That אB should thus lift up their heads against all the world is much, especially having regard to the fact that several versions and not a few Fathers are older than they: for, while we grant that a simple patristic citation, standing by itself, is of little value, yet when the context or current of exposition renders it clear what reading these writers had before them, they must surely for that passage be equivalent as authorities to a manuscript of their own age. Nor will Dr. Hort allow us to make any deduction from the weight of the united testimony of אB by reason of the curious fact, demonstrated as well to his satisfaction (Hort, p. 213) as to our own, that the scribe of B was the actual writer of parts of three distinct quires, forming three pairs of conjugate leaves of א (_see_ above, p. 96, note 1); but on this head we think he will find few readers to agree with him. His devotion to Cod. B when it stands alone is of necessity far more intelligent than that of the unnamed writer mentioned already, yet we believe that his implied confidence is scarcely the less misplaced. He is very glad when he can to find friends for his favourite, and discusses with great care the several binary combinations, such as BL, BC, BT, Bι, BD (which last, indeed, is unsafe enough), AB, BZ, B 33 or BΔ (for St. Mark) in the Gospels; AB, BC, &c., in the rest of the N. T. (Hort, p. 227). He does not disparage the _subsingular_ readings of B, meaning by this convenient, perhaps novel, term, the agreement of B with “inferior Greek MSS., Versions, or Fathers, or combinations of documentary evidence of these kinds” (_ibid._ p. 230). But, when the worst comes to the worst, and Cod. B is left absolutely alone, its advocates need not despair, inasmuch as no readings of that manuscript, not involving clerical error (and “the scribe reached by no means a high standard of accuracy,” _ibid._ p. 233), must be lightly or hastily rejected, so powerfully do they commend themselves on their own merits (_ibid._ p. 238). This transcendent excellency, however, belongs to it chiefly in the Gospels. In the Acts and Catholic Epistles, if the value of A increases as has been said, that of B is somewhat diminished; while in the Pauline Epistles a “local Western element of B” (Hort, p. 240) brings it into the less reputable company of DFG or even of D alone. Hence in the formation of Westcott and Hort’s Pauline text we sometimes meet with what appears the paradoxical result that the evidence of B alone is accepted, while that of B attended by other codices is laid aside as insufficient.