The Revision Revised Part 7

1.

And here we make an end.

1. Those who may have taken up the present Article in expectation of being entertained with another of those discussions (of which we suspect the public must be already getting somewhat weary), concerning the degree of ability which the New Testament Revisionists have displayed in their rendering into English of the Greek, will at first experience disappointment. Readers of intelligence, however, who have been at the pains to follow us through the foregoing pages, will be constrained to admit that we have done more faithful service to the cause of Sacred Truth by the course we have been pursuing, than if we had merely multiplied instances of incorrect and unsatisfactory _Translation_. There is (and this we endeavoured to explain at the outset) a question of prior interest and far graver importance which has to be settled _first_, viz. the degree of confidence which is due to the underlying NEW GREEK TEXT which our Revisionists have constructed. In other words, before discussing their _new Renderings_, we have to examine their _new Readings_.(376) The silence which Scholars have hitherto maintained on this part of the subject is to ourselves scarcely intelligible. But it makes us the more anxious to invite attention to this neglected aspect of the problem; the rather, because we have thoroughly convinced ourselves that the "new Greek Text" put forth by the Revisionists of our Authorized Version is _utterly inadmissible_. The traditional Text has been departed from by them nearly 6000 times,-almost invariably _for the worse_.

2. Fully to dispose of _all_ these mult.i.tudinous corruptions would require a bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested to observe that, if we are right in the few instances we have culled out from the ma.s.s,-_then we are right in all_. If we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of authorities on which the "new Greek Text" depends, are the reverse of trustworthy,-are absolutely misleading,-then, we have cut away from under the Revisionists the very ground on which they have hitherto been standing. And in that case, the structure which they have built up throughout a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency, collapses "like the baseless fabric of a vision."

3. For no one may flatter himself that, by undergoing a _further_ process of "Revision," the "Revised Version" may after all be rendered trustworthy. The eloquent and excellent Bishop of Derry is "convinced that, with all its undeniable merits, it will have to be somewhat extensively revised." And so perhaps are we. But (what is a far more important circ.u.mstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of penance to be submitted to by the Revisers would be the restoration of the underlying Greek Text to very nearly-_not quite_-the state in which they found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking. "Very nearly-not quite:" for, in not a few particulars, the "Textus receptus"

_does_ call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a single instance:-When our LORD first sent forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to "_raise the dead_" (?e????? ??e??ete, S. Matthew x.

8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses-? B C D, and the Latin copies.(377) When will men learn unconditionally to put away from themselves the weak superst.i.tion which is for investing with oracular authority the foregoing quaternion of demonstrably depraved Codices?

4. "It may be said"-(to quote again from Bp. Alexander's recent Charge),-"that there is a want of modesty in dissenting from the conclusions of a two-thirds majority of a body so learned. But the rough process of counting heads imposes unduly on the imagination. One could easily name _eight_ in that a.s.sembly, whose _unanimity_ would be practically almost decisive; but we have no means of knowing that these did not _form the minority_ in resisting the changes which we most regret." The Bishop is speaking of the _English_ Revision. Having regard to the Greek Text exclusively, _we_ also (strange to relate) had singled out _exactly eight_ from the members of the New Testament company-Divines of undoubted orthodoxy, who for their splendid scholarship and proficiency in the best learning, or else for their refined taste and admirable judgment, might (as we humbly think), under certain safeguards, have been safely entrusted even with the responsibility of revising the Sacred Text.

Under the guidance of Prebendary Scrivener (who among living Englishmen is _facile princeps_ in these pursuits) it is scarcely to be antic.i.p.ated that, WHEN UNANIMOUS, such Divines would ever have materially erred. But then, of course, a previous life-long familiarity with the Science of _Textual Criticism_, or at least leisure for prosecuting it now, for ten or twenty years, with absolutely undivided attention,-would be the indispensable requisite for the success of such an undertaking; and this, undeniably, is a qualification rather to be desiderated than looked for at the hands of English Divines of note at the present day. On the other hand, (loyalty to our Master constrains us to make the avowal,) the motley a.s.sortment of names, twenty-eight in all, specified by Dr. Newth, at p.

125 of his interesting little volume, joined to the fact that the average attendance _was not so many as sixteen_,-concerning whom, moreover, the fact has transpired that some of the most judicious of their number often _declined to give any vote at all_,-is by no means calculated to inspire any sort of confidence. But, in truth, considerable familiarity with these pursuits may easily co-exist with a natural inapt.i.tude for their successful cultivation, which shall prove simply fatal. In support of this remark, one has but to refer to the instance supplied by Dr. Hort. The Sacred Text has none to fear so much as those who _feel_ rather than think: who _imagine_ rather than reason: who rely on a supposed _verifying faculty_ of their own, of which they are able to render no intelligible account; and who, (to use Bishop Ellicott's phrase,) have the misfortune to conceive themselves possessed of a "_power of divining the Original Text_,"-which would be even diverting, if the practical result of their self-deception were not so exceedingly serious.

5. In a future number, we may perhaps enquire into the measure of success which has attended the Revisers' _Revision of the English_ of our Authorized Version of 1611. We have occupied ourselves at this time exclusively with a survey of the seriously mutilated and otherwise grossly depraved NEW GREEK TEXT, on which their edifice has been reared. And the circ.u.mstance which, in conclusion, we desire to impress upon our Readers, is this,-that the insecurity of that foundation is so alarming, that, except as a concession due to the solemnity of the undertaking just now under review, further Criticism might very well be dispensed with, as a thing superfluous. Even could it be proved concerning the superstructure, that "_it had been [ever so] well builded_,"(378) (to adopt another of our Revisionists' unhappy perversions of Scripture,) the fatal objection would remain, viz. that it is not "_founded upon the rock_."(379) It has been the ruin of the present undertaking-as far as the Sacred Text is concerned-that the majority of the Revisionist body have been misled throughout by the oracular decrees and impetuous advocacy of Drs. Westcott and Hort; who, with the purest intentions and most laudable industry, have constructed a Text demonstrably more remote from the Evangelic verity, than any which has ever yet seen the light. "The old is good,"(380) say the Revisionists: but we venture solemnly to a.s.sure them that "_the old is better_;"(381) and that this remark holds every bit as true of their Revision of the Greek throughout, as of their infelicitous exhibition of S. Luke v. 39. To attempt, as they have done, to build the Text of the New Testament on a tissue of unproved a.s.sertions and the eccentricities of a single codex of bad character, is about as hopeful a proceeding as would be the attempt to erect an Eddystone lighthouse on the Goodwin Sands.

ARTICLE II. THE NEW ENGLISH VERSION.

"Such is the time-honoured Version which we have been called upon to revise! We have had to study this great Version carefully and minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon it the more we have learned to admire _its simplicity_, _its dignity_, _its power_, _its happy turns of expression_, _its general accuracy_, and we must not fail to add, _the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm_. To render a work that had reached this high standard of excellence, still more excellent; to increase its fidelity, without destroying its charm; was the task committed to us."-PREFACE TO THE REVISED VERSION.

"To pa.s.s from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from a well-built and well-hung carriage which glides easily over a macadamized road,-and to get into one _which has bad springs or none at all_, and in which you are _jolted in ruts with aching bones over the stones of a newly-mended and rarely traversed road_, like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire villages."-BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(382)

"No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour's acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorized Version."-BISHOP ELLICOTT.(383)

"I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book,-If any man shall add unto these things, G.o.d shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book.

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, G.o.d shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book."-REVELATION xxii. 18, 19.

Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth's surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately,-here and there translating a tense with greater precision,-getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently a.s.sumed that no "Revision" of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,-the n.o.blest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have _another_ "Authorized Version." And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be brief,-As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect of difficult and controverted pa.s.sages:-we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As something _intended to supersede_ our present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.

On the other hand, _who_ could have possibly foreseen what has actually come to pa.s.s since the Convocation of the Southern Province (in Feb. 1870) declared itself favourable to "a Revision of the Authorized Version," and appointed a Committee of Divines to undertake the work? _Who_ was to suppose that the Instructions given to the Revisionists would be by them systematically disregarded? _Who_ was to imagine that an utterly untrustworthy "new Greek Text," constructed on mistaken principles,-(say rather, on _no principles at all_,)-would be the fatal result? To speak more truly,-_Who_ could have antic.i.p.ated that the opportunity would have been adroitly seized to inflict upon the Church the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort, in all its essential features,-a text which, as will be found elsewhere largely explained, we hold to be _the most vicious Recension of the original Greek in existence_? Above all,-_Who_ was to foresee that instead of removing "_plain_ and _clear errors_" from our Version, the Revisionists,-(besides systematically removing out of sight so many of the genuine utterances of the SPIRIT,)-would themselves introduce a countless number of blemishes, unknown to it before? Lastly, how was it to have been believed that the Revisionists would show themselves industrious in sowing broadcast over four continents doubts as to the Truth of Scripture, which it will never be in their power either to remove or to recal? _Nescit vox missa reverti._

For, the ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of an English Bible, certain of the blunders-(such things cannot by any stretch of courtesy be styled "Various Readings")-which disfigure "some" or "many"

"ancient authorities," can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith of millions. It cannot be defended on the plea of candour,-the candour which is determined that men shall "know the worst." "The worst"_ has_ NOT _been told_: and it were dishonesty to insinuate that _it has_. If all the cases were faithfully exhibited where "a few," "some," or "many ancient authorities" read differently from what is exhibited in the actual Text, not only would the margin prove insufficient to contain the record, but _the very page itself_ would not nearly suffice. Take a single instance (the first which comes to mind), of the thing referred to. Such ill.u.s.trations might be multiplied to any extent:-

In S. Luke iii. 22, (in place of "Thou art my beloved Son; _in Thee I am well pleased_,") the following authorities of the IInd, IIIrd and IVth centuries, read,-"_this day have I begotten Thee_:" viz.-codex D and the most ancient copies of the old Latin (a, b, c, ff-2, 1),-Justin Martyr in three places(384) (A.D. 140),-Clemens Alex.(385) (A.D. 190),-and Methodius(386) (A.D. 290) among the Greeks. Lactantius(387) (A.D.

300),-Hilary(388) (A.D. 350),-Juvencus(389) (A.D. 330),-Faustus(390) (A.D.

400), and-Augustine(391) amongst the Latins. The reading in question was doubtless derived from the _Ebionite Gospel_(392) (IInd cent.). Now, we desire to have it explained to us _why_ an exhibition of the Text supported by such an amount of first-rate primitive testimony as the preceding, obtains _no notice whatever_ in our Revisionists' margin,-if indeed it was the object of their perpetually recurring marginal annotations, to put the unlearned reader on a level with the critical Scholar; to keep nothing back from him; and so forth?... It is the gross one-sidedness, the patent _unfairness_, in a critical point of view, of this work, (which professes to be nothing else but _a Revision of the English Version of_ 1611,)-which chiefly shocks and offends us.

For, on the other hand, of what possible use can it be to enc.u.mber the margin of S. Luke x. 41, 42 (for example), with the announcement that "A few ancient authorities read _Martha, Martha, thou art troubled: Mary hath chosen_ &c." (the fact being, that D _alone_ of MSS. omits "_careful and ... about many things. But one thing is needful, and_" ...)? With the record of this circ.u.mstance, is it reasonable (we ask) to choke up our English margin,-to create perplexity and to insinuate doubt? The author of the foregoing marginal Annotation was of course aware that the same "singular codex" (as Bp. Ellicott styles cod. D) omits, in S. Luke's Gospel alone, no less than 1552 words: and he will of course have ascertained (by counting) that the words in S. Luke's Gospel amount to 19,941. Why then did he not tell _the whole_ truth; and instead of "_&c._," proceed as follows?-"But inasmuch as cod. D is so scandalously corrupt that about _one word in thirteen_ is missing throughout, the absence of nine words in this place is of no manner of importance or significancy. The precious saying omitted is above suspicion, and the first half of the present Annotation might have been spared."... We submit that a Note like that, although rather "singular" in style, really _would_ have been to some extent helpful,-if not to the learned, at least to the unlearned reader.

In the meantime, unlearned and learned readers alike are competent to see that the foregoing perturbation of S. Luke x. 41, 42 rests on _the same_ ma.n.u.script authority as the perturbation of ch. iii. 22, which immediately preceded it. The _Patristic_ attestation, on the other hand, of the reading which has been promoted to the margin, is almost _nil_: whereas _that_ of the neglected place has been shown to be considerable, very ancient, and of high respectability.

But in fact,-(let the Truth be plainly stated; for, when G.o.d'S Word is at stake, circ.u.mlocution is contemptible, while concealment would be a crime;)-"_Faithfulness_" towards the public, a stern resolve that the English reader "shall know the worst," and all that kind of thing,-such considerations have had nothing whatever to do with the matter. A vastly different principle has prevailed with the Revisionists. Themselves the dupes of an utterly mistaken Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme solicitude has been _to impose that same Theory_,-(_which is Westcott and Hort's_,)-with all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned and unsuspicious public.

We shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain what we mean by so injurious-so d.a.m.ning-an imputation? For all reply, we are content to refer to the sample of our meaning which will be found below, in pp.

137-8. The exposure of what has there been shown to be the method of the Revisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated hundreds of times. It would in fact _fill a volume_. We shall therefore pa.s.s on, when we have asked the Revisionists in turn-_How they have dared_ so effectually to blot out those many precious words from the Book of Life, that no mere English reader, depending on the Revised Version for his knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existence?...

Supposing even that it _was_ the calamitous result of their mistaken principles that they found themselves constrained on countless occasions, to omit from their Text precious sayings of our LORD and His Apostles,-what possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a record of words so amply attested, _at least in their margin_?

Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected by our Revisionists has not been stated. For the Greek Text which they have invented proves to be so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it were to be thrust upon the Church's acceptance, we should be a thousand times worse off than we were with the Text which Erasmus and the Complutensian,-Stephens, and Beza, and the Elzevirs,-bequeathed to us upwards of three centuries ago. On this part of the subject we have remarked at length already [pp. 1-110]: yet shall we be constrained to recur once and again to the underlying Greek Text of the Revisionists, inasmuch as it is impossible to stir in any direction with the task before us, without being painfully reminded of its existence. Not only do the familiar Parables, Miracles, Discourses of our LORD, trip us up at every step, but we cannot open the first page of the Gospel-no, nor indeed read _the first line_-without being brought to a standstill. Thus,

1. S. Matthew begins,-"The book of the generation of JESUS CHRIST" (ver.

1).-Good. But here the margin volunteers two pieces of information: first,-"Or, _birth_: as in ver. 18." We refer to ver. 18, and read-"Now the birth of JESUS CHRIST was on this wise." Good again; but the margin says,-"Or, _generation_: as in ver. 1." Are we then to understand that _the same Greek word_, diversely rendered in English, occurs in both places? We refer to the "_new_ Greek Text:" and there it stands,-???es??

in either verse. But if the word be the same, why (on the Revisers'

theory) is it diversely rendered?

In the meantime, _who_ knows not that there is all the difference in the world between S. Matthew's ????s??, in ver. 1,-and the same S. Matthew's ?????s??, in ver. 18? The latter, the Evangelist's announcement of the circ.u.mstances of the human Nativity of CHRIST: the former, the Evangelist's un.o.btrusive way of recalling the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. ii. 4 and v. 1:(393) the same Evangelist's calm method of guiding the devout and thoughtful student to discern in the Gospel the History of the "new Creation,"-by thus providing that when first the Gospel opens its lips, it shall syllable the name of the first book of the elder Covenant?

We are pointing out that it more than startles-it supremely offends-one who is even slenderly acquainted with the treasures of wisdom hid in the very diction of the N. T. Scriptures, to discover that a deliberate effort has been made to get rid of the very foremost of those notes of Divine intelligence, by confounding two words which all down the ages have been carefully kept distinct; and that this effort is the result of an exaggerated estimate of a few codices which happen to be written in the uncial character, viz. two of the IVth century (B ?); one of the Vth (C); two of the VIth (P Z); one of the IXth (?); one of the Xth (S).

The Versions(394)-(which are our _oldest_ witnesses)-are perforce only partially helpful here. Note however, that _the only one which favours_ ???es?? is the heretical Harkleian Syriac, executed in the VIIth century.

The Peschito and Cureton's Syriac distinguish between ???es?? in ver. 1 and ?????s?? in ver. 18: as do the Slavonic and the Arabian Versions. The Egyptian, Armenian, aethiopic and Georgian, have only one word for both.

Let no one suppose however that _therefore_ their testimony is ambiguous.

It is ?????s?? (_not_ ???es??) which they exhibit, both in ver. 1 and in ver. 18.(395) The Latin ("_generatio_") is an equivocal rendering certainly: but the earliest Latin writer who quotes the two places, (viz.

Tertullian) employs the word "_genitura_" in S. Matth. i. 1,-but "_nativitas_" in ver. 18,-which no one seems to have noticed.(396) Now, Tertullian, (as one who sometimes wrote in Greek,) is known to have been conversant with the Greek copies of his day; and "his day," be it remembered, is A.D. 190. He evidently recognized the parallelism between S. Matt. i. 1 and Gen. ii. 4,-where the old Latin exhibits "liber _creaturae_" or "_facturae_," as the rendering of ???? ?e??se??. And so much for the testimony of the Versions.

But on reference to Ma.n.u.script and to Patristic authority(397) we are encountered by an overwhelming amount of testimony for ?????s?? in ver.

18: and this, considering the nature of the case, is an extraordinary circ.u.mstance. Quite plain is it that the Ancients were wide awake to the difference between spelling the word with one N or with two,-as the little dissertation of the heretic Nestorius(398) in itself would be enough to prove. G????s??, in the meantime, is the word employed by Justin M.,(399)-by Clemens Alex.,(400)-by Athanasius,(401)-by Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus,(402)-by Cyril Alex.,(403)-by Nestorius,(404)-by Chrysostom,(405)-by Theodorus Mopsuest.,(406)-and by three other ancients.(407) Even more deserving of attention is it that Irenaeus(408) (A.D. 170)-(whom Germa.n.u.s(409) copies at the end of 550 years)-calls attention to the difference between the spelling of ver. 1 and ver. 18. So does Didymus:(410)-so does Basil:(411)-so does Epiphanius.(412)-Origen(413) (A.D. 210) is even eloquent on the subject.-Tertullian (A.D. 190) we have heard already.-It is a significant circ.u.mstance, that the only Patristic authorities discoverable on the other side are Eusebius, Theodoret, and the authors of an heretical Creed(414)-whom Athanasius holds up to scorn.(415) ... Will the Revisionists still pretend to tell us that ?????s?? in verse 18 is a "_plain and clear error_"?

2. This, however, is not all. Against the words "of JESUS CHRIST," a further critical annotation is volunteered; to the effect that "Some ancient authorities read _of the Christ_." In reply to which, we a.s.sert that _not one single known MS._ omits the word "JESUS:" whilst its presence is vouched for by ps.-Tatian,(416)-Irenaeus,-Origen,-Eusebius,-Didymus,- Epiphanius,-Chrysostom,-Cyril,-in addition to _every known Greek copy of the Gospels_, and not a few of the Versions, including the Peschito and both the Egyptian. What else but nugatory therefore is such a piece of information as this?

3. And so much for the first, second, and third Critical annotations, with which the margin of the revised N. T. is disfigured. Hoping that the worst is now over, we read on till we reach ver. 25, where we encounter a statement which fairly trips us up: viz.,-"And knew her not _till she had brought forth a son_." No intimation is afforded of what has been here effected; but in the meantime every one's memory supplies the epithet ("her first-born") which has been ejected. Whether something very like indignation is not excited by the discovery that these important words have been surrept.i.tiously withdrawn from their place, let others say. For ourselves, when we find that only ? B Z and two cursive copies can be produced for the omission, we are at a loss to understand of what the Revisionists can have been dreaming. Did they know(417) that,-besides the Vulgate, the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the aethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonian Versions,(418)-a whole torrent of Fathers are at hand to vouch for the genuineness of the epithet they were so unceremoniously excising? They are invited to refer to ps.-Tatian,(419)-to Athanasius,(420)-to Didymus,(421)-to Cyril of Jer.,(422)-to Basil,(423)-to Greg. Nyss.,(424)-to Ephraem Syr.,(425)-to Epiphanius,(426)-to Chrysostom,(427)-to Proclus,(428)-to Isidorus Pelus.,(429)-to John Damasc.,(430)-to Photius,(431)-to Nicetas:(432)-besides, of the Latins, Ambrose,(433)-the _Opus imp._,-Augustine,-and not least to Jerome(434)-eighteen Fathers in all. And how is it possible, (we ask,) that two copies of the IVth century (B ?) and one of the VIth (Z)-all three without a character-backed by a few copies of the old Latin, should be supposed to be any counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate contemporary evidence as the foregoing?

Enough has been offered by this time to prove that an authoritative Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking the time has not yet come. "It is my honest conviction,"-(remarks Bp. Ellicott, the Chairman of the Revisionists,)-"that for any authoritative Revision, we are not yet mature: either in Biblical learning or h.e.l.lenistic scholarship."(435) The same opinion precisely is found to have been cherished by Dr. Westcott till _within about a year-and-a-half_(436) of the first a.s.sembling of the New Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber, 22nd June, 1870. True, that we enjoy access to-suppose from 1000 to 2000-more Ma.n.u.sCRIPTS than were available when the Textus Recept. was formed. But nineteen-twentieths of those doc.u.ments, for any use which has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in the monastic libraries from which they were obtained.-True, that four out of our five oldest uncials have come to light since the year 1628; but, _who knows how to use them_?-True, that we have made acquaintance with certain ancient VERSIONS, about which little or nothing was known 200 years ago: but,-(with the solitary exception of the Rev. Solomon Caesar Malan, the learned Vicar of Broadwindsor,-who, by the way, is always ready to lend a torch to his benighted brethren,)-what living Englishman is able to tell us what they all contain? A smattering acquaintance with the languages of ancient Egypt,-the Gothic, aethiopic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonian Versions,-is of no manner of avail. In no department, probably, is "a little learning" more sure to prove "a dangerous thing."-True, lastly, that the FATHERS have been better edited within the last 250 years: during which period some fresh Patristic writings have also come to light. But, with the exception of Theodoret among the Greeks and Tertullian among the Latins, _which of the Fathers has been satisfactorily indexed_?

Even what precedes is not nearly all. _The fundamental Principles_ of the Science of Textual Criticism are not yet apprehended. In proof of this a.s.sertion, we appeal to the new Greek Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort,-which, beyond all controversy, is more hopelessly remote from the inspired Original than any which has yet appeared. Let a generation of Students give themselves entirely up to this neglected branch of sacred Science. Let 500 more COPIES of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, be diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient _Lectionaries_ be very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient VERSIONS be edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for the first time really _mastered_ by Englishmen. _Above all, let the _FATHERS_ he called upon to give up their precious secrets._ Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what actually is the evidence which they afford. Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version. Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the ancient Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,-(and not a few precious remains of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and abroad,)-let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money, far more easily.-When all this has been done,-_not before_-then in G.o.d'S Name, let _the Church_ address herself to the great undertaking. Do but revive the arrangements which were adopted in King James's days: and we venture to predict that less than a third part of ten years will be found abundantly to suffice for the work. How the coming men will smile at the picture Dr. Newth(437) has drawn of what was the method of procedure in the reign of Queen Victoria! Will they not peruse with downright merriment Bp. Ellicott's jaunty proposal "_simply to proceed onward with the work_"-[to wit, of constructing a new Greek Text,]-"in fact, _solvere ambulando_," [_necnon in laqueum cadendo_]?(438)

I. We cannot, it is presumed, act more fairly by the Revisers' work,(439) than by following them over some of the ground which they claim to have made their own, and which, at the conclusion of their labours, their Right Reverend Chairman evidently surveys with self-complacency. First, he invites attention to the Principle and Rule for their guidance agreed to by the Committee of Convocation (25th May, 1870), viz. "TO INTRODUCE AS FEW ALTERATIONS AS POSSIBLE INTO THE TEXT OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION, CONSISTENTLY WITH FAITHFULNESS." Words could not be more emphatic. "PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS" were to be corrected. "NECESSARY emendations" were to be made. But (in the words of the Southern Convocation) "We do not contemplate any new Translation, _or any alteration of the language_, EXCEPT WHERE, in the judgment of the most competent Scholars, SUCH CHANGE IS NECESSARY." The watchword, therefore, given to the company of Revisionists was,-"NECESSITY." _Necessity_ was to determine whether they were to depart from the language of the Authorized Version, or not; for the alterations were to be AS FEW AS POSSIBLE.

(_a_) Now it is idle to deny that this fundamental Principle has been utterly set at defiance. To such an extent is this the case, that even an unlettered Reader is competent to judge them. When we find "_to_"

subst.i.tuted for "unto" (_pa.s.sim_):-"_hereby_" for "by this" (1 Jo. v.

2):-"all that _are_," for "all that be" (Rom. i. 7):-"_alway_" for "always" (2 Thess. i. 3):-"we _that_," "them _that_," for "we _which_,"

"them _which_" (1 Thess. iv. 15); and yet "every spirit _which_," for "every spirit that" (1 Jo. iv. 3), and "he _who_ is not of G.o.d," for "he that is not of G.o.d" (ver. 6,-although "he _that_ knoweth G.o.d" had preceded, in the same verse):-"_my_ host" for "mine host" (Rom. xvi. 23); and "_underneath_" for "_under_" (Rev. vi. 9):-it becomes clear that the Revisers' notion of NECESSITY is not that of the rest of mankind. But let the plain Truth be stated. Certain of them, when remonstrated with by their fellows for the manifest disregard they were showing to the Instructions subject to which they had undertaken the work of Revision, are reported to have even gloried in their shame. The majority, it is clear, have even ostentatiously set those Instructions at defiance.

Was the course they pursued,-(we ask the question respectfully,)-strictly _honest_? To decline the work entirely under the prescribed Conditions, was always in their power. But, first to accept the Conditions, and straightway to act in defiance of them,-_this_ strikes us as a method of proceeding which it is difficult to reconcile with the high character of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber. To proceed however.

"Nevertheless" and "notwithstanding" have had a sad time of it. One or other of them has been turned out in favour of "_howbeit_" (S. Lu. x. 11, 20),-of "_only_" (Phil. iii. 16),-of "_only that_" (i. 18),-of "_yet_" (S.

Matth. xi. 11),-of "_but_" (xvii. 27),-of "_and yet_" (James ii. 16)....

We find "_take heed_" subst.i.tuted for "beware" (Col. ii. 8):-"_custom_"

for "manner" (S. Jo. xix. 40):-"he was _amazed_," for "he was astonished:"

(S. Lu. v. 9):-"_Is it I, _LORD_?_" for "LORD, is it I?" (S. Matth. xxvi.

22):-"_straightway_ the c.o.c.k crew," for "immediately the c.o.c.k crew" (S.

Jo. xviii. 27):-"Then _therefore he delivered Him_," for "Then delivered he Him therefore" (xix. 16):-"_brought_ it to His mouth," for "put it to His mouth" (ver. 29):-"_He manifested Himself on this wise_," for "on this wise shewed He Himself" (xxi. 1):-"_So when they got out upon the land_,"