Lachmann’s leading fallacy has perforce proved fatal to the value of the text put forth by DR. TREGELLES. Of the scrupulous accuracy, the indefatigable industry, the pious zeal of that estimable and devoted scholar, we speak not. All honour to his memory! As a specimen of conscientious labour, his edition of the N. T. (1857-72) passes praise, and will _never_ lose its value. But it has only to be stated, that Tregelles effectually persuaded himself that “_eighty-nine ninetieths_” of our extant manuscripts and other authorities may safely be rejected and lost sight of when we come to amend the text and try to restore it to its primitive purity,(56)—to make it plain that in Textual Criticism he must needs be regarded as an untrustworthy teacher. _Why_ he should have condescended to employ no patristic authority later than Eusebius [fl. A.D. 320], he does not explain. “His critical principles,” (says Bishop Ellicott,) “especially his general principles of estimating and regarding modern manuscripts, are now perhaps justly called in question.”(57) “The case of DR. TISCHENDORF” (proceeds Bp. Ellicott) “is still more easily disposed of. _Which_ of this most inconstant Critic’s texts are we to select? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated preference for a single Manuscript which he has had the good fortune to discover, has betrayed him into an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment. Surely also not his seventh edition, which ... exhibits all the instability which a comparatively recent recognition of the authority of cursive manuscripts might be supposed likely to introduce.”(58) With Dr. Tischendorf,—(whom one vastly his superior in learning, accuracy, and judgment, has generously styled “the first Biblical Critic in Europe”(59))—“_the evidence of codex_ א, supported or even unsupported by one or two other authorities of any description, is sufficient to outweigh any other witnesses,—whether Manuscripts, Versions, or ecclesiastical Writers.”(60) We need say no more. Until the foregoing charge has been disproved, Dr. Tischendorf’s last edition of the N. T., however precious as a vast storehouse of materials for criticism,—however admirable as a specimen of unwearied labour, critical learning, and first-rate ability,—must be admitted to be an utterly unsatisfactory exhibition of the inspired Text. It has been ascertained that his discovery of codex א caused his 8th edition (1865-72) to differ from his 7th in no less than 3505 places,—“to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency.”(61) But, in fact, what is to be thought of a Critic who,—because the last verse of S. John’s Gospel, in א, seemed to himself to be _written with a different pen_ from the rest,—has actually _omitted that verse_ (xxi. 25) entirely, in defiance of _every known Copy, every known Version_, and the explicit testimony of _a host of Fathers_? Such are Origen (in 11