writings one and the same passage of Scripture in entirely different forms, which indeed in many cases may be explained by his quoting freely from memory, but certainly not seldom has its ground in the diversity of the translations used at the time’ [Endnote 321:1].  On this last point, the unity of the Old Latin version, there is a difference of opinion among scholars, but none as to its date.  Thus Dr. Tregelles writes:  ’The expressions of Tertullian have been rightly rested on as showing that he knew and recognised one translation, and that this version was in several places (in his opinion) opposed to what was found “in Graeco authentico.”  This version must have been made a sufficiently long time before the age when Tertullian wrote, and before the Latin translator of Irenaeus, for it to have got into general circulation.  This leads us back towards the middle of the second century at the latest:  how much earlier the version may have been we have no proof; for we are already led back into the time when no records tell us anything respecting the North African Church’ [Endnote 321:2].  Dr. Tregelles, it should be remembered, is speaking as a text critic, of which branch of science his works are one of the noblest monuments, and not directly of the history of the Canon.  His usual opponent in text critical matters, but an equally exact and trustworthy writer, Dr. Scrivener, agrees with him here both as to the unity of the version and as to its date from the middle of the century [Endnote 321:3].  Dr. Westcott too writes in his well-known and valuable article on the Vulgate in Smith’s Dictionary [Endnote 321:4]:  ’Tertullian distinctly recognises the general currency of a Latin Version of the New Testament, though not necessarily of every book at present included in the Canon, which even in his time had been able to mould the popular language.  This was characterised by a “rudeness” and “simplicity,” which seems to point to the nature of its origin.’  I do not suppose that the currency at the end of the second century of a Latin version, containing the four Gospels and no others, will be questioned [Endnote 322:1].

With regard to the Syriac version there is perhaps a somewhat greater room to doubt, though Dr. Tregelles begins his account of this version by saying:  ’It may stand as an admitted fact that a version of the New Testament in Syriac existed in the second century’ [Endnote 322:2].  Dr. Scrivener also says [Endnote 322:3]:  ’The universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the case, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was possessed of a translation both of the Old and New Testament, which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, from the second century of our era downwards:  as early as A.D. 170 [Greek:  ho Syros] is cited by Melito on Genesis xxii. 13.’  The external evidence, however, does not seem to be quite strong enough to bear out any very positive assertion.  The appeal to the Syriac by Melito