canons to the Gospels. This manuscript is now preserved in the British Museum, where it was deposited in 1753. It was sent as a present to King Charles I. from Cyrillus Lucaris, a native of Crete, and patriarch of Constantinople, by Sir Thomas Rowe, ambassador from England to the Grand Seignior, in the year 1628. Cyrillus brought it with him from Alexandria, where, probably, it was written. In a schedule annexed to it, he gives this account; that it was written, as tradition informed them, by Thecla, a noble Egyptian lady, about thirteen hundred years ago, a little after the council of Nice. He adds, that the name of Thecla, at the end of the book, was erased; but that this was the case with other books of the Christians, after Christianity was extinguished in Egypt by the Mohammedans : and that recent tradition records the fact of the laceration and erasure of Thecla's name. The proprietor of this manuscript, before it came into the hands of Cyrillus Lucaris, had written an Arabic subscription, expressing that this book was said to have been written with the pen of Thecla the Martyr.

Various disputes have arisen with regard to the place whence it was brought, and where it was written, to its antiquity, and of course to its real value. Some critics have bestowed upon it the highest commendation, whilst it has been equally depreciated by others. Of its most strenuous adversaries, Wetstein seems to have been the principal. The place from which it was sent to England was, without doubt, Alexandria, and hence it has been called Codex Alexandrinus. As to the place where it was written, there is a considerable difference of opinion. Matthæus Muttis, who was a contemporary, friend, and deacon of Cyrillus, and who afterwards instructed in the Greek language John Rudolph Wetstein, uncle of the celebrated editor of the Greek Testament, bears testimony, in a letter, written to Martin Bogdan, a physician in Berne, dated January 14, 1664, that it had been brought from one of the twenty-two monasteries in Mount Athos, which the Turks never destroyed, but allowed to continue upon the payment of tribute. Dr. Woide endeavours to weaken the evidence of Muttis, and to render the testimony of the elder Wetstein suspicious but Spohn' shows that the objections of Woide are ungrounded. Allowing their reality, we cannot infer that Cyrillus found this manuscript in Alexandria. Before he went to Alexandria he spent some time on Mount Athos, the repository and manufactory of manuscripts of the New Testament, whence a great number have been brought into the West of Europe, and a still greater number has been sent to Moscow. It is therefore probable, independently of the evidence of Muttis, that Cyrillus procured there either by purchase or by present, took it with him to Alexandria, and brought it thence on his return to Constantinople. But the question recurs, where was this copy written? The Arabic subscription above cited, clearly proves, that it had been in Egypt, at some period or other, before it

1 Caroli Godofredi Woidii Notitia Codicis Alexandrini, cum variis ejus lectionibus omnibus. Recudendum curavit, notasque adjecit Gottlieb Leberecht Spohn. pp. 10-13. (8vo. Lipsia 1790.)

fell into the hands of Cyrillus. This subscription shows that it once belonged to an Egyptian, or that during some time it was preserved in Egypt, where Arabic has been spoken since the seventh century. Besides, it is well known that a great number of manuscripts of the Greek Bible have been written in Egypt. Woide has also pointed out a remarkable coincidence between the Codex Alexandrinus, and the writings of the Copts. Michaelis alleges another circumstance as a probable argument of its having been written in Egypt. In Ezekiel xxvii. 18. both in the Hebrew and Greek text, the Tyrians are said to have fetched their wine from Chelbon, or according to Bochart, Chalybon. But as Chalybon, though celebrated for its wine, was unknown to the writer of this manuscript, he has altered it by a fanciful conjecture to ovov Ex xeßgwv, wine from Hebron. This alteration was probably made by an Egyptian copyist, because Egypt was formerly supplied with wine from Hebron. The subscription before mentioned, ascribes the writing of it to Thecla, an Egyptian lady of high rank, who could not have been, as Michaelis supposes, the martyress Thecla, placed in the time of Saint Paul: but Woide replies, that a distinction must be made between Thecla martyr, and Thecla proto-martyr. With regard to these subscriptions we may observe, with Bishop Marsh, that the true state of the case appears to be as follows: "Some centuries after the Codex Alexandrinus had been written, and the Greek subscriptions, and perhaps those other parts where it is more defective, already lost, it fell into the hands of a Christian inhabitant of Egypt, who, not finding the usual Greek subscription of the copyist, added in Arabic, his native language, the tradition, either true or false, which had been preserved in the family or families to which the manuscript had belonged, 'Memorant hunc codicem scriptum esse calamo Thecla martyris.' In the 17th century, when oral tradition respecting this manuscript had probably ceased, it became the property of Cyrillus Lucaris; but whether in Alexandria, or Mount Athos, is of no importance to the present inquiry. On examining the manuscript, he finds that the Greek subscription is lost, but that there is a tradition recorded in Arabic by a former proprietor, which simply related that it was written by one Thecla a martyress, which is what he means by "memoria et traditio recens." Taking therefore upon trust, that one Thecla the martyress was really the copyist, he consults the annals of the church to discover in what age and country a person of this name and character existed; finds that an Egyptian lady of rank, called Thecla, suffered martydom between the time of holding the council of Nicæa and the close of the fourth century; and concludes, without further ceremony, that she was the very identical copyist. Not satisfied with this discovery, he attempts to account for the loss of the Greek subscription, and ascribes it to the malice of the Saracens; being weak enough to believe that the enemies of Christianity would exert their vengeance on the name of a poor transcriber, and leave the four folio volumes themselves unhurt." Dr. Woide, who transcribed and published this manuscript, and must be better ac

quainted with it than any other person, asserts, that it was written by two different copyists; for he observed a difference in the ink, and, which is of greater moment, even in the strokes of the letters. The conjecture of Oudin, adopted by Wetstein, that the manuscript was written by an Accemet is, in the judgment of Michaelis, worthy of attention, and he adds, that this conjecture does not contradict the account that Thecla was the copyist, since there were not only monks but nuns of this order.

The antiquity of this manuscript has also been the subject of controversy. Grabe and Schulze think that it might have been written before the end of the fourth century, which, says Michaelis, is the very utmost period that can be allowed, because it contains the epistles of Athanasius. Oudin places it in the tenth century. Wetstein refers it to the fifth, and supposes that it was one of the manuscripts collected at Alexandria in 615, for the Syriac version. Dr. Semler refers it to the seventh century. Montfaucon is of opinion, that neither the Codex Alexandrinus, nor any Greek manuscript, can be said with great probability to be much prior to the sixth century. Michaelis apprehends, that this manuscript was written after Arabic was become the native language of the Egyptians, that is, one, or rather two centuries after Alexandria was taken by the Saracens, which happened in the year 640, because the transcriber frequently confounds M and B, which is often done in the Arabic and he concludes, that it is not more antient than the eighth century. Woide, after a great display of learning, with which he examines the evidence for the antiquity of the Codex Alexandrinus, concludes, that it was written between the middle and the end of the fourth century. It cannot be allowed a greater antiquity, because it has not only the τιτλοι οι κεφαλαια majora, but the κεφαλαια minora, or Ammonian sections, accompanied with the references to the canons of Eusebius. Woide's arguments have been objected to by Spohn.3 Some of the principal arguments advanced by those who refer this manuscript to the fourth or fifth centuries are the following: the epistles of Saint Paul are not divided into chapters like the gospels, though this division took place so early as 396, when to each chapter was prefixed a superscription. The Codex Alexandrinus has the epistles of Clement of Rome; but these were forbidden to be read in the churches, by the council of Laodicea, in 364, and that of Carthage, in 419. Hence Schulze has inferred, that it was written before the year 364; and he produces a new argument for its antiquity, deduced from the last of the fourteen hymns found in it after the psalms,

1 The Acœmets were a class of monks in the antient church, who flourished, particularly in the east, during the fifth century. They were so called, because they had divine service performed, without interruption, in their churches. They divided themselves into three bodies, each of which officiated in turn, and relieved the others, so that their churches were never silent, either night or day. Wetstein adopts the opinion of Casimir Oudin, that the Codex Alexandrinus was written by an Acœmet, because it contains a catalogue of the psalms that were to be sung at every hour both of the day and night. Proleg. in Nov. Test. vol. i. p. 10.

2 Palæog. Græc. p. 185.

3 pp. 42-109. of his edition of Woide's Notitia Codicis Alexandrini.

which is superscribed uuvos sivos, and is called the grand doxology; for this hymn has not the clause αγιος ο θεος, άγιος ισχυρος, αγιος αθανα Tos, eλendov nuas, which was used between the years 434 and 446; and therefore the manuscript must have been written before this time. Wetstein thinks that it must have been written before the time of Jerome, because the Greek text of this manuscript was altered from the old Italic. He adds, that the transcriber was ignorant that the Arabs were called Hagarenes, because he has written (1 Chron. v. 20.) ayogalos for Ayagao. Others allege that ayogao is a mere erratum; because Ayagawy occurs in the preceding verse, Ayagirns in 1 Chron. xxvii. 31. and Ayagnvor in Psal. lxxxii. 7. These arguments, says Michaelis, afford no certainty, because the Codex Alexandrinus must have been copied from a still more antient manuscript; and if this were faithfully copied, the arguments apply rather to this than to the Alexandrian manuscript itself. It is the hand-writing alone, or the formation of the letters, with the want of accents, which can lead to any probable decision. The arguments alleged to prove that it is not so antient as the fourth century, are the following. Dr. Semler thinks, that the epistle of Athanasius, on the value and excellency of the Psalms, would hardly have been prefixed to them during his life. But it ought to be recollected, that Athanasius had many warm and strenuous advocates. From this epistle Oudin has attempted to deduce an argument, that the manuscript was written in the tenth century. This epistle, he says, is spurious, and could not have been forged during the life of Athanasius, and the tenth century was fertile in spurious productions. Again, the Virgin Mary, in the superscription of the Song of the Blessed Virgin, is styled soroxos, a name which Wetstein says betrays the fifth century. Further, from the probable conjecture, that this manuscript was written by one of the order of the Acœmetæ, Oudin concludes against its antiquity; but Wetstein contents himself with asserting, that it could not have been written before the fifth century, because Alexander, who founded this order, lived about the year 420. From this statement, pursued more at large, Michaelis deduces a reason for paying less regard to the Codex Alexandrinus than many eminent critics have done, and for the preference that is due, in many respects, to antient versions, before any single manuscript, because the antiquity of the former, which is in general greater than that of the latter, can be determined with more preci

sion.

The value of this manuscript has been differently appreciated by different writers. Wetstein, though he denotes it by A. the first letter of the alphabet, is no great admirer of it, nor does Michaelis estimate it highly, either on account of its internal excellence or the value of its readings. The principal charge which has been produced against the Alexandrian manuscript, and which has been strongly urged by Wetstein, is its having been altered from the Latin version. It is incredible, says Michaelis, who once agreed in opinion with Wetstein, but found occasion to alter his sentiments, that a transcriber who lived in Egypt, should have altered the Greek

text from a Latin version, because Egypt belonged to the Greek diocese, and Latin was not understood there. On this subject Woide has eminently displayed his critical abilities, and ably defended the Greek manuscripts in general, and the Codex Alexandrinus in particular, from the charge of having been corrupted from the Latin. Griesbach concurs with Woide,' and both have contributed to confirm Michaelis in his new opinion. If this manuscript has been corrupted from a version, it is more reasonable to suspect the Coptic, the version of the country in which it was written. Between this manuscript and both the Coptic and Syriac versions, there is a remarkable coincidence. Griesbach has observed, that this manuscript follows three different editions: the Byzantine in the Gospels, the Western edition in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic epistles, which form the middle division of this manuscript, and the Alexandrine in the epistles of Saint Paul. The transcriber, if this assertion be true, must have copied the three parts of the Greek Testament from three different manuscripts of three different editions. It is observable, that the readings of the Codex Alexandrinus coincide very frequently not only with the Coptic and the old Syriac, but with the New Syriac and the Ethiopic; and this circumstance favours the hypothesis, that this manuscript was written in Egypt, because the new Syriac version having been collated with Egyptian manuscripts of the Greek Testament, and the Ethiopic version being taken immediately from them, have necessarily the readings of the Alexandrine edition.

The Alexandrian manuscript is written in uncial or capital letters, without any accents or marks of aspiration, but with a few abbreviations nearly similar to those already noticed, and also with some others which are described by Dr. Woide,3 who has likewise explained the various points and spaces occurring in this manuscript.

A fac-simile of the Codex Alexandrinus was published in folio by the late Dr. Woide, principal librarian of the British Museum, with types cast for the purpose, line for line, without intervals between the words, precisely as in the original. The following specimen will convey to the reader an idea of this most precious manuscript.

1 In his "Symbola Critice," vol. i. pp. 110-117. 2 See p. 50. supra.

4

3 In the Preface to his fac-simile of the Alexandrian manuscript of the New Testament, §§ 27–34.

4 The following is the title of Dr. Woide's splendid work. Novum Testamentum Græcum, e Codice MS. Alexandrino, qui Londini in Bibliotheca Musei Britannici asservatur, descriptum, a Carolo Godofredo Woide. Londini ex prelo Joannis Nichols, Typis Jacksonianis, MDCCLXXXVI. Twelve copies were printed on vellum. The fac-simile itself fills two hundred and sixty pages; and the preface, comprising twenty-two pages, contains an accurate description of the manuscript, illustrated by an engraving representing the style of writing in various manuscripts. To this is subjoined an exact list of all its various readings, in eighty-nine pages; each reading is accompanied with a remark, giving an account of what his predecessors, Junius (i. e. Patrick Young), Bishop Walton, Drs. Mill and Grabe, and Wetstein, had performed or neglected. To complete this work, there should be added the following: Appendix ad editionem Novi Testamenti Græci, e Codice Alexandrino descripti a C. G. Woide, in qua continentur Fragmenta Novi Testamenti juxta in