Chapter I: TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we (6)

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.