was executed in the ninth century. Dr. Holmes considers it | of that kind, in which the original and some version were to be a manuscript of considerable value and importance, written together." Where a transcriber, instead of copying which, though in many respects it corresponds with the other from one and the same ancient manuscript, selects from seveMSS. collated by him, yet contains some valuable lections ral those readings which appear to him to be the best, the which are nowhere else to be found. On this account it is to manuscript so transcribed is termed a Codex Criticus. be regretted that the Codex Basiliano-Vaticanus is imperfect both at the beginning and end.

canus.2

§ 4. ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINING THE NEW TESTAMENT, ENTIRE OR IN PART, WHICH HAVE BEEN

USED IN CRITICAL EDITIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

it

i. Manuscripts written in Uncial or Capital Letters." I.-A.* The CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. See a description of taments in Greek, pp. 222-224. supra. Except in the four among the manuscripts containing the Old and New TesGospels (the copyist of which followed a manuscript of the Constantinopolitan Recension), this manuscript is considered the standard MS. of the Alexandrine Recension.

except in the Gospel of St. Matthew, in which there are many additions not found in other manuscripts of this family.

VIII. The CODEX TURICENSIS is numbered 262 in Dr. Parson's catalogue of MSS. collated for the book of Psalms, in his continuation of the magnificent edition of the Septuagint commenced by the late Rev. Dr. Holmes. It is a quarto manuscript of the book of Psalms, the writing of which proves it to have been executed at least in the eleventh century, if not much earlier; and consists of two hundred and twenty-two leaves of extremely thin purple vellum; and the II.-B. The CODEX VATICANUS. It is described in pp. 224 silver characters and golden initial letters are in many parts-226. Dr. Scholz refers it to the Alexandrine Recension, so decayed by the consuming hand of time, as to be with difficulty legible. The portions of the Psalms wanting in this MS. are Psal. i.-xxv.; xxx. 1.-xxxvi. 20.; xli. 5.— III.-C. The CODEX EPHREMI, or CODEX REGIUS, 1905, xliii. 2.; lviii. 13.—lix. 4.; Íxiv. 11. lxxi. 4. ; xcii. 3.-xciii. (at present 9.) is an invaluable Codex Rescriptus, written on 7.; and xcvi. 12.-xcvii. 8. Several of the ancient ecclesi- vellum, and is of very high antiquity. The first part of this astical hymns, which form part of this MS., are also muti-manuscript contains several Greek works of Ephrem the lated. It is, however, consolatory to know that those portions Syrian, written towards the close of the twelfth, or perhaps of the Psalms which are deficient in the Codices Alexandri- of the thirteenth century, over some more ancient writings nus and Vaticanus may be supplied from the Codex Turi- which had been erased, though the traces are still visible, and censis and this circumstance, it should seem, occasioned in most places legible. These more ancient writings appear the generally accurate traveller, Mr. Coxe (whose error has to have contained the Septuagint version of the Old Testabeen implicitly copied by succeeding writers) to state that the ment (considerable fragments of which are still extant), and MS. here described once formed part of the Codex Vati- the entire New Testament. Both were originally written continuously; but they were so completely intermingled, inverted, or transposed, by the unknown later copyists of Ephrem's treatises, as to render these venerable remains of Scripture almost useless. The chasms in the New Testament are very numerous. They are specified by Wetstein, from whom they have been copied by Michaelis and GriesTHE autographs, or manuscripts of the New Testament, bach. The text is not divided into columns; the uncial which were written either by the apostles themselves, or by characters are larger than those of the Codex Alexandrinus, amanuenses under their immediate inspection,3 have long without accents, and the words are not divided. There are since perished; and we have no information whatever con- large initial letters at the beginning of each section; and the cerning their history. The pretended autograph of St. text is sometimes divided into articles, not much larger than Mark's Gospel at Venice is now known to be nothing more our verses. A small cross indicates the end of a division; a than a copy of the Latin version, and no existing manu- full point below a letter is equivalent to a comma, and in the scripts of the New Testament can be traced higher than the middle to a semicolon. The Gospels follow the divisions of fourth century; and most of them are of still later date. Ammonius, and also have the TT, à primâ manu; the secSome contain the whole of the New Testament; others com- tions of the epistles sometimes agree with the avavarus or prise particular books or fragments of books; and there are lessons occurring in the MSS. which are known to have been several which contain, not whole books arranged according written in Egypt. The titles and subscriptions to the seveto their usual order, but detached portions or lessons (v-ral books are very brief, without any of the additions which v), appointed to be read on certain days in the public ser- are sometimes found in the Codex Alexandrinus. The Codex vice of the Christian church; from which again whole books Ephremi exhibits the text of the Alexandrine Recension in have been put together. These are called Lectionaria, and its greatest purity, and numerous other indications of its are of two sorts: 1. Evangelisteria, containing lessons from Egyptian origin. In this manuscript the disputed verse, the four Gospels; and, 2. Apostolos, comprising lessons from John v. 4., is written, not in the text, but as a marginal schothe Acts and Epistles, and sometimes only the Epistles lion. Wetstein conjectured, that this was one of the manuthemselves. When a manuscript contains both parts, Mi- scripts that were collated at Alexandria in 616 with the new chaelis says that it is called Apostolo-Evangelion. Forty-six Syriac version; but of this there is no evidence. From a Evangelisteria were collated by Griesbach for the four Gos-marginal note to Heb. viii. 7. the same critic also argued, that pels of his edition of the New Testament; and seven Lec-it was written before the institution of the feast of the Virgin tionaria or Apostoli, for the Acts and Epistles. Some manuscripts, again, have not only the Greek text, but are accompanied with a version, which is either interlined, or in a parallel column; these are called Codices Bilingues. The greatest number is in Greek and Latin; and the Latin version is, in general, one of those which existed before the time of Jerome. As there are extant Syriac-Arabic and Gothic-Latin manuscripts, Michaelis thinks it probable that there formerly existed Greek-Syriac, Greek-Gothic, and other manuscripts

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 ancient as the seventh century; Professor Hug considers it to be even older than the Codex Alexandrinus; and Dr. Scholz refers it, with much probability, to the sixth century. The readings of the Codex Ephremí, like those of all other very ancient manuscripts, are in favour of the Latin; but there is no satisfactory evidence that

• Introduction to the New Test. vol. ii. part i. p. 161.

The preceding description of the Codex Turicensis is abridged from Professor Breitinger's scarce tract, addressed to Cardinal Quirini, and en-U. and X. denote the references made by Wetstein, Griesbach, and Scholz, titled, "De antiquissimo Turicensis Bibliothecæ Græco Psalmorum Libro, Epistola. Turic. 1748." 4to.

2 See Coxe's Travels in Switzerland, in Pinkerton's Collection of Voyages and Travels, vol. vi. p. 672. 4to. Saint Paul dictated most of his epistle to amanuenses; but, to prevent the circulation of spurious letters, he wrote the concluding benediction with his own hand. Compare Rom. xvi. 22. Gal. vi. 11. and 2 Thess. iii. 17, 18. with 1 Cor. xvi. 21.

See vol. ii. p. 305, and note 9.

Griesbach, Proleg. ad Nov Test. tom. i. pp. cxix-exxii. In the second volume of his Symbola Crítica (pp. 3-30.) Dr. G. has described eleven important Evangelisteria, which had either been not collated before, or were newly examined and collated by himself. Michaelis, vol. ii. part i. pp. 161-163. part ii. 639, 640. The Rev. Dr. Dibdin has described a superb Evangelisterium, and has given fac-similes of its ornaments, in the first volume of his Bibliographical Decameron, pp. xcii-xciv. This precious manuscript is supposed to have been written at the close of the eleventh, or early in the thirteenth century. The illuminations are executed with singular beauty and delicacy.

In the following catalogue of Manuscript Letters of the Alphabet, A. to in their respective critical editions of the New Testament, to the manuscripts described in this catalogue. The letters V. W. Y. Z. F. and A. denote the references made by Scholz alone. Where no authorities are specified for particular manuscripts, in order to avoid the unnecessary multiplication of references, it is proper to state that this catalogue of manuscripts has been drawn up from a careful examination of the Prolegomena of Dr. Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, and Scholz, from Griesbach's Symbolæ Criticæ, from Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, and from Michaelis's Chapter on "the Manuscripts that have been used in Editions of the Greek Testament," with Bishop Marsh's supplementary Annotations, which collectively form the greater part of the second volume of Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament.

8 Catalogus Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecæ Regiæ, tom. ii. p. 2. In pp. 3-5., the compiler of the Catalogue [M. Anicet Mellot] has given an index of the several passages of the Old and New Testament restored to their proper order, with references to the leaves of the manuscripts where they are actually to be found. Montfaucon (Palæographia Græca, pp. 213, 214.) has given a fac-simile of this manuscript, which Professor Hug says is not equal in point of elegance to the original manuscript.

it has been corrupted from the Latin version. It has been IV.-D. The CODEX BEZA, also called the CODEX CANTA altered by a critical collator, who, according to Griesbach, BRIGIENSIS, is a Greek and Latin manuscript, containing the must have lived many years after the time when the manu- four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. It is deposited script was written, and who probably erased many of the in the public library of the University of Cambridge, to which ancient readings. Kuster was the first who procured extracts it was presented by the celebrated Theodore Beza, in the year from this manuscript for his edition of Dr. Mill's Greek Tes- 1581. ́Of this manuscript, which is written on vellum, in tament. Wetstein has collated it with very great accuracy; quarto, without accents or marks of aspiration, or spaces and the numerous readings he has quoted from it greatly between the words, the following fac-simile will convey an enhance the value of his edition. idea.

:ÏAWNAETOYCOXXOYC·ANEBHeicтoosoc

KÄIKAOICANTOCAYTOY POCHADONÄYT∞

OIMAOHTAIÄYTOY∙KAIANOIZACTOCTOMAAYTOY

EALAAZENAYTOYCAEгON
:MAKAŢ10101πTOXONI OTIAYTONECTIN
HBXCIXEIXTŒNOYPANON

UIDENSAUTEMTURBASASCENDITINMONTEM
ETSEDENTEEO'ACCESSERUNtadeum

discipulieiuS ETAPERIENSOSSUUM
docuiteosdicens

BEATITAUPERESSFU•QUONIAMissoruMEST

recnumcaelorum

It represents the first three verses of the fifth chapter of

Matt. V. 1-3.

HISDISCIPLES ANDOPENINGHISMOUTH

Saint Matthew's Gospel, which are copied from Dr. Kipling's ANDSEEINGTHEMULTITUDESHEWENTUPINTOAMOUNTAIN fac-simile edition of the Codex Beza, published at Cam-ANDWHENHEWASSETDOWN CAMETOHIM bridge in 1793, of which an account is given in the Bibliogra- HETAUGHTTHEMSAYING phical Appendix to the second volume. We have placed the Latin under the Greek, in order to bring the whole within the BLESSEDARETHEPOORINSPT FORTHEIRSIS compass of an octavo page. The following is a literal Eng-THEKINGDOMOFHEAVEN. ish version of this fac-simile:

↑ Contracted for SPIRIT. The Greek is IINI, IINEY MATI; and the Latin SPU, for SPIRITU.

Sixty-six leaves of this manuscript are much torn and muti- | examination, which does not admit of abridgment, is, that the lated, and ten of them have been supplied by a later transcriber. Codex Beza, though a most venerable remain of antiquity, The Codex Bezæ is noted with the letter D. by Wetstein, is not to be considered, in a critical view, as of much authoGriesbach, and Scholz. In the Greek it is defective, from the rity. He accounts for the goodness of its readings, consibeginning to Matt. i. 20., and in the Latin to Matt. i. 12. In dered with regard to the sense, by the natural supposition of the Latin it has likewise the following chasms, viz. Matt. vi. the great antiquity of the manuscript, which was the basis 20.-ix. 2.; Matt. xxvii. 1-12.; John i. 16.-ii. 26.; Acts of the Codex Beza; but while its Latinizing is admitted, he viii. 29.-x. 14.; xxii. 10—20.; and from xxii. 29. to the contends that we have no reason to infer that its readings, conend. The Gospels are arranged in the usual order of the sidered in the same light, are therefore faulty. The learned Latin manuscripts, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. It has a prelate concludes with subscribing to the opinion of Matthæi considerable number of corrections, some of which have been somewhat modified. He believes that no fraud was intended; noticed by Dr. Griesbach; and some of the pages, containing but only that the critical possessor of the basis filled its marMatt. iii. 8-16. John xviii. 13.-xx. 13. and Mark xv. to gin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin, being a the end, are written by a later hand, which Wetstein refers to Christian of the Western Church; and that the whole collecthe tenth century, but Griesbach to the twelfth. The Latin tion of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and substiversion is that which was in use before the time of Jerome, tuted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their and is usually called the Old Italic or Ante-Hieronymian value, and who was better skilled in caligraphy than in the version. In the margin of the Greek part of the manuscript Greek and Latin languages.2 The arguments and evidences there are inserted the Ammonian sections, evidently by a later adduced by Bishop Middleton, we believe, are by many, at hand; and the words apyn, texos, noi λeye, wfs olnue, are occasion-least in England, considered so conclusive, that, though the ally interspersed, indicating the beginning and end of the Avara, or lessons read in the church. The subjects discussed in the Gospels are sometimes written in the margin, sometimes at the top of the page. But all these notations are manifestly the work of several persons and of different ages. The date of this manuscript has been much contested. Those critics who give it the least antiquity, assign it to the sixth or seventh century. Wetstein supposed it to be of the fifth century. Michaelis was of opinion, that of all the manuscripts now extant, this is the most ancient. Dr. Kipling, the editor of the Cambridge fac-simile, thought it much older than the Alexandrian manuscript, and that it must have been writ ten in the second century. On comparing it with Greek inscriptions of different ages, Bishop Marsh is of opinion that it cannot have been written later than the sixth century, and that it may 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.

antiquity of the manuscript is fully admitted, yet it must be deemed a Latinizing 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 8, 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 Wetstein was of opinion, from eleven coincidences which more accurate collation of it was made, at the suggestion of he thought he had discovered, that this was the identical Archbishop Usher, and the extracts were inserted in the manuscript collated at Alexandria in 616, for the Philoxenian sixth volume of the London Polyglott, edited by Bishop or later Syriac version of the New Testament; but this is a Walton. Dr. Mill collated it a fifth and sixth time; but that groundless supposition. It is, however, worthy of remark, his extracts are frequently defective, and sometimes erroneous, that many of the readings by which the Codex Bezæ is disappears from comparing them with Wetstein's New Testatinguished are found in the Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, and in ment, and from a new collation which was made, about the the margin of the Philoxenian-Syriac version. As the read-year 1733, by Mr. Dickenson of Saint John's College, which ings of this manuscript frequently agree with the Latin ver- is now preserved in the library of Jesus' College, where it sions before the time of St. Jerome, and with the Vulgate or is marked 0, 0, 2. Wetstein's extracts are also very incorrect, present Latin translation, Wetstein was of opinion that the as appears from comparing them with the manuscript itself. Greek text was altered from the Latin version, or, in other A splendid fac-simile of the Codex Beza was published words, that the writer of the Codex Bezæ departed from the by the Rev. Dr. Kipling at Cambridge, under the patronage lections of the Greek manuscript or manuscripts whence he and at the expense of the university, in 1793, in 2 vols. atlas copied, and introduced in their stead, from some Latin ver- folio. Dr. Harwood regulated the text of the Gospels and sion, readings which were warranted by no Greek manuscript. Acts, in his edition of the Greek Testament, chiefly accordThis charge Semler, Michaelis, Griesbach, and Bishop Marsh ing to the readings of the Codex Beza; which was so highly have endeavoured to refute; and their verdict has been gene- valued by the learned but eccentric divine, Whiston, that in rally received. Matthæi, however, revived the charge of his "Primitive New Testament in English" (8vo. StamWetstein, and considered the text as extremely corrupt, and ford and London, 1745), he has translated the four Gospels suspected that some Latin monk, who was but indifferently and Acts literally from this manuscript. Dr. A. Clarke, in skilled in Greek, wrote in the margin of his New Testament his Commentary on the New Testament, has paid very parvarious passages from the Greek and Latin fathers, which ticular attention to the readings of the Codex Bezæ. seemed to refer to particular passages. He further thought V. The CODEX CLAROMONTANUS, or REGIUS 2245., is a that this monk had noted the differences occurring in some Greek-Latin manuscript of St. Paul's Epistles found in the Greek and Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, and monastery of Clermont, in the diocese of Beauvais, and added parallel passages of Scripture; and that from this far- used by Beza, together with the Codex Cantabrigiensis, in rago either the monk himself, or some other person, manufac- preparing his edition of the New Testament. It is noted tured his text (whether foolishly or fraudulently is uncertain), D. by Wetstein and Griesbach in the second volumes of their of which the Codex Beza is a copy. But this suspicion of respective editions of the Greek Testament. Sabatier supMatthæi has been little regarded in Germany, where he in- poses it to have been written in the sixth century; Montfaucurred the antipathy of the most eminent biblical critics, by con places it in the seventh century; Griesbach thinks it was vilifying the sources of various readings from which he had written in the sixth or seventh century, and Hug, in the it not in his power to draw, when he began to publish his eighth century. This manuscript is written on vellum in edition of the New Testament; giving to the Codex Beza, uncial characters, and with accents and marks of aspiration the Codex Claromontanus (noticed in pp. 231, 232. infra), added by another hand, but of great antiquity. As it conand other manuscripts of unquestionable antiquity, the appel-tains the Epistle to the Hebrews, which has been added by lation of Editio Scurrilis. Bishop Middleton considers the a later hand, it is supposed to have been written in the west judgment of Michaelis as approximating very near to the of Europe. Dr. Mill contended that the Codex Claromontruth, and has given a collation of numerous passages of the tanus was the second part of the Codex Beza; but this received text with the Codex Beza; and the result of his opinion has been confuted by Wetstein, who has shown that

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

2 Bishop Middleton on the Greek Article, pp. 677-698., first edition.