have been written even two or three centuries earlier and he finally considers it prior to all the manuscripts extant, except the Codex Vaticanus, and refers it to the fifth century, which perhaps is the true date, if an opinion may be hazarded where so much uncertainty prevails.

Wetstein was of opinion, from eleven coincidences which he thought he had discovered, that this was the identical manuscript collated at Alexandria in 616, for the Philoxenian or later Syriac version of the New Testament; but this is a groundless supposition. It is however worthy of remark, that many of the readings by which the Codex Bezæ is distinguished are found in the Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, and in the margin of the Philoxenian-Syriac version. As the readings of this manuscript frequently agree with the Latin versions before the time of St. Jerome, and with the Vulgate or present Latin translation, Wetstein was of opinion that the Greek text was altered from the Latin version, or, in other words, that the writer of the Codex Bezæ departed from the lections of the Greek manuscript or manuscripts whence he copied, and introduced in their stead, from some Latin version, readings which were warranted by no Greek manuscript. This charge Semler, Michaelis, Griesbach, and Bishop Marsh have endeavoured to refute; and their verdict has been generally received. Matthæi, however, revived the charge of Wetstein, and considered the text as extremely corrupt, and suspected that some Latin monk, who was but indifferently skilled in Greek, wrote in the margin of his New Testament various passages from the Greek and Latin fathers, which seemed to refer to particular passages. He further thought that this monk had noted the differences occurring in some Greek and Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, and added parallel passages of Scripture: and that from this farrago either either the monk himself, or some other person, manufactured his text (whether foolishly or fraudulently is uncertain,) of which the Codex Beza is a copy. But this suspicion of Matthæi has been little regarded in Germany, where he incurred the antipathy of the most eminent biblical critics, by vilifying the sources of various readings from which he had it not in his power to draw, when he began to publish his edition of the New Testament; giving to the Codex Beza, the Codex Claromontanus (noticed in p. 90. infra,) and other manuscripts of unquestionable antiquity, the appellation of Editio Scurrilis. Bishop Middleton, however, considers the judgment of Michaelis as approximating very near to the truth, and has given a collation of numerous passages of the received text with the Codex Beza; and the result of his examination, which does not admit of abridgment, is, that the Codex Beza, though a most venerable remain of antiquity, is not to be considered, in a critical view, as of much authority. He accounts for the goodness of its readings, considered with regard to the sense, by the natural supposition of the great antiquity of the manuscript, which was the basis of the Codex

1 Bp. Marsh's Lectures, part ii. pp. 30, 31

Beza; but while its latinising is admitted, he contends that we have no reason to infer that its readings, considered in the same light, are therefore faulty. The learned prelate concludes with subscribing to the opinion of Matthæi somewhat modified. He believes that no fraud was intended; but only that the critical possessor of the basis filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin, being a Christian of the Western Church; and that the whole collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and substituted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their value, and who was better skilled in calligraphy than in the Greek and Latin languages. The arguments and evidences adduced by Bishop Middleton, we believe, are by many, at least in England, considered so conclusive, that, though the antiquity of the manuscript is fully admitted, yet it must be deemed a latinising manuscript, and consequently is of comparatively little critical value.

At the time Beza presented this manuscript to the university of Cambridge, it had been in his possession about nineteen years; and in his letter to that learned body he says, that it was found in the monastery of Saint Irenæus at Lyons, where it had lain concealed for a long time. But how it came there, and in what place it was written, are questions concerning which nothing certain is known. The most generally received opinion is, that it was written in the west of Europe.

The Cambridge manuscript has been repeatedly collated by critical editors of the New Testament. Robert Stephens made extracts from it, though with no great accuracy, under the title of Codex 6, for his edition of the Greek Testament, of 1550; as Beza also did for his own edition published in 1582. Since it was sent to the university of Cambridge, it has been more accurately collated by Junius, whose extracts were used by Curcellæus and father Morin. A fourth and more accurate collation of it was made, at the instigation of Archbishop Usher, and the extracts were inserted in the sixth volume of the London Polyglott, edited by Bishop Walton. Dr. Mill collated it a fifth and sixth time; but that his extracts are frequently defective, and sometimes erroneous, appears from comparing them with Wetstein's New Testament, and from a new collation which was made, about the year 1733, by Mr. Dickenson of Saint John's College; which is now preserved in the library of Jesus' College, where it is marked O, e, 2. Wetstein's extracts are also very incorrect, as appears from comparing them with the manuscript itself.

In concluding our account of this antient manuscript, it only remains to notice the splendid fac-simile of the Codex Beza, published by the Rev. Dr. Kipling at Cambridge, under the patronage and at the expense of the university, in 2 vols. atlas folio. Its title is as follows:

1 Bishop Middleton on the Greek Article, pp. 677–698.

2 Millii Prolegomena, §§ 1268-1273. Griesbach, Symbole Criticæ, tom. i. pp. Iv. lxiv. Michaelis, vol. iii. part i. pp. 228-242, and part ii. pp. 679–721.

CODEX. THEODORI. BEZE. CANTABRIGIENSIS. EVANGELIA. ET. ACTA. APOSTOLORUM. COMPLECTENS. QUADRATIS. LITERIS. GRECO-LATINUS. ACADEMIA. AUSPICANTE. VENERANDE. HAS. VETUSTATIS. RELIQUIAS. SUMMA, QUA. FIDE. POTUIT. ADUMBRAVIT. EXPRESSIT. EDIDIT. CODICIS. HISTORIAM. PRÆFIXIT. NOTASQUE. ADJECIT. THOMAS KIPLING. S. T. P. COLL. DIV. JOAN. NUPER. SOCIUS. CANTABRIGIÆ. E. PRELO. ACADEMICO. IMPENSIS. ACADEMIEÆ. MDCCXCIII.

This fac-simile is executed with the utmost typographical splendour. In a preface of twenty-eight pages, the learned editor discusses the high antiquity of the manuscript; its nature and excellence; its migrations; the various collations of it which have been made at different times; and concludes with a very brief description of the manuscript itself, and an Index Capitum. To this succeeds the text of the manuscript, which is divided into two parts or volumes; the first ending with page 412. and the second containing pages 413 to 928. Opposite to the modern supplement, which concludes the Gospels, on page 657. is the end of the Latin version of St. John's third Epistle. Pages 829. to 854. contain Dr. Kipling's notes. The impression of this fac-simile was limited to two hundred and fifty; and it usually sells for six or eight guineas, according to the condition and binding of the copies. Dr. Harwood regulated the text of the Gospels and Acts, in his edition of the Greek Testament, chiefly according to the readings of the Codex Beza; which was so highly valued by the learned but eccentric divine, Whiston, that in his "Primitive New Testament in English," (8vo. Stamford and London, 1745,) he has translated the four Gospels and Acts literally from this manuscript. Dr. A. Clarke, in his commentary on the New Testament, has paid very particular attention to the readings of the Codex Beza. Although the execution of this noble undertaking did not answer the expectations of some learned men,1 in consequence of which it was held in comparatively little estimation for many years, yet its value is now more justly appreciated. "A critic of the first celebrity, who would have gladly seized an opportunity of exposing Dr. Kipling, was unable to detect the smallest error in the text. himself collated the printed copy with the original manuscript: and the only fault he could detect, was in a single letter of the margin. This fact must surely place the value of Dr. Kipling's publication far beyond the reach of controversy."

Porson

III. The CODEX EPHREMI, or CODEX REGIUS, 1905, (at present 9,) by Wetstein and Griesbach noted with the letter C., is an invaluable Codex Rescriptus, written on vellum, and is of very high antiquity. The first part of this manuscript contains several Greek works of Ephrem the Syrian, written over some more antient writings which had been erased, though the traces are still visible, and in most

1 Dr. Kipling's fac-simile was criticised, with great severity, in the Monthly Review, (Ń. S.) vol. xii. pp. 241–246. And his preface was attacked, in no very courteous manner, in a pamphlet entitled Remarks on Dr. Kipling's Preface to Beza. Part the First. By Thomas Edwards, LL. D.' 8vo. 1793. No second part ever appeared.

2 British Critic (N. S.) vol. xi. p. 619.

VOL. II.

12

places legible. These more antient writings were the entire Greek Bible. In the New Testament, there are very numerous chasms, which are specified by Wetstein, from whom they have been copied by Michaelis and Griesbach. The text is not divided into columns ; the uncial characters are larger than those of the Codex Alexandrinus, without accents, and the words are not divided. There are large initial letters at the beginning of each section; and the text is sometimes divided into articles, not much larger than our verses. A small cross indicates the end of a division; a full point below a letter is equivalent to a comma, and in the middle to a semicolon. The Gospels follow the divisions of Ammonius, and also have the λ, à primâ manu; the sections of the epistles sometimes agree with the avayvwdag or lessons occurring in the MSS. which are known to have been written in Egypt. The titles and subscriptions to the several books are very brief, without any of the additions which are sometimes found in the Codex Alexandrinus. The Codex Ephremi exhibits the text of the Alexandrine Recension in its greatest purity, and numerous other indications of its Egyptian origin. In this manuscript the disputed verse, John v. 4., is written, not in the text, but as a marginal scholion. Wetstein conjectured, that this was one of the manuscripts that were collated at Alexandria in 616 with the new Syriac version; but of this there is no evidence. From a marginal note to Heb. viii. 7. the same critic also argued, that it was written before the institution of the feast of the Virgin Mary; that is, before the year 542. But his arguments are not considered as wholly decisive by Michaelis, who only asserts its great antiquity in general terms. Bishop Marsh pronounces it to be at least as antient as the seventh century: and professor Hug considers it to be even older than the Codex Alexandrinus. The readings of the Codex Ephremi, like those of all other very antient manuscripts, are in fayour of the Latin; but there is no satisfactory evidence that it has been corrupted from the Latin version. It has been altered by a critical collator, who, according to Griesbach, must have lived many years after the time when the manuscript was written, and who probably erased many of the antient readings. Kuster was the first who procured extracts from this manuscript for his edition of Dr. Mill's Greek Testament. Wetstein has collated it with very great accuracy; and the numerous readings he has quoted from it greatly enhance the value of his edition.1

IV. The CODEX CLAROMONTANUS, or REGIUS 2245, is a GreekLatin manuscript of St. Paul's Epistles, found in the monastery of Clermont, in the diocese of Beauvais, and used by Beza, together with the Codex Cantabrigiensis, in preparing his edition of the New Testament. It follows the Western Recension, and is noted D. by Wetstein and Griesbach in the second volumes of their respective

1 Wetstenii Nov. Test. tom. i. proleg. pp. 27-28. Griesbach's Symb. Crit. tom. i. pp. i.-liv. and Nov. Test. tom. i. pp. ci. cii. Michaelis, vol. ii. part i. pp. 258 260. part ii. pp. 737, 738. Cellérier, Introduction au Nouv. Test. pp. 134, 135. See also the Paleographia Græca of Montfaucon (pp. 213, 214.) who has given a fac-simile of this manuscript,

editions of the Greek Testament. Sabatier supposes it to be written in the sixth century; Montfaucon places it in the seventh century; and Griesbach thinks it was written in the sixth or seventh century. This manuscript is written on vellum in uncial characters, and with accents and marks of aspiration added by another hand, but of great antiquity. As it contains the Epistle to the Hebrews, which has been added by a later hand, it is supposed to have been written in the west of Europe. Dr. Mill contended that the Codex Claromontanus was the second part of the Codex Beza; but this opinion has been confuted by Wetstein, who has shown that the former is by no means connected with the latter, as appears from the difference of their form, their orthography, and the nature of the vellum on which they are written. Bishop Marsh adds, on the authority of a gentleman who had examined both manuscripts, that the Codex Claromontanus contains only twenty-one lines in each page, while the Cambridge manuscript contains thirty-three lines in a page; the abbreviations in the two manuscripts are also different. The Codex Claromontanus, like other Greek-Latin manuscripts, has been accused of having a Greek Text, that has been altered from the Latin; but this charge has been satisfactorily refuted by Dr. Semler. The migrations of this manuscript are somewhat remarkable. From the hands of Beza it went into the Putean library, which derived its name from the family of De Puy. Jacques Du Puy, who was librarian to the king of France, and died in 1656, bequeathed it, together with his other manuscripts, to the royal library at Paris, where it is now preserved, and at present is marked 107. According to the accounts of Wetstein and Sabatier, thirty-six leaves were cut out of it at the beginning of the last century (it is supposed by John Aymon, a notorious literary thief of that time,) and were sold in England; but they were sent back by the Earl of Oxford in 1729. The manuscript therefore is once more complete, as the covering only is wanting in which the stolen sheets had been enclosed, which is kept in the British Museum, and filled with the letters that passed on the occasion, as a monument of this infamous theft.1

V. The CODEX ARGENTEUS is a manuscript containing the four Gospels, in the Gothic version of Ulphilas, which is preserved in the university of Upsal. It is written on vellum, and has received the name of Argenteus from its silver letters: it is of a quarto size, and the vellum leaves are stained with a violet colour; and on this ground the letters, which are all uncial or capitals, were afterwards painted in silver, except the initial characters and a few other passages, which are in gold. The cover and back of the volume are of silver embossed. From the deep impression of the strokes, Michaelis has conjectured that the letters were either imprinted with a warm iron, or cut with a graver, and afterwards coloured; but Mr. Coxe, (with whom the late eminent traveller Dr. E. D. Clarke, seems to coin

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. part i. pp. 244–248. part ii. pp. 724–728. Symbola Criticæ, tom. i. pp. lv.—lxiv.

2 See an account of this version infra, Chap. V. Sect. II. § II. No. I.

Griesbach,