and their consequent approximate or complete extinction in Greek copies of the New Testament, can have no bearing on the character of their pedigree in the earlier ages. It is therefore but right to enquire whether the accidental preservation of Β and א does or does not give their texts an undeserved preeminence, which they would have lost had continuous uncials existed containing such texts as these stray readings represent. A scrutiny of the readings themselves dispels the suspicion. We have for our own part been quite prepared to find among these relics of ancient variation many readings highly commended by Internal Evidence: but experience has not justified any such anticipation. A very few readings absent from all existing Greek MSS we have thought it safest to retain as alternative readings; for instance in Matt. iv 17 Ἤγγικεν (for Μετανοεῖτε, ἤγγικεν γάρ), attested by syr.vt Orig(as represented by schol Procop.Es.144 Hier.Es.128) Vict.ant.Mc.273(expressly); and in 1 John iv 3 λύει (for μὴ ὁμολογεῖ), attested by 'ancient copies' mentioned by Socrates, and also by lat.vg Iren.lat(with context) Orig.Mt.lat:(?schol) Tert Lucif Aug Fulg. There are a few others supported by yet slighter authority, which have an appearance of intrinsic probability in places where the better attested readings seem to be specially difficult; and these we have not attempted to separate from purely conjectural readings. Readings belonging to either of these classes are however in the highest degree exceptional, and do not disturb the general impression produced by examination of the whole number. Most indeed of the readings of great antiquity which stand in no extant Greek uncial are seen at a glance to be ordinary Western readings; so that doubtless the reason why those of them which occur in the Gospels
