[ 13^ ] 



figure prior to the feventh century. It feems to have it in llie 

 manufcript of Bede, which is referred by Mr. JJfle to the fifth 

 century. 



From thefe ar£;uments, compared with the defcription above 

 given, we may I think fafely conclude that this manufcript is 

 not pofterior to the fixth century. A greater antiquity than this 

 cannot be inferred from merely confidering thejetters, in any 

 manufcript, according to Montfaucon. There are neverthelefs 

 not wanting arguments for a higher antiquity, of which the 

 principal is a molt ftriking agreement between its various readings 

 and thofc of the moft ancient fathers and verfions, and a total 

 difagreement from the manufcripts of the fecond clafs. It has 

 alfo a wonderful agreement in its readings in many places with 

 Bezd?, Teftament, and like it omits the doxology ; from which it 

 would feem to follow that it precedes the end of the fourth 

 century. To this conclufion only two objedions can be made ; 

 one is, that it has been interpolated from the Latin Fulgate-, 

 but this argument feems to be a fetitio prmcipii, for it cannot 

 have been interpolated from that verfion, unlefs we fuppofe it 

 pofterior to the end of the fourth century, when that verfion was 

 made, which is the point in queftion. Another and more fpe- 

 cious objedion is, that it omits it becaufe its original omitted it, 

 and that this original preceded that time. This would be a 

 fufficient reafon if the manufcript wanted the figns of antiquity, 

 and if it appeared from every other confideration that this manu- 

 fcript belonged to the middle ages. But as there appears nothing 

 to limit its age, and it may have all that antiquity, it will be 



mors 



