Chapter I: TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we (9)

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.)