number. These rags are sometimes the remains of what has been originally rich embroidery. A Sanskrit work, of rarity and value, printed for the Brahmins in imitation of manuscript, and unbound, is lying beside me at this moment, enveloped in what may similarly be described as an 'old rag,' just as it arrived from India.

Haigh Hall, January 26, 1863."

On the 28th of January another batch of letters appeared in the Guardian:

66

Sir,-As Dr. Simonides has cited a letter which he wrote to me in uncial characters in October last, while he was at Cambridge, and as I have with my own eyes seen and examined the Codex Sinaiticus within the last few months, perhaps you will allow me to say a few words.

"The note which Dr. Simonides wrote to me was to convince me and my friends that it was quite possible for him to have written the volume in question, and to confirm his assertion that the uncial character of the MS. was as familiar and easy to him to write as the common cursive hand of the present day.

"He had invited some of us to Christ's College to examine his papyri and to discuss matters fairly. He could speak and understand English pretty well, but his friend was with him to interpret and explain. They first taxed us with believing in the antiquity of MSS. solely on the authority of one man like Tischendorf, and they really seemed to believe that all people in the West were as ignorant of Greek as the Greeks are of Latin. But the great question was, 'How do you satisfy yourselves of the genuineness of any manuscript?' I first replied that it was really difficult to define, that it seemed to be more a kind of instinct than anything else. Dr. Simonides and his friend readily caught at this as too much like vague assertion, and they naturally ridiculed any such idea. But I further said that I had lived for six years past in the constant, almost daily, habit of examining manuscripts,-not merely the texts of the works contained in the volumes, but the volumes themselves as such; the writing, the

"The passage is as follows:- In the archbishop's apartment, now used as the Treasury, we were shewn a most beautiful manuscript of the Gospels in Greek, on vellum, in uncial or capital letters of gold. I thought the good father would never have done turning over the preliminary leaves of illuminations, and arranging the silk screens interposed between them. Would that it were in the British Museum! I wonder whether it has ever been collated.' To this I added the following note in the fourth edition, published in 1847: The illuminations consist of full-length figures of the apostles, and are extremely well executed, the colours as brilliant as if laid on yesterday. It is at least twelve hundred years old.'"