This excellent prelate died on the eighth of January 1715, in the 64th year of his age, amid the unfeigned forrow of his friends and connexions, and the bleffings and regrets of the poor. He died as he lived, without debt, and without accumulation, having difpofed of his revenue, as the faithful steward of Providence. In no fenfe, (fays our ingenious biographer,) did he abufe the talents intrufted to him by heaven ; an imputation on whofe goodness it would be to doubt his prefent enjoyment of the most gracious rewards that the divine. juftice and bounty can be.tow.'

These volumes are handfomely printed, and are adorned with engravings, of which we are forry we cannot speak with equal praife: fome of them are fkilfully defigned and delicately executed, while others are unnatural, difproportionate, and coarse. An explanatory index of the perfons and places which occur in the archbishop's charming performance (fo justly ftyled A POEM,) is added; and fuch an addition will prove highly acceptable to many readers of a work fo greatly abounding in claffical allufions, and efpecially to the ladies.

ART. IV. Profeffor Michaelis's Introduction to the New Teftament, tranflated by Mr. Marsh.

[Article concluded from the Review for July.]

THE importance of the antient verfions, in afcertaining the

genuine text of the New Teftament, is acknowleged by all Biblical scholars. Prof. Michaelis deems them of more authority than any MS. of the New Teftament now extant, and has therefore devoted the whole of chapter vii. containing 38 fections, to a critical review of them. We are inclined to think with him, that there is no MS. copy of the Greek originals older than the fixth century, and that unlimited reliance ought not to be placed on the teftimony of the moft antient, in favour of any particular reading. On the other hand, the authority of verfions or tranflations fhould not be carried too far. By carefully comparing the one with the other, the judicious critic may be able to determine, with fome degree of certainty, the true reading in doubtful places, and to reffore the purity of the text. The old Syriac verfion is highly efteemed by the Profellor, who warmly recommends it to the attentive examination of learned chriftians. It was certainly very antient, though not fo antient as M. Michaelis fuppofes, and made from a Greek copy effentially differing from our present exemplars. He offers his reafons for concluding that the epiftle to the Hebrews was not originally in the old Syriac tranflation, and informs his readers that neither the ftory of the adulterefs, John viii., nor the celebrated paffage 1 John v. 7., nor the laft

two

two epiftles of St. John, nor the 2d epistle of Peter, nor the epiftle of Jude, nor the book of Revelation, made any part of the Syriac canon. He mentions the omiffion of 1 John v. 7. to have been with the approbation of the cenfors of the church of Rome, and accufes the Proteftants of having obtruded this fpurious paffage on the Syriac text. The Syriac and the Latin are the two oldeft verfions: but the former having de. fcended to the prefent age with fewer alterations than the latter, the Profeffor urges a compilation of all the Syriac MSS. of the New Teftament, as more likely to contribute than any other undertaking of the kind to a perfect edition of the Chrift ian feriptures Un the critical ufe of this verfion he makes the following remarks:

The difference between the Syriac verfion, and the greatest part of the Greek manufcripts, is no ground for condemning the former. It is natural to fuppofe, from its great antiquity, that it must deviate in many cafes from the Greek manufcripts, the oldeft of which was written above four hundred years later, and are mostly the produce of countries remote from Syria. They were probably taken neither from the fame copy, nor from the fame edition, and length of time muft have rendered the difference ftill greater. But on the other hand, we must not fuppofe that every reading is genuine, where the Syriac verfion differs from the later manufcripts, because the antient Greek copy, that was used by the Syriac tranflator, had undoubtedly its faults, the verfion itself has not defcended unaltered to the prefent age, and our printed editions are extremely faulty. It is almoft impoffible therefore to give general rules on this fubject, as it is often difficult to determine whether this difference must be afcribed to an error in the antient Greek manufcript, from which the Syrian tran{lated, to a corruption of the Syriac text, or a corruption of the Greek manufcripts that are now extant. This point being once determined, we should make a greater progrefs in the criticism of the New Teftament +.'

From the old Syriac, called the Pefhito, or pure edition, our author proceeds to an examination and account of the more modern Syriac verfions, and of the Philoxenian or new Syriac verfion; which latter, in point of ftyle, purity, and critical ufe, is not to be compared with that of the Pefhito.

To the fections appropriated to the examination of the Coptic and Sahidic verfions, valuable additions are made by the tranf lator in his notes; in one of which we are encouraged to expect from him a tranflation of the learned Woide's hiftorical and critical German essay on these verfions. We hope that he will carry his purpose into execution:-he does not, however, content himself, even for the prefent, with promifes, but felects a few remarks by way of fupplement to the obfervations of Profeffor Michaelis.

* Cura, fect. 6.

+ Curæ, fect. 12.'

The

The Sahidic verfion, (adds Mr. Marth in a note,) according to Woide, was made in the fecond century. His principal argument is drawn out at full length, p. 80-94 of the effay quoted Note 1, to the preceding fection. It is grounded on two Sahidic manufcripts, one formerly in the poffeflion of Dr. Afkew, the other brought from Egypt by the celebrated Bruce: both of which are, I believe, at prefent in the British Mufeum. The former contains a work intitled Sophia, and written by Valentinus in the beginning of the fecond century. That Valentinus wrote a book with this title, appears from the teflimony of Tertullian, in the fecond chapter of his treatife adv. Valentinum; and that this manufcript contains that very work, Wolde endeavours to fhew by feveral arguments: the principal of which is, that pfalins are found in it, which belong not to the facred collection, agreeably to the account of Tertullian, who fays (c. 2. adv. Valent.) docet ipfa Sophia, non quidem Valentini, fed Salomonis; and again, (cap. 20. de carne Chrifti) nobis Pfalmi patrocinantur non quidem Apoftatæ, et Hæretici, et Platonici Valentini, fed fanétiffimi David. He relates alfo that Origen, in his Catena in Jobum, fpeaks of the Pfalms of Valentinus. Now this manufcript contains various pages both from the Old and New Teftament, which coincide with the fragments of the Sahidic verfion now extant; whence he concludes that a Sahidic verfion of the whole bible not only exifted fo early as the beginning of the fecond century, but that it was the fame as that, of which we have various fragments, and which, if put together, would form perhaps a complete Sahidic verfion of the Bible. The other manufcript to which he appeals contains two books, the one entitled Βίβλος της γνώσεως, the other Βιβλο- λογο κατά μετριοι. Now that this was written by a Gnoftic, as well as the other manufcript, appears both from the title and the contents, and Woide concludes therefore that the author lived in the fecond century. And as various paffages are quoted in it both from the Old and New Teftament, Woide deduces the fame inference as from the foregoing. It appears then, if no objections can be made to thefe arguments, that proofs may be alleged of a higher antiquity in favour of the Sahidic verfion, than can be produced in favour of any other verfion of the New Teftament; and it must of courfe be of the highest importance in the criticifm of the Greek Teftament. At the fame time it must be acknowledged, that the oldest historical evidence for the high antiquity of an Egyptian verfion is that of Epiphanius and Theodoret, the former quoted by Semler, in his Apparatus ad N. T. interpretationem, p. 64. the latter by Wilkins in the Prolegomena to his Coptic N. T.

P. 6. '

With the office of tranflator, Mr. Marfh intimately connects that of Reviewer; and his remarks throughout evince the most minute and laborious attention to the original work. Whoever follows the author and his tranflator through the fections on Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Perfian, Latin, and other verfions, difcuffed in this chapter, muft fubicribe to the juftice of this commendation. We shall content ourfelves with adducing the following inftance. Among the Latin verfions, the Profeffor tells us that there was one in particular ftyled Itala, which he deduces

deduces from the following quotation from Augustin, « In ipfis autem interpretationibus Itala cæteris præferatur:" but his English editor and annotator very judiciously remarks that

Itala' is perhaps an erratum (in the manufcripts of Auguftin's works) for illa;' and that perhaps the genuine reading is "in ipfis autem interpretationibus illa cæteris præferatur." He, then proceeds:

This conjecture was made by Bentley, defended by Cafley, and adopted by Lardner, Ernefti, and other eminent critics. See the arguments in fupport of the reading illa,' in Lardner's Works, Vol. V. p. 116. ed. 1788, and Ernefti Inftitutio interpretis N. T. p. 121. ed. 1775. If this conjecture is grounded, the error was occafioned by a tranfcriber, who read ITLA for ILLA, and supposed it to be an abbreviation of ITALA. But there is an inconvenience attending this conjecture, which confils in the word nam,' becaufe if Itala be altered to illa, and the fentence be written in ipfis autem interpretationibus illa cæteris præferatur, nam eft verborum tenacior, &c.' there is fomething wanting to determine the fenfe of illa:' and if, in order to effect this purpose, we change nam' into quæ,' as fome critics have done who defend the reading illa,' we take a liberty which is wholly unwarranted. To avoid therefore the neceffity of fo violent an alteration, another ingenious conjecture was propofed by Potter. He fuppofes that Itala is a mistake for ufitata, and that the paffage flood originally, as written in the most antient manufcripts, as follows INIPSISAUTEMINTERPRETATIONIBUSUSITATACAETE RISPRAEFERATUR, &c. that a tranfcriber, after having copied interpretationibus,' took the first fyllable of ufitata, on returning to his manufcript, for the last fyllable of the word which he had just written, and of course read the next word ITATA, which he concluded to be an erratum for ITALA, and in this manner produced our present fpurious reading*.'

In noticing the following chapter on the manufcripts of the New Teftament, we know not which we ought moft to applaud, -the diligence and perfeverance of the Profeffor in this important department of facred literature, in endeavouring to afcertain the number, character, and comparative value of the now exifting codices manufcripti of the New Teftament,-or the investigation and ftudious pains of the Editor in fupplying the deficiencies of the German original. This chapter, which occupies a confiderable space, contains an account of 292 MSS. of the New Teftament, which have been either wholly or partially collated; to which number Mr. Marfh adds an account, in his notes, of 177 more, making a total of 469 collated MSS. Of these the most esteemed are the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Alex

Though this thought be not Mr. Marth's own, its introduction here is a proof of his vigilance in correcting Michaelis's errors, and of his good fenfe as an annotator.

3

andrinus,

andrinus, and the Codex Cantabrigienfis, or Codex Beza, which have their feveral advocates; and into the refpective merits of which, as fources of various readings, it is effential for the facred critic to examine. It appears that Prof. Michaelis's efteem for the Codex Alexandrinus has much declined fince the publication of the first edition of thefe Introductory Lectures. After attentive examination, he found himself compelled to prefer to it the Codex Beza; and in this preference he is joined by the tranflator, who places it firft among the first, giving it the precedence even of the Codex Vaticanus.

On the antiquity of the Codex Beza, or (as it is otherwife called) the Cambridge MS., the tranflator makes the following obfervations:

If we argue from the internal evidence of the text, and conclude from the antiquity of its readings, that is, from the circumstance that the Codex Beze is free from many fpurious additions and alterations, that were introduced into the more modern Greek manufcripts, (though it has others of a different kind not found in modern manufcripts,) the inference to be deduced is, not that the manufcript itfelf is ancient, but only that it has a very antient text, a matter, which is of much greater importance than the antiquity of the vellum and of the ink. See the latter part of Note 11. That it was written before the eighth century is certain, as appears from the shape of the letters, the want of intervals between the words, and of accents, and marks of afpiration. For in the eighth century the Greek uncial characters degenerated from the fquare and round form, which is feen in the Codex Bezæ, to an oblong fhape; marks of aspiration and accents were added, and the elegance of writing confiderably decreased. See Montfaucon Paleographia Græca, Lib. III. cap. vi. Secondly, it appears from comparing the letters of the Codex Bezæ with the Greek infcriptions given by Montfaucon, p.158-175, not only that it must be more ancient than the eighth century, but that it may be as antient as the fixth, the fifth, or even the fourth century. No infcription however comes fo near to it in the shape of its characters, as that which Montfaucon has given, p. 174. No. 1. an infcription which was engraved about the middle of the fixth century, in the reign of Juftinian. The letters of this infcription and of the Codex Bezæ are very nearly alike, both in form and proportion, and the only material difference is in the Alpha, which in the former is made thus A, in the latter thus A. But this is no argument against the antiquity of the manufcript, for though the former shape is the most ancient, yet the latter was introduced in a very early age into manufcripts, because it might be made with only two ftrokes of the pen, while the former, which required three ftrokes of the pen, and was therefore rejected from manufcripts, was retained in infcriptions, because it was more eafy to be cut by the chiffel. See the Palæographia Græca, p. 152. Nor is there any great diffimilarity between the letters of the Codex Beze, and an infcription given by Montfaucon, p. 170. which bears indeed no date, but which Montfaucon, p. 163.

fays