comma that is used in the Biblical part of the codex. The writing, however, is not quite so archaic as that of Moses the Monk. In the more crowded portion of this treatise, final ج  ح and خ are peculiar. They are deprived of the long tail to which they are entitled, and in its stead they have curious little appendages resembling the ر in many a later MS. The treatise is evidently the work of a Christian who is defending his religion against Moslems, and seeking to recommend it. The fact that it must have been composed after the Hegira has little bearing on the antiquity of the Biblical text with which it is bound up. The writer's explanations of the Trinity are ingenious and interesting, but his quotations from the Bible and the Coran are more eclectic than accurate. He makes a few artless historical mistakes. Micah the Morashtite is confounded with the Micaiah of 2 Chronicles xviii., though there must have been about 150 years between them. I can find no Scriptural authority for the statement that Jehoram slew the latter; it is so said, however, by Pseudo-Epiphanius, and also in the Chronicon Paschale. Zacharia, father of John the Baptist, is evidently supposed to be identical with the Old Testament prophet; and Amoz, the father of Isaiah, is identified with Amos the herdsman of Tekoa. Our author did not live in an age of critics, either higher or lower, and had not much to guide or misguide him. I regret that I have not succeeded in getting the conclusion of his treatise or at least all of it that is in the MS.

A comparison of the facsimiles given in this book with Plates XIX. and XCV. of those published by the Paleographical Society will, I think, lead to the conviction that these writings cannot be later than the 9th century, and that the Biblical one may even be a little earlier.

I have to thank my sister, Mrs Lewis, for her assistance in revising my proofs.

M. D. G.
CASTLE-BRAE, CAMBRIDGE,
Feb. I 899.