by Beza to the University of Cambridge. An accurate and complete fac-simile edition of it has been lately published by Dr. Kipling. It varies from other MSS. with so much latitude, that in some places Scholia seem to have been inserted; but it is fully cleared by Michaelis of having been altered throughout from the Latin."

These four MSS. are prior to any which succeed them, by an interval of some centuries; the Codex Basil. b. vi. 27. the next in priority, being of the ninth century. It may be remarked, that in the later ages, the uncial letters became more formal, ornamented, and laboured; as may be seen in Wetstein, Proleg. p. 2.: and that there are only fourteen MSS. ancient enough to have been written in that character.

A

But though the MSS. are not usually of the first ages, an access is gained to a higher antiquity by the Versions, and the quotations in the Fathers. MS. by coinciding in its readings with a very ancient version, or with the quotations of Origen or others of the Fathers, may be esteemed a valuable copy of a more ancient MS. of a very early age.

II. Of the Versions.

They surpass the present Greek MSS. in antiquity; show the readings in the very ancient Greek copy, whence they were translated; and chiefly prove, that the sacred writings have been transmitted from the earliest age without any material alteration.

The ancient Syriac version is highly praised by Michaelis. It is named by the Syrians, Peshito, or "the correct, or faithful." It is the very best translation, continues he, of the Greek Testament, that I have ever read. He holds it to have been made at the end of the first, or the beginning of the second

century. It is, beyond a doubt, of extreme antiquity. But Mr. Marsh has observed, with the singular accuracy which he always exerts, that Ephrem the Syrian, who lived in the fourth century, is the first who has quoted it; and that the sacred canon of the books of the New Testament was not formed, or the parts collected into one volume, as Griesbach and Semler have shown, till the middle of the second. Before this, the translation could not well have been performed. It is also the opinion of Griesbach, that it is much interpolated. The present editions, says Michaelis, are very imperfect, and the text not unaltered.

N. B. There is another valuable Syriac version, named the Philoxenian, from Philoxenus bishop of Mabug. A. D. 508, on which consult Michaelis.

Other Eastern versions are described by him in the following order:

The Coptic was the common language of Egypt before the Saracens: a mixture of ancient Egyptian and of Greek. The age of the Coptic version is uncertain; but probably it is ancient, or of the fifth century. It must be regarded as a principal version; for, after the conquest of the Saracens, it gave birth to several Arabic translations, that were usually annexed to it. The readings of it have a striking affinity to the Latin version, and to the Codex Cantabr.

The Sahidic version, in the language of the Upper Egypt, is esteemed by Woide to be as early as the second century.

The Arabic version, given in the Paris and London Polyglotts, is that referred to by Mill in his New Testament; the Gospels in it are more ancient, and consequently of more authority than the Acts and Epistles. There exist many Arabic versions, the language extending over a large part of the East. It

is a disputable point, whether all the Arabic versions are not more modern than the age of Mahomet, A. D. Michaelis inclines to think, that some may now exist that were prior to his æra. Mr. Marsh shows that no proof of it is established. It is also doubted if the Arabic version in the Polyglotts was not translated from the Syriac; but it is probably from the Greek.

The Ethiopic version, it is thought possible by Mr. Bruce, and by Ludolfus Hist. Æthiop. may have been written by Frumentius, a bishop in the fourth century, who first preached Christianity in that country.

The Armenian version is of the fourth or fifth century; but unfortunately, when the Armenian churches in the thirteenth century submitted to the Pope, their Bible was altered or corrupted by the Vulgate. The version is highly praised by La Croze, and is yet valuable.

The Persic version is of a later date, and from the Syriac.

The Western versions are, the Latin, Gothic, and Anglo-Saxon.

The Latin version, i. e. the Vulgate, has been formed from the old Latin versions of the highest antiquity. It appears from Augustin de Doctr. Christ. lib. ii. c. 11. that the Latin church had a very great number of translations of the Bible made at the first introduction of Christianity. And thus Jerom: "In the Latin versions you have as many translations as copies." It is doubtful whether the first Latin version was made in the first, or, Greek being so universal a language, not till the second century: but, from the uncommon hebraisms that appear in some passages, Michaelis apprehends, that the earliest may have been formed by the Jewish converts in the first century. And though this is very doubtful; yet, from the many barbarisms, he concludes, they may have been

certainly provincial, or, as it were, local translations. Blanchini (Romæ 1749, 2 vols. fol.) has published an Evangelistarium of four MSS. from these versions.

As to their critical use, they often differ; but where they agree, they point to the true reading of the most ancient Greek MSS. whence they were taken and they are often confirmed by the Syriac and Coptic.

At length the great confusion which prevailed in these copies induced pope Damasus to employ St. Jerom, the very learned Latin Father, in correcting them: he professes to have reformed them by the Greek original, Novum Test. Græcæ fidei reddidi; yet he allows that he attempted not to amend all the errors. This corrected edition assumed the name of the Italica Vulgata, and was finished A. D. 384. It was afterwards corrupted by the mixed text of the middle ages: yet it is that version which was declared the sole authentic Scriptures in the Council of Trent A. D. 1547, and is the only approved text of the Church of Rome. The Romanists of course over-valued, and the first Protestants depreciated in the extreme, this version; till Father Simon ably defended it; and Mill, who favoured the sentiments of Simon, with Bengelius, an able critic, again raised it perhaps somewhat above its value. Wetstein, the opponent of Bengelius, slighted it; and Whitby, in his examen Millii, has hastily preferred, to it any Greek MSS. or Fathers: but, though it has many errors, it has great intrinsic worth; and the more ancient the Greek MSS. and other versions, the closer is their agreement with the Vulgate.

The Gothic version was made for the use of those of that nation, who, wandering westward from their ancient habitation on the east of the Borysthenes, settled in Wallachia. An alphabet was composed from the Greek and Latin; they being placed on the

borders of the Grecian empire, and near a Roman colony, and the Bible translated by their bishop Ulphilas in the middle of the fourth century. Thus Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret. The Gospels are preserved at Upsal in Sweden, in a MS. with silver letters, hence named the Codex Argenteus; it is translated from the Greek with many Latin idioms.

The Anglo-Saxon version is of later date; yet from an old Latin version, and not from the Vulgate.

III. The third source, whence the genuine readings of the New Testament are drawn, is the quotations in the Ancient Fathers.

As their productions were very voluminous, it will be no wonder that there should be a mixture of negligence or haste in some of their quotations. Michaelis has judiciously distinguished their writings into, 1. Commentaries; 2. Works of edification; 3. Polemical writings. In the first it is evident that the book expounded is not quoted from memory; but in controversy they often quoted memoritèr, and sometimes would prefer a favourable reading, if more than one existed in the MSS.; and they might quote from memory also in works of edification. Again, the Latin Fathers in general, including those of Africa, as Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustin, were not well skilled in the Greek language, and made all their quotations from the Latin versions: the Greek Fathers also themselves partook of the native language where they lived; as those of Syria, writing in Greek, yet might incline to the Syriac version, which they had used from their childhood.

But on the whole, it appears that they did not quote so carelessly, or so much from memory, as has been supposed; and that, when they give a quotation in form, they certainly give the reading of a MS. much more ancient than any which at present exists