In the year i814, Dr. Laurence published objec tions to Griesbach's system, many of which are un founded. Some of his observations are pertinent and fair ; more are irrelevant. He does not show much appreciation of the comparative value of MSS. and texts ; and reasons in a sort of mechanical method against Griesbach. It is evident that he was somewhat prejudiced against the Alexandrian recension. Observations like the following show an animus against the German critic : Too much dazzled, perhaps, by the splendour of intricate and perplexing research, he overlooked what lay im mediately before him. When he threw his critical bowl among the established theories of his prede cessors, he too hastily attempted to set up his own, without having first totally demolished theirs ; for: getting that the very nerve of his criticism was a principle of hostility to every standard text' (Re marks upon the Systematic Classification of AISS. adopted by Griesbach, p. 57). The pamphlet of the Oxford scholar is now almost forgotten ; • yet it pro duced considerable effect at the time of its appear ance, when the reprinting of Griesbach's Greek Testament in England was associated with the active dissemination of Unitarian tenets, and the accom plished German himself was unjustly charged with leaning to similar views.
In America, Mr. Norton subsequently animad verted upon the same system with considerable acuteness and plausibility. It is evident, however, that he did not fully understand all Griesbach's sentiments. He had not studied the peculiar read. ings of MSS., the quotations of the Fathers, and the characteristics of ancient versions. Yet he has urged some objections forcibly and conclusively against the adoption of the system.
Hug's theory of recensions, as far as it differs from Griesbach's, is without foundation. It makes Origen use the KOZVii giCoOLTIS ; whereas his usual text agrees with the Alexandrian. The Hesychian recension was employed at least a hundred years previously by Clement of Alexandria ; and that Hesychius was really the author of a recension is historically baseless. Ile may have corrected, in some places, a few copies which he used. The recension attributed to Lucian is also destitute of historical proof. The basis of this is supposed to have been the xa:v3.2 Moats as it existed in Syria. Again, it is very improbable that Origen undertook to revise the xowii It is true that Jerome appeals to the exemplars of Origen ; but this does not imply that the latter made a revision of exist ing copies. The Alexandrian father used copies of the N. T. selected with care, and probably corrected them in various places ; but he did not undertake in his old age the laborious task of making a peculiar revision. The silence of ancient writers, especially of Eusebius, who is most copious in his praises of Origen, speaks strongly against the critical studies of the Alexandrian father in the N. T. text. We believe, therefore, that the recension-system of Hug is unsustained by his torical data. Succeeding critics have refused to adopt it. Griesbach himself made several perti nent objections to it. It was also assailed by Schott, Rinck, Gabler, and others. Mr. Norton, too, opposed it.
Nolan's system is fundamentally wrong. There is no evidence that the Codex Brixianus contains the Latin version in its oldest form ; and therefore the assumed connection of it with the Byzantine text fails to show that the latter is the most ancient and best representative of the original Greek. The Codex Brixianus, on the contrary, is itself a revision of the old Latin text. Nolan thinks that the Codex Vercellensis has a text corrected by Euse bius of Vercelli, after that which he brought from Egypt on his return from exile. But this form of the text circulated in the West before Eusebius ; and the Palestinian recension, which he supposes to have been introduced into Alexandria by Eu thallus, was there before. Thus the system so in geniously elaborated by the critic is historically erroneous. It introduces arbitrary and baseless conjectures into the department of criticism, ignores facts, and deals in unjust accusations against ancient writers, such as Eusebius of Cmsarea, who were as honest as the zealous upholder himself of the Byzan tine text. All attempts to maintain the most re cent, in opposition to the most ancient text, must necessarily fail.
Thoroughly erroneous as Nolan's theory is, it was eagerly welcomed by some advocates of the received text in England. Mr. Horne could say of it, even in the ninth edition of his introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Scrip tures, The integrity of the Greek Vulgate he has confessedly established by a series of proofs and connected arguments, the most decisive that can be reasonably desired or expected !' With regard to Scholz's system, which is iden• tical with Bengel's, it may be preferable to Griesbach's as far as it allows but two classes of documents. It is certainly simpler. His estimate, however, of the value of families is erroneous. He failed to prove that the particular form of the text current in Asia Minor and Greece during the first three centuries was the same as that presented by the Constantinopolitan MSS. of a much later date. He did not show that the Byzantine family was derived from the autographs of the original writers in a very pure state ; and he was obliged to admit that the text which obtained at Con stantinople in the reigns of Constantine and Con stance was collated with the Alexandrian ; a cir cumstance which would naturally give rise to a mingling of readings belonging to both. Euse bius states that he made out fifty copies of the N. T. for the use of the churches at Constantinople, at the request of Constantine ; and as we know that he gave a decided preference to Alexandrian copies, it cannot be doubted that he followed those sanctioned by Origen's authority. Constantinopol itan codices differ in their characteristic readings from the Alexandrian ; but the preference belongs to the latter, not the former. Why should junior be placed above older documents ? Antiquity may be overbalanced by other considerations ; and certainly the Alexandrian MSS. are neither fault less nor pure. But the Byzantine and later MSS. are more corrupt. Numbers must not be con sidered decisive of right readings in opposition to antiquity; yet numbers had an undue influence on Scholz's mind. Rinck has refuted his supposed proofs of the superiority of Constantinopolitan MSS. ; and Tischendorf has more elaborately done the same, in the preface to his first edition of the Greek Testament (t841). In fact, Scholz's histo rical proofs are no better than fictions which true history rejects.
No definite system of recensions, such as those of Griesbach, Hug, and Scholz, can be made out, because lines of division cannot be drawn with accuracy. Our knowledge of the ways in which the early text was deteriorated, of the influences to which it was exposed, the corrections it underwent in different places at different times, the methods in which it was copied, the principles, if such there were, on which transcribers proceeded, is too meagre to build up a secure structure. The sub ject must, therefore, remain in obscurity. Its genius is such as to give rise to endless specula tion, without affording much real knowledge. It is vague, indefinite, shadowy ; awakening curiosity without satisfying it. Yet we are not disposed to reject the entire system of classification as visionary. It is highly useful to arrange the materials. The existence of certain characteristic readings may be clearly traced in various monuments of the text ; however much we may speculate on their causes. It is true that in several cases it is very difficult to distinguish the family to which a particular reading belongs, because its characteristics may be divided between two classes. Or they may be so mixed that it is almost impossiLle to detect the family with which it should be united. The evidences of its relationship may be so obscure as to render the determination of its appropriate recension a subtle problem. It is also unquestionable, that no one MS. version or Father exhibits a recension ha a pure state ; but that each form of the text appears more or less corrupted.
The speculations of the critics to which we have referred have had one advantage—viz., that they have made the characteristic readings of MSS. better understood, and enabled us to group together certain documents presenting the same form of text. Thus in the gospels