Page images
PDF
EPUB

close of the twelfth or more probably in the thirteenth century), as to be rendered almost useless. By the application of chemical means, Professor Tischendorf has suceeded in rendering a large portion of this manuscript legible.

Of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament he has published forty-three folios, containing fragments of the books of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, of the apocryphal books of the Wisdom of Solomon and of the Wisdom of Sirach. Of the New Testament, he has printed fragments of all the books, in three hundred and six folio pages. Concerning the age of this manuscript critics are not agreed. Michaelis in general terms asserted its great antiquity: his translator and annotator, Bishop Marsh, referred it to the seventh century; and Dr. Scholz (the latest critical editor of the Greek Testament) to the sixth century. Dr. Tischendorf, however, is of opinion that the most ancient of the four different sorts of writing, which he has discovered in this manuscript, was written in the fifth century; and in his judgment we may acquiesce. Such of the fragments as could be decyphered were collated for Kuster's edition of Dr. Mill's Greek Testament, published at Rotterdam in 1710; and subsequently, with greater accuracy, for Wetstein's edition, published at Amsterdam in 1751 -52. Wetstein's collations were adopted and printed by Griesbach and Scholz, in their respective critical editions of the Greek Testament. Future editors, however, may now derive a copious harvest of various readings, from Dr. Tischendorf's valuable labours. Lithographed fac-similes are given, accurately representing the original manuscript.

2. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus, in all probability, was written in the fourth century. It was brought from the East by Professor Tischendorf, who has caused it to be beautifully lithographed in eighty-six imperial quarto pages, each containing four columns, of forty-eight lines in a full column. This manuscript contains parts of the two books of Chronicles, the second book of Esdras, Nehemiah, the whole of the book of Esther, the prophecies of Jeremiah, from chap. x. ver. 32, to the end of the book, and the Lamentations from chap. i. ver. . 1, to chap. iv. ver. 20. This manuscript is written on very thin vellum, in uncial or capital letters, with tawny-coloured ink of various shades; and, in Dr. Tischendorf's judgment, exhibits vestiges of corrections made by four different hands. The earliest of these, he is of opinion, is co-eval with the writing of the original manuscript, but the other three are of posterior date. This manuscript has never been collated.

3. The fragments of nine manuscripts, which are written in uncial or capital letters, and all of which are upwards of one thousand years old, comprise various portions of the Greek Testament.

Of these precious remains of antiquity very few have been collated for the critical editions of the New Testament; and such of them as have been examined have been but imperfectly collated.

(1.) The Codex Tischendorfianus was brought from the East by Dr. Tischendorf, by whom it has been deposited in the library of the university of Leipzig. It comprises some very small portions of the gospel of St. Matthew, chap. xiii. ver. 46-55, and larger fragments of the same gospel, chap. xiv. ver. 8-29, and chap. xv. ver. 4-15. These fragments are written on vellum, and are referred by Professor T. to the seventh century.

(2, 3, 4.) Contain fragments of the four gospels, written with silver letters on purple vellum, at the latter end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century; the writing of which, though these fragments are now severally found at London, Vienna, and Rome, evidently proves that they originally formed one and the same manuscript.

(1.) The Codex Cottonianus (Titus C. XV.) is preserved in the Cottonian Library, in the British Museum. It contains St. Matthew's gospel, chap. xxvi. ver. 57–65, and chap. xxvii. ver. 26-34; and portions of St. John's gospel, chap. xiv. ver. 1—10, and chap. xv. ver. 15-22. This manuscript was imperfectly collated by Wetstein, whose readings were adopted by Griesbach. The chapters of Ammonius and the Eusebian Canons are noted in the margin.

(2.) The Codex Cæsareus Vindobonensis consists of two folios or leaves, forming four pages, which are preserved in the Imperial Library at Vienna: it contains the gospel of St. Luke chap. xxiv.

13-49.

(3.) The Codex Vaticanus, noted by Drs. Scholz and Tischendorf with the letter г. contains the gospel of St. Matthew, chap. xix. ver. 6—13; xx. ver. 6—34; and xxi. ver. 1–19.

(5.) The Codex Barberinus, No. 225, at Rome, was inaccurately collated by Dr. Scholz, for his critical edition of the New Testament. It is in uncial characters, in the eighth century, and consists of six leaves (not eight, as Scholz erroneously stated), containing the gospel of St. John, chap. xvi. ver. 3, to chap. xix. ver. 41.

(6.) The Codex Parisiensis Regius, No. 314, in the Royal Library at Paris, is a fragment of a manuscript of the eighth century, containing the gospel of St. Luke, chap. ix. ver. 33-47, and chap. x. ver. 12-22.

(7.) The Codex Parisiensis, No. 62, also in the Royal Library, is a quarto manuscript, written on vellum, in uncial letters, in the beginning of the seventh century, according to Wetstein; in the eighth or ninth, according to Griesbach; but in the judgment of

Dr. Scholz, with whom Tischendorf agrees, in the eighth century. This manuscript contains the entire text of the four gospels, with the exception of Matt. iv. 22, to v. 14; and xxviii. 17-28; Mark x. 16-30 and xv. 2-20; and John xxi. 15-25. Dr. Tischendorf states that it agrees with the celebrated Codex Vaticanus, 1209. His account of this precious manuscript is very copious, and enters into a variety of critical minutiæ, which do not admit of abridgment. He has printed the entire text of this manuscript, the identity of which with the Codex Vaticanus may now be tested by a critical collation of it with E. de Muralto's "Novum Testamentum Græce ad fidem Codicis principis Vaticani," recently published at Hamburgh.

(8.) The Codex Coislinianus 1. in the Royal Library at Paris, contains the Octateuch, or first eight of the historical books of the Old Testament in the Septuagint version, in the margin of which, but in the same uncial writing as the rest of the manuscript, Dr. Tischendorf has found and printed Matt. v. 48; xii. 48; and xxvii. 25; Luke i. 42; ii. 24; and xxiii. 21; John v. 35; and vi. 53, 55; Acts iv. 33, 34; ix. 23, 24; x. 13, 15; and xxii. 22; 1 Cor. vii. 39; and xi. 29; 2 Cor. iii. 13; ix. 7; and xi. 33; Gal. iv. 21, 22; Col. ii. 16, 17; and Heb. x. 26. Of these passages, Wetstein discovered and collated only Acts ix. 23, 24. He referred it to the seventh century, Montfaucon to the sixth or seventh century. Tischendorf assigns it to the seventh century.

(9.) The Codex Vaticanus, 2066, formerly the Codex Basilianus, No. 105, is a manuscript of the Apocalypse, which originally belonged to the monks of the order of St. Basil at Rome. It was collated, under the auspices of Cardinal Quirini, for Wetstein. Dr. Tischendorf, who has printed the whole of this manuscript, refers it to the beginning of the eighth century. It is written in uncial letters, holding a medium between the round and oblong forms, with accents and spirits. Besides the Apocalypse, this manuscript contains various homilies of Basil, and also homilies, orations, and epistles of Gregory bishop of Nyssa, and some extracts on the six days' creation. All these pieces are written in the same hand as the Apocalypse.

We cannot terminate this necessarily brief notice of Professor Tischendorf's biblical publications, without adverting to the singular beauty of their typographical execution, which reflects the highest honour on the press and (we may add) the public spirit of Mr. Bernhard Tauchnitz, jun. the publisher. As few private individuals comparatively can possess these works, we hope they will, ere long, find a place in our national and university libraries; and that they will be accurately and diligently collated by future editors of the Greek Testament and of the Septuagint.

CORRESPONDENCE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW.

DEAR SIR,-I fear you will think me troublesomely pertinacious, though not, I trust, in error. My apology must be, partly the real value which I set upon your good opinion, and partly my honest conviction both of the truth and of the vital importance of my principle.

You quote me against myself (Review for Nov. 884): but I must own I do not perceive the cogency of your two quotations, as in the slightest degree militating against the plain statement which I have repeatedly propounded in answer to the various misrepresentations which it has been my lot to encounter. In each of those two quotations, I merely pointed out what I deemed, and what I still deem, the most rational and satisfactory mode of ascertaining the true sense of doctrinal Scripture, whenever (as in the case of Justification, from my Work on which subject your two quotations are taken) there is a dispute as to the import of Scripture. Purely as a matter of fact, such disputes are not uncommon. Thus, in the matter of Justification, all the Reformed Churches unanimously teach one doctrine, while the Church of Rome, speaking through the Council of Trent, teaches another; repeatedly avowing, both as to the statement of this doctrine, and as to all the other doctrinal statements of the Council, that "This Faith was ALWAYS in the Church of God." Under such circumstances, when we had an alleged HISTORICAL FACT to meet, what was to be done? If we allowed the alleged FACT to stand uncontradicted, while we argued simply from our own interpretation of Scripture, the Romanist would naturally enough reply: Why should I bend to your upstart interpretation, and reject the universal interpreta tion of the Church from the very beginning, which, as a FACT, you do not pretend to deny? Clearly, we must adopt a different plan, if we would convince either the Romanist or any wavering Protestant who was staggered by the boldness of the Popish assertion. Hence, I should suppose, the most natural and logical process must be, to meet the alleged FACT, by an appeal, not merely to the recorded sense of strict Antiquity, but also the unvarying testimony of the ecclesiastical writers from Clermont down to Bernard.

With respect to the general question, we MUST, I conceive "decide (this word of mine you print in Italics) what are really the

[blocks in formation]

doctrines taught in the Bible: " for, without such decision, we can have no fixed creed. The sole point, therefore, is this:

On what tangible and intelligible principle are we to arrive at such plainly necessary decision, whenever a sturdy difference of opinion arises touching the import of doctrinal texts?

Some may advocate this principle; and others may advocate that principle: but a principle of some description we MUST have; otherwise we can reach no decision: and, if we can reach no decision, we can have no fixed creed; and, if we have no fixed creed, we must anchor our faith upon a mere shifting quicksand.

Your principle seems to be an appeal to Scripture as interpreted by yourself and other concurring moderns: my principle is an appeal to Scripture as understood by the consent of the primitive Church.

Which principle is the best, may be a matter of dispute: but I cannot discern, why my principle, any more than your principle, should be charged with ERROR, on the specific ground of its adding a supplementary rule of faith to what we alike (be it remembered) deem the sole binding rule of faith.

Let me instance what I mean by a case very recently before us. I understand the Scriptural doctrine of election, as it was understood and interpreted by the universal Church prior to the time of Augustine.

You understand the Scriptural doctrine of election, as it is understood and interpreted by Mr. McNeile.

For this, I blame you not. But, since we MUST put some interpretation upon the language of Scripture; for, without this process, it plainly cannot be used as a rule of faith: if I be in error, because I adopt the PRINCIPLE of interpreting Scripture as the early Church is testified to have done; you, I should think, must be equally in error, because you adopt the PRINCIPLE of interpreting Scripture as Mr. McNeile interprets it.

I speak purely of the PRINCIPLE, wherein I understand you to pronounce me in error. Yet your PRINCIPLE is exactly the same as my own. We agree, that Scripture MUST be interpreted: we differ only, as to WHO shall be the interpreter. You patronise Mr. McNeile, as an irrefragable interpreter of Scripture touching the true sense of election: I bow to the judgment of the Church of the four first centuries, as ascertained from the credible testimony of the ecclesiastical writers.

In regard to Clement, Ignatius and Hermas (for, after all, Mr. McNeile can appeal to the Fathers as well as myself), these writers, no doubt, use the word election, just as I scruple not to use it in my sermons: but, without an explanation, which they do not give,

« PreviousContinue »