Chapter 24

Take away this one codex, and Dr. Hort's volume becomes absolutely without coherence, purpose, meaning.One-fifth[pg 343]of it770is devoted to remarks onband א. The fable of“theSyriantext”is invented solely for the glorification ofband א,—which are claimed, of course, to be“Pre-Syrian.”This fills 40 pages more.771And 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 layperduon a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf, that it had been deposited in a waste-paper basket772in 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 998Copieswhich remain: to the many ancientVersions: to the many venerableFathers,—any oneof whom we hold to bea more trustworthy authorityfor the Text of Scripture,when he speaks out plainly,than either Codexbor 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[pg 344]codices in existence; andthat, for no other reason but because, (as Dr. Hort expresses it,) they“happenlikewise 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 theChurch of Englandbecoming 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.773Where are the mennow?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 ourLord 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[pg 345]the surface of the globe. These have had the title-deeds by which they hold their priceless birthright, shamefully tampered with.Whowill 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 appointedto 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 ratherof straw—without brick.LXVIII.Whysuch 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.Whyagain Tischendorf should have suddenly transferred his allegiance from Cod.bto Cod. א,—unless, to be sure, he was the sport of parental partiality,—must also remain a riddle. Ifoneof the“old uncials”must needs be taken as a guide,—(though we see no sufficient reason whyoneshould be appointed to lord it over the rest,)—we should rather have expected that Cod.awould have been selected,774—the text of which“Stands in broad contrast to those of eitherbor א, though the interval of years [between it and them] is probably small.”[pg 346](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“theGreek copiesemployed by Jerome”?]—“in his Revision of the Latin version must have had to a great extent a common original witha.”(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 actuallyhad belongedto the learned Palestinian father? According to Dr. Hort,“Apart from this individual affinity,a—both in the Gospels and elsewhere—may serve asa fair example of the Manuscripts that,to judge by Patristic quotations,were commonest in the IVth century.”—(p. 152.)O but, the evidence in favour of Codexathickens apace! Suppose then,—(for, after this admission, the supposition is at least allowable,)—suppose the discovery were made tomorrow of half-a-score of codices of thesame date as Cod.b, but exhibiting thesame Text as Cod.a. What a complete revolution would be thereby effected in men's minds on Textual matters! How impossible would it be, henceforth, forband its henchman א, to obtain so much as a hearing! Such“an eleven”would safely defy the world! And yet, according to Dr. Hort, the supposition may any day become a fact; for he informs us,—(and we are glad to be able for once to declare that what he says is perfectly correct,)—that such manuscripts once abounded or ratherprevailed;—“were commonestin the IVth century,”when codicesband א were written. We presume that then, as now, such codices prevailed universally, in the proportion of 99 to 1.LXIX. But—what need to say it?—we entirely disallow any such narrowing of the platform which Divine Wisdom[pg 347]hath willed should be at once very varied and very ample. Cod.ais sometimes in error: sometimes evenconspires in error exclusively with Cod.b. An instance occurs in 1 S. John v. 18,—a difficult passage, which we the more willingly proceed to remark upon, because the fact has transpired that it is one of the few places in whichentire unanimityprevailed among the Revisionists,—who yet (as we shall show) have been, one and all, mistaken in substituting“him”(αὐτόν) for“himself”(ἑαυτόν).... We venture to bespeak the Reader's attention while we produce the passage in question, and briefly examine it. He is assured that it exhibits a fair average specimen of what has been the Revisionists' fatal method in every page:—LXX. S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΕῚΣ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the sanctifying influences of theHoly Spiritwhich 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“keepethhim(αὐτόν),”for“keepethhimself(ἑαυτόν),”and (as Dr. Scrivener admits775), ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ can be none other than the Only BegottenSonofGod. And yet ourLordisnowherein the New Testament designated as ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ.776Alford accordingly prefers to make nonsense of the place; which he translates,—“he that hath been begotten ofGod,it keepeth him.”[pg 348]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,777read“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.786The sum of the adverse attestation therefore which prevailed with the Revisionists, is found to have been—Codexband a single cursive copyat 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[pg 349]and Laity of the Diocese of Gloucester and Bristol,)—the“Quarterly Reviewer”is“innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual Criticism.”787LXXII.“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 beinnocently 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 showingwhereinsuch 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,”[pg 350]that the evidence oftwo manuscripts and-a-halfoutweighs the evidence of (1) Allthe remaining997-½,—(2) The whole body of the Versions,—(3)Every Father who quotes the place, froma.d.210 toa.d.1070,—and (4)The strongest possible internal Evidence:—if all thisindeedbe 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 isdemonstrablytrue: has rejected what isindubitablyDivine. 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 whichdoes not even claim to bethe work of that primitive writer.788Yes, the Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. General mistrust ofallevidence is the sure result. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their[pg 351]brother-Revisionists that“the prevalent assumption that throughout the N. T. the true Text is to be foundsomewhereamong 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 Textantecedent to extant documents”(p. 71). We are not surprised (though wearea little amused) to hear that,—“TheArt of Conjectural Emendationdepends 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 hisNotes 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 ofthe very wordswhich he had syllabled, (ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὯΝ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσασ). As learned Bp. Beveridge well points out,—“which words, notwhich form, thou hast heard of me. So that it is not so much theform, as thewordsthemselves, which the Apostle would have him to hold fast.”789[pg 352]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 byan unusual and inexplicable attraction. It seems more probable that ὧν is aprimitive corruptionof 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 absolutelyno roomfor such Criticism in respect of a reading which is foundin 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 thaton 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[pg 353]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 ofevery known Manuscript,—every known Version,—andevery Father who quotes or recognizes the place.790We findnine columnsdevoted to his vindication of this weak imagination; although so partial are hisNotes, 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, butfor which he is not able to produce a particle of evidence. It would result in our reading,“to feed the Church ofGod, which He purchased”—(not“withHis ownblood,”but)—“with theblood of His ownSon:”which has evidently been suggested by nothing so much as by the supposed necessity of getting rid of a text which unequivocally asserts thatChristisGod.791[pg 354]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. Itnever 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 with792); 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 shalladd untothese things,Godshall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book. And if any man shalltake away fromthe words of the Book of this prophecy,Godshall 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.”793May 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[pg 355][p. 433] be permitted to remind him that“it is now agreed among competent judges thatConjectural emendationmustneverbe 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 havebothEditors against us. They propose“the definite question,”—“‘Are there, as a matter of fact, places in which we areconstrained by overwhelming evidenceto recognize the existence of Textual error inallextant 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 whereevery extant documentis in error. The instance on which they both rely, is S. Peter's prophetic announcement (2 Pet. iii. 10), that in“the day of theLord,”“the earth and the works that are thereinshall be burned up”(κατακαήσεται).This statement is found to have been glossed or paraphrased in an age when men knew no better. Thus, Cod.csubstitutes—“shall vanish away:”794the Syriac and one Egyptian version,—“shall not be found,”(apparently in imitation of Rev. xvi. 20). But, either because the“not”was accidentally omitted795in some very ancient exemplar;—or[pg 356]else because it was deemed a superfluity by some Occidental critic who in his simplicity supposed that εὑρεθήσεται might well represent the Latinurerentur,—(somewhat as Mrs. Quickly warranted“hang hog”to be Latin for“bacon,”)—codices א andb(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 readdiscovered.”) 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,798and John Damascene799once?... As for pretending, at the end of the foregoing enquiry, that“we areconstrained by overwhelming evidenceto recognize the existence of textual errorin all extant documents,”—it is evidently a mistake. Nothing else is it but a misstatement of facts.[pg 357]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 Codicesband 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 thattheir pre-eminent relative purity is approximately absolute.”802LXXVIII. 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[pg 358]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-Westernelement,”are but wind,—the merest chaff and draff,—apart from proof? Repeatedad 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 toindex every principal Father,—andto reduce Texts to familiesby 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 brotherwithout 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[pg 359]“Just. Ptolem. (? Iren. 242fin.), 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,—thatnot one of these four writers,—supplies the wished-for evidence. As for Origen,—they are assured thathe—not“probably”butcertainly—is the cause of all the trouble. They are reminded that Athanasius803quotes (notS. 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 (byGræculus quidam) of John Cassian'sInstitutes,—“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.804Commenting on iv. 31, Origen says that εἰκῆ has been improperly added to the Text,805—which shows that in Origen's copyεἰκῆwas 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.806That is all!(d) May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides Irenæus,807—Eusebius,808—and Cyprian,809—they[pg 360]do not mention that εἰκῆ isalsothe reading of Justin Martyr,810—of Origen himself,811—of theConstitutiones 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 theOpus imp.twice,818—of Cyril819—and of Theodoret820—(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 εἰκῆ827):—not to mention Antiochus mon.,828—J. Damascene,829—Maximus,830—Photius,831—Euthymius,—Theophylact,—and others?832... We have adduced no less thanthirtyancient witnesses.(e) Our present contention however is but this,—that a Reading which is attested byevery uncial Copy of the Gospels exceptbandא; by a wholetorrent of Fathers; byevery known copyof the old Latin,—byallthe Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word εἰκῆ,)—by the[pg 361]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 byancient Evidence,)—that εἰκῆ (“without a cause”) was ourSaviour'sactual 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 leastone definite specimenof 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) Thesumof the matter proves to be as follows: Codd.band א (the“two false Witnesses”),—band 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[pg 362]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.”834Yes, 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“thetwoSupplements”to S. Mark's Gospel declared to“stand on equal termsas independent attempts to fill up a gap;”and allowed to be possibly“of equal antiquity.”836How can we wonder, after this, to findanythingomitted,—anythinginserted,—anythingbranded 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 yetincorporate 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.”[pg 363]LXXXI. We submit, on the contrary, that Editors who“cannot doubt”that a certain verse“comes from an extraneous source,”—“do not believethat it belonged originally to the Book in which it is now included,”—are unreasonable if they proceed to assign to itanyactual place there at all. When men have once thoroughly convinced themselves that two Verses of S. Luke's Gospel arenot 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 ofhuman TraditionintoGod'swritten Wordwill 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 haveno rightat the end of thirty years of investigation,stillto encumber the Evangelists with“provisional”fetters. Those fetters either signify that the Judge isafraid to carry out his own righteous sentence: or else, that heentertains 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, inGod'sName, let them have the manliness to avow themselves in[pg 364]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;—butfor 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 ofan 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,838a 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[pg 365]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 havetalked for three yearsout of the ten.

Are we asked for the ground of our opinion? We point without hesitation to the 998Copieswhich remain: to the many ancientVersions: to the many venerableFathers,—any oneof whom we hold to bea more trustworthy authorityfor the Text of Scripture,when he speaks out plainly,than either Codexbor 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[pg 344]codices in existence; andthat, for no other reason but because, (as Dr. Hort expresses it,) they“happenlikewise 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 theChurch of Englandbecoming 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.773Where are the mennow?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 ourLord 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[pg 345]the surface of the globe. These have had the title-deeds by which they hold their priceless birthright, shamefully tampered with.Whowill 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 appointedto 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 ratherof straw—without brick.

LXVIII.Whysuch 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.Whyagain Tischendorf should have suddenly transferred his allegiance from Cod.bto Cod. א,—unless, to be sure, he was the sport of parental partiality,—must also remain a riddle. Ifoneof the“old uncials”must needs be taken as a guide,—(though we see no sufficient reason whyoneshould be appointed to lord it over the rest,)—we should rather have expected that Cod.awould have been selected,774—the text of which“Stands in broad contrast to those of eitherbor א, though the interval of years [between it and them] is probably small.”[pg 346](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“theGreek copiesemployed by Jerome”?]—“in his Revision of the Latin version must have had to a great extent a common original witha.”(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 actuallyhad belongedto the learned Palestinian father? According to Dr. Hort,

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

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

LXIX. But—what need to say it?—we entirely disallow any such narrowing of the platform which Divine Wisdom[pg 347]hath willed should be at once very varied and very ample. Cod.ais sometimes in error: sometimes evenconspires in error exclusively with Cod.b. An instance occurs in 1 S. John v. 18,—a difficult passage, which we the more willingly proceed to remark upon, because the fact has transpired that it is one of the few places in whichentire unanimityprevailed among the Revisionists,—who yet (as we shall show) have been, one and all, mistaken in substituting“him”(αὐτόν) for“himself”(ἑαυτόν).... We venture to bespeak the Reader's attention while we produce the passage in question, and briefly examine it. He is assured that it exhibits a fair average specimen of what has been the Revisionists' fatal method in every page:—

LXX. S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΕῚΣ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the sanctifying influences of theHoly Spiritwhich 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“keepethhim(αὐτόν),”for“keepethhimself(ἑαυτόν),”and (as Dr. Scrivener admits775), ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ can be none other than the Only BegottenSonofGod. And yet ourLordisnowherein the New Testament designated as ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ.776Alford accordingly prefers to make nonsense of the place; which he translates,—“he that hath been begotten ofGod,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,777read“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.786The sum of the adverse attestation therefore which prevailed with the Revisionists, is found to have been—Codexband a single cursive copyat 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[pg 349]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 beinnocently 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 showingwhereinsuch 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,”[pg 350]that the evidence oftwo manuscripts and-a-halfoutweighs the evidence of (1) Allthe remaining997-½,—(2) The whole body of the Versions,—(3)Every Father who quotes the place, froma.d.210 toa.d.1070,—and (4)The strongest possible internal Evidence:—if all thisindeedbe 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 isdemonstrablytrue: has rejected what isindubitablyDivine. 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 whichdoes not even claim to bethe work of that primitive writer.788

Yes, the Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. General mistrust ofallevidence is the sure result. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their[pg 351]brother-Revisionists that“the prevalent assumption that throughout the N. T. the true Text is to be foundsomewhereamong 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 Textantecedent to extant documents”(p. 71). We are not surprised (though wearea little amused) to hear that,—

“TheArt of Conjectural Emendationdepends 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 hisNotes 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 ofthe very wordswhich he had syllabled, (ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὯΝ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσασ). As learned Bp. Beveridge well points out,—“which words, notwhich form, thou hast heard of me. So that it is not so much theform, as thewordsthemselves, 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 byan unusual and inexplicable attraction. It seems more probable that ὧν is aprimitive corruptionof 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 absolutelyno roomfor such Criticism in respect of a reading which is foundin 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 thaton 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[pg 353]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 ofevery known Manuscript,—every known Version,—andevery Father who quotes or recognizes the place.790We findnine columnsdevoted to his vindication of this weak imagination; although so partial are hisNotes, 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, butfor which he is not able to produce a particle of evidence. It would result in our reading,“to feed the Church ofGod, which He purchased”—(not“withHis ownblood,”but)—“with theblood of His ownSon:”which has evidently been suggested by nothing so much as by the supposed necessity of getting rid of a text which unequivocally asserts thatChristisGod.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. Itnever 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 with792); 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 shalladd untothese things,Godshall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book. And if any man shalltake away fromthe words of the Book of this prophecy,Godshall 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[pg 355][p. 433] be permitted to remind him that“it is now agreed among competent judges thatConjectural emendationmustneverbe 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 havebothEditors against us. They propose“the definite question,”—

“‘Are there, as a matter of fact, places in which we areconstrained by overwhelming evidenceto recognize the existence of Textual error inallextant 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 whereevery extant documentis in error. The instance on which they both rely, is S. Peter's prophetic announcement (2 Pet. iii. 10), that in“the day of theLord,”“the earth and the works that are thereinshall be burned up”(κατακαήσεται).

This statement is found to have been glossed or paraphrased in an age when men knew no better. Thus, Cod.csubstitutes—“shall vanish away:”794the Syriac and one Egyptian version,—“shall not be found,”(apparently in imitation of Rev. xvi. 20). But, either because the“not”was accidentally omitted795in some very ancient exemplar;—or[pg 356]else because it was deemed a superfluity by some Occidental critic who in his simplicity supposed that εὑρεθήσεται might well represent the Latinurerentur,—(somewhat as Mrs. Quickly warranted“hang hog”to be Latin for“bacon,”)—codices א andb(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 readdiscovered.”) 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,798and John Damascene799once?... As for pretending, at the end of the foregoing enquiry, that“we areconstrained by overwhelming evidenceto recognize the existence of textual errorin 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 Codicesband 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 thattheir 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[pg 358]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-Westernelement,”are but wind,—the merest chaff and draff,—apart from proof? Repeatedad 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 toindex every principal Father,—andto reduce Texts to familiesby 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 brotherwithout 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[pg 359]“Just. Ptolem. (? Iren. 242fin.), 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,—thatnot one of these four writers,—supplies the wished-for evidence. As for Origen,—they are assured thathe—not“probably”butcertainly—is the cause of all the trouble. They are reminded that Athanasius803quotes (notS. 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 (byGræculus quidam) of John Cassian'sInstitutes,—“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.804Commenting on iv. 31, Origen says that εἰκῆ has been improperly added to the Text,805—which shows that in Origen's copyεἰκῆwas 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.806That is all!

(d) May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides Irenæus,807—Eusebius,808—and Cyprian,809—they[pg 360]do not mention that εἰκῆ isalsothe reading of Justin Martyr,810—of Origen himself,811—of theConstitutiones 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 theOpus imp.twice,818—of Cyril819—and of Theodoret820—(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 εἰκῆ827):—not to mention Antiochus mon.,828—J. Damascene,829—Maximus,830—Photius,831—Euthymius,—Theophylact,—and others?832... We have adduced no less thanthirtyancient witnesses.

(e) Our present contention however is but this,—that a Reading which is attested byevery uncial Copy of the Gospels exceptbandא; by a wholetorrent of Fathers; byevery known copyof the old Latin,—byallthe Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word εἰκῆ,)—by the[pg 361]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 byancient Evidence,)—that εἰκῆ (“without a cause”) was ourSaviour'sactual 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 leastone definite specimenof 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) Thesumof the matter proves to be as follows: Codd.band א (the“two false Witnesses”),—band 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[pg 362]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.”834Yes, 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“thetwoSupplements”to S. Mark's Gospel declared to“stand on equal termsas independent attempts to fill up a gap;”and allowed to be possibly“of equal antiquity.”836How can we wonder, after this, to findanythingomitted,—anythinginserted,—anythingbranded 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 yetincorporate 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 believethat it belonged originally to the Book in which it is now included,”—are unreasonable if they proceed to assign to itanyactual place there at all. When men have once thoroughly convinced themselves that two Verses of S. Luke's Gospel arenot 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 ofhuman TraditionintoGod'swritten Wordwill 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 haveno rightat the end of thirty years of investigation,stillto encumber the Evangelists with“provisional”fetters. Those fetters either signify that the Judge isafraid to carry out his own righteous sentence: or else, that heentertains 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, inGod'sName, let them have the manliness to avow themselves in[pg 364]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;—butfor 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 ofan 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,838a 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[pg 365]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 havetalked for three yearsout of the ten.

Back to Index Next