occasion or not, it could not have been written very long before the sixteenth century; for this manuscript has the Latin chapters, though the xspaλaia of Eusebius are likewise noted. Now the Latin chapters were foreign to the usage of the Greek Church, before the introduction of printed editions, in which the Latin chapters were adopted, as well for the Greek as for the Latin Testament. Whatever Greek manuscripts therefore were written with Latin Chapters, were written in the West of Europe, where the Latin Chapters were in use. They were written by the Greeks, or by the descendants of those Greeks, who fled into the West of Europe, after the taking of Constantinople, and who then began to divide their manuscripts according to the usage of the country, in which they fixed their abode. The Dublin manuscript therefore, if not written for the purpose to which it was applied in the third edition of Erasmus,2 could hardly have been written more than fifty years before. And how widely those critics have erred in their conjectures, who have supposed that it was written so early as the twelfth century, appears from the fact that the Latin Chapters were not invented till the thirteenth century. But the influence of the Church of Rome in the composition of the Dublin manuscript, is most conspicuous in the text of that manuscript, which is a servile imitation of the Latin Vulgate. It will be sufficient to mention how it follows the Vulgate at the place in question. It not only agrees with the Vulgate, in the insertion of the seventh verse it follows the Vulgate also at the end of the sixth verse, having xgoros, where all other Greek manuscripts have VεUμa: and in the eighth verse it omits the final clause, which had never been omitted in the Greek manuscripts, and was not omitted even in the Latin manuscripts before the thirteenth century. Such is the character of that solitary manuscript, which is opposed to the united evidence of all former manuscripts, including the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Alexandrinus."5 Upon the whole, it does not appear that the date of the Codex Montfortianus can be however, that though he could not insert in a Greek edition what he had never found in a Greek manuscript, he would insert the passage in his next edition, if in the mean time a Greek MS. could be discovered, which had the passage. In less than a year after that declaration, Erasmus was informed, that there was a Greek MS. in England which contained the passage. At the same time a copy of the passage, as contained in that MS. was communicated to Erasmus: and Erasmus, as he had promised, inserted that copy in his next edition, which was published in 1522."

"There are three Greek manuscripts with the Latin Chapters in the University Library at Cambridge, marked Hh. 6. 12. Kk. 5. 35. and Ll. 2. 13. That which is marked Ll. 2. 13. and is evidently the oldest of the three, was written at Paris by Jerom of Sparta, for the use and at the expense of a person called Bodet, as appears from the subscription to it. Now Jerom of Sparta died at the beginning of the sixteenth century."

2" The third edition of Erasmus has 1 John v. 7. precisely in the words of the Dublin MS."

3 See Part I. Chap. IV. Sect. II. § 1. infra.

4" Here there is an additional proof, respecting the age of the Dublin MS." 5 Bishop Marsh's Lectures, Part VI. pp. 23-26. See also his letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, (Leipsic, 1795, 8vo.) Pref. pp. xvii. xviii. xxiii. in the notes. Michaelis vol. ii. Part i. pp. 284-287. Part ii. pp. 755–759. Dr. A. Clarke's Suc'cession of Sacred Literature, pp. 86-92.

earlier than the close of the fifteenth century. The uncollated parts of this manuscript were collated by the late Rev. Dr. Barrett, of Trinity College, Dublin, with Wetstein's edition of the Greek Testament; beginning with Rom. ii. and ending with the Apocalypse, including also a collation of the Acts of the Apostles, from chap. xxii. 27. to chap. xxviii. 2. This collation, comprising thirty-five pages, forms the third part of his fac-simile edition of the Codex Rescriptus of St. Matthew's Gospel noticed in pp. 95, 96. supra.

4. The CODEX REGIUS, formerly 2244,2 at present 50, (noted Paris. 6 by Kuster, 13 by Wetstein, and #13 by Griesbach), is a manuscript of the four Gospels in the royal library at Paris. Though not more antient, probably, than the thirteenth century, it is pronounced by Michaelis to be of very great importance: it has the following chasms, which were first discovered by Griesbach, viz. Matt. i. 1.-ii. 21.; xxvi. 33-53. ; xxvii. 26. xxviii. 10.; Mark i. 2. to the end of the chapter; and John xxi. 2. to the end of the Gospel. The various readings from this manuscript given by Kuster and Wetstein are very inaccurate. Matt. xiii. xiv. and xv. were the only three chapters actually collated by Griesbach, who expresses a wish that the whole manuscript might be completely and exactly collated, especially the latter chapters of the Gospels of Luke and John. In consequence of this manuscript harmonising in a very eminent manner with the quotations of Origen, he refers it to the Alexandrine edition, though he says it has a certain mixture of the Western.1

5. The CODEX LEICESTRENSIS derives its name from being the property of the Corporation of Leicester: it is a manuscript of the whole New Testament, written by a modern hand, partly on paper and partly on vellum, chiefly the former, and is referred by Wetstein and Griesbach to the fourteenth century. It is noted by Dr. Mill by the letter L., in the first part of Wetstein's New Testament Codex, 69; in the second, 37; in the third, 31; and in the fourth, 14; and by Griesbach, 69. The book of Acts is inserted between the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of Saint James. This manuscript is defective from the beginning as far as Matt. xviii. 15., and has also the following chasms, viz. Acts x. 45.-xiv. 7. Jude 7. to the end of that Epistle, and it concludes with part of Rev. xix. It has many peculiar readings; and in those which are not confined to it, this manuscript chiefly agrees with D. or the Codex Cantabrigiensis: it also

1 Michaelis, vol. i. part i. pp. 302, 303.- Griesbach's Symbola Criticæ, vol. i. pp. cliv. clxiv. Nov. Test. vol. i. p. cv.

2 In a critique on the second edition of this work, in the Eclectic Review for January, 1822, (vol. xvii. N. S. p. 83.), it is stated, that when the writer of that article made inquiry respecting the Codex Leicestrensis, it was no longer to be found in the Library of the Town Hall at Leicester. Anxious for the interest of sacred literature, to ascertain the real fact, the author of the present work requested Mr. Combe (an eminent bookseller at that place, to whom he thus gladly makes his acknowledgments,) to make the requisite investigation. The result of Mr. Combe's critical researches is, that the Codex Leicestrensis is still carefully preserved. Mr. C. further collated the author's account of it (which had been drawn up from the notices of Wetstein and Michaelis,) with the manuscript itself, and this collation has enabled him to make the description above given more complete as well as more correct.

harmonises in a very eminent manner with the Old Syriac version, and, what further proves its value, several readings, which Dr. Mili found in it alone, have been confirmed by other manuscripts that belong to totally different countries. The Codex Leicestrensis was first collated by him, and afterwards more accurately by Mr. Jackson, the learned editor of Novatian's works, whose extracts were used by Wetstein. There is another and still more accurate transcript of Mr. J.'s collation in his copy of Mill's edition of the Greek Testament, which is now preserved in the library of Jesus College, Cambridge, where it is marked O, e, 1.1

6. The CODEX VINDOBONENSIS, Lambecii 31 (124 of Griesbach), is a manuscript of the four Gospels, written in the eleventh or twelfth century it has been collated by Treschow, Birch, and Alter. It is of very great importance, and agrees with the Codex Cantabrigiensis in not less than eighty unusual readings; with the Codex Ephremi in upwards of thirty-five: with the Codex Regius 2861, or Stephani n, in fifty; with the Codex Basileensis in more than fifty, and has several which are found in that manuscript alone; with the Codex Regius 2244,2 in sixty unusual readings; and with the Codex Colbertinus 2844, in twenty-two.2

7. The CODEX EBNERIANUS is a very neat manuscript of the New Testament in quarto, formerly in the possession of Hieronymus Ebner Von Eschenbach of that city, from whom its appellation is derived it is now the property of the University of Oxford, and is deposited among the other precious manuscripts preserved in the Bodleian library. The Codex Ebnerianus, contains 425 leaves of vellum, and was written in the year 1391. The whole of the New Testament is comprised in this volume, excepting the Book of Revelation: each page contains 27 lines, at equal distances, excepting those in which the different books commence, or which are decorated with illuminations. Besides the New Testament, the Eusebian Canons introduced, together with the lessons for particular festivals, and a menologium used in the Greek church, &c. The book is bound in massy silver covers, in the centre of which the Redeemer of the World is represented sitting on a throne, and in the act of pronouncing a blessing. Above his head is the following inscription, in square letters, exhibiting the style in which the capitals are written :Δέσποτα ευλόγησον τον δούλον σου ελαχιστον Ιερονυμον Ιουλιέλμον και την οικίαν "Lord, bless the least of thy servants, Hieronymus Gulielmus, and his family." Of the style of writing adopted in the body of the Manuscript, the annexed engraving will afford a correct idea,

αυτού.

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. part i. pp. 355-357. part ii. pp. 749, 750. Bp. Marsh adds, "This copy of Mill's Greek Testament, with Jackson's marginal readings, is a treasure of sacred criticism, which deserves to be communicated to the public. It contains the result of all his labours in that branch of literature; it supplies many of the defects of Mill, and corrects many of his errors: and, besides quotations from manuscripts and antient versions, it contains a copious collection of readings from many of the fathers, which have hitherto been very imperfectly collated, or wholly neglected. Ibid. p. 750.

2 Ibid. vol. ii. part ii. p. 870.