Chapter 34

Now, that 2 of these 254 cursive copies (viz. Paul 17 and 73)—exhibit ὅς,—you have been so eager (at pp. 71-2 of your pamphlet) to establish, that I am unwilling to do more than refer you back to pages443, -4, -5, where a few words have been already offered in reply. Permit me, however, to submit to your consideration, as a set-off against thosetwo copiesof S. Paul's Epistles which read ὅς,—the followingtwo-hundred and fifty-two copieswhich read Θεός.1098To speak[pg 493]with perfect accuracy,—4 of these (252) exhibit ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη;1099—1, ὅς Θεός;1100—and 247, Θεός absolutely. The numbers follow:—1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 52. 55. 56. 57. 59. 62. 63. 65. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 120. 121. 122. 123. 125. 126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 149. 150. 151. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211. 212.[pg 494]213. 215. 216. 217. 218.1101219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 255. 256. 257. 258. 260. 262. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 272. 273. 274. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282.1102283. 285. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301.Behold then the provision whichthe Authorof Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since theHoly Ghostby His servant, Paul, rehearsed the“mystery of Godliness;”declaringthisto be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that“God was manifested in the flesh.”And lo, out oftwo hundred and fifty-fourcopies of S. Paul's Epistles no less thantwo hundred and fifty-twoare discovered to have preserved that expression. Such“Consent”amounts toUnanimity; and, (as I explained at pp.454-5,) unanimity in this subject-matter, is conclusive.The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,—(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp.445-6, and now respectfully propose it toyou, my[pg 495]lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favour me publicly with an answer;)—For what conceivable reason can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity ofChrist,—in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing butthis.To the overwhelming evidence thus furnished by 252 out of 254 cursiveCopiesof S. Paul's Epistles,—is to be added the evidence supplied by theLectionaries. It has been already explained (viz. at pp.477-8) that out of 32 copies of the“Apostolus,”29 concur in witnessing to Θεός. I have just (May 7th) heard of another in the Vatican.1103To these 30, should be added the 3 Liturgical codices referred to at pp.448and474,note1. Now this is emphatically the voice ofancient Ecclesiastical Tradition. The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:—(I.) In 1Timothyiii. 16, the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, is witnessed to by 289Manuscripts:1104—by 3Versions:1105—by upwards of 20 GreekFathers.1106[pg 496](II) The reading ὅ (in place of Θεός) is supported by a single MS. (D):—by 5 ancientVersions:1107—by 2 late GreekFathers.1108(III.) The reading ὅς (also in place of Θεός) is countenanced by 6Manuscriptsin all (א, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—byonly oneVersionfor certain (viz. the Gothic1109):—not for certain by a single GreekFather.1110I will not repeat the remarks I made before on a general survey of the evidence in favour of ὅς ἐφανερώθη: but I must request you to refer back to those remarks, now that we have reached the end of the entire discussion. They extend from the middle of p.483to the bottom of p. 485.The unhappy Logic which, on a survey of what goes before, can first persuade itself, and then seek to persuade others, that Θεός is a“plain and clear error;”and that there is“decidedly preponderating evidence,”in favour of reading ὅς in 1 Timothy iii. 16;—must needs be of a sort with which I neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaintance. I commend the case between you and myself to the judgment of Mankind; and trust you are able to await the common verdict with the same serene confidence as I am.Will you excuse me if I venture, in the homely vernacular, to assure you that in your present contention you“have not a leg to stand upon”?“Moreover”(to quote from your own pamphlet [p. 76],)“this case is of great importance as an example.”You made deliberate choice of it in order to convict me of error. I have accepted your challenge, you see. Let the present, by all means, be regarded by the public as[pg 497]a trial-place,—a test of our respective methods, yours and mine. I cheerfully abide the issue,(p)Internal Evidencefor readingΘεὸς ἐφανερώθηin1 Tim. iii. 16,absolutely overwhelming.In all that precedes, I have abstained from pleading theprobabilitiesof the case; and for a sufficient reason. Men's notions of what is“probable”are observed to differ so seriously.“Facile intelligitur”(says Wetstein)“lectiones ὅς et Θεός esse interpretamenta pronominis ὅ: sed nec ὅ nec ὅς posse esse interpretamentum vocis Θεός.”Now, I should have thought that the exact reverse is as clear as the day.Whatmore obvious than thatΘΣ, by exhibiting indistinctly either of its delicate horizontal strokes, (and they were often so traced as to be scarcely discernible,1111) would become mistaken for ΟΣ? What more natural again than that the masculine relative should be forced into agreement with its neuter antecedent? Why,the thing has actually happenedat Coloss. i. 27; where ὍΣ ἐστι Χριστός has been altered into ὅ, only because μυστήριον is the antecedent. But waiving this, the internal evidence in favour of Θεός must surely be admitted to be overwhelming, by all save one determined that the readingshall beὅς or ὅ. I trust we are at least agreed that the maxim“proclivi lectioni præstat ardua,”does not enunciate so foolish a proposition as that in choosing between two or more conflicting readings, we are to preferthatone which has the feeblest external attestation,—provided it be but in itself almost unintelligible?And yet, in the present instance,—How (give me leave to ask) will you translate? To those who acquiesce in the[pg 498]notion that the μέγα μυστήριον τῆς εὐσεβείας means ourSaviour ChristHimself, (consider Coloss. i. 27,) it is obvious to translate“who:”yet how harsh, or rather how intolerable is this! I should have thought that there could be no real doubt that“the mystery”here spoken of must needs be that complex exhibition of Divine condescension which the Apostle proceeds to rehearse in outline: and of which the essence is that it was very and eternalGodwho was the subject of the transaction. Those who see this, and yet adopt the reading ὅς, are obliged to refer it to the remote antecedent Θεός.Youdo not advocate this view: neither do I. For reasons of their own, Alford1112and Lightfoot1113both translate“who.”Tregelles (who always shows to least advantage when a point of taste or scholarship is under discussion) proposes to render:—“He who was manifested in the flesh, (he who) was justified in the spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was preached among Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) was received up in glory.”1114I question if his motion will finda seconder. You yourself lay it down magisterially that ὅς“isnot emphatic(‘He who,’&c.): nor, by aconstructio ad sensum, is it the relative to μυστήριον; but is a relative to anomittedthough easily recognized antecedent, viz.Christ.”You add that it is not improbable“that the words are quoted from some knownhymn, or probably from some familiarConfession of Faith.”Accordingly, in your Commentary you venture to exhibit the words within inverted commasas a quotation:—“And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness:‘who[pg 499]was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,’”&c.,1115—for which you are without warrant of any kind, and which you have no right to do. Westcott and Hort (the“chartered libertines”) are even more licentious. Acting on their own suggestion that these clauses are“a quotation froman early Christian hymn,”they proceed to print the conclusion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 stichometrically, as if it were asix-line stanza.This notwithstanding, the Revising bodyhave adopted“He who,”as the rendering of ὅς; a mistaken rendering as it seems to me, and (I am glad to learn) to yourself also. Their translation is quite a curiosity in its way. I proceed to transcribe it:—“He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.”But this does not even pretend to be a sentence: nor do I understand what the proposed construction is. Any arrangement which results in making the six clauses last quoted part of the subject, and“great”the predicate of one long proposition,—is unworthy.—Bentley's wild remedy testifies far more eloquently to his distress than to his aptitude for revising the text of Scripture. He suggests,—“Christwas put to deathin the flesh, justified in the spirit, ... seenby Apostles.”1116—“According to the ancient view,”(says the Rev. T. S. Green,)“the sense would be:‘and confessedly great is the mystery of godliness [in the person of him], who [mystery notwithstanding] was manifested in the flesh, &c.’”1117... But, with submission,“the ancient view”was not this. The Latins,—calamitously shut up within the[pg 500]limits of their“pietatis sacramentum, quod,”—are found to have habitually broken away from that iron bondage, and to have discoursed of ourSaviour Christ, as being Himself the“sacramentum”spoken of. The“sacramentum,”in their view, was the incarnateWord.1118—Not so the Greek Fathers. These all, without exception, understood S. Paul to say,—what Ecclesiastical Tradition hath all down the ages faithfully attested, and what to this hour the copies of his Epistles prove that he actually wrote,—viz.“And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness:—Godwas manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,”and so on. Moreover this is the view of the matter in which all the learning and all the piety of the English Church has thankfully acquiesced for the last 350 years. It has commended itself to Andrewes and Pearson, Bull and Hammond, Hall and Stillingfleet, Ussher and Beveridge, Mill and Bengel, Waterland and Berriman. The enumeration of names is easily brought down to our own times. Dr. Henderson, (the learned non-conformist commentator,) in 1830 published a volume with the following title:—“The great mystery of godliness incontrovertible: or, Sir Isaac Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a corruption in the text 1 Tim. iii. 16: containing a review of the[pg 501]charges brought against the passage; an examination of the various readings; and a confirmation of that in the received text on principles of general and biblical criticism.”And,—to turn one's eyes in quite a different direction,—“Veruntamen,”wrote venerable President Routh, at the end of a life-long critical study of Holy Writ,—(and his days were prolonged till he reached his hundredth year,)—“Veruntamen, quidquid ex sacri textûs historia, illud vero haud certum, critici collegerunt, me tamen interna cogunt argumenta præferre lectionem Θεός, quem quidem agnoscunt veteres interpretes, Theodoretus cæterique, duabus alteris ὅς et ὅ.”1119And here I bring myDissertationon 1Tim.iii. 16 to a close. It began at p.424, and I little thought would extend to seventy-six pages. Let it be clearly understood that I rest my contention not at all on Internal, but entirely on External Evidence; although, to the best of my judgment, they are alike conclusive as to the matter in debate.—Having now incontrovertibly, as I believe, established ΘΕΌΣ as the best attested Reading of the place,—I shall conclude the presentLetteras speedily as I can.(1)“Composition of the Body which is responsible for the‘New Greek Text.’”There remains, I believe, but one head of discourse into which I have not yet followed you. I allude to your“few words about the composition of the body which is responsible for the‘New Greek Text,’”1120—which extend from the latter part of p. 29 to the beginning of p. 32 of your pamphlet.“Among the sixteen most regular attendants at your meetings,”(you say)“were to be found most of those persons who[pg 502]were presumably best acquainted with the subject of Textual Criticism.”1121And with this insinuation that you had“all the talents”with you, you seek to put me down.But (as you truly say)“the number of living Scholars in England who have connected their names with the study of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is exceedingly small.”1122And,“of that exceedingly small number,”you would be puzzled to name so much asone, besides the three you proceed to specify (viz. Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Westcott, and Dr. Hort,)—who were members of the Revision company. On the other hand,—(to quote the words of the most learned of our living Prelates,)—“it is well known that there aretwo opposite Schoolsof Biblical Criticism among us,with very different opinions as to the comparative value of our Manuscripts of the Greek Testament.”1123And in proof of his statement, the Bishop of Lincoln cites“on the one side”—Drs. Westcott and Hort;“and on the other”—Dr. Scrivener.Now, let the account be read which Dr. Newth gives (and which you admit to be correct) of the extraordinary method by which the“New Greek Text”was“settled,”1124“for the most part at the First Revision,”1125—and it becomes plain that it was not by any means the product of the independently-formed opinions of 16 experts, (as your words imply); but resulted from the aptitude of 13 of your body to be guided by the sober counsels of Dr. Scrivener on the one hand, or to be carried away by the eager advocacy of Dr. Hort, (supported as he ever was by his respected colleague Dr. Westcott,) on the other. As Canon Cook well puts it,—“The question really is, Were the members competent to form a correct judgment?”1126“In most cases,”“a[pg 503]simple majority”1127determined what the text should be. Butponderari debent testes, my lord Bishop,non numerari.1128The vote of the joint Editors should have been reckoned practically as onlyonevote. And whenever Dr. Scrivener and they were irreconcilably opposed, the existing Traditional Text ought to have been let alone. All pretence that it wasplainly and clearly erroneouswas removed, when the only experts present were hopelessly divided in opinion. As for the rest of the Revising Body, inasmuch as they extemporized their opinions, they were scarcely qualified to vote at all. Certainly they were not entitled individually to an equal voice with Dr. Scrivener in determining what the text should be. Caprice or Prejudice, in short, it was, not Deliberation and Learning, which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. A more unscientific,—to speak truly, a coarser and a clumsier way of manipulating the sacred Deposit, than that which you yourself invented, it would be impossible, in my judgment, to devise.(2)An Unitarian Revisionist intolerable.—The Westminster-Abbey Scandal.But this is not nearly all. You invite attention to the constituent elements of the Revising body, and congratulate yourself on its miscellaneous character as providing a guarantee that it has been impartial.I frankly avow, my lord Bishop, that the challenge you thus deliberately offer, surprises me greatly. To have observed severe silence on this part of the subject, would have seemed to me your discreeter course. Moreover, had you not, in this marked way, invited attention to the component elements of the Revising body, I was prepared to give the subject the go-by. The“New Greek Text,”no less than the“New[pg 504]English Version,”must stand or fall on its own merits; and I have no wish to prejudice the discussion by importing into it foreign elements. Of this, you have had some proof already; for, (with the exception of what is offered above, in pages6and7,) the subject has been, by your present correspondent, nowhere brought prominently forward.Far be it from me, however, to decline the enquiry which you evidently court. And so, I candidly avow that it was in my account a serious breach of Church order that, on engaging in so solemn an undertaking as the Revision of the Authorized Version, a body of Divines professing to act under the authority of the Southern Convocation should spontaneously associate with themselves Ministers of various denominations,1129—Baptists, Congregationalists, Wesleyan[pg 505]Methodists, Independents, and the like: and especially that a successor of the Apostles should have presided over the deliberations of this assemblage of Separatists. In my humble judgment, we shall in vain teach the sinfulness of Schism, if we show ourselves practically indifferent on the subject, and even set an example of irregularity to our flocks. My Divinity may appear unaccommodating and old-fashioned: but I am not prepared to unlearn the lessons long since got by heart in the school of Andrewes and Hooker, of Pearson and Bull, of Hammond and Sanderson, of Beveridge and Bramhall. I am much mistaken, moreover, if I may not claim the authority of a greater doctor than any of these,—I mean S. Paul,—for the fixed views I entertain on this head.All this, however, is as nothing in comparison of the scandal occasioned by the co-optation into your body of[pg 506]Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian Minister of S. Saviour's Gate Chapel, York. That, while engaged in the work of interpreting the everlasting Gospel, you should have knowingly and by choice associated with yourselves one who, not only openly denies the eternal Godhead of ourLord, but in a recent publication is the avowed assailant of that fundamental doctrine of the Christian Religion, as well as of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture itself,1130—filled me (and many besides myself) with astonishment and sorrow. You were respectfully memorialized on the subject;1131but you treated the representations which reached you with scornful indifference.Now therefore that you re-open the question, I will not scruple publicly to repeat that it seems to me nothing else but an insult to our Divine Master and a wrong to the Church, that the most precious part of our common Christian heritage, the pure Word ofGod, should day by day, week by week, month by month, year after year, have been thus handled; for the avowed purpose of producing a Translation which should supersede our Authorized Version. That the individual in question contributed aught to your deliberations has never been pretended. On the contrary. No secret has been made of the fact that he was, (as might have been anticipated from his published writings,) the most unprofitable member of the Revising body. Why then was he at first surreptitiously elected? and why was his election afterwards stiffly maintained? The one purpose achieved by his continued presence among you was that it might be thereby made to appear that the Church of England no[pg 507]longer insists on Belief in the eternal Godhead of ourLord, as essential; but is prepared to surrender her claim to definite and unequivocal dogmatic teaching in respect of Faith in the BlessedTrinity.But even if this Unitarian had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold, (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation ofGod'sWord may not be attained without the guidance of theHoly Spirit, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer.In the meantime, this same person was invited to communicate with his fellow-Revisers in Westminster-Abbey, and did accordingly, on the 22nd of June, 1870, receive the Holy Communion, in Henry VII.'s Chapel, at the hands of Dean Stanley: declaring, next day, that he received the Sacrament on this occasion without“joining in reciting the Nicene Creed”and without“compromise”(as he expressed it,) of his principles as an“Unitarian.”1132So conspicuous a sacrilege led to a public Protest signed by some thousands of the Clergy.1133It also resulted, in the next ensuing Session of Convocation, in a Resolution whereby the Upper House cleared itself of complicity in the scandal.1134...[pg 508]How a good man like you can revive the memory of these many painful incidents without anguish, is to me unintelligible. That no blessing from Him,“sine Quo nihil validum, nihil sanctum,”could be expected to attend an undertaking commenced under such auspices,—was but too plain. The Revision was a foredoomed thing—in the account of many besides myself—from the outset.(3)The probable Future of the Revision of1881.Not unaware am I that it has nevertheless been once and again confidently predicted in public Addresses, Lectures, Pamphlets, that ultimate success is in store for the Revision of 1881. I cannot but regard it as a suspicious circumstance that these vaticinations have hitherto invariably proceeded from members of the Revising body.It would ill become such an one as myself to pretend to skill in forecasting the future. But ofthisat least I feel certain:—that if, in an evil hour, (quod absit!), the Church of England shall ever be induced to commit herself to the adoption of the present Revision, she will by so doing expose herself to the ridicule of the rest of Christendom, as well as incur irreparable harm and loss. And such a proceeding on her part will be inexcusable, for she has been at least faithfully forewarned. Moreover, in the end, she will most certainly have to retrace her steps with sorrow and confusion.Those persons evidently overlook the facts of the problem, who refer to what happened in the case of the Authorized Version when it originally appeared, some 270 years ago; and argue that as the Revision of 1611 at first encountered opposition, which yet it ultimately overcame, so must it fare in the end with the present Revised Version also. Those who so reason forget that the cases are essentially dissimilar.[pg 509]If the difference between the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Revision of 1881 were only this.—That the latter is characterized by a mechanical, unidiomatic, and even repulsive method of rendering; which was not only unattempted, but repudiated by the Authors of the earlier work;—there would have been something to urge on behalf of the later performance. The plea of zeal forGod'sWord,—a determination at all hazards to represent with even servile precision theipsissima verbaof Evangelists and Apostles,—thisplea might have been plausibly put forward: and, to some extent, it must have been allowed,—although a grave diversity of opinion might reasonably have been entertained as towhat constitutes“accuracy”and“fidelity”of translation.But when once it has been made plain thatthe underlying Greekof the Revision of 1881 is an entirely new thing,—is a manufactured article throughout,—all must see that the contention has entirely changed its character. The question immediately arises, (and it is theonlyquestion which remains to be asked,)—Were then the Authors of this“New Greek Text”competentto undertake so perilous an enterprise? And when, in the words of the distinguished Chairman of the Revising body—(words quoted above, at page369,)—“To this question, we venture to answer very unhesitatingly in the negative,”—What remains but, with blank astonishment, not unmingled with disgust, to close the volume? Your own ingenuous admission,—(volunteered by yourself a few days before you and your allies“proceeded to the actual details of the Revision,”)—that“we have certainly not acquired sufficient Critical Judgmentfor any body of Revisers hopefully to undertake such a work as this,”—is decisive on the subject.The gravity of the issue thus raised, it is impossible to over-estimate. We find ourselves at once and entirely[pg 510]lifted out of the region originally proposed for investigation. It is no longer a question of the degree of skill which has been exhibited in translating the title-deeds of our heavenly inheritance out of Greek into English. Those title-deeds themselves have been empirically submitted to a process which,rightly or wrongly, seriously affects their integrity. Not only has a fringe of most unreasonable textual mistrust been tacked on to the margin of every inspired page, (as from S. Luke x. 41 to xi. 11):—not only has many a grand doctrinal statement been evacuated of its authority, (as, by the shameful mis-statement found in the margin against S. John iii. 13,1135and the vile Socinian gloss which disfigures the margin of Rom. ix. 51136):—but we entirely miss many a solemn utterance of theSpirit,—as when we are assured that verses 44 and 46 of S. Mark ix. are omitted by“the best ancient authorities,”(whereas, on the contrary, the MSS. referred to arethe worst). Let the thing complained of be illustrated by a few actual examples. Only five shall be subjoined. The words in the first column represent whatyouare pleased to designate as among“the most certain conclusions of modern Textual Criticism”(p. 78),—but whatIassert to be nothing else but mutilated exhibitions of the inspired Text. The second column contains the indubitable Truth of Scripture,—the words which have been read by our Fathers' Fathers for the last 500 years, and which we propose, (Godhelping us,) to hand on unimpaired to our Children, and to our Children's Children, for many a century to come:—Revised(1881).Authorized(1611).“And come, follow me.”“And come,take up the cross andfollow me.”1137“And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy.”“And when they had blindfolded him,they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy.”1138“And there was also a superscription over him, This is the King of the Jews.”“And a superscription also waswrittenover himin letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This is the King of the Jews.”1139“And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.”“And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish,and of an honeycomb.”1140But the next (S. Luke ix. 54-6,) is a far more serious loss:—“‘Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?’But he turned and rebuked them. And they went to another village.”“‘Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them,even as Elias did?’But he turned and rebuked them,and said,‘Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them’. And they went to another village.”The unlearned reader sees at a glance that the only difference ofTranslationhere is the substitution of“bid”for“command.”—which by the way, is not only uncalled for, but is a changefor the worse.1141On the other hand, how[pg 512]grievous an injury has been done by the mutilation of the blessed record in respect of those (3 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 24 = )forty-three(in Englishfifty-seven) undoubtedly inspired as well as most precious words,—even“ordinary Readers”are competent to discern.I am saying that the systematic, and sometimes serious,—alwaysinexcusable,—liberties which have been taken with the Greek Text by the Revisionists of 1881, constitute a ground of offence against their work for which no pretext was afforded by the Revision of 1611. To argue therefore from what has been the fate of the one, to what is likely to be the fate of the other, is illogical. The cases are not only not parallel: they are even wholly dissimilar.[pg 513]The cheapest copies of our Authorized Version at least exhibit the Word ofGodfaithfully and helpfully. Could the same be said of a cheap edition of the work of the Revisionists,—destitute of headings to the Chapters, and containing no record of the extent to which the Sacred Text has undergone depravation throughout?Let it be further recollected that the greatest Scholars and the most learned Divines of which our Church could boast, conducted the work of Revision in King James' days; and it will be acknowledged that the promiscuous assemblage which met in the Jerusalem Chamber cannot urge any corresponding claim on public attention.Then, the Bishops of Lincoln of 1611 were Revisers: the Vance Smiths stood without and found fault. But in the affair of 1881, Dr. Vance Smith revises, and ventilates heresy from within:1142the Bp. of Lincoln stands outside, and is one of the severest Critics of the work.—Disappointed men are said to have been conspicuous among the few assailants of our“Authorized Version,”—Scholars (as Hugh Broughton) who considered themselves unjustly overlooked and excluded. But on the present occasion, among the multitude of hostile voices, there is not a single instance known of a man excluded from the deliberations of the Jerusalem Chamber, who desired to share them.[pg 514]To argue therefore concerning the prospects of the Revision of 1881 from the known history of our Authorized Version of 1611, is to argue concerning things essentially dissimilar. With every advance made in the knowledge of the subject, it may be confidently predicted that there will spring up increased distrust of the Revision of 1881, and an ever increasing aversion from it.(4)Review of the entire subject, and of the respective positions of Bp. Ellicott and myself.Here I lay down my pen,—glad to have completed what (because I have endeavoured to do my workthoroughly) has proved a very laborious task indeed. The present rejoinder to your Pamphlet covers all the ground you have yourself traversed, and will be found to have disposed of your entire contention.I take leave to point out, in conclusion, that it places you individually in a somewhat embarrassing predicament. For you have now no alternative but to come forward and disprove my statements as well as refute my arguments: or to admit, by your silence, that you have sustained defeat in the cause of which you constituted yourself the champion. You constrained me to reduce you to this alternative when you stood forth on behalf of the Revising body, and saw fit to provoke me to a personal encounter.But you must come provided with something vastly more formidable, remember, than denunciations,—which are but wind: and vague generalities,—which prove nothing and persuade nobody: and appeals to the authority of“Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,”—which I disallow and disregard. You must produce a counter-array of well-ascertained facts; and you must build thereupon irrefragable[pg 515]arguments. In other words, you must conduct your cause with learning and ability. Else, believe me, you will make the painful discovery that“the last error is worse than the first.”You had better a thousand times, even now, ingenuously admit that you made a grievous mistake when you put yourself into the hands of those ingenious theorists, Drs. Westcott and Hort, and embraced their arbitrary decrees,—than persevere in your present downward course, only to sink deeper and deeper in the mire.(5)Anticipated effect of the present contention on the Text of1 Timothy iii. 16.I like to believe, in the meantime, that this passage of arms has resulted in such a vindication1143of the traditional Reading of 1Timothyiii. 16, as will effectually secure that famous place of Scripture against further molestation.FaxitDeus!... In the margin of the Revision of 1881, I observe that you have ventured to state as follows,—

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 52. 55. 56. 57. 59. 62. 63. 65. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 120. 121. 122. 123. 125. 126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 149. 150. 151. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211. 212.[pg 494]213. 215. 216. 217. 218.1101219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 255. 256. 257. 258. 260. 262. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 272. 273. 274. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282.1102283. 285. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301.

Behold then the provision whichthe Authorof Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since theHoly Ghostby His servant, Paul, rehearsed the“mystery of Godliness;”declaringthisto be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that“God was manifested in the flesh.”And lo, out oftwo hundred and fifty-fourcopies of S. Paul's Epistles no less thantwo hundred and fifty-twoare discovered to have preserved that expression. Such“Consent”amounts toUnanimity; and, (as I explained at pp.454-5,) unanimity in this subject-matter, is conclusive.

The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,—(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp.445-6, and now respectfully propose it toyou, my[pg 495]lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favour me publicly with an answer;)—For what conceivable reason can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?

True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity ofChrist,—in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing butthis.

To the overwhelming evidence thus furnished by 252 out of 254 cursiveCopiesof S. Paul's Epistles,—is to be added the evidence supplied by theLectionaries. It has been already explained (viz. at pp.477-8) that out of 32 copies of the“Apostolus,”29 concur in witnessing to Θεός. I have just (May 7th) heard of another in the Vatican.1103To these 30, should be added the 3 Liturgical codices referred to at pp.448and474,note1. Now this is emphatically the voice ofancient Ecclesiastical Tradition. The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:—

(I.) In 1Timothyiii. 16, the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, is witnessed to by 289Manuscripts:1104—by 3Versions:1105—by upwards of 20 GreekFathers.1106

(II) The reading ὅ (in place of Θεός) is supported by a single MS. (D):—by 5 ancientVersions:1107—by 2 late GreekFathers.1108

(III.) The reading ὅς (also in place of Θεός) is countenanced by 6Manuscriptsin all (א, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—byonly oneVersionfor certain (viz. the Gothic1109):—not for certain by a single GreekFather.1110

I will not repeat the remarks I made before on a general survey of the evidence in favour of ὅς ἐφανερώθη: but I must request you to refer back to those remarks, now that we have reached the end of the entire discussion. They extend from the middle of p.483to the bottom of p. 485.

The unhappy Logic which, on a survey of what goes before, can first persuade itself, and then seek to persuade others, that Θεός is a“plain and clear error;”and that there is“decidedly preponderating evidence,”in favour of reading ὅς in 1 Timothy iii. 16;—must needs be of a sort with which I neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaintance. I commend the case between you and myself to the judgment of Mankind; and trust you are able to await the common verdict with the same serene confidence as I am.

Will you excuse me if I venture, in the homely vernacular, to assure you that in your present contention you“have not a leg to stand upon”?“Moreover”(to quote from your own pamphlet [p. 76],)“this case is of great importance as an example.”You made deliberate choice of it in order to convict me of error. I have accepted your challenge, you see. Let the present, by all means, be regarded by the public as[pg 497]a trial-place,—a test of our respective methods, yours and mine. I cheerfully abide the issue,

(p)Internal Evidencefor readingΘεὸς ἐφανερώθηin1 Tim. iii. 16,absolutely overwhelming.

In all that precedes, I have abstained from pleading theprobabilitiesof the case; and for a sufficient reason. Men's notions of what is“probable”are observed to differ so seriously.“Facile intelligitur”(says Wetstein)“lectiones ὅς et Θεός esse interpretamenta pronominis ὅ: sed nec ὅ nec ὅς posse esse interpretamentum vocis Θεός.”Now, I should have thought that the exact reverse is as clear as the day.Whatmore obvious than thatΘΣ, by exhibiting indistinctly either of its delicate horizontal strokes, (and they were often so traced as to be scarcely discernible,1111) would become mistaken for ΟΣ? What more natural again than that the masculine relative should be forced into agreement with its neuter antecedent? Why,the thing has actually happenedat Coloss. i. 27; where ὍΣ ἐστι Χριστός has been altered into ὅ, only because μυστήριον is the antecedent. But waiving this, the internal evidence in favour of Θεός must surely be admitted to be overwhelming, by all save one determined that the readingshall beὅς or ὅ. I trust we are at least agreed that the maxim“proclivi lectioni præstat ardua,”does not enunciate so foolish a proposition as that in choosing between two or more conflicting readings, we are to preferthatone which has the feeblest external attestation,—provided it be but in itself almost unintelligible?

And yet, in the present instance,—How (give me leave to ask) will you translate? To those who acquiesce in the[pg 498]notion that the μέγα μυστήριον τῆς εὐσεβείας means ourSaviour ChristHimself, (consider Coloss. i. 27,) it is obvious to translate“who:”yet how harsh, or rather how intolerable is this! I should have thought that there could be no real doubt that“the mystery”here spoken of must needs be that complex exhibition of Divine condescension which the Apostle proceeds to rehearse in outline: and of which the essence is that it was very and eternalGodwho was the subject of the transaction. Those who see this, and yet adopt the reading ὅς, are obliged to refer it to the remote antecedent Θεός.Youdo not advocate this view: neither do I. For reasons of their own, Alford1112and Lightfoot1113both translate“who.”

Tregelles (who always shows to least advantage when a point of taste or scholarship is under discussion) proposes to render:—

“He who was manifested in the flesh, (he who) was justified in the spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was preached among Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) was received up in glory.”1114

I question if his motion will finda seconder. You yourself lay it down magisterially that ὅς“isnot emphatic(‘He who,’&c.): nor, by aconstructio ad sensum, is it the relative to μυστήριον; but is a relative to anomittedthough easily recognized antecedent, viz.Christ.”You add that it is not improbable“that the words are quoted from some knownhymn, or probably from some familiarConfession of Faith.”Accordingly, in your Commentary you venture to exhibit the words within inverted commasas a quotation:—“And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness:‘who[pg 499]was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,’”&c.,1115—for which you are without warrant of any kind, and which you have no right to do. Westcott and Hort (the“chartered libertines”) are even more licentious. Acting on their own suggestion that these clauses are“a quotation froman early Christian hymn,”they proceed to print the conclusion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 stichometrically, as if it were asix-line stanza.

This notwithstanding, the Revising bodyhave adopted“He who,”as the rendering of ὅς; a mistaken rendering as it seems to me, and (I am glad to learn) to yourself also. Their translation is quite a curiosity in its way. I proceed to transcribe it:—

“He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.”

But this does not even pretend to be a sentence: nor do I understand what the proposed construction is. Any arrangement which results in making the six clauses last quoted part of the subject, and“great”the predicate of one long proposition,—is unworthy.—Bentley's wild remedy testifies far more eloquently to his distress than to his aptitude for revising the text of Scripture. He suggests,—“Christwas put to deathin the flesh, justified in the spirit, ... seenby Apostles.”1116—“According to the ancient view,”(says the Rev. T. S. Green,)“the sense would be:‘and confessedly great is the mystery of godliness [in the person of him], who [mystery notwithstanding] was manifested in the flesh, &c.’”1117... But, with submission,“the ancient view”was not this. The Latins,—calamitously shut up within the[pg 500]limits of their“pietatis sacramentum, quod,”—are found to have habitually broken away from that iron bondage, and to have discoursed of ourSaviour Christ, as being Himself the“sacramentum”spoken of. The“sacramentum,”in their view, was the incarnateWord.1118—Not so the Greek Fathers. These all, without exception, understood S. Paul to say,—what Ecclesiastical Tradition hath all down the ages faithfully attested, and what to this hour the copies of his Epistles prove that he actually wrote,—viz.“And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness:—Godwas manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,”and so on. Moreover this is the view of the matter in which all the learning and all the piety of the English Church has thankfully acquiesced for the last 350 years. It has commended itself to Andrewes and Pearson, Bull and Hammond, Hall and Stillingfleet, Ussher and Beveridge, Mill and Bengel, Waterland and Berriman. The enumeration of names is easily brought down to our own times. Dr. Henderson, (the learned non-conformist commentator,) in 1830 published a volume with the following title:—

“The great mystery of godliness incontrovertible: or, Sir Isaac Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a corruption in the text 1 Tim. iii. 16: containing a review of the[pg 501]charges brought against the passage; an examination of the various readings; and a confirmation of that in the received text on principles of general and biblical criticism.”

And,—to turn one's eyes in quite a different direction,—“Veruntamen,”wrote venerable President Routh, at the end of a life-long critical study of Holy Writ,—(and his days were prolonged till he reached his hundredth year,)—

“Veruntamen, quidquid ex sacri textûs historia, illud vero haud certum, critici collegerunt, me tamen interna cogunt argumenta præferre lectionem Θεός, quem quidem agnoscunt veteres interpretes, Theodoretus cæterique, duabus alteris ὅς et ὅ.”1119

And here I bring myDissertationon 1Tim.iii. 16 to a close. It began at p.424, and I little thought would extend to seventy-six pages. Let it be clearly understood that I rest my contention not at all on Internal, but entirely on External Evidence; although, to the best of my judgment, they are alike conclusive as to the matter in debate.—Having now incontrovertibly, as I believe, established ΘΕΌΣ as the best attested Reading of the place,—I shall conclude the presentLetteras speedily as I can.

(1)“Composition of the Body which is responsible for the‘New Greek Text.’”

There remains, I believe, but one head of discourse into which I have not yet followed you. I allude to your“few words about the composition of the body which is responsible for the‘New Greek Text,’”1120—which extend from the latter part of p. 29 to the beginning of p. 32 of your pamphlet.“Among the sixteen most regular attendants at your meetings,”(you say)“were to be found most of those persons who[pg 502]were presumably best acquainted with the subject of Textual Criticism.”1121And with this insinuation that you had“all the talents”with you, you seek to put me down.

But (as you truly say)“the number of living Scholars in England who have connected their names with the study of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is exceedingly small.”1122And,“of that exceedingly small number,”you would be puzzled to name so much asone, besides the three you proceed to specify (viz. Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Westcott, and Dr. Hort,)—who were members of the Revision company. On the other hand,—(to quote the words of the most learned of our living Prelates,)—“it is well known that there aretwo opposite Schoolsof Biblical Criticism among us,with very different opinions as to the comparative value of our Manuscripts of the Greek Testament.”1123And in proof of his statement, the Bishop of Lincoln cites“on the one side”—Drs. Westcott and Hort;“and on the other”—Dr. Scrivener.

Now, let the account be read which Dr. Newth gives (and which you admit to be correct) of the extraordinary method by which the“New Greek Text”was“settled,”1124“for the most part at the First Revision,”1125—and it becomes plain that it was not by any means the product of the independently-formed opinions of 16 experts, (as your words imply); but resulted from the aptitude of 13 of your body to be guided by the sober counsels of Dr. Scrivener on the one hand, or to be carried away by the eager advocacy of Dr. Hort, (supported as he ever was by his respected colleague Dr. Westcott,) on the other. As Canon Cook well puts it,—“The question really is, Were the members competent to form a correct judgment?”1126“In most cases,”“a[pg 503]simple majority”1127determined what the text should be. Butponderari debent testes, my lord Bishop,non numerari.1128The vote of the joint Editors should have been reckoned practically as onlyonevote. And whenever Dr. Scrivener and they were irreconcilably opposed, the existing Traditional Text ought to have been let alone. All pretence that it wasplainly and clearly erroneouswas removed, when the only experts present were hopelessly divided in opinion. As for the rest of the Revising Body, inasmuch as they extemporized their opinions, they were scarcely qualified to vote at all. Certainly they were not entitled individually to an equal voice with Dr. Scrivener in determining what the text should be. Caprice or Prejudice, in short, it was, not Deliberation and Learning, which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. A more unscientific,—to speak truly, a coarser and a clumsier way of manipulating the sacred Deposit, than that which you yourself invented, it would be impossible, in my judgment, to devise.

(2)An Unitarian Revisionist intolerable.—The Westminster-Abbey Scandal.

But this is not nearly all. You invite attention to the constituent elements of the Revising body, and congratulate yourself on its miscellaneous character as providing a guarantee that it has been impartial.

I frankly avow, my lord Bishop, that the challenge you thus deliberately offer, surprises me greatly. To have observed severe silence on this part of the subject, would have seemed to me your discreeter course. Moreover, had you not, in this marked way, invited attention to the component elements of the Revising body, I was prepared to give the subject the go-by. The“New Greek Text,”no less than the“New[pg 504]English Version,”must stand or fall on its own merits; and I have no wish to prejudice the discussion by importing into it foreign elements. Of this, you have had some proof already; for, (with the exception of what is offered above, in pages6and7,) the subject has been, by your present correspondent, nowhere brought prominently forward.

Far be it from me, however, to decline the enquiry which you evidently court. And so, I candidly avow that it was in my account a serious breach of Church order that, on engaging in so solemn an undertaking as the Revision of the Authorized Version, a body of Divines professing to act under the authority of the Southern Convocation should spontaneously associate with themselves Ministers of various denominations,1129—Baptists, Congregationalists, Wesleyan[pg 505]Methodists, Independents, and the like: and especially that a successor of the Apostles should have presided over the deliberations of this assemblage of Separatists. In my humble judgment, we shall in vain teach the sinfulness of Schism, if we show ourselves practically indifferent on the subject, and even set an example of irregularity to our flocks. My Divinity may appear unaccommodating and old-fashioned: but I am not prepared to unlearn the lessons long since got by heart in the school of Andrewes and Hooker, of Pearson and Bull, of Hammond and Sanderson, of Beveridge and Bramhall. I am much mistaken, moreover, if I may not claim the authority of a greater doctor than any of these,—I mean S. Paul,—for the fixed views I entertain on this head.

All this, however, is as nothing in comparison of the scandal occasioned by the co-optation into your body of[pg 506]Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian Minister of S. Saviour's Gate Chapel, York. That, while engaged in the work of interpreting the everlasting Gospel, you should have knowingly and by choice associated with yourselves one who, not only openly denies the eternal Godhead of ourLord, but in a recent publication is the avowed assailant of that fundamental doctrine of the Christian Religion, as well as of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture itself,1130—filled me (and many besides myself) with astonishment and sorrow. You were respectfully memorialized on the subject;1131but you treated the representations which reached you with scornful indifference.

Now therefore that you re-open the question, I will not scruple publicly to repeat that it seems to me nothing else but an insult to our Divine Master and a wrong to the Church, that the most precious part of our common Christian heritage, the pure Word ofGod, should day by day, week by week, month by month, year after year, have been thus handled; for the avowed purpose of producing a Translation which should supersede our Authorized Version. That the individual in question contributed aught to your deliberations has never been pretended. On the contrary. No secret has been made of the fact that he was, (as might have been anticipated from his published writings,) the most unprofitable member of the Revising body. Why then was he at first surreptitiously elected? and why was his election afterwards stiffly maintained? The one purpose achieved by his continued presence among you was that it might be thereby made to appear that the Church of England no[pg 507]longer insists on Belief in the eternal Godhead of ourLord, as essential; but is prepared to surrender her claim to definite and unequivocal dogmatic teaching in respect of Faith in the BlessedTrinity.

But even if this Unitarian had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold, (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation ofGod'sWord may not be attained without the guidance of theHoly Spirit, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer.

In the meantime, this same person was invited to communicate with his fellow-Revisers in Westminster-Abbey, and did accordingly, on the 22nd of June, 1870, receive the Holy Communion, in Henry VII.'s Chapel, at the hands of Dean Stanley: declaring, next day, that he received the Sacrament on this occasion without“joining in reciting the Nicene Creed”and without“compromise”(as he expressed it,) of his principles as an“Unitarian.”1132So conspicuous a sacrilege led to a public Protest signed by some thousands of the Clergy.1133It also resulted, in the next ensuing Session of Convocation, in a Resolution whereby the Upper House cleared itself of complicity in the scandal.1134...

How a good man like you can revive the memory of these many painful incidents without anguish, is to me unintelligible. That no blessing from Him,“sine Quo nihil validum, nihil sanctum,”could be expected to attend an undertaking commenced under such auspices,—was but too plain. The Revision was a foredoomed thing—in the account of many besides myself—from the outset.

(3)The probable Future of the Revision of1881.

Not unaware am I that it has nevertheless been once and again confidently predicted in public Addresses, Lectures, Pamphlets, that ultimate success is in store for the Revision of 1881. I cannot but regard it as a suspicious circumstance that these vaticinations have hitherto invariably proceeded from members of the Revising body.

It would ill become such an one as myself to pretend to skill in forecasting the future. But ofthisat least I feel certain:—that if, in an evil hour, (quod absit!), the Church of England shall ever be induced to commit herself to the adoption of the present Revision, she will by so doing expose herself to the ridicule of the rest of Christendom, as well as incur irreparable harm and loss. And such a proceeding on her part will be inexcusable, for she has been at least faithfully forewarned. Moreover, in the end, she will most certainly have to retrace her steps with sorrow and confusion.

Those persons evidently overlook the facts of the problem, who refer to what happened in the case of the Authorized Version when it originally appeared, some 270 years ago; and argue that as the Revision of 1611 at first encountered opposition, which yet it ultimately overcame, so must it fare in the end with the present Revised Version also. Those who so reason forget that the cases are essentially dissimilar.

If the difference between the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Revision of 1881 were only this.—That the latter is characterized by a mechanical, unidiomatic, and even repulsive method of rendering; which was not only unattempted, but repudiated by the Authors of the earlier work;—there would have been something to urge on behalf of the later performance. The plea of zeal forGod'sWord,—a determination at all hazards to represent with even servile precision theipsissima verbaof Evangelists and Apostles,—thisplea might have been plausibly put forward: and, to some extent, it must have been allowed,—although a grave diversity of opinion might reasonably have been entertained as towhat constitutes“accuracy”and“fidelity”of translation.

But when once it has been made plain thatthe underlying Greekof the Revision of 1881 is an entirely new thing,—is a manufactured article throughout,—all must see that the contention has entirely changed its character. The question immediately arises, (and it is theonlyquestion which remains to be asked,)—Were then the Authors of this“New Greek Text”competentto undertake so perilous an enterprise? And when, in the words of the distinguished Chairman of the Revising body—(words quoted above, at page369,)—“To this question, we venture to answer very unhesitatingly in the negative,”—What remains but, with blank astonishment, not unmingled with disgust, to close the volume? Your own ingenuous admission,—(volunteered by yourself a few days before you and your allies“proceeded to the actual details of the Revision,”)—that“we have certainly not acquired sufficient Critical Judgmentfor any body of Revisers hopefully to undertake such a work as this,”—is decisive on the subject.

The gravity of the issue thus raised, it is impossible to over-estimate. We find ourselves at once and entirely[pg 510]lifted out of the region originally proposed for investigation. It is no longer a question of the degree of skill which has been exhibited in translating the title-deeds of our heavenly inheritance out of Greek into English. Those title-deeds themselves have been empirically submitted to a process which,rightly or wrongly, seriously affects their integrity. Not only has a fringe of most unreasonable textual mistrust been tacked on to the margin of every inspired page, (as from S. Luke x. 41 to xi. 11):—not only has many a grand doctrinal statement been evacuated of its authority, (as, by the shameful mis-statement found in the margin against S. John iii. 13,1135and the vile Socinian gloss which disfigures the margin of Rom. ix. 51136):—but we entirely miss many a solemn utterance of theSpirit,—as when we are assured that verses 44 and 46 of S. Mark ix. are omitted by“the best ancient authorities,”(whereas, on the contrary, the MSS. referred to arethe worst). Let the thing complained of be illustrated by a few actual examples. Only five shall be subjoined. The words in the first column represent whatyouare pleased to designate as among“the most certain conclusions of modern Textual Criticism”(p. 78),—but whatIassert to be nothing else but mutilated exhibitions of the inspired Text. The second column contains the indubitable Truth of Scripture,—the words which have been read by our Fathers' Fathers for the last 500 years, and which we propose, (Godhelping us,) to hand on unimpaired to our Children, and to our Children's Children, for many a century to come:—

But the next (S. Luke ix. 54-6,) is a far more serious loss:—

The unlearned reader sees at a glance that the only difference ofTranslationhere is the substitution of“bid”for“command.”—which by the way, is not only uncalled for, but is a changefor the worse.1141On the other hand, how[pg 512]grievous an injury has been done by the mutilation of the blessed record in respect of those (3 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 24 = )forty-three(in Englishfifty-seven) undoubtedly inspired as well as most precious words,—even“ordinary Readers”are competent to discern.

I am saying that the systematic, and sometimes serious,—alwaysinexcusable,—liberties which have been taken with the Greek Text by the Revisionists of 1881, constitute a ground of offence against their work for which no pretext was afforded by the Revision of 1611. To argue therefore from what has been the fate of the one, to what is likely to be the fate of the other, is illogical. The cases are not only not parallel: they are even wholly dissimilar.

The cheapest copies of our Authorized Version at least exhibit the Word ofGodfaithfully and helpfully. Could the same be said of a cheap edition of the work of the Revisionists,—destitute of headings to the Chapters, and containing no record of the extent to which the Sacred Text has undergone depravation throughout?

Let it be further recollected that the greatest Scholars and the most learned Divines of which our Church could boast, conducted the work of Revision in King James' days; and it will be acknowledged that the promiscuous assemblage which met in the Jerusalem Chamber cannot urge any corresponding claim on public attention.Then, the Bishops of Lincoln of 1611 were Revisers: the Vance Smiths stood without and found fault. But in the affair of 1881, Dr. Vance Smith revises, and ventilates heresy from within:1142the Bp. of Lincoln stands outside, and is one of the severest Critics of the work.—Disappointed men are said to have been conspicuous among the few assailants of our“Authorized Version,”—Scholars (as Hugh Broughton) who considered themselves unjustly overlooked and excluded. But on the present occasion, among the multitude of hostile voices, there is not a single instance known of a man excluded from the deliberations of the Jerusalem Chamber, who desired to share them.

To argue therefore concerning the prospects of the Revision of 1881 from the known history of our Authorized Version of 1611, is to argue concerning things essentially dissimilar. With every advance made in the knowledge of the subject, it may be confidently predicted that there will spring up increased distrust of the Revision of 1881, and an ever increasing aversion from it.

(4)Review of the entire subject, and of the respective positions of Bp. Ellicott and myself.

Here I lay down my pen,—glad to have completed what (because I have endeavoured to do my workthoroughly) has proved a very laborious task indeed. The present rejoinder to your Pamphlet covers all the ground you have yourself traversed, and will be found to have disposed of your entire contention.

I take leave to point out, in conclusion, that it places you individually in a somewhat embarrassing predicament. For you have now no alternative but to come forward and disprove my statements as well as refute my arguments: or to admit, by your silence, that you have sustained defeat in the cause of which you constituted yourself the champion. You constrained me to reduce you to this alternative when you stood forth on behalf of the Revising body, and saw fit to provoke me to a personal encounter.

But you must come provided with something vastly more formidable, remember, than denunciations,—which are but wind: and vague generalities,—which prove nothing and persuade nobody: and appeals to the authority of“Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,”—which I disallow and disregard. You must produce a counter-array of well-ascertained facts; and you must build thereupon irrefragable[pg 515]arguments. In other words, you must conduct your cause with learning and ability. Else, believe me, you will make the painful discovery that“the last error is worse than the first.”You had better a thousand times, even now, ingenuously admit that you made a grievous mistake when you put yourself into the hands of those ingenious theorists, Drs. Westcott and Hort, and embraced their arbitrary decrees,—than persevere in your present downward course, only to sink deeper and deeper in the mire.

(5)Anticipated effect of the present contention on the Text of1 Timothy iii. 16.

I like to believe, in the meantime, that this passage of arms has resulted in such a vindication1143of the traditional Reading of 1Timothyiii. 16, as will effectually secure that famous place of Scripture against further molestation.FaxitDeus!... In the margin of the Revision of 1881, I observe that you have ventured to state as follows,—

Back to Index Next