nuscripts are said to be of the Alexandrian or Western recension, as the appropriate readings of each preponderate. The margins of these manuscripts, as well as those of the Ethiopic, Armenian, Sahidic, and Syro-Philoxenian versions, and the Syriac version of Jerusalem, contain the Alexandrian variations for the Western readings, or vice versâ ; and some Byzantine manuscripts have the Alexandrian or Western various lections in their margins.

Each of these recensions has characteristics peculiar to itself. The Occidental or Western preserves harsh readings, Hebraisms and solecisms, which the Alexandrine has exchanged for readings more conformable to classic usage. The Western is characterised by readings calculated to relieve the text from difficulties, and to clear the sense it frequently adds supplements to the passages adduced from the Old Testament; and omits words that appear to be either repugnant to the context or to other passages, or to render the meaning obscure. The Alexandrine is free from the interpretations and transpositions of the Western recension. An explanatory reading is therefore suspicious in the Western recension, and a classical one in the Alexandrine. The Byzantine or Constantinopolitan recension (according to Griesbach's system) preserves the Greek idiom still purer than the Alexandrine, and resembles the Western in its use of copious and explanatory readings. It is likewise mixed, throughout, with the readings of the other recensions.

The Asiatic recension of Scholz coincides with the Western in its supplementary and explanatory readings; and his Byzantine or Constantinopolitan family with the Alexandrine in the affinity of certain manuscripts, which in some instances is so great as to prove that they had one common origin.2

The system of recensions, above proposed by Bengel and Semler, and completed by the late celebrated critic Dr. Griesbach, has been subjected to a very severe critical ordeal; and has been formidably attacked, on the continent by the late M. Matthæi, and in this country by the Rev. Dr. Laurence (now archbishop of Cashel), and the Rev. Frederic Nolan.

3. Totally disregarding Griesbach's system of recensions, M. Matthæi recognises only one class or family of manuscripts, which he terms Codices textûs perpetui, and pronounces every thing that is derived from commentaries and scholia to be corrupt. As the manuscripts of the New Testament, which he found in the library of the Synod, came originally from Mount Athos, and other parts of the Greek empire, and as the Russian church is a daughter of the Greek

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 163–177. Griesbach's Symbole Critice, tom. i. pp. cxvii.-cxxii. cxxxvii. clvii.-clxiv. tom. ii. pp. 132-148. Griesbach's edit. of the New Test. vol. i. Proleg. pp. lxxiii.-lxxxi. edit. Hala, 1796.

2 Dr. Scholz has given numerous examples of the characteristics of the several recensions above noticed. Cur. Crit. in Hist. Text. Evang. pp. 31-42. 46–51. 3 In his " Remarks on the Classification of Manuscripts adopted by Griesbach in his edition of the New Testament," (8vo. Oxford, 1814.) For learned and elaborate analyses of Dr. Laurence's work, see the Eclectic Review for 1815, vol. iv. N. S. pp. 1-22. 173-189., and particularly the British Critic for 1814, vol. i. N. S. pp. 173-192. 296-315. 401-428.

church, those manuscripts consequently contain what Griesbach has called the Byzantine Text; which Matthæi admits to be the only authentic text, excluding the Alexandrine and Western recensions, and also rejecting all quotations from the fathers of the Greek church. To the class of manuscripts to which the Codex Beza, the Codex Claromontanus, and others of high antiquity belong, he gave, in the preface to his edition of Saint John's Gospel, the appellation of editio scurrilis, nor did he apply softer epithets to those critics who ventured to defend such manuscripts.1

4. The last system of recensions which remains to be noticed is that of the Rev. F. Nolan. It is developed in his " Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or received Text of the New Testament, in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed, the Integrity of the authorised Text vindicated, and the various Readings traced to their Origin." (London, 1815, 8vo.)2 That integrity he has confessedly established by a series of proofs and connected arguments, the most decisive that can be reasonably desired or expected: but as these occupy nearly six hundred closely printed pages, the limits of this section necessarily restrict us to the following concise notice of his elaborate system.

It has been an opinion as early as the times of Bishop Walton, that the purest text of the scripture canon had been preserved at Alexandria; the libraries of that city having been celebrated from an early period for their correct and splendid copies. From the identity of any MS. in its peculiar readings, with the scripture quotations of Origen, who presided in the catechetical school of Alexandria, a strong presumption arises that it contains the Alexandrine recension: the supposition being natural, that Origen drew his quotations from the copies generally prevalent in his native country. This, as we have seen, was the basis of Dr. Griesbach's system of recensions : accordingly he ascribes the highest rank to the manuscripts of the Alexandrine class, the authority of a few of which in his estimation outweighs that of a multitude of the Byzantine. The peculiar readings, which he selects from the manuscripts of this class, he confirms by a variety of collateral testimony, principally drawn from the quotations of the antient fathers and the versions made in the primitive ages. To the authority of Origen, however, he ascribes a paramount weight, taking it as the standard by which his collateral testimony is to be estimated; and using their evidence merely to support his testimony, or to supply it when it is deficient. The readings which he supports by this weight of testimony, he considers genuine; and, introducing a number of them into the sacred page, he has thus formed his corrected text of the New Testament. The necessary result of this process, as obviously proving the existence of a great number of spurious readings, has been that of shaking the authority of the au

1 Schoell, Hist. de la Littérature Grècque, tom. ii. p. 136. Bishop Marsh's Lectures, part ii. p. 30.

2 There is a copious analysis of this work in the British Critic, (N. S.) vol. v. pp. 1-24, from which, and from the work itself, the present notice of Mr. Nolan's system of recensions is derived,

thorised English version, together with the foundation on which it

rests.

In combating the conclusions of Griesbach, Mr. Nolan argues from the inconstancy of Origen's quotations, that no certain conclusion can be deduced from his testimony; he infers from the history of Origen, who principally wrote and published in Palestine, that the text, quoted by that antient father, was rather the Palestine than the Alexandrine and he proves, from the express testimony of Saint Jerome, that the text of Origen was really adopted in Palestine, while that of Hesychius was adopted at Alexandria.

Having thus opened the question, and set it upon the broader ground assumed by those critics, who confirm the readings of the Alexandrine text, by the coincidence of the antient versions of the Oriental and Western churches; Mr. N. combats this method, proposed for investigating the genuine texts, in two modes. He first shows that a coincidence between the Western and Oriental churches does not necessarily prove the antiquity of the text which they mutually support; as the versions of the former church were corrected, after the texts of the latter, by Jerome and Cassiodorus, who may have thus created the coincidence, which is taken as a proof of the genuine reading. In the next place, he infers, from the prevalence of a text published by Eusebius of Cæsarea, and from the comparatively late period at which the Oriental Versions were formed, that their general coincidence may be traced to the influence of Eusebius's edition. This position he establishes, by a proof deduced from the general prevalence of Eusebius's sections and canons in the Greek MSS. and antient versions, and by a presumption derived from the agreements of those texts and versions with each other in omitting several passages contained in the Vulgate Greek, which were at variance with Eusebius's peculiar opinions. And having thus established the general influence of Eusebius's text, he generally concludes against the stability of the critical principles on which the German critics have undertaken the correction of the Greek Vulgate.

The material obstacles being thus removed to the establishment of his plan, Mr. Nolan next proceeds to investigate the different classes of text which exist in the Greek manuscripts. Having briefly con sidered the scripture quotations of the fathers, and shown that they afford no adequate criterion for reducing the text into classes, he proceeds to the consideration of the antient translations, and after an examination of the Oriental versions, more particularly of the Sahidic, he comes to the conclusion, that no version but the Latin can be taken as a safe guide in ascertaining the genuine text of Scripture. This point being premised, the author lays the foundation of his scheme of classification, in the following observations.

1 In the course of this discussion, Mr. Nolan assigns adequate reasons for the emission of the following remarkable passages, Mark xvi. 9-20. John viii. 1-11, and for the peculiar readings of the following celebrated texts, Acts xx. 28. 1 Tim iii. 16. 1 John v. 7. See his Inquiry, pp. 35-41.

"In proceeding to estimate the testimony which the Latin translation bears to the state of the Greek text, it is necessary to premise, that this translation exhibits three varieties :- as corrected by Saint Jerome at the desire of Pope Damasus, and preserved in the Vulgate; as corrected by Eusebius of Verceli, at the desire of Pope Julius, and preserved in the Codex Vercellensis; and as existing previously to the corrections of both, and preserved, as I conceive, in the Codex Brixianus. The first of these three editions of the Italic translation is too well known to need any description; both the last are contained in beautiful manuscripts, preserved at Verceli, and at Brescia, in Italy. The curious and expensive manner in which at least the latter of these manuscripts is executed, as written on purple vellum in silver characters, would of itself contain no inconclusive proof of its great antiquity; such having been the form in which the most esteemed works were executed in the times of Eusebius, Chrysostome, and Jerome. The former is ascribed, by immemorial tradition, to Eusebius Vercellensis, the friend of Pope Julius and Saint Athanasius, and, as supposed to have been written with his own hand, is deposited among the relics, which are preserved, with a degree of superstitious reverence, in the author's church at Verceli in Piedmont. By these three editions of the translation, we might naturally expect to acquire some insight into the varieties of the original; and this expectation is fully justified on experiment. The latter, not less than the former, is capable of being distributed into three kinds; each of which possesses an extraordinary coincidence with one of a correspondent kind, in the translation. In a word, the Greek manuscripts are capable of being divided into three principal classes, one of which agrees with the Italic translation contained in the Brescia manuscript; another with that contained in the Verceli manuscript; and a third with that contained in the Vulgate."

Specimens of the nature and closeness of the coincidence of these three classes are annexed by Mr. Nolan, in separate columns, from which the four following examples are selected. He has prefixed the readings of the received text and authorised English version, (from Matt. v. 38. 41. and 44.), in order to evince their coincidence with that text, to which the preference appears to be due, on account of its conformity to the Italic translation contained in the Codex Brixfanus.

Auth.

- pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you. προσεύχεσθε ύπερ των επηρεαζόντων και διωκόντων ὑμας. Cant. προσεύχεσθε ύπερ των διωκόντων ύμας. Vat.

orate pro calumniantibus et perse-
quentibus vos. Verc.

orate pro persequentibus et calum-
niantibus vos. Vulg.
orate pro calumniantibus vobis et
persequentibus vos.

Brix.

προσεύχεσθε ύπερ των επηρεάζοντων ύμας, και διωκοντων ύμας. Mosc. The preceding short specimen will sufficiently evince the affinity subsisting between the Latin and Greek manuscripts, throughout the different classes into which they may be divided at the same time it will illustrate the dissimilarity which those classes exhibit among themselves, in either language, regarded separately. Still further to evince the affinity which in other respects they possess among themselves, Mr. Nolan exhibits a connected portion, comprising the first twelve verses of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, in the original and the translation; from which we select the six following examples :