Chapter LXX: S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO BISHOP ELLICOTT, IN REPLY TO HIS PAMPHLET.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BISHOP ELLICOTT.(844)

MY LORD BISHOP,

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

[1] Preliminary Statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You add:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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