On these different classes of manuscripts in the Greek and Latin, Mr. Nolan remarks, that it must be evident, on the most casual inspection, that the manuscripts in both languages possess the same text, though manifestly of different classes. "They respectively possess that identity in the choice of terms and arrangement of the language, which is irreconcileable with the notion of their having descended from different archetypes. And though these classes, in either language, vary among themselves, yet, as the translation follows the varieties of the original, the Greek and Latin consequently afford each other mutual confirmation. The different classes of text in the Greek and Latin translation, as thus coinciding, may be regarded as the conspiring testimony of those churches, which were appointed the witnesses and keepers of Holy Writ, to the existence of three species of text in the original and in the translation."

Having thus produced the testimony of the eastern and western churches to the existence of these classes, the learned inquirer proceeds to ascertain the antiquity of the classes: which he effects by the Latin translation.

"As the existence of a translation necessarily implies the priority of the original from which it was formed; this testimony may be directly referred to the close of the fourth century. The Vulgate must be clearly referred to that period, as it was then formed by St. Jerome; in its bare existence, of course, the correspondent antiquity of the Greek text, with which it agrees, is directly established. This version is, however, obviously less antient than that of the Verceli or

1 Nolan's Inquiry, p. 70.

Brescia manuscript; as they are of the old Italic translation, while it properly constitutes the new. In the existence of the antient version, the antiquity of the original text with which it corresponds is consequently established. The three classes of text, which correspond with the Vulgate and Old Italic Version, must be consequently referred to a period not less remote than the close of the fourth century."

The system of classification being thus carried up as high as the fourth century, Mr. Nolan justifies it by the testimony of Jerome ; for this learned father, who lived at that period, asserts the existence of three classes of text in the same age, which respectively prevailed in Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople. The identity of these classes with the different classes of text which still exist in the Greek original and Latin translation, our author then proceeds to establish. And this he effects by means of the manuscripts which have been written, the versions which have been published, and the collations which have been made, in the different countries to which St. Jerome refers his classes; founding every part of his proofs on the testimony of Adler, Birch, Woide, Munter, and other critics who have analysed the text and versions of the New Testament.

The result of this investigation is, that the three classes of text, which are discoverable in the Greek manuscripts, are nearly identical with the three editions, which existed in the age of Jerome; with which they are identified by their coincidence with the Latin translation which existed in the age of that Christian father. Of the first class, the Codex Beze or Cambridge manuscript, is an exemplar: it contains the text, which Jerome refers to Egypt, and ascribes to Hesychius. Of the second class, the Codex Vaticanus, or Vatican manuscript forms the exemplar, and contains the text, which Jerome refers to Palestine, and ascribes to Eusebius; and of the third class, the Moscow manuscript, collated by Matthæi, and by him noted with the letter V. and the Harleian manuscript in the British Museum, No. 5684, noted G. by Griesbach, are the exemplars, and contain the text which Jerome attributes to Lucian, and refers to Constantinople. The result of Mr. Nolan's long and elaborate discussion is, that, as the Occidental or Western Alexandrine, and Byzantine texts, (according to Griesbach's system of recensions) respectively coincide with the Egyptian, Palestine, and Byzantine texts of Mr. N., we have only to substitute the term Egyptian for Western, and Palestine for Alexandrine, in order to ascertain the particular text of any manuscript which is to be referred to a peculiar class or edition. "The artifice of this substitution admits of this simple tion: the Egyptian text was imported by Eusebius of Verceli in the West, and the Palestine text republished by Euthalius at Alexandria, the Byzantine text having retained the place in which it was originally published by Lucianus. In a word, a manuscript which harmonises with the Codex 1 Nolan's Inquiry, pp. 70, 71.

2 To which is now to be added the Peschito or Old Syriac version. The identity above noticed Mr. Nolan purposes fully to illustrate, in a future edition of his "Inquiry."

Cantabrigiensis, must be referred to the first class, and will contain the text of Egypt. One, which harmonises with the Vatican manuscript, must be referred to the second class, and will contain the text of Palestine. And one, which harmonises with the Moscow manuscript, must be referred to the third class, and will contain the text of Constantinople."

991

The advantages resulting from the system of recensions just developed are twofold: - In the first place, it leads not only to a more adequate method of classification, but also to the discovery of a more antient text, by means of the priority of the old Italic Version to the New or Vulgate Latin of Jerome. And, secondly, it coincides with the respective schemes of Dr. Griesbach and of M. Matthæi, and derives support from their different systems. It adopts the three classes of the former, with a slight variation merely in the name of the classes; and, in ascertaining the genuine text, it attaches the same authority to the old Italic translation, which the same distinguished critic has ascribed to that version. It likewise agrees with the scheme of Matthæi, in giving the preference to the Kon Exdoris, the Greek Vulgate or Byzantine text, over the Palestine and Egyptian, but it supports the authority of this text on firmer grounds than the concurrence of the Greek manuscripts. "Hence, while it differs from the scheme of M. Matthæi, in building on the Old Italic Version, it differs from that of Dr. Griesbach, in distinguishing the copies of this translation, which are free from the influence of the Vulgate, from those which have been corrected since the times of Eusebius of Verceli, of Jerome, and Cassiodorus. And it affords a more satisfactory mode of disposing of the multitude of various readings, than that suggested by the latter, who refers them to the intentional or accidental corruptions of transcribers; or by that of the former, who ascribes them to the correction of the original Greek by the Latin translation: as it traces them to the influence of the text which was published by Eusebius, at the command of Constantine." We may therefore safely adopt the system of recensions proposed by Mr. Nolan in preference to any other not only on account of its comprehensiveness, but also because (independently of its internal consistency, and the historical grounds on which it is exclusively built,) it embraces the different systems to which it is opposed, and reconciles their respective inconsistencies. But, notwithstanding the strong we may add, indisputable claims to precedence which his system of recensions possesses, the classification of recensions proposed by Griesbach has obtained such a general reception as will prevent the adoption of Mr. Nolan's system much beyond the ts of this country. In giving a decided preference to the latter, the othor of this work trusts that he shall be acquitted of any intention to undervalue the critical labours of Dr. Griesbach, which, from the comprehensive brevity of his plan of classifying manuscripts, and the scrupulous accuracy of his execution of it, have unquestionably rendered the highest service to sacred literature. As a general and correct index to the great body of Greek

Nolan's Inquiry, pp. 105, 106.

manuscripts, they are an invaluable treasure to the scholar, and a necessary acquisition to the divine at the same time, his collection of various readings is admirably calculated to satisfy our minds on a point of the highest moment, the integrity of the Christian Records. Through the long interval of seventeen hundred years, — amidst the collision of parties, the opposition of enemies and the desolations of time, they remain the same as holy men read them in the primitive ages of Christianity. A very minute examination of manuscripts, versions, and fathers, proves the inviolability of the Christian Scriptures. "They all coincide in exhibiting the same Gospels, Acts, and Epistles; and among all the copies of them which have been preserved, there is not one which dissents from the rest either in the doctrines or precepts, which constitute Christianity. They ALL contain the same doctrines and precepts. For the knowledge of this fact we are indebted to such men as Griesbach, whose zealous and persevering labours to put us in possession of it entitle them to our grateful reInembrance. To the superficial, and to the novice, in theology, the long periods of life, and the patient investigation, which have been applied to critical investigation, may appear as mere waste, or, at the best, as only amusing employment; but to the serious inquirer, who, from his own conviction, can declare that he is not following cunningly devised fables, the time, the talents, and the learning, which have been devoted to critical collation, will be accounted as well expended, for the result which they have accomplished. The real theologian is satisfied from his own examination, that the accumulation of many thousands of various readings, obtained at the expense of immense critical labour, does not affect a single sentiment in the whole New Testament. And thus is criticism, which some despise, and others neglect, found to be one of those undecaying columns, by which the imperishable structure of Christian Truth is supported."

VI. From the coincidence observed between many Greek manuscripts and the Vulgate, or some other Latin version, a suspicion arose in the minds of several eminent critics, that the Greek text had been altered throughout to the Latin; and it has been asserted that at the council of Florence, (held in 1439 with the view of establishing an union between the Greek and Latin churches,) a resolution was formed, that the Greeks should alter their manuscripts from the Latin. This has been termed by the learned, Fœdus cum Græcis. The suspicion, concerning the altering of the Greek text, seems to have been first suggested by Erasmus, but it does not appear that he supposed the alterations were made before the fifteenth century: so that the charge of Latinising the manus ots did not (at least in his notion of it) extend to the original writers of the manuscript, or, as they are called, the writers a primâ manu; since it affected only the writers a secundâ manu, or subsequent interpolators. The accusation was adopted and extended by Father Simon and Dr. Mill, and especially by Wetstein. Bengel expressed some doubts concerning it; and it was formally questioned by Semler, Griesbach, and Woide. The 1 Eclectic Review, vol. v. part i. p. 189.

reasonings of the two last mentioned critics convinced Michaelis (who had formerly agreed with Erasmus) that the charge of Latinising was unfounded; and in the fourth edition of his Introduction to the New Testament (the edition translated by Bishop Marsh), with a candour of which there are too few examples, Michaelis totally abandoned his first opinion, and expressed his opinion that the pretended agreement in the Fadus cum Græcis is a mere conjecture of Erasmus, to which he had recourse as a refuge in a matter of controversy. Carrying the proof to its utmost length, it only shows that the Latin translations and the Greek copies were made from the same exemplars; which rather proves the antiquity of the Latin translations, than the corruption of the Greek copies. It is further worthy of remark, that Jerome corrected the Latin from the Greek, a circumstance which is known in every part of the Western church. Now, as Michaelis justly observes, when it was known that the learned father had made the Greek text the basis of his alterations in the Latin translation, it is scarcely to be imagined that the transcribers of the Western Church would alter the Greek by the Latin; and it is still less probable, that those of the Eastern Church would act in this manner.

2. ACCOUNT Of greek manusCRIPTS CONTAINIng the old and new

TESTAMENTS.

I. The Alexandrian Manuscript. —II. The Vatican Manuscript. OF the few manuscripts known to be extant, which contain_the Greek Scriptures (that is, the Old Testament, according to the Septuagint Version, and the New Testament), there are two which preeminently demand the attention of the Biblical student for their antiquity and intrinsic value, viz. The Alexandrian manuscript, which is preserved in the British Museum, and the Vatican manuscript, deposited in the library of the Vatican Palace at Rome.

I. The CODEX ALEXANDRINUS, or Alexandrian Manuscripts which is noted by the letter A. in Wetstein's and Griesbach's critical editions of the New Testament, consists of four folio volumes; the three first contain the whole of the Old Testament, together with the Apocryphal books, and the fourth comprises the New Testament, the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Apocryphal Psalms ascribed to Solomon. In the New Testament there is wanting the beginning as far as Matt. xxv. 6. o vuμpios exeraι; likewise from John vi. 50. to viii. 52. and from 2 Cor. iv. 13. to xii. 7. The Psalms are preceded by the epistf Athanasius to Marcellinus, and followed by a catalogue, containing those which are to be used in prayer for each hour, both of the day and of the night; also by fourteen hymns, partly apocryphal, partly biblical, the eleventh of which is a hymn in praise of the Virgin Mary, entitled προσευχη Μαρίας της Θεοτο Xou the arguments of Eusebius are annexed to the Psalms, and his 1 Michaelis's Introduction, vol. ii. part i. pp. 163–173. Butler's Hore Biblicæ, vol. i. p. 125.