xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Critics and Divines (as Origen

and Eusebius); Poets (as Rogers); Painters (as West);—yes, and will continue to mislead readers for many a year to come:—and all because men have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect. Translate,—“There _had been_ a great earthquake:” [and so (1611-1881) our margin,—until in short “the Revisionists” interfered:] “for the Angel of the LORD _had_ descended from heaven, and _come and rolled away_ (ἀπεκύλισε) the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” Strange, that for 1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that the Evangelist is describing what terrified “_the keepers_.” “_The women_” saw no Angel sitting upon the stone!—though Origen,(502)—Dionysius of Alexandria,(503)—Eusebius,(504)—ps.-Gregory Naz.,(505)—Cyril Alex.,(506)—Hesychius,(507)—and so many others—have taken it for granted that they _did_.

(_e_) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pass on,)—There are occasions where the Greek _perfect_ exacts the sign of the _present_ at the hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,—“Yea LORD, I _believe_ that Thou art the CHRIST” (S. Jo. xi. 27).(508) What else but the veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there “_I have believed_,” as the English equivalent for πεπίστευκα?—Just as intolerable is the officiousness which would thrust into the LORD’S prayer (Matt. vi. 12), “as we also _have forgiven_ (ἀφήκαμεν) our debtors.”(509)—On the other hand, there are Greek _presents_ (whatever the Revisionists may think) which are just as peremptory in requiring _the sign of the future_, at the hands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found in S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future is _inherent_ in the present ἔρχομαι! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure, “I will not leave you desolate: _I come unto you_”?

(_f_) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate rendering of ἐκκόπτεται—ἐκβάλλεται—has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10, S. Lu. iii. 9?

V. Next, concerning the DEFINITE ARTICLE; in the case of which, (say the Revisionists,)

“many changes have been made.” “We have been careful to observe the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to necessity.”—(_Preface_, iii. 2,—_ad fin._)

In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader’s judgment; and invite him to decide between the Reviewer and the Reviewed ... “_The_ sower went forth to sow” (Matth. xiii. 3).—“It is greater than _the_ herbs” (ver. 32).—“Let him be to thee as _the_ Gentile and _the_ publican” (xviii. 17).—“The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of _the_ man” (xii. 43).—“Did I not choose you _the_ twelve?” (Jo. vi. 70).—“If I then, _the_ Lord and _the_ master” (xiii. 14).—“For _the_ joy that a man is born into the world” (xvi. 21).—“But as touching Apollos _the_ brother” (1 Cor. xvi. 12).—“_The_ Bishop must be blameless ... able to exhort in _the_ sound doctrine” (Titus i. 7, 9).—“_The_ lust when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and _the_ sin, when it is full grown” &c. (James i. 15).—“Doth _the_ fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?” (iii. 11).—“Speak thou the things which befit _the_ sound doctrine” (Titus ii. 1).—“The time will come when they will not endure _the_ sound doctrine” (2 Tim. iv. 3).—“We had _the_ fathers of our flesh to chasten us” (Heb. xii. 9).—“Follow after peace with all men, and _the_ sanctification” (ver. 14).—“Who is _the_ liar but he that denieth that JESUS is the CHRIST?” (1 Jo. ii. 22).—“Not with _the_ water only, but with _the_ water and with _the_ blood” (v. 6).—“He that hath the SON, hath _the_ life: he that hath not the SON of GOD hath not _the_ life” (ver. 12).

To rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the definite Article is found in all these places in the original Greek,—is preposterous. In French also we say “Telle est _la_ vie:” but, in translating from the French, we do not _therefore_ say “Such is _the_ life.” May we, without offence, suggest the study of Middleton _On the Doctrine of the Greek Article_ to those members of the Revisionists’ body who have favoured us with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings?

So, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with,—“_An_ eternal” (for “_the_ everlasting”) “gospel to proclaim” (Rev. xiv. 6):—and “one like unto _a_ son of man,” for “one like unto _the_ Son of Man” in ver. 14.—Why “_a_ SAVIOUR” in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv. 12).—On the other hand, Κρανίον is rendered “_The_ skull” in S. Lu. xxiii. 33. It is hard to see why.—These instances taken at random must suffice. They might be multiplied to any extent. If the Reader considers that the idiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these specimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry—_for him_.

VI. The Revisionists announce that they “have been particularly careful” as to THE PRONOUNS [iii. 2 _ad fin._] We recal with regret that this is also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended. Annoyed—at their practice of _repeating the nominative_ (_e.g._ in Mk. i. 13: Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language, except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended—at their license of translation, _when it suits them_ to be licentious.—Thus, (as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,) “_it is He that_” is an incorrect translation of αὐτός in S. Matth. i. 21,—a famous passage. Even worse, because it is unfair, is “_He who_” as the rendering of ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—another famous passage, which we have discussed elsewhere.(510)

VII. ’In the case of the PARTICLES’ (say the Revisionists),

“we have been able to maintain a reasonable amount of _consistency_. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to preserve a general _uniformity of rendering_.”—(iii. 2 _ad fin._)

Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek Particles,—(especially throughout the period when the Language was in its decadence,)—are the least capable of being drilled into “a general uniformity of rendering;” and he who tries the experiment ought to be the first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they impart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from the very nature of the case, “_uniformity of rendering_” is precisely the thing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context: often mean two quite different things in the course of two successive verses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word;(511) sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or inconvenience) be rendered _at all_.(512) Let us illustrate what we have been saying by actual appeals to Scripture.

(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred Writers make of the particle of most frequent recurrence—δέ. It is said to be employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the unimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it may be represented by any of the following words:—“but,”—“and,”(513)—“yea,”(514)—“what,”(515)—“now,”(516)—“and that”,(517)—“howbeit,”(518)—“even,”(519)—“therefore,”(520)—“I say,”(521)—“also,”(522)—“yet,”(523)—“for.”(524) To which 12 renderings, King James’s translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at least these other 12:—“wherefore,”(525)—“so,”(526)—“moreover,”(527)—“yea and,”(528)—“furthermore,”(529)—“nevertheless,”(530)—“notwithstanding,”(531)—“yet but,”(532)—“truly,”(533)—“or,”(534)—“as for,”(535)—“then,”(536)—“and yet.”(537) It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of “but” or “and” on _most_ of the foregoing occasions, the freshness and freedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact being that the men of 1611—above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them—produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas the men of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described as _a spirit of servile pedantry_. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the lecture-room,—the startling fact that μέν means “indeed,” and δέ “but.”

We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William Tyndale), “But now are they many members, YET BUT one body.” Our Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that δέ means “but,” and yielding to the supposed “necessity for preserving a general uniformity of rendering,”) substitute,—“_But_ now they are many members, _but_ one body.” Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that δέ occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by “but” in the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion, “YET BUT” ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the changes which have been effected _many times in every page_. To proceed however.

(2) The interrogative particle ἤ occurs at the beginning of a sentence at least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often scarcely translateable,—being apparently invested with with no more emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative “_Eh?_” But sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by “Pray,”(538)—being at least equivalent to φέρε in Greek or _age_ in Latin. Once only (viz. in 1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered it “What?”—by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been represented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the places where the particle occurs. King James’s Translators are observed to have give it up in despair.(539) But what is to be thought of the adventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated) has _invariably_ rendered ἤ by the conjunction “_or_”? The blunder is the more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed to attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.

(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words.—Καί, though no particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably spoken of under the same head; being diversely rendered “and,”—“and yet,”(540)—“then,”(541)—“or,”(542)—“neither,”(543)—“though,”(544)—“so,”(545)—“but,”(546)—“for,”(547)—“that,”(548)—in conformity with what may be called the genius of the English language. The last six of these renderings, however, our Revisionists disallow; everywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to require, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word, “and.” With what amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will sufficiently illustrate:—

(_a_) The Revisionists inform us that when “the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,”—S. Paul exclaimed, “GOD shall smite thee, thou whited wall: AND sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?”(549)... Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved upon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering “FOR” into “AND”?

(_b_) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews, remarks,—“_So_ we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief” (Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists again substitute “And.” Begin the sentence with “AND,” (instead of “So,”) and, in compensation for what you have clearly _lost_, what have you _gained_?... Once more:—

(_c_) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12), and then say what possible advantage is obtained by writing “AND” (instead of “BUT”) “his will was not at all to come at this time”.... Yet once more; and on _this_ occasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:—

(_d_) When S. James (i. 11) says ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος ... καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον,—_who_ knows not that what his language strictly means in idiomatic English, is,—“_No sooner_ does the sun arise,” “_than_ it withereth the grass”? And so in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible improvement on this can it be to substitute, “For the sun ariseth ... AND withereth the grass”?—Only once more:—

(_e_) Though καί undeniably means “and,” and πῶς, “how,”—_who_ knows not that καὶ πῶς means “_How then?_” And yet, (as if a stupid little boy had been at work,) in two places,—(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx. 44,)—“AND HOW” is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment of the discourse; while in other two,—(namely, in S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)—the text itself has been mercilessly deprived of its characteristic καί by the Revisionists.—Let this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with such instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, and _most unscholarlike_ innovation.

VIII. “Many changes” (we are informed) “have been introduced in the rendering of the PREPOSITIONS.” [_Preface_, iii. 2, _ad fin._]:—and we are speedily reminded of the truth of the statement, for (as was shown above [pp. 155-6]) the second chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel exhibits the Revisionists “all a-field” in respect of διά. “We have rarely made any change” (they add) “where the true meaning of the original would be apparent to _a Reader of ordinary intelligence_.” It would of course ill become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing flattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads (in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down “_through the wall_,” he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggest _how_ the operation was effected: for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply unintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket (σπυρίς) in which the Apostle effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable them _both_ to get through!... But let us look further.

Was it then in order to bring Scripture within the _captus_ of “a Reader of ordinary intelligence” that the Revisers have introduced no less than _thirty changes_ into _eight-and-thirty words_ of S. Peter’s 2nd Epistle? Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of “_Revision_.” It is the only one we shall offer of the many _contrasts_ we had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers will consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with the Preposition ἐν?

A. V. R. V. “And beside all this, “Yea (1), and for (2) giving all diligence, add this very (3) cause (4) to your faith virtue; and adding (5) on (6) your to virtue knowledge; and part (7) all diligence, to knowledge temperance; in (8) your faith supply and to temperance (9) virtue; and in (10) patience; and to patience your (11) virtue godliness; and to knowledge; and in (12) godliness brotherly your (13) knowledge kindness; and to temperance; and in (14) brotherly kindness your (15) temperance charity.”—[2 Pet. i. patience; and in (16) 5-7.] your (17) patience godliness; and in (18) your (19) godliness love (20) of (21) the (22) brethren (23); and in (24) your (25) love (26) of (27) the (28) brethren (29) love (30).”

The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists’ statement (_Preface_, iii. 2),—“We made _no_ change _if the meaning was fairly expressed_ by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version.” To ourselves it appears that _every one of those 30 changes is a change for the worse_; and that one of the most exquisite passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,—rendered in fact well-nigh unintelligible,—by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers. Were they—(if the question be allowable)—bent on removing none but “_plain and clear errors_,” when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token of their stern resolve “to introduce into the Text _as few alterations as possible_,” that they spared the eight words which remain out of the eight-and-thirty?

As for their _wooden_ rendering of ἐν, it ought to suffice to refer them to S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes ἐν can only be rendered “_with_”:—and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that ἐν sometimes means “_throughout_”:—and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that sometimes it means “_by_.”—On the other hand, their suggestion that ἐν may be rendered “_by_” in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that “the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts” is _a phrase_—in which perforce “_by_” has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to teach professed Critics and Scholars an elementary fact like this.

In brief, these learned men are respectfully assured that there is not one of the “Parts of Speech” which will consent to be handled after the inhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they may think of the matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an Angel “casting his sickle _into the earth_” (Rev. xiv. 19).—As for his “pouring out his bowl _upon the air_” (xvi. 17),—we really fail to understand the nature of the operation.—And pray, What is supposed to be the meaning of “the things _upon the heavens_”—in Ephesians i. 10?

Returning to the preposition διά followed by the genitive,—(in respect of which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface [iii. 3 _ad fin._] that in the A. V. “ideas of instrumentality or of mediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have been _confused or obscured in the Translation_,”)—we have to point out:—

(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the proprieties of English speech forbid the use of “_through_” (as a substitute for “_by_”) in certain expressions where instrumentality is concerned. Thus, “the Son of man” was not betrayed “_through_” Judas, but “_by_” him (Matt. xxvi. 24: Luke xxii. 22).—Still less is it allowable to say that a prophecy was “spoken,” nay “_written_,” “_through_ the Prophet” (Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5). “Who spake BY_ the Prophets_,” is even an article of the Faith.

And (2ndly),—That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw method of rendering διά,—sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other. First, they give us “wonders and signs done _by_ the Apostles” (Acts ii. 43; but in the margin, “Or, _through_”): presently, “a notable miracle hath been wrought _through_ them” (iv. 16: and this time, the margin withholds the alternative, “Or, _by_”). Is then “the true meaning” of “_by_,” in the former place, “apparent to a Reader of ordinary intelligence”? but so obscure in the latter as to render _necessary_ the alteration to “_through_”? Or (_sit venia verbo_),—Was it a mere “toss-up” with the Revisionists _what_ is the proper rendering of διά?

(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of “miracles, wonders, and signs” which “GOD did _by_” JESUS of Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on that occasion, forbad the use of “_through_”—even in the margin? We hope so: but the preposition is still the same—διά not ὑπό.

Lastly (4thly),—The doctrine that Creation is the work of the Divine WORD, all Scripture attests. “All things were made _by_ Him” (S. Jo. i. 3):—“the world was made _by_ Him” (ver. 10).—Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the same statement is repeated,—(“all things were created _by_ Him and for Him,”)—do we find “_through_” substituted for “_by_”? And why is the same offence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,—(where we _ought_ to read,—“one GOD, the FATHER, of whom are all things ... and one LORD JESUS CHRIST, _by_ whom are all things”)?—Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of “_by_ whom also [viz. by THE SON] He made the worlds,” do we find substituted “_through_ whom”?... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the wretched vacillation of giving us the choice of “_through_” (in place of “_by_”) in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the alternative of “_by_” (in place of “_through_”) in any of the other places,—although the preposition is διά on every occasion?

And thus much for the Revisers’ handling of the Prepositions. We shall have said all that we can find room for, when we have further directed attention to the uncritical and unscholarlike Note with which they have disfigured the margin of S. Mark i. 9. We are there informed that, according to the Greek, our SAVIOUR “was baptized _into the Jordan_,”—an unintelligible statement to English readers, as well as a misleading one. Especially on their guard should the Revisers have been hereabouts,—seeing that, in a place of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page (viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), they had already substituted “_into_” for “_in_.” This latter alteration, one of the Revisers (Dr. Vance Smith) rejoices over, because it obliterates (in his account) the evidence for Trinitarian doctrine. That the Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing less,—_who_ can doubt? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to append a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public that the preposition εἰς signifies “_into_” rather than “_in_,”—why did they not at least go on to record the elementary fact that εἰς has here (what grammarians call) a “pregnant signification”? that it implies—(every schoolboy knows it!)—_and that it is used in order to imply_—that the Holy One “_went down_ INTO,” and so, “_was baptized_ IN the _Jordan_”?(550)... But _why_, in the name of common sense, _did not the Revisionists let the Preposition alone_?

IX. The MARGIN of the Revision is the last point to which our attention is invited, and in the following terms:—

“The subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention. They represent the results of _a large amount of careful and elaborate discussion_, and will, perhaps, by their very presence, indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions that have almost daily come before us for decision. These Notes fall into four main groups:—_First_, Notes specifying such differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient importance to require a particular notice;—_Secondly_, Notes indicating the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of English idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in the text;—_Thirdly_, Notes, very few in number, affording some explanation which the original appeared to require;—_Fourthly_, Alternative Renderings in difficult or debateable passages. The Notes of this last group are numerous, and largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 years that have passed away since their labours were concluded, the Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every detail, and analysed with a grammatical precision unknown in the days of the last Revision. There has thus been accumulated a large amount of materials that have prepared the way for different renderings, which necessarily came under discussion.”—(_Preface_, iii. 4.)

When a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention to a certain part of their work in such terms as these, it is painful for a Critic to be obliged to declare that he has surveyed this department of their undertaking with even less satisfaction than any other. So long, however, as he assigns _the grounds_ of his dissatisfaction, the Reviewed cannot complain. The Reviewer puts himself into their power. If he is mistaken in his censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the groups in order:—

(1) Having already stated our objections against the many Notes which specify _Textual errors_ which the Revisionists declined to adopt,—we shall here furnish only two instances of the mischief we deplore:—

(_a_) Against the words, “And while they _abode_ in Galilee” (S. Matthew xvii. 22), we find it stated,—“Some ancient authorities read _were gathering themselves together_.” The plain English of which queer piece of information is that א and B exhibit in this place an impossible and untranslatable Reading,—the substitution of which for ἀναστρεφομένων δὲ ἀυτῶν can only have proceeded from some Western critic, who was sufficiently unacquainted with the Greek language to suppose that ΣΥΝ-στρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν, might possibly be the exact equivalent for CON_-versantibus autem illis_. This is not the place for discussing a kind of hallucination which prevailed largely in the earliest age, especially in regions where Greek was habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus it was, obviously, that the preposterous substitution of EURAQUILO for “Euroclydon,” in Acts xxvii. 14, took its rise.) Such blunders would be laughable if encountered anywhere except on holy ground. Apart, however, from the lamentable lack of critical judgment which a marginal note like the present displays, what is to be thought of the scholarship which elicits “_While they were gathering themselves together_” out of συστρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν? Are we to suppose that the clue to the Revisers’ rendering is to be found in (συστρέψαντος) Acts xxviii. 3? We should be sorry to think it. They are assured that the source of the _Textual_ blunder which they mistranslate is to be found, instead, in Baruch iii. 38.(551)

(_b_) For what conceivable reason is the world now informed that, instead of _Melita_,—“some ancient authorities read _Melitene_,” in Acts xxviii. 1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod. B to live on in the margin of every Englishman’s copy of the New Testament, for ever? Why, _all_ other MSS.—the Syriac and the Latin versions,—Pamphilus of Cæsarea(552) (A.D. 294), the friend of Eusebius,—Cyril of Jerusalem,(553)—Chrysostom,(554)—John Damascene,(555)—all the Fathers in short who quote the place;—the coins, the ancient geographers;—_all_ read Μελίτη; which has also been acquiesced in by every critical Editor of the N. T.—(_excepting always Drs. Westcott and Hort_), from the invention of Printing till now. But because these two misguided men, without apology, explanation, note or comment of any kind, have adopted “_Melitene_” into their text, is the Church of England to be dragged through the mire also, and made ridiculous in the eyes of Christendom? This blunder moreover is “gross as a mountain, open, palpable.” One glance at the place, written in uncials, explains how it arose:—ΜελιτηΗΝΗσοσκαλειται. Some stupid scribe (as the reader sees) has connected the first syllable of νῆσος with the last syllable of Μελίτη.(556) _That_ is all! The blunder—(for a blunder it most certainly is)—belongs to the age and country in which “_Melitene_” was by far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan see of Armenia;(557) mention of which crops up in the _Concilia_ repeatedly.(558)

(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered together. The former comprises those words of which the _less exact_ rendering finds place in the Text:—the latter, “_Alternative renderings_ in difficult and debateable passages.”

We presume that here our attention is specially invited to such notes as the following. Against 1 Cor. xv. 34,—“_Awake out of drunkenness righteously_”:—against S. John i. 14,—“_an only begotten from a father_”:—against 1 Pet. iii. 20,—“_into which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water_”:—against 2 Pet. iii. 7,—“_stored with fire_”:—against S. John xviii. 37,—“_Thou sayest it, because I am a king_”:—against Ephes. iii. 21,—“_All the generations of the age of the ages_”:—against Jude ver. 14,—“_His holy myriads_”:—against Heb. xii. 18,—“_a palpable and kindled fire_”:—against Lu. xv. 31,—“_Child_, thou art ever with me”:—against Matth. xxi. 28,—“_Child_, go work to-day in my vineyard”:—against xxiv. 3,—“What shall be the sign of Thy _presence_, and of _the consummation of the age_?”—against Tit. i. 2,—“_before times eternal_”: against Mk. iv. 29,—“When the fruit _alloweth_ [and why not ‘_yieldeth_ itself’?], straightway _he sendeth forth_ the sickle”:—against Ephes. iv. 17,—“_through every joint of the supply_”:—against ver. 29,—“_the building up of the need_”:—against Lu. ii. 29,—“_Master_, now lettest thou Thy _bondservant_ depart in peace”:—against Acts iv. 24,—“O _Master_, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth”:—against Lu. i. 78,—“Because of _the heart of mercy_ of our GOD.” Concerning all such renderings we will but say, that although they are unquestionably better in the Margin than in the Text; it also admits no manner of doubt that they would have been best of all in neither. Were the Revisionists serious when they suggested as the more “exact” rendering of 2 Pet. i. 20,—“No prophecy of Scripture is of _special_ interpretation”? And what did they mean (1 Pet. ii. 2) by “_the spiritual milk which is without guile_”?

Not a few marginal glosses might have been dispensed with. Thus, against διδάσκαλος, upwards of 50 times stands the Annotation, “Or, _teacher_.”—Ἄρτος, (another word of perpetual recurrence,) is every time explained to mean “_a loaf_.” But is this reasonable? seeing that φαγεῖν ἄρτον (Luke xiv. 1) can mean nothing else but “to eat _bread_”: not to mention the petition for “_daily bread_” in the LORD’S prayer. These learned men, however, do not spare us even when mention is made of “taking the children’s _bread_ and casting it to the dogs” (Mk. vii. 27): while in the enquiry,—“If a son shall ask _bread_ of any of you that is a father” (Lu. xi. 11), “_loaf_” is actually thrust into the text.—We cannot understand why such marked favour has been shown to similar easy words. Δοῦλος, occurring upwards of 100 times in the New Testament, is invariably honoured (sometimes [as in Jo. xv. 15] _twice in the course of the same verse_) with 2 lines to itself, to explain that in Greek it is “_bondservant_.”—About 60 times, δαιμόνιον is explained in the margin to be “_demon_” in the Greek.—It has been deemed necessary 15 times to devote _three lines_ to explain the value of “a penny.”—Whenever τέκνον is rendered “_Son_,” we are molested with a marginal annotation, to the effect that the Greek word means “_child_.” Had the Revisionists been consistent, the margins would not nearly have sufficed for the many interesting details of this nature with which their knowledge of Greek would have furnished them.

May we be allowed to suggest, that it would have been better worth while to explain to the unlearned that ἀρχαι in S. Peter’s vision (Acts x. 11; xi. 5) in strictness means not “corners,” but “_beginnings_” [cf. Gen. ii. 10]:—that τὴν πρώτην (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally “_the first_” [cf. Gen. iii. 7] (not “the best”) “robe”:—that ἀληθινός (_e.g._ in Lu. xvi. 11: Jo. i. 9: vi. 32; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and ix. 24) means “_very_” or “_real_,” rather than “true”?—And when two different words are employed in Greek (as in S. Jo. xxi. 15, 16, 17:—S. Mk. vii. 33, 35, &c. &c.), would it not have been as well to try to _represent_ them in English? For want of such assistance, no unlearned reader of S. Matth. iv. 18, 20, 21: S. Mk. i. 16, 18, 19: S. Lu. v. 2,—will ever be able to understand the precise circumstances under which the first four Apostles left their “_nets_.”

(3) The third group consists of _Explanatory Notes_ required by the obscurity of the original. Such must be the annotation against S. Luke i. 15 (explanatory of “strong drink”),—“Gr. sikera.” And yet, the word (σίκερα) happens to be _not_ Greek, but Hebrew.—On the other hand, such must be the annotation against μωρέ, in S. Matth. v. 22:—“Or, _Moreh_, a Hebrew expression of condemnation;” which statement is incorrect. The word proves to be _not_ Hebrew, but Greek.—And this, against “Maran atha” in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,—“That is, _Our _LORD_ cometh_:” which also proves to be a mistake. The phrase means “_Our _LORD_ is come_,”—which represents a widely different notion.(559)—Surely a room-full of learned men, volunteering to put the N. T. to-rights, ought to have made more sure of their elementary _facts_ before they ventured to compromise the Church of England after this fashion!—Against “_the husks_ which the swine did eat” (Lu. xv. 16), we find, “Gr. _the pods of the carob tree_,”—which is really not true. The Greek word is κεράτια,—which only signifies “the pods of the carob tree,” as “French beans” signifies “the pods of the _Phaseolus vulgaris_.”—By the way, it is _quite_ certain that μύλος ὀνικός [in Matth. xviii. 6 and Lu. xvii. 2 (not Mk. xi. 42)] signifies “_a mill-stone turned by an ass_”? Hilary certainly thought so: but is that thing at all likely? What if it should appear that μύλος ὀνικός merely denotes the _upper_ mill-stone (λίθος μυλικός, as S. Mark calls it,—_the stone that grinds_), and which we know was called ὄνος by the ancients?(560)—Why is “the brook Cedron” (Jo. xviii. 1) first spelt “Kidron,” and then explained to mean “_ravine of the cedars_”? which “_Kidron_” no more means that “_Kishon_” means “_of the ivies_,”—(though the Septuagintal usage [Judges iv. 13: Ps. lxxxiii. 9] shows that τῶν κισσῶν was in its common Hellenistic designation). As for calling the Kidron “_a ravine_,” you might as well call “Mercury” in “Tom quad” “_a lake_.” “Infelictious” is the mildest epithet we can bestow upon marginal annotations crude, questionable,—even _inaccurate_ as these.

Then further, “Simon, the son of _Jona_” (in S. John i. 42 and xxi. 15), is for the first time introduced to our notice by the Revisionists as “the son of _John_:” with an officious marginal annotation that in Greek the name is written “_Ioanes_.” But is it fair in the Revisers (we modestly ask) to thrust in this way the _bêtises_ of their favourite codex B upon us? _In no codex in the world except the Vatican codex_ B, is “Ioannes” spelt “_Ioanes_” in this place. Besides, the name of Simon Peter’s father was _not_ “John” at all, but “_Jona_,”—as appears from S. Matth. xvi. 17, and the present two places in S. John’s Gospel; where the evidence _against_ “Ioannes” is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of Dr. Hort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be to assist, not to mislead plain readers: honestly, to state _facts_,—not, by a side-wind, to commit the Church of England to _a new (and absurd) Textual theory_! The _actual Truth_, we insist, should be stated in the margin, whenever unnecessary information is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and unsuspicious readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading (against S. John i. 18)—“Many very ancient authorities read ‘GOD_ only begotten_’ ”: whereas the “authorities” alluded to read μονογενὴς Θεός,—(whether with or without the article [ὁ] prefixed,)—which (as the Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means “_the only-begotten _GOD,” and no other thing. Why then did they not say so? _Because_ (we answer)—_they were ashamed of the expression_. But to proceed.—The information is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. xiv. 32) that χωρίον means “_an enclosed piece of ground_,”—which is not true. The statement seems to have proceeded from the individual who translated ἄμφοδον (in Mk. xi. 4) the “_open street_:” whereas the word merely denotes the “highway,”—literally the “_thoroughfare_.”

A very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would have secured these Revisers against the perpetual exposure which they make of themselves in their marginal Notes.—(_a_) Πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, for instance, is quite an ordinary expression for “always,” and therefore should not be exhibited (in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,—“Gr. _all the days_.”—So (_b_) with respect to the word αἰών, which seems to have greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need, _every time it occurs_, to explain that εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων means literally “_unto the ages of the ages_”? Surely (as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the established rendering (“for ever and ever”) is plain enough and needs no gloss!—Again, (_c_) the numeral εἰς, representing the Hebrew substitute for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69 (μία παιδίσκη), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and xix. 17;—where “_one_ scribe,” “_one_ ruler,” “_one_ widow,” “_one_ eagle,” “_one_ voice,” “_one_ angel,” are really nothing else but mistranslations. True, that εἶς is found in the original Greek: but what then? Because “_une_” means “_one_,” will it be pretended that “_Tu es une bête_” would be properly rendered “_Thou art one beast_”?

(_d_) Far more serious is the substitution of “having _a great_ priest over the house of GOD” (Heb. x. 21), for “having _an high_ priest:” inasmuch as this obscures “the pointed reference to our LORD as the antitype of the Jewish high priest,”—who (except in Lev. iv. 3) is designated, not ἀρχιερεύς, but either ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας, or else ὁ ἱερεύς only,—as in Acts v. 24(561).... And (_e_) why are we presented with “For _no word from _GOD_ shall be void of power_” (in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing that the Greek of that place has been fashioned on the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. xviii. 14 (“_Is anything too hard for the _LORD_?_”(562)), we venture to think that the A. V. (“_for with _GOD_ nothing shall be impossible_”(563)) ought to have been let alone. It cannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that among so many respectable Divines there seems not to have been _one_ sufficiently familiar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually falling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that the Hellenistic scholarship of those who represented the Church and the Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.

Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third group; which we have examined with real astonishment—and in fact have remarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that we rather desiderate “Explanatory Notes” on matters which really _do_ call for explanation? as, to be reminded of what kind was the “net” (ἀμφίβληστρον) mentioned in Matth. iv. 18 (_not_ 20), and Mk. i. 16 (_not_ 18):—to see it explained (against Matth. ii. 23) that _netser_ (the root of “Nazareth”) denotes “Branch:”—and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3, that ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, signifies “the _depressed valley of the Jordan_,” as the usage of the LXX. proves.(564) We should have been glad to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,—“Gr. _Exodus_.”—At least in the margin, we might have been told that “_Olivet_” is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29 and xxi. 37: (or were the Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are respectfully referred to the Bp. of Lincoln’s note on the place last quoted.)—Nay, why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that “JESUS” means [not “_Saviour_,” but] “_JEHOVAH__ is Salvation_”?

But above all, surely so many learned men ought to have spared us the absurd Annotation set against “_ointment of spikenard_” (νάρδου πιστικῆς,) in S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as follows:—

“Gr. _pistic_ nard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take it to mean _genuine_; others _liquid_.”

Can Scholars require to be told that “_liquid_” is an _impossible_ sense of πιστική in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like πιστός [_Prom._ V. v. 489]) from πίνω, and would mean _drinkable_: but since ointment _cannot_ be drunk, it is certain that we must seek the etymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient conjecture be retained that it is “perhaps a _local_ name”? Do Divines require to have it explained to them that the one “locality” which effectually fixes the word’s meaning, is _its place in the everlasting Gospel_?... Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means; but “who are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge?” S. Mark and S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in this place(565)) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty spiritual purpose. The _pure faith_ (πίστις) in which that offering of the ointment was made, determines the choice of an unusual epithet (πιστικός) which shall signify “faithful” rather than “genuine,”—shall suggest a _moral_ rather than a _commercial_ quality: just as, presently, Mary’s “breaking” the box (συντρίψασα) is designated by a word which has reference to a broken heart.(566) She “_contrited_” it, S. Mark says; and S. John adds a statement which implies that the Church has been rendered fragrant by her act for ever.(567) (We trust to be forgiven for having said a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.)

(5) Under which of the four previous “groups” certain Annotations which disfigure the margin of the first chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel, should fall,—we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.

So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it is stated that—“Ram,” “Asa,” “Amon,” “Shealtiel,” are in Greek (“Gr.”) “_Aram_,” “_Asaph_,” “_Amos_,” “_Salathiel_.” For (1),—Surely it was just as needful (or just as needless) to explain that “Perez,” “Zarah,” “Hezron,” “Nahson,” are in Greek “_Phares_,” “_Zara_,” “_Esrom_,” “_Naasson_.”—But (2), Through what “necessity” are the names, which we have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?(568)—(3) Assuming, however, the O. T. spelling _is_ to be adopted, then _let us have it explained to us why _“Jeconiah”_ in ver. 11 is not written_ “Jehoiakim”? (As for “Jeconiah” in ver. 12,—it was for the Revisionists to settle whether they would call him “Jehoiachin,” “Jeconiah,” or “Coniah.” [By the way,—Is it lawful to suppose that _they did not know_ that “Jechonias” here represents two different persons?])—On the other hand, (4) “_Amos_” probably,—“_Asaph_” certainly,—are corrupt exhibitions of “Amon” and “Asa:” and, if noticed at all, should have been introduced to the reader’s notice with the customary formula, “some ancient authorities,” &c.—To proceed—(5), Why substitute “Immanuel” (for “Emmanuel”) in ver. 23,—only to have to state in the margin that S. Matthew writes it “_Emmanuel_”? By strict parity of reasoning, against “Naphtali” (in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists ought to have written “Gr. _Nephthaleim_.”—And (6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we not told that “Mary is in ‘Gr. _Mariam_’ ”? and why is not Zacharias written “_Zachariah_”?... But (to conclude),—What is the object of all this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency? Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever with the Past and to make “a fresh departure”? Or were the four marginal notes added _only for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the (apparent) sanction of the Church_ to the preposterous notion that “Asa” was written “_Asaph_” by the Evangelist—in conformity with six MSS. of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability? Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on this.

X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the Revisionists’ _Preface_ (iii. 2 _init._), that to some extent they recognized the duty of a “_rigid adherence to the rule of translating_, as far as possible, the _same Greek word by the same English word_.” This mistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief which has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller consideration at our hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp. 138 and 152) received.

The “Translators” of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint Address “to the Reader,” offer the following statement concerning what had been their own practice:—“We have not _tied ourselves_” (say they) “_to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words_, as some peradventure would wish that we had done.” On this, they presently enlarge. We have been “especially careful,” have even “made a conscience,” “not to vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places.” But then, (as they shrewdly point out in passing,) “_there be some words that be not of the __ same sense everywhere_.” And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on invariably expressing “the same notion” by employing “the same particular word;”—(which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account, may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)—we are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind. “If” (say they,) “we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once _purpose_, never to call it _intent_; if one where _journeying_, never _travelling_; if one where _think_, never _suppose_; if one where _pain_, never _ache_; if one where _joy_, never _gladness_;—thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than of wisdom.” And yet it is plain that a different principle is here indicated from that which went before. The remark “that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,” suggests that, in the Translators’ opinion, it matters little _which_ word, in the several pairs of words they instance, is employed; and that, for their own parts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample vocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however, as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be felt than analysed,—any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject “purpose,” “journey,” “think,” “pain,” “joy,”—in favour of “intent,” “travel,” “suppose,” “ache,” “gladness.”

But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a _prophetic_?) consciousness, that the fate of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation. _Hence_ their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves “to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.” We should be liable to censure (such is their plain avowal), “if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever.” But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there is some—perhaps a great deal—of truth in it: but by this time we seem to have entirely shifted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury of English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be practical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men,—with whom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would eagerly acknowledge,—have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate so vigorously, a little—perhaps a great deal—too far. For ourselves, we are glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head expressed by the author of the _Preface_ of 1881:

“They seem”—(he says, speaking of the Revisionists of 1611)—“to have been guided by the feeling that their Version would secure for the words they used a lasting place in the language; and they express a fear lest they should ‘be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words,’ which, without this liberty on their part, would not have a place in the pages of the English Bible. Still it cannot be doubted that their studied avoidance of uniformity in the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same context, is one of the blemishes in their work.”—_Preface_, (i. 2).

Yes, it cannot be doubted. When S. Paul, in a long and familiar passage (2 Cor. i. 3-7), is observed studiously to linger over the same word (παράκλησις namely, which is generally rendered “_comfort_”);—to harp upon it;—to reproduce it _ten times_ in the course of those five verses;—it seems unreasonable that a Translator, as if in defiance of the Apostle, should on four occasions (viz. when the word comes back for the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th times), for “_comfort_” substitute “_consolation_.” And this one example may serve as well as a hundred. It would really seem as if the Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression characterizes the original Greek. When we find them turning “goodly apparel,” (in S. James ii. 2,) into “gay clothing,” (in ver. 3,)—we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.

But if the learned men who gave us our A. V. may be thought to have erred on the side of excess, there can be no doubt whatever, (at least among competent judges,) that our Revisionists have sinned far more grievously and with greater injury to the Deposit, by their slavish proclivity to the opposite form of error. We must needs speak out plainly: for the question before us is not, What defects are discoverable in our Authorized Version?—but, What amount of gain would be likely to accrue to the Church if the present Revision were accepted as a substitute? And we assert without hesitation, that the amount of certain loss would so largely outweigh the amount of possible gain, that the proposal may not be seriously entertained for a moment. As well on grounds of Scholarship and Taste, as of Textual Criticism (as explained at large in our former Article), the work before us is immensely inferior. To speak plainly, it is an utter failure.

XI. For the respected Authors of it practically deny the truth of the principle enunciated by their predecessors of 1611, viz. that “_there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere_.” On such a fundamental truism we are ashamed to enlarge: but it becomes necessary that we should do so. We proceed to illustrate, by two familiar instances,—the first which come to hand,—the mischievous result which is inevitable to an enforced uniformity of rendering.

(_a_) The verb αἰτεῖν confessedly means “to ask.” And perhaps no better general English equivalent could be suggested for it. But then, _in a certain context_, “ask” would be an inadequate rendering: in another, it would be improper: in a third, it would be simply intolerable. Of all this, the great Scholars of 1611 showed themselves profoundly conscious. Accordingly, when this same verb (in the middle voice) is employed to describe how the clamorous rabble, besieging Pilate, claimed their accustomed privilege, (viz. to have the prisoner of their choice released unto them,) those ancient men, with a fine instinct, retain Tyndale’s rendering “_desired_”(569) in S. Mark (xv. 8),—and his “_required_” in S. Luke (xxiii. 23).—When, however, the humble entreaty, which Joseph of Arimathea addressed to the same Pilate (viz. that he might be allowed to take away the Body of JESUS), is in question, then the same Scholars (following Tyndale and Cranmer), with the same propriety exhibit “_begged_.”—King David, inasmuch as he only “_desired_ to find a habitation for the GOD of Jacob,” of course may not be said to have “_asked_” to do so; and yet S. Stephen (Acts vii. 46) does not hesitate to employ the verb ᾐτήσατο.—So again, when they of Tyre and Sidon approached Herod whom they had offended: they did but “_desire_” peace.(570)—S. Paul, in like manner, addressing the Ephesians: “I _desire_ that ye faint not at my tribulations for you.”(571)

But our Revisionists,—possessed with the single idea that αἰτεῖν means “to _ask_” and αἰτεῖσθαι “to _ask for_,”—have proceeded mechanically to inflict that rendering on every one of the foregoing passages. In defiance of propriety,—of reason,—even (in David’s case) of historical truth,(572)—they have thrust in “_asked_” everywhere. At last, however, they are encountered by two places which absolutely refuse to submit to such iron bondage. The terror-stricken jailer of Philippi, when _he_ “asked” for lights, must needs have done so after a truly imperious fashion. Accordingly, the “_called for_”(573) of Tyndale and all subsequent translators, is _pro hâc vice_ allowed by our Revisionists to stand. And to conclude,—When S. Paul, speaking of his supplications on behalf of the Christians at Colosse, uses this same verb (αἰτούμενοι) in a context where “_to ask_” would be intolerable, our Revisionists render the word “_to make request_;”(574)—though they might just as well have let alone the rendering of _all_ their predecessors,—viz. “_to desire_.”

These are many words, but we know not how to make them fewer. Let this one example, (only because it is the first which presented itself,) stand for a thousand others. Apart from the grievous lack of Taste (not to say of Scholarship) which such a method betrays,—_who_ sees not that the only excuse which could have been invented for it has disappeared by the time we reach the end of our investigation? If αἰτέω, αἰτοῦμαι had been _invariably_ translated “ask,” “ask for,” it might at least have been pretended that “the English Reader is in this way put entirely on a level with the Greek Scholar;”—though it would have been a vain pretence, as all must admit who understand the power of language. _Once_ make it apparent that just in a single place, perhaps in two, the Translator found himself forced to break through his rigid uniformity of rendering,—and _what_ remains but an uneasy suspicion that then there must have been a strain put on the Evangelists’ meaning in a vast proportion of the other seventy places where αἰτεῖν occurs? An unlearned reader’s confidence in his guide vanishes; and he finds that he has had not a few deflections from the Authorized Version thrust upon him, of which he reasonably questions alike the taste and the necessity,—_e.g._ at S. Matth. xx. 20.

(_b_) But take a more interesting example. In S. Mark i. 18, the A. V. has, “and straightway they _forsook_” (which the Revisionists alter into “_left_”) “their nets.” Why? Because in verse 20, the same word ἀφέντες will recur; and because the Revisionists propose to let the statement (“they _left_ their father Zebedee”) stand. They “level up” accordingly; and plume themselves on their consistency.

We venture to point out, however, that the verb ἀφιέναι is one of a large family of verbs which,—always retaining their own essential signification,—yet depend for their English rendering entirely on the context in which they occur. Thus, ἀφιέναι is rightly rendered “_to suffer_,” in S. Matth. iii. 15;—“_to leave_,” in iv. 11;—“_to let have_,” in v. 40;—“_to forgive_,” in vi. 12, 14, 15;—“_to let_,” in vii. 4;—“_to yield up_,” in xxvii. 50;—“_to let go_,” in S. Mark xi. 6;—“_to let alone_,” in xiv. 6. Here then, by the admission of the Revisionists, are eight diversities of meaning in the same word. But they make the admission grudgingly; and, in order to render ἀφιέναι as often as possible “_leave_,” they do violence to many a place of Scripture where some other word would have been more appropriate. Thus “_laying aside_” might have stood in S. Mark vii. 8. “_Suffered_” (or “let”) was preferable in S. Luke xii. 39. And, (to return to the place from which we started,) in S. Mark i. 18, “forsook” was better than “left.” And why? Because men “_leave_ their father,” (as the Collect for S. James’s Day bears witness); but “_forsake_ all covetous desires” (as the Collect for S. Matthew’s Day aptly attests). For which reason,—“And they all _forsook_ Him” was infinitely preferable to “and they all _left_ Him, and fled,” in S. Mark xiv. 50. We insist that a vast deal more is lost by this perpetual disregard of the idiomatic proprieties of the English language, than is gained by a pedantic striving after uniformity of rendering, only because the Greek word happens to be the same.

For it is sure sometimes to happen that what seems mere licentiousness proves on closer inspection to be unobtrusive Scholarship of the best kind. An illustration presents itself in connection with the word just now before us. It is found to have been our SAVIOUR’S practice to “_send away_” the multitude whom He had been feeding or teaching, in some formal manner,—whether with an act of solemn benediction, or words of commendatory prayer, or both. Accordingly, on the memorable occasion when, at the close of a long day of superhuman exertion, His bodily powers succumbed, and the Disciples were fain to take Him “as He was” in the ship, and at once He “fell asleep;”—on that solitary occasion, _the Disciples_ are related to have “_sent away_ the multitudes,”—_i.e._ to have formally dismissed them on His behalf, as they had often seen their Master do. The word employed to designate this practice on two memorable occasions is ἀπολύειν:(575) on the other two, ἀφιέναι.(576) This proves to have been perfectly well understood as well by the learned authors of the Latin Version of the N. T., as by the scholars who translated the Gospels into the vernacular of Palestine. It has been reserved for the boasted learning of the XIXth century to misunderstand this little circumstance entirely. The R. V. renders S. Matth. xiii. 36,—not “Then JESUS _sent the multitude away_” (“_dimissis turbis_” in every Latin copy,) but—“Then He _left_ the multitudes.” Also S. Mark iv. 36,—not “And when they had _sent away the multitude_,” (which the Latin always renders “_et dimittentes turbam_,”) but—“And _leaving_ the multitude.” Would it be altogether creditable, we respectfully ask, if at the end of 1800 years the Church of England were to put forth with authority such specimens of “Revision” as these?

(_c_) We will trouble our Readers with yet another illustration of the principle for which we are contending.—We are soon made conscious that there has been a fidgetty anxiety on the part of the Revisionists, everywhere to substitute “_maid_” for “_damsel_” as the rendering of παιδίσκη. It offends us. “A damsel named Rhoda,”(577)—and the “damsel possessed with a spirit of divination,”(578)—might (we think) have been let alone. But out of curiosity we look further, to see what these gentlemen will do when they come to S. Luke xii. 45. Here, because παῖδας has been (properly) rendered “menservants,” παιδίσκας, they (not unreasonably) render “_maid-servants_,”—whereby _they break their rule_. The crucial place is behind. What will they do with the Divine “Allegory” in Galatians, (iv. 21 to 31,)—where all turns on the contrast(579) between the παιδίσκη and the ἐλευθέρα,—the fact that Hagar was a “_bondmaid_” whereas Sarah was a “_free woman_”? “Maid” clearly could not stand here. “Maid-servant” would be intolerable. What is to be done? The Revisionists adopt _a third_ variety of reading,—_thus surrendering their principle entirely_. And what reader with a spark of taste, (we confidently ask the question,) does not resent their substitution of “_handmaid_” for “bondmaid” throughout these verses? _Who_ will deny that the mention of “_bondage_” in verses 24 and 25 claims, at the hands of an intelligent English translator, that he shall avail himself of the admirable and helpful equivalent for παιδίσκη which, as it happens, the English language possesses? More than that. _Who_—(except one who is himself “in bondage—with his children”)—_who_ does not respond gratefully to the exquisite taste and tact with which “_bondmaid_” itself has been exchanged for “_bondwoman_” by our translators of 1611, in verses 23, 30 and 31?... Verily, those men understood their craft! “There were giants in those days.” As little would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they could shake themselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason: viz. because the SPIRIT of their GOD was mightily upon them.

Our contention, so far, has been but this,—that it does not by any means follow that identical Greek words and expressions, _wherever occurring_, are to be rendered by identical words and expressions in English. We desire to pass on to something of more importance.

Let it not be supposed that we make light of the difficulties which our Revisionists have had to encounter; or are wanting in generous appreciation of the conscientious toil of many men for many years; or that we overlook the perils of the enterprise in which they have seen fit to adventure their reputation. If ever a severe expression escapes us, it is because our Revisionists themselves seem to have so very imperfectly realized the responsibility of their undertaking, and the peculiar difficulties by which it is unavoidably beset. The truth is,—as all who have given real thought to the subject must be aware,—the phenomena of Language are among the most subtle and delicate imaginable: the problem of Translation, one of the most manysided and difficult that can be named. And if this holds universally, in how much greater a degree when the book to be translated is THE BIBLE! Here, anything like a mechanical _levelling up_ of terms, every attempt to impose a pre-arranged system of uniform rendering on words,—every one of which has a history and (so to speak) _a will_ of its own,—is inevitably destined to result in discomfiture and disappointment. But what makes this so very serious a matter is that, because HOLY SCRIPTURE is the Book experimented upon, the loftiest interests that can be named become imperilled; and it will constantly happen that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake may yet inflict irreparable injury. We subjoin an humble illustration of our meaning—the rather, because it will afford us an opportunity for penetrating a little deeper into the proprieties of Scriptural Translation:—

(_d_) The place of our LORD’S Burial, which is mentioned upwards of 30 times in the Gospels, is styled in the original, μνημεῖον. This appellation is applied to it three times by S. Matthew;—six times by S. Mark;—eight times by S. Luke;(580)—eleven times by S. John. Only on four occasions, in close succession, does the first Evangelist call it by another name, viz. τάφος.(581) King James’s translators (following Tyndale and Cranmer) decline to notice this diversity, and uniformly style it the “_sepulchre_.” So long as it belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, they call it a “tomb” (Matth. xxvii. 60): when once it has been appropriated by “the LORD of Glory,” _in the same verse_ they give it a different English appellation. But our Revisionists of 1881, as if bent on “making a fresh departure,” _everywhere_ substitute “_tomb_” for “sepulchre” as the rendering of μνημεῖον.

Does any one ask,—And why should they _not_? We answer, Because, in connection with “_the Sepulchre_” of our LORD, there has grown up such an ample literature and such a famous history, that we are no longer _able_ to sever ourselves from those environments of the problem, even if we desired to do so. In all such cases as the present, we have to balance the Loss against the Gain. Quite idle is it for the pedant of 1881 to insist that τάφος and μνημεῖον are two different words. We do not dispute the fact. (Then, if he _must_, let him represent τάφος in some other way.) It remains true, notwithstanding, that the receptacle of our SAVIOUR’S Body after His dissolution will have to be spoken of as “_the Holy Sepulchre_” till the end of time; and it is altogether to be desired that its familiar designation should be suffered to survive unmolested on the eternal page, in consequence. There are, after all, mightier laws in the Universe than those of grammar. In the quaint language of our Translators of 1611: “For is the Kingdom of GOD become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free?”... As for considerations of etymological propriety, the nearest English equivalent for μνημεῖον (be it remembered) is _not_ “tomb,” but “_monument_.”

(_e_) Our Revisionists seem not to be aware that 270 years of undisturbed possession have given to certain words rights to which they could not else have pretended, but of which it is impossible any more to dispossess them. It savours of folly as well as of pedantry even to make the attempt. Διδαχή occurs 30,—διδασκαλία 21 times,—in the N. T. Etymologically, both words alike mean “_teaching_;” and are therefore indifferently rendered “_doctrina_” in the Vulgate,(582)—for which reason, “_doctrine_” represents both words indifferently in our A. V.(583) But the Revisers have well-nigh extirpated “DOCTRINE” from the N. T.: (1st), By making “_teaching_,” the rendering of διδαχή,(584)—(reserving “_doctrine_” for διδασκαλία(585)): and (2ndly), By 6 times substituting “_teaching_” (once, “_learning_”) for “_doctrine_,” in places where διδασκαλία occurs.(586) This is to be lamented every way. The word cannot be spared so often. The “_teachings_” of our LORD and of His Apostles were _the _“doctrines”_ of Christianity_. When S. Paul speaks of “the _doctrine_ of baptisms” (Heb. vi. 2), it is simply incomprehensible to us why “the _teaching_ of baptisms” should be deemed a preferable expression. And if the warning against being “carried about with every wind of _doctrine_,” may stand in Ephes. iv. 14, why may it not be left standing in Heb. xiii. 9?

(_f_) In the same spirit, we can but wonder at the extravagant bad taste which, at the end of 500 years, has ventured to substitute “_bowls_” for “vials” in the Book of Revelation.(587) As a matter of fact, we venture to point out that φιάλη no more means “_a bowl_” than “saucer” means “a cup.” But, waiving this, we are confident that our Revisers would have shown more wisdom if they had _let alone_ a word which, having no English equivalent, has passed into the sacred vocabulary of the language, and has acquired a conventional signification which will cleave to it for ever. “_Vials of wrath_” are understood to signify the outpouring of GOD’S wrathful visitations on mankind: whereas “bowls” really conveys no meaning at all, except a mean and unworthy, not to say an inconveniently ambiguous one. What must be the impression made on persons of very humble station,—labouring-men,—when they hear of “the seven Angels that had _the seven bowls_”? (Rev. xvii. 1.) The φιάλη,—if we must needs talk like Antiquaries—is a circular, almost flat and very shallow vessel,—of which the contents can be discharged in an instant. It was used in pouring out libations. There is, at that back of it, in the centre, a hollow for the first joint of the forefinger to rest in. _Patera_ the Latins called it. Specimens are to be seen in abundance.

The same Revisionists have also fallen foul of the “alabaster _box_ of ointment.”—for which they have substituted “an alabaster _cruse_ of ointment.”(588) But what _is_ a “cruse”? Their marginal note says, “Or, ‘_a flask_:’ ” but once more, what _is_ “a flask”? Certainly, the receptacles to which that name is now commonly applied, (_e.g._ a powder-flask, a Florence flask, a flask of wine, &c.) bear no resemblance whatever to the vase called ἀλάβαστρον. The probability is that the receptacle for the precious ointment with which the sister of Lazarus provided herself, was likest of all to a small medicine-bottle (_lecythus_ the ancients called it), made however of alabaster. Specimens of it abound. But why not let such words alone? The same Critics have had the good sense to leave standing “the bag,” for what was confessedly a _box_(589) (S. John xii. 6: xiii. 29); and “your purses” for what in the Greek is unmistakably “your _girdles_”(590) (S. Matth. x. 9). We can but repeat that possession for _five centuries_ conveys rights which it is always useless, and sometimes dangerous, to dispute. “Vials” will certainly have to be put back into the Apocalypse.

(_g_) Having said so much about the proposed rendering of such unpromising vocables as μνημεῖον—διδαχή—φιάλη, it is time to invite the Reader’s attention to the calamitous fate which has befallen certain other words of infinitely greater importance.

And first for Ἀγάπη—a substantive noun unknown to the heathen, even as the sentiment which the word expresses proves to be a grace of purely Christian growth. What else but a real calamity would be the sentence of perpetual banishment passed by our Revisionists on “that most excellent gift, the gift of _Charity_,” and the general substitution of “Love” in its place? Do not these learned men perceive that “Love” is not an equivalent term? Can they require to be told that, because of S. Paul’s exquisite and life-like portrait of “CHARITY,” and the use which has been made of the word in sacred literature in consequence, it has come to pass that the word “_Charity_” connotes many ideas to which the word “Love” is an entire stranger? that “Love,” on the contrary, has come to connote many unworthy notions which in “_Charity_” find no place at all? And if this be so, how can our Revisionists expect that we shall endure the loss of the name of the very choicest of the Christian graces,—and which, if it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, will presently come to be only traditionally known among mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term clearly understood? Have the Revisionists of 1881 considered how firmly this word “_Charity_” has established itself in the phraseology of the Church,—ancient, mediæval, modern,—as well as in our Book of Common Prayer? how thoroughly it has vindicated for itself the right of citizenship in the English language? how it has entered into our common vocabulary, and become one of the best understood of “household words”? Of what can they have been thinking when they deliberately obliterated from the thirteenth chapter of S. Paul’s 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the ninefold recurrence of the name of “that most excellent gift, the gift of CHARITY”?

(_h_) With equal displeasure, but with even sadder feelings, we recognize in the present Revision a resolute elimination of “MIRACLES” from the N. T.—Not so, (we shall be eagerly reminded,) but only of their _Name_. True, but the two perforce go together, as every thoughtful man knows. At all events, the getting rid of _the Name_,—(except in the few instances which are enumerated below,)—will in the account of millions be regarded as the getting rid of _the thing_. And in the esteem of all, learned and unlearned alike, the systematic obliteration of the signifying word from the pages of that Book to which we refer exclusively for our knowledge of the remarkable thing signified,—cannot but be looked upon as a memorable and momentous circumstance. Some, it may be, will be chiefly struck by the foolishness of the proceeding: for at the end of centuries of familiarity with such a word, we are no longer _able_ to part company with it, even if we were inclined. The term has struck root firmly in our Literature: has established itself in the terminology of Divines: has grown into our common speech. But further, even were it possible to get rid of the words “Miracle” and “Miraculous,” what else but abiding inconvenience would be the result? for we must still desire to speak about _the things_; and it is a truism to remark that there are no other words in the language which connote the same ideas. What therefore has been gained by substituting “_sign_” for “_miracle_” on some 19 or 20 occasions—(“this beginning of _his signs_ did JESUS,”—“this is again the _second sign_ that JESUS did”)—we really fail to see.

That the word in the original is σημεῖον, and that σημεῖον means “a sign,” we are aware. But what then? Because ἄγγελος, in strictness, means “a messenger,”—γραφή, “a writing,”—ὑποκριτής, “an actor,”—ἐκκλησία, “an assembly,”—εὐαγγέλιον, “good tidings,”—ἐπίσκοπος, “an overseer,”—βαπτιστής, “one that dips,”—παράδεισος, “a garden,”—μαθητής, “a learner,”—χἁρις, “favour:”—are we to forego the established English equivalents for these words, and never more to hear of “grace,” “disciple,” “Paradise,” “Baptist,” “Bishop,” “Gospel,” “Church,” “hypocrite,” “Scripture,” “Angel”? Is it then desired to revolutionize our sacred terminology? or at all events to sever with the Past, and to translate the Scriptures into English on etymological principles? We are amazed that the first proposal to resort to such a preposterous method was not instantly scouted by a large majority of those who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber.

The words under consideration are not only not equivalent, but they are quite dissimilar. All “_signs_” are not “_Miracles_,”(591) though all “_Miracles_” are undeniably “_signs_.” Would not a marginal annotation concerning the original word, as at S. Luke xxiii. 8, have sufficed? And _why_ was the term “_Miracle_” as the rendering of σημεῖον(592) spared only on _that_ occasion in the Gospels; and _only_ in connection with S. Peter’s miracle of healing the impotent man, in the Acts?(593) We ask the question not caring for an answer. We are merely bent on submitting to our Readers, whether,—especially in an age like the present of wide-spread unbelief in the Miraculous,—it was a judicious proceeding in our Revisionists almost everywhere to substitute “Sign” for “Miracle” as the rendering of σημεῖον.

(_i_) Every bit as offensive, in its way, is a marginal note respecting the Third Person in the Trinity, which does duty at S. Matth. i. 18: S. Mark i. 8: S. Luke i. 15: Acts i. 2: Rom. v. 5: Heb. ii. 4. As a rule, in short, against every fresh first mention of “the HOLY GHOST,” five lines are punctually devoted to the remark,—“_Or_, Holy Spirit: _and so throughout this book_.” Now, as Canon Cook very fairly puts the case,—

“Does this imply that the marginists object to the word ‘GHOST’? If so, it must be asked, On what grounds? Certainly not as an archaism. The word is in every Churchman’s mouth continually. For the sake of consistency? But Dr. Vance Smith complains bitterly of the _inconsistency_ of his colleagues in reference to this very question,—see his _Texts and Margins_, pp. 7, 8, 45. I would not suggest a doctrinal bias: but to prove that it had no influence, a strong, if not unanimous, declaration on the part of the Revisers is called for. Dr. Vance Smith alleges this notice as one of the clearest proofs that the Revisers ought in consistency to discard the word as ‘_a poor and almost obsolete_ equivalent for Spirit.’ ”(594)

But in fact when one of the Revisionists openly claims, on behalf of the Revision, that “in the most substantial sense,” (whatever _that_ may happen to mean,) it is “contrary to fact” “that the doctrines of popular Theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the Revision,”(595)—Charity itself is constrained to use language which by a certain school will be deemed uncharitable. If doctrinal prepossession had no share in the production under review,—why is no protest publicly put forth against such language as the foregoing, when employed by a conspicuous Member of the Revisionist body?

(_j_) In a similar spirit to that which dictated our remarks on the attempted elimination of “_Miracles_” from the N. T. of the future,—we altogether disapprove of the attempt to introduce “is _Epileptic_,” as the rendering of σεληνιάζεται, in S. Matth. xvii. 15. The miracle performed on “_the lunatic child_” may never more come abroad under a different name. In a matter like this, 500 years of occupation, (or rather 1700, for “_lunaticus_” is the reading of all the Latin copies,) constitute a title which may not be disputed. “EPILEPTIC” is a sorry _gloss_—not a translation. Even were it demonstrable that Epilepsy exclusively exhibits every feature related in connection with the present case;(596) and that sufferers from Epilepsy are specially affected by the moon’s changes, (neither of which things are _certainly_ true): even so, the Revisionists would be wholly unwarranted in doing violence to the Evangelist’s language, in order to bring into prominence their own private opinion that what is called “_Lunacy_” here (and in ch. iv. 24) is to be identified with the ordinary malady called “Epilepsy.” This was confessedly an extraordinary case of _demoniacal possession_(597) besides. The Revisionists have in fact gone out of their way in order to introduce us to a set of difficulties with which before we had no acquaintance. And after all, the English reader desires to know—_not_, by any means, what two-thirds of the Revisionists _conjecture_ was the matter with the child, but—_what the child’s Father actually said_ was the matter with him. Now, the Father undeniably did _not_ say that the child was “Epileptic,” but that he was “_Lunatic_.” The man employed a term which (singular to relate) has its own precise English equivalent;—a term which embodies to this hour (as it did anciently) the popular belief that the moon influences certain forms of disease. With the advance of Science, civilized nations surrender such Beliefs; but they do not _therefore_ revolutionize their Terminology. “The advance of Science,” however, has nothing whatever to do with _the Translation of the word_ before us. The Author of this particular rendering (begging his pardon) is open to a process “_de lunatico inquirendo_” for having imagined the contrary.

(_k_) The foregoing instances suggest the remark, that the Ecclesiastical Historian of future years will point with concern to the sad evidences that the Church had fallen on evil days when the present Revision was undertaken. With fatal fidelity does it, every here and there, reflect the sickly hues of “modern Thought,” which is too often but another name for the latest phase of Unfaithfulness. Thus, in view of the present controversy about the Eternity of Future Punishment, which has brought into prominence a supposed distinction between the import of the epithets “ETERNAL” and “EVERLASTING,”—how painful is it to discover that the latter epithet, (which is the one objected to by the unbelieving school,) has been by our Revisionists diligently excluded(598) _every time it occurs_ as the translation of αἰώνιος, in favour of the more palatable epithel “eternal”! King James’s Translators showed themselves impartial to a fault. As if to mark that, in their account, the words are of identical import, they even introduced _both words into the same verse_(599) of Scripture. Is it fair that such a body of men as the Revisionists of 1881, claiming the sanction of the Convocation of the Southern Province, should, in a matter like the present, throw all their weight into the scale of Misbelief? They were authorized only to remove “plain and clear _errors_.” They were instructed to introduce “as few changes _as possible_.” Why have they needlessly gone out of their way, on the contrary, indirectly to show their sympathy with those who deny what has been the Church’s teaching for 1800 years? Our Creeds, Te Deum, Litany, Offices, Articles,—our whole Prayer Book, breathes a different spirit and speaks a different language.... Have our Revisionists persuaded the Old Testament company to follow their example? It will be calamitous if they _have_. There will be serious discrepancy of teaching between the Old and the New Testament if they have _not_.

(_l_) What means also the fidgetty anxiety manifested throughout these pages to explain away, or at least to evacuate, expressions which have to do with ETERNITY? _Why_, for example, is “the _world_ (αἰών) to come,” invariably glossed “the _age_ to come”? and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας so persistently explained in the margin to mean, “_unto the ages_”? (See the margin of Rom. ix. 5. Are we to read “GOD blessed _unto the ages_”?) Also εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, “_unto the ages of the ages_”? Surely we, whose language furnishes expressions of precisely similar character (viz. “for ever,” and “for ever and ever”), might dispense with information hazy and unprofitable as this!

(_m_) Again. At a period of prevailing unbelief in the INSPIRATION of Scripture, nothing but real necessity could warrant any meddling with such a testimony on the subject as is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. We have hitherto been taught to believe that “_All Scripture is given by inspiration of_ GOD and is profitable,” &c. The ancients(600) clearly so understood S. Paul’s words: and so do the most learned and thoughtful of the moderns. Πᾶσα γραφή, even if it be interpreted “every Scripture,” can only mean every portion of those ἱερὰ γράμματα of which the Apostle had been speaking in the previous verse; and therefore must needs signify _the whole of Scripture_.(601) So that the expression “_all Scripture_” expresses S. Paul’s meaning exactly, and should not have been disturbed.

But—“It is very difficult” (so at least thinks the Right Rev. Chairman of the Revisers) “to decide whether θεόπνευστος is a part of the predicate, καί being the simple copula; or whether it is a part of the subject. Lexicography and grammar contribute but little to a decision.” Not so thought Bishop Middleton. “I do not recollect” (he says) “any passage in the N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by the copulative, were intended by the writer to be so unnaturally disjoined. He who can produce such an instance, will do much towards establishing the plausibility of a translation, which otherwise must appear, to say the least of it, to be forced and improbable.”—And yet it is proposed to thrust this “forced and improbable” translation on the acceptance of all English-speaking people, wherever found, on the plea of _necessity_! Our Revisionists translate, “Every Scripture inspired of GOD _is also profitable_,” &c.,—which of course may be plausibly declared to imply that a distinction is drawn by the Apostle himself between inspired and uninspired Scripture. And pray, (we should be presently asked,) is not many a Scripture (or writing) “profitable for teaching,” &c. which is _not_ commonly held to be “inspired of GOD”?... But in fact the proposed rendering is inadmissible, being without logical coherence and consistency. The utmost that could be pretended would be that S. Paul’s assertion is that “every portion of Scripture _being inspired_” (_i.e._ inasmuch as it is—because it is—inspired); “is _also_ profitable,” &c. Else there would be no meaning in the καί. But, in the name of common sense, if this be so, _why_ have the blessed words been meddled with?

(_n_) All are unhappily familiar with the avidity with which the disciples of a certain School fasten upon a mysterious expression in S. Mark’s Gospel (xiii. 32), which seems to predicate concerning the Eternal SON, limitation in respect of Knowledge. This is not the place for vindicating the Catholic Doctrine of the SON’S “equality with the FATHER as touching His GODhead;” or for explaining that, in consequence, all things that the FATHER hath, (_the knowledge of _“that Day and Hour”_ included_,) the SON hath likewise.(602) But this is the place for calling attention to the deplorable circumstance that the clause “_neither the_ SON,” which has an indisputable right to its place in S. Mark’s Gospel, has on insufficient authority by our Revisionists been thrust into S. Matth. xxvi. 36, where it has no business whatever, and from which the word “only” effectually excludes it.(603) We call attention to this circumstance with sincere sorrow: but it is sorrow largely mixed with indignation. What else but the betrayal of a sacred trust is it when Divines appointed to correct manifest errors in _the English_ of the N. T. go out of their way to introduce an error like this into the _Greek_ Text which Catholic Antiquity would have repudiated with indignation, and for which certainly the plea of “necessity” cannot be pretended?

(_o_) A MARGINAL ANNOTATION set over against Romans ix. 5 is the last thing of this kind to which we shall invite attention. S. Paul declares it to be Israel’s highest boast and glory that of them, “as concerning the flesh [came] CHRIST, _who is over all_ [things], GOD_ blessed for ever_! Amen.” A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our LORD’S eternal GODhead is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Accordingly, these words have been as confidently appealed to by faithful Doctors of the Church in every age, as they have been unsparingly assailed by unbelievers. The dishonest shifts by which the latter seek to evacuate the record which they are powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred Revisionists in the following terms:—

“Some modern Interpreters place a full stop after _flesh_, and translate, _He who is God over all be (is) blessed for ever_: or, _He who is over all is God, blessed for ever_. Others punctuate, _flesh, who is over all. God be (is) blessed for ever._”

Now this is a matter,—let it be clearly observed,—which, (as Dr. Hort is aware,) “belongs to _Interpretation_,—and _not to Textual Criticism_.”(604) What business then has it in these pages at all? Is it then the function of Divines appointed to revise the _Authorized Version_, to give information to the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians scattered throughout the world as to the unfaithfulness of “_some modern Interpreters_”?(605) We have hitherto supposed that it was “_Ancient_ authorities” exclusively,—(whether “a few,” or “some,” or “many,”)—to which we are invited to submit our judgment. How does it come to pass that _the Socinian gloss_ on this grand text (Rom. ix. 5) has been brought into such extraordinary prominence? Did our Revisionists consider that their marginal note would travel to earth’s remotest verge,—give universal currency to the view of “some modern Interpreters,”—and in the end “tell it out among the heathen” also? We refer to Manuscripts,—Versions,—Fathers: and what do we find? (1) It is demonstrable that _the oldest __ Codices, besides the whole body of the cursives_, know nothing about the method of “some modern Interpreters.”(606)—(2) “There is absolutely not a shadow, _not a tittle of evidence, in any of the ancient Versions_, to warrant what they do.”(607)—(3) How then, about the old Fathers? for the sentiments of our best modern Divines, as Pearson and Bull, we know by heart. We find that the expression “_who is over all_ [things], GOD_ blessed for ever_” is expressly acknowledged to refer to our SAVIOUR by the following 60 illustrious names:—

Irenæus,(608)—Hippolytus in 3 places,(609)—Origen,(610)—Malchion, in the name of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch, A.D. 269,(611)—ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,(612)—the _Constt. App._,(613)—Athanasius in 6 places,(614)—Basil in 2 places,(615)—Didymus in 5 places,(616)—Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,(617)—Epiphanius in 5 places,(618)—Theodoras Mops.,(619)—Methodius,(620)—Eustathius,(621)—Eulogius, twice,(622)—Cæsarius, 3 times,(623)—Theophilus Alex., twice,(624)—Nestorius,(625)—Theodotus of Ancyra,(626)—Proclus, twice,(627)—Severianus Bp. of Gabala,(628)—Chrysostom, 8 times,(629)—Cyril Alex., 15 times,(630)—Paulus Bp. of Emesa,(631)—Theodoret, 12 times,(632)—Gennadius, Abp. of C. P.,(633)—Severus, Abp. of Antioch,(634)—Amphilochius,(635)—Gelasius Cyz.,(636)—Anastasius Ant.,(637)—Leontius Byz., 3 times,(638)—Maximus,(639)—J. Damascene, 3 times.(640) Besides of the Latins, Tertullian, twice,(641)—Cyprian,(642)—Novatian, twice,(643)—Ambrose, 5 times,(644)—Palladius the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,(645)—Hilary, 7 times,(646)—Jerome, twice,(647)—Augustine, about 30 times,—Victorinus,(648)—the _Breviarium_, twice,(649)—Marius Mercator,(650)—Cassian, twice,(651)—Alcimus Avit.,(652)—Fulgentius, twice,(653)—Leo, Bp. of Rome, twice,(654)—Ferrandus, twice,(655)—Facundus:(656)—to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of whom 3(657) have been mistaken for Athanasius,—and 3(658) for Chrysostom. All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal GODhead of CHRIST.

Against such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testimony,—for we have enumerated _upwards of sixty_ ancient Fathers—it will not surely be pretended that the Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such prominence, can stand. But why has it been introduced _at all_? We shall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, that such perverse imaginations of “modern Interpreters” are not entitled to a place in the margin of the N. T. For our Revisionists to have even given them currency, and thereby a species of sanction, constitutes in our view a very grave offence.(659) A public retraction and a very humble Apology we claim at their hands. Indifferent Scholarship, and mistaken views of Textual Criticism, are at least venial matters. But _a Socinian gloss gratuitously thrust into the margin of every Englishman’s N. T._ admits of no excuse—is not to be tolerated on _any_ terms. It would by itself, in our account, have been sufficient to determine the fate of the present Revision.

XII. Are we to regard it as a kind of _set-off_ against all that goes before, that in an age when the personality of Satan is freely called in question, “THE EVIL ONE” has been actually _thrust into the Lord’s Prayer_? A more injudicious and unwarrantable innovation it would be impossible to indicate in any part of the present unhappy volume. The case has been argued out with much learning and ability by two eminent Divines, Bp. Lightfoot and Canon Cook. The Canon remains master of the field. That _the change ought never to have been made_ is demonstrable. The grounds of this assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted on all hands that it must for ever remain a matter of opinion only whether in the expression ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, the nominative case is τὸ πονηρόν (as in S. Matth. v. 37, 39: Rom. xii. 9), or ὁ πονηρός (as in S. Matth. xiii. 19, 38: Eph. vi. 16),—either of which yields a good sense. But then—(2) The Church of England in her formularies having emphatically declared that, for her part, she adheres to the former alternative, it was in a very high degree unbecoming for the Revisionists to pretend to the enjoyment of _certain_ knowledge that the Church of England in so doing was mistaken: and unless “from evil” be “_a clear and plain error_,” the Revisionists were bound to let it alone. Next—(3), It can never be right to impose the narrower interpretation on words which have always been understood to bear the larger sense: especially when (as in the present instance) the larger meaning distinctly includes and covers the lesser: witness the paraphrase in our Church Catechism,—“and that He will keep us (_a_) from all sin and wickedness, and (_b_) _from our ghostly enemy_, and (_c_) from everlasting death.”—(4) But indeed Catholic Tradition claims to be heard in this behalf. Every Christian at his Baptism renounces not only “the Devil,” but also “_all his works_, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh.”(660) And at this point—(5), The voice of an inspired Apostle interposes in attestation that this is indeed the true acceptation of the last petition in the LORD’S Prayer: for when S. Paul says—“the LORD will deliver me _from every evil work_ and will preserve me unto His heavenly kingdom; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen,”(661)—what else is he referring to but to the words just now under consideration? He explains that in the LORD’S Prayer it is “_from every evil work_” that we pray to be “delivered.” (Note also, that he retains _the Doxology_.) Compare the places:—

S. Matth. vi. 13.—ἀλλὰ ῬΎΣΑΙ ἩΜΆΣ ἈΠῸ ΤΟΎ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΎ. ὍΤΙ ΣΟΎ ἘΣΤΙΝ Ἡ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ ... καὶ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ἘΙΣ ΤΟΎΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ. ἈΜΉΝ.

2 Tim. iv. 18.—καὶ ῬΎΣΕΤΑΊ ΜΕ ὁ Κύριος ἈΠῸ ΠΑΝΤῸΣ ἜΡΓΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ καὶ σώσει εἰς ΤῊΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ ἈΥΤΟΥ ... ᾧ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ΕΊΣ ΤΟΥΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ.... ἈΜΉΝ.

Then further—(6), What more unlikely than that our LORD would end with giving such prominence to that rebel Angel whom by dying He is declared to have “destroyed”? (Heb. ii. 14: 1 John iii. 8.) For, take away the Doxology (as our Revisionists propose), and we shall begin the LORD’S Prayer with “OUR FATHER,” and literally end it with—_the Devil_!—But above all,—(7) Let it never be forgotten that this is _the pattern Prayer_, a portion of every Christian child’s daily utterance,—the most sacred of all our formularies, and by far the most often repeated,—into which it is attempted in this way to introduce a startling novelty. Lastly—(8), When it is called to mind that nothing short of _necessity_ has warranted the Revisionists in introducing a single change into the A. V.,—“_clear and plain errors_”—and that no such plea can be feigned on the present occasion, the liberty which they have taken in this place must be admitted to be absolutely without excuse.... Such at least are the grounds on which, for our own part, we refuse to entertain the proposed introduction of the Devil into the LORD’S Prayer. From the position we have taken up, it will be found utterly impossible to dislodge us.

XIII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul’s Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of twenty Scholars, whose _raison d’être_ as Revisionists was to do this very thing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V. of Gospels and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, for every obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have been introduced: in other words, that the result of this Revision has been the planting in of a _fresh crop of difficulties_, before undreamed of; so that a perpetual wrestling with _these_ is what hereafter awaits the diligent student of the New Testament.

We speak not now of passages which have been merely altered for the worse: as when, (in S. James i. 17, 18,) we are invited to read,—“Every good gift and every _perfect boon_ is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom _can be no variation_, neither _shadow that is cast by turning_. Of his own will _he brought us forth_.” Grievous as such blemishes are, it is seen at a glance that they must be set down to nothing worse than tasteless assiduity. What we complain of is that, misled by a depraved Text, our Revisers have often made nonsense of what before was perfectly clear: and have not only thrust many of our LORD’S precious utterances out of sight, (_e.g._ Matt. xvii. 21: Mark x. 21 and xi. 26: Luke ix. 55, 56); but have attributed to Him absurd sayings which He certainly never uttered, (_e.g._ Matt. xix. 17); or else, given such a twist to what He actually said, that His blessed words are no longer recognizable, (as in S. Matt. xi. 23: S. Mark ix. 23: xi. 3). Take a sample:—

(1.) The Church has always understood her LORD to say,—“FATHER, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory.”(662) We reject with downright indignation the proposal henceforth to read instead,—“FATHER_, that which Thou hast given Me I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me_,” &c. We suspect a misprint. The passage reads like nonsense. Yes, and nonsense it is,—in Greek as well as in English: (ὅ has been written for οὕς—one of the countless _bêtises_ for which א B D are exclusively responsible; and which the weak superstition of these last days is for erecting into a new Revelation). We appeal to the old Latin and to the Vulgate,—to the better Egyptian and to all the Syriac versions: to _every known Lectionary_: to Clemens Alex.,(663)—to Eusebius,(664)—to Nonnus,(665)—to Basil,(666)—to Chrysostom,(667)—to Cyril,(668)—to Cælestinus,(669)—to Theodoret:(670) not to mention Cyprian,(671)—Ambrose,(672)—Hilary,(673) &c.:(674) and above all, 16 uncials, beginning with A and C,—and the whole body of the cursives. So many words ought not to be required. If men prefer _their_ “mumpsimus” to _our_ “sumpsimus,” let them by all means have it: but pray let them keep their rubbish to themselves,—and at least leave our SAVIOUR’S words alone.

(2.) We shall be told that the foregoing is an outrageous instance. It is. Then take a few milder cases. They abound, turn whichever way we will. Thus, we are invited to believe that S. Luke relates concerning our SAVIOUR that He “_was led by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days_” (iv. 1). We stare at this new revelation, and refer to the familiar Greek. It proves to be the Greek of _all the copies in the __ world but four_; the Greek which supplied the Latin, the Syrian, the Coptic Churches, with the text of their respective Versions; the Greek which was familiar to Origen,(675)—to Eusebius,(676)—to Basil,(677)—to Didymus,(678)—to Theodoret,(679)—to Maximus,(680)—and to two other ancient writers, one of whom has been mistaken for Chrysostom,(681) the other for Basil.(682) It is therefore quite above suspicion. And it informs us that JESUS “was led by the Spirit _into the wilderness_;” and there was “_forty days tempted of the Devil_.” What then has happened to obscure so plain a statement? Nothing more serious than that—(1) Four copies of bad character (א B D L) exhibit “in” instead of “into:” and that—(2) Our Revisionists have been persuaded to believe that _therefore_ S. Luke must needs have done the same. Accordingly they invite us to share their conviction that it was the _leading about_ of our LORD, (and not His _Temptation_,) which lasted for 40 days. And this sorry misconception is to be thrust upon the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians throughout the world,—under the plea of “necessity”!... But let us turn to a more interesting specimen of the mischievous consequences which would ensue from the acceptance of the present so-called “Revision.”

(3.) What is to be thought of _this_, as a substitute for the familiar language of 2 Cor. xii. 7?—“_And by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations—wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch_, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh.” The word “wherefore” (διό), which occasions all the difficulty—(breaking the back of the sentence and necessitating the hypothesis of a change of construction)—is due solely to the influence of א A BB. The ordinary Text is recognized by almost every other copy; by the Latin,—Syriac,—Gothic,—Armenian Versions;—as well as by Irenæus,(683)—Origen,(684)—Macarius,(685)—Athanasius,(686)—Chrysostom,(687)—Theodoret,(688)—John Damascene.(689) Even Tischendorf here makes a stand and refuses to follow his accustomed guides.(690) In plain terms, the text of 2 Cor. xii. 7 is beyond the reach of suspicion. Scarcely intelligible is the infatuation of which our Revisers have been the dupes.—_Quousque tandem?_

(4.) Now this is the method of the Revising body throughout: viz. so seriously to maim the Text of many a familiar passage of Holy Writ as effectually to mar it. Even where they remedy an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V., they often inflict a more grievous injury than mistranslation on the inspired Text. An instance occurs at S. John x. 14, where the good Shepherd says,—“I know Mine own _and am known of Mine_, even as the FATHER knoweth Me and I know the Father.” By thrusting in here the Manichæan depravation (“_and Mine own know Me_”), our Revisionists have obliterated the exquisite diversity of expression in the original,—which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between the FATHER and the SON is identical on either side, not such is the knowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator. The refinement in question has been faithfully retained all down the ages by every copy in existence except four of bad character,—א B D L. It is witnessed to by the Syriac,—by Macarius,(691)—Gregory Naz.,(692)—Chrysostom,(693)—Cyril Alex.,(694)—Theodoret,(695)—Maximus.(696)

But why go on? Does any one in his sober senses suppose that if S. John had written “_Mine own know Me_,” 996 manuscripts out of 1000, at the end of 1800 years, would be found to exhibit “_I am known of Mine_”?

(5.) The foregoing instances must suffice. A brief enumeration of many more has been given already, at pp. 144(_b_)-152.

Now, in view of the phenomenon just discovered to us,—(viz. for one crop of deformities weeded out, an infinitely larger crop of far grosser deformities as industriously planted in,)—we confess to a feeling of distress and annoyance which altogether indisposes us to accord to the Revisionists that language of congratulation with which it would have been so agreeable to receive their well-meant endeavours. The serious question at once arises,—Is it to be thought that upon the whole we are gainers, or losers, by the Revised Version? And there seems to be no certain way of resolving this doubt, but by opening a “Profit and Loss account” with the Revisers,—crediting them with every item of _gain_, and debiting them with every item of _loss_. But then,—(and we ask the question with sanguine simplicity,)—Why should it not be _all_ gain and _no_ loss, when, at the end of 270 years, a confessedly noble work, a truly unique specimen of genius, taste and learning, is submitted to a body of Scholars, equipped with every external advantage, _only_ in order that they may improve upon it—_if they are able_? These learned individuals have had upwards of ten years wherein to do their work. They have enjoyed the benefit of the tentative labours of a host of predecessors,—some for their warning, some for their help and guidance. They have all along had before their eyes the solemn injunction that, whatever they were not able _certainly_ to improve, they were to be _supremely careful to let alone_. They were warned at the outset against any but “_necessary_” changes. Their sole business was to remove “_plain and clear errors_.” They had pledged themselves to introduce “_as few alterations as possible_.” Why then, we again ask,—_Why_ should not every single innovation which they introduced into the grand old exemplar before them, prove to be a manifest, an undeniable change for the better?(697)

XIV. The more we ponder over this unfortunate production, the more cordially do we regret that it was ever undertaken. Verily, the Northern Convocation displayed a far-sighted wisdom when it pronounced against the project from the first. We are constrained to declare that could we have conceived it possible that the persons originally appointed by the Southern Province would have co-opted into their body persons capable of executing their work with such extravagant licentiousness as well as such conspicuous bad taste, we should never have entertained one hopeful thought on the subject. For indeed every characteristic feature of the work of the Revisionists offends us,—as well in respect of what they have left undone, as of what they have been the first to venture to do:—

(_a_) Charged “to introduce _as few_ alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version,” they have on the contrary evidently acted throughout on the principle of making _as many_ changes in it as they conveniently could.

(_b_) Directed “to limit, _as far as possible_, the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English Versions,”—they have introduced such terms as “assassin,” “apparition,” “boon,” “disparagement,” “divinity,” “effulgence,” “epileptic,” “fickleness,” “gratulation,” “irksome,” “interpose,” “pitiable,” “sluggish,” “stupor,” “surpass,” “tranquil:” such compounds as “self-control,” “world-ruler:” such phrases as “_draw up_ a narrative:” “_the impulse_ of the steersman:” “_in lack_ of daily food:” “_exercising_ oversight.” These are but a very few samples of the offence committed by our Revisionists, of which we complain.

(_c_) Whereas they were required “to _revise_ the Headings of the Chapters,” they have not even _retained_ them. We demand at least to have our excellent “Headings” back.

(_d_) And what has become of our time-honoured “Marginal References,”—_the very best Commentary_ on the Bible, as we believe,—certainly the very best help for the right understanding of Scripture,—which the wit of man hath ever yet devised? The “Marginal References” would be lost to the Church for ever, if the work of the Revisionists were allowed to stand: the space required for their insertion having been completely swallowed up by the senseless, and worse than senseless, Textual Annotations which at present infest the margin of every sacred page. We are beyond measure amazed that the Revisionists have even deprived the reader of the _essential aid_ of references to the places of the Old Testament which are quoted in the New.

(_e_) Let the remark be added in passing, that we greatly dislike the affectation of printing certain quotations from the Old Testament after the strange method adopted by our Revisers from Drs. Westcott and Hort.

(_f_) The further external _assimilation of the Sacred Volume to an ordinary book_ by getting rid of the division into Verses, we also hold to be a great mistake. In the Greek, by all means let the verses be merely noted in the margin: but, for more than one weighty reason, in the _English_ Bible let the established and peculiar method of printing the Word of GOD, tide what tide, be scrupulously retained.

(_g_) But incomparably the gravest offence is behind. By far the most serious of all is _that_ Error to the consideration of which we devoted our former Article. THE NEW GREEK TEXT which, in defiance of their Instructions,(698) our Revisionists have constructed, has been proved to be utterly undeserving of confidence. Built up on a fallacy which since 1831 has been dominant in Germany, and which has lately found but too much favour among ourselves, it is in the main a reproduction of the recent labours of Doctors Westcott and Hort. But we have already recorded our conviction, that the results at which those eminent Scholars have arrived are wholly inadmissible. It follows that, in our account, the “New English Version,” has been all along a foredoomed thing. If the “New Greek Text” be indeed a tissue of fabricated Readings, the translation of these into English must needs prove lost labour. It is superfluous to enquire into the merits of the English rendering of words which Evangelists and Apostles demonstrably never wrote.

(_h_) Even this, however, is not nearly all. As Translators, full two-thirds of the Revisionists have shown themselves singularly deficient,—alike in their critical acquaintance with the language out of which they had to translate, and in their familiarity with the idiomatic requirements of their own tongue. They had a noble Version before them, which they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignified simplicity and essential faithfulness, its manly grace and its delightful rhythm, they have shown themselves alike unable to imitate and unwilling to retain. Their queer uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences:—their pedantic obscurity and their stiff, constrained manner:—their fidgetty affectation of accuracy,—and their habitual achievement of English which fails to exhibit the spirit of the original Greek;—are sorry substitutes for the living freshness, and elastic freedom, and habitual fidelity of the grand old Version which we inherited from our Fathers, and which has sustained the spiritual life of the Church of England, and of all English-speaking Christians, for 350 years. Linked with all our holiest, happiest memories, and bound up with all our purest aspirations: part and parcel of whatever there is of good about us: fraught with men’s hopes of a blessed Eternity and many a bright vision of the never-ending Life;—the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, _should have been jealously retained_. But on the contrary. Every familiar cadence has been dislocated: the congenial flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been hopelessly marred: so many of those little connecting words, which give life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, that a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The countless minute alterations which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page prove at last as tormenting as a swarm of flies to the weary traveller on a summer’s day.(699) To speak plainly, the book has been made _unreadable_.

But in fact the distinguished Chairman of the New Testament Company (Bishop Ellicott,) has delivered himself on this subject in language which leaves nothing to be desired, and which we willingly make our own. “No Revision” (he says) “in the present day _could hope to meet with an hour’s acceptance_ if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorized Version.”(700)—What else is this but a vaticination,—of which the uninspired Author, by his own act and deed, has ensured the punctual fulfilment?

We lay the Revisers’ volume down convinced that the case of their work is simply hopeless. _Non ego paucis offendar maculis._ Had the blemishes been capable of being reckoned up, it might have been worth while to try to remedy some of them. But when, instead of being disfigured by a few weeds scattered here and there, the whole field proves to be sown over in every direction with thorns and briars; above all when, deep beneath the surface, roots of bitterness to be counted by thousands, are found to have been silently planted in, which are sure to produce poisonous fruit after many days:—under _such_ circumstances only one course can be prescribed. Let the entire area be ploughed up,—ploughed deep; and let the ground be left for a decent space of time without cultivation. It is idle—worse than idle—to dream of revising, _with a view to retaining_, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down. Partizanship, (which at present prevails to an extraordinary extent, but which is wondrously out of place in _this_ department of Sacred Learning,)—_Partizanship_ must be completely outlived,—before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organize another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.

Yes, and in the meantime—(let it in all faithfulness be added)—the Science of Textual Criticism will have to be prosecuted, _for the first time_, in a scholarlike manner. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES,—sufficiently axiomatic to ensure general acceptance,—will have to be laid down for men’s guidance. The time has quite gone by for vaunting “_the now established Principles of Textual Criticism_,”(701)—as if they had an actual existence. Let us be shown, instead, _which those Principles be_. As for the weak superstition of these last days, which—_without proof of any kind_—would erect two IVth-century Copies of the New Testament, (demonstrably derived from one and the same utterly depraved archetype,) into an authority from which there shall be no appeal,—it cannot be too soon or too unconditionally abandoned. And, perhaps beyond all things, men must be invited to disabuse their minds of the singular imagination that it is in their power, when addressing themselves to that most difficult and delicate of problems,—_the improvement of the Traditional Text_,—“solvere ambulando.”(702) They are assured that they may not take to Textual Criticism as ducks take to the water. They will be drowned inevitably if they are so ill-advised as to make the attempt.

Then further, those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.(703) And finally, the Revisionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of “_plain and clear errors_;” and in fact to “introduce into the Text _as few alterations as possible_.”

On a review of all that has happened, from first to last, we can but feel greatly concerned: greatly surprised: most of all, disappointed. We had expected a vastly different result. It is partly (not quite) accounted for, by the rare attendance in the Jerusalem Chamber of some of the names on which we had chiefly relied. Bishop Moberly (of Salisbury) was present on only 121 occasions: Bishop Wordsworth (of S. Andrews) on only 109: Archbishop Trench (of Dublin) on only 63: Bishop Wilberforce on only _one_. The Archbishop, in his Charge, adverts to “the not unfrequent sacrifice of grace and ease to the rigorous requirements of a literal accuracy;” and regards them “as pushed to a faulty excess” (p. 22). Eleven years before the scheme for the present “Revision” had been matured, the same distinguished and judicious Prelate, (then Dean of Westminster,) persuaded as he was that a Revision _ought_ to come, and convinced that in time it _would_ come, deprecated its being attempted _yet_. His words were,—“Not however, I would trust, as yet: for we are not as yet _in any respect prepared for it. The Greek, and the English_ which should enable us to bring this to a successful end might, it is to be feared, be wanting alike.”(704) Archbishop Trench, with wise after-thought, in a second edition, explained himself to mean “_that special Hellenistic Greek, here required_.”

The Bp. of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest manner, cleared himself from the suspicion of complicity in the errors of the work before us,—as well in respect of the “New Greek Text” as of the “New English Version.” In the Charge which he delivered at his Diocesan Synod, (22nd Sept. 1880,) he openly stated that two years before the work was finally completed, he had felt obliged to address a printed circular to each member of the Company, in which he strongly remonstrated against the excess to which changes had been carried; and that the remonstrance had been, for the most part, unheeded. Had this been otherwise, there is good reason to believe that the reception which the Revision has met with would have been far less unfavourable, and that many a controversy which it has stirred up, would have been avoided. We have been assured that the Bp. of S. Andrews would have actually resigned his place in the Company at that time, if he had not been led to expect that some opportunity would have been taken by the Minority, when the work was finished, to express their formal dissent from the course which had been followed, and many of the conclusions which had been adopted.

Were certain other excellent personages, (Scholars and Divines of the best type) who were often present, disposed at this late hour to come forward, they too would doubtless tell us that they heartily regretted what was done, but were powerless to prevent it. It is no secret that Dr. Lee,—the learned Archdeacon of Dublin,—(one of the few really competent members of the Revising body,)—found himself perpetually in the minority.

The same is to be recorded concerning Dr. Roberts, whose work on the Gospels (published in 1864) shows that he is not by any means so entirely a novice in the mysteries of Textual Criticism as certain of his colleagues.—One famous Scholar and excellent Divine,—a Dean whom we forbear to name,—with the modesty of real learning, often withheld what (had he given it) would have been an adverse vote.—Another learned and accomplished Dean (Dr. Merivale), after attending 19 meetings of the Revising body, withdrew in disgust from them entirely. He disapproved _the method_ of his colleagues, and was determined to incur no share of responsibility for the probable result of their deliberations.—By the way,—What about a certain solemn Protest, by means of which the Minority had resolved _liberare animas suas_ concerning the open disregard shown by the Majority for the conditions under which they had been entrusted with the work of Revision, but which was withheld at the last moment? Inasmuch as their reasons for the course they eventually adopted seemed sufficient to those high-minded and honourable men, we forbear to challenge it. Nothing however shall deter us from plainly avowing our own opinion that human regards scarcely deserve a hearing when GOD’S Truth is imperilled. And that the Truth of GOD’S Word in countless instances _has been_ ignorantly sacrificed by a majority of the Revisionists—(out of deference to a worthless Theory, newly invented and passionately advocated by two of their body),—has been already demonstrated; as far, that is, as demonstration is _possible_ in this subject matter.

As for Prebendary Scrivener,—_the only really competent Textual Critic of the whole party_,—it is well known that he found himself perpetually outvoted by two-thirds of those present. We look forward to the forthcoming new edition of his _Plain Introduction_, in the confident belief that he will there make it abundantly plain that he is in no degree responsible for the monstrous Text which it became his painful duty to conduct through the Press on behalf of the entire body, of which he continued to the last to be a member. It is no secret that, throughout, Dr. Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have ourselves advocated in this and the preceding Article.

All alike may at least enjoy the real satisfaction of knowing that, besides having stimulated, to an extraordinary extent, public attention to the contents of the Book of Life, they have been instrumental in awakening a living interest in one important but neglected department of Sacred Science, which will not easily be again put to sleep. It may reasonably prove a solace to them to reflect that they have besides, although perhaps in ways they did not anticipate, rendered excellent service to mankind. A monument they have certainly erected to themselves,—though neither of their Taste nor yet of their Learning. Their well-meant endeavours have provided an admirable text-book for Teachers of Divinity,—who will henceforth instruct their pupils to beware of the Textual errors of the Revisionists of 1881, as well as of their tasteless, injudicious, and unsatisfactory essays in Translation. This work of theirs will discharge the office of a warning beacon to as many as shall hereafter embark on the same perilous enterprise with themselves. It will convince men of the danger of pursuing the same ill-omened course: trusting to the same unskilful guidance: venturing too near the same wreck-strewn shore.

Its effect will be to open men’s eyes, as nothing else could possibly have done, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more exact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented. Not the least service which the Revisionists have rendered has been the proof their work affords, how very seldom our Authorized Version is materially wrong: how faithful and trustworthy, on the contrary, it is throughout. Let it be also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune _seriously_ to obscure a single feature of Divine Truth; nor have they in any quarter (as we hope) inflicted wounds which will be attended with worse results than to leave a hideous scar behind them. It is but fair to add that their work bears marks of an amount of conscientious (though misdirected) labour, which those only can fully appreciate who have made the same province of study to some extent their own.

ARTICLE III. WESTCOTT AND HORT’S NEW TEXTUAL THEORY.

“In the determination of disputed readings, these Critics avail themselves of so small a portion of existing materials, or allow so little weight to others, that the Student who follows them has positively _less ground for his convictions than former Scholars had at any period in the history of modern Criticism_.”—CANON COOK, p. 16.

“We have no right, doubtless, to assume that our Principles are infallible: but we _have_ a right to claim that any one who rejects them ... should confute the Arguments and rebut the Evidence on which the opposite conclusion has been founded. _Strong expressions of Individual Opinion are not Arguments._”—BP. ELLICOTT’S Pamphlet, (1882,) p. 40.

Our “method involves vast research, unwearied patience.... It will therefore find but little favour with _those who adopt the easy method_ ... _of using some favourite Manuscript_, or _some supposed power of divining the Original Text_.”—BP. ELLICOTT, _Ibid._ p. 19.

“Non enim sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes (καπηλεύοντες) verbum DEI.”—2 Cor. ii. 17.

“Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?”—JOB xxxviii. 2.

“Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?”—S. LUKE vi. 39.

Proposing to ourselves (May 17th, 1881) to enquire into the merits of the recent Revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures, we speedily became aware that an entirely different problem awaited us and demanded preliminary investigation. We made the distressing discovery, that the underlying Greek Text had been completely refashioned throughout. It was accordingly not so much a “_Revised English Version_” as a “_New Greek Text_,” which was challenging public acceptance. Premature therefore,—not to say preposterous,—would have been any enquiry into the degree of ability with which the original Greek had been rendered into English by our Revisionists, until we had first satisfied ourselves that it was still “the original Greek” with which we had to deal: or whether it had been the supreme infelicity of a body of Scholars claiming to act by the authority of the sacred Synod of Canterbury, to put themselves into the hands of some ingenious theory-monger, and to become the dupes of any of the strange delusions which are found unhappily still to prevail in certain quarters, on the subject of Textual Criticism.

The correction of known Textual errors of course we eagerly expected: and on every occasion when the Traditional Text was altered, we as confidently depended on finding a record of the circumstance inserted with religious fidelity into the margin,—as agreed upon by the Revisionists at the outset. In both of these expectations however we found ourselves sadly disappointed. The Revisionists have _not_ corrected the “known Textual errors.” On the other hand, besides silently adopting most of those wretched fabrications which are just now in favour with the German school, they have encumbered their margin with those other Readings which, after due examination, _they had themselves deliberately rejected_. For why? Because, in their collective judgment, “for the present, it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others.”(705) A fatal admission truly! What are found in the margin are therefore “_alternative Readings_,”—in the opinion of these self-constituted representatives of the Church and of the Sects.

It becomes evident that, by this ill-advised proceeding, our Revisionists would convert every Englishman’s copy of the New Testament into a one-sided Introduction to the Critical difficulties of the Greek Text; a labyrinth, out of which they have not been at the pains to supply him with a single hint as to how he may find his way. On the contrary. By candidly avowing that they find themselves enveloped in the same Stygian darkness with the ordinary English Reader, they give him to understand that there is absolutely no escape from the difficulty. What else must be the result of all this but general uncertainty, confusion, distress? A hazy mistrust of all Scripture has been insinuated into the hearts and minds of countless millions, who in this way have been _forced_ to become doubters,—yes, doubters in the Truth of Revelation itself. One recals sorrowfully the terrible woe denounced by the Author of Scripture on those who minister occasions of falling to others:—“It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”

For ourselves, shocked and offended at the unfaithfulness which could so deal with the sacred Deposit, we made it our business to expose, somewhat in detail, what had been the method of our Revisionists. In our October number(706) we demonstrated, (as far as was possible within such narrow limits,) the utterly untrustworthy character of not a few of the results at which, after ten years of careful study, these distinguished Scholars proclaim to the civilized world that they have deliberately arrived. In our January number(707) also, we found it impossible to avoid extending our enumeration of Textual errors and multiplying our proofs, while we were making it our business to show that, even had their _Text_ been faultless, their _Translation_ must needs be rejected as intolerable, on grounds of defective Scholarship and egregious bad Taste. The popular verdict has in the meantime been pronounced unmistakably. It is already admitted on all hands that the Revision has been a prodigious blunder. How it came about that, with such a first-rate textual Critic among them as Prebendary Scrivener,(708) the Revisers of 1881 should have deliberately gone back to those vile fabrications from which the good Providence of GOD preserved Erasmus and Stunica,—Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,—three centuries ago:—how it happened that, with so many splendid Scholars sitting round their table, they should have produced a Translation which, for the most part, reads like a first-rate school-boy’s _crib_,—tasteless, unlovely, harsh, unidiomatic;—servile without being really faithful,—pedantic without being really learned;—an unreadable Translation, in short; the result of a vast amount of labour indeed, but of wondrous little skill:—how all this has come about, it were utterly useless at this time of day to enquire.

Unable to disprove the correctness of our Criticism on the Revised Greek Text, even in a single instance, certain partizans of the Revision,—singular to relate,—have been ever since industriously promulgating the notion, that the Reviewer’s great misfortune and fatal disadvantage all along has been, that he wrote his first Article before the publication of Drs. Westcott and Hort’s Critical “_Introduction_.” Had he but been so happy as to have been made aware by those eminent Scholars of the critical principles which have guided them in the construction of their Text, how differently must he have expressed himself throughout, and to what widely different conclusions must he have inevitably arrived! This is what has been once and again either openly declared, or else privately intimated, in many quarters. Some, in the warmth of their partizanship, have been so ill-advised as to insinuate that it argues either a deficiency of moral courage, or else of intellectual perception, in the Reviewer, that he has not long since grappled definitely with the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—and either published an Answer to it, or else frankly admitted that he finds it unanswerable.

(_a_) All of which strikes us as queer in a high degree. First, because as a matter of fact we were careful to make it plain that the _Introduction_ in question had duly reached us _before the first sheet_ of our earlier Article had left our hands. To be brief,—we made it our business to procure a copy and read it through, the instant we heard of its publication: and on our fourteenth page (see above, pp. 26-8) we endeavoured to compress into a long foot-note some account of a Theory which (we take leave to say) can appear formidable only to one who either lacks the patience to study it, or else the knowledge requisite to understand it. We found that, from a diligent perusal of the _Preface_ prefixed to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, we had formed a perfectly correct estimate of the contents of the _Introduction_; and had already characterized it with entire accuracy at pp. 24 to 29 of our first Article. Drs. Westcott and Hort’s _New Testament in the original Greek_ was discovered to “partake inconveniently of the nature of a work of the Imagination,”—as we had anticipated. We became easily convinced that “those accomplished Scholars had succeeded in producing a Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists and Apostles of our LORD, than any which has appeared since the invention of Printing.”

(_b_) But the queerest circumstance is behind. How is it supposed that any amount of study of _the last new Theory_ of Textual Revision can seriously affect a Reviewer’s estimate of the evidential value of the historical _facts_ on which he relies for his proof that a certain exhibition of the Greek Text is untrustworthy? The _onus probandi_ rests clearly not with _him_, but with those who call those proofs of his in question. More of this, however, by and by. We are impatient to get on.

(_c_) And then, lastly,—What have _we_ to do with the _Theory_ of Drs. Westcott and Hort? or indeed with the Theory of _any other person who can be named_? We have been examining the new Greek Text _of the Revisionists_. We have condemned, after furnishing detailed proof, _the results_ at which—by whatever means—that distinguished body of Scholars has arrived. Surely it is competent to us to upset their _conclusion_, without being constrained also to investigate in detail the illicit logical processes by which two of their number in a separate publication have arrived at far graver results, and often even stand hopelessly apart, the one from the other! We say it in no boastful spirit, but we have an undoubted right to assume, that unless the Revisionists are able by a stronger array of authorities to set aside the evidence we have already brought forward, the calamitous destiny of their “Revision,” so far as the New Testament is concerned, is simply a thing inevitable.

Let it not be imagined, however, from what goes before, that we desire to shirk the proposed encounter with the advocates of this last new Text, or that we entertain the slightest intention of doing so. We willingly accept the assurance, that it is only because Drs. Westcott and Hort are virtually responsible for the Revisers’ Greek Text, that it is so imperiously demanded by the Revisers and their partizans, that the Theory of the two Cambridge Professors may be critically examined. We can sympathize also with the secret distress of certain of the body, who now, when it is all too late to remedy the mischief, begin to suspect that they have been led away by the hardihood of self-assertion;—overpowered by the _facundia præceps_ of one who is at least a thorough believer in his own self-evolved opinions;—imposed upon by the seemingly consentient pages of Tischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.—Without further preface we begin.

It is presumed that we shall be rendering acceptable service in certain quarters if,—before investigating the particular Theory which has been proposed for consideration,—we endeavour to give the unlearned English Reader some general notion, (it must perforce be a very imperfect one,) of the nature of the controversy to which the Theory now to be considered belongs, and out of which it has sprung. Claiming to be an attempt to determine the Truth of Scripture on scientific principles, the work before us may be regarded as the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the Traditional Greek Text,—that strange impatience of its authority, or rather denial that it possesses any authority at all,—which began with Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. in 1831), and has prevailed ever since; its most conspicuous promoters being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf (1865-72).

The true nature of the Principles which respectively animate the two parties in this controversy is at this time as much as ever,—perhaps _more_ than ever,—popularly misunderstood. The common view of the contention in which they are engaged, is certainly the reverse of complimentary to the school of which Dr. Scrivener is the most accomplished living exponent. We hear it confidently asserted that the contention is nothing else but an irrational endeavour on the one part to set up the many modern against the few ancient Witnesses;—the later cursive copies against the “old Uncials;”—inveterate traditional Error against undoubted primitive Truth. The disciples of the new popular school, on the contrary, are represented as relying exclusively _on Antiquity_. We respectfully assure as many as require the assurance, that the actual contention is of an entirely different nature. But, before we offer a single word in the way of explanation, let the position of our assailants at least be correctly ascertained and clearly established. We have already been constrained to some extent to go over this ground: but we will not repeat ourselves. The Reader is referred back, in the meantime, to pp. 21-24.

Lachmann’s ruling principle then, was exclusive reliance on a very few ancient authorities—_because_ they are “ancient.” He constructed his Text on three or four,—not unfrequently on _one or two_,—Greek codices. Of the Greek Fathers, he relied on Origen. Of the oldest Versions, he cared only for the Latin. To the Syriac (concerning which, see above, p. 9), he paid no attention. We venture to think his method _irrational_. But this is really a point on which the thoughtful reader is competent to judge for himself. He is invited to read the note at foot of the page.(709)

Tregelles adopted the same strange method. He resorted to a very few out of the entire mass of “ancient Authorities” for the construction of his Text. His proceeding is exactly that of a man, who—in order that he may the better explore a comparatively unknown region—begins by putting out both his eyes; and resolutely refuses the help of the natives to show him the way. _Why_ he rejected the testimony of _every Father of the IVth century, except Eusebius_,—it were unprofitable to enquire.

Tischendorf, the last and by far the ablest Critic of the three, knew better than to reject “_eighty-nine ninetieths_” of the extant witnesses. He had recourse to the ingenious expedient of _adducing_ all the available evidence, but _adopting_ just as little of it as he chose: and he _chose_ to adopt those readings only, which are vouched for by the same little band of authorities whose partial testimony had already proved fatal to the decrees of Lachmann and Tregelles. Happy in having discovered (in 1859) an uncial codex (א) second in antiquity only to the oldest before known (B), and strongly resembling that famous IVth-century codex in the character of its contents, he suffered his judgment to be overpowered by the circumstance. He at once (1865-72) remodelled his 7th edition (1856-9) in 3505 places,—“to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency.”(710) And yet he knew concerning Cod. א, that at least ten different Revisers from the Vth century downwards had laboured to remedy the scandalously corrupt condition of a text which, “as it proceeded from the first scribe,” even Tregelles describes as “_very rough_.”(711) But in fact the infatuation which prevails to this hour in this department of sacred Science can only be spoken of as incredible. Enough has been said to show—(the only point we are bent on establishing)—that the one distinctive tenet of the three most famous Critics since 1831 has been a superstitious reverence for whatever is found in the _same little handful_ of early,—but _not_ the earliest,—_nor yet of necessity the purest_,—documents.

Against this arbitrary method of theirs we solemnly, stiffly remonstrate. “Strange,” we venture to exclaim, (addressing the living representatives of the school of Lachmann, and Tregelles, and Tischendorf):—“Strange, that you should not perceive that you are the dupes of a fallacy which is even transparent. You _talk_ of ‘Antiquity.’ But you must know very well that you actually _mean_ something different. You fasten upon three, or perhaps four,—on two, or perhaps three,—on _one, or perhaps two_,—documents of the IVth or Vth century. But then, confessedly, these are one, two, three, or four _specimens only_ of Antiquity,—not ‘Antiquity’ itself. And what if they should even prove to be _unfair samples_ of Antiquity? Thus, you are observed always to quote cod. B or at least cod. א. Pray, why may not the Truth reside instead with A, or C, or D?—You quote the old Latin or the Coptic. Why may not the Peschito or the Sahidic be right rather?—You quote either Origen or else Eusebius,—but why not Didymus and Athanasius, Epiphanius and Basil, Chrysostom and Theodoret, the Gregories and the Cyrils?... It will appear therefore that we are every bit as strongly convinced as you can be of the paramount claims of ‘Antiquity:’ but that, eschewing prejudice and partiality, we differ from you only in _this_, viz. that we absolutely refuse to bow down before the _particular specimens of Antiquity_ which you have arbitrarily selected as the objects of your superstition. You are illogical enough to propose to include within your list of ‘ancient Authorities,’ codd. 1, 33 and 69,—which are severally MSS. of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth centuries. And why? Only because the Text of those 3 copies is observed to bear a sinister resemblance to that of codex B. But then why, in the name of common sense, do you not show corresponding favour to the remaining 997 cursive Copies of the N. T.,—seeing that these are observed to bear _the same general resemblance to codex_ A?... You are for ever talking about ‘old Readings.’ Have you not yet discovered that ALL ‘Readings’ are ‘OLD’?”

The last contribution to this department of sacred Science is a critical edition of the New Testament by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. About this, we proceed to offer a few remarks.

I. The first thing here which unfavourably arrests attention is the circumstance that this proves to be the only Critical Edition of the New Testament since the days of Mill, which does not even pretend to contribute something to our previous critical knowledge of the subject. Mill it was (1707) who gave us the great bulk of our various Readings; which Bengel (1734) slightly, and Wetstein (1751-2) very considerably, enlarged.—The accurate Matthæi (1782-8) acquainted us with the contents of about 100 codices more; and was followed by Griesbach (1796-1806) with important additional materials.—Birch had in the meantime (1788) culled from the principal libraries of Europe a large assortment of new Readings: while truly marvellous was the accession of evidence which Scholz brought to light in 1830.—And though Lachmann (1842-50) did wondrous little in this department, he yet furnished the critical authority (such as it is) for his own unsatisfactory Text.—Tregelles (1857-72), by his exact collations of MSS. and examination of the earliest Fathers, has laid the Church under an abiding obligation: and what is to be said of Tischendorf (1856-72), who has contributed more to our knowledge than any other editor of the N. T. since the days of Mill?—Dr. Scrivener, though he has not independently edited the original Text, is clearly to be reckoned among those who _have_, by reason of his large, important, and accurate contributions to our knowledge of ancient documents. Transfer his collections of various Readings to the foot of the page of a copy of the commonly Received Text,—and “_Scrivener’s New Testament_”(712) might stand between the editions of Mill and of Wetstein. Let the truth be told. C. F. Matthæi and he are _the only two Scholars who have collated any considerable number of sacred Codices with the needful amount of accuracy_.(713)

Now, we trust we shall be forgiven if, at the close of the preceding enumeration, we confess to something like displeasure at the oracular tone assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort in dealing with the Text of Scripture, though they admit (page 90) that they “rely for documentary evidence on the stores accumulated by their predecessors.” Confident as those distinguished Professors may reasonably feel of their ability to dispense with the ordinary appliances of Textual Criticism; and proud (as they must naturally be) of a verifying faculty which (although they are able to give no account of it) yet enables them infallibly to discriminate between the false and the true, as well as to assign “a local habitation and a name” to every word,—inspired or uninspired,—which purports to belong to the N. T.:—they must not be offended with us if we freely assure them at the outset that we shall decline to accept a single argumentative assertion of theirs for which they fail to offer sufficient proof. Their wholly unsupported decrees, at the risk of being thought uncivil, we shall unceremoniously reject, as soon as we have allowed them a hearing.

This resolve bodes ill, we freely admit, to harmonious progress. But it is inevitable. For, to speak plainly, we never before met with such a singular tissue of magisterial statements, unsupported by a particle of rational evidence, as we meet with here. The abstruse gravity, the long-winded earnestness of the writer’s manner, contrast whimsically with the utterly inconsequential character of his antecedents and his consequents throughout. Professor Hort—(for “the writing of the volume and the other accompaniments of the Text devolved” on _him_,(714))—Dr. Hort seems to mistake his Opinions for facts,—his Assertions for arguments,—and a Reiteration of either for an accession of evidence. There is throughout the volume, apparently, a dread of _Facts_ which is even extraordinary. An actual illustration of the learned Author’s meaning,—a concrete case,—seems as if it were _never_ forthcoming. At last it comes: but the phenomenon is straightway discovered to admit of at least two interpretations, and therefore never to prove the thing intended. In a person of high education,—in one accustomed to exact reasoning,—we should have supposed all this impossible.... But it is high time to unfold the _Introduction_ at the first page, and to begin to read.

II. It opens (p. 1-11) with some unsatisfactory Remarks on “Transmission by Writing;” vague and inaccurate,—unsupported by one single Textual reference,—and labouring under the grave defect of leaving the most instructive phenomena of the problem wholly untouched. For, inasmuch as “Transmission by writing” involves two distinct classes of errors, (1st) Those which are the result of _Accident_,—and (2ndly) Those which are the result of _Design_,—it is to use a Reader badly not to take the earliest opportunity of explaining to him that what makes codd. B א D such utterly untrustworthy guides, (except when supported by a large amount of extraneous evidence,) is the circumstance that _Design_ had evidently so much to do with a vast proportion of the peculiar errors in which they severally abound. In other words, each of those codices clearly exhibits a fabricated Text,—is the result of arbitrary and reckless _Recension_.

Now, this is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. In S. Luke’s Gospel alone (collated with the traditional Text) the _transpositions_ in codex B amount to 228,—affecting 654 words: in codex D, to 464,—affecting 1401 words. Proceeding with our examination of the same Gospel according to S. Luke, we find that the words _omitted_ in B are 757,—in D, 1552. The words _substituted_ in B amount to 309,—in D, to 1006. The readings _peculiar_ to B are 138, and affect 215 words;—those peculiar to D, are 1731, and affect 4090 words. Wondrous few of these _can_ have been due to accidental causes. The Text of one or of both codices must needs be depraved. (As for א, it is so frequently found in accord with B, that out of consideration for our Readers, we omit the corresponding figures.)

We turn to codd. A and C—(executed, suppose, a hundred years _after_ B, and a hundred years _before_ D)—and the figures are found to be as follows:—

In A. In C. The transpositions are 75 67 affecting 199 words 197 The words omitted are 208 175 The words substituted 111 115 The peculiar readings 90 87 affecting 131 words 127

Now, (as we had occasion to explain in a previous page,(715)) it is entirely to misunderstand the question, to object that the preceding Collation has been made with the Text of Stephanus open before us. Robert Etienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth, and cod. D in the VIth, are so widely discordant from one another; A and C, so utterly at variance with both. The simplest explanation of the phenomena is the truest; namely, that B and D exhibit grossly depraved Texts;—a circumstance of which it is impossible that the ordinary Reader should be too soon or too often reminded. But to proceed.

III. Some remarks follow, on what is strangely styled “Transmission by printed Editions:” in the course of which Dr. Hort informs us that Lachmann’s Text of 1831 was “the first founded on documentary authority.”(716)... On _what_ then, pray, does the learned Professor imagine that the Texts of Erasmus (1516) and of Stunica (1522) were founded? His statement is incorrect. The actual difference between Lachmann’s Text and those of the earlier Editors is, that _his_ “documentary authority” is partial, narrow, self-contradictory; and is proved to be untrustworthy by a free appeal to Antiquity. _Their_ documentary authority, derived from independent sources,—though partial and narrow as that on which Lachmann relied,—exhibits (_under the good Providence of _GOD,) a Traditional Text, the general purity of which is demonstrated by all the evidence which 350 years of subsequent research have succeeded in accumulating; and which is confessedly the Text of A.D. 375.

IV. We are favoured, in the third place, with the “History of this Edition:” in which the point that chiefly arrests attention is the explanation afforded of the many and serious occasions on which Dr. Westcott (“W.”) and Dr. Hort (“H.”), finding it impossible to agree, have set down their respective notions separately and subscribed them with their respective initial. We are reminded of what was wittily said concerning Richard Baxter: viz. that even if no one but himself existed in the Church, “Richard” would still be found to disagree with “Baxter,”—and “Baxter” with “Richard”.... We read with uneasiness that

“no individual mind can ever act with perfect uniformity, or free itself completely from _its own Idiosyncrasies_;” and that “the danger of _unconscious Caprice_ is inseparable from personal judgment.”—(p. 17.)

All this reminds us painfully of certain statements made by the same Editors in 1870:—

“We are obliged to come to the _individual mind_ at last; and Canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings against _natural illusions_, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final decision.”—(pp. xviii., xix.)

May we be permitted without offence to point out (not for the first time) that “idiosyncrasies” and “unconscious caprice,” and the fancies of the “individual mind,” can be allowed _no place whatever_ in a problem of such gravity and importance as the present? Once admit such elements, and we are safe to find ourselves in cloud-land to-morrow. A weaker foundation on which to build, is not to be named. And when we find that the learned Professors “venture to hope that the present Text has escaped some risks of this kind by being the production of two Editors of different habits of mind, working independently and to a great extent on different plans,”—we can but avow our conviction that the safeguard is altogether inadequate. When two men, devoted to the same pursuit, are in daily confidential intercourse on such a subject, the “_natural illusions_” of either have a marvellous tendency to communicate themselves. Their Reader’s only protection is rigidly to _insist_ on the production of _Proof_ for everything which these authors say.

V. The dissertation on “Intrinsic” and “Transcriptional Probability” which follows (pp. 20-30),—being _unsupported by one single instance or illustration_,—we pass by. It ignores throughout the fact, that the most serious corruptions of MSS. are due, _not_ to “Scribes” or “Copyists,” (of whom, by the way, we find perpetual mention every time we open the page;) but to the persons who employed them. So far from thinking with Dr. Hort that “the value of the evidence obtained from Transcriptional Probability is incontestable,”—for that, “without its aid, Textual Criticism could rarely obtain a high degree of security,” (p. 24,)—we venture to declare that inasmuch as one expert’s notions of what is “transcriptionally probable” prove to be the diametrical reverse of another expert’s notions, the supposed evidence to be derived from this source may, with advantage, be neglected altogether. Let the study of _Documentary Evidence_ be allowed to take its place. Notions of “Probability” are the very pest of those departments of Science which admit of an appeal to _Fact_.

VI. A signal proof of the justice of our last remark is furnished by the plea which is straightway put in (pp. 30-1) for the superior necessity of attending to “the relative antecedent credibility of Witnesses.” In other words, “The comparative trustworthiness of documentary Authorities” is proposed as a far weightier consideration than “Intrinsic” and “Transcriptional Probability.” Accordingly we are assured (in capital letters) that “Knowledge of Documents should precede final judgment upon readings” (p. 31).

“Knowledge”! Yes, but how acquired? Suppose two rival documents,—cod. A and cod. B. May we be informed how you would proceed with respect to them?

“Where one of the documents is found habitually to contain _morally certain, or at least strongly preferred, Readings_,—and the other habitually to contain their rejected rivals,—we [_i.e._ _Dr. Hort_] can have no doubt that the Text of the first has been transmitted in comparative purity; and that the Text of the second has suffered comparatively large corruption.”—(p. 32.)

But can such words have been written seriously? Is it gravely pretended that Readings become “_morally certain_,” because they are “_strongly preferred_”? Are we (in other words) seriously invited to admit that the “STRONG PREFERENCE” of “the individual mind” is to be the ultimate standard of appeal? If so, though _you_ (Dr. Hort) may “_have no doubt_” as to which is the purer manuscript,—see you not plainly that a man of different “idiosyncrasy” from yourself, may just as reasonably claim to “have no doubt”—_that you are mistaken_?... One is reminded of a passage in p. 61: viz.—

“If we find in any group of documents a succession of Readings exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, that is,—_Readings which the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence pronounces to be right, in opposition to formidable arrays of Documentary Evidence_; the cause must be that, as far at least as these Readings are concerned, some one exceptionally pure MS. was the common ancestor of all the members of the group.”

But how does _that_ appear? “The cause” _may_ be _the erroneous judgment of the Critic_,—may it not?... Dr. Hort is for setting up what his own inner consciousness “pronounces to be right,” against “Documentary Evidence,” however multitudinous. He claims that his own verifying faculty shall be supreme,—shall settle every question. Can he be in earnest?

VII. We are next introduced to the subject of “Genealogical Evidence” (p. 39); and are made attentive: for we speedily find ourselves challenged to admit that a “total change in the bearing of the evidence” is “made by the introduction of the factor of Genealogy” (p. 43). Presuming that the _meaning_ of the learned Writer must rather be that _if we did but know_ the genealogy of MSS., we should be in a position to reason more confidently concerning their Texts,—we read on: and speedily come to a second axiom (which is again printed in capital letters), viz. that “All trustworthy restoration of corrupted Texts is founded on the study of their History” (p. 40). We really read and wonder. Are we then engaged in _the _“restoration of corrupted Texts”? If so,—which be they? We require—(1) To be shown the “_corrupted Texts_” referred to: and then—(2) To be convinced that “the study of _their History_”—(as distinguished from an examination of the evidence for or against _their Readings_)—is a thing feasible.

“A simple instance” (says Dr. Hort) “will show at once the practical bearing” of “the principle here laid down.”—(p. 40.)

But (as usual) Dr. Hort produces _no_ instance. He merely proceeds to “suppose” a case (§ 50), which he confesses (§ 53) does not exist. So that we are moving in a land of shadows. And this, he straightway follows up by the assertion that

“it would be difficult to insist too strongly on the transformation of the superficial aspects of numerical authority effected by recognition of Genealogy.”—(p. 43.)

Presently, he assures us that

“a few documents are not, by reason of their mere paucity, appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them.” (p. 45.)

On this head, we take leave to entertain a somewhat different opinion. _Apart from the character of the Witnesses_, when 5 men say one thing, and 995 say the exact contradictory, we are apt to regard it even as axiomatic that, “by reason of their mere paucity,” the few “are appreciably far less likely to be right than the multitude opposed to them.” Dr. Hort seems to share our opinion; for he remarks,—

“A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents, than _vice versâ_.”

Exactly so! We meant, and we mean _that_, and no other thing. But then, we venture to point out, that the learned Professor considerably understates the case: seeing that the “_vice versâ presumption_” is absolutely non-existent. On the other hand, apart from _Proof to the contrary_, we are disposed to maintain that “a majority of extant documents” in the proportion of 995 to 5,—and sometimes of 1999 to 1,—creates more than “a presumption.” It amounts to _Proof of _“a majority of ancestral documents”.

Not so thinks Dr. Hort. “This presumption,” (he seems to have persuaded himself,) may be disposed of by his mere assertion that it “is too minute to weigh against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds” (_Ibid._). As usual, however, he furnishes us with _no evidence at all_,—“tangible” or “intangible.” Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupported _dictum_, and pass on?... The argumentative import of his twenty weary pages on “Genealogical Evidence” (pp. 39-59), appears to be resolvable into the following barren truism: viz. That if, out of 10 copies of Scripture, 9 _could be proved_ to have been executed from one and the same common original (p. 41), those 9 would cease to be regarded as 9 independent witnesses. But does the learned Critic really require to be told that we want no diagram of an imaginary case (p. 54) to convince us of _that_?

The one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that Dr. Hort does not seem to reflect that _therefore_ (indeed _by his own showing_) codices B and א, having been _demonstrably_ “executed from one and the same common original,” are not to be reckoned as _two_ independent witnesses to the Text of the New Testament, but as little more than _one_. (See p. 257.)

High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk about “Genealogical evidence,” when applied to Manuscripts, is—_moonshine_. The expression is metaphorical, and assumes that it has fared with MSS. as it fares with the successive generations of a family; and so, to a remarkable extent, no doubt, it _has_. But then, it happens, unfortunately, that we are unacquainted with _one single instance_ of a known MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about “Genealogical evidence,” where _no single step in the descent_ can be produced,—in other words, _where no Genealogical evidence exists_,—is absurd. The living inhabitants of a village, congregated in the churchyard where the bodies of their forgotten progenitors for 1000 years repose without memorials of any kind,—is a faint image of the relation which subsists between extant copies of the Gospels and the sources from which they were derived. That, in either case, there has been repeated mixture, is undeniable; but since the Parish-register is lost, and not a vestige of Tradition survives, it is idle to pretend to argue on _that_ part of the subject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen, bearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remote _ancestors_ of some sort. That they represent as many _families_, is at least a _fact_. Further we cannot go.

But the illustration is misleading, because inadequate. Assemble rather an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scot; a Frenchman, a German, a Spaniard; a Russian, a Pole, an Hungarian; an Italian, a Greek, a Turk. From Noah these 12 are all confessedly descended; but if _they_ are silent, and _you_ know nothing whatever about their antecedents,—your remarks about their respective “genealogies” must needs prove as barren—as Dr. Hort’s about the “genealogies” of copies of Scripture. “_The factor of Genealogy_,” in short, in this discussion, represents a mere phantom of the brain: is the name of an imagination—not of a fact.

The nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which Dr. Hort writes so glibly, is supplied—(1) by Codd. F and G of S. Paul, which are found to be independent transcripts of the same venerable lost original:—(2) by Codd. 13, 69, 124 and 346, which were confessedly derived from one and the same queer archetype: _and especially_—(3) by Codd. B and א. These two famous manuscripts, because they are disfigured exclusively by the self-same mistakes, are convicted of being descended (and not very remotely) from the self-same very corrupt original. By consequence, the combined evidence of F and G is but that of a single codex. Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, when they agree, would be conveniently designated by a symbol, or a single capital letter. Codd. B and א, as already hinted (p. 255), are not to be reckoned as two witnesses. Certainly, they have not nearly the Textual significancy and importance of B in conjunction with A, or of A in conjunction with C. At best, they do but equal 1-½ copies. Nothing of this kind however is what Drs. Westcott and Hort intend to convey,—or indeed seem to understand.

VIII. It is not until we reach p. 94, that these learned men favour us with a single actual appeal to Scripture. At p. 90, Dr. Hort,—who has hitherto been skirmishing over the ground, and leaving us to wonder what in the world it can be that he is driving at,—announces a chapter on the “Results of Genealogical evidence proper;” and proposes to “determine the Genealogical relations of the chief ancient Texts.” Impatient for argument, (at page 92,) we read as follows:—

“The fundamental Text of _late extant Greek MSS._ generally is _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of the _second half of the fourth century_.”

We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament,—the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, in short,—is, according to Dr. Hort, “BEYOND ALL QUESTION” the “TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.” We shall gratefully avail ourselves of his candid admission, by and by.

Having thus _assumed_ a “dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of the second half of the IVth century,” Dr. H. attempts, by an analysis of what he is pleased to call “_conflate_ Readings,” to prove the “posteriority of ‘Syrian’ to ‘Western’ and other ‘Neutral’ readings.”... Strange method of procedure! seeing that, of those second and third classes of readings, we have not as yet so much as heard the names. Let us however without more delay be shown those specimens of “Conflation” which, in Dr. Hort’s judgment, supply “the clearest evidence” (p. 94) that “Syrian” are posterior alike to “Western” and to “Neutral readings.” Of these, after 30 years of laborious research, Dr. Westcott and he flatter themselves that they have succeeded in detecting _eight_.

IX. Now because, on the one hand, it would be unreasonable to fill up the space at our disposal with details which none but professed students will care to read;—and because, on the other, we cannot afford to pass by anything in these pages which pretends to be of the nature of proof;—we have consigned our account of Dr. Hort’s 8 instances of _Conflation_ (which prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.(717)

And, after an attentive survey of the Textual phenomena connected with these 7 specimens, we are constrained to assert that the interpretation put upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless imagination,—a dream and nothing more. Something has been attempted analogous to the familiar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a false and hitherto unheard-of doctrine on a few isolated places of Scripture, divorced from their context. The actual _facts_ of the case shall be submitted to the judgement of learned and unlearned Readers alike: and we promise beforehand to abide by the unprejudiced verdict of either:—

(_a_) S. Mark’s Gospel is found to contain in all 11,646 words: of which (collated with the Traditional Text) A omits 138: B, 762: א, 870: D, 900.—S. Luke contains 19,941 words: of which A omits 208: B, 757; א, 816: D, no less than 1552. (Let us not be told that the traditional Text is itself not altogether trustworthy. _That_ is a matter entirely beside the question just now before the Reader,—as we have already, over and over again, had occasion to explain.(718) Codices must needs all alike be compared _with something_,—must perforce all alike be referred to _some one common standard_: and we, for our part, are content to employ (as every Critic has been content before us) the traditional Text, as the most convenient standard that can be named. So employed, (viz. as a standard of _comparison_, not of _excellence_,) the commonly Received Text, more conveniently than any other, _reveals_—certainly does not _occasion_—different degrees of discrepancy. And now, to proceed.)

(_b_) Dr. Hort has detected _four_ instances in S. Mark’s Gospel, only _three_ in S. Luke’s—_seven_ in all—where Codices B א and D happen to concur in making an omission _at the same place_, but not _of the same words_. We shall probably be best understood if we produce an instance of the thing spoken of: and no fairer example can be imagined than the last of the eight, of which Dr. Hort says,—“This simple instance needs no explanation” (p. 104). Instead of αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες,—(which is the reading of _every known copy_ of the Gospels _except five_,)—א B C L exhibit only εὐλογοῦντες: D, only αἰνοῦντες. (To speak quite accurately, א B C L omit αἰνοῦντες καί and are followed by Westcott and Hort: D omits καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, and is followed by Tischendorf. Lachmann declines to follow either. Tregelles doubts.)

(_c_) Now, upon this (and the six other instances, which however prove to be a vast deal less apt for their purpose than the present), these learned men have gratuitously built up the following extravagant and astonishing theory:—

(_d_) They assume,—(they do not attempt to _prove_: in fact they _never_ prove _anything_:)—(1) That αἰνοῦντες καί—and καὶ εὐλογοῦντες—are respectively fragments of two independent Primitive Texts, which they arbitrarily designate as “Western” and “Neutral,” respectively:—(2) That the latter of the two, [_only_ however because it is vouched for by B and א,] must needs exhibit what the Evangelist actually wrote: [though _why_ it must, these learned men forget to explain:]—(3) That in the middle of the IIIrd and of the IVth century the two Texts referred to were with design and by authority welded together, and became (what the same irresponsible Critics are pleased to call) the “Syrian text.”—(4) That αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, being thus shown [?] to be “a Syrian _Conflation_,” may be rejected at once. (_Notes_, p. 73.)

X. But we demur to this weak imagination, (which only by courtesy can be called “_a Theory_,”) on every ground, and are constrained to remonstrate with our would-be Guides at every step. They assume everything. They prove nothing. And the facts of the case lend them no favour at all. For first,—We only find εὐλογοῦντες standing alone, in two documents of the IVth century, in two of the Vth, and in one of the VIIIth: while, for αἰνοῦντες standing alone, the only Greek voucher producible is a notoriously corrupt copy of the VIth century. True, that here a few copies of the old Latin side with D: but then a few copies _also_ side with the traditional Text: and Jerome is found to have adjudicated between their rival claims _in favour of the latter_. The probabilities of the case are in fact simply overwhelming; for, since D omits 1552 words out of 19,941 (_i.e._ about one word in 13), _why_ may not καὶ εὐλογοῦντες _be two of the words it omits_,—in which case there has been no “Conflation”?

Nay, look into the matter a little more closely:—(for surely, before we put up with this queer illusion, it is our duty to look it very steadily in the face:)—and note, that in this last chapter of S. Luke’s Gospel, which consists of 837 words, no less than 121 are omitted by cod. D. To state the case differently,—D is observed to leave out _one word in seven_ in the very chapter of S. Luke which supplies the instance of “Conflation” under review. What possible significance therefore can be supposed to attach to its omission of the clause καὶ εὐλογοῦντες? And since, _mutatis mutandis_, the same remarks apply to the 6 remaining cases,—(for one, viz. the [7th], is clearly an oversight,)—will any Reader of ordinary fairness and intelligence be surprised to hear that we reject the assumed “Conflation” unconditionally, as a silly dream? It is founded entirely upon the omission of 21 (or at most 42) words out of a total of 31,587 from Codd. B א D. And yet it is demonstrable that out of that total, B omits 1519: א, 1686: D, 2452. The occasional _coincidence in Omission_ of B + א and D, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving of notice. If,—(which is as likely as not,)—on _six_ occasions, B + א and D have but _omitted different words in the same sentence_, then _there has been no _“Conflation”; and the (so-called) “Theory,” which was to have revolutionized the Text of the N. T., is discovered to rest absolutely _upon nothing_. It bursts, like a very thin bubble: floats away like a film of gossamer, and disappears from sight.

But further, as a matter of fact, _at least five_ out of the eight instances cited,—viz. the [1st], [2nd], [5th], [6th], [7th],—_fail to exhibit the alleged phenomena_: conspicuously ought never to have been adduced. For, in the [1st], D merely _abridges_ the sentence: in the [2nd], it _paraphrases_ 11 words by 11; and in the [6th], it _paraphrases_ 12 words by 9. In the [5th], B D merely _abridge_. The utmost _residuum_ of fact which survives, is therefore as follows:—

[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words, B א omit 4: D other 4. [4th]. " " 9 words, B א omit 5: D other 5. [8th]. " " 5 words, B א omit 2: D other 2.

But if _this_ be “the clearest Evidence” (p. 94) producible for “the Theory of Conflation,”—then, the less said about the “Theory,” the better for the credit of its distinguished Inventors. How _any_ rational Textual Theory is to be constructed out of the foregoing Omissions, we fail to divine. But indeed the whole matter is demonstrably a weak imagination,—_a dream_, and nothing more.

XI. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort, instead of realizing the insecurity of the ground under their feet, proceed gravely to build upon it, and to treat their hypothetical assumptions as well-ascertained facts. They imagine that they have already been led by “independent Evidence” to regard “the longer readings as conflate each from the two earlier readings:”—whereas, up to p. 105 (where the statement occurs), they have really failed to produce a single particle of evidence, direct or indirect, for their opinion. “We have found reason to believe” the Readings of א B L, (say they,) “to be the original Readings.”—But why, if this is the case, have they kept their “finding” so entirely to themselves?—_No reason whatever_ have they assigned for their belief. The Reader is presently assured (p. 106) that “_it is certain_” that the Readings exhibited by the traditional Text in the eight supposed cases of “Conflation” are all posterior in date to the fragmentary readings exhibited by B and D. But, once more, What is _the ground_ of this “certainty”?—Presently (viz. in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further assurance that

“_the proved_ actual use of [shorter] documents in the conflate Readings renders their use elsewhere a _vera causa_ in the Newtonian sense.”

But, once more,—_Where_ and _what_ is the “proof” referred to? May a plain man, sincerely in search of Truth,—after wasting many precious hours over these barren pages—be permitted to declare that he resents such solemn trifling? (He craves to be forgiven if he avows that “_Pickwickian_”—not “Newtonian”—was the epithet which solicited him, when he had to transcribe for the Printer the passage which immediately precedes.)

XII. Next come 8 pages (pp. 107-15) headed—“Posteriority of ‘Syrian’ to ‘Western’ and other (neutral and ‘Alexandrian’) Readings, shown by Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence.”

In which however we are really “shown” nothing of the sort. _Bold Assertions_ abound, (as usual with this respected writer,) but _Proof_ he never attempts any. Not a particle of “Evidence” is adduced.—Next come 5 pages headed,—“Posteriority of Syrian to Western, Alexandrian, and other (neutral) Readings, shown by Internal evidence of Syrian readings” (p. 115).

But again we are “_shown_” absolutely nothing: although we are treated to the assurance that we have been shown many wonders. Thus, “the Syrian conflate Readings _have shown_ the Syrian text to be posterior to at least two ancient forms still extant” (p. 115): which is the very thing they have signally failed to do. Next,

“Patristic evidence _has shown_ that these two ancient Texts, and also a third, must have already existed early in the third century, and suggested very strong grounds for believing that in the middle of the century the Syrian Text had not yet been formed.”

Whereas _no single appeal_ has been made to the evidence supplied by _one single ancient Father_!—

“Another step is gained by a close examination of all Readings distinctively Syrian.”—(_Ibid._)

And yet we are never told which the “Readings distinctively Syrian” _are_,—although they are henceforth referred to in every page. Neither are we instructed how to recognize them when we see them; which is unfortunate, since “it follows,”—(though we entirely fail to see from _what_,)—“that all distinctively Syrian Readings may be set aside at once as certainly originating after the middle of the third century.” (p. 117) ... Let us hear a little more on the subject:—

“The same _Facts_”—(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured us with _any_)—“lead to another conclusion of equal or even greater importance respecting non-distinctive Syrian Readings ... Since the Syrian Text is only a modified eclectic combination of earlier Texts independently attested,”—

(for it is in this confident style that these eminent Scholars handle the problem they undertook to solve, but as yet have failed even _to touch_),—

“existing documents descended from it can attest nothing but itself.”—(p. 118.)

Presently, we are informed that “it follows from what has been said above,”—(though _how_ it follows, we fail to see,)—“that all Readings in which the Pre-Syrian texts concur, _must be accepted at once as the Apostolic Readings_:” and that “all distinctively Syrian Readings _must be at once rejected_.”—(p. 119.)

Trenchant decrees of this kind at last arrest attention. It becomes apparent that we have to do with a Writer who has discovered a summary way of dealing with the Text of Scripture, and who is prepared to impart his secret to any who care to accept—without questioning—his views. We look back to see where this accession of confidence began, and are reminded that at p. 108 Dr. Hort announced that for convenience he should henceforth speak of certain “groups of documents,” by the conventional names “Western”—“Pre-Syrian”—“Alexandrian”—and so forth. Accordingly, ever since, (sometimes eight or ten times in the course of a single page,(719)) we have encountered this arbitrary terminology: have been required to accept it as the expression of ascertained facts in Textual Science. Not till we find ourselves floundering in the deep mire, do we become fully aware of the absurdity of our position. Then at last, (and high time too!), we insist on knowing what on earth our Guide is about, and whither he is proposing to lead us?... More considerate to our Readers than he has been to us, we propose before going any further, (instead of mystifying the subject as Dr. Hort has done,) to state in a few plain words what the present Theory, divested of pedantry and circumlocution, proves to be; and what is Dr. Hort’s actual contention.

XIII. The one great Fact, which especially troubles him and his joint Editor,(720)—(as well it may)—is _The Traditional Greek Text_ of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian,—the Text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs,—call it the “Received,” or the _Traditional Greek Text_, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Text _has_ come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at all events, is a point on which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our Readers cannot have yet forgotten his virtual admission that,—_Beyond all question the Textus Receptus_ is _the dominant Græco-Syrian Text of_ A.D. 350 _to_ A.D. 400.(721)

Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentially _the same_ in all. That it requires Revision in respect of many of its lesser details, is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an excellent Text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead critical students of Scripture seriously astray,—which is what no one will venture to predicate concerning any single Critical Edition of the N. T. which has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the disciples of Griesbach’s school.

XIV. In marked contrast to the Text we speak of,—(which is identical with the Text of every extant Lectionary of the Greek Church, and may therefore reasonably claim to be spoken of as the _Traditional_ Text,)—is _that_ contained in a little handful of documents of which the most famous are codices B א, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on the one hand,—cod. D and the old Latin copies, on the other. To magnify the merits of these, as helps and guides, and to ignore their many patent and scandalous defects and blemishes:—_per fas et nefas_ to vindicate their paramount authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and when _that_ is clearly impossible, then to treat their errors as the ancient Egyptians treated their cats, dogs, monkeys, and other vermin,—namely, to embalm them, and pay them Divine honours:—_such_ for the last 50 years has been the practice of the dominant school of Textual Criticism among ourselves. The natural and even necessary correlative of this, has been the disparagement of the merits of the commonly Received Text: which has come to be spoken of, (we know not why,) as contemptuously, almost as bitterly, as if it had been at last ascertained to be untrustworthy in every respect: a thing undeserving alike of a place and of a name among the monuments of the Past. Even to have “used the Received Text _as a basis for correction_” (p. 184) is stigmatized by Dr. Hort as one “great cause” why Griesbach went astray.

XV. Drs. Westcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their predecessors in this singular race. Their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text,—their superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents; (which documents however they freely confess _are not more ancient_ than the “Traditional Text” which they despise;)—knows no bounds. But the thing just now to be attended to is the argumentative process whereby they seek to justify their preference.—LACHMANN avowedly took his stand on a very few of the oldest known documents: and though TREGELLES slightly enlarged the area of his predecessor’s observations, his method was practically identical with that of Lachmann.—TISCHENDORF, appealing to every known authority, invariably shows himself regardless of the evidence he has himself accumulated. Where certain of the uncials are,—_there_ his verdict is sure also to be.... Anything more unscientific, more unphilosophical, more transparently _foolish_ than such a method, can scarcely be conceived: but it has prevailed for 50 years, and is now at last more hotly than ever advocated by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. Only, (to their credit be it recorded,) they have had the sense to perceive that it must needs be recommended by _Arguments_ of some sort, or else it will inevitably fall to pieces the first fine day any one is found to charge it, with the necessary knowledge of the subject, and with sufficient resoluteness of purpose, to make him a formidable foe.

XVI. Their expedient has been as follows.—Aware that the Received or Traditional Greek Text (to quote their own words,) “_is virtually identical with that used by Chrysostom and other Antiochian Fathers in the latter part of the IVth century_:” and fully alive to the fact that it “_must therefore have been represented by Manuscripts as old as any which are now surviving_” (_Text_, p. 547),—they have invented an extraordinary Hypothesis in order to account for its existence:—

They assume that the writings of Origen “establish the prior existence of at least three types of Text:”—the most clearly marked of which, they call the “Western:”—another, less prominent, they designate as “Alexandrian:”—the third holds (they say) a middle or “Neutral” position. (That all this is mere _moonshine_,—a day-dream and no more,—we shall insist, until some proofs have been produced that the respected Authors are moving amid material forms,—not discoursing with the creations of their own brain.) “The priority of two at least of these three Texts just noticed to the Syrian Text,” they are confident has been established by the eight “_conflate_” Syrian Readings which they flatter themselves they have already resolved into their “Western” and “Neutral” elements (_Text_, p. 547). This, however, is a part of the subject on which we venture to hope that our Readers by this time have formed a tolerably clear opinion for themselves. The ground has been cleared of the flimsy superstructure which these Critics have been 30 years in raising, ever since we blew away (pp. 258-65) the airy foundation on which it rested.

At the end of some confident yet singularly hazy statements concerning the characteristics of “Western” (pp. 120-6), of “Neutral” (126-30), and of “Alexandrian” Readings (130-2), Dr. Hort favours us with the assurance that—

“The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,” “is the chief monument of a new period of textual history.”—(p. 132.)

“Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all.”—(p. 133.)

Let it only be carefully remembered that it is of something virtually identical with the _Textus Receptus_ that we are just now reading an imaginary history, and it is presumed that the most careless will be made attentive.

“The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a ‘_Recension_,’ ... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by Scribes.”—(_Ibid._)

But _why_ “must” it? Instead of “_must in fact_,” we are disposed to read “_may—in fiction_.” The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the Text of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod. B, it becomes to himself self-evident that _one of the two_ has been fabricated. Granted. Then,—Why should not _the solitary Codex_ be the offending party? For what imaginable reason should cod. B,—which comes to us without a character, and which, when tried by the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted of “_universa vitiositas_,” (to use Tischendorf’s expression);—_why_ (we ask) should _codex_ B be upheld “contra mundum”?... Dr. Hort proceeds—(still speaking of “_the_ [imaginary] _Syrian Text_”),—

“It was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region.”—(p. 133.)

Well but,—Would it not have been more methodical if “the currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region,” had been first _demonstrated_? or, at least, shown to be a thing probable? Till this “distracting” phenomenon has been to some extent proved to have any existence in _fact_, what possible “probability” can be claimed for the history of a “Recension,”—which very Recension, up to this point, _has not been proved to have ever taken place at all_?

“Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation of rival claims.”—(p. 134.)

Why yes, to be sure,—“each Text [_if it existed_] may perhaps [_or perhaps may not_] have found a Patron in some leading personage [as Dr. Hort or Dr. Scrivener in our own days]:” but then, be it remembered, this will only have been possible,—(_a_) If the Recension _ever took place_: and—(_b_) If it was conducted after the extraordinary fashion which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we have the unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;(722) confirmed by the Chairman of the Revisionist body,—by whom in fact it was deliberately invented.(723)

But then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming that _any such Recension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took place at all_,—what else but a purely gratuitous exercise of the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort should proceed further to invent the method which might, or could, or would, or should have been pursued, if it _had_ taken place?

Having however in this way (1) Assumed a “Syrian Recension,”—(2) Invented the cause of it,—and (3) Dreamed the process by which it was carried into execution,—the Critic hastens, _more suo_, to characterize _the historical result_ in the following terms:—

“The qualities which THE AUTHORS OF THE SYRIAN TEXT seem to have most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without recourse to violent measures. They were apparently equally desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter contained in all the existing Texts, provided it did not confuse the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New Omissions accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to contribute to apparent simplicity. New Interpolations, on the other hand, are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or other assimilation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in matter and in diction THE SYRIAN TEXT is conspicuously a full Text. It delights in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable Additions. As distinguished from the _bold vigour_ of the ‘Western’ scribes, and _the refined scholarship_ of the ‘Alexandrians,’ the spirit of its own corrections is at once sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, on either literary or religious grounds, as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yet _shewing no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight, it presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study_.”—(pp. 134-5.)

XVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We should be thought uncivil were we to declare our own candid estimate of “the critical and spiritual” perception of the man who could permit himself so to write. We prefer to proceed with our sketch of the Theory, (of _the Dream_ rather,) which is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional Text of the N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely it would have been high time to discuss the characteristics which “the Authors of the Syrian Text” impressed upon their work, when it had been first established—or at least rendered probable—that the supposed Operators and that the assumed Operation have any existence except in the fertile brain of this distinguished and highly imaginative writer.

XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr. Hort’s unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls “Syrian” or “Antiochian,” is the fact that what he so designates bears a most inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version; which, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally assigned to the second century of our era. “It is at any rate no stretch of imagination,” (according to Bp. Ellicott,) “to suppose that portions of it might have been in the hands of S. John.” [p. 26.] Accordingly, these Editors assure us that—

“the only way of explaining the whole body of facts is _to suppose_ that the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS. represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.”—(p. 136.)

“A Revision of the old Syriac Version _appears_ to have taken place in the IVth century, or sooner; and _doubtless in some connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text_, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”—(_Text_, 552.)

“Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which it finally received by _an evidently authoritative Revision_,”—_a Syriac _“Vulgate”_ answering to the Latin _“Vulgate.”—(p. 84.)

“Historical antecedents render it _tolerably certain_ that the locality of such an authoritative Revision”—(which Revision however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported conjecture)—“would be either Edessa or Nisibis.”—(p. 136.)

In the meantime, the abominably corrupt document known as “Cureton’s Syriac,” is, by another bold hypothesis, assumed to be the only surviving specimen of the unrevised Version, and is henceforth _invariably_ designated by these authors as “the old Syriac;” and referred to, as “syr. vt.,”—(in imitation of the Latin “_vetus_”): the venerable Peschito being referred to as the “Vulgate Syriac,”—“syr. vg.”

“When therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences between the _revised Syriac Text_ and the Text of the Antiochian Fathers of the latter part of the IVth century,”—[of which coincidences, (be it remarked in passing,) the obvious explanation is, that the Texts referred to are faithful traditional representations of the inspired autographs;]—“and _strong indications_ that the Revision _was deliberate and in some way authoritative_ in both cases,—_it becomes natural to suppose_ that the two operations had some historical connexion.”—(pp. 136-7.)

XIX. But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a University which is supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The very _fact_ of a “Revision” of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has been _demonstrated_, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—“_To suppose_” that such a Revision took place: and (2)—“_To suppose_” that all our existing Manuscripts represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why we should be so complaisant as “to suppose” either the one thing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic hastens to assure us that there exist “strong indications”—(why are we not _shown_ them?)—that the Revision he speaks of was “deliberate, and in some way authoritative.”

Out of this grows a “natural supposition” that “two [purely imaginary] operations,” “had some _historical connexion_.” Already therefore has the shadow thickened into a substance. “The _Revised_ Syriac Text” has by this time come to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it came into being is even assumed to have been “deliberate and authoritative.” These Editors henceforth style the Peschito the “_Syriac_ Vulgate,”—as confidently as Jerome’s Revision of the old Latin is styled the “_Latin_ Vulgate.” They even assure us that “Cureton’s Syriac” “renders the comparatively late and ‘revised’ character of the Syriac Vulgate _a matter of certainty_” (p. 84). The very city in which the latter underwent Revision, can, it seems, be fixed with “_tolerable certainty_” (p. 136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious?

At the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of which is the hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the Greek,) the learned writer announces that—“The textual elements of each principle document _having being thus ascertained, it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy of a much larger number of individual readings than before_” (_Text_, p. 552).—We read and marvel.

So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is this:—that, somewhere between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,

“(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led to an authoritative Revision at Antioch:—which (2) was then taken as standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the Syriac text:—and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative Revision”—this “final process” having been “apparently completed by [A.D.] 350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)

XX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of dealing _thus_ with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed _to accept his Theory in its entirety_. We will, with the Reader’s permission, assume that _all_ he tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving to ourselves the right of disallowing _for ourselves_ as much of the matter as we please.

Somewhere between A.D. 250 and 350 therefore,—(“it is impossible to say with confidence” [p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors evidently incline to the latter half of the IIIrd century, _i.e._ _circa_ A.D. 275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress—(by the hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the Bishops of Edessa or Nisibis, (“great centres of life and culture to the Churches whose language was Syriac,” [p. 136,]) lent themselves so effectually to the project, that a single fragmentary document is, at the present day, the only vestige remaining of the Text which before had been universally prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity. “The _almost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS._, contrasted with the great number of extant _Vulgate Syriac MSS._,”—(for it is thus that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits evidence!),—is to be attributed, it seems, to the power and influence of the Authors of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [_ibid._] Bp. Ellicott, by the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton’s Syriac as “_singular and sometimes rather wild_.” “_The text, of a very composite nature_; sometimes _inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript, but more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic character of text as the Codex Bezæ_.” [p. 42.] (It is, in fact, an _utterly depraved_ and _fabricated_ document.)

We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the “leading Personages or Sees” (p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was familiarly known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.

XXI. Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church’s palmiest days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis) _the latest possible dates_ of any of these Copies must range between A.D. 250 and 350. But the Delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal to not a few codices _written within a hundred years of the_ date of the _inspired Autographs_ themselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away—for purposes of comparison and avoidance—specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.

After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a “strictly Western,” or a “strictly Alexandrian,” or a “strictly Neutral” type. In plain English, if codices B, א, and D had been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three; but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod. D would see the light. In the meantime, the _immediate ancestors_ of B א and D will perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.

XXII. Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty years?)—and the work referred to is “_subjected to a second authoritative Revision_.” _Again_, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of her greatest men belong to the period of which we are speaking. Eusebius (A.D. 308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch. Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but “carry out more completely the purposes of the first;” and “the final process was apparently completed by A.D. 350” (p. 137).—So far the Cambridge Professor.

XXIII. But the one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the Text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader’s particular attention to it.

We request him to note that, _by the hypothesis_, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiastics _not a few codices of exactly the same type as codices_ B _and_ א: especially as codex B. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—

(1) From S. Mark’s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE LAST TWELVE VERSES (xvi. 9-20).

(2) From S. Luke’s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our SAVIOUR’S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (xxii. 43, 44).

(3) His PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (xxiii. 34), will have also been away.

(4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (xxiii. 38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.

(5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. PETER’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE (xxiv. 12).

(6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD’S ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN (_ibid._ 51).

(7) Also, from S. John’s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL OF BETHESDA (v. 3, 4).

Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that, _according to Dr. Hort_, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (_i.e._ _against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codices_ B _and_ א,)—the many illustrious Bishops who, (_still_ according to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and then in A.D. 350,—by common consent set a mark of _condemnation_. We are assured that those famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod. A,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.

When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seven places above referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. Hort expresses himself in terms which—could they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient. But let the respected gentleman by all means be allowed to speak for himself:—

(1) THE LAST TWELVE VERSES of S. Mark (he would have been heard to say) are a “very early interpolation.” “Its authorship and precise date must remain unknown.” “It manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority.” “It is doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age.”—(_Notes_, pp. 46 and 51.)

(2) THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN (he would have told them) is “an early Western interpolation,” and “can only be a fragment from traditions, written or oral,”—“rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century.”—(pp. 66-7.)

(3) THE PRAYER OF OUR LORD FOR HIS MURDERERS (Dr. Hort would have said),—“I cannot doubt comes from an extraneous source.” It is “a Western interpolation.”—(p.68.)

(4) TO THE INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, IN GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW [S. Luke xxiii. 38], he would not have allowed so much as a hearing.

(5) The spuriousness of the narrative of S. PETER’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE [S. Luke xxiv. 12] (the same Ante-Nicene Fathers would have learned) he regards as a “moral certainty.” He would have assured them that it is “a Western non-interpolation.”—(p. 71.)

(6) They would have learned that, in the account of the same Critic, S. Luke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to the inspired Text: another “Western non-interpolation.” Dr. Hort would have tried to persuade them that OUR LORD’S ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN “_was evidently inserted from an assumption_ that a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospel _must be the Ascension_,” (_Notes_, p. 73).... (What the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have thought of their teacher we forbear to conjecture.)—(p. 71.)

(7) THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL OF BETHESDA [S. John v. 3, 4] is not even allowed a bracketed place in Dr. Hort’s Text. How the accomplished Critic would have set about persuading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that they were in error for holding it to be genuine Scripture, it is hard to imagine.

XXIV. It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity. _Why_, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,—we fail to understand. “If Baal be GOD, then follow _him_!” Dr. Hort has his codex B and his codex א to guide him. He informs us (p. 276) that “the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that the _pre-eminent relative purity_” of those two codices “is approximately _absolute_,—_a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs_.” On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250-A.D. 350),—exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it to _him_, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?

Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the IIIrd and the IVth Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a “Syrian Text,”—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250-A.D. 350),—is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text.

Thus, his prolix and perverse discussion of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 (viz. from p. 28 to p. 51 of his _Notes_),—which, carefully analysed, is found merely to amount to “Thank you for showing us our mistake; but we mean to stick to our _Mumpsimus_!”:—those many inferences as well from what the Fathers do _not_ say, as from what they _do_;—are all effectually disposed of by his own theory of a “Syrian text.” A mighty array of forgotten Bishops, Fathers, Doctors of the Nicene period, come back and calmly assure the accomplished Professor that the evidence on which he relies is but an insignificant fraction of the evidence which was before themselves when they delivered their judgment. “Had you known but the thousandth part of what we knew familiarly,” say they, “you would have spared yourself this exposure. You seem to have forgotten that Eusebius was one of the chief persons in our assembly; that Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as his namesake of Nyssa,—were all living when we held our Textual Conference, and some of them, though young men, were even parties to our decree.”... Now, as an _argumentum ad hominem_, this, be it observed, is decisive and admits of no rejoinder.

XXV. How then about those “Syrian _Conflations_” concerning which a few pages back we heard so much, and for which Dr. Hort considers the august tribunal of which we are now speaking to be responsible? He is convinced that the (so-called) Syrian Text (which he regards as the product of their deliberations), is “an eclectic text _combining Readings from the three principal Texts_” (p. 145): which Readings in consequence he calls “_conflate_.” How then is it to be supposed that these “Conflations” arose? The answer is obvious. As “Conflations,” _they have no existence_,—save in the fertile brain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Nicene fathers who never met at Antioch have been interrogated by him concerning this matter,—(let the Hibernian supposition be allowed for argument sake!)—they would perforce have made answer,—“You quite mistake the purpose for which we came together, learned sir! You are evidently thinking of your Jerusalem Chamber and of the unheard-of method devised by your Bishop” [see pp. 37 to 39: also p. 273] “for ascertaining the Truth of Scripture. Well may the resuscitation of so many forgotten blunders have occupied you and your colleagues for as long a period as was expended on the Siege of Troy! _Our_ business was not to _invent_ readings whether by ‘Conflation’ or otherwise, but only to distinguish between spurious Texts and genuine,—families of fabricated MSS., and those which we knew to be trustworthy,—mutilated and unmutilated Copies. Every one of what _you_ are pleased to call ‘Conflate Readings,’ learned sir, we found—just as you find them—in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and we gave them our deliberate approval, and left them standing in the Text in consequence. We believed them to be,—we are confident that they _are_,—the very words of the Evangelists and Apostles of the LORD: the _ipsissima verba_ of the SPIRIT: ‘_the true sayings of the_ HOLY GHOST.’ ” [See p. 38, note 2.]

All this however by the way. The essential thing to be borne in mind is that, according to Dr. Hort,—_on two distinct occasions between_ A.D. 250 _and_ 350—the whole Eastern Church, meeting by representation in her palmiest days, deliberately put forth _that_ Traditional Text of the N. T. with which we at this day are chiefly familiar. That this is indeed his view of the matter, there can at least be no doubt. He says:—

“_An authoritative Revision_ at Antioch ... was itself subjected to _a second authoritative Revision_ carrying out more completely the purposes of the first.” “At what date between A.D. 250 and 350 _the first process_ took place, it is impossible to say with confidence.” “_The final process_ was apparently completed by A.D. 350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)

“The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally _is beyond all question_ identical with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of _the second half of the IVth century_.”—(p. 92.)

Be it so. It follows that the Text exhibited by such codices as B and א _was deliberately condemned_ by the assembled piety, learning, and judgment of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom. At a period when there existed _nothing more modern_ than Codices B and א,—nothing _so_ modern as A and C,—all specimens of the former class were _rejected_: while such codices as bore a general resemblance to A were by common consent pointed out as deserving of confidence and _recommended for repeated Transcription_.

XXVI. Pass _fifteen hundred_ years, and the Reader is invited to note attentively what has come to pass. Time has made a clean sweep, it may be, of every Greek codex belonging to either of the two dates above indicated. Every tradition belonging to the period has also long since utterly perished. When lo, in A.D. 1831, under the auspices of Dr. Lachmann, “a new departure” is made. Up springs what may be called the new German school of Textual Criticism,—of which the fundamental principle is a superstitious deference to the decrees of cod. B. The heresy prevails for fifty years (1831-81) and obtains many adherents. The practical result is, that its chief promoters make it their business to throw discredit on the result of the two great Antiochian Revisions already spoken of! The (so-called) “Syrian Text”—although assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort to be the product of the combined wisdom, piety, and learning of the great Patriarchates of the East from A.D. 250 to A.D. 350; “a ‘Recension’ in the proper sense of the word; a work of attempted Criticism, performed deliberately by Editors and not merely by Scribes” (p. 133):—this “Syrian Text,” Doctors Westcott and Hort denounce as “_showing no marks of either critical or spiritual insight:_”—

It “presents” (say they) “the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but _appreciably impoverished in sense and force_; more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study.”—(p. 135.)

XXVII. We are content to leave this matter to the Reader’s judgment. For ourselves, we make no secret of the grotesqueness of the contrast thus, for the second time, presented to the imagination. On _that_ side, by the hypothesis, sit the greatest Doctors of primitive Christendom, assembled in solemn conclave. Every most illustrious name is there. By ingeniously drawing a purely arbitrary hard-and-fast line at the year A.D. 350, and so anticipating many a “_floruit_” by something between five and five-and-twenty years, Dr. Hort’s intention is plain: but the expedient will not serve his turn. Quite content are we with the names secured to us within the proposed limits of time. On _that_ side then, we behold congregated choice representatives of the wisdom, the piety, the learning of the Eastern Church, from A.D. 250 to A.D. 350.—On this side sits—Dr. Hort! ... An interval of 1532 years separates these two parties.

XXVIII. And first,—How may the former assemblage be supposed to have been occupying themselves? The object with which those distinguished personages came together was the loftiest, the purest, the holiest imaginable: viz. to purge out from the sacred Text the many corruptions by which, in their judgments, it had become depraved during the 250 (or at the utmost 300) years which have elapsed since it first came into existence; to detect the counterfeit and to eliminate the spurious. Not unaware by any means are they of the carelessness of Scribes, nor yet of the corruptions which have been brought in through the officiousness of critical “Correctors” of the Text. To what has resulted from the misdirected piety of the Orthodox, they are every bit as fully alive as to what has crept in through the malignity of Heretical Teachers. Moreover, while the memory survives in all its freshness of the depravations which the inspired Text has experienced from these and other similar corrupting influences, the _means abound_ and _are at hand_ of _testing_ every suspected place of Scripture. Well, and next,—How have these holy men prospered in their holy enterprise?

XXIX. According to Dr. Hort, by a strange fatality,—a most unaccountable and truly disastrous proclivity to error,—these illustrious Fathers of the Church have been at every instant substituting the spurious for the genuine,—a fabricated Text in place of the Evangelical Verity. Miserable men! In the Gospels alone they have interpolated about 3100 words: have omitted about 700: have substituted about 1000; have transposed about 2200: have altered (in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c.) about 1200.(724) This done, they have amused themselves with the give-and-take process of mutual accommodation which we are taught to call “_Conflation_:” in plain terms, _they have been manufacturing Scripture_. The Text, as it comes forth from their hands,—

(a) “_Shews no marks of either critical or spiritual insight:_”—

(b) “Presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but _appreciably impoverished in sense and force_:”—

(c) “_Is more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation, than for repeated and diligent study._”

Moreover, the mischief has proved infectious,—has spread. In Syria also, at Edessa or Nisibis,—(for it is as well to be circumstantial in such matters,)—the self-same iniquity is about to be perpetrated; of which the Peschito will be the abiding monument: _one_ solitary witness only to the pure Text being suffered to escape. Cureton’s fragmentary Syriac will alone remain to exhibit to mankind the outlines of primitive Truth. (The reader is reminded of the character already given of the document in question at the summit of page 279. Its extravagance can only be fully appreciated by one who will be at the pains to read it steadily through.)

XXX. And pray, (we ask,)—_Who_ says all this? _Who_ is it who gravely puts forth all this egregious nonsense?... It is Dr. Hort, (we answer,) at pp. 134-5 of the volume now under review. In fact, according to _him_, those primitive Fathers have been the great falsifiers of Scripture; have proved the worst enemies of the pure Word of GOD; have shamefully betrayed their sacred trust; have done the diametrical reverse of what (by the hypothesis) they came together for the sole purpose of doing. They have depraved and corrupted that sacred Text which it was their aim, their duty, and their professed object to purge from its errors. And (by the hypothesis) Dr. Hort, at the end of 1532 years,—aided by codex B and his own self-evolved powers of divination,—has found them out, and now holds them up to the contempt and scorn of the British public.

XXXI. In the meantime the illustrious Professor invites us to believe that the mistaken textual judgment pronounced at Antioch in A.D. 350 had an immediate effect on the Text of Scripture throughout the world. We are requested to suppose that it resulted in the instantaneous extinction of codices the like of B א, wherever found; and caused codices of the A type to spring up like mushrooms in their place, and _that_, in every library of ancient Christendom. We are further required to assume that this extraordinary substitution of new evidence for old—the false for the true—fully explains why Irenæus and Hippolytus, Athanasius and Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and Ephraem, Epiphanius and Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isidore of Pelusium, Nilus and Nonnus, Proclus and Severianus, the two Cyrils and Theodoret—_one and all_—show themselves strangers to the text of B and א.... We read and marvel.

XXXII. For, (it is time to enquire,)—Does not the learned Professor see that, by thus getting rid of the testimony of the whole body of the Fathers, he leaves the Science which he is so good as to patronize in a most destitute condition,—besides placing himself in a most inconvenient state of isolation? If clear and consentient Patristic testimony to the Text of Scripture is not to be deemed forcible witness to its Truth,—_whither_ shall a man betake himself for constraining Evidence? Dr. Hort has already set aside the Traditional Text as a thing of no manner of importance. The venerable Syriac Version he has also insisted on reducing very nearly to the level of the despised cursives. As for the copies of the old Latin, they had confessedly become so untrustworthy, at the time of which he speaks, that a modest Revision of the Text they embody, (the “_Vulgate_” namely,) became at last a measure of necessity. What remains to him therefore? Can he seriously suppose that the world will put up with the “idiosyncrasy” of a living Doctor—his “personal instincts” (p. xi.)—his “personal discernment” (p. 65),—his “instinctive processes of Criticism” (p. 66),—his “individual mind,”—in preference to articulate voices coming to us across the gulf of Time from every part of ancient Christendom? How—with the faintest chance of success—does Dr. Hort propose to remedy the absence of External Testimony? If mankind can afford to do without either consent of Copies or of Fathers, why does mankind any longer adhere to the ancient methods of proof? Why do Critics of every school _still_ accumulate references to MSS., explore the ancient Versions, and ransack the Patristic writings in search of neglected citations of Scripture? That the ancients were indifferent Textual Critics, is true enough. The mischief done by Origen in this department,—through his fondness for a branch of Learning in which his remarks show that he was all unskilled,—is not to be told. But then, these men lived within a very few hundred years of the Apostles of the LORD JESUS CHRIST: and when they witness to the reading of their own copies, their testimony on the point, to say the least, is worthy of our most respectful attention. _Dated codices,_ in fact are they, _to all intents and purposes,_ as often as they bear clear witness to the Text of Scripture:—a fact, (we take leave to throw out the remark in passing,) which has not yet nearly attracted the degree of attention which it deserves.

XXXIII. For ourselves, having said so much on this subject, it is fair that we should add,—We devoutly wish that Dr. Hort’s hypothesis of an authoritative and deliberate Recension of the Text of the New Testament achieved at Antioch first, about A.D. 250, and next, about A.D. 350, were indeed an historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest our confidence in the Traditional Text of Scripture than the deliberate verdict of Antiquity,—the ascertained sanction of the collective Church, in the Nicene age. The _Latin_ “Vulgate” [A.D. 385] is the work of a single man—Jerome. The _Syriac_ “Vulgate” [A.D. 616] was also the work of a single man—Thomas of Harkel. But this _Greek_ “Vulgate” was (by the hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [A.D. 250-A.D. 350,] in her corporate capacity. Not only should we hail such a monument of the collective piety and learning of the Church in her best days with unmingled reverence and joy, were it introduced to our notice; but we should insist that no important deviation from such a “_Textus Receptus_” as _that_ would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort’s theory about the origin of the _Textus Receptus_ have _any foundation at all_ in fact, it is “all up” with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely _nowhere._ He has most ingeniously placed himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma.

For,—(let it be carefully noted,)—the entire discussion becomes, in this way, brought (so to speak) within the compass of a nutshell. To state the case briefly,—We are invited to make our election between the Fathers of the Church, A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,—and Dr. Hort, A.D. 1881. The issue is really reduced to _that._ The general question of THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE being the matter at stake; (not any particular passage, remember, but _the Text of Scripture as a whole;_)—and the _conflicting parties_ being but _two_;—_Which_ are we to believe? the _consentient Voice of Antiquity,_—or the solitary modern Professor? Shall we accept the august Testimony of the whole body of the Fathers? or shall we prefer to be guided by the self-evolved imaginations of one who confessedly has nothing to offer but conjecture? The question before us is reduced to that single issue. But in fact the alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are invited to make our election between FACT and—FICTION.... All this, of course, on the supposition that there is _any truth at all_ in Dr. Hort’s “New Textual Theory.”

XXXIV. Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the supposed Recension,—the utter absence of one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis that it _did._ It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history. As a conjecture—(and it only professes to be a conjecture)—Dr. Hort’s notion of how the Text of the Fathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth centuries,—which, as he truly remarks, is in the main identical with our own _Received Text_,—came into being, must be unconditionally abandoned. In the words of a learned living Prelate,—“_the supposition_” on which Drs. Westcott and Hort have staked their critical reputation, “_is a manifest absurdity_.”(725)

XXXV. We have been so full on the subject of this imaginary “Antiochian” or “Syrian text,” not (the reader may be sure) without sufficient reason. Scant satisfaction truly is there in scattering to the winds an airy tissue which its ingenious authors have been industriously weaving for 30 years. But it is clear that with this hypothesis of a “Syrian” text,—the immediate source and actual prototype of the commonly received Text of the N. T.,—_stands or falls their entire Textual theory_. Reject it, and the entire fabric is observed to collapse, and subside into a shapeless ruin. And with it, of necessity, goes the “New Greek Text,”—and therefore the “_New English Version_” of our Revisionists, which in the main has been founded on it.

XXXVI. In the meantime the phenomena upon which this phantom has been based, remain unchanged; and fairly interpreted, will be found to conduct us to the diametrically opposite result to that which has been arrived at by Drs. Westcott and Hort. With perfect truth has the latter remarked on the practical “identity of the Text, more especially in the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, in all the known cursive MSS., except a few” (p. 143). We fully admit the truth of his statement that—

“_Before the close of the IVth century_, a Greek Text not materially differing from the almost universal Text of the IXth,”—[and why not of the VIth? of the VIIth? of the VIIIth? or again of the Xth? of the XIth? of the XIIth?]—“century, was dominant at Antioch.”—(p. 142.)

And why not throughout the whole of Eastern Christendom? _Why_ this continual mention of “_Antioch_”—this perpetual introduction of the epithet “_Syrian_”? Neither designation applies to Irenæus or to Hippolytus,—to Athanasius or to Didymus,—to Gregory of Nazianzus or to his namesake of Nyssa,—to Basil or to Epiphanius,—to Nonnus or to Macarius,—to Proclus or to Theodoras Mops.,—to the earlier or to the later Cyril.—In brief,

“The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS. generally is, beyond all question, identical with [what Dr. Hort chooses to call] the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of the second half of the IVth century.... The Antiochian [and other] Fathers, and the bulk of extant MSS. written from about three or four, to ten or eleven centuries later, must have had, in the greater number of extant variations, a common original _either contemporary with, or older than, our oldest extant MSS._”—(p. 92.)

XXXVII. So far then, happily, we are entirely agreed. The only question is,—How is this resemblance to be accounted for? _Not_, we answer,—_not_, certainly, by putting forward so violent and improbable—so _irrational_ a conjecture as that, first, about A.D. 250,—and then again about A.D. 350,—an authoritative standard Text was fabricated at Antioch; of which all other known MSS. (except a very little handful) are nothing else but transcripts:—but rather, by loyally recognizing, in the practical identity of the Text exhibited by 99 out of 100 of our extant MSS., the probable general fidelity of those many transcripts _to the inspired exemplars themselves from which remotely they are confessedly descended_. And surely, if it be allowable to assume (with Dr. Hort) that for 1532 years, (viz. from A.D. 350 to A.D. 1882) the _Antiochian_ standard has been faithfully retained and transmitted,—it will be impossible to assign any valid reason why the inspired Original itself, the _Apostolic_ standard, should not have been as faithfully transmitted and retained from the Apostolic age to the Antiochian,(726)—_i.e._ throughout an interval of less than 250 years, or _one-sixth_ of the period.

XXXVIII. Here, it will obviously occur to enquire,—But what has been Drs. Westcott and Hort’s _motive_ for inventing such an improbable hypothesis? and why is Dr. Hort so strenuous in maintaining it?... We reply by reminding the Reader of certain remarks which we made at the outset.(727) The _Traditional Text_ of the N. T. is a phenomenon which sorely exercises Critics of the new school. To depreciate it, is easy: to deny its critical authority, is easier still: to cast ridicule on the circumstances under which Erasmus produced his first (very faulty) edition of it (1516), is easiest of all. But _to ignore_ the “Traditional Text,” is impossible. Equally impossible is it to overlook its practical identity with the Text of Chrysostom, who lived and taught _at Antioch_ till A.D. 398, when he became Abp. of _Constantinople_. Now this is a very awkward circumstance, and must in some way be got over; for it transports us, at a bound, from the stifling atmosphere of Basle and Alcala,—from Erasmus and Stunica, Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,—to Antioch and Constantinople in the latter part of the IVth century. What is to be done?

XXXIX. Drs. Westcott and Hort assume that this “Antiochian text”—found in the later cursives and the Fathers of the latter half of the IVth century—must be an _artificial_, an _arbitrarily invented_ standard; a text _fabricated_ between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350. And if they may but be so fortunate as to persuade the world to adopt their hypothesis, then all will be easy; for they will have reduced the supposed “consent of Fathers” to the reproduction of one and the same single “primary documentary witness:”(728)—and “it is hardly necessary to point out the total change in the bearing of the evidence by the introduction of _the factor of Genealogy_” (p. 43) at this particular juncture. _Upset_ the hypothesis on the other hand, and all is reversed in a moment. Every attesting Father is perceived to be a dated MS. and an independent authority; and the combined evidence of several of these becomes simply unmanageable. In like manner, “the approximate consent of the cursives” (see the foot-note), is perceived to be equivalent _not_ to “A PRIMARY DOCUMENTARY WITNESS,”—_not_ to “ONE ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL,”—but to be tantamount to the articulate speech of _many_ witnesses _of high character_, coming to us _from every quarter_ of primitive Christendom.

XL. But—(the further enquiry is sure to be made)—In favour of which document, or set of documents, have all these fantastic efforts been made to disparage the commonly received standards of excellence? The ordinary English Reader may require to be reminded that, prior to the IVth century, our Textual helps are few, fragmentary, and—to speak plainly—insufficient. As for sacred Codices of that date, we possess NOT ONE. Of our two primitive Versions, “the Syriac and the old Latin,” the second is grossly corrupt; owing (says Dr. Hort) “to a perilous confusion between transcription and _reproduction_;” “the preservation of a record and _its supposed improvement_” (p. 121). “Further acquaintance with it only increases our distrust” (_ibid._). In plainer English, “the earliest readings which can be fixed chronologically” (p. 120) belong to a Version which is licentious and corrupt to an incredible extent. And though “there is no reason to doubt that the Peschito [or ancient Syriac] is at least as old as the Latin Version” (p. 84), yet (according to Dr. Hort) it is “impossible”—(he is nowhere so good as to explain to us wherein this supposed “impossibility” consists),—to regard “_the present form_ of the Version as a true representation of the original Syriac text.” The date of it (according to _him_) _may_ be as late as A.D. 350. Anyhow, we are assured (but only by Dr. Hort) that important “evidence for the Greek text is hardly to be looked for from _this_ source” (p. 85).—The Fathers of the IIIrd century who have left behind them considerable remains in Greek are but two,—Clemens Alex. and Origen: and there are considerations attending the citations of either, which greatly detract from their value.

XLI. The question therefore recurs with redoubled emphasis,—In favour of _which_ document, or set of documents, does Dr. Hort disparage the more considerable portion of that early evidence,—so much of it, namely, as belongs to the IVth century,—on which the Church has been hitherto accustomed confidently to rely? He asserts that,—

“Almost all Greek Fathers after Eusebius have texts so deeply affected by mixture that” they “cannot at most count for more than so many secondary Greek uncial MSS., _inferior in most cases to the better sort of secondary uncial MSS. now existing_.”—(p. 202.)

And thus, at a stroke, behold, “almost _all Greek Fathers after Eusebius_”—(who died A.D. 340)—are disposed of! washed overboard! put clean out of sight! Athanasius and Didymus—the 2 Basils and the 2 Gregories—the 2 Cyrils and the 2 Theodores—Epiphanius and Macarius and Ephraem—Chrysostom and Severianus and Proclus—Nilus and Nonnus—Isidore of Pelusium and Theodoret: not to mention at least as many more who have left scanty, yet most precious, remains behind them:—all these are pronounced _inferior_ in authority to as many IXth- or Xth-century copies!... We commend, in passing, the foregoing _dictum_ of these accomplished Editors to the critical judgment of all candid and intelligent Readers. _Not_ as dated manuscripts, therefore, at least equal in Antiquity to the oldest which we now possess:—_not_ as the authentic utterances of famous Doctors and Fathers of the Church, (instead of being the work of unknown and irresponsible Scribes):—_not_ as sure witnesses of what was accounted Scripture in a known region, by a famous personage, at a well-ascertained period, (instead of coming to us, as our codices _universally_ do, without a history and without a character):—in no such light are we henceforth to regard Patristic citations of Scripture:—but only “as so many secondary MSS., _inferior to the better sort of secondary uncials now existing_.”

XLII. That the Testimony of the Fathers, in the lump, must perforce in some such way either be ignored or else flouted, if the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is to stand,—we were perfectly well aware. It is simply fatal to them: _and they know it_. But we were hardly prepared for such a demonstration as _this_. Let it all pass however. The question we propose is only the following,—If the Text “used by _great Antiochian theologians_ not long after the middle of the IVth century” (p. 146) is undeserving of our confidence:—if we are to believe that a systematic depravation of Scripture was universally going on till about the end of the IIIrd century; and if at that time, an authoritative and deliberate recension of it—conducted on utterly erroneous principles—took place at Antioch, and resulted in the vicious “traditional Constantinopolitan” (p. 143), or (as Dr. Hort prefers to call it) the “eclectic Syrian Text:”—_What remains to us_? Are we henceforth to rely on our own “inner consciousness” for illumination? Or is it seriously expected that for the restoration of the inspired Verity we shall be content to surrender ourselves blindfold to the _ipse dixit_ of an unknown and irresponsible nineteenth-century guide? If neither of these courses is expected of us, will these Editors be so good as to give us the names of the documents on which, in their judgment, we _may_ rely?

XLIII. We are not suffered to remain long in a state of suspense. The assurance awaits us (at p. 150), that the Vatican codex,

“B—is found to hold a unique position. Its text is throughout _Pre-Syrian_, perhaps _purely Pre-Syrian_.... From distinctively Western readings it seems to be all but entirely free.... We have not been able to recognize as _Alexandrian_ any readings of B in any book of the New Testament.... So that ... neither of the early streams of innovation has touched it to any appreciable extent.”—(p. 150.)

“The text of the Sinaitic codex (א)” also “seems to be entirely, or all but entirely, _Pre-Syrian_. A very large part of the text is in like manner free from _Western_ or _Alexandrian_ elements.”—(p. 151.)

“_Every other_ known Greek manuscript has either a mixed or a Syrian text.”—(p. 151.)

Thus then, at last, at the end of exactly 150 weary pages, the secret comes out! The one point which the respected Editors are found to have been all along driving at:—the one aim of those many hazy disquisitions of theirs about “Intrinsic and Transcriptional Probability,”—“Genealogical evidence, simple and divergent,”—and “the study of Groups:”—the one reason of all their vague terminology,—and of their baseless theory of “Conflation,”—and their disparagement of the Fathers:—the one _raison d’être_ of their fiction of a “Syrian” and a “Pre-Syrian” and a “Neutral” text:—the secret of it all comes out at last! A delightful, a truly Newtonian simplicity characterizes the final announcement. All is summed up in the curt formula—_Codex_ B!

Behold then the altar at which Copies, Fathers, Versions, are all to be ruthlessly sacrificed:—the tribunal from which there shall be absolutely no appeal:—the Oracle which is to silence every doubt, resolve every riddle, smooth away every difficulty. All has been stated, where the name has been pronounced of—codex B. One is reminded of an enegmatical epitaph on the floor of the Chapel of S. John’s College, “_Verbum non amplius—Fisher_”! To codex B all the Greek Fathers after Eusebius must give way. Even Patristic evidence _of the ante-Nicene period_ “requires critical sifting” (p. 202),—must be distrusted, may be denied (pp. 202-5),—if it shall be found to contradict Cod. B! “B very far exceeds all other documents in neutrality of Text.”—(p. 171.)

XLIV. “At a long interval after B, but hardly a less interval before all other MSS., stands א” (p. 171).—Such is the sum of the matter!... A coarser,—a clumsier,—a more unscientific,—a more _stupid_ expedient for settling the true Text of Scripture was surely never invented! _But_ for the many foggy, or rather unreadable disquisitions with which the _Introduction_ is encumbered, “Textual Criticism made easy,” might well have been the title of the little volume now under Review; of which at last it is discovered that _the general Infallibility of Codex_ B is the fundamental principle. Let us however hear these learned men out.

XLV. They begin by offering us a chapter on the “General relations of B and א to other documents:” wherein we are assured that,—

“_Two striking facts_ successively come out with especial clearness. Every group containing both א and B, _is found_ ... to have _an apparently more original Text_ than every opposed group containing neither; and every group containing B ... _is found_ in a large preponderance of cases ... to have _an apparently more original Text_ than every opposed group containing א.”—(p. 210.)

“_Is found_”! but pray,—_By whom?_ And “_apparently_”! but pray,—_To whom?_ and _On what grounds of Evidence_? For unless it be on _certain_ grounds of Evidence, how can it be pretended that we have before us “two striking _facts_”?

Again, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted that these “two striking facts” “come out with _especial clearness_”? so long as their very existence remains _in nubibus_,—has never been established, and is in fact emphatically denied? Expressions like the foregoing _then_ only begin to be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher has some solid foundation on which to build. Else, he occasions nothing but impatience and displeasure. Readers at first are simply annoyed at being trifled with: presently they grow restive: at last they become clamorous for demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go on however. We are still at p. 210:—

“We found א and B to stand alone in their almost complete immunity from distinctive Syriac readings ... and B to stand far above א in its _apparent_ freedom from either Western or Alexandrian readings.”—(p. 210.)

But pray, gentlemen,—_Where_ and _when_ did “we find” either of these two things? We have “found” nothing of the sort hitherto. The Reviewer is disposed to reproduce the Duke of Wellington’s courteous reply to the Prince Regent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which resulted in the victory of Waterloo:—“_I have heard your Royal Highness say so_.”... At the end of a few pages,

“_Having found_ א B the constant element in groups of every size, distinguished by internal excellence of readings, _we found_ no less excellence in the readings in which they concur without other attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or Fathers.”—(p. 219.)

What! again? Why, we “_have found_” nothing as yet but Reiteration. Up to this point we have not been favoured with one particle of Evidence!... In the meantime, the convictions of these accomplished Critics,—(but not, unfortunately, those of their Readers,)—are observed to strengthen as they proceed. On reaching p. 224, we are assured that,

“The independence [of B and א] can be carried back so far,”—(not a hint is given _how_,)—“that their concordant testimony may be treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than א and B themselves by at least two centuries,—_probably_ by a generation or two more.”

How _that_ “independence” was established, and how _this_ “probability” has been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. The point to be attended to however, is, that by the process indicated, some such early epoch as A.D. 100 has been reached. So that now we are not surprised to hear that,

“The respective ancestries of א and B must have diverged from a common parent _extremely near the Apostolic autographs_.”—(p. 220. See top of p. 221.)

Or that,—“_The close approach to the time of the autographs_ raises the presumption of purity to an unusual strength.”—(p. 224.)

And lo, before we turn the leaf, this “presumption” is found to have ripened into certainty:—

“This general immunity from substantive error ... in the common original of א B, in conjunction with its very high antiquity, provides in a multitude of cases _a safe criterion of genuineness, not to be distrusted_ except on very clear internal evidence. Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Readings of א B _should be accepted as the true Readings_ until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary; and (2), _That no Readings of_ א B _can be safely rejected absolutely_.”—(p. 225.)

XLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process of Reiteration, accompanied by a boundless exercise of the Imaginative faculty, we have reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending: viz. the absolute supremacy of codices B and א above all other codices,—and, when they differ, then of codex B.

And yet, the “immunity from substantive error” of a _lost_ Codex of _imaginary_ date and _unknown_ history, cannot but be a pure imagination,—(a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)—of these respected Critics: while their proposed practical inference from it,—(viz. to regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as “_a safe criterion of genuineness_,”)—this, at all events, is the reverse of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of א and B to the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no longer matter of conjecture:—

“The ancestries of both MSS. having started from a common source _not much later than the Autographs_,” &c.—(p. 247.)

And again:—

“_Near as the divergence_ of the respective ancestries of B and א _must have been to the Autographs_,” &c.—(p. 273.)

Until at last, we find it announced as a “moral certainty:”—

“_It is morally certain_ that the ancestries of B and א _diverged from a point near the Autographs_, and never came into contact subsequently.”—(_Text_, p. 556.)

After which, of course, we have no right to complain if we are assured that:—

“The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that their pre-eminent relative _purity_ is approximately _absolute_,—_a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs_”—(p. 296.)

XLVII. But how does it happen—(we must needs repeat the enquiry, which however we make with unfeigned astonishment,)—How does it come to pass that a man of practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and perhaps as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure problem like the present after this strangely incoherent, this foolish and wholly inconclusive fashion? One would have supposed that Dr. Hort’s mathematical training would have made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had no idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader’s mind. Surely, (one tells oneself,) a minimum of “pass” Logic would have effectually protected so accomplished a gentleman from making such a damaging exhibition of himself! For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has produced _not one particle of evidence_ that his opinion concerning B and א is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the circumstance that, unless he is able to _demonstrate_ that those two codices, and especially the former of them, has “preserved not only a very ancient Text, but _a very pure line of ancient Text_” also (p. 251), his entire work, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically handled, crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the first puff of wind? He cannot, surely, require telling that those who look for Demonstration will refuse to put up with Rhetoric:—that, with no thoughtful person will Assertion pass for Argument:—nor mere Reiteration, however long persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof.

“When I am taking a ride with Rouser,”—(quietly remarked Professor Saville to Bodley Coxe,)—“I observe that, if I ever demur to any of his views, Rouser’s practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the same words,—_only in a louder tone of voice_” ... The delicate rhetorical device thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors of the University of Oxford; but to be familiarly recognized as an instrument of conviction by the learned men who dwell on the banks of the Cam. To be serious however.—Dr. Hort has evidently failed to see that nothing short of a careful induction of particular instances,—a system of laborious footnotes, or an “Appendix” bristling with impregnable facts,—could sustain the portentous weight of his fundamental position, viz. that Codex B is so exceptionally pure a document as to deserve to be taken as a chief guide in determining the Truth of Scripture.

It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott,—when he had to rebuild the massive central tower of a southern Cathedral, and to rear up thereon a lofty spire of stone,—that he made preparations for the work which astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused the entire area to be excavated to what seemed a most unnecessary depth, and proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of fabulous solidity. The “wise master-builder” was determined that his work should last for ever. Not so Drs. Westcott and Hort. They are either troubled with no similar anxieties, or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They are evidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve their turn every bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. Dr. Hort (as we have seen already, namely in p. 252,) considers that his individual “STRONG PREFERENCE” of one set of Readings above another, is sufficient to determine whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is pure or the contrary. “_Formidable arrays of_ [hostile] _Documentary evidence_,” he disregards and sets at defiance, when once his own “_fullest consideration of Internal Evidence_” has “pronounced certain Readings to be right” [p. 61].

The only indication we anywhere meet with of the actual _ground_ of Dr. Hort’s certainty, and reason of his preference, is contained in his claim that,—

“Every binary group [of MSS.] _containing_ B is found to offer a large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, have THE RING OF GENUINENESS: while it is difficult to find any Readings so attested which LOOK SUSPICIOUS after full consideration.”—(p. 227. Also vol. i. 557—where the dictum is repeated.)

XLVIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession of the ultimate principle which has determined the Text of the present edition of the N. T. “_The ring of genuineness_”! _This_ it must be which was referred to when “_instinctive processes of Criticism_” were vaunted; and the candid avowal made that “the experience which is their foundation needs perpetual correction and recorrection.”(729)

“We are obliged” (say these accomplished writers) “to _come to the individual mind at last_.”(730)

And thus, behold, “at last” we _have_ reached the goal!... _Individual idiosyncrasy_,—_not_ external Evidence:—Readings “_strongly preferred_,”—_not_ Readings _strongly attested_:—“_personal discernment_” (self! still self!) _conscientiously exercising __ itself upon Codex_ B;—this is a true account of the Critical method pursued by these accomplished Scholars. They deliberately claim “_personal discernment_” as “the surest ground for confidence.”(731) Accordingly, they judge of Readings by their _looks_ and by their _sound_. When, in _their_ opinion, words “look suspicious,” words are to be rejected. If a word has “the ring of genuineness,”—(_i.e._ _if it seems to them_ to have it,)—they claim that the word shall pass unchallenged.

XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It practically dispenses with Critical aids altogether; substituting individual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible result: for Readings which “look suspicious” to one expert, may easily _not_ “look” so to another. A man’s “inner consciousness” cannot possibly furnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly does Bp. Ellicott ridicule “the easy method of ... _using a favourite Manuscript_,” combined with “_some supposed power of divining the Original Text_;”(732)—unconscious apparently that he is thereby aiming a cruel blow at certain of his friends.

As for the proposed test of Truth,—(the enquiry, namely, whether or no a reading has “the ring of genuineness”)—it is founded on a transparent mistake. The coarse operation alluded to may be described as a “rough and ready” expedient practised by _receivers of money_ in the way of self-defence, and _only_ for their own protection, lest base metal should be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an analogous test for the exclusive satisfaction of _him who utters_ the suspected article. We therefore disallow the proposal entirely: not, of course, because we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort would attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to be fabricated; but because we are fully convinced—(for reasons “plenty as blackberries”)—that through some natural defect, or constitutional inaptitude, he is not a competent judge. The man who finds “_no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight_” (p. 135) in the only Greek Text which was known to scholars till A.D. 1831,—(although he confesses that “the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the IVth century is substantially identical with it”(733)); and vaunts in preference “_the bold vigour_” and “_refined scholarship_” which is exclusively met with in certain depraved uncials of the same or later date:—the man who thinks it not unlikely that the incident of the piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side (ἄλλος δὲ λαβῶν λόγχην κ.τ.λ.) was actually found in the genuine Text of S. Matt. xxvii. 49, _as well as_ in S. John xix. 34:(734)—the man who is of opinion that the incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12 verses), “presents serious differences from the diction of S. John’s Gospel,”—treats it as “an insertion in a comparatively late Western text”(735) and declines to retain it even within brackets, on the ground that it “would fatally interrupt” the course of the narrative if suffered to stand:—the man who can deliberately separate off from the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, and print separately, S. Mark’s last 12 verses, (on the plea that they “manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age;”(736))—yet who straightway proceeds to annex, _as an alternative Conclusion_ (ἄλλως), “the wretched supplement derived from codex L:”(737)—the man (lastly) who, in defiance of “solid reason and pure taste,” finds music in the “utterly marred” “rhythmical arrangement” of the Angels’ Hymn on the night of the Nativity:(738)—such an one is not entitled to a hearing when he talks about “_the ring of genuineness_.” He has already effectually put himself out of Court. He has convicted himself of a natural infirmity of judgment,—has given proof that he labours under a peculiar Critical inaptitude for this department of enquiry,—which renders his decrees nugatory, and his opinions worthless.

L. But apart from all this, the Reader’s attention is invited to a little circumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably overlooked: but which, the instant it has been stated, is observed to cause his picturesque theory to melt away—like a snow-wreath in the sunshine.

On reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal deformities of codices B א D L are _instances of Omission_. In the Gospels alone, B omits 2877 words.

How,—(we beg to enquire,)—How will you apply your proposed test to a _Non-entity_? How will you ascertain whether something which _does not exist in the Text_ has “the ring of genuineness” or not? There can be _no_ “ring of genuineness,” clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! Will any one pretend that _the omission_ of the incident of the troubling of the pool has in it any “ring of genuineness”?—or dare to assert that “the ring of genuineness” is imparted to the history of our SAVIOUR’S Passion, by the omission of His Agony in the Garden?—or that the narrative of His Crucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord’s Prayer for His murderers has been _omitted_?—or that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (“for they were afraid”), has “the ring of genuineness” as the conclusion of the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark?

But the strangest circumstance is behind. It is notorious that, on the contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit that _the omitted words_ actually _have_ “the ring of genuineness.” The words which he insists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuous _for the very quality_ which (by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of this, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the note at foot of the present page.(739) In the meantime, the matter discoursed of may be conveniently illustrated by a short apologue:—

Somewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old church (dedicated to S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which—according to a learned Cambridge Doctor—were the most musical in the world. “I have listened to those bells,” (he was accustomed to say,) “for 30 years. All other bells are cracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the bells of S. Bee’s! _They_ alone have _the ring of genuineness_.” ... Accordingly, he published a treatise on Campanology, founding his theory on the musical properties of the bells of S. Bee’s.—At this juncture, provokingly enough, some one directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee’s is one of the few churches in that district _without_ bells: a discovery which, it is needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the learned Doctor’s theory.

LI. But enough of this. We really have at last, (be it observed,) reached the end of our enquiry. Nothing comes after Dr. Hort’s extravagant and unsupported estimate of Codices B and א. On the contrary. Those two documents are caused to cast their sombre shadows a long way ahead, and to darken all our future. Dr. Hort takes leave of the subject with the announcement that, whatever uncertainty may attach to the evidence for particular readings,

“_The general course of future Criticism must be shaped by the happy circumstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two MSS._ [B and א], of which even the less incorrupt [א] must have been of exceptional purity among its contemporaries: and which rise into greater pre-eminence of character the better the early history of the Text becomes known.”—(p. 287.)

In other words, our guide assures us that in a dutiful submission to codices B and א,—(which, he naïvely remarks, “_happen likewise to be the oldest extant_ Greek MSS. of the New Testament” [p. 212],)—lies all our hope of future progress. (Just as if we should ever have _heard_ of these two codices, had their contents come down to us written in the ordinary cursive character,—in a dated MS. (suppose) of the XVth century!)... Moreover, Dr. Hort “must not hesitate to express” his own robust conviction,

“That no trustworthy improvement can be effected, _except in accordance with the leading Principles of method which we have endeavoured to explain_.”—(p. 285.)

LII. And this is the end of the matter. Behold our fate therefore:—(1) Codices B and א, with—(2) Drs. Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction and Notes on Select Readings_ in vindication of their contents! It is proposed to shut us up within those limits!... An uneasy suspicion however secretly suggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, something may come to light which will effectually dispel every dream of the new School, and reduce even prejudice itself to silence. So Dr. Hort hastens to frown it down:—

“It would be an illusion to anticipate important changes of Text [_i.e._ of the Text advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort] _from any acquisition of new Evidence_.”—(p. 285.)

And yet, _why_ the anticipation of important help from the acquisition of fresh documentary Evidence “would be an illusion,”—does not appear. That the recovery of certain of the exegetical works of Origen,—better still, of Tatian’s _Diatessaron_,—best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of Codices B and א; but not, (like those two corrupt documents) derived from one and the same depraved archetype;—That any such windfall, (and it will come, some of these days,) would infallibly disturb Drs. Westcott and Hort’s equanimity, as well as scatter to the winds not a few of their most confident conclusions,—we are well aware. _So indeed are they._ Hence, what those Critics earnestly deprecate, _we_ as earnestly desire. We are therefore by no means inclined to admit, that

“Greater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact study of the relations between the documents that we already possess;”—(_Ibid._)

knowing well that “_the documents_” referred to are chiefly, (if not solely,) _Codices_ B _and_ א: knowing also, that it is further meant, that in estimating other evidence, of whatever kind, the only thing to be enquired after is whether or no the attesting document _is generally in agreement with codex_ B.

For, according to these writers,—tide what tide,—codex B is to be the standard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation from _any_ extraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (but it is, as usual, _mere_ assertion,) that,

“_Even when_ B _stands quite alone_, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”—(p. 557.)

And yet,—_Why_ a reading found _only in codex_ B should experience greater indulgence than another reading found _only in codex_ A, we entirely fail to see.

On the other hand, “_an unique criterion_ is supplied by the concord of the independent attestation of B and א.”—(_Notes_, p. 46.)

But pray, how does _that_ appear? Since B and א are derived from one and the same original—Why should not “the concord” spoken of be rather “an unique criterion”_ of the utter depravity of the archetype_?

LIII. To conclude. We have already listened to Dr. Hort long enough. And now, since confessedly, a chain is no stronger than it is at its weakest link; nor an edifice more secure than the basis whereon it stands;—we must be allowed to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a dream, pure and simple; from which it is high time that we should wake up, now that we have been plainly shown on what an unsubstantial foundation these Editors have been all along building. A child’s house, several stories high, constructed out of playing-cards,—is no unapt image of the frail erection before us. We began by carefully lifting off the topmost story; and then, the next: but we might as well have saved ourselves the trouble. The basement-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole edifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved assertions which go before, we assert as follows:—

(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and א is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.(740) These are two of the least trustworthy documents in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort’s position that—“A Text formed” by “taking Codex B as the sole authority,” “would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or other single document” (p. 251),—we venture to assert that it would be, on the contrary, _by far the foulest Text that had ever seen the light_: worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal. In the brave and faithful words of Prebendary Scrivener (_Introduction_, p. 453),—words which deserve to become famous,—

“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150], and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”

And Codices B and א are, demonstrably, nothing else but _specimens of the depraved class thus characterized_.

Next—(2), We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and _exclusively_ exhibited by codices B and א,(741) that instead of accepting these codices as two “independent” Witnesses to the inspired Original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (_comparatively_) late Copy. By consequence, we consider their joint and exclusive attestation of any particular reading, “_an unique criterion_” of its worthlessness; a sufficient reason—_not_ for adopting, but—for unceremoniously rejecting it.

Then—(3), As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only be divined from their contents. That they exhibit fabricated Texts is demonstrable. No amount of honest _copying_,—persevered in for any number of centuries,—could by possibility have resulted in two such documents. Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100 years,(742) they must needs have branched off from a common corrupt ancestor, and straightway become exposed continuously to fresh depraving influences. The result is, that codex א, (which evidently has gone through more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival,) has been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings _quite peculiar to itself_, affecting 858 words,—א has 1460 such Readings, affecting 2640 words.

One _solid fact_ like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in passing,) is more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the value of a Codex, than any number of such “reckless and unverified assertions,” not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the highly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort.

(4) Lastly,—We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, _solely to their ascertained evil character_; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library: while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844(743)) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had B and א been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely _used_ and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight. But in the meantime, behold, their very Antiquity has come to be reckoned to their advantage; and (strange to relate) is even considered to constitute a sufficient reason why they should enjoy not merely extraordinary consideration, but the actual surrender of the critical judgment. Since 1831, Editors have vied with one another in the fulsomeness of the homage they have paid to these “two false Witnesses,”—for such B and א _are_, as the concurrent testimony of Copies, Fathers and Versions abundantly proves. Even superstitious reverence has been claimed for these two codices: and Drs. Westcott and Hort are so far in advance of their predecessors in the servility of their blind adulation, that they must be allowed to have easily won the race.

LIV. With this,—so far as the Greek Text under review is concerned,—we might, were we so minded, reasonably make an end. We undertook to show that Drs. Westcott and Hort, in the volumes before us, have built up an utterly worthless Textual fabric; and we consider that we have already sufficiently shown it. The Theory,—the Hypothesis rather, on which their Text is founded, we have _demonstrated_ to be _simply absurd_. Remove that hypothesis, and a heap of unsightly ruins is all that is left behind,—except indeed astonishment (not unmingled with concern) at the simplicity of its accomplished Authors.

Here then, we might leave off. But we are unwilling so to leave the matter. Large consideration is due to ordinary English Readers; who must perforce look on with utter perplexity—not to say distress—at the strange spectacle presented by _that_ Text (which is in the main _the Text of the Revised English Version_) on the one hand,—and _this_ Review of it, on the other:—

(1) “And pray, which of you am I to believe?”—will inevitably be, in homely English, the exclamation with which not a few will lay down the present number of the “_Quarterly_.” “I pretend to no learning. I am not prepared to argue the question with you. But surely, the oldest Manuscript _must_ be the purest! It even stands to reason: does it not?—Then further, I admit that you _seem_ to have the best of the argument so far; yet, since the three most famous Editors of modern times are against you,—Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,—excuse me if I suspect that you _must_ be in the wrong, after all.”

LV. With unfeigned humility, the Reviewer [_Q. R._] proceeds to explain the matter to his supposed Objector [_S. O._], in briefest outline, as follows:—

_Q. R._ “You are perfectly right. The oldest Manuscript _must_ exhibit the purest text: _must_ be the most trustworthy. But then, unfortunately, it happens that _we do not possess it_. ‘The oldest Manuscript’ is lost. You speak, of course, of the inspired Autographs. These, I say, have long since disappeared.”

(2) _S. O._ “No, I meant to say that the _oldest Manuscript we possess_, if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest.”

_Q. R._ “O, but _that_ is an entirely different proposition. Well, _apart from experience_, the probability that the oldest copy extant will prove the purest is, if you please, considerable. Reflection will convince you however that it is _but_ a probability, at the utmost: a probability based upon more than one false assumption,—with which nevertheless you shall not be troubled. But in fact it clearly does not by any means follow that, _because_ a MS. is very ancient, _therefore_ the Text, which it exhibits will be very pure. That you may be thoroughly convinced of this,—(and it is really impossible for your mind to be too effectually disabused of a prepossession which has fatally misled so many,)—you are invited to enquire for a recent contribution to the learned French publication indicated at the foot of this page,(744) in which is exhibited a fac-simile of 8 lines of the _Medea_ of Euripides (ver. 5-12), written about B.C. 200 in small uncials (at Alexandria probably,) on papyrus. Collated with any printed copy, the verses, you will find, have been penned with scandalous, with incredible inaccuracy. But on this head let the learned Editor of the document in question be listened to, rather than the present Reviewer:—

“On voit que le texte du papyrus est hérissé des fautes les plus graves. _Le plus récent et le plus mauvais de nos manuscrits d’Euripide vaut infiniment mieux que cette copie,—faite, il y a deux mille ans, dans le pays où florissaient l’érudition hellénique et la Critique des textes._”(745)—(p. 17.)

“Why, the author of the foregoing remarks might have been writing concerning Codex B!”

(3) _S. O._ “Yes: but I want _Christian_ evidence. The author of that scrap of papyrus _may_ have been an illiterate slave. What if it should be a _school-boy’s exercise_ which has come down to us? The thing is not impossible.”

_Q. R._ “Not ‘impossible’ certainly: but surely highly improbable. However, let it drop. You insist on Christian evidence. You shall have it. What think you then of the following statement of a very ancient Father (Caius(746)) writing against the heresy of Theodotus and others who denied the Divinity of CHRIST? He is bearing his testimony to the liberties which had been freely taken with the Text of the New Testament in his own time, viz. about A.D. 175-200:—

“The Divine Scriptures,” he says, “these heretics have audaciously _corrupted_: ... laying violent hands upon them under pretence of _correcting_ them. That I bring no false accusation, any one who is disposed may easily convince himself. He has but to collect the copies belonging to these persons severally; then, to compare one with another; and he will discover that their discrepancy is extraordinary. Those of Asclepiades, at all events, will be found discordant from those of Theodotus. Now, plenty of specimens of either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as these men’s disciples have industriously multiplied the (so-called) ‘_corrected_’ copies of their respective teachers, which are in reality nothing else but ‘_corrupted_’ copies. With the foregoing copies again, those of Hermophilus will be found entirely at variance. As for the copies of Apollonides, they even contradict one another. Nay, let any one compare the fabricated text which these persons put forth in the first instance, with that which exhibits their _latest_ perversions of the Truth, and he will discover that the disagreement between them is even excessive.

“Of the enormity of the offence of which these men have been guilty, they must needs themselves be fully aware. Either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of the HOLY GHOST,—in which case they are to be regarded as unbelievers: or else, they account themselves wiser than the HOLY GHOST,—and what is that, but to have the faith of devils? As for their denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, seeing that the copies under discussion are their own actual handywork; and they know full well that not such as these are the Scriptures which they received at the hands of their catechetical teachers. Else, let them produce the originals from which they made their transcripts. Certain of them indeed have not even condescended to falsify Scripture, but entirely reject Law and Prophets alike.”(747)

“Now, the foregoing statement is in a high decree suggestive. For here is an orthodox Father _of the IInd century_ inviting attention to four well-known families of falsified manuscripts of the Sacred Writings;—complaining of the hopeless divergences which they exhibit (being not only inconsistent with one another, but _with themselves_);—and insisting that such _corrected_, are nothing else but shamefully _corrupted_ copies. He speaks of the phenomenon as being in his day notorious: and appeals to Recensions, the very names of whose authors—Theodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, Apollonides—have (all but the first) long since died out of the Church’s memory. You will allow therefore, (will you not?), that by this time the claim of the _oldest existing copies_ of Scripture to be the purest, has been effectually disposed of. For since there once prevailed such a multitude of corrupted copies, we have no security whatever that the oldest of our extant MSS. are not derived—remotely if not directly—from some of _them_.”

(4) _S. O._ “But at all events the chances are even. Are they not?”

_Q. R._ “By no means. A copy like codex B, once _recognized_ as belonging to a corrupt family,—once _known_ to contain a depraved exhibition of the Sacred Text,—was more likely by far to remain unused, and so to escape destruction, than a copy highly prized and in daily use.—As for Codex א, it carries on its face its own effectual condemnation; aptly illustrating the precept _fiat experimentum in corpore vili_. It exhibits the efforts of many generations of men to restore its Text,—(which, ‘as proceeding from the first scribe,’ is admitted by one of its chief admirers to be ‘_very rough_,(748)’)—to something like purity. ‘_At least ten different Revisers_,’ from the IVth to the XIIth century, are found to have tried their hands upon it.(749)—Codex C, after having had ‘at least three correctors very busily at work upon it’(750) (in the VIth and IXth centuries), finally (in the XIIth) was fairly _obliterated_,—literally _scraped out_,—to make room for the writings of a Syrian Father.—I am therefore led by _à priori_ considerations to augur ill of the contents of B א C. But when I find them hopelessly at variance _among themselves_: above all, when I find (1) _all other Manuscripts_ of whatever date,—(2) the _most ancient Versions_,—and (3), the _whole body of the primitive Fathers_, decidedly opposed to them,—I am (to speak plainly) at a loss to understand how any man of sound understanding, acquainted with all the facts of the case and accustomed to exact reasoning, can hesitate to regard the unsupported (or the _slenderly_ supported) testimony of one or other of them as _simply worthless_. The craven homage which the foremost of the three habitually receives at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort, I can only describe as a weak superstition. It is something more than unreasonable. It becomes even ridiculous.—Tischendorf’s preference (in his last edition) for the _bêtises_ of his own codex א, can only be defended on the plea of parental partiality. But it is not on that account the less foolish. His ‘exaggerated preference for the single manuscript which he had the good fortune to discover, _has betrayed him_’—(in the opinion of Bishop Ellicott)—‘_into an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment_’ ”(751)

(5) _O. S._ “Well but,—be all _that_ as it may,—Caius, remember, is speaking of _heretical_ writers. When I said ‘I want Christian evidence,’ I meant _orthodox_ evidence, of course. You would not assert (would you?) that B and א exhibit traces of _heretical_ depravation?”

_Q. R._ “Reserving my opinion on that last head, good Sir, and determined to enjoy the pleasure of your company on any reasonable terms,—(for convince you, I both can and will, though you prolong the present discussion till tomorrow morning,)—I have to ask a little favour of you: viz. that you will bear me company in an imaginary expedition.

“I request that the clock of history may be put back seventeen hundred years. This is A.D. 183, if you please: and—(indulge me in the supposition!)—you and I are walking in Alexandria. We have reached the house of one Clemens,—a learned Athenian, who has long been a resident here. Let us step into his library,—he is from home. What a queer place! See, he has been reading his Bible, which is open at S. Mark x. Is it not a well-used copy? It must be at least 50 or 60 years old. Well, but suppose only 30 or 40. It was executed therefore _within fifty years of the death of S. John the Evangelist_. Come, let us transcribe two of the columns(752) (σελίδες) as faithfully as we possibly can, and be off.... We are back in England again, and the clock has been put right. Now let us sit down and examine our curiosity at leisure.(753)... It proves on inspection to be a transcript of the 15 verses (ver. 17 to ver. 31) which relate to the coming of the rich young Ruler to our LORD.

“We make a surprising discovery. There are but 297 words in those 15 verses,—according to the traditional Text: of which, in the copy which belonged to Clemens Alexandrinus, 39 prove to have been left out: 11 words are added: 22, substituted: 27, transposed: 13, varied; and the phrase has been altered at least 8 times. Now, 112 words out of a total of 297, is 38 per cent. What do you think of _that_?”

(6) _S. O._ “Think? O but, I disallow your entire proceeding! You have no business to collate with ‘a text of late and degenerate type, such as is the Received Text of the New Testament.’ When _this_ ‘is taken as a standard, any document belonging to a purer stage of the Text must by the nature of the case have the appearance of being guilty of omissions: and the nearer the document stands to the autograph, the more numerous must be the omissions laid to its charge.’ I learnt that from Westcott and Hort. See page 235 of their luminous _Introduction_.”

_Q. R._ “Be it so! Collate the passage then for yourself with the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort: which, (remember!) aspires to reproduce ‘the autographs themselves’ ‘with the utmost exactness which the evidence permits’ (pp. 288 and 289).(754) You will find that _this_ time the words omitted amount to 44. The words added are 13: the words substituted, 23: the words transposed, 34: the words varied 16. And the phrase has been altered 9 times at least. But, 130 on a total of 297, is 44 per cent. You will also bear in mind that Clement of Alexandria is one of our principal authorities for the Text of the Ante-Nicene period.(755)

“And thus, I venture to presume, the imagination has been at last effectually disposed of, that _because_ Codices B and א are the two oldest Greek copies in existence, the Text exhibited by either must _therefore_ be the purest Text which is anywhere to be met with. _It is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is contained in a document full two centuries older than either _B_ or א,—itself the property of one of the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers._”

LVI.—(7) At this stage of the argument, the Reviewer finds himself taken aside by a friendly Critic [_F. C._], and privately remonstrated with somewhat as follows:—

_F. C._ “Do you consider, Sir, what it is you are about? Surely, you have been proving a vast deal too much! If the foregoing be a fair sample of the Text of the N. T. with which Clemens Alex. was best acquainted, it is plain that the testimony to the Truth of Scripture borne by one of the most ancient and most famous of the Fathers, is absolutely worthless. Is _that_ your own deliberate conviction or not?”

_Q. R._ “Finish what you have to say, Sir. After that, you shall have a full reply.”

(8) _F. C._ “Well then. Pray understand, I nothing doubt that in your main contention you are right; but I yet cannot help thinking that this bringing in of a famous ancient Father—_obiter_—is a very damaging proceeding. What else is such an elaborate exposure of the badness of the Text which Clemens (A.D. 150) employed, but the hopeless perplexing of a question which was already sufficiently thorny and difficult? You have, as it seems to me, imported into these 15 verses an entirely fresh crop of ‘Various Readings.’ Do you seriously propose them as a contribution towards ascertaining the _ipsissima verba_ of the Evangelist,—the true text of S. Mark x. 17-31?”

_Q. R._ “Come back, if you please, Sir, to the company. Fully appreciating the friendly spirit in which you just now drew me aside, I yet insist on so making my reply that all the world shall hear it. Forgive my plainness: but you are evidently profoundly unacquainted with the problem before you,—in which however you do not by any means enjoy the distinction of standing alone.

“The foulness of a Text which must have been penned within 70 or 80 years of the death of the last of the Evangelists, is a matter of fact—which must be loyally accepted, and made the best of. The phenomenon is surprising certainly; and may well be a warning to all who (like Dr. Tregelles) regard as oracular the solitary unsupported dicta of a Writer,—provided only he can claim to have lived in the IInd or IIIrd century. To myself it occasions no sort of inconvenience. You are to be told that the exorbitances of a _single_ Father,—as Clemens; a _single_ Version,—as the Egyptian: a _single_ Copy,—as cod. B, are of no manner of significancy or use, except as warnings: are of no manner of interest, except as illustrating the depravation which systematically assailed the written Word in the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic: _are, in fact, of no __ importance whatever_. To make them the basis of an induction is preposterous. It is not allowable to infer the universal from the particular. If the bones of Goliath were to be discovered to-morrow, would you propose as an induction therefrom that it was the fashion to wear four-and-twenty fingers and toes on one’s hands and feet in the days of the giant of Gath? All the wild readings of the lost Codex before us may be unceremoniously dismissed. The critical importance and value of this stray leaf from a long-since-vanished Copy is entirely different, and remains to be explained.

“You are to remember then,—perhaps you have yet to learn,—that there are but 25 occasions in the course of these 15 verses, on which either Lachmann (L.), or Tischendorf (T.), or Tregelles (Tr.), or Westcott and Hort (W. H.), or our Revisionists (R. T.), advocate a departure from the Traditional Text. To those 25 places therefore our attention is now to be directed,—on them, our eyes are to be riveted,—exclusively. And the first thing which strikes us as worthy of notice is, that the 5 authorities above specified fall into no fewer than _twelve_ distinct combinations in their advocacy of certain of those 25 readings: holding all 5 together _only 4 times_.(756) The one question of interest therefore which arises, is this,—What amount of sanction do any of them experience at the hands of Clemens Alexandrinus?

“I answer,—_Only on 3 occasions does he agree with any of them._(757) The result of a careful analysis shows further that _he sides with the Traditional Text_ 17 _times:—witnessing against Lachmann, 9 times: against Tischendorf, 10 times: against Tregelles, 11 times: against Westcott and Hort, 12 times._(758)

“So far therefore from admitting that ‘the Testimony of Clemens Al.—one of the most ancient and most famous of the Fathers—is absolutely worthless,’—I have proved it to be _of very great value_. Instead of ‘hopelessly perplexing the question,’ his Evidence is found to have _simplified matters considerably_. So far from ‘importing into these 15 verses a fresh crop of Various Readings,’ he has _helped us to get rid of no less than_ 17 of the existing ones.... ‘Damaging’ his evidence has certainly proved: but _only to Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_, _Tregelles_, _Westcott and Hort and our ill-starred Revisionists_. And yet it remains undeniably true, that ‘it is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is met with in a document full two centuries older than either B or א,—the property of one of the most famous of the Fathers.’(759) ... Have you anything further to ask?”

(9) _F. C._ “I should certainly like, in conclusion, to be informed whether we are to infer that the nearer we approach to the date of the sacred Autographs, the more corrupt we shall find the copies. For, if so, pray—Where and when did purity of Text begin?”

_Q. R._ “You are not at liberty, logically, to draw any such inference from the premisses. The purest documents of all existed perforce in the first century: _must_ have then existed. The spring is perforce purest at its source. My whole contention has been, and is,—That there is nothing at all unreasonable in the supposition that two stray copies of the IVth century,—coming down to our own times without a history and without a character,—_may_ exhibit a thoroughly depraved text. _More_ than this does not follow lawfully from the premisses. At the outset, remember, you delivered it as your opinion that ‘_the oldest Manuscript we possess, if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest_.’ I asserted, in reply, that ‘it does not by any means follow, _because_ a manuscript is very ancient, that _therefore_ its text will be very pure’ (p. 321); and all that I have been since saying, has but had for its object to prove the truth of my assertion. Facts have been incidentally elicited, I admit, calculated to inspire distrust, rather than confidence, in very ancient documents generally. But I am neither responsible for these facts; nor for the inferences suggested by them.

“At all events, I have to request that you will not carry away so entirely erroneous a notion as that I am the advocate for _Recent_, in preference to _Ancient_, Evidence concerning the Text of Scripture. Be so obliging as not to say concerning me that I ‘_count_’ instead of ‘_weighing_’ my witnesses. If you have attended to the foregoing pages, and have understood them, you must by this time be aware that _in every instance_ it is to ANTIQUITY that I persistently make my appeal. I abide by its sentence, and I require that you shall do the same.

“You and your friends, on the contrary, reject _the Testimony of Antiquity_. You set up, instead, some idol of your own. Thus, Tregelles worshipped ‘codex B.’ But ‘codex B’ is not ‘Antiquity’!—Tischendorf assigned the place of honour to ‘codex א.’ But once more, ‘codex א’ is not ‘Antiquity’!—You rejoice in the decrees of the VIth-century-codex D,—and of the VIIIth-century-codex L,—and of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth century codices, 1, 33, 69. But will you venture to tell me that any of these are ‘Antiquity’? _Samples_ of Antiquity, at best, are any of these. No more! But then, it is demonstrable that they are _unfair_ samples. Why are you regardless of _all other_ COPIES?—So, with respect to VERSIONS, and FATHERS. You single out one or two,—the one or two which suit your purpose; and you are for rejecting all the rest. But, once more,—The _Coptic_ version is not ‘Antiquity,’—neither is _Origen_ ‘Antiquity.’ The _Syriac_ Version is a full set-off against the former,—_Irenæus_ more than counterbalances the latter. Whatever is found in one of these ancient authorities must confessedly be AN ‘ancient Reading:’ but it does not therefore follow that it is THE ancient Reading of the place. Now, it is THE _ancient Reading_, of which we are always in search. And he who sincerely desires to ascertain what actually is _the Witness of Antiquity_,—(_i.e._, what is the prevailing testimony of all the oldest documents,)—will begin by casting his prejudices and his predilections to the winds, and will devote himself conscientiously to an impartial survey of the whole field of Evidence.”

_F. C._ “Well but,—you have once and again admitted that the phenomena before us are extraordinary. Are you able to explain how it comes to pass that such an one as Clemens Alexandrinus employed such a scandalously corrupt copy of the Gospels as we have been considering?”

_Q. R._ “You are quite at liberty to ask me any question you choose. And I, for my own part, am willing to return you the best answer I am able. You will please to remember however, that the phenomena will remain,—however infelicitous my attempts to explain them may seem to yourself. My view of the matter then—(think what you will about it!)—is as follows:—

LVII. “Vanquished by THE WORD_ Incarnate_, Satan next directed his subtle malice against _the Word written_. Hence, as I think,—_hence_ the extraordinary fate which befel certain early transcripts of the Gospel. First, heretical assailants of Christianity,—then, orthodox defenders of the Truth,—lastly and above all, self-constituted Critics, who (like Dr. Hort) imagined themselves at liberty to resort to ‘instinctive processes’ of Criticism; and who, at first as well as ‘at last,’ freely made their appeal ‘to the individual mind:’—_such_ were the corrupting influences which were actively at work throughout the first hundred and fifty years after the death of S. John the Divine. Profane literature has never known anything approaching to it,—can show nothing at all like it. Satan’s arts were defeated indeed through the Church’s faithfulness, because,—(the good Providence of GOD had so willed it,)—the perpetual multiplication, in every quarter, of copies required for Ecclesiastical use,—not to say the solicitude of faithful men in diverse regions of ancient Christendom to retain for themselves unadulterated specimens of the inspired Text,—proved a sufficient safeguard against the grosser forms of corruption. But this was not all.

“The Church, remember, hath been from the beginning the ‘Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ.’(760) Did not her Divine Author pour out upon her, in largest measure, ‘the SPIRIT of Truth;’ and pledge Himself that it should be that SPIRIT’S special function to ‘guide’_ her children _‘into all the Truth’(761)?... That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Manuscripts would be protected all down the ages against depraving influences of whatever sort,—was not to have been expected; certainly, was never promised. But the Church, in her collective capacity, hath nevertheless—as a matter of fact—been perpetually purging herself of those shamefully depraved copies which once everywhere abounded within her pale: retaining only such an amount of discrepancy in her Text as might serve to remind her children that they carry their ‘treasure in earthen vessels,’—as well as to stimulate them to perpetual watchfulness and solicitude for the purity and integrity of the Deposit. Never, however, up to the present hour, hath there been any complete eradication of all traces of the attempted mischief,—any absolute getting rid of every depraved copy extant. These are found to have lingered on anciently in many quarters. _A few such copies linger on to the present day._ The wounds were healed, but the scars remained,—nay, the scars are discernible still.

“What, in the meantime, is to be thought of those blind guides—those deluded ones—who would now, if they could, persuade us to go back to those same codices of which the Church hath already purged herself? to go back in quest of those very Readings which, 15 or 1600 years ago, the Church _in all lands_ is found to have rejected with loathing? Verily, it is ‘happening unto them according to the true proverb’—which S. Peter sets down in his 2nd Epistle,—chapter ii. verse 22. To proceed however.

“As for Clemens,—he lived at the very time and in the very country where the mischief referred to was most rife. For full two centuries after his era, heretical works were so industriously multiplied, that in a diocese consisting of 800 parishes (viz. Cyrus in Syria), the Bishop (viz. Theodoret, who was appointed in A.D. 423,) complains that he found no less than 200 copies of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian the heretic,—(Tatian’s date being A.D. 173,)—honourably preserved in the Churches of his (Theodoret’s) diocese, and mistaken by the orthodox for an authentic performance.(762) Clemens moreover would seem to have been a trifle too familiar with the works of Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Heracleon, and the rest of the Gnostic crew. He habitually mistakes apocryphal writings for inspired Scripture:(763) and—with corrupted copies always at hand and before him—he is just the man to present us with a quotation like the present, and straightway to volunteer the assurance that he found it ‘so written in the Gospel according to S. Mark.’(764) The archetype of Codices B and א,—especially the archetype from which Cod. D was copied,—is discovered to have experienced adulteration largely from the same pestilential source which must have corrupted the copies with which Clement (and his pupil Origen after him) were most familiar.—And thus you have explained to you the reason of the disgust and indignation with which I behold in these last days a resolute attempt made to revive and to palm off upon an unlearned generation the old exploded errors, under the pretence that they are the inspired Verity itself,—providentially recovered from a neglected shelf in the Vatican,—rescued from destruction by a chance visitor to Mount Sinai.”

_F. C._ “Will you then, in conclusion, tell us how _you_ would have us proceed in order to ascertain the Truth of Scripture?”

_Q. R._ “To answer that question fully would require a considerable Treatise. I will not, however, withhold a slight outline of what I conceive to be the only safe method of procedure. I could but _fill up_ that outline, and _illustrate_ that method, even if I had 500 pages at my disposal.

LVIII. “On first seriously applying ourselves to these studies, many years ago, we found it wondrous difficult to divest ourselves of prepossessions very like your own. Turn which way we would, we were encountered by the same confident terminology:—‘the best documents,’—‘primary manuscripts,’—‘first-rate authorities,’—‘primitive evidence,’—‘ancient readings,’—and so forth: and we found that thereby cod. A. or B,—cod. C or D—were _invariably and exclusively meant_. It was not until we had laboriously collated these documents (including א) for ourselves, that we became aware of their true character. Long before coming to the end of our task (and it occupied us, off and on, for eight years) we had become convinced that the supposed ‘best documents’ and ‘first-rate authorities’ are in reality among _the worst_:—that these Copies deserve to be called ‘primary,’ only because in any enumeration of manuscripts, they stand foremost;—and that their ‘Evidence,’ whether ‘primitive’ or not, is _contradictory_ throughout.—_All_ Readings, lastly, we discovered are ‘ancient.’

“A diligent inspection of a vast number of later Copies scattered throughout the principal libraries of Europe, and the exact Collation of a few, further convinced us that the deference generally claimed for B, א, C, D is nothing else but a weak superstition and a vulgar error:—that the date of a MS. is not of its essence, but is a mere accident of the problem:—and that later Copies, so far from ‘crumbling down salient points, softening irregularities, conforming differences,’(765) and so forth,—on countless occasions, _and as a rule_,—preserve those delicate lineaments and minute refinements which the ‘old uncials’ are constantly observed to obliterate. And so, rising to a systematic survey of the entire field of Evidence, we found reason to suspect more and more the soundness of the conclusions at which Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf had arrived: while we seemed led, as if by the hand, to discern plain indications of the existence for ourselves of a far ‘more excellent way.’

LIX. “For, let the ample and highly complex provision which Divine Wisdom hath made for the effectual conservation of that crowning master-piece of His own creative skill,—THE WRITTEN WORD,—be duly considered; and surely a recoil is inevitable from the strange perversity which in these last days would shut us up within the limits of a very few documents to the neglect of all the rest,—as though a revelation from Heaven had proclaimed that the Truth is to be found exclusively in _them_. The good Providence of the Author of Scripture is discovered to have furnished His household, the Church, with (speaking roughly) 1000 copies of the Gospels:—with twenty Versions—two of which go back to the beginning of Christianity: and with the writings of a host of ancient Fathers. _Why_ out of those 1000 MSS. _two_ should be singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for special favour,—to the practical disregard of all the rest: _why_ Versions and Fathers should by them be similarly dealt with,—should be practically set aside in fact in the lump,—we fail to discover. Certainly the pleas urged by the learned Editors(766) can appear satisfactory to no one but to themselves.

LX. “For our method then,—It is the direct contradictory to that adopted by the two Cambridge Professors. Moreover, it conducts us throughout to directly opposite results. We hold it to be even axiomatic that a Reading which is supported by only one document,—out of the 1100 (more or less) already specified,—whether that solitary unit be a FATHER, a VERSION, or a COPY,—stands self-condemned; may be dismissed at once, without concern or enquiry.

“Nor is the case materially altered if (as generally happens) a few colleagues of bad character are observed to side with the else solitary document. Associated with the corrupt B, is often found the more corrupt א. Nay, six leaves of א are confidently declared by Tischendorf to have been written by the scribe of B. The sympathy between these two, and the Version of Lower Egypt, is even notorious. That Origen should sometimes join the conspiracy,—and that the same Reading should find allies in certain copies of the unrevised Latin, or perhaps in Cureton’s Syriac:—all _this_ we deem the reverse of encouraging. The attesting witnesses are, in our account, of so suspicious a character, that the Reading cannot be allowed. On such occasions, we are reminded that there is truth in Dr. Hort’s dictum concerning the importance of noting the tendency of certain documents to fall into ‘groups:’ though his assertion that ‘it cannot be too often repeated that the study of grouping is _the foundation of all enduring Criticism_,’(767) we hold to be as absurd as it is untrue.

LXI. “So far negatively.—A safer, the _only_ trustworthy method, in fact, of ascertaining the Truth of Scripture, we hold to be the method which,—without prejudice or partiality,—simply ascertains WHICH FORM OF THE TEXT ENJOYS THE EARLIEST, THE FULLEST, THE WIDEST, THE MOST RESPECTABLE, AND—above all things—THE MOST VARIED ATTESTATION. That a Reading should be freely recognized alike by the earliest and by the latest available evidence,—we hold to be a prime circumstance in its favour. That Copies, Versions, and Fathers, should all three concur in sanctioning it,—we hold to be even more conclusive. If several Fathers, living in different parts of ancient Christendom, are all observed to recognize the words, or to quote them in the same way,—we have met with all the additional confirmation we ordinarily require. Let it only be further discoverable _how_ or _why_ the rival Reading came into existence, and our confidence becomes absolute.

LXII. “An instance which we furnished in detail in a former article,(768) may be conveniently appealed to in illustration of what goes before. Our LORD’S ‘Agony and bloody sweat,’—first mentioned by Justin Martyr (A.D. 150), is found _set down in every MS. in the world except four_. It is duly exhibited _by every known Version_. It is recognized by _upwards of forty famous Fathers_ writing without concert in remote parts of ancient Christendom. Whether therefore Antiquity,—Variety of testimony,—Respectability of witnesses,—or Number,—is considered, the evidence in favour of S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 is simply overwhelming. And yet out of superstitious deference to _two_ Copies of bad character, Drs. Westcott and Hort (followed by the Revisionists) set the brand of spuriousness on those 26 precious words; professing themselves ‘morally certain’ that this is nothing else but a ‘Western Interpolation:’ whereas, mistaken zeal for the honour of Incarnate JEHOVAH alone occasioned the suppression of these two verses in a few early manuscripts. This has been explained already,—namely, in the middle of page 82.

LXIII. “Only one other instance shall be cited. The traditional reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is vouched for by _every __ known copy of the Gospels but four_—3 of which are of extremely bad character, viz. א B D. The Versions are divided: but _not_ the Fathers: of whom _more than forty-seven_ from every part of ancient Christendom,—(Syria, Palestine, Alexandria, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Crete, Gaul,)—come back to attest that the traditional reading (as usual) is the true one. Yet such is the infatuation of the new school, that Drs. Westcott and Hort are content to make _nonsense_ of the Angelic Hymn on the night of the Nativity, rather than admit the possibility of complicity in error in א B D: error in respect of _a single letter!_... The Reader is invited to refer to what has already been offered on this subject, from p. 41 to p. 47.

LXIV. “It will be perceived therefore that the method we plead for consists merely in a loyal recognition of the whole of the Evidence: setting off one authority against another, laboriously and impartially; and adjudicating fairly between them _all_. Even so hopelessly corrupt a document as Clement of Alexandria’s copy of the Gospels proves to have been—(described at pp. 326-31)—is by no means without critical value. Servilely followed, it would confessedly land us in hopeless error: but, judiciously employed, as a set-off against _other_ evidence; regarded rather as a check upon the exorbitances of _other_ foul documents, (_e.g._ B א C and especially D); resorted to as a protection against the prejudice and caprice of modern Critics;—that venerable document, with all its faults, proves invaluable. Thus, in spite of its own aberrations, it witnesses to _the truth of the Traditional Text_ of S. Mark x. 17-31—(the place of Scripture above referred to(769))—in several important particulars; siding with it against Lachmann, 9 times;—against Tischendorf, 10 times;—against Tregelles, 11 times;—against Westcott and Hort, 12 times.

“We deem this laborious method the only true method, in our present state of imperfect knowledge: the method, namely, of _adopting that Reading which has the fullest, the widest, and the most varied attestation. Antiquity, and Respectability of Witnesses,_ are thus secured. How men can persuade themselves that 19 Copies out of every 20 may be safely disregarded, if they be but written in minuscule characters,—we fail to understand. To ourselves it seems simply an irrational proceeding. But indeed we hold this to be no _seeming_ truth. The fact is absolutely demonstrable. As for building up a Text, (as Drs. Westcott and Hort have done,) with special superstitious deference to a _single codex,_—we deem it about as reasonable as would be the attempt to build up a pyramid from its apex; in the expectation that it would stand firm on its extremity, and remain horizontal for ever.”

And thus much in reply to our supposed Questioner. We have now reached the end of a prolonged discussion, which began at page 320; more immediately, at page 337.

LXV. In the meantime, _a pyramid balanced on its apex_ proves to be no unapt image of the Textual theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. When we reach the end of their _Introduction_ we find we have reached the point to which all that went before has been evidently converging: but we make the further awkward discovery that it is the point on which all that went before absolutely _depends_ also. _Apart from_ codex B, the present theory could have no existence. _But for_ codex B, it would never have been excogitated. _On_ codex B, it entirely rests. _Out of_ codex B, it has _entirely sprung._

Take away this one codex, and Dr. Hort’s volume becomes absolutely without coherence, purpose, meaning. _One-fifth_ of it(770) is devoted to remarks on B and א. The fable of “the _Syrian_ text” is invented solely for the glorification of B and א,—which are claimed, of course, to be “_Pre_-Syrian.” This fills 40 pages more.(771) And thus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half lay _perdu_ on a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf, that it had been deposited in a waste-paper basket(772) in the convent of S. Catharine at the foot of Mount Sinai,—from which he rescued it on the 4th February, 1859:—neither, we venture to think, a very likely circumstance. We incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these distinguished gentlemen imagine.

Are we asked for the ground of our opinion? We point without hesitation to the 998 COPIES which remain: to the many ancient VERSIONS: to the many venerable FATHERS,—_any one_ of whom we hold to be _a more trustworthy authority_ for the Text of Scripture, _when he speaks out plainly,_ than either Codex B or Codex א,—aye, or than both of them put together. Behold, (we say,) the abundant provision which the All-wise One hath made for the safety of the Deposit: the “threefold cord” which “is not quickly broken”! We hope to be forgiven if we add, (not without a little warmth,) that we altogether wonder at the perversity, the infatuation, the blindness,—which is prepared to make light of all these precious helps, in order to magnify two of the most corrupt codices in existence; and _that_, for no other reason but because, (as Dr. Hort expresses it,) they “_happen_ likewise to be the oldest extant Greek MSS. of the New Testament.” (p. 212.)

LXVI. And yet, had what precedes been the sum of the matter, we should for our own parts have been perfectly well content to pass it by without a syllable of comment. So long as nothing more is endangered than the personal reputation of a couple of Scholars—at home or abroad—we can afford to look on with indifference. Their private ventures are their private concern. What excites our indignation is the spectacle of the _Church of England_ becoming to some extent involved in their discomfiture, because implicated in their mistakes: dragged through the mire, to speak plainly, at the chariot-wheels of these two infelicitous Doctors, and exposed with them to the ridicule of educated Christendom. Our Church has boasted till now of learned sons in abundance within her pale, ready at a moment’s notice to do her right: to expose shallow sciolism, and to vindicate that precious thing which hath been committed to her trust.(773) Where are the men _now?_ What has come to her, that, on the contrary, certain of her own Bishops and Doctors have not scrupled to enter into an irregular alliance with Sectarians,—yes, have even taken into partnership with themselves one who openly denies the eternal Godhead of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,—in order, as it would seem, to give proof to the world of the low ebb to which Taste, Scholarship, and Sacred Learning have sunk among us?

LXVII. Worse yet. We are so distressed, because the true sufferers after all by this ill-advised proceeding, are the 90 millions of English-speaking Christian folk scattered over the surface of the globe. These have had the title-deeds by which they hold their priceless birthright, shamefully tampered with. _Who_ will venture to predict the amount of mischief which must follow, if the “_New Greek Text_” which has been put forth by the men who were appointed _to revise the English Authorized Version,_ should become used in our Schools and in our Colleges,—should impose largely on the Clergy of the Church of England?... But to return from this, which however will scarcely be called a digression.

A pyramid poised on its apex then, we hold to be a fair emblem of the Theory just now under review. Only, unfortunately, its apex is found to be constructed of brick without straw: say rather _of straw—without brick._

LXVIII. _Why_ such partiality has been evinced latterly for Cod. B, none of the Critics have yet been so good as to explain; nor is it to be expected that, satisfactorily, any of them ever will. _Why_ again Tischendorf should have suddenly transferred his allegiance from Cod. B to Cod. א,—unless, to be sure, he was the sport of parental partiality,—must also remain a riddle. If _one_ of the “old uncials” must needs be taken as a guide,—(though we see no sufficient reason why _one_ should be appointed to lord it over the rest,)—we should rather have expected that Cod. A would have been selected,(774)—the text of which “Stands in broad contrast to those of either B or א, though the interval of years [between it and them] is probably small.” (p. 152.) “By a curious and apparently unnoticed coincidence,” (proceeds Dr. Hort,) “its Text in several books agrees with the Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid of old Latin attestation, as to leave little doubt that a Greek MS. largely employed by Jerome”—[and why not “THE_ Greek copies_ employed by Jerome”?]—“in his Revision of the Latin version must have had to a great extent a common original with A.” (_Ibid_.)

Behold a further claim of this copy on the respectful consideration of the Critics! What would be thought of the Alexandrian Codex, if some attestation were discoverable in its pages that it actually _had belonged_ to the learned Palestinian father? According to Dr. Hort,

“Apart from this individual affinity, A—both in the Gospels and elsewhere—may serve as _a fair example of the Manuscripts that,_ to judge by Patristic quotations, _were commonest in the IVth century._”—(p. 152.)

O but, the evidence in favour of Codex A thickens apace! Suppose then,—(for, after this admission, the supposition is at least allowable,)—suppose the discovery were made tomorrow of half-a-score of codices of the _same date as Cod._ B, but exhibiting the _same Text as Cod._ A. What a complete revolution would be thereby effected in men’s minds on Textual matters! How impossible would it be, henceforth, for B and its henchman א, to obtain so much as a hearing! Such “an eleven” would safely defy the world! And yet, according to Dr. Hort, the supposition may any day become a fact; for he informs us,—(and we are glad to be able for once to declare that what he says is perfectly correct,)—that such manuscripts once abounded or rather _prevailed;_—“_were commonest_ in the IVth century,” when codices B and א were written. We presume that then, as now, such codices prevailed universally, in the proportion of 99 to 1.

LXIX. But—what need to say it?—we entirely disallow any such narrowing of the platform which Divine Wisdom hath willed should be at once very varied and very ample. Cod. A is sometimes in error: sometimes even _conspires in error exclusively with Cod._ B. An instance occurs in 1 S. John v. 18,—a difficult passage, which we the more willingly proceed to remark upon, because the fact has transpired that it is one of the few places in which _entire unanimity_ prevailed among the Revisionists,—who yet (as we shall show) have been, one and all, mistaken in substituting “_him_” (αὐτόν) for “_himself_” (ἑαυτόν).... We venture to bespeak the Reader’s attention while we produce the passage in question, and briefly examine it. He is assured that it exhibits a fair average specimen of what has been the Revisionists’ fatal method in every page:—

LXX. S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΕῚΣ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the sanctifying influences of the HOLY SPIRIT which he received when he became regenerate (ὁ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΈΝΟΣ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ). The latter (he says) “_sinneth not_:” the former, (he says,) “_keepeth himself, and the Evil One toucheth him not_.” So far, all is intelligible. The nominative is the same in both cases. Substitute however “keepeth _him_ (αὐτόν),” for “keepeth _himself_ (ἑαυτόν),” and (as Dr. Scrivener admits(775)), ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ can be none other than the Only Begotten SON of GOD. And yet our LORD is _nowhere_ in the New Testament designated as ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ.(776) Alford accordingly prefers to make nonsense of the place; which he translates,—“he that hath been begotten of GOD, _it keepeth him_.”

LXXI. Now, on every occasion like the present,—(instead of tampering with the text, _as Dr. Hort and our Revisionists have done without explanation or apology,_)—our safety will be found to consist in enquiring,—But (1) What have the Copies to say to this? (2) What have the Versions? and (3) What, the Fathers?... The answer proves to be—(1) _All the copies except three,_(777) read “himself.”—(2) So do the Syriac and the Latin;(778)—so do the Coptic, Sahidic, Georgian, Armenian, and Æthiopic versions.(779)—(3) So, Origen clearly thrice,(780)—Didymus clearly 4 times,(781)—Ephraem Syrus clearly twice,(782)—Severus also twice,(783)—Theophylact expressly,(784)—and Œcumenius.(785)—So, indeed, Cod. A; for the original Scribe is found to have corrected himself.(786) The sum of the adverse attestation therefore which prevailed with the Revisionists, is found to have been—_Codex_ B _and a single cursive copy_ at Moscow.

This does not certainly seem to the Reviewer, (as it seemed to the Revisionists,) “decidedly preponderating evidence.” In his account, “_plain and clear error_” dwells with their Revision. But this may be because,—(to quote words recently addressed by the President of the Revising body to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Gloucester and Bristol,)—the “Quarterly Reviewer” is “_innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual Criticism._”(787)

LXXII. “It is easy,”—(says the learned Prelate, speaking on his own behalf and that of his co-Revisionists,)—“to put forth to the world a sweeping condemnation of many of our changes of reading; and yet all the while to be _innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual Criticism._”

May we venture to point out, that it is easier still to denounce adverse Criticism in the lump, instead of trying to refute it in any one particular:—to refer vaguely to “established principles of Textual Criticism,” instead of stating which they be:—to sneer contemptuously at endeavours, (which, even if unsuccessful, one is apt to suppose are entitled to sympathy at the hands of a successor of the Apostles,) instead of showing _wherein_ such efforts are reprehensible? We are content to put the following question to any fair-minded man:—Whether of these two is the more facile and culpable proceeding;—(1) _Lightly to blot out an inspired word from the Book of Life, and to impose a wrong sense on Scripture_, as in this place the Bishop and his colleagues are found to have done:—or, (2) To fetch the same word industriously back: to establish its meaning by diligent and laborious enquiry: to restore both to their rightful honours: and to set them on a basis of (_hitherto unobserved_) evidence, from which (_faxit DEUS!_) it will be found impossible henceforth to dislodge them?

This only will the Reviewer add,—That if it be indeed one of the “now established principles of Textual Criticism,” that the evidence of _two manuscripts and-a-half_ outweighs the evidence of (1) All _the remaining_ 997-½,—(2) The whole body of the Versions,—(3) _Every Father who quotes the place, from_ A.D. 210 to A.D. 1070,—and (4) _The strongest possible internal Evidence_:—if all this _indeed_ be so,—he devoutly trusts that he may be permitted to retain his “Innocence” to the last; and in his “Ignorance,” when the days of his warfare are ended, to close his eyes in death.—And now to proceed.

LXXIII. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. Phantoms of the imagination henceforth usurp the place of substantial forms. Interminable doubt,—wretched misbelief,—childish credulity,—judicial blindness,—are the inevitable sequel and penalty. The mind that has long allowed itself in a systematic trifling with Evidence, is observed to fall the easiest prey to Imposture. It has doubted what is _demonstrably_ true: has rejected what is _indubitably_ Divine. Henceforth, it is observed to mistake its own fantastic creations for historical facts: to believe things which rest on insufficient evidence, or on no evidence at all. Thus, these learned Professors,—who condemn the “last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark;” which have been accounted veritable Scripture by the Church Universal for more than 1800 years;—nevertheless accept as the genuine “_Diatessaron of Tatian_” [A.D. 170], a production which was discovered yesterday, and which _does not even claim to be_ the work of that primitive writer.(788)

Yes, the Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. General mistrust of _all_ evidence is the sure result. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their brother-Revisionists that “the prevalent assumption that throughout the N. T. the true Text is to be found _somewhere_ among recorded Readings, _does not stand the test of experience_.” They are evidently still haunted by the same spectral suspicion. They invent a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner. Accordingly, Dr. Hort favours us with a chapter on the Art of “removing Corruptions of the sacred Text _antecedent to extant documents_” (p. 71). We are not surprised (though we _are_ a little amused) to hear that,—

“The _Art of Conjectural Emendation_ depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.”—(p. 71.)

LXXIV. _Very_ “easy,” certainly. One sample of Dr. Hort’s skill in this department, (it occurs at page 135 of his _Notes on Select Readings_,) shall be cited in illustration. We venture to commend it to the attention of our Readers:—

(a) S. Paul [2 Tim. i. 13] exhorts Timothy, (whom he had set as Bp. over the Church of Ephesus,) to “_hold fast_” a certain “_form_” or “pattern” (ὑποτύπωσιν) “_of sound words_, _which_” (said he) “_thou hast heard of me_.” The flexibility and delicate precision of the Greek language enables the Apostle to indicate exactly what was the prime object of his solicitude. It proves to have been the safety of _the very words_ which he had syllabled, (ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὯΝ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσασ). As learned Bp. Beveridge well points out,—“_which words_, not _which form_, thou hast heard of me. So that it is not so much the _form_, as the _words_ themselves, which the Apostle would have him to hold fast.”(789)

All this however proves abhorrent to Dr. Hort. “This sense” (says the learned Professor) “cannot be obtained from the text except by treating ὧν as put in the genitive by _an unusual and inexplicable attraction_. It seems more probable that ὧν is a _primitive corruption_ of ὅν after πάντων.”

Now, this is quite impossible, since neither ὅν nor πάντων occurs anywhere in the neighbourhood. And as for the supposed “unusual and inexplicable attraction,” it happens to be one of even common occurrence,—as every attentive reader of the New Testament is aware. Examples of it may be seen at 2 Cor. i. 4 and Ephes. iv. 1,—also (in Dr. Hort’s text of) Ephes. i. 6 (ἧς in all 3 places). Again, in S. Luke v. 9 (whether ᾗ or ὧν is read): and vi. 38 (ῷ):—in S. Jo. xv. 20 (οὗ):—and xvii. 11 (ᾧ): in Acts ii. 22 (οἷς): vii. 17 (ἧς) and 45 (ὧν): in xxii. 15 (ὧν),&c.... But why entertain the question? There is absolutely _no room_ for such Criticism in respect of a reading which is found _in every known MS.,—in every known Version,—in every Father who quotes the place_: a reading which Divines, and Scholars who were not Divines,—Critics of the Text, and grammarians who were without prepossessions concerning Scripture,—Editors of the Greek and Translators of the Greek into other languages,—all alike have acquiesced in, from the beginning until now.

We venture to assert that it is absolutely unlawful, in the entire absence of evidence, to call such a reading as the present in question. There is absolutely no safeguard for Scripture—no limit to Controversy—if a place like this may be solicited at the mere suggestion of individual caprice. (For it is worth observing that _on this, and similar occasions, Dr. Hort is forsaken by Dr. Westcott_. Such notes are enclosed in brackets, and subscribed “H.”) In the meantime, who can forbear smiling at the self-complacency of a Critic who puts forth remarks like those which precede; and yet congratulates himself on “_personal endowments, fertility of resource, and a too delicate appreciation of language_”?

(b) Another specimen of conjectural extravagance occurs at S. John vi. 4, where Dr. Hort labours to throw suspicion on “the Passover” (τὸ πάσχα),—in defiance of _every known Manuscript,—every known Version_,—and _every Father who quotes or recognizes the place_.(790) We find _nine columns_ devoted to his vindication of this weak imagination; although so partial are his _Notes_, that countless “various Readings” of great interest and importance are left wholly undiscussed. Nay, sometimes entire Epistles are dismissed with a single weak annotation (_e.g._ 1 and 2 Thessalonians),—_or with none_, as in the case of the Epistle to the Philippians.

(c) We charitably presume that it is in order to make amends for having conjecturally thrust out τὸ πάσχα from S. John vi. 4,—that Dr. Hort is for conjecturally thrusting into Acts xx. 28, Υἱοῦ (after τοῦ ἰδίου),—an imagination to which he devotes a column and-a-half, but _for which he is not able to produce a particle of evidence_. It would result in our reading, “to feed the Church of GOD, which He purchased”—(not “with _His own_ blood,” but)—“with the _blood of His own_ SON:” which has evidently been suggested by nothing so much as by the supposed necessity of getting rid of a text which unequivocally asserts that CHRIST is GOD.(791)

LXXV. Some will be chiefly struck by the conceit and presumption of such suggestions as the foregoing. A yet larger number, as we believe, will be astonished by their essential foolishness. For ourselves, what surprises us most is the fatal misapprehension they evince of the true office of Textual Criticism as applied to the New Testament. It _never is to invent new Readings_, but only to adjudicate between existing and conflicting ones. He who seeks to thrust out “THE PASSOVER” from S. John vi. 4, (where it may on no account be dispensed with(792)); and to thrust “THE SON” into Acts xx. 28, (where His Name cannot stand without evacuating a grand Theological statement);—will do well to consider whether he does not bring himself directly under the awful malediction with which the beloved Disciple concludes and seals up the Canon of Scripture:—“I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book,—If any man shall _add unto_ these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book. And if any man shall _take away from_ the words of the Book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book.”(793)

May we be allowed to assure Dr. Hort that “CONJECTURAL EMENDATION” CAN BE ALLOWED NO PLACE WHATEVER IN THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT? He will no doubt disregard our counsel. May Dr. Scrivener then [p. 433] be permitted to remind him that “it is now agreed among competent judges that _Conjectural emendation_ must _never_ be resorted to,—even in passages of acknowledged difficulty”?

There is in fact no need for it,—nor can be: so very ample, as well as so very varied, is the evidence for the words of the New Testament.

LXXVI. Here however we regret to find we have _both_ Editors against us. They propose “the definite question,”—

“ ‘Are there, as a matter of fact, places in which we are _constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to recognize the existence of Textual error in _all_ extant documents?’ To this question we have no hesitation in replying in the affirmative.”—(p. 279.)

Behold then the deliberate sentence of Drs. Westcott and Hort. They flatter themselves that they are able to produce “_overwhelming evidence_” in proof that there are places where _every extant document_ is in error. The instance on which they both rely, is S. Peter’s prophetic announcement (2 Pet. iii. 10), that in “the day of the LORD,” “the earth and the works that are therein _shall be burned up_” (κατακαήσεται).

This statement is found to have been glossed or paraphrased in an age when men knew no better. Thus, Cod. C substitutes—“_shall vanish away_:”(794) the Syriac and one Egyptian version,—“_shall not be found_,” (apparently in imitation of Rev. xvi. 20). But, either because the “not” was accidentally omitted(795) in some very ancient exemplar;—or else because it was deemed a superfluity by some Occidental critic who in his simplicity supposed that εὑρεθήσεται might well represent the Latin _urerentur_,—(somewhat as Mrs. Quickly warranted “_hang hog_” to be Latin for “bacon,”)—codices א and B (with four others of later date) exhibit “_shall be found_,”(796)—which obviously makes utter nonsense of the place. (Εὑρεθήσεται appears, nevertheless, in Dr. Hort’s text: _in consequence of which_, the margin of our “Revised Version” is disfigured with the statement that “The most ancient manuscripts read _discovered_.”) But what is there in all this to make one distrust the Traditional reading?—supported as it is by the whole mass of Copies: by the Latin,(797)—the Coptic,—the Harkleian,—and the Æthiopic Versions:—besides the only Fathers who quote the place; viz. Cyril seven times,(798) and John Damascene(799) once?... As for pretending, at the end of the foregoing enquiry, that “we are _constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to recognize the existence of textual error _in all extant documents_,”—it is evidently a mistake. Nothing else is it but a misstatement of facts.

LXXVII. And thus, in the entire absence of proof, Dr. Hort’s view of “the existence of corruptions” of the Text “antecedent to all existing authority,”(800)—falls to the ground. His confident prediction, that such corruptions “will sooner or later have to be acknowledged,” may be dismissed with a smile. So indifferent an interpreter of the Past may not presume to forecast the Future.

The one “matter of fact,” which at every step more and more impresses an attentive student of the Text of Scripture, is,—(1st), The utterly depraved character of Codices B and א: and (2nd), The singular infatuation of Drs. Westcott and Hort in insisting that those 2 Codices “_stand alone in their almost complete immunity from error:_”(801)—that “the fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that _their pre-eminent relative purity is approximately absolute_.”(802)

LXXVIII. Whence is it,—(we have often asked ourselves the question, while studying these laborious pages,)—How does it happen that a scholar like Dr. Hort, evidently accomplished and able, should habitually mistake the creations of his own brain for material forms? the echoes of his own voice while holding colloquy with himself, for oracular responses? We have not hitherto expressed our astonishment,—but must do so now before we make an end,—that a writer who desires to convince, can suppose that his own arbitrary use of such expressions as “Pre-Syrian” and “Neutral,”—“Western” and “Alexandrian,”—“Non-Western” and “Non-Alexandrian,”—“Non-Alexandrian Pre-Syrian” and “Pre-Syrian Non-Western,”—will produce any (except an irritating) effect on the mind of an intelligent reader.

The delusion of supposing that by the free use of such a vocabulary a Critic may dispense with the ordinary processes of logical proof, might possibly have its beginning in the retirement of the cloister, where there are few to listen and none to contradict: but it can only prove abiding if there has been no free ventilation of the individual fancy. Greatly is it to be regretted that instead of keeping his Text a profound secret for 30 years, Dr. Hort did not freely impart it to the public, and solicit the favour of candid criticism.

Has no friend ever reminded him that assertions concerning the presence or absence of a “Syrian” or a “Pre-Syrian,” a “Western” or a “Non-Western _element_,” are but wind,—the merest chaff and draff,—_apart from proof_? Repeated _ad nauseam_, and employed with as much peremptory precision as if they were recognized terms connoting distinct classes of Readings,—(whereas they are absolutely without significancy, except, let us charitably hope, to him who employs them);—such expressions would only be allowable on the part of the Critic, if he had first been at the pains to _index every principal Father_,—and _to reduce Texts to families_ by a laborious process of Induction. Else, they are worse than foolish. More than an impertinence are they. They bewilder, and mislead, and for a while encumber and block the way.

LXXIX. This is not all however. Even when these Editors notice hostile evidence, they do so after a fashion which can satisfy no one but themselves. Take for example their note on the word εἰκῆ (“_without a cause_”) in S. Matthew v. 22 (“But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother _without a cause_”). The Reader’s attention is specially invited to the treatment which this place has experienced at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort:—

(_a_) They unceremoniously eject the word from S. Matthew’s Gospel with their oracular sentence, “_Western and Syrian._”—Aware that εἰκῆ is recognized by “Iren. lat-3; Eus. _D. E._ Cyp.,” they yet claim for omitting it the authority of “Just. Ptolem. (? Iren. 242 _fin_.), Tert.; and certainly” (they proceed) “Orig. on Eph. iv. 31, noticing both readings, and similarly Hier. _loc._, who probably follows Origen: also Ath. _Pasch._ Syr. 11: Ps.-Ath. _Cast._ ii. 4; and others”.... Such is their “_Note_” on S. Matthew v. 22. It is found at p. 8 of their volume. In consequence, εἰκῆ (“_without a cause_”) disappears from their Text entirely.

(_b_) But these learned men are respectfully informed that neither Justin Martyr, nor Ptolemæus the Gnostic, nor Irenæus, no, nor Tertullian either,—that _not one of these four writers_,—supplies the wished-for evidence. As for Origen,—they are assured that _he_—_not_ “probably” but _certainly_—is the cause of all the trouble. They are reminded that Athanasius(803) quotes (_not_ S. Matt. v. 22, but) 1 Jo. iii. 15. They are shown that what they call “ps.-Ath. _Cast._” is nothing else but a paraphrastic translation (by _Græculus quidam_) of John Cassian’s _Institutes_,—“ii. 4” in the Greek representing viii. 20 in the Latin.... And now, how much of the adverse Evidence remains?

(_c_) Only this:—Jerome’s three books of Commentary on the Ephesians, are, in the main, a translation of Origen’s lost 3 books on the same Epistle.(804) Commenting on iv. 31, Origen says that εἰκῆ has been improperly added to the Text,(805)—_which shows that in Origen’s copy_ εἰκῆ _was found there_. A few ancient writers in consequence (but only in consequence) of what Jerome (or rather Origen) thus delivers, are observed to omit εἰκῆ.(806) That is all!

(_d_) May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides Irenæus,(807)—Eusebius,(808)—and Cyprian,(809)—they do not mention that εἰκῆ is _also_ the reading of Justin Martyr,(810)—of Origen himself,(811)—of the _Constitutiones App._,(812)—of Basil three times,(813)—of Gregory of Nyssa,(814)—of Epiphanius,(815)—of Ephraem Syrus twice,(816)—of Isidorus twice,(817)—of Theodore of Mops.,—of Chrysostom 18 times,—of the _Opus imp._ twice,(818)—of Cyril(819)—and of Theodoret(820)—(each in 3 places). It was also the reading of Severus, Abp. of Antioch:(821)—as well as of Hilary,(822)—Lucifer,(823)—Salvian,(824)—Philastrius,(825)—Augustine, and—Jerome,(826)—(although, when translating from Origen, he pronounces against εἰκῆ(827)):—not to mention Antiochus mon.,(828)—J. Damascene,(829)—Maximus,(830)—Photius,(831)—Euthymius,—Theophylact,—and others?(832)... We have adduced no less than _thirty_ ancient witnesses.

(_e_) Our present contention however is but this,—that a Reading which is attested by _every uncial Copy of the Gospels except_ B _and_ א; by a whole _torrent of Fathers_; by _every known copy_ of the old Latin,—by _all_ the Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word εἰκῆ,)—by the Coptic,—as well as by the Gothic—and Armenian versions;—that such a reading is not to be set aside by the stupid dictum, “WESTERN AND SYRIAN.” By no such methods will the study of Textual Criticism be promoted, or any progress ever be made in determining the Truth of Scripture. There really can be no doubt whatever,—(that is to say, if we are to be guided by _ancient Evidence_,)—that εἰκῆ (“_without a cause_”) was our SAVIOUR’S actual word; and that our Revisers have been here, as in so many hundred other places, led astray by Dr. Hort. So true is that saying of the ancient poet,—“Evil company doth corrupt good manners.” “And if the blind lead the blind,”—(a greater than Menander hath said it,)—“_both shall fall into the ditch_.”(833)

(_f_) In the meantime, we have exhibited somewhat in detail, Drs. Westcott and Hort’s Annotation on εἰκῆ, [S. Matth. v. 22,] in order to furnish our Readers with at least _one definite specimen_ of the Editorial skill and Critical ability of these two accomplished Professors. Their general practice, as exhibited in the case of 1 Jo. v. 18, [see above, pp. 347-9,] is to tamper with the sacred Text, without assigning their authority,—indeed, without offering apology of any kind.

(_g_) The _sum_ of the matter proves to be as follows: Codd. B and א (the “two false Witnesses”),—B and א, _alone of MSS._—omit εἰκῆ. On the strength of this, Dr. Hort persuaded his fellow Revisers to omit “_without a cause_” from their Revised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence, that every Englishman’s copy of S. Matthew v. 22 shall be mutilated in the same way for ever.... _Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi._

(_h_) But the question arises—Will the Church of England submit to have her immemorial heritage thus filched from her? We shall be astonished indeed if she proves so regardless of her birthright.

LXXX. Lastly, the intellectual habits of these Editors have led them so to handle evidence, that the sense of proportion seems to have forsaken them. “He who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning,”—(remarks the elder Critic,)—“_becomes unable to detect its weak points_.”(834) Yes, the “idols of the den” exercise at last a terrible ascendency over the Critical judgment. It argues an utter want of mental perspective, when we find “the Man working on the Sabbath,” put on the same footing with “the Woman taken in Adultery,” and conjectured to have “_come from the same source_:”—the incident of “the Angel troubling the pool of Bethesda” dismissed, as having “_no claim to any kind of association with the true Text_:”(835)—and “the _two_ Supplements” to S. Mark’s Gospel declared to “_stand on equal terms_ as independent attempts to fill up a gap;” and allowed to be possibly “_of equal antiquity._”(836) How can we wonder, after this, to find _anything_ omitted,—_anything_ inserted,—_anything_ branded with suspicion? And the brand is very freely applied by Drs. Westcott and Hort. Their notion of the Text of the New Testament, is certainly the most extraordinary ever ventilated. It has at least the merit of entire originality. While they eagerly insist that many a passage is but “a Western interpolation” after all; is but an “Evangelic Tradition,” “rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second century;”—they yet _incorporate those passages with the Gospel_. Careful enough to clap them into fetters first, they then, (to use their own queer phrase,)—“_provisionally associate them with the Text_.”

LXXXI. We submit, on the contrary, that Editors who “_cannot doubt_” that a certain verse “comes from an extraneous source,”—“_do not believe_ that it belonged originally to the Book in which it is now included,”—are unreasonable if they proceed to assign to it _any_ actual place there at all. When men have once thoroughly convinced themselves that two Verses of S. Luke’s Gospel are _not Scripture_, but “only a fragment from the Traditions, written or oral, which were for a while locally current;”(837)—what else is it but the merest trifling with sacred Truth, to promote those two verses to a place in the inspired context? Is it not to be feared, that the conscious introduction of _human Tradition_ into GOD’S _written Word_ will in the end destroy the soul’s confidence in Scripture itself? opening the door for perplexity, and doubt, and presently for Unbelief itself to enter.

LXXXII. And let us not be told that the Verses stand there “provisionally” only; and for that reason are “enclosed within double brackets.” Suspected felons are “provisionally” locked up, it is true: but after trial, they are either convicted and removed out of sight; or else they are acquitted and suffered to come abroad like other men. Drs. Westcott and Hort have _no right_ at the end of thirty years of investigation, _still_ to encumber the Evangelists with “provisional” fetters. Those fetters either signify that the Judge is _afraid to carry out his own righteous sentence_: or else, that he _entertains a secret suspicion that he has made a terrible mistake after all,—has condemned the innocent_. Let these esteemed Scholars at least have “the courage of their own convictions,” and be throughout as consistent as, in two famous instances (viz. at pages 113 and 241), they have been. Else, in GOD’S Name, let them have the manliness to avow themselves in error: abjure their πρῶτον ψεῦδος; and cast the fantastic Theory, which they have so industriously reared upon it, unreservedly, to the winds!

LXXXIII. To conclude.—It will be the abiding distinction of the Revised Version (_thanks to Dr. Hort,_) that it brought to the front a question which has slept for about 100 years; but which may not be suffered now to rest undisturbed any longer. It might have slumbered on for another half-century,—a subject of deep interest to a very little band of Divines and Scholars; of perplexity and distrust to all the World besides;—_but_ for the incident which will make the 17th of May, 1881, for ever memorable in the Annals of the Church of England.

LXXXIV. The Publication on that day of the “Revised English Version of the New Testament” instantly concentrated public attention on the neglected problem: for men saw at a glance that the Traditional Text of 1530 years’ standing,—(the exact number is Dr. Hort’s, not ours,)—had been unceremoniously set aside in favour of _an entirely different Recension_. The true Authors of the mischief were not far to seek. Just five days before,—under the editorship of Drs. Westcott and Hort, (Revisionists themselves,)—had appeared the most extravagant Text which has seen the light since the invention of Printing. No secret was made of the fact that, under pledges of strictest secrecy,(838) a copy of this wild performance (marked “Confidential”) had been entrusted to every member of the Revising body: and it has since transpired that Dr. Hort advocated his own peculiar views in the Jerusalem Chamber with so much volubility, eagerness, pertinacity, and plausibility, that in the end—notwithstanding the warnings, remonstrances, entreaties of Dr. Scrivener,—his counsels prevailed; and—the utter shipwreck of the “Revised Version” has been, (as might have been confidently predicted,) the disastrous consequence. Dr. Hort is calculated to have _talked for three years_ out of the ten.

But in the meantime there has arisen _this_ good out of the calamity,—namely, that men will at last require that the Textual problem shall be fairly threshed out. They will insist on having it proved to their satisfaction,—(1) That Codices B and א are indeed the oracular documents which their admirers pretend; and—(2) That a narrow selection of ancient documents is a secure foundation on which to build the Text of Scripture. Failing this,—(and the _onus probandi_ rests wholly with those who are for setting aside the Traditional Text in favour of another, _entirely dissimilar in character_,)—failing this, we say, it is reasonable to hope that the counsels of the “_Quarterly Review_” will be suffered to prevail. In the meantime, we repeat that this question has now to be fought out: for to ignore it any longer is impossible. Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible also; for they simply contradict one another. Codd. B and א are either among the purest of manuscripts,—or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,—or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs,—or the furthest from them. There is no room for _both_ opinions; and there cannot exist any middle view.

The question will have to be fought out; and it must be fought out fairly. It may not be magisterially settled; but must be advocated, on either side, by the old logical method. If Continental Scholars join in the fray, England,—which in the last century took the lead in these studies,—will, it is to be hoped, maintain her ancient reputation and again occupy the front rank. The combatants may be sure that, in consequence of all that has happened, the public will be no longer indifferent spectators of the fray; for the issue concerns the inner life of the whole community,—touches men’s very heart of hearts. Certain it is that—“GOD defend _the Right_!” will be the one aspiration of every faithful spirit among us. THE TRUTH,—(we avow it on behalf of Drs. Westcott and Hort as eagerly as on our own behalf,)—GOD’S TRUTH will be, as it has been throughout, the one object of all our striving. Αἴλινον αἴλινον εἰπέ, τὸ δ᾽ εὖ νικάτω.

*I HAVE BEEN VERY JEALOUS FOR THE LORD GOD OF HOSTS.*

LETTER TO BISHOP ELLICOTT, IN REPLY TO HIS PAMPHLET.

“Nothing is more satisfactory at the present time than the evident feelings of veneration for our Authorized Version, and the very generally-felt desire for _as little change as possible_.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(839)

“We may be satisfied with the attempt to correct _plain and clear errors_, but _there it is our duty to stop_.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(840)

“We have now, at all events, no fear of _an over-corrected Version_.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(841)

“I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet in every page with small _changes, which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating, even the more so because they are small; which seem almost to be made for the sake of change_.”—BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(842)

[The question arises,]—“Whether the Church of England,—which in her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a Revision of her Authorized Version _under the express condition_, which she most wisely imposed, that _no Changes should be made in it except what were absolutely necessary_,—could consistently accept a Version in which 36,000 changes have been made; _not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even desirable_.”—BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(843)

Letter To The Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, D.D., Bishop Of Gloucester And Bristol, In Reply To His Pamphlet In Defence Of The Revisers And Their Greek Text Of The New Testament.

“WHAT COURSE WOULD REVISERS HAVE US TO FOLLOW?... WOULD IT BE WELL FOR THEM TO AGREE ON A CRITICAL GREEK TEXT? _TO THIS QUESTION WE VENTURE TO ANSWER VERY UNHESITATINGLY IN THE NEGATIVE._

“THOUGH WE HAVE MUCH CRITICAL MATERIAL, AND A VERY FAIR AMOUNT OF CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE, _WE HAVE CERTAINLY NOT YET ACQUIRED SUFFICIENT CRITICAL JUDGMENT_ FOR ANY BODY OF REVISERS HOPEFULLY TO UNDERTAKE SUCH A WORK AS THIS.”

BISHOP ELLICOTT.(844)

MY LORD BISHOP,

Last May, you published a pamphlet of seventy-nine pages(845) in vindication of the Greek Text recently put forth by the New Testament Company of Revisers. It was (you said) your Answer to the first and second of my Articles in the _Quarterly Review_:(846)—all three of which, corrected and enlarged, are now submitted to the public for the second time. See above, from page 1 to page 367.

[1] Preliminary Statement.

You may be quite sure that I examined your pamphlet as soon as it appeared, with attention. I have since read it through several times: and—I must add—with ever-increasing astonishment. First, because it is so evidently the production of one who has never made Textual Criticism seriously his study. Next, because your pamphlet is no refutation whatever of my two Articles. You flout me: you scold me: you lecture me. But I do not find that you ever _answer_ me. You reproduce the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—which I claim to have demolished.(847) You seek to put me down by flourishing in my face the decrees of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles,—which, as you are well aware, I entirely disallow. Denunciation, my lord Bishop, is not Argument; neither is Reiteration, Proof. And then,—Why do you impute to me opinions which I do not hold? and charge me with a method of procedure of which I have never been guilty? Above all, why do you seek to prejudice the question at issue between us by importing irrelevant matter which can only impose upon the ignorant and mislead the unwary? Forgive my plainness, but really you are so conspicuously unfair,—and at the same time so manifestly unacquainted, (except at second-hand and only in an elementary way,) with the points actually under discussion,—that, were it not for the adventitious importance attaching to any utterance of yours, deliberately put forth at this time as Chairman of the New Testament body of Revisers, I should have taken no notice of your pamphlet.

[2] The Bishop’s pamphlet was anticipated and effectually disposed of, three weeks before it appeared, by the Reviewer’s Third Article.

I am bound, at the same time, to acknowledge that you have been singularly unlucky. While _you_ were penning your Defence, (namely, throughout the first four months of 1882,) _I_ was making a fatal inroad into your position, by showing how utterly without foundation is the “Textual Theory” to which you and your co-Revisers have been so rash as to commit yourselves.(848) This fact I find duly recognized in your “Postscript.” “Since the foregoing pages were in print” (you say,) “a third article has appeared in the _Quarterly Review_, entitled ‘Westcott and Hort’s Textual Theory.’ ”(849) Yes. _I_ came before the public on the 16th of April; _you_ on the 4th of May, 1882. In this way, your pamphlet was anticipated,—had in fact been fully disposed of, three weeks before it appeared. “The Reviewer,” (you complain at page 4,) “censures their [Westcott and Hort’s] Text: _in neither Article has he attempted a serious examination of the arguments which they allege in its support_.” But, (as explained,) the “serious examination” which you reproach me with having hitherto failed to produce,—had been already three weeks in the hands of readers of the _Quarterly_ before your pamphlet saw the light. You would, in consequence, have best consulted your own reputation, I am persuaded, had you instantly recalled and suppressed your printed sheets. _What_, at all events, you can have possibly meant, while publishing them, by adding (in your “Postscript” at page 79,)—“_In this controversy it is not for us to interpose:_” and again,—“_We find nothing in the Reviewer’s third article to require further answer from us:_”—passes my comprehension; seeing that your pamphlet (page 11 to page 29) is an elaborate avowal that you have made Westcott and Hort’s theory entirely your own. The Editor of the _Speaker’s Commentary_, I observe, takes precisely the same view of your position. “The two Revisers” (says Canon Cook) “actually add a Postscript to their pamphlet of a single short page noticing their unexpected anticipation by the third _Quarterly Review_ article; with the remark that ‘in this controversy (between Westcott and Hort and the Reviewer) it is not for us to interfere:’—as if Westcott and Hort’s theory of Greek Revision could be refuted, or seriously damaged, without _cutting the ground from under the Committee of Revisers on the whole of this subject_.”(850)

[3] Bp. Ellicott remonstrated with for his unfair method of procedure.

I should enter at once on an examination of your Reply, but that I am constrained at the outset to remonstrate with you on the exceeding unfairness of your entire method of procedure. Your business was to make it plain to the public that you have dealt faithfully with the Deposit: have strictly fulfilled the covenant into which you entered twelve years ago with the Convocation of the Southern Province: have corrected only “_plain and clear errors_.” Instead of this, you labour to enlist vulgar prejudice against me:—partly, by insisting that I am for determining disputed Readings by an appeal to the “Textus Receptus,”—which (according to you) I look upon as faultless:—partly, by exhibiting me in disagreement with Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles. The irrelevancy of this latter contention,—the groundlessness of the former,—may not be passed over without a few words of serious remonstrance. For I claim that, in discussing the Greek Text, I have invariably filled my pages as full of _Authorities_ for the opinions I advocate, as the limits of the page would allow. I may have been tediously demonstrative sometimes: but no one can fairly tax me with having shrunk from the severest method of evidential proof. To find myself therefore charged with “mere denunciation,”(851)—with substituting “strong expressions of individual opinion” for “arguments,”(852)—and with “attempting to cut the cord by reckless and unverified assertions,” (p. 25,)—astonishes me. Such language is in fact even ridiculously unfair.

The misrepresentation of which I complain is not only conspicuous, but systematic. It runs through your whole pamphlet: is admitted by yourself at the close,—(viz. at p. 77,)—_to be half the sum of your entire contention_. Besides cropping up repeatedly,(853) it finds deliberate and detailed expression when you reach the middle of your essay,—viz. at p. 41: where, with reference to certain charges which I not only bring against codices א B C L, but laboriously substantiate by a free appeal to the contemporary evidence of Copies, Versions, and Fathers,—you venture to express yourself concerning me as follows:—

“To attempt to sustain such charges by a rough comparison of these ancient authorities with the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, and to measure the degree of their depravation _by the amount of their divergence from such a text as we have shown this Received Text really to be_, is to trifle with the subject of sacred Criticism.”—p. 41.

You add:—

“Until the depravation of these ancient Manuscripts has been demonstrated in a manner more consistent with _the recognized principles of Criticism_, such charges as those to which we allude must be regarded as expressions of passion, or prejudice, and set aside by every impartial reader as assertions for which no adequate evidence has yet been produced.”—pp. 41-2.

[4] (Which be “the recognized principles of Textual Criticism”?—a question asked in passing.)

But give me leave to ask in passing,—_Which_, pray, _are_ “the recognized principles of Criticism” to which you refer? I profess I have never met with them yet; and I am sure it has not been for want of diligent enquiry. You have publicly charged me before your Diocese with being “innocently ignorant of the _now established principles_ of Textual Criticism.”(854) But why do you not state which those principles _are_? I am surprised. You are for ever vaunting “_principles_ which have been established by the investigations and reasonings” of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles:(855)—“the _principles_ of Textual Criticism which are accepted and recognized by the great majority of modern Textual Critics:”(856)—“the _principles_ on which the Textual Criticism of the last fifty years has been based:”(857)—but you never condescend to explain _which be_ the “principles” you refer to. For the last time,—_Who_ established those “Principles”? and, _Where_ are they to be seen “established”?

I will be so candid with you as frankly to avow that the _only two_ “principles” with which I am acquainted as held, with anything like consent, by “the modern Textual Critics” to whom you have surrendered your judgment, are—(1st) A robust confidence in the revelations of their own inner consciousness: and (2ndly) A superstitious partiality for two codices written in the uncial character,—for which partiality they are able to assign no intelligible reason. You put the matter as neatly as I could desire at page 19 of your Essay,—where you condemn, with excusable warmth, “those who adopt the easy method of _using some favourite Manuscript_,”—or of exercising “_some supposed power of divining the original Text;_”—as if those were “the only necessary agents for correcting the Received Text.” _Why_ the evidence of codices B and א,—and perhaps the evidence of the VIth-century codex D,—(“the singular codex” as you call it; and it is certainly a very singular codex indeed:)—_why_, I say, the evidence of these two or three codices should be thought to outweigh the evidence of all other documents in existence,—whether Copies, Versions, or Fathers,—I have never been able to discover, nor have their admirers ever been able to tell me.

[5] Bp. Ellicott’s and the Reviewer’s respective methods, contrasted.

Waiving this however, (for it is beside the point,) I venture to ask,—With what show of reason can you pretend that I “_sustain my charges_” against codices א B C L, “_by a rough comparison of these ancient authorities with the_ Textus Receptus”?(858)... Will you deny that it is a mere misrepresentation of the plain facts of the case, to say so? Have I not, on the contrary, _on every occasion_ referred Readings in dispute,—the reading of א B C L on the one hand, the reading of the _Textus Receptus_ on the other,—simultaneously to one and the same external standard? Have I not persistently enquired for the verdict—so far as it has been obtainable—of CONSENTIENT ANTIQUITY? If I have sometimes spoken of certain famous manuscripts (א B C D namely,) as exhibiting fabricated Texts, have I not been at the pains to establish the reasonableness of my assertion by showing that they yield divergent,—that is _contradictory_, testimony?

The task of laboriously collating the five “old uncials” throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely. But I was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that, however important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices א B C D are among the most corrupt documents extant. It was a conviction derived from exact _Knowledge_ and based on solid grounds of _Reason_. You, my lord Bishop, who have never gone deeply into the subject, repose simply on _Prejudice_. Never having at any time collated codices א A B C D for yourself, you are unable to gainsay a single statement of mine by a counter-appeal to _facts_. Your textual learning proves to have been all obtained at second-hand,—taken on trust. And so, instead of marshalling against me a corresponding array of ANCIENT AUTHORITIES,—you invariably attempt to put me down by an appeal to MODERN OPINION. “The _majority of modern Critics_” (you say) have declared the manuscripts in question “not only to be wholly undeserving of such charges, but, on the contrary, to exhibit a text of comparative purity.”(859)

The sum of the difference therefore between our respective methods, my lord Bishop, proves to be this:—that whereas _I_ endeavour by a laborious accumulation of _ancient Evidence_ to demonstrate that the decrees of Lachmann, of Tischendorf and of Tregelles, _are untrustworthy_; _your_ way of reducing me to silence, is to cast Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf at every instant in my teeth. You make your appeal exclusively to _them_. “It would be difficult” (you say) “to find a recent English Commentator of any considerable reputation who has not been influenced, more or less consistently, by _one or the other of these three Editors_:”(860) (as if _that_ were any reason why I should do the same!) Because I pronounce the Revised reading of S. Luke ii. 14, “a grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture,” you bid me consider “that in so speaking I am _censuring Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles_.” You seem in fact to have utterly missed the point of my contention: which is, that the ancient Fathers collectively (A.D. 150 to A.D. 450),—inasmuch as they must needs have known far better than Lachmann, Tregelles, or Tischendorf, (A.D. 1830 to A.D. 1880,) what was the Text of the New Testament in the earliest ages,—are perforce far more trustworthy guides than they. And further, that whenever it can be clearly shown that the Ancients as a body say one thing, and the Moderns another, the opinion of the Moderns may be safely disregarded.

When therefore I open your pamphlet at the first page, and read as follows:—“A bold assault has been made in recent numbers of the _Quarterly Review_ upon the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up _during the last fifty years_ by the patient labour of successive editors of the New Testament,”(861)—I fail to discover that any practical inconvenience results to myself from your announcement. The same plaintive strain reappears at p. 39; where, having pointed out “that the text of the Revisers is, in all essential features, the same as that text in which the best critical editors, _during the past fifty years_, are generally agreed,”—you insist “that thus, any attack made on the text of the Revisers is really an attack on the critical principles that have been carefully and laboriously established _during the last half-century_.” With the self-same pathetic remonstrance you conclude your labours. “If,” (you say) “the Revisers are wrong in the principles which they have applied to the determination of the Text, _the principles_ on which the Textual Criticism of _the last fifty years_ has been based, are wrong also.”(862)... Are you then not yet aware that the alternative which seems to you so alarming is in fact my whole contention? What else do you imagine it is that I am proposing to myself throughout, but effectually to dispel the vulgar prejudice,—say rather, to plant my heel upon the weak superstition,—which “_for the last fifty years_” has proved fatal to progress in this department of learning; and which, if it be suffered to prevail, will make _a science_ of Textual Criticism impossible? A shallow empiricism has been the prevailing result, up to this hour, of the teaching of Lachmann, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles.

[6] Bp. Ellicott in May 1870, and in May 1882.

A word in your private ear, (by your leave) in passing. You seem to have forgotten that, at the time when you entered on the work of Revision, _your own_ estimate of the Texts put forth by these Editors was the reverse of favourable; _i.e._ was scarcely distinguishable from that of your present correspondent. Lachmann’s you described as “a text composed on _the narrowest and most exclusive_ principles,”—“really based on _little more than four manuscripts_.”—“The case of Tischendorf” (you said) “is still more easily disposed of. Which of this most inconstant Critic’s texts are we to select? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated preference for a single manuscript has betrayed him into _an almost childlike infirmity of judgment_. Surely also not the seventh edition, which exhibits all the instability which a comparatively recent recognition of the authority of cursive manuscripts might be supposed likely to introduce.”—As for poor Tregelles, you said:—“His critical principles ... are now, perhaps justly, called in question.” His text “is rigid and mechanical, and sometimes fails to disclose _that critical instinct and peculiar scholarly sagacity which_”(863) have since evidently disclosed themselves in perfection in those Members of the Revising body who, with Bp. Ellicott at their head, systematically outvoted Prebendary Scrivener in the Jerusalem Chamber. But with what consistency, my lord Bishop, do you to-day vaunt “the principles” of the very men whom yesterday you vilipended precisely because _their _“principles” then seemed to yourself so utterly unsatisfactory?

[7] “The fabric of modern Textual Criticism” (1831-81) rests on an insecure basis.

I have been guilty of little else than sacrilege, it seems, because I have ventured to send a shower of shot and shell into the flimsy decrees of these three Critics which now you are pleased grandiloquently to designate and describe as “_the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up within the last fifty years_.” Permit me to remind you that the “fabric” you speak of,—(confessedly a creation of yesterday,)—rests upon a foundation of sand; and has been already so formidably assailed, or else so gravely condemned by a succession of famous Critics, that as “_a fabric_,” its very existence may be reasonably called in question. Tischendorf insists on the general depravity (“_universa vitiositas_”) of codex B; on which codex nevertheless Drs. Westcott and Hort chiefly rely,—regarding it as unique in its pre-eminent purity. The same pair of Critics depreciate the Traditional Text as “beyond all question identical with the dominant [Greek] Text _of the second half of the fourth century_:”—whereas, “_to bring the sacred text back to the condition in which it existed during the fourth century_,”(864) was Lachmann’s one object; the sum and substance of his striving. “The fancy of a Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that has been grounded on its presumed existence,”(865) Tregelles declares to have been “swept away at once and for ever,” by Scrivener’s published Collations. And yet, what else but _this_ is “the fancy,” (as already explained,) on which Drs. Westcott and Hort have been for thirty years building up their visionary Theory of Textual Criticism?—What Griesbach attempted [1774-1805], was denounced [1782-1805] by C. F. Matthæi;—disapproved by Scholz;—demonstrated to be untenable by Abp. Laurence. Finally, in 1847, the learned J. G. Reiche, in some Observations prefixed to his Collations of MSS. in the Paris Library, eloquently and ably exposed the unreasonableness of _any_ theory of “Recension,”—properly so called;(866) thereby effectually anticipating Westcott and Hort’s weak imagination of a “_Syrian_ Text,” while he was demolishing the airy speculations of Griesbach and Hug. “There is no royal road” (he said) “to the Criticism of the N. T.: no plain and easy method, at once reposing on a firm foundation, and conducting securely to the wished for goal.”(867)... Scarcely therefore in Germany had the basement-story been laid of that “fabric of Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years,” and which _you_ superstitiously admire,—when a famous German scholar was heard denouncing the fabric as insecure. He foretold that the “_regia via_” of codices B and א would prove a deceit and a snare: which thing, at the end of four-and-thirty years, has punctually come to pass.

Seven years after, Lachmann’s method was solemnly appealed from by the same J. G. Reiche:(868) whose words of warning to his countrymen deserve the attention of every thoughtful scholar among ourselves at this day. Of the same general tenor and purport as Reiche’s, are the utterances of those giants in Textual Criticism, Vercellone of Rome and Ceriani of Milan. Quite unmistakable is the verdict of our own Scrivener concerning the views of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, and the results to which their system has severally conducted them.—If Alford adopted the prejudices of his three immediate predecessors, his authority has been neutralized by the far different teaching of one infinitely his superior in judgment and learning,—the present illustrious Bishop of Lincoln.—On the same side with the last named are found the late Philip E. Pusey and Archd. Lee,—Canon Cook and Dr. Field,—the Bishop of S. Andrews and Dr. S. C. Malan. Lastly, at the end of fifty-one years, (viz. in 1881,) Drs. Westcott and Hort have revived Lachmann’s unsatisfactory method,—superadding thereto not a few extravagances of their own. That their views have been received with expressions of the gravest disapprobation, no one will deny. Indispensable to their contention is the grossly improbable hypothesis that the Peschito is to be regarded as the “Vulgate” (_i.e._ the _Revised_) Syriac; Cureton’s, as the “Vetus” or _original_ Syriac version. And yet, while I write, the Abbé Martin at Paris is giving it as the result of his labours on this subject, that Cureton’s Version cannot be anything of the sort.(869) Whether Westcott and Hort’s theory of a “_Syrian_” Text has not received an effectual quietus, let posterity decide. Ἁμέραι δ᾽ ἐπίλοιποι μάρτυρες σοφώτατοι.

From which it becomes apparent that, at all events, “the fabric of Criticism which has been built up within the last fifty years” has not arisen without solemn and repeated protest,—as well from within as from without. It may not therefore be spoken of by you as something which men are bound to maintain inviolate,—like an Article of the Creed. It is quite competent, I mean, for any one to denounce the entire system of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles,—_as I do now_,—as an egregious blunder; if he will but be at the pains to establish on a severe logical basis the contradictory of not a few of their most important decrees. And you, my lord Bishop, are respectfully reminded that your defence of their system,—if you must needs defend what I deem worthless,—must be conducted, not by sneers and an affectation of superior enlightenment; still less by intimidation, scornful language, and all those other bad methods whereby it has been the way of Superstition in every age to rivet the fetters of intellectual bondage: but by severe reasoning, and calm discussion, and a free appeal to ancient Authority, and a patient investigation of all the external evidence accessible. I request therefore that we may hear no more of _this_ form of argument. The Text of Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles,—of Westcott and Hort and Ellicott, (_i.e._ _of the Revisers_,)—is just now on its trial before the world.(870)

[8] Bp. Ellicott’s strange notions about the “Textus Receptus.”

Your strangest mistakes and misrepresentations however are connected with the “Textus Receptus.” It evidently exercises you sorely that “with the Quarterly Reviewer, the Received Text is a standard, by comparison with which all extant documents, _however indisputable their antiquity,_ are measured.”(871) But pray,—

(1) By comparison with what _other_ standard, if not by the Received Text, would you yourself obtain the measure of “all extant documents,” however ancient?... This first. And next,

(2) Why should the “_indisputable antiquity_” of a document be supposed to disqualify it from being measured by the same standard to which (_but only for convenience_) documents of whatever date,—by common consent of scholars, at home and abroad,—are invariably referred? And next,

(3) Surely, you cannot require to have it explained to you that a standard _of _COMPARISON, is not _therefore_ of necessity a standard _of _EXCELLENCE. Did you ever take the trouble to collate a sacred manuscript? If you ever did, pray with _what_ did you make your collation? In other words, what “standard” did you employ?... Like Walton and Ussher,—like Fell and Mill,—like Bentley, and Bengel, and Wetstein,—like Birch, and Matthæi, and Griesbach, and Scholz,—like Lachmann, and Tregelles, and Tischendorf, and Scrivener,—I venture to assume that you collated your manuscript,—whether it was of “disputable” or of “indisputable antiquity,”—with _an ordinary copy of the Received Text_. If you did not, your collation is of no manner of use. But, above all,

(4) How does it come to pass that you speak so scornfully of the Received Text, seeing that (at p. 12 of your pamphlet) you assure your readers that _its pedigree may be traced back to a period perhaps antecedent to the oldest of our extant manuscripts_? Surely, a traditional Text which (_according to you_) dates from about A.D. 300, is good enough for the purpose of _Collation_!

(5) At last you say,—

“If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to regard it as a standard from which there was no appeal.”(872)

Really, my lord Bishop, you must excuse me if I declare plainly that the more I attend to your critical utterances, the more I am astonished. From the confident style in which you deliver yourself upon such matters, and especially from your having undertaken to preside over a Revision of the Sacred Text, one would suppose that at some period of your life you must have given the subject a considerable amount of time and attention. But indeed the foregoing sentence virtually contains two propositions neither of which could possibly have been penned by one even moderately acquainted with the facts of Textual Criticism. For first,

(_a_) You speak of “representing _verbatim et literatim_ THE Text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom.” Do you then really suppose that there existed at Antioch, at any period between A.D. 354 and A.D. 407, _some one definite Text of the N. T. _CAPABLE_ of being so represented_?—If you do, pray will you indulge us with the grounds for such an extraordinary supposition? Your “acquaintance” (Dr. Tregelles) will tell you that such a fancy has long since been swept away “at once and for ever.” And secondly,

(_b_) You say that, even if there were reason to suppose that the “Received Text” were such-and-such a thing,—“it would still be impossible to regard it as _a standard from which there was no appeal_.”

But pray, who in his senses,—what sane man in Great Britain,—ever dreamed of regarding the “Received,”—aye, _or any other known _“Text,”—as “a standard _from which there shall be no appeal_”? Have I ever done so? Have I ever _implied_ as much? If I have, show me _where_. You refer your readers to the following passage in my first Article:—

“What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical illustration. It is discovered that, in 111 pages, ... the serious deflections of A from the _Textus Receptus_ amount in all to only 842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in א, to 3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire confidence in codices B א C D.”—p. 14.

But, do you really require to have it explained to you that it is entirely to misunderstand the question to object to such a comparison of codices as is found above, (viz. in pages 14 and 17,) on the ground that it was made with the text of Stephanus lying open before me? Would not _the self-same phenomenon_ have been evolved by collation with _any other_ text? If you doubt it, sit down and try the experiment for yourself. Believe me, Robert Etienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth and cod. D in the VIth are so widely discordant and divergent from one another: A and C so utterly at variance with both.(873) We _must_ have _some_ standard whereby to test,—wherewith to compare,—Manuscripts. What is more, (give me leave to assure you,) _to the end of time_ it will probably be the practice of scholars to compare MSS. of the N. T. with the “Received Text.” The hopeless discrepancies between our five “old uncials,” can in no more convenient way be exhibited, than by referring each of them in turn to one and the same common standard. And,—_What_ standard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text which, by the good Providence of GOD, was universally employed throughout Europe for the first 300 years after the invention of printing? being practically _identical_ with the Text which (as you yourself admit) was in popular use at the end of three centuries from the date of the sacred autographs themselves: in other word, being more than 1500 years old.

[9] The Reviewer vindicates himself against Bp. Ellicott’s misconceptions.

But you are quite determined that I shall mean something essentially different. The Quarterly Reviewer, (you say,) is one who “contends that the Received Text needs but little emendation; and _may be used without emendation as a standard_.”(874) I am, (you say,) one of “those who adopt the easy method of making the Received Text a standard.”(875) My “Criticism,” (it seems,) “often rests ultimately upon the notion that it is little else but sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last three hundred years.”(876) (“_The last three hundred years_:” as if the Traditional Text of the N. Testament dated from the 25th of Queen Elizabeth!)—I regard the “Textus Receptus” therefore, according to you, as the Ephesians regarded the image of the great goddess Diana; namely, as a thing which, one fine morning, “fell down from Jupiter.”(877) I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs,—and erect it into “a standard from which there shall be no appeal,”—“a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.” That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly _confusing_ the standard of _Comparison_ with the standard of _Excellence_.

By this time, however, enough has been said to convince any fair person that you are without warrant in your present contention. Let _any_ candid scholar cast an impartial eye over the preceding three hundred and fifty pages,—open the volume where he will, and read steadily on to the end of any textual discussion,—and then say whether, on the contrary, my criticism does not invariably rest on the principle that the Truth of Scripture is to be sought in that form of the Sacred Text which has _the fullest_, _the widest_, _and the most varied attestation_.(878) Do I not invariably make _the consentient __ voice of Antiquity_ my standard? If I do _not_,—if, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the “Received Text,” and made _it_ my standard,—why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance? instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation, and which can have no other effect but to impose upon the ignorant; to mislead the unwary; and to prejudice the great Textual question which hopelessly divides you and me?... I trust that at least you will not again confound the standard _of Comparison_ with the standard _of Truth_.

[10] Analysis of contents of Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet.

You state at page 6, that what you propose to yourself by your pamphlet, is,—

“_First_, to supply accurate information, in a popular form, concerning the Greek text of the Now Testament:

“_Secondly_, to establish, by means of the information so supplied, the soundness of the principles on which the Revisers have acted in their choice of readings; and by consequence, the importance of the ‘New Greek Text:’ ”—[or, as you phrase it at p. 29,]—“to enable the reader to form a fair judgment on the question of _the trustworthiness of the readings adopted by the Revisers_.”

To the former of these endeavours you devote twenty-three pages: (viz. p. 7 to p. 29):—to the latter, you devote forty-two; (viz. p. 37 to p. 78). The intervening eight pages are dedicated,—(_a_) To the constitution of the Revisionist body: and next, (_b_) To the amount of good faith with which you and your colleagues observed the conditions imposed upon you by the Southern Houses of Convocation. I propose to follow you over the ground in which you have thus entrenched yourself, and to drive you out of every position in turn.

[11] Bp. Ellicott’s account of the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS.”

First then, for your strenuous endeavour (pp. 7-10) to prejudice the question by pouring contempt on the humblest ancestor of the _Textus Receptus_—namely, the first edition of Erasmus. You know very well that the “Textus Receptus” is _not_ the first edition of Erasmus. Why then do you so describe its origin as to imply that _it is_? You ridicule the circumstances under which a certain ancestor of the family first saw the light. You reproduce with evident satisfaction a silly witticism of Michaelis, viz. that, in his judgment, the Evangelium on which Erasmus chiefly relied was not worth the two florins which the monks of Basle gave for it. Equally contemptible (according to you) were the copies of the Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse which the same scholar employed for the rest of his first edition. Having in this way done your best to blacken a noble house by dilating on the low ebb to which its fortunes were reduced at a critical period of its history, some three centuries and a half ago,—you pause to make your own comment on the spectacle thus exhibited to the eyes of unlearned readers, lest any should fail to draw therefrom the injurious inference which is indispensable for your argument:—

“We have entered into these details, because we desire that the general reader should know fully the true pedigree of that printed text of the Greek Testament which has been in common use for the last three centuries. It will be observed that its documentary origin is not calculated to inspire any great confidence. Its parents, as we have seen, were two or three late manuscripts of little critical value, which accident seems to have brought into the hands of their first editor.”—p. 10.

Now, your account of the origin of the “Textus Receptus” shall be suffered to stand uncontradicted. But the important _inference_, which you intend that inattentive or incompetent readers should draw therefrom, shall be scattered to the winds by the unequivocal testimony of no less distinguished a witness than yourself. Notwithstanding all that has gone before, you are constrained to confess _in the very next page_ that:—

“The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part, _only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts_. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus.... _That_ pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. _The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them._”—pp. 11, 12.

By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is, “_at least_,” 1550 years old. Nay, we will have the fact over again, in words which you adopt from p. 92 of Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction_ [see above, p. 257], and clearly make your own:—

“The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian _Text of the second half of the fourth century_.”—p. 12.

But, if this be so,—(and I am not concerned to dispute your statement in a single particular,)—of what possible significancy can it be to your present contention, that the ancestry of the WRITTEN WORD (like the ancestors of the WORD INCARNATE) had at one time declined to the wondrous low estate on which you enlarged at first with such evident satisfaction? Though the fact be admitted that Joseph “the carpenter” was “the husband of Mary, of whom was born JESUS, who is called CHRIST,”—what possible inconvenience results from that circumstance so long as the only thing contended for be loyally conceded,—namely, that the descent of MESSIAH is lineally traceable back to the patriarch Abraham, through David the King? And the genealogy of the written, no less than the genealogy of the Incarnate WORD, is traceable back by _two distinct lines of descent_, remember: for the “Complutensian,” which was printed in 1514, exhibits the “Traditional Text” with the same general fidelity as the “Erasmian,” which did not see the light till two years later.

[12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS” from Westcott and Hart’s fable of a “SYRIAN TEXT.”

Let us hear what comes next:—

“At this point a question suggests itself which we cannot refuse to consider. If the pedigree of the Received Text may be traced back to so early a period, does it not deserve the honour which is given to it by the Quarterly Reviewer?”—p. 12.

A very pertinent question truly. We are made attentive: the more so, because you announce that your reply to this question shall “go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned.”(879) That reply is as follows:—

“If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to regard it as a standard _from which there was no appeal_. The reason why this would be impossible may be stated briefly as follows. In the ancient documents which have come down to us,—amongst which, as is well known, are manuscripts written in the fourth century,—we possess evidence that other texts of the Greek Testament existed in the age of Chrysostom, materially different from the text which he and the Antiochian writers generally employed. Moreover, a rigorous examination of extant documents shows that the Antiochian or (as we shall henceforth call it with Dr. Hort) the Syrian text did not represent an earlier tradition than those other texts, but was in fact of later origin than the rest. We cannot accept it therefore as _a final standard_.”—pp. 13, 14.

“A _final_ standard”!... Nay but, why do you suddenly introduce this unheard-of characteristic? _Who_, pray, since the invention of Printing was ever known to put forward _any_ existing Text as “a final standard”? Not the Quarterly Reviewer certainly. “The honour which is given to the _Textus Receptus_ by the Quarterly Reviewer” is no other than the honour which it has enjoyed at the hands of scholars, by universal consent, for the last three centuries. That is to say, he uses it as a standard of comparison, and employs it for habitual reference. _So do you._ You did so, at least, in the year 1870. You did more; for you proposed “to proceed with the work of Revision, whether of text or translation, _making the current _‘Textus Receptus’_ the standard_.”(880) We are perfectly agreed therefore. For my own part, being fully convinced, like yourself, that essentially the Received Text is full 1550 years old,—(yes, and a vast deal older,)—I esteem it quite good enough for all ordinary purposes. And yet, so far am I from pinning my faith to it, that I eagerly make my appeal _from_ it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged.—And with this renewed explanation of my sentiments,—(which one would have thought that no competent person could require,)—I proceed to consider the reply which you promise shall “go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned.” I beg that you will not again seek to divert attention from that which is the real matter of dispute betwixt you and me.

What kind of argumentation then is this before us? You assure us that,—

(_a_) “A rigorous examination of extant documents,”—“shows” Dr. Hort—“that the Syrian text”—[which for all practical purposes may be considered as only another name for the “Textus Receptus”]—was of later origin than “other texts of the Greek Testament” which “existed in the age of Chrysostom.”

(_b_) “We cannot accept it therefore as a final standard.”

But,—Of what nature is the logical process by which you have succeeded in convincing yourself that _this_ consequent can be got out of _that_ antecedent? Put a parallel case:—“A careful analysis of herbs ‘shows’ Dr. Short that the only safe diet for Man is a particular kind of rank grass which grows in the Ely fens. We must therefore leave off eating butcher’s meat.”—Does _that_ seem to you altogether a satisfactory argument? To me, it is a mere _non sequitur_. Do but consider the matter for a moment. “A rigorous examination of extant documents shows” Dr. Hort—such and such things. “A rigorous examination of the” same “documents shows” _me_—that Dr. Hort _is mistaken_. A careful study of his book convinces _me_ that his theory of a Syrian Recension, manufactured between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350, is a dream, pure and simple—_a mere phantom of the brain_. Dr. Hort’s course is obvious. Let him _first_ make his processes of proof intelligible, and _then_ public. You cannot possibly suppose that the fable of “a Syrian text,” though it has evidently satisfied _you_, will be accepted by thoughtful Englishmen without proof. What prospect do you suppose you have of convincing the world that Dr. Hort is competent to assign _a date_ to this creature of his own imagination; of which he has hitherto failed to demonstrate so much as the probable existence?

I have, for my own part, established by abundant references to his writings that he is one of those who, (through some intellectual peculiarity,) are for ever mistaking conjectures for facts,—assertions for arguments,—and reiterated asseveration for accumulated proof. He deserves sympathy, certainly: for,—(like the man who passed his life in trying to count how many grains of sand will exactly fill a quart pot;—or like his unfortunate brother, who made it his business to prove that nothing, multiplied by a sufficient number of figures, amounts to something;)—he has evidently taken a prodigious deal of useless trouble. The spectacle of an able and estimable man exhibiting such singular inaptitude for a province of study which, beyond all others, demands a clear head and a calm, dispassionate judgment,—creates distress.

[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort’s Theory.

But in the meantime, so confident are _you_ of the existence of a “Syrian text,”—(_only however because Dr. Hort is_,)—that you inflict upon your readers all the consequences which “the Syrian text” is supposed to carry with it. Your method is certainly characterized by humility: for it consists in merely serving up to the British public a _réchauffé_ of Westcott and Hort’s Textual Theory. I cannot discover that you contribute anything of your own to the meagre outline you furnish of it. Everything is assumed—as before. Nothing is proved—as before. And we are referred to Dr. Hort for the resolution of every difficulty which Dr. Hort has created. “According to Dr. Hort,”—“as Dr. Hort observes,”—“to use Dr. Hort’s language,”—“stated by Dr. Hort,”—“as Dr. Hort notices,”—“says Dr. Hort:” yes, from p. 14 of your pamphlet to p. 29 you do nothing else but reproduce—Dr. Hort!

First comes the fabulous account of the contents of the bulk of the cursives:(881)—then, the imaginary history of the “Syriac Vulgate;” which (it seems) bears “indisputable traces” of being a revision, of which you have learned _from Dr. Hort_ the date:(882)—then comes the same disparagement of the ancient Greek Fathers,—“for reasons which have been _stated by Dr. Hort_ with great clearness and cogency:”(883)—then, the same depreciatory estimate of writers subsequent to Eusebius,—whose evidence is declared to “stand at best on no higher level than the evidence of inferior manuscripts in the uncial class:”(884) but _only_ because it is discovered to be destructive of the theory _of Dr. Hort_.

Next comes “the Method of Genealogy,”—which you declare is the result of “vast research, unwearied patience, great critical sagacity;”(885) but which I am prepared to prove is, on the contrary, a shallow expedient for dispensing with scientific Induction and the laborious accumulation of evidence. This same “Method of Genealogy,” you are not ashamed to announce as “the great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials.” “For the full explanation of it, _you must refer your reader to Dr. Hort’s Introduction_.”(886) Can you be serious?

Then come the results to which “the application of this method _has conducted Drs. Westcott and Hort_.”(887) And first, the fable of the “Syrian Text”—which “_Dr. Hort considers_ to have been the result of a deliberate Recension,” conducted on erroneous principles. This fabricated product of the IIIrd and IVth centuries, (you say,) rose to supremacy,—became dominant at Antioch,—passed thence to Constantinople,—and once established there, soon vindicated its claim to be the N. T. of the East: whence it overran the West, and for 300 years as the “Textus Receptus,” has held undisputed sway.(888) Really, my lord Bishop, you describe imaginary events in truly Oriental style. One seems to be reading not so much of the “Syrian Text” as of the Syrian Impostor. One expects every moment to hear of some feat of this fabulous Recension corresponding with the surrender of the British troops and Arabi’s triumphant entry into Cairo with the head of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in his hand!

All this is followed, of course, by the weak fable of the “Neutral” Text, and of the absolute supremacy of Codex B,—which is “_stated in Dr. Hort’s own words_:”(889)—viz. “B very far exceeds all other documents in neutrality of text, being in fact always, or nearly always, neutral.” (The _fact_ being that codex B is demonstrably one of the most corrupt documents in existence.) The posteriority of the (imaginary) “Syrian,” to the (imaginary) “Neutral,” is insisted upon next in order, as a matter of course: and declared to rest upon three other considerations,—each one of which is found to be pure fable: viz. (1) On the fable of “Conflation,” which “_seems_ to supply a proof” that Syrian readings are posterior both to Western and to Neutral readings—but, (as I have elsewhere(890) shown, at considerable length,) most certainly _does_ not:—(2) On Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence,—of which however not a syllable is produced:—(3) On “_Transcriptional probability_”—which is about as useful a substitute for proof as a sweet-pea for a walking-stick.

Widely dissimilar of course is your own view of the importance of the foregoing instruments of conviction. To _you_, “these three reasons taken together seem to make up an argument for the posteriority of the Syrian Text, which it is impossible to resist. They form” (you say) “a threefold cord of evidence which [you] believe will bear any amount of argumentative strain.” You rise with your subject, and at last break out into eloquence and vituperation:—“Writers like the Reviewer may attempt to cut the cord _by reckless and unverified assertions_: but _the knife has not yet been fabricated that can equitably separate any one of its strands_.”(891)... So effectually, as well as so deliberately, have you lashed yourself—for better or for worse—to Westcott and Hort’s New Textual Theory, that you must now of necessity either share its future triumphs, or else be a partaker in its coming humiliation. Am I to congratulate you on your prospects?

For my part, I make no secret of the fact that I look upon the entire speculation about which you are so enthusiastic, as an excursion into cloud-land: a _dream_ and nothing more. My contention is,—_not_ that the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort rests on an _insecure_ foundation, but, that it rests on _no foundation at all_. Moreover, I am greatly mistaken if this has not been _demonstrated_ in the foregoing pages.(892) On one point, at all events, there cannot exist a particle of doubt; namely, that so far from its “_not being for you to interpose in this controversy_”—you are without alternative. You must either come forward at once, and bring it to a successful issue: or else, you must submit to be told that you have suffered defeat, inasmuch as you are inextricably involved in Westcott and Hort’s discomfiture. You are simply without remedy. _You_ may “_find nothing in the Reviewer’s third article to require a further answer_:” but readers of intelligence will tell you that your finding, since it does not proceed from stupidity, can only result from your consciousness that you have made a serious blunder: and that now, the less you say about “Westcott and Hort’s new textual Theory,” the better.

[14] The Question modestly proposed,—Whether Bp. Ellicott’s adoption of Westcott and Hort’s “new Textual Theory” does not amount to (what lawyers call) “CONSPIRACY”?

But, my lord Bishop, when I reach the end of your laborious avowal that you entirely accept “Westcott and Hort’s new Textual Theory,”—I find it impossible to withhold the respectful enquiry,—Is such a proceeding on your part altogether allowable? I frankly confess that to _me_ the wholesale adoption by the Chairman of the Revising body, of the theory of two of the Revisers,—and then, his exclusive reproduction and vindication of _that theory_, when he undertakes,

“to supply the reader with a few broad outlines of Textual Criticism, so as to enable him to form _a fair judgment_ on the question of the trustworthiness of _the readings adopted by the Revisers_,”—p. 29,

all this, my lord Bishop, I frankly avow, to _me_, looks very much indeed like what, in the language of lawyers, is called “Conspiracy.” It appears then that instead of presiding over the deliberations of the Revisionists as an impartial arbiter, you have been throughout, heart and soul, an eager partizan. You have learned to employ freely Drs. Westcott and Hort’s peculiar terminology. You adopt their scarcely-intelligible phrases: their wild hypotheses: their arbitrary notions about “Intrinsic” and “Transcriptional Probability:” their baseless theory of “Conflation:” their shallow “Method of Genealogy.” You have, in short, evidently swallowed their novel invention whole. I can no longer wonder at the result arrived at by the body of Revisionists. Well may Dr. Scrivener have pleaded in vain! He found Drs. Ellicott and Westcott and Hort too many for him.... But it is high time that I should pass on.

[15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the Instructions they received from the Convocation of the Southern Province.

It follows next to enquire whether your work as Revisers was conducted in conformity with the conditions imposed upon you by the Southern House of Convocation, or not. “_Nothing_” (you say)—

“_can be more unjust_ on the part of the Reviewer than to suggest, as he has suggested in more than one passage,(893) that the Revisers _exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which they adopted with regard to the Greek Text. On the contrary, as we shall show, they adhered most closely to their Instructions; and did neither more nor less than they were required to do.”—(p. 32.)

“The Reviewer,” my lord Bishop, proceeds to _demonstrate_ that you “exceeded your Instructions,” even to an extraordinary extent. But it will be convenient first to hear you out. You proceed,—

“Let us turn to the Rule. It is simply as follows:—‘That the text to be adopted be that for which the Evidence _is decidedly preponderating_: and that when the text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin.’ ”—(_Ibid._)

But you seem to have forgotten that the “Rule” which you quote formed no part of the “_Instructions_” which were imposed upon you by Convocation. It was one of the “Principles _agreed to by the Committee_” (25 May, 1870),—a Rule _of your own making_ therefore,—for which Convocation neither was nor is responsible. The “fundamental Resolutions adopted by the Convocation of Canterbury” (3rd and 5th May, 1870), five in number, contain no authorization whatever for making changes in the Greek Text. They have reference only to the work of revising “_the Authorized Version_:” an undertaking which the first Resolution declares to be “desirable.” “In order to ascertain what were the Revisers’ _Instructions_ with regard to the Greek Text,” we must refer to the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870: in which the removal of “_plain and clear errors_, whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same,”—is for the first and last time mentioned. That you yourself accepted this as the limit of your authority, is proved by your Speech in Convocation. “We may be satisfied” (you said) “with the attempt to correct _plain and clear errors_: but _there, it is our duty to stop_.”(894)

Now I venture to assert that not one in a hundred of the alterations you have actually made, “whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same,” are corrections of “_plain and clear errors_.” Rather,—(to adopt the words of the learned Bishop of Lincoln,)—“I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet in every page with changes _which seem almost to be made for the sake of change_.”(895) May I trouble you to refer back to p. 112 of the present volume for a few words more on this subject from the pen of the same judicious Prelate?

(_a_) _And first_,—_In respect of the New English Version_.

For my own part, (see above, pp. 171-2,) I thought the best thing I could do would be to illustrate the nature of my complaint, by citing and commenting on an actual instance of your method. I showed how, in revising eight-and-thirty words (2 Pet. i. 5-7), you had contrived to introduce no fewer than _thirty changes_,—every one of them being clearly a change for the worse. You will perhaps say,—Find me another such case! I find it, my lord Bishop, in S. Luke viii. 45, 46,—where you have made _nineteen changes_ in revising the translation of four-and-thirty words. I proceed to transcribe the passage; requesting you to bear in mind your own emphatic protestation,—“We made _no_ change _if the meaning was fairly expressed_ by the word or phrase before us.”

A.V. R.V. “Peter and they that were “Peter said [1], and they with him said, Master, that were with him, the multitude throng thee Master the multitudes [2] and press thee, and press [3] thee and crush sayest thou, Who touched thee [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.] me? And Jesus said, But [11] Jesus said, Some Somebody hath touched me: one [12] did touch [14] for I perceive that me: for I perceived [15] virtue is gone out of that power [16] had [17] me.” gone forth [18] from [19] me.”

Now pray,—Was not “the meaning _fairly expressed_” before? Will you tell me that in revising S. Luke viii. 45-6, you “_made as few alterations as possible_”? or will you venture to assert that you have removed none but “_plain and clear errors_”? On the contrary. I challenge any competent scholar in Great Britain to say _whether every one of these changes_ be not either absolutely useless, or else _decidedly a change for the worse_: six of them being downright _errors_.

The transposition in the opening sentence is infelicitous, to say the least. (The English language will not bear such handling. Literally, no doubt, the words mean, “said Peter, and they that were with him.” But you may not so _translate_.)—The omission of the six interesting words, indicated within square brackets, is a serious blunder.(896) The words are _undoubtedly_ genuine. I wonder how you can have ventured thus to mutilate the Book of Life. And why did you not, out of common decency and reverence, _at least in the margin_, preserve a record of the striking clause which you thus,—with well-meant assiduity, but certainly with deplorable rashness,—forcibly ejected from the text? To proceed however.—“Multitudes,”—“but,”—“one,”—“did,”— “power,”—“forth,”—“from:”—are all seven either needless changes, or improper, or undesirable. “_Did touch_,”—“_perceived_,”—“_had gone forth_,”—are unidiomatic and incorrect expressions. I have already explained this elsewhere.(897) The aorist (ἥψατο) has here a perfect signification, as in countless other places:—ἔγνων, (like “_novi_,”) is frequently (as here) to be Englished by the present (“_I perceive_”): and “_is gone out of me_” is the nearest rendering of ἐξελθοῦσαν(898) ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ which our language will bear.—Lastly, “_press_” and “_crush_,” as renderings of συνέχουσι and ἀποθλίβουσι, are inexact and unscholarlike. Συνέχειν, (literally “to encompass” or “hem in,”) is here to “throng” or “crowd:” ἀποθλίβειν, (literally “to squeeze,”) is here to “press.” But in fact the words were perfectly well rendered by our Translators of 1611, and ought to have been let alone.—This specimen may suffice, (and it is a very fair specimen,) of what has been your calamitous method of revising the A. V. throughout.

So much then for the Revised _English_. The fate of the Revised _Greek_ is even more extraordinary. I proceed to explain myself by instancing what has happened in respect of the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE.

(_b_) _Next_,—_In respect of the New Greek Text._

On examining the 836(899) Greek Textual corrections which you have introduced into those 1151 verses, I find that at least 356 of them _do not affect the English rendering at all_. I mean to say that those 356 (supposed) emendations are either _incapable_ of being represented in a Translation, or at least are _not_ represented. Thus, in S. Luke iv. 3, whether εἶπε δέ or καὶ εἶπεν is read:—in ver. 7, whether ἐμοῦ or μου:—in ver. 8, whether Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου προσκυνήσες, or Προσκυνήσεις Κ. τὸν Θ. σου; whether ἤγαγε δέ or καὶ ἤγαγεν; whether υἱός or ὁ υἱός:—in ver. 17, whether τοῦ προφήτου Ἡσαïου or Ἡ. τοῦ προφήτου; whether ἀνοίξας or ἀναπτύξας:—in ver. 18, whether εὐαγγελίσασθαι or εὐαγγελίζεσθαι:—in ver. 20, whether οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ or ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ οἱ ὀφθαλμοί:—in ver. 23, whether εἰς τήν or ἐν τῇ:—in ver. 27, whether ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπὶ Ἐλισσαίου τοῦ προφήτου or ἐπὶ Ἐλισσ., τοῦ π. ἐν τῷ Ἰ.:—in ver. 29, whether ὀφρύος or τῆς ὀφρύος; whether ὥστε or εἰς τό:—in ver. 35, whether ἀπ᾽ or ἐξ:—in ver. 38, whether ἀπό or ἐκ; whether πενθερά or ἡ πενθερά:—in ver. 43, whether ἐπί or εἰς; whether ἀπεστάλην or ἀπέσταλμαι:—in ver. 44, whether εἰς τὰς συναγωγάς or ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς:—in every one of these cases, _the English remains the same_, whichever of the alternative readings is adopted. At least 19 therefore out of the 33 changes which you introduced into the Greek Text of S. Luke iv. are plainly gratuitous.

_Thirteen_ of those 19, (or about two-thirds,) are also in my opinion changes _for_ the _worse_: are nothing else, I mean, but substitutions of _wrong for right_ Readings. But _that_ is not my present contention. The point I am just now contending for is this:—That, since it certainly was no part of your “Instructions,” “Rules,” or “Principles” _to invent a new Greek Text_,—or indeed to meddle with the original Greek at all, _except so far as was absolutely necessary for the Revision of the English Version_,—it is surely a very grave form of inaccuracy to assert (as you now do) that you “adhered most closely to your Instructions, and did neither more nor less than you were required.”—You _know_ that you did a vast deal more than you had any authority or right to do: a vast deal more than you had the shadow of a pretext for doing. Worse than that. You deliberately forsook the province to which you had been exclusively appointed by the Southern Convocation,—and you ostentatiously invaded another and a distinct province; viz. _That_ of the critical Editorship of the Greek Text: for which, _by your own confession_,—(I take leave to remind you of your own honest avowal, quoted above at page 369,)—you and your colleagues _knew_ yourselves to be incompetent.

For, when those 356 wholly gratuitous and uncalled-for changes in the Greek of S. Luke’s Gospel come to be examined in detail, they are found to affect far more than 356 words. By the result, 92 words have been omitted; and 33 added. No less than 129 words have been substituted for others which stood in the text before; and there are 66 instances of Transposition, involving the dislocation of 185 words. The changes of case, mood, tense, &c., amount in addition to 123.(900) The sum of the words which you have _needlessly_ meddled with in the Greek Text of the third Gospel proves therefore to be 562.

At this rate,—(since, [excluding marginal notes and variations in stops,] Scrivener(901) counts 5337 various readings in his Notes,)—the number of alterations _gratuitously and uselessly introduced by you into the Greek Text of the entire N. T._, is to be estimated at 3590.

And if,—(as seems probable,)—the same general proportion prevails throughout your entire work,—it will appear that the words which, without a shadow of excuse, you have _omitted_ from the Greek Text of the N. T., must amount to about 590: while you have _added_ in the same gratuitous way about 210; and have needlessly _substituted_ about 820. Your instances of uncalled-for _transposition_, (about 420 in number,) will have involved the gratuitous dislocation of full 1190 words:—while the occasions on which, at the bidding of Drs. Westcott and Hort, you have altered case, mood, tense, &c., must amount to about 780. In this way, the sum of the changes you have effected in the Greek Text of the N. T. _in clear defiance of your Instructions_,—would amount, as already stated, to 3590.

Now, when it is considered that _not one_ of those 3590 changes _in the least degree affects the English Revision_,—it is undeniable, not only that you and your friends did what you were without authority for doing:—but also that you violated as well the spirit as the letter of your Instructions. As for your present assertion (at p. 32) that you “adhered _most closely_ to the Instructions you received, and _did neither more nor less than you were required to do_,”—you must submit to be reminded that it savours strongly of the nature of pure fable. The history of the new Greek Text is briefly this:—A majority of the Revisers—_including yourself, their Chairman_,—are found to have put yourselves almost unreservedly into the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort. The result was obvious. When the minority, headed by Dr. Scrivener, appealed to the chair, they found themselves confronted by a prejudiced Advocate. They ought to have been listened to by an impartial Judge. _You_, my lord Bishop, are in consequence (I regret to say) responsible for all the mischief which has occurred. The blame of it rests at _your_ door.

And pray disabuse yourself of the imagination that in what precedes I have been _stretching_ the numbers in order to make out a case against you. It would be easy to show that in estimating the amount of needless changes at 356 out of 836, I am greatly under the mark. I have not included such cases, for instance, as your substitution of ἡ μνᾶ σου, Κύριε for Κύριε, ἡ μνᾶ σου (in xix. 18), and of Τοίνυν ἀπόδοτε for Ἀπόδοτε τοίνυν (in xx. 25),(902)—only lest you should pretend that the transposition affects the English, and therefore _was_ necessary. Had I desired to swell the number I could have easily shown that fully _half_ the changes you effected in the Greek Text were wholly superfluous for the Revision of the English Translation, and therefore were entirely without excuse.

_This_, in fact,—(give me leave to remind you in passing,)—is the _true_ reason why, at an early stage of your proceedings, you resolved that _none_ of the changes you introduced into the Greek Text should find a record in your English margin. Had _any_ been recorded, _all_ must have appeared. And had this been done, you would have stood openly convicted of having utterly disregarded the “Instructions” you had received from Convocation. With what face, for example, _could_ you, (in the margin of S. Luke xv. 17,) against the words “he said,”—have printed “ἔφη not εἶπε”? or, (at xxiv. 44,) against the words “unto them,”—must you not have been ashamed to encumber the already overcrowded margin with such an irrelevant statement as,—“πρὸς αὐτούς _not_ αὐτοῖς”?

Now, if this were all, you might reply that by my own showing the Textual changes complained of, if they do no good, at least do no harm. But then, unhappily, you and your friends have not confined yourselves to colourless readings, when silently up and down every part of the N. T. you have introduced innovations. I open your New English Version at random (S. John