408 
the authority of the church of Rome. It 
was probably written either at Constan- 
tinople, or in some city of the Greek 
empire in Europe, for the use of some 
person or community belonging to the 
Latin church, between the time of Con- 
stantine and the final separation of the 
Greek and Latin churches. That the Co- 
dex Beze 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 aspiration: for in the eighth cen- 
tury the Greek uncial characters degene- 
rated from the square and round form, 
which is seen in the Codex Bezz, to an ob- 
long shape; marks of aspiration and accent 
were added, and the elegance of writing 
considerably decreased. From compa- 
ring the letters of the Codex Beze with 
the Greek inscriptions given by Mont- 
faucou, it appears not only that it must 
be more ancient than the eighth century, 
but that it may be as ancient as the sixth, 
the fifth, or even the fourth, century. 
The probability however is, that, from 
the Euthaliaw sections being observed in 
the Codex Bezzx, it was not written be- 
fore the fifth century.* This manuscript 
was sent by Beza to the University of 
Cambridge, and published by that learned 
‘body in 1798, in letters of the same form 
and magnitude as the original hand- 
writing. - 
‘The Clermont manuscript is a Greek- 
Latin manuscript of the Epistles of St. 
Paul, the antiquity of which was esti- 
mated by Sabbatier at 1200 years. Beza, 
who- had this manuscript in his pos- 
session, gave it the name of Claromon- 
tanus, from Clermont, in Bauvaisis, 
where it is said to have been preserved. 
From the hands of Beza it came into the 
Putean library, and was bequeathed by 
the proprietor, Jacques du Puy, with all 
his other manuscripts, to the royal li- 
brary in Paris, where it is at present kept. 
Mill contended that the Clermont manu- 
script was the second part, or a conti- 
nuation, of the Codex Bezz; but Wet- 
stein has sufficiently confuted this epi- 
nion, and shewn that the former is by no 
means connected with the latter, as 
appears from the difference of their form, 
their orthography, and the nature of the 
vellum on which they are written.f It 
is supposed by Montfaucon, that the 
Clermont manuscript was written in the 
‘seventh century. Though in uncial let- 
TE 
-* Marsh on Michaelis. 
3+ Michaelis, 
On the Codex Beza, Ke. 
[June 1, 
ters, yet it has accenfs and marks of aspi- 
rauon, which, Montfaucon says, appear 
to have been added by another hand, at 
no great distance of time after the mae 
nuscript itself had been written, This 
manuscript was probably written in the 
west of Europe, not oniy because it has 
a Latin translation, but because the 
Epistle to the Hebrews is found at the 
end; and in the catalogue of the books 
of the New Testament, which is placed 
afier the Epistle to Philemon, the Epistle 
to the Hebrews is not mentioned. This 
Epistle is also written even by a later 
hartd, and was therefore wholly excluded 
from the canon by.the original writer of 
the manuscript. Now, as che Epistle to 
the Hebrews was, during a considerable 
time, rejected by the church of Rome,. 
but not by the Greek church, it follows 
that the Clermont manuscript must have 
been originally written in .a country 
under the dominion of the former.* , 
The original manuscripts of the New 
Testament, which were written either by 
the. Apostles themselves, or by ama- 
nuenses under their immediate inspece 
tion, are all Jost. Their preservation, | 
during the space of seventeen centuries, 
could not be expected without the inter- 
position of amiracle. ** But what bene- 
fits,” says Michaelis, “ should wesdgrive. 
from the possession of these manustripts, 
or what inconvenience do we suffer from 
their loss? No critic in classical litera- 
ture enquires after the original of a pro- 
fane author, or disputes the authenticity 
of Cicero’s Offices, because we have not 
the copy which Cicero wrote with hig 
own hand. An antiquarian, or collector 
of ancient records, will scarcely maintain 
that the probability of these books being 
genuine, is inferior to the probability 
that a record in his possession of tle- 
twelfth century, is an authentic docu- 
ment of that period; for though his record 
is only six hundred years old, and the 
works of Cicero are thrice as ancient, 
we are more exposed to imposition in the 
former instance, as the forgery of anti- 
quities is often practised by those whose 
business and profit are to lead the curious 
intoerror, But, supposing that the orie 
ginal manuscripts of Cicero, Casar, Paul, 
and Peter, were now extant, it would be 
impossible to- decide whether they were 
spurious, or whether they were actually 
written by the hands of these authors.” 
In fact. there is no reason to doubt that 
the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, of the 
eo 
* Mars oa 
i Apostles, 
