{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36722/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36722","id":"gutenberg_36722","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36722","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament -- English -- Criticism, Textual","Bible. New Testament -- English -- Versions -- Revised -- Controversial literature","Bible. New Testament -- English -- Versions -- Revised -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Ellicott, C. J. (Charles John), 1819-1905"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\n\n                          The Revision Revised.\n\n                              Three Articles\n\n                  Reprinted From The \u201cQuarterly Review.\u201d\n\n                          I. The New Greek Text.\n\n                       II. The New English Version.\n\n               III. Westcott and Hort\u2019s New Textual Theory.\n\n                           To Which is Added A\n\n                   Reply to Bishop Ellicott\u2019s Pamphlet\n\n                              In Defence Of\n\n         The Revisers and Their Greek Text of the New Testament:\n\n Including a Vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Timothy III. 16.\n\n                       By John William Burgon, B.D.\n\n                           Dean of Chichester.\n\n       \u201cLittle children,\u2014Keep yourselves from idols.\u201d\u20141 John v. 21.\n\n                         Dover Publications, Inc.\n\n                                 New York\n\n                                   1971\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nDedication.\nPreface.\nArticle I. The New Greek Text.\nArticle II. The New English Version.\nArticle III. Westcott And Hort\u2019s New Textual Theory.\nLetter To Bishop Ellicott, In Reply To His Pamphlet.\nAppendix Of Sacred Codices.\nIndex I, of Texts of Scripture,\u2014quoted, discussed, or only referred to in\nthis volume.\nIndex II, of Fathers.\nIndex III, Persons, Places, and Subjects.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be\nwell-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much\nuse of Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters\nto indicate abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book\ndoes not have such an \u201coverline\u201d, they are rendered here with underlines.\nIt also contains some text in Syriac, which is written right-to-left; for\nthe sake of different transcription methods, it is transcribed here in\nboth right-to-left and left-to-rights, so that regardless of the medium of\nthis E-book, one or the other should be readable.]\n\nThe following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER\u2019S recently published estimate of the\nSystem on which DRS. WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their \u201c_Revised\nGreek Text of the New Testament_\u201d (1881).\u2014That System, the Chairman of the\nRevising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391\nto 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and their \u201c_New\nGreek Text._\u201d\n\n\n    (1.) \u201cThere is little hope for the stability of their imposing\n    structure, if _its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground\n    of ingenious conjecture_. And, since barely the smallest vestige\n    of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the\n    views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be\n    received as intuitively true, or _dismissed from our consideration\n    as precarious and even visionary_.\u201d\n\n    (2.) \u201cDR. HORT\u2019S System _is entirely destitute of historical\n    foundation_.\u201d\n\n    (3.) \u201cWe are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our\n    strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has\n    devoted so many laborious years, _is destitute not only of\n    historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from the\n    internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon\n    us_.\u201d\n\n    (4.) \u201c \u2018We cannot doubt\u2019 (says DR. HORT) \u2018that S. Luke xxiii. 34\n    comes from an extraneous source.\u2019 [_Notes_, p. 68.]\u2014_Nor can we,\n    on our part, doubt_,\u201d (rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) \u201c_that the System\n    which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned_.\u201d\n\n\nSCRIVENER\u2019S \u201cPlain Introduction,\u201d &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531, 537, 542, 604.\n\n\n\n\n\nDEDICATION.\n\n\nTo The\nRight Hon. Viscount Cranbrook, G.C.S.I.,\n&c., &c., &c.\n\nMY DEAR LORD CRANBROOK,\n\n_Allow me the gratification of dedicating the present Volume to yourself;\nbut for whom\u2014(I reserve the explanation for another day)\u2014it would never\nhave been written._\n\n_This is not, (as you will perceive at a glance,) the Treatise which a few\nyears ago I told you I had in hand; and which, but for the present\nhindrance, might by this time have been completed. It has however_ grown\nout _of that other work in the manner explained at the beginning of my\nPreface. Moreover it contains not a few specimens of the argumentation of\nwhich the work in question, when at last it sees the light, will be\ndiscovered to be full._\n\n_My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt which was made\nin 1881 to thrust upon this Church and Realm a Revision of the Sacred\nText, which\u2014recommended though it be by eminent names\u2014I am thoroughly\nconvinced, and am able to prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end._\n\n_The reason is plain. It has been constructed throughout on an utterly\nerroneous hypothesis. And I inscribe this Volume to you, my friend, as a\nconspicuous member of that body of faithful and learned Laity by whose\ndeliberate verdict, when the whole of the evidence has been produced and\nthe case has been fully argued out, I shall be quite willing that my\ncontention may stand or fall._\n\n_The_ English _(as well as the Greek) of the newly __\u201c__Revised\nVersion__\u201d__ is hopelessly at fault. It is to me simply unintelligible how\na company of Scholars can have spent ten years in elaborating such a very\nunsatisfactory production. Their uncouth phraseology and their jerky\nsentences, their pedantic obscurity and their unidiomatic English,\ncontrast painfully with __\u201c__the happy turns of expression, the music of\nthe cadences, the felicities of the rhythm__\u201d__ of our Authorized Version.\nThe transition from one to the other, as the Bishop of Lincoln remarks, is\nlike exchanging a well-built carriage for a vehicle without springs, in\nwhich you get jolted to death on a newly-mended and rarely-traversed road.\nBut the __\u201c__Revised Version__\u201d__ is inaccurate as well; exhibits\ndefective scholarship, I mean, in countless places._\n\n_It is, however, the_ systematic depravation of the underlying Greek\n_which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but a\npoisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our Revisers, (with\nthe best and purest intentions, no doubt,) stand convicted of having\ndeliberately rejected the words of __ Inspiration in every page, and of\nhaving substituted for them fabricated Readings which the Church has long\nsince refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence; and\nwhich only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the\nmost depraved type._\n\n_As Critics they have had abundant warning. Twelve years ago (1871) a\nvolume appeared on_ the \u201clast Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S.\nMark,\u201d\u2014_of which the declared object was to vindicate those Verses against\ncertain critical objectors, and to establish them by an exhaustive\nargumentative process. Up to this hour, for a very obvious reason, no\nanswer to that volume has been attempted. And yet, at the end of ten years\n(1881),\u2014not only in the Revised English but also in the volume which\nprofesses to exhibit the underlying Greek, (which at least is\nindefensible,)\u2014the Revisers are observed to separate off those Twelve\nprecious Verses from their context, in token that they are no part of the\ngenuine Gospel. Such a deliberate preference of_ \u201cmumpsimus\u201d _to_\n\u201csumpsimus\u201d _is by no means calculated to conciliate favour, or even to\nwin respect. The Revisers have in fact been the dupes of an ingenious\nTheorist, concerning whose extraordinary views you are invited to read\nwhat Dr. Scrivener has recently put forth. The words of the last-named\nwriter (who is_ facile princeps _in Textual Criticism) will be found\nfacing the beginning of the present Dedication._\n\n_If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents\nrather hard, I take leave to point out that __\u201c__to everything __ there is\na season, and a time to every purpose under the sun__\u201d__: __\u201c__a time to\nembrace, and a time to be far from embracing__\u201d__: a time for speaking\nsmoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of\nInspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely\npossible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in\nits integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard. In handling certain\nrecent utterances of Bishop Ellicott, I considered throughout that it was\nthe_ \u201cTextual Critic\u201d\u2014_not the Successor of the Apostles,\u2014with whom I had\nto do._\n\n_And thus I commend my Volume, the fruit of many years of incessant\nanxious toil, to your indulgence: requesting that you will receive it as a\ntoken of my sincere respect and admiration; and desiring to be remembered,\nmy dear Lord Cranbrook, as_\n\n_Your grateful and affectionate_\n_ Friend and Servant,_\n_ John W. Burgon._\n\nDEANERY, CHICHESTER,\nAll Saints\u2019 Day., 1883.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe ensuing three Articles from the \u201cQuarterly Review,\u201d\u2014(wrung out of me\nby the publication [May 17th, 1881] of the \u201cRevision\u201d of our \u201cAuthorized\nVersion of the New Testament,\u201d)\u2014appear in their present form in compliance\nwith an amount of continuous solicitation that they should be separately\npublished, which it would have been alike unreasonable and ungracious to\ndisregard. I was not prepared for it. It has caused me\u2014as letter after\nletter has reached my hands\u2014mixed feelings; has revived all my original\ndisinclination and regret. For, gratified as I cannot but feel by the\nreception my labours have met with,\u2014(and only the Author of my being knows\nwhat an amount of antecedent toil is represented by the ensuing pages,)\u2014I\nyet deplore more heartily than I am able to express, the injustice done to\nthe cause of Truth by handling the subject in this fragmentary way, and by\nexhibiting the evidence for what is most certainly true, in such a very\nincomplete form. A systematic Treatise is the indispensable condition for\nsecuring cordial assent to the view for which I mainly contend. The\ncogency of the argument lies entirely in the cumulative character of the\nproof. It requires to be demonstrated by induction from a large collection\nof particular instances, as well as by the complex exhibition of many\nconverging lines of evidence, that the testimony of one small group of\ndocuments, or rather, of one particular manuscript,\u2014(namely the Vatican\nCodex B, which, for some unexplained reason, it is just now the fashion to\nregard with superstitious deference,)\u2014is the reverse of trustworthy.\nNothing in fact but a considerable Treatise will ever effectually break\nthe yoke of that iron tyranny to which the excellent Bishop of Gloucester\nand Bristol and his colleagues have recently bowed their necks; and are\nnow for imposing on all English-speaking men. In brief, if I were not, on\nthe one hand, thoroughly convinced of the strength of my position,\u2014(and I\nknow it to be absolutely impregnable);\u2014yet more, if on the other hand, I\ndid not cherish entire confidence in the practical good sense and fairness\nof the English mind;\u2014I could not have brought myself to come before the\npublic in the unsystematic way which alone is possible in the pages of a\nReview. I must have waited, at all hazards, till I had finished \u201cmy Book.\u201d\n\nBut then, delay would have been fatal. I saw plainly that unless a sharp\nblow was delivered immediately, the Citadel would be in the enemy\u2019s hands.\nI knew also that it was just possible to condense into 60 or 70\nclosely-printed pages what must _logically_ prove fatal to the \u201cRevision.\u201d\nSo I set to work; and during the long summer days of 1881 (June to\nSeptember) the foremost of these three Articles was elaborated. When the\nOctober number of \u201cthe Quarterly\u201d appeared, I comforted myself with the\nsecret consciousness that enough was by this time on record, even had my\nlife been suddenly brought to a close, to secure the ultimate rejection of\nthe \u201cRevision\u201d of 1881. I knew that the \u201cNew Greek Text,\u201d (and therefore\nthe \u201cNew English Version\u201d), had received its death-blow. It might for a\nfew years drag out a maimed existence; eagerly defended by some,\u2014timidly\npleaded for by others. But such efforts could be of no avail. Its days\nwere already numbered. The effect of more and yet more learned\ninvestigation,\u2014of more elaborate and more extended inquiry,\u2014_must_ be to\nconvince mankind more and yet more thoroughly that the principles on which\nit had been constructed were radically unsound. In the end, when\npartisanship had cooled down, and passion had evaporated, and prejudice\nhad ceased to find an auditory, the \u201cRevision\u201d of 1881 must come to be\nuniversally regarded as\u2014what it most certainly is,\u2014_the most astonishing,\nas well as the most calamitous literary blunder of the Age_.\n\nI. I pointed out that \u201cthe NEW GREEK TEXT,\u201d\u2014which, in defiance of their\ninstructions,(1) the Revisionists of \u201cthe Authorized English Version\u201d had\nbeen so ill-advised as to spend ten years in elaborating,\u2014was a wholly\nuntrustworthy performance: was full of the gravest errors from beginning\nto end: had been constructed throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory.\nAvailing myself of the published confession of one of the Revisionists,(2)\nI explained the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I\ntraced the mischief home to its true authors,\u2014Drs. Westcott and Hort; a\ncopy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the most vicious in\nexistence) had been confidentially, and under pledges of the strictest\nsecrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising Body.(3) I\ncalled attention to the fact that, unacquainted with the difficult and\ndelicate science of Textual Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil\nhour, surrendered themselves to Dr. Hort\u2019s guidance: had preferred his\ncounsels to those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy\nguide): and that the work before the public was the piteous\u2014but\n_inevitable_\u2014result. All this I explained in the October number of the\n\u201cQuarterly Review\u201d for 1881.(4)\n\nII. In thus demonstrating the worthlessness of the \u201cNew Greek Text\u201d of the\nRevisionists, I considered that I had destroyed the key of their position.\nAnd so perforce I had: for if the underlying Greek Text be mistaken, what\nelse but incorrect must the English Translation be? But on examining the\nso-called \u201cRevision of the Authorized Version,\u201d I speedily made the\nfurther discovery that the Revised English would have been in itself\nintolerable, even had the Greek been let alone. In the first place, to my\nsurprise and annoyance, it proved to be a _New Translation_ (rather than a\nRevision of the Old) which had been attempted. Painfully apparent were the\ntokens which met me on every side that the Revisionists had been supremely\neager not so much to correct none but \u201cplain and clear errors,\u201d\u2014as to\nintroduce as many changes into the English of the New Testament Scriptures\nas they conveniently could.(5) A skittish impatience of the admirable work\nbefore them, and a strange inability to appreciate its manifold\nexcellences:\u2014a singular imagination on the part of the promiscuous Company\nwhich met in the Jerusalem Chamber that they were competent to improve the\nAuthorized Version in every part, and an unaccountable forgetfulness that\nthe fundamental condition under which the task of Revision had been by\nthemselves undertaken, was that they should abstain from all but\n\u201c_necessary_\u201d changes:\u2014_this_ proved to be only part of the offence which\nthe Revisionists had committed. It was found that they had erred through\n_defective Scholarship_ to an extent, and with a frequency, which to me is\nsimply inexplicable. I accordingly made it my business to demonstrate all\nthis in a second Article which appeared in the next (the January) number\nof the \u201cQuarterly Review,\u201d and was entitled \u201cTHE NEW ENGLISH\nTRANSLATION.\u201d(6)\n\nIII. Thereupon, a pretence was set up in many quarters, (_but only by the\nRevisionists and their friends_,) that all my labour hitherto had been\nthrown away, because I had omitted to disprove the principles on which\nthis \u201cNew Greek Text\u201d is founded. I flattered myself indeed that quite\nenough had been said to make it logically certain that the underlying\n\u201cTextual Theory\u201d _must be_ worthless. But I was not suffered to cherish\nthis conviction in quiet. It was again and again cast in my teeth that I\nhad not yet grappled with Drs. Westcott and Hort\u2019s \u201carguments.\u201d \u201cInstead\nof condemning _their Text_, why do you not disprove _their Theory_?\u201d It\nwas tauntingly insinuated that I knew better than to cross swords with the\ntwo Cambridge Professors. This reduced me to the necessity of either\nleaving it to be inferred from my silence that I had found Drs. Westcott\nand Hort\u2019s \u201carguments\u201d unanswerable; or else of coming forward with their\nbook in my hand, and demonstrating that in their solemn pages an attentive\nreader finds himself encountered by nothing but a series of unsupported\nassumptions: that their (so called) \u201cTheory\u201d is in reality nothing else\nbut a weak effort of the Imagination: that the tissue which these\naccomplished scholars have been thirty years in elaborating, proves on\ninspection to be as flimsy and as worthless as any spider\u2019s web.\n\nI made it my business in consequence to expose, somewhat in detail, (in a\nthird Article, which appeared in the \u201cQuarterly Review\u201d for April 1882),\nthe absolute absurdity,\u2014(I use the word advisedly)\u2014of \u201cWESTCOTT AND HORT\u2019S\nNEW TEXTUAL THEORY;\u201d(7) and I now respectfully commend those 130 pages to\nthe attention of candid and unprejudiced readers. It were idle to expect\nto convince any others. We have it on good authority (Dr. Westcott\u2019s) that\n\u201che who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning, _becomes unable to\ndetect its weak points_.\u201d(8) A yet stranger phenomenon is, that those who\nhave once committed themselves to an erroneous Theory, seem to be\nincapable of opening their eyes to the untrustworthiness of the fabric\nthey have erected, even when it comes down in their sight, like a child\u2019s\nhouse built with playing-cards,\u2014and presents to every eye but their own\nthe appearance of a shapeless ruin.\n\n\u00a7 1. Two full years have elapsed since the first of these Essays was\npublished; and my Criticism\u2014for the best of reasons\u2014remains to this hour\nunanswered. The public has been assured indeed, (in the course of some\nhysterical remarks by Canon Farrar(9)), that \u201cthe \u2018Quarterly Reviewer\u2019 can\nbe refuted as fully as he desires as soon as any scholar has the leisure\nto answer him.\u201d The \u201cQuarterly Reviewer\u201d can afford to wait,\u2014if the\nRevisers can. But they are reminded that it is no answer to one who has\ndemolished their master\u2019s \u201cTheory,\u201d for the pupils to keep on reproducing\nfragments of it; and by their mistakes and exaggerations, to make both\nthemselves and him, ridiculous.\n\n\u00a7 2. Thus, a writer in the \u201cChurch Quarterly\u201d for January 1882, (whose\nknowledge of the subject is entirely derived from what Dr. Hort has taught\nhim,)\u2014being evidently much exercised by the first of my three Articles in\nthe \u201cQuarterly Review,\u201d\u2014gravely informs the public that \u201cit is useless to\nparade such an array of venerable witnesses,\u201d (meaning the enumerations of\nFathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth centuries which are given below, at\npp. 42-4: 80-1: 84: 133: 212-3: 359-60: 421: 423: 486-90:)\u2014\u201c_for they have\nabsolutely nothing to say which deserves a moment\u2019s hearing_.\u201d(10)\u2014What a\npity it is, (while he was about it), that the learned gentleman did not go\non to explain that the moon is made of green cheese!\n\n\u00a7 3. Dr. Sanday,(11) in a kindred spirit, delivers it as his opinion, that\n\u201cthe one thing\u201d I lack \u201cis a grasp on the central condition of the\nproblem:\u201d\u2014that I do \u201cnot seem to have the faintest glimmering of the\nprinciple of \u2018Genealogy:\u2019 \u201d\u2014that I am \u201call at sea:\u201d\u2014that my \u201cheaviest\nbatteries are discharged at random:\u201d\u2014and a great deal more to the same\neffect. The learned Professor is quite welcome to think such things of me,\nif he pleases. \u039f\u1f50 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u1fc3.\n\n\u00a7 4. At the end of a year, a Reviewer of quite a different calibre made\nhis appearance in the January number (1883) of the \u201cChurch Quarterly:\u201d in\nreturn for whose not very encouraging estimate of my labours, I gladly\nrecord my conviction that if he will seriously apply his powerful and\naccurate mind to the department of Textual Criticism, he will probably\nproduce a work which will help materially to establish the study in which\nhe takes such an intelligent interest, on a scientific basis. But then, he\nis invited to accept the friendly assurance that the indispensable\ncondition of success in this department is, that a man should give to the\nsubject, (which is a very intricate one and abounds in unexplored\nproblems), his undivided attention for an extended period. I trust there\nis nothing unreasonable in the suggestion that one who has not done this,\nshould be very circumspect when he sits in judgment on a neighbour of his\nwho, for very many years past, has given to Textual Criticism the whole of\nhis time;\u2014has freely sacrificed health, ease, relaxation, even necessary\nrest, to this one object;\u2014has made it his one business to acquire such an\nindependent mastery of the subject as shall qualify him to do battle\nsuccessfully for the imperilled letter of GOD\u2019S Word. My friend however\nthinks differently. He says of me,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIn his first Article there was something amusing in the\n    simplicity with which \u2018Lloyd\u2019s Greek Testament\u2019 (which is only a\n    convenient little Oxford edition of the ordinary kind) was put\n    forth as the final standard of appeal. It recalled to our\n    recollection Bentley\u2019s sarcasm upon the text of Stephanus, which\n    \u2018your learned Whitbyus\u2019 takes for the sacred original in every\n    syllable.\u201d (P. 354.)\n\n\n\u00a7 5. On referring to the passage where my \u201csimplicity\u201d has afforded\namusement to a friend whose brilliant conversation is always a delight to\n_me_, I read as follows,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIt is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of a copy of\n    Lloyd\u2019s Greek Testament, in which alone these five manuscripts are\n    collectively available for comparison in the Gospels,\u2014the serious\n    deflections of A from the _Textus Receptus_ amount in all to only\n    842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in \u05d0, to\n    3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same\n    limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount\n    to 197: while \u05d0 exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D\n    (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit\n    that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire\n    confidence in codices B \u05d0 C D.\u201d(12)\n\n\n\u00a7 6. But how (let me ask) does it appear from this, that I have \u201cput forth\nLloyd\u2019s Greek Testament as the _final standard of Appeal_\u201d? True, that, in\norder to exhibit clearly their respective divergences, I have referred\nfive famous codices (A B \u05d0 C D)\u2014certain of which are found to have turned\nthe brain of Critics of the new school\u2014_to one and the same familiar\nexhibition of the commonly received Text of the New Testament_: but by so\ndoing I have not by any means assumed _the Textual purity_ of that common\nstandard. In other words I have not made it \u201c_the final standard of\nAppeal_.\u201d _All_ Critics,\u2014wherever found,\u2014at all times, have collated with\nthe commonly received Text: but only as the most convenient _standard of\nComparison_; not, surely, as the absolute _standard of Excellence_. The\nresult of the experiment already referred to,\u2014(and, I beg to say, it was\nan exceedingly laborious experiment,)\u2014has been, to demonstrate that the\nfive Manuscripts in question stand apart from one another in the following\nproportions:\u2014\n\n842 (A) : 1798 (C) : 2370 (B) : 3392 (\u05d0) : 4697 (D).\n\nBut would not the same result have been obtained if the \u201cfive old uncials\u201d\nhad been _referred to any other common standard which can be named_? In\nthe meantime, what else is the inevitable inference from this phenomenon\nbut that four out of the five _must_ be\u2014while all the five _may_\nbe\u2014outrageously depraved documents? instead of being fit to be made our\nexclusive guides to the Truth of Scripture,\u2014as Critics of the school of\nTischendorf and Tregelles would have us believe that they are?\n\n\u00a7 7. I cited a book which is in the hands of every schoolboy, (Lloyd\u2019s\n\u201cGreek Testament,\u201d) _only_ in order to facilitate reference, and to make\nsure that my statements would be at once understood by the least learned\nperson who could be supposed to have access to the \u201cQuarterly.\u201d I presumed\nevery scholar to be aware that Bp. Lloyd (1827) professes to reproduce\nMill\u2019s text; and that Mill (1707) reproduces the text of Stephens;(13) and\nthat Stephens (1550) exhibits with sufficient accuracy the Traditional\ntext,\u2014which is confessedly at least 1530 years old.(14) Now, if a\ntolerable approximation to the text of A.D. 350 may _not_ be accepted as\n_a standard of Comparison_,\u2014will the writer in the \u201cChurch Quarterly\u201d be\nso obliging as to inform us _which_ exhibition of the sacred Text _may_?\n\n\u00a7 8. A pamphlet by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,(15) which\nappeared in April 1882, remains to be considered. Written expressly in\ndefence of the Revisers and their New Greek Text, this composition\ndisplays a slenderness of acquaintance with the subject now under\ndiscussion, for which I was little prepared. Inasmuch however as it is the\nproduction of the Chairman of the Revisionist body, and professes to be a\nreply to my first two Articles, I have bestowed upon it an elaborate and\nparticular rejoinder extending to an hundred-and-fifty pages.(16) I shall\nin consequence be very brief concerning it in this place.\n\n\u00a7 9. The respected writer does nothing else but reproduce Westcott and\nHort\u2019s theory _in Westcott and Hort\u2019s words_. He contributes nothing of\nhis own. The singular infelicity which attended his complaint that the\n\u201cQuarterly Reviewer\u201d \u201ccensures their [Westcott and Hort\u2019s] Text,\u201d but,\n\u201chas not attempted _a serious examination of the arguments which they\nallege in its support_,\u201d I have sufficiently dwelt upon elsewhere.(17) The\nrest of the Bishop\u2019s contention may be summed up in two propositions:\u2014The\nfirst, (I.) That if the Revisionists are wrong in their \u201cNew Greek Text,\u201d\nthen (not only Westcott and Hort, but) Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles\nmust be wrong also,\u2014a statement which I hold to be incontrovertible.\u2014The\nBishop\u2019s other position is also undeniable: viz. (II.) That in order to\npass an equitable judgment on ancient documents, they are to be carefully\nstudied, closely compared, and tested by a more scientific process than\nrough comparison with the _Textus Receptus_.(18)... Thus, on both heads, I\nfind myself entirely at one with Bp. Ellicott.\n\n\u00a7 10. And yet,\u2014as the last 150 pages of the present volume show,\u2014I have\nthe misfortune to be at issue with the learned writer on almost every\nparticular which he proposes for discussion. Thus,\n\n\u00a7 11. At page 64 of his pamphlet, he fastens resolutely upon the famous\nproblem whether \u201cGOD\u201d (\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2), or \u201cwho\u201d (\u1f45\u03c2), is to be read in 1 Timothy\niii. 16. I had upheld the former reading in eight pages. He contends for\nthe latter, with something like acrimony, in twelve.(19) I have been at\nthe pains, in consequence, to write a \u201cDISSERTATION\u201d of seventy-six pages\non this important subject,(20)\u2014the preparation of which (may I be allowed\nto record the circumstance in passing?) occupied me closely for six\nmonths,(21) and taxed me severely. Thus, the only point which Bishop\nEllicott has condescended to discuss argumentatively with me, will be\nfound to enjoy full half of my letter to him in reply.\n\nThe \u201cDissertation\u201d referred to, I submit with humble confidence to the\njudgment of educated Englishmen. It requires no learning to understand the\ncase. And I have particularly to request that those who will be at the\npains to look into this question, will remember,\u2014(1) That the place of\nScripture discussed (viz. 1 Tim. iii. 16) was deliberately selected for a\ntrial of strength by the Bishop: (I should not have chosen it myself):\u2014(2)\nThat on the issue of the contention which he has thus himself invited, we\nhave respectively staked our critical reputation. The discussion exhibits\nvery fairly our two methods,\u2014his and mine; and \u201cis of great importance as\nan example,\u201d \u201cillustrating in a striking manner\u201d our respective\npositions,\u2014as the Bishop himself has been careful to remind his\nreaders.(22)\n\n\u00a7 12. One merely desirous of taking a general survey of this question, is\ninvited to read from page 485 to 496 of the present volume. To understand\nthe case thoroughly, he must submit to the labour of beginning at p. 424\nand reading down to p. 501.\n\n\u00a7 13. A thoughtful person who has been at the pains to do this, will be\napt on laying down the book to ask,\u2014\u201cBut is it not very remarkable that so\nmany as five of the ancient Versions should favour the reading \u2018which,\u2019\n(\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f43 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7,) instead of \u2018GOD\u2019 (\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2)\u201d?\u2014\u201cYes, it is very\nremarkable,\u201d I answer. \u201cFor though the Old Latin and the two Egyptian\nVersions are constantly observed to conspire in error, they rarely find\nallies in the Peschito and the \u00c6thiopic. On the other hand, you are to\nremember that besides VERSIONS, the FATHERS have to be inquired after:\nwhile more important than either is the testimony of the COPIES. Now, the\ncombined witness to \u2018GOD\u2019 (\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2),\u2014so multitudinous, so respectable, so\nvaried, so unequivocal,\u2014of the Copies and of the Fathers (in addition to\nthree of the Versions) is simply overwhelming. It becomes undeniable that\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is by far the best supported reading of the present place.\u201d\n\n\u00a7 14. When, however, such an one as Tischendorf or Tregelles,\u2014Hort or\nEllicott,\u2014would put me down by reminding me that half-a-dozen of the\noldest Versions are against me,\u2014\u201c_That_ argument\u201d (I reply) \u201cis not\nallowable on _your_ lips. For if the united testimony of _five_ of the\nVersions really be, in your account, decisive,\u2014Why do you deny the\ngenuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, _which are\nrecognized by every one of the Versions_? Those Verses are besides\nattested _by every known Copy_, except two of bad character: _by a mighty\nchorus of Fathers_: _by the unfaltering Tradition of the Church\nuniversal_. First remove from S. Mark xvi. 20, your brand of suspicion,\nand then come back to me in order that we may discuss together how 1 Tim.\niii. 16 is to be read. And yet, when you come back, it must not be to\nplead in favour of \u2018who\u2019 (\u1f45\u03c3), in place of \u2018GOD\u2019 (\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2). For _not_ \u2018who\u2019\n(\u1f45\u03c2), remember, but \u2018which\u2019 (\u1f45) is the reading advocated by those five\nearliest Versions.\u201d ... In other words,\u2014the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16,\nwhich the Revisers have adopted, enjoys, (as I have shown from page 428 to\npage 501), _the feeblest attestation of any_; besides being condemned by\ninternal considerations and the universal Tradition of the Eastern Church.\n\n\u00a7 15. I pass on, after modestly asking,\u2014Is it too much to hope, (I covet\nno other guerdon for my labour!) that we shall hear no more about\nsubstituting \u201cwho\u201d for \u201cGOD\u201d in 1 Tim. iii. 16? We may not go on disputing\nfor ever: and surely, until men are able to produce some more cogent\nevidence than has yet come to light in support of \u201cthe mystery of\ngodliness, _who_\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd: \u1f45\u03c2),\u2014all sincere inquirers\nafter Truth are bound to accept _that_ reading which has been demonstrated\nto be by far the best attested. Enough however on this head.\n\n\u00a7 16. It was said just now that I cordially concur with Bp. Ellicott in\nthe second of his two propositions,\u2014viz. That \u201cno equitable judgment can\nbe passed on ancient documents until they are carefully studied, and\nclosely compared with each other, and tested by a more scientific process\nthan rough comparison with\u201d the _Textus Receptus_. I wish to add a few\nwords on this subject: the rather, because what I am about to say will be\nfound as applicable to my Reviewer in the \u201cChurch Quarterly\u201d as to the\nBishop. Both have misapprehended this matter, and in exactly the same way.\nWhere such accomplished Scholars have erred, what wonder if ordinary\nreaders should find themselves all a-field?\n\n\u00a7 17. In Textual Criticism then, \u201crough comparison\u201d can seldom, if ever,\nbe of any real use. On the other hand, the exact _Collation_ of documents\nwhether ancient or modern with the received Text, is the necessary\nfoundation of all scientific Criticism. I employ that Text,\u2014(as Mill,\nBentley, Wetstein; Griesbach, Matth\u00e6i, Scholz; Tischendorf, Tregelles,\nScrivener, employed it before me,)\u2014not as a criterion of _Excellence_, but\nas a standard of _Comparison_. All this will be found fully explained\nbelow, from page 383 to page 391. Whenever I would judge of _the\nauthenticity_ of any particular reading, I insist on bringing it, wherever\nfound,\u2014whether in Justin Martyr and Iren\u00e6us, on the one hand; or in\nStephens and Elzevir, on the other;\u2014to the test of _Catholic Antiquity_.\nIf that witness is consentient, or very nearly so, whether for or against\nany given reading, I hold it to be decisive. To no other system of\narbitration will I submit myself. I decline to recognise any other\ncriterion of Truth.\n\n\u00a7 18. What compels me to repeat this so often, is the impatient\nself-sufficiency of these last days, which is for breaking away from the\nold restraints; and for erecting the individual conscience into an\nauthority from which there shall be no appeal. I know but too well how\nlaborious is the scientific method which _I_ advocate. A long summer day\ndisappears, while the student\u2014with all his appliances about him\u2014is\nresolutely threshing out some minute textual problem. Another, and yet\nanother bright day vanishes. Comes Saturday evening at last, and a page of\nillegible manuscript is all that he has to show for a week\u2019s heavy toil.\n_Quousque tandem?_ And yet, it is the indispensable condition of progress\nin an unexplored region, that a few should thus labour, until a path has\nbeen cut through the forest,\u2014a road laid down,\u2014huts built,\u2014a _modus\nvivendi_ established. In this department of sacred Science, men have been\ngoing on too long inventing their facts, and delivering themselves of\noracular decrees, on the sole responsibility of their own inner\nconsciousness. There is great convenience in such a method certainly,\u2014a\ncharming simplicity which is in a high degree attractive to flesh and\nblood. It dispenses with proof. It furnishes no evidence. It asserts when\nit ought to argue.(23) It reiterates when it is called upon to\nexplain.(24) \u201cI am sir Oracle.\u201d ... This,\u2014which I venture to style the\n_unscientific_ method,\u2014reached its culminating point when Professors\nWestcott and Hort recently put forth their Recension of the Greek Text.\nTheir work is indeed quite a psychological curiosity. Incomprehensible to\nme is it how two able men of disciplined understandings can have seriously\nput forth the volume which they call \u201cINTRODUCTION\u2014APPENDIX.\u201d It is the\nvery _Reductio ad absurdum_ of the uncritical method of the last fifty\nyears. And it is especially in opposition to this new method of theirs\nthat I so strenuously insist that _the consentient voice of Catholic\nAntiquity_ is to be diligently inquired after and submissively listened\nto; for that _this_, in the end, will prove our _only_ safe guide.\n\n\u00a7 19. Let this be a sufficient reply to my Reviewer in the \u201cChurch\nQuarterly\u201d\u2014who, I observe, notes, as a fundamental defect in my Articles,\n\u201cthe want of a consistent working Theory, such as would enable us to\nweigh, as well as count, the suffrages of MSS., Versions, and\nFathers.\u201d(25) He is reminded that it was no part of my business to\npropound a \u201cTheory.\u201d My _method_ I have explained often and fully enough.\nMy business was to prove that the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort,\u2014which\n(as Bp. Ellicott\u2019s pamphlet proves) has been mainly adopted by the\nRevisionists,\u2014is not only a worthless, but an utterly absurd one. And I\nhave proved it. The method I persistently advocate in every case of a\nsupposed doubtful Reading, (I say it for the last time, and request that I\nmay be no more misrepresented,) is, that _an appeal shall be unreservedly\nmade to Catholic Antiquity_; and that the combined verdict of Manuscripts,\nVersions, Fathers, shall be regarded as decisive.\n\n\u00a7 20. I find myself, in the mean time, met by the scoffs, jeers,\nmisrepresentations of the disciples of this new School; who, instead of\nproducing historical facts and intelligible arguments, appeal to the\ndecrees of their teachers,\u2014which _I_ disallow, and which _they_ are unable\nto substantiate. They delight in announcing that Textual Criticism made\n\u201c_a fresh departure_\u201d with the edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort: that the\nwork of those scholars \u201c_marks an era_,\u201d and is spoken of in Germany as\n\u201c_epoch-making_.\u201d My own belief is, that the Edition in question, if it be\nepoch-making at all, marks _that_ epoch at which the current of critical\nthought, reversing its wayward course, began once more to flow in its\nancient healthy channel. \u201cCloud-land\u201d having been duly sighted on the 14th\nSeptember 1881,(26) \u201ca fresh departure\u201d was insisted upon by public\nopinion,\u2014and a deliberate return was made,\u2014to _terra firma_, and _terra\ncognita_, and common sense. So far from \u201cits paramount claim to the\nrespect of future generations,\u201d being \u201cthe restitution of a more ancient\nand a purer Text,\u201d\u2014I venture to predict that the edition of the two\nCambridge Professors will be hereafter remembered as indicating the\nfurthest point ever reached by the self-evolved imaginations of English\ndisciples of the school of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles. The recoil\npromises to be complete. English good sense is ever observed to prevail in\nthe long run; although for a few years a foreign fashion may acquire the\nascendant, and beguile a few unstable wits.\n\n\u00a7 21. It only remains to state that in republishing these Essays I have\navailed myself of the opportunity to make several corrections and\nadditions; as well as here and there to expand what before had been too\nbriefly delivered. My learned friend and kind neighbour, the Rev. R.\nCowley Powles, has ably helped me to correct the sheets. Much valuable\nassistance has been zealously rendered me throughout by my nephew, the\nRev. William F. Rose, Vicar of Worle, Somersetshire. But the unwearied\npatience and consummate skill of my Secretary (M. W.) passes praise. Every\nsyllable of the present volume has been transcribed by her for the press;\nand to her I am indebted for two of my Indices.\u2014The obligations under\nwhich many learned men, both at home and abroad, have laid me, will be\nfound faithfully acknowledged, in the proper place, at the foot of the\npage. I am sincerely grateful to them all.\n\n\u00a7 22. It will be readily believed that I have been sorely tempted to\nrecast the whole and to strengthen my position in every part: but then,\nthe work would have no longer been,\u2014\u201cThree Articles reprinted from the\nQuarterly Review.\u201d Earnestly have I desired, for many years past, to\nproduce a systematic Treatise on this great subject. My aspiration all\nalong has been, and still is, in place of the absolute Empiricism which\nhas hitherto prevailed in Textual inquiry to exhibit the logical outlines\nof what, I am persuaded, is destined to become a truly delightful Science.\nBut I more than long,\u2014I fairly _ache_ to have done with Controversy, and\nto be free to devote myself to the work of Interpretation. My apology for\nbestowing so large a portion of my time on Textual Criticism, is David\u2019s\nwhen he was reproached by his brethren for appearing on the field of\nbattle,\u2014\u201cIs there not a cause?\u201d\n\n\u00a7 23. For,\u2014let it clearly be noted,\u2014it is no longer the case that critical\ndoubts concerning the sacred Text are confined to critical Editions of the\nGreek. So long as scholars were content to ventilate their crotchets in a\nlittle arena of their own,\u2014however mistaken they might be, and even though\nthey changed their opinions once in every ten years,\u2014no great harm was\nlikely to come of it. Students of the Greek Testament were sure to have\ntheir attention called to the subject,\u2014which must always be in the highest\ndegree desirable; and it was to be expected that in this, as in every\nother department of learning, the progress of Inquiry would result in\ngradual accessions of certain Knowledge. After many years it might be\nfound practicable to put forth by authority a carefully considered\nRevision of the commonly received Greek Text.\n\n\u00a7 24. But instead of all this, a Revision of the _English Authorised\nVersion_ having been sanctioned by the Convocation of the Southern\nProvince in 1871, the opportunity was eagerly snatched at by two\nirresponsible scholars of the University of Cambridge for obtaining the\ngeneral sanction of the Revising body, and thus indirectly of Convocation,\nfor a private venture of their own,\u2014their own privately devised Revision\nof the _Greek Text_. On that Greek Text of theirs, (which I hold to be the\nmost depraved which has ever appeared in print), with some slight\nmodifications, our Authorised English Version has been silently revised:\nsilently, I say, for in the margin of the English no record is preserved\nof the underlying Textual changes which have been introduced by the\nRevisionists. On the contrary. Use has been made of that margin to\ninsinuate suspicion and distrust in countless particulars as to the\nauthenticity of the Text which has been suffered to remain unaltered. In\nthe meantime, the country has been flooded with two editions of the New\nGreek Text; and thus the door has been set wide open for universal\nmistrust of the Truth of Scripture to enter.\n\n\u00a7 25. Even schoolboys, it seems, are to have these crude views thrust upon\nthem. Witness the \u201cCambridge Greek Testament for Schools,\u201d edited by Dean\nPerowne,\u2014who informs us at the outset that \u201c_the Syndics of the Cambridge\nUniversity Press_ have not thought it desirable to reprint the text in\ncommon use.\u201d A consensus of Drs. Tischendorf and Tregelles,\u2014who\nconfessedly employed _the self-same mistaken major premiss_ in remodelling\nthe Sacred Text,\u2014seems, in a general way, to represent those Syndics\u2019\nnotion of Textual purity. By this means every most serious deformity in\nthe edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort, becomes promoted to honour, and is\nbeing thrust on the unsuspecting youth of England as the genuine utterance\nof the HOLY GHOST. Would it not have been the fairer, the more faithful as\nwell as the more judicious course,\u2014seeing that in respect of this abstruse\nand important question _adhuc sub judice lis est_,\u2014to wait patiently\nawhile? Certainly not to snatch an opportunity \u201cwhile men slept,\u201d and in\nthis way indirectly to prejudge the solemn issue! Not by such methods is\nthe cause of GOD\u2019S Truth on earth to be promoted. Even this however is not\nall. Bishop Lightfoot has been informed that \u201cthe Bible Society has\npermitted its Translators to adopt the Text of the Revised Version _where\nit commends itself to their judgment_.\u201d(27) In other words, persons wholly\nunacquainted with the dangers which beset this delicate and difficult\nproblem are invited to determine, by the light of Nature and on the\n\u201c_solvere ambulando_\u201d principle, what _is_ inspired Scripture, what _not_:\nand as a necessary consequence are encouraged to disseminate in heathen\nlands Readings which, a few years hence,\u2014(so at least I venture to\npredict,)\u2014will be universally recognized as worthless.\n\n\u00a7 26. If all this does not constitute a valid reason for descending into\nthe arena of controversy, it would in my judgment be impossible to\nindicate an occasion when the Christian soldier _is_ called upon to do\nso:\u2014the rather, because certain of those who, from their rank and station\nin the Church, ought to be the champions of the Truth, are at this time\nfound to be among its most vigorous assailants.\n\n\u00a7 27. Let me,\u2014(and with this I conclude),\u2014in giving the present Volume to\nthe world, be allowed to request that it may be accepted as a sample of\nhow Deans employ their time,\u2014the use they make of their opportunities.\nNowhere but under the shadow of a Cathedral, (or in a College,) can such\nlaborious endeavours as the present _pro Ecclesi\u00e2_ DEI be successfully\nprosecuted.\n\nJ. W. B.\n\nDEANERY, CHICHESTER,\nALL SAINTS\u2019 DAY, 1883.\n\n\n\n\n\nARTICLE I. THE NEW GREEK TEXT.\n\n\n    \u201cOne question in connexion with the Authorized Version I have\n    purposely neglected. It seemed useless to discuss its REVISION.\n    _The Revision of the original Texts must precede the Revision of\n    the Translation_: and _the time for this, even in the New\n    Testament, has not yet fully come_.\u201d\u2014DR. WESTCOTT.(28)\n\n    \u201cIt is my honest conviction that for any authoritative REVISION,\n    we are not yet mature; _either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic\n    scholarship_. There is good scholarship in this country, ... but\n    _it has certainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study\n    of the New Testament_ ... to render any national attempt at\n    REVISION either hopeful or lastingly profitable.\u201d\u2014BISHOP\n    ELLICOTT.(29)\n\n    \u201cI am persuaded that a REVISION ought to come: I am convinced that\n    it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; for _we are not\n    as yet in any respect prepared for it_. _The Greek and the\n    English_ which should enable us to bring this to a successful end,\n    _might, it is feared, be wanting alike_.\u201d\u2014ARCHBISHOP TRENCH.(30)\n\n    \u201cIt is happened unto them according to the true proverb, \u039a\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd\n    \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1; and \u1f5d\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\n    \u03b2\u03bf\u03c1\u03b2\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5.\u201d\u20142 PETER ii. 22.\n\n    \u201cLittle children,\u2014Keep yourselves from idols.\u201d\u20141 JOHN v. 21.\n\n\nAt a period of extraordinary intellectual activity like the present, it\ncan occasion no surprise\u2014although it may reasonably create anxiety\u2014if the\nmost sacred and cherished of our Institutions are constrained each in turn\nto submit to the ordeal of hostile scrutiny; sometimes even to bear the\nbrunt of actual attack. When however at last the very citadel of revealed\nTruth is observed to have been reached, and to be undergoing systematic\nassault and battery, lookers-on may be excused if they show themselves\nmore than usually solicitous, \u201cne quid detrimenti Civitas DEI capiat.\u201d A\nRevision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament,(31) purporting to\nhave been executed by authority of the Convocation of the Southern\nProvince, and declaring itself the exclusive property of our two ancient\nUniversities, has recently (17th May, 1881) appeared; of which the\nessential feature proves to be, that it is founded on an _entirely New\nRecension of the Greek Text_.(32) A claim is at the same time set up on\nbehalf of the last-named production that it exhibits a closer\napproximation to the inspired Autographs than the world has hitherto seen.\nNot unreasonable therefore is the expectation entertained by its Authors\nthat the \u201cNew English Version\u201d founded on this \u201cNew Greek Text\u201d is\ndestined to supersede the \u201cAuthorized Version\u201d of 1611. _Qu\u00e6 cum ita\nsint_, it is clearly high time that every faithful man among us should\nbestir himself: and in particular that such as have made Greek Textual\nCriticism in any degree their study should address themselves to the\ninvestigation of the claims of this, the latest product of the combined\nBiblical learning of the Church and of the sects.\n\nFor it must be plain to all, that the issue which has been thus at last\nraised, is of the most serious character. The Authors of this new Revision\nof the Greek have either entitled themselves to the Church\u2019s profound\nreverence and abiding gratitude; or else they have laid themselves open to\nher gravest censure, and must experience at her hands nothing short of\nstern and well-merited rebuke. No middle course presents itself; since\nassuredly _to construct a new Greek Text_ formed no part of the\nInstructions which the Revisionists received at the hands of the\nConvocation of the Southern Province. Rather were they warned against\nventuring on such an experiment; the fundamental principle of the entire\nundertaking having been declared at the outset to be\u2014That \u201ca Revision of\nthe _Authorized Version_\u201d is desirable; and the terms of the original\nResolution of Feb. 10th, 1870, being, that the removal of \u201cPLAIN AND CLEAR\nERRORS\u201d was alone contemplated,\u2014\u201cwhether in the Greek Text originally\nadopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same.\u201d\nSuch were in fact _the limits formally imposed by Convocation_, (10th Feb.\nand 3rd, 5th May, 1870,) _on the work of Revision_. Only NECESSARY changes\nwere to be made. The first Rule of the Committee (25th May) was similar in\ncharacter: viz.\u2014\u201c_To introduce as few alterations as possible into the\nText of the Authorized Version_, consistently with faithfulness.\u201d\n\nBut further, we were reconciled to the prospect of a Revised Greek Text,\nby noting that a limit was prescribed to the amount of licence which could\nby possibility result, by the insertion of a proviso, which however is now\ndiscovered to have been entirely disregarded by the Revisionists. The\ncondition was enjoined upon them that whenever \u201c_decidedly preponderating\nevidence_\u201d constrained their adoption of some change in \u201cthe Text from\nwhich the Authorized Version was made,\u201d _they should indicate such\nalteration in the margin_. Will it be believed that, this notwithstanding,\n_not one_ of the many alterations which have been introduced into the\noriginal Text is so commemorated? On the contrary: singular to relate, the\nMargin is disfigured throughout with ominous hints that, had \u201cSome ancient\nauthorities,\u201d \u201cMany ancient authorities,\u201d \u201cMany very ancient authorities,\u201d\nbeen attended to, a vast many more changes might, could, would, or should\nhave been introduced into the Greek Text than have been actually adopted.\nAnd yet, this is precisely the kind of record which we ought to have been\nspared:\u2014\n\n(1) First,\u2014Because it was plainly external to the province of the\nRevisionists to introduce any such details into their margin _at all_:\ntheir very function being, on the contrary, to investigate Textual\nquestions in conclave, and to present the ordinary Reader with _the\nresult_ of their deliberations. Their business was to correct \u201c_plain and\nclear errors_;\u201d not, certainly, to invent a fresh crop of unheard-of\ndoubts and difficulties. This first.\u2014Now,\n\n(2) That a diversity of opinion would sometimes be found to exist in the\nrevising body was to have been expected, but when once two-thirds of their\nnumber had finally \u201csettled\u201d any question, it is plainly unreasonable that\nthe discomfited minority should claim the privilege of evermore parading\ntheir grievance before the public; and in effect should be allowed to\nrepresent _that_ as a corporate doubt, which was in reality the result of\nindividual idiosyncrasy. It is not reasonable that the echoes of a\nforgotten strife should be thus prolonged for ever; least of all in the\nmargin of \u201cthe Gospel of peace.\u201d\n\n(3) In fact, the privilege of figuring in the margin of the N. T.,\n(instead of standing in the Text,) is even attended by a fatal result:\nfor, (as Bp. Ellicott remarks,) \u201cthe judgment commonly entertained in\nreference to our present margin,\u201d (_i.e._ the margin of the A. V.) is,\nthat _its contents are_ \u201cexegetically or critically _superior to the\nText_.\u201d(33) It will certainly be long before this popular estimate is\nunconditionally abandoned. But,\n\n(4) Especially do we deprecate the introduction into the margin of all\nthis strange lore, because we insist on behalf of unlearned persons that\nthey ought not to be molested with information which cannot, by\npossibility, be of the slightest service to them: with vague statements\nabout \u201cancient authorities,\u201d\u2014of the importance, or unimportance, of which\nthey know absolutely nothing, nor indeed ever can know. Unlearned readers\non taking the Revision into their hands, (_i.e._ at least 999 readers out\nof 1000,) will _never_ be aware whether these (so-called) \u201cVarious\nReadings\u201d are to be scornfully scouted, as nothing else but ancient\nperversions of the Truth; or else are to be lovingly cherished, as\n\u201c_alternative_\u201d [see the Revisers\u2019 _Preface_ (iii. 1.)] exhibitions of the\ninspired Verity,\u2014to their own abiding perplexity and infinite distress.\n\nUndeniable at all events it is, that the effect which these ever-recurring\nannouncements produce on the devout reader of Scripture is the reverse of\nedifying: is never helpful: is always bewildering. A man of ordinary\nacuteness can but exclaim,\u2014\u201cYes, very likely. _But what of it_? My eye\nhappens to alight on \u2018Bethesda\u2019 (in S. John v. 2); against which I find in\nthe margin,\u2014\u2018Some ancient authorities read _Bethsaida_, others\n_Bethzatha_.\u2019 Am I then to understand that in the judgment of the\nRevisionists it is uncertain _which_ of those three names is right?\u201d...\nNot so the expert, who is overheard to moralize concerning the phenomena\nof the case after a less ceremonious fashion:\u2014\u201c \u2018_Bethsaida_\u2019! Yes, the\nold Latin(34) and the Vulgate,(35) countenanced by _one_ manuscript of bad\ncharacter, so reads. _\u2018__Bethzatha__\u2019__!_ Yes, the blunder is found in\n_two_ manuscripts, both of bad character. Why do you not go on to tell us\nthat _another_ manuscript exhibits \u2018_Belzetha_\u2019?\u2014another (supported by\nEusebius(36) and [in one place] by Cyril(37)), \u2018_Bezatha_\u2019? Nay, why not\nsay plainly that there are found to exist _upwards of thirty_ blundering\nrepresentations of this same word; but that \u2018_Bethesda_\u2019\u2014(the reading of\nsixteen uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Peschito\nand Cureton\u2019s Syriac, the Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic\nVersions,\u2014Didymus,(38) Chrysostom,(39) and Cyril(40)),\u2014is the only\nreasonable way of exhibiting it? To speak plainly, _Why encumber your\nmargin with such a note at all?_\u201d... But we are moving forward too fast.\n\nIt can never be any question among scholars, that a fatal error was\ncommitted when a body of Divines, appointed _to revise the Authorized\nEnglish Version_ of the New Testament Scriptures, addressed themselves to\nthe solution of an entirely different and far more intricate problem,\nnamely _the re-construction of the Greek Text_. We are content to pass\nover much that is distressing in the antecedent history of their\nenterprise. We forbear at this time of day to investigate, by an appeal to\ndocuments and dates, certain proceedings in and out of Convocation, on\nwhich it is known that the gravest diversity of sentiment still prevails\namong Churchmen.(41) This we do, not by any means as ourselves \u201chalting\nbetween two opinions,\u201d but only as sincerely desirous that the work before\nus may stand or fall, judged by its own intrinsic merits. Whether or no\nConvocation,\u2014when it \u201cnominated certain of its own members to undertake\nthe work of Revision,\u201d and authorized them \u201cto refer when they considered\nit desirable to Divines, Scholars, and Literary men, at home or abroad,\n_for their opinion_;\u201d\u2014whether Convocation intended thereby to sanction the\nactual _co-optation_ into the Company appointed by themselves, of members\nof the Presbyterian, the Wesleyan, the Baptist, the Congregationalist, the\nSocinian body; _this_ we venture to think may fairly be doubted.\u2014Whether\nagain Convocation can have foreseen that of the ninety-nine Scholars in\nall who have taken part in this work of Revision, only forty-nine would be\nChurchmen, while the remaining fifty would belong to the sects:(42)\u2014_this_\nalso we venture to think may be reasonably called in question.\u2014Whether\nlastly, the Canterbury Convocation, had it been appealed to with reference\nto \u201cthe Westminster-Abbey scandal\u201d (June 22nd, 1870), would not have\ncleared itself of the suspicion of complicity, by an unequivocal\nresolution,\u2014we entertain no manner of doubt.\u2014But we decline to enter upon\nthese, or any other like matters. Our business is exclusively with the\n_result_ at which the Revisionists of the New Testament have arrived: and\nit is to this that we now address ourselves; with the mere avowal of our\ngrave anxiety at the spectacle of an assembly of scholars, appointed to\nrevise _an English Translation_, finding themselves called upon, as every\nfresh difficulty emerged, to develop the skill requisite for _critically\nrevising the original Greek Text_. What else is implied by the very\nendeavour, but a singular expectation that experts in one Science may, at\na moment\u2019s notice, show themselves proficients in another,\u2014and _that_ one\nof the most difficult and delicate imaginable?\n\nEnough has been said to make it plain why, in the ensuing pages, we\npropose to pursue a different course from that which has been adopted by\nReviewers generally, since the memorable day (May 17th, 1881) when the\nwork of the Revisionists was for the first time submitted to public\nscrutiny. The one point which, with rare exceptions, has ever since\nmonopolized attention, has been the merits or demerits of _their English\nrendering_ of certain Greek words and expressions. But there is clearly a\nquestion of prior interest and infinitely greater importance, which has to\nbe settled first: namely, the merits or demerits of _the changes which the\nsame Scholars have taken upon themselves to introduce into the Greek\nText_. Until it has been ascertained that the result of their labours\nexhibits a decided improvement upon what before was read, it is clearly a\nmere waste of time to enquire into the merits of their work as _Revisers\nof a __ Translation_. But in fact it has to be proved that the\nRevisionists have restricted themselves to the removal of \u201cplain and clear\n_errors_\u201d from the commonly received Text. We are distressed to discover\nthat, on the contrary, they have done something quite different. The\ntreatment which the N. T. has experienced at the hands of the Revisionists\nrecals the fate of some ancient edifice which confessedly required to be\npainted, papered, scoured,\u2014with a minimum of masons\u2019 and carpenters\u2019\nwork,\u2014in order to be inhabited with comfort for the next hundred years:\nbut those entrusted with the job were so ill-advised as to persuade\nthemselves that it required to be to a great extent rebuilt. Accordingly,\nin an evil hour they set about removing foundations, and did so much\nstructural mischief that in the end it became necessary to proceed against\nthem for damages.\n\nWithout the remotest intention of imposing views of our own on the general\nReader, but only to enable him to give his intelligent assent to much that\nis to follow, we find ourselves constrained in the first instance,\u2014before\nconducting him over any part of the domain which the Revisionists have\nventured uninvited to occupy,\u2014to premise a few ordinary facts which lie on\nthe threshold of the science of Textual Criticism. Until these have been\nclearly apprehended, no progress whatever is possible.\n\n(1) The provision, then, which the Divine Author of Scripture is found to\nhave made for the preservation in its integrity of His written Word, is of\na peculiarly varied and highly complex description. First,\u2014By causing that\na vast multiplication of COPIES should be required all down the\nages,\u2014beginning at the earliest period, and continuing in an\never-increasing ratio until the actual invention of Printing,\u2014He provided\nthe most effectual security imaginable against fraud. True, that millions\nof the copies so produced have long since perished: but it is nevertheless\na plain fact that there survive of the Gospels alone upwards of one\nthousand copies to the present day.\n\n(2) Next, VERSIONS. The necessity of translating the Scriptures into\ndivers languages for the use of different branches of the early Church,\nprocured that many an authentic record has been preserved of the New\nTestament as it existed in the first few centuries of the Christian era.\nThus, the Peschito Syriac and the old Latin version are believed to have\nbeen executed in the IInd century. \u201cIt is no stretch of imagination\u201d\n(wrote Bp. Ellicott in 1870,) \u201cto suppose that portions of the Peschito\nmight have been in the hands of S. John, or that the Old Latin represented\nthe current views of the Roman Christians of the IInd century.\u201d(43) The\ntwo Egyptian translations are referred to the IIIrd and IVth. The Vulgate\n(or revised Latin) and the Gothic are also claimed for the IVth: the\nArmenian, and possibly the \u00c6thiopic, belong to the Vth.\n\n(3) Lastly, the requirements of assailants and apologists alike, the\nbusiness of Commentators, the needs of controversialists and teachers in\nevery age, have resulted in a vast accumulation of additional evidence, of\nwhich it is scarcely possible to over-estimate the importance. For in this\nway it has come to pass that every famous Doctor of the Church in turn has\nquoted more or less largely from the sacred writings, and thus has borne\ntestimony to the contents of the codices with which he was individually\nfamiliar. PATRISTIC CITATIONS accordingly are a third mighty safeguard of\nthe integrity of the deposit.\n\nTo weigh these three instruments of Criticism\u2014COPIES, VERSIONS,\nFATHERS\u2014one against another, is obviously impossible on the present\noccasion. Such a discussion would grow at once into a treatise.(44)\nCertain explanatory details, together with a few words of caution, are as\nmuch as may be attempted.\n\nI. And, first of all, the reader has need to be apprised (with reference\nto the first-named class of evidence) that most of our extant COPIES of\nthe N. T. Scriptures are comparatively of recent date, ranging from the\nXth to the XIVth century of our era. That these are in every instance\ncopies of yet older manuscripts, is self-evident; and that in the main\nthey represent faithfully the sacred autographs themselves, no reasonable\nperson doubts.(45) Still, it is undeniable that they _are_ thus separated\nby about a thousand years from their inspired archetypes. Readers are\nreminded, in passing, that the little handful of copies on which we rely\nfor the texts of Herodotus and Thucydides, of \u00c6schylus and Sophocles, are\nremoved from _their_ originals by full 500 years more: and that, instead\nof a thousand, or half a thousand copies, we are dependent for the text of\ncertain of these authors on as many copies as may be counted on the\nfingers of one hand. In truth, the security which the Text of the New\nTestament enjoys is altogether unique and extraordinary. To specify one\nsingle consideration, which has never yet attracted nearly the amount of\nattention it deserves,\u2014\u201cLectionaries\u201d abound, which establish the Text\nwhich has been publicly read in the churches of the East, from _at least_\nA.D. 400 until the time of the invention of printing.\n\nBut here an important consideration claims special attention. We allude to\nthe result of increased acquaintance with certain of the oldest extant\ncodices of the N. T. Two of these,\u2014viz. a copy in the Vatican technically\nindicated by the letter B, and the recently-discovered Sinaitic codex,\nstyled after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet \u05d0,\u2014are thought to\nbelong to the IVth century. Two are assigned to the Vth, viz. the\nAlexandrian (A) in the British Museum, and the rescript codex preserved at\nParis, designated C. One is probably of the VIth, viz. the codex Bez\u00e6 (D)\npreserved at Cambridge. Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and\nfifth of these codices (B \u05d0 C D), but especially B and \u05d0, have within the\nlast twenty years established a tyrannical ascendency over the imagination\nof the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition.\nIt matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to\ndiffer essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the\nwhole body of extant MSS. besides, but even _from one another_. This last\ncircumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is\nunaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory\nexplanation: viz. that _in different degrees_ they all five exhibit a\nfabricated text. Between the first two (B and \u05d0) there subsists an amount\nof sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at\nno very remote period from the same corrupt original. Tischendorf insists\nthat they were partly written by the same scribe. Yet do they stand\nasunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly received\nText, with which they have been carefully collated. On being referred to\nthis standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2877\nwords: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2098: to modify,\n1132 (in all 7578):\u2014the corresponding figures for \u05d0 being severally 3455,\n839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the\nomissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications,\n_are by no means the same_ in both. It is in fact _easier to find two\nconsecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other,\nthan two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_.\n\nBut by far the most depraved text is that exhibited by codex D. \u201cNo known\nmanuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its\nvariations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.\u201d(46) This,\nhowever, is not the result of its being the most recent of the five, but\n(singular to relate) is due to quite an opposite cause. It is thought (not\nwithout reason) to exhibit a IInd-century text. \u201cWhen we turn to the Acts\nof the Apostles,\u201d (says the learned editor of the codex in question, Dr.\nScrivener,(47))\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cWe find ourselves confronted with a text, the like to which we\n    have no experience of elsewhere. It is hardly an exaggeration to\n    assert that codex D reproduces the _Textus receptus_ much in the\n    same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of\n    the Old Testament: so wide are the variations in the diction, so\n    constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative\n    by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as\n    genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.\u201d\n\n\n\u201c_Vix dici potest_\u201d (says Mill) \u201c_quam supra omnem modum licenter se\ngesserit, ac plane lasciverit Interpolator_.\u201d Though a large portion of\nthe Gospels is missing, in what remains (tested by the same standard) we\nfind 3704 words omitted: no less than 2213 added, and 2121 substituted.\nThe words transposed amount to 3471: and 1772 have been modified: the\ndeflections from the Received Text thus amounting in all to 13,281.\u2014Next\nto D, the most untrustworthy codex is \u05d0, which bears on its front a\nmemorable note of the evil repute under which it has always laboured: viz.\nit is found that at least _ten_ revisers between the IVth and the XIIth\ncenturies busied themselves with the task of correcting its many and\nextraordinary perversions of the truth of Scripture.(48)\u2014Next in impurity\ncomes B:\u2014then, the fragmentary codex C: our own A being, beyond all doubt,\ndisfigured by the fewest blemishes of any.\n\nWhat precedes admits to some extent of further numerical illustration. It\nis discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of an ordinary copy of\nthe Greek Testament, in which alone these five manuscripts are\ncollectively available for comparison in the Gospels,\u2014the serious\ndeflections of A from the _Textus receptus_ amount in all to only 842:\nwhereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in \u05d0, to 3392: in D, to\n4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same limits are 133: those\npeculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount to 197: while \u05d0 exhibits 443:\nand the readings peculiar to D (within the same limits), are no fewer than\n1829.... We submit that these facts\u2014_which result from merely referring\nfive manuscripts to one and the same common standard_\u2014are by no means\ncalculated to inspire confidence in codices B \u05d0 C D:\u2014codices, be it\nremembered, which come to us without a character, without a history, in\nfact without antecedents of _any_ kind.\n\nBut let the learned chairman of the New Testament company of Revisionists\n(Bp. Ellicott) be heard on this subject. He is characterizing these same\n\u201cold uncials,\u201d which it is just now the fashion\u2014or rather, the _craze_\u2014to\nhold up as oracular, and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly\nattached as any of his neighbours:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe _simplicity and dignified conciseness_\u201d (he says) \u201cof the\n    Vatican manuscript (B): the _greater expansiveness_ of our own\n    Alexandrian (A): the _partially mixed characteristics_ of the\n    Sinaitic (\u05d0): the _paraphrastic tone_ of the _singular_ codex Bez\u00e6\n    (D), are now brought home to the student.\u201d(49)\n\n\nCould ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a description of\nfour professing _transcripts_ of a book; and _that_ book, the everlasting\nGospel itself?\u2014transcripts, be it observed in passing, on which it is just\nnow the fashion to rely implicitly for the very orthography of proper\nnames,\u2014the spelling of common words,\u2014the minuti\u00e6 of grammar. What (we ask)\nwould be thought of four such \u201c_copies_\u201d of Thucydides or of Shakspeare?\nImagine it gravely proposed, by the aid of four such conflicting\ndocuments, to re-adjust the text of the funeral oration of Pericles, or to\nre-edit \u201cHamlet.\u201d _Risum teneatis amici?_ Why, some of the poet\u2019s most\nfamiliar lines would cease to be recognizable: _e.g._ A,\u2014\u201c_Toby or not\nToby; that is the question_:\u201d B,\u2014\u201c_Tob or not, is the question_:\u201d \u05d0,\u2014\u201c_To\nbe a tub, or not to be a tub; the question is that_:\u201d C,\u2014\u201c_The question\nis, to beat, or not to beat Toby?_\u201d: D (the \u201csingular codex\u201d),\u2014\u201c_The only\nquestion is this: to beat that Toby, or to be a tub?_\u201d\n\nAnd yet\u2014without by any means subscribing to the precise terms in which the\njudicious Prelate characterizes those _ignes fatui_ which have so\npersistently and egregiously led his lordship and his colleagues\nastray\u2014(for indeed one seems rather to be reading a description of four\nstyles of composition, or of as many fashions in ladies\u2019 dress, than of\nfour copies of the Gospel)\u2014we have already furnished indirect proof that\nhis estimate of the codices in question is in the main correct. Further\nacquaintance with them does but intensify the bad character which he has\ngiven them. Let no one suppose that we deny their extraordinary\nvalue,\u2014their unrivalled critical interest,\u2014nay, their actual _use_ in\nhelping to settle the truth of Scripture. What we are just now insisting\nupon is only the _depraved text_ of codices \u05d0 A B C D,\u2014especially of \u05d0 B\nD. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole\ncontroversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our\nreader\u2019s mind the slightest doubt on _this_ part of the subject, we shall\nbe constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of\nthe contents of \u05d0 B, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been\nalleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that\n\u05d0 B D are _three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant_:\u2014exhibit\n_the most shamefully mutilated_ texts which are anywhere to be met\nwith:\u2014have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly\nunknown), the depositories of the largest amount of _fabricated readings_,\nancient _blunders_, and _intentional perversions of Truth_,\u2014which are\ndiscoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD.\n\nBut in fact take a single page of any ordinary copy of the Greek\nTestament,\u2014Bp. Lloyd\u2019s edition, suppose. Turn to page 184. It contains ten\nverses of S. Luke\u2019s Gospel, ch. viii. 35 to 44. Now, proceed to collate\nthose ten verses. You will make the notable discovery that, within those\nnarrow limits, by codex D alone the text has been depraved 53 times,\nresulting in no less than 103 corrupt readings, 93 _of which are found\nonly in_ D. The words omitted by D are 40: the words added are 4.\nTwenty-five words have been substituted for others, and 14 transposed.\nVariations of case, tense, &c., amount to 16; and the phrase of the\nEvangelist has been departed from 11 times. Happily, the other four \u201cold\nuncials\u201d are here available. And it is found that (within the same limits,\nand referred to the same test,) A exhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which are\n_peculiar to_ A.\u2014B omits 12 words, 6 of which are _peculiar to_ B:\nsubstitutes 3 words: transposes 4: and exhibits 6 lesser changes\u20142 of them\nbeing its own peculiar property.\u2014\u05d0 has 5 readings (affecting 8 words)\n_peculiar to itself_. Its omissions are 7: its additions, 2: its\nsubstitutions, 4: 2 words are transposed; and it exhibits 4 lesser\ndiscrepancies.\u2014C has 7 readings (affecting 15 words) _peculiar to itself_.\nIts omissions are 4: its additions, 7: its substitutions, 7: its words\ntransposed, 7. It has 2 lesser discrepancies, and it alters the\nEvangelist\u2019s phrase 4 times.\n\nBut (we shall be asked) what amount of _agreement_, in respect of \u201cVarious\nReadings,\u201d is discovered to subsist between these 5 codices? for _that_,\nafter all, is the practical question. We answer,\u2014A has been already shown\nto stand alone twice: B, 6 times: \u05d0, 8 times: C, 15 times; D, 93 times.\u2014We\nhave further to state that A B stand together by themselves once: B \u05d0, 4\ntimes: B C, 1: B D, 1: \u05d0 C, 1: C D, 1.\u2014A \u05d0 C conspire 1: B \u05d0 C, 1: B \u05d0 D,\n1: A B \u05d0 C, _once_ (viz. in reading \u1f10\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, which Tischendorf admits to\nbe a corrupt reading): B \u05d0 C D, also _once_.\u2014The 5 \u201cold uncials\u201d therefore\n(A B \u05d0 C D) combine, and again stand apart, with singular\nimpartiality.\u2014Lastly, they are _never once_ found to be in accord in\nrespect of _any single _\u201cvarious Reading\u201d.\u2014Will any one, after a candid\nsurvey of the premisses, deem us unreasonable, if we avow that such a\nspecimen of the _concordia discors_ which everywhere prevails between the\noldest uncials, but which especially characterizes \u05d0 B D, indisposes us\ngreatly to suffer their unsupported authority to determine for us the Text\nof Scripture?\n\nLet no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by\nasking,\u2014\u201cWhether we consider the _Textus Receptus_ infallible?\u201d The merit\nor demerit of the Received Text has absolutely _nothing whatever to do\nwith the question_. We care nothing about it. _Any_ Text would equally\nsuit our present purpose. _Any_ Text would show the \u201cold uncials\u201d\nperpetually at discord _among themselves_. To raise an irrelevant\ndiscussion, at the outset, concerning the _Textus Receptus_:\u2014to describe\nthe haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the\nN. T.:\u2014to make sport about the copies which he employed:\u2014all this kind of\nthing is the proceeding of one who seeks to mislead his readers:\u2014to throw\ndust into their eyes:\u2014to divert their attention from the problem actually\nbefore them:\u2014_not_\u2014(as we confidently expect when we have to do with such\nwriters as these)\u2014the method of a sincere lover of Truth. To proceed,\nhowever.\n\nII. and III. Nothing has been said as yet concerning the Text exhibited by\nthe earliest of the VERSIONS and by the most ancient of the FATHERS. But,\nfor the purpose we have just now in hand, neither are such details\nnecessary. We desire to hasten forward. A somewhat fuller review of\ncertain of our oldest available materials might prove even more\ndiscouraging. But _that_ would only be because it is impossible, within\nsuch narrow limits as the present, to give the reader any idea at all of\nthe wealth of our actual resources; and to convince him of the extent to\nwhich the least trustworthy of our guides prove in turn invaluable helps\nin correcting the exorbitances of their fellows. The practical result in\nfact of what has been hitherto offered is after all but this, that we have\nto be on our guard against pinning our faith exclusively on two or\nthree,\u2014least of all on one or two ancient documents; and of adopting\n_them_ exclusively for our guides. We are shown, in other words, that it\nis utterly out of the question to rely on any single _set_ or _group_ of\nauthorities, much less on any single document, for the determination of\nthe Text of Scripture. Happily, our MANUSCRIPTS are numerous: most of them\nare in the main trustworthy: _all_ of them represent far older documents\nthan themselves. Our VERSIONS (two of which are more ancient by a couple\nof centuries than any sacred codex extant) severally correct and check one\nanother. Lastly, in the writings of a host of FATHERS,\u2014the principal being\nEusebius, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Didymus, Epiphanius,\nChrysostom, the Cyrils, Theodoret,\u2014we are provided with contemporaneous\nevidence which, whenever it can be had, becomes an effectual safeguard\nagainst the unsupported decrees of our oldest codices, A B \u05d0 C D, as well\nas the occasional vagaries of the Versions. In the writings of Iren\u00e6us,\nClemens Alex., Origen, Dionysius Alex., Hippolytus, we meet with older\nevidence still. No more precarious foundation for a reading, in fact, can\nbe named, than the unsupported advocacy of a single Manuscript, or\nVersion, or Father; or even of two or three of these combined.\n\nBut indeed the principle involved in the foregoing remarks admits of being\nfar more broadly stated. It even stands to reason that we may safely\nreject any reading which, out of the whole body of available\nauthorities,\u2014Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers,\u2014finds support nowhere save in\none and the same little handful of suspicious documents. For we resolutely\nmaintain, that _external Evidence_ must after all be our best, our only\nsafe guide; and (to come to the point) we refuse to throw in our lot with\nthose who, disregarding the witness of _every other_ known Codex\u2014_every\nother_ Version\u2014_every other_ available Ecclesiastical Writer,\u2014insist on\nfollowing the dictates of a little group of authorities, of which nothing\nwhatever is known with so much certainty as that often, when they concur\nexclusively, it is to mislead. We speak of codices B or \u05d0 or D; the\nIXth-century codex L, and such cursives(50) as 13 or 33; a few copies of\nthe old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen.\u2014Not theory\ntherefore:\u2014not prejudice:\u2014not conjecture:\u2014not unproved assertion:\u2014not any\nsingle codex, and _certainly_ not codex B:\u2014not an imaginary \u201cAntiochene\nRecension\u201d of another imaginary \u201cPre-Syrian Text:\u201d\u2014not antecedent fancies\nabout the affinity of documents:\u2014neither \u201cthe [purely arbitrary] method of\ngenealogy,\u201d\u2014nor one man\u2019s notions (_which may be reversed by another man\u2019s\nnotions_) of \u201cTranscriptional Probability:\u201d\u2014not \u201cinstinctive processes of\nCriticism,\u201d\u2014least of all \u201cthe individual mind,\u201d with its \u201csupposed power\nof divining the Original Text\u201d\u2014of which no intelligible account can be\nrendered:\u2014nothing of this sort,\u2014(however specious and plausible it may\nsound, especially when set forth in confident language; advocated with a\ngreat show of unintelligible learning; supported by a formidable array of\ncabalistic symbols and mysterious contractions; above all when recommended\nby justly respected names,)\u2014nothing of this sort, we say, must be allowed\nto determine for us the Text of Scripture. The very proposal should set us\non our guard against the _certainty_ of imposition.\n\nWe deem it even axiomatic, that, in every case of doubt or\ndifficulty\u2014supposed or real\u2014our critical method must be the same: namely,\nafter patiently collecting _all_ the available evidence, then, without\npartiality or prejudice, to adjudicate between the conflicting\nauthorities, and loyally to accept that verdict for which there is clearly\nthe preponderating evidence. _The best supported Reading_, in other words,\nmust always be held to be _the true Reading_: and nothing may be rejected\nfrom the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall _clearly_\noutweigh the evidence for retaining it. We are glad to know that, so far\nat least, we once had Bp. Ellicott with us. He announced (in 1870) that\nthe best way of proceeding with the work of Revision is, \u201c_to make the\nTextus Receptus the standard_,\u2014departing from it _only when_ critical or\ngrammatical considerations _show that it is clearly necessary_.\u201d(51) We\nourselves mean no more. Whenever the evidence is about evenly balanced,\nfew it is hoped will deny that the Text which has been \u201cin possession\u201d for\nthree centuries and a half, and which rests on infinitely better\nmanuscript evidence than that of any ancient work which can be\nnamed,\u2014should, for every reason, be let alone.(52)\n\nBut, (we shall perhaps be asked,) has any critical Editor of the N. T.\nseriously taught the reverse of all this? Yes indeed, we answer. Lachmann,\nTregelles, Tischendorf,\u2014the most recent and most famous of modern\neditors,\u2014have all three adopted a directly opposite theory of textual\nrevision. With the first-named, fifty years ago (1831), virtually\noriginated the principle of recurring exclusively to a few ancient\ndocuments to the exclusion of the many. \u201cLACHMANN\u2019S text seldom rests on\nmore than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on\ntwo, _sometimes on only one_.\u201d(53) Bishop Ellicott speaks of it as \u201ca text\ncomposed _on the narrowest and most exclusive principles_.\u201d(54) Of the\nGreek Fathers (Lachmann says) he employed _only Origen_.(55) Paying\nextraordinary deference to the Latin Version, he entirely disregarded the\nco\u00ebval Syriac translation. The result of such a system must needs prove\nsatisfactory to no one except its author.\n\nLachmann\u2019s leading fallacy has perforce proved fatal to the value of the\ntext put forth by DR. TREGELLES. Of the scrupulous accuracy, the\nindefatigable industry, the pious zeal of that estimable and devoted\nscholar, we speak not. All honour to his memory! As a specimen of\nconscientious labour, his edition of the N. T. (1857-72) passes praise,\nand will _never_ lose its value. But it has only to be stated, that\nTregelles effectually persuaded himself that \u201c_eighty-nine ninetieths_\u201d of\nour extant manuscripts and other authorities may safely be rejected and\nlost sight of when we come to amend the text and try to restore it to its\nprimitive purity,(56)\u2014to make it plain that in Textual Criticism he must\nneeds be regarded as an untrustworthy teacher. _Why_ he should have\ncondescended to employ no patristic authority later than Eusebius [fl.\nA.D. 320], he does not explain. \u201cHis critical principles,\u201d (says Bishop\nEllicott,) \u201cespecially his general principles of estimating and regarding\nmodern manuscripts, are now perhaps justly called in question.\u201d(57)\n\n\u201cThe case of DR. TISCHENDORF\u201d (proceeds Bp. Ellicott) \u201cis still more\neasily disposed of. _Which_ of this most inconstant Critic\u2019s texts are we\nto select? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated preference for a\nsingle Manuscript which he has had the good fortune to discover, has\nbetrayed him into an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment.\nSurely also not his seventh edition, which ... exhibits all the\ninstability which a comparatively recent recognition of the authority of\ncursive manuscripts might be supposed likely to introduce.\u201d(58) With Dr.\nTischendorf,\u2014(whom one vastly his superior in learning, accuracy, and\njudgment, has generously styled \u201cthe first Biblical Critic in\nEurope\u201d(59))\u2014\u201c_the evidence of codex_ \u05d0, supported or even unsupported by\none or two other authorities of any description, is sufficient to outweigh\nany other witnesses,\u2014whether Manuscripts, Versions, or ecclesiastical\nWriters.\u201d(60) We need say no more. Until the foregoing charge has been\ndisproved, Dr. Tischendorf\u2019s last edition of the N. T., however precious\nas a vast storehouse of materials for criticism,\u2014however admirable as a\nspecimen of unwearied labour, critical learning, and first-rate\nability,\u2014must be admitted to be an utterly unsatisfactory exhibition of\nthe inspired Text. It has been ascertained that his discovery of codex \u05d0\ncaused his 8th edition (1865-72) to differ from his 7th in no less than\n3505 places,\u2014\u201cto the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as\nwell as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency.\u201d(61)\nBut, in fact, what is to be thought of a Critic who,\u2014because the last\nverse of S. John\u2019s Gospel, in \u05d0, seemed to himself to be _written with a\ndifferent pen_ from the rest,\u2014has actually _omitted that verse_ (xxi. 25)\nentirely, in defiance of _every known Copy, every known Version_, and the\nexplicit testimony of _a host of Fathers_? Such are Origen (in 11\nplaces),\u2014Eusebius (in 3),\u2014Gregory Nyss. (in 2),\u2014Gregory\nNazian.,\u2014ps.-Dionys. Alex.,(62)\u2014Nonnus,\u2014Chrysostom (in 6\nplaces),\u2014Theodoras Mops. (in 2),\u2014Isidorus,\u2014Cyril Alex. (in 2),\u2014Victor\nAnt.,\u2014Ammonius,\u2014Severus,\u2014Maximus,\u2014Andreas\nCretensis,\u2014Ambrose,\u2014Gaudentius,\u2014Philastrius,\u2014 Sedulius,\u2014Jerome,\u2014Augustine\n(in 6 places). That Tischendorf was a critic of amazing research, singular\nshrewdness, indefatigable industry; and that he enjoyed an unrivalled\nfamiliarity with ancient documents; no fair person will deny. But (in the\nwords of Bishop Ellicott,(63) whom we quote so perseveringly for a reason\nnot hard to divine,) his \u201cgreat inconstancy,\u201d\u2014his \u201cnatural want of\nsobriety of critical judgment,\u201d\u2014and his \u201cunreasonable deference to the\nreadings found in his own codex Sinaiticus;\u201d\u2014to which should be added\n\u201c_the utter absence in him of any intelligible fixed critical\nprinciples_;\u201d\u2014all this makes Tischendorf one of the worst of guides to the\ntrue Text of Scripture.\n\nThe last to enter the field are DRS. WESTCOTT and HORT, whose\nbeautifully-printed edition of \u201cthe New Testament in the original\nGreek\u201d(64) was published _within five days_ of the \u201cRevised Authorized\nVersion\u201d itself; a \u201cconfidential\u201d copy of their work having been already\nentrusted to every member of the New Test. company of Revisionists to\nguide them in their labours,\u2014under pledge that they should neither show\nnor communicate its contents to any one else.\u2014The learned Editors candidly\navow, that they \u201chave deliberately chosen on the whole to rely for\ndocumentary evidence on the stores accumulated by their predecessors, and\nto confine themselves to their proper work of editing the text\nitself.\u201d(65) Nothing therefore has to be enquired after, except the\ncritical principles on which they have proceeded. And, after assuring us\nthat \u201cthe study of Grouping is the foundation of all enduring\nCriticism,\u201d(66) they produce their secret: viz. That in \u201cevery one of our\nwitnesses\u201d _except codex_ B, the \u201ccorruptions are innumerable;\u201d(67) and\nthat, in the Gospels, the one \u201cgroup of witnesses\u201d _of _\u201cincomparable\nvalue\u201d, is codex B in \u201ccombination with another primary Greek manuscript,\nas \u05d0 B, B L, B C, B T, B D, B \u039e, A B, B Z, B 33, and in S. Mark B \u0394.\u201d(68)\nThis is \u201cTextual Criticism made easy,\u201d certainly. Well aware of the\npreposterous results to which such a major premiss must inevitably lead,\nwe are not surprised to find a plea straightway put in for \u201c_instinctive\nprocesses of Criticism_\u201d of which _the foundation _\u201cneeds perpetual\ncorrection and recorrection\u201d. But our confidence fairly gives way when, in\nthe same breath, the accomplished Editors proceed as follows:\u2014\u201cBut _we are\nobliged to come to the individual mind_ at last; and canons of Criticism\nare useful only as warnings against _natural illusions_, and aids to\ncircumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final\ndecision. It is true that no _individual mind_ can ever work with perfect\nuniformity, or free itself completely from _its own idiosyncrasies_. Yet a\nclear sense of the danger of _unconscious caprice_ may do much towards\nexcluding it. We trust also that the present Text has escaped some risks\nof this kind by being the joint production of two Editors of different\nhabits of mind\u201d(69) ... A somewhat insecure safeguard surely! May we be\npermitted without offence to point out that the \u201cidiosyncrasies\u201d of an\n\u201cindividual mind\u201d (to which we learn with astonishment \u201cwe are obliged to\ncome at last\u201d) are probably the very worst foundation possible on which to\nbuild the recension of an inspired writing? With regret we record our\nconviction, that these accomplished scholars have succeeded in producing a\nText vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists\nthan any which has appeared since the invention of printing. When full\nProlegomena have been furnished we shall know more about the matter;(70)\nbut to judge from the Remarks (in pp. 541-62) which the learned Editors\n(Revisionists themselves) have subjoined to their elegantly-printed\nvolume, it is to be feared that the fabric will be found to rest too\nexclusively on vague assumption and unproved hypothesis. In other words, a\npainful apprehension is created that their edition of \u201cThe New Testament\nin the original Greek\u201d will be found to partake inconveniently of the\nnature of a work of the Imagination. As codex \u05d0 proved fatal to Dr.\nTischendorf, so is codex B evidently the rock on which Drs. Westcott and\nHort have split. Did it ever occur to those learned men to enquire how the\nSeptuagint Version of the _Old_ Testament has fared at the hands of codex\nB? They are respectfully invited to address themselves to this very\ndamaging enquiry.\n\nBut surely (rejoins the intelligent Reader, coming fresh to these\nstudies), the oldest extant Manuscripts (B \u05d0 A C D) _must_ exhibit the\npurest text! Is it not so?\n\nIt _ought_ to be so, no doubt (we answer); but it certainly _need not_ be\nthe case.\n\nWe know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt,\n\u201crevised\u201d the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an\nage when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in\nturn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of _monstra_ into\nthe sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as\nTheophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of\nwhom we know there were very many in the primitive age,\u2014some of whose\nproductions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of\nancient Christendom:\u2014add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded;\nnotably the _Gospel of the Hebrews_, about which Jerome is so\ncommunicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and\nLatin:\u2014lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant\nassiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which\nthe early heretics (Basilides, A.D. 134, Valentinus, A.D. 140, with his\ndisciple Heracleon, Marcion, A.D. 150, and the rest,) most perseveringly\nassailed;\u2014and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not\na few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts\nwhich were even scandalously corrupt. \u201cIt is no less true to fact than\nparadoxical in sound,\u201d writes the most learned of the Revisionist body,\n\n\n    \u201cthat the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever\n    been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was\n    composed: that Iren\u00e6us [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the\n    whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far\n    inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or\n    Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus\n    Receptus.\u201d(71)\n\n\nAnd what else are codices \u05d0 B C D but _specimens_\u2014_in vastly_ _different\ndegrees_\u2014_of the class thus characterized_ by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay,\nwho will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their\npreservation _solely_ to the circumstance, that they were long since\nrecognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly\nuntrustworthy?\n\nOnly by singling out some definite portion of the Gospels, and attending\nclosely to the handling it has experienced at the hands of A \u05d0 B C D,\u2014to\nthe last four of which it is just now the fashion to bow down as to an\noracular voice from which there shall be no appeal,\u2014can the student become\naware of the hopelessness of any attempt to construct the Text of the N.\nT. out of the materials which those codices exclusively supply. Let us\nthis time take S. Mark\u2019s account of the healing of \u201cthe paralytic borne of\nfour\u201d (ch. ii. 1-12),\u2014and confront their exhibition of it, with that of\nthe commonly received Text. In the course of those 12 verses, (not\nreckoning 4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) there will be\nfound to be 60 variations of reading,\u2014of which 55 are nothing else but\ndepravations of the text, the result of inattention or licentiousness.\nWestcott and Hort adopt 23 of these:\u2014(18, in which \u05d0 B conspire to vouch\nfor a reading: 2, where \u05d0 is unsupported by B: 2, where B is unsupported\nby \u05d0: 1, where C D are supported by neither \u05d0 nor B). Now, in the present\ninstance, the \u201cfive old uncials\u201d _cannot be_ the depositories of a\ntradition,\u2014whether Western or Eastern,\u2014because they render inconsistent\ntestimony _in every verse_. It must further be admitted, (for this is\nreally not a question of opinion, but a plain matter of fact,) that it is\nunreasonable to place confidence in such documents. What would be thought\nin a Court of Law of five witnesses, called up 47 times for examination,\nwho should be observed to bear contradictory testimony _every time_?\n\nBut the whole of the problem does not by any means lie on the surface. All\nthat _appears_ is that the five oldest uncials are not trustworthy\nwitnesses; which singly, in the course of 12 verses separate themselves\nfrom their fellows 33 times: viz. A, twice;\u2014\u05d0, 5 times;\u2014B, 6 times;\u2014C,\nthrice;\u2014D, 17 times: and which also enter into the 11 following\ncombinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary Text:\u2014A C,\ntwice;\u2014\u05d0 B, 10 times;\u2014\u05d0 D, once;\u2014C D, 3 times;\u2014\u05d0 B C, once;\u2014\u05d0 B D, 5\ntimes;\u2014\u05d0 C D, once;\u2014B C D, once;\u2014A \u05d0 C D, once;\u2014A B C D, once;\u2014A \u05d0 B C D,\nonce. (Note, that on this last occasion, which is the _only_ time when\nthey all 5 agree, _they are certainly all 5 wrong_.) But this, as was\nobserved before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is\nfurther discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of their\norigin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii, 1, the delicate\nprecision of the announcement \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u0395\u1f38\u03a3 \u039f\u1f3e\u039a\u039f\u039d \u1f18\u03a3\u03a4\u0399 (that \u201c_He has\ngone in_\u201d), disappears from \u05d0 B D:\u2014as well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance\nthat it became the signal for many \u201c_immediately_\u201d (\u05d0 B) to assemble about\nthe door.\u2014In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor\u2019s concise statement\nthat the paralytic was \u201cbrought to\u201d our SAVIOUR,(72) by remarking that the\nthing was \u201c_impossible_\u201d by the ordinary method of approach. Accordingly,\nhis account of the expedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire\nverse (ver. 4) of his Gospel. In the mean time, \u05d0 B by exhibiting (in S.\nMark ii. 3,) \u201cbringing unto Him one sick of the palsy\u201d (\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd,\u2014which is but a senseless transposition of \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd,\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), do their best to obliterate the exquisite\nsignificance of the second Evangelist\u2019s method.\u2014In the next verse, the\nperplexity of the bearers, who, because they could not \u201c_come nigh_ Him\u201d\n(\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7), unroofed the house, is lost in \u05d0 B,\u2014whose \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\nhas been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else from Luke v. 18, 19\n(\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd). \u201cThe bed WHERE WAS the paralytic\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f4d\u03a0\u039f\u03a5 \u1f2e\u039d \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2), in imitation of \u201cthe roof WHERE WAS\u201d\nJesus (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03b7\u03bd \u1f4d\u03a0\u039f\u03a5 \u1f2e\u039d [\u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2], which had immediately preceded), is\njust one of those tasteless depravations, for which \u05d0 B, and especially D,\nare conspicuous among manuscripts.\u2014In the last verse, the _instantaneous\nrising_ of the paralytic, noticed by S. Mark (\u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2), and insisted\nupon by S. Luke (\u201c_and immediately he rose up_ before them,\u201d\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd), is obliterated by shifting \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 in \u05d0 B and C to\na place where \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 is not wanted, and where its significancy disappears.\n\nOther instances of Assimilation are conspicuous. All must see that, in\nver. 5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd (\u05d0 B C) is derived from Matt. ix. 2 and Luke v. 20: as\nwell as that \u201cSon, _be of good cheer_\u201d (C) is imported hither from Matt.\nix. 2. \u201c_My_ son,\u201d on the other hand (\u05d0), is a mere effort of the\nimagination. In the same verse, \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 (\u05d0 B D) is either from\nMatt. ix. 5 (_sic_); or else from ver. 9, lower down in S. Mark\u2019s\nnarrative. \u039b\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, in ver. 6 (D), is from S. Luke v. 21. \u1f5d\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 (\u05d0) in\nver. 9, and \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 (D), are clearly importations from ver\n11. The strange confusion in ver. 7,\u2014\u201c_Because this man thus speaketh, he\nblasphemeth_\u201d (B),\u2014and \u201c_Why doth this man thus speak? He blasphemeth_\u201d (\u05d0\nD),\u2014is due solely to Mtt. ix. 3:\u2014while the appendix proposed by \u05d0 as a\nsubstitute for \u201cWe never saw it on this fashion\u201d (\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd),\nin ver 12 (viz. \u201cIt was never so seen in Israel,\u201d \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb), has been transplanted hither from S. Matt. ix. 33.\n\nWe shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of \u05d0 B C D\nhereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that\n_heretical_ depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena.\n_That_ (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and\nfabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics\nof their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are\nsometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say, \u201c_This_ came\nfrom Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron; and _that_ from Marcion\u2019s mutilated recension\nof the Gospel according to S. Luke.\u201d The piercing of our SAVIOUR\u2019S side,\ntransplanted by codices \u05d0 B C from S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii.\n49, is an instance of the former,\u2014which it may reasonably create\nastonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (_alone among Editors_)\nhave nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with\nthe last 12 verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. But it occasions a stronger\nsentiment than surprise to discover that this, \u201cthe gravest interpolation\nyet laid to the charge of B,\u201d\u2014this \u201csentence which neither they nor any\nother competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever\nwrote,\u201d(73)\u2014has been actually foisted into the margin of _the Revised\nVersion_ of S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that\nsuch a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work? _For whose_ benefit\nis the information volunteered that \u201cmany ancient authorities\u201d are thus\ngrossly interpolated?\n\nAn instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to\nMarcion\u2019s mutilated recension of S. Luke\u2019s Gospel. We venture to entreat\nthe favour of the reader\u2019s sustained attention to the license with which\nthe LORD\u2019S Prayer as given in S. Luke\u2019s Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by\ncodices \u05d0 A B C D. For every reason one would have expected that so\nprecious a formula would have been found enshrined in the \u201cold uncials\u201d in\npeculiar safety; handled by copyists of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries\nwith peculiar reverence. Let us ascertain exactly what has befallen it:\u2014\n\n(_a_) D introduces the LORD\u2019S Prayer by interpolating the following\nparaphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:\u2014\u201c_Use not vain repetitions as the rest: for\nsome suppose that they shall be heard by their much speaking. But when ye\npray_\u201d ... After which portentous exordium,\n\n(_b_) B \u05d0 omit the 5 words, \u201c_Our_\u201d \u201c_which art in heaven_,\u201d Then,\n\n(_c_) D omits the article (\u03c4\u03cc) before \u201cname:\u201d and supplements the first\npetition with the words \u201cupon us\u201d (\u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2). It must needs also transpose\nthe words \u201c_Thy Kingdom_\u201d (\u1f21 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5).\n\n(_d_) B in turn omits the third petition,\u2014\u201c_Thy will be done, as in\nheaven, also on the earth;_\u201d which 11 words \u05d0 retains, but adds \u201c_so_\u201d\nbefore \u201c_also_,\u201d and omits the article (\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2); finding for once an ally in\nA C D.\n\n(_e_) \u05d0 D for \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 write \u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 (from Matt.).\n\n(_f_) \u05d0 omits the article (\u03c4\u03cc) before \u201c_day by day._\u201d And,\n\n(_g_) D, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes \u201c_this day_\u201d (from\nMatt.): substitutes \u201c_debts_\u201d (\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) for \u201c_sins_\u201d (\u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\u2014also from Matt.): and in place of \u201c_for [we] ourselves_\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03af) writes \u201c_as also we_\u201d (\u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, again from Matt.).\u2014But,\n\n(_h_) \u05d0 shows its sympathy with D by accepting two-thirds of this last\nblunder: exhibiting \u201c_as also [we] ourselves_\u201d (\u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03af).\n\n(_i_) D consistently reads \u201c_our debtors_\u201d (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd) in place\nof \u201c_every one that is indebted to us_\u201d (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd).\u2014Finally,\n\n(_j_) B \u05d0 omit the last petition,\u2014\u201c_but deliver us from evil_\u201d (\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1fe5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6)\u2014unsupported by A C or D. Of lesser discrepancies we\ndecline to take account.\n\nSo then, these five \u201cfirst-class authorities\u201d are found to throw\nthemselves into _six different combinations_ in their departures from S.\nLuke\u2019s way of exhibiting the LORD\u2019S Prayer,\u2014which, among them, they\ncontrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yet _they are\nnever able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:_\nwhile _only once_ are more than two of them observed to stand\ntogether,\u2014viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of\n32 (out of the 45) words, _they bear in turn solitary evidence_. What need\nto declare that it is _certainly false_ in every instance? Such however is\nthe infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries of Bare all taken for\ngospel. Besides omitting the 11 words which B omits jointly with \u05d0, Drs.\nWestcott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious\nwords which are omitted by B only. And in this way it comes to pass that\nthe mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic\nreduced the LORD\u2019S Prayer some 1730 years ago,(74) (for the mischief can\nall be traced back to _him!_), is palmed off on the Church of England by\nthe Revisionists as the work of the HOLY GHOST!\n\n(A) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning\u2014as\nDr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) does, when explaining the method and\nresults of their labours\u2014with what we hold to be the gravest blot of all,\nviz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last\nTwelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian\nanticipate that\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe reader will be struck by the appearance which this long\n    paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it\n    is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the Gospel.\n    A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation\n    of this.\u201d(75)\n\n\nA _very_ brief \u201cexplanation\u201d certainly: for the note _explains_ nothing.\nAllusion is made to the following words\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities,\n    omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a\n    different ending to the Gospel.\u201d\n\n\nBut now,\u2014For the use of _whom_ has this piece of information been\nvolunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known\nto all, that codices B and \u05d0 _alone of manuscripts_ (to their own\neffectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But then scholars know\nsomething more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have\nbeen made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300\npages,\u2014which treatise has now been before the world for a full decade of\nyears, and for the best of reasons has never yet been answered. Its\nobject, stated on its title-page, was to vindicate against recent critical\nobjectors, and to establish \u201cthe last Twelve Verses\u201d of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel.(76) Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author\nhad succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.(77) _Can_ it then be right\n(we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust\nof twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have\nbeen demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be\nnamed?\n\nThe question arises,\u2014But how did it come to pass that such evil counsels\nwere allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber? Light has been thrown on\nthe subject by two of the New Test. company. And first by the learned\nCongregationalist, Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to describe the\nmethod which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us)\nwas as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cWhether any _Textual_ Changes are proposed? The evidence for and\n    against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty\n    of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (_sic_)\n    two members of the Company, who from their previous studies are\n    specially entitled to speak with authority upon such\n    questions,\u2014Dr. Scrivener and _Dr. Hort_,\u2014and who come prepared to\n    enumerate particularly the authorities on either side. Dr.\n    Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case,\n    and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr.\n    Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call\n    for notice; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener\u2019s estimate of the\n    weight of the evidence, gives his reasons and states his own view.\n    After discussion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the\n    proposed Reading accepted or rejected. _The Text being thus\n    settled_, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering.\u201d(78)\n\n\nAnd thus, the men who were appointed to improve _the English Translation_\nare exhibited to us remodelling _the original Greek_. At a moment\u2019s\nnotice, as if by intuition,\u2014by an act which can only be described as the\nexercise of instinct,\u2014these eminent Divines undertake to decide which\nshall be deemed the genuine utterances of the HOLY GHOST,(79)\u2014which _not_.\nEach is called upon to give his vote, and he gives it. \u201c_The Text being\nthus settled_\u201d they proceed to do the only thing they were originally\nappointed to do; viz. to try their hands at improving our Authorized\nVersion. But we venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such \u201crough\nand ready\u201d process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical\nproblems\u2014the truth of Scripture\u2014to be \u201csettled.\u201d\n\nSir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description above given \u201cof the\nprocess by which the Revisionists \u2018settled\u2019 the Greek alterations, is not\na kind of joke, it is quite enough to \u2018settle\u2019 this Revised Greek\nTestament in a very different sense.\u201d(80) And so, in truth, it clearly\nis.\u2014\u201cSuch a proceeding appeared to me so strange,\u201d (writes the learned and\njudicious Editor of the _Speaker\u2019s Commentary_,) \u201cthat I fully expected\nthat the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be\ngiven which might remove the very unpleasant impression.\u201d(81) We have\nsince heard on the best authority, _that_ namely of Bishop Ellicott\nhimself,(82) that Dr. Newth\u2019s account of the method of \u201csettling\u201d the text\nof the N. T., pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct.\n\nBut in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, a definite part\nof the Programme. The chairman of the Revisionist body, Bishop\nEllicott,\u2014when he had \u201cto consider the practical question,\u201d\u2014whether \u201c(1),\nto construct a critical Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though\nnot exclusively, some current Text: or (3), _simply to proceed onward_\nwith the work of Revision, whether of Text or Translation, making the\ncurrent _Textus Receptus_ the standard, and departing from it only when\ncritical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly\nnecessary,\u2014in fact, _solvere ambulando_;\u201d announces, at the end of 19\npages,\u2014\u201cWe are driven then to the third alternative.\u201d(83)\n\nWe naturally cast about for some evidence that the members of the New\nTestament company possess that mastery of the subject which alone could\njustify one of their number (Dr. Milligan) in asserting roundly that these\n12 verses are \u201c_not from the pen of S. Mark himself_;\u201d(84) and another\n(Dr. Roberts) in maintaining that \u201cthe passage is _not the immediate\nproduction of S. Mark_.\u201d(85) Dr. Roberts assures us that\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cEusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of\n    Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks,\n    testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not\n    found in the best copies.\u201d(86)\n\n\nWill the learned writer permit us to assure him in return that he is\nentirely mistaken? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says\nnothing of the sort\u2014_says __ nothing at all_ concerning these verses: that\nVictor of Antioch vouches emphatically for their _genuineness_: that\nSeverus does but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random\nexpressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius himself _nowhere_ \u201ctestifies\nthat these verses were not written by S. Mark.\u201d So far from it, Eusebius\nactually _quotes the verses_, quotes them as _genuine_. Dr. Roberts is\nfurther assured that there are _no_ \u201cother writers\u201d whether Greek or\nLatin, who insinuate doubt concerning these verses. On the contrary,\nbesides _both_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac\u2014besides the Gothic and the\n_two_ Egyptian versions\u2014there exist four authorities of the IInd\ncentury;\u2014as many of the IIIrd;\u2014five of the Vth;\u2014four of the VIth;\u2014as many\nof the VIIth;\u2014together with _at least ten_ of the IVth(87)\n(_contemporaries therefore of codices_ B _and_ \u05d0);\u2014which actually\n_recognize_ the verses in question. Now, when to _every known Manuscript\nbut two_ of bad character, besides _every ancient Version, some\none-and-thirty Fathers_ have been added, 18 of whom must have used copies\nat least as old as either B or \u05d0,\u2014Dr. Roberts is assured that an amount of\nexternal authority has been accumulated which is simply overwhelming in\ndiscussions of this nature.\n\nBut the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to\nthis point nothing has been said, is alone sufficient to determine the\ncontroversy. We refer to the fact that _in every part of Eastern\nChristendom_ these same 12 verses\u2014neither more nor less\u2014have been from the\nearliest recorded period, and still are, a _proper lesson both for the\nEaster season and for Ascension Day_.\n\nWe pass on.\n\n(B) A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be\nfound than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in\nthe Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek\ntext (\u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) impossible, but the English of the\nRevisionists (\u201c_peace among men in whom he is well pleased_\u201d) \u201ccan be\narrived at\u201d (as one of themselves has justly remarked) \u201conly through some\nprocess which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator\nmight like to put upon it.\u201d(88) More than that: the harmony of the\nexquisite three-part hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the\nNativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry\ndestroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence\ninto one. Singular to relate, the addition of _a single final letter_ (\u03c2)\nhas done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able\nat the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its\ncalamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the\nold Latin translation was made, (for the Latin copies _all_ read \u201c_pax\nhominibus bon\u00e6 voluntatis_,\u201d) the preposition \u1f10\u03bd was evidently\naway,\u2014absorbed apparently by the \u1f00\u03bd which immediately follows. In order\ntherefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without \u1f10\u03bd,\nare simply unintelligible, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 was turned into \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. It is\naccordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there exists _no_\nGreek copy of the Gospels which _omits_ the \u1f10\u03bd, there is scarcely a Latin\nexhibition of the place to be found which contains it.(89) To return\nhowever to the genuine clause,\u2014\u201cGood-will towards men\u201d (\u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1).\n\nAbsolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage\u2014irrespectively of\ninternal considerations\u2014ought to be the consideration that it is vouched\nfor _by every known copy_ of the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only\n\u05d0 A B D: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected\nand brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (A)\nis observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive\n\u201cMorning-hymn\u201d (given in another page of the same codex, and containing a\nquotation of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found.\nD\u2019s complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained\nsympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac\nVersions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile\nevidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than\nneutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the\nopposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, \u00c6thiopic, Slavonic and Arabian\nversions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to\nthis:\u2014We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the\nGospels,\u2014every known Lectionary,\u2014and (not least of all) the ascertained\necclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,\u2014on the one\nhand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character,\nwhich concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one\nhesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his\nallegiance?\n\nCould doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all\nevents be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is\navailable on the present occasion:\u2014\n\nIn the IInd century,\u2014we have the testimony of (1) Iren\u00e6us.(90)\n\nIn the IIIrd,\u2014that of (2) Origen(91) in 3 places,\u2014and of (3) the\n_Apostolical Constitutions_(92) in 2.\n\nIn the IVth,\u2014(4) Eusebius,(93)\u2014(5) Aphraates the Persian,(94)\u2014(6) Titus of\nBostra,(95) each twice;\u2014(7) Didymus(96) in 3 places;\u2014(8) Gregory of\nNazianzus,(97)\u2014(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,(98)\u2014(10) Epiphanius(99) twice;\u2014(11)\nGregory of Nyssa(100) 4 times,\u2014(12) Ephraem Syrus,(101)\u2014(13) Philo bishop\nof Carpasus,(102)\u2014(14) Chrysostom,(103) in 9 places,\u2014and (15) a nameless\npreacher at Antioch,(104)\u2014all these, _contemporaries (be it remembered)\nof_ B _and_ \u05d0, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the\ncommonly received text.\n\nIn the Vth century,\u2014(16) Cyril of Alexandria,(105) on no less than 14\noccasions, vouches for it also;\u2014(17) Theodoret(106) on 4;\u2014(18) Theodotus\nof Ancyra(107) on 5 (once(108) in a homily preached before the Council of\nEphesus on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);\u2014(19) Proclus(109) archbishop of\nConstantinople;\u2014(20) Paulus(110) bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached\nbefore Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);\u2014(21) the Eastern\nbishops(111) at Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431 (an unusually weighty piece\nof evidence);\u2014and lastly, (22) Basil of Seleucia.(112) Now, let it be\nremarked that _these were contemporaries of codex_ A.\n\nIn the VIth century,\u2014the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the\nvoyager,(113) 5 times,\u2014(24) Anastasius Sinaita,(114)\u2014(25) Eulogius(115)\narchbishop of Alexandria: _contemporaries, be it remembered, of codex_ D.\n\nIn the VIIth,\u2014(26) Andreas of Crete(116) twice.\n\nAnd in the VIIIth,\u2014(27) Cosmas(117) bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,\u2014and his\npupil (28) John Damascene,(118)\u2014and (29) Germanus(119) archbishop of\nConstantinople.\n\nTo these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain\ndate, but _all_ of considerable antiquity; and some(120) are proved by\ninternal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,\u2014in short, to be of\nthe date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among\nwhose genuine works their productions are probably _not_ to be reckoned.\nOne of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:(121) a\nsecond, for (31) Methodius:(122) a third, for (32) Basil.(123) Three\nothers, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be\n(33, 34, 35) Athanasius.(124) One has passed for (36) Gregory of\nNyssa;(125) another for (37) Epiphanius;(126) while no less than eight (38\nto 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,(127) some of them being\ncertainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,(128) and (47)\nthe author of the apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,\u2014and it will be perceived that\n18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as\ncompetent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time when\nA B \u05d0 D were written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom\nthemselves.(129) _For our present purpose_ they are _Codices_ of the IVth,\nVth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more than _forty-seven_\nancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation\nthat the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is _the true\nreading_, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off\nupon us is _a fabrication and a blunder_. Will any one be found to\nmaintain that the authority of B and \u05d0 is appreciable, when confronted by\nthe first 15 _contemporary Ecclesiastical Writers_ above enumerated? or\nthat A can stand against the 7 which follow?\n\nThis is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically,\nand note that, besides 1 name from Gaul,\u2014at least 2 stand for\nConstantinople,\u2014while 5 are dotted over Asia Minor:\u201410 at least represent\nAntioch; and\u20146, other parts of Syria:\u20143 stand for Palestine, and 12 for\nother Churches of the East:\u2014at least 5 are Alexandrian,\u20142 are men of\nCyprus, and\u20141 is from Crete. If the articulate voices of so many\nillustrious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of\nancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message,\u2014if\n_this_ be not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now\nbefore us, then pray let us have it explained to us,\u2014What amount of\nevidence _will_ men accept as final? It is high time that this were\nknown.... The plain truth is, that a case has been established against \u05d0 A\nB D and the Latin version, which amounts to _proof_ that those documents,\neven when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be\ndepended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the\nreading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:\u2014_It emerges into\nnotice in the IInd century; and in the Vth, disappears from sight\nentirely._\n\nEnough and to spare has now been offered concerning the true reading of S.\nLuke ii. 14. But because we propose to ourselves that _no uncertainty\nwhatever_ shall remain on this subject, it will not be wasted labour if at\nparting we pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and shell to\nleave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable doubt\nhereafter to hide in. Now, it is confessedly nothing else but the high\nestimate which Critics have conceived of the value of the testimony of the\nold uncials (\u05d0 A B C D), which has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in\nthis behalf. Let the learned Reader then ascertain for himself the\ncharacter of codices \u05d0 A B C D hereabouts, by collating _the context in\nwhich S. Luke ii. 14 is found_, viz. the 13 verses which precede and the\none verse (ver. 15) which immediately follows. If the old uncials are\nobserved all to sing in tune throughout, hereabouts, well and good: but if\non the contrary, their voices prove utterly discordant, _who_ sees not\nthat the last pretence has been taken away for placing _any confidence at\nall_ in their testimony concerning the text of ver. 14, turning as it does\non the presence or absence of _a single letter_?... He will find, as the\nresult of his analysis, that within the space of those 14 verses, the old\nuncials are responsible for 56 \u201cvarious readings\u201d (so-called): singly, for\n41; in combination with one another, for 15. So diverse, however, is the\ntestimony they respectively render, that they are found severally to\ndiffer from the Text of the cursives no less than 70 times. Among them,\nbesides twice varying the phrase,\u2014they contrive to omit 19 words:\u2014to add\n4:\u2014to substitute 17:\u2014to alter 10:\u2014to transpose 24.\u2014Lastly, these five\ncodices are observed (within the same narrow limits) to fall into _ten_\ndifferent combinations: viz. B \u05d0, for 5 readings;\u2014B D, for 2;\u2014\u05d0 C, \u05d0 D, A\nC, \u05d0 B D, A \u05d0 D, A B \u05d0 D, B \u05d0 C D, A B \u05d0 C D, for 1 each. A therefore,\nwhich stands alone _twice_, is found in combination 4 times;\u2014C, which\nstands alone _once_, is found in combination 4 times;(130)\u2014B, which stands\nalone 5 times, is found in combination 6 times;\u2014\u05d0, which stands alone 11\ntimes, is found in combination 8 times;\u2014D, which stands alone 22 times, is\nfound in combination 7 times.... And now,\u2014for the last time we ask the\nquestion,\u2014With what show of reason can the unintelligible \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (of \u05d0 A\nB D) be upheld as genuine, in defiance of _the whole body of Manuscripts_,\nuncial and cursive,\u2014the great bulk of the Versions,\u2014and the mighty array\nof (upwards of fifty) Fathers exhibited above?\n\n(C) We are at last able to proceed, with a promise that we shall rarely\nprove so tedious again. But it is absolutely necessary to begin by\nclearing the ground. We may not go on doubting for ever. The \u201cAngelic\nhymn\u201d and \u201cThe last 12 Verses\u201d of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, are convenient places\nfor a trial of strength. _It has now been proved_ that the commonly\nreceived text of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true text,\u2014the Revisionists\u2019\nemendation of the place, a palpable mistake. On behalf of the second\nGospel, we claim to have also established that an important portion of the\nsacred narrative has been unjustly branded with a note of ignominy; from\nwhich we solemnly call upon the Revisionists to set the Evangelist free.\nThe pretence that no harm has been done him by the mere statement of what\nis an undeniable fact,\u2014(viz. that \u201cthe two oldest Greek manuscripts, and\nsome other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end;\u201d and that \u201csome\nother authorities have a different ending to the Gospel,\u201d)\u2014will not stand\nexamination. Pin to the shoulder of an honourable man a hearsay libel on\nhis character, and see what he will have to say to you! Besides,\u2014_Why have\nthe 12 verses been further separated off from the rest of the Gospel?_\nThis at least is unjustifiable.\n\nThose who, with Drs. Roberts and Milligan,(131) have been taught to\nmaintain \u201c_that the passage is not the immediate production of S.\nMark_,\u201d\u2014\u201c_can hardly be regarded as a part of the original Gospel_; but is\nrather an addition made to it at a very early age, whether in the lifetime\nof the Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say:\u201d\u2014such Critics are\ninformed that they stultify themselves when they proceed in the same\nbreath to assure the offended reader that the passage \u201cis nevertheless\n_possessed of full canonical authority_.\u201d(132) Men who so write show that\nthey do not understand the question. For if these 12 verses _are_\n\u201ccanonical Scripture,\u201d\u2014as much inspired as the 12 verses which precede\nthem, and as worthy of undoubting confidence,\u2014then, whether they be \u201cthe\nproduction of S. Mark,\u201d or of some other, is a purely irrelevant\ncircumstance. The _Authorship_ of the passage, as every one must see, is\nnot the question. The last 12 verses of Deuteronomy, for instance, were\nprobably not written by Moses. Do we therefore separate them off from the\nrest of Deuteronomy, and encumber the margin with a note expressive of our\nopinion? Our Revisionists, so far from holding what follows to be\n\u201ccanonical Scripture,\u201d are careful to state that a rival ending to be\nfound elsewhere merits serious attention. S. Mark xvi. 9-20, therefore\n(_according to them_), is _not certainly_ a genuine part of the Gospel;\n_may_, after all, be nothing else but a spurious accretion to the text.\nAnd as long as such doubts are put forth by our Revisionists, they publish\nto the world that, _in their account_ at all events, these verses are\n_not_ \u201cpossessed of full canonical authority.\u201d If \u201cthe two oldest Greek\nmanuscripts\u201d _justly_ \u201comit from verse 9 to the end\u201d (as stated in the\nmargin), will any one deny that our printed Text ought to omit them\nalso?(133) On the other hand, if the circumstance is a mere literary\ncuriosity, will any one maintain that it is entitled to abiding record in\nthe margin of the _English Version_ of the everlasting page?\u2014_affords any\nwarrant whatever for separating _\u201cthe last Twelve Verses\u201d_ from their\ncontext_?\n\n(D) We can probably render ordinary readers no more effectual service,\nthan by offering now to guide them over a few select places, concerning\nthe true reading of which the Revisionists either entertain such serious\ndoubts that they have _recorded_ their uncertainty in the margin of their\nwork; or else, entertaining no doubts at all, have deliberately thrust a\nnew reading into the body of their text, and _that_, without explanation,\napology, or indeed record of any kind.(134) One remark should be premised,\nviz. that \u201cvarious Readings\u201d as they are (often most unreasonably) called,\nare seldom if ever the result of conscious _fraud_. An immense number are\nto be ascribed to sheer accident. It was through erroneous judgment, we\nrepeat, not with evil intent, that men took liberties with the deposit.\nThey imported into their copies whatever readings they considered highly\nrecommended. By some of these ancient Critics it seems to have been\nthought allowable _to abbreviate_, by simply leaving out whatever did not\nappear to themselves strictly necessary: by others, to _transpose_ the\nwords\u2014even the members\u2014of a sentence, almost to any extent: by others, to\n_substitute_ easy expressions for difficult ones. In this way it comes to\npass that we are often presented, and in the oldest documents of all, with\nReadings which stand self-condemned; are clearly fabrications. That it was\nheld allowable to assimilate one Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add,\nthat as early as the IInd century there abounded in the Church\ndocuments,\u2014\u201cDiatessarons\u201d they were sometimes called,\u2014of which the avowed\nobject was to weave one continuous and connected narrative \u201cout of the\nfour;\u201d\u2014and we shall find that as many heads have been provided, as will\nsuffice for the classification of almost every various reading which we\nare likely to encounter in our study of the Gospels.\n\nI. TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we\nhave already furnished the reader with two notable and altogether\ndissimilar specimens. The first (viz. the omission of S. Mark xvi. 9-20\nfrom certain ancient copies of the Gospel) seems to have originated in an\nunique circumstance. According to the Western order of the four, S. Mark\noccupies _the last_ place. From the earliest period it had been customary\nto write \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (\u201cEND\u201d) after the 8th verse of his last chapter, in token\nthat _there_ a famous ecclesiastical lection comes to a close. _Let the\nlast leaf of one very ancient archetypal copy have begun at ver. 9; and\nlet that last leaf have perished;\u2014and all is plain._ A faithful copyist\nwill have ended the Gospel perforce\u2014as B and \u05d0 have done\u2014at S. Mark xvi.\n8.... Our other example (S. Luke ii. 14) will have resulted from an\naccident of the most ordinary description,\u2014as was explained at the\noutset.\u2014To the foregoing, a few other specimens of erroneous readings\nresulting from Accident shall now be added.\n\n(_a_) Always instructive, it is sometimes even entertaining to trace the\nhistory of a mistake which, dating from the IInd or IIIrd century, has\nremained without a patron all down the subsequent ages, until at last it\nhas been suddenly taken up in our own times by an Editor of the sacred\nText, and straightway palmed off upon an unlearned generation as the\ngenuine work of the HOLY GHOST. Thus, whereas the Church has hitherto\nsupposed that S. Paul\u2019s company \u201cwere in all in the ship _two hundred\nthreescore and sixteen souls_\u201d (Acts xxvii. 37), Drs. Westcott and Hort\n(relying on the authority of B and the Sahidic version) insist that what\nS. Luke actually wrote was \u201c_about seventy-six_.\u201d In other words, instead\nof \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03ad\u03be, we are invited henceforth to read \u1f69\u03a3\n\u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03ad\u03be. What can have given rise to so formidable a discrepancy?\nMere accident, we answer. First, whereas S. Luke certainly wrote \u1f26\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, his last six words at some very early period\nunderwent the familiar process of Transposition, and became, \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u1ff3; whereby the _word_ \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u1ff3 and the _numbers_ \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03ad\u03be were brought into close proximity. (It is thus that\nLachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, &c., wrongly exhibit the place.) But\nsince \u201c276\u201d when represented in Greek numerals is \u03a3\u039f\u03a3, the inevitable\nconsequence was that the words (written in uncials) ran thus:\n\u03a8\u03a5\u03a7\u0391\u0399\u0395\u039d\u03a4\u03a9\u03a0\u039b\u039f\u0399\u03a9\u03a3\u039f\u03a3. Behold, the secret is out! Who sees not what has\nhappened? There has been no intentional falsification of the text. There\nhas been no critical disinclination to believe that \u201ca corn-ship,\npresumably heavily laden, would contain so many souls,\u201d\u2014as an excellent\njudge supposes.(135) The discrepancy has been the result of sheer\naccident: is the merest blunder. Some IInd-century copyist connected the\nlast letter of \u03a0\u039b\u039f\u0399\u03a9 with the next ensuing numeral, which stands for 200\n(viz. \u03a3); and made an _independent word_ of it, viz. \u1f61\u03c2\u2014_i.e._ \u201cabout.\u201d\nBut when \u03a3 (_i.e._ 200) has been taken away from \u03a3\u039f\u03a3 (_i.e._ 276), 76 is\nperforce all that remains. In other words, the result of so slight a\nblunder has been that instead of \u201c_two hundred_ and seventy-six\u201d (\u03a3\u039f\u03a3),\nsome one wrote \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u03c2\u00b4\u2014_i.e._ \u201c_about_ seventy-six.\u201d His blunder would have\nbeen diverting had it been confined to the pages of a codex which is\n_full_ of blunders. When however it is adopted by the latest Editors of\nthe N. T. (Drs. Westcott and Hort),\u2014and by their influence has been\nfoisted into the margin of our revised English Version\u2014it becomes high\ntime that we should reclaim against such a gratuitous depravation of\nScripture.\n\nAll this ought not to have required explaining: the blunder is so\ngross,\u2014its history so patent. But surely, had its origin been ever so\nobscure, the most elementary critical knowledge joined to a little\nmother-wit ought to convince a man that the reading \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03ad\u03be\n_cannot_ be trustworthy. A reading discoverable only in codex B and one\nEgyptian version (which was evidently executed from codices of the same\ncorrupt type as codex B) _may always be dismissed as certainly spurious_.\nBut further,\u2014Although a man might of course say \u201cabout _seventy_\u201d or\n\u201cabout _eighty_,\u201d (which is how Epiphanius(136) quotes the place,) _who_\nsees not that \u201cabout seventy-_six_\u201d is an impossible expression? Lastly,\nthe two false witnesses give divergent testimony even while they seem to\nbe at one: for the Sahidic (or Thebaic) version arranges the words in an\norder _peculiar to itself_.\n\n(_b_) Another corruption of the text, with which it is proposed henceforth\nto disfigure our Authorized Version, (originating like the last in sheer\naccident,) occurs in Acts xviii. 7. It is related concerning S. Paul, at\nCorinth, that having forsaken the synagogue of the Jews, \u201che entered into\na certain man\u2019s house _named Justus_\u201d (\u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5). That this is what\nS. Luke wrote, is to be inferred from the fact that it is found in almost\nevery known copy of the Acts, beginning with A D G H L P. Chrysostom\u2014the\nonly ancient Greek Father who quotes the place\u2014_so_ quotes it. This is, in\nconsequence, the reading of Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf in his\n7th edition. But then, the last syllable of \u201cname\u201d (\u039f\u039d\u039f\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0399) and the first\nthree letters of \u201cJustus\u201d (\u0399\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\u03a4\u039f\u03a5), in an uncial copy, may easily get\nmistaken for an independent word. Indeed it only wants a horizontal stroke\n(at the summit of the second \u0399 in \u03a4\u0399\u0399\u039f\u03a5) to produce \u201cTitus\u201d (\u03a4\u0399\u03a4\u039f\u03a5). In\nthe Syriac and Sahidic versions accordingly, \u201cTitus\u201d actually stands _in\nplace of_ \u201cJustus,\u201d\u2014a reading no longer discoverable in any extant codex.\nAs a matter of fact, the error resulted _not_ in the _substitution_ of\n\u201cTitus\u201d for \u201cJustus,\u201d but in the introduction of _both_ names where S.\nLuke wrote but one. \u05d0 and E, the Vulgate, and the Coptic version, exhibit\n\u201c_Titus Justus_.\u201d And that the foregoing is a true account of the birth\nand parentage of \u201cTitus\u201d is proved by the tell-tale circumstance, that in\nB the letters \u03a4\u0399 and \u0399\u039f\u03a5 are all religiously retained, and a supernumerary\nletter (\u03a4) has been thrust in between,\u2014the result of which is to give us\none more imaginary gentleman, viz. \u201c_Titius_ Justus;\u201d with whose\nappearance,\u2014(and he is found _nowhere_ but in codex B,)\u2014Tischendorf in his\n8th ed., with Westcott and Hort in theirs, are so captivated, that they\nactually give him a place in their text. It was out of compassion (we\npresume) for the friendless stranger \u201c_Titus_ Justus\u201d that our\nRevisionists have, in preference, promoted _him_ to honour: in which act\nof humanity they stand alone. Their \u201cnew Greek Text\u201d is _the only one in\nexistence_ in which the imaginary foreigner has been advanced to\ncitizenship, and assigned \u201ca local habitation and a name.\u201d ... Those must\nhave been wondrous drowsy days in the Jerusalem Chamber when such\nmanipulations of the inspired text were possible!\n\n(_c_) The two foregoing depravations grew out of the ancient practice of\nwriting the Scriptures in uncial characters (_i.e._ in capital letters),\nno space being interposed between the words. Another striking instance is\nsupplied by S. Matthew xi. 23 and S. Luke x. 15, where however the error\nis so transparent that the wonder is how it can ever have imposed upon any\none. What makes the matter serious is, that it gives a turn to a certain\nDivine saying, of which it is incredible that either our SAVIOUR or His\nEvangelists knew anything. We have hitherto believed that the solemn words\nran as follows:\u2014\u201cAnd thou, Capernaum, which art exalted (\u1f21 ... \u1f51\u03c8\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1)\nunto heaven, shalt be brought down (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3) to hell.\u201d For this, our\nRevisionists invite us to substitute, in S. Luke as well as in S.\nMatthew,\u2014\u201cAnd thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted (\u03bc\u1f74 ... \u1f51\u03c8\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3;)\nunto heaven?\u201d And then, in S. Matthew, (but not in S. Luke,)\u2014\u201cThou shalt\ngo down (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3) into Hades.\u201d Now, what can have happened to occasion\nsuch a curious perversion of our LORD\u2019S true utterance, and to cause Him\nto ask an unmeaning _question_ about the future, when He was clearly\nannouncing a _fact_, founded on the history of the past?\n\nA stupid blunder has been made (we answer), of which traces survive (as\nusual) only in the same little handful of suspicious documents. The final\nletter of Capernaum (\u039c) by cleaving to the next ensuing letter (\u0397) has\nmade an independent word (\u039c\u0397); which new word necessitates a change in the\nconstruction, and causes the sentence to become interrogative. And yet,\nfourteen of the uncial manuscripts and the whole body of the cursives know\nnothing of this: neither does the Peschito\u2014nor the Gothic version: no,\u2014nor\nChrysostom,\u2014nor Cyril,\u2014nor ps.-C\u00e6sarius,\u2014nor Theodoret,\u2014the only Fathers\nwho quote either place. The sole witnesses for \u03bc\u1f74 ... \u1f51\u03c8\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3 in _both_\nGospels are \u05d0 B, copies of the old Latin, Cureton\u2019s Syriac, the Coptic,\nand the \u00c6thiopic versions,\u2014a consensus of authorities which ought to be\nheld fatal to any reading. C joins the conspiracy in Matthew xi. 23, but\nnot in Luke x. 15: D L consent in Luke, but not in Matthew. The Vulgate,\nwhich sided with \u05d0 B in S. Matthew, forsakes them in S. Luke. In writing\n_both_ times \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3 (\u201cthou shalt go down\u201d), codex B (forsaken this time\nby \u05d0) is supported by a single manuscript, viz. D. But because, in Matthew\nxi. 23, B obtains the sanction of the Latin copies, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3 is actually\nintroduced into the Revised Text, and we are quietly informed in the\nmargin that \u201cMany ancient authorities read _be brought down_:\u201d the truth\nbeing (as the reader has been made aware) that there are _only two\nmanuscripts in existence which read anything else_. And (what deserves\nattention) those two manuscripts are convicted of having _borrowed their\nquotation from the Septuagint_,(137) and therefore stand\nself-condemned.... Were the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber all\u2014saving\nthe two who in their published edition insist on reading (with B and D)\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3 in both places\u2014_all_ fast asleep when they became consenting\nparties to this sad mistake?\n\nII. It is time to explain that, if the most serious depravations of\nScripture are due to Accident, a vast number are unmistakably the result\nof DESIGN, and are very clumsily executed too. The enumeration of a few of\nthese may prove instructive: and we shall begin with something which is\nfound in S. Mark xi. 3. With nothing perhaps will each several instance so\nmuch impress the devout student of Scripture, as with the exquisite\nstructure of a narrative in which corrupt readings stand self-revealed and\nself-condemned, the instant they are ordered to come to the front and show\nthemselves. But the point to which we especially invite his attention is,\nthe sufficiency of the _external evidence_ which Divine Wisdom is observed\nto have invariably provided for the establishment of the truth of His\nwritten Word.\n\n(_a_) When our LORD was about to enter His capital in lowly triumph, He is\nobserved to have given to \u201ctwo of His disciples\u201d directions well\ncalculated to suggest the mysterious nature of the incident which was to\nfollow. They were commanded to proceed to the entrance of a certain\nvillage,\u2014to unloose a certain colt which they would find tied there,\u2014and\nto bring the creature straightway to JESUS. Any obstacle which they might\nencounter would at once disappear before the simple announcement that \u201cthe\nLORD hath need of him.\u201d(138) But, singular to relate, this transaction is\nfound to have struck some third-rate IIIrd-century Critic as not\naltogether correct. The good man was evidently of opinion that the\ncolt,\u2014as soon as the purpose had been accomplished for which it had been\nobtained,\u2014ought in common fairness to have been returned to \u201cthe owners\nthereof.\u201d (S. Luke xix. 33.) Availing himself therefore of there being no\nnominative before \u201cwill send\u201d (in S. Mark xi. 3), he assumed that it was\n_of Himself_ that our LORD was still speaking: feigned that the sentence\nis to be explained thus:\u2014\u201csay ye, \u2018that the LORD hath need of him _and\nwill straightway send him hither_.\u2019 \u201d According to this view of the case,\nour SAVIOUR instructed His two Disciples to convey to the owner of the\ncolt an undertaking from Himself _that He would send the creature back as\nsoon as He had done with it_: would treat the colt, in short, _as a loan_.\nA more stupid imagination one has seldom had to deal with. But in the\nmeantime, by way of clenching the matter, the Critic proceeded on his own\nresponsibility to thrust into the text the word \u201c_again_\u201d (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd). The\nfate of such an unauthorized accretion might have been confidently\npredicted. After skipping about in quest of a fixed resting-place for a\nfew centuries (see the note at foot(139)), \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd has shared the invariable\nfate of all such spurious adjuncts to the truth of Scripture, viz.: It has\nbeen effectually eliminated from the copies. Traces of it linger on only\nin those untrustworthy witnesses \u05d0 B C D L \u0394, and about twice as many\ncursive copies, also of depraved type. So transparent a fabrication ought\nin fact to have been long since forgotten. Yet have our Revisionists not\nbeen afraid to revive it. In S. Mark xi. 3, they invite us henceforth to\nread, \u201cAnd if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The LORD hath\nneed of him, and straightway _He_ (_i.e._ the LORD) _will send him_ BACK\n_hither_.\u201d ... Of what can they have been dreaming? They cannot pretend\nthat they have _Antiquity_ on their side: for, besides the whole mass of\ncopies with A at their head, _both_ the Syriac, _both_ the Latin, and\n_both_ the Egyptian versions, the Gothic, the Armenian,\u2014all in fact except\nthe \u00c6thiopic,\u2014are against them. Even Origen, who twice inserts \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd,(140)\ntwice leaves it out.(141) _Quid plura?_\n\n(_b_) No need to look elsewhere for our next instance. A novel statement\narrests attention five verses lower down: viz. that \u201cMany spread their\ngarments upon the way\u201d [and why not \u201c_in_ the way\u201d? \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 does not mean\n\u201cupon\u201d]; \u201cand others, branches _which they had cut from the fields_\u201d (S.\nMark xi. 8). But how in the world could they have done _that_? They must\nhave been clever people certainly if they \u201ccut _branches_ from\u201d anything\nexcept _trees_. Was it because our Revisionists felt this, that in the\nmargin they volunteer the information, that the Greek for \u201cbranches\u201d is in\nstrictness \u201c_layers of leaves_\u201d? But what _are_ \u201clayers of leaves\u201d? and\nwhat _proof_ is there that \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 has that meaning? and how could\n\u201c_layers of leaves_\u201d have been suddenly procured from such a quarter? We\nturn to our Authorized Version, and are refreshed by the familiar and\nintelligible words: \u201cAnd others cut down branches off the trees and\nstrawed them in the way.\u201d Why then has this been changed? In an ordinary\nsentence, consisting of 12 words, we find that 2 words have been\nsubstituted for other 2; that 1 has undergone modification; that 5 have\nbeen ejected. _Why_ is all this? asks the unlearned Reader. He shall be\ntold.\n\nAn instance is furnished us of the perplexity which a difficult word\nsometimes occasioned the ancients, as well as of the serious consequences\nwhich have sometimes resulted therefrom to the text of Scripture itself.\nS. Matthew, after narrating that \u201ca very great multitude spread their\ngarments in the way,\u201d adds, \u201cothers cut branches (\u03ba\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) from the trees\nand strawed them in the way.\u201d(142) But would not branches of any\nconsiderable size have impeded progress, inconveniently encumbering the\nroad? No doubt they would. Accordingly, as S. Mark (with S. Matthew\u2019s\nGospel before him) is careful to explain, they were _not_ \u201cbranches of any\nconsiderable size,\u201d but \u201cleafy twigs\u201d\u2014\u201c_foliage_,\u201d in fact it was\u2014\u201ccut\nfrom the trees and strawed in the way.\u201d The word, however, which he\nemploys (\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2) is an unique word\u2014very like another of similar sound\n(\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2), yet distinct from it in sense, if not in origin.\nUnfortunately, all this was not understood in a highly uncritical and most\nlicentious age. With the best intentions, (for the good man was only\nseeking to reconcile two inconvenient parallel statements,) some\nRevisionist of the IInd century, having convinced himself that the latter\nword (\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2) might with advantage take the place of S. Mark\u2019s word\n(\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2), substituted this for that. In consequence, it survives to\nthis day in nine uncial copies headed by \u05d0 B. But then, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03c2 does not\nmean \u201ca branch\u201d _at all_; no, nor a \u201clayer of leaves\u201d either; but _a\npallet_\u2014_a floor-bed_, in fact, of the humblest type, constructed of\ngrass, rushes, straw, brushwood, leaves, or any similar substance. On the\nother hand, because such materials are not obtainable _from trees_\nexactly, the ancient Critic judged it expedient further to change \u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\ninto \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd (\u201c_fields_\u201d). Even this was not altogether satisfactory.\n\u03a3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03c2, as explained already, in strictness means a \u201cbed.\u201d Only by a\ncertain amount of license can it be supposed to denote the materials of\nwhich a bed is composed; whereas the Evangelist speaks of something\n\u201cstrawn.\u201d _The self-same copies_, therefore, which exhibit \u201c_fields_\u201d (in\nlieu of \u201c_trees_\u201d), by introducing a slight change in the construction\n(\u03ba\u03cc\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 for \u1f14\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd), and _omitting_ the words \u201cand strawed them in the\nway,\u201d are observed\u2014after a summary fashion of their own, (with which,\nhowever, readers of B \u05d0 D are only too familiar)\u2014to dispose of this\ndifficulty by putting it nearly out of sight. The only result of all this\nmisplaced officiousness is a miserable travestie of the sacred\nwords:\u2014\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03cc\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd: 7 words in place of 12!\n\nBut the calamitous circumstance is that the Critics have all to a man\nfallen into the trap. True, that Origen (who once writes \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 and\nonce \u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2), as well as the two Egyptian versions, side with \u05d0 B C L \u0394\nin reading \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd: but then _both versions_ (with C) _decline to\nalter the construction_ of the sentence; and (with Origen) _decline to\nomit the clause_ \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd: while, against this little band\nof disunited witnesses, are marshalled all the remaining fourteen uncials,\nheaded by A D\u2014the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac; the Italic, the\nVulgate, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the \u00c6thiopic as well\nas the Slavonic versions, besides the whole body of the cursives. Whether\ntherefore Antiquity, Variety, Respectability of witnesses, numbers, or the\nreason of the thing be appealed to, the case of our opponents breaks\nhopelessly down. Does any one seriously suppose that, if S. Mark had\nwritten the common word \u03c3\u03c4\u0399\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, so vast a majority of the copies at this\nday would exhibit the improbable \u03c3\u03c4\u039f\u0399\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2? Had the same S. Mark expressed\nnothing else but \u039a\u038c\u03a8\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u03a3 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u0393\u03a1\u03a9\u00b4\u039d, will any one persuade us that\n_every copy in existence but five_ would present us with \u1f1c\u039a\u039f\u03a0\u03a4\u039f\u039d \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u0394\u0388\u039d\u0394\u03a1\u03a9\u039d, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03a3\u03a4\u03a1\u038f\u039d\u039d\u03a5\u039f\u039d \u1f18\u0399\u03a3 \u03a4\u1fca\u039d \u1f49\u0394\u038c\u039d? And let us not be told that there\nhas been Assimilation here. There has been none. S. Matthew (xxi. 8)\nwrites \u1f08\u03a0\u1ff8 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f18\u039d \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f61\u03b4\u1ff7: S. Mark (xi. 8), \u1f18\u039a \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd ...\n\u1f18\u0399\u03a3 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd. The types are distinct, and have been faithfully retained\nall down the ages. The common reading is certainly correct. The Critics\nare certainly in error. And we exclaim (surely not without good reason)\nagainst the hardship of thus having an exploded corruption of the text of\nScripture furbished up afresh and thrust upon us, after lying deservedly\nforgotten for upwards of a thousand years.\n\n(_c_) Take a yet grosser specimen, which has nevertheless imposed just as\ncompletely upon our Revisionists. It is found in S. Luke\u2019s Gospel (xxiii.\n45), and belongs to the history of the Crucifixion. All are aware that as,\nat the typical redemption out of Egypt, there had been a preternatural\ndarkness over the land for three days,(143) so, preliminary to the actual\nExodus of \u201cthe Israel of GOD,\u201d \u201cthere was darkness over all the land\u201d for\nthree hours.(144) S. Luke adds the further statement,\u2014\u201c_And the sun was\ndarkened_\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2). Now the proof that this is what S.\nLuke actually wrote, is the most obvious and conclusive possible.\n\u1f18\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 is found in all the most ancient documents. Marcion(145) (whose\ndate is A.D. 130-50) so exhibits the place:\u2014besides the old Latin(146) and\nthe Vulgate:\u2014the Peschito, Cureton\u2019s, and the Philoxenian Syriac\nversions:\u2014the Armenian,\u2014the \u00c6thiopic,\u2014the Georgian,\u2014and the\nSlavonic.\u2014Hippolytus(147) (A.D. 190-227),\u2014Athanasius,(148)\u2014Ephraem\nSyr.,(149)\u2014Theodore Mops.,(150)\u2014Nilus the monk,(151)\u2014Severianus, (in a\nhomily preserved in Armenian, p. 439,)\u2014Cyril of Alexandria,(152)\u2014the\napocryphal _Gospel of Nicodemus_\u2014and the _Anaphora Pilati_,(153)\u2014are all\nwitnesses to the same effect. Add the _Acta Pilati_(154)\u2014and the Syriac\n_Acts of the Apostles_.(155)\u2014Let it suffice of the Latins to quote\nTertullian.(156)\u2014But the most striking evidence is the consentient\ntestimony of the manuscripts, viz. _all the uncials_ but 3 and-a-half, and\n_every known Evangelium_.\n\nThat the darkness spoken of was a divine portent\u2014_not_ an eclipse of the\nsun, but an incident wholly out of the course of nature\u2014the ancients\nclearly recognize. Origen,(157)\u2014Julius Africanus(158) (A.D. 220),\u2014Macarius\nMagnes(159) (A.D. 330),\u2014are even eloquent on the subject. Chrysostom\u2019s\nevidence is unequivocal.(160) It is, nevertheless, well known that this\nplace of S. Luke\u2019s Gospel was tampered with from a very early period; and\nthat Origen(161) (A.D. 186-253), and perhaps Eusebius,(162) employed\ncopies which had been depraved. In some copies, writes Origen, instead of\n\u201cand the sun was darkened\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), is found \u201cthe sun\nhaving become eclipsed\u201d (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2). He points out with truth\nthat the thing spoken of is a physical impossibility, and delivers it as\nhis opinion that the corruption of the text was due either to some\nfriendly hand in order to _account for_ the darkness; or else, (which\nhe,(163) and Jerome(164) after him, thought more likely,) to the enemies\nof Revelation, who sought in this way to provide themselves with a pretext\nfor cavil. Either way, Origen and Jerome elaborately assert that \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\nis the only true reading of S. Luke xxiii. 45. Will it be believed that\nthis gross fabrication\u2014for no other reason but because it is found in \u05d0 B\nL, and probably once existed in C(165)\u2014has been resuscitated in 1881, and\nfoisted into the sacred Text by our Revisionists?\n\nIt would be interesting to have this proceeding of theirs explained. _Why_\nshould the truth dwell exclusively(166) with \u05d0 B L? It cannot be pretended\nthat between the IVth and Vth centuries, when the copies \u05d0 B were made,\nand the Vth and VIth centuries, when the copies A Q D R were executed,\nthis corruption of the text arose: for (as was explained at the outset)\nthe reading in question (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) is found in all the oldest\nand most famous documents. Our Revisionists cannot take their stand on\n\u201cAntiquity,\u201d\u2014for as we have seen, _all the Versions_ (with the single\nexception of the Coptic(167)),\u2014and the oldest Church writers, (Marcion,\nOrigen, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Ephraem,\n&c.,) are _all_ against them.\u2014They cannot advance the claim of \u201cclearly\npreponderating evidence;\u201d for they have but a single Version,\u2014_not_ a\nsingle Father,\u2014and but three-and-a-half Evangelia to appeal to, out of\nperhaps three hundred and fifty times that number.\u2014They cannot pretend\nthat essential probability is in favour of the reading of \u05d0 B; seeing that\nthe thing stated is astronomically impossible.\u2014They will not tell us that\ncritical opinion is with them: for their judgment is opposed to that of\nevery Critic ancient and modern, except Tischendorf since his discovery of\ncodex \u05d0.\u2014Of what nature then will be their proof?... _Nothing_ results\nfrom the discovery that \u05d0 reads \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, B\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\u2014except that those two codices are of the same corrupt type as\nthose which Origen deliberately condemned 1650 years ago. In the meantime,\nwith more of ingenuity than of ingenuousness, our Revisionists attempt to\nconceal the foolishness of the text of their choice by translating it\nunfairly. They present us with, \u201c_the sun\u2019s light failing_.\u201d But this is a\ngloss of their own. There is no mention of \u201cthe sun\u2019s _light_\u201d in the\nGreek. Nor perhaps, if the rationale of the original expression were\naccurately ascertained, would such a paraphrase of it prove correct(168).\nBut, in fact, the phrase \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 means \u201can eclipse of the sun\u201d and\n_no other thing_. In like manner, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2(169) (as our\nRevisionists are perfectly well aware) means \u201c_the sun becoming\neclipsed_,\u201d or \u201c_suffering eclipse_.\u201d It is easy for Revisionists to\n\u201cemphatically deny that there is anything in the Greek word \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\nwhen associated with the sun, which involves necessarily the notion of an\neclipse.\u201d(170) The _fact_ referred to may not be so disposed of. It lies\noutside the province of \u201cemphatic denial.\u201d Let them ask any Scholar in\nEurope what \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 means; and see if he does not tell them\nthat it can _only_ mean, \u201cthe sun _having become eclipsed_\u201d! They know\nthis every bit as well as their Reviewer. And they ought either to have\nhad the manliness to render the words faithfully, or else the good sense\nto let the Greek alone,\u2014which they are respectfully assured was their only\nproper course. \u039a\u03b1\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is, in fact, clearly above suspicion.\n\u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, which these learned men (with the best intentions)\nhave put in its place, is, to speak plainly, a transparent fabrication.\nThat it enjoys \u201c_clearly preponderating evidence_,\u201d is what no person,\nfair or unfair, will for an instant venture to pretend.\n\nIII. Next, let us produce an instance of depravation of Scripture\nresulting from the practice of ASSIMILATION, which prevailed anciently to\nan extent which baffles arithmetic. We choose the most famous instance\nthat presents itself.\n\n(_a_) It occurs in S. Mark vi. 20, and is more than unsuspected. The\nsubstitution (on the authority of \u05d0 B L and the Coptic) of \u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 for\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 in that verse, (_i.e._ the statement that Herod \u201cwas much\n_perplexed_,\u201d\u2014instead of Herod \u201c_did_ many things,\u201d) is even vaunted by\nthe Critics as the recovery of the true reading of the place\u2014long obscured\nby the \u201cvery singular expression\u201d \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9. To ourselves the only \u201cvery\nsingular\u201d thing is, how men of first-rate ability can fail to see that, on\nthe contrary, the proposed substitute is simply fatal to the SPIRIT\u2019S\nteaching in this place. \u201cCommon sense is staggered by such a rendering,\u201d\n(remarks the learned Bishop of Lincoln). \u201cPeople are not wont to _hear\ngladly_ those by whom they are _much perplexed_.\u201d(171) But in fact, the\nsacred writer\u2019s object clearly is, to record the striking circumstance\nthat Herod was so moved by the discourses of John, (whom he used to\n\u201clisten to with pleasure,\u201d) that he even \u201c_did many things_\u201d (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9) _in conformity with the Baptist\u2019s teaching_.(172)... And yet, if\nthis be so, how (we shall be asked) has \u201che was much perplexed\u201d (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n\u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9) contrived to effect a lodgment in _so many as three_ copies of the\nsecond Gospel?\n\nIt has resulted from nothing else, we reply, but the determination to\nassimilate a statement of S. Mark (vi. 20) concerning Herod and John the\nBaptist, with another and a distinct statement of S. Luke (ix. 7), having\nreference to Herod and our LORD. S. Luke, speaking of the fame of our\nSAVIOUR\u2019S miracles at a period subsequent to the Baptist\u2019s murder,\ndeclares that when Herod \u201cheard _all things that were done_ BY HIM\u201d\n(\u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1), \u201che _was much perplexed_\u201d\n(\u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9).\u2014Statements so entirely distinct and diverse from one another\nas _this_ of S. Luke, and _that_ (given above) of S. Mark, might surely\n(one would think) have been let alone. On the contrary. A glance at the\nfoot of the page will show that in the IInd century S. Mark\u2019s words were\nsolicited in all sorts of ways. A persistent determination existed to make\nhim say that Herod having \u201cheard of _many things which _THE BAPTIST_\ndid_,\u201d &c.(173)\u2014a strange perversion of the Evangelist\u2019s meaning, truly,\nand only to be accounted for in one way.(174)\n\nHad this been _all_, however, the matter would have attracted no\nattention. One such fabrication more or less in the Latin version, which\nabounds in fabricated readings, is of little moment. But then, the Greek\nscribes had recourse to a more subtle device for assimilating Mark vi. 20\nto Luke ix. 7. They perceived that S. Mark\u2019s \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 might be almost\nidentified with S. Luke\u2019s \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, by _merely changing two of the\nletters_, viz. by substituting \u03b7 for \u03b5 and \u03c1 for \u03b9. From this, there\nresults in S. Mk. vi. 20: \u201cand having heard many things of him, _he was\nperplexed_;\u201d which is very nearly identical with what is found in S. Lu.\nix. 7. This fatal substitution (of \u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 for \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9) survives happily\nonly in codices \u05d0 B L and the Coptic version\u2014all of bad character. But\n(calamitous to relate) the Critics, having disinterred this\nlong-since-forgotten fabrication, are making vigorous efforts to galvanize\nit, at the end of fifteen centuries, into ghastly life and activity. We\nventure to assure them that they will not succeed. Herod\u2019s \u201cperplexity\u201d\ndid not begin until John had been beheaded, and the fame reached Herod of\nthe miracles which our SAVIOUR wrought. The apocryphal statement, now for\nthe first time thrust into an English copy of the New Testament, may be\nsummarily dismissed. But the marvel will for ever remain that a company of\ndistinguished Scholars (A.D. 1881) could so effectually persuade\nthemselves that \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 (in S. Mark vi. 20) is a \u201c_plain and clear error_,\u201d\nand that there is \u201c_decidedly preponderating evidence_\u201d in favour of\n\u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9,\u2014as to venture to _substitute the latter word for the former_. This\nwill for ever remain a marvel, we say; seeing that _all the uncials_\nexcept three of bad character, together with _every known cursive without\nexception_;\u2014the old Latin and the Vulgate, the Peschito and the\nPhiloxenian Syriac, the Armenian, \u00c6thiopic, Slavonian and Georgian\nversions,\u2014are with the traditional Text. (The Thebaic, the Gothic, and\nCureton\u2019s Syriac are defective here. The ancient Fathers are silent.)\n\nIV. More serious in its consequences, however, than any other source of\nmischief which can be named, is the process of MUTILATION, to which, from\nthe beginning, the Text of Scripture has been subjected. By the\n\u201cMutilation\u201d of Scripture we do but mean the intentional Omission\u2014_from\nwhatever cause proceeding_\u2014of genuine portions. And the causes of it have\nbeen numerous as well as diverse. Often, indeed, there seems to have been\nat work nothing else but a strange passion for getting rid of whatever\nportions of the inspired Text have seemed to anybody superfluous,\u2014or at\nall events have appeared capable of being removed without manifest injury\nto the sense. But the estimate of the tasteless IInd-century Critic will\nnever be that of the well-informed Reader, furnished with the ordinary\ninstincts of piety and reverence. This barbarous mutilation of the Gospel,\nby the unceremonious excision of a multitude of little words, is often\nattended by no worse consequence than that thereby an extraordinary\nbaldness is imparted to the Evangelical narrative. The removal of so many\nof the coupling-hooks is apt to cause the curtains of the Tabernacle to\nhang wondrous ungracefully; but often _that_ is all. Sometimes, however,\n(as might have been confidently anticipated,) the result is calamitous in\na high degree. Not only is the beauty of the narrative effectually marred,\n(as _e.g._ by the barbarous excision of \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u2014\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2\u2014\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd\u2014\u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5,\nfrom S. Mark ix. 24):(175)\u2014the doctrinal teaching of our SAVIOUR\u2019S\ndiscourses in countless places, damaged, (as _e.g._ by the omission of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 from verse 29):\u2014absurd expressions attributed to the Holy One\nwhich He certainly never uttered, (as _e.g._ by truncating of its last\nword the phrase \u03c4\u03cc, \u0395\u1f30 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 in verse 23):\u2014but (I.) The\nnarrative is often rendered in a manner unintelligible; or else (II.), The\nentire point of a precious incident is made to disappear from sight; or\nelse (III.), An imaginary incident is fabricated: or lastly (IV.), Some\nprecious saying of our Divine LORD is turned into absolute nonsense. Take\na single short example of what has last been offered, from each of the\nGospels in turn.\n\n(I.) In S. Matthew xiv. 30, we are invited henceforth to submit to the\ninformation concerning Simon Peter, that \u201c_when he saw the wind_, he was\nafraid.\u201d The sight must have been peculiar, certainly. So, indeed, is the\nexpression. But Simon Peter was as unconscious of the one as S. Matthew of\nthe other. Such curiosities are the peculiar property of codices \u05d0 B\u2014the\nCoptic version\u2014and the Revisionists. The predicate of the proposition\n(viz. \u201c_that it was strong_,\u201d contained in the single word \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd) has\nbeen wantonly excised. That is all!\u2014although Dr. Hort succeeded in\npersuading his colleagues to the contrary. A more solemn\u2014a far sadder\ninstance, awaits us in the next Gospel.\n\n(II.) The first three Evangelists are careful to note \u201cthe _loud_ cry\u201d\nwith which the Redeemer of the World expired. But it was reserved for S.\nMark (as Chrysostom pointed out long since) to record (xv. 39) the\nmemorable circumstance that _this particular portent_ it was, which\nwrought conviction in the soul of the Roman soldier whose office it was to\nbe present on that terrible occasion. The man had often witnessed death by\nCrucifixion, and must have been well acquainted with its ordinary\nphenomena. Never before had he witnessed anything like this. He was\nstationed where he could see and hear all that happened: \u201cstanding\u201d (S.\nMark says) \u201cnear\u201d our SAVIOUR,\u2014\u201c_over against Him_.\u201d \u201cNow, when the\nCenturion saw that it was _after so crying out_ (\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2), that He expired\u201d\n(xv. 39) he uttered the memorable words, \u201cTruly this man _was_ the SON OF\nGOD!\u201d \u201cWhat chiefly moved him to make that confession of his faith was\nthat our SAVIOUR evidently died _with power_.\u201d(176) \u201cThe miracle\u201d (says\nBp. Pearson) \u201cwas not in the death, but _in the voice_. The strangeness\nwas not that He should die, but that at the point of death He should _cry\nout so loud_. He died not by, but with a Miracle.\u201d(177) ... All this\nhowever is lost in \u05d0 B L, which literally _stand alone_(178) in leaving\nout the central and only important word, \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2. Calamitous to relate,\nthey are followed herein by our Revisionists: who (misled by Dr. Hort)\ninvite us henceforth to read,\u2014\u201cNow when the Centurion saw _that He so gave\nup the ghost_.\u201d\n\n(III.) In S. Luke xxiii. 42, by leaving out two little words (\u03c4\u03c9 and\n_\u03ba\u03b5_), the same blind guides, under the same blind guidance, effectually\nmisrepresent the record concerning the repentant malefactor. Henceforth\nthey would have us believe that \u201che said, \u2018JESUS, remember me when thou\ncomest in thy Kingdom.\u2019 \u201d (Dr. Hort was fortunately unable to persuade the\nRevisionists to follow him in further substituting \u201c_into_ thy kingdom\u201d\nfor \u201c_in_ thy kingdom;\u201d and so converting what, in the A. V., is nothing\nworse than a palpable mistranslation,(179) into what would have been an\nindelible blot. The record of his discomfiture survives in the margin).\nWhereas none of the Churches of Christendom have ever yet doubted that S.\nLuke\u2019s record is, that the dying man \u201csaid _unto _JESUS, LORD, remember\nme,\u201d &c.\n\n(IV.) In S. John xiv. 4, by eliminating the second \u03ba\u03b1\u03af and the second\n\u03bf\u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, our SAVIOUR is now made to say, \u201cAnd whither I go, _ye know the\nway_;\u201d which is really almost nonsense. What He actually said was, \u201cAnd\nwhither I go ye know, and the way ye know;\u201d _in consequence of which_ (as\nwe all remember) \u201cThomas saith unto Him, LORD, we know not \u2018whither\u2019 Thou\ngoest, and how can we know \u2018the way\u2019?\u201d ... Let these four samples suffice\nof a style of depravation with which, at the end of 1800 years, it is\ndeliberately proposed to disfigure every page of the everlasting Gospel;\nand for which, were it tolerated, the Church would have to thank no one so\nmuch as Drs. Westcott and Hort.\n\nWe cannot afford, however, so to dismiss the phenomena already opened up\nto the Reader\u2019s notice. For indeed, this astonishing taste for mutilating\nand maiming the Sacred Deposit, is perhaps the strangest phenomenon in the\nhistory of Textual Criticism.\n\nIt is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has\ndisappeared from codices \u05d0 B L. The reader may not be displeased to listen\nto an anecdote which has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:\u2014\n\n\u201cI once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,\u201d\u2014(the words are Jerome\u2019s\nin a letter to Nepotianus),\u2014\u201cto explain to me the meaning of S. Luke\u2019s\nexpression \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, literally the \u2018_second-first_ sabbath.\u2019\n\u2018I will tell you all about it in church,\u2019 he replied. \u2018The congregation\nshall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,\u2014either to stand\nsilent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do\nnot.\u2019 \u201d But \u201c_eleganter lusit_,\u201d says Jerome(180). The point of the joke\nwas this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have\ndescanted so elegantly on the signification of the word \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd that\nthe congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods,\nquite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [A.D.\n360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370].\n\nAmbrose(181) of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult expression,\nbut with indifferent success. Epiphanius(182) of Cyprus [370] does the\nsame;\u2014and so, Isidorus(183) [400] called \u201cPelusiota\u201d after the place of\nhis residence in Lower Egypt.\u2014Ps.-C\u00e6sarius(184) also volunteers remarks on\nthe word [A.D. 400?].\u2014It is further explained in the _Paschal\nChronicle_,(185)\u2014and by Chrysostom(186) [370] at Antioch.\u2014\u201c_Sabbatum\nsecundo-primum_\u201d is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the\nVulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to\nassume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to _its place in\nthe Gospel_. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony,\ncoming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant\nfact that \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd is found in _every codex extant_ except \u05d0 B L, and\nhalf a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded\nas decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got _omitted_ from a\nfew copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the\nmatter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also\nis of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed\nconstantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or\nelse found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable\nindeed, that an unique expression like the present should have\n_established itself universally_, if it were actually spurious. This is\nprecisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept _proclivi scriptioni\npr\u00e6stat ardua_. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more\nlikely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the\nreverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very\nconsideration.(187) It got excised, however, here and there from\nmanuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is\na fact, that in consequence of its absence from the mutilated codices\nabove referred to, S. Luke\u2019s famous \u201csecond-first Sabbath\u201d has been\n_thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists_.\n\nBut indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex B (collated\nwith the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from\nthe four Gospels alone: by codex \u05d0,\u20143455 words: by codex D,\u20143704\nwords.(188)\n\nAs interesting a set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with,\noccurs within the compass of the last three chapters of S. Luke\u2019s Gospel,\nfrom which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our\nRevisionists, or else served with \u201cnotice to quit.\u201d We proceed to specify\nthe chief of these:\u2014\n\n(1) S. Luke xxii. 19, 20. (Account of the Institution of the Sacrament of\nthe LORD\u2019S Supper,\u2014from \u201cwhich is given for you\u201d to the end,\u201432 words.)\n\n(2) _ibid._ 43, 44. (Our SAVIOUR\u2019S Agony in the garden,\u201426 words.)\n\n(3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passover,\u20148 words.)\n\n(4) _ibid._ 34. (Our LORD\u2019S prayer on behalf of His murderers,\u201412 words.)\n\n(5) _ibid._ 38. (The record that the title on the Cross was written in\nGreek, Latin, and Hebrew,\u20147 words.)\n\n(6) xxiv. 1. (\u201cand certain with them,\u201d\u20144 words.)\n\n(7) _ibid._ 3. (\u201cof the LORD JESUS,\u201d\u20143 words.)\n\n(8) _ibid._ 6. (\u201cHe is not here, but He is risen,\u201d\u20145 words.)\n\n(9) _ibid._ 9. (\u201cfrom the sepulchre,\u201d\u20143 words.)\n\n(10) _ibid._ 12. (The mention of S. Peter\u2019s visit to the sepulchre,\u201422\nwords.)\n\n(11) _ibid._ 36. (\u201cand saith unto them, Peace be unto you!\u201d\u20145 words.)\n\n(12) _ibid._ 40. (\u201cand when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands\nand His feet,\u201d\u201410 words.)\n\n(13) _ibid._ 42. (\u201cand of an honeycomb,\u201d\u20144 words.)\n\n(14) _ibid._ 51. (\u201cand was carried up into Heaven,\u201d\u20145.)\n\n(15) _ibid._ 52. (\u201cworshipped Him,\u201d\u20142 words.)\n\n(16) _ibid._ 53. (\u201cpraising and,\u201d\u20142 words.)\n\nOn an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances of unauthorized\nOmission, it will be perceived that the 1st passage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20)\nmust have been eliminated from the Text because the mention of _two_ Cups\nseemed to create a difficulty.\u2014The 2nd has been suppressed because (see p.\n82) the incident was deemed derogatory to the majesty of GOD\nIncarnate.\u2014The 3rd and 5th were held to be superfluous, because the\ninformation which they contain has been already conveyed by the parallel\npassages.\u2014The 10th will have been omitted as apparently inconsistent with\nthe strict letter of S. John xx. 1-10.\u2014The 6th and 13th are certainly\ninstances of enforced Harmony.\u2014Most of the others (the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th,\n11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to have been excised through mere\nwantonness,\u2014the veriest licentiousness.\u2014In the meantime, so far are Drs.\nWestcott and Hort from accepting the foregoing account of the matter, that\nthey even style the 1st \u201ca _perverse interpolation_:\u201d in which view of the\nsubject, however, they enjoy the distinction of standing entirely alone.\nWith the same \u201cmoral certainty,\u201d they further proceed to shut up within\ndouble brackets the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th: while the\n3rd, 5th, 6th, 13th, and 16th, they exclude from their Text as\nindisputably spurious matter.\n\nNow, we are not about to abuse our Readers\u2019 patience by an investigation\nof the several points raised by the foregoing statement. In fact, all\nshould have been passed by in silence, but that unhappily the \u201cRevision\u201d\nof our Authorized Version is touched thereby very nearly indeed. So\nintimate (may we not say, _so fatal_?) proves to be the sympathy between\nthe labours of Drs. Westcott and Hort and those of our Revisionists, _that\nwhatever the former have shut up within double brackets, the latter are\ndiscovered to have branded with a note of suspicion_, conceived invariably\nin the same terms: viz., \u201cSome ancient authorities omit.\u201d And further,\n_whatever those Editors have rejected from their Text, these Revisionists\nhave rejected also_. It becomes necessary, therefore, briefly to enquire\nafter the precise amount of manuscript authority which underlies certain\nof the foregoing changes. And happily this may be done in a few words.\n\nThe _sole_ authority for just half of the places above enumerated(189) is\n_a single Greek codex_,\u2014and that, the most depraved of all,\u2014viz. Beza\u2019s\nD.(190) It should further be stated that the only allies discoverable for\nD are a few copies of the old Latin. What we are saying will seem scarcely\ncredible: but it is a plain fact, of which any one may convince himself\nwho will be at the pains to inspect the critical apparatus at the foot of\nthe pages of Tischendorf\u2019s last (8th) edition. Our Revisionists\u2019 notion,\ntherefore, of what constitutes \u201cweighty evidence\u201d is now before the\nReader. If, in _his_ judgment, the testimony of _one single manuscript_,\n(and _that_ manuscript the Codex Bez\u00e6 (D),)\u2014does really invalidate that of\n_all other Manuscripts and all other Versions_ in the world,\u2014then of\ncourse, the Greek Text of the Revisionists will in his judgment be a thing\nto be rejoiced over. But what if he should be of opinion that such\ntestimony, in and by itself, is simply worthless? We shrewdly suspect that\nthe Revisionists\u2019 view of what constitutes \u201cweighty Evidence\u201d will be\nfound to end where it began, viz. in the Jerusalem Chamber.\n\nFor, when we reach down codex D from the shelf, we are reminded that,\nwithin the space of the three chapters of S. Luke\u2019s Gospel now under\nconsideration, there are in all no less than 354 words omitted; _of\nwhich_, 250 _are omitted by_ D _alone_. May we have it explained to us\nwhy, of those 354 words, only 25 are singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort\nfor permanent excision from the sacred Text? Within the same compass, no\nless than 173 words have been _added by_ D to the commonly Received\nText,\u2014146, _substituted_,\u2014243, _transposed_. May we ask how it comes to\npass that of those 562 words _not one_ has been promoted to their margin\nby the Revisionists?... Return we, however, to our list of the changes\nwhich they actually _have_ effected.\n\n(1) Now, that ecclesiastical usage and the parallel places would seriously\naffect such precious words as are found in S. Luke xxii. 19, 20,\u2014was to\nhave been expected. Yet has the type been preserved all along, from the\nbeginning, with singular exactness; except in one little handful of\nsingularly licentious documents, viz. in D a ff2 i l, which _leave all\nout_;\u2014in b e, which substitute verses 17 and 18;\u2014and in \u201cthe singular and\nsometimes rather wild Curetonian Syriac Version,\u201d(191) which, retaining\nthe 10 words of ver. 19, substitutes verses 17, 18 for ver. 20. Enough for\nthe condemnation of D survives in\nJustin,(192)\u2014Basil,(193)\u2014Epiphanius,(194)\u2014Theodoret,(195)\u2014Cyril,(196)\u2014Maximus,(197)\u2014Jerome.(198)\nBut why delay ourselves concerning a place vouched for _by every known\ncopy of the Gospels except_ D? Drs. Westcott and Hort entertain \u201c_no moral\ndoubt_ that the [32] words [given at foot(199)] were absent from the\noriginal text of S. Luke;\u201d in which opinion, happily, _they stand alone_.\nBut why did our Revisionists suffer themselves to be led astray by such\nblind guidance?\n\nThe next place is entitled to far graver attention, and may on no account\nbe lightly dismissed, seeing that these two verses contain the sole record\nof that \u201cAgony in the Garden\u201d which the universal Church has almost\nerected into an article of the Faith.\n\n(2) That the incident of the ministering Angel, the Agony and bloody sweat\nof the world\u2019s Redeemer (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44), was anciently absent from\ncertain copies of the Gospels, is expressly recorded by Hilary,(200) by\nJerome,(201) and others. Only necessary is it to read the apologetic\nremarks which Ambrose introduces when he reaches S. Luke xxii. 43,(202) to\nunderstand what has evidently led to this serious mutilation of\nScripture,\u2014traces of which survive at this day exclusively in _four_\ncodices, viz. A B R T. Singular to relate, in the Gospel which was read on\nMaundy-Thursday these two verses of S. Luke\u2019s Gospel are thrust in between\nthe 39th and the 40th verses of S. Matthew xxvi. Hence, 4 cursive copies,\nviz. 13-69-124-346\u2014(confessedly derived from a common ancient\narchetype,(203) and therefore not four witnesses but only one),\u2014actually\nexhibit these two Verses in that place. But will any unprejudiced person\nof sound mind entertain a doubt concerning the genuineness of these two\nverses, witnessed to as they are by _the whole body of the Manuscripts_,\nuncial as well as cursive, and _by every ancient Version_?... If such a\nthing were possible, it is hoped that the following enumeration of ancient\nFathers, who distinctly recognize the place under discussion, must at\nleast be held to be decisive:\u2014viz.\n\nJustin M.,(204)\u2014Iren\u00e6us(205) in the IInd century:\u2014\n\nHippolytus,(206)\u2014Dionysius Alex.,(207)\u2014ps. Tatian,(208) in the IIIrd.\u2014\n\nArius,(209)\u2014Eusebius,(210)\u2014Athanasius,(211)\u2014Ephraem\nSyr.,(212)\u2014Didymus,(213)\u2014Gregory\nNaz.,(214)\u2014Epiphanius,(215)\u2014Chrysostom,(216)\u2014ps.-Dionysius Areop.,(217) in\nthe IVth:\u2014\n\nJulian the heretic,(218)\u2014Theodoras Mops.,(219)\u2014Nestorius,(220)\u2014Cyril\nAlex.,(221)\u2014Paulus, bishop of\nEmesa,(222)\u2014Gennadius,(223)\u2014Theodoret,(224)\u2014and several Oriental Bishops\n(A.D. 431),(225) in the Vth:\u2014besides Ps.-C\u00e6sarius,(226)\u2014Theodosius\nAlex.,(227)\u2014John Damascene,(228)\u2014Maximus,(229)\u2014Theodorus\nh\u00e6ret.,(230)\u2014Leontius Byz.,(231)\u2014Anastasius Sin.,(232)\u2014Photius:(233) and\nof the Latins,\nHilary,(234)\u2014Jerome,(235)\u2014Augustine,(236)\u2014Cassian,(237)\u2014Paulinus,(238)\u2014Facundus.(239)\n\nIt will be seen that we have been enumerating _upwards of forty famous\npersonages from every part of ancient Christendom_, who recognize these\nverses as genuine; fourteen of them being as old,\u2014some of them, a great\ndeal older,\u2014than our oldest MSS.\u2014_Why_ therefore Drs. Westcott and Hort\nshould insist on shutting up these 26 precious words\u2014this article of the\nFaith\u2014in double brackets, in token that it is \u201cmorally certain\u201d that\nverses 43 and 44 are of spurious origin, we are at a loss to divine.(240)\nWe can but ejaculate (in the very words they proceed to\ndisallow),\u2014\u201cFATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do.\u201d But our\nespecial concern is with _our Revisionists_; and we do not exceed our\nprovince when we come forward to reproach them sternly for having\nsuccumbed to such evil counsels, and deliberately branded these Verses\nwith their own corporate expression of doubt. For unless _that_ be the\npurpose of the marginal Note which they have set against these verses, we\nfail to understand the Revisers\u2019 language and are wholly at a loss to\ndivine what purpose that note of theirs can be meant to serve. It is\nprefaced by a formula which, (as we learn from their own Preface,) offers\nto the reader the \u201calternative\u201d of _omitting_ the Verses in question:\nimplies that \u201c_it would not be safe_\u201d any longer to accept them,\u2014as the\nChurch has hitherto done,\u2014with undoubting confidence. In a word,\u2014_it\nbrands them with suspicion_.... We have been so full on this subject,\u2014(not\nhalf of our references were known to Tischendorf,)\u2014because of the\nunspeakable preciousness of the record; and because we desire to see an\nend at last to expressions of doubt and uncertainty on points which really\nafford not a shadow of pretence for either. These two Verses were excised\nthrough mistaken piety by certain of the orthodox,\u2014jealous for the honour\nof their LORD, and alarmed by the use which the impugners of His GODhead\nfreely made of them.(241) Hence Ephraem [_Carmina Nisibena_, p. 145] puts\nthe following words into the mouth of Satan, addressing the host of\nHell:\u2014\u201cOne thing I witnessed in Him which especially comforts me. I saw\nHim praying; and I rejoiced, for His countenance changed and He was\nafraid. _His sweat was drops of blood_, for He had a presentiment that His\nday had come. This was the fairest sight of all,\u2014unless, to be sure, He\nwas practising deception on me. For verily if He hath deceived me, then it\nis all over,\u2014both with me, and with you, my servants!\u201d\n\n(4) Next in importance after the preceding, comes the Prayer which the\nSAVIOUR of the World breathed from the Cross on behalf of His murderers\n(S. Luke xxiii. 34). These twelve precious words,\u2014(\u201cThen said JESUS,\nFATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do,\u201d)\u2014like those\ntwenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been considering\nalready, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of\nthe \u201cmoral certainty\u201d they entertain that the words are spurious.(242) And\nyet these words are found in _every known uncial_ and in _every known\ncursive Copy_, except four; besides being found _in every ancient\nVersion_. And _what_,\u2014(we ask the question with sincere\nsimplicity,)\u2014_what_ amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting\nconfidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence of\nAuthorities as this?... We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the\ncase. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged\nupon. We introduce no considerations resulting from Internal Evidence.\nTrue, that \u201cfew verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness\nto the Truth of what they record, than this.\u201d (It is the admission of the\nvery man(243) who has nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But\nwe reject his loathsome patronage with indignation. \u201cInternal\nEvidence,\u201d\u2014\u201cTranscriptional Probability,\u201d\u2014and all such \u201cchaff and draff,\u201d\nwith which he fills his pages _ad nauseam_, and mystifies nobody but\nhimself,\u2014shall be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let this\nverse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external\ntestimony, or is forsaken thereby. How then about the _Patristic_\nevidence,\u2014for this is all that remains unexplored?\n\nOnly a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf. We find our SAVIOUR\u2019S\nPrayer attested,\u2014\n\nIn the IInd century by Hegesippus,(244)\u2014and by Iren\u00e6us:(245)\u2014\n\nIn the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,(246)\u2014by Origen,(247)\u2014by the _Apostolic\nConstitutions_,(248)\u2014by the _Clementine Homilies_,(249)\u2014by\nps.-Tatian,(250)\u2014and by the disputation of Archelaus with Manes:(251)\u2014\n\nIn the IVth, by Eusebius,(252)\u2014by Athanasius,(253)\u2014by Gregory\nNyss.,(254)\u2014by Theodoras Herac.,(255)\u2014by Basil,(256)\u2014by\nChrysostom,(257)\u2014by Ephraem Syr.,(258)\u2014by ps.-Ephraim,(259)\u2014by\nps.-Dionysius Areop.,(260)\u2014by the Apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,(261)\u2014by the\n_Acta Philippi_,(262)\u2014and by the Syriac _Acts of the App._,(263)\u2014by\nps.-Ignatius,(264)\u2014and ps.-Justin:(265)\u2014\n\nIn the Vth, by Theodoret,(266)\u2014by Cyril,(267)\u2014by Eutherius:(268)\n\nIn the VIth, by Anastasius Sin.,(269)\u2014by Hesychius:(270)\u2014\n\nIn the VIIth, by Antiochus mon.,(271)\u2014by Maximus,(272)\u2014by Andreas\nCret.:(273)\u2014\n\nIn the VIIIth, by John Damascene,(274)\u2014besides ps.-Chrysostom,(275)\u2014ps.\nAmphilochius,(276)\u2014and the _Opus imperf._(277)\n\nAdd to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to the\nfront),\u2014Ambrose,(278)\u2014Hilary,(279)\u2014Jerome,(280)\u2014Augustine,(281)\u2014and other\nearlier writers.(282)\n\nWe have thus again enumerated _upwards of forty_ ancient Fathers. And\nagain we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12\nwords? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such\ncounter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony\nfrom every part of ancient Christendom:\u2014viz: \u201cB D, 38, 435, a b d and one\nEgyptian version\u201d\u2014might really have been mistaken for a _mauvaise\nplaisanterie_, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually\nprecludes the supposition. How could our Revisionists _dare_ to insinuate\ndoubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were\n_bound_ to know, there exists _no manner of doubt at all_?\n\n(5) The record of the same Evangelist (S. Luke xxiii. 38) that the\nInscription over our SAVIOUR\u2019S Cross was \u201cwritten ... in letters of Greek,\nand Latin, and Hebrew,\u201d _disappears entirely_ from our \u201cRevised\u201d version;\nand this, for no other reason, but because the incident is omitted by B C\nL, the corrupt Egyptian versions, and Cureton\u2019s depraved Syriac: the text\nof which (according to Bp. Ellicott(283)) \u201cis of a very composite\nnature,\u2014_sometimes inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the\nVatican manuscript_\u201d (B): _e.g._ on the present occasion. But surely the\nnegative testimony of this little band of disreputable witnesses is\nentirely outweighed by the positive evidence of \u05d0 A D Q R with 13 other\nuncials,\u2014the evidence of _the entire body of the cursives_,\u2014the sanction\nof the Latin,\u2014the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac,\u2014the\nArmenian,\u2014\u00c6thiopic,\u2014and Georgian versions; besides Eusebius\u2014whose\ntestimony (which is express) has been hitherto strangely\noverlooked(284)\u2014and Cyril.(285) Against the threefold plea of Antiquity,\nRespectability of witnesses, Universality of testimony,\u2014what have our\nRevisionists to show? (_a_) They cannot pretend that there has been\nAssimilation here; for the type of S. John xix. 20 is essentially\ndifferent, and has retained its distinctive character all down the ages.\n(_b_) Nor can they pretend that the condition of the Text hereabouts bears\ntraces of having been jealously guarded. We ask the Reader\u2019s attention to\nthis matter just for a moment. There may be some of the occupants of the\nJerusalem Chamber even, to whom what we are about to offer may not be\naltogether without the grace of novelty:\u2014\n\nThat the Title on the Cross is diversely set down by each of the four\nEvangelists,\u2014all men are aware. But perhaps all are not aware that _S.\nLuke\u2019s record_ of the Title (in ch. xxiii. 38) is exhibited in _four\ndifferent ways_ by codices A B C D:\u2014\n\nA exhibits\u2014\u039f\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a3 \u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u039d \u039f \u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 \u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u0399\u039f\u03a5\u0394\u0391\u0399\u03a9\u039d\n\nB (with \u05d0 L and a) exhibits\u2014\u039f \u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 \u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u0399\u039f\u03a5\u0394\u0391\u0399\u03a9\u039d \u039f\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a3\n\nC exhibits\u2014\u039f \u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 \u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u0399\u039f\u03a5\u0394\u0391\u0399\u03a9\u039d (which is Mk. xv. 26).\n\nD (with e and ff2) exhibits\u2014\u039f \u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 \u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u0399\u039f\u03a5\u0394\u0391\u0399\u03a9\u039d \u039f\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a3 \u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u039d (which is\nthe words of the Evangelist transposed).\n\nWe propose to recur to the foregoing specimens of licentiousness\nby-and-by.(286) For the moment, let it be added that codex X and the\nSahidic version conspire in a fifth variety, viz., \u039f\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a3 \u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u039d \u0399\u0397\u03a3\u039f\u03a5\u03a3 \u039f\n\u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 \u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u0399\u039f\u03a5\u0394\u0391\u0399\u03a9\u039d (which is S. Matt. xxvii. 37); while Ambrose(287) is\nfound to have used a Latin copy which represented \u0399\u0397\u03a3\u039f\u03a5\u03a3 \u039f \u039d\u0391\u0396\u03a9\u03a1\u0391\u0399\u039f\u03a3 \u039f\n\u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 \u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u0399\u039f\u03a5\u0394\u0391\u0399\u03a9\u039d (which is S. John xix. 18). We spare the reader any\nremarks of our own on all this. He is competent to draw his own painful\ninferences, and will not fail to make his own damaging reflections. He\nshall only be further informed that 14 uncials and the whole body of the\ncursive copies side with codex A in upholding the Traditional Text; that\nthe Vulgate,(288)\u2014the Peschito,\u2014Cureton\u2019s Syriac,\u2014the Philoxenian;\u2014besides\nthe Coptic,\u2014Armenian,\u2014and \u00c6thiopic versions\u2014are all on the same side:\nlastly, that Origen,(289)\u2014Eusebius,\u2014and Gregory of Nyssa(290) are in\naddition consentient witnesses;\u2014and we can hardly be mistaken if we\nventure to anticipate (1st),\u2014That the Reader will agree with us that the\nText with which we are best acquainted (as usual) is here deserving of all\nconfidence; and (2ndly),\u2014That the Revisionists who assure us \u201cthat they\ndid not esteem it within their province to construct a continuous and\ncomplete Greek Text;\u201d (and who were never authorized to construct _a new\nGreek Text at all_;) were not justified in the course they have pursued\nwith regard to S. Luke xxiii. 38. \u201cTHIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS\u201d is the\nonly idiomatic way of rendering into English the title according to S.\nLuke, whether the reading of A or of B be adopted; but, in order to make\nit plain that they _reject the Greek of_ A _in favour of_ B, the\nRevisionists have gone out of their way. They have instructed the two\nEditors of \u201c_The Greek Testament with the __ Readings adopted by the\nRevisers of the Authorized Version_\u201d(291) to exhibit S. Luke xxiii. 38 _as\nit stands in the mutilated recension of Drs. Westcott and Hort_.(292) And\nif _this_ procedure, repeated many hundreds of times, be not constructing\na \u201cnew Greek Text\u201d of the N. T., we have yet to learn what _is_.\n\n(6) From the first verse of the concluding chapter of S. Luke\u2019s Gospel, is\nexcluded the familiar clause\u2014\u201c_and certain others with them_\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2). And pray, why? For no other reason but because \u05d0 B C L, with\nsome Latin authorities, omit the clause;\u2014and our Revisionists do the like,\non the plea that they have only been getting rid of a \u201charmonistic\ninsertion.\u201d(293) But it is nothing of the sort, as we proceed to explain.\n\nAmmonius, or some predecessor of his early in the IInd century, saw fit\n(with perverse ingenuity) to seek to _force_ S. Luke xxiii. 55 into\nagreement with S. Matt. xxvii. 61 and S. Mark xv. 47, by turning\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2,\u2014into \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u0394\u038e\u039f \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2.\nThis done, in order to produce \u201charmonistic\u201d agreement and to be thorough,\nthe same misguided individual proceeded to run his pen through the words\n\u201cand certain with them\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2) as inopportune; and his\nwork was ended. 1750 years have rolled by since then, and\u2014What traces\nremain of the man\u2019s foolishness? Of his _first_ feat (we answer),\nEusebius,(294) D and Evan. 29, besides five copies of the old Latin (a b e\nff2 q), are the sole surviving Witnesses. Of his _second_ achievement, \u05d0 B\nC L, 33, 124, have preserved a record; besides seven copies of the old\nLatin (a b c e ff2 g-1 1), together with the Vulgate, the Coptic, and\nEusebius in one place(295) though not in another.(296) The Reader is\ntherefore invited to notice that the tables have been unexpectedly turned\nupon our opponents. S. Luke introduced the words \u201cand certain with them,\u201d\nin order to prepare us for what he will have to say in xxiv. 10,\u2014viz. \u201cIt\nwas Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and _other\nwomen with them_, which told these things unto the Apostles.\u201d Some stupid\nharmonizer in the IInd century omitted the words, because they were in his\nway. Calamitous however it is that a clause which the Church has long\nsince deliberately reinstated should, in the year 1881, be as deliberately\nbanished for the second time from the sacred page by our Revisionists; who\nunder the plea of _amending our English Authorized Version_ have (with the\nbest intentions) _falsified the Greek Text_ of the Gospels in countless\nplaces,\u2014often, as here, without notice and without apology.\n\n(10) We find it impossible to pass by in silence the treatment which S.\nLuke xxiv. 12 has experienced at their hands. They have branded with doubt\nS. Luke\u2019s memorable account of S. Peter\u2019s visit to the sepulchre. And why?\nLet the evidence _for_ this precious portion of the narrative be first\nrehearsed. Nineteen uncials then, with \u05d0 A B at their head, supported by\n_every known cursive_ copy,\u2014all these vouch for the genuineness of the\nverse in question. The Latin,\u2014the Syriac,\u2014and the Egyptian versions also\ncontain it. Eusebius,(297)\u2014Gregory of\nNyssa,(298)\u2014Cyril,(299)\u2014Severus,(300)\u2014Ammonius,(301) and others(302) refer\nto it: while _no ancient writer_ is found to impugn it. Then, _why_ the\ndouble brackets of Drs. Westcott and Hort? and _why_ the correlative\nmarginal note of our Revisionists?\u2014Simply because D and 5 copies of the\nold Latin (a b e l fu) leave these 22 words out.\n\n(11) On the same sorry evidence\u2014(viz. D and 5 copies of the old Latin)\u2014it\nis proposed henceforth to omit our SAVIOUR\u2019S greeting to His disciples\nwhen He appeared among them in the upper chamber on the evening of the\nfirst Easter Day. And yet the precious words (\u201c_and saith unto them, Peace\nbe unto you_\u201d [Lu. xxiv. 36],) are vouched for by 18 uncials (with \u05d0 A B\nat their head), and _every known cursive copy_ of the Gospels: by all the\nVersions: and (as before) by Eusebius,(303)\u2014and Ambrose,(304)\u2014by\nChrysostom,(305)\u2014and Cyril,(306)\u2014and Augustine.(307)\n\n(12) The same remarks suggest themselves on a survey of the evidence for\nS. Luke xxiv. 40:\u2014\u201c_And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands\nand His feet._\u201d The words are found in 18 uncials (beginning with \u05d0 A B),\nand in every known cursive: in the Latin,(308)\u2014the Syriac,\u2014the\nEgyptian,\u2014in short, _in all the ancient Versions_. Besides these,\nps.-Justin,(309)\u2014Eusebius,(310)\u2014Athanasius,(311)\u2014Ambrose (in\nGreek),(312)\u2014Epiphanius,(313)\u2014Chrysostom,(314)\u2014Cyril,(315)\u2014Theodoret,(316)\u2014Ammonius,(317)\u2014and\nJohn Damascene(318)\u2014quote them. What but the veriest trifling is it, in\nthe face of such a body of evidence, to bring forward the fact that D and\n5 copies of the old Latin, with Cureton\u2019s Syriac (of which we have had the\ncharacter already(319)), _omit_ the words in question?\n\nThe foregoing enumeration of instances of Mutilation might be enlarged to\nalmost any extent. Take only three more short but striking specimens,\nbefore we pass on:\u2014\n\n(_a_) Thus, the precious verse (S. Matthew xvii. 21) which declares that\n\u201c_this kind_ [of evil spirit] _goeth not out but by prayer and fasting_,\u201d\nis expunged by our Revisionists; although it is vouched for by every known\nuncial _but two_ (B \u05d0), every known cursive _but one_ (Evan. 33); is\nwitnessed to by the Old Latin and the Vulgate,\u2014the Syriac, Coptic,\nArmenian, Georgian, \u00c6thiopic, and Slavonic versions; by\nOrigen,(320)\u2014Athanasius,(321)\u2014Basil,(322)\u2014Chrysostom,(323)\u2014the _Opus\nimperf._,(324)\u2014the Syriac Clement,(325)\u2014and John Damascene;(326)\u2014by\nTertullian,\u2014Ambrose,\u2014Hilary,\u2014Juvencus,\u2014Augustine,\u2014Maximus Taur.,\u2014and by\nthe Syriac version of the _Canons of Eusebius_: above all by the Universal\nEast,\u2014having been read in all the churches of Oriental Christendom on the\n10th Sunday after Pentecost, from the earliest period. Why, in the world,\nthen (our readers will ask) have the Revisionists left those words out?...\nFor no other reason, we answer, but because Drs. Westcott and Hort place\nthem among the interpolations which they consider unworthy of being even\n\u201cexceptionally retained in association with the true Text.\u201d(327) \u201cWestern\nand Syrian\u201d is their oracular sentence.(328)\n\n(_b_) The blessed declaration, \u201c_The Son of Man is come to save that which\nwas lost_,\u201d\u2014has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S.\nMatth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial except B \u05d0\nL, and every known cursive _except three_: by the old Latin and the\nVulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton\u2019s and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the\nCoptic, Armenian, \u00c6thiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:(329)\u2014by\nOrigen,(330)\u2014Theodoras Heracl.,(331)\u2014Chrysostom(332)\u2014and Jovius(333) the\nmonk;\u2014by Tertullian,(334)\u2014Ambrose,(335)\u2014Hilary,(336)\u2014Jerome,(337)\u2014pope\nDamasus(338)\u2014and Augustine:(339)\u2014above all, by the Universal Eastern\nChurch,\u2014for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the\nmorrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again\nask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse? We can only answer as\nbefore,\u2014because Drs. Westcott and Hort consign it to the _limbus_ of their\n_Appendix_; class it among their \u201cRejected Readings\u201d of the most hopeless\ntype.(340) As before, _all_ their sentence is \u201cWestern and Syrian.\u201d They\nadd, \u201cInterpolated either from Lu. xix. 10, or from an independent source,\nwritten or oral.\u201d(341)... Will the English Church suffer herself to be in\nthis way defrauded of her priceless inheritance,\u2014through the irreverent\nbungling of well-intentioned, but utterly misguided men?\n\n(_c_) In the same way, our LORD\u2019S important saying,\u2014\u201c_Ye know not what\nmanner of spirit ye are of: for the Son of man is not come to destroy\nmen\u2019s lives, but to save them_\u201d (S. Luke ix. 55, 56), has disappeared from\nour \u201cRevised\u201d Version; although Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers from the\n_second century_ downwards, (as Tischendorf admits,) witness eloquently in\nits favour.\n\nV. In conclusion, we propose to advert, just for a moment, to those five\nseveral mis-representations of S. Luke\u2019s \u201cTitle on the Cross,\u201d which were\nrehearsed above, viz. in page 86. At so gross an exhibition of\nlicentiousness, it is the mere instinct of Natural Piety to exclaim,\u2014But\nthen, could not those men even set down so sacred a record as _that_,\ncorrectly? They could, had they been so minded, no doubt, (we answer):\nbut, marvellous to relate, the TRANSPOSITION of words,\u2014no matter how\nsignificant, sacred, solemn;\u2014of short clauses,\u2014even of whole sentences of\nScripture;\u2014was anciently accounted an allowable, even a graceful exercise\nof the critical faculty.\n\nThe thing alluded to is incredible at first sight; being so often done,\napparently, without any reason whatever,\u2014or rather in defiance of all\nreason. Let _candidus lector_ be the judge whether we speak truly or not.\nWhereas S. Luke (xxiv. 41) says, \u201c_And while they yet believed not for\njoy, and wondered_,\u201d the scribe of codex A (by way of improving upon the\nEvangelist) transposes his sentence into this, \u201cAnd while they yet\ndisbelieved Him, _and wondered for joy_:\u201d(342) which is almost nonsense,\nor quite.\n\nBut take a less solemn example. Instead of,\u2014\u201cAnd His disciples plucked\n_the ears of corn, and ate them_, (\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03c5\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f24\u03c3\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,) rubbing them\nin their hands\u201d (S. Luke vi. 1),\u2014B C L R, by _transposing_ four Greek\nwords, present us with, \u201cAnd His disciples plucked, _and ate the ears of\ncorn_, (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f24\u03c3\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03c5\u03b1\u03c2,) rubbing them,\u201d &c. Now this might have\nbeen an agreeable occupation for horses and for another quadruped, no\ndoubt; but hardly for men. This curiosity, which (happily) proved\nindigestible to our Revisionists, is nevertheless swallowed whole by Drs.\nWestcott and Hort as genuine and wholesome Gospel. (_O dura Doctorum\nilia!_)\u2014But to proceed.\n\nThen further, these preposterous Transpositions are of such perpetual\nrecurrence,\u2014are so utterly useless or else so exceedingly mischievous,\n_always_ so tasteless,\u2014that familiarity with the phenomenon rather\nincreases than lessens our astonishment. What _does_ astonish us, however,\nis to find learned men in the year of grace 1881, freely resuscitating\nthese long-since-forgotten _b\u00eatises_ of long-since-forgotten Critics, and\nseeking to palm them off upon a busy and a careless age, as so many new\nrevelations. That we may not be thought to have shown undue partiality for\nthe xxiind, xxiiird, and xxivth chapters of S. Luke\u2019s Gospel by selecting\nour instances of _Mutilation_ from those three chapters, we will now look\nfor specimens of _Transposition_ in the xixth and xxth chapters of the\nsame Gospel. The reader is invited to collate the Text of the oldest\nuncials, throughout these two chapters, with the commonly Received Text.\nHe will find that within the compass of 88 consecutive verses,(343)\ncodices \u05d0 A B C D Q exhibit no less than 74 instances of\nTransposition:\u2014for 39 of which, D is responsible:\u2014\u05d0 B, for 14:\u2014\u05d0 and \u05d0 B\nD, for 4 each:\u2014A B and \u05d0 A B, for 3 each:\u2014A, for 2:\u2014B, C, Q, \u05d0 A, and A D,\neach for 1.\u2014In other words, he will find that in no less than 44 of these\ninstances of Transposition, D is implicated:\u2014\u05d0, in 26:\u2014B, in 25:\u2014A, in\n10:\u2014while C and Q are concerned in only one a-piece.... It should be added\nthat Drs. Westcott and Hort have adopted _every one of the 25 in which\ncodex_ B _is concerned_\u2014a significant indication of the superstitious\nreverence in which they hold that demonstrably corrupt and most\nuntrustworthy document.(344) Every other case of Transposition they have\nrejected. By their own confession, therefore, 49 out of the 74 (_i.e._\ntwo-thirds of the entire number) are instances of depravation. We turn\nwith curiosity to the Revised Version; and discover that out of the 25 so\nretained, the Editors in question were only able to persuade the\nRevisionists to adopt 8. So that, in the judgment of the Revisionists, 66\nout of 74, or _eleven-twelfths_, are instances of licentious tampering\nwith the deposit.... O to participate in the verifying faculty which\nguided the teachers to discern in 25 cases of Transposition out of 74, the\ngenuine work of the HOLY GHOST! O, far more, to have been born with that\nloftier instinct which enabled the pupils (Doctors Roberts and Milligan,\nNewth and Moulton, Vance Smith and Brown, Angus and Eadie) to winnow out\nfrom the entire lot exactly 8, and to reject the remaining 66 as nothing\nworth!\n\nAccording to our own best judgment, (and we have carefully examined them\nall,) _every one_ of the 74 is worthless. But then _we_ make it our\nfundamental rule to reason always from grounds of external Evidence,\u2014never\nfrom postulates of the Imagination. Moreover, in the application of our\nrule, we begrudge no amount of labour: reckoning a long summer\u2019s day well\nspent if it has enabled us to ascertain the truth concerning one single\ncontroverted word of Scripture. Thus, when we find that our Revisionists,\nat the suggestion of Dr. Hort, have transposed the familiar Angelic\nutterance (in S. Luke xxiv. 7), \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\u2014into this, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6, &c., we at\nonce enquire for _the evidence_. And when we find that no single Father,\n_no_ single Version, and no Codex\u2014except the notorious \u05d0 B C L\u2014advocates\nthe proposed transposition; but on the contrary that every Father (from\nA.D. 150 downwards) who quotes the place, quotes it as it stands in the\nTextus receptus;(345)\u2014we have no hesitation whatever in rejecting it. It\nis found in the midst of a very thicket of fabricated readings. It has\nnothing whatever to recommend it. It is condemned by the consentient voice\nof Antiquity. It is advocated only by four copies,\u2014which _never_ combine\nexclusively, except to misrepresent the truth of Scripture and to seduce\nthe simple.\n\nBut the foregoing, which is a fair typical sample of countless other\ninstances of unauthorized Transposition, may not be dismissed without a\nfew words of serious remonstrance. Our contention is that, inasmuch as the\neffect of such transposition _is incapable of being idiomatically\nrepresented in the English language_,\u2014(for, in all such cases, the Revised\nVersion retains the rendering of the Authorized,)\u2014our Revisionists have\nviolated the spirit as well as the letter of their instructions, in\nputting forth _a new Greek Text_, and silently introducing into it a\ncountless number of these and similar depravations of Scripture. These\nTextual curiosities (for they are nothing more) are absolutely out of\nplace in a _Revision of the English Version_: achieve no lawful purpose:\nare sure to mislead the unwary. This first.\u2014Secondly, we submit\nthat,\u2014strong as, no doubt, the temptation must have been, to secure the\nsanction of the N. T. Revisionists for their own private Recension of the\nGreek, (printed long since, but published simultaneously with the \u201cRevised\nVersion\u201d)\u2014it is to be regretted that Drs. Westcott and Hort should have\nyielded thereto. Man\u2019s impatience never promotes GOD\u2019S Truth. The\ninterests of Textual Criticism would rather have suggested, that the\nRecension of that accomplished pair of Professors should have been\nsubmitted to public inspection in the first instance. The astonishing Text\nwhich it advocates might have been left with comparative safety to take\nits chance in the Jerusalem Chamber, after it had undergone the searching\nordeal of competent Criticism, and been freely ventilated at home and\nabroad for a decade of years. But on the contrary. It was kept close. It\nmight be seen only by the Revisers: and even _they_ were tied down to\nsecrecy as to the letter-press by which it was accompanied.... All this\nstrikes us as painful in a high degree.\n\nVI. Hitherto we have referred almost exclusively to the Gospels. In\nconclusion, we invite attention to our Revisionists\u2019 treatment of 1 Tim.\niii. 16\u2014the _crux criticorum_, as Prebendary Scrivener styles it.(346) We\ncannot act more fairly than by inviting a learned member of the revising\nbody to speak on behalf of his brethren. We shall in this way ascertain\nthe amount of acquaintance with the subject enjoyed by some of those who\nhave been so obliging as to furnish the Church with a new Recension of the\nGreek of the New Testament. Dr. Roberts says:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe English reader will probably be startled to find that the\n    familiar text,\u2014\u2018_And without controversy great is the mystery of\n    godliness_: GOD _was manifest in the flesh_,\u2019 has been exchanged\n    in the Revised Version for the following,\u2014\u2018_And without\n    controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was\n    manifested in the flesh._\u2019 A note on the margin states that \u2018the\n    word GOD, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient\n    evidence;\u2019 and it may be well that, in a passage of so great\n    importance, the reader should be convinced that such is the case.\n\n    \u201cWhat, then, let us enquire, is the amount of evidence which can\n    be produced in support of the reading \u2018GOD\u2019? This is soon stated.\n    Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. None\n    of the very ancient versions support it. No uncial witnesses to\n    it, with the doubtful exception of A.... But even granting that\n    the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian manuscript is in favour of\n    \u2018GOD,\u2019 far more evidence can be produced in support of \u2018who.\u2019 \u05d0\n    and probably C witness to this reading, and it has also powerful\n    testimony from the versions and Fathers. Moreover, the relative\n    \u2018who\u2019 is a far more difficult reading than \u2018GOD,\u2019 and could hardly\n    have been substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore,\n    we conclude that this interesting and important passage must stand\n    as it has been given in the Revised Version.\u201d(347)\n\n\nAnd now, having heard the learned Presbyterian on behalf of his\nbrother-Revisionists, we request that we may be ourselves listened to in\nreply.\n\nThe place of Scripture before us, the Reader is assured, presents a\nmemorable instance of the mischief which occasionally resulted to the\ninspired Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the\nScriptures in uncial characters. S. Paul _certainly_ wrote \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, (\u201c_Great is the mystery\nof godliness_: GOD _was manifested in the flesh_\u201d) But it requires to be\nexplained at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it\nalways was), thus,\u2014_\u0398\u03a3_ (\u201cGOD\u201d), is only distinguishable from the relative\npronoun \u201cwho\u201d (\u039f\u03a3), by two horizontal strokes,\u2014which, in manuscripts of\nearly date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at present\nthey can scarcely be discerned.(348) Need we go on? An archetypal copy in\nwhich one or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the word _\u0398\u03a3_\n(\u201cGOD\u201d), gave rise to the reading \u039f\u03a3 (\u201cwho\u201d),\u2014of which nonsensical\nsubstitute, traces survive in _only two_(349) manuscripts,\u2014\u05d0 and 17: not,\nfor certain, in _one single_ ancient Father,\u2014no, nor for certain in _one\nsingle_ ancient Version. So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of\nwriting \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c2 (\u201cthe mystery _who_\u201d), that copyists promptly\nsubstituted \u1f45 (\u201c_which_\u201d): thus furnishing another illustration of the\nwell-known property of a fabricated reading, viz. sooner or later\ninevitably to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second\nmistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of the VIth\ncentury (D): the only Patristic evidence in its favour being Gelasius of\nCyzicus,(350) (whose date is A.D. 476): and the unknown author of a homily\nin the appendix to Chrysostom.(351) The Versions\u2014all but the Georgian and\nthe Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text\u2014favour it unquestionably;\nfor they are observed invariably to make the relative pronoun agree in\ngender with the word which represents \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (\u201cmystery\u201d) which\nimmediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, \u1f45\u03c2 (\u201c_who_\u201d) is\nfound,\u2014but only because the Syriac equivalent for \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is of the\nmasculine gender: in the Latin, _quod_ (\u201c_which_\u201d)\u2014but only because\n_mysterium_ in Latin (like \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd in Greek) is neuter. Over this latter\nreading, however, we need not linger; seeing that \u1f45 does not find a single\npatron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly\nupheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its\nmost strenuous advocates.\n\nIt is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true\nreading. A and C exhibited _\u0398\u03a3_ until ink, thumbing, and the injurious use\nof chemicals, obliterated what once was patent. It is too late, by full\n150 years, to contend on the negative side of _this_ question.\u2014F and G,\nwhich exhibit _\u039f\u03a3_ and _\u039f\u03a3_ respectively, were confessedly derived from a\ncommon archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal\nstroke which distinguishes \u0398 from \u039f must have been so faintly traced as to\nbe scarcely discernible. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke\nin question represents _the aspirate_, is scarcely admissible. _There is\nno single example of_ \u1f45\u03c2 _written_ _\u039f\u03a3_ _in any part of __ either Cod._ F\n_or Cod._ G. On the other hand, in the only place where \u039f\u03a3 represents\n_\u0398\u03a3_, it is written _\u039f\u03a3_ _in both_. Prejudice herself may be safely called\nupon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference.\n\nTo come to the point,\u2014\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is the reading of _all the uncial copies extant\nbut two_ (viz. \u05d0 which exhibits \u1f45\u03c2, and D which exhibits \u1f45), and of all\nthe cursives _but one_ (viz. 17). The universal consent of the\nLectionaries proves that \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 has been read in all the assemblies of the\nfaithful from the IVth or Vth century of our era. At what earlier period\nof her existence is it supposed then that the Church (\u201cthe witness and\nkeeper of Holy Writ,\u201d) availed herself of her privilege to substitute \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\nfor \u1f45\u03c2 or \u1f45,\u2014whether in error or in fraud? Nothing short of a conspiracy,\nto which every region of the Eastern Church must have been a party, would\naccount for the phenomenon.\n\nWe enquire next for the testimony of the Fathers; and we discover that\u2014(1)\nGregory of Nyssa quotes \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 _twenty-two times_:(352)\u2014that \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is also\nrecognized by (2) his namesake of Nazianzus in two places;(353)\u2014as well as\nby (3) Didymus of Alexandria;(354)\u2014(4) by ps.-Dionysius Alex.;(355)\u2014and\n(5) by Diodorus of Tarsus.(356)\u2014(6) Chrysostom quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 in\nconformity with the received text at least three times;(357)\u2014and (7) Cyril\nAl. as often:(358)\u2014(8) Theodoret, four times:(359)\u2014(9) an unknown author\nof the age of Nestorius (A.D. 430), once:(360)\u2014(10) Severus, Bp. of\nAntioch (A.D. 512), once.(361)\u2014(11) Macedonius (A.D. 506) patriarch of\nCP.,(362) of whom it has been absurdly related that he _invented_ the\nreading, is a witness for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 perforce; so is\u2014(12) Euthalius, and\u2014(13)\nJohn Damascene on two occasions.(363)\u2014(14) An unknown writer who has been\nmistaken for Athanasius,(364)\u2014(15) besides not a few ancient scholiasts,\nclose the list: for we pass by the testimony of\u2014(16) Epiphanius at the 7th\nNicene Council (A.D. 787),\u2014of (17) \u0152cumenius,\u2014of (18) Theophylact.\n\nIt will be observed that neither has anything been said about the many\nindirect allusions of earlier Fathers to this place of Scripture; and yet\nsome of these are too striking to be overlooked: as when\u2014(19) Basil,\nwriting of our SAVIOUR, says \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af:(365)\u2014and (20)\nGregory Thaum., \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2:(366)\u2014and before him, (21) Hippolytus, \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7:(367)\u2014and (22) Theodotus the Gnostic, \u1f41\n\u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2:(368)\u2014and (23) Barnabas, \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 ... \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2:(369)\u2014and earlier still (24)\nIgnatius: \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd:\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2:\u2014\u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.(370)\u2014Are we to\nsuppose that _none_ of these primitive writers read the place as we do?\n\nAgainst this array of Testimony, the only evidence which the unwearied\nindustry of 150 years has succeeded in eliciting, is as follows:\u2014(1) The\nexploded _Latin_ fable that Macedonius (A.D. 506) _invented_ the\nreading:(371)\u2014(2) the fact that Epiphanius,\u2014_professing to\ntranscribe_(372) from an earlier treatise of his own(373) (in which\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 stands _without a nominative_), prefixes \u1f45\u03c2:\u2014(3) the statement\nof an unknown scholiast, that in one particular place of Cyril\u2019s writings\nwhere the Greek is lost, Cyril wrote \u1f45\u03c2,\u2014(which seems to be an entire\nmistake; but which, even if it were a fact, would be sufficiently\nexplained by the discovery that in two other places of Cyril\u2019s writings\nthe evidence _fluctuates_ between \u1f45\u03c2 and \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2):\u2014(4) a quotation in an\nepistle of Eutherius of Tyana (it exists only in Latin) where \u201cqui\u201d is\nfound:\u2014(5) a casual reference (in Jerome\u2019s commentary on Isaiah) to our\nLORD, as One \u201cqui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu,\u201d\u2014which\nBp. Pearson might have written.\u2014Lastly, (6) a passage of Theodorus\nMopsuest. (quoted at the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553), where the\nreading is \u201cqui,\u201d\u2014which is balanced by the discovery that in another place\nof his writings quoted at the same Council, the original is translated\n\u201cquod.\u201d And this closes the evidence. Will any unprejudiced person, on\nreviewing the premisses, seriously declare that \u1f45\u03c2 is the better sustained\nreading of the two?\n\nFor ourselves, we venture to deem it incredible that a Reading which\u2014(_a_)\nIs not to be found in more than two copies (\u05d0 and 17) of S. Paul\u2019s\nEpistles: which\u2014(_b_) Is not certainly supported by a single\nVersion:\u2014(_c_) Nor is clearly advocated by a single Father,\u2014_can_ be\ngenuine. It does not at all events admit of question, that until _far_\nstronger evidence can be produced in its favour, \u1f45\u03c2 (\u201cwho\u201d) may on no\naccount be permitted to usurp the place of the commonly received \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\n(\u201cGOD\u201d) of 1 Tim. iii. 16. But the present exhibits in a striking and\ninstructive way all the characteristic tokens of a depravation of the\ntext. (1st) At an exceedingly early period it resulted in _another_\ndeflection. (2nd) It is without the note of _Continuity_; having died out\nof the Church\u2019s memory well-nigh 1400 years ago. (3rd) It is deficient in\n_Universality_; having been all along denied the Church\u2019s corporate\nsanction. As a necessary consequence, (4th) It rests at this day on wholly\n_insufficient Evidence_: Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers being _all_\nagainst it. (5th) It carries on its front its own refutation. For, as all\nmust see, _\u0398\u03a3_ might easily be mistaken for \u039f\u03a3: but in order to make \u039f\u03a3\ninto _\u0398\u03a3_, _two horizontal lines must of set purpose be added to the\ncopy_. It is therefore a vast deal _more likely_ that _\u0398\u03a3_ became \u039f\u03a3, than\nthat \u039f\u03a3 became _\u0398\u03a3_. (6th) Lastly, it is condemned by internal\nconsiderations. \u1f4d\u03c2 is in truth so grossly improbable\u2014rather, so\n_impossible_\u2014a reading, that under any circumstances we must have\nanxiously enquired whether no escape from it was discoverable: whether\nthere exists no way of explaining _how_ so patent an absurdity as\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c2 _may_ have arisen? And on being reminded that the\ndisappearance of two faint horizontal strokes, _or even of one_, would\nfully account for the impossible reading,\u2014(and thus much, at least, all\nadmit,)\u2014should we not have felt that it required an overwhelming consensus\nof authorities in favour of \u1f45\u03c2, to render such an alternative deserving of\nserious attention? It is a mere abuse of Bengel\u2019s famous axiom to recal it\non occasions like the present. We shall be landed in a bathos indeed if we\nallow _gross improbability_ to become a constraining motive with us in\nrevising the sacred Text.\n\nAnd thus much for the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. We invite the reader\nto refer back(374) to a Reviser\u2019s estimate of the evidence in favour of\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and \u1f45\u03c2 respectively, and to contrast it with our own. If he is\nimpressed with the strength of the cause of our opponents,\u2014their mastery\nof the subject,\u2014and the reasonableness of their contention,\u2014we shall be\nsurprised. And yet _that_ is not the question just now before us. The\n_only_ question (be it clearly remembered) which has to be considered, is\n_this_:\u2014Can it be said with truth that the \u201cevidence\u201d for \u1f45\u03c2 (as against\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2) in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is \u201c_clearly preponderating_\u201d? Can it be\nmaintained that \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is a \u201c_plain and clear error_\u201d? Unless this can be\naffirmed\u2014_cadit qu\u00e6stio_. The traditional reading of the place ought to\nhave been let alone. May we be permitted to say without offence that, in\nour humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the Revisers\u2019 bidding,\nwere to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred\npage,(375)\u2014with which the Church Universal was once well acquainted, but\nwhich in her corporate character she has long since unconditionally\ncondemned and abandoned,\u2014she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by\nthe rest of Christendom? Yes, and to have _that_ openly said of her which\nS. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day who fell back into\nthe very errors which they had already abjured. The place will be found in\n2 S. Peter ii. 22. So singularly applicable is it to the matter in hand,\nthat we can but invite attention to the quotation on our title-page and p.\n1.\n\nAnd here we make an end.\n\n1. Those who may have taken up the present Article in expectation of being\nentertained with another of those discussions (of which we suspect the\npublic must be already getting somewhat weary), concerning the degree of\nability which the New Testament Revisionists have displayed in their\nrendering into English of the Greek, will at first experience\ndisappointment. Readers of intelligence, however, who have been at the\npains to follow us through the foregoing pages, will be constrained to\nadmit that we have done more faithful service to the cause of Sacred Truth\nby the course we have been pursuing, than if we had merely multiplied\ninstances of incorrect and unsatisfactory _Translation_. There is (and\nthis we endeavoured to explain at the outset) a question of prior interest\nand far graver importance which has to be settled _first_, viz. the degree\nof confidence which is due to the underlying NEW GREEK TEXT which our\nRevisionists have constructed. In other words, before discussing their\n_new Renderings_, we have to examine their _new Readings_.(376) The\nsilence which Scholars have hitherto maintained on this part of the\nsubject is to ourselves scarcely intelligible. But it makes us the more\nanxious to invite attention to this neglected aspect of the problem; the\nrather, because we have thoroughly convinced ourselves that the \u201cnew Greek\nText\u201d put forth by the Revisionists of our Authorized Version is _utterly\ninadmissible_. The traditional Text has been departed from by them nearly\n6000 times,\u2014almost invariably _for the worse_.\n\n2. Fully to dispose of _all_ these multitudinous corruptions would require\na bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested to observe that, if we are\nright in the few instances we have culled out from the mass,\u2014_then we are\nright in all_. If we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of\nauthorities on which the \u201cnew Greek Text\u201d depends, are the reverse of\ntrustworthy,\u2014are absolutely misleading,\u2014then, we have cut away from under\nthe Revisionists the very ground on which they have hitherto been\nstanding. And in that case, the structure which they have built up\nthroughout a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency,\ncollapses \u201clike the baseless fabric of a vision.\u201d\n\n3. For no one may flatter himself that, by undergoing a _further_ process\nof \u201cRevision,\u201d the \u201cRevised Version\u201d may after all be rendered\ntrustworthy. The eloquent and excellent Bishop of Derry is \u201cconvinced\nthat, with all its undeniable merits, it will have to be somewhat\nextensively revised.\u201d And so perhaps are we. But (what is a far more\nimportant circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of\npenance to be submitted to by the Revisers would be the restoration of the\nunderlying Greek Text to very nearly\u2014_not quite_\u2014the state in which they\nfound it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking. \u201cVery\nnearly\u2014not quite:\u201d for, in not a few particulars, the \u201cTextus receptus\u201d\n_does_ call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely\ndifferent principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the\nJerusalem Chamber. To mention a single instance:\u2014When our LORD first sent\nforth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial\ncommission to them to \u201c_raise the dead_\u201d (\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, S. Matthew x.\n8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by\nour Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses\u2014\u05d0 B C D,\nand the Latin copies.(377) When will men learn unconditionally to put away\nfrom themselves the weak superstition which is for investing with oracular\nauthority the foregoing quaternion of demonstrably depraved Codices?\n\n4. \u201cIt may be said\u201d\u2014(to quote again from Bp. Alexander\u2019s recent\nCharge),\u2014\u201cthat there is a want of modesty in dissenting from the\nconclusions of a two-thirds majority of a body so learned. But the rough\nprocess of counting heads imposes unduly on the imagination. One could\neasily name _eight_ in that assembly, whose _unanimity_ would be\npractically almost decisive; but we have no means of knowing that these\ndid not _form the minority_ in resisting the changes which we most\nregret.\u201d The Bishop is speaking of the _English_ Revision. Having regard\nto the Greek Text exclusively, _we_ also (strange to relate) had singled\nout _exactly eight_ from the members of the New Testament company\u2014Divines\nof undoubted orthodoxy, who for their splendid scholarship and proficiency\nin the best learning, or else for their refined taste and admirable\njudgment, might (as we humbly think), under certain safeguards, have been\nsafely entrusted even with the responsibility of revising the Sacred Text.\nUnder the guidance of Prebendary Scrivener (who among living Englishmen is\n_facile princeps_ in these pursuits) it is scarcely to be anticipated\nthat, WHEN UNANIMOUS, such Divines would ever have materially erred. But\nthen, of course, a previous life-long familiarity with the Science of\n_Textual Criticism_, or at least leisure for prosecuting it now, for ten\nor twenty years, with absolutely undivided attention,\u2014would be the\nindispensable requisite for the success of such an undertaking; and this,\nundeniably, is a qualification rather to be desiderated than looked for at\nthe hands of English Divines of note at the present day. On the other\nhand, (loyalty to our Master constrains us to make the avowal,) the motley\nassortment of names, twenty-eight in all, specified by Dr. Newth, at p.\n125 of his interesting little volume, joined to the fact that the average\nattendance _was not so many as sixteen_,\u2014concerning whom, moreover, the\nfact has transpired that some of the most judicious of their number often\n_declined to give any vote at all_,\u2014is by no means calculated to inspire\nany sort of confidence. But, in truth, considerable familiarity with these\npursuits may easily co-exist with a natural inaptitude for their\nsuccessful cultivation, which shall prove simply fatal. In support of this\nremark, one has but to refer to the instance supplied by Dr. Hort. The\nSacred Text has none to fear so much as those who _feel_ rather than\nthink: who _imagine_ rather than reason: who rely on a supposed _verifying\nfaculty_ of their own, of which they are able to render no intelligible\naccount; and who, (to use Bishop Ellicott\u2019s phrase,) have the misfortune\nto conceive themselves possessed of a \u201c_power of divining the Original\nText_,\u201d\u2014which would be even diverting, if the practical result of their\nself-deception were not so exceedingly serious.\n\n5. In a future number, we may perhaps enquire into the measure of success\nwhich has attended the Revisers\u2019 _Revision of the English_ of our\nAuthorized Version of 1611. We have occupied ourselves at this time\nexclusively with a survey of the seriously mutilated and otherwise grossly\ndepraved NEW GREEK TEXT, on which their edifice has been reared. And the\ncircumstance which, in conclusion, we desire to impress upon our Readers,\nis this,\u2014that the insecurity of that foundation is so alarming, that,\nexcept as a concession due to the solemnity of the undertaking just now\nunder review, further Criticism might very well be dispensed with, as a\nthing superfluous. Even could it be proved concerning the superstructure,\nthat \u201c_it had been [ever so] well builded_,\u201d(378) (to adopt another of our\nRevisionists\u2019 unhappy perversions of Scripture,) the fatal objection would\nremain, viz. that it is not \u201c_founded upon the rock_.\u201d(379) It has been\nthe ruin of the present undertaking\u2014as far as the Sacred Text is\nconcerned\u2014that the majority of the Revisionist body have been misled\nthroughout by the oracular decrees and impetuous advocacy of Drs. Westcott\nand Hort; who, with the purest intentions and most laudable industry, have\nconstructed a Text demonstrably more remote from the Evangelic verity,\nthan any which has ever yet seen the light. \u201cThe old is good,\u201d(380) say\nthe Revisionists: but we venture solemnly to assure them that \u201c_the old is\nbetter_;\u201d(381) and that this remark holds every bit as true of their\nRevision of the Greek throughout, as of their infelicitous exhibition of\nS. Luke v. 39. To attempt, as they have done, to build the Text of the New\nTestament on a tissue of unproved assertions and the eccentricities of a\nsingle codex of bad character, is about as hopeful a proceeding as would\nbe the attempt to erect an Eddystone lighthouse on the Goodwin Sands.\n\n\n\n\n\nARTICLE II. THE NEW ENGLISH VERSION.\n\n\n    \u201cSuch is the time-honoured Version which we have been called upon\n    to revise! We have had to study this great Version carefully and\n    minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon\n    it the more we have learned to admire _its simplicity_, _its\n    dignity_, _its power_, _its happy turns of expression_, _its\n    general accuracy_, and we must not fail to add, _the music of its\n    cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm_. To render a work that\n    had reached this high standard of excellence, still more\n    excellent; to increase its fidelity, without destroying its charm;\n    was the task committed to us.\u201d\u2014PREFACE TO THE REVISED VERSION.\n\n    \u201cTo pass from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from\n    a well-built and well-hung carriage which glides easily over a\n    macadamized road,\u2014and to get into one _which has bad springs or\n    none at all_, and in which you are _jolted in ruts with aching\n    bones over the stones of a newly-mended and rarely traversed\n    road_, like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire\n    villages.\u201d\u2014BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(382)\n\n    \u201cNo Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour\u2019s\n    acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction\n    of the present Authorized Version.\u201d\u2014BISHOP ELLICOTT.(383)\n\n    \u201cI testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy\n    of this Book,\u2014If any man shall add unto these things, GOD shall\n    add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book.\n\n    \u201cAnd if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this\n    prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of Life,\n    and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in\n    this Book.\u201d\u2014REVELATION xxii. 18, 19.\n\n\nWhatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least\nundeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized\nVersion is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety\nmillions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth\u2019s surface. Is it\nreasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be\nendangered, for the sake of representing certain words more\naccurately,\u2014here and there translating a tense with greater\nprecision,\u2014getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed\nthat no \u201cRevision\u201d of our Authorized Version, however judiciously\nexecuted, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually\nenjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,\u2014the noblest literary work\nin the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have _another_\n\u201cAuthorized Version.\u201d And this single consideration may be thought\nabsolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be\nbrief,\u2014As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book\nof reference for critical purposes, especially in respect of difficult and\ncontroverted passages:\u2014we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized\nVersion of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and\nlearning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of\nsuch a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we\nforbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be\ndesired. As something _intended to supersede_ our present English Bible,\nwe are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not\nto be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.\n\nOn the other hand, _who_ could have possibly foreseen what has actually\ncome to pass since the Convocation of the Southern Province (in Feb. 1870)\ndeclared itself favourable to \u201ca Revision of the Authorized Version,\u201d and\nappointed a Committee of Divines to undertake the work? _Who_ was to\nsuppose that the Instructions given to the Revisionists would be by them\nsystematically disregarded? _Who_ was to imagine that an utterly\nuntrustworthy \u201cnew Greek Text,\u201d constructed on mistaken principles,\u2014(say\nrather, on _no principles at all_,)\u2014would be the fatal result? To speak\nmore truly,\u2014_Who_ could have anticipated that the opportunity would have\nbeen adroitly seized to inflict upon the Church the text of Drs. Westcott\nand Hort, in all its essential features,\u2014a text which, as will be found\nelsewhere largely explained, we hold to be _the most vicious Recension of\nthe original Greek in existence_? Above all,\u2014_Who_ was to foresee that\ninstead of removing \u201c_plain_ and _clear errors_\u201d from our Version, the\nRevisionists,\u2014(besides systematically removing out of sight so many of the\ngenuine utterances of the SPIRIT,)\u2014would themselves introduce a countless\nnumber of blemishes, unknown to it before? Lastly, how was it to have been\nbelieved that the Revisionists would show themselves industrious in sowing\nbroadcast over four continents doubts as to the Truth of Scripture, which\nit will never be in their power either to remove or to recal? _Nescit vox\nmissa reverti._\n\nFor, the ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of an English\nBible, certain of the blunders\u2014(such things cannot by any stretch of\ncourtesy be styled \u201cVarious Readings\u201d)\u2014which disfigure \u201csome\u201d or \u201cmany\u201d\n\u201cancient authorities,\u201d can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith\nof millions. It cannot be defended on the plea of candour,\u2014the candour\nwhich is determined that men shall \u201cknow the worst.\u201d \u201cThe worst\u201d_ has_ NOT\n_been told_: and it were dishonesty to insinuate that _it has_. If all the\ncases were faithfully exhibited where \u201ca few,\u201d \u201csome,\u201d or \u201cmany ancient\nauthorities\u201d read differently from what is exhibited in the actual Text,\nnot only would the margin prove insufficient to contain the record, but\n_the very page itself_ would not nearly suffice. Take a single instance\n(the first which comes to mind), of the thing referred to. Such\nillustrations might be multiplied to any extent:\u2014\n\nIn S. Luke iii. 22, (in place of \u201cThou art my beloved Son; _in Thee I am\nwell pleased_,\u201d) the following authorities of the IInd, IIIrd and IVth\ncenturies, read,\u2014\u201c_this day have I begotten Thee_:\u201d viz.\u2014codex D and the\nmost ancient copies of the old Latin (a, b, c, ff-2, 1),\u2014Justin Martyr in\nthree places(384) (A.D. 140),\u2014Clemens Alex.(385) (A.D. 190),\u2014and\nMethodius(386) (A.D. 290) among the Greeks. Lactantius(387) (A.D.\n300),\u2014Hilary(388) (A.D. 350),\u2014Juvencus(389) (A.D. 330),\u2014Faustus(390) (A.D.\n400), and\u2014Augustine(391) amongst the Latins. The reading in question was\ndoubtless derived from the _Ebionite Gospel_(392) (IInd cent.). Now, we\ndesire to have it explained to us _why_ an exhibition of the Text\nsupported by such an amount of first-rate primitive testimony as the\npreceding, obtains _no notice whatever_ in our Revisionists\u2019 margin,\u2014if\nindeed it was the object of their perpetually recurring marginal\nannotations, to put the unlearned reader on a level with the critical\nScholar; to keep nothing back from him; and so forth?... It is the gross\none-sidedness, the patent _unfairness_, in a critical point of view, of\nthis work, (which professes to be nothing else but _a Revision of the\nEnglish Version of_ 1611,)\u2014which chiefly shocks and offends us.\n\nFor, on the other hand, of what possible use can it be to encumber the\nmargin of S. Luke x. 41, 42 (for example), with the announcement that \u201cA\nfew ancient authorities read _Martha, Martha, thou art troubled: Mary hath\nchosen_ &c.\u201d (the fact being, that D _alone_ of MSS. omits \u201c_careful and\n... about many things. But one thing is needful, and_\u201d ...)? With the\nrecord of this circumstance, is it reasonable (we ask) to choke up our\nEnglish margin,\u2014to create perplexity and to insinuate doubt? The author of\nthe foregoing marginal Annotation was of course aware that the same\n\u201csingular codex\u201d (as Bp. Ellicott styles cod. D) omits, in S. Luke\u2019s\nGospel alone, no less than 1552 words: and he will of course have\nascertained (by counting) that the words in S. Luke\u2019s Gospel amount to\n19,941. Why then did he not tell _the whole_ truth; and instead of\n\u201c_&c._,\u201d proceed as follows?\u2014\u201cBut inasmuch as cod. D is so scandalously\ncorrupt that about _one word in thirteen_ is missing throughout, the\nabsence of nine words in this place is of no manner of importance or\nsignificancy. The precious saying omitted is above suspicion, and the\nfirst half of the present Annotation might have been spared.\u201d... We submit\nthat a Note like that, although rather \u201csingular\u201d in style, really _would_\nhave been to some extent helpful,\u2014if not to the learned, at least to the\nunlearned reader.\n\nIn the meantime, unlearned and learned readers alike are competent to see\nthat the foregoing perturbation of S. Luke x. 41, 42 rests on _the same_\nmanuscript authority as the perturbation of ch. iii. 22, which immediately\npreceded it. The _Patristic_ attestation, on the other hand, of the\nreading which has been promoted to the margin, is almost _nil_: whereas\n_that_ of the neglected place has been shown to be considerable, very\nancient, and of high respectability.\n\nBut in fact,\u2014(let the Truth be plainly stated; for, when GOD\u2019S Word is at\nstake, circumlocution is contemptible, while concealment would be a\ncrime;)\u2014\u201c_Faithfulness_\u201d towards the public, a stern resolve that the\nEnglish reader \u201cshall know the worst,\u201d and all that kind of thing,\u2014such\nconsiderations have had nothing whatever to do with the matter. A vastly\ndifferent principle has prevailed with the Revisionists. Themselves the\ndupes of an utterly mistaken Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme\nsolicitude has been _to impose that same Theory_,\u2014(_which is Westcott and\nHort\u2019s_,)\u2014with all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned and\nunsuspicious public.\n\nWe shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain what we mean by\nso injurious\u2014so damning\u2014an imputation? For all reply, we are content to\nrefer to the sample of our meaning which will be found below, in pp.\n137-8. The exposure of what has there been shown to be the method of the\nRevisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated hundreds of\ntimes. It would in fact _fill a volume_. We shall therefore pass on, when\nwe have asked the Revisionists in turn\u2014_How they have dared_ so\neffectually to blot out those many precious words from the Book of Life,\nthat no mere English reader, depending on the Revised Version for his\nknowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existence?...\nSupposing even that it _was_ the calamitous result of their mistaken\nprinciples that they found themselves constrained on countless occasions,\nto omit from their Text precious sayings of our LORD and His\nApostles,\u2014what possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a\nrecord of words so amply attested, _at least in their margin_?\n\nEven so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected\nby our Revisionists has not been stated. For the Greek Text which they\nhave invented proves to be so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it\nwere to be thrust upon the Church\u2019s acceptance, we should be a thousand\ntimes worse off than we were with the Text which Erasmus and the\nComplutensian,\u2014Stephens, and Beza, and the Elzevirs,\u2014bequeathed to us\nupwards of three centuries ago. On this part of the subject we have\nremarked at length already [pp. 1-110]: yet shall we be constrained to\nrecur once and again to the underlying Greek Text of the Revisionists,\ninasmuch as it is impossible to stir in any direction with the task before\nus, without being painfully reminded of its existence. Not only do the\nfamiliar Parables, Miracles, Discourses of our LORD, trip us up at every\nstep, but we cannot open the first page of the Gospel\u2014no, nor indeed read\n_the first line_\u2014without being brought to a standstill. Thus,\n\n1. S. Matthew begins,\u2014\u201cThe book of the generation of JESUS CHRIST\u201d (ver.\n1).\u2014Good. But here the margin volunteers two pieces of information:\nfirst,\u2014\u201cOr, _birth_: as in ver. 18.\u201d We refer to ver. 18, and read\u2014\u201cNow\nthe birth of JESUS CHRIST was on this wise.\u201d Good again; but the margin\nsays,\u2014\u201cOr, _generation_: as in ver. 1.\u201d Are we then to understand that\n_the same Greek word_, diversely rendered in English, occurs in both\nplaces? We refer to the \u201c_new_ Greek Text:\u201d and there it stands,\u2014\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\nin either verse. But if the word be the same, why (on the Revisers\u2019\ntheory) is it diversely rendered?\n\nIn the meantime, _who_ knows not that there is all the difference in the\nworld between S. Matthew\u2019s \u03b3\u03ad\u039d\u0395\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, in ver. 1,\u2014and the same S. Matthew\u2019s\n\u03b3\u03ad\u039d\u039d\u0397\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, in ver. 18? The latter, the Evangelist\u2019s announcement of the\ncircumstances of the human Nativity of CHRIST: the former, the\nEvangelist\u2019s unobtrusive way of recalling the Septuagintal rendering of\nGen. ii. 4 and v. 1:(393) the same Evangelist\u2019s calm method of guiding the\ndevout and thoughtful student to discern in the Gospel the History of the\n\u201cnew Creation,\u201d\u2014by thus providing that when first the Gospel opens its\nlips, it shall syllable the name of the first book of the elder Covenant?\nWe are pointing out that it more than startles\u2014it supremely offends\u2014one\nwho is even slenderly acquainted with the treasures of wisdom hid in the\nvery diction of the N. T. Scriptures, to discover that a deliberate effort\nhas been made to get rid of the very foremost of those notes of Divine\nintelligence, by confounding two words which all down the ages have been\ncarefully kept distinct; and that this effort is the result of an\nexaggerated estimate of a few codices which happen to be written in the\nuncial character, viz. two of the IVth century (B \u05d0); one of the Vth (C);\ntwo of the VIth (P Z); one of the IXth (\u0394); one of the Xth (S).\n\nThe Versions(394)\u2014(which are our _oldest_ witnesses)\u2014are perforce only\npartially helpful here. Note however, that _the only one which favours_\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is the heretical Harkleian Syriac, executed in the VIIth century.\nThe Peschito and Cureton\u2019s Syriac distinguish between \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in ver. 1\nand \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in ver. 18: as do the Slavonic and the Arabian Versions. The\nEgyptian, Armenian, \u00c6thiopic and Georgian, have only one word for both.\nLet no one suppose however that _therefore_ their testimony is ambiguous.\nIt is \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (_not_ \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) which they exhibit, both in ver. 1 and in\nver. 18.(395) The Latin (\u201c_generatio_\u201d) is an equivocal rendering\ncertainly: but the earliest Latin writer who quotes the two places, (viz.\nTertullian) employs the word \u201c_genitura_\u201d in S. Matth. i. 1,\u2014but\n\u201c_nativitas_\u201d in ver. 18,\u2014which no one seems to have noticed.(396) Now,\nTertullian, (as one who sometimes wrote in Greek,) is known to have been\nconversant with the Greek copies of his day; and \u201chis day,\u201d be it\nremembered, is A.D. 190. He evidently recognized the parallelism between\nS. Matt. i. 1 and Gen. ii. 4,\u2014where the old Latin exhibits \u201cliber\n_creatur\u00e6_\u201d or \u201c_factur\u00e6_,\u201d as the rendering of \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. And so\nmuch for the testimony of the Versions.\n\nBut on reference to Manuscript and to Patristic authority(397) we are\nencountered by an overwhelming amount of testimony for \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in ver.\n18: and this, considering the nature of the case, is an extraordinary\ncircumstance. Quite plain is it that the Ancients were wide awake to the\ndifference between spelling the word with one N or with two,\u2014as the little\ndissertation of the heretic Nestorius(398) in itself would be enough to\nprove. \u0393\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, in the meantime, is the word employed by Justin\nM.,(399)\u2014by Clemens Alex.,(400)\u2014by Athanasius,(401)\u2014by Gregory of\nNazianzus,(402)\u2014by Cyril Alex.,(403)\u2014by Nestorius,(404)\u2014by\nChrysostom,(405)\u2014by Theodorus Mopsuest.,(406)\u2014and by three other\nancients.(407) Even more deserving of attention is it that Iren\u00e6us(408)\n(A.D. 170)\u2014(whom Germanus(409) copies at the end of 550 years)\u2014calls\nattention to the difference between the spelling of ver. 1 and ver. 18. So\ndoes Didymus:(410)\u2014so does Basil:(411)\u2014so does\nEpiphanius.(412)\u2014Origen(413) (A.D. 210) is even eloquent on the\nsubject.\u2014Tertullian (A.D. 190) we have heard already.\u2014It is a significant\ncircumstance, that the only Patristic authorities discoverable on the\nother side are Eusebius, Theodoret, and the authors of an heretical\nCreed(414)\u2014whom Athanasius holds up to scorn.(415) ... Will the\nRevisionists still pretend to tell us that \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in verse 18 is a\n\u201c_plain and clear error_\u201d?\n\n2. This, however, is not all. Against the words \u201cof JESUS CHRIST,\u201d a\nfurther critical annotation is volunteered; to the effect that \u201cSome\nancient authorities read _of the Christ_.\u201d In reply to which, we assert\nthat _not one single known MS._ omits the word \u201cJESUS:\u201d whilst its\npresence is vouched for by\nps.-Tatian,(416)\u2014Iren\u00e6us,\u2014Origen,\u2014Eusebius,\u2014Didymus,\u2014\nEpiphanius,\u2014Chrysostom,\u2014Cyril,\u2014in addition to _every known Greek copy of\nthe Gospels_, and not a few of the Versions, including the Peschito and\nboth the Egyptian. What else but nugatory therefore is such a piece of\ninformation as this?\n\n3. And so much for the first, second, and third Critical annotations, with\nwhich the margin of the revised N. T. is disfigured. Hoping that the worst\nis now over, we read on till we reach ver. 25, where we encounter a\nstatement which fairly trips us up: viz.,\u2014\u201cAnd knew her not _till she had\nbrought forth a son_.\u201d No intimation is afforded of what has been here\neffected; but in the meantime every one\u2019s memory supplies the epithet\n(\u201cher first-born\u201d) which has been ejected. Whether something very like\nindignation is not excited by the discovery that these important words\nhave been surreptitiously withdrawn from their place, let others say. For\nourselves, when we find that only \u05d0 B Z and two cursive copies can be\nproduced for the omission, we are at a loss to understand of what the\nRevisionists can have been dreaming. Did they know(417) that,\u2014besides the\nVulgate, the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the \u00c6thiopic, Armenian,\nGeorgian, and Slavonian Versions,(418)\u2014a whole torrent of Fathers are at\nhand to vouch for the genuineness of the epithet they were so\nunceremoniously excising? They are invited to refer to ps.-Tatian,(419)\u2014to\nAthanasius,(420)\u2014to Didymus,(421)\u2014to Cyril of Jer.,(422)\u2014to Basil,(423)\u2014to\nGreg. Nyss.,(424)\u2014to Ephraem Syr.,(425)\u2014to Epiphanius,(426)\u2014to\nChrysostom,(427)\u2014to Proclus,(428)\u2014to Isidorus Pelus.,(429)\u2014to John\nDamasc.,(430)\u2014to Photius,(431)\u2014to Nicetas:(432)\u2014besides, of the Latins,\nAmbrose,(433)\u2014the _Opus imp._,\u2014Augustine,\u2014and not least to\nJerome(434)\u2014eighteen Fathers in all. And how is it possible, (we ask,)\nthat two copies of the IVth century (B \u05d0) and one of the VIth (Z)\u2014all\nthree without a character\u2014backed by a few copies of the old Latin, should\nbe supposed to be any counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate\ncontemporary evidence as the foregoing?\n\nEnough has been offered by this time to prove that an authoritative\nRevision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the\nEnglish of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an\nundertaking the time has not yet come. \u201cIt is my honest\nconviction,\u201d\u2014(remarks Bp. Ellicott, the Chairman of the\nRevisionists,)\u2014\u201cthat for any authoritative Revision, we are not yet\nmature: either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship.\u201d(435) The\nsame opinion precisely is found to have been cherished by Dr. Westcott\ntill _within about a year-and-a-half_(436) of the first assembling of the\nNew Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber, 22nd June, 1870. True,\nthat we enjoy access to\u2014suppose from 1000 to 2000\u2014more MANUSCRIPTS than\nwere available when the Textus Recept. was formed. But nineteen-twentieths\nof those documents, for any use which has been made of them, might just as\nwell be still lying in the monastic libraries from which they were\nobtained.\u2014True, that four out of our five oldest uncials have come to\nlight since the year 1628; but, _who knows how to use them_?\u2014True, that we\nhave made acquaintance with certain ancient VERSIONS, about which little\nor nothing was known 200 years ago: but,\u2014(with the solitary exception of\nthe Rev. Solomon C\u00e6sar Malan, the learned Vicar of Broadwindsor,\u2014who, by\nthe way, is always ready to lend a torch to his benighted brethren,)\u2014what\nliving Englishman is able to tell us what they all contain? A smattering\nacquaintance with the languages of ancient Egypt,\u2014the Gothic, \u00c6thiopic,\nArmenian, Georgian and Slavonian Versions,\u2014is of no manner of avail. In no\ndepartment, probably, is \u201ca little learning\u201d more sure to prove \u201ca\ndangerous thing.\u201d\u2014True, lastly, that the FATHERS have been better edited\nwithin the last 250 years: during which period some fresh Patristic\nwritings have also come to light. But, with the exception of Theodoret\namong the Greeks and Tertullian among the Latins, _which of the Fathers\nhas been satisfactorily indexed_?\n\nEven what precedes is not nearly all. _The fundamental Principles_ of the\nScience of Textual Criticism are not yet apprehended. In proof of this\nassertion, we appeal to the new Greek Text of Drs. Westcott and\nHort,\u2014which, beyond all controversy, is more hopelessly remote from the\ninspired Original than any which has yet appeared. Let a generation of\nStudents give themselves entirely up to this neglected branch of sacred\nScience. Let 500 more COPIES of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, be\ndiligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient _Lectionaries_ be\nvery exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient VERSIONS\nbe edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for\nthe first time really _mastered_ by Englishmen. _Above all, let the\n_FATHERS_ he called upon to give up their precious secrets._ Let their\nwritings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of\ntheir works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what\nactually is the evidence which they afford. Only so will it ever be\npossible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed,\nand which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our\nAuthorized Version. Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the ancient\nGreek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,\u2014(and not a few precious remains\nof theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and\nabroad,)\u2014let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money,\nfar more easily.\u2014When all this has been done,\u2014_not before_\u2014then in GOD\u2019S\nName, let _the Church_ address herself to the great undertaking. Do but\nrevive the arrangements which were adopted in King James\u2019s days: and we\nventure to predict that less than a third part of ten years will be found\nabundantly to suffice for the work. How the coming men will smile at the\npicture Dr. Newth(437) has drawn of what was the method of procedure in\nthe reign of Queen Victoria! Will they not peruse with downright merriment\nBp. Ellicott\u2019s jaunty proposal \u201c_simply to proceed onward with the\nwork_\u201d\u2014[to wit, of constructing a new Greek Text,]\u2014\u201cin fact, _solvere\nambulando_,\u201d [_necnon in laqueum cadendo_]?(438)\n\nI. We cannot, it is presumed, act more fairly by the Revisers\u2019 work,(439)\nthan by following them over some of the ground which they claim to have\nmade their own, and which, at the conclusion of their labours, their Right\nReverend Chairman evidently surveys with self-complacency. First, he\ninvites attention to the Principle and Rule for their guidance agreed to\nby the Committee of Convocation (25th May, 1870), viz. \u201cTO INTRODUCE AS\nFEW ALTERATIONS AS POSSIBLE INTO THE TEXT OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION,\nCONSISTENTLY WITH FAITHFULNESS.\u201d Words could not be more emphatic. \u201cPLAIN\nAND CLEAR ERRORS\u201d were to be corrected. \u201cNECESSARY emendations\u201d were to be\nmade. But (in the words of the Southern Convocation) \u201cWe do not\ncontemplate any new Translation, _or any alteration of the language_,\nEXCEPT WHERE, in the judgment of the most competent Scholars, SUCH CHANGE\nIS NECESSARY.\u201d The watchword, therefore, given to the company of\nRevisionists was,\u2014\u201cNECESSITY.\u201d _Necessity_ was to determine whether they\nwere to depart from the language of the Authorized Version, or not; for\nthe alterations were to be AS FEW AS POSSIBLE.\n\n(_a_) Now it is idle to deny that this fundamental Principle has been\nutterly set at defiance. To such an extent is this the case, that even an\nunlettered Reader is competent to judge them. When we find \u201c_to_\u201d\nsubstituted for \u201cunto\u201d (_passim_):\u2014\u201c_hereby_\u201d for \u201cby this\u201d (1 Jo. v.\n2):\u2014\u201call that _are_,\u201d for \u201call that be\u201d (Rom. i. 7):\u2014\u201c_alway_\u201d for\n\u201calways\u201d (2 Thess. i. 3):\u2014\u201cwe _that_,\u201d \u201cthem _that_,\u201d for \u201cwe _which_,\u201d\n\u201cthem _which_\u201d (1 Thess. iv. 15); and yet \u201cevery spirit _which_,\u201d for\n\u201cevery spirit that\u201d (1 Jo. iv. 3), and \u201che _who_ is not of GOD,\u201d for \u201che\nthat is not of GOD\u201d (ver. 6,\u2014although \u201che _that_ knoweth GOD\u201d had\npreceded, in the same verse):\u2014\u201c_my_ host\u201d for \u201cmine host\u201d (Rom. xvi. 23);\nand \u201c_underneath_\u201d for \u201c_under_\u201d (Rev. vi. 9):\u2014it becomes clear that the\nRevisers\u2019 notion of NECESSITY is not that of the rest of mankind. But let\nthe plain Truth be stated. Certain of them, when remonstrated with by\ntheir fellows for the manifest disregard they were showing to the\nInstructions subject to which they had undertaken the work of Revision,\nare reported to have even gloried in their shame. The majority, it is\nclear, have even ostentatiously set those Instructions at defiance.\n\nWas the course they pursued,\u2014(we ask the question respectfully,)\u2014strictly\n_honest_? To decline the work entirely under the prescribed Conditions,\nwas always in their power. But, first to accept the Conditions, and\nstraightway to act in defiance of them,\u2014_this_ strikes us as a method of\nproceeding which it is difficult to reconcile with the high character of\nthe occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber. To proceed however.\n\n\u201cNevertheless\u201d and \u201cnotwithstanding\u201d have had a sad time of it. One or\nother of them has been turned out in favour of \u201c_howbeit_\u201d (S. Lu. x. 11,\n20),\u2014of \u201c_only_\u201d (Phil. iii. 16),\u2014of \u201c_only that_\u201d (i. 18),\u2014of \u201c_yet_\u201d (S.\nMatth. xi. 11),\u2014of \u201c_but_\u201d (xvii. 27),\u2014of \u201c_and yet_\u201d (James ii. 16)....\nWe find \u201c_take heed_\u201d substituted for \u201cbeware\u201d (Col. ii. 8):\u2014\u201c_custom_\u201d\nfor \u201cmanner\u201d (S. Jo. xix. 40):\u2014\u201che was _amazed_,\u201d for \u201che was astonished:\u201d\n(S. Lu. v. 9):\u2014\u201c_Is it I, _LORD_?_\u201d for \u201cLORD, is it I?\u201d (S. Matth. xxvi.\n22):\u2014\u201c_straightway_ the cock crew,\u201d for \u201cimmediately the cock crew\u201d (S.\nJo. xviii. 27):\u2014\u201cThen _therefore he delivered Him_,\u201d for \u201cThen delivered\nhe Him therefore\u201d (xix. 16):\u2014\u201c_brought_ it to His mouth,\u201d for \u201cput it to\nHis mouth\u201d (ver. 29):\u2014\u201c_He manifested Himself on this wise_,\u201d for \u201con this\nwise shewed He Himself\u201d (xxi. 1):\u2014\u201c_So when they got out upon the land_,\u201d\nfor \u201cAs soon then as they were come to land\u201d (ver. 9):\u2014\u201cthe things\n_concerning_,\u201d for \u201cthe things pertaining to the kingdom of GOD\u201d (Acts i.\n3):\u2014\u201cas GOD\u2019S_ steward_,\u201d for \u201cas the steward of God\u201d (Tit. i. 7): but\n\u201cthe _belly of the whale_\u201d for \u201cthe whale\u2019s belly\u201d (S. Matth. xii. 40),\nand \u201c_device of man_\u201d for \u201cman\u2019s device\u201d in Acts xvii. 29.\u2014These, and\nhundreds of similar alterations have been evidently made out of the merest\nwantonness. After substituting \u201c_therefore_\u201d for \u201cthen\u201d (as the rendering\nof \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd) a score of times,\u2014the Revisionists quite needlessly substitute\n\u201c_then_\u201d for \u201ctherefore\u201d in S. Jo. xix. 42.\u2014And why has the singularly\nbeautiful greeting of \u201cthe elder unto the well-beloved Gaius,\u201d been\nexchanged for \u201cunto _Gaius the beloved_\u201d? (3 John, ver. 1).\n\n(_b_) We turn a few pages, and find \u201che that _doeth_ sin,\u201d substituted for\n\u201che that committeth sin;\u201d and \u201c_To this end_\u201d put in the place of \u201cFor\nthis purpose\u201d (1 Jo. iii. 8):\u2014\u201c_have beheld_\u201d and \u201c_bear witness_,\u201d for\n\u201chave seen and do testify\u201d (iv. 14):\u2014\u201c_hereby_\u201d for \u201cby this\u201d (v.\n2):\u2014\u201c_Judas_\u201d for \u201cJude\u201d (Jude ver. 1), although \u201c_Mark_\u201d was substituted\nfor \u201cMarcus\u201d (in 1 Pet. v. 13), and \u201c_Timothy_\u201d for \u201cTimotheus\u201d (in Phil.\ni. 1):\u2014\u201chow that they _said to_ you,\u201d for \u201chow that they told you\u201d (Jude\nver. 18).\u2014But why go on? The substitution of \u201c_exceedingly_\u201d for \u201cgreatly\u201d\nin Acts vi. 7:\u2014\u201c_the birds_\u201d for \u201cthe fowls,\u201d in Rev. xix.\n21:\u2014\u201c_Almighty_\u201d for \u201cOmnipotent\u201d in ver. 6:\u2014\u201c_throw down_\u201d for \u201ccast\ndown,\u201d in S. Luke iv. 29:\u2014\u201c_inner chamber_\u201d for \u201ccloset,\u201d in vi. 6:\u2014these\nare _not_ \u201cnecessary\u201d changes.... We will give but three instances\nmore:\u2014In 1 S. Pet. v. 9, \u201cwhom _resist_, stedfast in the faith,\u201d has been\naltered into \u201cwhom _withstand_.\u201d But how is \u201cwithstand\u201d a better rendering\nfor \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, than \u201cresist\u201d? \u201cResist,\u201d at all events, _was the\nRevisionists\u2019 word in S. Matth._ v. 39 _and S. James_ iv. 7.\u2014Why also\nsubstitute \u201cthe _race_\u201d (for \u201cthe kindred\u201d) \u201cof Joseph\u201d in Acts vii. 13,\nalthough \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 was rendered \u201ckindred\u201d in iv. 6?\u2014Do the Revisionists think\nthat \u201c_fastening their_ eyes on him\u201d is a better rendering of \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd (Acts vi. 15) than \u201c_looking stedfastly_ on him\u201d? They certainly\ndid not think so when they got to xxiii. 1. There, because they found\n\u201c_earnestly beholding_ the council,\u201d they must needs alter the phrase into\n\u201c_looking stedfastly_.\u201d It is clear therefore that _Caprice_, not\n_Necessity_,\u2014an _itching impatience_ to introduce changes into the A. V.,\nnot the discovery of \u201c_plain and clear errors_\u201d\u2014has determined the great\nbulk of the alterations which molest us in every part of the present\nunlearned and tasteless performance.\n\nII. The next point to which the Revisionists direct our attention is their\nNEW GREEK TEXT,\u2014\u201cthe necessary foundation of\u201d their work. And here we must\nrenew our protest against the wrong which has been done to English readers\nby the Revisionists\u2019 disregard of the IVth Rule laid down for their\nguidance, viz. that, whenever they adopted a new Textual reading, such\nalteration was to be \u201c_indicated in the margin_.\u201d This \u201cproved\ninconvenient,\u201d say the Revisionists. Yes, we reply: but only because you\nsaw fit, in preference, to choke up your margin with a record of the\npreposterous readings you did _not_ admit. Even so, however, the thing\nmight to some extent have been done, if only by a system of signs in the\nmargin wherever a change in the Text had been by yourselves effected. And,\nat whatever \u201cinconvenience,\u201d you were bound to do this,\u2014partly because the\nRule before you was express: but chiefly in fairness to the English\nReader. How comes it to pass that you have _never_ furnished him with the\ninformation you stood pledged to furnish; but have instead, volunteered in\nevery page information, worthless in itself, which can only serve to\nunsettle the faith of unlettered millions, and to suggest unreasonable as\nwell as miserable doubts to the minds of all?\n\nFor no one may for an instant imagine that the marginal statements of\nwhich we speak are a kind of equivalent for the _Apparatus Criticus_ which\nis found in every principal edition of the Greek Testament\u2014excepting\nalways that of Drs. Westcott and Hort. So far are we from deprecating\n(with Daniel Whitby) the multiplication of \u201cVarious Readings,\u201d that we\nrejoice in them exceedingly; knowing that they are the very foundation of\nour confidence and the secret of our strength. For this reason we consider\nDr. Tischendorf\u2019s last (8th) edition to be furnished with not nearly\nenough of them, though he left all his predecessors (and himself in his\n7th edition) far behind. Our quarrel with the Revisionists is _not_ by any\nmeans that they have commemorated _actual_ \u201calternative Readings\u201d in their\nmargin: but that, while they have given prominence throughout to _patent\nErrors_, they _have unfairly excluded all mention of,\u2014have not made the\nslightest allusion to,\u2014hundreds of Readings which ought in fact rather to\nhave stood in the Text_.\n\nThe marginal readings, which our Revisers have been so ill-advised as to\nput prominently forward, and to introduce to the Reader\u2019s notice with the\nvague statement that they are sanctioned by \u201cSome\u201d (or by \u201cMany\u201d) \u201cancient\nauthorities,\u201d\u2014are specimens _arbitrarily selected_ out of an immense mass;\nare magisterially recommended to public attention and favour; _seem_ to be\ninvested with the sanction and authority of Convocation itself. And this\nbecomes a very serious matter indeed. No hint is given _which_ be the\n\u201cancient Authorities\u201d so referred to:\u2014nor what proportion they bear to the\n\u201cancient Authorities\u201d producible on the opposite side:\u2014nor whether they\nare the _most_ \u201cancient Authorities\u201d obtainable:\u2014nor what amount of\nattention their testimony may reasonably claim. But in the meantime a\nfatal assertion is hazarded in the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect that\n_in cases where _\u201cit would not be safe to accept one Reading to the\nabsolute exclusion of others,\u201d_ _\u201calternative Readings\u201d have been given\n\u201cin the margin.\u201d So that the \u201cAgony and bloody sweat\u201d of the World\u2019s\nREDEEMER (Lu. xxii. 43, 44),\u2014and His Prayer for His murderers (xxiii.\n34),\u2014and much beside of transcendent importance and inestimable value,\nmay, _according to our Revisionists_, prove to rest upon no foundation\nwhatever. At all events, \u201c_it would not be safe_,\u201d (_i.e._ _it is not\nsafe_) to place absolute reliance on them. Alas, how many a deadly blow at\nRevealed Truth hath been in this way aimed with fatal adroitness, which no\namount of orthodox learning will ever be able hereafter to heal, much less\nto undo! Thus,\u2014\n\n(_a_) From the first verse of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel we are informed that \u201cSome\nancient authorities omit _the Son of _GOD.\u201d Why are we _not_ informed that\nevery known uncial Copy _except one of bad character_,\u2014every cursive _but\ntwo_,\u2014_every Version_,\u2014and the following Fathers,\u2014all _contain_ the\nprecious clause: viz. Iren\u00e6us,\u2014Porphyry,\u2014Severianus of Gabala,\u2014Cyril\nAlex.,\u2014Victor Ant.,\u2014and others,\u2014besides Ambrose and Augustine among the\nLatins:\u2014while the supposed adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil\nand Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all a mistake?\nTo speak plainly, since the clause is above suspicion, _Why are we not\nrather told so?_\n\n(_b_) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John\u2019s Gospel, we are\nleft to take our choice between,\u2014\u201cwithout Him was not anything made that\nhath been made. In him was life; and the life,\u201d &c.,\u2014and the following\nabsurd alternative,\u2014\u201cWithout him was not anything made. _That which hath\nbeen made was life in him_; and the life,\u201d &c. But we are _not_ informed\nthat this latter monstrous figment is known to have been the importation\nof the Gnostic heretics in the IInd century, and to be as destitute of\nauthority as it is of sense. _Why is prominence given only to the lie?_\n\n(_c_) At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause of that\nfamous verse (\u201cNo man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down\nfrom heaven, even the Son of Man\u2014_which is in heaven_\u201d), is not found in\n\u201cmany ancient authorities.\u201d But why, in the name of common fairness, are\nwe not _also_ reminded that this, (as will be found more fully explained\nin the note overleaf,) is _a circumstance of no Textual significancy\nwhatever_?\n\nWhy, above all, are we not assured that the precious clause in question (\u1f41\n\u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7) _is_ found in every MS. in the world, except five of bad\ncharacter?\u2014is recognized by _all_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac versions;\nas well as by the Coptic,\u2014\u00c6thiopic,\u2014Georgian,\u2014and Armenian?(440)\u2014is either\nquoted or insisted upon by\nOrigen,(441)\u2014Hippolytus,(442)\u2014Athanasius,(443)\u2014Didymus,(444)\u2014Aphraates the\nPersian,(445)\u2014Basil the Great,(446)\u2014Epiphanius,(447)\u2014Nonnus,\u2014ps.-Dionysius\nAlex.,(448)\u2014Eustathius;(449)\u2014by Chrysostom,(450)\u2014Theodoret,(451)\u2014and\nCyril,(452) each 4 times;\u2014by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa(453) (in a sermon on\nChristmas Day, A.D. 431);\u2014by Theodoras\nMops.,(454)\u2014Amphilochius,(455)\u2014Severus,(456)\u2014Theodorus\nHeracl.,(457)\u2014Basilius Cil.,(458)\u2014Cosmas,(459)\u2014John Damascene, in 3\nplaces,(460)\u2014and 4 other ancient Greek writers;(461)\u2014besides\nAmbrose,(462)\u2014Novatian,(463)\u2014Hilary,(464)\u2014Lucifer,(465)\u2014Victorinus,\u2014Jerome,(466)\u2014Cassian,\u2014Vigilius,(467)\u2014Zeno,(468)\u2014Marius,(469)\u2014Maximus\nTaur.,(470)\u2014Capreolus,(471)\u2014Augustine, &c.:\u2014is acknowledged by Lachmann,\nTregelles, Tischendorf: in short, is _quite above suspicion_: why are we\nnot told _that_? Those 10 Versions, those 38 Fathers, that host of Copies\nin the proportion of 995 to 5,\u2014_why_, concerning all these is there not so\nmuch as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence\nexists?(472)... Shame,\u2014yes, _shame_ on the learning which comes abroad\nonly to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the\nblind! Shame,\u2014yes, _shame_ on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned\nbut most incompetent men, who,\u2014finding themselves (in an evil hour)\nappointed to correct \u201c_plain and clear errors_\u201d in the _English_\n\u201cAuthorized Version,\u201d\u2014occupied themselves instead with _falsifying the\ninspired Greek Text_ in countless places, and branding with suspicion some\nof the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame,\u2014yes, _shame_ upon\nthem!\n\nWhy then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin\u2014(_a_) of S. Mark i.\n1 and\u2014(_b_) of S. John i. 3, and\u2014(_c_) of S. John iii. 13, encumbered\nafter this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only because _the Text\nof Drs. Westcott and Hort_ is thus depraved in all three places. Those\nScholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S.\nJohn iii. 13 the words \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7, which Lachmann, Tregelles and\nTischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon\nDr. Hort the epithet of \u201c_fearless_\u201d!... If report speaks truly, it is by\nthe merest accident that the clause in question still retains its place in\n_the Revised Text_.\n\n(_d_) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the very end of the\nblessed volume. Against Rev. xiii. 18\u2014\n\n\u201cHere is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of\nthe Beast; for it is the number of a Man: and his number is six hundred\nand sixty and six.\u201d\n\nAgainst this, we find noted,\u2014\u201cSome ancient authorities read _six hundred\nand sixteen_.\u201d\n\nBut why is not the _whole_ Truth told? viz. why are we not informed that\n_only one_ corrupt uncial (C):\u2014_only one_ cursive copy (11):\u2014_only one_\nFather (Tichonius): and _not one_ ancient Version\u2014advocates this\nreading?\u2014which, on the contrary, Iren\u00e6us (A.D. 170) knew, but rejected;\nremarking that 666, which is \u201cfound in all the best and oldest copies and\nis attested by men who saw John face to face,\u201d is unquestionably the true\nreading.(473) Why is not the ordinary Reader further informed that the\nsame number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen,(474)\u2014by\nHippolytus,(475)\u2014by Eusebius:(476)\u2014as well as by Victorinus\u2014and\nPrimasius,\u2014not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as\na matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann,\nTischendorf, Tregelles,\u2014even by Westcott and Hort. _Why_ therefore\u2014for\nwhat possible reason\u2014at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which\nis so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced\nupon the attention of 90 millions of English-speaking people?\n\nWill Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been\ndone because \u201cit would not be safe to accept\u201d 666, \u201cto the absolute\nexclusion of\u201d 616?... \u201cWe have given _alternative Readings_ in the\nmargin,\u201d (say they,) \u201cwherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or\ninterest to deserve notice.\u201d Will they venture to claim either \u201cinterest\u201d\nor \u201cimportance\u201d for _this_? or pretend that it is an \u201calternative Reading\u201d\n_at all_? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal\nChristendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage \u201cthose that have\nunderstanding,\u201d and would fain \u201ccount the number of the Beast,\u201d if they\nwere able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched\ndoubt\u2014one more miserable suspicion\u2014into minds which have been taught (_and\nrightly_) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the\ngravest utterances of the SPIRIT: minds which are utterly incapable of\ndealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one-sided\nstatement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken\ninferences, and the most unreasonable distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only\nbecause, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman\u2019s N. T. is the\nfittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and\nventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We really pause for an\nanswer.\n\n(_e_) But serious as this is, _more_ serious (if possible) is the unfair\n_Suppression systematically practised_ throughout the work before us. \u201cWe\nhave given alternative Readings in the margin,\u201d\u2014(says Bishop Ellicott on\nbehalf of his brother-Revisionists,)\u2014\u201c_wherever they seem to be of\nsufficient importance or interest to deserve notice._\u201d [iii. 1.] From\nwhich statement, readers have a right to infer that whenever \u201calternative\nReadings\u201d are _not_ \u201cgiven in the margin,\u201d it is because such Readings do\n_not_ \u201cseem to be of _sufficient importance or interest to deserve\nnotice_.\u201d Will the Revisionists venture to tell us that,\u2014(to take the\nfirst instance of unfair Suppression which presents itself,)\u2014our LORD\u2019s\nsaying in S. Mark vi. 11 is not \u201cof sufficient importance or interest to\ndeserve notice\u201d? We allude to the famous words,\u2014\u201cVerily I say unto you, It\nshall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment,\nthan for that city:\u201d\u2014words which are not only omitted from the \u201cNew\nEnglish Version,\u201d but _are not suffered to leave so much as a trace of\nthemselves in the margin_. And yet, the saying in question is attested by\nthe Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions: by the Old Latin: by the\nCoptic, \u00c6thiopic and Gothic Versions:\u2014by 11 uncials and by the whole bulk\nof the cursives:\u2014by Iren\u00e6us and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether\nAntiquity, or Variety of Attestation is considered,\u2014whether we look for\nNumbers or for Respectability,\u2014the genuineness of the passage may be\nregarded as _certain_. Our complaint however is _not_ that the\nRevisionists entertain a different opinion on this head from ourselves:\nbut that they give the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence\nis such, that it is quite \u201csafe to accept\u201d the shorter reading,\u2014\u201cto the\n_absolute exclusion_ of the other.\u201d\u2014So vast is the field before us, that\nthis single specimen of what we venture to call \u201cunfair Suppression,\u201d must\nsuffice. (Some will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It\nis in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work before us, that\nits Authors should have so largely and so seriously _falsified the\nDeposit_; and yet, (in clear violation of the IVth Principle or Rule laid\ndown for their guidance at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive\nin the margin of the deadly mischief which they have effected.\n\nIII. From the Text, the Revisionists pass on to the TRANSLATION; and\nsurprise us by the avowal, that \u201cthe character of the Revision was\ndetermined for us from the outset by the first Rule,\u2014\u2018to introduce as few\nalterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness.\u2019 Our task was\nRevision, not Retranslation.\u201d (This is _na\u00efve_ certainly.) They proceed,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIf the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that\n    was before us in the Authorized Version, we made no change, even\n    where rigid adherence to _the rule of Translating, as far as\n    possible, the same Greek word by the same English word_ might have\n    prescribed some modification.\u201d\u2014[iii. 2 _init._] (The italics are\n    our own.)\n\n\nTo the \u201c_rule_\u201d thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur by and by\n[pp. 152-4: also pp. 187-202]. We proceed to remark on each of the five\nprincipal Classes of alterations indicated by the Revisionists: and\nfirst,\u2014\u201cAlterations positively required by change of reading in the Greek\nText\u201d (_Ibid._).\n\n(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find \u201c_Suffer her to keep it_ against the\nday of my burying;\u201d and in the margin (as an alternative), \u201cLet her alone:\n_it was that she might keep it_.\u201d\u2014Instead of \u201cas soon as JESUS heard the\nword,\u201d\u2014we are invited to choose between \u201c_not heeding_,\u201d and\n\u201c_overhearing_ the word\u201d (S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for\nrenderings of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2,\u2014an expression which S. Mark certainly never\nemployed.\u2014\u201cOn earth, peace among men _in whom he is well pleased_\u201d (S. Lu.\nii. 14): where the margin informs us that \u201cmany ancient authorities read,\n_good pleasure among men_.\u201d (And why not \u201c_good will_,\u201d\u2014the rendering\nadopted in Phil. i. 15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have\nresulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:\u2014\u201cWhy _askest thou me\nconcerning that which is good_?\u201d (Matth. xix. 17,\u2014an absurd\nfabrication).\u2014\u201cHe would fain _have been filled_ with the husks,\u201d &c....\n\u201cand I perish _here_ with hunger!\u201d (\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, borrowed from Lu. xvi.\n21: and \u03b5\u03b3\u03a9\u0394\u0395\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5, a transparent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).\u2014\u201cWhen _it\nshall fail_, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles\u201d (xvi.\n9).\u2014\u2014Elizabeth \u201clifted up her voice _with a loud cry_\u201d (\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03ae\u2014the private\nproperty of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. 42).\u2014\u201cAnd _they stood still\nlooking sad_\u201d (xxiv. 17,\u2014a foolish transcriptional blunder).\u2014\u201cThe\nmultitude _went up_ and began to ask him,\u201d &c. (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c2 for \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, Mk.\nxv. 8).\u2014\u201cBut is guilty of _an eternal sin_\u201d (iii. 29).\u2014\u201cAnd the officers\n_received Him_ with blows of their hands,\u201d\u2014marg. \u201cor _strokes of rods_:\u201d\n\u0395\u039b\u0391\u0392\u039f\u039d for \u0395\u0392\u0391\u039b\u039f\u039d (xiv. 65).\u2014\u201cElse, that which should fill it up taketh\nfrom it, _the new from the old_\u201d (ii. 21): and \u201cNo man _rendeth a piece\nfrom a new garment_ and putteth it upon an old garment; else _he will rend\nthe new_,\u201d &c. (Lu. v. 36).\u2014\u201cWhat is this? _a new teaching!_\u201d (Mk. i.\n27).\u2014\u201cJESUS saith unto him, _If thou canst!_\u201d (Mk. ix. 23).\u2014\u201cBecause of\nyour _little __ faith_\u201d(Matth. xvii. 20).\u2014\u201c_We must_ work the works of Him\nthat sent Me, while it is day\u201d (Jo. ix. 4).\u2014\u201c_The man that is called_\nJESUS made clay\u201d (ver. 11).\u2014\u201cIf ye shall ask _Me anything in My name_\u201d\n(xiv. 14).\u2014\u201cThe Father abiding in Me _doeth His works_\u201d (xiv. 10).\u2014\u201cIf ye\nshall ask anything of the Father, _He will give it you in My name_\u201d (xvi.\n23).\u2014\u201cI glorified Thee on the earth, _having accomplished the work_ which\nThou hast given Me to do\u201d (xvii. 4).\u2014\u201cHoly Father, keep them _in Thy Name\nwhich_ Thou hast given Me ... I kept them _in Thy Name which_ Thou hast\ngiven me\u201d (ver. 11, 12).\u2014\u201cShe ... saith unto Him _in Hebrew_, Rabboni\u201d\n(xx. 16).\u2014\u201cThese things said Isaiah, _because_ he saw his glory\u201d (xii.\n41,\u2014\u039f\u03a4\u0399 for \u039f\u03a4\u0395, a common itacism).\u2014\u201cIn tables _that are hearts of flesh_\u201d\n(\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, a \u201cperfectly absurd reading,\u201d as Scrivener\nremarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).\u2014\u201c_Now if_ we put the horses\u2019 bridles [and\npray, why not \u2018the horses\u2019 _bits_\u2019?] into their mouths\u201d (\u0395\u0399\u0394\u0395, an ordinary\nitacism for \u0399\u0394\u0395, James iii. 3).\u2014\u201cUnto the sick were _carried away from his\nbody_ handkerchiefs,\u201d &c. (Acts xix. 12).\u2014\u201c_Ye know all things once for\nall_\u201d (Jude ver. 5).\u2014\u201c_We love_ because he first loved us\u201d (1 Jo. iv.\n19).\u2014\u201cI have found _no work of thine fulfilled_ before my GOD\u201d (Rev. iii.\n2).\u2014\u201cSeven Angels _arrayed with [precious] stone_\u201d (xv. 6), instead of\n\u201cclothed in linen,\u201d \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd for \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. (Fancy the Angels \u201c_clothed in\nstone_\u201d! \u201cPrecious\u201d is an interpolation of the Revisers).\u2014\u201c_Dwelling in_\nthe things which he hath seen:\u201d for which the margin offers as an\nalternative, \u201c_taking his stand upon_\u201d (Colossians ii. 18). But \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd\n(the word here employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. S.\nPaul is delivering a warning against unduly \u201c_prying into_ the things\n_not_ seen.\u201d(477) A few MSS. of bad character omit the \u201c_not_.\u201d That is\nall!... These then are a handful of the less conspicuous instances of a\nchange in the English \u201cpositively required by a change of reading in the\nGreek Text:\u201d every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a\ngross fabrication.\u2014Take only two more: \u201cI neither know, nor understand:\n_thou, what sayest thou?_\u201d (Mk. xiv. 68 margin):\u2014\u201cAnd _whither I go, ye\nknow the way_\u201d (Jo. xiv. 4).... The A. V. is better in every instance.\n\n(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V. \u201cappeared to be\nincorrect\u201d or else \u201cobscure.\u201d They must needs be such as the\nfollowing:\u2014\u201cHe that _is bathed_ needeth not save to wash his feet\u201d (S.\nJohn xiii. 10).\u2014\u201cLORD, if he is fallen asleep _he will recover_\u201d\n(\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, xi. 12).\u2014\u201cGo ye therefore into _the partings of the highways_\u201d\n(Matth. xxii. 9).\u2014\u201cBeing grieved at _the hardening_ of their heart\u201d (Mk.\niii. 5).\u2014\u201cLight _a lamp_ and put it _on the stand_\u201d (Matt. v.\n15).\u2014\u201cSitting at _the place of toll_\u201d (ix. 9).\u2014\u201cThe supplication of a\nrighteous man availeth much _in its working_\u201d (James v. 16).\u2014\u201cAwake up\n_righteously_\u201d (1 Cor. xv. 34).\u2014\u201c_Guarded_ through faith unto _a\nsalvation_\u201d (1 Pet. i. 5).\u2014\u201cWandering in ... _the holes of the earth_\u201d\n(Heb. xi. 38\u2014very queer places certainly to be \u201cwandering\u201d in).\u2014\u201c_She that\nis in Babylon_, elect together with you, saluteth you\u201d (1 Pet. v.\n13).\u2014\u201cTherefore do _these powers work in Him_\u201d (Matth. xiv. 2).\u2014\u201cIn danger\nof the _hell of fire_\u201d (v. 22).\u2014\u201c_Put out_ into the deep\u201d (Luke v.\n4).\u2014\u201cThe tomb that Abraham bought for _a price in silver_\u201d (Acts vii. 16).\n\nWith reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of\nwhat is to be met with in every page,) we venture to assert that they are\neither _less_ intelligible, or else _more_ inaccurate, than the\nexpressions which they are severally intended to supersede; while, in some\ninstances, they are _both_. Will any one seriously contend that \u201c_the hire\nof wrong-doing_\u201d is better than \u201c_the wages of unrighteousness_\u201d (2 Pet.\nii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that, \u201cCome and _dine_\u201d\u2014\u201cso when they\n_had dined_,\u201d\u2014is a hundred times better than \u201cCome and _break your\nfast_\u201d\u2014\u201cso when they _had broken their fast_\u201d (Jo. xxi. 12,\n15)?\u2014expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were\nashamed (as well they might be) to write \u201cbreakfast\u201d and \u201cbreakfasted.\u201d\nThe seven had not been \u201c_fasting_.\u201d Then, why introduce so incongruous a\nnotion here,\u2014any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12?\n\nHas the reader any appetite for more specimens of \u201cincorrectness\u201d\n_remedied_ and \u201cobscurity\u201d _removed_? Rather, as it seems, have _both_\nbeen largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible\nbefore. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative\nparticle, and then, by mistranslating it \u201c_Or_\u201d?\u2014Also, why translate \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u201c_race_\u201d? (\u201ca man of Cyprus _by race_,\u201d \u201ca man of Pontus _by race_,\u201d \u201can\nAlexandrian _by race_,\u201d Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).\u2014\u201c_If_ there is a\nnatural body, there is also a spiritual body,\u201d say the Revisionists: \u201cO\ndeath, where is thy victory? O _death_ where is thy sting?\u201d (Could they\nnot let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone?)\u2014Why alter \u201cFor the bread of GOD\nis _He_,\u201d into \u201cFor the bread of GOD is _that_ which cometh down from\nHeaven\u201d? (Jo. vi. 33).\u2014\u201c_As long as I am_ in the world,\u201d was surely better\nthan \u201c_When I am_ in the world, I am the light of the world\u201d (ix. 5).\u2014Is\n\u201c_He went forth out of_ their hand\u201d supposed to be an improvement upon\n\u201c_He escaped out of_ their hand\u201d? (x. 39): and is \u201cThey loved _the glory_\nof men more than _the glory_ of GOD\u201d an improvement upon \u201cthe _praise_\u201d?\n(xii. 43).\u2014\u201cJudas saith unto Him, LORD, _what is come to pass_ that Thou\nwilt manifest Thyself to us\u201d? Is _that_ supposed to be an improvement upon\nxiv. 22?\u2014How is \u201c_If then_\u201d an improvement on \u201cForasmuch then\u201d in Acts xi.\n17?\u2014or how is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,\u2014\u201cFor that which I do, I\n_know_ not: for _not what I would, that do I practise_:\u201d\u2014or this, in xvi.\n25, \u201cThe mystery which hath been _kept in silence through times eternal_,\nbut now is manifested,\u201d &c.\u2014\u201cThou therefore, _my child_,\u201d\u2014addressing the\nBishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and \u201cTitus, _my true child_,\u201d\u2014addressing\nthe Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4).\n\nAre the following deemed improvements? \u201cEvery one that _doeth_ sin doeth\nalso _lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness_\u201d (1 Jo. iii. 4): \u201cI will _move_\nthy candlestick out of its place\u201d (Rev. ii. 5):\u2014\u201ca _glassy_ sea\u201d (iv.\n6):\u2014\u201ca _great_ voice\u201d (v. 12):\u2014\u201cVerily, not of Angels _doth He take hold_,\nbut _He taketh hold_ of the seed of Abraham:\u201d\u2014\u201cHe _took hold of_ the blind\nman by _the hand_:\u201d\u2014\u201cThey _took hold of him_ and brought him unto the\nAreopagus\u201d (Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):\u2014\u201cwherefore GOD\nis not _ashamed of them_, to be called their GOD\u201d (Acts xi. 16):\u2014\u201c_Counted\nit not a prize_ to be on an equality with GOD\u201d (Phil. ii. 6).\u2014Why are we\nto substitute \u201c_court_\u201d for \u201cpalace\u201d in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21?\n(Consider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).\u2014\u201cWomen received their dead _by\na resurrection_\u201d (Heb. xi. 35):\u2014\u201cIf ye forgive not every one _his brother\nfrom their hearts_\u201d (Matth. xviii. 35):\u2014\u201cIf _because of meat_ thy brother\nis grieved, thou walkest _no longer in love_\u201d (Rom. xiv. 15):\u2014\u201cwhich GOD,\nwho cannot lie, promised _before times eternal_; but _in his own seasons_\nmanifested _his word in the message_\u201d (Tit. i. 2, 3):\u2014\u201cYour _pleasures_\n[and why not \u2018lusts\u2019?] that war in your members\u201d (James iv. 1):\u2014\u201cBehold\n_how much wood_ is kindled by _how small a fire_!\u201d (iii. 5).\u2014Are these\nreally supposed to be less \u201cobscure\u201d than the passages they are intended\nto supersede?\n\n(_a_) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists can only be\nestablished by an amount of illustration which is at once inconvenient to\nthe Reviewer and unwelcome probably to the general Reader. Thus, we take\nleave to point out that,\u2014\u201cAnd _coming up_ at that very hour\u201d (in Lu. ii.\n38),\u2014as well as \u201cshe _came up_ to Him\u201d (in Lu. x. 40), are inexact\nrenderings of the original. The verb \u1f10\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, which etymologically\nsignifies \u201cto stand upon,\u201d or \u201cover,\u201d or \u201cby,\u201d\u2014(but which retains its\nliteral signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions(478) when\nthe word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,)\u2014is found almost invariably to\ndenote the \u201c_coming suddenly upon_\u201d a person. Hence, it is observed to be\nused five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from\nthe unseen world:(479) and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of\nwhat is formidable.(480) On the two remaining occasions, which are those\nbefore us,\u2014(namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple(481) and of\nMartha into the presence of our LORD,(482))\u2014\u201c_coming suddenly in_\u201d would\nprobably represent S. Luke\u2019s \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 exactly. And yet, one would hesitate\nto import the word \u201csuddenly\u201d into the narrative. So that \u201c_coming in_\u201d\nwould after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student\nof Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something more is _implied_.\nIn other words,\u2014the Revisionists would have done better if they had left\nboth places alone.... These are many words; yet is it impossible to\nexplain such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly.\n\n(_b_) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving\nafter etymological accuracy,\u2014added to a calamitous preference for a\ndepraved Text,\u2014has proved the ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in\nS. John\u2019s Gospel. \u201cSimon Peter beckoneth to him, _and saith unto him, Tell\nus who it is of whom He speaketh_\u201d [a fabulous statement evidently; for\nPeter beckoned, because he might _not_ speak]. \u201cHe _leaning back, as he\nwas_,\u201d\u2014[a very bad rendering of \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, by the way; and sure to recal\ninopportunely the rendering of \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of\nsuggesting (as it obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]\u2014\u201con\nJESUS\u2019 breast, saith unto Him, LORD who is it?\u201d (S. John xiii. 24-5). Now,\nS. John\u2019s word concerning himself in this place is certainly \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ce\u03bd. He\n\u201c_just sank_\u201d\u2014let his head \u201c_fall_\u201d\u2014on his Master\u2019s breast, and whispered\nhis question. For this, a few corrupt copies substitute \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ce\u03bd. But\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ce\u03bd _never_ means \u201c_leaning back_.\u201d It is descriptive of the posture\nof one _reclining at a meal_ (S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10\ntimes rendered by the Revisionists to \u201c_sit down_.\u201d Why, in this place,\nand in chapter xxi. 20, _a new meaning_ is thrust upon the word, it is for\nthe Revisionists to explain. But they must explain the matter a vast deal\nbetter than Bp. Lightfoot has done in his interesting little work on\nRevision (pp. 72-3), or they will fail to persuade any,\u2014except one\nanother.\n\n(_c_) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the\nunfortunate production before us without exclaiming (with one in the\nGospel), \u201c_The old is better_.\u201d Changes of _any_ sort are unwelcome in\nsuch a book as the Bible; but the discovery that changes have been made\n_for the worse_, offends greatly. To take instances at random:\u2014\u2019\u1f49 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V. \u201ca _very great_\nmultitude.\u201d(483) Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into \u201c_the most\npart of_ the multitude\u201d?\u2014\u1f49 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (Mk. xii. 37), in like manner, is\nrightly rendered \u201c_the common people_,\u201d and ought not to have been glossed\nin the margin \u201c_the great multitude_.\u201d\u2014In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find\n\u201c_Make_ thou not common,\u201d introduced as an improvement on, \u201c_That call_\nnot thou common.\u201d But \u201cthe old is better:\u201d for, besides its idiomatic and\nhelpful \u201c_That_,\u201d\u2014the old alone states the case truly. Peter did not\n\u201c_make_,\u201d he only \u201c_called_,\u201d something \u201ccommon.\u201d\u2014\u201cAll the _male_\nchildren,\u201d as a translation of \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 (in Matth. ii. 16) is an\nunauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female\ninfants of Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre: and the Greek\ncertainly conveys no such information.\u2014\u201cWhen he came into the house, JESUS\n_spake first_ to him\u201d\u2014is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25:\nat least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the\nGreek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says.\n\u201c_Anticipated_,\u201d in modern English,\u2014\u201c_prevented_,\u201d in ancient\nphraseology,\u2014\u201c_was beforehand with him_\u201d in language neither new nor\nold,\u2014conveys the sense of the original exactly.\u2014In S. Lu. vi. 35, \u201cLove\nyour enemies, ... and lend, _never despairing_,\u201d is simply a mistaken\ntranslation of \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, as the context sufficiently proves. The old\nrendering is the true one.(484) And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,\u2014_nihil\ninde sperantes_. (Consider the use of \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd [Heb. xi. 26]: \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd\n[Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]: _abutor_, as used by Jerome for _utor_,\n&c.)\u2014\u201cGo with them _making no distinction_\u201d is not the meaning of Acts xi.\n12: which, however, was correctly translated before, viz. \u201cnothing\ndoubting.\u201d\u2014The mischievous change (\u201c_save_\u201d in place of \u201cbut\u201d) in Gal. ii.\n16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of\nthe learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln, \u201cit is illogical and erroneous, and\n_contradicts the whole drift of S. Paul\u2019s Argument_ in that Epistle, and\nin the Epistle to the Romans.\u201d\n\n(_d_) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal\nour grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novel _expressions_ which\nthe Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament.\nThat the malefactors between whom \u201cthe LORD of glory\u201d was crucified were\nnot ordinary \u201c_thieves_\u201d is obvious; yet would it have been wiser, we\nthink, to leave the old designation undisturbed. We shall never learn to\ncall them \u201c_robbers_.\u201d\u2014\u201cThe king sent forth _a soldier of his guard_\u201d is a\ngloss\u2014not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27. \u201c_An executioner_\u201d surely is\nfar preferable as the equivalent for \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1!(485)\u2014\u201c_Assassins_\u201d (as\nthe rendering of \u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9) is an objectionable substitute for \u201cmurderers.\u201d\nA word which \u201cbelongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the\nCrusades\u201d(486) has no business in the N. T.\u2014And what did these learned men\nsuppose they should gain by substituting \u201c_the twin brothers_\u201d for\n\u201c_Castor and Pollux_\u201d in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (\u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9) is\nneither the one nor the other.\u2014In the same spirit, instead of, \u201cthey that\nreceived _tribute-money_\u201d (in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented\nwith \u201cthey that received _the half-shekel_:\u201d and in verse 27,\u2014instead of\n\u201cwhen thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find _a piece of money_,\u201d we\nare favoured with \u201cthou shalt find _a shekel_.\u201d But _why_ the change has\nbeen made, we fail to see. The margin is _still_ obliged to explain that\nnot one of these four words is found in the original: the Greek in the\nformer place being \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1,\u2014in the latter, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1.\u2014\u201c_Flute-players_\u201d\n(for \u201cminstrels\u201d) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. An \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 played\n_the pipe_ (\u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),\u2014hence \u201cpipers\u201d in Rev. xviii. 22;\n(where by the way \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af [\u201cmusicians\u201d] is perversely and less accurately\nrendered \u201c_minstrels_\u201d).\u2014Once more. \u201c_Undressed_ cloth\u201d (Mk. ii. 21),\nbecause it is an expression popularly understood only in certain districts\nof England, and a _vox artis_, ought not to have been introduced into the\nGospels. \u201c_New_\u201d is preferable.\u2014\u201c_Wine-skins_\u201d (Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22:\nLu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible to the generality; as the Revisionists\nconfess, for they explain it by a note,\u2014\u201cThat is, _skins used as\nbottles_.\u201d What else is this but substituting a new difficulty for an old\none?\u2014\u201c_Silver_,\u201d now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. 20, is\nunreasonable. Like \u201cargent\u201d in French, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd as much means \u201cmoney,\u201d\nhere as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, &c.\u2014In S. James ii. 19, we should like\nto know what is gained by the introduction of the \u201c_shuddering_\u201d\ndevils.\u2014To take an example from a different class of words,\u2014Who will say\nthat \u201cThou _mindest_ not the things of GOD\u201d is a better rendering of \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, than the old \u201cThou _savourest_ not,\u201d\u2014which at least had no\nambiguity about it?... A friend points out that Dr. Field (a \u201cmaster in\nIsrael\u201d) has examined 104 of the changes _made_ in the Revised Version;\nand finds 8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (_i.e._ cases in which\nthe A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. has not succeeded in\namending): 64 _changes for the worse_.(487)... This is surely a terrible\nindictment for such an one as Dr. Field to bring against the\nRevisers,\u2014_who were directed only to correct_ \u201cPLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS.\u201d\n\n(_e_) We really fail to understand how it has come to pass that,\nnotwithstanding the amount of scholarship which sometimes sat in the\nJerusalem Chamber, so many novelties are found in the present Revision\nwhich betoken a want of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek\nlanguage on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only a\nslender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties of English speech,\non the other. A fair average instance of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37,\nwhere (instead of \u201c_Canst_ thou _speak_ Greek?\u201d) \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2? is\nrendered \u201c_Dost_ thou _know_ Greek?\u201d That \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd means \u201cto know\u201d (and\nnot \u201cto speak\u201d) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of all, except the\ndriest and stupidest of pedagogues, \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; must be\ntranslated \u201cCanst thou _speak_ Greek?\u201d For (as every schoolboy is aware)\n\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af is an adverb, and signifies \u201c_in Greek fashion_:\u201d so that\nsomething has to be supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be\ngiven, would be, \u201cDost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?\u201d But then, this\ncondensation of phrase proves to be the established idiom of the\nlanguage:(488) so that the rejection of the learned rendering of Tyndale,\nCranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Translators of 1611 (\u201c_Canst thou\nspeak_ Greek?\u201d)\u2014the rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour\nof \u201c_Dost thou know_ Greek?\u201d really betrays ignorance. It is worse than\nbad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberate _blunder_.\n\n(_f_) The substitution of \u201c_they weighed unto him_\u201d (in place of \u201c_they\ncovenanted with him for_\u201d) \u201cthirty pieces of silver\u201d (S. Matth. xxvi. 15)\nis another of those plausible mistakes, into which a little learning\n(proverbially \u201ca dangerous thing\u201d) is for ever conducting its unfortunate\npossessor; but from which it was to have been expected that the undoubted\nattainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber would have\neffectually preserved the Revisionists. That \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd is intended to recal\nZech. xi. 12, is obvious; as well as that _there_ it refers to the ancient\npractice of _weighing_ uncoined money. It does not, however, by any means\nfollow, that it was customary to _weigh_ shekels in the days of the\nGospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, but always counted; and\nthese were shekels, _i.e._ _didrachms_ (Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it\nlies on the surface) is, that there exists a happy ambiguity about the\nword \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself.\nIn the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that in the\nfirst instance money did _not_ pass,\u2014only a bargain was made, and a\ncertain sum promised. S. Mark\u2019s record is that the chief priests were glad\nat the proposal of Judas, \u201c_and promised_ to give him money\u201d (xiv. 11): S.\nLuke\u2019s, that \u201c_they covenanted_\u201d to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the\nstatement of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest agreement.\nThe chief Priests \u201cset\u201d or \u201cappointed\u201d(489) him a certain sum. The\nperfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited\nby our Authorized Version, has been set aside to make way for _a\nmisrepresentation of the Evangelist\u2019s meaning_. \u201cIn the judgment of the\nmost competent scholars,\u201d was \u201csuch change NECESSARY\u201d?\n\n(_g_) We respectfully think that it would have been more becoming in such\na company as that which assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as\nmore consistent with their Instructions, if _in doubtful cases_ they had\nabstained from touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own\nconjectural emendations _in the margin_. How rash and infelicitous, for\nexample, is the following rendering of the famous words in Acts xxvi. 28,\n29, which we find thrust upon us without apology or explanation; without,\nin fact, any marginal note at all:\u2014\u201cAnd Agrippa said unto Paul, _With but\nlittle persuasion thou wouldest fain make me_ a Christian. And Paul said,\nI would to GOD, that whether _with little or with much_,\u201d &c. Now this is\nindefensible. For, in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the\nwords, our Revisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabricated\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 (the peculiar property of \u05d0 A B and a few cursives) for \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\nin ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the words do not yield the required sense.\nWe venture to point out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where\nthe opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. The\nmoderns confess themselves unable to discover a single instance of the\nphrase \u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u1ff3 in the sense of \u201c_within a little_.\u201d Cyril of Jerusalem\n(A.D. 350) and Chrysostom (A.D. 400), on the contrary, evidently\nconsidered that here the expression can mean nothing else; and they were\ncompetent judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: far better\njudges (be it remarked in passing) on a point of this kind than the whole\nbody of Revisionists put together. \u201cSuch an amount of victorious grace and\nwisdom did Paul derive from the HOLY SPIRIT\u201d (says Cyril), \u201cthat even King\nAgrippa at last exclaimed,\u201d(490) &c. From which it is evident that Cyril\nregarded Agrippa\u2019s words as an avowal that he was well-nigh overcome by\nthe Apostle\u2019s argument. And so Chrysostom,(491) who says plainly that \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u1ff3 means \u201cwithin a little,\u201d(492) and assumes that \u201cwithin a little\u201d S.\nPaul had persuaded his judge.(493) He even puts \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd into Agrippa\u2019s\nmouth.(494) So also, in effect, Theodoret.(495) From all which it is\nreasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that\nour A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church\u2019s traditionary\ninterpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century.\nLet it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who\nfrequented the Jerusalem Chamber\u2014the late President of Magdalen, Dr.\nRouth,\u2014writes: \u201c_Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum\nfieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades me Christianum\nfieri._\u201d(496) Yes, the Apostle\u2019s rejoinder fixes the meaning of what\nAgrippa had said before.\u2014And this shall suffice. We pass on, only\nrepeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand,\nor were unable _materially and certainly_ to improve, they would have been\nso obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably\nright; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that\nthe rendering with which we are all familiar is \u201c_a plain and clear\nerror_.\u201d And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left\nunmolested. But to proceed.\n\n(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering\nidentical expressions _in strictly parallel places of the Gospels_ by\nstrictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with the\nRevisionists. But \u201calterations [supposed to be] rendered necessary _by\nconsequence_\u201d (_Preface_, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we\nventure to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical\nuniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as\nmost grievously lost their way. We differ from them in fact _in limine_.\n\u201cWhen a particular word\u201d (say they) \u201cis found to recur with characteristic\nfrequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to\nadopt for it some uniform rendering\u201d (iii. 2). \u201cDesirable\u201d! Yes, but in\nwhat sense? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language\nalways contained _the exact counterparts_ of Greek words: and of course,\nif it did, it would be in the highest degree \u201cdesirable\u201d that a Translator\nshould always employ those words and no other. But then it happens\nunfortunately that _precisely equivalent words do not exist_. \u03a4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, nine\ntimes out of ten signifies nothing else but \u201c_child_.\u201d On the tenth\noccasion, however, (_e.g._ where Abraham is addressing the rich man in\nHades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate \u201c_Son_.\u201d We are\nin fact without choice.\u2014Take another ordinary Greek term, \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1, which\noccurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders\n\u201cbowels.\u201d Well, and \u201cbowels\u201d confessedly \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 are. Yet have our\nRevisionists felt themselves under the \u201cnecessity\u201d of rendering the word\n\u201c_heart_,\u201d in Col. iii. 12,\u2014\u201c_very heart_,\u201d in Philemon, ver.\n12,\u2014\u201caffections\u201d in 2 Cor. vi. 12,\u2014\u201c_inward affection_,\u201d in vii.\n15,\u2014\u201c_tender mercies_\u201d in Phil. i. 8,\u2014\u201c_compassion_\u201d in 1 Jo. iii.\n17,\u2014\u201c_bowels_\u201d only in Acts i. 18.\u2014These learned men, however, put forward\nin illustration of their own principle of translation, the word\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2,\u2014which occurs about 80 times in the N. T.: nearly half the\ninstances being found in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. We accept their challenge; and\nassert that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2,\u2014no\nmatter _what_ the context in which it stands,\u2014the sense of\n\u201c_straightway_,\u201d\u2014only because \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03cd\u03c2, the adjective, generally (not always)\nmeans \u201cstraight.\u201d Where a miracle of healing is described (as in S. Matth.\nviii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since the benefit was no doubt\ninstantaneous, it is surely the mere instinct of \u201cfaithfulness\u201d to\ntranslate \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u201c_immediately_.\u201d So, in respect of the sudden act which\nsaved Peter from sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual cock-crow\n(xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, as _accompany_\nhis denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, when _the growth of a seed_ is\nthe thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! Acts again, which must needs have\noccupied some little time in the doing, reasonably suggest some such\nrendering as \u201c_forthwith_\u201d or \u201c_straightway_,\u201d\u2014(_e.g._ S. Matth. xiv. 22:\nxxi. 2: and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning (as the\nRevisionists confess) can only be \u201c_shortly_.\u201d... So plain a matter really\nought not to require so many words. We repeat, that the Revisionists set\nout with a mistaken Principle. They clearly _do not understand their\nTrade_.\n\nThey invite our attention to their rendering of certain of the Greek\nTenses, and of the definite Article. We regret to discover that, in both\nrespects, their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a\nmajority of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with the genius\nof the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate appreciation of the\nidiomatic proprieties of their own. Such a charge must of necessity, when\nit has been substantiated, press heavily upon such a work as the present;\nfor it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, which may be\nrectified. A vicious _system_ of rendering Tenses, and representing the\nGreek Article, is sure to crop up in every part of the undertaking, and\nmust occasionally be attended by consequences of a serious nature.\n\n1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit at once that, in\nteaching _boys_ how to turn Greek into English, we insist that every tense\nshall be marked by its own appropriate sign. There is no telling how\nhelpful it will prove in the end, that every word shall at first have been\nrendered with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented\u2014the\nPrepositions caricatured\u2014the Particles magnified,\u2014let the very order of\nthe words at first, (however impossible,) be religiously retained.\nMerciless accuracy having been in this way acquired, a youth has to be\n_un_taught these servile habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements\nof the _English idiom_, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic\nrendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement by far,\nthan his former slavish endeavour always to render the same word and tense\nin the same slavish way.\n\n2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now under review is, that\nthe schoolboy method of translation already noticed is therein exhibited\nin constant operation throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never\npermitted to believe that we are in the company of Scholars who are\naltogether masters of their own language. Their solicitude ever seems to\nbe twofold:\u2014(1) To exhibit a singular indifference to the proprieties of\nEnglish speech, while they maintain a servile adherence (etymological or\nidiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:\u2014(2) Right or wrong, to part\ncompany from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us our \u201cAuthorized\nVersion.\u201d\n\nTake a few illustrations of what precedes from the second chapter of S.\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel:\u2014\n\n(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering \u201c_we have seen_\u201d is\nmade to give place to the incorrect \u201c_we saw_ his star in the east.\u201d\u2014In\nver. 9, the idiomatic \u201c_when they had heard the king_, they departed,\u201d is\nrejected for the unidiomatic \u201cAnd they, _having heard the king_, went\ntheir way.\u201d\u2014In ver. 15, we are treated to \u201cthat it might be fulfilled\nwhich was spoken by the LORD _through_ the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt\n_did I call_ my son.\u201d And yet who sees not, that in both instances the old\nrendering is better? Important as it may be, _in the lecture-room_, to\ninsist on what is implied by \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f59\u03a0\u1ff8 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u0394\u0399\u1fba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, it\nis simply preposterous to _come abroad_ with such refinements. It is to\nstultify oneself and to render one\u2019s author unintelligible. Moreover, the\nattempt to be so wondrous literal is safe to break down at the end of a\nfew verses. Thus, if \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac is \u201c_through_\u201d in verse 15,\u2014why not in verse 17\nand in verse 23?\n\n(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1, \u201cthere came wise men\nfrom the east\u201d is changed into \u201c_wise men from the east came_.\u201d\u2014In ver. 4,\nthe accurate, \u201cAnd when [Herod] had gathered together\u201d (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd) &c., is\ndisplaced for the inaccurate, \u201cAnd _gathering together_\u201d &c.\u2014In ver. 6, we\nare presented with the unintelligible, \u201cAnd thou _Bethlehem, land of\nJudah_:\u201d while in ver. 7, \u201cThen Herod _privily called_ the wise men, and\n_learned of them carefully_,\u201d is improperly put in the place of \u201cThen\nHerod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them\ndiligently\u201d (\u1f20\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd).\u2014In ver. 11, the familiar \u201cAnd when they\nwere come into the house, they saw\u201d &c., is needlessly changed into \u201cThey\n_came into the house_, and saw:\u201d while \u201cand when they had opened\n(\u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) their treasures,\u201d is also needlessly altered into \u201cand\n_opening_ their treasures.\u201d\u2014In ver. 12, the R. V. is careful to print \u201c_of\n_GOD\u201d in italics, where italics are not necessary: seeing that\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 implies \u201cbeing warned of GOD\u201d (as the translators of 1611\nwere well aware(497)): whereas in countless other places the same\nRevisionists reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely\nrequired.\u2014Their \u201cuntil I _tell thee_\u201d (in ver. 13) is a most unworthy\nsubstitute for \u201cuntil I _bring thee word_.\u201d\u2014And will they pretend that\nthey have improved the rendering of the concluding words of the chapter?\nIf \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 does not mean \u201cHe shall be called a Nazarene,\u201d\nwhat in the world _does_ it mean? The \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 of quotation they elsewhere\nomit. Then why, here,\u2014\u201c_That_ it might be fulfilled ... _that_\u201d?\u2014Surely,\nevery one of these is an alteration made for alteration\u2019s sake, and in\nevery instance _for the worse_.\n\nWe began by surveying _the Greek_ of the first chapter of S. Matthew\u2019s\nGospel. We have now surveyed _the English_ of the second chapter. What\ndoes the Reader think of the result?\n\nIV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain points of detail:\nand first, to their rendering of THE TENSES OF THE VERB. They begin with\nthe Greek Aorist,\u2014(in their account) \u201cperhaps the most important\u201d detail\nof all:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cWe have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language by\n    forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have often\n    ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English preterite,\n    even when the reader may find some passing difficulty in such a\n    rendering, because we have felt convinced that the true meaning of\n    the original was obscured by the presence of the familiar\n    auxiliary. A remarkable illustration may be found in the\n    seventeenth chapter of S. John\u2019s Gospel.\u201d\u2014_Preface_, iii.\n    2,\u2014(_latter part_).\n\n\n(_a_) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained to assure these\nwell-intentioned men, that the phenomenon we there witness is absolutely\nfatal to their pretensions as \u201c_Revisers_\u201d of our Authorized Version. Were\nit only \u201csome passing difficulty\u201d which their method occasions us, we\nmight have hoped that time would enable us to overcome it. But since it is\n_the genius of the English language_ to which we find they have offered\nviolence; the fixed and universally-understood idiom of our native tongue\nwhich they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is absolutely\nwithout remedy. The difference between the A. V. and the R. V. seems to\nourselves to be simply this,\u2014that the renderings in the former are the\nidiomatic English representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses:\nwhile the proposed substitutes are nothing else but the pedantic efforts\nof mere grammarians to reproduce in another language idioms which it\nabhors. But the Reader shall judge for himself: for _this_ at least is a\npoint on which every educated Englishman is fully competent to pass\nsentence.\n\nWhen our Divine LORD, at the close of His Ministry,\u2014(He had in fact\nreached the very last night of His earthly life, and it wanted but a few\nhours of His Passion,)\u2014when He, at such a moment, addressing the Eternal\nFATHER, says, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2; \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1 ... \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03ac\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], there can be no doubt\nwhatever that, had He pronounced those words in English, He would have\nsaid (with our A. V.) \u201cI _have glorified_ Thee on the earth: I _have\nfinished_ the work:\u201d \u201cI _have manifested_ Thy Name.\u201d The pedantry which\n(on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the perfect\ntense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,\u2014\u201cI glorified\u201d ...\n\u201cI finished\u201d ... \u201cI manifested,\u201d\u2014we pronounce altogether insufferable. We\nabsolutely refuse it a hearing. Presently (in ver. 14) He says,\u2014\u201cI have\ngiven them Thy word; and the world _hath hated them_.\u201d And in ver. 25,\u2014\u201cO\nrighteous FATHER, the world _hath not known_ Thee; but I _have known_\nThee, and these _have known_ that Thou _hast sent_ Me.\u201d _Who_ would\nconsent to substitute for these expressions,\u2014\u201cthe world hated them:\u201d and\n\u201cthe world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst\nsend Me\u201d?\u2014Or turn to another Gospel. _Which_ is better,\u2014\u201cSome one hath\ntouched Me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of Me,\u201d (S. Lu. viii.\n46):\u2014or,\u2014\u201cSome one _did touch_ Me: for _I perceived_ that power _had gone\nforth_ from Me\u201d?\n\nWhen the reference is to an act so extremely recent, _who_ is not aware\nthat the second of these renderings is abhorrent to the genius of the\nEnglish language? As for \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, it is (like _novi_ in Latin) present in\n_sense_ though past in _form_,\u2014here as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.\u2014But turn to yet\nanother Gospel. _Which_ is better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:\u2014\u201c_we took_ no\nbread,\u201d or \u201cIt is because _we have taken_ no bread\u201d?\u2014Again. When Simon\nPeter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out into deep water\nand let down his net for a draught,) is heard to exclaim,\u2014\u201cMaster, we have\ntoiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I\nwill let down the net\u201d (Lu. v. 5),\u2014_who_ would tolerate the proposal to\nput in the place of it,\u2014\u201cMaster, _we toiled all night_, and _took_\nnothing: but at Thy word,\u201d &c. It is not too much to declare that the\nidiom of the English language refuses peremptorily to submit to such\nhandling. Quite in vain is it to encounter us with reminder that\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd are aorists. The answer is,\u2014We know it: but we\ndeny that it follows that the words are to be rendered \u201cwe _toiled_ all\nnight, and _took_ nothing.\u201d There are laws of English Idiom as well as\nlaws of Greek Grammar: and when these clash in what is meant to be a\ntranslation into English out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way\nto the former,\u2014or we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we\npropose to translate.\n\nAll this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be insisted\nupon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional practice show that\nthey fully admit _the Principle_ we are contending for. Thus, \u1f27\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd (in S.\nJo. xx. 2 and 13) is by them translated \u201c_they have taken_:\u201d\u2014\u1f31\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2; (S. Matt. xxvii. 46) \u201cWhy _hast Thou forsaken\nMe_?\u201d(498):\u2014\u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b1 (S. Jo. x. 32) \u201c_have I showed_:\u201d\u2014\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5 (vi. 29)\n\u201c_He hath sent_:\u201d\u2014\u1f20\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (James ii. 6) \u201c_ye have\ndishonoured_:\u201d\u2014\u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 (Acts x. 15) \u201c_hath cleansed_:\u201d\u2014\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (xvii.\n31) \u201cHe _hath appointed_.\u201d But indeed instances abound everywhere. In\nfact, the requirements of the case are often observed to _force_ them to\nbe idiomatic. \u03a4\u03af \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2; (in Jo. xviii. 35), they rightly render \u201cWhat\n_hast_ thou done?\u201d:\u2014and \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1 (in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21), \u201cI _have_\nwritten;\u201d\u2014and \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 (in Acts ix. 13), \u201cI _have_ heard.\u201d\u2014On the other\nhand, by translating \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f34\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (in Acts xxviii. 4), \u201c_hath not\nsuffered_,\u201d they may be thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to\nhave overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten by the\nviper, \u201cthe barbarians\u201d looked upon him as _a dead man_; and therefore\ndiscoursed about what Justice \u201c_did not_ suffer,\u201d as about an entirely\npast transaction.\n\nBut now, _Who_ sees not that the admission, once and again deliberately\nmade, that sometimes it is not only lawful, but even _necessary_, to\naccommodate the Greek aorist (when translated into English) with the sign\nof the perfect,\u2014reduces the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a\nmere question of _Taste_? In view of such instances as the foregoing,\nwhere severe logical necessity has compelled the Revisionists to abandon\ntheir position and fly, it is plain that their contention is at an end,\u2014so\nfar as _right_ and _wrong_ are concerned. They virtually admit that they\nhave been all along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien\nyoke.(499) Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be repeated, as\nevery fresh emergency arises,\u2014Which then is _the more idiomatic_ of these\ntwo English renderings?... Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and\n28), the Revisionists have represented the _Greek perfect_ by the English\nindefinite preterite.\n\n(_b_) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the Aorist, we are\noften annoyed by an _unidiomatic_ rendering of the Imperfect. True enough\nit is that \u201cthe servants and the officers _were standing_ ... and _were\nwarming_ themselves:\u201d Peter also \u201c_was standing_ with them and _was\nwarming_ himself\u201d (S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves\nin English, unless we are about to add something which shall _account for_\nour particularity and precision. Any one, for example, desirous of stating\nwhat had been for years his daily practice, would say\u2014\u201c_I left_ my house.\u201d\nOnly when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he\nmet a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman\nthink of saying, \u201c_I was leaving_ the house.\u201d A Greek writer, on the other\nhand, would not _trust_ this to the imperfect. He would use the present\nparticiple in the dative case, (\u201c_To me, leaving my house_,\u201d(500) &c.).\nOne is astonished to have to explain such things.... \u201cIf therefore thou\n_art offering_ thy gift at the altar\u201d (Matt. v. 23), may seem to some a\nclever translation. To ourselves, it reads like a senseless exaggeration\nof the original.(501) It sounds (and _is_) as unnatural as to say (in S.\nLu. ii. 33) \u201cAnd His father [a depravation of the text] and His mother\n_were marvelling_ at the things which were spoken concerning Him:\u201d\u2014or (in\nHeb. xi. 17) \u201cyea, he that had received the promises _was offering up_ his\nonly-begotten son:\u201d\u2014or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9), \u201cthe same\nheard Paul _speaking_.\u201d\n\n(_c_) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek\nAorist absolutely demands to be rendered into English by the sign of the\n_Pluperfect_. An instance meets us while we write: \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\n(S. Lu. v. 4),\u2014where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic\nrendering of our Authorized Version,\u2014\u201cWhen He _had left_ speaking.\u201d Of\nwhat possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that,\nbecause \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be\naccommodated with _the sign_ of the pluperfect when it is being translated\ninto English?\u2014The R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii.\n24,\u2014where \u201cNow Annas _had sent_ Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,\u201d\nis right, and wanted no revision.\u2014Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo.\nxxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the\nRevisionists. For perforce Joseph \u201c_had hewn_ out\u201d (\u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5) the new\ntomb which became our LORD\u2019S: and the seven Apostles, confessedly, \u201c_had\ndined_\u201d (\u1f20\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd): and S. Peter, of course, \u201cdeclared unto them how the\nLORD _had brought him out_ of the prison\u201d (\u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd): and it is impossible\nto substitute anything for \u201cIf Jesus [Joshua] _had given_ them rest\u201d\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd).\u2014Then of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the\nAorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by\nthe sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6), \u201cThe\nLORD GOD Omnipotent reigneth\u201d (\u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5). There is no striving against\nsuch instances. They _insist_ on being rendered according to the genius of\nthe language into which it is proposed to render them:\u2014as when \u1f14\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf (in\nS. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering \u201c_had lain_.\u201d\n\n(_d_) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the student\u2019s\nbenefit, that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth.\nxxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Critics and Divines (as Origen\nand Eusebius); Poets (as Rogers); Painters (as West);\u2014yes, and will\ncontinue to mislead readers for many a year to come:\u2014and all because men\nhave failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect.\nTranslate,\u2014\u201cThere _had been_ a great earthquake:\u201d [and so (1611-1881) our\nmargin,\u2014until in short \u201cthe Revisionists\u201d interfered:] \u201cfor the Angel of\nthe LORD _had_ descended from heaven, and _come and rolled away_\n(\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5) the stone from the door, and sat upon it.\u201d Strange, that for\n1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that the Evangelist\nis describing what terrified \u201c_the keepers_.\u201d \u201c_The women_\u201d saw no Angel\nsitting upon the stone!\u2014though Origen,(502)\u2014Dionysius of\nAlexandria,(503)\u2014Eusebius,(504)\u2014ps.-Gregory Naz.,(505)\u2014Cyril\nAlex.,(506)\u2014Hesychius,(507)\u2014and so many others\u2014have taken it for granted\nthat they _did_.\n\n(_e_) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pass on,)\u2014There are\noccasions where the Greek _perfect_ exacts the sign of the _present_ at\nthe hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,\u2014\u201cYea LORD, I\n_believe_ that Thou art the CHRIST\u201d (S. Jo. xi. 27).(508) What else but\nthe veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there \u201c_I have believed_,\u201d as the\nEnglish equivalent for \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1?\u2014Just as intolerable is the\nofficiousness which would thrust into the LORD\u2019S prayer (Matt. vi. 12),\n\u201cas we also _have forgiven_ (\u1f00\u03c6\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd) our debtors.\u201d(509)\u2014On the other\nhand, there are Greek _presents_ (whatever the Revisionists may think)\nwhich are just as peremptory in requiring _the sign of the future_, at the\nhands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found\nin S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future is _inherent_ in the present\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure, \u201cI will\nnot leave you desolate: _I come unto you_\u201d?\n\n(_f_) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate\nrendering of \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u2014\u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u2014has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10,\nS. Lu. iii. 9?\n\nV. Next, concerning the DEFINITE ARTICLE; in the case of which, (say the\nRevisionists,)\n\n\n    \u201cmany changes have been made.\u201d \u201cWe have been careful to observe\n    the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically\n    possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to\n    necessity.\u201d\u2014(_Preface_, iii. 2,\u2014_ad fin._)\n\n\nIn reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content\nourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader\u2019s judgment; and\ninvite him to decide between the Reviewer and the Reviewed ... \u201c_The_\nsower went forth to sow\u201d (Matth. xiii. 3).\u2014\u201cIt is greater than _the_\nherbs\u201d (ver. 32).\u2014\u201cLet him be to thee as _the_ Gentile and _the_ publican\u201d\n(xviii. 17).\u2014\u201cThe unclean spirit, when he is gone out of _the_ man\u201d (xii.\n43).\u2014\u201cDid I not choose you _the_ twelve?\u201d (Jo. vi. 70).\u2014\u201cIf I then, _the_\nLord and _the_ master\u201d (xiii. 14).\u2014\u201cFor _the_ joy that a man is born into\nthe world\u201d (xvi. 21).\u2014\u201cBut as touching Apollos _the_ brother\u201d (1 Cor. xvi.\n12).\u2014\u201c_The_ Bishop must be blameless ... able to exhort in _the_ sound\ndoctrine\u201d (Titus i. 7, 9).\u2014\u201c_The_ lust when it hath conceived, beareth\nsin: and _the_ sin, when it is full grown\u201d &c. (James i. 15).\u2014\u201cDoth _the_\nfountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?\u201d (iii.\n11).\u2014\u201cSpeak thou the things which befit _the_ sound doctrine\u201d (Titus ii.\n1).\u2014\u201cThe time will come when they will not endure _the_ sound doctrine\u201d (2\nTim. iv. 3).\u2014\u201cWe had _the_ fathers of our flesh to chasten us\u201d (Heb. xii.\n9).\u2014\u201cFollow after peace with all men, and _the_ sanctification\u201d (ver.\n14).\u2014\u201cWho is _the_ liar but he that denieth that JESUS is the CHRIST?\u201d (1\nJo. ii. 22).\u2014\u201cNot with _the_ water only, but with _the_ water and with\n_the_ blood\u201d (v. 6).\u2014\u201cHe that hath the SON, hath _the_ life: he that hath\nnot the SON of GOD hath not _the_ life\u201d (ver. 12).\n\nTo rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the definite Article is\nfound in all these places in the original Greek,\u2014is preposterous. In\nFrench also we say \u201cTelle est _la_ vie:\u201d but, in translating from the\nFrench, we do not _therefore_ say \u201cSuch is _the_ life.\u201d May we, without\noffence, suggest the study of Middleton _On the Doctrine of the Greek\nArticle_ to those members of the Revisionists\u2019 body who have favoured us\nwith the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings?\n\nSo, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with,\u2014\u201c_An_\neternal\u201d (for \u201c_the_ everlasting\u201d) \u201cgospel to proclaim\u201d (Rev. xiv. 6):\u2014and\n\u201cone like unto _a_ son of man,\u201d for \u201cone like unto _the_ Son of Man\u201d in\nver. 14.\u2014Why \u201c_a_ SAVIOUR\u201d in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv.\n12).\u2014On the other hand, \u039a\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03bd is rendered \u201c_The_ skull\u201d in S. Lu. xxiii.\n33. It is hard to see why.\u2014These instances taken at random must suffice.\nThey might be multiplied to any extent. If the Reader considers that the\nidiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these\nspecimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry\u2014_for him_.\n\nVI. The Revisionists announce that they \u201chave been particularly careful\u201d\nas to THE PRONOUNS [iii. 2 _ad fin._] We recal with regret that this is\nalso a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended.\nAnnoyed\u2014at their practice of _repeating the nominative_ (_e.g._ in Mk. i.\n13: Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language,\nexcept indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended\u2014at\ntheir license of translation, _when it suits them_ to be licentious.\u2014Thus,\n(as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,) \u201c_it is He that_\u201d is an\nincorrect translation of \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 in S. Matth. i. 21,\u2014a famous passage. Even\nworse, because it is unfair, is \u201c_He who_\u201d as the rendering of \u1f45\u03c2 in 1\nTim. iii. 16,\u2014another famous passage, which we have discussed\nelsewhere.(510)\n\nVII. \u2019In the case of the PARTICLES\u2019 (say the Revisionists),\n\n\n    \u201cwe have been able to maintain a reasonable amount of\n    _consistency_. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is\n    well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with\n    precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to\n    preserve a general _uniformity of rendering_.\u201d\u2014(iii. 2 _ad fin._)\n\n\nSuch an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much\nas uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek\nParticles,\u2014(especially throughout the period when the Language was in its\ndecadence,)\u2014are the least capable of being drilled into \u201ca general\nuniformity of rendering;\u201d and he who tries the experiment ought to be the\nfirst to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they\nimpart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from\nthe very nature of the case, \u201c_uniformity of rendering_\u201d is precisely the\nthing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context:\noften mean two quite different things in the course of two successive\nverses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word;(511)\nsometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or\ninconvenience) be rendered _at all_.(512) Let us illustrate what we have\nbeen saying by actual appeals to Scripture.\n\n(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred\nWriters make of the particle of most frequent recurrence\u2014\u03b4\u03ad. It is said to\nbe employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the\nunimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it\nmay be represented by any of the following\nwords:\u2014\u201cbut,\u201d\u2014\u201cand,\u201d(513)\u2014\u201cyea,\u201d(514)\u2014\u201cwhat,\u201d(515)\u2014\u201cnow,\u201d(516)\u2014\u201cand\nthat\u201d,(517)\u2014\u201chowbeit,\u201d(518)\u2014\u201ceven,\u201d(519)\u2014\u201ctherefore,\u201d(520)\u2014\u201cI\nsay,\u201d(521)\u2014\u201calso,\u201d(522)\u2014\u201cyet,\u201d(523)\u2014\u201cfor.\u201d(524) To which 12 renderings,\nKing James\u2019s translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at\nleast these other 12:\u2014\u201cwherefore,\u201d(525)\u2014\u201cso,\u201d(526)\u2014\u201cmoreover,\u201d(527)\u2014\u201cyea\nand,\u201d(528)\u2014\u201cfurthermore,\u201d(529)\u2014\u201cnevertheless,\u201d(530)\u2014\u201cnotwithstanding,\u201d(531)\u2014\u201cyet\nbut,\u201d(532)\u2014\u201ctruly,\u201d(533)\u2014\u201cor,\u201d(534)\u2014\u201cas for,\u201d(535)\u2014\u201cthen,\u201d(536)\u2014\u201cand\nyet.\u201d(537) It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of\n\u201cbut\u201d or \u201cand\u201d on _most_ of the foregoing occasions, the freshness and\nfreedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact\nbeing that the men of 1611\u2014above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before\nthem\u2014produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the\nmeaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the\nphrase, as they felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have\nvaried it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas the men\nof 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described as _a\nspirit of servile pedantry_. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up\neverywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the\nlecture-room,\u2014the startling fact that \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd means \u201cindeed,\u201d and \u03b4\u03ad \u201cbut.\u201d\n\nWe subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the\nrendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three\ncenturies and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William\nTyndale), \u201cBut now are they many members, YET BUT one body.\u201d Our\nRevisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that \u03b4\u03ad means \u201cbut,\u201d and yielding\nto the supposed \u201cnecessity for preserving a general uniformity of\nrendering,\u201d) substitute,\u2014\u201c_But_ now they are many members, _but_ one\nbody.\u201d Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that\n\u03b4\u03ad occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by \u201cbut\u201d in\nthe first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion,\n\u201cYET BUT\u201d ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the\nchanges which have been effected _many times in every page_. To proceed\nhowever.\n\n(2) The interrogative particle \u1f24 occurs at the beginning of a sentence at\nleast 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often\nscarcely translateable,\u2014being apparently invested with with no more\nemphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative \u201c_Eh?_\u201d But\nsometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by \u201cPray,\u201d(538)\u2014being\nat least equivalent to \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5 in Greek or _age_ in Latin. Once only (viz. in\n1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for\nrecognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered\nit \u201cWhat?\u201d\u2014by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been\nrepresented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the\nplaces where the particle occurs. King James\u2019s Translators are observed to\nhave give it up in despair.(539) But what is to be thought of the\nadventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated)\nhas _invariably_ rendered \u1f24 by the conjunction \u201c_or_\u201d? The blunder is the\nmore inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction\ninto places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed\nto attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.\n\n(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words.\u2014\u039a\u03b1\u03af, though\nno particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably\nspoken of under the same head; being diversely rendered \u201cand,\u201d\u2014\u201cand\nyet,\u201d(540)\u2014\u201cthen,\u201d(541)\u2014\u201cor,\u201d(542)\u2014\u201cneither,\u201d(543)\u2014\u201cthough,\u201d(544)\u2014\u201cso,\u201d(545)\u2014\u201cbut,\u201d(546)\u2014\u201cfor,\u201d(547)\u2014\u201cthat,\u201d(548)\u2014in\nconformity with what may be called the genius of the English language. The\nlast six of these renderings, however, our Revisionists disallow;\neverywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to\nrequire, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time\nthe (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word, \u201cand.\u201d With\nwhat amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will\nsufficiently illustrate:\u2014\n\n(_a_) The Revisionists inform us that when \u201cthe high priest Ananias\ncommanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,\u201d\u2014S. Paul\nexclaimed, \u201cGOD shall smite thee, thou whited wall: AND sittest thou to\njudge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the\nlaw?\u201d(549)... Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved\nupon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering \u201cFOR\u201d into \u201cAND\u201d?\n\n(_b_) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews,\nremarks,\u2014\u201c_So_ we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief\u201d\n(Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists again substitute \u201cAnd.\u201d Begin\nthe sentence with \u201cAND,\u201d (instead of \u201cSo,\u201d) and, in compensation for what\nyou have clearly _lost_, what have you _gained_?... Once more:\u2014\n\n(_c_) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12),\nand then say what possible advantage is obtained by writing \u201cAND\u201d (instead\nof \u201cBUT\u201d) \u201chis will was not at all to come at this time\u201d.... Yet once\nmore; and on _this_ occasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:\u2014\n\n(_d_) When S. James (i. 11) says \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\u2014_who_ knows not that what his language strictly means in idiomatic\nEnglish, is,\u2014\u201c_No sooner_ does the sun arise,\u201d \u201c_than_ it withereth the\ngrass\u201d? And so in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible\nimprovement on this can it be to substitute, \u201cFor the sun ariseth ... AND\nwithereth the grass\u201d?\u2014Only once more:\u2014\n\n(_e_) Though \u03ba\u03b1\u03af undeniably means \u201cand,\u201d and \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2, \u201chow,\u201d\u2014_who_ knows not\nthat \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 means \u201c_How then?_\u201d And yet, (as if a stupid little boy had\nbeen at work,) in two places,\u2014(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx.\n44,)\u2014\u201cAND HOW\u201d is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment of\nthe discourse; while in other two,\u2014(namely, in S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)\u2014the\ntext itself has been mercilessly deprived of its characteristic \u03ba\u03b1\u03af by the\nRevisionists.\u2014Let this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with\nsuch instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, and _most\nunscholarlike_ innovation.\n\nVIII. \u201cMany changes\u201d (we are informed) \u201chave been introduced in the\nrendering of the PREPOSITIONS.\u201d [_Preface_, iii. 2, _ad fin._]:\u2014and we are\nspeedily reminded of the truth of the statement, for (as was shown above\n[pp. 155-6]) the second chapter of S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel exhibits the\nRevisionists \u201call a-field\u201d in respect of \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac. \u201cWe have rarely made any\nchange\u201d (they add) \u201cwhere the true meaning of the original would be\napparent to _a Reader of ordinary intelligence_.\u201d It would of course ill\nbecome such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing\nflattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads\n(in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down \u201c_through\nthe wall_,\u201d he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal\nreference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggest _how_\nthe operation was effected: for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply\nunintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket (\u03c3\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c2) in which the Apostle\neffected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an\nextravagantly large hole it must have been to enable them _both_ to get\nthrough!... But let us look further.\n\nWas it then in order to bring Scripture within the _captus_ of \u201ca Reader\nof ordinary intelligence\u201d that the Revisers have introduced no less than\n_thirty changes_ into _eight-and-thirty words_ of S. Peter\u2019s 2nd Epistle?\nParticular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of\n\u201c_Revision_.\u201d It is the only one we shall offer of the many _contrasts_ we\nhad marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers\nwill consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with\nthe Preposition \u1f10\u03bd?\n\nA. V.                       R. V.\n\u201cAnd beside all this,       \u201cYea (1), and for (2)\ngiving all diligence, add   this very (3) cause (4)\nto your faith virtue; and   adding (5) on (6) your\nto virtue knowledge; and    part (7) all diligence,\nto knowledge temperance;    in (8) your faith supply\nand to temperance           (9) virtue; and in (10)\npatience; and to patience   your (11)  virtue\ngodliness; and to           knowledge; and in (12)\ngodliness brotherly         your (13) knowledge\nkindness; and to            temperance; and in (14)\nbrotherly kindness          your (15) temperance\ncharity.\u201d\u2014[2 Pet. i.        patience; and in (16)\n5-7.]                       your (17) patience\n                            godliness; and in (18)\n                            your (19) godliness love\n                            (20) of (21) the (22)\n                            brethren (23); and in\n                            (24) your (25) love (26)\n                            of (27) the (28) brethren\n                            (29) love (30).\u201d\n\nThe foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists\u2019\nstatement (_Preface_, iii. 2),\u2014\u201cWe made _no_ change _if the meaning was\nfairly expressed_ by the word or phrase that was before us in the\nAuthorized Version.\u201d To ourselves it appears that _every one of those 30\nchanges is a change for the worse_; and that one of the most exquisite\npassages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,\u2014rendered in fact\nwell-nigh unintelligible,\u2014by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers.\nWere they\u2014(if the question be allowable)\u2014bent on removing none but \u201c_plain\nand clear errors_,\u201d when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token\nof their stern resolve \u201cto introduce into the Text _as few alterations as\npossible_,\u201d that they spared the eight words which remain out of the\neight-and-thirty?\n\nAs for their _wooden_ rendering of \u1f10\u03bd, it ought to suffice to refer them\nto S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes \u1f10\u03bd can only be\nrendered \u201c_with_\u201d:\u2014and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that \u1f10\u03bd sometimes\nmeans \u201c_throughout_\u201d:\u2014and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that\nsometimes it means \u201c_by_.\u201d\u2014On the other hand, their suggestion that \u1f10\u03bd may\nbe rendered \u201c_by_\u201d in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that\n\u201cthe proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts\u201d is _a phrase_\u2014in which\nperforce \u201c_by_\u201d has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to\nteach professed Critics and Scholars an elementary fact like this.\n\nIn brief, these learned men are respectfully assured that there is not one\nof the \u201cParts of Speech\u201d which will consent to be handled after the\ninhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they\nmay think of the matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an\nAngel \u201ccasting his sickle _into the earth_\u201d (Rev. xiv. 19).\u2014As for his\n\u201cpouring out his bowl _upon the air_\u201d (xvi. 17),\u2014we really fail to\nunderstand the nature of the operation.\u2014And pray, What is supposed to be\nthe meaning of \u201cthe things _upon the heavens_\u201d\u2014in Ephesians i. 10?\n\nReturning to the preposition \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac followed by the genitive,\u2014(in respect of\nwhich the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface\n[iii. 3 _ad fin._] that in the A. V. \u201cideas of instrumentality or of\nmediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have been _confused or\nobscured in the Translation_,\u201d)\u2014we have to point out:\u2014\n\n(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the\nproprieties of English speech forbid the use of \u201c_through_\u201d (as a\nsubstitute for \u201c_by_\u201d) in certain expressions where instrumentality is\nconcerned. Thus, \u201cthe Son of man\u201d was not betrayed \u201c_through_\u201d Judas, but\n\u201c_by_\u201d him (Matt. xxvi. 24: Luke xxii. 22).\u2014Still less is it allowable to\nsay that a prophecy was \u201cspoken,\u201d nay \u201c_written_,\u201d \u201c_through_ the Prophet\u201d\n(Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5). \u201cWho spake BY_ the Prophets_,\u201d is even\nan article of the Faith.\n\nAnd (2ndly),\u2014That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw\nmethod of rendering \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac,\u2014sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other.\nFirst, they give us \u201cwonders and signs done _by_ the Apostles\u201d (Acts ii.\n43; but in the margin, \u201cOr, _through_\u201d): presently, \u201ca notable miracle\nhath been wrought _through_ them\u201d (iv. 16: and this time, the margin\nwithholds the alternative, \u201cOr, _by_\u201d). Is then \u201cthe true meaning\u201d of\n\u201c_by_,\u201d in the former place, \u201capparent to a Reader of ordinary\nintelligence\u201d? but so obscure in the latter as to render _necessary_ the\nalteration to \u201c_through_\u201d? Or (_sit venia verbo_),\u2014Was it a mere \u201ctoss-up\u201d\nwith the Revisionists _what_ is the proper rendering of \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac?\n\n(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of \u201cmiracles, wonders, and\nsigns\u201d which \u201cGOD did _by_\u201d JESUS of Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on\nthat occasion, forbad the use of \u201c_through_\u201d\u2014even in the margin? We hope\nso: but the preposition is still the same\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac not \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc.\n\nLastly (4thly),\u2014The doctrine that Creation is the work of the Divine WORD,\nall Scripture attests. \u201cAll things were made _by_ Him\u201d (S. Jo. i. 3):\u2014\u201cthe\nworld was made _by_ Him\u201d (ver. 10).\u2014Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the\nsame statement is repeated,\u2014(\u201call things were created _by_ Him and for\nHim,\u201d)\u2014do we find \u201c_through_\u201d substituted for \u201c_by_\u201d? And why is the same\noffence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,\u2014(where we _ought_ to read,\u2014\u201cone GOD,\nthe FATHER, of whom are all things ... and one LORD JESUS CHRIST, _by_\nwhom are all things\u201d)?\u2014Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of \u201c_by_\nwhom also [viz. by THE SON] He made the worlds,\u201d do we find substituted\n\u201c_through_ whom\u201d?... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the\nwretched vacillation of giving us the choice of \u201c_through_\u201d (in place of\n\u201c_by_\u201d) in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the\nalternative of \u201c_by_\u201d (in place of \u201c_through_\u201d) in any of the other\nplaces,\u2014although the preposition is \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac on every occasion?\n\nAnd thus much for the Revisers\u2019 handling of the Prepositions. We shall\nhave said all that we can find room for, when we have further directed\nattention to the uncritical and unscholarlike Note with which they have\ndisfigured the margin of S. Mark i. 9. We are there informed that,\naccording to the Greek, our SAVIOUR \u201cwas baptized _into the Jordan_,\u201d\u2014an\nunintelligible statement to English readers, as well as a misleading one.\nEspecially on their guard should the Revisers have been hereabouts,\u2014seeing\nthat, in a place of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page\n(viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), they had already substituted \u201c_into_\u201d for\n\u201c_in_.\u201d This latter alteration, one of the Revisers (Dr. Vance Smith)\nrejoices over, because it obliterates (in his account) the evidence for\nTrinitarian doctrine. That the Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing\nless,\u2014_who_ can doubt? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to\nappend a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public that the\npreposition \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 signifies \u201c_into_\u201d rather than \u201c_in_,\u201d\u2014why did they not at\nleast go on to record the elementary fact that \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 has here (what\ngrammarians call) a \u201cpregnant signification\u201d? that it implies\u2014(every\nschoolboy knows it!)\u2014_and that it is used in order to imply_\u2014that the Holy\nOne \u201c_went down_ INTO,\u201d and so, \u201c_was baptized_ IN the _Jordan_\u201d?(550)...\nBut _why_, in the name of common sense, _did not the Revisionists let the\nPreposition alone_?\n\nIX. The MARGIN of the Revision is the last point to which our attention is\ninvited, and in the following terms:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention.\n    They represent the results of _a large amount of careful and\n    elaborate discussion_, and will, perhaps, by their very presence,\n    indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions\n    that have almost daily come before us for decision. These Notes\n    fall into four main groups:\u2014_First_, Notes specifying such\n    differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient\n    importance to require a particular notice;\u2014_Secondly_, Notes\n    indicating the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of\n    English idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in\n    the text;\u2014_Thirdly_, Notes, very few in number, affording some\n    explanation which the original appeared to require;\u2014_Fourthly_,\n    Alternative Renderings in difficult or debateable passages. The\n    Notes of this last group are numerous, and largely in excess of\n    those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 years\n    that have passed away since their labours were concluded, the\n    Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every detail,\n    and analysed with a grammatical precision unknown in the days of\n    the last Revision. There has thus been accumulated a large amount\n    of materials that have prepared the way for different renderings,\n    which necessarily came under discussion.\u201d\u2014(_Preface_, iii. 4.)\n\n\nWhen a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention to a certain part\nof their work in such terms as these, it is painful for a Critic to be\nobliged to declare that he has surveyed this department of their\nundertaking with even less satisfaction than any other. So long, however,\nas he assigns _the grounds_ of his dissatisfaction, the Reviewed cannot\ncomplain. The Reviewer puts himself into their power. If he is mistaken in\nhis censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the groups in order:\u2014\n\n(1) Having already stated our objections against the many Notes which\nspecify _Textual errors_ which the Revisionists declined to adopt,\u2014we\nshall here furnish only two instances of the mischief we deplore:\u2014\n\n(_a_) Against the words, \u201cAnd while they _abode_ in Galilee\u201d (S. Matthew\nxvii. 22), we find it stated,\u2014\u201cSome ancient authorities read _were\ngathering themselves together_.\u201d The plain English of which queer piece of\ninformation is that \u05d0 and B exhibit in this place an impossible and\nuntranslatable Reading,\u2014the substitution of which for \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd can only have proceeded from some Western critic, who was\nsufficiently unacquainted with the Greek language to suppose that\n\u03a3\u03a5\u039d-\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, might possibly be the exact equivalent for\nCON_-versantibus autem illis_. This is not the place for discussing a kind\nof hallucination which prevailed largely in the earliest age, especially\nin regions where Greek was habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus\nit was, obviously, that the preposterous substitution of EURAQUILO for\n\u201cEuroclydon,\u201d in Acts xxvii. 14, took its rise.) Such blunders would be\nlaughable if encountered anywhere except on holy ground. Apart, however,\nfrom the lamentable lack of critical judgment which a marginal note like\nthe present displays, what is to be thought of the scholarship which\nelicits \u201c_While they were gathering themselves together_\u201d out of\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd? Are we to suppose that the clue to the Revisers\u2019\nrendering is to be found in (\u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) Acts xxviii. 3? We should be\nsorry to think it. They are assured that the source of the _Textual_\nblunder which they mistranslate is to be found, instead, in Baruch iii.\n38.(551)\n\n(_b_) For what conceivable reason is the world now informed that, instead\nof _Melita_,\u2014\u201csome ancient authorities read _Melitene_,\u201d in Acts xxviii.\n1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod. B to live on in the margin of every\nEnglishman\u2019s copy of the New Testament, for ever? Why, _all_ other\nMSS.\u2014the Syriac and the Latin versions,\u2014Pamphilus of C\u00e6sarea(552) (A.D.\n294), the friend of Eusebius,\u2014Cyril of\nJerusalem,(553)\u2014Chrysostom,(554)\u2014John Damascene,(555)\u2014all the Fathers in\nshort who quote the place;\u2014the coins, the ancient geographers;\u2014_all_ read\n\u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b7; which has also been acquiesced in by every critical Editor of the\nN. T.\u2014(_excepting always Drs. Westcott and Hort_), from the invention of\nPrinting till now. But because these two misguided men, without apology,\nexplanation, note or comment of any kind, have adopted \u201c_Melitene_\u201d into\ntheir text, is the Church of England to be dragged through the mire also,\nand made ridiculous in the eyes of Christendom? This blunder moreover is\n\u201cgross as a mountain, open, palpable.\u201d One glance at the place, written in\nuncials, explains how it arose:\u2014\u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u0397\u039d\u0397\u03c3\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Some stupid scribe\n(as the reader sees) has connected the first syllable of \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 with the\nlast syllable of \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b7.(556) _That_ is all! The blunder\u2014(for a blunder it\nmost certainly is)\u2014belongs to the age and country in which \u201c_Melitene_\u201d\nwas by far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan see\nof Armenia;(557) mention of which crops up in the _Concilia_\nrepeatedly.(558)\n\n(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered together.\nThe former comprises those words of which the _less exact_ rendering finds\nplace in the Text:\u2014the latter, \u201c_Alternative renderings_ in difficult and\ndebateable passages.\u201d\n\nWe presume that here our attention is specially invited to such notes as\nthe following. Against 1 Cor. xv. 34,\u2014\u201c_Awake out of drunkenness\nrighteously_\u201d:\u2014against S. John i. 14,\u2014\u201c_an only begotten from a\nfather_\u201d:\u2014against 1 Pet. iii. 20,\u2014\u201c_into which few, that is, eight souls,\nwere brought safely through water_\u201d:\u2014against 2 Pet. iii. 7,\u2014\u201c_stored with\nfire_\u201d:\u2014against S. John xviii. 37,\u2014\u201c_Thou sayest it, because I am a\nking_\u201d:\u2014against Ephes. iii. 21,\u2014\u201c_All the generations of the age of the\nages_\u201d:\u2014against Jude ver. 14,\u2014\u201c_His holy myriads_\u201d:\u2014against Heb. xii.\n18,\u2014\u201c_a palpable and kindled fire_\u201d:\u2014against Lu. xv. 31,\u2014\u201c_Child_, thou\nart ever with me\u201d:\u2014against Matth. xxi. 28,\u2014\u201c_Child_, go work to-day in my\nvineyard\u201d:\u2014against xxiv. 3,\u2014\u201cWhat shall be the sign of Thy _presence_, and\nof _the consummation of the age_?\u201d\u2014against Tit. i. 2,\u2014\u201c_before times\neternal_\u201d: against Mk. iv. 29,\u2014\u201cWhen the fruit _alloweth_ [and why not\n\u2018_yieldeth_ itself\u2019?], straightway _he sendeth forth_ the sickle\u201d:\u2014against\nEphes. iv. 17,\u2014\u201c_through every joint of the supply_\u201d:\u2014against ver.\n29,\u2014\u201c_the building up of the need_\u201d:\u2014against Lu. ii. 29,\u2014\u201c_Master_, now\nlettest thou Thy _bondservant_ depart in peace\u201d:\u2014against Acts iv. 24,\u2014\u201cO\n_Master_, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth\u201d:\u2014against Lu. i.\n78,\u2014\u201cBecause of _the heart of mercy_ of our GOD.\u201d Concerning all such\nrenderings we will but say, that although they are unquestionably better\nin the Margin than in the Text; it also admits no manner of doubt that\nthey would have been best of all in neither. Were the Revisionists serious\nwhen they suggested as the more \u201cexact\u201d rendering of 2 Pet. i. 20,\u2014\u201cNo\nprophecy of Scripture is of _special_ interpretation\u201d? And what did they\nmean (1 Pet. ii. 2) by \u201c_the spiritual milk which is without guile_\u201d?\n\nNot a few marginal glosses might have been dispensed with. Thus, against\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, upwards of 50 times stands the Annotation, \u201cOr,\n_teacher_.\u201d\u2014\u1f0c\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, (another word of perpetual recurrence,) is every time\nexplained to mean \u201c_a loaf_.\u201d But is this reasonable? seeing that \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (Luke xiv. 1) can mean nothing else but \u201cto eat _bread_\u201d: not to\nmention the petition for \u201c_daily bread_\u201d in the LORD\u2019S prayer. These\nlearned men, however, do not spare us even when mention is made of \u201ctaking\nthe children\u2019s _bread_ and casting it to the dogs\u201d (Mk. vii. 27): while in\nthe enquiry,\u2014\u201cIf a son shall ask _bread_ of any of you that is a father\u201d\n(Lu. xi. 11), \u201c_loaf_\u201d is actually thrust into the text.\u2014We cannot\nunderstand why such marked favour has been shown to similar easy words.\n\u0394\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, occurring upwards of 100 times in the New Testament, is invariably\nhonoured (sometimes [as in Jo. xv. 15] _twice in the course of the same\nverse_) with 2 lines to itself, to explain that in Greek it is\n\u201c_bondservant_.\u201d\u2014About 60 times, \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is explained in the margin to\nbe \u201c_demon_\u201d in the Greek.\u2014It has been deemed necessary 15 times to devote\n_three lines_ to explain the value of \u201ca penny.\u201d\u2014Whenever \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd is\nrendered \u201c_Son_,\u201d we are molested with a marginal annotation, to the\neffect that the Greek word means \u201c_child_.\u201d Had the Revisionists been\nconsistent, the margins would not nearly have sufficed for the many\ninteresting details of this nature with which their knowledge of Greek\nwould have furnished them.\n\nMay we be allowed to suggest, that it would have been better worth while\nto explain to the unlearned that \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9 in S. Peter\u2019s vision (Acts x. 11;\nxi. 5) in strictness means not \u201ccorners,\u201d but \u201c_beginnings_\u201d [cf. Gen. ii.\n10]:\u2014that \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally \u201c_the first_\u201d [cf. Gen.\niii. 7] (not \u201cthe best\u201d) \u201crobe\u201d:\u2014that \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 (_e.g._ in Lu. xvi. 11: Jo.\ni. 9: vi. 32; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and ix. 24) means\n\u201c_very_\u201d or \u201c_real_,\u201d rather than \u201ctrue\u201d?\u2014And when two different words are\nemployed in Greek (as in S. Jo. xxi. 15, 16, 17:\u2014S. Mk. vii. 33, 35, &c.\n&c.), would it not have been as well to try to _represent_ them in\nEnglish? For want of such assistance, no unlearned reader of S. Matth. iv.\n18, 20, 21: S. Mk. i. 16, 18, 19: S. Lu. v. 2,\u2014will ever be able to\nunderstand the precise circumstances under which the first four Apostles\nleft their \u201c_nets_.\u201d\n\n(3) The third group consists of _Explanatory Notes_ required by the\nobscurity of the original. Such must be the annotation against S. Luke i.\n15 (explanatory of \u201cstrong drink\u201d),\u2014\u201cGr. sikera.\u201d And yet, the word\n(\u03c3\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1) happens to be _not_ Greek, but Hebrew.\u2014On the other hand, such\nmust be the annotation against \u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03ad, in S. Matth. v. 22:\u2014\u201cOr, _Moreh_, a\nHebrew expression of condemnation;\u201d which statement is incorrect. The word\nproves to be _not_ Hebrew, but Greek.\u2014And this, against \u201cMaran atha\u201d in 1\nCor. xvi. 22,\u2014\u201cThat is, _Our _LORD_ cometh_:\u201d which also proves to be a\nmistake. The phrase means \u201c_Our _LORD_ is come_,\u201d\u2014which represents a\nwidely different notion.(559)\u2014Surely a room-full of learned men,\nvolunteering to put the N. T. to-rights, ought to have made more sure of\ntheir elementary _facts_ before they ventured to compromise the Church of\nEngland after this fashion!\u2014Against \u201c_the husks_ which the swine did eat\u201d\n(Lu. xv. 16), we find, \u201cGr. _the pods of the carob tree_,\u201d\u2014which is really\nnot true. The Greek word is \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1,\u2014which only signifies \u201cthe pods of the\ncarob tree,\u201d as \u201cFrench beans\u201d signifies \u201cthe pods of the _Phaseolus\nvulgaris_.\u201d\u2014By the way, it is _quite_ certain that \u03bc\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 [in Matth.\nxviii. 6 and Lu. xvii. 2 (not Mk. xi. 42)] signifies \u201c_a mill-stone turned\nby an ass_\u201d? Hilary certainly thought so: but is that thing at all likely?\nWhat if it should appear that \u03bc\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 merely denotes the _upper_\nmill-stone (\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, as S. Mark calls it,\u2014_the stone that grinds_),\nand which we know was called \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 by the ancients?(560)\u2014Why is \u201cthe brook\nCedron\u201d (Jo. xviii. 1) first spelt \u201cKidron,\u201d and then explained to mean\n\u201c_ravine of the cedars_\u201d? which \u201c_Kidron_\u201d no more means that \u201c_Kishon_\u201d\nmeans \u201c_of the ivies_,\u201d\u2014(though the Septuagintal usage [Judges iv. 13: Ps.\nlxxxiii. 9] shows that \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd was in its common Hellenistic\ndesignation). As for calling the Kidron \u201c_a ravine_,\u201d you might as well\ncall \u201cMercury\u201d in \u201cTom quad\u201d \u201c_a lake_.\u201d \u201cInfelictious\u201d is the mildest\nepithet we can bestow upon marginal annotations crude, questionable,\u2014even\n_inaccurate_ as these.\n\nThen further, \u201cSimon, the son of _Jona_\u201d (in S. John i. 42 and xxi. 15),\nis for the first time introduced to our notice by the Revisionists as \u201cthe\nson of _John_:\u201d with an officious marginal annotation that in Greek the\nname is written \u201c_Ioanes_.\u201d But is it fair in the Revisers (we modestly\nask) to thrust in this way the _b\u00eatises_ of their favourite codex B upon\nus? _In no codex in the world except the Vatican codex_ B, is \u201cIoannes\u201d\nspelt \u201c_Ioanes_\u201d in this place. Besides, the name of Simon Peter\u2019s father\nwas _not_ \u201cJohn\u201d at all, but \u201c_Jona_,\u201d\u2014as appears from S. Matth. xvi. 17,\nand the present two places in S. John\u2019s Gospel; where the evidence\n_against_ \u201cIoannes\u201d is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of Dr.\nHort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be to assist, not\nto mislead plain readers: honestly, to state _facts_,\u2014not, by a side-wind,\nto commit the Church of England to _a new (and absurd) Textual theory_!\nThe _actual Truth_, we insist, should be stated in the margin, whenever\nunnecessary information is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and\nunsuspicious readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading\n(against S. John i. 18)\u2014\u201cMany very ancient authorities read \u2018GOD_ only\nbegotten_\u2019 \u201d: whereas the \u201cauthorities\u201d alluded to read \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2,\u2014(whether with or without the article [\u1f41] prefixed,)\u2014which (as the\nRevisionists are perfectly well aware) means \u201c_the only-begotten _GOD,\u201d\nand no other thing. Why then did they not say so? _Because_ (we\nanswer)\u2014_they were ashamed of the expression_. But to proceed.\u2014The\ninformation is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. xiv. 32) that\n\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd means \u201c_an enclosed piece of ground_,\u201d\u2014which is not true. The\nstatement seems to have proceeded from the individual who translated\n\u1f04\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd (in Mk. xi. 4) the \u201c_open street_:\u201d whereas the word merely\ndenotes the \u201chighway,\u201d\u2014literally the \u201c_thoroughfare_.\u201d\n\nA very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would have secured\nthese Revisers against the perpetual exposure which they make of\nthemselves in their marginal Notes.\u2014(_a_) \u03a0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, for instance,\nis quite an ordinary expression for \u201calways,\u201d and therefore should not be\nexhibited (in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,\u2014\u201cGr.\n_all the days_.\u201d\u2014So (_b_) with respect to the word \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd, which seems to\nhave greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need, _every time it\noccurs_, to explain that \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd means literally \u201c_unto\nthe ages of the ages_\u201d? Surely (as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the\nestablished rendering (\u201cfor ever and ever\u201d) is plain enough and needs no\ngloss!\u2014Again, (_c_) the numeral \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2, representing the Hebrew substitute\nfor the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples\nof its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69\n(\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and\nxix. 17;\u2014where \u201c_one_ scribe,\u201d \u201c_one_ ruler,\u201d \u201c_one_ widow,\u201d \u201c_one_\neagle,\u201d \u201c_one_ voice,\u201d \u201c_one_ angel,\u201d are really nothing else but\nmistranslations. True, that \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 is found in the original Greek: but what\nthen? Because \u201c_une_\u201d means \u201c_one_,\u201d will it be pretended that \u201c_Tu es une\nb\u00eate_\u201d would be properly rendered \u201c_Thou art one beast_\u201d?\n\n(_d_) Far more serious is the substitution of \u201chaving _a great_ priest\nover the house of GOD\u201d (Heb. x. 21), for \u201chaving _an high_ priest:\u201d\ninasmuch as this obscures \u201cthe pointed reference to our LORD as the\nantitype of the Jewish high priest,\u201d\u2014who (except in Lev. iv. 3) is\ndesignated, not \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, but either \u1f41 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2, or else \u1f41 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2\nonly,\u2014as in Acts v. 24(561).... And (_e_) why are we presented with \u201cFor\n_no word from _GOD_ shall be void of power_\u201d (in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing\nthat the Greek of that place has been fashioned on the Septuagintal\nrendering of Gen. xviii. 14 (\u201c_Is anything too hard for the\n_LORD_?_\u201d(562)), we venture to think that the A. V. (\u201c_for with _GOD_\nnothing shall be impossible_\u201d(563)) ought to have been let alone. It\ncannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that among so many\nrespectable Divines there seems not to have been _one_ sufficiently\nfamiliar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually\nfalling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that\nthe Hellenistic scholarship of those who represented the Church and the\nSects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.\n\nTwo or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite\nnature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third\ngroup; which we have examined with real astonishment\u2014and in fact have\nremarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that\nwe rather desiderate \u201cExplanatory Notes\u201d on matters which really _do_ call\nfor explanation? as, to be reminded of what kind was the \u201cnet\u201d\n(\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) mentioned in Matth. iv. 18 (_not_ 20), and Mk. i. 16 (_not_\n18):\u2014to see it explained (against Matth. ii. 23) that _netser_ (the root\nof \u201cNazareth\u201d) denotes \u201cBranch:\u201d\u2014and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3,\nthat \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, signifies \u201cthe _depressed valley of the\nJordan_,\u201d as the usage of the LXX. proves.(564) We should have been glad\nto see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,\u2014\u201cGr. _Exodus_.\u201d\u2014At least in the margin, we\nmight have been told that \u201c_Olivet_\u201d is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29\nand xxi. 37: (or were the Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are\nrespectfully referred to the Bp. of Lincoln\u2019s note on the place last\nquoted.)\u2014Nay, why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that \u201cJESUS\u201d means\n[not \u201c_Saviour_,\u201d but] \u201c_JEHOVAH__ is Salvation_\u201d?\n\nBut above all, surely so many learned men ought to have spared us the\nabsurd Annotation set against \u201c_ointment of spikenard_\u201d (\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2,)\nin S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cGr. _pistic_ nard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take\n    it to mean _genuine_; others _liquid_.\u201d\n\n\nCan Scholars require to be told that \u201c_liquid_\u201d is an _impossible_ sense\nof \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 [_Prom._ V. v. 489]) from \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, and would mean _drinkable_: but\nsince ointment _cannot_ be drunk, it is certain that we must seek the\netymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient\nconjecture be retained that it is \u201cperhaps a _local_ name\u201d? Do Divines\nrequire to have it explained to them that the one \u201clocality\u201d which\neffectually fixes the word\u2019s meaning, is _its place in the everlasting\nGospel_?... Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means; but\n\u201cwho are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge?\u201d S. Mark\nand S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in\nthis place(565)) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty\nspiritual purpose. The _pure faith_ (\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) in which that offering of the\nointment was made, determines the choice of an unusual epithet (\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2)\nwhich shall signify \u201cfaithful\u201d rather than \u201cgenuine,\u201d\u2014shall suggest a\n_moral_ rather than a _commercial_ quality: just as, presently, Mary\u2019s\n\u201cbreaking\u201d the box (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1) is designated by a word which has\nreference to a broken heart.(566) She \u201c_contrited_\u201d it, S. Mark says; and\nS. John adds a statement which implies that the Church has been rendered\nfragrant by her act for ever.(567) (We trust to be forgiven for having\nsaid a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.)\n\n(5) Under which of the four previous \u201cgroups\u201d certain Annotations which\ndisfigure the margin of the first chapter of S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, should\nfall,\u2014we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.\n\nSo dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it\nis stated that\u2014\u201cRam,\u201d \u201cAsa,\u201d \u201cAmon,\u201d \u201cShealtiel,\u201d are in Greek (\u201cGr.\u201d)\n\u201c_Aram_,\u201d \u201c_Asaph_,\u201d \u201c_Amos_,\u201d \u201c_Salathiel_.\u201d For (1),\u2014Surely it was just\nas needful (or just as needless) to explain that \u201cPerez,\u201d \u201cZarah,\u201d\n\u201cHezron,\u201d \u201cNahson,\u201d are in Greek \u201c_Phares_,\u201d \u201c_Zara_,\u201d \u201c_Esrom_,\u201d\n\u201c_Naasson_.\u201d\u2014But (2), Through what \u201cnecessity\u201d are the names, which we\nhave been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now\nexhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?(568)\u2014(3)\nAssuming, however, the O. T. spelling _is_ to be adopted, then _let us\nhave it explained to us why _\u201cJeconiah\u201d_ in ver. 11 is not written_\n\u201cJehoiakim\u201d? (As for \u201cJeconiah\u201d in ver. 12,\u2014it was for the Revisionists to\nsettle whether they would call him \u201cJehoiachin,\u201d \u201cJeconiah,\u201d or \u201cConiah.\u201d\n[By the way,\u2014Is it lawful to suppose that _they did not know_ that\n\u201cJechonias\u201d here represents two different persons?])\u2014On the other hand,\n(4) \u201c_Amos_\u201d probably,\u2014\u201c_Asaph_\u201d certainly,\u2014are corrupt exhibitions of\n\u201cAmon\u201d and \u201cAsa:\u201d and, if noticed at all, should have been introduced to\nthe reader\u2019s notice with the customary formula, \u201csome ancient\nauthorities,\u201d &c.\u2014To proceed\u2014(5), Why substitute \u201cImmanuel\u201d (for\n\u201cEmmanuel\u201d) in ver. 23,\u2014only to have to state in the margin that S.\nMatthew writes it \u201c_Emmanuel_\u201d? By strict parity of reasoning, against\n\u201cNaphtali\u201d (in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists ought to have written\n\u201cGr. _Nephthaleim_.\u201d\u2014And (6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we\nnot told that \u201cMary is in \u2018Gr. _Mariam_\u2019 \u201d? and why is not Zacharias\nwritten \u201c_Zachariah_\u201d?... But (to conclude),\u2014What is the object of all\nthis officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency?\nHas the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever\nwith the Past and to make \u201ca fresh departure\u201d? Or were the four marginal\nnotes added _only for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the\n(apparent) sanction of the Church_ to the preposterous notion that \u201cAsa\u201d\nwas written \u201c_Asaph_\u201d by the Evangelist\u2014in conformity with six MSS. of bad\ncharacter, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal\nProbability? Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on this.\n\nX. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the\nRevisionists\u2019 _Preface_ (iii. 2 _init._), that to some extent they\nrecognized the duty of a \u201c_rigid adherence to the rule of translating_, as\nfar as possible, the _same Greek word by the same English word_.\u201d This\nmistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief\nwhich has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller\nconsideration at our hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp. 138 and 152)\nreceived.\n\nThe \u201cTranslators\u201d of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint\nAddress \u201cto the Reader,\u201d offer the following statement concerning what had\nbeen their own practice:\u2014\u201cWe have not _tied ourselves_\u201d (say they) \u201c_to an\nuniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words_, as some peradventure\nwould wish that we had done.\u201d On this, they presently enlarge. We have\nbeen \u201cespecially careful,\u201d have even \u201cmade a conscience,\u201d \u201cnot to vary\nfrom the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word\nsignified the same thing in both places.\u201d But then, (as they shrewdly\npoint out in passing,) \u201c_there be some words that be not of the __ same\nsense everywhere_.\u201d And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with\na spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real\nScholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when\nthey go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on\ninvariably expressing \u201cthe same notion\u201d by employing \u201cthe same particular\nword;\u201d\u2014(which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account,\nmay with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)\u2014we are\nstill disposed to avow ourselves of their mind. \u201cIf\u201d (say they,) \u201cwe\ntranslate the Hebrew or Greek word once _purpose_, never to call it\n_intent_; if one where _journeying_, never _travelling_; if one where\n_think_, never _suppose_; if one where _pain_, never _ache_; if one where\n_joy_, never _gladness_;\u2014thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour\nmore of curiosity than of wisdom.\u201d And yet it is plain that a different\nprinciple is here indicated from that which went before. The remark \u201cthat\nniceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,\u201d suggests\nthat, in the Translators\u2019 opinion, it matters little _which_ word, in the\nseveral pairs of words they instance, is employed; and that, for their own\nparts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample\nvocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however,\nas already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle\nassociations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be\nfelt than analysed,\u2014any of such causes may reasonably determine a\nTranslator to reject \u201cpurpose,\u201d \u201cjourney,\u201d \u201cthink,\u201d \u201cpain,\u201d \u201cjoy,\u201d\u2014in\nfavour of \u201cintent,\u201d \u201ctravel,\u201d \u201csuppose,\u201d \u201cache,\u201d \u201cgladness.\u201d\n\nBut then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this,\nthere existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall\nwe not rather say a _prophetic_?) consciousness, that the fate of the\nEnglish Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.\n_Hence_ their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves\n\u201cto an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.\u201d We should be\nliable to censure (such is their plain avowal), \u201cif we should say, as it\nwere, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible\nalways; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for\never.\u201d But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a\nsomewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there\nis some\u2014perhaps a great deal\u2014of truth in it: but by this time we seem to\nhave entirely shifted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury\nof English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare\ntheir mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be\npractical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men,\u2014with\nwhom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would\neagerly acknowledge,\u2014have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate\nso vigorously, a little\u2014perhaps a great deal\u2014too far. For ourselves, we\nare glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head\nexpressed by the author of the _Preface_ of 1881:\n\n\n    \u201cThey seem\u201d\u2014(he says, speaking of the Revisionists of 1611)\u2014\u201cto\n    have been guided by the feeling that their Version would secure\n    for the words they used a lasting place in the language; and they\n    express a fear lest they should \u2018be charged (by scoffers) with\n    some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English\n    words,\u2019 which, without this liberty on their part, would not have\n    a place in the pages of the English Bible. Still it cannot be\n    doubted that their studied avoidance of uniformity in the\n    rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same\n    context, is one of the blemishes in their work.\u201d\u2014_Preface_, (i.\n    2).\n\n\nYes, it cannot be doubted. When S. Paul, in a long and familiar passage (2\nCor. i. 3-7), is observed studiously to linger over the same word\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 namely, which is generally rendered \u201c_comfort_\u201d);\u2014to harp upon\nit;\u2014to reproduce it _ten times_ in the course of those five verses;\u2014it\nseems unreasonable that a Translator, as if in defiance of the Apostle,\nshould on four occasions (viz. when the word comes back for the 6th, 7th,\n9th, and 10th times), for \u201c_comfort_\u201d substitute \u201c_consolation_.\u201d And this\none example may serve as well as a hundred. It would really seem as if the\nRevisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the\nEnglish phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression\ncharacterizes the original Greek. When we find them turning \u201cgoodly\napparel,\u201d (in S. James ii. 2,) into \u201cgay clothing,\u201d (in ver. 3,)\u2014we can\nbut conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as\nS. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.\n\nBut if the learned men who gave us our A. V. may be thought to have erred\non the side of excess, there can be no doubt whatever, (at least among\ncompetent judges,) that our Revisionists have sinned far more grievously\nand with greater injury to the Deposit, by their slavish proclivity to the\nopposite form of error. We must needs speak out plainly: for the question\nbefore us is not, What defects are discoverable in our Authorized\nVersion?\u2014but, What amount of gain would be likely to accrue to the Church\nif the present Revision were accepted as a substitute? And we assert\nwithout hesitation, that the amount of certain loss would so largely\noutweigh the amount of possible gain, that the proposal may not be\nseriously entertained for a moment. As well on grounds of Scholarship and\nTaste, as of Textual Criticism (as explained at large in our former\nArticle), the work before us is immensely inferior. To speak plainly, it\nis an utter failure.\n\nXI. For the respected Authors of it practically deny the truth of the\nprinciple enunciated by their predecessors of 1611, viz. that \u201c_there be\nsome words that be not of the same sense everywhere_.\u201d On such a\nfundamental truism we are ashamed to enlarge: but it becomes necessary\nthat we should do so. We proceed to illustrate, by two familiar\ninstances,\u2014the first which come to hand,\u2014the mischievous result which is\ninevitable to an enforced uniformity of rendering.\n\n(_a_) The verb \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd confessedly means \u201cto ask.\u201d And perhaps no better\ngeneral English equivalent could be suggested for it. But then, _in a\ncertain context_, \u201cask\u201d would be an inadequate rendering: in another, it\nwould be improper: in a third, it would be simply intolerable. Of all\nthis, the great Scholars of 1611 showed themselves profoundly conscious.\nAccordingly, when this same verb (in the middle voice) is employed to\ndescribe how the clamorous rabble, besieging Pilate, claimed their\naccustomed privilege, (viz. to have the prisoner of their choice released\nunto them,) those ancient men, with a fine instinct, retain Tyndale\u2019s\nrendering \u201c_desired_\u201d(569) in S. Mark (xv. 8),\u2014and his \u201c_required_\u201d in S.\nLuke (xxiii. 23).\u2014When, however, the humble entreaty, which Joseph of\nArimathea addressed to the same Pilate (viz. that he might be allowed to\ntake away the Body of JESUS), is in question, then the same Scholars\n(following Tyndale and Cranmer), with the same propriety exhibit\n\u201c_begged_.\u201d\u2014King David, inasmuch as he only \u201c_desired_ to find a\nhabitation for the GOD of Jacob,\u201d of course may not be said to have\n\u201c_asked_\u201d to do so; and yet S. Stephen (Acts vii. 46) does not hesitate to\nemploy the verb \u1f90\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf.\u2014So again, when they of Tyre and Sidon approached\nHerod whom they had offended: they did but \u201c_desire_\u201d peace.(570)\u2014S. Paul,\nin like manner, addressing the Ephesians: \u201cI _desire_ that ye faint not at\nmy tribulations for you.\u201d(571)\n\nBut our Revisionists,\u2014possessed with the single idea that \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd means \u201cto\n_ask_\u201d and \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u201cto _ask for_,\u201d\u2014have proceeded mechanically to\ninflict that rendering on every one of the foregoing passages. In defiance\nof propriety,\u2014of reason,\u2014even (in David\u2019s case) of historical\ntruth,(572)\u2014they have thrust in \u201c_asked_\u201d everywhere. At last, however,\nthey are encountered by two places which absolutely refuse to submit to\nsuch iron bondage. The terror-stricken jailer of Philippi, when _he_\n\u201casked\u201d for lights, must needs have done so after a truly imperious\nfashion. Accordingly, the \u201c_called for_\u201d(573) of Tyndale and all\nsubsequent translators, is _pro h\u00e2c vice_ allowed by our Revisionists to\nstand. And to conclude,\u2014When S. Paul, speaking of his supplications on\nbehalf of the Christians at Colosse, uses this same verb (\u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9) in a\ncontext where \u201c_to ask_\u201d would be intolerable, our Revisionists render the\nword \u201c_to make request_;\u201d(574)\u2014though they might just as well have let\nalone the rendering of _all_ their predecessors,\u2014viz. \u201c_to desire_.\u201d\n\nThese are many words, but we know not how to make them fewer. Let this one\nexample, (only because it is the first which presented itself,) stand for\na thousand others. Apart from the grievous lack of Taste (not to say of\nScholarship) which such a method betrays,\u2014_who_ sees not that the only\nexcuse which could have been invented for it has disappeared by the time\nwe reach the end of our investigation? If \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 had been\n_invariably_ translated \u201cask,\u201d \u201cask for,\u201d it might at least have been\npretended that \u201cthe English Reader is in this way put entirely on a level\nwith the Greek Scholar;\u201d\u2014though it would have been a vain pretence, as all\nmust admit who understand the power of language. _Once_ make it apparent\nthat just in a single place, perhaps in two, the Translator found himself\nforced to break through his rigid uniformity of rendering,\u2014and _what_\nremains but an uneasy suspicion that then there must have been a strain\nput on the Evangelists\u2019 meaning in a vast proportion of the other seventy\nplaces where \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd occurs? An unlearned reader\u2019s confidence in his guide\nvanishes; and he finds that he has had not a few deflections from the\nAuthorized Version thrust upon him, of which he reasonably questions alike\nthe taste and the necessity,\u2014_e.g._ at S. Matth. xx. 20.\n\n(_b_) But take a more interesting example. In S. Mark i. 18, the A. V.\nhas, \u201cand straightway they _forsook_\u201d (which the Revisionists alter into\n\u201c_left_\u201d) \u201ctheir nets.\u201d Why? Because in verse 20, the same word \u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\nwill recur; and because the Revisionists propose to let the statement\n(\u201cthey _left_ their father Zebedee\u201d) stand. They \u201clevel up\u201d accordingly;\nand plume themselves on their consistency.\n\nWe venture to point out, however, that the verb \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 is one of a large\nfamily of verbs which,\u2014always retaining their own essential\nsignification,\u2014yet depend for their English rendering entirely on the\ncontext in which they occur. Thus, \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 is rightly rendered \u201c_to\nsuffer_,\u201d in S. Matth. iii. 15;\u2014\u201c_to leave_,\u201d in iv. 11;\u2014\u201c_to let have_,\u201d\nin v. 40;\u2014\u201c_to forgive_,\u201d in vi. 12, 14, 15;\u2014\u201c_to let_,\u201d in vii. 4;\u2014\u201c_to\nyield up_,\u201d in xxvii. 50;\u2014\u201c_to let go_,\u201d in S. Mark xi. 6;\u2014\u201c_to let\nalone_,\u201d in xiv. 6. Here then, by the admission of the Revisionists, are\neight diversities of meaning in the same word. But they make the admission\ngrudgingly; and, in order to render \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 as often as possible\n\u201c_leave_,\u201d they do violence to many a place of Scripture where some other\nword would have been more appropriate. Thus \u201c_laying aside_\u201d might have\nstood in S. Mark vii. 8. \u201c_Suffered_\u201d (or \u201clet\u201d) was preferable in S. Luke\nxii. 39. And, (to return to the place from which we started,) in S. Mark\ni. 18, \u201cforsook\u201d was better than \u201cleft.\u201d And why? Because men \u201c_leave_\ntheir father,\u201d (as the Collect for S. James\u2019s Day bears witness); but\n\u201c_forsake_ all covetous desires\u201d (as the Collect for S. Matthew\u2019s Day\naptly attests). For which reason,\u2014\u201cAnd they all _forsook_ Him\u201d was\ninfinitely preferable to \u201cand they all _left_ Him, and fled,\u201d in S. Mark\nxiv. 50. We insist that a vast deal more is lost by this perpetual\ndisregard of the idiomatic proprieties of the English language, than is\ngained by a pedantic striving after uniformity of rendering, only because\nthe Greek word happens to be the same.\n\nFor it is sure sometimes to happen that what seems mere licentiousness\nproves on closer inspection to be unobtrusive Scholarship of the best\nkind. An illustration presents itself in connection with the word just now\nbefore us. It is found to have been our SAVIOUR\u2019S practice to \u201c_send\naway_\u201d the multitude whom He had been feeding or teaching, in some formal\nmanner,\u2014whether with an act of solemn benediction, or words of\ncommendatory prayer, or both. Accordingly, on the memorable occasion when,\nat the close of a long day of superhuman exertion, His bodily powers\nsuccumbed, and the Disciples were fain to take Him \u201cas He was\u201d in the\nship, and at once He \u201cfell asleep;\u201d\u2014on that solitary occasion, _the\nDisciples_ are related to have \u201c_sent away_ the multitudes,\u201d\u2014_i.e._ to\nhave formally dismissed them on His behalf, as they had often seen their\nMaster do. The word employed to designate this practice on two memorable\noccasions is \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd:(575) on the other two, \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.(576) This proves to\nhave been perfectly well understood as well by the learned authors of the\nLatin Version of the N. T., as by the scholars who translated the Gospels\ninto the vernacular of Palestine. It has been reserved for the boasted\nlearning of the XIXth century to misunderstand this little circumstance\nentirely. The R. V. renders S. Matth. xiii. 36,\u2014not \u201cThen JESUS _sent the\nmultitude away_\u201d (\u201c_dimissis turbis_\u201d in every Latin copy,) but\u2014\u201cThen He\n_left_ the multitudes.\u201d Also S. Mark iv. 36,\u2014not \u201cAnd when they had _sent\naway the multitude_,\u201d (which the Latin always renders \u201c_et dimittentes\nturbam_,\u201d) but\u2014\u201cAnd _leaving_ the multitude.\u201d Would it be altogether\ncreditable, we respectfully ask, if at the end of 1800 years the Church of\nEngland were to put forth with authority such specimens of \u201cRevision\u201d as\nthese?\n\n(_c_) We will trouble our Readers with yet another illustration of the\nprinciple for which we are contending.\u2014We are soon made conscious that\nthere has been a fidgetty anxiety on the part of the Revisionists,\neverywhere to substitute \u201c_maid_\u201d for \u201c_damsel_\u201d as the rendering of\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7. It offends us. \u201cA damsel named Rhoda,\u201d(577)\u2014and the \u201cdamsel\npossessed with a spirit of divination,\u201d(578)\u2014might (we think) have been\nlet alone. But out of curiosity we look further, to see what these\ngentlemen will do when they come to S. Luke xii. 45. Here, because \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\nhas been (properly) rendered \u201cmenservants,\u201d \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, they (not\nunreasonably) render \u201c_maid-servants_,\u201d\u2014whereby _they break their rule_.\nThe crucial place is behind. What will they do with the Divine \u201cAllegory\u201d\nin Galatians, (iv. 21 to 31,)\u2014where all turns on the contrast(579) between\nthe \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7 and the \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1,\u2014the fact that Hagar was a \u201c_bondmaid_\u201d\nwhereas Sarah was a \u201c_free woman_\u201d? \u201cMaid\u201d clearly could not stand here.\n\u201cMaid-servant\u201d would be intolerable. What is to be done? The Revisionists\nadopt _a third_ variety of reading,\u2014_thus surrendering their principle\nentirely_. And what reader with a spark of taste, (we confidently ask the\nquestion,) does not resent their substitution of \u201c_handmaid_\u201d for\n\u201cbondmaid\u201d throughout these verses? _Who_ will deny that the mention of\n\u201c_bondage_\u201d in verses 24 and 25 claims, at the hands of an intelligent\nEnglish translator, that he shall avail himself of the admirable and\nhelpful equivalent for \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7 which, as it happens, the English language\npossesses? More than that. _Who_\u2014(except one who is himself \u201cin\nbondage\u2014with his children\u201d)\u2014_who_ does not respond gratefully to the\nexquisite taste and tact with which \u201c_bondmaid_\u201d itself has been exchanged\nfor \u201c_bondwoman_\u201d by our translators of 1611, in verses 23, 30 and 31?...\nVerily, those men understood their craft! \u201cThere were giants in those\ndays.\u201d As little would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the\nPhilistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they could shake\nthemselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason: viz.\nbecause the SPIRIT of their GOD was mightily upon them.\n\nOur contention, so far, has been but this,\u2014that it does not by any means\nfollow that identical Greek words and expressions, _wherever occurring_,\nare to be rendered by identical words and expressions in English. We\ndesire to pass on to something of more importance.\n\nLet it not be supposed that we make light of the difficulties which our\nRevisionists have had to encounter; or are wanting in generous\nappreciation of the conscientious toil of many men for many years; or that\nwe overlook the perils of the enterprise in which they have seen fit to\nadventure their reputation. If ever a severe expression escapes us, it is\nbecause our Revisionists themselves seem to have so very imperfectly\nrealized the responsibility of their undertaking, and the peculiar\ndifficulties by which it is unavoidably beset. The truth is,\u2014as all who\nhave given real thought to the subject must be aware,\u2014the phenomena of\nLanguage are among the most subtle and delicate imaginable: the problem of\nTranslation, one of the most manysided and difficult that can be named.\nAnd if this holds universally, in how much greater a degree when the book\nto be translated is THE BIBLE! Here, anything like a mechanical _levelling\nup_ of terms, every attempt to impose a pre-arranged system of uniform\nrendering on words,\u2014every one of which has a history and (so to speak) _a\nwill_ of its own,\u2014is inevitably destined to result in discomfiture and\ndisappointment. But what makes this so very serious a matter is that,\nbecause HOLY SCRIPTURE is the Book experimented upon, the loftiest\ninterests that can be named become imperilled; and it will constantly\nhappen that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake may yet\ninflict irreparable injury. We subjoin an humble illustration of our\nmeaning\u2014the rather, because it will afford us an opportunity for\npenetrating a little deeper into the proprieties of Scriptural\nTranslation:\u2014\n\n(_d_) The place of our LORD\u2019S Burial, which is mentioned upwards of 30\ntimes in the Gospels, is styled in the original, \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. This\nappellation is applied to it three times by S. Matthew;\u2014six times by S.\nMark;\u2014eight times by S. Luke;(580)\u2014eleven times by S. John. Only on four\noccasions, in close succession, does the first Evangelist call it by\nanother name, viz. \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2.(581) King James\u2019s translators (following Tyndale\nand Cranmer) decline to notice this diversity, and uniformly style it the\n\u201c_sepulchre_.\u201d So long as it belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, they call it\na \u201ctomb\u201d (Matth. xxvii. 60): when once it has been appropriated by \u201cthe\nLORD of Glory,\u201d _in the same verse_ they give it a different English\nappellation. But our Revisionists of 1881, as if bent on \u201cmaking a fresh\ndeparture,\u201d _everywhere_ substitute \u201c_tomb_\u201d for \u201csepulchre\u201d as the\nrendering of \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nDoes any one ask,\u2014And why should they _not_? We answer, Because, in\nconnection with \u201c_the Sepulchre_\u201d of our LORD, there has grown up such an\nample literature and such a famous history, that we are no longer _able_\nto sever ourselves from those environments of the problem, even if we\ndesired to do so. In all such cases as the present, we have to balance the\nLoss against the Gain. Quite idle is it for the pedant of 1881 to insist\nthat \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd are two different words. We do not dispute the\nfact. (Then, if he _must_, let him represent \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 in some other way.) It\nremains true, notwithstanding, that the receptacle of our SAVIOUR\u2019S Body\nafter His dissolution will have to be spoken of as \u201c_the Holy Sepulchre_\u201d\ntill the end of time; and it is altogether to be desired that its familiar\ndesignation should be suffered to survive unmolested on the eternal page,\nin consequence. There are, after all, mightier laws in the Universe than\nthose of grammar. In the quaint language of our Translators of 1611: \u201cFor\nis the Kingdom of GOD become words or syllables? Why should we be in\nbondage to them if we may be free?\u201d... As for considerations of\netymological propriety, the nearest English equivalent for \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (be it\nremembered) is _not_ \u201ctomb,\u201d but \u201c_monument_.\u201d\n\n(_e_) Our Revisionists seem not to be aware that 270 years of undisturbed\npossession have given to certain words rights to which they could not else\nhave pretended, but of which it is impossible any more to dispossess them.\nIt savours of folly as well as of pedantry even to make the attempt.\n\u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae occurs 30,\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 21 times,\u2014in the N. T. Etymologically, both\nwords alike mean \u201c_teaching_;\u201d and are therefore indifferently rendered\n\u201c_doctrina_\u201d in the Vulgate,(582)\u2014for which reason, \u201c_doctrine_\u201d\nrepresents both words indifferently in our A. V.(583) But the Revisers\nhave well-nigh extirpated \u201cDOCTRINE\u201d from the N. T.: (1st), By making\n\u201c_teaching_,\u201d the rendering of \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae,(584)\u2014(reserving \u201c_doctrine_\u201d for\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1(585)): and (2ndly), By 6 times substituting \u201c_teaching_\u201d (once,\n\u201c_learning_\u201d) for \u201c_doctrine_,\u201d in places where \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 occurs.(586)\nThis is to be lamented every way. The word cannot be spared so often. The\n\u201c_teachings_\u201d of our LORD and of His Apostles were _the _\u201cdoctrines\u201d_ of\nChristianity_. When S. Paul speaks of \u201cthe _doctrine_ of baptisms\u201d (Heb.\nvi. 2), it is simply incomprehensible to us why \u201cthe _teaching_ of\nbaptisms\u201d should be deemed a preferable expression. And if the warning\nagainst being \u201ccarried about with every wind of _doctrine_,\u201d may stand in\nEphes. iv. 14, why may it not be left standing in Heb. xiii. 9?\n\n(_f_) In the same spirit, we can but wonder at the extravagant bad taste\nwhich, at the end of 500 years, has ventured to substitute \u201c_bowls_\u201d for\n\u201cvials\u201d in the Book of Revelation.(587) As a matter of fact, we venture to\npoint out that \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 no more means \u201c_a bowl_\u201d than \u201csaucer\u201d means \u201ca cup.\u201d\nBut, waiving this, we are confident that our Revisers would have shown\nmore wisdom if they had _let alone_ a word which, having no English\nequivalent, has passed into the sacred vocabulary of the language, and has\nacquired a conventional signification which will cleave to it for ever.\n\u201c_Vials of wrath_\u201d are understood to signify the outpouring of GOD\u2019S\nwrathful visitations on mankind: whereas \u201cbowls\u201d really conveys no meaning\nat all, except a mean and unworthy, not to say an inconveniently ambiguous\none. What must be the impression made on persons of very humble\nstation,\u2014labouring-men,\u2014when they hear of \u201cthe seven Angels that had _the\nseven bowls_\u201d? (Rev. xvii. 1.) The \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7,\u2014if we must needs talk like\nAntiquaries\u2014is a circular, almost flat and very shallow vessel,\u2014of which\nthe contents can be discharged in an instant. It was used in pouring out\nlibations. There is, at that back of it, in the centre, a hollow for the\nfirst joint of the forefinger to rest in. _Patera_ the Latins called it.\nSpecimens are to be seen in abundance.\n\nThe same Revisionists have also fallen foul of the \u201calabaster _box_ of\nointment.\u201d\u2014for which they have substituted \u201can alabaster _cruse_ of\nointment.\u201d(588) But what _is_ a \u201ccruse\u201d? Their marginal note says, \u201cOr,\n\u2018_a flask_:\u2019 \u201d but once more, what _is_ \u201ca flask\u201d? Certainly, the\nreceptacles to which that name is now commonly applied, (_e.g._ a\npowder-flask, a Florence flask, a flask of wine, &c.) bear no resemblance\nwhatever to the vase called \u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. The probability is that the\nreceptacle for the precious ointment with which the sister of Lazarus\nprovided herself, was likest of all to a small medicine-bottle (_lecythus_\nthe ancients called it), made however of alabaster. Specimens of it\nabound. But why not let such words alone? The same Critics have had the\ngood sense to leave standing \u201cthe bag,\u201d for what was confessedly a\n_box_(589) (S. John xii. 6: xiii. 29); and \u201cyour purses\u201d for what in the\nGreek is unmistakably \u201cyour _girdles_\u201d(590) (S. Matth. x. 9). We can but\nrepeat that possession for _five centuries_ conveys rights which it is\nalways useless, and sometimes dangerous, to dispute. \u201cVials\u201d will\ncertainly have to be put back into the Apocalypse.\n\n(_g_) Having said so much about the proposed rendering of such unpromising\nvocables as \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae\u2014\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, it is time to invite the Reader\u2019s\nattention to the calamitous fate which has befallen certain other words of\ninfinitely greater importance.\n\nAnd first for \u1f08\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u2014a substantive noun unknown to the heathen, even as the\nsentiment which the word expresses proves to be a grace of purely\nChristian growth. What else but a real calamity would be the sentence of\nperpetual banishment passed by our Revisionists on \u201cthat most excellent\ngift, the gift of _Charity_,\u201d and the general substitution of \u201cLove\u201d in\nits place? Do not these learned men perceive that \u201cLove\u201d is not an\nequivalent term? Can they require to be told that, because of S. Paul\u2019s\nexquisite and life-like portrait of \u201cCHARITY,\u201d and the use which has been\nmade of the word in sacred literature in consequence, it has come to pass\nthat the word \u201c_Charity_\u201d connotes many ideas to which the word \u201cLove\u201d is\nan entire stranger? that \u201cLove,\u201d on the contrary, has come to connote many\nunworthy notions which in \u201c_Charity_\u201d find no place at all? And if this be\nso, how can our Revisionists expect that we shall endure the loss of the\nname of the very choicest of the Christian graces,\u2014and which, if it is\nnowhere to be found in Scripture, will presently come to be only\ntraditionally known among mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term\nclearly understood? Have the Revisionists of 1881 considered how firmly\nthis word \u201c_Charity_\u201d has established itself in the phraseology of the\nChurch,\u2014ancient, medi\u00e6val, modern,\u2014as well as in our Book of Common\nPrayer? how thoroughly it has vindicated for itself the right of\ncitizenship in the English language? how it has entered into our common\nvocabulary, and become one of the best understood of \u201chousehold words\u201d? Of\nwhat can they have been thinking when they deliberately obliterated from\nthe thirteenth chapter of S. Paul\u2019s 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the\nninefold recurrence of the name of \u201cthat most excellent gift, the gift of\nCHARITY\u201d?\n\n(_h_) With equal displeasure, but with even sadder feelings, we recognize\nin the present Revision a resolute elimination of \u201cMIRACLES\u201d from the N.\nT.\u2014Not so, (we shall be eagerly reminded,) but only of their _Name_. True,\nbut the two perforce go together, as every thoughtful man knows. At all\nevents, the getting rid of _the Name_,\u2014(except in the few instances which\nare enumerated below,)\u2014will in the account of millions be regarded as the\ngetting rid of _the thing_. And in the esteem of all, learned and\nunlearned alike, the systematic obliteration of the signifying word from\nthe pages of that Book to which we refer exclusively for our knowledge of\nthe remarkable thing signified,\u2014cannot but be looked upon as a memorable\nand momentous circumstance. Some, it may be, will be chiefly struck by the\nfoolishness of the proceeding: for at the end of centuries of familiarity\nwith such a word, we are no longer _able_ to part company with it, even if\nwe were inclined. The term has struck root firmly in our Literature: has\nestablished itself in the terminology of Divines: has grown into our\ncommon speech. But further, even were it possible to get rid of the words\n\u201cMiracle\u201d and \u201cMiraculous,\u201d what else but abiding inconvenience would be\nthe result? for we must still desire to speak about _the things_; and it\nis a truism to remark that there are no other words in the language which\nconnote the same ideas. What therefore has been gained by substituting\n\u201c_sign_\u201d for \u201c_miracle_\u201d on some 19 or 20 occasions\u2014(\u201cthis beginning of\n_his signs_ did JESUS,\u201d\u2014\u201cthis is again the _second sign_ that JESUS\ndid\u201d)\u2014we really fail to see.\n\nThat the word in the original is \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, and that \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd means \u201ca sign,\u201d\nwe are aware. But what then? Because \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, in strictness, means \u201ca\nmessenger,\u201d\u2014\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae, \u201ca writing,\u201d\u2014\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u201can actor,\u201d\u2014\u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u201can\nassembly,\u201d\u2014\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cgood tidings,\u201d\u2014\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u201can\noverseer,\u201d\u2014\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u201cone that dips,\u201d\u2014\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, \u201ca garden,\u201d\u2014\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u201ca\nlearner,\u201d\u2014\u03c7\u1f01\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, \u201cfavour:\u201d\u2014are we to forego the established English\nequivalents for these words, and never more to hear of \u201cgrace,\u201d\n\u201cdisciple,\u201d \u201cParadise,\u201d \u201cBaptist,\u201d \u201cBishop,\u201d \u201cGospel,\u201d \u201cChurch,\u201d\n\u201chypocrite,\u201d \u201cScripture,\u201d \u201cAngel\u201d? Is it then desired to revolutionize our\nsacred terminology? or at all events to sever with the Past, and to\ntranslate the Scriptures into English on etymological principles? We are\namazed that the first proposal to resort to such a preposterous method was\nnot instantly scouted by a large majority of those who frequented the\nJerusalem Chamber.\n\nThe words under consideration are not only not equivalent, but they are\nquite dissimilar. All \u201c_signs_\u201d are not \u201c_Miracles_,\u201d(591) though all\n\u201c_Miracles_\u201d are undeniably \u201c_signs_.\u201d Would not a marginal annotation\nconcerning the original word, as at S. Luke xxiii. 8, have sufficed? And\n_why_ was the term \u201c_Miracle_\u201d as the rendering of \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd(592) spared\nonly on _that_ occasion in the Gospels; and _only_ in connection with S.\nPeter\u2019s miracle of healing the impotent man, in the Acts?(593) We ask the\nquestion not caring for an answer. We are merely bent on submitting to our\nReaders, whether,\u2014especially in an age like the present of wide-spread\nunbelief in the Miraculous,\u2014it was a judicious proceeding in our\nRevisionists almost everywhere to substitute \u201cSign\u201d for \u201cMiracle\u201d as the\nrendering of \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n(_i_) Every bit as offensive, in its way, is a marginal note respecting\nthe Third Person in the Trinity, which does duty at S. Matth. i. 18: S.\nMark i. 8: S. Luke i. 15: Acts i. 2: Rom. v. 5: Heb. ii. 4. As a rule, in\nshort, against every fresh first mention of \u201cthe HOLY GHOST,\u201d five lines\nare punctually devoted to the remark,\u2014\u201c_Or_, Holy Spirit: _and so\nthroughout this book_.\u201d Now, as Canon Cook very fairly puts the case,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cDoes this imply that the marginists object to the word \u2018GHOST\u2019?\n    If so, it must be asked, On what grounds? Certainly not as an\n    archaism. The word is in every Churchman\u2019s mouth continually. For\n    the sake of consistency? But Dr. Vance Smith complains bitterly of\n    the _inconsistency_ of his colleagues in reference to this very\n    question,\u2014see his _Texts and Margins_, pp. 7, 8, 45. I would not\n    suggest a doctrinal bias: but to prove that it had no influence, a\n    strong, if not unanimous, declaration on the part of the Revisers\n    is called for. Dr. Vance Smith alleges this notice as one of the\n    clearest proofs that the Revisers ought in consistency to discard\n    the word as \u2018_a poor and almost obsolete_ equivalent for\n    Spirit.\u2019 \u201d(594)\n\n\nBut in fact when one of the Revisionists openly claims, on behalf of the\nRevision, that \u201cin the most substantial sense,\u201d (whatever _that_ may\nhappen to mean,) it is \u201ccontrary to fact\u201d \u201cthat the doctrines of popular\nTheology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the\nRevision,\u201d(595)\u2014Charity itself is constrained to use language which by a\ncertain school will be deemed uncharitable. If doctrinal prepossession had\nno share in the production under review,\u2014why is no protest publicly put\nforth against such language as the foregoing, when employed by a\nconspicuous Member of the Revisionist body?\n\n(_j_) In a similar spirit to that which dictated our remarks on the\nattempted elimination of \u201c_Miracles_\u201d from the N. T. of the future,\u2014we\naltogether disapprove of the attempt to introduce \u201cis _Epileptic_,\u201d as the\nrendering of \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, in S. Matth. xvii. 15. The miracle performed on\n\u201c_the lunatic child_\u201d may never more come abroad under a different name.\nIn a matter like this, 500 years of occupation, (or rather 1700, for\n\u201c_lunaticus_\u201d is the reading of all the Latin copies,) constitute a title\nwhich may not be disputed. \u201cEPILEPTIC\u201d is a sorry _gloss_\u2014not a\ntranslation. Even were it demonstrable that Epilepsy exclusively exhibits\nevery feature related in connection with the present case;(596) and that\nsufferers from Epilepsy are specially affected by the moon\u2019s changes,\n(neither of which things are _certainly_ true): even so, the Revisionists\nwould be wholly unwarranted in doing violence to the Evangelist\u2019s\nlanguage, in order to bring into prominence their own private opinion that\nwhat is called \u201c_Lunacy_\u201d here (and in ch. iv. 24) is to be identified\nwith the ordinary malady called \u201cEpilepsy.\u201d This was confessedly an\nextraordinary case of _demoniacal possession_(597) besides. The\nRevisionists have in fact gone out of their way in order to introduce us\nto a set of difficulties with which before we had no acquaintance. And\nafter all, the English reader desires to know\u2014_not_, by any means, what\ntwo-thirds of the Revisionists _conjecture_ was the matter with the child,\nbut\u2014_what the child\u2019s Father actually said_ was the matter with him. Now,\nthe Father undeniably did _not_ say that the child was \u201cEpileptic,\u201d but\nthat he was \u201c_Lunatic_.\u201d The man employed a term which (singular to\nrelate) has its own precise English equivalent;\u2014a term which embodies to\nthis hour (as it did anciently) the popular belief that the moon\ninfluences certain forms of disease. With the advance of Science,\ncivilized nations surrender such Beliefs; but they do not _therefore_\nrevolutionize their Terminology. \u201cThe advance of Science,\u201d however, has\nnothing whatever to do with _the Translation of the word_ before us. The\nAuthor of this particular rendering (begging his pardon) is open to a\nprocess \u201c_de lunatico inquirendo_\u201d for having imagined the contrary.\n\n(_k_) The foregoing instances suggest the remark, that the Ecclesiastical\nHistorian of future years will point with concern to the sad evidences\nthat the Church had fallen on evil days when the present Revision was\nundertaken. With fatal fidelity does it, every here and there, reflect the\nsickly hues of \u201cmodern Thought,\u201d which is too often but another name for\nthe latest phase of Unfaithfulness. Thus, in view of the present\ncontroversy about the Eternity of Future Punishment, which has brought\ninto prominence a supposed distinction between the import of the epithets\n\u201cETERNAL\u201d and \u201cEVERLASTING,\u201d\u2014how painful is it to discover that the latter\nepithet, (which is the one objected to by the unbelieving school,) has\nbeen by our Revisionists diligently excluded(598) _every time it occurs_\nas the translation of \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, in favour of the more palatable epithel\n\u201ceternal\u201d! King James\u2019s Translators showed themselves impartial to a\nfault. As if to mark that, in their account, the words are of identical\nimport, they even introduced _both words into the same verse_(599) of\nScripture. Is it fair that such a body of men as the Revisionists of 1881,\nclaiming the sanction of the Convocation of the Southern Province, should,\nin a matter like the present, throw all their weight into the scale of\nMisbelief? They were authorized only to remove \u201cplain and clear _errors_.\u201d\nThey were instructed to introduce \u201cas few changes _as possible_.\u201d Why have\nthey needlessly gone out of their way, on the contrary, indirectly to show\ntheir sympathy with those who deny what has been the Church\u2019s teaching for\n1800 years? Our Creeds, Te Deum, Litany, Offices, Articles,\u2014our whole\nPrayer Book, breathes a different spirit and speaks a different\nlanguage.... Have our Revisionists persuaded the Old Testament company to\nfollow their example? It will be calamitous if they _have_. There will be\nserious discrepancy of teaching between the Old and the New Testament if\nthey have _not_.\n\n(_l_) What means also the fidgetty anxiety manifested throughout these\npages to explain away, or at least to evacuate, expressions which have to\ndo with ETERNITY? _Why_, for example, is \u201cthe _world_ (\u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd) to come,\u201d\ninvariably glossed \u201cthe _age_ to come\u201d? and \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 so\npersistently explained in the margin to mean, \u201c_unto the ages_\u201d? (See the\nmargin of Rom. ix. 5. Are we to read \u201cGOD blessed _unto the ages_\u201d?) Also\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u201c_unto the ages of the ages_\u201d? Surely we,\nwhose language furnishes expressions of precisely similar character (viz.\n\u201cfor ever,\u201d and \u201cfor ever and ever\u201d), might dispense with information hazy\nand unprofitable as this!\n\n(_m_) Again. At a period of prevailing unbelief in the INSPIRATION of\nScripture, nothing but real necessity could warrant any meddling with such\na testimony on the subject as is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. We have hitherto\nbeen taught to believe that \u201c_All Scripture is given by inspiration of_\nGOD and is profitable,\u201d &c. The ancients(600) clearly so understood S.\nPaul\u2019s words: and so do the most learned and thoughtful of the moderns.\n\u03a0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae, even if it be interpreted \u201cevery Scripture,\u201d can only mean\nevery portion of those \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 of which the Apostle had been\nspeaking in the previous verse; and therefore must needs signify _the\nwhole of Scripture_.(601) So that the expression \u201c_all Scripture_\u201d\nexpresses S. Paul\u2019s meaning exactly, and should not have been disturbed.\n\nBut\u2014\u201cIt is very difficult\u201d (so at least thinks the Right Rev. Chairman of\nthe Revisers) \u201cto decide whether \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is a part of the predicate,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03af being the simple copula; or whether it is a part of the subject.\nLexicography and grammar contribute but little to a decision.\u201d Not so\nthought Bishop Middleton. \u201cI do not recollect\u201d (he says) \u201cany passage in\nthe N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by the copulative,\nwere intended by the writer to be so unnaturally disjoined. He who can\nproduce such an instance, will do much towards establishing the\nplausibility of a translation, which otherwise must appear, to say the\nleast of it, to be forced and improbable.\u201d\u2014And yet it is proposed to\nthrust this \u201cforced and improbable\u201d translation on the acceptance of all\nEnglish-speaking people, wherever found, on the plea of _necessity_! Our\nRevisionists translate, \u201cEvery Scripture inspired of GOD _is also\nprofitable_,\u201d &c.,\u2014which of course may be plausibly declared to imply that\na distinction is drawn by the Apostle himself between inspired and\nuninspired Scripture. And pray, (we should be presently asked,) is not\nmany a Scripture (or writing) \u201cprofitable for teaching,\u201d &c. which is\n_not_ commonly held to be \u201cinspired of GOD\u201d?... But in fact the proposed\nrendering is inadmissible, being without logical coherence and\nconsistency. The utmost that could be pretended would be that S. Paul\u2019s\nassertion is that \u201cevery portion of Scripture _being inspired_\u201d (_i.e._\ninasmuch as it is\u2014because it is\u2014inspired); \u201cis _also_ profitable,\u201d &c.\nElse there would be no meaning in the \u03ba\u03b1\u03af. But, in the name of common\nsense, if this be so, _why_ have the blessed words been meddled with?\n\n(_n_) All are unhappily familiar with the avidity with which the disciples\nof a certain School fasten upon a mysterious expression in S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel (xiii. 32), which seems to predicate concerning the Eternal SON,\nlimitation in respect of Knowledge. This is not the place for vindicating\nthe Catholic Doctrine of the SON\u2019S \u201cequality with the FATHER as touching\nHis GODhead;\u201d or for explaining that, in consequence, all things that the\nFATHER hath, (_the knowledge of _\u201cthat Day and Hour\u201d_ included_,) the SON\nhath likewise.(602) But this is the place for calling attention to the\ndeplorable circumstance that the clause \u201c_neither the_ SON,\u201d which has an\nindisputable right to its place in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, has on insufficient\nauthority by our Revisionists been thrust into S. Matth. xxvi. 36, where\nit has no business whatever, and from which the word \u201conly\u201d effectually\nexcludes it.(603) We call attention to this circumstance with sincere\nsorrow: but it is sorrow largely mixed with indignation. What else but the\nbetrayal of a sacred trust is it when Divines appointed to correct\nmanifest errors in _the English_ of the N. T. go out of their way to\nintroduce an error like this into the _Greek_ Text which Catholic\nAntiquity would have repudiated with indignation, and for which certainly\nthe plea of \u201cnecessity\u201d cannot be pretended?\n\n(_o_) A MARGINAL ANNOTATION set over against Romans ix. 5 is the last\nthing of this kind to which we shall invite attention. S. Paul declares it\nto be Israel\u2019s highest boast and glory that of them, \u201cas concerning the\nflesh [came] CHRIST, _who is over all_ [things], GOD_ blessed for ever_!\nAmen.\u201d A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our LORD\u2019S eternal\nGODhead is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Accordingly, these words have\nbeen as confidently appealed to by faithful Doctors of the Church in every\nage, as they have been unsparingly assailed by unbelievers. The dishonest\nshifts by which the latter seek to evacuate the record which they are\npowerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred Revisionists\nin the following terms:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cSome modern Interpreters place a full stop after _flesh_, and\n    translate, _He who is God over all be (is) blessed for ever_: or,\n    _He who is over all is God, blessed for ever_. Others punctuate,\n    _flesh, who is over all. God be (is) blessed for ever._\u201d\n\n\nNow this is a matter,\u2014let it be clearly observed,\u2014which, (as Dr. Hort is\naware,) \u201cbelongs to _Interpretation_,\u2014and _not to Textual\nCriticism_.\u201d(604) What business then has it in these pages at all? Is it\nthen the function of Divines appointed to revise the _Authorized Version_,\nto give information to the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians\nscattered throughout the world as to the unfaithfulness of \u201c_some modern\nInterpreters_\u201d?(605) We have hitherto supposed that it was \u201c_Ancient_\nauthorities\u201d exclusively,\u2014(whether \u201ca few,\u201d or \u201csome,\u201d or \u201cmany,\u201d)\u2014to\nwhich we are invited to submit our judgment. How does it come to pass that\n_the Socinian gloss_ on this grand text (Rom. ix. 5) has been brought into\nsuch extraordinary prominence? Did our Revisionists consider that their\nmarginal note would travel to earth\u2019s remotest verge,\u2014give universal\ncurrency to the view of \u201csome modern Interpreters,\u201d\u2014and in the end \u201ctell\nit out among the heathen\u201d also? We refer to\nManuscripts,\u2014Versions,\u2014Fathers: and what do we find? (1) It is\ndemonstrable that _the oldest __ Codices, besides the whole body of the\ncursives_, know nothing about the method of \u201csome modern\nInterpreters.\u201d(606)\u2014(2) \u201cThere is absolutely not a shadow, _not a tittle\nof evidence, in any of the ancient Versions_, to warrant what they\ndo.\u201d(607)\u2014(3) How then, about the old Fathers? for the sentiments of our\nbest modern Divines, as Pearson and Bull, we know by heart. We find that\nthe expression \u201c_who is over all_ [things], GOD_ blessed for ever_\u201d is\nexpressly acknowledged to refer to our SAVIOUR by the following 60\nillustrious names:\u2014\n\nIren\u00e6us,(608)\u2014Hippolytus in 3 places,(609)\u2014Origen,(610)\u2014Malchion, in the\nname of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch, A.D.\n269,(611)\u2014ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,(612)\u2014the _Constt.\nApp._,(613)\u2014Athanasius in 6 places,(614)\u2014Basil in 2 places,(615)\u2014Didymus\nin 5 places,(616)\u2014Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,(617)\u2014Epiphanius in 5\nplaces,(618)\u2014Theodoras\nMops.,(619)\u2014Methodius,(620)\u2014Eustathius,(621)\u2014Eulogius,\ntwice,(622)\u2014C\u00e6sarius, 3 times,(623)\u2014Theophilus Alex.,\ntwice,(624)\u2014Nestorius,(625)\u2014Theodotus of Ancyra,(626)\u2014Proclus,\ntwice,(627)\u2014Severianus Bp. of Gabala,(628)\u2014Chrysostom, 8 times,(629)\u2014Cyril\nAlex., 15 times,(630)\u2014Paulus Bp. of Emesa,(631)\u2014Theodoret, 12\ntimes,(632)\u2014Gennadius, Abp. of C. P.,(633)\u2014Severus, Abp. of\nAntioch,(634)\u2014Amphilochius,(635)\u2014Gelasius Cyz.,(636)\u2014Anastasius\nAnt.,(637)\u2014Leontius Byz., 3 times,(638)\u2014Maximus,(639)\u2014J. Damascene, 3\ntimes.(640) Besides of the Latins, Tertullian,\ntwice,(641)\u2014Cyprian,(642)\u2014Novatian, twice,(643)\u2014Ambrose, 5\ntimes,(644)\u2014Palladius the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,(645)\u2014Hilary, 7\ntimes,(646)\u2014Jerome, twice,(647)\u2014Augustine, about 30\ntimes,\u2014Victorinus,(648)\u2014the _Breviarium_, twice,(649)\u2014Marius\nMercator,(650)\u2014Cassian, twice,(651)\u2014Alcimus Avit.,(652)\u2014Fulgentius,\ntwice,(653)\u2014Leo, Bp. of Rome, twice,(654)\u2014Ferrandus,\ntwice,(655)\u2014Facundus:(656)\u2014to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of\nwhom 3(657) have been mistaken for Athanasius,\u2014and 3(658) for Chrysostom.\nAll these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal GODhead\nof CHRIST.\n\nAgainst such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testimony,\u2014for we have\nenumerated _upwards of sixty_ ancient Fathers\u2014it will not surely be\npretended that the Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give\nsuch prominence, can stand. But why has it been introduced _at all_? We\nshall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, that such\nperverse imaginations of \u201cmodern Interpreters\u201d are not entitled to a place\nin the margin of the N. T. For our Revisionists to have even given them\ncurrency, and thereby a species of sanction, constitutes in our view a\nvery grave offence.(659) A public retraction and a very humble Apology we\nclaim at their hands. Indifferent Scholarship, and mistaken views of\nTextual Criticism, are at least venial matters. But _a Socinian gloss\ngratuitously thrust into the margin of every Englishman\u2019s N. T._ admits of\nno excuse\u2014is not to be tolerated on _any_ terms. It would by itself, in\nour account, have been sufficient to determine the fate of the present\nRevision.\n\nXII. Are we to regard it as a kind of _set-off_ against all that goes\nbefore, that in an age when the personality of Satan is freely called in\nquestion, \u201cTHE EVIL ONE\u201d has been actually _thrust into the Lord\u2019s\nPrayer_? A more injudicious and unwarrantable innovation it would be\nimpossible to indicate in any part of the present unhappy volume. The case\nhas been argued out with much learning and ability by two eminent Divines,\nBp. Lightfoot and Canon Cook. The Canon remains master of the field. That\n_the change ought never to have been made_ is demonstrable. The grounds of\nthis assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted on all hands\nthat it must for ever remain a matter of opinion only whether in the\nexpression \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, the nominative case is \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd (as in S.\nMatth. v. 37, 39: Rom. xii. 9), or \u1f41 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 (as in S. Matth. xiii. 19,\n38: Eph. vi. 16),\u2014either of which yields a good sense. But then\u2014(2) The\nChurch of England in her formularies having emphatically declared that,\nfor her part, she adheres to the former alternative, it was in a very high\ndegree unbecoming for the Revisionists to pretend to the enjoyment of\n_certain_ knowledge that the Church of England in so doing was mistaken:\nand unless \u201cfrom evil\u201d be \u201c_a clear and plain error_,\u201d the Revisionists\nwere bound to let it alone. Next\u2014(3), It can never be right to impose the\nnarrower interpretation on words which have always been understood to bear\nthe larger sense: especially when (as in the present instance) the larger\nmeaning distinctly includes and covers the lesser: witness the paraphrase\nin our Church Catechism,\u2014\u201cand that He will keep us (_a_) from all sin and\nwickedness, and (_b_) _from our ghostly enemy_, and (_c_) from everlasting\ndeath.\u201d\u2014(4) But indeed Catholic Tradition claims to be heard in this\nbehalf. Every Christian at his Baptism renounces not only \u201cthe Devil,\u201d but\nalso \u201c_all his works_, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all\ncovetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh.\u201d(660)\nAnd at this point\u2014(5), The voice of an inspired Apostle interposes in\nattestation that this is indeed the true acceptation of the last petition\nin the LORD\u2019S Prayer: for when S. Paul says\u2014\u201cthe LORD will deliver me\n_from every evil work_ and will preserve me unto His heavenly kingdom; to\nwhom be glory for ever and ever. Amen,\u201d(661)\u2014what else is he referring to\nbut to the words just now under consideration? He explains that in the\nLORD\u2019S Prayer it is \u201c_from every evil work_\u201d that we pray to be\n\u201cdelivered.\u201d (Note also, that he retains _the Doxology_.) Compare the\nplaces:\u2014\n\nS. Matth. vi. 13.\u2014\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1fec\u038e\u03a3\u0391\u0399 \u1f29\u039c\u0386\u03a3 \u1f08\u03a0\u1ff8 \u03a4\u039f\u038e \u03a0\u039f\u039d\u0397\u03a1\u039f\u038e. \u1f4d\u03a4\u0399 \u03a3\u039f\u038e \u1f18\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u039d \u1f29\n\u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u038a\u0391 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f29 \u0394\u038c\u039e\u0391 \u1f18\u0399\u03a3 \u03a4\u039f\u038e\u03a3 \u1f08\u0399\u038f\u039d\u0391\u03a3. \u1f08\u039c\u0389\u039d.\n\n2 Tim. iv. 18.\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fec\u038e\u03a3\u0395\u03a4\u0391\u038a \u039c\u0395 \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03a0\u1ff8 \u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u1ff8\u03a3 \u1f1c\u03a1\u0393\u039f\u03a5 \u03a0\u039f\u039d\u0397\u03a1\u039f\u03a5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a4\u1fca\u039d \u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u038a\u0391\u039d \u1f08\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a5 ... \u1fa7 \u1f29 \u0394\u038c\u039e\u0391 \u0395\u038a\u03a3 \u03a4\u039f\u03a5\u03a3 \u1f08\u0399\u038f\u039d\u0391\u03a3.... \u1f08\u039c\u0389\u039d.\n\nThen further\u2014(6), What more unlikely than that our LORD would end with\ngiving such prominence to that rebel Angel whom by dying He is declared to\nhave \u201cdestroyed\u201d? (Heb. ii. 14: 1 John iii. 8.) For, take away the\nDoxology (as our Revisionists propose), and we shall begin the LORD\u2019S\nPrayer with \u201cOUR FATHER,\u201d and literally end it with\u2014_the Devil_!\u2014But above\nall,\u2014(7) Let it never be forgotten that this is _the pattern Prayer_, a\nportion of every Christian child\u2019s daily utterance,\u2014the most sacred of all\nour formularies, and by far the most often repeated,\u2014into which it is\nattempted in this way to introduce a startling novelty. Lastly\u2014(8), When\nit is called to mind that nothing short of _necessity_ has warranted the\nRevisionists in introducing a single change into the A. V.,\u2014\u201c_clear and\nplain errors_\u201d\u2014and that no such plea can be feigned on the present\noccasion, the liberty which they have taken in this place must be admitted\nto be absolutely without excuse.... Such at least are the grounds on\nwhich, for our own part, we refuse to entertain the proposed introduction\nof the Devil into the LORD\u2019S Prayer. From the position we have taken up,\nit will be found utterly impossible to dislodge us.\n\nXIII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few\ndark places of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles their labours have thrown important\nlight. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural\ndifficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far\ngreater number, when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange\nindeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of\ntwenty Scholars, whose _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ as Revisionists was to do this very\nthing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V.\nof Gospels and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, for\nevery obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have\nbeen introduced: in other words, that the result of this Revision has been\nthe planting in of a _fresh crop of difficulties_, before undreamed of; so\nthat a perpetual wrestling with _these_ is what hereafter awaits the\ndiligent student of the New Testament.\n\nWe speak not now of passages which have been merely altered for the worse:\nas when, (in S. James i. 17, 18,) we are invited to read,\u2014\u201cEvery good gift\nand every _perfect boon_ is from above, coming down from the Father of\nlights, with whom _can be no variation_, neither _shadow that is cast by\nturning_. Of his own will _he brought us forth_.\u201d Grievous as such\nblemishes are, it is seen at a glance that they must be set down to\nnothing worse than tasteless assiduity. What we complain of is that,\nmisled by a depraved Text, our Revisers have often made nonsense of what\nbefore was perfectly clear: and have not only thrust many of our LORD\u2019S\nprecious utterances out of sight, (_e.g._ Matt. xvii. 21: Mark x. 21 and\nxi. 26: Luke ix. 55, 56); but have attributed to Him absurd sayings which\nHe certainly never uttered, (_e.g._ Matt. xix. 17); or else, given such a\ntwist to what He actually said, that His blessed words are no longer\nrecognizable, (as in S. Matt. xi. 23: S. Mark ix. 23: xi. 3). Take a\nsample:\u2014\n\n(1.) The Church has always understood her LORD to say,\u2014\u201cFATHER, I will\nthat they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am; that they\nmay behold My glory.\u201d(662) We reject with downright indignation the\nproposal henceforth to read instead,\u2014\u201cFATHER_, that which Thou hast given\nMe I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me_,\u201d &c. We suspect a\nmisprint. The passage reads like nonsense. Yes, and nonsense it is,\u2014in\nGreek as well as in English: (\u1f45 has been written for \u03bf\u1f55\u03c2\u2014one of the\ncountless _b\u00eatises_ for which \u05d0 B D are exclusively responsible; and which\nthe weak superstition of these last days is for erecting into a new\nRevelation). We appeal to the old Latin and to the Vulgate,\u2014to the better\nEgyptian and to all the Syriac versions: to _every known Lectionary_: to\nClemens Alex.,(663)\u2014to Eusebius,(664)\u2014to Nonnus,(665)\u2014to Basil,(666)\u2014to\nChrysostom,(667)\u2014to Cyril,(668)\u2014to C\u00e6lestinus,(669)\u2014to Theodoret:(670) not\nto mention Cyprian,(671)\u2014Ambrose,(672)\u2014Hilary,(673) &c.:(674) and above\nall, 16 uncials, beginning with A and C,\u2014and the whole body of the\ncursives. So many words ought not to be required. If men prefer _their_\n\u201cmumpsimus\u201d to _our_ \u201csumpsimus,\u201d let them by all means have it: but pray\nlet them keep their rubbish to themselves,\u2014and at least leave our\nSAVIOUR\u2019S words alone.\n\n(2.) We shall be told that the foregoing is an outrageous instance. It is.\nThen take a few milder cases. They abound, turn whichever way we will.\nThus, we are invited to believe that S. Luke relates concerning our\nSAVIOUR that He \u201c_was led by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty\ndays_\u201d (iv. 1). We stare at this new revelation, and refer to the familiar\nGreek. It proves to be the Greek of _all the copies in the __ world but\nfour_; the Greek which supplied the Latin, the Syrian, the Coptic\nChurches, with the text of their respective Versions; the Greek which was\nfamiliar to Origen,(675)\u2014to Eusebius,(676)\u2014to Basil,(677)\u2014to\nDidymus,(678)\u2014to Theodoret,(679)\u2014to Maximus,(680)\u2014and to two other ancient\nwriters, one of whom has been mistaken for Chrysostom,(681) the other for\nBasil.(682) It is therefore quite above suspicion. And it informs us that\nJESUS \u201cwas led by the Spirit _into the wilderness_;\u201d and there was \u201c_forty\ndays tempted of the Devil_.\u201d What then has happened to obscure so plain a\nstatement? Nothing more serious than that\u2014(1) Four copies of bad character\n(\u05d0 B D L) exhibit \u201cin\u201d instead of \u201cinto:\u201d and that\u2014(2) Our Revisionists\nhave been persuaded to believe that _therefore_ S. Luke must needs have\ndone the same. Accordingly they invite us to share their conviction that\nit was the _leading about_ of our LORD, (and not His _Temptation_,) which\nlasted for 40 days. And this sorry misconception is to be thrust upon the\n90 millions of English-speaking Christians throughout the world,\u2014under the\nplea of \u201cnecessity\u201d!... But let us turn to a more interesting specimen of\nthe mischievous consequences which would ensue from the acceptance of the\npresent so-called \u201cRevision.\u201d\n\n(3.) What is to be thought of _this_, as a substitute for the familiar\nlanguage of 2 Cor. xii. 7?\u2014\u201c_And by reason of the exceeding greatness of\nthe revelations\u2014wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch_, there\nwas given to me a thorn in the flesh.\u201d The word \u201cwherefore\u201d (\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc), which\noccasions all the difficulty\u2014(breaking the back of the sentence and\nnecessitating the hypothesis of a change of construction)\u2014is due solely to\nthe influence of \u05d0 A BB. The ordinary Text is recognized by almost every\nother copy; by the Latin,\u2014Syriac,\u2014Gothic,\u2014Armenian Versions;\u2014as well as by\nIren\u00e6us,(683)\u2014Origen,(684)\u2014Macarius,(685)\u2014Athanasius,(686)\u2014Chrysostom,(687)\u2014Theodoret,(688)\u2014John\nDamascene.(689) Even Tischendorf here makes a stand and refuses to follow\nhis accustomed guides.(690) In plain terms, the text of 2 Cor. xii. 7 is\nbeyond the reach of suspicion. Scarcely intelligible is the infatuation of\nwhich our Revisers have been the dupes.\u2014_Quousque tandem?_\n\n(4.) Now this is the method of the Revising body throughout: viz. so\nseriously to maim the Text of many a familiar passage of Holy Writ as\neffectually to mar it. Even where they remedy an inaccuracy in the\nrendering of the A. V., they often inflict a more grievous injury than\nmistranslation on the inspired Text. An instance occurs at S. John x. 14,\nwhere the good Shepherd says,\u2014\u201cI know Mine own _and am known of Mine_,\neven as the FATHER knoweth Me and I know the Father.\u201d By thrusting in here\nthe Manich\u00e6an depravation (\u201c_and Mine own know Me_\u201d), our Revisionists\nhave obliterated the exquisite diversity of expression in the\noriginal,\u2014which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between\nthe FATHER and the SON is identical on either side, not such is the\nknowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator. The\nrefinement in question has been faithfully retained all down the ages by\nevery copy in existence except four of bad character,\u2014\u05d0 B D L. It is\nwitnessed to by the Syriac,\u2014by Macarius,(691)\u2014Gregory\nNaz.,(692)\u2014Chrysostom,(693)\u2014Cyril\nAlex.,(694)\u2014Theodoret,(695)\u2014Maximus.(696)\n\nBut why go on? Does any one in his sober senses suppose that if S. John\nhad written \u201c_Mine own know Me_,\u201d 996 manuscripts out of 1000, at the end\nof 1800 years, would be found to exhibit \u201c_I am known of Mine_\u201d?\n\n(5.) The foregoing instances must suffice. A brief enumeration of many\nmore has been given already, at pp. 144(_b_)-152.\n\nNow, in view of the phenomenon just discovered to us,\u2014(viz. for one crop\nof deformities weeded out, an infinitely larger crop of far grosser\ndeformities as industriously planted in,)\u2014we confess to a feeling of\ndistress and annoyance which altogether indisposes us to accord to the\nRevisionists that language of congratulation with which it would have been\nso agreeable to receive their well-meant endeavours. The serious question\nat once arises,\u2014Is it to be thought that upon the whole we are gainers, or\nlosers, by the Revised Version? And there seems to be no certain way of\nresolving this doubt, but by opening a \u201cProfit and Loss account\u201d with the\nRevisers,\u2014crediting them with every item of _gain_, and debiting them with\nevery item of _loss_. But then,\u2014(and we ask the question with sanguine\nsimplicity,)\u2014Why should it not be _all_ gain and _no_ loss, when, at the\nend of 270 years, a confessedly noble work, a truly unique specimen of\ngenius, taste and learning, is submitted to a body of Scholars, equipped\nwith every external advantage, _only_ in order that they may improve upon\nit\u2014_if they are able_? These learned individuals have had upwards of ten\nyears wherein to do their work. They have enjoyed the benefit of the\ntentative labours of a host of predecessors,\u2014some for their warning, some\nfor their help and guidance. They have all along had before their eyes the\nsolemn injunction that, whatever they were not able _certainly_ to\nimprove, they were to be _supremely careful to let alone_. They were\nwarned at the outset against any but \u201c_necessary_\u201d changes. Their sole\nbusiness was to remove \u201c_plain and clear errors_.\u201d They had pledged\nthemselves to introduce \u201c_as few alterations as possible_.\u201d Why then, we\nagain ask,\u2014_Why_ should not every single innovation which they introduced\ninto the grand old exemplar before them, prove to be a manifest, an\nundeniable change for the better?(697)\n\nXIV. The more we ponder over this unfortunate production, the more\ncordially do we regret that it was ever undertaken. Verily, the Northern\nConvocation displayed a far-sighted wisdom when it pronounced against the\nproject from the first. We are constrained to declare that could we have\nconceived it possible that the persons originally appointed by the\nSouthern Province would have co-opted into their body persons capable of\nexecuting their work with such extravagant licentiousness as well as such\nconspicuous bad taste, we should never have entertained one hopeful\nthought on the subject. For indeed every characteristic feature of the\nwork of the Revisionists offends us,\u2014as well in respect of what they have\nleft undone, as of what they have been the first to venture to do:\u2014\n\n(_a_) Charged \u201cto introduce _as few_ alterations as possible into the Text\nof the Authorized Version,\u201d they have on the contrary evidently acted\nthroughout on the principle of making _as many_ changes in it as they\nconveniently could.\n\n(_b_) Directed \u201cto limit, _as far as possible_, the expression of such\nalterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English\nVersions,\u201d\u2014they have introduced such terms as \u201cassassin,\u201d \u201capparition,\u201d\n\u201cboon,\u201d \u201cdisparagement,\u201d \u201cdivinity,\u201d \u201ceffulgence,\u201d \u201cepileptic,\u201d\n\u201cfickleness,\u201d \u201cgratulation,\u201d \u201cirksome,\u201d \u201cinterpose,\u201d \u201cpitiable,\u201d\n\u201csluggish,\u201d \u201cstupor,\u201d \u201csurpass,\u201d \u201ctranquil:\u201d such compounds as\n\u201cself-control,\u201d \u201cworld-ruler:\u201d such phrases as \u201c_draw up_ a narrative:\u201d\n\u201c_the impulse_ of the steersman:\u201d \u201c_in lack_ of daily food:\u201d \u201c_exercising_\noversight.\u201d These are but a very few samples of the offence committed by\nour Revisionists, of which we complain.\n\n(_c_) Whereas they were required \u201cto _revise_ the Headings of the\nChapters,\u201d they have not even _retained_ them. We demand at least to have\nour excellent \u201cHeadings\u201d back.\n\n(_d_) And what has become of our time-honoured \u201cMarginal References,\u201d\u2014_the\nvery best Commentary_ on the Bible, as we believe,\u2014certainly the very best\nhelp for the right understanding of Scripture,\u2014which the wit of man hath\never yet devised? The \u201cMarginal References\u201d would be lost to the Church\nfor ever, if the work of the Revisionists were allowed to stand: the space\nrequired for their insertion having been completely swallowed up by the\nsenseless, and worse than senseless, Textual Annotations which at present\ninfest the margin of every sacred page. We are beyond measure amazed that\nthe Revisionists have even deprived the reader of the _essential aid_ of\nreferences to the places of the Old Testament which are quoted in the New.\n\n(_e_) Let the remark be added in passing, that we greatly dislike the\naffectation of printing certain quotations from the Old Testament after\nthe strange method adopted by our Revisers from Drs. Westcott and Hort.\n\n(_f_) The further external _assimilation of the Sacred Volume to an\nordinary book_ by getting rid of the division into Verses, we also hold to\nbe a great mistake. In the Greek, by all means let the verses be merely\nnoted in the margin: but, for more than one weighty reason, in the\n_English_ Bible let the established and peculiar method of printing the\nWord of GOD, tide what tide, be scrupulously retained.\n\n(_g_) But incomparably the gravest offence is behind. By far the most\nserious of all is _that_ Error to the consideration of which we devoted\nour former Article. THE NEW GREEK TEXT which, in defiance of their\nInstructions,(698) our Revisionists have constructed, has been proved to\nbe utterly undeserving of confidence. Built up on a fallacy which since\n1831 has been dominant in Germany, and which has lately found but too much\nfavour among ourselves, it is in the main a reproduction of the recent\nlabours of Doctors Westcott and Hort. But we have already recorded our\nconviction, that the results at which those eminent Scholars have arrived\nare wholly inadmissible. It follows that, in our account, the \u201cNew English\nVersion,\u201d has been all along a foredoomed thing. If the \u201cNew Greek Text\u201d\nbe indeed a tissue of fabricated Readings, the translation of these into\nEnglish must needs prove lost labour. It is superfluous to enquire into\nthe merits of the English rendering of words which Evangelists and\nApostles demonstrably never wrote.\n\n(_h_) Even this, however, is not nearly all. As Translators, full\ntwo-thirds of the Revisionists have shown themselves singularly\ndeficient,\u2014alike in their critical acquaintance with the language out of\nwhich they had to translate, and in their familiarity with the idiomatic\nrequirements of their own tongue. They had a noble Version before them,\nwhich they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignified simplicity\nand essential faithfulness, its manly grace and its delightful rhythm,\nthey have shown themselves alike unable to imitate and unwilling to\nretain. Their queer uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences:\u2014their\npedantic obscurity and their stiff, constrained manner:\u2014their fidgetty\naffectation of accuracy,\u2014and their habitual achievement of English which\nfails to exhibit the spirit of the original Greek;\u2014are sorry substitutes\nfor the living freshness, and elastic freedom, and habitual fidelity of\nthe grand old Version which we inherited from our Fathers, and which has\nsustained the spiritual life of the Church of England, and of all\nEnglish-speaking Christians, for 350 years. Linked with all our holiest,\nhappiest memories, and bound up with all our purest aspirations: part and\nparcel of whatever there is of good about us: fraught with men\u2019s hopes of\na blessed Eternity and many a bright vision of the never-ending Life;\u2014the\nAuthorized Version, wherever it was possible, _should have been jealously\nretained_. But on the contrary. Every familiar cadence has been\ndislocated: the congenial flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been\nhopelessly marred: so many of those little connecting words, which give\nlife and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, that\na perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The countless minute\nalterations which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page\nprove at last as tormenting as a swarm of flies to the weary traveller on\na summer\u2019s day.(699) To speak plainly, the book has been made\n_unreadable_.\n\nBut in fact the distinguished Chairman of the New Testament Company\n(Bishop Ellicott,) has delivered himself on this subject in language which\nleaves nothing to be desired, and which we willingly make our own. \u201cNo\nRevision\u201d (he says) \u201cin the present day _could hope to meet with an hour\u2019s\nacceptance_ if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the\npresent Authorized Version.\u201d(700)\u2014What else is this but a vaticination,\u2014of\nwhich the uninspired Author, by his own act and deed, has ensured the\npunctual fulfilment?\n\nWe lay the Revisers\u2019 volume down convinced that the case of their work is\nsimply hopeless. _Non ego paucis offendar maculis._ Had the blemishes been\ncapable of being reckoned up, it might have been worth while to try to\nremedy some of them. But when, instead of being disfigured by a few weeds\nscattered here and there, the whole field proves to be sown over in every\ndirection with thorns and briars; above all when, deep beneath the\nsurface, roots of bitterness to be counted by thousands, are found to have\nbeen silently planted in, which are sure to produce poisonous fruit after\nmany days:\u2014under _such_ circumstances only one course can be prescribed.\nLet the entire area be ploughed up,\u2014ploughed deep; and let the ground be\nleft for a decent space of time without cultivation. It is idle\u2014worse than\nidle\u2014to dream of revising, _with a view to retaining_, this Revision.\nAnother generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be\ngiven for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down. Partizanship,\n(which at present prevails to an extraordinary extent, but which is\nwondrously out of place in _this_ department of Sacred\nLearning,)\u2014_Partizanship_ must be completely outlived,\u2014before the Church\ncan venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organize\nanother attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament\nScriptures.\n\nYes, and in the meantime\u2014(let it in all faithfulness be added)\u2014the Science\nof Textual Criticism will have to be prosecuted, _for the first time_, in\na scholarlike manner. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES,\u2014sufficiently axiomatic to\nensure general acceptance,\u2014will have to be laid down for men\u2019s guidance.\nThe time has quite gone by for vaunting \u201c_the now established Principles\nof Textual Criticism_,\u201d(701)\u2014as if they had an actual existence. Let us be\nshown, instead, _which those Principles be_. As for the weak superstition\nof these last days, which\u2014_without proof of any kind_\u2014would erect two\nIVth-century Copies of the New Testament, (demonstrably derived from one\nand the same utterly depraved archetype,) into an authority from which\nthere shall be no appeal,\u2014it cannot be too soon or too unconditionally\nabandoned. And, perhaps beyond all things, men must be invited to disabuse\ntheir minds of the singular imagination that it is in their power, when\naddressing themselves to that most difficult and delicate of\nproblems,\u2014_the improvement of the Traditional Text_,\u2014\u201csolvere\nambulando.\u201d(702) They are assured that they may not take to Textual\nCriticism as ducks take to the water. They will be drowned inevitably if\nthey are so ill-advised as to make the attempt.\n\nThen further, those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are\nreminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the\nOld Testament is one indispensable condition of success.(703) And finally,\nthe Revisionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should\nbe crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial;\nto confine themselves to the correction of \u201c_plain and clear errors_;\u201d and\nin fact to \u201cintroduce into the Text _as few alterations as possible_.\u201d\n\nOn a review of all that has happened, from first to last, we can but feel\ngreatly concerned: greatly surprised: most of all, disappointed. We had\nexpected a vastly different result. It is partly (not quite) accounted\nfor, by the rare attendance in the Jerusalem Chamber of some of the names\non which we had chiefly relied. Bishop Moberly (of Salisbury) was present\non only 121 occasions: Bishop Wordsworth (of S. Andrews) on only 109:\nArchbishop Trench (of Dublin) on only 63: Bishop Wilberforce on only\n_one_. The Archbishop, in his Charge, adverts to \u201cthe not unfrequent\nsacrifice of grace and ease to the rigorous requirements of a literal\naccuracy;\u201d and regards them \u201cas pushed to a faulty excess\u201d (p. 22). Eleven\nyears before the scheme for the present \u201cRevision\u201d had been matured, the\nsame distinguished and judicious Prelate, (then Dean of Westminster,)\npersuaded as he was that a Revision _ought_ to come, and convinced that in\ntime it _would_ come, deprecated its being attempted _yet_. His words\nwere,\u2014\u201cNot however, I would trust, as yet: for we are not as yet _in any\nrespect prepared for it. The Greek, and the English_ which should enable\nus to bring this to a successful end might, it is to be feared, be wanting\nalike.\u201d(704) Archbishop Trench, with wise after-thought, in a second\nedition, explained himself to mean \u201c_that special Hellenistic Greek, here\nrequired_.\u201d\n\nThe Bp. of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest manner, cleared\nhimself from the suspicion of complicity in the errors of the work before\nus,\u2014as well in respect of the \u201cNew Greek Text\u201d as of the \u201cNew English\nVersion.\u201d In the Charge which he delivered at his Diocesan Synod, (22nd\nSept. 1880,) he openly stated that two years before the work was finally\ncompleted, he had felt obliged to address a printed circular to each\nmember of the Company, in which he strongly remonstrated against the\nexcess to which changes had been carried; and that the remonstrance had\nbeen, for the most part, unheeded. Had this been otherwise, there is good\nreason to believe that the reception which the Revision has met with would\nhave been far less unfavourable, and that many a controversy which it has\nstirred up, would have been avoided. We have been assured that the Bp. of\nS. Andrews would have actually resigned his place in the Company at that\ntime, if he had not been led to expect that some opportunity would have\nbeen taken by the Minority, when the work was finished, to express their\nformal dissent from the course which had been followed, and many of the\nconclusions which had been adopted.\n\nWere certain other excellent personages, (Scholars and Divines of the best\ntype) who were often present, disposed at this late hour to come forward,\nthey too would doubtless tell us that they heartily regretted what was\ndone, but were powerless to prevent it. It is no secret that Dr. Lee,\u2014the\nlearned Archdeacon of Dublin,\u2014(one of the few really competent members of\nthe Revising body,)\u2014found himself perpetually in the minority.\n\nThe same is to be recorded concerning Dr. Roberts, whose work on the\nGospels (published in 1864) shows that he is not by any means so entirely\na novice in the mysteries of Textual Criticism as certain of his\ncolleagues.\u2014One famous Scholar and excellent Divine,\u2014a Dean whom we\nforbear to name,\u2014with the modesty of real learning, often withheld what\n(had he given it) would have been an adverse vote.\u2014Another learned and\naccomplished Dean (Dr. Merivale), after attending 19 meetings of the\nRevising body, withdrew in disgust from them entirely. He disapproved _the\nmethod_ of his colleagues, and was determined to incur no share of\nresponsibility for the probable result of their deliberations.\u2014By the\nway,\u2014What about a certain solemn Protest, by means of which the Minority\nhad resolved _liberare animas suas_ concerning the open disregard shown by\nthe Majority for the conditions under which they had been entrusted with\nthe work of Revision, but which was withheld at the last moment? Inasmuch\nas their reasons for the course they eventually adopted seemed sufficient\nto those high-minded and honourable men, we forbear to challenge it.\nNothing however shall deter us from plainly avowing our own opinion that\nhuman regards scarcely deserve a hearing when GOD\u2019S Truth is imperilled.\nAnd that the Truth of GOD\u2019S Word in countless instances _has been_\nignorantly sacrificed by a majority of the Revisionists\u2014(out of deference\nto a worthless Theory, newly invented and passionately advocated by two of\ntheir body),\u2014has been already demonstrated; as far, that is, as\ndemonstration is _possible_ in this subject matter.\n\nAs for Prebendary Scrivener,\u2014_the only really competent Textual Critic of\nthe whole party_,\u2014it is well known that he found himself perpetually\noutvoted by two-thirds of those present. We look forward to the\nforthcoming new edition of his _Plain Introduction_, in the confident\nbelief that he will there make it abundantly plain that he is in no degree\nresponsible for the monstrous Text which it became his painful duty to\nconduct through the Press on behalf of the entire body, of which he\ncontinued to the last to be a member. It is no secret that, throughout,\nDr. Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have ourselves\nadvocated in this and the preceding Article.\n\nAll alike may at least enjoy the real satisfaction of knowing that,\nbesides having stimulated, to an extraordinary extent, public attention to\nthe contents of the Book of Life, they have been instrumental in awakening\na living interest in one important but neglected department of Sacred\nScience, which will not easily be again put to sleep. It may reasonably\nprove a solace to them to reflect that they have besides, although perhaps\nin ways they did not anticipate, rendered excellent service to mankind. A\nmonument they have certainly erected to themselves,\u2014though neither of\ntheir Taste nor yet of their Learning. Their well-meant endeavours have\nprovided an admirable text-book for Teachers of Divinity,\u2014who will\nhenceforth instruct their pupils to beware of the Textual errors of the\nRevisionists of 1881, as well as of their tasteless, injudicious, and\nunsatisfactory essays in Translation. This work of theirs will discharge\nthe office of a warning beacon to as many as shall hereafter embark on the\nsame perilous enterprise with themselves. It will convince men of the\ndanger of pursuing the same ill-omened course: trusting to the same\nunskilful guidance: venturing too near the same wreck-strewn shore.\n\nIts effect will be to open men\u2019s eyes, as nothing else could possibly have\ndone, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach\nfaithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was\nbequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will\ndispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more\nexact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth\ncentury of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto\nunfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented. Not the least service\nwhich the Revisionists have rendered has been the proof their work\naffords, how very seldom our Authorized Version is materially wrong: how\nfaithful and trustworthy, on the contrary, it is throughout. Let it be\nalso candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists\nhave erred, they have never had the misfortune _seriously_ to obscure a\nsingle feature of Divine Truth; nor have they in any quarter (as we hope)\ninflicted wounds which will be attended with worse results than to leave a\nhideous scar behind them. It is but fair to add that their work bears\nmarks of an amount of conscientious (though misdirected) labour, which\nthose only can fully appreciate who have made the same province of study\nto some extent their own.\n\n\n\n\n\nARTICLE III. WESTCOTT AND HORT\u2019S NEW TEXTUAL THEORY.\n\n\n    \u201cIn the determination of disputed readings, these Critics avail\n    themselves of so small a portion of existing materials, or allow\n    so little weight to others, that the Student who follows them has\n    positively _less ground for his convictions than former Scholars\n    had at any period in the history of modern Criticism_.\u201d\u2014CANON\n    COOK, p. 16.\n\n    \u201cWe have no right, doubtless, to assume that our Principles are\n    infallible: but we _have_ a right to claim that any one who\n    rejects them ... should confute the Arguments and rebut the\n    Evidence on which the opposite conclusion has been founded.\n    _Strong expressions of Individual Opinion are not Arguments._\u201d\u2014BP.\n    ELLICOTT\u2019S Pamphlet, (1882,) p. 40.\n\n    Our \u201cmethod involves vast research, unwearied patience.... It will\n    therefore find but little favour with _those who adopt the easy\n    method_ ... _of using some favourite Manuscript_, or _some\n    supposed power of divining the Original Text_.\u201d\u2014BP. ELLICOTT,\n    _Ibid._ p. 19.\n\n    \u201cNon enim sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) verbum\n    DEI.\u201d\u20142 Cor. ii. 17.\n\n    \u201cWho is this that darkeneth counsel by words without\n    knowledge?\u201d\u2014JOB xxxviii. 2.\n\n    \u201cCan the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the\n    ditch?\u201d\u2014S. LUKE vi. 39.\n\n\nProposing to ourselves (May 17th, 1881) to enquire into the merits of the\nrecent Revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures,\nwe speedily became aware that an entirely different problem awaited us and\ndemanded preliminary investigation. We made the distressing discovery,\nthat the underlying Greek Text had been completely refashioned throughout.\nIt was accordingly not so much a \u201c_Revised English Version_\u201d as a \u201c_New\nGreek Text_,\u201d which was challenging public acceptance. Premature\ntherefore,\u2014not to say preposterous,\u2014would have been any enquiry into the\ndegree of ability with which the original Greek had been rendered into\nEnglish by our Revisionists, until we had first satisfied ourselves that\nit was still \u201cthe original Greek\u201d with which we had to deal: or whether it\nhad been the supreme infelicity of a body of Scholars claiming to act by\nthe authority of the sacred Synod of Canterbury, to put themselves into\nthe hands of some ingenious theory-monger, and to become the dupes of any\nof the strange delusions which are found unhappily still to prevail in\ncertain quarters, on the subject of Textual Criticism.\n\nThe correction of known Textual errors of course we eagerly expected: and\non every occasion when the Traditional Text was altered, we as confidently\ndepended on finding a record of the circumstance inserted with religious\nfidelity into the margin,\u2014as agreed upon by the Revisionists at the\noutset. In both of these expectations however we found ourselves sadly\ndisappointed. The Revisionists have _not_ corrected the \u201cknown Textual\nerrors.\u201d On the other hand, besides silently adopting most of those\nwretched fabrications which are just now in favour with the German school,\nthey have encumbered their margin with those other Readings which, after\ndue examination, _they had themselves deliberately rejected_. For why?\nBecause, in their collective judgment, \u201cfor the present, it would not be\nsafe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others.\u201d(705) A\nfatal admission truly! What are found in the margin are therefore\n\u201c_alternative Readings_,\u201d\u2014in the opinion of these self-constituted\nrepresentatives of the Church and of the Sects.\n\nIt becomes evident that, by this ill-advised proceeding, our Revisionists\nwould convert every Englishman\u2019s copy of the New Testament into a\none-sided Introduction to the Critical difficulties of the Greek Text; a\nlabyrinth, out of which they have not been at the pains to supply him with\na single hint as to how he may find his way. On the contrary. By candidly\navowing that they find themselves enveloped in the same Stygian darkness\nwith the ordinary English Reader, they give him to understand that there\nis absolutely no escape from the difficulty. What else must be the result\nof all this but general uncertainty, confusion, distress? A hazy mistrust\nof all Scripture has been insinuated into the hearts and minds of\ncountless millions, who in this way have been _forced_ to become\ndoubters,\u2014yes, doubters in the Truth of Revelation itself. One recals\nsorrowfully the terrible woe denounced by the Author of Scripture on those\nwho minister occasions of falling to others:\u2014\u201cIt must needs be that\noffences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!\u201d\n\nFor ourselves, shocked and offended at the unfaithfulness which could so\ndeal with the sacred Deposit, we made it our business to expose, somewhat\nin detail, what had been the method of our Revisionists. In our October\nnumber(706) we demonstrated, (as far as was possible within such narrow\nlimits,) the utterly untrustworthy character of not a few of the results\nat which, after ten years of careful study, these distinguished Scholars\nproclaim to the civilized world that they have deliberately arrived. In\nour January number(707) also, we found it impossible to avoid extending\nour enumeration of Textual errors and multiplying our proofs, while we\nwere making it our business to show that, even had their _Text_ been\nfaultless, their _Translation_ must needs be rejected as intolerable, on\ngrounds of defective Scholarship and egregious bad Taste. The popular\nverdict has in the meantime been pronounced unmistakably. It is already\nadmitted on all hands that the Revision has been a prodigious blunder. How\nit came about that, with such a first-rate textual Critic among them as\nPrebendary Scrivener,(708) the Revisers of 1881 should have deliberately\ngone back to those vile fabrications from which the good Providence of GOD\npreserved Erasmus and Stunica,\u2014Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,\u2014three\ncenturies ago:\u2014how it happened that, with so many splendid Scholars\nsitting round their table, they should have produced a Translation which,\nfor the most part, reads like a first-rate school-boy\u2019s _crib_,\u2014tasteless,\nunlovely, harsh, unidiomatic;\u2014servile without being really\nfaithful,\u2014pedantic without being really learned;\u2014an unreadable\nTranslation, in short; the result of a vast amount of labour indeed, but\nof wondrous little skill:\u2014how all this has come about, it were utterly\nuseless at this time of day to enquire.\n\nUnable to disprove the correctness of our Criticism on the Revised Greek\nText, even in a single instance, certain partizans of the\nRevision,\u2014singular to relate,\u2014have been ever since industriously\npromulgating the notion, that the Reviewer\u2019s great misfortune and fatal\ndisadvantage all along has been, that he wrote his first Article before\nthe publication of Drs. Westcott and Hort\u2019s Critical \u201c_Introduction_.\u201d Had\nhe but been so happy as to have been made aware by those eminent Scholars\nof the critical principles which have guided them in the construction of\ntheir Text, how differently must he have expressed himself throughout, and\nto what widely different conclusions must he have inevitably arrived! This\nis what has been once and again either openly declared, or else privately\nintimated, in many quarters. Some, in the warmth of their partizanship,\nhave been so ill-advised as to insinuate that it argues either a\ndeficiency of moral courage, or else of intellectual perception, in the\nReviewer, that he has not long since grappled definitely with the Theory\nof Drs. Westcott and Hort,\u2014and either published an Answer to it, or else\nfrankly admitted that he finds it unanswerable.\n\n(_a_) All of which strikes us as queer in a high degree. First, because as\na matter of fact we were careful to make it plain that the _Introduction_\nin question had duly reached us _before the first sheet_ of our earlier\nArticle had left our hands. To be brief,\u2014we made it our business to\nprocure a copy and read it through, the instant we heard of its\npublication: and on our fourteenth page (see above, pp. 26-8) we\nendeavoured to compress into a long foot-note some account of a Theory\nwhich (we take leave to say) can appear formidable only to one who either\nlacks the patience to study it, or else the knowledge requisite to\nunderstand it. We found that, from a diligent perusal of the _Preface_\nprefixed to the \u201climited and private issue\u201d of 1870, we had formed a\nperfectly correct estimate of the contents of the _Introduction_; and had\nalready characterized it with entire accuracy at pp. 24 to 29 of our first\nArticle. Drs. Westcott and Hort\u2019s _New Testament in the original Greek_\nwas discovered to \u201cpartake inconveniently of the nature of a work of the\nImagination,\u201d\u2014as we had anticipated. We became easily convinced that\n\u201cthose accomplished Scholars had succeeded in producing a Text vastly more\nremote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists and Apostles of our\nLORD, than any which has appeared since the invention of Printing.\u201d\n\n(_b_) But the queerest circumstance is behind. How is it supposed that any\namount of study of _the last new Theory_ of Textual Revision can seriously\naffect a Reviewer\u2019s estimate of the evidential value of the historical\n_facts_ on which he relies for his proof that a certain exhibition of the\nGreek Text is untrustworthy? The _onus probandi_ rests clearly not with\n_him_, but with those who call those proofs of his in question. More of\nthis, however, by and by. We are impatient to get on.\n\n(_c_) And then, lastly,\u2014What have _we_ to do with the _Theory_ of Drs.\nWestcott and Hort? or indeed with the Theory of _any other person who can\nbe named_? We have been examining the new Greek Text _of the\nRevisionists_. We have condemned, after furnishing detailed proof, _the\nresults_ at which\u2014by whatever means\u2014that distinguished body of Scholars\nhas arrived. Surely it is competent to us to upset their _conclusion_,\nwithout being constrained also to investigate in detail the illicit\nlogical processes by which two of their number in a separate publication\nhave arrived at far graver results, and often even stand hopelessly apart,\nthe one from the other! We say it in no boastful spirit, but we have an\nundoubted right to assume, that unless the Revisionists are able by a\nstronger array of authorities to set aside the evidence we have already\nbrought forward, the calamitous destiny of their \u201cRevision,\u201d so far as the\nNew Testament is concerned, is simply a thing inevitable.\n\nLet it not be imagined, however, from what goes before, that we desire to\nshirk the proposed encounter with the advocates of this last new Text, or\nthat we entertain the slightest intention of doing so. We willingly accept\nthe assurance, that it is only because Drs. Westcott and Hort are\nvirtually responsible for the Revisers\u2019 Greek Text, that it is so\nimperiously demanded by the Revisers and their partizans, that the Theory\nof the two Cambridge Professors may be critically examined. We can\nsympathize also with the secret distress of certain of the body, who now,\nwhen it is all too late to remedy the mischief, begin to suspect that they\nhave been led away by the hardihood of self-assertion;\u2014overpowered by the\n_facundia pr\u00e6ceps_ of one who is at least a thorough believer in his own\nself-evolved opinions;\u2014imposed upon by the seemingly consentient pages of\nTischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.\u2014Without further preface we\nbegin.\n\nIt is presumed that we shall be rendering acceptable service in certain\nquarters if,\u2014before investigating the particular Theory which has been\nproposed for consideration,\u2014we endeavour to give the unlearned English\nReader some general notion, (it must perforce be a very imperfect one,) of\nthe nature of the controversy to which the Theory now to be considered\nbelongs, and out of which it has sprung. Claiming to be an attempt to\ndetermine the Truth of Scripture on scientific principles, the work before\nus may be regarded as the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the\nTraditional Greek Text,\u2014that strange impatience of its authority, or\nrather denial that it possesses any authority at all,\u2014which began with\nLachmann just 50 years ago (viz. in 1831), and has prevailed ever since;\nits most conspicuous promoters being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf\n(1865-72).\n\nThe true nature of the Principles which respectively animate the two\nparties in this controversy is at this time as much as ever,\u2014perhaps\n_more_ than ever,\u2014popularly misunderstood. The common view of the\ncontention in which they are engaged, is certainly the reverse of\ncomplimentary to the school of which Dr. Scrivener is the most\naccomplished living exponent. We hear it confidently asserted that the\ncontention is nothing else but an irrational endeavour on the one part to\nset up the many modern against the few ancient Witnesses;\u2014the later\ncursive copies against the \u201cold Uncials;\u201d\u2014inveterate traditional Error\nagainst undoubted primitive Truth. The disciples of the new popular\nschool, on the contrary, are represented as relying exclusively _on\nAntiquity_. We respectfully assure as many as require the assurance, that\nthe actual contention is of an entirely different nature. But, before we\noffer a single word in the way of explanation, let the position of our\nassailants at least be correctly ascertained and clearly established. We\nhave already been constrained to some extent to go over this ground: but\nwe will not repeat ourselves. The Reader is referred back, in the\nmeantime, to pp. 21-24.\n\nLachmann\u2019s ruling principle then, was exclusive reliance on a very few\nancient authorities\u2014_because_ they are \u201cancient.\u201d He constructed his Text\non three or four,\u2014not unfrequently on _one or two_,\u2014Greek codices. Of the\nGreek Fathers, he relied on Origen. Of the oldest Versions, he cared only\nfor the Latin. To the Syriac (concerning which, see above, p. 9), he paid\nno attention. We venture to think his method _irrational_. But this is\nreally a point on which the thoughtful reader is competent to judge for\nhimself. He is invited to read the note at foot of the page.(709)\n\nTregelles adopted the same strange method. He resorted to a very few out\nof the entire mass of \u201cancient Authorities\u201d for the construction of his\nText. His proceeding is exactly that of a man, who\u2014in order that he may\nthe better explore a comparatively unknown region\u2014begins by putting out\nboth his eyes; and resolutely refuses the help of the natives to show him\nthe way. _Why_ he rejected the testimony of _every Father of the IVth\ncentury, except Eusebius_,\u2014it were unprofitable to enquire.\n\nTischendorf, the last and by far the ablest Critic of the three, knew\nbetter than to reject \u201c_eighty-nine ninetieths_\u201d of the extant witnesses.\nHe had recourse to the ingenious expedient of _adducing_ all the available\nevidence, but _adopting_ just as little of it as he chose: and he _chose_\nto adopt those readings only, which are vouched for by the same little\nband of authorities whose partial testimony had already proved fatal to\nthe decrees of Lachmann and Tregelles. Happy in having discovered (in\n1859) an uncial codex (\u05d0) second in antiquity only to the oldest before\nknown (B), and strongly resembling that famous IVth-century codex in the\ncharacter of its contents, he suffered his judgment to be overpowered by\nthe circumstance. He at once (1865-72) remodelled his 7th edition (1856-9)\nin 3505 places,\u2014\u201cto the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism,\nas well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and\nconsistency.\u201d(710) And yet he knew concerning Cod. \u05d0, that at least ten\ndifferent Revisers from the Vth century downwards had laboured to remedy\nthe scandalously corrupt condition of a text which, \u201cas it proceeded from\nthe first scribe,\u201d even Tregelles describes as \u201c_very rough_.\u201d(711) But in\nfact the infatuation which prevails to this hour in this department of\nsacred Science can only be spoken of as incredible. Enough has been said\nto show\u2014(the only point we are bent on establishing)\u2014that the one\ndistinctive tenet of the three most famous Critics since 1831 has been a\nsuperstitious reverence for whatever is found in the _same little handful_\nof early,\u2014but _not_ the earliest,\u2014_nor yet of necessity the\npurest_,\u2014documents.\n\nAgainst this arbitrary method of theirs we solemnly, stiffly remonstrate.\n\u201cStrange,\u201d we venture to exclaim, (addressing the living representatives\nof the school of Lachmann, and Tregelles, and Tischendorf):\u2014\u201cStrange, that\nyou should not perceive that you are the dupes of a fallacy which is even\ntransparent. You _talk_ of \u2018Antiquity.\u2019 But you must know very well that\nyou actually _mean_ something different. You fasten upon three, or perhaps\nfour,\u2014on two, or perhaps three,\u2014on _one, or perhaps two_,\u2014documents of the\nIVth or Vth century. But then, confessedly, these are one, two, three, or\nfour _specimens only_ of Antiquity,\u2014not \u2018Antiquity\u2019 itself. And what if\nthey should even prove to be _unfair samples_ of Antiquity? Thus, you are\nobserved always to quote cod. B or at least cod. \u05d0. Pray, why may not the\nTruth reside instead with A, or C, or D?\u2014You quote the old Latin or the\nCoptic. Why may not the Peschito or the Sahidic be right rather?\u2014You quote\neither Origen or else Eusebius,\u2014but why not Didymus and Athanasius,\nEpiphanius and Basil, Chrysostom and Theodoret, the Gregories and the\nCyrils?... It will appear therefore that we are every bit as strongly\nconvinced as you can be of the paramount claims of \u2018Antiquity:\u2019 but that,\neschewing prejudice and partiality, we differ from you only in _this_,\nviz. that we absolutely refuse to bow down before the _particular\nspecimens of Antiquity_ which you have arbitrarily selected as the objects\nof your superstition. You are illogical enough to propose to include\nwithin your list of \u2018ancient Authorities,\u2019 codd. 1, 33 and 69,\u2014which are\nseverally MSS. of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth centuries. And why? Only\nbecause the Text of those 3 copies is observed to bear a sinister\nresemblance to that of codex B. But then why, in the name of common sense,\ndo you not show corresponding favour to the remaining 997 cursive Copies\nof the N. T.,\u2014seeing that these are observed to bear _the same general\nresemblance to codex_ A?... You are for ever talking about \u2018old Readings.\u2019\nHave you not yet discovered that ALL \u2018Readings\u2019 are \u2018OLD\u2019?\u201d\n\nThe last contribution to this department of sacred Science is a critical\nedition of the New Testament by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. About this, we\nproceed to offer a few remarks.\n\nI. The first thing here which unfavourably arrests attention is the\ncircumstance that this proves to be the only Critical Edition of the New\nTestament since the days of Mill, which does not even pretend to\ncontribute something to our previous critical knowledge of the subject.\nMill it was (1707) who gave us the great bulk of our various Readings;\nwhich Bengel (1734) slightly, and Wetstein (1751-2) very considerably,\nenlarged.\u2014The accurate Matth\u00e6i (1782-8) acquainted us with the contents of\nabout 100 codices more; and was followed by Griesbach (1796-1806) with\nimportant additional materials.\u2014Birch had in the meantime (1788) culled\nfrom the principal libraries of Europe a large assortment of new Readings:\nwhile truly marvellous was the accession of evidence which Scholz brought\nto light in 1830.\u2014And though Lachmann (1842-50) did wondrous little in\nthis department, he yet furnished the critical authority (such as it is)\nfor his own unsatisfactory Text.\u2014Tregelles (1857-72), by his exact\ncollations of MSS. and examination of the earliest Fathers, has laid the\nChurch under an abiding obligation: and what is to be said of Tischendorf\n(1856-72), who has contributed more to our knowledge than any other editor\nof the N. T. since the days of Mill?\u2014Dr. Scrivener, though he has not\nindependently edited the original Text, is clearly to be reckoned among\nthose who _have_, by reason of his large, important, and accurate\ncontributions to our knowledge of ancient documents. Transfer his\ncollections of various Readings to the foot of the page of a copy of the\ncommonly Received Text,\u2014and \u201c_Scrivener\u2019s New Testament_\u201d(712) might stand\nbetween the editions of Mill and of Wetstein. Let the truth be told. C. F.\nMatth\u00e6i and he are _the only two Scholars who have collated any\nconsiderable number of sacred Codices with the needful amount of\naccuracy_.(713)\n\nNow, we trust we shall be forgiven if, at the close of the preceding\nenumeration, we confess to something like displeasure at the oracular tone\nassumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort in dealing with the Text of Scripture,\nthough they admit (page 90) that they \u201crely for documentary evidence on\nthe stores accumulated by their predecessors.\u201d Confident as those\ndistinguished Professors may reasonably feel of their ability to dispense\nwith the ordinary appliances of Textual Criticism; and proud (as they must\nnaturally be) of a verifying faculty which (although they are able to give\nno account of it) yet enables them infallibly to discriminate between the\nfalse and the true, as well as to assign \u201ca local habitation and a name\u201d\nto every word,\u2014inspired or uninspired,\u2014which purports to belong to the N.\nT.:\u2014they must not be offended with us if we freely assure them at the\noutset that we shall decline to accept a single argumentative assertion of\ntheirs for which they fail to offer sufficient proof. Their wholly\nunsupported decrees, at the risk of being thought uncivil, we shall\nunceremoniously reject, as soon as we have allowed them a hearing.\n\nThis resolve bodes ill, we freely admit, to harmonious progress. But it is\ninevitable. For, to speak plainly, we never before met with such a\nsingular tissue of magisterial statements, unsupported by a particle of\nrational evidence, as we meet with here. The abstruse gravity, the\nlong-winded earnestness of the writer\u2019s manner, contrast whimsically with\nthe utterly inconsequential character of his antecedents and his\nconsequents throughout. Professor Hort\u2014(for \u201cthe writing of the volume and\nthe other accompaniments of the Text devolved\u201d on _him_,(714))\u2014Dr. Hort\nseems to mistake his Opinions for facts,\u2014his Assertions for arguments,\u2014and\na Reiteration of either for an accession of evidence. There is throughout\nthe volume, apparently, a dread of _Facts_ which is even extraordinary. An\nactual illustration of the learned Author\u2019s meaning,\u2014a concrete\ncase,\u2014seems as if it were _never_ forthcoming. At last it comes: but the\nphenomenon is straightway discovered to admit of at least two\ninterpretations, and therefore never to prove the thing intended. In a\nperson of high education,\u2014in one accustomed to exact reasoning,\u2014we should\nhave supposed all this impossible.... But it is high time to unfold the\n_Introduction_ at the first page, and to begin to read.\n\nII. It opens (p. 1-11) with some unsatisfactory Remarks on \u201cTransmission\nby Writing;\u201d vague and inaccurate,\u2014unsupported by one single Textual\nreference,\u2014and labouring under the grave defect of leaving the most\ninstructive phenomena of the problem wholly untouched. For, inasmuch as\n\u201cTransmission by writing\u201d involves two distinct classes of errors, (1st)\nThose which are the result of _Accident_,\u2014and (2ndly) Those which are the\nresult of _Design_,\u2014it is to use a Reader badly not to take the earliest\nopportunity of explaining to him that what makes codd. B \u05d0 D such utterly\nuntrustworthy guides, (except when supported by a large amount of\nextraneous evidence,) is the circumstance that _Design_ had evidently so\nmuch to do with a vast proportion of the peculiar errors in which they\nseverally abound. In other words, each of those codices clearly exhibits a\nfabricated Text,\u2014is the result of arbitrary and reckless _Recension_.\n\nNow, this is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. In S. Luke\u2019s Gospel\nalone (collated with the traditional Text) the _transpositions_ in codex B\namount to 228,\u2014affecting 654 words: in codex D, to 464,\u2014affecting 1401\nwords. Proceeding with our examination of the same Gospel according to S.\nLuke, we find that the words _omitted_ in B are 757,\u2014in D, 1552. The words\n_substituted_ in B amount to 309,\u2014in D, to 1006. The readings _peculiar_\nto B are 138, and affect 215 words;\u2014those peculiar to D, are 1731, and\naffect 4090 words. Wondrous few of these _can_ have been due to accidental\ncauses. The Text of one or of both codices must needs be depraved. (As for\n\u05d0, it is so frequently found in accord with B, that out of consideration\nfor our Readers, we omit the corresponding figures.)\n\nWe turn to codd. A and C\u2014(executed, suppose, a hundred years _after_ B,\nand a hundred years _before_ D)\u2014and the figures are found to be as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n                            In A.        In C.\nThe transpositions are      75           67\naffecting                   199 words    197\nThe words omitted are       208          175\nThe words substituted       111          115\nThe peculiar readings       90           87\naffecting                   131 words    127\n\nNow, (as we had occasion to explain in a previous page,(715)) it is\nentirely to misunderstand the question, to object that the preceding\nCollation has been made with the Text of Stephanus open before us. Robert\nEtienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth,\nand cod. D in the VIth, are so widely discordant from one another; A and\nC, so utterly at variance with both. The simplest explanation of the\nphenomena is the truest; namely, that B and D exhibit grossly depraved\nTexts;\u2014a circumstance of which it is impossible that the ordinary Reader\nshould be too soon or too often reminded. But to proceed.\n\nIII. Some remarks follow, on what is strangely styled \u201cTransmission by\nprinted Editions:\u201d in the course of which Dr. Hort informs us that\nLachmann\u2019s Text of 1831 was \u201cthe first founded on documentary\nauthority.\u201d(716)... On _what_ then, pray, does the learned Professor\nimagine that the Texts of Erasmus (1516) and of Stunica (1522) were\nfounded? His statement is incorrect. The actual difference between\nLachmann\u2019s Text and those of the earlier Editors is, that _his_\n\u201cdocumentary authority\u201d is partial, narrow, self-contradictory; and is\nproved to be untrustworthy by a free appeal to Antiquity. _Their_\ndocumentary authority, derived from independent sources,\u2014though partial\nand narrow as that on which Lachmann relied,\u2014exhibits (_under the good\nProvidence of _GOD,) a Traditional Text, the general purity of which is\ndemonstrated by all the evidence which 350 years of subsequent research\nhave succeeded in accumulating; and which is confessedly the Text of A.D.\n375.\n\nIV. We are favoured, in the third place, with the \u201cHistory of this\nEdition:\u201d in which the point that chiefly arrests attention is the\nexplanation afforded of the many and serious occasions on which Dr.\nWestcott (\u201cW.\u201d) and Dr. Hort (\u201cH.\u201d), finding it impossible to agree, have\nset down their respective notions separately and subscribed them with\ntheir respective initial. We are reminded of what was wittily said\nconcerning Richard Baxter: viz. that even if no one but himself existed in\nthe Church, \u201cRichard\u201d would still be found to disagree with \u201cBaxter,\u201d\u2014and\n\u201cBaxter\u201d with \u201cRichard\u201d.... We read with uneasiness that\n\n\n    \u201cno individual mind can ever act with perfect uniformity, or free\n    itself completely from _its own Idiosyncrasies_;\u201d and that \u201cthe\n    danger of _unconscious Caprice_ is inseparable from personal\n    judgment.\u201d\u2014(p. 17.)\n\n\nAll this reminds us painfully of certain statements made by the same\nEditors in 1870:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cWe are obliged to come to the _individual mind_ at last; and\n    Canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings against _natural\n    illusions_, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute\n    rules to prescribe the final decision.\u201d\u2014(pp. xviii., xix.)\n\n\nMay we be permitted without offence to point out (not for the first time)\nthat \u201cidiosyncrasies\u201d and \u201cunconscious caprice,\u201d and the fancies of the\n\u201cindividual mind,\u201d can be allowed _no place whatever_ in a problem of such\ngravity and importance as the present? Once admit such elements, and we\nare safe to find ourselves in cloud-land to-morrow. A weaker foundation on\nwhich to build, is not to be named. And when we find that the learned\nProfessors \u201cventure to hope that the present Text has escaped some risks\nof this kind by being the production of two Editors of different habits of\nmind, working independently and to a great extent on different plans,\u201d\u2014we\ncan but avow our conviction that the safeguard is altogether inadequate.\nWhen two men, devoted to the same pursuit, are in daily confidential\nintercourse on such a subject, the \u201c_natural illusions_\u201d of either have a\nmarvellous tendency to communicate themselves. Their Reader\u2019s only\nprotection is rigidly to _insist_ on the production of _Proof_ for\neverything which these authors say.\n\nV. The dissertation on \u201cIntrinsic\u201d and \u201cTranscriptional Probability\u201d which\nfollows (pp. 20-30),\u2014being _unsupported by one single instance or\nillustration_,\u2014we pass by. It ignores throughout the fact, that the most\nserious corruptions of MSS. are due, _not_ to \u201cScribes\u201d or \u201cCopyists,\u201d (of\nwhom, by the way, we find perpetual mention every time we open the page;)\nbut to the persons who employed them. So far from thinking with Dr. Hort\nthat \u201cthe value of the evidence obtained from Transcriptional Probability\nis incontestable,\u201d\u2014for that, \u201cwithout its aid, Textual Criticism could\nrarely obtain a high degree of security,\u201d (p. 24,)\u2014we venture to declare\nthat inasmuch as one expert\u2019s notions of what is \u201ctranscriptionally\nprobable\u201d prove to be the diametrical reverse of another expert\u2019s notions,\nthe supposed evidence to be derived from this source may, with advantage,\nbe neglected altogether. Let the study of _Documentary Evidence_ be\nallowed to take its place. Notions of \u201cProbability\u201d are the very pest of\nthose departments of Science which admit of an appeal to _Fact_.\n\nVI. A signal proof of the justice of our last remark is furnished by the\nplea which is straightway put in (pp. 30-1) for the superior necessity of\nattending to \u201cthe relative antecedent credibility of Witnesses.\u201d In other\nwords, \u201cThe comparative trustworthiness of documentary Authorities\u201d is\nproposed as a far weightier consideration than \u201cIntrinsic\u201d and\n\u201cTranscriptional Probability.\u201d Accordingly we are assured (in capital\nletters) that \u201cKnowledge of Documents should precede final judgment upon\nreadings\u201d (p. 31).\n\n\u201cKnowledge\u201d! Yes, but how acquired? Suppose two rival documents,\u2014cod. A\nand cod. B. May we be informed how you would proceed with respect to them?\n\n\n    \u201cWhere one of the documents is found habitually to contain\n    _morally certain, or at least strongly preferred, Readings_,\u2014and\n    the other habitually to contain their rejected rivals,\u2014we [_i.e._\n    _Dr. Hort_] can have no doubt that the Text of the first has been\n    transmitted in comparative purity; and that the Text of the second\n    has suffered comparatively large corruption.\u201d\u2014(p. 32.)\n\n\nBut can such words have been written seriously? Is it gravely pretended\nthat Readings become \u201c_morally certain_,\u201d because they are \u201c_strongly\npreferred_\u201d? Are we (in other words) seriously invited to admit that the\n\u201cSTRONG PREFERENCE\u201d of \u201cthe individual mind\u201d is to be the ultimate\nstandard of appeal? If so, though _you_ (Dr. Hort) may \u201c_have no doubt_\u201d\nas to which is the purer manuscript,\u2014see you not plainly that a man of\ndifferent \u201cidiosyncrasy\u201d from yourself, may just as reasonably claim to\n\u201chave no doubt\u201d\u2014_that you are mistaken_?... One is reminded of a passage\nin p. 61: viz.\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIf we find in any group of documents a succession of Readings\n    exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, that is,\u2014_Readings which\n    the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence pronounces to be\n    right, in opposition to formidable arrays of Documentary\n    Evidence_; the cause must be that, as far at least as these\n    Readings are concerned, some one exceptionally pure MS. was the\n    common ancestor of all the members of the group.\u201d\n\n\nBut how does _that_ appear? \u201cThe cause\u201d _may_ be _the erroneous judgment\nof the Critic_,\u2014may it not?... Dr. Hort is for setting up what his own\ninner consciousness \u201cpronounces to be right,\u201d against \u201cDocumentary\nEvidence,\u201d however multitudinous. He claims that his own verifying faculty\nshall be supreme,\u2014shall settle every question. Can he be in earnest?\n\nVII. We are next introduced to the subject of \u201cGenealogical Evidence\u201d (p.\n39); and are made attentive: for we speedily find ourselves challenged to\nadmit that a \u201ctotal change in the bearing of the evidence\u201d is \u201cmade by the\nintroduction of the factor of Genealogy\u201d (p. 43). Presuming that the\n_meaning_ of the learned Writer must rather be that _if we did but know_\nthe genealogy of MSS., we should be in a position to reason more\nconfidently concerning their Texts,\u2014we read on: and speedily come to a\nsecond axiom (which is again printed in capital letters), viz. that \u201cAll\ntrustworthy restoration of corrupted Texts is founded on the study of\ntheir History\u201d (p. 40). We really read and wonder. Are we then engaged in\n_the _\u201crestoration of corrupted Texts\u201d? If so,\u2014which be they? We\nrequire\u2014(1) To be shown the \u201c_corrupted Texts_\u201d referred to: and then\u2014(2)\nTo be convinced that \u201cthe study of _their History_\u201d\u2014(as distinguished from\nan examination of the evidence for or against _their Readings_)\u2014is a thing\nfeasible.\n\n\n    \u201cA simple instance\u201d (says Dr. Hort) \u201cwill show at once the\n    practical bearing\u201d of \u201cthe principle here laid down.\u201d\u2014(p. 40.)\n\n\nBut (as usual) Dr. Hort produces _no_ instance. He merely proceeds to\n\u201csuppose\u201d a case (\u00a7 50), which he confesses (\u00a7 53) does not exist. So that\nwe are moving in a land of shadows. And this, he straightway follows up by\nthe assertion that\n\n\n    \u201cit would be difficult to insist too strongly on the\n    transformation of the superficial aspects of numerical authority\n    effected by recognition of Genealogy.\u201d\u2014(p. 43.)\n\n\nPresently, he assures us that\n\n\n    \u201ca few documents are not, by reason of their mere paucity,\n    appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to\n    them.\u201d (p. 45.)\n\n\nOn this head, we take leave to entertain a somewhat different opinion.\n_Apart from the character of the Witnesses_, when 5 men say one thing, and\n995 say the exact contradictory, we are apt to regard it even as axiomatic\nthat, \u201cby reason of their mere paucity,\u201d the few \u201care appreciably far less\nlikely to be right than the multitude opposed to them.\u201d Dr. Hort seems to\nshare our opinion; for he remarks,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cA presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents\n    is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents,\n    than _vice vers\u00e2_.\u201d\n\n\nExactly so! We meant, and we mean _that_, and no other thing. But then, we\nventure to point out, that the learned Professor considerably understates\nthe case: seeing that the \u201c_vice vers\u00e2 presumption_\u201d is absolutely\nnon-existent. On the other hand, apart from _Proof to the contrary_, we\nare disposed to maintain that \u201ca majority of extant documents\u201d in the\nproportion of 995 to 5,\u2014and sometimes of 1999 to 1,\u2014creates more than \u201ca\npresumption.\u201d It amounts to _Proof of _\u201ca majority of ancestral\ndocuments\u201d.\n\nNot so thinks Dr. Hort. \u201cThis presumption,\u201d (he seems to have persuaded\nhimself,) may be disposed of by his mere assertion that it \u201cis too minute\nto weigh against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds\u201d (_Ibid._).\nAs usual, however, he furnishes us with _no evidence at all_,\u2014\u201ctangible\u201d\nor \u201cintangible.\u201d Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupported _dictum_,\nand pass on?... The argumentative import of his twenty weary pages on\n\u201cGenealogical Evidence\u201d (pp. 39-59), appears to be resolvable into the\nfollowing barren truism: viz. That if, out of 10 copies of Scripture, 9\n_could be proved_ to have been executed from one and the same common\noriginal (p. 41), those 9 would cease to be regarded as 9 independent\nwitnesses. But does the learned Critic really require to be told that we\nwant no diagram of an imaginary case (p. 54) to convince us of _that_?\n\nThe one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that Dr. Hort does\nnot seem to reflect that _therefore_ (indeed _by his own showing_) codices\nB and \u05d0, having been _demonstrably_ \u201cexecuted from one and the same common\noriginal,\u201d are not to be reckoned as _two_ independent witnesses to the\nText of the New Testament, but as little more than _one_. (See p. 257.)\n\nHigh time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk\nabout \u201cGenealogical evidence,\u201d when applied to Manuscripts,\nis\u2014_moonshine_. The expression is metaphorical, and assumes that it has\nfared with MSS. as it fares with the successive generations of a family;\nand so, to a remarkable extent, no doubt, it _has_. But then, it happens,\nunfortunately, that we are unacquainted with _one single instance_ of a\nknown MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about\n\u201cGenealogical evidence,\u201d where _no single step in the descent_ can be\nproduced,\u2014in other words, _where no Genealogical evidence exists_,\u2014is\nabsurd. The living inhabitants of a village, congregated in the churchyard\nwhere the bodies of their forgotten progenitors for 1000 years repose\nwithout memorials of any kind,\u2014is a faint image of the relation which\nsubsists between extant copies of the Gospels and the sources from which\nthey were derived. That, in either case, there has been repeated mixture,\nis undeniable; but since the Parish-register is lost, and not a vestige of\nTradition survives, it is idle to pretend to argue on _that_ part of the\nsubject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen,\nbearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remote _ancestors_ of\nsome sort. That they represent as many _families_, is at least a _fact_.\nFurther we cannot go.\n\nBut the illustration is misleading, because inadequate. Assemble rather an\nEnglishman, an Irishman, a Scot; a Frenchman, a German, a Spaniard; a\nRussian, a Pole, an Hungarian; an Italian, a Greek, a Turk. From Noah\nthese 12 are all confessedly descended; but if _they_ are silent, and\n_you_ know nothing whatever about their antecedents,\u2014your remarks about\ntheir respective \u201cgenealogies\u201d must needs prove as barren\u2014as Dr. Hort\u2019s\nabout the \u201cgenealogies\u201d of copies of Scripture. \u201c_The factor of\nGenealogy_,\u201d in short, in this discussion, represents a mere phantom of\nthe brain: is the name of an imagination\u2014not of a fact.\n\nThe nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which Dr. Hort writes so\nglibly, is supplied\u2014(1) by Codd. F and G of S. Paul, which are found to be\nindependent transcripts of the same venerable lost original:\u2014(2) by Codd.\n13, 69, 124 and 346, which were confessedly derived from one and the same\nqueer archetype: _and especially_\u2014(3) by Codd. B and \u05d0. These two famous\nmanuscripts, because they are disfigured exclusively by the self-same\nmistakes, are convicted of being descended (and not very remotely) from\nthe self-same very corrupt original. By consequence, the combined evidence\nof F and G is but that of a single codex. Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, when\nthey agree, would be conveniently designated by a symbol, or a single\ncapital letter. Codd. B and \u05d0, as already hinted (p. 255), are not to be\nreckoned as two witnesses. Certainly, they have not nearly the Textual\nsignificancy and importance of B in conjunction with A, or of A in\nconjunction with C. At best, they do but equal 1-\u00bd copies. Nothing of this\nkind however is what Drs. Westcott and Hort intend to convey,\u2014or indeed\nseem to understand.\n\nVIII. It is not until we reach p. 94, that these learned men favour us\nwith a single actual appeal to Scripture. At p. 90, Dr. Hort,\u2014who has\nhitherto been skirmishing over the ground, and leaving us to wonder what\nin the world it can be that he is driving at,\u2014announces a chapter on the\n\u201cResults of Genealogical evidence proper;\u201d and proposes to \u201cdetermine the\nGenealogical relations of the chief ancient Texts.\u201d Impatient for\nargument, (at page 92,) we read as follows:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe fundamental Text of _late extant Greek MSS._ generally is\n    _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or\n    Gr\u00e6co-Syrian Text of the _second half of the fourth century_.\u201d\n\n\nWe request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully\nnoted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament,\u2014the TEXTUS\nRECEPTUS, in short,\u2014is, according to Dr. Hort, \u201cBEYOND ALL QUESTION\u201d the\n\u201cTEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.\u201d We shall gratefully avail\nourselves of his candid admission, by and by.\n\nHaving thus _assumed_ a \u201cdominant Antiochian or Gr\u00e6co-Syrian text of the\nsecond half of the IVth century,\u201d Dr. H. attempts, by an analysis of what\nhe is pleased to call \u201c_conflate_ Readings,\u201d to prove the \u201cposteriority of\n\u2018Syrian\u2019 to \u2018Western\u2019 and other \u2018Neutral\u2019 readings.\u201d... Strange method of\nprocedure! seeing that, of those second and third classes of readings, we\nhave not as yet so much as heard the names. Let us however without more\ndelay be shown those specimens of \u201cConflation\u201d which, in Dr. Hort\u2019s\njudgment, supply \u201cthe clearest evidence\u201d (p. 94) that \u201cSyrian\u201d are\nposterior alike to \u201cWestern\u201d and to \u201cNeutral readings.\u201d Of these, after 30\nyears of laborious research, Dr. Westcott and he flatter themselves that\nthey have succeeded in detecting _eight_.\n\nIX. Now because, on the one hand, it would be unreasonable to fill up the\nspace at our disposal with details which none but professed students will\ncare to read;\u2014and because, on the other, we cannot afford to pass by\nanything in these pages which pretends to be of the nature of proof;\u2014we\nhave consigned our account of Dr. Hort\u2019s 8 instances of _Conflation_\n(which prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.(717)\n\nAnd, after an attentive survey of the Textual phenomena connected with\nthese 7 specimens, we are constrained to assert that the interpretation\nput upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless\nimagination,\u2014a dream and nothing more. Something has been attempted\nanalogous to the familiar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a false and\nhitherto unheard-of doctrine on a few isolated places of Scripture,\ndivorced from their context. The actual _facts_ of the case shall be\nsubmitted to the judgement of learned and unlearned Readers alike: and we\npromise beforehand to abide by the unprejudiced verdict of either:\u2014\n\n(_a_) S. Mark\u2019s Gospel is found to contain in all 11,646 words: of which\n(collated with the Traditional Text) A omits 138: B, 762: \u05d0, 870: D,\n900.\u2014S. Luke contains 19,941 words: of which A omits 208: B, 757; \u05d0, 816:\nD, no less than 1552. (Let us not be told that the traditional Text is\nitself not altogether trustworthy. _That_ is a matter entirely beside the\nquestion just now before the Reader,\u2014as we have already, over and over\nagain, had occasion to explain.(718) Codices must needs all alike be\ncompared _with something_,\u2014must perforce all alike be referred to _some\none common standard_: and we, for our part, are content to employ (as\nevery Critic has been content before us) the traditional Text, as the most\nconvenient standard that can be named. So employed, (viz. as a standard of\n_comparison_, not of _excellence_,) the commonly Received Text, more\nconveniently than any other, _reveals_\u2014certainly does not\n_occasion_\u2014different degrees of discrepancy. And now, to proceed.)\n\n(_b_) Dr. Hort has detected _four_ instances in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, only\n_three_ in S. Luke\u2019s\u2014_seven_ in all\u2014where Codices B \u05d0 and D happen to\nconcur in making an omission _at the same place_, but not _of the same\nwords_. We shall probably be best understood if we produce an instance of\nthe thing spoken of: and no fairer example can be imagined than the last\nof the eight, of which Dr. Hort says,\u2014\u201cThis simple instance needs no\nexplanation\u201d (p. 104). Instead of \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\u2014(which is the\nreading of _every known copy_ of the Gospels _except five_,)\u2014\u05d0 B C L\nexhibit only \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2: D, only \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. (To speak quite accurately, \u05d0\nB C L omit \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af and are followed by Westcott and Hort: D omits\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, and is followed by Tischendorf. Lachmann declines to\nfollow either. Tregelles doubts.)\n\n(_c_) Now, upon this (and the six other instances, which however prove to\nbe a vast deal less apt for their purpose than the present), these learned\nmen have gratuitously built up the following extravagant and astonishing\ntheory:\u2014\n\n(_d_) They assume,\u2014(they do not attempt to _prove_: in fact they _never_\nprove _anything_:)\u2014(1) That \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u2014and \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u2014are\nrespectively fragments of two independent Primitive Texts, which they\narbitrarily designate as \u201cWestern\u201d and \u201cNeutral,\u201d respectively:\u2014(2) That\nthe latter of the two, [_only_ however because it is vouched for by B and\n\u05d0,] must needs exhibit what the Evangelist actually wrote: [though _why_\nit must, these learned men forget to explain:]\u2014(3) That in the middle of\nthe IIIrd and of the IVth century the two Texts referred to were with\ndesign and by authority welded together, and became (what the same\nirresponsible Critics are pleased to call) the \u201cSyrian text.\u201d\u2014(4) That\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, being thus shown [?] to be \u201ca Syrian\n_Conflation_,\u201d may be rejected at once. (_Notes_, p. 73.)\n\nX. But we demur to this weak imagination, (which only by courtesy can be\ncalled \u201c_a Theory_,\u201d) on every ground, and are constrained to remonstrate\nwith our would-be Guides at every step. They assume everything. They prove\nnothing. And the facts of the case lend them no favour at all. For\nfirst,\u2014We only find \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 standing alone, in two documents of the\nIVth century, in two of the Vth, and in one of the VIIIth: while, for\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 standing alone, the only Greek voucher producible is a\nnotoriously corrupt copy of the VIth century. True, that here a few copies\nof the old Latin side with D: but then a few copies _also_ side with the\ntraditional Text: and Jerome is found to have adjudicated between their\nrival claims _in favour of the latter_. The probabilities of the case are\nin fact simply overwhelming; for, since D omits 1552 words out of 19,941\n(_i.e._ about one word in 13), _why_ may not \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 _be two of\nthe words it omits_,\u2014in which case there has been no \u201cConflation\u201d?\n\nNay, look into the matter a little more closely:\u2014(for surely, before we\nput up with this queer illusion, it is our duty to look it very steadily\nin the face:)\u2014and note, that in this last chapter of S. Luke\u2019s Gospel,\nwhich consists of 837 words, no less than 121 are omitted by cod. D. To\nstate the case differently,\u2014D is observed to leave out _one word in seven_\nin the very chapter of S. Luke which supplies the instance of \u201cConflation\u201d\nunder review. What possible significance therefore can be supposed to\nattach to its omission of the clause \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2? And since, _mutatis\nmutandis_, the same remarks apply to the 6 remaining cases,\u2014(for one, viz.\nthe [7th], is clearly an oversight,)\u2014will any Reader of ordinary fairness\nand intelligence be surprised to hear that we reject the assumed\n\u201cConflation\u201d unconditionally, as a silly dream? It is founded entirely\nupon the omission of 21 (or at most 42) words out of a total of 31,587\nfrom Codd. B \u05d0 D. And yet it is demonstrable that out of that total, B\nomits 1519: \u05d0, 1686: D, 2452. The occasional _coincidence in Omission_ of\nB + \u05d0 and D, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving of notice.\nIf,\u2014(which is as likely as not,)\u2014on _six_ occasions, B + \u05d0 and D have but\n_omitted different words in the same sentence_, then _there has been no\n_\u201cConflation\u201d; and the (so-called) \u201cTheory,\u201d which was to have\nrevolutionized the Text of the N. T., is discovered to rest absolutely\n_upon nothing_. It bursts, like a very thin bubble: floats away like a\nfilm of gossamer, and disappears from sight.\n\nBut further, as a matter of fact, _at least five_ out of the eight\ninstances cited,\u2014viz. the [1st], [2nd], [5th], [6th], [7th],\u2014_fail to\nexhibit the alleged phenomena_: conspicuously ought never to have been\nadduced. For, in the [1st], D merely _abridges_ the sentence: in the\n[2nd], it _paraphrases_ 11 words by 11; and in the [6th], it _paraphrases_\n12 words by 9. In the [5th], B D merely _abridge_. The utmost _residuum_\nof fact which survives, is therefore as follows:\u2014\n\n[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words, B \u05d0 omit 4: D other 4.\n[4th].    \"        \"     9 words, B \u05d0 omit 5: D other 5.\n[8th].    \"        \"     5 words, B \u05d0 omit 2: D other 2.\n\nBut if _this_ be \u201cthe clearest Evidence\u201d (p. 94) producible for \u201cthe\nTheory of Conflation,\u201d\u2014then, the less said about the \u201cTheory,\u201d the better\nfor the credit of its distinguished Inventors. How _any_ rational Textual\nTheory is to be constructed out of the foregoing Omissions, we fail to\ndivine. But indeed the whole matter is demonstrably a weak imagination,\u2014_a\ndream_, and nothing more.\n\nXI. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort, instead of realizing the\ninsecurity of the ground under their feet, proceed gravely to build upon\nit, and to treat their hypothetical assumptions as well-ascertained facts.\nThey imagine that they have already been led by \u201cindependent Evidence\u201d to\nregard \u201cthe longer readings as conflate each from the two earlier\nreadings:\u201d\u2014whereas, up to p. 105 (where the statement occurs), they have\nreally failed to produce a single particle of evidence, direct or\nindirect, for their opinion. \u201cWe have found reason to believe\u201d the\nReadings of \u05d0 B L, (say they,) \u201cto be the original Readings.\u201d\u2014But why, if\nthis is the case, have they kept their \u201cfinding\u201d so entirely to\nthemselves?\u2014_No reason whatever_ have they assigned for their belief. The\nReader is presently assured (p. 106) that \u201c_it is certain_\u201d that the\nReadings exhibited by the traditional Text in the eight supposed cases of\n\u201cConflation\u201d are all posterior in date to the fragmentary readings\nexhibited by B and D. But, once more, What is _the ground_ of this\n\u201ccertainty\u201d?\u2014Presently (viz. in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further\nassurance that\n\n\n    \u201c_the proved_ actual use of [shorter] documents in the conflate\n    Readings renders their use elsewhere a _vera causa_ in the\n    Newtonian sense.\u201d\n\n\nBut, once more,\u2014_Where_ and _what_ is the \u201cproof\u201d referred to? May a plain\nman, sincerely in search of Truth,\u2014after wasting many precious hours over\nthese barren pages\u2014be permitted to declare that he resents such solemn\ntrifling? (He craves to be forgiven if he avows that \u201c_Pickwickian_\u201d\u2014not\n\u201cNewtonian\u201d\u2014was the epithet which solicited him, when he had to transcribe\nfor the Printer the passage which immediately precedes.)\n\nXII. Next come 8 pages (pp. 107-15) headed\u2014\u201cPosteriority of \u2018Syrian\u2019 to\n\u2018Western\u2019 and other (neutral and \u2018Alexandrian\u2019) Readings, shown by\nAnte-Nicene Patristic evidence.\u201d\n\nIn which however we are really \u201cshown\u201d nothing of the sort. _Bold\nAssertions_ abound, (as usual with this respected writer,) but _Proof_ he\nnever attempts any. Not a particle of \u201cEvidence\u201d is adduced.\u2014Next come 5\npages headed,\u2014\u201cPosteriority of Syrian to Western, Alexandrian, and other\n(neutral) Readings, shown by Internal evidence of Syrian readings\u201d (p.\n115).\n\nBut again we are \u201c_shown_\u201d absolutely nothing: although we are treated to\nthe assurance that we have been shown many wonders. Thus, \u201cthe Syrian\nconflate Readings _have shown_ the Syrian text to be posterior to at least\ntwo ancient forms still extant\u201d (p. 115): which is the very thing they\nhave signally failed to do. Next,\n\n\n    \u201cPatristic evidence _has shown_ that these two ancient Texts, and\n    also a third, must have already existed early in the third\n    century, and suggested very strong grounds for believing that in\n    the middle of the century the Syrian Text had not yet been\n    formed.\u201d\n\n\nWhereas _no single appeal_ has been made to the evidence supplied by _one\nsingle ancient Father_!\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cAnother step is gained by a close examination of all Readings\n    distinctively Syrian.\u201d\u2014(_Ibid._)\n\n\nAnd yet we are never told which the \u201cReadings distinctively Syrian\u201d\n_are_,\u2014although they are henceforth referred to in every page. Neither are\nwe instructed how to recognize them when we see them; which is\nunfortunate, since \u201cit follows,\u201d\u2014(though we entirely fail to see from\n_what_,)\u2014\u201cthat all distinctively Syrian Readings may be set aside at once\nas certainly originating after the middle of the third century.\u201d (p. 117)\n... Let us hear a little more on the subject:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe same _Facts_\u201d\u2014(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured us\n    with _any_)\u2014\u201clead to another conclusion of equal or even greater\n    importance respecting non-distinctive Syrian Readings ... Since\n    the Syrian Text is only a modified eclectic combination of earlier\n    Texts independently attested,\u201d\u2014\n\n\n(for it is in this confident style that these eminent Scholars handle the\nproblem they undertook to solve, but as yet have failed even _to touch_),\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cexisting documents descended from it can attest nothing but\n    itself.\u201d\u2014(p. 118.)\n\n\nPresently, we are informed that \u201cit follows from what has been said\nabove,\u201d\u2014(though _how_ it follows, we fail to see,)\u2014\u201cthat all Readings in\nwhich the Pre-Syrian texts concur, _must be accepted at once as the\nApostolic Readings_:\u201d and that \u201call distinctively Syrian Readings _must be\nat once rejected_.\u201d\u2014(p. 119.)\n\nTrenchant decrees of this kind at last arrest attention. It becomes\napparent that we have to do with a Writer who has discovered a summary way\nof dealing with the Text of Scripture, and who is prepared to impart his\nsecret to any who care to accept\u2014without questioning\u2014his views. We look\nback to see where this accession of confidence began, and are reminded\nthat at p. 108 Dr. Hort announced that for convenience he should\nhenceforth speak of certain \u201cgroups of documents,\u201d by the conventional\nnames \u201cWestern\u201d\u2014\u201cPre-Syrian\u201d\u2014\u201cAlexandrian\u201d\u2014and so forth. Accordingly, ever\nsince, (sometimes eight or ten times in the course of a single page,(719))\nwe have encountered this arbitrary terminology: have been required to\naccept it as the expression of ascertained facts in Textual Science. Not\ntill we find ourselves floundering in the deep mire, do we become fully\naware of the absurdity of our position. Then at last, (and high time\ntoo!), we insist on knowing what on earth our Guide is about, and whither\nhe is proposing to lead us?... More considerate to our Readers than he has\nbeen to us, we propose before going any further, (instead of mystifying\nthe subject as Dr. Hort has done,) to state in a few plain words what the\npresent Theory, divested of pedantry and circumlocution, proves to be; and\nwhat is Dr. Hort\u2019s actual contention.\n\nXIII. The one great Fact, which especially troubles him and his joint\nEditor,(720)\u2014(as well it may)\u2014is _The Traditional Greek Text_ of the New\nTestament Scriptures. Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian,\u2014the Text\nof Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs,\u2014call it the \u201cReceived,\u201d or\nthe _Traditional Greek Text_, or whatever other name you please;\u2014the fact\nremains, that a Text _has_ come down to us which is attested by a general\nconsensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at\nall events, is a point on which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity\nof opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our Readers cannot have yet\nforgotten his virtual admission that,\u2014_Beyond all question the Textus\nReceptus_ is _the dominant Gr\u00e6co-Syrian Text of_ A.D. 350 _to_ A.D.\n400.(721)\n\nObtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentially\n_the same_ in all. That it requires Revision in respect of many of its\nlesser details, is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an\nexcellent Text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead\ncritical students of Scripture seriously astray,\u2014which is what no one will\nventure to predicate concerning any single Critical Edition of the N. T.\nwhich has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the disciples of\nGriesbach\u2019s school.\n\nXIV. In marked contrast to the Text we speak of,\u2014(which is identical with\nthe Text of every extant Lectionary of the Greek Church, and may therefore\nreasonably claim to be spoken of as the _Traditional_ Text,)\u2014is _that_\ncontained in a little handful of documents of which the most famous are\ncodices B \u05d0, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on the one\nhand,\u2014cod. D and the old Latin copies, on the other. To magnify the merits\nof these, as helps and guides, and to ignore their many patent and\nscandalous defects and blemishes:\u2014_per fas et nefas_ to vindicate their\nparamount authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and when\n_that_ is clearly impossible, then to treat their errors as the ancient\nEgyptians treated their cats, dogs, monkeys, and other vermin,\u2014namely, to\nembalm them, and pay them Divine honours:\u2014_such_ for the last 50 years has\nbeen the practice of the dominant school of Textual Criticism among\nourselves. The natural and even necessary correlative of this, has been\nthe disparagement of the merits of the commonly Received Text: which has\ncome to be spoken of, (we know not why,) as contemptuously, almost as\nbitterly, as if it had been at last ascertained to be untrustworthy in\nevery respect: a thing undeserving alike of a place and of a name among\nthe monuments of the Past. Even to have \u201cused the Received Text _as a\nbasis for correction_\u201d (p. 184) is stigmatized by Dr. Hort as one \u201cgreat\ncause\u201d why Griesbach went astray.\n\nXV. Drs. Westcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their predecessors in\nthis singular race. Their absolute contempt for the Traditional\nText,\u2014their superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents; (which\ndocuments however they freely confess _are not more ancient_ than the\n\u201cTraditional Text\u201d which they despise;)\u2014knows no bounds. But the thing\njust now to be attended to is the argumentative process whereby they seek\nto justify their preference.\u2014LACHMANN avowedly took his stand on a very\nfew of the oldest known documents: and though TREGELLES slightly enlarged\nthe area of his predecessor\u2019s observations, his method was practically\nidentical with that of Lachmann.\u2014TISCHENDORF, appealing to every known\nauthority, invariably shows himself regardless of the evidence he has\nhimself accumulated. Where certain of the uncials are,\u2014_there_ his verdict\nis sure also to be.... Anything more unscientific, more unphilosophical,\nmore transparently _foolish_ than such a method, can scarcely be\nconceived: but it has prevailed for 50 years, and is now at last more\nhotly than ever advocated by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. Only, (to their\ncredit be it recorded,) they have had the sense to perceive that it must\nneeds be recommended by _Arguments_ of some sort, or else it will\ninevitably fall to pieces the first fine day any one is found to charge\nit, with the necessary knowledge of the subject, and with sufficient\nresoluteness of purpose, to make him a formidable foe.\n\nXVI. Their expedient has been as follows.\u2014Aware that the Received or\nTraditional Greek Text (to quote their own words,) \u201c_is virtually\nidentical with that used by Chrysostom and other Antiochian Fathers in the\nlatter part of the IVth century_:\u201d and fully alive to the fact that it\n\u201c_must therefore have been represented by Manuscripts as old as any which\nare now surviving_\u201d (_Text_, p. 547),\u2014they have invented an extraordinary\nHypothesis in order to account for its existence:\u2014\n\nThey assume that the writings of Origen \u201cestablish the prior existence of\nat least three types of Text:\u201d\u2014the most clearly marked of which, they call\nthe \u201cWestern:\u201d\u2014another, less prominent, they designate as\n\u201cAlexandrian:\u201d\u2014the third holds (they say) a middle or \u201cNeutral\u201d position.\n(That all this is mere _moonshine_,\u2014a day-dream and no more,\u2014we shall\ninsist, until some proofs have been produced that the respected Authors\nare moving amid material forms,\u2014not discoursing with the creations of\ntheir own brain.) \u201cThe priority of two at least of these three Texts just\nnoticed to the Syrian Text,\u201d they are confident has been established by\nthe eight \u201c_conflate_\u201d Syrian Readings which they flatter themselves they\nhave already resolved into their \u201cWestern\u201d and \u201cNeutral\u201d elements (_Text_,\np. 547). This, however, is a part of the subject on which we venture to\nhope that our Readers by this time have formed a tolerably clear opinion\nfor themselves. The ground has been cleared of the flimsy superstructure\nwhich these Critics have been 30 years in raising, ever since we blew away\n(pp. 258-65) the airy foundation on which it rested.\n\nAt the end of some confident yet singularly hazy statements concerning the\ncharacteristics of \u201cWestern\u201d (pp. 120-6), of \u201cNeutral\u201d (126-30), and of\n\u201cAlexandrian\u201d Readings (130-2), Dr. Hort favours us with the assurance\nthat\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,\u201d \u201cis\n    the chief monument of a new period of textual history.\u201d\u2014(p. 132.)\n\n    \u201cNow, the three great lines were brought together, and made to\n    contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all.\u201d\u2014(p.\n    133.)\n\n\nLet it only be carefully remembered that it is of something virtually\nidentical with the _Textus Receptus_ that we are just now reading an\nimaginary history, and it is presumed that the most careless will be made\nattentive.\n\n\n    \u201cThe Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a \u2018_Recension_,\u2019\n    ... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by\n    Scribes.\u201d\u2014(_Ibid._)\n\n\nBut _why_ \u201cmust\u201d it? Instead of \u201c_must in fact_,\u201d we are disposed to read\n\u201c_may\u2014in fiction_.\u201d The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the\nText of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod. B, it becomes to\nhimself self-evident that _one of the two_ has been fabricated. Granted.\nThen,\u2014Why should not _the solitary Codex_ be the offending party? For what\nimaginable reason should cod. B,\u2014which comes to us without a character,\nand which, when tried by the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted\nof \u201c_universa vitiositas_,\u201d (to use Tischendorf\u2019s expression);\u2014_why_ (we\nask) should _codex_ B be upheld \u201ccontra mundum\u201d?... Dr. Hort\nproceeds\u2014(still speaking of \u201c_the_ [imaginary] _Syrian Text_\u201d),\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIt was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient\n    currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same\n    region.\u201d\u2014(p. 133.)\n\n\nWell but,\u2014Would it not have been more methodical if \u201cthe currency of at\nleast three conflicting Texts in the same region,\u201d had been first\n_demonstrated_? or, at least, shown to be a thing probable? Till this\n\u201cdistracting\u201d phenomenon has been to some extent proved to have any\nexistence in _fact_, what possible \u201cprobability\u201d can be claimed for the\nhistory of a \u201cRecension,\u201d\u2014which very Recension, up to this point, _has not\nbeen proved to have ever taken place at all_?\n\n\n    \u201cEach Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading\n    personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation\n    of rival claims.\u201d\u2014(p. 134.)\n\n\nWhy yes, to be sure,\u2014\u201ceach Text [_if it existed_] may perhaps [_or perhaps\nmay not_] have found a Patron in some leading personage [as Dr. Hort or\nDr. Scrivener in our own days]:\u201d but then, be it remembered, this will\nonly have been possible,\u2014(_a_) If the Recension _ever took place_:\nand\u2014(_b_) If it was conducted after the extraordinary fashion which\nprevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we have\nthe unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;(722) confirmed by the\nChairman of the Revisionist body,\u2014by whom in fact it was deliberately\ninvented.(723)\n\nBut then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming that _any such\nRecension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took place at all_,\u2014what else but a\npurely gratuitous exercise of the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort\nshould proceed further to invent the method which might, or could, or\nwould, or should have been pursued, if it _had_ taken place?\n\nHaving however in this way (1) Assumed a \u201cSyrian Recension,\u201d\u2014(2) Invented\nthe cause of it,\u2014and (3) Dreamed the process by which it was carried into\nexecution,\u2014the Critic hastens, _more suo_, to characterize _the historical\nresult_ in the following terms:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe qualities which THE AUTHORS OF THE SYRIAN TEXT seem to have\n    most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They\n    were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the\n    way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without\n    recourse to violent measures. They were apparently equally\n    desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter\n    contained in all the existing Texts, provided it did not confuse\n    the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New Omissions\n    accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to\n    contribute to apparent simplicity. New Interpolations, on the\n    other hand, are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or\n    other assimilation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in\n    matter and in diction THE SYRIAN TEXT is conspicuously a full\n    Text. It delights in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and\n    supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable\n    Additions. As distinguished from the _bold vigour_ of the\n    \u2018Western\u2019 scribes, and _the refined scholarship_ of the\n    \u2018Alexandrians,\u2019 the spirit of its own corrections is at once\n    sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, on either literary or\n    religious grounds, as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yet\n    _shewing no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight, it\n    presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but\n    appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more fitted for\n    cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent\n    study_.\u201d\u2014(pp. 134-5.)\n\n\nXVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We should be thought\nuncivil were we to declare our own candid estimate of \u201cthe critical and\nspiritual\u201d perception of the man who could permit himself so to write. We\nprefer to proceed with our sketch of the Theory, (of _the Dream_ rather,)\nwhich is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional Text of\nthe N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely it would have been\nhigh time to discuss the characteristics which \u201cthe Authors of the Syrian\nText\u201d impressed upon their work, when it had been first established\u2014or at\nleast rendered probable\u2014that the supposed Operators and that the assumed\nOperation have any existence except in the fertile brain of this\ndistinguished and highly imaginative writer.\n\nXVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr.\nHort\u2019s unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls\n\u201cSyrian\u201d or \u201cAntiochian,\u201d is the fact that what he so designates bears a\nmost inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version;\nwhich, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally\nassigned to the second century of our era. \u201cIt is at any rate no stretch\nof imagination,\u201d (according to Bp. Ellicott,) \u201cto suppose that portions of\nit might have been in the hands of S. John.\u201d [p. 26.] Accordingly, these\nEditors assure us that\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cthe only way of explaining the whole body of facts is _to\n    suppose_ that the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent\n    Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS.\n    represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.\u201d\u2014(p.\n    136.)\n\n    \u201cA Revision of the old Syriac Version _appears_ to have taken\n    place in the IVth century, or sooner; and _doubtless in some\n    connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text_, the\n    readings being to a very great extent coincident.\u201d\u2014(_Text_, 552.)\n\n    \u201cTill recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which\n    it finally received by _an evidently authoritative Revision_,\u201d\u2014_a\n    Syriac _\u201cVulgate\u201d_ answering to the Latin _\u201cVulgate.\u201d\u2014(p. 84.)\n\n    \u201cHistorical antecedents render it _tolerably certain_ that the\n    locality of such an authoritative Revision\u201d\u2014(which Revision\n    however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported\n    conjecture)\u2014\u201cwould be either Edessa or Nisibis.\u201d\u2014(p. 136.)\n\n\nIn the meantime, the abominably corrupt document known as \u201cCureton\u2019s\nSyriac,\u201d is, by another bold hypothesis, assumed to be the only surviving\nspecimen of the unrevised Version, and is henceforth _invariably_\ndesignated by these authors as \u201cthe old Syriac;\u201d and referred to, as \u201csyr.\nvt.,\u201d\u2014(in imitation of the Latin \u201c_vetus_\u201d): the venerable Peschito being\nreferred to as the \u201cVulgate Syriac,\u201d\u2014\u201csyr. vg.\u201d\n\n\n    \u201cWhen therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences between\n    the _revised Syriac Text_ and the Text of the Antiochian Fathers\n    of the latter part of the IVth century,\u201d\u2014[of which coincidences,\n    (be it remarked in passing,) the obvious explanation is, that the\n    Texts referred to are faithful traditional representations of the\n    inspired autographs;]\u2014\u201cand _strong indications_ that the Revision\n    _was deliberate and in some way authoritative_ in both cases,\u2014_it\n    becomes natural to suppose_ that the two operations had some\n    historical connexion.\u201d\u2014(pp. 136-7.)\n\n\nXIX. But how does it happen\u2014(let the question be asked without\noffence)\u2014that a man of good abilities, bred in a University which is\nsupposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should\nhabitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The very _fact_\nof a \u201cRevision\u201d of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has been\n_demonstrated_, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of\ndemonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)\u2014\u201c_To suppose_\u201d that such a\nRevision took place: and (2)\u2014\u201c_To suppose_\u201d that all our existing\nManuscripts represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is\nproduced why we should be so complaisant as \u201cto suppose\u201d either the one\nthing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic hastens to\nassure us that there exist \u201cstrong indications\u201d\u2014(why are we not _shown_\nthem?)\u2014that the Revision he speaks of was \u201cdeliberate, and in some way\nauthoritative.\u201d\n\nOut of this grows a \u201cnatural supposition\u201d that \u201ctwo [purely imaginary]\noperations,\u201d \u201chad some _historical connexion_.\u201d Already therefore has the\nshadow thickened into a substance. \u201cThe _Revised_ Syriac Text\u201d has by this\ntime come to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it came\ninto being is even assumed to have been \u201cdeliberate and authoritative.\u201d\nThese Editors henceforth style the Peschito the \u201c_Syriac_ Vulgate,\u201d\u2014as\nconfidently as Jerome\u2019s Revision of the old Latin is styled the \u201c_Latin_\nVulgate.\u201d They even assure us that \u201cCureton\u2019s Syriac\u201d \u201crenders the\ncomparatively late and \u2018revised\u2019 character of the Syriac Vulgate _a matter\nof certainty_\u201d (p. 84). The very city in which the latter underwent\nRevision, can, it seems, be fixed with \u201c_tolerable certainty_\u201d (p.\n136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious?\n\nAt the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of which is the\nhypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the Greek,) the learned writer\nannounces that\u2014\u201cThe textual elements of each principle document _having\nbeing thus ascertained, it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy\nof a much larger number of individual readings than before_\u201d (_Text_, p.\n552).\u2014We read and marvel.\n\nSo then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is this:\u2014that,\nsomewhere between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,\n\n\n    \u201c(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led to an\n    authoritative Revision at Antioch:\u2014which (2) was then taken as\n    standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the Syriac\n    text:\u2014and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second\n    authoritative Revision\u201d\u2014this \u201cfinal process\u201d having been\n    \u201capparently completed by [A.D.] 350 or thereabouts.\u201d\u2014(p. 137.)\n\n\nXX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a\nseries of purely gratuitous assumptions,\u2014destitute alike of attestation\nand of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is\nentitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:\u2014instead of\ndealing _thus_ with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and\naccommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed _to accept his Theory in its\nentirety_. We will, with the Reader\u2019s permission, assume that _all_ he\ntells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually\ndid take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize\nthe inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably\npin the learned Editors\u2014bind them hand and foot;\u2014of course reserving to\nourselves the right of disallowing _for ourselves_ as much of the matter\nas we please.\n\nSomewhere between A.D. 250 and 350 therefore,\u2014(\u201cit is impossible to say\nwith confidence\u201d [p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors\nevidently incline to the latter half of the IIIrd century, _i.e._ _circa_\nA.D. 275);\u2014we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four\ngreat Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,\u2014Alexandria, Antioch,\nJerusalem, Constantinople,\u2014had become so troubled at witnessing the\nprevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective\nchurches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an\nauthoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of\nall the Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress\u2014(by the\nhypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the Bishops of Edessa or\nNisibis, (\u201cgreat centres of life and culture to the Churches whose\nlanguage was Syriac,\u201d [p. 136,]) lent themselves so effectually to the\nproject, that a single fragmentary document is, at the present day, the\nonly vestige remaining of the Text which before had been universally\nprevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity. \u201cThe _almost total\nextinction of Old Syriac MSS._, contrasted with the great number of extant\n_Vulgate Syriac MSS._,\u201d\u2014(for it is thus that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits\nevidence!),\u2014is to be attributed, it seems, to the power and influence of\nthe Authors of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [_ibid._] Bp. Ellicott, by\nthe way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton\u2019s Syriac as\n\u201c_singular and sometimes rather wild_.\u201d \u201c_The text, of a very composite\nnature_; sometimes _inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the\nVatican manuscript, but more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic\ncharacter of text as the Codex Bez\u00e6_.\u201d [p. 42.] (It is, in fact, an\n_utterly depraved_ and _fabricated_ document.)\n\nWe venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere\nreached a very alarming pass indeed to render intelligible the resort to\nso extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the \u201cleading\nPersonages or Sees\u201d (p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at\nleast inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves\ncompetent to grapple with the problem. Enough was familiarly known about\nthe character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain\nthat they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by\nauthority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease\nto molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be\ninferred from the hypothesis.\n\nXXI. Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and\nin the Church\u2019s palmiest days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers\nrepair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled\nEcclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they\nperforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the\nhypothesis) _the latest possible dates_ of any of these Copies must range\nbetween A.D. 250 and 350. But the Delegates of so many ancient Sees will\nhave been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an\nerrand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere\ndiscoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may\nbe certain that they are able to appeal to not a few codices _written\nwithin a hundred years of the_ date of the _inspired Autographs_\nthemselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to\nthe most famous of their predecessors,\u2014and held by them in high repute for\nthe presumed purity of their Texts\u2014will have been freely produced: while,\nin select receptacles, will have been stowed away\u2014for purposes of\ncomparison and avoidance\u2014specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence\nhas been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary\nconcourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.\n\nAfter solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves\nassiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn\nevery codex which exhibits a \u201cstrictly Western,\u201d or a \u201cstrictly\nAlexandrian,\u201d or a \u201cstrictly Neutral\u201d type. In plain English, if codices\nB, \u05d0, and D had been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected\nall three; but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named\nhad yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before\nCod. D would see the light. In the meantime, the _immediate ancestors_ of\nB \u05d0 and D will perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; and, (by the\nhypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general\nconsent of the Judges.\n\nXXII. Pass an interval\u2014(are we to suppose of fifty years?)\u2014and the work\nreferred to is \u201c_subjected to a second authoritative Revision_.\u201d _Again_,\ntherefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates\nof the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her\npalmiest days. Some of her greatest men belong to the period of which we\nare speaking. Eusebius (A.D. 308-340) is in his glory. One whole\ngeneration has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held,\nat Antioch. Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the\nearlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does\nbut \u201ccarry out more completely the purposes of the first;\u201d and \u201cthe final\nprocess was apparently completed by A.D. 350\u201d (p. 137).\u2014So far the\nCambridge Professor.\n\nXXIII. But the one important fact implied by this august deliberation\nconcerning the Text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr.\nHort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting\nthe Reader\u2019s particular attention to it.\n\nWe request him to note that, _by the hypothesis_, there will have been\nsubmitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiastics _not a few\ncodices of exactly the same type as codices_ B _and_ \u05d0: especially as\ncodex B. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which\nthe codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,\u2014\n\n(1) From S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE\nLAST TWELVE VERSES (xvi. 9-20).\n\n(2) From S. Luke\u2019s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our\nSAVIOUR\u2019S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (xxii. 43, 44).\n\n(3) His PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (xxiii. 34), will have also been\naway.\n\n(4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (xxiii. 38),\nwill have been partly, misrepresented,\u2014partly, away.\n\n(5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. PETER\u2019S VISIT\nTO THE SEPULCHRE (xxiv. 12).\n\n(6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD\u2019S ASCENSION INTO\nHEAVEN (_ibid._ 51).\n\n(7) Also, from S. John\u2019s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted\nthe incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL OF BETHESDA (v. 3, 4).\n\nNow, we request that it may be clearly noted that, _according to Dr.\nHort_, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (_i.e._\n_against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codices_ B _and_\n\u05d0,)\u2014the many illustrious Bishops who, (_still_ according to Dr. Hort,)\nassembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and then in A.D. 350,\u2014by common\nconsent set a mark of _condemnation_. We are assured that those famous\nmen,\u2014those Fathers of the Church,\u2014were emphatic in their sanction,\ninstead, of codices of the type of Cod. A,\u2014in which all these seven\nomitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their\nproper places.\n\nWhen, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr.\nHort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual\nillumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes\nto reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,\u2014his position strikes us\nas bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seven places above referred\nto, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and\ndeclare to be worthy of all acceptation,\u2014Dr. Hort expresses himself in\nterms which\u2014could they have been heard at Antioch\u2014must, it is thought,\nhave brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have\neven proved inconvenient. But let the respected gentleman by all means be\nallowed to speak for himself:\u2014\n\n(1) THE LAST TWELVE VERSES of S. Mark (he would have been heard to say)\nare a \u201cvery early interpolation.\u201d \u201cIts authorship and precise date must\nremain unknown.\u201d \u201cIt manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority.\u201d \u201cIt\nis doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age.\u201d\u2014(_Notes_,\npp. 46 and 51.)\n\n(2) THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN (he would have told them) is \u201can early Western\ninterpolation,\u201d and \u201ccan only be a fragment from traditions, written or\noral,\u201d\u2014\u201crescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century.\u201d\u2014(pp.\n66-7.)\n\n(3) THE PRAYER OF OUR LORD FOR HIS MURDERERS (Dr. Hort would have\nsaid),\u2014\u201cI cannot doubt comes from an extraneous source.\u201d It is \u201ca Western\ninterpolation.\u201d\u2014(p.68.)\n\n(4) TO THE INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, IN GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW [S. Luke\nxxiii. 38], he would not have allowed so much as a hearing.\n\n(5) The spuriousness of the narrative of S. PETER\u2019S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE\n[S. Luke xxiv. 12] (the same Ante-Nicene Fathers would have learned) he\nregards as a \u201cmoral certainty.\u201d He would have assured them that it is \u201ca\nWestern non-interpolation.\u201d\u2014(p. 71.)\n\n(6) They would have learned that, in the account of the same Critic, S.\nLuke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to the inspired Text: another\n\u201cWestern non-interpolation.\u201d Dr. Hort would have tried to persuade them\nthat OUR LORD\u2019S ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN \u201c_was evidently inserted from an\nassumption_ that a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospel\n_must be the Ascension_,\u201d (_Notes_, p. 73).... (What the Ante-Nicene\nFathers would have thought of their teacher we forbear to conjecture.)\u2014(p.\n71.)\n\n(7) THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL OF BETHESDA [S. John v. 3, 4] is not even\nallowed a bracketed place in Dr. Hort\u2019s Text. How the accomplished Critic\nwould have set about persuading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that they were in\nerror for holding it to be genuine Scripture, it is hard to imagine.\n\nXXIV. It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the\ncollective mind of Patristic Antiquity. _Why_, when it suits him, he\nshould appeal to the same Ancients for support,\u2014we fail to understand. \u201cIf\nBaal be GOD, then follow _him_!\u201d Dr. Hort has his codex B and his codex \u05d0\nto guide him. He informs us (p. 276) that \u201cthe fullest consideration does\nbut increase the conviction that the _pre-eminent relative purity_\u201d of\nthose two codices \u201cis approximately _absolute_,\u2014_a true approximate\nreproduction of the Text of the Autographs_.\u201d On the other hand, he has\ndiscovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the\nFathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250-A.D. 350),\u2014exhibits a Text fabricated\nthroughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly\nmisguided men. What is it to _him_, henceforth, how Athanasius, or\nDidymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?\n\nYes, we repeat it,\u2014Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of\nthe IIIrd and the IVth Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a \u201cSyrian\nText,\u201d\u2014the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate\njudgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250-A.D. 350),\u2014is the best\nanswer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,\u2014is, in our\naccount, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text.\n\nThus, his prolix and perverse discussion of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 (viz. from\np. 28 to p. 51 of his _Notes_),\u2014which, carefully analysed, is found merely\nto amount to \u201cThank you for showing us our mistake; but we mean to stick\nto our _Mumpsimus_!\u201d:\u2014those many inferences as well from what the Fathers\ndo _not_ say, as from what they _do_;\u2014are all effectually disposed of by\nhis own theory of a \u201cSyrian text.\u201d A mighty array of forgotten Bishops,\nFathers, Doctors of the Nicene period, come back and calmly assure the\naccomplished Professor that the evidence on which he relies is but an\ninsignificant fraction of the evidence which was before themselves when\nthey delivered their judgment. \u201cHad you known but the thousandth part of\nwhat we knew familiarly,\u201d say they, \u201cyou would have spared yourself this\nexposure. You seem to have forgotten that Eusebius was one of the chief\npersons in our assembly; that Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, Basil and\nGregory of Nazianzus, as well as his namesake of Nyssa,\u2014were all living\nwhen we held our Textual Conference, and some of them, though young men,\nwere even parties to our decree.\u201d... Now, as an _argumentum ad hominem_,\nthis, be it observed, is decisive and admits of no rejoinder.\n\nXXV. How then about those \u201cSyrian _Conflations_\u201d concerning which a few\npages back we heard so much, and for which Dr. Hort considers the august\ntribunal of which we are now speaking to be responsible? He is convinced\nthat the (so-called) Syrian Text (which he regards as the product of their\ndeliberations), is \u201can eclectic text _combining Readings from the three\nprincipal Texts_\u201d (p. 145): which Readings in consequence he calls\n\u201c_conflate_.\u201d How then is it to be supposed that these \u201cConflations\u201d\narose? The answer is obvious. As \u201cConflations,\u201d _they have no\nexistence_,\u2014save in the fertile brain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Nicene\nfathers who never met at Antioch have been interrogated by him concerning\nthis matter,\u2014(let the Hibernian supposition be allowed for argument\nsake!)\u2014they would perforce have made answer,\u2014\u201cYou quite mistake the\npurpose for which we came together, learned sir! You are evidently\nthinking of your Jerusalem Chamber and of the unheard-of method devised by\nyour Bishop\u201d [see pp. 37 to 39: also p. 273] \u201cfor ascertaining the Truth\nof Scripture. Well may the resuscitation of so many forgotten blunders\nhave occupied you and your colleagues for as long a period as was expended\non the Siege of Troy! _Our_ business was not to _invent_ readings whether\nby \u2018Conflation\u2019 or otherwise, but only to distinguish between spurious\nTexts and genuine,\u2014families of fabricated MSS., and those which we knew to\nbe trustworthy,\u2014mutilated and unmutilated Copies. Every one of what _you_\nare pleased to call \u2018Conflate Readings,\u2019 learned sir, we found\u2014just as you\nfind them\u2014in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and we gave them our deliberate\napproval, and left them standing in the Text in consequence. We believed\nthem to be,\u2014we are confident that they _are_,\u2014the very words of the\nEvangelists and Apostles of the LORD: the _ipsissima verba_ of the SPIRIT:\n\u2018_the true sayings of the_ HOLY GHOST.\u2019 \u201d [See p. 38, note 2.]\n\nAll this however by the way. The essential thing to be borne in mind is\nthat, according to Dr. Hort,\u2014_on two distinct occasions between_ A.D. 250\n_and_ 350\u2014the whole Eastern Church, meeting by representation in her\npalmiest days, deliberately put forth _that_ Traditional Text of the N. T.\nwith which we at this day are chiefly familiar. That this is indeed his\nview of the matter, there can at least be no doubt. He says:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201c_An authoritative Revision_ at Antioch ... was itself subjected\n    to _a second authoritative Revision_ carrying out more completely\n    the purposes of the first.\u201d \u201cAt what date between A.D. 250 and 350\n    _the first process_ took place, it is impossible to say with\n    confidence.\u201d \u201c_The final process_ was apparently completed by A.D.\n    350 or thereabouts.\u201d\u2014(p. 137.)\n\n    \u201cThe fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally _is\n    beyond all question_ identical with the dominant Antiochian or\n    Gr\u00e6co-Syrian text of _the second half of the IVth century_.\u201d\u2014(p.\n    92.)\n\n\nBe it so. It follows that the Text exhibited by such codices as B and \u05d0\n_was deliberately condemned_ by the assembled piety, learning, and\njudgment of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom. At a\nperiod when there existed _nothing more modern_ than Codices B and\n\u05d0,\u2014nothing _so_ modern as A and C,\u2014all specimens of the former class were\n_rejected_: while such codices as bore a general resemblance to A were by\ncommon consent pointed out as deserving of confidence and _recommended for\nrepeated Transcription_.\n\nXXVI. Pass _fifteen hundred_ years, and the Reader is invited to note\nattentively what has come to pass. Time has made a clean sweep, it may be,\nof every Greek codex belonging to either of the two dates above indicated.\nEvery tradition belonging to the period has also long since utterly\nperished. When lo, in A.D. 1831, under the auspices of Dr. Lachmann, \u201ca\nnew departure\u201d is made. Up springs what may be called the new German\nschool of Textual Criticism,\u2014of which the fundamental principle is a\nsuperstitious deference to the decrees of cod. B. The heresy prevails for\nfifty years (1831-81) and obtains many adherents. The practical result is,\nthat its chief promoters make it their business to throw discredit on the\nresult of the two great Antiochian Revisions already spoken of! The\n(so-called) \u201cSyrian Text\u201d\u2014although assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort to be\nthe product of the combined wisdom, piety, and learning of the great\nPatriarchates of the East from A.D. 250 to A.D. 350; \u201ca \u2018Recension\u2019 in the\nproper sense of the word; a work of attempted Criticism, performed\ndeliberately by Editors and not merely by Scribes\u201d (p. 133):\u2014this \u201cSyrian\nText,\u201d Doctors Westcott and Hort denounce as \u201c_showing no marks of either\ncritical or spiritual insight:_\u201d\u2014\n\nIt \u201cpresents\u201d (say they) \u201cthe New Testament in a form smooth and\nattractive, but _appreciably impoverished in sense and force_; more fitted\nfor cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent\nstudy.\u201d\u2014(p. 135.)\n\nXXVII. We are content to leave this matter to the Reader\u2019s judgment. For\nourselves, we make no secret of the grotesqueness of the contrast thus,\nfor the second time, presented to the imagination. On _that_ side, by the\nhypothesis, sit the greatest Doctors of primitive Christendom, assembled\nin solemn conclave. Every most illustrious name is there. By ingeniously\ndrawing a purely arbitrary hard-and-fast line at the year A.D. 350, and so\nanticipating many a \u201c_floruit_\u201d by something between five and\nfive-and-twenty years, Dr. Hort\u2019s intention is plain: but the expedient\nwill not serve his turn. Quite content are we with the names secured to us\nwithin the proposed limits of time. On _that_ side then, we behold\ncongregated choice representatives of the wisdom, the piety, the learning\nof the Eastern Church, from A.D. 250 to A.D. 350.\u2014On this side sits\u2014Dr.\nHort! ... An interval of 1532 years separates these two parties.\n\nXXVIII. And first,\u2014How may the former assemblage be supposed to have been\noccupying themselves? The object with which those distinguished personages\ncame together was the loftiest, the purest, the holiest imaginable: viz.\nto purge out from the sacred Text the many corruptions by which, in their\njudgments, it had become depraved during the 250 (or at the utmost 300)\nyears which have elapsed since it first came into existence; to detect the\ncounterfeit and to eliminate the spurious. Not unaware by any means are\nthey of the carelessness of Scribes, nor yet of the corruptions which have\nbeen brought in through the officiousness of critical \u201cCorrectors\u201d of the\nText. To what has resulted from the misdirected piety of the Orthodox,\nthey are every bit as fully alive as to what has crept in through the\nmalignity of Heretical Teachers. Moreover, while the memory survives in\nall its freshness of the depravations which the inspired Text has\nexperienced from these and other similar corrupting influences, the _means\nabound_ and _are at hand_ of _testing_ every suspected place of Scripture.\nWell, and next,\u2014How have these holy men prospered in their holy\nenterprise?\n\nXXIX. According to Dr. Hort, by a strange fatality,\u2014a most unaccountable\nand truly disastrous proclivity to error,\u2014these illustrious Fathers of the\nChurch have been at every instant substituting the spurious for the\ngenuine,\u2014a fabricated Text in place of the Evangelical Verity. Miserable\nmen! In the Gospels alone they have interpolated about 3100 words: have\nomitted about 700: have substituted about 1000; have transposed about\n2200: have altered (in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c.)\nabout 1200.(724) This done, they have amused themselves with the\ngive-and-take process of mutual accommodation which we are taught to call\n\u201c_Conflation_:\u201d in plain terms, _they have been manufacturing Scripture_.\nThe Text, as it comes forth from their hands,\u2014\n\n(a) \u201c_Shews no marks of either critical or spiritual insight:_\u201d\u2014\n\n(b) \u201cPresents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but\n_appreciably impoverished in sense and force_:\u201d\u2014\n\n(c) \u201c_Is more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation, than for repeated\nand diligent study._\u201d\n\nMoreover, the mischief has proved infectious,\u2014has spread. In Syria also,\nat Edessa or Nisibis,\u2014(for it is as well to be circumstantial in such\nmatters,)\u2014the self-same iniquity is about to be perpetrated; of which the\nPeschito will be the abiding monument: _one_ solitary witness only to the\npure Text being suffered to escape. Cureton\u2019s fragmentary Syriac will\nalone remain to exhibit to mankind the outlines of primitive Truth. (The\nreader is reminded of the character already given of the document in\nquestion at the summit of page 279. Its extravagance can only be fully\nappreciated by one who will be at the pains to read it steadily through.)\n\nXXX. And pray, (we ask,)\u2014_Who_ says all this? _Who_ is it who gravely puts\nforth all this egregious nonsense?... It is Dr. Hort, (we answer,) at pp.\n134-5 of the volume now under review. In fact, according to _him_, those\nprimitive Fathers have been the great falsifiers of Scripture; have proved\nthe worst enemies of the pure Word of GOD; have shamefully betrayed their\nsacred trust; have done the diametrical reverse of what (by the\nhypothesis) they came together for the sole purpose of doing. They have\ndepraved and corrupted that sacred Text which it was their aim, their\nduty, and their professed object to purge from its errors. And (by the\nhypothesis) Dr. Hort, at the end of 1532 years,\u2014aided by codex B and his\nown self-evolved powers of divination,\u2014has found them out, and now holds\nthem up to the contempt and scorn of the British public.\n\nXXXI. In the meantime the illustrious Professor invites us to believe that\nthe mistaken textual judgment pronounced at Antioch in A.D. 350 had an\nimmediate effect on the Text of Scripture throughout the world. We are\nrequested to suppose that it resulted in the instantaneous extinction of\ncodices the like of B \u05d0, wherever found; and caused codices of the A type\nto spring up like mushrooms in their place, and _that_, in every library\nof ancient Christendom. We are further required to assume that this\nextraordinary substitution of new evidence for old\u2014the false for the\ntrue\u2014fully explains why Iren\u00e6us and Hippolytus, Athanasius and Didymus,\nGregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and Ephraem, Epiphanius\nand Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isidore of Pelusium, Nilus and\nNonnus, Proclus and Severianus, the two Cyrils and Theodoret\u2014_one and\nall_\u2014show themselves strangers to the text of B and \u05d0.... We read and\nmarvel.\n\nXXXII. For, (it is time to enquire,)\u2014Does not the learned Professor see\nthat, by thus getting rid of the testimony of the whole body of the\nFathers, he leaves the Science which he is so good as to patronize in a\nmost destitute condition,\u2014besides placing himself in a most inconvenient\nstate of isolation? If clear and consentient Patristic testimony to the\nText of Scripture is not to be deemed forcible witness to its\nTruth,\u2014_whither_ shall a man betake himself for constraining Evidence? Dr.\nHort has already set aside the Traditional Text as a thing of no manner of\nimportance. The venerable Syriac Version he has also insisted on reducing\nvery nearly to the level of the despised cursives. As for the copies of\nthe old Latin, they had confessedly become so untrustworthy, at the time\nof which he speaks, that a modest Revision of the Text they embody, (the\n\u201c_Vulgate_\u201d namely,) became at last a measure of necessity. What remains\nto him therefore? Can he seriously suppose that the world will put up with\nthe \u201cidiosyncrasy\u201d of a living Doctor\u2014his \u201cpersonal instincts\u201d (p.\nxi.)\u2014his \u201cpersonal discernment\u201d (p. 65),\u2014his \u201cinstinctive processes of\nCriticism\u201d (p. 66),\u2014his \u201cindividual mind,\u201d\u2014in preference to articulate\nvoices coming to us across the gulf of Time from every part of ancient\nChristendom? How\u2014with the faintest chance of success\u2014does Dr. Hort propose\nto remedy the absence of External Testimony? If mankind can afford to do\nwithout either consent of Copies or of Fathers, why does mankind any\nlonger adhere to the ancient methods of proof? Why do Critics of every\nschool _still_ accumulate references to MSS., explore the ancient\nVersions, and ransack the Patristic writings in search of neglected\ncitations of Scripture? That the ancients were indifferent Textual\nCritics, is true enough. The mischief done by Origen in this\ndepartment,\u2014through his fondness for a branch of Learning in which his\nremarks show that he was all unskilled,\u2014is not to be told. But then, these\nmen lived within a very few hundred years of the Apostles of the LORD\nJESUS CHRIST: and when they witness to the reading of their own copies,\ntheir testimony on the point, to say the least, is worthy of our most\nrespectful attention. _Dated codices,_ in fact are they, _to all intents\nand purposes,_ as often as they bear clear witness to the Text of\nScripture:\u2014a fact, (we take leave to throw out the remark in passing,)\nwhich has not yet nearly attracted the degree of attention which it\ndeserves.\n\nXXXIII. For ourselves, having said so much on this subject, it is fair\nthat we should add,\u2014We devoutly wish that Dr. Hort\u2019s hypothesis of an\nauthoritative and deliberate Recension of the Text of the New Testament\nachieved at Antioch first, about A.D. 250, and next, about A.D. 350, were\nindeed an historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest our\nconfidence in the Traditional Text of Scripture than the deliberate\nverdict of Antiquity,\u2014the ascertained sanction of the collective Church,\nin the Nicene age. The _Latin_ \u201cVulgate\u201d [A.D. 385] is the work of a\nsingle man\u2014Jerome. The _Syriac_ \u201cVulgate\u201d [A.D. 616] was also the work of\na single man\u2014Thomas of Harkel. But this _Greek_ \u201cVulgate\u201d was (by the\nhypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [A.D. 250-A.D. 350,] in\nher corporate capacity. Not only should we hail such a monument of the\ncollective piety and learning of the Church in her best days with\nunmingled reverence and joy, were it introduced to our notice; but we\nshould insist that no important deviation from such a \u201c_Textus Receptus_\u201d\nas _that_ would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort\u2019s\ntheory about the origin of the _Textus Receptus_ have _any foundation at\nall_ in fact, it is \u201call up\u201d with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely _nowhere._ He\nhas most ingeniously placed himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma.\n\nFor,\u2014(let it be carefully noted,)\u2014the entire discussion becomes, in this\nway, brought (so to speak) within the compass of a nutshell. To state the\ncase briefly,\u2014We are invited to make our election between the Fathers of\nthe Church, A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,\u2014and Dr. Hort, A.D. 1881. The issue is\nreally reduced to _that._ The general question of THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE\nbeing the matter at stake; (not any particular passage, remember, but _the\nText of Scripture as a whole;_)\u2014and the _conflicting parties_ being but\n_two_;\u2014_Which_ are we to believe? the _consentient Voice of Antiquity,_\u2014or\nthe solitary modern Professor? Shall we accept the august Testimony of the\nwhole body of the Fathers? or shall we prefer to be guided by the\nself-evolved imaginations of one who confessedly has nothing to offer but\nconjecture? The question before us is reduced to that single issue. But in\nfact the alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are\ninvited to make our election between FACT and\u2014FICTION.... All this, of\ncourse, on the supposition that there is _any truth at all_ in Dr. Hort\u2019s\n\u201cNew Textual Theory.\u201d\n\nXXXIV. Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the\nsupposed Recension,\u2014the utter absence of one particle of evidence,\ntraditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be\nfatal to the hypothesis that it _did._ It is simply incredible that an\nincident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in\nhistory. As a conjecture\u2014(and it only professes to be a conjecture)\u2014Dr.\nHort\u2019s notion of how the Text of the Fathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth\ncenturies,\u2014which, as he truly remarks, is in the main identical with our\nown _Received Text_,\u2014came into being, must be unconditionally abandoned.\nIn the words of a learned living Prelate,\u2014\u201c_the supposition_\u201d on which\nDrs. Westcott and Hort have staked their critical reputation, \u201c_is a\nmanifest absurdity_.\u201d(725)\n\nXXXV. We have been so full on the subject of this imaginary \u201cAntiochian\u201d\nor \u201cSyrian text,\u201d not (the reader may be sure) without sufficient reason.\nScant satisfaction truly is there in scattering to the winds an airy\ntissue which its ingenious authors have been industriously weaving for 30\nyears. But it is clear that with this hypothesis of a \u201cSyrian\u201d text,\u2014the\nimmediate source and actual prototype of the commonly received Text of the\nN. T.,\u2014_stands or falls their entire Textual theory_. Reject it, and the\nentire fabric is observed to collapse, and subside into a shapeless ruin.\nAnd with it, of necessity, goes the \u201cNew Greek Text,\u201d\u2014and therefore the\n\u201c_New English Version_\u201d of our Revisionists, which in the main has been\nfounded on it.\n\nXXXVI. In the meantime the phenomena upon which this phantom has been\nbased, remain unchanged; and fairly interpreted, will be found to conduct\nus to the diametrically opposite result to that which has been arrived at\nby Drs. Westcott and Hort. With perfect truth has the latter remarked on\nthe practical \u201cidentity of the Text, more especially in the Gospels and\nPauline Epistles, in all the known cursive MSS., except a few\u201d (p. 143).\nWe fully admit the truth of his statement that\u2014\n\n\u201c_Before the close of the IVth century_, a Greek Text not materially\ndiffering from the almost universal Text of the IXth,\u201d\u2014[and why not of the\nVIth? of the VIIth? of the VIIIth? or again of the Xth? of the XIth? of\nthe XIIth?]\u2014\u201ccentury, was dominant at Antioch.\u201d\u2014(p. 142.)\n\nAnd why not throughout the whole of Eastern Christendom? _Why_ this\ncontinual mention of \u201c_Antioch_\u201d\u2014this perpetual introduction of the\nepithet \u201c_Syrian_\u201d? Neither designation applies to Iren\u00e6us or to\nHippolytus,\u2014to Athanasius or to Didymus,\u2014to Gregory of Nazianzus or to his\nnamesake of Nyssa,\u2014to Basil or to Epiphanius,\u2014to Nonnus or to Macarius,\u2014to\nProclus or to Theodoras Mops.,\u2014to the earlier or to the later Cyril.\u2014In\nbrief,\n\n\n    \u201cThe fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS. generally is,\n    beyond all question, identical with [what Dr. Hort chooses to\n    call] the dominant Antiochian or Gr\u00e6co-Syrian text of the second\n    half of the IVth century.... The Antiochian [and other] Fathers,\n    and the bulk of extant MSS. written from about three or four, to\n    ten or eleven centuries later, must have had, in the greater\n    number of extant variations, a common original _either\n    contemporary with, or older than, our oldest extant MSS._\u201d\u2014(p.\n    92.)\n\n\nXXXVII. So far then, happily, we are entirely agreed. The only question\nis,\u2014How is this resemblance to be accounted for? _Not_, we answer,\u2014_not_,\ncertainly, by putting forward so violent and improbable\u2014so _irrational_ a\nconjecture as that, first, about A.D. 250,\u2014and then again about A.D.\n350,\u2014an authoritative standard Text was fabricated at Antioch; of which\nall other known MSS. (except a very little handful) are nothing else but\ntranscripts:\u2014but rather, by loyally recognizing, in the practical identity\nof the Text exhibited by 99 out of 100 of our extant MSS., the probable\ngeneral fidelity of those many transcripts _to the inspired exemplars\nthemselves from which remotely they are confessedly descended_. And\nsurely, if it be allowable to assume (with Dr. Hort) that for 1532 years,\n(viz. from A.D. 350 to A.D. 1882) the _Antiochian_ standard has been\nfaithfully retained and transmitted,\u2014it will be impossible to assign any\nvalid reason why the inspired Original itself, the _Apostolic_ standard,\nshould not have been as faithfully transmitted and retained from the\nApostolic age to the Antiochian,(726)\u2014_i.e._ throughout an interval of\nless than 250 years, or _one-sixth_ of the period.\n\nXXXVIII. Here, it will obviously occur to enquire,\u2014But what has been Drs.\nWestcott and Hort\u2019s _motive_ for inventing such an improbable hypothesis?\nand why is Dr. Hort so strenuous in maintaining it?... We reply by\nreminding the Reader of certain remarks which we made at the outset.(727)\nThe _Traditional Text_ of the N. T. is a phenomenon which sorely exercises\nCritics of the new school. To depreciate it, is easy: to deny its critical\nauthority, is easier still: to cast ridicule on the circumstances under\nwhich Erasmus produced his first (very faulty) edition of it (1516), is\neasiest of all. But _to ignore_ the \u201cTraditional Text,\u201d is impossible.\nEqually impossible is it to overlook its practical identity with the Text\nof Chrysostom, who lived and taught _at Antioch_ till A.D. 398, when he\nbecame Abp. of _Constantinople_. Now this is a very awkward circumstance,\nand must in some way be got over; for it transports us, at a bound, from\nthe stifling atmosphere of Basle and Alcala,\u2014from Erasmus and Stunica,\nStephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,\u2014to Antioch and Constantinople in the\nlatter part of the IVth century. What is to be done?\n\nXXXIX. Drs. Westcott and Hort assume that this \u201cAntiochian text\u201d\u2014found in\nthe later cursives and the Fathers of the latter half of the IVth\ncentury\u2014must be an _artificial_, an _arbitrarily invented_ standard; a\ntext _fabricated_ between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350. And if they may but be so\nfortunate as to persuade the world to adopt their hypothesis, then all\nwill be easy; for they will have reduced the supposed \u201cconsent of Fathers\u201d\nto the reproduction of one and the same single \u201cprimary documentary\nwitness:\u201d(728)\u2014and \u201cit is hardly necessary to point out the total change\nin the bearing of the evidence by the introduction of _the factor of\nGenealogy_\u201d (p. 43) at this particular juncture. _Upset_ the hypothesis on\nthe other hand, and all is reversed in a moment. Every attesting Father is\nperceived to be a dated MS. and an independent authority; and the combined\nevidence of several of these becomes simply unmanageable. In like manner,\n\u201cthe approximate consent of the cursives\u201d (see the foot-note), is\nperceived to be equivalent _not_ to \u201cA PRIMARY DOCUMENTARY WITNESS,\u201d\u2014_not_\nto \u201cONE ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL,\u201d\u2014but to be tantamount to the articulate\nspeech of _many_ witnesses _of high character_, coming to us _from every\nquarter_ of primitive Christendom.\n\nXL. But\u2014(the further enquiry is sure to be made)\u2014In favour of which\ndocument, or set of documents, have all these fantastic efforts been made\nto disparage the commonly received standards of excellence? The ordinary\nEnglish Reader may require to be reminded that, prior to the IVth century,\nour Textual helps are few, fragmentary, and\u2014to speak plainly\u2014insufficient.\nAs for sacred Codices of that date, we possess NOT ONE. Of our two\nprimitive Versions, \u201cthe Syriac and the old Latin,\u201d the second is grossly\ncorrupt; owing (says Dr. Hort) \u201cto a perilous confusion between\ntranscription and _reproduction_;\u201d \u201cthe preservation of a record and _its\nsupposed improvement_\u201d (p. 121). \u201cFurther acquaintance with it only\nincreases our distrust\u201d (_ibid._). In plainer English, \u201cthe earliest\nreadings which can be fixed chronologically\u201d (p. 120) belong to a Version\nwhich is licentious and corrupt to an incredible extent. And though \u201cthere\nis no reason to doubt that the Peschito [or ancient Syriac] is at least as\nold as the Latin Version\u201d (p. 84), yet (according to Dr. Hort) it is\n\u201cimpossible\u201d\u2014(he is nowhere so good as to explain to us wherein this\nsupposed \u201cimpossibility\u201d consists),\u2014to regard \u201c_the present form_ of the\nVersion as a true representation of the original Syriac text.\u201d The date of\nit (according to _him_) _may_ be as late as A.D. 350. Anyhow, we are\nassured (but only by Dr. Hort) that important \u201cevidence for the Greek text\nis hardly to be looked for from _this_ source\u201d (p. 85).\u2014The Fathers of the\nIIIrd century who have left behind them considerable remains in Greek are\nbut two,\u2014Clemens Alex. and Origen: and there are considerations attending\nthe citations of either, which greatly detract from their value.\n\nXLI. The question therefore recurs with redoubled emphasis,\u2014In favour of\n_which_ document, or set of documents, does Dr. Hort disparage the more\nconsiderable portion of that early evidence,\u2014so much of it, namely, as\nbelongs to the IVth century,\u2014on which the Church has been hitherto\naccustomed confidently to rely? He asserts that,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cAlmost all Greek Fathers after Eusebius have texts so deeply\n    affected by mixture that\u201d they \u201ccannot at most count for more than\n    so many secondary Greek uncial MSS., _inferior in most cases to\n    the better sort of secondary uncial MSS. now existing_.\u201d\u2014(p. 202.)\n\n\nAnd thus, at a stroke, behold, \u201calmost _all Greek Fathers after\nEusebius_\u201d\u2014(who died A.D. 340)\u2014are disposed of! washed overboard! put\nclean out of sight! Athanasius and Didymus\u2014the 2 Basils and the 2\nGregories\u2014the 2 Cyrils and the 2 Theodores\u2014Epiphanius and Macarius and\nEphraem\u2014Chrysostom and Severianus and Proclus\u2014Nilus and Nonnus\u2014Isidore of\nPelusium and Theodoret: not to mention at least as many more who have left\nscanty, yet most precious, remains behind them:\u2014all these are pronounced\n_inferior_ in authority to as many IXth- or Xth-century copies!... We\ncommend, in passing, the foregoing _dictum_ of these accomplished Editors\nto the critical judgment of all candid and intelligent Readers. _Not_ as\ndated manuscripts, therefore, at least equal in Antiquity to the oldest\nwhich we now possess:\u2014_not_ as the authentic utterances of famous Doctors\nand Fathers of the Church, (instead of being the work of unknown and\nirresponsible Scribes):\u2014_not_ as sure witnesses of what was accounted\nScripture in a known region, by a famous personage, at a well-ascertained\nperiod, (instead of coming to us, as our codices _universally_ do, without\na history and without a character):\u2014in no such light are we henceforth to\nregard Patristic citations of Scripture:\u2014but only \u201cas so many secondary\nMSS., _inferior to the better sort of secondary uncials now existing_.\u201d\n\nXLII. That the Testimony of the Fathers, in the lump, must perforce in\nsome such way either be ignored or else flouted, if the Text of Drs.\nWestcott and Hort is to stand,\u2014we were perfectly well aware. It is simply\nfatal to them: _and they know it_. But we were hardly prepared for such a\ndemonstration as _this_. Let it all pass however. The question we propose\nis only the following,\u2014If the Text \u201cused by _great Antiochian theologians_\nnot long after the middle of the IVth century\u201d (p. 146) is undeserving of\nour confidence:\u2014if we are to believe that a systematic depravation of\nScripture was universally going on till about the end of the IIIrd\ncentury; and if at that time, an authoritative and deliberate recension of\nit\u2014conducted on utterly erroneous principles\u2014took place at Antioch, and\nresulted in the vicious \u201ctraditional Constantinopolitan\u201d (p. 143), or (as\nDr. Hort prefers to call it) the \u201ceclectic Syrian Text:\u201d\u2014_What remains to\nus_? Are we henceforth to rely on our own \u201cinner consciousness\u201d for\nillumination? Or is it seriously expected that for the restoration of the\ninspired Verity we shall be content to surrender ourselves blindfold to\nthe _ipse dixit_ of an unknown and irresponsible nineteenth-century guide?\nIf neither of these courses is expected of us, will these Editors be so\ngood as to give us the names of the documents on which, in their judgment,\nwe _may_ rely?\n\nXLIII. We are not suffered to remain long in a state of suspense. The\nassurance awaits us (at p. 150), that the Vatican codex,\n\n\n    \u201cB\u2014is found to hold a unique position. Its text is throughout\n    _Pre-Syrian_, perhaps _purely Pre-Syrian_.... From distinctively\n    Western readings it seems to be all but entirely free.... We have\n    not been able to recognize as _Alexandrian_ any readings of B in\n    any book of the New Testament.... So that ... neither of the early\n    streams of innovation has touched it to any appreciable\n    extent.\u201d\u2014(p. 150.)\n\n    \u201cThe text of the Sinaitic codex (\u05d0)\u201d also \u201cseems to be entirely,\n    or all but entirely, _Pre-Syrian_. A very large part of the text\n    is in like manner free from _Western_ or _Alexandrian_\n    elements.\u201d\u2014(p. 151.)\n\n    \u201c_Every other_ known Greek manuscript has either a mixed or a\n    Syrian text.\u201d\u2014(p. 151.)\n\n\nThus then, at last, at the end of exactly 150 weary pages, the secret\ncomes out! The one point which the respected Editors are found to have\nbeen all along driving at:\u2014the one aim of those many hazy disquisitions of\ntheirs about \u201cIntrinsic and Transcriptional Probability,\u201d\u2014\u201cGenealogical\nevidence, simple and divergent,\u201d\u2014and \u201cthe study of Groups:\u201d\u2014the one reason\nof all their vague terminology,\u2014and of their baseless theory of\n\u201cConflation,\u201d\u2014and their disparagement of the Fathers:\u2014the one _raison\nd\u2019\u00eatre_ of their fiction of a \u201cSyrian\u201d and a \u201cPre-Syrian\u201d and a \u201cNeutral\u201d\ntext:\u2014the secret of it all comes out at last! A delightful, a truly\nNewtonian simplicity characterizes the final announcement. All is summed\nup in the curt formula\u2014_Codex_ B!\n\nBehold then the altar at which Copies, Fathers, Versions, are all to be\nruthlessly sacrificed:\u2014the tribunal from which there shall be absolutely\nno appeal:\u2014the Oracle which is to silence every doubt, resolve every\nriddle, smooth away every difficulty. All has been stated, where the name\nhas been pronounced of\u2014codex B. One is reminded of an enegmatical epitaph\non the floor of the Chapel of S. John\u2019s College, \u201c_Verbum non\namplius\u2014Fisher_\u201d! To codex B all the Greek Fathers after Eusebius must\ngive way. Even Patristic evidence _of the ante-Nicene period_ \u201crequires\ncritical sifting\u201d (p. 202),\u2014must be distrusted, may be denied (pp.\n202-5),\u2014if it shall be found to contradict Cod. B! \u201cB very far exceeds all\nother documents in neutrality of Text.\u201d\u2014(p. 171.)\n\nXLIV. \u201cAt a long interval after B, but hardly a less interval before all\nother MSS., stands \u05d0\u201d (p. 171).\u2014Such is the sum of the matter!... A\ncoarser,\u2014a clumsier,\u2014a more unscientific,\u2014a more _stupid_ expedient for\nsettling the true Text of Scripture was surely never invented! _But_ for\nthe many foggy, or rather unreadable disquisitions with which the\n_Introduction_ is encumbered, \u201cTextual Criticism made easy,\u201d might well\nhave been the title of the little volume now under Review; of which at\nlast it is discovered that _the general Infallibility of Codex_ B is the\nfundamental principle. Let us however hear these learned men out.\n\nXLV. They begin by offering us a chapter on the \u201cGeneral relations of B\nand \u05d0 to other documents:\u201d wherein we are assured that,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201c_Two striking facts_ successively come out with especial\n    clearness. Every group containing both \u05d0 and B, _is found_ ... to\n    have _an apparently more original Text_ than every opposed group\n    containing neither; and every group containing B ... _is found_ in\n    a large preponderance of cases ... to have _an apparently more\n    original Text_ than every opposed group containing \u05d0.\u201d\u2014(p. 210.)\n\n\n\u201c_Is found_\u201d! but pray,\u2014_By whom?_ And \u201c_apparently_\u201d! but pray,\u2014_To\nwhom?_ and _On what grounds of Evidence_? For unless it be on _certain_\ngrounds of Evidence, how can it be pretended that we have before us \u201ctwo\nstriking _facts_\u201d?\n\nAgain, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted that these\n\u201ctwo striking facts\u201d \u201ccome out with _especial clearness_\u201d? so long as\ntheir very existence remains _in nubibus_,\u2014has never been established, and\nis in fact emphatically denied? Expressions like the foregoing _then_ only\nbegin to be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher has\nsome solid foundation on which to build. Else, he occasions nothing but\nimpatience and displeasure. Readers at first are simply annoyed at being\ntrifled with: presently they grow restive: at last they become clamorous\nfor demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go on however.\nWe are still at p. 210:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cWe found \u05d0 and B to stand alone in their almost complete immunity\n    from distinctive Syriac readings ... and B to stand far above \u05d0 in\n    its _apparent_ freedom from either Western or Alexandrian\n    readings.\u201d\u2014(p. 210.)\n\n\nBut pray, gentlemen,\u2014_Where_ and _when_ did \u201cwe find\u201d either of these two\nthings? We have \u201cfound\u201d nothing of the sort hitherto. The Reviewer is\ndisposed to reproduce the Duke of Wellington\u2019s courteous reply to the\nPrince Regent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which resulted in\nthe victory of Waterloo:\u2014\u201c_I have heard your Royal Highness say so_.\u201d...\nAt the end of a few pages,\n\n\n    \u201c_Having found_ \u05d0 B the constant element in groups of every size,\n    distinguished by internal excellence of readings, _we found_ no\n    less excellence in the readings in which they concur without other\n    attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or Fathers.\u201d\u2014(p.\n    219.)\n\n\nWhat! again? Why, we \u201c_have found_\u201d nothing as yet but Reiteration. Up to\nthis point we have not been favoured with one particle of Evidence!... In\nthe meantime, the convictions of these accomplished Critics,\u2014(but not,\nunfortunately, those of their Readers,)\u2014are observed to strengthen as they\nproceed. On reaching p. 224, we are assured that,\n\n\n    \u201cThe independence [of B and \u05d0] can be carried back so far,\u201d\u2014(not a\n    hint is given _how_,)\u2014\u201cthat their concordant testimony may be\n    treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than \u05d0 and B\n    themselves by at least two centuries,\u2014_probably_ by a generation\n    or two more.\u201d\n\n\nHow _that_ \u201cindependence\u201d was established, and how _this_ \u201cprobability\u201d\nhas been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. The point to be attended to\nhowever, is, that by the process indicated, some such early epoch as A.D.\n100 has been reached. So that now we are not surprised to hear that,\n\n\n    \u201cThe respective ancestries of \u05d0 and B must have diverged from a\n    common parent _extremely near the Apostolic autographs_.\u201d\u2014(p. 220.\n    See top of p. 221.)\n\n\nOr that,\u2014\u201c_The close approach to the time of the autographs_ raises the\npresumption of purity to an unusual strength.\u201d\u2014(p. 224.)\n\nAnd lo, before we turn the leaf, this \u201cpresumption\u201d is found to have\nripened into certainty:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThis general immunity from substantive error ... in the common\n    original of \u05d0 B, in conjunction with its very high antiquity,\n    provides in a multitude of cases _a safe criterion of genuineness,\n    not to be distrusted_ except on very clear internal evidence.\n    Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Readings of \u05d0 B _should\n    be accepted as the true Readings_ until strong internal evidence\n    is found to the contrary; and (2), _That no Readings of_ \u05d0 B _can\n    be safely rejected absolutely_.\u201d\u2014(p. 225.)\n\n\nXLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process of Reiteration,\naccompanied by a boundless exercise of the Imaginative faculty, we have\nreached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending:\nviz. the absolute supremacy of codices B and \u05d0 above all other\ncodices,\u2014and, when they differ, then of codex B.\n\nAnd yet, the \u201cimmunity from substantive error\u201d of a _lost_ Codex of\n_imaginary_ date and _unknown_ history, cannot but be a pure\nimagination,\u2014(a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)\u2014of these\nrespected Critics: while their proposed practical inference from it,\u2014(viz.\nto regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as\n\u201c_a safe criterion of genuineness_,\u201d)\u2014this, at all events, is the reverse\nof logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of \u05d0 and B\nto the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no longer\nmatter of conjecture:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe ancestries of both MSS. having started from a common source\n    _not much later than the Autographs_,\u201d &c.\u2014(p. 247.)\n\n\nAnd again:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201c_Near as the divergence_ of the respective ancestries of B and \u05d0\n    _must have been to the Autographs_,\u201d &c.\u2014(p. 273.)\n\n\nUntil at last, we find it announced as a \u201cmoral certainty:\u201d\u2014\n\n\n    \u201c_It is morally certain_ that the ancestries of B and \u05d0 _diverged\n    from a point near the Autographs_, and never came into contact\n    subsequently.\u201d\u2014(_Text_, p. 556.)\n\n\nAfter which, of course, we have no right to complain if we are assured\nthat:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that\n    their pre-eminent relative _purity_ is approximately\n    _absolute_,\u2014_a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the\n    Autographs_\u201d\u2014(p. 296.)\n\n\nXLVII. But how does it happen\u2014(we must needs repeat the enquiry, which\nhowever we make with unfeigned astonishment,)\u2014How does it come to pass\nthat a man of practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and\nperhaps as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure problem like\nthe present after this strangely incoherent, this foolish and wholly\ninconclusive fashion? One would have supposed that Dr. Hort\u2019s mathematical\ntraining would have made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had\nno idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process\nnecessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader\u2019s mind. Surely,\n(one tells oneself,) a minimum of \u201cpass\u201d Logic would have effectually\nprotected so accomplished a gentleman from making such a damaging\nexhibition of himself! For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has\nproduced _not one particle of evidence_ that his opinion concerning B and\n\u05d0 is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the circumstance\nthat, unless he is able to _demonstrate_ that those two codices, and\nespecially the former of them, has \u201cpreserved not only a very ancient\nText, but _a very pure line of ancient Text_\u201d also (p. 251), his entire\nwork, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically\nhandled, crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the\nfirst puff of wind? He cannot, surely, require telling that those who look\nfor Demonstration will refuse to put up with Rhetoric:\u2014that, with no\nthoughtful person will Assertion pass for Argument:\u2014nor mere Reiteration,\nhowever long persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof.\n\n\u201cWhen I am taking a ride with Rouser,\u201d\u2014(quietly remarked Professor Saville\nto Bodley Coxe,)\u2014\u201cI observe that, if I ever demur to any of his views,\nRouser\u2019s practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the\nsame words,\u2014_only in a louder tone of voice_\u201d ... The delicate rhetorical\ndevice thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors of the\nUniversity of Oxford; but to be familiarly recognized as an instrument of\nconviction by the learned men who dwell on the banks of the Cam. To be\nserious however.\u2014Dr. Hort has evidently failed to see that nothing short\nof a careful induction of particular instances,\u2014a system of laborious\nfootnotes, or an \u201cAppendix\u201d bristling with impregnable facts,\u2014could\nsustain the portentous weight of his fundamental position, viz. that Codex\nB is so exceptionally pure a document as to deserve to be taken as a chief\nguide in determining the Truth of Scripture.\n\nIt is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott,\u2014when he had\nto rebuild the massive central tower of a southern Cathedral, and to rear\nup thereon a lofty spire of stone,\u2014that he made preparations for the work\nwhich astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused the entire\narea to be excavated to what seemed a most unnecessary depth, and\nproceeded to lay a bed of concrete of fabulous solidity. The \u201cwise\nmaster-builder\u201d was determined that his work should last for ever. Not so\nDrs. Westcott and Hort. They are either troubled with no similar\nanxieties, or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They are\nevidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve their turn\nevery bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. Dr. Hort (as we have seen\nalready, namely in p. 252,) considers that his individual \u201cSTRONG\nPREFERENCE\u201d of one set of Readings above another, is sufficient to\ndetermine whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is pure or\nthe contrary. \u201c_Formidable arrays of_ [hostile] _Documentary evidence_,\u201d\nhe disregards and sets at defiance, when once his own \u201c_fullest\nconsideration of Internal Evidence_\u201d has \u201cpronounced certain Readings to\nbe right\u201d [p. 61].\n\nThe only indication we anywhere meet with of the actual _ground_ of Dr.\nHort\u2019s certainty, and reason of his preference, is contained in his claim\nthat,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cEvery binary group [of MSS.] _containing_ B is found to offer a\n    large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, have\n    THE RING OF GENUINENESS: while it is difficult to find any\n    Readings so attested which LOOK SUSPICIOUS after full\n    consideration.\u201d\u2014(p. 227. Also vol. i. 557\u2014where the dictum is\n    repeated.)\n\n\nXLVIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession of the ultimate\nprinciple which has determined the Text of the present edition of the N.\nT. \u201c_The ring of genuineness_\u201d! _This_ it must be which was referred to\nwhen \u201c_instinctive processes of Criticism_\u201d were vaunted; and the candid\navowal made that \u201cthe experience which is their foundation needs perpetual\ncorrection and recorrection.\u201d(729)\n\n\n    \u201cWe are obliged\u201d (say these accomplished writers) \u201cto _come to the\n    individual mind at last_.\u201d(730)\n\n\nAnd thus, behold, \u201cat last\u201d we _have_ reached the goal!... _Individual\nidiosyncrasy_,\u2014_not_ external Evidence:\u2014Readings \u201c_strongly\npreferred_,\u201d\u2014_not_ Readings _strongly attested_:\u2014\u201c_personal discernment_\u201d\n(self! still self!) _conscientiously exercising __ itself upon Codex_\nB;\u2014this is a true account of the Critical method pursued by these\naccomplished Scholars. They deliberately claim \u201c_personal discernment_\u201d as\n\u201cthe surest ground for confidence.\u201d(731) Accordingly, they judge of\nReadings by their _looks_ and by their _sound_. When, in _their_ opinion,\nwords \u201clook suspicious,\u201d words are to be rejected. If a word has \u201cthe ring\nof genuineness,\u201d\u2014(_i.e._ _if it seems to them_ to have it,)\u2014they claim\nthat the word shall pass unchallenged.\n\nXLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It\npractically dispenses with Critical aids altogether; substituting\nindividual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible\nresult: for Readings which \u201clook suspicious\u201d to one expert, may easily\n_not_ \u201clook\u201d so to another. A man\u2019s \u201cinner consciousness\u201d cannot possibly\nfurnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly does Bp.\nEllicott ridicule \u201cthe easy method of ... _using a favourite Manuscript_,\u201d\ncombined with \u201c_some supposed power of divining the Original\nText_;\u201d(732)\u2014unconscious apparently that he is thereby aiming a cruel blow\nat certain of his friends.\n\nAs for the proposed test of Truth,\u2014(the enquiry, namely, whether or no a\nreading has \u201cthe ring of genuineness\u201d)\u2014it is founded on a transparent\nmistake. The coarse operation alluded to may be described as a \u201crough and\nready\u201d expedient practised by _receivers of money_ in the way of\nself-defence, and _only_ for their own protection, lest base metal should\nbe palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an analogous\ntest for the exclusive satisfaction of _him who utters_ the suspected\narticle. We therefore disallow the proposal entirely: not, of course,\nbecause we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort\nwould attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to be fabricated;\nbut because we are fully convinced\u2014(for reasons \u201cplenty as\nblackberries\u201d)\u2014that through some natural defect, or constitutional\ninaptitude, he is not a competent judge. The man who finds \u201c_no marks of\neither Critical or Spiritual insight_\u201d (p. 135) in the only Greek Text\nwhich was known to scholars till A.D. 1831,\u2014(although he confesses that\n\u201cthe text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the IVth century is\nsubstantially identical with it\u201d(733)); and vaunts in preference \u201c_the\nbold vigour_\u201d and \u201c_refined scholarship_\u201d which is exclusively met with in\ncertain depraved uncials of the same or later date:\u2014the man who thinks it\nnot unlikely that the incident of the piercing of our SAVIOUR\u2019S side\n(\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.) was actually found in the genuine Text of\nS. Matt. xxvii. 49, _as well as_ in S. John xix. 34:(734)\u2014the man who is\nof opinion that the incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12\nverses), \u201cpresents serious differences from the diction of S. John\u2019s\nGospel,\u201d\u2014treats it as \u201can insertion in a comparatively late Western\ntext\u201d(735) and declines to retain it even within brackets, on the ground\nthat it \u201cwould fatally interrupt\u201d the course of the narrative if suffered\nto stand:\u2014the man who can deliberately separate off from the end of S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel, and print separately, S. Mark\u2019s last 12 verses, (on the\nplea that they \u201cmanifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are\ndoubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age;\u201d(736))\u2014yet who\nstraightway proceeds to annex, _as an alternative Conclusion_ (\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2),\n\u201cthe wretched supplement derived from codex L:\u201d(737)\u2014the man (lastly) who,\nin defiance of \u201csolid reason and pure taste,\u201d finds music in the \u201cutterly\nmarred\u201d \u201crhythmical arrangement\u201d of the Angels\u2019 Hymn on the night of the\nNativity:(738)\u2014such an one is not entitled to a hearing when he talks\nabout \u201c_the ring of genuineness_.\u201d He has already effectually put himself\nout of Court. He has convicted himself of a natural infirmity of\njudgment,\u2014has given proof that he labours under a peculiar Critical\ninaptitude for this department of enquiry,\u2014which renders his decrees\nnugatory, and his opinions worthless.\n\nL. But apart from all this, the Reader\u2019s attention is invited to a little\ncircumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably overlooked: but which, the\ninstant it has been stated, is observed to cause his picturesque theory to\nmelt away\u2014like a snow-wreath in the sunshine.\n\nOn reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal deformities of\ncodices B \u05d0 D L are _instances of Omission_. In the Gospels alone, B omits\n2877 words.\n\nHow,\u2014(we beg to enquire,)\u2014How will you apply your proposed test to a\n_Non-entity_? How will you ascertain whether something which _does not\nexist in the Text_ has \u201cthe ring of genuineness\u201d or not? There can be _no_\n\u201cring of genuineness,\u201d clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! Will\nany one pretend that _the omission_ of the incident of the troubling of\nthe pool has in it any \u201cring of genuineness\u201d?\u2014or dare to assert that \u201cthe\nring of genuineness\u201d is imparted to the history of our SAVIOUR\u2019S Passion,\nby the omission of His Agony in the Garden?\u2014or that the narrative of His\nCrucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord\u2019s Prayer for His murderers\nhas been _omitted_?\u2014or that \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 (\u201cfor they were afraid\u201d), has\n\u201cthe ring of genuineness\u201d as the conclusion of the last chapter of the\nGospel according to S. Mark?\n\nBut the strangest circumstance is behind. It is notorious that, on the\ncontrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit that _the omitted\nwords_ actually _have_ \u201cthe ring of genuineness.\u201d The words which he\ninsists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuous _for the very\nquality_ which (by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of\nthis, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the note at foot of\nthe present page.(739) In the meantime, the matter discoursed of may be\nconveniently illustrated by a short apologue:\u2014\n\nSomewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old church (dedicated\nto S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which\u2014according to a learned Cambridge\nDoctor\u2014were the most musical in the world. \u201cI have listened to those\nbells,\u201d (he was accustomed to say,) \u201cfor 30 years. All other bells are\ncracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the bells of S.\nBee\u2019s! _They_ alone have _the ring of genuineness_.\u201d ... Accordingly, he\npublished a treatise on Campanology, founding his theory on the musical\nproperties of the bells of S. Bee\u2019s.\u2014At this juncture, provokingly enough,\nsome one directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee\u2019s is one of\nthe few churches in that district _without_ bells: a discovery which, it\nis needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the learned Doctor\u2019s theory.\n\nLI. But enough of this. We really have at last, (be it observed,) reached\nthe end of our enquiry. Nothing comes after Dr. Hort\u2019s extravagant and\nunsupported estimate of Codices B and \u05d0. On the contrary. Those two\ndocuments are caused to cast their sombre shadows a long way ahead, and to\ndarken all our future. Dr. Hort takes leave of the subject with the\nannouncement that, whatever uncertainty may attach to the evidence for\nparticular readings,\n\n\u201c_The general course of future Criticism must be shaped by the happy\ncircumstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two MSS._ [B and\n\u05d0], of which even the less incorrupt [\u05d0] must have been of exceptional\npurity among its contemporaries: and which rise into greater pre-eminence\nof character the better the early history of the Text becomes known.\u201d\u2014(p.\n287.)\n\nIn other words, our guide assures us that in a dutiful submission to\ncodices B and \u05d0,\u2014(which, he na\u00efvely remarks, \u201c_happen likewise to be the\noldest extant_ Greek MSS. of the New Testament\u201d [p. 212],)\u2014lies all our\nhope of future progress. (Just as if we should ever have _heard_ of these\ntwo codices, had their contents come down to us written in the ordinary\ncursive character,\u2014in a dated MS. (suppose) of the XVth century!)...\nMoreover, Dr. Hort \u201cmust not hesitate to express\u201d his own robust\nconviction,\n\n\n    \u201cThat no trustworthy improvement can be effected, _except in\n    accordance with the leading Principles of method which we have\n    endeavoured to explain_.\u201d\u2014(p. 285.)\n\n\nLII. And this is the end of the matter. Behold our fate therefore:\u2014(1)\nCodices B and \u05d0, with\u2014(2) Drs. Westcott and Hort\u2019s _Introduction and Notes\non Select Readings_ in vindication of their contents! It is proposed to\nshut us up within those limits!... An uneasy suspicion however secretly\nsuggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, something may come to\nlight which will effectually dispel every dream of the new School, and\nreduce even prejudice itself to silence. So Dr. Hort hastens to frown it\ndown:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIt would be an illusion to anticipate important changes of Text\n    [_i.e._ of the Text advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort] _from any\n    acquisition of new Evidence_.\u201d\u2014(p. 285.)\n\n\nAnd yet, _why_ the anticipation of important help from the acquisition of\nfresh documentary Evidence \u201cwould be an illusion,\u201d\u2014does not appear. That\nthe recovery of certain of the exegetical works of Origen,\u2014better still,\nof Tatian\u2019s _Diatessaron_,\u2014best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of\nCodices B and \u05d0; but not, (like those two corrupt documents) derived from\none and the same depraved archetype;\u2014That any such windfall, (and it will\ncome, some of these days,) would infallibly disturb Drs. Westcott and\nHort\u2019s equanimity, as well as scatter to the winds not a few of their most\nconfident conclusions,\u2014we are well aware. _So indeed are they._ Hence,\nwhat those Critics earnestly deprecate, _we_ as earnestly desire. We are\ntherefore by no means inclined to admit, that\n\n\n    \u201cGreater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact study of\n    the relations between the documents that we already\n    possess;\u201d\u2014(_Ibid._)\n\n\nknowing well that \u201c_the documents_\u201d referred to are chiefly, (if not\nsolely,) _Codices_ B _and_ \u05d0: knowing also, that it is further meant, that\nin estimating other evidence, of whatever kind, the only thing to be\nenquired after is whether or no the attesting document _is generally in\nagreement with codex_ B.\n\nFor, according to these writers,\u2014tide what tide,\u2014codex B is to be the\nstandard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation from _any_\nextraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (but it is, as usual, _mere_\nassertion,) that,\n\n\n    \u201c_Even when_ B _stands quite alone_, its readings must never be\n    lightly rejected.\u201d\u2014(p. 557.)\n\n\nAnd yet,\u2014_Why_ a reading found _only in codex_ B should experience greater\nindulgence than another reading found _only in codex_ A, we entirely fail\nto see.\n\n\n    On the other hand, \u201c_an unique criterion_ is supplied by the\n    concord of the independent attestation of B and \u05d0.\u201d\u2014(_Notes_, p.\n    46.)\n\n\nBut pray, how does _that_ appear? Since B and \u05d0 are derived from one and\nthe same original\u2014Why should not \u201cthe concord\u201d spoken of be rather \u201can\nunique criterion\u201d_ of the utter depravity of the archetype_?\n\nLIII. To conclude. We have already listened to Dr. Hort long enough. And\nnow, since confessedly, a chain is no stronger than it is at its weakest\nlink; nor an edifice more secure than the basis whereon it stands;\u2014we must\nbe allowed to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a dream,\npure and simple; from which it is high time that we should wake up, now\nthat we have been plainly shown on what an unsubstantial foundation these\nEditors have been all along building. A child\u2019s house, several stories\nhigh, constructed out of playing-cards,\u2014is no unapt image of the frail\nerection before us. We began by carefully lifting off the topmost story;\nand then, the next: but we might as well have saved ourselves the trouble.\nThe basement-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole\nedifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved\nassertions which go before, we assert as follows:\u2014\n\n(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and \u05d0 is not a matter\nof opinion, but a matter of fact.(740) These are two of the least\ntrustworthy documents in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort\u2019s\nposition that\u2014\u201cA Text formed\u201d by \u201ctaking Codex B as the sole authority,\u201d\n\u201cwould be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from\nany other Greek or other single document\u201d (p. 251),\u2014we venture to assert\nthat it would be, on the contrary, _by far the foulest Text that had ever\nseen the light_: worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs.\nWestcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal. In the brave and\nfaithful words of Prebendary Scrivener (_Introduction_, p. 453),\u2014words\nwhich deserve to become famous,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIt is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the\n    worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been\n    subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was\n    composed: that Iren\u00e6us [A.D. 150], and the African Fathers, and\n    the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far\n    inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or\n    Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus\n    Receptus.\u201d\n\n\nAnd Codices B and \u05d0 are, demonstrably, nothing else but _specimens of the\ndepraved class thus characterized_.\n\nNext\u2014(2), We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and\n_exclusively_ exhibited by codices B and \u05d0,(741) that instead of accepting\nthese codices as two \u201cindependent\u201d Witnesses to the inspired Original, we\nare constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction\nof one and the same scandalously corrupt and (_comparatively_) late Copy.\nBy consequence, we consider their joint and exclusive attestation of any\nparticular reading, \u201c_an unique criterion_\u201d of its worthlessness; a\nsufficient reason\u2014_not_ for adopting, but\u2014for unceremoniously rejecting\nit.\n\nThen\u2014(3), As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only\nbe divined from their contents. That they exhibit fabricated Texts is\ndemonstrable. No amount of honest _copying_,\u2014persevered in for any number\nof centuries,\u2014could by possibility have resulted in two such documents.\nSeparated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100\nyears,(742) they must needs have branched off from a common corrupt\nancestor, and straightway become exposed continuously to fresh depraving\ninfluences. The result is, that codex \u05d0, (which evidently has gone through\nmore adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival,) has been\ncorrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more\nuntrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings\n_quite peculiar to itself_, affecting 858 words,\u2014\u05d0 has 1460 such Readings,\naffecting 2640 words.\n\nOne _solid fact_ like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in passing,)\nis more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the\nvalue of a Codex, than any number of such \u201creckless and unverified\nassertions,\u201d not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the\nhighly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort.\n\n(4) Lastly,\u2014We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their\npreservation, _solely to their ascertained evil character_; which has\noccasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a\nforgotten shelf in the Vatican library: while the other, after exercising\nthe ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually\n(viz. in A.D. 1844(743)) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the\nConvent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had B and \u05d0 been copies of average\npurity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books\nwhich are freely _used_ and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen\ninto decadence and disappeared from sight. But in the meantime, behold,\ntheir very Antiquity has come to be reckoned to their advantage; and\n(strange to relate) is even considered to constitute a sufficient reason\nwhy they should enjoy not merely extraordinary consideration, but the\nactual surrender of the critical judgment. Since 1831, Editors have vied\nwith one another in the fulsomeness of the homage they have paid to these\n\u201ctwo false Witnesses,\u201d\u2014for such B and \u05d0 _are_, as the concurrent testimony\nof Copies, Fathers and Versions abundantly proves. Even superstitious\nreverence has been claimed for these two codices: and Drs. Westcott and\nHort are so far in advance of their predecessors in the servility of their\nblind adulation, that they must be allowed to have easily won the race.\n\nLIV. With this,\u2014so far as the Greek Text under review is concerned,\u2014we\nmight, were we so minded, reasonably make an end. We undertook to show\nthat Drs. Westcott and Hort, in the volumes before us, have built up an\nutterly worthless Textual fabric; and we consider that we have already\nsufficiently shown it. The Theory,\u2014the Hypothesis rather, on which their\nText is founded, we have _demonstrated_ to be _simply absurd_. Remove that\nhypothesis, and a heap of unsightly ruins is all that is left\nbehind,\u2014except indeed astonishment (not unmingled with concern) at the\nsimplicity of its accomplished Authors.\n\nHere then, we might leave off. But we are unwilling so to leave the\nmatter. Large consideration is due to ordinary English Readers; who must\nperforce look on with utter perplexity\u2014not to say distress\u2014at the strange\nspectacle presented by _that_ Text (which is in the main _the Text of the\nRevised English Version_) on the one hand,\u2014and _this_ Review of it, on the\nother:\u2014\n\n(1) \u201cAnd pray, which of you am I to believe?\u201d\u2014will inevitably be, in\nhomely English, the exclamation with which not a few will lay down the\npresent number of the \u201c_Quarterly_.\u201d \u201cI pretend to no learning. I am not\nprepared to argue the question with you. But surely, the oldest Manuscript\n_must_ be the purest! It even stands to reason: does it not?\u2014Then further,\nI admit that you _seem_ to have the best of the argument so far; yet,\nsince the three most famous Editors of modern times are against\nyou,\u2014Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,\u2014excuse me if I suspect that you\n_must_ be in the wrong, after all.\u201d\n\nLV. With unfeigned humility, the Reviewer [_Q. R._] proceeds to explain\nthe matter to his supposed Objector [_S. O._], in briefest outline, as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n_Q. R._ \u201cYou are perfectly right. The oldest Manuscript _must_ exhibit the\npurest text: _must_ be the most trustworthy. But then, unfortunately, it\nhappens that _we do not possess it_. \u2018The oldest Manuscript\u2019 is lost. You\nspeak, of course, of the inspired Autographs. These, I say, have long\nsince disappeared.\u201d\n\n(2) _S. O._ \u201cNo, I meant to say that the _oldest Manuscript we possess_,\nif it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest.\u201d\n\n_Q. R._ \u201cO, but _that_ is an entirely different proposition. Well, _apart\nfrom experience_, the probability that the oldest copy extant will prove\nthe purest is, if you please, considerable. Reflection will convince you\nhowever that it is _but_ a probability, at the utmost: a probability based\nupon more than one false assumption,\u2014with which nevertheless you shall not\nbe troubled. But in fact it clearly does not by any means follow that,\n_because_ a MS. is very ancient, _therefore_ the Text, which it exhibits\nwill be very pure. That you may be thoroughly convinced of this,\u2014(and it\nis really impossible for your mind to be too effectually disabused of a\nprepossession which has fatally misled so many,)\u2014you are invited to\nenquire for a recent contribution to the learned French publication\nindicated at the foot of this page,(744) in which is exhibited a\nfac-simile of 8 lines of the _Medea_ of Euripides (ver. 5-12), written\nabout B.C. 200 in small uncials (at Alexandria probably,) on papyrus.\nCollated with any printed copy, the verses, you will find, have been\npenned with scandalous, with incredible inaccuracy. But on this head let\nthe learned Editor of the document in question be listened to, rather than\nthe present Reviewer:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cOn voit que le texte du papyrus est h\u00e9riss\u00e9 des fautes les plus\n    graves. _Le plus r\u00e9cent et le plus mauvais de nos manuscrits\n    d\u2019Euripide vaut infiniment mieux que cette copie,\u2014faite, il y a\n    deux mille ans, dans le pays o\u00f9 florissaient l\u2019\u00e9rudition\n    hell\u00e9nique et la Critique des textes._\u201d(745)\u2014(p. 17.)\n\n\n\u201cWhy, the author of the foregoing remarks might have been writing\nconcerning Codex B!\u201d\n\n(3) _S. O._ \u201cYes: but I want _Christian_ evidence. The author of that\nscrap of papyrus _may_ have been an illiterate slave. What if it should be\na _school-boy\u2019s exercise_ which has come down to us? The thing is not\nimpossible.\u201d\n\n_Q. R._ \u201cNot \u2018impossible\u2019 certainly: but surely highly improbable.\nHowever, let it drop. You insist on Christian evidence. You shall have it.\nWhat think you then of the following statement of a very ancient Father\n(Caius(746)) writing against the heresy of Theodotus and others who denied\nthe Divinity of CHRIST? He is bearing his testimony to the liberties which\nhad been freely taken with the Text of the New Testament in his own time,\nviz. about A.D. 175-200:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe Divine Scriptures,\u201d he says, \u201cthese heretics have audaciously\n    _corrupted_: ... laying violent hands upon them under pretence of\n    _correcting_ them. That I bring no false accusation, any one who\n    is disposed may easily convince himself. He has but to collect the\n    copies belonging to these persons severally; then, to compare one\n    with another; and he will discover that their discrepancy is\n    extraordinary. Those of Asclepiades, at all events, will be found\n    discordant from those of Theodotus. Now, plenty of specimens of\n    either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as these men\u2019s disciples have\n    industriously multiplied the (so-called) \u2018_corrected_\u2019 copies of\n    their respective teachers, which are in reality nothing else but\n    \u2018_corrupted_\u2019 copies. With the foregoing copies again, those of\n    Hermophilus will be found entirely at variance. As for the copies\n    of Apollonides, they even contradict one another. Nay, let any one\n    compare the fabricated text which these persons put forth in the\n    first instance, with that which exhibits their _latest_\n    perversions of the Truth, and he will discover that the\n    disagreement between them is even excessive.\n\n    \u201cOf the enormity of the offence of which these men have been\n    guilty, they must needs themselves be fully aware. Either they do\n    not believe that the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of the\n    HOLY GHOST,\u2014in which case they are to be regarded as unbelievers:\n    or else, they account themselves wiser than the HOLY GHOST,\u2014and\n    what is that, but to have the faith of devils? As for their\n    denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, seeing that the\n    copies under discussion are their own actual handywork; and they\n    know full well that not such as these are the Scriptures which\n    they received at the hands of their catechetical teachers. Else,\n    let them produce the originals from which they made their\n    transcripts. Certain of them indeed have not even condescended to\n    falsify Scripture, but entirely reject Law and Prophets\n    alike.\u201d(747)\n\n\n\u201cNow, the foregoing statement is in a high decree suggestive. For here is\nan orthodox Father _of the IInd century_ inviting attention to four\nwell-known families of falsified manuscripts of the Sacred\nWritings;\u2014complaining of the hopeless divergences which they exhibit\n(being not only inconsistent with one another, but _with themselves_);\u2014and\ninsisting that such _corrected_, are nothing else but shamefully\n_corrupted_ copies. He speaks of the phenomenon as being in his day\nnotorious: and appeals to Recensions, the very names of whose\nauthors\u2014Theodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, Apollonides\u2014have (all but the\nfirst) long since died out of the Church\u2019s memory. You will allow\ntherefore, (will you not?), that by this time the claim of the _oldest\nexisting copies_ of Scripture to be the purest, has been effectually\ndisposed of. For since there once prevailed such a multitude of corrupted\ncopies, we have no security whatever that the oldest of our extant MSS.\nare not derived\u2014remotely if not directly\u2014from some of _them_.\u201d\n\n(4) _S. O._ \u201cBut at all events the chances are even. Are they not?\u201d\n\n_Q. R._ \u201cBy no means. A copy like codex B, once _recognized_ as belonging\nto a corrupt family,\u2014once _known_ to contain a depraved exhibition of the\nSacred Text,\u2014was more likely by far to remain unused, and so to escape\ndestruction, than a copy highly prized and in daily use.\u2014As for Codex \u05d0,\nit carries on its face its own effectual condemnation; aptly illustrating\nthe precept _fiat experimentum in corpore vili_. It exhibits the efforts\nof many generations of men to restore its Text,\u2014(which, \u2018as proceeding\nfrom the first scribe,\u2019 is admitted by one of its chief admirers to be\n\u2018_very rough_,(748)\u2019)\u2014to something like purity. \u2018_At least ten different\nRevisers_,\u2019 from the IVth to the XIIth century, are found to have tried\ntheir hands upon it.(749)\u2014Codex C, after having had \u2018at least three\ncorrectors very busily at work upon it\u2019(750) (in the VIth and IXth\ncenturies), finally (in the XIIth) was fairly _obliterated_,\u2014literally\n_scraped out_,\u2014to make room for the writings of a Syrian Father.\u2014I am\ntherefore led by _\u00e0 priori_ considerations to augur ill of the contents of\nB \u05d0 C. But when I find them hopelessly at variance _among themselves_:\nabove all, when I find (1) _all other Manuscripts_ of whatever date,\u2014(2)\nthe _most ancient Versions_,\u2014and (3), the _whole body of the primitive\nFathers_, decidedly opposed to them,\u2014I am (to speak plainly) at a loss to\nunderstand how any man of sound understanding, acquainted with all the\nfacts of the case and accustomed to exact reasoning, can hesitate to\nregard the unsupported (or the _slenderly_ supported) testimony of one or\nother of them as _simply worthless_. The craven homage which the foremost\nof the three habitually receives at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort, I\ncan only describe as a weak superstition. It is something more than\nunreasonable. It becomes even ridiculous.\u2014Tischendorf\u2019s preference (in his\nlast edition) for the _b\u00eatises_ of his own codex \u05d0, can only be defended\non the plea of parental partiality. But it is not on that account the less\nfoolish. His \u2018exaggerated preference for the single manuscript which he\nhad the good fortune to discover, _has betrayed him_\u2019\u2014(in the opinion of\nBishop Ellicott)\u2014\u2018_into an almost child-like infirmity of critical\njudgment_\u2019 \u201d(751)\n\n(5) _O. S._ \u201cWell but,\u2014be all _that_ as it may,\u2014Caius, remember, is\nspeaking of _heretical_ writers. When I said \u2018I want Christian evidence,\u2019\nI meant _orthodox_ evidence, of course. You would not assert (would you?)\nthat B and \u05d0 exhibit traces of _heretical_ depravation?\u201d\n\n_Q. R._ \u201cReserving my opinion on that last head, good Sir, and determined\nto enjoy the pleasure of your company on any reasonable terms,\u2014(for\nconvince you, I both can and will, though you prolong the present\ndiscussion till tomorrow morning,)\u2014I have to ask a little favour of you:\nviz. that you will bear me company in an imaginary expedition.\n\n\u201cI request that the clock of history may be put back seventeen hundred\nyears. This is A.D. 183, if you please: and\u2014(indulge me in the\nsupposition!)\u2014you and I are walking in Alexandria. We have reached the\nhouse of one Clemens,\u2014a learned Athenian, who has long been a resident\nhere. Let us step into his library,\u2014he is from home. What a queer place!\nSee, he has been reading his Bible, which is open at S. Mark x. Is it not\na well-used copy? It must be at least 50 or 60 years old. Well, but\nsuppose only 30 or 40. It was executed therefore _within fifty years of\nthe death of S. John the Evangelist_. Come, let us transcribe two of the\ncolumns(752) (\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2) as faithfully as we possibly can, and be off.... We\nare back in England again, and the clock has been put right. Now let us\nsit down and examine our curiosity at leisure.(753)... It proves on\ninspection to be a transcript of the 15 verses (ver. 17 to ver. 31) which\nrelate to the coming of the rich young Ruler to our LORD.\n\n\u201cWe make a surprising discovery. There are but 297 words in those 15\nverses,\u2014according to the traditional Text: of which, in the copy which\nbelonged to Clemens Alexandrinus, 39 prove to have been left out: 11 words\nare added: 22, substituted: 27, transposed: 13, varied; and the phrase has\nbeen altered at least 8 times. Now, 112 words out of a total of 297, is 38\nper cent. What do you think of _that_?\u201d\n\n(6) _S. O._ \u201cThink? O but, I disallow your entire proceeding! You have no\nbusiness to collate with \u2018a text of late and degenerate type, such as is\nthe Received Text of the New Testament.\u2019 When _this_ \u2018is taken as a\nstandard, any document belonging to a purer stage of the Text must by the\nnature of the case have the appearance of being guilty of omissions: and\nthe nearer the document stands to the autograph, the more numerous must be\nthe omissions laid to its charge.\u2019 I learnt that from Westcott and Hort.\nSee page 235 of their luminous _Introduction_.\u201d\n\n_Q. R._ \u201cBe it so! Collate the passage then for yourself with the Text of\nDrs. Westcott and Hort: which, (remember!) aspires to reproduce \u2018the\nautographs themselves\u2019 \u2018with the utmost exactness which the evidence\npermits\u2019 (pp. 288 and 289).(754) You will find that _this_ time the words\nomitted amount to 44. The words added are 13: the words substituted, 23:\nthe words transposed, 34: the words varied 16. And the phrase has been\naltered 9 times at least. But, 130 on a total of 297, is 44 per cent. You\nwill also bear in mind that Clement of Alexandria is one of our principal\nauthorities for the Text of the Ante-Nicene period.(755)\n\n\u201cAnd thus, I venture to presume, the imagination has been at last\neffectually disposed of, that _because_ Codices B and \u05d0 are the two oldest\nGreek copies in existence, the Text exhibited by either must _therefore_\nbe the purest Text which is anywhere to be met with. _It is impossible to\nproduce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is contained in a\ndocument full two centuries older than either _B_ or \u05d0,\u2014itself the\nproperty of one of the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers._\u201d\n\nLVI.\u2014(7) At this stage of the argument, the Reviewer finds himself taken\naside by a friendly Critic [_F. C._], and privately remonstrated with\nsomewhat as follows:\u2014\n\n_F. C._ \u201cDo you consider, Sir, what it is you are about? Surely, you have\nbeen proving a vast deal too much! If the foregoing be a fair sample of\nthe Text of the N. T. with which Clemens Alex. was best acquainted, it is\nplain that the testimony to the Truth of Scripture borne by one of the\nmost ancient and most famous of the Fathers, is absolutely worthless. Is\n_that_ your own deliberate conviction or not?\u201d\n\n_Q. R._ \u201cFinish what you have to say, Sir. After that, you shall have a\nfull reply.\u201d\n\n(8) _F. C._ \u201cWell then. Pray understand, I nothing doubt that in your main\ncontention you are right; but I yet cannot help thinking that this\nbringing in of a famous ancient Father\u2014_obiter_\u2014is a very damaging\nproceeding. What else is such an elaborate exposure of the badness of the\nText which Clemens (A.D. 150) employed, but the hopeless perplexing of a\nquestion which was already sufficiently thorny and difficult? You have, as\nit seems to me, imported into these 15 verses an entirely fresh crop of\n\u2018Various Readings.\u2019 Do you seriously propose them as a contribution\ntowards ascertaining the _ipsissima verba_ of the Evangelist,\u2014the true\ntext of S. Mark x. 17-31?\u201d\n\n_Q. R._ \u201cCome back, if you please, Sir, to the company. Fully appreciating\nthe friendly spirit in which you just now drew me aside, I yet insist on\nso making my reply that all the world shall hear it. Forgive my plainness:\nbut you are evidently profoundly unacquainted with the problem before\nyou,\u2014in which however you do not by any means enjoy the distinction of\nstanding alone.\n\n\u201cThe foulness of a Text which must have been penned within 70 or 80 years\nof the death of the last of the Evangelists, is a matter of fact\u2014which\nmust be loyally accepted, and made the best of. The phenomenon is\nsurprising certainly; and may well be a warning to all who (like Dr.\nTregelles) regard as oracular the solitary unsupported dicta of a\nWriter,\u2014provided only he can claim to have lived in the IInd or IIIrd\ncentury. To myself it occasions no sort of inconvenience. You are to be\ntold that the exorbitances of a _single_ Father,\u2014as Clemens; a _single_\nVersion,\u2014as the Egyptian: a _single_ Copy,\u2014as cod. B, are of no manner of\nsignificancy or use, except as warnings: are of no manner of interest,\nexcept as illustrating the depravation which systematically assailed the\nwritten Word in the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic: _are,\nin fact, of no __ importance whatever_. To make them the basis of an\ninduction is preposterous. It is not allowable to infer the universal from\nthe particular. If the bones of Goliath were to be discovered to-morrow,\nwould you propose as an induction therefrom that it was the fashion to\nwear four-and-twenty fingers and toes on one\u2019s hands and feet in the days\nof the giant of Gath? All the wild readings of the lost Codex before us\nmay be unceremoniously dismissed. The critical importance and value of\nthis stray leaf from a long-since-vanished Copy is entirely different, and\nremains to be explained.\n\n\u201cYou are to remember then,\u2014perhaps you have yet to learn,\u2014that there are\nbut 25 occasions in the course of these 15 verses, on which either\nLachmann (L.), or Tischendorf (T.), or Tregelles (Tr.), or Westcott and\nHort (W. H.), or our Revisionists (R. T.), advocate a departure from the\nTraditional Text. To those 25 places therefore our attention is now to be\ndirected,\u2014on them, our eyes are to be riveted,\u2014exclusively. And the first\nthing which strikes us as worthy of notice is, that the 5 authorities\nabove specified fall into no fewer than _twelve_ distinct combinations in\ntheir advocacy of certain of those 25 readings: holding all 5 together\n_only 4 times_.(756) The one question of interest therefore which arises,\nis this,\u2014What amount of sanction do any of them experience at the hands of\nClemens Alexandrinus?\n\n\u201cI answer,\u2014_Only on 3 occasions does he agree with any of them._(757) The\nresult of a careful analysis shows further that _he sides with the\nTraditional Text_ 17 _times:\u2014witnessing against Lachmann, 9 times: against\nTischendorf, 10 times: against Tregelles, 11 times: against Westcott and\nHort, 12 times._(758)\n\n\u201cSo far therefore from admitting that \u2018the Testimony of Clemens Al.\u2014one of\nthe most ancient and most famous of the Fathers\u2014is absolutely\nworthless,\u2019\u2014I have proved it to be _of very great value_. Instead of\n\u2018hopelessly perplexing the question,\u2019 his Evidence is found to have\n_simplified matters considerably_. So far from \u2018importing into these 15\nverses a fresh crop of Various Readings,\u2019 he has _helped us to get rid of\nno less than_ 17 of the existing ones.... \u2018Damaging\u2019 his evidence has\ncertainly proved: but _only to Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_, _Tregelles_,\n_Westcott and Hort and our ill-starred Revisionists_. And yet it remains\nundeniably true, that \u2018it is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of\nS. Mark x. 17-31 than is met with in a document full two centuries older\nthan either B or \u05d0,\u2014the property of one of the most famous of the\nFathers.\u2019(759) ... Have you anything further to ask?\u201d\n\n(9) _F. C._ \u201cI should certainly like, in conclusion, to be informed\nwhether we are to infer that the nearer we approach to the date of the\nsacred Autographs, the more corrupt we shall find the copies. For, if so,\npray\u2014Where and when did purity of Text begin?\u201d\n\n_Q. R._ \u201cYou are not at liberty, logically, to draw any such inference\nfrom the premisses. The purest documents of all existed perforce in the\nfirst century: _must_ have then existed. The spring is perforce purest at\nits source. My whole contention has been, and is,\u2014That there is nothing at\nall unreasonable in the supposition that two stray copies of the IVth\ncentury,\u2014coming down to our own times without a history and without a\ncharacter,\u2014_may_ exhibit a thoroughly depraved text. _More_ than this does\nnot follow lawfully from the premisses. At the outset, remember, you\ndelivered it as your opinion that \u2018_the oldest Manuscript we possess, if\nit be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest_.\u2019 I asserted, in\nreply, that \u2018it does not by any means follow, _because_ a manuscript is\nvery ancient, that _therefore_ its text will be very pure\u2019 (p. 321); and\nall that I have been since saying, has but had for its object to prove the\ntruth of my assertion. Facts have been incidentally elicited, I admit,\ncalculated to inspire distrust, rather than confidence, in very ancient\ndocuments generally. But I am neither responsible for these facts; nor for\nthe inferences suggested by them.\n\n\u201cAt all events, I have to request that you will not carry away so entirely\nerroneous a notion as that I am the advocate for _Recent_, in preference\nto _Ancient_, Evidence concerning the Text of Scripture. Be so obliging as\nnot to say concerning me that I \u2018_count_\u2019 instead of \u2018_weighing_\u2019 my\nwitnesses. If you have attended to the foregoing pages, and have\nunderstood them, you must by this time be aware that _in every instance_\nit is to ANTIQUITY that I persistently make my appeal. I abide by its\nsentence, and I require that you shall do the same.\n\n\u201cYou and your friends, on the contrary, reject _the Testimony of\nAntiquity_. You set up, instead, some idol of your own. Thus, Tregelles\nworshipped \u2018codex B.\u2019 But \u2018codex B\u2019 is not \u2018Antiquity\u2019!\u2014Tischendorf\nassigned the place of honour to \u2018codex \u05d0.\u2019 But once more, \u2018codex \u05d0\u2019 is not\n\u2018Antiquity\u2019!\u2014You rejoice in the decrees of the VIth-century-codex D,\u2014and\nof the VIIIth-century-codex L,\u2014and of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth century\ncodices, 1, 33, 69. But will you venture to tell me that any of these are\n\u2018Antiquity\u2019? _Samples_ of Antiquity, at best, are any of these. No more!\nBut then, it is demonstrable that they are _unfair_ samples. Why are you\nregardless of _all other_ COPIES?\u2014So, with respect to VERSIONS, and\nFATHERS. You single out one or two,\u2014the one or two which suit your\npurpose; and you are for rejecting all the rest. But, once more,\u2014The\n_Coptic_ version is not \u2018Antiquity,\u2019\u2014neither is _Origen_ \u2018Antiquity.\u2019 The\n_Syriac_ Version is a full set-off against the former,\u2014_Iren\u00e6us_ more than\ncounterbalances the latter. Whatever is found in one of these ancient\nauthorities must confessedly be AN \u2018ancient Reading:\u2019 but it does not\ntherefore follow that it is THE ancient Reading of the place. Now, it is\nTHE _ancient Reading_, of which we are always in search. And he who\nsincerely desires to ascertain what actually is _the Witness of\nAntiquity_,\u2014(_i.e._, what is the prevailing testimony of all the oldest\ndocuments,)\u2014will begin by casting his prejudices and his predilections to\nthe winds, and will devote himself conscientiously to an impartial survey\nof the whole field of Evidence.\u201d\n\n_F. C._ \u201cWell but,\u2014you have once and again admitted that the phenomena\nbefore us are extraordinary. Are you able to explain how it comes to pass\nthat such an one as Clemens Alexandrinus employed such a scandalously\ncorrupt copy of the Gospels as we have been considering?\u201d\n\n_Q. R._ \u201cYou are quite at liberty to ask me any question you choose. And\nI, for my own part, am willing to return you the best answer I am able.\nYou will please to remember however, that the phenomena will\nremain,\u2014however infelicitous my attempts to explain them may seem to\nyourself. My view of the matter then\u2014(think what you will about it!)\u2014is as\nfollows:\u2014\n\nLVII. \u201cVanquished by THE WORD_ Incarnate_, Satan next directed his subtle\nmalice against _the Word written_. Hence, as I think,\u2014_hence_ the\nextraordinary fate which befel certain early transcripts of the Gospel.\nFirst, heretical assailants of Christianity,\u2014then, orthodox defenders of\nthe Truth,\u2014lastly and above all, self-constituted Critics, who (like Dr.\nHort) imagined themselves at liberty to resort to \u2018instinctive processes\u2019\nof Criticism; and who, at first as well as \u2018at last,\u2019 freely made their\nappeal \u2018to the individual mind:\u2019\u2014_such_ were the corrupting influences\nwhich were actively at work throughout the first hundred and fifty years\nafter the death of S. John the Divine. Profane literature has never known\nanything approaching to it,\u2014can show nothing at all like it. Satan\u2019s arts\nwere defeated indeed through the Church\u2019s faithfulness, because,\u2014(the good\nProvidence of GOD had so willed it,)\u2014the perpetual multiplication, in\nevery quarter, of copies required for Ecclesiastical use,\u2014not to say the\nsolicitude of faithful men in diverse regions of ancient Christendom to\nretain for themselves unadulterated specimens of the inspired Text,\u2014proved\na sufficient safeguard against the grosser forms of corruption. But this\nwas not all.\n\n\u201cThe Church, remember, hath been from the beginning the \u2018Witness and\nKeeper of Holy Writ.\u2019(760) Did not her Divine Author pour out upon her, in\nlargest measure, \u2018the SPIRIT of Truth;\u2019 and pledge Himself that it should\nbe that SPIRIT\u2019S special function to \u2018guide\u2019_ her children _\u2018into all the\nTruth\u2019(761)?... That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Manuscripts would be\nprotected all down the ages against depraving influences of whatever\nsort,\u2014was not to have been expected; certainly, was never promised. But\nthe Church, in her collective capacity, hath nevertheless\u2014as a matter of\nfact\u2014been perpetually purging herself of those shamefully depraved copies\nwhich once everywhere abounded within her pale: retaining only such an\namount of discrepancy in her Text as might serve to remind her children\nthat they carry their \u2018treasure in earthen vessels,\u2019\u2014as well as to\nstimulate them to perpetual watchfulness and solicitude for the purity and\nintegrity of the Deposit. Never, however, up to the present hour, hath\nthere been any complete eradication of all traces of the attempted\nmischief,\u2014any absolute getting rid of every depraved copy extant. These\nare found to have lingered on anciently in many quarters. _A few such\ncopies linger on to the present day._ The wounds were healed, but the\nscars remained,\u2014nay, the scars are discernible still.\n\n\u201cWhat, in the meantime, is to be thought of those blind guides\u2014those\ndeluded ones\u2014who would now, if they could, persuade us to go back to those\nsame codices of which the Church hath already purged herself? to go back\nin quest of those very Readings which, 15 or 1600 years ago, the Church\n_in all lands_ is found to have rejected with loathing? Verily, it is\n\u2018happening unto them according to the true proverb\u2019\u2014which S. Peter sets\ndown in his 2nd Epistle,\u2014chapter ii. verse 22. To proceed however.\n\n\u201cAs for Clemens,\u2014he lived at the very time and in the very country where\nthe mischief referred to was most rife. For full two centuries after his\nera, heretical works were so industriously multiplied, that in a diocese\nconsisting of 800 parishes (viz. Cyrus in Syria), the Bishop (viz.\nTheodoret, who was appointed in A.D. 423,) complains that he found no less\nthan 200 copies of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian the heretic,\u2014(Tatian\u2019s date\nbeing A.D. 173,)\u2014honourably preserved in the Churches of his (Theodoret\u2019s)\ndiocese, and mistaken by the orthodox for an authentic performance.(762)\nClemens moreover would seem to have been a trifle too familiar with the\nworks of Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Heracleon, and the rest of the\nGnostic crew. He habitually mistakes apocryphal writings for inspired\nScripture:(763) and\u2014with corrupted copies always at hand and before him\u2014he\nis just the man to present us with a quotation like the present, and\nstraightway to volunteer the assurance that he found it \u2018so written in the\nGospel according to S. Mark.\u2019(764) The archetype of Codices B and\n\u05d0,\u2014especially the archetype from which Cod. D was copied,\u2014is discovered to\nhave experienced adulteration largely from the same pestilential source\nwhich must have corrupted the copies with which Clement (and his pupil\nOrigen after him) were most familiar.\u2014And thus you have explained to you\nthe reason of the disgust and indignation with which I behold in these\nlast days a resolute attempt made to revive and to palm off upon an\nunlearned generation the old exploded errors, under the pretence that they\nare the inspired Verity itself,\u2014providentially recovered from a neglected\nshelf in the Vatican,\u2014rescued from destruction by a chance visitor to\nMount Sinai.\u201d\n\n_F. C._ \u201cWill you then, in conclusion, tell us how _you_ would have us\nproceed in order to ascertain the Truth of Scripture?\u201d\n\n_Q. R._ \u201cTo answer that question fully would require a considerable\nTreatise. I will not, however, withhold a slight outline of what I\nconceive to be the only safe method of procedure. I could but _fill up_\nthat outline, and _illustrate_ that method, even if I had 500 pages at my\ndisposal.\n\nLVIII. \u201cOn first seriously applying ourselves to these studies, many years\nago, we found it wondrous difficult to divest ourselves of prepossessions\nvery like your own. Turn which way we would, we were encountered by the\nsame confident terminology:\u2014\u2018the best documents,\u2019\u2014\u2018primary\nmanuscripts,\u2019\u2014\u2018first-rate authorities,\u2019\u2014\u2018primitive evidence,\u2019\u2014\u2018ancient\nreadings,\u2019\u2014and so forth: and we found that thereby cod. A. or B,\u2014cod. C or\nD\u2014were _invariably and exclusively meant_. It was not until we had\nlaboriously collated these documents (including \u05d0) for ourselves, that we\nbecame aware of their true character. Long before coming to the end of our\ntask (and it occupied us, off and on, for eight years) we had become\nconvinced that the supposed \u2018best documents\u2019 and \u2018first-rate authorities\u2019\nare in reality among _the worst_:\u2014that these Copies deserve to be called\n\u2018primary,\u2019 only because in any enumeration of manuscripts, they stand\nforemost;\u2014and that their \u2018Evidence,\u2019 whether \u2018primitive\u2019 or not, is\n_contradictory_ throughout.\u2014_All_ Readings, lastly, we discovered are\n\u2018ancient.\u2019\n\n\u201cA diligent inspection of a vast number of later Copies scattered\nthroughout the principal libraries of Europe, and the exact Collation of a\nfew, further convinced us that the deference generally claimed for B, \u05d0,\nC, D is nothing else but a weak superstition and a vulgar error:\u2014that the\ndate of a MS. is not of its essence, but is a mere accident of the\nproblem:\u2014and that later Copies, so far from \u2018crumbling down salient\npoints, softening irregularities, conforming differences,\u2019(765) and so\nforth,\u2014on countless occasions, _and as a rule_,\u2014preserve those delicate\nlineaments and minute refinements which the \u2018old uncials\u2019 are constantly\nobserved to obliterate. And so, rising to a systematic survey of the\nentire field of Evidence, we found reason to suspect more and more the\nsoundness of the conclusions at which Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf\nhad arrived: while we seemed led, as if by the hand, to discern plain\nindications of the existence for ourselves of a far \u2018more excellent way.\u2019\n\nLIX. \u201cFor, let the ample and highly complex provision which Divine Wisdom\nhath made for the effectual conservation of that crowning master-piece of\nHis own creative skill,\u2014THE WRITTEN WORD,\u2014be duly considered; and surely a\nrecoil is inevitable from the strange perversity which in these last days\nwould shut us up within the limits of a very few documents to the neglect\nof all the rest,\u2014as though a revelation from Heaven had proclaimed that\nthe Truth is to be found exclusively in _them_. The good Providence of the\nAuthor of Scripture is discovered to have furnished His household, the\nChurch, with (speaking roughly) 1000 copies of the Gospels:\u2014with twenty\nVersions\u2014two of which go back to the beginning of Christianity: and with\nthe writings of a host of ancient Fathers. _Why_ out of those 1000 MSS.\n_two_ should be singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for special\nfavour,\u2014to the practical disregard of all the rest: _why_ Versions and\nFathers should by them be similarly dealt with,\u2014should be practically set\naside in fact in the lump,\u2014we fail to discover. Certainly the pleas urged\nby the learned Editors(766) can appear satisfactory to no one but to\nthemselves.\n\nLX. \u201cFor our method then,\u2014It is the direct contradictory to that adopted\nby the two Cambridge Professors. Moreover, it conducts us throughout to\ndirectly opposite results. We hold it to be even axiomatic that a Reading\nwhich is supported by only one document,\u2014out of the 1100 (more or less)\nalready specified,\u2014whether that solitary unit be a FATHER, a VERSION, or a\nCOPY,\u2014stands self-condemned; may be dismissed at once, without concern or\nenquiry.\n\n\u201cNor is the case materially altered if (as generally happens) a few\ncolleagues of bad character are observed to side with the else solitary\ndocument. Associated with the corrupt B, is often found the more corrupt\n\u05d0. Nay, six leaves of \u05d0 are confidently declared by Tischendorf to have\nbeen written by the scribe of B. The sympathy between these two, and the\nVersion of Lower Egypt, is even notorious. That Origen should sometimes\njoin the conspiracy,\u2014and that the same Reading should find allies in\ncertain copies of the unrevised Latin, or perhaps in Cureton\u2019s Syriac:\u2014all\n_this_ we deem the reverse of encouraging. The attesting witnesses are, in\nour account, of so suspicious a character, that the Reading cannot be\nallowed. On such occasions, we are reminded that there is truth in Dr.\nHort\u2019s dictum concerning the importance of noting the tendency of certain\ndocuments to fall into \u2018groups:\u2019 though his assertion that \u2018it cannot be\ntoo often repeated that the study of grouping is _the foundation of all\nenduring Criticism_,\u2019(767) we hold to be as absurd as it is untrue.\n\nLXI. \u201cSo far negatively.\u2014A safer, the _only_ trustworthy method, in fact,\nof ascertaining the Truth of Scripture, we hold to be the method\nwhich,\u2014without prejudice or partiality,\u2014simply ascertains WHICH FORM OF\nTHE TEXT ENJOYS THE EARLIEST, THE FULLEST, THE WIDEST, THE MOST\nRESPECTABLE, AND\u2014above all things\u2014THE MOST VARIED ATTESTATION. That a\nReading should be freely recognized alike by the earliest and by the\nlatest available evidence,\u2014we hold to be a prime circumstance in its\nfavour. That Copies, Versions, and Fathers, should all three concur in\nsanctioning it,\u2014we hold to be even more conclusive. If several Fathers,\nliving in different parts of ancient Christendom, are all observed to\nrecognize the words, or to quote them in the same way,\u2014we have met with\nall the additional confirmation we ordinarily require. Let it only be\nfurther discoverable _how_ or _why_ the rival Reading came into existence,\nand our confidence becomes absolute.\n\nLXII. \u201cAn instance which we furnished in detail in a former article,(768)\nmay be conveniently appealed to in illustration of what goes before. Our\nLORD\u2019S \u2018Agony and bloody sweat,\u2019\u2014first mentioned by Justin Martyr (A.D.\n150), is found _set down in every MS. in the world except four_. It is\nduly exhibited _by every known Version_. It is recognized by _upwards of\nforty famous Fathers_ writing without concert in remote parts of ancient\nChristendom. Whether therefore Antiquity,\u2014Variety of\ntestimony,\u2014Respectability of witnesses,\u2014or Number,\u2014is considered, the\nevidence in favour of S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 is simply overwhelming. And yet\nout of superstitious deference to _two_ Copies of bad character, Drs.\nWestcott and Hort (followed by the Revisionists) set the brand of\nspuriousness on those 26 precious words; professing themselves \u2018morally\ncertain\u2019 that this is nothing else but a \u2018Western Interpolation:\u2019 whereas,\nmistaken zeal for the honour of Incarnate JEHOVAH alone occasioned the\nsuppression of these two verses in a few early manuscripts. This has been\nexplained already,\u2014namely, in the middle of page 82.\n\nLXIII. \u201cOnly one other instance shall be cited. The traditional reading of\nS. Luke ii. 14 is vouched for by _every __ known copy of the Gospels but\nfour_\u20143 of which are of extremely bad character, viz. \u05d0 B D. The Versions\nare divided: but _not_ the Fathers: of whom _more than forty-seven_ from\nevery part of ancient Christendom,\u2014(Syria, Palestine, Alexandria, Asia\nMinor, Cyprus, Crete, Gaul,)\u2014come back to attest that the traditional\nreading (as usual) is the true one. Yet such is the infatuation of the new\nschool, that Drs. Westcott and Hort are content to make _nonsense_ of the\nAngelic Hymn on the night of the Nativity, rather than admit the\npossibility of complicity in error in \u05d0 B D: error in respect of _a single\nletter!_... The Reader is invited to refer to what has already been\noffered on this subject, from p. 41 to p. 47.\n\nLXIV. \u201cIt will be perceived therefore that the method we plead for\nconsists merely in a loyal recognition of the whole of the Evidence:\nsetting off one authority against another, laboriously and impartially;\nand adjudicating fairly between them _all_. Even so hopelessly corrupt a\ndocument as Clement of Alexandria\u2019s copy of the Gospels proves to have\nbeen\u2014(described at pp. 326-31)\u2014is by no means without critical value.\nServilely followed, it would confessedly land us in hopeless error: but,\njudiciously employed, as a set-off against _other_ evidence; regarded\nrather as a check upon the exorbitances of _other_ foul documents, (_e.g._\nB \u05d0 C and especially D); resorted to as a protection against the prejudice\nand caprice of modern Critics;\u2014that venerable document, with all its\nfaults, proves invaluable. Thus, in spite of its own aberrations, it\nwitnesses to _the truth of the Traditional Text_ of S. Mark x. 17-31\u2014(the\nplace of Scripture above referred to(769))\u2014in several important\nparticulars; siding with it against Lachmann, 9 times;\u2014against\nTischendorf, 10 times;\u2014against Tregelles, 11 times;\u2014against Westcott and\nHort, 12 times.\n\n\u201cWe deem this laborious method the only true method, in our present state\nof imperfect knowledge: the method, namely, of _adopting that Reading\nwhich has the fullest, the widest, and the most varied attestation.\nAntiquity, and Respectability of Witnesses,_ are thus secured. How men can\npersuade themselves that 19 Copies out of every 20 may be safely\ndisregarded, if they be but written in minuscule characters,\u2014we fail to\nunderstand. To ourselves it seems simply an irrational proceeding. But\nindeed we hold this to be no _seeming_ truth. The fact is absolutely\ndemonstrable. As for building up a Text, (as Drs. Westcott and Hort have\ndone,) with special superstitious deference to a _single codex,_\u2014we deem\nit about as reasonable as would be the attempt to build up a pyramid from\nits apex; in the expectation that it would stand firm on its extremity,\nand remain horizontal for ever.\u201d\n\nAnd thus much in reply to our supposed Questioner. We have now reached the\nend of a prolonged discussion, which began at page 320; more immediately,\nat page 337.\n\nLXV. In the meantime, _a pyramid balanced on its apex_ proves to be no\nunapt image of the Textual theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. When we reach\nthe end of their _Introduction_ we find we have reached the point to which\nall that went before has been evidently converging: but we make the\nfurther awkward discovery that it is the point on which all that went\nbefore absolutely _depends_ also. _Apart from_ codex B, the present theory\ncould have no existence. _But for_ codex B, it would never have been\nexcogitated. _On_ codex B, it entirely rests. _Out of_ codex B, it has\n_entirely sprung._\n\nTake away this one codex, and Dr. Hort\u2019s volume becomes absolutely without\ncoherence, purpose, meaning. _One-fifth_ of it(770) is devoted to remarks\non B and \u05d0. The fable of \u201cthe _Syrian_ text\u201d is invented solely for the\nglorification of B and \u05d0,\u2014which are claimed, of course, to be\n\u201c_Pre_-Syrian.\u201d This fills 40 pages more.(771) And thus it would appear\nthat the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for\never to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half lay _perdu_ on a\nforgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;\u2014Dr. Tischendorf, that it had been\ndeposited in a waste-paper basket(772) in the convent of S. Catharine at\nthe foot of Mount Sinai,\u2014from which he rescued it on the 4th February,\n1859:\u2014neither, we venture to think, a very likely circumstance. We incline\nto believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown\nHimself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these distinguished\ngentlemen imagine.\n\nAre we asked for the ground of our opinion? We point without hesitation to\nthe 998 COPIES which remain: to the many ancient VERSIONS: to the many\nvenerable FATHERS,\u2014_any one_ of whom we hold to be _a more trustworthy\nauthority_ for the Text of Scripture, _when he speaks out plainly,_ than\neither Codex B or Codex \u05d0,\u2014aye, or than both of them put together. Behold,\n(we say,) the abundant provision which the All-wise One hath made for the\nsafety of the Deposit: the \u201cthreefold cord\u201d which \u201cis not quickly broken\u201d!\nWe hope to be forgiven if we add, (not without a little warmth,) that we\naltogether wonder at the perversity, the infatuation, the blindness,\u2014which\nis prepared to make light of all these precious helps, in order to magnify\ntwo of the most corrupt codices in existence; and _that_, for no other\nreason but because, (as Dr. Hort expresses it,) they \u201c_happen_ likewise to\nbe the oldest extant Greek MSS. of the New Testament.\u201d (p. 212.)\n\nLXVI. And yet, had what precedes been the sum of the matter, we should for\nour own parts have been perfectly well content to pass it by without a\nsyllable of comment. So long as nothing more is endangered than the\npersonal reputation of a couple of Scholars\u2014at home or abroad\u2014we can\nafford to look on with indifference. Their private ventures are their\nprivate concern. What excites our indignation is the spectacle of the\n_Church of England_ becoming to some extent involved in their\ndiscomfiture, because implicated in their mistakes: dragged through the\nmire, to speak plainly, at the chariot-wheels of these two infelicitous\nDoctors, and exposed with them to the ridicule of educated Christendom.\nOur Church has boasted till now of learned sons in abundance within her\npale, ready at a moment\u2019s notice to do her right: to expose shallow\nsciolism, and to vindicate that precious thing which hath been committed\nto her trust.(773) Where are the men _now?_ What has come to her, that, on\nthe contrary, certain of her own Bishops and Doctors have not scrupled to\nenter into an irregular alliance with Sectarians,\u2014yes, have even taken\ninto partnership with themselves one who openly denies the eternal Godhead\nof our LORD JESUS CHRIST,\u2014in order, as it would seem, to give proof to the\nworld of the low ebb to which Taste, Scholarship, and Sacred Learning have\nsunk among us?\n\nLXVII. Worse yet. We are so distressed, because the true sufferers after\nall by this ill-advised proceeding, are the 90 millions of\nEnglish-speaking Christian folk scattered over the surface of the globe.\nThese have had the title-deeds by which they hold their priceless\nbirthright, shamefully tampered with. _Who_ will venture to predict the\namount of mischief which must follow, if the \u201c_New Greek Text_\u201d which has\nbeen put forth by the men who were appointed _to revise the English\nAuthorized Version,_ should become used in our Schools and in our\nColleges,\u2014should impose largely on the Clergy of the Church of England?...\nBut to return from this, which however will scarcely be called a\ndigression.\n\nA pyramid poised on its apex then, we hold to be a fair emblem of the\nTheory just now under review. Only, unfortunately, its apex is found to be\nconstructed of brick without straw: say rather _of straw\u2014without brick._\n\nLXVIII. _Why_ such partiality has been evinced latterly for Cod. B, none\nof the Critics have yet been so good as to explain; nor is it to be\nexpected that, satisfactorily, any of them ever will. _Why_ again\nTischendorf should have suddenly transferred his allegiance from Cod. B to\nCod. \u05d0,\u2014unless, to be sure, he was the sport of parental partiality,\u2014must\nalso remain a riddle. If _one_ of the \u201cold uncials\u201d must needs be taken as\na guide,\u2014(though we see no sufficient reason why _one_ should be appointed\nto lord it over the rest,)\u2014we should rather have expected that Cod. A\nwould have been selected,(774)\u2014the text of which \u201cStands in broad contrast\nto those of either B or \u05d0, though the interval of years [between it and\nthem] is probably small.\u201d (p. 152.) \u201cBy a curious and apparently unnoticed\ncoincidence,\u201d (proceeds Dr. Hort,) \u201cits Text in several books agrees with\nthe Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid of old Latin\nattestation, as to leave little doubt that a Greek MS. largely employed by\nJerome\u201d\u2014[and why not \u201cTHE_ Greek copies_ employed by Jerome\u201d?]\u2014\u201cin his\nRevision of the Latin version must have had to a great extent a common\noriginal with A.\u201d (_Ibid_.)\n\nBehold a further claim of this copy on the respectful consideration of the\nCritics! What would be thought of the Alexandrian Codex, if some\nattestation were discoverable in its pages that it actually _had belonged_\nto the learned Palestinian father? According to Dr. Hort,\n\n\u201cApart from this individual affinity, A\u2014both in the Gospels and\nelsewhere\u2014may serve as _a fair example of the Manuscripts that,_ to judge\nby Patristic quotations, _were commonest in the IVth century._\u201d\u2014(p. 152.)\n\nO but, the evidence in favour of Codex A thickens apace! Suppose\nthen,\u2014(for, after this admission, the supposition is at least\nallowable,)\u2014suppose the discovery were made tomorrow of half-a-score of\ncodices of the _same date as Cod._ B, but exhibiting the _same Text as\nCod._ A. What a complete revolution would be thereby effected in men\u2019s\nminds on Textual matters! How impossible would it be, henceforth, for B\nand its henchman \u05d0, to obtain so much as a hearing! Such \u201can eleven\u201d would\nsafely defy the world! And yet, according to Dr. Hort, the supposition may\nany day become a fact; for he informs us,\u2014(and we are glad to be able for\nonce to declare that what he says is perfectly correct,)\u2014that such\nmanuscripts once abounded or rather _prevailed;_\u2014\u201c_were commonest_ in the\nIVth century,\u201d when codices B and \u05d0 were written. We presume that then, as\nnow, such codices prevailed universally, in the proportion of 99 to 1.\n\nLXIX. But\u2014what need to say it?\u2014we entirely disallow any such narrowing of\nthe platform which Divine Wisdom hath willed should be at once very varied\nand very ample. Cod. A is sometimes in error: sometimes even _conspires in\nerror exclusively with Cod._ B. An instance occurs in 1 S. John v. 18,\u2014a\ndifficult passage, which we the more willingly proceed to remark upon,\nbecause the fact has transpired that it is one of the few places in which\n_entire unanimity_ prevailed among the Revisionists,\u2014who yet (as we shall\nshow) have been, one and all, mistaken in substituting \u201c_him_\u201d (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd) for\n\u201c_himself_\u201d (\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd).... We venture to bespeak the Reader\u2019s attention\nwhile we produce the passage in question, and briefly examine it. He is\nassured that it exhibits a fair average specimen of what has been the\nRevisionists\u2019 fatal method in every page:\u2014\n\nLXX. S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the\nmere recipient of the new birth (\u1f41 \u0393\u0395\u039d\u039d\u0397\u0398\u0395\u1fda\u03a3 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6),\u2014and the man who\nretains the sanctifying influences of the HOLY SPIRIT which he received\nwhen he became regenerate (\u1f41 \u0393\u0395\u0393\u0395\u039d\u039d\u0397\u039c\u0388\u039d\u039f\u03a3 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6). The latter (he\nsays) \u201c_sinneth not_:\u201d the former, (he says,) \u201c_keepeth himself, and the\nEvil One toucheth him not_.\u201d So far, all is intelligible. The nominative\nis the same in both cases. Substitute however \u201ckeepeth _him_ (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd),\u201d for\n\u201ckeepeth _himself_ (\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd),\u201d and (as Dr. Scrivener admits(775)), \u1f41\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 can be none other than the Only Begotten SON of GOD.\nAnd yet our LORD is _nowhere_ in the New Testament designated as \u1f41\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.(776) Alford accordingly prefers to make nonsense of\nthe place; which he translates,\u2014\u201che that hath been begotten of GOD, _it\nkeepeth him_.\u201d\n\nLXXI. Now, on every occasion like the present,\u2014(instead of tampering with\nthe text, _as Dr. Hort and our Revisionists have done without explanation\nor apology,_)\u2014our safety will be found to consist in enquiring,\u2014But (1)\nWhat have the Copies to say to this? (2) What have the Versions? and (3)\nWhat, the Fathers?... The answer proves to be\u2014(1) _All the copies except\nthree,_(777) read \u201chimself.\u201d\u2014(2) So do the Syriac and the Latin;(778)\u2014so\ndo the Coptic, Sahidic, Georgian, Armenian, and \u00c6thiopic\nversions.(779)\u2014(3) So, Origen clearly thrice,(780)\u2014Didymus clearly 4\ntimes,(781)\u2014Ephraem Syrus clearly twice,(782)\u2014Severus also\ntwice,(783)\u2014Theophylact expressly,(784)\u2014and \u0152cumenius.(785)\u2014So, indeed,\nCod. A; for the original Scribe is found to have corrected himself.(786)\nThe sum of the adverse attestation therefore which prevailed with the\nRevisionists, is found to have been\u2014_Codex_ B _and a single cursive copy_\nat Moscow.\n\nThis does not certainly seem to the Reviewer, (as it seemed to the\nRevisionists,) \u201cdecidedly preponderating evidence.\u201d In his account,\n\u201c_plain and clear error_\u201d dwells with their Revision. But this may be\nbecause,\u2014(to quote words recently addressed by the President of the\nRevising body to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Gloucester and\nBristol,)\u2014the \u201cQuarterly Reviewer\u201d is \u201c_innocently ignorant of the now\nestablished principles of Textual Criticism._\u201d(787)\n\nLXXII. \u201cIt is easy,\u201d\u2014(says the learned Prelate, speaking on his own behalf\nand that of his co-Revisionists,)\u2014\u201cto put forth to the world a sweeping\ncondemnation of many of our changes of reading; and yet all the while to\nbe _innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual\nCriticism._\u201d\n\nMay we venture to point out, that it is easier still to denounce adverse\nCriticism in the lump, instead of trying to refute it in any one\nparticular:\u2014to refer vaguely to \u201cestablished principles of Textual\nCriticism,\u201d instead of stating which they be:\u2014to sneer contemptuously at\nendeavours, (which, even if unsuccessful, one is apt to suppose are\nentitled to sympathy at the hands of a successor of the Apostles,) instead\nof showing _wherein_ such efforts are reprehensible? We are content to put\nthe following question to any fair-minded man:\u2014Whether of these two is the\nmore facile and culpable proceeding;\u2014(1) _Lightly to blot out an inspired\nword from the Book of Life, and to impose a wrong sense on Scripture_, as\nin this place the Bishop and his colleagues are found to have done:\u2014or,\n(2) To fetch the same word industriously back: to establish its meaning by\ndiligent and laborious enquiry: to restore both to their rightful honours:\nand to set them on a basis of (_hitherto unobserved_) evidence, from which\n(_faxit DEUS!_) it will be found impossible henceforth to dislodge them?\n\nThis only will the Reviewer add,\u2014That if it be indeed one of the \u201cnow\nestablished principles of Textual Criticism,\u201d that the evidence of _two\nmanuscripts and-a-half_ outweighs the evidence of (1) All _the remaining_\n997-\u00bd,\u2014(2) The whole body of the Versions,\u2014(3) _Every Father who quotes\nthe place, from_ A.D. 210 to A.D. 1070,\u2014and (4) _The strongest possible\ninternal Evidence_:\u2014if all this _indeed_ be so,\u2014he devoutly trusts that he\nmay be permitted to retain his \u201cInnocence\u201d to the last; and in his\n\u201cIgnorance,\u201d when the days of his warfare are ended, to close his eyes in\ndeath.\u2014And now to proceed.\n\nLXXIII. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same.\nPhantoms of the imagination henceforth usurp the place of substantial\nforms. Interminable doubt,\u2014wretched misbelief,\u2014childish\ncredulity,\u2014judicial blindness,\u2014are the inevitable sequel and penalty. The\nmind that has long allowed itself in a systematic trifling with Evidence,\nis observed to fall the easiest prey to Imposture. It has doubted what is\n_demonstrably_ true: has rejected what is _indubitably_ Divine.\nHenceforth, it is observed to mistake its own fantastic creations for\nhistorical facts: to believe things which rest on insufficient evidence,\nor on no evidence at all. Thus, these learned Professors,\u2014who condemn the\n\u201clast Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark;\u201d which have been\naccounted veritable Scripture by the Church Universal for more than 1800\nyears;\u2014nevertheless accept as the genuine \u201c_Diatessaron of Tatian_\u201d [A.D.\n170], a production which was discovered yesterday, and which _does not\neven claim to be_ the work of that primitive writer.(788)\n\nYes, the Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. General\nmistrust of _all_ evidence is the sure result. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and\nHort solemnly assured their brother-Revisionists that \u201cthe prevalent\nassumption that throughout the N. T. the true Text is to be found\n_somewhere_ among recorded Readings, _does not stand the test of\nexperience_.\u201d They are evidently still haunted by the same spectral\nsuspicion. They invent a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner.\nAccordingly, Dr. Hort favours us with a chapter on the Art of \u201cremoving\nCorruptions of the sacred Text _antecedent to extant documents_\u201d (p. 71).\nWe are not surprised (though we _are_ a little amused) to hear that,\u2014\n\n\u201cThe _Art of Conjectural Emendation_ depends for its success so much on\npersonal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even\nmore an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely\nplausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a\ncritical operation founded on knowledge and method.\u201d\u2014(p. 71.)\n\nLXXIV. _Very_ \u201ceasy,\u201d certainly. One sample of Dr. Hort\u2019s skill in this\ndepartment, (it occurs at page 135 of his _Notes on Select Readings_,)\nshall be cited in illustration. We venture to commend it to the attention\nof our Readers:\u2014\n\n(a) S. Paul [2 Tim. i. 13] exhorts Timothy, (whom he had set as Bp. over\nthe Church of Ephesus,) to \u201c_hold fast_\u201d a certain \u201c_form_\u201d or \u201cpattern\u201d\n(\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) \u201c_of sound words_, _which_\u201d (said he) \u201c_thou hast heard of\nme_.\u201d The flexibility and delicate precision of the Greek language enables\nthe Apostle to indicate exactly what was the prime object of his\nsolicitude. It proves to have been the safety of _the very words_ which he\nhad syllabled, (\u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f6f\u039d \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3). As learned Bp.\nBeveridge well points out,\u2014\u201c_which words_, not _which form_, thou hast\nheard of me. So that it is not so much the _form_, as the _words_\nthemselves, which the Apostle would have him to hold fast.\u201d(789)\n\nAll this however proves abhorrent to Dr. Hort. \u201cThis sense\u201d (says the\nlearned Professor) \u201ccannot be obtained from the text except by treating \u1f67\u03bd\nas put in the genitive by _an unusual and inexplicable attraction_. It\nseems more probable that \u1f67\u03bd is a _primitive corruption_ of \u1f45\u03bd after\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\u201d\n\nNow, this is quite impossible, since neither \u1f45\u03bd nor \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd occurs anywhere\nin the neighbourhood. And as for the supposed \u201cunusual and inexplicable\nattraction,\u201d it happens to be one of even common occurrence,\u2014as every\nattentive reader of the New Testament is aware. Examples of it may be seen\nat 2 Cor. i. 4 and Ephes. iv. 1,\u2014also (in Dr. Hort\u2019s text of) Ephes. i. 6\n(\u1f27\u03c2 in all 3 places). Again, in S. Luke v. 9 (whether \u1f97 or \u1f67\u03bd is read):\nand vi. 38 (\u1ff7):\u2014in S. Jo. xv. 20 (\u03bf\u1f57):\u2014and xvii. 11 (\u1fa7): in Acts ii. 22\n(\u03bf\u1f37\u03c2): vii. 17 (\u1f27\u03c2) and 45 (\u1f67\u03bd): in xxii. 15 (\u1f67\u03bd),&c.... But why entertain\nthe question? There is absolutely _no room_ for such Criticism in respect\nof a reading which is found _in every known MS.,\u2014in every known\nVersion,\u2014in every Father who quotes the place_: a reading which Divines,\nand Scholars who were not Divines,\u2014Critics of the Text, and grammarians\nwho were without prepossessions concerning Scripture,\u2014Editors of the Greek\nand Translators of the Greek into other languages,\u2014all alike have\nacquiesced in, from the beginning until now.\n\nWe venture to assert that it is absolutely unlawful, in the entire absence\nof evidence, to call such a reading as the present in question. There is\nabsolutely no safeguard for Scripture\u2014no limit to Controversy\u2014if a place\nlike this may be solicited at the mere suggestion of individual caprice.\n(For it is worth observing that _on this, and similar occasions, Dr. Hort\nis forsaken by Dr. Westcott_. Such notes are enclosed in brackets, and\nsubscribed \u201cH.\u201d) In the meantime, who can forbear smiling at the\nself-complacency of a Critic who puts forth remarks like those which\nprecede; and yet congratulates himself on \u201c_personal endowments, fertility\nof resource, and a too delicate appreciation of language_\u201d?\n\n(b) Another specimen of conjectural extravagance occurs at S. John vi. 4,\nwhere Dr. Hort labours to throw suspicion on \u201cthe Passover\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1),\u2014in\ndefiance of _every known Manuscript,\u2014every known Version_,\u2014and _every\nFather who quotes or recognizes the place_.(790) We find _nine columns_\ndevoted to his vindication of this weak imagination; although so partial\nare his _Notes_, that countless \u201cvarious Readings\u201d of great interest and\nimportance are left wholly undiscussed. Nay, sometimes entire Epistles are\ndismissed with a single weak annotation (_e.g._ 1 and 2\nThessalonians),\u2014_or with none_, as in the case of the Epistle to the\nPhilippians.\n\n(c) We charitably presume that it is in order to make amends for having\nconjecturally thrust out \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 from S. John vi. 4,\u2014that Dr. Hort is for\nconjecturally thrusting into Acts xx. 28, \u03a5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 (after \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5),\u2014an\nimagination to which he devotes a column and-a-half, but _for which he is\nnot able to produce a particle of evidence_. It would result in our\nreading, \u201cto feed the Church of GOD, which He purchased\u201d\u2014(not \u201cwith _His\nown_ blood,\u201d but)\u2014\u201cwith the _blood of His own_ SON:\u201d which has evidently\nbeen suggested by nothing so much as by the supposed necessity of getting\nrid of a text which unequivocally asserts that CHRIST is GOD.(791)\n\nLXXV. Some will be chiefly struck by the conceit and presumption of such\nsuggestions as the foregoing. A yet larger number, as we believe, will be\nastonished by their essential foolishness. For ourselves, what surprises\nus most is the fatal misapprehension they evince of the true office of\nTextual Criticism as applied to the New Testament. It _never is to invent\nnew Readings_, but only to adjudicate between existing and conflicting\nones. He who seeks to thrust out \u201cTHE PASSOVER\u201d from S. John vi. 4, (where\nit may on no account be dispensed with(792)); and to thrust \u201cTHE SON\u201d into\nActs xx. 28, (where His Name cannot stand without evacuating a grand\nTheological statement);\u2014will do well to consider whether he does not bring\nhimself directly under the awful malediction with which the beloved\nDisciple concludes and seals up the Canon of Scripture:\u2014\u201cI testify unto\nevery man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book,\u2014If any man\nshall _add unto_ these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are\nwritten in this Book. And if any man shall _take away from_ the words of\nthe Book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of\nLife, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in\nthis Book.\u201d(793)\n\nMay we be allowed to assure Dr. Hort that \u201cCONJECTURAL EMENDATION\u201d CAN BE\nALLOWED NO PLACE WHATEVER IN THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT?\nHe will no doubt disregard our counsel. May Dr. Scrivener then [p. 433] be\npermitted to remind him that \u201cit is now agreed among competent judges that\n_Conjectural emendation_ must _never_ be resorted to,\u2014even in passages of\nacknowledged difficulty\u201d?\n\nThere is in fact no need for it,\u2014nor can be: so very ample, as well as so\nvery varied, is the evidence for the words of the New Testament.\n\nLXXVI. Here however we regret to find we have _both_ Editors against us.\nThey propose \u201cthe definite question,\u201d\u2014\n\n\n    \u201c \u2018Are there, as a matter of fact, places in which we are\n    _constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to recognize the existence\n    of Textual error in _all_ extant documents?\u2019 To this question we\n    have no hesitation in replying in the affirmative.\u201d\u2014(p. 279.)\n\n\nBehold then the deliberate sentence of Drs. Westcott and Hort. They\nflatter themselves that they are able to produce \u201c_overwhelming evidence_\u201d\nin proof that there are places where _every extant document_ is in error.\nThe instance on which they both rely, is S. Peter\u2019s prophetic announcement\n(2 Pet. iii. 10), that in \u201cthe day of the LORD,\u201d \u201cthe earth and the works\nthat are therein _shall be burned up_\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9).\n\nThis statement is found to have been glossed or paraphrased in an age when\nmen knew no better. Thus, Cod. C substitutes\u2014\u201c_shall vanish away_:\u201d(794)\nthe Syriac and one Egyptian version,\u2014\u201c_shall not be found_,\u201d (apparently\nin imitation of Rev. xvi. 20). But, either because the \u201cnot\u201d was\naccidentally omitted(795) in some very ancient exemplar;\u2014or else because\nit was deemed a superfluity by some Occidental critic who in his\nsimplicity supposed that \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 might well represent the Latin\n_urerentur_,\u2014(somewhat as Mrs. Quickly warranted \u201c_hang hog_\u201d to be Latin\nfor \u201cbacon,\u201d)\u2014codices \u05d0 and B (with four others of later date) exhibit\n\u201c_shall be found_,\u201d(796)\u2014which obviously makes utter nonsense of the\nplace. (\u0395\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 appears, nevertheless, in Dr. Hort\u2019s text: _in\nconsequence of which_, the margin of our \u201cRevised Version\u201d is disfigured\nwith the statement that \u201cThe most ancient manuscripts read _discovered_.\u201d)\nBut what is there in all this to make one distrust the Traditional\nreading?\u2014supported as it is by the whole mass of Copies: by the\nLatin,(797)\u2014the Coptic,\u2014the Harkleian,\u2014and the \u00c6thiopic Versions:\u2014besides\nthe only Fathers who quote the place; viz. Cyril seven times,(798) and\nJohn Damascene(799) once?... As for pretending, at the end of the\nforegoing enquiry, that \u201cwe are _constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to\nrecognize the existence of textual error _in all extant documents_,\u201d\u2014it is\nevidently a mistake. Nothing else is it but a misstatement of facts.\n\nLXXVII. And thus, in the entire absence of proof, Dr. Hort\u2019s view of \u201cthe\nexistence of corruptions\u201d of the Text \u201cantecedent to all existing\nauthority,\u201d(800)\u2014falls to the ground. His confident prediction, that such\ncorruptions \u201cwill sooner or later have to be acknowledged,\u201d may be\ndismissed with a smile. So indifferent an interpreter of the Past may not\npresume to forecast the Future.\n\nThe one \u201cmatter of fact,\u201d which at every step more and more impresses an\nattentive student of the Text of Scripture, is,\u2014(1st), The utterly\ndepraved character of Codices B and \u05d0: and (2nd), The singular infatuation\nof Drs. Westcott and Hort in insisting that those 2 Codices \u201c_stand alone\nin their almost complete immunity from error:_\u201d(801)\u2014that \u201cthe fullest\ncomparison does but increase the conviction that _their pre-eminent\nrelative purity is approximately absolute_.\u201d(802)\n\nLXXVIII. Whence is it,\u2014(we have often asked ourselves the question, while\nstudying these laborious pages,)\u2014How does it happen that a scholar like\nDr. Hort, evidently accomplished and able, should habitually mistake the\ncreations of his own brain for material forms? the echoes of his own voice\nwhile holding colloquy with himself, for oracular responses? We have not\nhitherto expressed our astonishment,\u2014but must do so now before we make an\nend,\u2014that a writer who desires to convince, can suppose that his own\narbitrary use of such expressions as \u201cPre-Syrian\u201d and \u201cNeutral,\u201d\u2014\u201cWestern\u201d\nand \u201cAlexandrian,\u201d\u2014\u201cNon-Western\u201d and \u201cNon-Alexandrian,\u201d\u2014\u201cNon-Alexandrian\nPre-Syrian\u201d and \u201cPre-Syrian Non-Western,\u201d\u2014will produce any (except an\nirritating) effect on the mind of an intelligent reader.\n\nThe delusion of supposing that by the free use of such a vocabulary a\nCritic may dispense with the ordinary processes of logical proof, might\npossibly have its beginning in the retirement of the cloister, where there\nare few to listen and none to contradict: but it can only prove abiding if\nthere has been no free ventilation of the individual fancy. Greatly is it\nto be regretted that instead of keeping his Text a profound secret for 30\nyears, Dr. Hort did not freely impart it to the public, and solicit the\nfavour of candid criticism.\n\nHas no friend ever reminded him that assertions concerning the presence or\nabsence of a \u201cSyrian\u201d or a \u201cPre-Syrian,\u201d a \u201cWestern\u201d or a \u201cNon-Western\n_element_,\u201d are but wind,\u2014the merest chaff and draff,\u2014_apart from proof_?\nRepeated _ad nauseam_, and employed with as much peremptory precision as\nif they were recognized terms connoting distinct classes of\nReadings,\u2014(whereas they are absolutely without significancy, except, let\nus charitably hope, to him who employs them);\u2014such expressions would only\nbe allowable on the part of the Critic, if he had first been at the pains\nto _index every principal Father_,\u2014and _to reduce Texts to families_ by a\nlaborious process of Induction. Else, they are worse than foolish. More\nthan an impertinence are they. They bewilder, and mislead, and for a while\nencumber and block the way.\n\nLXXIX. This is not all however. Even when these Editors notice hostile\nevidence, they do so after a fashion which can satisfy no one but\nthemselves. Take for example their note on the word \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6 (\u201c_without a\ncause_\u201d) in S. Matthew v. 22 (\u201cBut I say unto you, that whosoever is angry\nwith his brother _without a cause_\u201d). The Reader\u2019s attention is specially\ninvited to the treatment which this place has experienced at the hands of\nDrs. Westcott and Hort:\u2014\n\n(_a_) They unceremoniously eject the word from S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel with\ntheir oracular sentence, \u201c_Western and Syrian._\u201d\u2014Aware that \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6 is\nrecognized by \u201cIren. lat-3; Eus. _D. E._ Cyp.,\u201d they yet claim for\nomitting it the authority of \u201cJust. Ptolem. (? Iren. 242 _fin_.), Tert.;\nand certainly\u201d (they proceed) \u201cOrig. on Eph. iv. 31, noticing both\nreadings, and similarly Hier. _loc._, who probably follows Origen: also\nAth. _Pasch._ Syr. 11: Ps.-Ath. _Cast._ ii. 4; and others\u201d.... Such is\ntheir \u201c_Note_\u201d on S. Matthew v. 22. It is found at p. 8 of their volume.\nIn consequence, \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6 (\u201c_without a cause_\u201d) disappears from their Text\nentirely.\n\n(_b_) But these learned men are respectfully informed that neither Justin\nMartyr, nor Ptolem\u00e6us the Gnostic, nor Iren\u00e6us, no, nor Tertullian\neither,\u2014that _not one of these four writers_,\u2014supplies the wished-for\nevidence. As for Origen,\u2014they are assured that _he_\u2014_not_ \u201cprobably\u201d but\n_certainly_\u2014is the cause of all the trouble. They are reminded that\nAthanasius(803) quotes (_not_ S. Matt. v. 22, but) 1 Jo. iii. 15. They are\nshown that what they call \u201cps.-Ath. _Cast._\u201d is nothing else but a\nparaphrastic translation (by _Gr\u00e6culus quidam_) of John Cassian\u2019s\n_Institutes_,\u2014\u201cii. 4\u201d in the Greek representing viii. 20 in the Latin....\nAnd now, how much of the adverse Evidence remains?\n\n(_c_) Only this:\u2014Jerome\u2019s three books of Commentary on the Ephesians, are,\nin the main, a translation of Origen\u2019s lost 3 books on the same\nEpistle.(804) Commenting on iv. 31, Origen says that \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6 has been\nimproperly added to the Text,(805)\u2014_which shows that in Origen\u2019s copy_\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6 _was found there_. A few ancient writers in consequence (but only in\nconsequence) of what Jerome (or rather Origen) thus delivers, are observed\nto omit \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6.(806) That is all!\n\n(_d_) May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides\nIren\u00e6us,(807)\u2014Eusebius,(808)\u2014and Cyprian,(809)\u2014they do not mention that\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6 is _also_ the reading of Justin Martyr,(810)\u2014of Origen\nhimself,(811)\u2014of the _Constitutiones App._,(812)\u2014of Basil three\ntimes,(813)\u2014of Gregory of Nyssa,(814)\u2014of Epiphanius,(815)\u2014of Ephraem Syrus\ntwice,(816)\u2014of Isidorus twice,(817)\u2014of Theodore of Mops.,\u2014of Chrysostom 18\ntimes,\u2014of the _Opus imp._ twice,(818)\u2014of Cyril(819)\u2014and of\nTheodoret(820)\u2014(each in 3 places). It was also the reading of Severus,\nAbp. of Antioch:(821)\u2014as well as of\nHilary,(822)\u2014Lucifer,(823)\u2014Salvian,(824)\u2014Philastrius,(825)\u2014Augustine,\nand\u2014Jerome,(826)\u2014(although, when translating from Origen, he pronounces\nagainst \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6(827)):\u2014not to mention Antiochus mon.,(828)\u2014J.\nDamascene,(829)\u2014Maximus,(830)\u2014Photius,(831)\u2014Euthymius,\u2014Theophylact,\u2014and\nothers?(832)... We have adduced no less than _thirty_ ancient witnesses.\n\n(_e_) Our present contention however is but this,\u2014that a Reading which is\nattested by _every uncial Copy of the Gospels except_ B _and_ \u05d0; by a\nwhole _torrent of Fathers_; by _every known copy_ of the old Latin,\u2014by\n_all_ the Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6,)\u2014by the Coptic,\u2014as well as by the Gothic\u2014and Armenian versions;\u2014that\nsuch a reading is not to be set aside by the stupid dictum, \u201cWESTERN AND\nSYRIAN.\u201d By no such methods will the study of Textual Criticism be\npromoted, or any progress ever be made in determining the Truth of\nScripture. There really can be no doubt whatever,\u2014(that is to say, if we\nare to be guided by _ancient Evidence_,)\u2014that \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6 (\u201c_without a cause_\u201d)\nwas our SAVIOUR\u2019S actual word; and that our Revisers have been here, as in\nso many hundred other places, led astray by Dr. Hort. So true is that\nsaying of the ancient poet,\u2014\u201cEvil company doth corrupt good manners.\u201d \u201cAnd\nif the blind lead the blind,\u201d\u2014(a greater than Menander hath said\nit,)\u2014\u201c_both shall fall into the ditch_.\u201d(833)\n\n(_f_) In the meantime, we have exhibited somewhat in detail, Drs. Westcott\nand Hort\u2019s Annotation on \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6, [S. Matth. v. 22,] in order to furnish our\nReaders with at least _one definite specimen_ of the Editorial skill and\nCritical ability of these two accomplished Professors. Their general\npractice, as exhibited in the case of 1 Jo. v. 18, [see above, pp. 347-9,]\nis to tamper with the sacred Text, without assigning their\nauthority,\u2014indeed, without offering apology of any kind.\n\n(_g_) The _sum_ of the matter proves to be as follows: Codd. B and \u05d0 (the\n\u201ctwo false Witnesses\u201d),\u2014B and \u05d0, _alone of MSS._\u2014omit \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6. On the\nstrength of this, Dr. Hort persuaded his fellow Revisers to omit \u201c_without\na cause_\u201d from their Revised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence,\nthat every Englishman\u2019s copy of S. Matthew v. 22 shall be mutilated in the\nsame way for ever.... _Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi._\n\n(_h_) But the question arises\u2014Will the Church of England submit to have\nher immemorial heritage thus filched from her? We shall be astonished\nindeed if she proves so regardless of her birthright.\n\nLXXX. Lastly, the intellectual habits of these Editors have led them so to\nhandle evidence, that the sense of proportion seems to have forsaken them.\n\u201cHe who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning,\u201d\u2014(remarks the elder\nCritic,)\u2014\u201c_becomes unable to detect its weak points_.\u201d(834) Yes, the\n\u201cidols of the den\u201d exercise at last a terrible ascendency over the\nCritical judgment. It argues an utter want of mental perspective, when we\nfind \u201cthe Man working on the Sabbath,\u201d put on the same footing with \u201cthe\nWoman taken in Adultery,\u201d and conjectured to have \u201c_come from the same\nsource_:\u201d\u2014the incident of \u201cthe Angel troubling the pool of Bethesda\u201d\ndismissed, as having \u201c_no claim to any kind of association with the true\nText_:\u201d(835)\u2014and \u201cthe _two_ Supplements\u201d to S. Mark\u2019s Gospel declared to\n\u201c_stand on equal terms_ as independent attempts to fill up a gap;\u201d and\nallowed to be possibly \u201c_of equal antiquity._\u201d(836) How can we wonder,\nafter this, to find _anything_ omitted,\u2014_anything_ inserted,\u2014_anything_\nbranded with suspicion? And the brand is very freely applied by Drs.\nWestcott and Hort. Their notion of the Text of the New Testament, is\ncertainly the most extraordinary ever ventilated. It has at least the\nmerit of entire originality. While they eagerly insist that many a passage\nis but \u201ca Western interpolation\u201d after all; is but an \u201cEvangelic\nTradition,\u201d \u201crescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second\ncentury;\u201d\u2014they yet _incorporate those passages with the Gospel_. Careful\nenough to clap them into fetters first, they then, (to use their own queer\nphrase,)\u2014\u201c_provisionally associate them with the Text_.\u201d\n\nLXXXI. We submit, on the contrary, that Editors who \u201c_cannot doubt_\u201d that\na certain verse \u201ccomes from an extraneous source,\u201d\u2014\u201c_do not believe_ that\nit belonged originally to the Book in which it is now included,\u201d\u2014are\nunreasonable if they proceed to assign to it _any_ actual place there at\nall. When men have once thoroughly convinced themselves that two Verses of\nS. Luke\u2019s Gospel are _not Scripture_, but \u201conly a fragment from the\nTraditions, written or oral, which were for a while locally\ncurrent;\u201d(837)\u2014what else is it but the merest trifling with sacred Truth,\nto promote those two verses to a place in the inspired context? Is it not\nto be feared, that the conscious introduction of _human Tradition_ into\nGOD\u2019S _written Word_ will in the end destroy the soul\u2019s confidence in\nScripture itself? opening the door for perplexity, and doubt, and\npresently for Unbelief itself to enter.\n\nLXXXII. And let us not be told that the Verses stand there \u201cprovisionally\u201d\nonly; and for that reason are \u201cenclosed within double brackets.\u201d Suspected\nfelons are \u201cprovisionally\u201d locked up, it is true: but after trial, they\nare either convicted and removed out of sight; or else they are acquitted\nand suffered to come abroad like other men. Drs. Westcott and Hort have\n_no right_ at the end of thirty years of investigation, _still_ to\nencumber the Evangelists with \u201cprovisional\u201d fetters. Those fetters either\nsignify that the Judge is _afraid to carry out his own righteous\nsentence_: or else, that he _entertains a secret suspicion that he has\nmade a terrible mistake after all,\u2014has condemned the innocent_. Let these\nesteemed Scholars at least have \u201cthe courage of their own convictions,\u201d\nand be throughout as consistent as, in two famous instances (viz. at pages\n113 and 241), they have been. Else, in GOD\u2019S Name, let them have the\nmanliness to avow themselves in error: abjure their \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c8\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2; and\ncast the fantastic Theory, which they have so industriously reared upon\nit, unreservedly, to the winds!\n\nLXXXIII. To conclude.\u2014It will be the abiding distinction of the Revised\nVersion (_thanks to Dr. Hort,_) that it brought to the front a question\nwhich has slept for about 100 years; but which may not be suffered now to\nrest undisturbed any longer. It might have slumbered on for another\nhalf-century,\u2014a subject of deep interest to a very little band of Divines\nand Scholars; of perplexity and distrust to all the World besides;\u2014_but_\nfor the incident which will make the 17th of May, 1881, for ever memorable\nin the Annals of the Church of England.\n\nLXXXIV. The Publication on that day of the \u201cRevised English Version of the\nNew Testament\u201d instantly concentrated public attention on the neglected\nproblem: for men saw at a glance that the Traditional Text of 1530 years\u2019\nstanding,\u2014(the exact number is Dr. Hort\u2019s, not ours,)\u2014had been\nunceremoniously set aside in favour of _an entirely different Recension_.\nThe true Authors of the mischief were not far to seek. Just five days\nbefore,\u2014under the editorship of Drs. Westcott and Hort, (Revisionists\nthemselves,)\u2014had appeared the most extravagant Text which has seen the\nlight since the invention of Printing. No secret was made of the fact\nthat, under pledges of strictest secrecy,(838) a copy of this wild\nperformance (marked \u201cConfidential\u201d) had been entrusted to every member of\nthe Revising body: and it has since transpired that Dr. Hort advocated his\nown peculiar views in the Jerusalem Chamber with so much volubility,\neagerness, pertinacity, and plausibility, that in the end\u2014notwithstanding\nthe warnings, remonstrances, entreaties of Dr. Scrivener,\u2014his counsels\nprevailed; and\u2014the utter shipwreck of the \u201cRevised Version\u201d has been, (as\nmight have been confidently predicted,) the disastrous consequence. Dr.\nHort is calculated to have _talked for three years_ out of the ten.\n\nBut in the meantime there has arisen _this_ good out of the\ncalamity,\u2014namely, that men will at last require that the Textual problem\nshall be fairly threshed out. They will insist on having it proved to\ntheir satisfaction,\u2014(1) That Codices B and \u05d0 are indeed the oracular\ndocuments which their admirers pretend; and\u2014(2) That a narrow selection of\nancient documents is a secure foundation on which to build the Text of\nScripture. Failing this,\u2014(and the _onus probandi_ rests wholly with those\nwho are for setting aside the Traditional Text in favour of another,\n_entirely dissimilar in character_,)\u2014failing this, we say, it is\nreasonable to hope that the counsels of the \u201c_Quarterly Review_\u201d will be\nsuffered to prevail. In the meantime, we repeat that this question has now\nto be fought out: for to ignore it any longer is impossible. Compromise of\nany sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible also; for they\nsimply contradict one another. Codd. B and \u05d0 are either among the purest\nof manuscripts,\u2014or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs.\nWestcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,\u2014or else\nit is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs,\u2014or the\nfurthest from them. There is no room for _both_ opinions; and there cannot\nexist any middle view.\n\nThe question will have to be fought out; and it must be fought out fairly.\nIt may not be magisterially settled; but must be advocated, on either\nside, by the old logical method. If Continental Scholars join in the fray,\nEngland,\u2014which in the last century took the lead in these studies,\u2014will,\nit is to be hoped, maintain her ancient reputation and again occupy the\nfront rank. The combatants may be sure that, in consequence of all that\nhas happened, the public will be no longer indifferent spectators of the\nfray; for the issue concerns the inner life of the whole\ncommunity,\u2014touches men\u2019s very heart of hearts. Certain it is that\u2014\u201cGOD\ndefend _the Right_!\u201d will be the one aspiration of every faithful spirit\namong us. THE TRUTH,\u2014(we avow it on behalf of Drs. Westcott and Hort as\neagerly as on our own behalf,)\u2014GOD\u2019S TRUTH will be, as it has been\nthroughout, the one object of all our striving. \u0391\u1f34\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f34\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03ad, \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b4\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f56 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9.\n\n*I HAVE BEEN VERY JEALOUS FOR THE LORD GOD OF HOSTS.*\n\n\n\n\n\nLETTER TO BISHOP ELLICOTT, IN REPLY TO HIS PAMPHLET.\n\n\n    \u201cNothing is more satisfactory at the present time than the evident\n    feelings of veneration for our Authorized Version, and the very\n    generally-felt desire for _as little change as possible_.\u201d\u2014BISHOP\n    ELLICOTT.(839)\n\n    \u201cWe may be satisfied with the attempt to correct _plain and clear\n    errors_, but _there it is our duty to stop_.\u201d\u2014BISHOP\n    ELLICOTT.(840)\n\n    \u201cWe have now, at all events, no fear of _an over-corrected\n    Version_.\u201d\u2014BISHOP ELLICOTT.(841)\n\n    \u201cI fear we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet\n    in every page with small _changes, which are vexatious, teasing,\n    and irritating, even the more so because they are small; which\n    seem almost to be made for the sake of change_.\u201d\u2014BISHOP\n    WORDSWORTH.(842)\n\n    [The question arises,]\u2014\u201cWhether the Church of England,\u2014which in\n    her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a\n    Revision of her Authorized Version _under the express condition_,\n    which she most wisely imposed, that _no Changes should be made in\n    it except what were absolutely necessary_,\u2014could consistently\n    accept a Version in which 36,000 changes have been made; _not a\n    fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even\n    desirable_.\u201d\u2014BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(843)\n\n\nLetter To\nThe Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, D.D.,\nBishop Of Gloucester And Bristol,\nIn Reply To His Pamphlet In Defence Of\nThe Revisers And Their Greek Text Of\nThe New Testament.\n\n\n    \u201cWHAT COURSE WOULD REVISERS HAVE US TO FOLLOW?... WOULD IT BE WELL\n    FOR THEM TO AGREE ON A CRITICAL GREEK TEXT? _TO THIS QUESTION WE\n    VENTURE TO ANSWER VERY UNHESITATINGLY IN THE NEGATIVE._\n\n    \u201cTHOUGH WE HAVE MUCH CRITICAL MATERIAL, AND A VERY FAIR AMOUNT OF\n    CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE, _WE HAVE CERTAINLY NOT YET ACQUIRED SUFFICIENT\n    CRITICAL JUDGMENT_ FOR ANY BODY OF REVISERS HOPEFULLY TO UNDERTAKE\n    SUCH A WORK AS THIS.\u201d\n\n\nBISHOP ELLICOTT.(844)\n\nMY LORD BISHOP,\n\nLast May, you published a pamphlet of seventy-nine pages(845) in\nvindication of the Greek Text recently put forth by the New Testament\nCompany of Revisers. It was (you said) your Answer to the first and second\nof my Articles in the _Quarterly Review_:(846)\u2014all three of which,\ncorrected and enlarged, are now submitted to the public for the second\ntime. See above, from page 1 to page 367.\n\n\n\n\n[1] Preliminary Statement.\n\n\nYou may be quite sure that I examined your pamphlet as soon as it\nappeared, with attention. I have since read it through several times:\nand\u2014I must add\u2014with ever-increasing astonishment. First, because it is so\nevidently the production of one who has never made Textual Criticism\nseriously his study. Next, because your pamphlet is no refutation whatever\nof my two Articles. You flout me: you scold me: you lecture me. But I do\nnot find that you ever _answer_ me. You reproduce the theory of Drs.\nWestcott and Hort,\u2014which I claim to have demolished.(847) You seek to put\nme down by flourishing in my face the decrees of Lachmann, Tischendorf and\nTregelles,\u2014which, as you are well aware, I entirely disallow.\nDenunciation, my lord Bishop, is not Argument; neither is Reiteration,\nProof. And then,\u2014Why do you impute to me opinions which I do not hold? and\ncharge me with a method of procedure of which I have never been guilty?\nAbove all, why do you seek to prejudice the question at issue between us\nby importing irrelevant matter which can only impose upon the ignorant and\nmislead the unwary? Forgive my plainness, but really you are so\nconspicuously unfair,\u2014and at the same time so manifestly unacquainted,\n(except at second-hand and only in an elementary way,) with the points\nactually under discussion,\u2014that, were it not for the adventitious\nimportance attaching to any utterance of yours, deliberately put forth at\nthis time as Chairman of the New Testament body of Revisers, I should have\ntaken no notice of your pamphlet.\n\n\n\n\n[2] The Bishop\u2019s pamphlet was anticipated and effectually disposed of,\nthree weeks before it appeared, by the Reviewer\u2019s Third Article.\n\n\nI am bound, at the same time, to acknowledge that you have been singularly\nunlucky. While _you_ were penning your Defence, (namely, throughout the\nfirst four months of 1882,) _I_ was making a fatal inroad into your\nposition, by showing how utterly without foundation is the \u201cTextual\nTheory\u201d to which you and your co-Revisers have been so rash as to commit\nyourselves.(848) This fact I find duly recognized in your \u201cPostscript.\u201d\n\u201cSince the foregoing pages were in print\u201d (you say,) \u201ca third article has\nappeared in the _Quarterly Review_, entitled \u2018Westcott and Hort\u2019s Textual\nTheory.\u2019 \u201d(849) Yes. _I_ came before the public on the 16th of April;\n_you_ on the 4th of May, 1882. In this way, your pamphlet was\nanticipated,\u2014had in fact been fully disposed of, three weeks before it\nappeared. \u201cThe Reviewer,\u201d (you complain at page 4,) \u201ccensures their\n[Westcott and Hort\u2019s] Text: _in neither Article has he attempted a serious\nexamination of the arguments which they allege in its support_.\u201d But, (as\nexplained,) the \u201cserious examination\u201d which you reproach me with having\nhitherto failed to produce,\u2014had been already three weeks in the hands of\nreaders of the _Quarterly_ before your pamphlet saw the light. You would,\nin consequence, have best consulted your own reputation, I am persuaded,\nhad you instantly recalled and suppressed your printed sheets. _What_, at\nall events, you can have possibly meant, while publishing them, by adding\n(in your \u201cPostscript\u201d at page 79,)\u2014\u201c_In this controversy it is not for us\nto interpose:_\u201d and again,\u2014\u201c_We find nothing in the Reviewer\u2019s third\narticle to require further answer from us:_\u201d\u2014passes my comprehension;\nseeing that your pamphlet (page 11 to page 29) is an elaborate avowal that\nyou have made Westcott and Hort\u2019s theory entirely your own. The Editor of\nthe _Speaker\u2019s Commentary_, I observe, takes precisely the same view of\nyour position. \u201cThe two Revisers\u201d (says Canon Cook) \u201cactually add a\nPostscript to their pamphlet of a single short page noticing their\nunexpected anticipation by the third _Quarterly Review_ article; with the\nremark that \u2018in this controversy (between Westcott and Hort and the\nReviewer) it is not for us to interfere:\u2019\u2014as if Westcott and Hort\u2019s theory\nof Greek Revision could be refuted, or seriously damaged, without _cutting\nthe ground from under the Committee of Revisers on the whole of this\nsubject_.\u201d(850)\n\n\n\n\n[3] Bp. Ellicott remonstrated with for his unfair method of procedure.\n\n\nI should enter at once on an examination of your Reply, but that I am\nconstrained at the outset to remonstrate with you on the exceeding\nunfairness of your entire method of procedure. Your business was to make\nit plain to the public that you have dealt faithfully with the Deposit:\nhave strictly fulfilled the covenant into which you entered twelve years\nago with the Convocation of the Southern Province: have corrected only\n\u201c_plain and clear errors_.\u201d Instead of this, you labour to enlist vulgar\nprejudice against me:\u2014partly, by insisting that I am for determining\ndisputed Readings by an appeal to the \u201cTextus Receptus,\u201d\u2014which (according\nto you) I look upon as faultless:\u2014partly, by exhibiting me in disagreement\nwith Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles. The irrelevancy of this latter\ncontention,\u2014the groundlessness of the former,\u2014may not be passed over\nwithout a few words of serious remonstrance. For I claim that, in\ndiscussing the Greek Text, I have invariably filled my pages as full of\n_Authorities_ for the opinions I advocate, as the limits of the page would\nallow. I may have been tediously demonstrative sometimes: but no one can\nfairly tax me with having shrunk from the severest method of evidential\nproof. To find myself therefore charged with \u201cmere\ndenunciation,\u201d(851)\u2014with substituting \u201cstrong expressions of individual\nopinion\u201d for \u201carguments,\u201d(852)\u2014and with \u201cattempting to cut the cord by\nreckless and unverified assertions,\u201d (p. 25,)\u2014astonishes me. Such language\nis in fact even ridiculously unfair.\n\nThe misrepresentation of which I complain is not only conspicuous, but\nsystematic. It runs through your whole pamphlet: is admitted by yourself\nat the close,\u2014(viz. at p. 77,)\u2014_to be half the sum of your entire\ncontention_. Besides cropping up repeatedly,(853) it finds deliberate and\ndetailed expression when you reach the middle of your essay,\u2014viz. at p.\n41: where, with reference to certain charges which I not only bring\nagainst codices \u05d0 B C L, but laboriously substantiate by a free appeal to\nthe contemporary evidence of Copies, Versions, and Fathers,\u2014you venture to\nexpress yourself concerning me as follows:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cTo attempt to sustain such charges by a rough comparison of these\n    ancient authorities with the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, and to measure the\n    degree of their depravation _by the amount of their divergence\n    from such a text as we have shown this Received Text really to\n    be_, is to trifle with the subject of sacred Criticism.\u201d\u2014p. 41.\n\n\nYou add:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cUntil the depravation of these ancient Manuscripts has been\n    demonstrated in a manner more consistent with _the recognized\n    principles of Criticism_, such charges as those to which we allude\n    must be regarded as expressions of passion, or prejudice, and set\n    aside by every impartial reader as assertions for which no\n    adequate evidence has yet been produced.\u201d\u2014pp. 41-2.\n\n\n\n\n[4] (Which be \u201cthe recognized principles of Textual Criticism\u201d?\u2014a question\nasked in passing.)\n\n\nBut give me leave to ask in passing,\u2014_Which_, pray, _are_ \u201cthe recognized\nprinciples of Criticism\u201d to which you refer? I profess I have never met\nwith them yet; and I am sure it has not been for want of diligent enquiry.\nYou have publicly charged me before your Diocese with being \u201cinnocently\nignorant of the _now established principles_ of Textual Criticism.\u201d(854)\nBut why do you not state which those principles _are_? I am surprised. You\nare for ever vaunting \u201c_principles_ which have been established by the\ninvestigations and reasonings\u201d of Lachmann, Tischendorf and\nTregelles:(855)\u2014\u201cthe _principles_ of Textual Criticism which are accepted\nand recognized by the great majority of modern Textual Critics:\u201d(856)\u2014\u201cthe\n_principles_ on which the Textual Criticism of the last fifty years has\nbeen based:\u201d(857)\u2014but you never condescend to explain _which be_ the\n\u201cprinciples\u201d you refer to. For the last time,\u2014_Who_ established those\n\u201cPrinciples\u201d? and, _Where_ are they to be seen \u201cestablished\u201d?\n\nI will be so candid with you as frankly to avow that the _only two_\n\u201cprinciples\u201d with which I am acquainted as held, with anything like\nconsent, by \u201cthe modern Textual Critics\u201d to whom you have surrendered your\njudgment, are\u2014(1st) A robust confidence in the revelations of their own\ninner consciousness: and (2ndly) A superstitious partiality for two\ncodices written in the uncial character,\u2014for which partiality they are\nable to assign no intelligible reason. You put the matter as neatly as I\ncould desire at page 19 of your Essay,\u2014where you condemn, with excusable\nwarmth, \u201cthose who adopt the easy method of _using some favourite\nManuscript_,\u201d\u2014or of exercising \u201c_some supposed power of divining the\noriginal Text;_\u201d\u2014as if those were \u201cthe only necessary agents for\ncorrecting the Received Text.\u201d _Why_ the evidence of codices B and \u05d0,\u2014and\nperhaps the evidence of the VIth-century codex D,\u2014(\u201cthe singular codex\u201d as\nyou call it; and it is certainly a very singular codex indeed:)\u2014_why_, I\nsay, the evidence of these two or three codices should be thought to\noutweigh the evidence of all other documents in existence,\u2014whether Copies,\nVersions, or Fathers,\u2014I have never been able to discover, nor have their\nadmirers ever been able to tell me.\n\n\n\n\n[5] Bp. Ellicott\u2019s and the Reviewer\u2019s respective methods, contrasted.\n\n\nWaiving this however, (for it is beside the point,) I venture to ask,\u2014With\nwhat show of reason can you pretend that I \u201c_sustain my charges_\u201d against\ncodices \u05d0 B C L, \u201c_by a rough comparison of these ancient authorities with\nthe_ Textus Receptus\u201d?(858)... Will you deny that it is a mere\nmisrepresentation of the plain facts of the case, to say so? Have I not,\non the contrary, _on every occasion_ referred Readings in dispute,\u2014the\nreading of \u05d0 B C L on the one hand, the reading of the _Textus Receptus_\non the other,\u2014simultaneously to one and the same external standard? Have I\nnot persistently enquired for the verdict\u2014so far as it has been\nobtainable\u2014of CONSENTIENT ANTIQUITY? If I have sometimes spoken of certain\nfamous manuscripts (\u05d0 B C D namely,) as exhibiting fabricated Texts, have\nI not been at the pains to establish the reasonableness of my assertion by\nshowing that they yield divergent,\u2014that is _contradictory_, testimony?\n\nThe task of laboriously collating the five \u201cold uncials\u201d throughout the\nGospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely. But\nI was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that,\nhowever important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices \u05d0 B C D\nare among the most corrupt documents extant. It was a conviction derived\nfrom exact _Knowledge_ and based on solid grounds of _Reason_. You, my\nlord Bishop, who have never gone deeply into the subject, repose simply on\n_Prejudice_. Never having at any time collated codices \u05d0 A B C D for\nyourself, you are unable to gainsay a single statement of mine by a\ncounter-appeal to _facts_. Your textual learning proves to have been all\nobtained at second-hand,\u2014taken on trust. And so, instead of marshalling\nagainst me a corresponding array of ANCIENT AUTHORITIES,\u2014you invariably\nattempt to put me down by an appeal to MODERN OPINION. \u201cThe _majority of\nmodern Critics_\u201d (you say) have declared the manuscripts in question \u201cnot\nonly to be wholly undeserving of such charges, but, on the contrary, to\nexhibit a text of comparative purity.\u201d(859)\n\nThe sum of the difference therefore between our respective methods, my\nlord Bishop, proves to be this:\u2014that whereas _I_ endeavour by a laborious\naccumulation of _ancient Evidence_ to demonstrate that the decrees of\nLachmann, of Tischendorf and of Tregelles, _are untrustworthy_; _your_ way\nof reducing me to silence, is to cast Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf\nat every instant in my teeth. You make your appeal exclusively to _them_.\n\u201cIt would be difficult\u201d (you say) \u201cto find a recent English Commentator of\nany considerable reputation who has not been influenced, more or less\nconsistently, by _one or the other of these three Editors_:\u201d(860) (as if\n_that_ were any reason why I should do the same!) Because I pronounce the\nRevised reading of S. Luke ii. 14, \u201ca grievous perversion of the truth of\nScripture,\u201d you bid me consider \u201cthat in so speaking I am _censuring\nLachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles_.\u201d You seem in fact to have utterly\nmissed the point of my contention: which is, that the ancient Fathers\ncollectively (A.D. 150 to A.D. 450),\u2014inasmuch as they must needs have\nknown far better than Lachmann, Tregelles, or Tischendorf, (A.D. 1830 to\nA.D. 1880,) what was the Text of the New Testament in the earliest\nages,\u2014are perforce far more trustworthy guides than they. And further,\nthat whenever it can be clearly shown that the Ancients as a body say one\nthing, and the Moderns another, the opinion of the Moderns may be safely\ndisregarded.\n\nWhen therefore I open your pamphlet at the first page, and read as\nfollows:\u2014\u201cA bold assault has been made in recent numbers of the _Quarterly\nReview_ upon the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up _during\nthe last fifty years_ by the patient labour of successive editors of the\nNew Testament,\u201d(861)\u2014I fail to discover that any practical inconvenience\nresults to myself from your announcement. The same plaintive strain\nreappears at p. 39; where, having pointed out \u201cthat the text of the\nRevisers is, in all essential features, the same as that text in which the\nbest critical editors, _during the past fifty years_, are generally\nagreed,\u201d\u2014you insist \u201cthat thus, any attack made on the text of the\nRevisers is really an attack on the critical principles that have been\ncarefully and laboriously established _during the last half-century_.\u201d\nWith the self-same pathetic remonstrance you conclude your labours. \u201cIf,\u201d\n(you say) \u201cthe Revisers are wrong in the principles which they have\napplied to the determination of the Text, _the principles_ on which the\nTextual Criticism of _the last fifty years_ has been based, are wrong\nalso.\u201d(862)... Are you then not yet aware that the alternative which seems\nto you so alarming is in fact my whole contention? What else do you\nimagine it is that I am proposing to myself throughout, but effectually to\ndispel the vulgar prejudice,\u2014say rather, to plant my heel upon the weak\nsuperstition,\u2014which \u201c_for the last fifty years_\u201d has proved fatal to\nprogress in this department of learning; and which, if it be suffered to\nprevail, will make _a science_ of Textual Criticism impossible? A shallow\nempiricism has been the prevailing result, up to this hour, of the\nteaching of Lachmann, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles.\n\n\n\n\n[6] Bp. Ellicott in May 1870, and in May 1882.\n\n\nA word in your private ear, (by your leave) in passing. You seem to have\nforgotten that, at the time when you entered on the work of Revision,\n_your own_ estimate of the Texts put forth by these Editors was the\nreverse of favourable; _i.e._ was scarcely distinguishable from that of\nyour present correspondent. Lachmann\u2019s you described as \u201ca text composed\non _the narrowest and most exclusive_ principles,\u201d\u2014\u201creally based on\n_little more than four manuscripts_.\u201d\u2014\u201cThe case of Tischendorf\u201d (you said)\n\u201cis still more easily disposed of. Which of this most inconstant Critic\u2019s\ntexts are we to select? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated\npreference for a single manuscript has betrayed him into _an almost\nchildlike infirmity of judgment_. Surely also not the seventh edition,\nwhich exhibits all the instability which a comparatively recent\nrecognition of the authority of cursive manuscripts might be supposed\nlikely to introduce.\u201d\u2014As for poor Tregelles, you said:\u2014\u201cHis critical\nprinciples ... are now, perhaps justly, called in question.\u201d His text \u201cis\nrigid and mechanical, and sometimes fails to disclose _that critical\ninstinct and peculiar scholarly sagacity which_\u201d(863) have since evidently\ndisclosed themselves in perfection in those Members of the Revising body\nwho, with Bp. Ellicott at their head, systematically outvoted Prebendary\nScrivener in the Jerusalem Chamber. But with what consistency, my lord\nBishop, do you to-day vaunt \u201cthe principles\u201d of the very men whom\nyesterday you vilipended precisely because _their _\u201cprinciples\u201d then\nseemed to yourself so utterly unsatisfactory?\n\n\n\n\n[7] \u201cThe fabric of modern Textual Criticism\u201d (1831-81) rests on an\ninsecure basis.\n\n\nI have been guilty of little else than sacrilege, it seems, because I have\nventured to send a shower of shot and shell into the flimsy decrees of\nthese three Critics which now you are pleased grandiloquently to designate\nand describe as \u201c_the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up\nwithin the last fifty years_.\u201d Permit me to remind you that the \u201cfabric\u201d\nyou speak of,\u2014(confessedly a creation of yesterday,)\u2014rests upon a\nfoundation of sand; and has been already so formidably assailed, or else\nso gravely condemned by a succession of famous Critics, that as \u201c_a\nfabric_,\u201d its very existence may be reasonably called in question.\nTischendorf insists on the general depravity (\u201c_universa vitiositas_\u201d) of\ncodex B; on which codex nevertheless Drs. Westcott and Hort chiefly\nrely,\u2014regarding it as unique in its pre-eminent purity. The same pair of\nCritics depreciate the Traditional Text as \u201cbeyond all question identical\nwith the dominant [Greek] Text _of the second half of the fourth\ncentury_:\u201d\u2014whereas, \u201c_to bring the sacred text back to the condition in\nwhich it existed during the fourth century_,\u201d(864) was Lachmann\u2019s one\nobject; the sum and substance of his striving. \u201cThe fancy of a\nConstantinopolitan text, and every inference that has been grounded on its\npresumed existence,\u201d(865) Tregelles declares to have been \u201cswept away at\nonce and for ever,\u201d by Scrivener\u2019s published Collations. And yet, what\nelse but _this_ is \u201cthe fancy,\u201d (as already explained,) on which Drs.\nWestcott and Hort have been for thirty years building up their visionary\nTheory of Textual Criticism?\u2014What Griesbach attempted [1774-1805], was\ndenounced [1782-1805] by C. F. Matth\u00e6i;\u2014disapproved by\nScholz;\u2014demonstrated to be untenable by Abp. Laurence. Finally, in 1847,\nthe learned J. G. Reiche, in some Observations prefixed to his Collations\nof MSS. in the Paris Library, eloquently and ably exposed the\nunreasonableness of _any_ theory of \u201cRecension,\u201d\u2014properly so called;(866)\nthereby effectually anticipating Westcott and Hort\u2019s weak imagination of a\n\u201c_Syrian_ Text,\u201d while he was demolishing the airy speculations of\nGriesbach and Hug. \u201cThere is no royal road\u201d (he said) \u201cto the Criticism of\nthe N. T.: no plain and easy method, at once reposing on a firm\nfoundation, and conducting securely to the wished for goal.\u201d(867)...\nScarcely therefore in Germany had the basement-story been laid of that\n\u201cfabric of Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years,\u201d\nand which _you_ superstitiously admire,\u2014when a famous German scholar was\nheard denouncing the fabric as insecure. He foretold that the \u201c_regia\nvia_\u201d of codices B and \u05d0 would prove a deceit and a snare: which thing, at\nthe end of four-and-thirty years, has punctually come to pass.\n\nSeven years after, Lachmann\u2019s method was solemnly appealed from by the\nsame J. G. Reiche:(868) whose words of warning to his countrymen deserve\nthe attention of every thoughtful scholar among ourselves at this day. Of\nthe same general tenor and purport as Reiche\u2019s, are the utterances of\nthose giants in Textual Criticism, Vercellone of Rome and Ceriani of\nMilan. Quite unmistakable is the verdict of our own Scrivener concerning\nthe views of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, and the results to which\ntheir system has severally conducted them.\u2014If Alford adopted the\nprejudices of his three immediate predecessors, his authority has been\nneutralized by the far different teaching of one infinitely his superior\nin judgment and learning,\u2014the present illustrious Bishop of Lincoln.\u2014On\nthe same side with the last named are found the late Philip E. Pusey and\nArchd. Lee,\u2014Canon Cook and Dr. Field,\u2014the Bishop of S. Andrews and Dr. S.\nC. Malan. Lastly, at the end of fifty-one years, (viz. in 1881,) Drs.\nWestcott and Hort have revived Lachmann\u2019s unsatisfactory\nmethod,\u2014superadding thereto not a few extravagances of their own. That\ntheir views have been received with expressions of the gravest\ndisapprobation, no one will deny. Indispensable to their contention is the\ngrossly improbable hypothesis that the Peschito is to be regarded as the\n\u201cVulgate\u201d (_i.e._ the _Revised_) Syriac; Cureton\u2019s, as the \u201cVetus\u201d or\n_original_ Syriac version. And yet, while I write, the Abb\u00e9 Martin at\nParis is giving it as the result of his labours on this subject, that\nCureton\u2019s Version cannot be anything of the sort.(869) Whether Westcott\nand Hort\u2019s theory of a \u201c_Syrian_\u201d Text has not received an effectual\nquietus, let posterity decide. \u1f09\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nFrom which it becomes apparent that, at all events, \u201cthe fabric of\nCriticism which has been built up within the last fifty years\u201d has not\narisen without solemn and repeated protest,\u2014as well from within as from\nwithout. It may not therefore be spoken of by you as something which men\nare bound to maintain inviolate,\u2014like an Article of the Creed. It is quite\ncompetent, I mean, for any one to denounce the entire system of Lachmann,\nTischendorf and Tregelles,\u2014_as I do now_,\u2014as an egregious blunder; if he\nwill but be at the pains to establish on a severe logical basis the\ncontradictory of not a few of their most important decrees. And you, my\nlord Bishop, are respectfully reminded that your defence of their\nsystem,\u2014if you must needs defend what I deem worthless,\u2014must be conducted,\nnot by sneers and an affectation of superior enlightenment; still less by\nintimidation, scornful language, and all those other bad methods whereby\nit has been the way of Superstition in every age to rivet the fetters of\nintellectual bondage: but by severe reasoning, and calm discussion, and a\nfree appeal to ancient Authority, and a patient investigation of all the\nexternal evidence accessible. I request therefore that we may hear no more\nof _this_ form of argument. The Text of Lachmann and Tischendorf and\nTregelles,\u2014of Westcott and Hort and Ellicott, (_i.e._ _of the\nRevisers_,)\u2014is just now on its trial before the world.(870)\n\n\n\n\n[8] Bp. Ellicott\u2019s strange notions about the \u201cTextus Receptus.\u201d\n\n\nYour strangest mistakes and misrepresentations however are connected with\nthe \u201cTextus Receptus.\u201d It evidently exercises you sorely that \u201cwith the\nQuarterly Reviewer, the Received Text is a standard, by comparison with\nwhich all extant documents, _however indisputable their antiquity,_ are\nmeasured.\u201d(871) But pray,\u2014\n\n(1) By comparison with what _other_ standard, if not by the Received Text,\nwould you yourself obtain the measure of \u201call extant documents,\u201d however\nancient?... This first. And next,\n\n(2) Why should the \u201c_indisputable antiquity_\u201d of a document be supposed to\ndisqualify it from being measured by the same standard to which (_but only\nfor convenience_) documents of whatever date,\u2014by common consent of\nscholars, at home and abroad,\u2014are invariably referred? And next,\n\n(3) Surely, you cannot require to have it explained to you that a standard\n_of _COMPARISON, is not _therefore_ of necessity a standard _of\n_EXCELLENCE. Did you ever take the trouble to collate a sacred manuscript?\nIf you ever did, pray with _what_ did you make your collation? In other\nwords, what \u201cstandard\u201d did you employ?... Like Walton and Ussher,\u2014like\nFell and Mill,\u2014like Bentley, and Bengel, and Wetstein,\u2014like Birch, and\nMatth\u00e6i, and Griesbach, and Scholz,\u2014like Lachmann, and Tregelles, and\nTischendorf, and Scrivener,\u2014I venture to assume that you collated your\nmanuscript,\u2014whether it was of \u201cdisputable\u201d or of \u201cindisputable\nantiquity,\u201d\u2014with _an ordinary copy of the Received Text_. If you did not,\nyour collation is of no manner of use. But, above all,\n\n(4) How does it come to pass that you speak so scornfully of the Received\nText, seeing that (at p. 12 of your pamphlet) you assure your readers that\n_its pedigree may be traced back to a period perhaps antecedent to the\noldest of our extant manuscripts_? Surely, a traditional Text which\n(_according to you_) dates from about A.D. 300, is good enough for the\npurpose of _Collation_!\n\n(5) At last you say,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIf there were reason to suppose that the Received Text\n    represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at\n    Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to\n    regard it as a standard from which there was no appeal.\u201d(872)\n\n\nReally, my lord Bishop, you must excuse me if I declare plainly that the\nmore I attend to your critical utterances, the more I am astonished. From\nthe confident style in which you deliver yourself upon such matters, and\nespecially from your having undertaken to preside over a Revision of the\nSacred Text, one would suppose that at some period of your life you must\nhave given the subject a considerable amount of time and attention. But\nindeed the foregoing sentence virtually contains two propositions neither\nof which could possibly have been penned by one even moderately acquainted\nwith the facts of Textual Criticism. For first,\n\n(_a_) You speak of \u201crepresenting _verbatim et literatim_ THE Text which\nwas current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom.\u201d Do you then really\nsuppose that there existed at Antioch, at any period between A.D. 354 and\nA.D. 407, _some one definite Text of the N. T. _CAPABLE_ of being so\nrepresented_?\u2014If you do, pray will you indulge us with the grounds for\nsuch an extraordinary supposition? Your \u201cacquaintance\u201d (Dr. Tregelles)\nwill tell you that such a fancy has long since been swept away \u201cat once\nand for ever.\u201d And secondly,\n\n(_b_) You say that, even if there were reason to suppose that the\n\u201cReceived Text\u201d were such-and-such a thing,\u2014\u201cit would still be impossible\nto regard it as _a standard from which there was no appeal_.\u201d\n\nBut pray, who in his senses,\u2014what sane man in Great Britain,\u2014ever dreamed\nof regarding the \u201cReceived,\u201d\u2014aye, _or any other known _\u201cText,\u201d\u2014as \u201ca\nstandard _from which there shall be no appeal_\u201d? Have I ever done so? Have\nI ever _implied_ as much? If I have, show me _where_. You refer your\nreaders to the following passage in my first Article:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cWhat precedes admits to some extent of further numerical\n    illustration. It is discovered that, in 111 pages, ... the serious\n    deflections of A from the _Textus Receptus_ amount in all to only\n    842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in \u05d0, to\n    3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same\n    limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount\n    to 197: while \u05d0 exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D\n    (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit\n    that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire\n    confidence in codices B \u05d0 C D.\u201d\u2014p. 14.\n\n\nBut, do you really require to have it explained to you that it is entirely\nto misunderstand the question to object to such a comparison of codices as\nis found above, (viz. in pages 14 and 17,) on the ground that it was made\nwith the text of Stephanus lying open before me? Would not _the self-same\nphenomenon_ have been evolved by collation with _any other_ text? If you\ndoubt it, sit down and try the experiment for yourself. Believe me, Robert\nEtienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth\nand cod. D in the VIth are so widely discordant and divergent from one\nanother: A and C so utterly at variance with both.(873) We _must_ have\n_some_ standard whereby to test,\u2014wherewith to compare,\u2014Manuscripts. What\nis more, (give me leave to assure you,) _to the end of time_ it will\nprobably be the practice of scholars to compare MSS. of the N. T. with the\n\u201cReceived Text.\u201d The hopeless discrepancies between our five \u201cold\nuncials,\u201d can in no more convenient way be exhibited, than by referring\neach of them in turn to one and the same common standard. And,\u2014_What_\nstandard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text which, by the\ngood Providence of GOD, was universally employed throughout Europe for the\nfirst 300 years after the invention of printing? being practically\n_identical_ with the Text which (as you yourself admit) was in popular use\nat the end of three centuries from the date of the sacred autographs\nthemselves: in other word, being more than 1500 years old.\n\n\n\n\n[9] The Reviewer vindicates himself against Bp. Ellicott\u2019s misconceptions.\n\n\nBut you are quite determined that I shall mean something essentially\ndifferent. The Quarterly Reviewer, (you say,) is one who \u201ccontends that\nthe Received Text needs but little emendation; and _may be used without\nemendation as a standard_.\u201d(874) I am, (you say,) one of \u201cthose who adopt\nthe easy method of making the Received Text a standard.\u201d(875) My\n\u201cCriticism,\u201d (it seems,) \u201coften rests ultimately upon the notion that it\nis little else but sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last three\nhundred years.\u201d(876) (\u201c_The last three hundred years_:\u201d as if the\nTraditional Text of the N. Testament dated from the 25th of Queen\nElizabeth!)\u2014I regard the \u201cTextus Receptus\u201d therefore, according to you, as\nthe Ephesians regarded the image of the great goddess Diana; namely, as a\nthing which, one fine morning, \u201cfell down from Jupiter.\u201d(877) I mistake\nthe Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred\nAutographs,\u2014and erect it into \u201ca standard from which there shall be no\nappeal,\u201d\u2014\u201ca tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.\u201d\nThat is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly _confusing_ the\nstandard of _Comparison_ with the standard of _Excellence_.\n\nBy this time, however, enough has been said to convince any fair person\nthat you are without warrant in your present contention. Let _any_ candid\nscholar cast an impartial eye over the preceding three hundred and fifty\npages,\u2014open the volume where he will, and read steadily on to the end of\nany textual discussion,\u2014and then say whether, on the contrary, my\ncriticism does not invariably rest on the principle that the Truth of\nScripture is to be sought in that form of the Sacred Text which has _the\nfullest_, _the widest_, _and the most varied attestation_.(878) Do I not\ninvariably make _the consentient __ voice of Antiquity_ my standard? If I\ndo _not_,\u2014if, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the \u201cReceived\nText,\u201d and made _it_ my standard,\u2014why do you not prove the truth of your\nallegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance? instead\nof bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation, and\nwhich can have no other effect but to impose upon the ignorant; to mislead\nthe unwary; and to prejudice the great Textual question which hopelessly\ndivides you and me?... I trust that at least you will not again confound\nthe standard _of Comparison_ with the standard _of Truth_.\n\n\n\n\n[10] Analysis of contents of Bp. Ellicott\u2019s pamphlet.\n\n\nYou state at page 6, that what you propose to yourself by your pamphlet,\nis,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201c_First_, to supply accurate information, in a popular form,\n    concerning the Greek text of the Now Testament:\n\n    \u201c_Secondly_, to establish, by means of the information so\n    supplied, the soundness of the principles on which the Revisers\n    have acted in their choice of readings; and by consequence, the\n    importance of the \u2018New Greek Text:\u2019 \u201d\u2014[or, as you phrase it at p.\n    29,]\u2014\u201cto enable the reader to form a fair judgment on the question\n    of _the trustworthiness of the readings adopted by the Revisers_.\u201d\n\n\nTo the former of these endeavours you devote twenty-three pages: (viz. p.\n7 to p. 29):\u2014to the latter, you devote forty-two; (viz. p. 37 to p. 78).\nThe intervening eight pages are dedicated,\u2014(_a_) To the constitution of\nthe Revisionist body: and next, (_b_) To the amount of good faith with\nwhich you and your colleagues observed the conditions imposed upon you by\nthe Southern Houses of Convocation. I propose to follow you over the\nground in which you have thus entrenched yourself, and to drive you out of\nevery position in turn.\n\n\n\n\n[11] Bp. Ellicott\u2019s account of the \u201cTEXTUS RECEPTUS.\u201d\n\n\nFirst then, for your strenuous endeavour (pp. 7-10) to prejudice the\nquestion by pouring contempt on the humblest ancestor of the _Textus\nReceptus_\u2014namely, the first edition of Erasmus. You know very well that\nthe \u201cTextus Receptus\u201d is _not_ the first edition of Erasmus. Why then do\nyou so describe its origin as to imply that _it is_? You ridicule the\ncircumstances under which a certain ancestor of the family first saw the\nlight. You reproduce with evident satisfaction a silly witticism of\nMichaelis, viz. that, in his judgment, the Evangelium on which Erasmus\nchiefly relied was not worth the two florins which the monks of Basle gave\nfor it. Equally contemptible (according to you) were the copies of the\nActs, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse which the same scholar employed for\nthe rest of his first edition. Having in this way done your best to\nblacken a noble house by dilating on the low ebb to which its fortunes\nwere reduced at a critical period of its history, some three centuries and\na half ago,\u2014you pause to make your own comment on the spectacle thus\nexhibited to the eyes of unlearned readers, lest any should fail to draw\ntherefrom the injurious inference which is indispensable for your\nargument:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cWe have entered into these details, because we desire that the\n    general reader should know fully the true pedigree of that printed\n    text of the Greek Testament which has been in common use for the\n    last three centuries. It will be observed that its documentary\n    origin is not calculated to inspire any great confidence. Its\n    parents, as we have seen, were two or three late manuscripts of\n    little critical value, which accident seems to have brought into\n    the hands of their first editor.\u201d\u2014p. 10.\n\n\nNow, your account of the origin of the \u201cTextus Receptus\u201d shall be suffered\nto stand uncontradicted. But the important _inference_, which you intend\nthat inattentive or incompetent readers should draw therefrom, shall be\nscattered to the winds by the unequivocal testimony of no less\ndistinguished a witness than yourself. Notwithstanding all that has gone\nbefore, you are constrained to confess _in the very next page_ that:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part,\n    _only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the\n    cursive manuscripts_. The general character of their text is the\n    same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is\n    carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus....\n    _That_ pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. _The first\n    ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the\n    oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of\n    them._\u201d\u2014pp. 11, 12.\n\n\nBy your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is, \u201c_at least_,\u201d 1550\nyears old. Nay, we will have the fact over again, in words which you adopt\nfrom p. 92 of Westcott and Hort\u2019s _Introduction_ [see above, p. 257], and\nclearly make your own:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is\n    _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or\n    Gr\u00e6co-Syrian _Text of the second half of the fourth century_.\u201d\u2014p.\n    12.\n\n\nBut, if this be so,\u2014(and I am not concerned to dispute your statement in a\nsingle particular,)\u2014of what possible significancy can it be to your\npresent contention, that the ancestry of the WRITTEN WORD (like the\nancestors of the WORD INCARNATE) had at one time declined to the wondrous\nlow estate on which you enlarged at first with such evident satisfaction?\nThough the fact be admitted that Joseph \u201cthe carpenter\u201d was \u201cthe husband\nof Mary, of whom was born JESUS, who is called CHRIST,\u201d\u2014what possible\ninconvenience results from that circumstance so long as the only thing\ncontended for be loyally conceded,\u2014namely, that the descent of MESSIAH is\nlineally traceable back to the patriarch Abraham, through David the King?\nAnd the genealogy of the written, no less than the genealogy of the\nIncarnate WORD, is traceable back by _two distinct lines of descent_,\nremember: for the \u201cComplutensian,\u201d which was printed in 1514, exhibits the\n\u201cTraditional Text\u201d with the same general fidelity as the \u201cErasmian,\u201d which\ndid not see the light till two years later.\n\n\n\n\n[12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the \u201cTEXTUS RECEPTUS\u201d from\nWestcott and Hart\u2019s fable of a \u201cSYRIAN TEXT.\u201d\n\n\nLet us hear what comes next:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cAt this point a question suggests itself which we cannot refuse\n    to consider. If the pedigree of the Received Text may be traced\n    back to so early a period, does it not deserve the honour which is\n    given to it by the Quarterly Reviewer?\u201d\u2014p. 12.\n\n\nA very pertinent question truly. We are made attentive: the more so,\nbecause you announce that your reply to this question shall \u201cgo to the\nbottom of the controversy with which we are concerned.\u201d(879) That reply is\nas follows:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIf there were reason to suppose that the Received Text\n    represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at\n    Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to\n    regard it as a standard _from which there was no appeal_. The\n    reason why this would be impossible may be stated briefly as\n    follows. In the ancient documents which have come down to\n    us,\u2014amongst which, as is well known, are manuscripts written in\n    the fourth century,\u2014we possess evidence that other texts of the\n    Greek Testament existed in the age of Chrysostom, materially\n    different from the text which he and the Antiochian writers\n    generally employed. Moreover, a rigorous examination of extant\n    documents shows that the Antiochian or (as we shall henceforth\n    call it with Dr. Hort) the Syrian text did not represent an\n    earlier tradition than those other texts, but was in fact of later\n    origin than the rest. We cannot accept it therefore as _a final\n    standard_.\u201d\u2014pp. 13, 14.\n\n\n\u201cA _final_ standard\u201d!... Nay but, why do you suddenly introduce this\nunheard-of characteristic? _Who_, pray, since the invention of Printing\nwas ever known to put forward _any_ existing Text as \u201ca final standard\u201d?\nNot the Quarterly Reviewer certainly. \u201cThe honour which is given to the\n_Textus Receptus_ by the Quarterly Reviewer\u201d is no other than the honour\nwhich it has enjoyed at the hands of scholars, by universal consent, for\nthe last three centuries. That is to say, he uses it as a standard of\ncomparison, and employs it for habitual reference. _So do you._ You did\nso, at least, in the year 1870. You did more; for you proposed \u201cto proceed\nwith the work of Revision, whether of text or translation, _making the\ncurrent _\u2018Textus Receptus\u2019_ the standard_.\u201d(880) We are perfectly agreed\ntherefore. For my own part, being fully convinced, like yourself, that\nessentially the Received Text is full 1550 years old,\u2014(yes, and a vast\ndeal older,)\u2014I esteem it quite good enough for all ordinary purposes. And\nyet, so far am I from pinning my faith to it, that I eagerly make my\nappeal _from_ it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers,\nwhenever I find its testimony challenged.\u2014And with this renewed\nexplanation of my sentiments,\u2014(which one would have thought that no\ncompetent person could require,)\u2014I proceed to consider the reply which you\npromise shall \u201cgo to the bottom of the controversy with which we are\nconcerned.\u201d I beg that you will not again seek to divert attention from\nthat which is the real matter of dispute betwixt you and me.\n\nWhat kind of argumentation then is this before us? You assure us that,\u2014\n\n(_a_) \u201cA rigorous examination of extant documents,\u201d\u2014\u201cshows\u201d Dr. Hort\u2014\u201cthat\nthe Syrian text\u201d\u2014[which for all practical purposes may be considered as\nonly another name for the \u201cTextus Receptus\u201d]\u2014was of later origin than\n\u201cother texts of the Greek Testament\u201d which \u201cexisted in the age of\nChrysostom.\u201d\n\n(_b_) \u201cWe cannot accept it therefore as a final standard.\u201d\n\nBut,\u2014Of what nature is the logical process by which you have succeeded in\nconvincing yourself that _this_ consequent can be got out of _that_\nantecedent? Put a parallel case:\u2014\u201cA careful analysis of herbs \u2018shows\u2019 Dr.\nShort that the only safe diet for Man is a particular kind of rank grass\nwhich grows in the Ely fens. We must therefore leave off eating butcher\u2019s\nmeat.\u201d\u2014Does _that_ seem to you altogether a satisfactory argument? To me,\nit is a mere _non sequitur_. Do but consider the matter for a moment. \u201cA\nrigorous examination of extant documents shows\u201d Dr. Hort\u2014such and such\nthings. \u201cA rigorous examination of the\u201d same \u201cdocuments shows\u201d _me_\u2014that\nDr. Hort _is mistaken_. A careful study of his book convinces _me_ that\nhis theory of a Syrian Recension, manufactured between A.D. 250 and A.D.\n350, is a dream, pure and simple\u2014_a mere phantom of the brain_. Dr. Hort\u2019s\ncourse is obvious. Let him _first_ make his processes of proof\nintelligible, and _then_ public. You cannot possibly suppose that the\nfable of \u201ca Syrian text,\u201d though it has evidently satisfied _you_, will be\naccepted by thoughtful Englishmen without proof. What prospect do you\nsuppose you have of convincing the world that Dr. Hort is competent to\nassign _a date_ to this creature of his own imagination; of which he has\nhitherto failed to demonstrate so much as the probable existence?\n\nI have, for my own part, established by abundant references to his\nwritings that he is one of those who, (through some intellectual\npeculiarity,) are for ever mistaking conjectures for facts,\u2014assertions for\narguments,\u2014and reiterated asseveration for accumulated proof. He deserves\nsympathy, certainly: for,\u2014(like the man who passed his life in trying to\ncount how many grains of sand will exactly fill a quart pot;\u2014or like his\nunfortunate brother, who made it his business to prove that nothing,\nmultiplied by a sufficient number of figures, amounts to something;)\u2014he\nhas evidently taken a prodigious deal of useless trouble. The spectacle of\nan able and estimable man exhibiting such singular inaptitude for a\nprovince of study which, beyond all others, demands a clear head and a\ncalm, dispassionate judgment,\u2014creates distress.\n\n\n\n\n[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort\u2019s Theory.\n\n\nBut in the meantime, so confident are _you_ of the existence of a \u201cSyrian\ntext,\u201d\u2014(_only however because Dr. Hort is_,)\u2014that you inflict upon your\nreaders all the consequences which \u201cthe Syrian text\u201d is supposed to carry\nwith it. Your method is certainly characterized by humility: for it\nconsists in merely serving up to the British public a _r\u00e9chauff\u00e9_ of\nWestcott and Hort\u2019s Textual Theory. I cannot discover that you contribute\nanything of your own to the meagre outline you furnish of it. Everything\nis assumed\u2014as before. Nothing is proved\u2014as before. And we are referred to\nDr. Hort for the resolution of every difficulty which Dr. Hort has\ncreated. \u201cAccording to Dr. Hort,\u201d\u2014\u201cas Dr. Hort observes,\u201d\u2014\u201cto use Dr.\nHort\u2019s language,\u201d\u2014\u201cstated by Dr. Hort,\u201d\u2014\u201cas Dr. Hort notices,\u201d\u2014\u201csays Dr.\nHort:\u201d yes, from p. 14 of your pamphlet to p. 29 you do nothing else but\nreproduce\u2014Dr. Hort!\n\nFirst comes the fabulous account of the contents of the bulk of the\ncursives:(881)\u2014then, the imaginary history of the \u201cSyriac Vulgate;\u201d which\n(it seems) bears \u201cindisputable traces\u201d of being a revision, of which you\nhave learned _from Dr. Hort_ the date:(882)\u2014then comes the same\ndisparagement of the ancient Greek Fathers,\u2014\u201cfor reasons which have been\n_stated by Dr. Hort_ with great clearness and cogency:\u201d(883)\u2014then, the\nsame depreciatory estimate of writers subsequent to Eusebius,\u2014whose\nevidence is declared to \u201cstand at best on no higher level than the\nevidence of inferior manuscripts in the uncial class:\u201d(884) but _only_\nbecause it is discovered to be destructive of the theory _of Dr. Hort_.\n\nNext comes \u201cthe Method of Genealogy,\u201d\u2014which you declare is the result of\n\u201cvast research, unwearied patience, great critical sagacity;\u201d(885) but\nwhich I am prepared to prove is, on the contrary, a shallow expedient for\ndispensing with scientific Induction and the laborious accumulation of\nevidence. This same \u201cMethod of Genealogy,\u201d you are not ashamed to announce\nas \u201cthe great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials.\u201d\n\u201cFor the full explanation of it, _you must refer your reader to Dr. Hort\u2019s\nIntroduction_.\u201d(886) Can you be serious?\n\nThen come the results to which \u201cthe application of this method _has\nconducted Drs. Westcott and Hort_.\u201d(887) And first, the fable of the\n\u201cSyrian Text\u201d\u2014which \u201c_Dr. Hort considers_ to have been the result of a\ndeliberate Recension,\u201d conducted on erroneous principles. This fabricated\nproduct of the IIIrd and IVth centuries, (you say,) rose to\nsupremacy,\u2014became dominant at Antioch,\u2014passed thence to\nConstantinople,\u2014and once established there, soon vindicated its claim to\nbe the N. T. of the East: whence it overran the West, and for 300 years as\nthe \u201cTextus Receptus,\u201d has held undisputed sway.(888) Really, my lord\nBishop, you describe imaginary events in truly Oriental style. One seems\nto be reading not so much of the \u201cSyrian Text\u201d as of the Syrian Impostor.\nOne expects every moment to hear of some feat of this fabulous Recension\ncorresponding with the surrender of the British troops and Arabi\u2019s\ntriumphant entry into Cairo with the head of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in his\nhand!\n\nAll this is followed, of course, by the weak fable of the \u201cNeutral\u201d Text,\nand of the absolute supremacy of Codex B,\u2014which is \u201c_stated in Dr. Hort\u2019s\nown words_:\u201d(889)\u2014viz. \u201cB very far exceeds all other documents in\nneutrality of text, being in fact always, or nearly always, neutral.\u201d (The\n_fact_ being that codex B is demonstrably one of the most corrupt\ndocuments in existence.) The posteriority of the (imaginary) \u201cSyrian,\u201d to\nthe (imaginary) \u201cNeutral,\u201d is insisted upon next in order, as a matter of\ncourse: and declared to rest upon three other considerations,\u2014each one of\nwhich is found to be pure fable: viz. (1) On the fable of \u201cConflation,\u201d\nwhich \u201c_seems_ to supply a proof\u201d that Syrian readings are posterior both\nto Western and to Neutral readings\u2014but, (as I have elsewhere(890) shown,\nat considerable length,) most certainly _does_ not:\u2014(2) On Ante-Nicene\nPatristic evidence,\u2014of which however not a syllable is produced:\u2014(3) On\n\u201c_Transcriptional probability_\u201d\u2014which is about as useful a substitute for\nproof as a sweet-pea for a walking-stick.\n\nWidely dissimilar of course is your own view of the importance of the\nforegoing instruments of conviction. To _you_, \u201cthese three reasons taken\ntogether seem to make up an argument for the posteriority of the Syrian\nText, which it is impossible to resist. They form\u201d (you say) \u201ca threefold\ncord of evidence which [you] believe will bear any amount of argumentative\nstrain.\u201d You rise with your subject, and at last break out into eloquence\nand vituperation:\u2014\u201cWriters like the Reviewer may attempt to cut the cord\n_by reckless and unverified assertions_: but _the knife has not yet been\nfabricated that can equitably separate any one of its strands_.\u201d(891)...\nSo effectually, as well as so deliberately, have you lashed yourself\u2014for\nbetter or for worse\u2014to Westcott and Hort\u2019s New Textual Theory, that you\nmust now of necessity either share its future triumphs, or else be a\npartaker in its coming humiliation. Am I to congratulate you on your\nprospects?\n\nFor my part, I make no secret of the fact that I look upon the entire\nspeculation about which you are so enthusiastic, as an excursion into\ncloud-land: a _dream_ and nothing more. My contention is,\u2014_not_ that the\nTheory of Drs. Westcott and Hort rests on an _insecure_ foundation, but,\nthat it rests on _no foundation at all_. Moreover, I am greatly mistaken\nif this has not been _demonstrated_ in the foregoing pages.(892) On one\npoint, at all events, there cannot exist a particle of doubt; namely, that\nso far from its \u201c_not being for you to interpose in this controversy_\u201d\u2014you\nare without alternative. You must either come forward at once, and bring\nit to a successful issue: or else, you must submit to be told that you\nhave suffered defeat, inasmuch as you are inextricably involved in\nWestcott and Hort\u2019s discomfiture. You are simply without remedy. _You_ may\n\u201c_find nothing in the Reviewer\u2019s third article to require a further\nanswer_:\u201d but readers of intelligence will tell you that your finding,\nsince it does not proceed from stupidity, can only result from your\nconsciousness that you have made a serious blunder: and that now, the less\nyou say about \u201cWestcott and Hort\u2019s new textual Theory,\u201d the better.\n\n\n\n\n[14] The Question modestly proposed,\u2014Whether Bp. Ellicott\u2019s adoption of\nWestcott and Hort\u2019s \u201cnew Textual Theory\u201d does not amount to (what lawyers\ncall) \u201cCONSPIRACY\u201d?\n\n\nBut, my lord Bishop, when I reach the end of your laborious avowal that\nyou entirely accept \u201cWestcott and Hort\u2019s new Textual Theory,\u201d\u2014I find it\nimpossible to withhold the respectful enquiry,\u2014Is such a proceeding on\nyour part altogether allowable? I frankly confess that to _me_ the\nwholesale adoption by the Chairman of the Revising body, of the theory of\ntwo of the Revisers,\u2014and then, his exclusive reproduction and vindication\nof _that theory_, when he undertakes,\n\n\n    \u201cto supply the reader with a few broad outlines of Textual\n    Criticism, so as to enable him to form _a fair judgment_ on the\n    question of the trustworthiness of _the readings adopted by the\n    Revisers_,\u201d\u2014p. 29,\n\n\nall this, my lord Bishop, I frankly avow, to _me_, looks very much indeed\nlike what, in the language of lawyers, is called \u201cConspiracy.\u201d It appears\nthen that instead of presiding over the deliberations of the Revisionists\nas an impartial arbiter, you have been throughout, heart and soul, an\neager partizan. You have learned to employ freely Drs. Westcott and Hort\u2019s\npeculiar terminology. You adopt their scarcely-intelligible phrases: their\nwild hypotheses: their arbitrary notions about \u201cIntrinsic\u201d and\n\u201cTranscriptional Probability:\u201d their baseless theory of \u201cConflation:\u201d\ntheir shallow \u201cMethod of Genealogy.\u201d You have, in short, evidently\nswallowed their novel invention whole. I can no longer wonder at the\nresult arrived at by the body of Revisionists. Well may Dr. Scrivener have\npleaded in vain! He found Drs. Ellicott and Westcott and Hort too many for\nhim.... But it is high time that I should pass on.\n\n\n\n\n[15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the Instructions\nthey received from the Convocation of the Southern Province.\n\n\nIt follows next to enquire whether your work as Revisers was conducted in\nconformity with the conditions imposed upon you by the Southern House of\nConvocation, or not. \u201c_Nothing_\u201d (you say)\u2014\n\n\n    \u201c_can be more unjust_ on the part of the Reviewer than to suggest,\n    as he has suggested in more than one passage,(893) that the\n    Revisers _exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which they\n    adopted with regard to the Greek Text. On the contrary, as we\n    shall show, they adhered most closely to their Instructions; and\n    did neither more nor less than they were required to do.\u201d\u2014(p. 32.)\n\n\n\u201cThe Reviewer,\u201d my lord Bishop, proceeds to _demonstrate_ that you\n\u201cexceeded your Instructions,\u201d even to an extraordinary extent. But it will\nbe convenient first to hear you out. You proceed,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cLet us turn to the Rule. It is simply as follows:\u2014\u2018That the text\n    to be adopted be that for which the Evidence _is decidedly\n    preponderating_: and that when the text so adopted differs from\n    that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be\n    indicated in the margin.\u2019 \u201d\u2014(_Ibid._)\n\n\nBut you seem to have forgotten that the \u201cRule\u201d which you quote formed no\npart of the \u201c_Instructions_\u201d which were imposed upon you by Convocation.\nIt was one of the \u201cPrinciples _agreed to by the Committee_\u201d (25 May,\n1870),\u2014a Rule _of your own making_ therefore,\u2014for which Convocation\nneither was nor is responsible. The \u201cfundamental Resolutions adopted by\nthe Convocation of Canterbury\u201d (3rd and 5th May, 1870), five in number,\ncontain no authorization whatever for making changes in the Greek Text.\nThey have reference only to the work of revising \u201c_the Authorized\nVersion_:\u201d an undertaking which the first Resolution declares to be\n\u201cdesirable.\u201d \u201cIn order to ascertain what were the Revisers\u2019 _Instructions_\nwith regard to the Greek Text,\u201d we must refer to the original Resolution\nof Feb. 10th, 1870: in which the removal of \u201c_plain and clear errors_,\nwhether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the\nTranslation made from the same,\u201d\u2014is for the first and last time mentioned.\nThat you yourself accepted this as the limit of your authority, is proved\nby your Speech in Convocation. \u201cWe may be satisfied\u201d (you said) \u201cwith the\nattempt to correct _plain and clear errors_: but _there, it is our duty to\nstop_.\u201d(894)\n\nNow I venture to assert that not one in a hundred of the alterations you\nhave actually made, \u201cwhether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the\nTranslators, or in the Translation made from the same,\u201d are corrections of\n\u201c_plain and clear errors_.\u201d Rather,\u2014(to adopt the words of the learned\nBishop of Lincoln,)\u2014\u201cI fear we must say in candour that in the Revised\nVersion we meet in every page with changes _which seem almost to be made\nfor the sake of change_.\u201d(895) May I trouble you to refer back to p. 112\nof the present volume for a few words more on this subject from the pen of\nthe same judicious Prelate?\n\n(_a_) _And first_,\u2014_In respect of the New English Version_.\n\nFor my own part, (see above, pp. 171-2,) I thought the best thing I could\ndo would be to illustrate the nature of my complaint, by citing and\ncommenting on an actual instance of your method. I showed how, in revising\neight-and-thirty words (2 Pet. i. 5-7), you had contrived to introduce no\nfewer than _thirty changes_,\u2014every one of them being clearly a change for\nthe worse. You will perhaps say,\u2014Find me another such case! I find it, my\nlord Bishop, in S. Luke viii. 45, 46,\u2014where you have made _nineteen\nchanges_ in revising the translation of four-and-thirty words. I proceed\nto transcribe the passage; requesting you to bear in mind your own\nemphatic protestation,\u2014\u201cWe made _no_ change _if the meaning was fairly\nexpressed_ by the word or phrase before us.\u201d\n\nA.V.                        R.V.\n\u201cPeter and they that were   \u201cPeter said [1], and they\nwith him said, Master,      that were with him,\nthe multitude throng thee   Master the multitudes [2]\nand press thee, and         press [3] thee and crush\nsayest thou, Who touched    thee [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.]\nme? And Jesus said,         But [11] Jesus said, Some\nSomebody hath touched me:   one [12] did touch [14]\nfor I perceive that         me: for I perceived [15]\nvirtue is gone out of       that power [16] had [17]\nme.\u201d                        gone forth [18] from [19]\n                            me.\u201d\n\nNow pray,\u2014Was not \u201cthe meaning _fairly expressed_\u201d before? Will you tell\nme that in revising S. Luke viii. 45-6, you \u201c_made as few alterations as\npossible_\u201d? or will you venture to assert that you have removed none but\n\u201c_plain and clear errors_\u201d? On the contrary. I challenge any competent\nscholar in Great Britain to say _whether every one of these changes_ be\nnot either absolutely useless, or else _decidedly a change for the worse_:\nsix of them being downright _errors_.\n\nThe transposition in the opening sentence is infelicitous, to say the\nleast. (The English language will not bear such handling. Literally, no\ndoubt, the words mean, \u201csaid Peter, and they that were with him.\u201d But you\nmay not so _translate_.)\u2014The omission of the six interesting words,\nindicated within square brackets, is a serious blunder.(896) The words are\n_undoubtedly_ genuine. I wonder how you can have ventured thus to mutilate\nthe Book of Life. And why did you not, out of common decency and\nreverence, _at least in the margin_, preserve a record of the striking\nclause which you thus,\u2014with well-meant assiduity, but certainly with\ndeplorable rashness,\u2014forcibly ejected from the text? To proceed\nhowever.\u2014\u201cMultitudes,\u201d\u2014\u201cbut,\u201d\u2014\u201cone,\u201d\u2014\u201cdid,\u201d\u2014 \u201cpower,\u201d\u2014\u201cforth,\u201d\u2014\u201cfrom:\u201d\u2014are\nall seven either needless changes, or improper, or undesirable. \u201c_Did\ntouch_,\u201d\u2014\u201c_perceived_,\u201d\u2014\u201c_had gone forth_,\u201d\u2014are unidiomatic and incorrect\nexpressions. I have already explained this elsewhere.(897) The aorist\n(\u1f25\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf) has here a perfect signification, as in countless other\nplaces:\u2014\u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, (like \u201c_novi_,\u201d) is frequently (as here) to be Englished by\nthe present (\u201c_I perceive_\u201d): and \u201c_is gone out of me_\u201d is the nearest\nrendering of \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd(898) \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 which our language will\nbear.\u2014Lastly, \u201c_press_\u201d and \u201c_crush_,\u201d as renderings of \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 and\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, are inexact and unscholarlike. \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, (literally \u201cto\nencompass\u201d or \u201chem in,\u201d) is here to \u201cthrong\u201d or \u201ccrowd:\u201d \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n(literally \u201cto squeeze,\u201d) is here to \u201cpress.\u201d But in fact the words were\nperfectly well rendered by our Translators of 1611, and ought to have been\nlet alone.\u2014This specimen may suffice, (and it is a very fair specimen,) of\nwhat has been your calamitous method of revising the A. V. throughout.\n\nSo much then for the Revised _English_. The fate of the Revised _Greek_ is\neven more extraordinary. I proceed to explain myself by instancing what\nhas happened in respect of the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE.\n\n(_b_) _Next_,\u2014_In respect of the New Greek Text._\n\nOn examining the 836(899) Greek Textual corrections which you have\nintroduced into those 1151 verses, I find that at least 356 of them _do\nnot affect the English rendering at all_. I mean to say that those 356\n(supposed) emendations are either _incapable_ of being represented in a\nTranslation, or at least are _not_ represented. Thus, in S. Luke iv. 3,\nwhether \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad or \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd is read:\u2014in ver. 7, whether \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 or \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5:\u2014in\nver. 8, whether \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2, or \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u039a. \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398.\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5; whether \u1f24\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad or \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f24\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd; whether \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 or \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2:\u2014in ver. 17,\nwhether \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f29\u03c3\u03b1\u00ef\u03bf\u03c5 or \u1f29. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5; whether \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 or\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c2:\u2014in ver. 18, whether \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 or \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9:\u2014in ver.\n20, whether \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1fc7 or \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1fc7 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03af:\u2014in\nver. 23, whether \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd or \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7:\u2014in ver. 27, whether \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u1f18\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 or \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f18\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3., \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38.:\u2014in ver. 29, whether\n\u1f40\u03c6\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c6\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c2; whether \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 or \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc:\u2014in ver. 35, whether \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd or\n\u1f10\u03be:\u2014in ver. 38, whether \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc or \u1f10\u03ba; whether \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac or \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac:\u2014in ver.\n43, whether \u1f10\u03c0\u03af or \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2; whether \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd or \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9:\u2014in ver. 44,\nwhether \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ac\u03c2 or \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2:\u2014in every one of these\ncases, _the English remains the same_, whichever of the alternative\nreadings is adopted. At least 19 therefore out of the 33 changes which you\nintroduced into the Greek Text of S. Luke iv. are plainly gratuitous.\n\n_Thirteen_ of those 19, (or about two-thirds,) are also in my opinion\nchanges _for_ the _worse_: are nothing else, I mean, but substitutions of\n_wrong for right_ Readings. But _that_ is not my present contention. The\npoint I am just now contending for is this:\u2014That, since it certainly was\nno part of your \u201cInstructions,\u201d \u201cRules,\u201d or \u201cPrinciples\u201d _to invent a new\nGreek Text_,\u2014or indeed to meddle with the original Greek at all, _except\nso far as was absolutely necessary for the Revision of the English\nVersion_,\u2014it is surely a very grave form of inaccuracy to assert (as you\nnow do) that you \u201cadhered most closely to your Instructions, and did\nneither more nor less than you were required.\u201d\u2014You _know_ that you did a\nvast deal more than you had any authority or right to do: a vast deal more\nthan you had the shadow of a pretext for doing. Worse than that. You\ndeliberately forsook the province to which you had been exclusively\nappointed by the Southern Convocation,\u2014and you ostentatiously invaded\nanother and a distinct province; viz. _That_ of the critical Editorship of\nthe Greek Text: for which, _by your own confession_,\u2014(I take leave to\nremind you of your own honest avowal, quoted above at page 369,)\u2014you and\nyour colleagues _knew_ yourselves to be incompetent.\n\nFor, when those 356 wholly gratuitous and uncalled-for changes in the\nGreek of S. Luke\u2019s Gospel come to be examined in detail, they are found to\naffect far more than 356 words. By the result, 92 words have been omitted;\nand 33 added. No less than 129 words have been substituted for others\nwhich stood in the text before; and there are 66 instances of\nTransposition, involving the dislocation of 185 words. The changes of\ncase, mood, tense, &c., amount in addition to 123.(900) The sum of the\nwords which you have _needlessly_ meddled with in the Greek Text of the\nthird Gospel proves therefore to be 562.\n\nAt this rate,\u2014(since, [excluding marginal notes and variations in stops,]\nScrivener(901) counts 5337 various readings in his Notes,)\u2014the number of\nalterations _gratuitously and uselessly introduced by you into the Greek\nText of the entire N. T._, is to be estimated at 3590.\n\nAnd if,\u2014(as seems probable,)\u2014the same general proportion prevails\nthroughout your entire work,\u2014it will appear that the words which, without\na shadow of excuse, you have _omitted_ from the Greek Text of the N. T.,\nmust amount to about 590: while you have _added_ in the same gratuitous\nway about 210; and have needlessly _substituted_ about 820. Your instances\nof uncalled-for _transposition_, (about 420 in number,) will have involved\nthe gratuitous dislocation of full 1190 words:\u2014while the occasions on\nwhich, at the bidding of Drs. Westcott and Hort, you have altered case,\nmood, tense, &c., must amount to about 780. In this way, the sum of the\nchanges you have effected in the Greek Text of the N. T. _in clear\ndefiance of your Instructions_,\u2014would amount, as already stated, to 3590.\n\nNow, when it is considered that _not one_ of those 3590 changes _in the\nleast degree affects the English Revision_,\u2014it is undeniable, not only\nthat you and your friends did what you were without authority for\ndoing:\u2014but also that you violated as well the spirit as the letter of your\nInstructions. As for your present assertion (at p. 32) that you \u201cadhered\n_most closely_ to the Instructions you received, and _did neither more nor\nless than you were required to do_,\u201d\u2014you must submit to be reminded that\nit savours strongly of the nature of pure fable. The history of the new\nGreek Text is briefly this:\u2014A majority of the Revisers\u2014_including\nyourself, their Chairman_,\u2014are found to have put yourselves almost\nunreservedly into the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort. The result was\nobvious. When the minority, headed by Dr. Scrivener, appealed to the\nchair, they found themselves confronted by a prejudiced Advocate. They\nought to have been listened to by an impartial Judge. _You_, my lord\nBishop, are in consequence (I regret to say) responsible for all the\nmischief which has occurred. The blame of it rests at _your_ door.\n\nAnd pray disabuse yourself of the imagination that in what precedes I have\nbeen _stretching_ the numbers in order to make out a case against you. It\nwould be easy to show that in estimating the amount of needless changes at\n356 out of 836, I am greatly under the mark. I have not included such\ncases, for instance, as your substitution of \u1f21 \u03bc\u03bd\u1fb6 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 for \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5, \u1f21\n\u03bc\u03bd\u1fb6 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 (in xix. 18), and of \u03a4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 for \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd (in xx.\n25),(902)\u2014only lest you should pretend that the transposition affects the\nEnglish, and therefore _was_ necessary. Had I desired to swell the number\nI could have easily shown that fully _half_ the changes you effected in\nthe Greek Text were wholly superfluous for the Revision of the English\nTranslation, and therefore were entirely without excuse.\n\n_This_, in fact,\u2014(give me leave to remind you in passing,)\u2014is the _true_\nreason why, at an early stage of your proceedings, you resolved that\n_none_ of the changes you introduced into the Greek Text should find a\nrecord in your English margin. Had _any_ been recorded, _all_ must have\nappeared. And had this been done, you would have stood openly convicted of\nhaving utterly disregarded the \u201cInstructions\u201d you had received from\nConvocation. With what face, for example, _could_ you, (in the margin of\nS. Luke xv. 17,) against the words \u201che said,\u201d\u2014have printed \u201c\u1f14\u03c6\u03b7 not \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u201d?\nor, (at xxiv. 44,) against the words \u201cunto them,\u201d\u2014must you not have been\nashamed to encumber the already overcrowded margin with such an irrelevant\nstatement as,\u2014\u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 _not_ \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\u201d?\n\nNow, if this were all, you might reply that by my own showing the Textual\nchanges complained of, if they do no good, at least do no harm. But then,\nunhappily, you and your friends have not confined yourselves to colourless\nreadings, when silently up and down every part of the N. T. you have\nintroduced innovations. I open your New English Version at random (S. John\niv. 15), and invite your attention to the first instance which catches my\neye.\n\nYou have made the Woman of Samaria _complain of the length of the walk_\nfrom Sychar to Jacob\u2019s well:\u2014\u201cSir, give me this water, that I thirst not,\nneither _come all the way_ hither to draw.\u201d\u2014What has happened? For\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, I discover that you have silently substituted \u0394\u0399\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. (Even\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 has no such meaning: but let _that_ pass.) What then was your\nauthority for thrusting \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 (which by the way is a patent absurdity)\ninto the Text? The word is found (I discover) _in only two Greek MSS. of\nhad character_(903) (B \u05d0), which, being derived from a common corrupt\noriginal, can only reckon for _one_: and the reasoning which is supposed\nto justify this change is thus supplied by Tischendorf:\u2014\u201cIf the Evangelist\nhad written \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7-, who would ever have dreamed of turning it into\n\u03b4\u03b9-\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9?\u201d... No one, of course, (is the obvious answer,) except the\ninveterate blunderer who, some 1700 years ago, seeing \u039c\u0397\u0394\u0395\u0395\u03a1\u03a7\u03a9\u039c\u0391\u0399 before\nhim, _reduplicated the antecedent_ \u0394\u0395. The sum of the matter is _that_!...\nPass 1700 years, and the long-since-forgotten blunder is furbished up\nafresh by Drs. Westcott and Hort,\u2014is urged upon the wondering body of\nRevisers as the undoubted utterance of THE SPIRIT,\u2014is accepted by\nyourself;\u2014finally, (in spite of many a remonstrance from Dr. Scrivener and\nhis friends,) is thrust upon the acceptance of 90 millions of\nEnglish-speaking men throughout the world, as the long-lost-sight-of, but\nat last happily recovered, utterance of the \u201cWoman of Samaria!\u201d... \u1f0c\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5.\n\nOrdinary readers, in the meantime, will of course assume that the change\nresults from the Revisers\u2019 skill in translating,\u2014the advances which have\nbeen made in the study of Greek; for no trace of the textual vagary before\nus survives in the English margin.\n\nAnd thus I am reminded of what I hold to be your gravest fault of all. The\nrule of Committee subject to which you commenced operations,\u2014the Rule\nwhich re-assured the public and reconciled the Church to the prospect of a\nRevised New Testament,\u2014expressly provided that, whenever the underlying\nGreek Text was altered, _such alteration should be indicated in the\nmargin_. This provision you entirely set at defiance from the very first.\nYou have _never_ indicated in the margin the alterations you introduced\ninto the Greek Text. In fact, you made so many changes,\u2014in other words,\nyou seem to have so entirely lost sight of your pledge and your\ncompact,\u2014that compliance with this condition would have been simply\nimpossible. I see not how your body is to be acquitted of a deliberate\nbreach of faith.\n\n_(c) Fatal consequences of this mistaken officiousness._\n\nHow serious, in the meantime, _the consequences_ have been, _they_ only\nknow who have been at the pains to examine your work with close attention.\nNot only have you, on countless occasions, thrust out words, clauses,\nentire sentences of genuine Scripture,\u2014but you have been careful that no\ntrace shall survive of the fatal injury which you have inflicted. I wonder\nyou were not afraid. Can I be wrong in deeming such a proceeding in a high\ndegree sinful? Has not the SPIRIT pronounced a tremendous doom(904)\nagainst those who do such things? Were you not afraid, for instance, to\nleave out (from S. Mark vi. 11) those solemn words of our SAVIOUR,\u2014\u201cVerily\nI say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the\nday of judgment, than for that city\u201d? Surely you will not pretend to tell\nme that those fifteen precious words, witnessed to as they are by _all the\nknown copies but nine_,\u2014by the Old Latin, the Peschito and the Philoxenian\nSyriac, the Coptic, the Gothic and the \u00c6thiopic Versions,\u2014besides\nIren\u00e6us(905) and Victor(906) of Antioch:\u2014you will not venture to say (will\nyou?) that words so attested are so evidently a \u201cplain and clear error,\u201d\nas not to deserve even a marginal note to attest to posterity \u201cthat such\nthings were\u201d! I say nothing of the witness of the Liturgical usage of the\nEastern Church,\u2014which appointed these verses to be read on S. Mark\u2019s\nDay:(907) nor of Theophylact,(908) nor of Euthymius.(909) I appeal to _the\nconsentient testimony of Catholic antiquity_. Find me older witnesses, if\nyou can, than the \u201cElders\u201d with whom Iren\u00e6us held converse,\u2014men who must\nhave been contemporaries of S. John the Divine: or again, than the old\nLatin, the Peschito, and the Coptic Versions. Then, for the MSS.,\u2014Have you\nstudied S. Mark\u2019s Text to so little purpose as not to have discovered that\nthe six uncials on which you rely are the depositories of an abominably\ncorrupt Recension of the second Gospel?\n\nBut you committed a yet more deplorable error when,\u2014without leaving behind\neither note or comment of any sort,\u2014you obliterated from S. Matth. v. 44,\nthe solemn words which I proceed to underline:\u2014\u201c_Bless them that curse\nyou_, _do good to them that hate you_, and pray for them which\n_despitefully use you and_ persecute you.\u201d You relied almost exclusively\non those two false witnesses, of which you are so superstitiously fond, B\nand \u05d0: regardless of the testimony of almost all the other COPIES\nbesides:\u2014of almost all the VERSIONS:\u2014and of a host of primitive FATHERS:\nfor the missing clauses are more or less recognized by Justin Mart. (A.D.\n140),\u2014by Theophilus Ant. (A.D. 168),\u2014by Athenagoras (A.D. 177),\u2014by Clemens\nAlexan. (A.D. 192),\u2014by Origen (A.D. 210),\u2014by the Apostolic Constt. (IIIrd\ncent.),\u2014by Eusebius,\u2014by Gregory Nyss.,\u2014by Chrysostom,\u2014by Isidorus,\u2014by\nNilus,\u2014by Cyril,\u2014by Theodoret, and certain others. Besides, of the Latins,\nby Tertullian,\u2014by Lucifer,\u2014by Ambrose,\u2014by Hilary,\u2014by Pacian,\u2014by\nAugustine,\u2014by Cassian, and many more.... Verily, my lord Bishop, your\nnotion of what constitutes \u201c_clearly preponderating Evidence_\u201d must be\nfreely admitted to be at once original and peculiar. I will but\nrespectfully declare that if it be indeed one of \u201c_the now established\nPrinciples of Textual Criticism_\u201d that a bishop is at liberty to blot out\nfrom the Gospel such precepts of the Incarnate WORD, as these: to reject,\non the plea that they are \u201cplain and clear errors,\u201d sayings attested by\ntwelve primitive Fathers,\u2014half of whom lived and died before our two\noldest manuscripts (B and \u05d0) came into being:\u2014If all this be so indeed,\npermit me to declare that I would not exchange MY \u201c_innocent\nignorance_\u201d(910) of those \u201cPrinciples\u201d for YOUR _guilty knowledge_ of\nthem,\u2014no, not for anything in the wide world which yonder sun shines down\nupon.\n\nAs if what goes before had not been injury enough, you are found to have\nadopted the extraordinary practice of encumbering your margin with doubts\nas to the Readings which after due deliberation you had, as a body,\n_retained_. Strange perversity! You could not find room to retain a record\nin your margin of the many genuine words of our Divine LORD,\u2014His\nEvangelists and Apostles,\u2014to which Copies, Versions, Fathers lend the\nfullest attestation; but you _could_ find room for an insinuation that His\n\u201cAgony and bloody sweat,\u201d\u2014together with His \u201cPrayer on behalf of His\nmurderers,\u201d\u2014_may_ after all prove to be nothing else but spurious\naccretions to the Text. And yet, the pretence for so regarding either S.\nLuke xxii. 43, 44, or xxiii. 34, is confessedly founded on a minimum of\ndocumentary evidence: while, as has been already shown elsewhere,(911) an\noverwhelming amount of ancient testimony renders it _certain_ that not a\nparticle of doubt attaches to the Divine record of either of those\nstupendous incidents.... Room could not be found, it seems, for a _hint_\nin the margin that such ghastly wounds as those above specified had been\ninflicted on S. Mark vi. 11 and S. Matth. v. 44;(912) but _twenty-two\nlines_ could be spared against Rom. ix. 5 for the free ventilation of the\nvile Socinian gloss with which unbelievers in every age have sought to\nevacuate one of the grandest assertions of our SAVIOUR\u2019S GODHEAD. May I be\npermitted, without offence, to avow myself utterly astonished?\n\nEven this however is not all. The 7th of the Rules under which you\nundertook the work of Revision, was, that \u201c_the Headings of Chapters\nshould be revised_.\u201d This Rule you have not only failed to comply with;\nbut you have actually deprived us of those headings entirely. You have\nthereby done us a grievous wrong. We demand to have the headings of our\nchapters back.\n\nYou have further, without warrant of any sort, deprived us of our\n_Marginal References_. These we cannot afford to be without. We claim that\n_they_ also may be restored. The very best Commentary on Holy Scripture\nare they, with which I am acquainted. They call for learned and judicious\nRevision, certainly; and they might be profitably enlarged. But they may\nnever be taken away.\n\nAnd now, my lord Bishop, if I have not succeeded in convincing you that\nthe Revisers not only \u201c_exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which\nthey adopted with regard to the Greek Text,\u201d but even acted in open\ndefiance of their Instructions; did both a vast deal _more_ than they were\nauthorized to do, and also a vast deal _less_;\u2014it has certainly been no\nfault of mine. As for your original contention(913) that \u201c_nothing can be\nmore unjust_\u201d than THE CHARGE brought against the Revisers of having\nexceeded their Instructions,\u2014I venture to ask, on the contrary, whether\nanything can be more unreasonable (to give it no harsher name) than THE\nDENIAL?\n\n\n\n\n[16] The calamity of the \u201cNew Greek Text\u201d traced to its source.\n\n\nThere is no difficulty in accounting for the most serious of the foregoing\nphenomena. They are the inevitable consequence of your having so far\nsuccumbed at the outset to Drs. Westcott and Hort as to permit them to\ncommunicate bit by bit, under promise of secrecy, their own outrageous\nRevised Text of the N. T. to their colleagues, accompanied by a printed\ndisquisition in advocacy of their own peculiar critical views. One would\nhave expected in the Chairman of the Revising body, that the instant he\nbecame aware of any such _man\u0153uvre_ on the part of two of the society, he\nwould have remonstrated with them somewhat as follows, or at least to this\neffect:\u2014\n\n\u201cThis cannot be permitted, Gentlemen, on any terms. We have not been\nappointed to revise the _Greek Text_ of the N. T. Our one business is to\nrevise the _Authorized English Version_,\u2014introducing such changes only as\nare absolutely necessary. The Resolutions of Convocation are express on\nthis head: and it is my duty to see that they are faithfully carried out.\nTrue, that we shall be obliged to avail ourselves of our skill in Textual\nCriticism\u2014(such as it is)\u2014to correct \u2018_plain and clear errors_\u2019 in the\nGreek: but _there_ we shall be obliged to stop. I stand pledged to\nConvocation on this point by my own recent utterances. That two of our\nmembers should be solicitous (by a side-wind) to obtain for their own\nsingular Revision of the Greek Text the sanction of our united body,\u2014is\nintelligible enough: but I should consider myself guilty of a breach of\nTrust were I to lend myself to the promotion of their object. Let me hope\nthat I have you all with me when I point out that on every occasion when\nDr. Scrivener, on the one hand, (who in matters of Textual Criticism is\n_facile princeps_ among us,) and Drs. Westcott and Hort on the other,\nprove to be irreconcileably opposed in their views,\u2014_there_ the Received\nGreek Text must by all means be let alone. We have agreed, you will\nremember, to \u2018make _the current Textus Receptus the standard; departing\nfrom it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is\nclearly necessary_.\u2019(914) It would be unreasonable, in my judgment, that\nanything in the Received Text should be claimed to be \u2018a clear and plain\nerror,\u2019 on which those who represent the two antagonistic schools of\nCriticism find themselves utterly unable to come to any accord. In the\nmeantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort are earnestly recommended to submit to\npublic inspection that Text which they have been for twenty years\nelaborating, and which for some time past has been in print. Their labours\ncannot be too freely ventilated, too searchingly examined, too generally\nknown: but I strongly deprecate their furtive production _here_. All too\neager advocacy of the novel Theory of the two accomplished Professors, I\nshall think it my duty to discourage, and if need be to repress. A printed\nvolume, enforced by the suasive rhetoric of its two producers, gives to\none side an unfair advantage. But indeed I must end as I began, by\nrespectfully inviting Drs. Westcott and Hort to remember that we meet\nhere, _not_ in order _to fabricate a new Greek Text_, but in order to\n_revise our _\u2018Authorized English Version.\u2019\u201d... Such, in substance, is the\nkind of Allocution which it was to have been expected that the Episcopal\nChairman of a Revising body would address to his fellow-labourers the\nfirst time he saw them enter the Jerusalem chamber furnished with the\nsheets of Westcott and Hort\u2019s N. T.; especially if he was aware that those\nRevisers had been individually talked over by the Editors of the work in\nquestion, (themselves Revisionists); and perceived that the result of the\ndeliberations of the entire body was in consequence, in a fair way of\nbecoming a foregone conclusion,\u2014unless indeed, by earnest remonstrance, he\nmight be yet in time to stave off the threatened danger.\n\nBut instead of saying anything of this kind, my lord Bishop, it is clear\nfrom your pamphlet that you made the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort\n_your own Theory_; and their Text, by necessary consequence, in the main\n_your own Text_. You lost sight of all the pledges you had given in\nConvocation. You suddenly became a partizan. Having secured the precious\nadvocacy of Bp. Wilberforce,\u2014whose sentiments on the subject you had\nbefore adopted,\u2014you at once threw him and them overboard.(915)... I can\nscarcely imagine, in a good man like yourself, conduct more reckless,\u2014more\ndisappointing,\u2014more unintelligible. But I must hasten on.\n\n\n\n\n[17] Bp. Ellicott\u2019s defence of the \u201cNew Greek Text,\u201d in sixteen\nparticulars, examined.\n\n\nIt follows to consider the strangest feature of your pamphlet: viz. those\ntwo-and-thirty pages (p. 43 to p. 75) in which, descending from generals,\nyou venture to dispute in sixteen particulars the sentence passed upon\nyour new Greek Text by the _Quarterly Review_. I call this part of your\npamphlet \u201cstrange,\u201d because it displays such singular inaptitude to\nappreciate the force of Evidence. But in fact, (_sit venia verbo_) your\nentire method is quite unworthy of you. Whereas I appeal throughout to\n_Ancient Testimony_, you seek to put me down by flaunting in my face\n_Modern Opinion_. This, with a great deal of Reiteration, proves to be\nliterally the sum of your contention. Thus, concerning S. Matth. i. 25,\nthe Quarterly Reviewer pointed out (_supr\u00e0_ pp. 123-4) that the testimony\nof B \u05d0, together with that of the VIth-century fragment Z, and two cursive\ncopies of bad character,\u2014cannot possibly stand against the testimony of\nALL OTHER copies. You plead in reply that on \u201cthose two oldest manuscripts\n_the vast majority of Critics set a high value_.\u201d Very likely: but for all\n_that_, you are I suppose aware that B and \u05d0 are two of the most corrupt\ndocuments in existence? And, inasmuch as they are confessedly derived from\none and the same depraved original, you will I presume allow that they may\nnot be adduced as two independent authorities? At all events, when I\nfurther show you that almost all the Versions, and literally _every one_\nof the Fathers who quote the place, (they are _eighteen_ in number,) are\nagainst you,\u2014how can you possibly think there is any force or relevancy\nwhatever in your self-complacent announcement,\u2014\u201cWe cannot hesitate to\n_express our agreement with Tischendorf and Tregelles_ who see in these\nwords an interpolation derived from S. Luke. _The same appears to have\nbeen the judgment of Lachmann._\u201d Do you desire that _that_ should pass for\nargument?\n\nTo prolong a discussion of this nature with you, were plainly futile.\nInstead of repeating what I have already delivered\u2014briefly indeed, yet\nsufficiently in detail,\u2014I will content myself with humbly imitating what,\nif I remember rightly, was Nelson\u2019s plan when he fought the battle of the\nNile. He brought his frigates, one by one, alongside those of the\nenemy;\u2014lashed himself to the foe;\u2014and poured in his broadsides. We\nremember with what result. The sixteen instances which you have yourself\nselected, shall now be indicated. First, on every occasion, reference\nshall be made to the place in the present volume where my own Criticism on\nyour Greek Text is to be found in detail. Readers of your pamphlet are\ninvited next to refer to your own several attempts at refutation, which\nshall also be indicated by a reference to your pages. I am quite contented\nto abide by the verdict of any unprejudiced person of average\nunderstanding and fair education:\u2014\n\n(1) _Four words omitted in_ S. Matth. i. 25,\u2014complained of, above, pp.\n122-4.\u2014You defend the omission in your pamphlet at pages 43-4,\u2014falling\nback on Tischendorf, Tregelles and Lachmann, as explained on the opposite\npage. (p. 416.)\n\n(2) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xvii. 21,\u2014proved to be indefensible,\nabove, pp. 91-2.\u2014The omission is defended by you at pp. 44-5,\u2014on the\nground, that although Lachmann retains the verse, and Tregelles only\nplaces it in brackets, (Tischendorf alone of the three omitting it\nentirely,)\u2014\u201cit must be remembered that here Lachmann and Tregelles were\nnot acquainted with \u05d0.\u201d\n\n(3) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xviii. 11,\u2014shown to be unreasonable,\nabove, p. 92.\u2014You defend the omission in your pp. 45-7,\u2014remarking that\n\u201chere there is even less room for doubt than in the preceding cases. The\nthree critical editors are all agreed in rejecting this verse.\u201d\n\n(4) _The substitution of_ \u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 for \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9, in S. Mark vi. 20,\u2014strongly\ncomplained of, above, pp. 66-9.\u2014Your defence is at pp. 47-8. You urge that\n\u201cin this case again the Revisers have Tischendorf only on their side, and\nnot Lachmann nor Tregelles: but it must be remembered that these critics\nhad not the reading of \u05d0 before them.\u201d\n\n(5) _The thrusting of_ \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd (after \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6) into S. Mark xi.\n3,\u2014objected against, above, pp. 56-8.\u2014You defend yourself at pp. 48-9,\u2014and\n\u201ccannot doubt that the Revisers were perfectly justified\u201d in doing \u201cas\nTischendorf and Tregelles had done before them,\u201d\u2014viz. _inventing_ a new\nGospel incident.\n\n(6) _The mess you have made_ of S. Mark xi. 8,\u2014exposed by the Quarterly\nReviewer, above, pp. 58-61,\u2014you defend at pp. 49-52. You have \u201cpreferred\nto read with Tischendorf and Tregelles.\u201d About,\n\n(7) S. Mark xvi. 9-20,\u2014and (8) S. Luke ii. 14,\u2014I shall have a few serious\nwords to say immediately. About,\n\n(9) the 20 _certainly genuine_ words you have omitted from S. Luke ix. 55,\n56,\u2014I promise to give you at no distant date an elaborate lecture. \u201cAre we\nto understand\u201d (you ask) \u201cthat the Reviewer honestly believes the added\nwords to have formed part of the Sacred Autograph?\u201d (\u201cThe _omitted_\nwords,\u201d you mean.) To be sure you are!\u2014I answer.\n\n(10) _The amazing blunder_ endorsed by the Revisers in S. Luke x. 15;\nwhich I have exposed above, at pp. 54-6.\u2014You defend the blunder (as usual)\nat pp. 55-6, remarking that the Revisers, \u201c_with Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_,\n_and Tregelles_, adopt the interrogative form.\u201d (This seems to be a part\nof your style.)\n\n(11) _The depraved exhibition of the _LORD\u2019S_ Prayer_ (S. Luke xi. 2-4)\nwhich I have commented on above, at pp. 34-6,\u2014you applaud (as usual) at\npp. 56-8 of your pamphlet, \u201cwith Tischendorf and Tregelles.\u201d\n\n(12) _The omission_ of 7 important words in S. Luke xxiii. 38, I have\ncommented on, above, at pp. 85-8.\u2014You defend the omission, and \u201cthe texts\nof Tischendorf and Tregelles,\u201d at pp. 58-9.\n\n(13) _The gross fabrication_ in S. Luke xxiii. 45, I have exposed, above,\nat pp. 61-5.\u2014You defend it, at pp. 59-61.\n\n(14) _A plain omission_ in S. John xiv. 4, I have pointed out, above, at\npp. 72-3.\u2014You defend it, at pp. 61-2 of your pamphlet.\n\n(15) \u201c_Titus Justus_,\u201d thrust by the Revisers into Acts xviii. 7, I have\nshown to be an imaginary personage, above, at pp. 53-4.\u2014You stand up for\nthe interesting stranger at pp. 62-4 of your pamphlet. Lastly,\n\n(16) My discussion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (_supr\u00e0_ pp. 98-106),\u2014you contend\nagainst from p. 64 to p. 76.\u2014The true reading of this important place,\n(which is not _your_ reading,) you will find fully discussed from p. 424\nto p. 501.\n\nI have already stated why I dismiss _thirteen_ out of your sixteen\ninstances in this summary manner. The remaining _three_ I have reserved\nfor further discussion for a reason I proceed to explain.\n\n\n\n\n[18] Bp. Ellicott\u2019s claim that the Revisers were guided by \u201cthe\nconsentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities,\u201d\u2014disproved by an\nappeal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The\nself-same claim,\u2014(namely, of abiding by the verdict of Catholic\nAntiquity,)\u2014vindicated, on the contrary, for the \u201cQuarterly Reviewer.\u201d\n\n\nYou labour hard throughout your pamphlet to make it appear that the point\nat which our methods, (yours and mine,) respectively diverge,\u2014is, that _I_\ninsist on making my appeal to the \u201c_Textus Receptus_;\u201d _you_, to _Ancient\nAuthority_. But happily, my lord Bishop, this is a point which admits of\nbeing brought to issue by an appeal to fact. _You_ shall first be heard:\nand you are observed to express yourself on behalf of the Revising body,\nas follows:\n\n\n    \u201cIt was impossible to mistake the conviction upon which its\n    Textual decisions were based.\n\n    \u201cIt was a conviction that (1) THE TRUE TEXT WAS NOT TO BE SOUGHT\n    IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS; or (2) In the bulk of the Cursive\n    Manuscripts; or (3) In the Uncials (with or without the support of\n    the _Codex Alexandrinus_;) or (4) In the Fathers who lived after\n    Chrysostom; or (5) In Chrysostom himself and his contemporaries;\n    BUT (6) IN THE CONSENTIENT TESTIMONY OF THE MOST ANCIENT\n    AUTHORITIES.\u201d\u2014(p. 28.)\n\n\nIn such terms you venture to contrast our respective methods. You want the\npublic to believe that I make the \u201cTextus Receptus\u201d \u201c_a standard from\nwhich there shall be no appeal_,\u201d\u2014entertain \u201cthe notion that it is _little\nelse than sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last 300\nyears_,\u201d(916)\u2014and so forth;\u2014while _you_ and your colleagues act upon the\nconviction that the Truth is rather to be sought \u201c_in the consentient\ntestimony of the most ancient Authorities_.\u201d I proceed to show you, by\nappealing to an actual instance, that neither of these statements is\ncorrect.\n\n(_a_) And first, permit me to speak for myself. Finding that you challenge\nthe Received reading of S. LUKE ii. 14, (\u201c_good will towards men_\u201d);\u2014and\nthat, (on the authority of 4 Greek Codices [\u05d0 A B D], all _Latin_\ndocuments, and the Gothic Version,) you contend that \u201c_peace among men in\nwhom he is well pleased_\u201d ought to be read, instead;\u2014I make my appeal\nunreservedly to ANTIQUITY.(917) I request the _Ancients_ to adjudicate\nbetween you and me by favouring us with their verdict. Accordingly, I find\nas follows:\n\nThat, in the IInd century,\u2014the Syriac Versions and Iren\u00e6us _support the\nReceived Text_:\n\nThat, in the IIIrd century,\u2014the Coptic Version,\u2014Origen in 3 places,\nand\u2014the Apostolical Constitutions in 2, do the same:\n\nThat, in the IVth century, (_to which century_, you are invited to\nremember, _codices_ B _and_ \u05d0 _belong_,)\u2014Eusebius,\u2014Aphraates the\nPersian,\u2014Titus of Bostra,\u2014each in 2 places:\u2014Didymus in 3:\u2014Gregory of\nNazianzus,\u2014Cyril of Jer.,\u2014Epiphanius 2\u2014and Gregory of Nyssa\u20144 times:\nEphraem Syr.,\u2014Philo bp. of Carpasus,\u2014Chrysostom 9 times,\u2014and an unknown\nAntiochian contemporary of his:\u2014these eleven, I once more find, are _every\none against you_:\n\nThat, in the Vth century,\u2014besides the Armenian Version, Cyril of Alex. in\n14 places:\u2014Theodoret in 4:\u2014Theodotus of Ancyra in 5:\u2014Proclus:\u2014Paulus of\nEmesa:\u2014the Eastern bishops of Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431;\u2014and Basil of\nSeleucia:\u2014_these contemporaries of cod._ A I find are _all eight against\nyou_:\n\nThat, in the VIth century,\u2014besides the Georgian\u2014and \u00c6thiopic\nVersions,\u2014Cosmas, 5 times:\u2014Anastasius Sinait. and Eulogius,\n(_contemporaries of cod._ D,) are _all three with the Traditional Text_:\n\nThat, in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries,\u2014Andreas of Crete, 2:\u2014pope\nMartinus at the Lat. Council:\u2014Cosmas, bp. of Maiume near Gaza,\u2014and his\npupil John Damascene;\u2014together with Germanus, abp. of Constantinople:\u2014are\nagain _all five with the Traditional Text_.\n\nTo these 35, must be added 18 other ancient authorities with which the\nreader has been already made acquainted (viz. at pp. 44-5): all of which\nbear the self-same evidence.\n\nThus I have enumerated _fifty-three_ ancient Greek authorities,\u2014of which\n_sixteen_ belong to the IInd, IIIrd, and IVth centuries: and\n_thirty-seven_ to the Vth, VIth, VIIth, and VIIIth.\n\nAnd now, which of us two is found to have made the fairer and the fuller\nappeal to \u201cthe consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities:\u201d\n_you_ or _I_?... This first.\n\nAnd next, since the foregoing 53 names belong to some of the most famous\npersonages in Ecclesiastical antiquity: are dotted over every region of\nancient Christendom: in many instances are _far more ancient than codices_\nB _and_ \u05d0:\u2014with what show of reason will you pretend that the evidence\nconcerning S. Luke ii. 14 \u201c_clearly preponderates_\u201d in favour of the\nreading which you and your friends prefer?\n\nI claim at all events to have demonstrated that _both_ your statements are\nunfounded: viz. (1) That _I_ seek for the truth of Scripture in the\n\u201cTextus Receptus:\u201d and (2) That _you_ seek it in \u201cthe consentient\ntestimony of the _most ancient authorities_.\u201d\u2014(Why not frankly avow that\nyou believe the Truth of Scripture is to be sought for, and found, in\n\u201c_the consentient testimony of codices_ \u05d0 _and_ B\u201d?)\n\n(_b_) Similarly, concerning THE LAST 12 VERSES OF S. MARK, which you brand\nwith suspicion and separate off from the rest of the Gospel, in token\nthat, in your opinion, there is \u201ca breach of continuity\u201d (p. 53),\n(whatever _that_ may mean,) between verses 8 and 9. _Your_ ground for thus\ndisallowing the last 12 Verses of the second Gospel, is, that B and \u05d0 omit\nthem:\u2014that a few late MSS. exhibit a wretched alternative for them:\u2014and\nthat Eusebius says they were often away. Now, _my_ method on the contrary\nis to refer all such questions to \u201c_the consentient testimony of the most\nancient authorities_.\u201d And I invite you to note the result of such an\nappeal in the present instance. The Verses in question I find are\nrecognized,\n\nIn the IInd century,\u2014By the Old Latin\u2014and Syriac Verss.:\u2014by Papias;\u2014Justin\nM.;\u2014Iren\u00e6us;\u2014Tertullian.\n\nIn the IIIrd century,\u2014By the Coptic\u2014and the Sahidic Versions:\u2014by\nHippolytus;\u2014by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage;\u2014by the \u201cActa\nPilati;\u201d\u2014and by the \u201cApostolical Constitutions\u201d in two places.\n\nIn the IVth century,\u2014By Cureton\u2019s Syr. and the Gothic Verss.:\u2014besides the\nSyriac Table of Canons;\u2014Eusebius;\u2014Macarius Magnes;\u2014Aphraates;\u2014Didymus;\u2014the\nSyriac \u201cActs of the\nAp.;\u201d\u2014Epiphanius;\u2014Leontius;\u2014ps.-Ephraem;\u2014Ambrose;\u2014Chrysostom;\u2014Jerome;\u2014Augustine.\n\nIn the Vth century,\u2014Besides the Armenian Vers.,\u2014by codices A and C;\u2014by\nLeo;\u2014Nestorius;\u2014Cyril of Alexandria;\u2014Victor of Antioch;\u2014Patricius;\u2014Marius\nMercator.\n\nIn the VIth and VIIth centuries,\u2014Besides cod. D,\u2014the Georgian and \u00c6thiopic\nVerss.:\u2014by Hesychius;\u2014Gregentius;\u2014Prosper;\u2014John, abp. of Thessalonica;\u2014and\nModestus, bishop of Jerusalem.... (See above, pages 36-40.)\n\nAnd now, once more, my lord Bishop,\u2014Pray which of us is it,\u2014_you_ or\n_I_,\u2014who seeks for the truth of Scripture \u201cin _the consentient testimony\nof the most ancient authorities_\u201d? On _my_ side there have been adduced in\nevidence _six_ witnesses of the IInd century:\u2014_six_ of the\nIIIrd:\u2014_fifteen_ of the IVth:\u2014_nine_ of the Vth:\u2014_eight_ of the VIth and\nVIIth,\u2014(44 in all): while _you_ are found to rely on codices B and \u05d0 (as\nbefore), supported by a single _obiter dictum_ of Eusebius. I have said\nnothing as yet about _the whole body of the Copies_: nothing about\n_universal, immemorial, Liturgical use_. Do you seriously imagine that the\ntestimony on your side is \u201cdecidedly preponderating\u201d? Above all, will you\nventure again to exhibit our respective methods as in your pamphlet you\nhave done? I protest solemnly that, in your pages, I recognize neither\nmyself nor you.\n\nPermit me to declare that I hold your disallowance of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 to\nbe the gravest and most damaging of all the many mistakes which you and\nyour friends have committed. \u201cThe textual facts,\u201d (say you, speaking of\nthe last 12 Verses,)\u2014\u201chave been placed before the reader, because Truth\nitself demanded it.\u201d This (with Canon Cook(918)) I entirely deny. It is\nbecause \u201cthe textual facts have\u201d NOT \u201cbeen placed before the reader,\u201d that\nI am offended. As usual, you present your readers with a one-sided\nstatement,\u2014a partial, and therefore inadmissible, exhibition of the\nfacts,\u2014facts which, fully stated and fairly explained, would, (as you\ncannot fail to be aware,) be fatal to your contention.\n\nBut, I forbear to state so much as _one_ of them. The evidence has already\nfilled a volume.(919) Even if I were to allow that in your marginal note,\n\u201cthe textual facts _have been_ [fully and fairly] _placed before the\nreader_\u201d\u2014what possible pretence do you suppose they afford for severing\nthe last 12 Verses from the rest of S. Mark, in token that they form no\npart of the genuine Gospel?... This, however, is only by the way. I have\nproved to you that it is _I_\u2014not _you_\u2014who rest my case on an appeal to\nCATHOLIC ANTIQUITY: and this is the only thing I am concerned just now to\nestablish.\n\nI proceed to contribute something to the Textual Criticism of a famous\nplace in S. Paul\u2019s first Epistle to Timothy,\u2014on which you have challenged\nme to a trial of strength.\n\n\n\n\n[19] \u201cGOD was manifested in the flesh\u201d Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1\nTimothy III. 16.\n\n\n_A Dissertation._\n\nIn conclusion, you insist on ripping up the discussion concerning 1 Tim.\niii. 16. I had already devoted eight pages to this subject.(920) You reply\nin twelve.(921) That I may not be thought wanting in courtesy, the present\nrejoinder shall extend to seventy-six. I propose, without repeating\nmyself, to follow you over the ground you have re-opened. But it will be\nconvenient that I should define at the outset what is precisely the point\nin dispute between you and me. I presume it to be undeniably _this_:\u2014That\nwhereas the Easterns from time immemorial, (and we with them, since\nTyndale in 1534 gave us our English Version of the N. T.,) have read the\nplace thus:\u2014(I set the words down in plain English, because the issue\nadmits of being every bit as clearly exhibited in the vernacular, as in\nGreek: and because I am determined that all who are at the pains to read\nthe present DISSERTATION shall understand it also:)\u2014Whereas, I say, we\nhave hitherto read the place thus,\n\n\u201cGREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS:\u2014GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH,\nJUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, SEEN OF ANGELS, PREACHED UNTO THE GENTILES,\nBELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY:\u201d\n\n_You_ insist that this is a \u201c_plain and clear error_.\u201d You contend that\nthere is \u201c_decidedly preponderating evidence_\u201d for reading instead,\n\n\u201cGREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS, WHO WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH,\nJUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT,\u201d &C.:\n\nWhich contention of yours I hold to be demonstrably incorrect, and proceed\nto prove is a complete misconception.\n\n(_A_) _Preliminary explanations and cautions._\n\nBut English readers will require to have it explained to them at the\noutset, that inasmuch as \u0398\u0395\u039f\u03a3 (GOD) is invariably written _\u0398\u03a3_ in\nmanuscripts, the only difference between the word \u201cGOD\u201d and the word\n\u201c_who_\u201d (\u039f\u03a3) consists of two horizontal strokes,\u2014one, which distinguishes\n\u0398 from \u039f; and another similar stroke (above the letters \u0398\u03a3) which\nindicates that a word has been contracted. And further, that it was the\ncustom to trace these two horizontal lines so wondrous faintly that they\nsometimes actually elude observation. Throughout cod. A, in fact, the\nletter \u0398 is often scarcely distinguishable from the letter \u039f.\n\nIt requires also to be explained for the benefit of the same English\nreader,\u2014(and it will do learned readers no harm to be reminded,)\u2014that\n\u201c_mystery_\u201d (\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) being a neuter noun, _cannot_ be followed by the\nmasculine pronoun (\u1f45\u03c2),\u2014\u201c_who_.\u201d Such an expression is abhorrent alike to\nGrammar and to Logic,\u2014is intolerable, in Greek as in English. By\nconsequence, \u1f45\u03c2 (\u201c_who_\u201d) is found to have been early exchanged for \u1f45\n(\u201c_which_\u201d). From a copy so depraved, the Latin Version was executed in\nthe second century. Accordingly, every known copy or quotation(922) of\n_the Latin_ exhibits \u201cquod.\u201d _Greek_ authorities for this reading (\u1f45) are\nfew enough. They have been specified already, viz. at page 100. And with\nthis brief statement, the reading in question might have been dismissed,\nseeing that it has found no patron since Griesbach declared against it. It\nwas however very hotly contended for during the last century,\u2014Sir Isaac\nNewton and Wetstein being its most strenuous advocates; and it would be\nunfair entirely to lose sight of it now.\n\nThe two rival readings, however, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, are,\u2014\u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\n(\u201cGOD _was manifested_\u201d), on the one hand; and \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u1f45\u03c2 (\u201c_the mystery of godliness, who_\u201d), on the other. _These_ are the two\nreadings, I say, between whose conflicting claims we are to adjudicate.\nFor I request that it may be loyally admitted at the outset,\u2014(though it\nhas been conveniently overlooked by the Critics whom _you_ follow,)\u2014that\nthe expression \u1f42\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 in Patristic quotations, _unless it be\nimmediately preceded by_ the word \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, is nothing to the purpose; at\nall events, does not prove the thing which _you_ are bent on proving.\nEnglish readers will see this at a glance. An Anglican divine,\u2014with\nreference to 1 Timothy iii. 16,\u2014may surely speak of our SAVIOUR as One\n\u201c_who_ was manifested in the flesh,\u201d\u2014without risk of being straightway\nsuspected of employing a copy of the English Version which exhibits \u201c_the\nmystery of godliness who_.\u201d \u201cEx hujusmodi locis\u201d (as Matth\u00e6i truly\nremarks) \u201cnemo, nisi mente captus, in contextu sacro probabit \u1f45\u03c2.\u201d(923)\n\nWhen Epiphanius therefore,\u2014_professing to transcribe_(924) from an earlier\ntreatise of his own(925) where \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 stands _without a\nnominative_,(926) writes (if he really does write) \u1f42\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7,(927)\u2014we\nare not at liberty to infer therefrom that Epiphanius is opposed to the\nreading \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u2014Still less is it lawful to draw the same inference from the\nLatin Version of a letter of Eutherius [A.D. 431] in which the expression\n\u201c_qui manifestatus est in carne_,\u201d(928) occurs.\u2014Least of all should we be\nwarranted in citing Jerome as a witness for reading \u1f45\u03c2 in this place,\nbecause (in his Commentary on Isaiah) he speaks of our SAVIOUR as One who\n\u201cwas manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.\u201d(929)\n\nAs for reasoning thus concerning Cyril of Alexandria, it is demonstrably\ninadmissible: seeing that at the least on two distinct occasions, this\nFather exhibits \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7. I am not unaware that in a certain place,\napostrophizing the Docet\u00e6, he says,\u2014\u201cYe do err, not knowing the\nScriptures, nor indeed the _great mystery of godliness_, that is CHRIST,\nwho (\u1f45\u03c2) _was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit_,\u201d(930) &c.\n&c. And presently, \u201cI consider _the mystery of godliness_ to be no other\nthing but the Word of GOD the FATHER, who (\u1f45\u03c2) Himself _was manifested in\nthe flesh_.\u201d(931) But there is nothing whatever in this to invalidate the\ntestimony of those other places in which \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 actually occurs. It is\nlogically inadmissible, I mean, to set aside the places where Cyril is\nfound actually to write \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7, because in other places he employs\n1 Tim. iii. 16 less precisely; leaving it to be inferred\u2014(which indeed is\nabundantly plain)\u2014that \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is always his reading, from the course of his\nargument and from the nature of the matter in hand. But to proceed.\n\n_(B) Bp. Ellicott invited to state the evidence for reading \u1f45\u03c2 in_ 1 Tim.\niii. 16.\n\n[a] _\u201c__The state of the evidence,__\u201d__ as declared by Bp. Ellicott._\n\nWhen last the evidence for this question came before us, I introduced it\nby inviting a member of the Revising body (Dr. Roberts) to be spokesman on\nbehalf of his brethren.(932) This time, I shall call upon a more\ndistinguished, a wholly unexceptionable witness, viz. _yourself_,\u2014who are,\nof course, greatly in advance of your fellow-Revisers in respect of\ncritical attainments. The extent of your individual familiarity with the\nsubject when (in 1870 namely) you proposed to revise the Greek Text of the\nN. T. for the Church of England on the _solvere-ambulando_ principle,\u2014may\nI presume be lawfully inferred from the following annotation in your\n\u201c_Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_.\u201d I quote\nfrom the last Edition of 1869; only taking the liberty\u2014(1) To break it up\ninto short paragraphs: and\u2014(2) To give _in extenso_ the proper names which\nyou abbreviate. Thus, instead of \u201cTheod.\u201d (which I take leave to point out\nto you might mean either Theodore of Heraclea or his namesake of\nMopsuestia,\u2014either Theodotus the Gnostic or his namesake of Ancyra,)\n\u201cEuthal.,\u201d I write \u201cTheodoret, Euthalius.\u201d And now for the external\ntestimony, as _you_ give it, concerning 1 Timothy iii. 16. You inform your\nreaders that,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe state of the evidence is briefly as follows:\u2014\n\n    (1) \u1f4d\u03c2 is read with A1 [_indisputably_; after minute personal\n    inspection; see note, p. 104.] C1 [Tischendorf _Prol. Cod.\n    Ephraemi_, \u00a7 7, p. 39.] F G \u05d0 (see below); 17, 73, 181;\n    Syr.-Philoxenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic; also (\u1f45\u03c2 or \u1f45) Syriac,\n    Arabic (Erpenius), \u00c6thiopic, Armenian; Cyril, Theodorus Mopsuest.,\n    Epiphanius, Gelasius, Hieronymus _in Esaiam_ liii. 11.\n\n    (2) \u1f45, with D1 (Claromontanus), Vulgate; nearly all Latin Fathers.\n\n    (3) \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, with D3 K L; nearly all MSS.; Arabic (Polyglott),\n    Slavonic; Didymus, Chrysostom (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note),\n    Theodoret, Euthalius, Damascene, Theophylact, \u0152cumenius,\u2014Ignatius\n    _Ephes_. 29, (but very doubtful). A hand of the 12th century has\n    prefixed \u03b8\u03b5 to \u03bf\u03c2, the reading of \u05d0; see Tischendorf _edit.\n    major_, Plate xvii. of Scrivener\u2019s Collation of \u05d0, facsimile (13).\n\n    On reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important uncial\n    MSS., but _all_ the Versions older than the 7th century are\n    distinctly in favour of a _relative_,\u2014as \u1f45 seems only a Latinizing\n    variation of \u1f45\u03c2,\u2014and lastly, as \u1f45\u03c2 is the more difficult, though\n    really the more intelligible, reading (Hofmann, _Schriftb._ Vol.\n    I. p. 143), and on every reason more likely to have been changed\n    into \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (Macedonius is actually said to have been expelled for\n    making the change, _Liberati Diaconi Breviarium_ cap. 19) than\n    _vice vers\u00e2_, we unhesitatingly decide in favour of\n    \u1f45\u03c2.\u201d\u2014(_Pastoral Epistles_, ed. 1869, pp. 51-2.)\n\n\nSuch then is your own statement of the evidence on this subject. I proceed\nto demonstrate to you that you are completely mistaken:\u2014mistaken as to\nwhat you say about \u1f45\u03c2,\u2014mistaken as to \u1f45,\u2014mistaken as to \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2:\u2014mistaken in\nrespect of Codices,\u2014mistaken in respect of Versions,\u2014mistaken in respect\nof Fathers. Your slipshod, inaccurate statements, (_all_ obtained at\nsecond-hand,) will occasion me, I foresee, a vast deal of trouble; but I\nam determined, now at last, if the thing be possible, to set this question\nat rest. And that I may not be misunderstood, I beg to repeat that all I\npropose to myself is to _prove_\u2014beyond the possibility of denial\u2014that the\nevidence for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (in 1 Timothy iii. 16) _vastly preponderates over the\nevidence for either_ \u1f45\u03c2 _or_ \u1f45. It will be for _you_, afterwards, to come\nforward and prove that, on the contrary, \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is a \u201c_plain and clear\nerror_:\u201d _so_ plain and _so_ clear that you and your fellow-Revisers felt\nyourselves constrained to thrust it out from the place it has confessedly\noccupied in the New Testament for at least 1530 years.\n\nYou are further reminded, my lord Bishop, that unless you do this, you\nwill be considered by the whole Church to have dealt unfaithfully with the\nWord of GOD. For, (as I shall remind you in the sequel,) it is yourself\nwho have invited and provoked this enquiry. You devote twelve pages to it\n(pp. 64 to 76),\u2014\u201ccompelled to do so by the Reviewer.\u201d \u201cMoreover\u201d (you\nannounce) \u201cthis case is of great importance as an example. It illustrates\nin a striking manner the complete isolation of the Reviewer\u2019s position. If\nhe is right all other Critics are wrong,\u201d &c., &c., &c.\u2014Permit me to\nremind you of the warning\u2014\u201cLet not him that girdeth on his harness boast\nhimself as he that putteth it off.\u201d\n\n[b] _Testimony of the __MANUSCRIPTS__ concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16: _and\nfirst as to the testimony of __CODEX_ A.\n\nYou begin then with the _Manuscript_ evidence; and you venture to assert\nthat \u039f\u03a3 is \u201cindisputably\u201d the reading of Codex A. I am at a loss to\nunderstand how a \u201cprofessed Critic,\u201d\u2014(who must be presumed to be\nacquainted with the facts of the case, and who is a lover of Truth,)\u2014can\npermit himself to make such an assertion. Your certainty is based, you\nsay, on \u201cminute personal inspection.\u201d In other words, you are so good as\nto explain that you once tried a coarse experiment,(933) by which you\nsucceeded in convincing yourself that the suspected diameter of the \u039f is\nexactly coincident with the sagitta of an _epsilon_ (\u0395) which happens to\nstand _on the back of the page_. But do you not see that unless you start\nwith _this_ for your major premiss,\u2014\u201c_Theta_ cannot exist on one side of a\npage if _epsilon_ stands immediately behind it on the other side,\u201d\u2014your\nexperiment is _nihil ad rem_, and proves absolutely nothing?\n\nYour \u201cinspection\u201d happens however to be _inaccurate_ besides. You\nperformed your experiment unskilfully. A man need only hold up the leaf to\nthe light on a very brilliant day,\u2014as Tregelles, Scrivener, and many\nbesides (including your present correspondent) have done,\u2014to be aware that\nthe sagitta of the _epsilon_ on fol. 145_b_ does not cover much more than\na third of the area of the _theta_ on fol. 145_a_. Dr. Scrivener further\npoints out that it cuts the circle _too __ high_ to have been reasonably\nmistaken by a careful observer for the diameter of the _theta_ (\u0398). The\nexperiment which you describe with such circumstantial gravity was simply\nnugatory therefore.\n\nHow is it, my lord Bishop, that you do not perceive that the way to\nascertain the reading of Codex A at 1 Tim. iii. 16, is,\u2014(1) To investigate\n_not_ what is found at _the back_ of the leaf, but what is written on _the\nfront_ of it? and (2), Not so much to enquire what can be deciphered of\nthe original writing by the aid of a powerful lens _now_, as to ascertain\nwhat was apparent to the eye of competent observers when the Codex was\nfirst brought into this country, viz. 250 years ago? That Patrick Young,\nthe first custodian and collator of the Codex [1628-1652], read _\u0398\u03a3_, is\ncertain.\u2014Young communicated the \u201cvarious Readings\u201d of A to Abp.\nUssher:\u2014and the latter, prior to 1653, communicated them to Hammond, who\nclearly knew nothing of \u039f\u03a3.\u2014It is plain that _\u0398\u03a3_ was the reading seen by\nHuish\u2014when he sent his collation of the Codex (made, according to Bentley,\nwith great exactness,(934)) to Brian Walton, who published the fifth\nvolume of his Polyglott in 1657.\u2014Bp. Pearson, who was very curious in such\nmatters, says \u201cwe find not \u1f45\u03c2 _in any copy_,\u201d\u2014a sufficient proof how _he_\nread the place in 1659.\u2014Bp. Fell, who published an edition of the N. T. in\n1675, certainly considered _\u0398\u03a3_ the reading of Cod. A.\u2014Mill, who was at\nwork on the Text of the N. T. from 1677 to 1707, expressly declares that\nhe saw the remains of _\u0398\u03a3_ in this place.(935) Bentley, who had himself\n(1716) collated the MS. with the utmost accuracy (\u201c_accuratissime ipse\ncontuli_\u201d), knew nothing of any other reading.\u2014Emphatic testimony on the\nsubject is borne by Wotton in 1718:\u2014\u201cThere can be no doubt\u201d (he says)\n\u201cthat this MS. always exhibited _\u0398\u03a3_. Of this, _any one may easily\nconvince himself who will be at the pains to examine the place with\nattention_.\u201d(936)\u2014Two years earlier,\u2014(we have it on the testimony of Mr.\nJohn Creyk, of S. John\u2019s Coll., Cambridge,)\u2014\u201cthe old line in the letter \u03b8\nwas plainly to be seen.\u201d(937)\u2014It was \u201cmuch about the same time,\u201d also,\n(viz. about 1716) that Wetstein acknowledged to the Rev. John Kippax,\u2014\u201cwho\ntook it down in writing from his own mouth,\u2014that though the middle stroke\nof the \u03b8 has been evidently retouched, yet the fine stroke which was\noriginally in the body of the \u03b8 is discoverable at each end of the fuller\nstroke of the corrector.\u201d(938)\u2014And Berriman himself, (who delivered a\ncourse of Lectures on the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, in 1737-8,)\nattests emphatically that he had seen it also. \u201c_If therefore_\u201d (he adds)\n\u201c_at any time hereafter the old line should become altogether\nundiscoverable, there will never be just cause to doubt but that the\ngenuine, and original reading of the MS. was_ _\u0398\u03a3_: and that the new\nstrokes, added at the top and in the middle by the corrector were not\ndesigned to corrupt and falsify, but to preserve and perpetuate the true\nreading, which was in danger of being lost by the decay of\nTime.\u201d(939)\u2014Those memorable words (which I respectfully commend to your\nnotice) were written in A.D. 1741. How _you_ (A.D. 1882), after surveying\nall this accumulated and consistent testimony (borne A.D. 1628 to A.D.\n1741) by eye-witnesses as competent to observe a fact of this kind as\nyourself; and fully as deserving of credit, when they solemnly declare\nwhat they have seen:\u2014how _you_, I say, after a survey of this evidence,\ncan gravely sit down and inform the world that \u201c_there is no sufficient\nevidence that there was ever a time when this reading was patent as the\nreading which came from the original scribe_\u201d (p. 72):\u2014_this_ passes my\ncomprehension.\u2014It shall only be added that Bengel, who was a very careful\nenquirer, had already cited the Codex Alexandrinus as a witness for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\nin 1734:(940)\u2014and that Woide, the learned and conscientious editor of the\nCodex, declares that so late as 1765 he had seen traces of the \u03b8 which\ntwenty years later (viz. in 1785) were visible to him no longer.(941)\n\nThat Wetstein subsequently changed his mind, I am not unaware. He was one\nof those miserable men whose visual organs return a false report to their\npossessor whenever they are shown a text which witnesses inconveniently to\nthe GOD-head of JESUS CHRIST.(942) I know too that Griesbach in 1785\nannounced himself of Wetstein\u2019s opinion. It is suggestive however that ten\nyears before, (N. T. ed. 1775,) he had rested the fact _not_ on the\ntestimony borne by the MS. itself, but on \u201c_the consent of Versions,\nCopies, and Fathers_ which exhibit the Alexandrian Recension.\u201d(943)\u2014Since\nGriesbach\u2019s time, Davidson, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and\nEllicott have announced their opinion that _\u0398\u03a3_ was never written at 1\nTim. iii. 16: confessedly only because _\u0398\u03a3_ is to them invisible _one\nhundred years after_ _\u0398\u03a3_ _has disappeared from sight_. The fact remains\nfor all _that_, that the original reading of A is attested so amply, that\nno sincere lover of Truth can ever hereafter pretend to doubt it. \u201cOmnia\ntestimonia,\u201d (my lord Bishop,) \u201comnemque historicam veritatem in\nsuspicionem adducere non licet; nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere,\nqu\u00e6, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.\u201d(944)\n\nThe sum of the matter, (as I pointed out to you on a former\noccasion,(945)) is this,\u2014That it is too late by 150 years to contend on\nthe negative side of this question. Nay, a famous living Critic (long may\nhe live!) assures us that when his eyes were 20 years younger (Feb. 7,\n1861) he actually discerned, _still lingering_, a faint trace of the\ndiameter of the \u0398 which Berriman in 1741 had seen so plainly. \u201cI have\nexamined Codex A at least twenty times within as many years\u201d (wrote\nPrebendary Scrivener in 1874(946)), \u201cand ... seeing (as every one must)\nwith my own eyes, I have always felt convinced that it reads _\u0398\u03a3_\u201d.... For\n_you_ to assert, in reply to all this mass of positive evidence, that the\nreading is \u201cindisputably\u201d \u039f\u03a3,\u2014and to contend that what makes this\nindisputable, is the fact that behind part of the _theta_ (\u0398), [but too\nhigh to mislead a skilful observer,] an _epsilon_ stands on the reverse\nside of the page;\u2014strikes me as bordering inconveniently on the\nridiculous. If _this_ be your notion of what does constitute \u201csufficient\nevidence,\u201d well may the testimony of so many _testes oculati_ seem to you\nto lack sufficiency. Your notions on these subjects are, I should think,\npeculiar to yourself. You even fail to see that your statement (in\nScrivener\u2019s words) is \u201c_not relevant to the point at issue._\u201d(947) The\nplain fact concerning cod. A is _this_:\u2014That at 1 Tim. iii. 16, two\ndelicate horizontal strokes in _\u0398\u03a3_ which were thoroughly patent in\n1628,\u2014which could be seen plainly down to 1737,\u2014and which were discernible\nby an expert (Dr. Woide) so late as A.D. 1765,(948)\u2014have for the last\nhundred years entirely disappeared; which is precisely what Berriman (in\n1741) predicted would be the case. Moreover, he solemnly warned men\nagainst drawing from this circumstance the mistaken inference which _you_,\nmy lord Bishop, nevertheless _insist_ on drawing, and representing as an\n\u201cindisputable\u201d fact.\n\nI have treated so largely of the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, not\nbecause I consider the testimony of a solitary copy, whether uncial or\ncursive, a matter of much importance,\u2014certainly not the testimony of Codex\nA, which (in defiance of every other authority extant) exhibits \u201c_the body\nof _GOD\u201d in S. John xix. 40:\u2014but because _you_ insist that A is a witness\non your side: whereas it is demonstrable, (and I claim to have\ndemonstrated,) that you cannot honestly do so; and (I trust) you will\nnever do so any more.\n\n[c] _Testimony of_ CODICES \u05d0 _and_ C _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\nThat \u05d0 reads \u039f\u03a3 is admitted.\u2014Not so Codex C, which the excessive\napplication of chemicals has rendered no longer decipherable in this\nplace. Tischendorf (of course) insists, that the original reading was\n\u039f\u03a3.(949) Wetstein and Griesbach (just as we should expect,) avow the same\nopinion,\u2014Woide, Mill, Weber and Parquoi being just as confident that the\noriginal reading was _\u0398\u03a3_. As in the case of cod. A, it is too late by\nfull 100 years to re-open this question. Observable it is that the\nwitnesses yield contradictory evidence. Wetstein, writing 150 years ago,\nbefore the original writing had become so greatly defaced,\u2014(and Wetstein,\ninasmuch as he collated the MS. for Bentley [1716], must have been\nthoroughly familiar with its contents,)\u2014only \u201c_thought_\u201d that he read \u039f\u03a3;\n\u201cbecause the delicate horizontal stroke which makes \u0398 out of \u039f,\u201d was to\nhim \u201c_not apparent_.\u201d(950) Woide on the contrary was convinced that _\u0398\u03a3_\nhad been written by the first hand: \u201cfor\u201d (said he) \u201cthough there _exists\nno vestige_ of the delicate stroke which out of \u039f makes \u0398, _the stroke\nwritten above the letters is by the first hand_.\u201d What however to Wetstein\nand to Woide was not apparent, was visible enough to Weber, Wetstein\u2019s\ncontemporary. And Tischendorf, so late as 1843, expressed his astonishment\nthat the stroke in question had hitherto escaped the eyes of every one;\n\u201c_having been repeatedly seen by himself_.\u201d(951) He attributes it, (just\nas we should expect) to a corrector of the MS.; partly, because of _its\ncolour_, (\u201c_subnigra_\u201d); partly, because of _its inclining upwards to the\nright_. And yet, _who_ sees not that an argument derived from _the colour_\nof a line which is already well-nigh invisible, must needs be in a high\ndegree precarious? while Scrivener aptly points out that the cross line in\n\u0398,\u2014the ninth letter further on, (which has never been questioned,)\u2014_also_\n\u201cascends towards the right.\u201d The hostile evidence collapses therefore. In\nthe meantime, what at least is certain is, that the subscribed musical\nnotation indicates that _a thousand years ago, a word of two syllables_\nwas read here. From a review of all of which, it is clear that the utmost\nwhich can be pretended is that some degree of uncertainty attaches to the\ntestimony of cod. C. Yet, _why_ such a plea should be either set up or\nallowed, I really see not\u2014except indeed by men who have made up their\nminds beforehand that \u039f\u03a3 _shall be_ the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Let the\nsign of uncertainty however follow the notation of C for this text, if you\nwill. That cod. C is an indubitable witness for \u039f\u03a3, I venture at least to\nthink that no fair person will ever any more pretend.\n\n[d] _Testimony of_ CODICES F _and_ G _of S. Paul, concerning_ 1 Tim. iii.\n16.\n\nThe next dispute is about the reading of the two IXth-century codices, F\nand G,\u2014concerning which I propose to trouble you with a few words in\naddition to what has been already offered on this subject at pp. 100-1:\nthe rather, because you have yourself devoted one entire page of your\npamphlet to the testimony yielded by these two codices; and because you\ntherein have recourse to what (if it proceeded from any one but a Bishop,)\nI should designate the _insolent_ method of trying to put me down by\nauthority,\u2014instead of seeking to convince me of my error by producing some\ngood reasons for your opinion. You seem to think it enough to hurl\nWetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and (cruellest of\nall) my friend Scrivener, at my head. Permit me to point out that this,\n_as an argument_, is the feeblest to which a Critic can have recourse. He\nshouts so lustily for help only because he is unable to take care of\nhimself.\n\nF and G then are confessedly independent copies of one and the same\narchetype: and \u201cboth F and G\u201d (you say) \u201cexhibit _\u039f\u03a3_.\u201d(952) Be it so. The\nquestion arises,\u2014What does the stroke above the _\u039f\u03a3_ signify? I venture to\nbelieve that these two codices represent a copy which originally exhibited\n_\u0398\u03a3_, but from which the diameter of the \u0398 had disappeared\u2014(as very often\nis the case in codex A)\u2014through tract of time. The effect of this would be\nthat F and G are in reality witnesses for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Not so, you say. _That_\nslanting stroke represents the aspirate, and proves that these two codices\nare witnesses for \u1f45\u03c2.(953) Let us look a little more closely into this\nmatter.\n\nHere are two documents, of which it has been said that they \u201cwere\nseparately derived from some early codex, in which there was probably no\ninterval between the words.\u201d(954) They were _not immediately_ derived from\nsuch a codex, I remark: it being quite incredible that two independent\ncopyists could have hit on the same extravagantly absurd way of dividing\nthe uncial letters.(955) The common archetype which both employed must\nhave been the work of a late Western scribe every bit as licentious and as\nunacquainted with Greek as themselves.(956) _That_ archetype however may\nvery well have been obtained from a primitive codex of the kind first\nsupposed, in which the words were written continuously, as in codex B.\nSuch Manuscripts were furnished with neither breathings nor accents:\naccordingly, \u201cof the ordinary breathings or accents there are no\ntraces\u201d(957) in either F or G.\n\nBut then, cod. F occasionally,\u2014G much oftener,\u2014exhibits a little straight\nstroke, nearly horizontal, over the initial vowel of certain words. Some\nhave supposed that this was designed to represent the aspirate: but it is\nnot so. The proof is, that it is found _consistently_ introduced over the\nsame vowels _in the interlinear Latin_. Thus, the Latin preposition \u201ca\u201d\n_always_ has the slanting stroke above it:(958) and the Latin interjection\n\u201co\u201d is furnished with the same appendage,\u2014alike in the Gospels and in the\nEpistles.(959) This observation evacuates the supposed significance of the\nfew instances where \u1f03 is written _\u0391_:(960) as well as of the much fewer\nplaces where \u1f41 or \u1f43 are written _\u039f_:(961) especially when account is taken\nof the many hundred occasions, (often in rapid succession,) when nothing\nat all is to be seen above the \u201c\u03bf.\u201d(962) As for the fact that \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 is\nalways written _\u0399_\u039d\u0391 (or \u03aa\u039d\u0391),\u2014let it only be noted that besides \u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd,\n\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, &c., \u0399\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, \u0399\u03c9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, &c., (which are all\ndistinguished in the same way,)\u2014_Latin words also beginning with an_ \u201cI\u201d\nare similarly adorned,\u2014and we become convinced that the little stroke in\nquestion is to be explained on some entirely different principle. At last,\nwe discover (from the example of \u201cs\u012b,\u201d \u201cs\u012bc,\u201d \u201cets\u012b,\u201d \u201cserv\u012btus,\u201d\n\u201csaecul\u012bs,\u201d \u201cidol\u012bs,\u201d &c.) that the supposed sign of the rough breathing\n_is nothing else but an ancient substitute for the modern dot over the\n_\u201cI.\u201d\u2014We may now return to the case actually before us.\n\nIt has been pointed out that the line above the \u039f\u03a3 in both F and G \u201cis not\nhorizontal, but rises a little towards the right.\u201d I beg to call attention\nto the fact that there are 38 instances of the slight super-imposed \u201cline\u201d\nhere spoken of, in the page of cod. F where the reading under discussion\nappears: 7 in the Greek, 31 in the Latin. In the corresponding page of\ncod. G, the instances are 44: 8 in the Greek, 36 in the Latin.(963) These\nshort horizontal strokes (they can hardly be called _lines_) generally\u2014not\nby any means always\u2014slant upwards; and _they are invariably the sign of\ncontraction_.\n\nThe problem before us has in this way been divested of a needless\nencumbrance. The suspicion that the horizontal line above the word \u039f\u03a3 may\npossibly represent the aspirate, has been disposed of. It has been\ndemonstrated that throughout these two codices a horizontal line slanting\nupwards, set over a vowel, is either\u2014(1) The sign of contraction; or\nelse\u2014(2) A clerical peculiarity. In the place before us, then, _which_ of\nthe two is it?\n\n_The sign of contraction_, I answer: seeing that whereas there are, in the\npage before us, 9 aspirated, and (including _\u039f\u03a3_) 8 contracted Greek\nwords, not one of those _nine_ aspirated words has _any mark at all_ above\nits initial letter; while every one of the _eight_ contracted words is\nduly furnished with the symbol of contraction. I further submit that\ninasmuch as \u1f45\u03c2 is _nowhere_ else written _\u039f\u03a3_ in either codex, it is\nunreasonable to assume that it is so written in this place. Now, that\nalmost every codex in the world reads _\u0398\u03a3_ in 1 Tim. iii. 16,\u2014is a plain\nfact; and that _\u039f\u03a3_ (in verse 16) _would be_ \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 if the delicate\nhorizontal stroke which distinguishes \u0398 from \u039f, were not away,\u2014no one\ndenies. Surely, therefore, the only thing which remains to be enquired\nafter, is,\u2014Are there _any other_ such substitutions of one letter for\nanother discoverable in these two codices? And it is notorious that\ninstances of the phenomenon abound. The letters \u03a3, \u0395, \u039f, \u0398 are confused\nthroughout.(964) And what else are \u03a0\u0395\u039d\u039f\u039f\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u03a3 for \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (Matth. v.\n4),\u2014\u0395\u039a\u03a1\u0399\u0396\u03a9\u039f\u0397\u03a4\u0399 for \u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 (Luc. xvii. 16),\u2014\u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391\u0392\u0397\u039f\u0399 for \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9 (xix.\n6),\u2014but instances of the _self-same mistake_ which (as I contend) has in\nthis place turned _\u0398\u03a3_ into _\u039f\u03a3_?\n\nMy lord Bishop, I have submitted to all this painful drudgery, not, you\nmay be sure, without a sufficient reason. _Never any more must we hear of\n_\u201cbreathings\u201d_ in connexion with codices_ F _and_ G. The stroke above the\n\u039f\u03a3 in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has been proved to be _probably the sign of\ncontraction_. I forbear, of course, to insist that the two codices are\nwitnesses _on my side_. I require that you, in the same spirit of\nfairness, will abstain from claiming them as certainly witnessing _on\nyours_. The Vth-century codex C, and the IXth-century codex F-G must be\nregarded as equivocal in the testimony they render, and are therefore not\nto be reckoned to either of the contending parties.\n\nThese are many words about the two singularly corrupt IXth-century\ndocuments, concerning which so much has been written already. But I\nsincerely desire,\u2014(and so I trust do you, as a Christian Bishop,)\u2014to see\nthe end of a controversy which those only have any right to re-open (_pace\ntu\u00e2 dixerim_) who have _something new to offer on the subject_: and\ncertain it is that the bearing of F and G on this matter has never before\nbeen fully stated. I dismiss those two codices with the trite remark that\nthey are, at all events, but one codex: and that against them are to be\nset K L P,\u2014_the only uncials which remain_; for D (of \u201cPaul\u201d) exhibits \u1f45,\nand the Vatican codex B no longer serves us.\n\n[fe] _Testimony of the_ CURSIVE COPIES: _and specially of_ \u201cPaul 17,\u201d \u201c73\u201d\n_and_ \u201c181,\u201d _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\nNext, for the cursive Copies. You claim without enquiry,\u2014and _only because\nyou find that men have claimed them before you_,\u2014Nos. 17, 73, 181, as\nwitnesses for \u1f45\u03c2. Will you permit me to point out that no progress will\never be made in these studies so long as \u201cprofessed Critics\u201d will\npersevere in the evil practice of transcribing one another\u2019s references,\nand thus appropriating one another\u2019s blunders?\n\nAbout the reading of \u201cPaul 17,\u201d (the notorious \u201c33\u201d of the Gospels,) there\nis indeed no doubt.\u2014Mindful however of President Routh\u2019s advice to me\nalways \u201cto verify my references,\u201d\u2014concerning \u201cPaul 73\u201d I wrote a letter of\nenquiry to Upsala (July 28, 1879), and for all answer (Sept. 6th) received\na beautiful tracing of what my correspondent called the \u201c1 Thim. iii. 16\n_paraphe_.\u201d It proved to be an abridged exhibition of 21 lines of\n\u0152cumenius. I instantly wrote to enquire whether this was really all that\nthe codex in question has to say to 1 Tim. iii. 16? but to this I received\nno reply. I presumed therefore that I had got to the bottom of the\nbusiness. But in July 1882, I addressed a fresh enquiry to Dr. Belsheim of\nChristiania, and got his answer last October. By that time he had visited\nUpsala: had verified for me readings in other MSS., and reported that the\nreading here is \u1f45\u03c2. I instantly wrote to enquire whether he had seen the\nword with his own eyes? He replied that he desired to look further into\n_this_ matter on some future occasion,\u2014the MS. in question being (he says)\na difficult one to handle. I am still awaiting his final report, which he\npromises to send me when next he visits Upsala. (\u201cAurivillius\u201d says\nnothing about it.) Let \u201cPaul 73\u201d in the meantime stand with a note of\ninterrogation, or how you will.\n\nAbout \u201cPaul 181,\u201d (which Scholz describes as \u201cvi. 36\u201d in the Laurentian\nlibrary at Florence,) I take leave to repeat (in a foot-note) what (in a\nletter to Dr. Scrivener) I explained in the \u201cGuardian\u201d ten years ago.(965)\nIn consequence however of your discourteous remarks (which you will be\ngratified to find quoted at foot,(966)) I have written (not for the first\ntime) to the learned custos of the Laurentian library on the subject;\nstating the entire case and reminding him of my pertinacity in 1871. He\nreplies,\u2014\u201cScholz fallitur huic bibliothec\u00e6 tribuendo codicem sign. \u2018plut.\nvi. n. 36.\u2019 Nec est in pr\u00e6senti, nec fuit antea, neque exstat in ali\u00e2\nbibliothec\u00e2 apud nos.\u201d... On a review of what goes before, I submit that\none who has taken so much pains with the subject does not deserve to be\nflouted as I find myself flouted by the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol,\u2014who\nhas not been at the pains to verify _one single point_ in this entire\ncontroversy for himself.\n\n_Every other known copy of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles_, (written in the cursive\ncharacter,) I have ascertained (by laborious correspondence with the\nchiefs of foreign libraries) concurs in exhibiting \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af. The importance of this testimony ought to be supremely evident to\nyourself who contend so strenuously for the support of Paul 73 and 181.\nBut because, in my judgment, this practical unanimity of the manuscripts\nis not only \u201cimportant\u201d but _conclusive_, I shall presently recur to it\n(viz. at pages 494-5,) more in detail. For do but consider that these\ncopies were one and all derived from yet older MSS. than themselves; and\nthat the remote originals of those older MSS. were perforce of higher\nantiquity still, and were executed in every part of primitive Christendom.\nHow is it credible that they should, one and all, conspire to mislead? I\ncannot in fact express better than Dr. Berriman did 140 years ago, the\nlogical result of such a concord of the copies:\u2014\u201cFrom whence can it be\nsupposed that this general, I may say this universal consent of the Greek\nMSS. should arise, but from hence,\u2014That \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is the genuine original\nreading of this Text?\u201d (p. 325.)\n\nIn the meantime, you owe me a debt of gratitude: for, in the course of an\nenquiry which I have endeavoured to make exhaustive, I have discovered\n_three_ specimens of the book called \u201c_Apostolus_,\u201d or \u201c_Praxapostolus_\u201d\n(_i.e._ Lections from the Epistles and Acts) which also exhibit \u1f45\u03c2 in this\nplace. One of these is Reg. 375 (our \u201cApost. 12\u201d) in the French\ncollection, a _Western_ codex, dated A.D. 1022.(967) The story of the\ndiscovery of the other two (to be numbered \u201cPraxapost.\u201d 85, 86,) is\ninteresting, and will enliven this dull page.\n\nAt Tusculum, near Rome,\u2014(the locality which Cicero rendered illustrious,\nand where he loved to reside surrounded by his books,)\u2014was founded early\nin the XIth century a Christian library which in process of time became\nexceedingly famous. It retains, in fact, its ancient reputation to this\nday. Nilus \u201cRossanensis\u201d it was, who, driven with his monks from Calabria\nby invading hordes, established in A.D. 1004 a monastery at Tusculum, to\nwhich either he, or his successors, gave the name of \u201cCrypta Ferrata.\u201d It\nbecame the headquarters of the Basilian monks in the XVIIth century.\nHither habitually resorted those illustrious men, Sirletus, Mabillon,\nZacagni, Ciampini, Montfaucon,\u2014and more lately Mai and Dom Pitra. To\nSignor Cozza-Luzi, the present learned and enlightened chief of the\nVatican library, (who is himself \u201cAbbas Monachorum Basiliensium Crypt\u00e6\nFerrat\u00e6,\u201d) I am indebted for my copy of the Catalogue (now in process of\npublication(968)) of the extraordinary collection of MSS. belonging to the\nsociety over which he presides.\n\nIn consequence of the information which the Abbate Cozza-Luzi sent me, I\nput myself in communication with the learned librarian of the monastery,\nthe \u201cHieromonachus\u201d D. Antonio Rocchi, (author of the Catalogue in\nquestion,) whom I cannot sufficiently thank for his courtesy and kindness.\nThe sum of the matter is briefly this:\u2014There are still preserved in the\nlibrary of the Basilian monks of Crypta Ferrata,\u2014(notwithstanding that\nmany of its ancient treasures have found their way into other\nrepositories,(969))\u20144 manuscripts of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles, which I number\n290, -1, -2, -3: and 7 copies of the book called \u201cPraxapostolus,\u201d which I\nnumber 83, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9. Of these eleven, 3 are defective\nhereabouts: 5 read \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2: 2 (Praxapost.) exhibit \u1f45\u03c2; and 1 (Apost. 83)\ncontains an only not unique reading, to be mentioned at p. 478.\nHieromonachus Rocchi furnishes me with references besides to 3 Liturgical\nCodices out of a total of 22, (\u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1), which also exhibit\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.(970) I number them Apost. 106, 108, 110.\n\nAnd now, we may proceed to consider the VERSIONS.\n\n[f] _Testimony of the_ VERSIONS _to the reading of_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n\u201cTurning to the ancient Versions\u201d (you assert) \u201cwe find them almost\nunanimous against \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\u201d (p. 65). But your business, my lord Bishop, was to\nshow that some of them witness _in favour of_ \u1f45\u03c2. If you cannot show that\nseveral ancient Versions,\u2014besides a fair proportion of ancient\nFathers,\u2014are clearly on your side, your contention is unreasonable as well\nas hopeless. What then do the VERSIONS say?\n\n(_a_) Now, it is allowed on all hands that the LATIN Version was made from\ncopies which must have exhibited \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7. The agreement of\nthe Latin copies is absolute. The Latin Fathers also conspire in reading\n\u201c_mysterium quod_:\u201d though some of them seem to have regarded \u201cquod\u201d as a\nconjunction. Occasionally, (as by the Translator of Origen,(971)) we even\nfind \u201cquia\u201d substituted _for_ \u201cquod.\u201d Estius conjectures that \u201cquod\u201d _is_\na conjunction in this place. But in fact the reasoning of the Latin\nFathers is observed invariably to proceed as if they had found nothing\nelse but \u201cDEUS\u201d in the text before them. They bravely assume that the\nEternal WORD, the second Person in the Trinity, is _designated_ by the\nexpression \u201c_magnum pietatis sacramentum_.\u201d\n\n(_b_) It is, I admit, a striking circumstance that such a mistake as this\nin the old Latin should have been retained in the VULGATE. But if you ever\nstudy this subject with attention, you will find that Jerome,\u2014although no\ndoubt he \u201cprofessedly corrected the old Latin Version by the help of\nancient Greek manuscripts,\u201d (p. 69,)\u2014on many occasions retains readings\nwhich it is nevertheless demonstrable that he individually disapproved. No\ncertain inference therefore as to what Jerome _found_ in ancient Greek\nMSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.\n\n(_c_) Next, for the _Syriac_ (PESCHITO) Version. I beg to subjoin the view\nof the late loved and lamented P. E. Pusey,\u2014the editor of Cyril, and who\nat the time of his death was engaged in re-editing the Peschito. He\nsays,\u2014\u201cIn 1 Tim. iii. 16, the Syriac has \u2018_qui manifestatus est_.\u2019 The\nrelative is indeterminate, but the verb is not. In Syriac however\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is masculine; and thus, the natural way would be to take\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd as the antecedent, and translate \u2018_quod manifestatum est_.\u2019 _No\none would have thought of any other way of translating the Syriac_\u2014but for\nthe existence of the various reading \u1f45\u03c2 in the Greek, and the\n_possibility_ of its affecting the translation into Syriac. But the\nPeschito is so really a translation into good Syriac, (not into\nword-for-word Syriac,) that if the translator had wanted to express the\nGreek \u1f45\u03c2, in so difficult a passage, _he would have turned it\ndifferently_.\u201d(972)\u2014The Peschito therefore yields the same testimony as\nthe Latin; and may not be declared (as you declare it) to be\nindeterminate. Still less may it be represented as witnessing to \u1f45\u03c2.\n\n(_d_) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in\nthe PHILOXENIAN, or rather the HARKLEIAN Version (VIIth cent.), concerning\nwhich I have had recourse to the learned Editor of that Version. He\nwrites:\u2014\u201cThere can be no doubt that the authors of this Version had either\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 or \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 before them: while their marginal note shows that they were\naware of the reading \u1f45\u03c2. They exhibit,\u2014\u2018_Great is the mystery of the\ngoodness of the fear_ (feminine) _of _GOD_, who-was-manifested_\n(masculine) _in the flesh_.\u2019 The marginal addition [\u0717\u0718 before \u0715\u0710\u072c\u0713\u0720\u071d (or\n\u0718\u0717 before \u071d\u0720\u0713\u072c\u0710\u0715)] makes the reference to GOD all the plainer.\u201d(973) See\nmore below, at p. 489.\n\nNow this introduction of the word \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 into the text, however inartistic\nit may seem to you and to me, is a fatal circumstance to those who would\ncontend on your side. It shows translators divided between two rival and\nconflicting readings: but determined to give prominence to the\ncircumstance which constituted the greatness of the mystery: viz. GOD\nINCARNATE. \u201cMay I suggest\u201d (adds the witty scholar in his Post-script)\n\u201cthat there would be no mystery in \u2018a man being manifested in the flesh\u2019?\u201d\n\nThe facts concerning the Harkleian Version being such, you will not be\nsurprised to hear me say that I am at a loss to understand how, without a\nsyllable expressive of doubt, you should claim this version (the\n\u201cPhiloxenian\u201d you call it\u2014but it is rather the Harkleian), as a witness on\nyour side,\u2014a witness for \u1f45\u03c2.(974) It not only witnesses _against_ you,\n(for the Latin and the Peschito do _that_,) but, as I have shown you, it\nis a witness on _my_ side.\n\n(_e_) and (_f_). Next, for the Versions of LOWER and UPPER EGYPT.\n\n\u201cWe are content\u201d (you say) to \u201crefer our readers to Tischendorf and\nTregelles, who unhesitatingly claim the Memphitic [or Coptic] and the\nThebaic [or Sahidic] for \u1f45\u03c2.\u201d(975) But surely, in a matter of this kind,\nmy lord Bishop\u2014(I mean, when we are discussing some nicety of a language\nof which personally we know absolutely nothing,)\u2014we may never \u201cbe content\nto refer our readers\u201d to individuals who are every bit as ignorant of the\nmatter as ourselves. Rather should we be at the pains to obtain for those\nwhom we propose to instruct the deliberate verdict of those who have made\nthe subject their special study. Dr. Malan (who must be heartily sick of\nme by this time), in reply to my repeated enquiries, assures me that in\nCoptic and in Sahidic alike, \u201cthe relative pronoun always takes the gender\nof the Greek antecedent. But, inasmuch as there is properly speaking no\nneuter in either language, the masculine does duty _for_ the neuter; the\ngender of the definite article and relative pronoun being determined by\nthe gender of the word referred to. Thus, in S. John xv. 26, the Coptic\n\u2018_pi_\u2019 and \u2018_ph\u00e8_\u2019 respectively represent the definite article and the\nrelative, alike in the expression \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bd, and in the expression\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f45: and so throughout. In 1 Tim. iii. 16, therefore, \u2018_pi\nmust\u00e8rion ph\u00e8_,\u2019 must perforce be rendered, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45:\u2014not, surely, \u1f41\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c2. And yet, if _the relative_ may be masculine, why not _the\narticle_ also? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or\nthe Sahidic) relative by \u1f45\u03c2 in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar\npassage where a neuter noun (_e.g._ \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 or \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1) has gone before. _In\nthis particular case_, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender\nof the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness\nof grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact,\nhaving to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek, would ever\ndream of writing anything else but \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45.\u201d(976) And now I trust I\nhave made it plain to you that _you are mistaken_ in your statement (p.\n69),\u2014that \u201c\u1f4d\u03c2 is _supported by the two Egyptian Versions_.\u201d It is\nsupported by _neither_. You have been shown that they both witness against\nyou. You will therefore not be astonished to hear me again declare that I\nam at a loss to understand how you can cite the \u201cPhiloxenian, _Coptic and\nSahidic_,\u201d(977)\u2014as witnesses on your side. It is not in this way, my lord\nBishop, that GOD\u2019S Truth is to be established.\n\n(_g_) As for the GOTHIC Version,\u2014dissatisfied with the verdict of De\nGabelentz and Loebe,(978) I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the\nlearned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the\nway is preserved _the only known copy_ of Ulphilas for 1 Tim. iii. 16. He\ninclines to the opinion that \u201c_saei_\u201d is to be read,\u2014the rather, because\nAndreas Uppstr\u00f6m, the recent editor of the codex, a diligent and able\nscholar, has decided in favour of that \u201c_obscure_\u201d reading.(979) The\nGothic therefore must be considered to witness to the (more than)\nextraordinary combination;\u2014\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u0391\u03a3 ... \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f4d\u03a3. (See the footnote 4\np. 452.)\n\nI obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from\nthat distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania.\n\u201cBut\u201d (he adds) \u201cthe reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the\nnotes to his edition,(980) at page 657, says,\u2014\u2018_saei_ [qui] is altogether\nobliterated.\u2019 \u201d\u2014In claiming the Gothic therefore as a witness for \u1f45\u03c2, you\nwill (I trust) agree with me that a single _scarcely legible copy_ of a\nVersion is not altogether satisfactory testimony:\u2014while certainly\n\u201c_magnus_ est pietatis sacramentum, _qui_ manifestat_us_ est in\ncorpore\u201d\u2014is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to\naccept.\n\n(_h_) For the \u00c6THIOPIC. Version,\u2014Dr. Hoerning, (of the British Museum,)\nhas at my request consulted six copies of 1 Timothy, and informs me that\nthey present no variety of text. _The antecedent, as well as the relative,\nis masculine in all._ The \u00c6thiopic must therefore be considered to favour\nthe reading \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7, and to represent the same Greek text\nwhich underlies the Latin and the Peschito Versions. The \u00c6thiopic\ntherefore is against you.\n\n(_i_) \u201cThe ARMENIAN Version,\u201d (writes Dr. Malan) \u201cfrom the very nature of\nthe language, is indeterminate. There is _no grammatical distinction of\ngenders_ in Armenian.\u201d\n\n(_j_) The ARABIC Version, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu(981) informs me,) exhibits,\u2014\u201cIn\n_truth the mystery of this justice is great. It is that he_\u201d (or \u201c_it_,\u201d\nfor the Arabic has no distinction between masculine and neuter) \u201c_was\nmanifested in the body, and was justified in the spirit_\u201d &c.\u2014This version\ntherefore witnesses for neither \u201cwho,\u201d \u201cwhich,\u201d nor \u201cGOD.\u201d\n\n(_k_) and (_l_). There only remain the GEORGIAN Version, which is of the\nVIth century,\u2014and the SLAVONIC, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these\n(Dr. Malan informs me) _unequivocally witness to_ \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nThus far then for the testimony yielded by ancient MANUSCRIPTS and\nVERSIONS of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles.\n\n[_g_] _Review of the progress which has been hitherto made in the present\nEnquiry._\n\nUp to this point, you must admit that wondrous little sanction has been\nobtained for the reading for which _you_ contend, (viz. \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7,) as the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Undisturbed in your\nenjoyment of the testimony borne by Cod. \u05d0, you cannot but feel that such\ntestimony is fully counterbalanced by the witness of Cod. A: and further,\nthat the conjoined evidence of the HARKLEIAN, the GEORGIAN, and the\nSLAVONIC Versions outweighs the single evidence of the GOTHIC.\n\nBut what is to be said about the consent of the manuscripts of S. Paul\u2019s\nEpistles for reading \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in this place, _in the proportion of_ 125 _to_\n1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp. 445-6,) such\nmultitudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us.\nAt p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a \u201clesson of primary\nimportance, often reiterated but often forgotten, _ponderari debere\ntestes, non numerari_.\u201d You might have added with advantage,\u2014\u201c_and\noftenest of all, misunderstood_.\u201d For are you not aware that, generally\nspeaking, \u201cNumber\u201d _constitutes_ \u201cWeight\u201d? If you have discovered some\n\u201cregia via\u201d which renders the general consent of COPIES,\u2014the general\nconsent of VERSIONS,\u2014the general consent of FATHERS, a consideration of\nsecondary importance, why do you not at once communicate the precious\nsecret to mankind, and thereby save us all a world of trouble?\n\nYou will perhaps propose to fall back on Hort\u2019s wild theory of a \u201c_Syrian\nText_,\u201d\u2014executed by authority at Antioch somewhere between A.D. 250 and\nA.D. 350.(982) Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a\nfact. And what follows? That _at a period antecedent to the date of any\nexisting copy_ of the Epistle before us, the Church in her corporate\ncapacity declared \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (not \u1f45\u03c2) to be the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\nOnly one other head of Evidence (the PATRISTIC) remains to be explored;\nafter which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present\nDissertation.\n\n[h] _Testimony of the_ FATHERS _concerning the true reading of_ 1 _Tim._\niii. 16:\u2014GREGORY OF NYSSA,\u2014DIDYMUS,\u2014THEODORET,\u2014JOHN\nDAMASCENE,\u2014CHRYSOSTOM,\u2014GREGORY NAZ.,\u2014SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH,\u2014DIODORUS OF\nTARSUS.\n\nIt only remains to ascertain what the FATHERS have to say on this subject.\nAnd when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a mass\nof evidence which effectually closes this discussion. You contended just\nnow as eagerly for the Vth-century Codex A, as if its witness were a point\nof vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show that GREGORY OF\nNYSSA (a full century before Codex A was produced), in at least 22 places,\nknew of no other reading but \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.(983) Of his weighty testimony you\nappear to have been wholly unaware in 1869, for you did not even mention\nGregory by name (see p. 429). Since however you now admit that his\nevidence is unequivocally against you, I am willing to hasten\nforward,\u2014only supplying you (at foot) with the means of verifying what I\nhave stated above concerning the testimony of this illustrious Father.\n\nYou are besides aware that DIDYMUS,(984) another illustrious witness, is\nagainst you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.\n\nYou are also aware that THEODORET,(985) in _four_ places, is certainly to\nbe reckoned on the same side:\n\nAnd further, that JOHN DAMASCENE(986) _twice_ adds his famous evidence to\nthe rest,\u2014and is also against you.\n\nCHRYSOSTOM(987) again, whose testimony you called in question in 1869, you\nnow admit is another of your opponents. I will not linger over his name\ntherefore,\u2014except to remark, that how you can witness a gathering host of\nancient Fathers illustrious as these, without misgiving, passes my\ncomprehension. Chrysostom is _three_ times a witness.\n\nNext come two quotations from GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS,\u2014which I observe you\ntreat as \u201cinconclusive.\u201d I retain them all the same.(988) You are reminded\nthat this most rhetorical of Fathers is seldom more precise in quoting\nScripture.\n\nAnd to the same century which Gregory of Nazianzus adorned, is probably to\nbe referred,\u2014(it cannot possibly be later than A.D. 350, though it may be\na vast deal more ancient,)\u2014THE TITLE bestowed, in the way of summary, on\nthat portion of S. Paul\u2019s first Epistle to Timothy which is contained\nbetween chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,\u2014viz., \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0398\u0395\u038a\u0391\u03a3 \u03a3\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. We\ncommonly speak of this as the seventh of the \u201c_Euthalian_\u201d \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 or\nchapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were\n\u201cdevised by a certain very wise and pious Father;\u201d(989) and this\nparticular title (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2) is freely employed and discussed\nin Gregory of Nyssa\u2019s treatise against Apolinaris,(990)\u2014which latter had,\nin fact, made it part of the title of his own heretical treatise.(991)\nThat the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, \u0398\u0395\u1ff8\u03a3\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a3\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u038a no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover\nthat \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2(992) must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16\nthroughout the century which witnessed the production of codices B and \u05d0.\n\nSEVERUS, BP. OF ANTIOCH, you also consider a \u201cnot unambiguous\u201d witness. I\nventure to point out to you that when a Father of the Church, who has been\nalready insisting on the GODhead of CHRIST (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f45 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2,) goes\non to speak of Him as \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, there is no\n\u201cambiguity\u201d whatever about the fact that he is quoting from 1 Tim. iii.\n16.(993)\n\nAnd why are we only \u201c_perhaps_\u201d to add the testimony of DIODORUS OF\nTARSUS; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul\u2019s actual words (\u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af), and expressly says that he finds them in _S. Paul\u2019s\nEpistle to Timothy_?(994) How\u2014may I be permitted to ask\u2014would you have a\nquotation made plainer?\n\n[i] _Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case of_ EUTHALIUS.\n\nForgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that the _animus_ you display in\nconducting the present critical disquisition not only astonishes, but even\nshocks me. You seem to say,\u2014_Non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris_. The\nplainest testimony you reckon doubtful, if it goes against you: an\nunsatisfactory quotation, if it makes for your side, you roundly declare\nto be \u201cevidence\u201d which \u201cstands the test of examination.\u201d(995)... \u201cWe have\nexamined his references carefully\u201d (you say). \u201cGregory of Nyssa, Didymus\nof Alexandria, Theodoret and John Damascene (_who died_ severally about\n394, 396, 457 and 756A.D.) _seem_ unquestionably to have read \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u201d(996)\nExcuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid\nenquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of the _unequivocal_\nevidence borne by these four illustrious Fathers:\u2014your attempt to detract\nfrom the importance of their testimony by screwing down their date \u201cto the\nsticking place:\u201d\u2014your assertion that the testimony of a fifth Father \u201c_is\nnot unambiguous_:\u201d\u2014your insinuation that the emphatic witness of a sixth\nmay \u201c_perhaps_\u201d be inadmissible:\u2014all this kind of thing is not only quite\nunworthy of a Bishop when he turns disputant, but effectually indisposes\nhis opponent to receive his argumentation with that respectful deference\nwhich else would have been undoubtedly its due.\n\nNeed I remind you that men do not write their books when they are _in\narticulo mortis_? Didymus _died_ in A.D. 394, to be sure: but he was then\n85 years of age. He was therefore born in A.D. 309, and is said to have\nflourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had\nemployed _till then_? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text\nof Scripture must in fairness be held to belong to _the first quarter of\nthe IVth century_?\u2014is more ancient in short (and infinitely more\nimportant) than that of any written codex with which we are acquainted?\n\nPressed by my \u201ccloud of witnesses,\u201d you seek to get rid of _them_ by\ninsulting _me_. \u201cWe pass over\u201d (you say) \u201c_names brought in to swell the\nnumber, such as Euthalius_,\u2014_for whom no reference is given_.\u201d(997) Do you\nthen suspect me of the baseness,\u2014nay, do you mean seriously to impute it\nto me,\u2014of introducing \u201cnames\u201d \u201cto swell the number\u201d of witnesses on my\nside? Do you mean further to insinuate that I prudently gave no reference\nin the case of \u201cEuthalius,\u201d because I was unable to specify any place\nwhere his testimony is found?... I should really pause for an answer, but\nthat a trifling circumstance solicits me, which, if it does not entertain\nthe Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol, will certainly entertain every one else\nwho takes the trouble to read these pages.\n\n\u201cSuch as _Euthalius_\u201d! You had evidently forgotten when you penned that\noffensive sentence, that EUTHALIUS is one of the few Fathers _adduced by\nyourself_(998) (but for whom you \u201cgave no reference,\u201d) in 1869,\u2014when you\nwere setting down the Patristic evidence in favour of \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.... This little\nincident is really in a high degree suggestive. Your practice has\nevidently been to appropriate Patristic references(999) without thought or\nverification,\u2014prudently to abstain from dropping a hint how you came by\nthem,\u2014but to use them like dummies, for show. At the end of a few years,\n(naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,\u2014and proceed\nvigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your\nway, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in\nthe same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet\ntingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department\nof Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references\nare _never_ obtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that\nelsewhere they are not to be met with. But waiving this, you have made it\n_luce clarius_ to all the world that so late as the year 1882, to _you_\n\u201cEuthalius\u201d was nothing else but \u201ca name.\u201d And this really does astonish\nme: for not only was he a famous Ecclesiastical personage, (a Bishop like\nyourself,) but his work (the date of which is A.D. 458,) is one with which\nno Author of a \u201c_Critical_ Commentary\u201d on S. Paul\u2019s Epistles can afford to\nbe unacquainted. Pray read what Berriman has written concerning Euthalius\n(pp. 217 to 222) in his admirable \u201c_Dissertation on_ 1 _Tim._ iii. 16.\u201d\nTurn also, if you please, to the _Bibliotheca_ of Gallandius (vol. x.\n197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact that the _only_ reason\nwhy, in the \u201cQuarterly Review,\u201d \u201cno reference is given for Euthalius,\u201d is\nbecause the only reference possible is\u20141 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n[j] _The testimony of the letter ascribed to_ DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA.\n_Six other primitive witnesses to_ 1 Tim. iii. 16, _specified_.\n\nThen further, you absolutely take no notice of the remarkable testimony\nwhich I adduced (p. 101) from a famous Epistle purporting to have been\naddressed by DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 264) to Paul of Samosata. That\nthe long and interesting composition in question(1000) was not actually\nthe work of the great Dionysius, is inferred\u2014(whether rightly or wrongly I\nam not concerned to enquire)\u2014from the fact that the Antiochian Fathers say\nexpressly that Dionysius did not deign to address Paul personally. But you\nare requested to remember that the epistle must needs have been written by\n_somebody_:(1001) that it may safely be referred to the IIIrd century; and\nthat it certainly witnesses to \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7,(1002)\u2014which is the only\nmatter of any real importance to my argument. Its testimony is, in fact,\nas express and emphatic as words can make it.\n\nAnd here, let me call your attention to the circumstance that there are at\nleast SIX OTHER PRIMITIVE WITNESSES, _some_ of whom must needs have\nrecognized the reading for which I am here contending, (viz. \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af,) though not one of them quotes the place _in extenso_,\nnor indeed refers to it in such a way as effectually to bar the door\nagainst reasonable dispute. The present is in fact just the kind of text\nwhich, from its undeniable grandeur,\u2014its striking rhythm,\u2014and yet more its\ndogmatic importance,\u2014was sure to attract the attention of the earliest, no\nless than the latest of the Fathers. Accordingly, the author of the\nEpistle _ad Diognetum_(1003) clearly refers to it early in the IInd\ncentury; though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I\ncannot feel surprised at the circumstance.\n\nThe yet earlier references in the epistles of (1) IGNATIUS (three in\nnumber) _are_ helpful, and may not be overlooked. They are as\nfollows:\u2014\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5:\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\u2014\u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u0390\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.(1004) It is to be wished, no doubt, that these references\nhad been a little more full and explicit: but the very early Fathers are\never observed to quote Scripture thus partially,\u2014allusively,\u2014elliptically.\n\n(2) BARNABAS has just such another allusive reference to the words in\ndispute, which seems to show that he must have read \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af: viz. \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 ... \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2.(1005)\u2014(3) HIPPOLYTUS, on two occasions, even more\nunequivocally refers to this reading. Once, while engaged in proving that\nCHRIST is GOD, he says:\u2014\u039f\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7:(1006)\u2014and again, in a very similar passage which Theodoret\nquotes from the same Father\u2019s lost work on the Psalms:\u2014\u039f\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7.(1007)\u2014(4) GREGORY\nTHAUMATURGUS, (if it really be he,) seems also to refer directly to this\nplace when he says (in a passage quoted by Photius(1008)),\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2.\u2014Further, (5) in the APOSTOLICAL\nCONSTITUTIONS, we meet with the expression,\u2014\u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af.(1009)\n\nAnd when (6) BASIL THE GREAT [A.D. 377], writing to the men of Sozopolis\nwhose faith the Arians had assailed, remarks that such teaching \u201csubverts\nthe saving Dispensation of our LORD JESUS CHRIST;\u201d and, blending Rom. xvi.\n25, 26 with \u201cthe great mystery\u201d of 1 Tim. iii. 16,\u2014(in order to afford\nhimself an opportunity of passing in review our SAVIOUR\u2019S work for His\nChurch in ancient days,)\u2014viz. \u201cAfter all these, at the end of the day,\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2:\u201d(1010)\u2014_who_ will deny\nthat such an one probably found neither \u1f45\u03c2 nor \u1f45, but \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, in the copy\nbefore him?\n\nI have thought it due to the enquiry I have in hand to give a distinct\nplace to the foregoing evidence\u2014such as it is\u2014of Ignatius, Barnabas,\nHippolytus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Apostolical Constitutions, and\nBasil. But I shall not _build_ upon such foundations. Let me go on with\nwhat is indisputable.\n\n[k] _The testimony of_ CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA.\n\nNext, for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, whom you decline to accept as a witness for\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. You are prepared, I trust, to submit to the logic of _facts_?\n\nIn a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is\nundertaking to prove that our LORD is very and eternal GOD.(1011) His\nmethod is to establish several short theses all tending to this one\nobject, by citing from the several books of the N. T., in turn, the\nprincipal texts which make for his purpose. Presently, (viz. at page 117,)\nhe announces as his thesis,\u2014\u201c_Faith in_ CHRIST _as_ GOD;\u201d and when he\ncomes to 1 Timothy, _he quotes_ iii. 16 _at length_; reasons upon it, and\npoints out that \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af is here spoken of.(1012) There can be no\ndoubt about this quotation, which exhibits no essential variety of\nreading;\u2014a quotation which Euthymius Zigabenus reproduces in his\n\u201c_Panoplia_,\u201d\u2014and which C. F. Matth\u00e6i has with painful accuracy edited\nfrom that source.(1013)\u2014Once more. In a newly recovered treatise of Cyril,\n1 Tim. iii. 16 is again _quoted at length with_ \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2,\u2014followed by the\nremark that \u201cour Nature was justified, by GOD _manifested in Him_.\u201d(1014)\nI really see not how you would have Cyril more distinctly recognize \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af as the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1015)\n\nYou are requested to observe that in order to prevent cavil, I forbear to\nbuild on two other famous places in Cyril\u2019s writings where the evidence\nfor reading \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is about balanced by a corresponding amount of evidence\nwhich has been discovered for reading \u1f45\u03c2. Not but what the _context_\nrenders it plain that \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 must have been Cyril\u2019s word on both occasions.\nOf this let the reader himself be judge:\u2014\n\n(1) In a treatise, addressed to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, Cyril\nquotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 _in extenso_.(1016) \u201cIf\u201d (he begins)\u2014\u201cthe Word,\nbeing GOD, could be said to inhabit Man\u2019s nature (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) without\nyet ceasing to be GOD, but remained for ever what He was before,\u2014then,\ngreat indeed is the mystery of Godliness.\u201d(1017) He proceeds in the same\nstrain at much length.(1018) Next (2) the same place of Timothy is just as\nfully quoted in Cyril\u2019s _Explanatio xii. capitum_: where not only the\nThesis,(1019) but also the context constrains belief that Cyril wrote\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2:\u2014\u201cWhat then means \u2018was manifested in the flesh\u2019? It means that the\nWord of GOD the FATHER was made flesh.... In this way therefore we say\nthat He was both GOD and Man.... Thus\u201d (Cyril concludes) \u201cis He GOD and\nLORD of all.\u201d(1020)\n\nBut, as aforesaid, I do not propose to rest my case on either of these\npassages; but on those two other places concerning which there exists no\nvariety of tradition as to the reading. Whether the passages in which the\nreading is _certain_ ought not to be held to determine the reading of the\npassages concerning which the evidence is about evenly balanced;\u2014whether\nin doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not be allowed\nto turn the scale;\u2014I forbear to enquire. I take my stand on what is clear\nand undeniable. On the other hand you are challenged to produce a single\ninstance in Cyril of \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7, where the reading is not\nequally balanced by \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. And (as already explained) of course\nit makes nothing for \u1f45\u03c2 that Cyril should sometimes say that \u201cthe mystery\u201d\nhere spoken of is CHRIST who \u201cwas manifested in the flesh,\u201d &c. A man with\nnothing else but the A. V. of the \u201cTextus Receptus\u201d before him might\nequally well say _that_. See above, pages 427-8.\n\nNot unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium(1021) which the Critics\nfreely allege in proof that Cyril wrote \u1f45\u03c2 (not \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2), and which _as they\nquote it_, (viz. so mutilated as effectually to conceal its meaning,)\ncertainly seems to be express in its testimony. But the thing is all a\nmistake. Rightly understood, the Scholium in question renders no testimony\nat all;\u2014as I proceed to explain. The only wonder is that such critics as\nBentley,(1022) Wetstein,(1023) Birch,(1024) Tischendorf,(1025) or even\nTregelles,(1026) should not have seen this for themselves.\n\nThe author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting on our LORD\u2019S\nabsolute exemption from sin, although for our sakes He became very Man. In\nsupport of this, he quotes Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)\u2014\u201c_Who\ndid no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth_.\u201d \u201cS. Cyril\u201d (he\nproceeds) \u201cin the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,\u2014\u2018_Who was manifested in\nthe flesh, justified in the Spirit_;\u2019 for He was in no way subject to our\ninfirmities,\u201d and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance that it is\nentirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose that it is any part of the\nScholiast\u2019s object, in what precedes, to invite attention to so irrelevant\na circumstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with\n\u1f45\u03c2 instead of \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.(1027) As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years\nago,(1028) the Scholiast\u2019s one object was to show how Cyril interpreted\nthe expression \u201c_justified in the Spirit_.\u201d Altogether misleading is it to\nquote _only the first line_, beginning at \u1f45\u03c2 and ending at \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, as\nthe Critics _invariably_ do. The point to which in this way prominence is\nexclusively given, was clearly, to the Commentator, a matter of no concern\nat all. He quotes from Cyril\u2019s \u201c_Scholia de Incarnatione\nUnigeniti_,\u201d(1029) in preference to any other of Cyril\u2019s writings, for a\nvastly different reason.(1030) And yet _this_\u2014(viz. Cyril\u2019s supposed\nsubstitution of \u1f45\u03c2 for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2)\u2014is, in the account of the Critics, the one\nthing which the Scholiast was desirous of putting on record.\n\nIn the meanwhile, on referring to the place in Cyril, we make an important\ndiscovery. The Greek of the Scholium in question being lost, we depend for\nour knowledge of its contents on the Latin translation of Marius Mercator,\nCyril\u2019s contemporary. And in that translation, no trace is discoverable of\neither \u1f45\u03c2 or \u1f45.(1031) The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7. The Latin is as follows:\u2014\u201cDivinus Paulus _magnum quidem_ ait\n_esse mysterium pietatis_. Et vere ita se res habet: _manifestatus est_\nenim _in carne_, cum sit DEUS Verbum.\u201d(1032) The supposed hostile evidence\nfrom this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on.\n\n[l] _The argument_ e silentio _considered._\n\nThe argument _e silentio_,\u2014(of all arguments the most precarious,)\u2014has not\nbeen neglected.\u2014\u201cBut we cannot stop here,\u201d you say:(1033) \u201cWetstein\nobserved long ago that Cyril does not produce this text when he does\nproduce Rom. ix. 5 in answer to the allegation which he quotes from Julian\nthat S. Paul never employed the word \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 of our LORD.\u201d(1034) Well but,\nneither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a\nTreatise expressly to prove the GODhead of the SON and of the HOLY GHOST.\n\u201c_Grave est_,\u201d\u2014says Tischendorf.(1035) No, not \u201c_grave_\u201d at all, I answer:\nbut whether \u201c_grave_\u201d or not, that _Gregory of Nyssa_ read \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in this\nplace, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, you have been reminded\nalready, that \u201c_ubi de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui\ndissimilior deprehenditur_.\u201d(1036) Examine the place in Cyril Alex. for\nyourself, reading steadily on from p. 327 a to p. 333 b. Better still,\nread\u2014paying special attention to his Scriptural proofs\u2014Cyril\u2019s two\nTreatises \u201c_De rect\u00e2 Fide_.\u201d(1037) But in fact attend to the method of\nAthanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;(1038) and you will\nspeedily convince yourself that the argument _e silentio_ is next to\nvalueless on occasions like the present.\n\nCertain of the Critics have jumped to the conclusion that the other Cyril\ncannot have been acquainted with S. Mark xvi. 19 (and therefore with the\n\u201clast Twelve Verses\u201d of his Gospel), because when, in his Catechetical\nLectures, he comes to the \u201cResurrection,\u201d \u201cAscension,\u201d and \u201cSession at the\nRight Hand,\u201d\u2014he does not quote S. Mark xvi. 19. And yet,\u2014(as it has been\nelsewhere(1039) fully shown, and in fact the reason is assigned by Cyril\nhimself,)\u2014this is only because, on the previous day, being Sunday, Cyril\nof Jerusalem had enlarged upon the Scriptural evidence for those august\nverities, (viz. S. Mark xvi. 19,\u2014S. Luke xxiv. 51,\u2014Acts i. 9); and\ntherefore was unwilling to say over again before the same auditory what he\nhad so recently delivered.\n\nBut indeed,\u2014(the remark is worth making in passing,)\u2014many of our modern\nCritics seem to forget that the heretics with whom Athanasius, Basil, the\nGregories, &c., were chiefly in conflict, did not by any means deny the\nGodhead of our LORD. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted that CHRIST\n_was_ GOD. This, in fact, has been pointed out already. Very differently\nindeed would the ancient Fathers have expressed themselves, could they\nhave imagined the calamitous use which, at the end of 1500 years, perverse\nwits would make of their writings,\u2014the astonishing inferences they would\npropose to extract from their very silence. I may not go further into the\nsubject in this place.\n\n[m] _The story about_ MACEDONIUS. _His testimony._\n\nIt follows to say a few words concerning MACEDONIUS II., patriarch of\nConstantinople [A.D. 496-511], of whom it has been absurdly declared that\nhe was _the inventor_ of the reading for which I contend. I pointed out on\na former occasion that it would follow from that very circumstance, (as\nfar as it is true,) that Macedonius \u201c_is a witness for_\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\u2014_perforce_.\u201d(1040)\n\nInstead of either assenting to this, (which is surely a self-evident\nproposition!),\u2014or else disproving it,\u2014you are at the pains to furbish up\nafresh, as if it were a novelty, the stale and stupid figment propagated\nby Liberatus of Carthage, that Macedonius was expelled from his see by the\nEmperor Anastasius for falsifying 1 Timothy iii. 16. This exploded fable\nyou preface by announcing it as \u201c_a remarkable fact_,\u201d that \u201cit was the\n_distinct belief of Latin writers_ as early as the VIth century that the\nreading of this passage had been corrupted by the Greeks.\u201d(1041) How you\nget your \u201cremarkable fact,\u201d out of your premiss,\u2014\u201cthe distinct belief of\nLatin writers,\u201d out of the indistinct rumour [\u201c_dicitur_\u201d] vouched for by\na single individual,\u2014I see not. But let that pass.\n\n\u201cThe story shows\u201d (you proceed) \u201cthat the Latins in the sixth century\nbelieved \u1f45\u03c2 to be the reading of the older Greek manuscripts, and regarded\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 as a false reading made out of it.\u201d (p. 69.)\u2014My lord Bishop, I\nventure to declare that the story shows nothing of the sort. The Latins in\nthe VIth (and _every other_) century believed that\u2014_not_ \u1f45\u03c2, but\u2014\u1f45, was\nthe right reading of the Greek in this place. Their belief on this subject\nhowever has nothing whatever to do with the story before us. Liberatus was\nnot the spokesman of \u201cthe Latins of the VIth,\u201d (or any other bygone)\n\u201ccentury:\u201d but (as Bp. Pearson points out) a singularly ill-informed\nArchdeacon of Carthage; who, had he taken ever so little pains with the\nsubject, would have become aware that for no such reason as he assigns was\nMacedonius [A.D. 511] thrust out of his bishopric. If, however, there were\nat least thus much of truth in the story,\u2014namely, that one of the charges\nbrought against Macedonius was his having corrupted Scripture, and notably\nhis having altered \u1f45\u03c2 into \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in 1 Tim. iii. 16;\u2014surely, the most\nobvious of all inferences would be, that \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 _was found in copies of S.\nPaul\u2019s epistles put forth at Constantinople by archiepiscopal authority\nbetween_ A.D. 496 _and_ A.D. 511. To say the least,\u2014Macedonius, by his\nwritings or by his discourses, certainly by his influence, _must have\nshown himself favourable to_ \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (_not_ \u1f45\u03c2) \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7. Else, with what\nshow of reason could the charge have been brought against him? \u201cI suppose\u201d\n(says our learned Dr. John Mill) \u201cthat the fable before us arose out of\nthe fact that Macedonius, on hearing that in several MSS. of the\nConstantinopolitan Church the text of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (which witnesses\nexpressly to the Godhead of CHRIST) had been depraved, was careful that\nthose copies should be corrected in conformity with the best\nexemplars.\u201d(1042)\n\nBut, in fact, I suspect you completely misunderstand the whole matter. You\nspeak of \u201c_the_ story.\u201d But pray,\u2014_Which_ \u201cstory\u201d do you mean? \u201cThe story\u201d\nwhich Liberatus told in the VIth century? or the ingenious gloss which\nHincmar, Abp. of Rheims, put upon it in the IXth? You _mention_ the\nfirst,\u2014you _reason from_ the second. Either will suit me equally well.\nBut\u2014_una la volta, per carit\u00e0!_\n\nHincmar, (whom the critics generally follow,) relates that Macedonius\nturned \u039f\u03a3 into \u0398\u0395\u039f\u03a3 (_i.e._ _\u0398\u03a3_).(1043) _If Macedonius did, he preferred_\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 _to_ \u1f45\u03c2.... But the story which Liberatus promulgated is quite\ndifferent.(1044) Let him be heard:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cAt this time, Macedonius, bp. of CP., is said to have been\n    deposed by the emperor Anastasius on a charge of having falsified\n    the Gospels, and notably that saying of the Apostle, \u2018_Quia\n    apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu._\u2019 He was charged\n    with having turned the Greek monosyllable \u039f\u03a3 (_i.e._ \u2018_qui_\u2019), by\n    the change of a single letter (\u03a9 for \u039f) into \u03a9\u03a3: _i.e._ \u2018_ut esset\n    Deus apparuit per carnem._\u2019 \u201d\n\n\nNow, that this is a very lame story, all must see. In reciting the passage\nin Latin, Liberatus himself exhibits neither \u201c_qui_,\u201d nor \u201c_quod_,\u201d nor\n\u201c_Deus_,\u201d\u2014but \u201cQUIA _apparuit in carne_.\u201d (The translator of Origen, by\nthe way, does the same thing.(1045)) And yet, Liberatus straightway adds\n(as the effect of the change) \u201c_ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem_:\u201d as if\nthat were possible, unless \u201c_Deus_\u201d stood in the text already! Quite plain\nin the meantime is it, that, according to Liberatus, \u1f61\u03c2 was the word which\nMacedonius introduced into 1 Tim. iii. 16. And it is worth observing that\nthe scribe who rendered into Greek Pope Martin I.\u2019s fifth Letter (written\non the occasion of the Lateran Council A.D. 649),\u2014having to translate the\nPope\u2019s quotation from the Vulgate (\u201c_quod manifestatus est_,\u201d)\u2014exhibits \u1f61\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 in this place.(1046)\n\nHigh time it becomes that I should offer it as my opinion that those\nCritics are right (Cornelius \u00e0 Lapide [1614] and Cotelerius [1681]) who,\nreasoning from what Liberatus actually says, shrewdly infer that there\nmust have existed codices in the time of Macedonius which exhibited \u039f\u03a3\n\u0398\u0395\u039f\u03a3 in this place; and that _this_ must be the reading to which Liberatus\nrefers.(1047) _Such codices exist still._ One, is preserved in the library\nof the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata, already spoken of at pp. 446-8:\nanother, is at Paris. I call them respectively \u201cApost. 83\u201d and \u201cPaul\n282.\u201d(1048) This is new.\n\nEnough of all this however. Too much in fact. I must hasten on. The entire\nfable, by whomsoever fabricated, has been treated with well-merited\ncontempt by a succession of learned men ever since the days of Bp.\nPearson.(1049) And although during the last century several writers of the\nunbelieving school (chiefly Socinians(1050)) revived and embellished the\nsilly story, in order if possible to get rid of a text which witnesses\ninconveniently to the GODHEAD of CHRIST, one would have hoped that, in\nthese enlightened days, a Christian Bishop of the same Church which the\nlearned, pious, and judicious John Berriman adorned a century and a-half\nago, would have been ashamed to rekindle the ancient strife and to swell\nthe Socinian chorus. I shall be satisfied if I have at least convinced you\nthat Macedonius is a witness for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in 1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n[n] _The testimony of an_ ANONYMOUS _writer_ (A.D. 430),\u2014_of_ EPIPHANIUS\n(A.D. 787),\u2014_of_ THEODORUS STUDITA (A.D. 795?),\u2014_of_ SCHOLIA,\u2014_of_\n\u0152CUMENIUS,\u2014_of_ THEOPHYLACT,\u2014_of_ EUTHYMIUS.\n\nThe evidence of an ANONYMOUS Author who has been mistaken for\nAthanasius,\u2014you pass by in silence. That this writer lived in the days\nwhen the Nestorian Controversy was raging,\u2014namely, in the first half of\nthe Vth century,\u2014is at all events evident. He is therefore at least as\nancient a witness for the text of Scripture as codex A itself: and \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 is clearly what he found written in this place.(1051) Why do you\nmake such a fuss about Cod. A, and yet ignore this contemporary witness?\nWe do not know _who wrote_ the Epistle in question,\u2014true. Neither do we\nknow who wrote Codex A. What _then_?\n\nAnother eminent witness for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, whom also you do not condescend to\nnotice, is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA in Sicily,\u2014who represented Thomas,\nAbp. of Sardinia, at the 2nd Nicene Council, A.D. 787. A long discourse of\nthis Ecclesiastic may be seen in the Acts of the Council, translated into\nLatin,\u2014which makes his testimony so striking. But in fact his words are\nexpress,(1052) and the more valuable because they come from a region of\nWestern Christendom from which textual utterances are rare.\n\nA far more conspicuous writer of nearly the same date, THEODORUS STUDITA\nof CP, [A.D. 759-826,] is also a witness for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.(1053) How does it\nhappen, my lord Bishop, that you contend so eagerly for the testimony of\ncodices F and G, which are but _one_ IXth-century witness after all,\u2014and\nyet entirely disregard living utterances like these, of known men,\u2014who\nbelonged to known places,\u2014and wrote at a known time? Is it because they\nwitness unequivocally against you?\n\nSeveral ancient SCHOLIASTS, expressing themselves diversely, deserve\nenumeration here, who are all witnesses for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 exclusively.(1054)\nLastly,\u2014\n\n\u0152CUMENIUS(1055) (A.D. 990),\u2014THEOPHYLACT(1056) (A.D. 1077),\u2014EUTHYMIUS(1057)\n(A.D. 1116),\u2014close this enumeration. They are all three clear witnesses\nfor reading not \u1f45\u03c2 but \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n[o] _The testimony of_ ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION.\n\nNothing has been hitherto said concerning the Ecclesiastical usage with\nrespect to this place of Scripture. 1 Tim. iii. 16 occurs in a lection\nconsisting of nine verses (1 Tim. iii. 13-iv. 5), which used to be\npublicly read in almost all the Churches of Eastern Christendom on the\nSaturday before Epiphany.(1058) It was also read, in not a few Churches,\non the 34th Saturday of the year.(1059) Unfortunately, the book which\ncontains lections from S. Paul\u2019s Epistles, (\u201c_Apostolus_\u201d it is\ntechnically called,) is of comparatively rare occurrence,\u2014is often found\nin a mutilated condition,\u2014and (for this and other reasons) is, as often as\nnot, without this particular lesson.(1060) Thus, an analysis of 90 copies\nof the \u201cApostolus\u201d (No. 1 to 90), is attended by the following result:\u201410\nare found to have been set down in error;(1061) while 41 are\ndeclared\u2014(sometimes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of those who\nprofess to have examined them),\u2014not to contain 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1062) Of 7,\nI have not been able to obtain tidings.(1063) Thus, there are but 32\ncopies of the book called \u201cApostolus\u201d available for our present purpose.\n\nBut of these thirty-two, _twenty-seven_ exhibit \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.(1064) You will be\ninterested to hear that _one_ rejoices in the unique reading \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6:(1065)\nwhile another Copy of the \u2019Apostolus\u2019 keeps \u201cPaul 282\u201d in countenance by\nreading \u1f45\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.(1066) In other words, \u201cGOD\u201d is found in 29 copies out of\n32: while \u201cwho\u201d (\u1f45\u03c2) is observed to survive in only 3,\u2014and they, Western\ndocuments of suspicious character. Two of these were produced in one and\nthe same Calabrian monastery; and they still stand, side by side, in the\nlibrary of Crypta Ferrata:(1067) being exclusively in sympathy with the\nvery suspicious Western document at Paris, already described at page 446.\n\nECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION is therefore clearly against _you_, in respect of\nthe reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. How _you_ estimate this head of Evidence, I\nknow not. For my own part, I hold it to be of superlative importance. It\ntransports us back, at once, to the primitive age; and is found to be\ninfinitely better deserving of attention than the witness of any extant\nuncial documents which can be produced. And why? For the plain reason that\nit must needs have been once attested by _an indefinitely large number of\ncodices more ancient by far than any which we now possess_. In fact,\nECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION, when superadded to the testimony of Manuscripts\nand Fathers, becomes an overwhelming consideration.\n\nAnd now we may at last proceed to sum up. Let me gather out the result of\nthe foregoing fifty pages; and remind the reader briefly of the amount of\nexternal testimony producible in support of each of these rival\nreadings:\u2014\u1f45,\u2014\u1f45\u03c2\u2014\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n[I.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of\nreading_ \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n(\u03b1) The reading \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7,\u2014(which Wetstein strove hard to\nbring into favour, and which was highly popular with the Socinian party\ndown to the third quarter of the last century,)\u2014enjoys, as we have seen,\n(pp. 448-53,) the weighty attestation of the Latin and of the Peschito,\u2014of\nthe Coptic, of the Sahidic, and of the \u00c6thiopic Versions.\n\nNo one may presume to speak slightingly of such evidence as this. It is\nthe oldest which can be produced for the truth of anything in the inspired\nText of the New Testament; and it comes from the East as well as from the\nWest. Yet is it, in and by itself, clearly inadequate. Two characteristics\nof Truth are wanting to it,\u2014two credentials,\u2014unfurnished with which, it\ncannot be so much as seriously entertained. It demands _Variety_ as well\nas _Largeness of attestation_. It should be able to exhibit in support of\nits claims the additional witness of COPIES and FATHERS. But,\n\n(\u03b2) On the contrary, \u1f45 is found besides in _only one Greek\nManuscript_,\u2014viz. the VIth-century codex Claromontanus, D. And further,\n\n(\u03b3) _Two ancient writers_ alone bear witness to this reading, viz.\nGELASIUS OF CYZICUS,(1068) whose date is A.D. 476;(1069) and the UNKNOWN\nAUTHOR of a homily of uncertain date in the Appendix to\nChrysostom(1070).... It is scarcely intelligible how, on such evidence,\nthe Critics of the last century can have persuaded themselves (with\nGrotius) that \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 is the true reading of 1 Timothy iii.\n16. And yet, in order to maintain this thesis, Sir Isaac Newton descended\nfrom the starry sphere and tried his hand at Textual Criticism. Wetstein\n(1752) freely transferred the astronomer\u2019s labours to his own pages, and\nthus gave renewed currency to an opinion which the labours of the learned\nBerriman (1741) had already _demonstrated_ to be untenable.\n\nWhether THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (in his work \u201c_de Incarnatione_\u201d) wrote \u1f45\u03c2\nor \u1f45, must remain uncertain till a sight has been obtained of his Greek\ntogether with its context. I find that he quotes 1 Tim iii. 16 at least\nthree times:\u2014Of the first place, there is only a Latin translation, which\nbegins \u201cQUOD _justificat_US _est in spiritu_.\u201d(1071) The second place\ncomes to us in Latin, Greek, and Syriac: but unsatisfactorily in all\nthree:\u2014(_a_) The Latin version introduces the quotation thus,\u2014\u201cConsonantia\net Apostolus dicit, _Et manifeste magnum est pietatis mysterium_,\nQUI(1072) (or QUOD(1073)) _manifestat_US (or TUM) _est in carne,\njustificat_US (or TUM) _est in spiritu_:\u201d\u2014(_b_) The Greek, (for which we\nare indebted to Leontius Byzantinus, A.D. 610,) reads,\u2014\u1f4d\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9(1074)\u2014divested of all preface.(1075) Those\nseven words, thus isolated from their context, are accordingly printed by\nMigne as _a heading_ only:\u2014(_c_) The Syriac translation unmistakably\nreads, \u201cEt Apostolus dixit, _Vere sublime est hoc mysterium_,\nQUOD,\u201d\u2014omitting \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.(1076) The third quotation, which is found\nonly in Syriac,(1077) begins,\u2014\u201c_For truly great is the-mystery\nof-the-fear-of_ GOD, _who was manifested in-the-flesh and-was-justified\nin-the-spirit_.\u201d This differs from the received text of the Peschito by\nsubstituting a different word for \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, and by employing the emphatic\nstate \u201cthe-flesh,\u201d \u201cthe-spirit\u201d where the Peschito has the absolute state\n\u201cflesh,\u201d \u201cspirit.\u201d The two later clauses agree with the Harkleian or\nPhiloxenian.(1078)\u2014I find it difficult from all this to know what\nprecisely to do with Theodore\u2019s evidence. It has a truly oracular\nambiguity; wavering between \u1f45\u2014\u1f45\u03c2\u2014and even \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. You, I observe, (who are\nonly acquainted with the second of the three places above cited, and but\nimperfectly with _that_,) do not hesitate to cut the knot by simply\nclaiming the heretic\u2019s authority for the reading you advocate,\u2014viz. \u1f45\u03c2. I\nhave thought it due to my readers to tell them all that is known about the\nevidence furnished by Theodore of Mopsuestia. At all events, the utmost\nwhich can be advanced in favour of reading \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45 in 1 Timothy iii.\n16, has now been freely stated. I am therefore at liberty to pass on to\nthe next opinion.\n\n[II.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS _in favour of\nreading_ \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 _in_ 1 Timothy iii. 16.\n\nRemarkable it is how completely Griesbach succeeded in diverting the\ncurrent of opinion with respect to the place before us, into a new\nchannel. At first indeed (viz. in 1777) he retained \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in his Text,\ntimidly printing \u1f45\u03c2 in small type above it; and remarking,\u2014\u201c_Judicium de\nh\u00e2c lectionis varietate lectoribus liberum relinquere placuit_.\u201d But, at\nthe end of thirty years (viz. in 1806), waxing bolder, Griesbach\nsubstituted \u1f45\u03c2 for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2,\u2014\u201c_ut ipsi_\u201d (as he says) \u201c_nobis constaremus_.\u201d\nLachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers,\nunder your guidance, have followed him: which is to me\nunaccountable,\u2014seeing that even less authority is producible for \u1f45\u03c2, than\nfor \u1f45, in this place. But let the evidence for \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af be briefly recapitulated:\u2014\n\n(\u03b1) It consists of _a single uncial copy_, viz. the corrupt cod. \u05d0,\u2014(for,\nas was fully explained above,(1079) codd. C and F-G yield uncertain\ntestimony): and _perhaps two cursive copies_, viz. Paul 17, (the notorious\n\u201c33\u201d of the Gospels,)\u2014and a copy at Upsala (No. 73), which is held to\nrequire further verification.(1080) To these, are to be added three other\nliturgical witnesses in the cursive character\u2014being Western copies of the\nbook called \u201c_Apostolus_,\u201d which have only recently come to light. Two of\nthe codices in question are of Calabrian origin.(1081) A few words more on\nthis subject will be found above, at pages 477 and 478.\n\n(\u03b2) _The only Version_ which certainly witnesses in favour of \u1f45\u03c2, is the\nGothic: which, (as explained at pp. 452-3) exhibits a hopelessly obscure\nconstruction, and rests on the evidence of a single copy in the Ambrosian\nlibrary.\n\n(\u03b3) Of Patristic testimonies (to \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7) _there exists\nnot one_. That EPIPHANIUS [A.D. 360] _professing to transcribe_ from an\nearly treatise of his own, in which \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 stands _without a\nnominative_, should prefix \u1f45\u03c2\u2014proves nothing, as I have fully explained\nelsewhere.(1082)\u2014The equivocal testimony rendered by THEODORE OF\nMOPSUESTIA [A.D. 390] is already before the reader.(1083)\n\nAnd this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came in,\u2014and (I venture\nto predict) will go out,\u2014with the present century. My only wonder is, how\nan exhibition of 1 Tim. iii. 16 so feebly attested,\u2014so almost _without_\nattestation,\u2014can have come to be seriously entertained by any. \u201cSi,\u201d\u2014(as\nGriesbach remarks concerning 1 John v. 7)\u2014\u201csi tam pauci ... testes ...\nsufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam \u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, licet obstent\ntam multa tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta; _nullum prorsus\nsuperesset in re critic\u00e2 veri falsique criterium_, et _textus Novi\nTestamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius_.\u201d(1084)\n\nYet _this_ is the Reading which you, my lord Bishop, not only stiffly\nmaintain, but which you insist is no longer so much as \u201c_open to\nreconsideration_.\u201d You are, it seems, for introducing the _cl\u00f4ture_ into\nTextual debate. But in fact you are for inflicting pains and penalties as\nwell, on those who have the misfortune to differ in opinion from yourself.\nYou discharge all the vials of the united sees of Gloucester and Bristol\non _me_ for my presumption in daring to challenge the verdict of \u201cthe\nTextual Criticism of the last fifty years,\u201d\u2014of the Revisers,\u2014and of\nyourself;\u2014my folly, in venturing to believe that the traditional reading\nof 1 Tim. iii. 16, (which you admit is at least 1530 years old,) is the\nright reading after all. You hold me up to public indignation. \u201cHe has\nmade\u201d (you say) \u201can elaborate effort to shake conclusions _about which no\nprofessed Scholar has any doubt whatever_; but which an ordinary reader\n(and to such we address ourselves) might regard as _still open to\nreconsideration_.\u201d\u2014\u201cMoreover\u201d (you proceed) \u201cthis case is of great\nimportance as an example. It illustrates in a striking manner the complete\nisolation of the Reviewer\u2019s position. If he is right, all other Critics\nare wrong.\u201d(1085)\n\nWill you permit me, my lord Bishop, as an ordinary writer, addressing\n(like yourself) \u201cordinary readers,\u201d\u2014respectfully to point out that you\nentirely mistake the problem in hand? The Greek Text of the N. T. is not\nto be settled by MODERN OPINION, but by ANCIENT AUTHORITY.(1086) In this\ndepartment of enquiry therefore, \u201c_complete isolation_\u201d is his, and _his\nonly_, who is forsaken by COPIES, VERSIONS, FATHERS. The man who is able,\non the contrary, to point to an overwhelming company of Ancient Witnesses,\nand is contented modestly to take up his station at their feet,\u2014such an\none can afford to disregard \u201c_The Textual Criticism of the last fifty\nyears_,\u201d if it presumes to contradict _their_ plain decrees; can even\nafford to smile at the confidence of \u201cprofessed Scholars\u201d and \u201cCritics,\u201d\nif they are so ill advised as to set themselves in battle array against\nthat host of ancient men.\n\nTo say therefore of such an one, (as _you_ now say of _me_,) \u201cIf he is\nright, all other Critics are wrong,\u201d\u2014is to present an irrelevant issue,\nand to perplex a plain question. The business of Textual Criticism (as you\nstate at page 28 of your pamphlet) is nothing else but to ascertain \u201c_the\nconsentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities_.\u201d The office of the\nTextual Critic is none other but to interpret rightly _the solemn verdict\nof Antiquity_. Do _I_ then interpret that verdict rightly,\u2014or do I not?\nThe whole question resolves itself into _that_! If I do _not_,\u2014pray show\nme wherein I have mistaken the facts of the case. But if I _do_,\u2014why do\nyou not come over instantly to my side? \u201c_Since_ he is right,\u201d (I shall\nexpect to hear you say,) \u201cit stands to reason that the \u2018professed Critics\u2019\nwhom he has been combating,\u2014myself among the number,\u2014must be wrong.\u201d... I\nam, you see, loyally accepting the logical issue you have yourself raised.\nI do but seek to reconcile your dilemma with the actual facts of the\nproblem.\n\nAnd now, will you listen while I state the grounds on which I am convinced\nthat your substitution of \u1f45\u03c2 for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is nothing else\nbut a calamitous perversion of the Truth? May I be allowed at least to\nexhibit, in the same summary way as before, the evidence for reading in\nthis place neither \u1f45 nor \u1f45\u03c2,\u2014but \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2?\n\n[III.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of\nreading_ \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 _in_ 1 Tim. iii 16.\n\nEntirely different,\u2014in respect of variety, of quantity and of\nquality,\u2014from what has gone before, is the witness of Antiquity to the\nReceived Text of 1 Timothy iii. 16: viz. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u0398\u0395\u1ff8\u03a3 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.... I proceed to\nrehearse it in outline, having already dwelt in detail upon so much of it\nas has been made the subject of controversy.(1087) The reader is fully\naware(1088) that I do not propose to make argumentative use of the first\nsix names in the ensuing enumeration. To those names, [enclosed within\nsquare brackets,] I forbear even to assign numbers; not as entertaining\ndoubt concerning the testimony they furnish, but as resolved to build\nexclusively on facts which are incontrovertible. Yet is it but reasonable\nthat the whole of the Evidence for \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 should be placed before\nthe reader: and _he_ is in my judgment a wondrous unfair disputant who can\nattentively survey the evidence which I thus forego, without secretly\nacknowledging that its combined Weight is considerable; while its\nAntiquity makes it a serious question whether it is not simply contrary to\nreason that it should be dispensed with in an enquiry like the present.\n\n[(_a_) In the Ist century then,\u2014it has been already shown (at page 463)\nthat IGNATIUS (A.D. 90) probably recognized the reading before us in three\nplaces.]\n\n[(_b_) The brief but significant testimony of BARNABAS will be found in\nthe same page.]\n\n[(_c_) In the IInd century,\u2014HIPPOLYTUS [A.D. 190] (as was explained at\npage 463,) twice comes forward as a witness on the same side.]\n\n[(_d_) In the IIIrd century,\u2014GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, (if it be indeed he)\nhas been already shown (at page 463) probably to testify to the reading\n\u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7.]\n\n[(_e_) To the same century is referred the work entitled CONSTITUTIONES\nAPOSTOLIC\u00c6: which seems also to witness to the same reading. See above, p.\n463.]\n\n[(_f_) BASIL THE GREAT also [A.D. 355], as will be found explained at page\n464, must be held to witness to \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 in 1 Tim. iii. 16: though\nhis testimony, like that of the five names which go before, being open to\ncavil, is not here insisted on.]\u2014And now to get upon _terra firma_.\n\n(1) To the IIIrd century then [A.D. 264?], belongs the Epistle ascribed to\nDIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, (spoken of above, at pages 461-2,) in which 1\nTim. iii. 16 is distinctly quoted in the same way.\n\n(2) In the next, (the IVth) century, unequivocal Patristic witnesses to\n\u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 abound. Foremost is DIDYMUS, who presided over the\nCatechetical School of Alexandria,\u2014the teacher of Jerome and Rufinus. Born\nA.D. 309, and becoming early famous, he clearly witnesses to what was the\nreading of the first quarter of the IVth century. His testimony has been\nset forth at page 456.\n\n(3) GREGORY, BISHOP OF NAZIANZUS [A.D. 355], a contemporary of Basil, in\n_two_ places is found to bear similar witness. See above page 457.\n\n(4) DIODORUS, (or \u201cTheodorus\u201d as Photius writes his name,) the teacher of\nChrysostom,\u2014first of Antioch, afterwards the heretical BISHOP OF TARSUS in\nCilicia,\u2014is next to be cited [A.D. 370]. His testimony is given above at\npages 458-9.\n\n(5) The next is perhaps our most illustrious witness,\u2014viz. GREGORY, BISHOP\nOF NYSSA in Cappadocia [A.D. 370]. References to at least _twenty-two_\nplaces of his writings have been already given at page 456.\n\n(6) Scarcely less important than the last-named Father, is CHRYSOSTOM\n[A.D. 380], first of Antioch,\u2014afterwards PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE,\u2014who\nin _three_ places witnesses plainly to \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7. See above, page\n457.\n\n(7) And to this century, (not later certainly than the last half of it,)\nis to be referred the title of that \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, or chapter, of St. Paul\u2019s\nFirst Epistle to Timothy which contains chap. iii. 16,\u2014(indeed, which\n_begins_ with it,) viz. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Very eloquently does that\ntitle witness to the fact that \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 was the established reading of the\nplace under discussion, before either cod. B or cod. \u05d0 was produced. See\nabove, pages 457-8.\n\n(8) In the Vth century,\u2014besides the CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (cod. A,)\nconcerning which so much has been said already (page 431 to page 437),\u2014we\nare able to appeal for the reading \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7, to,\n\n(9) CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, [A.D. 410,] who in _at least two_\nplaces witnesses to it unequivocally. See above, pp. 464 to 470. So does,\n\n(10) THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS in Syria, [A.D. 420]: who, in at least\n_four_ places, (see above, page 456) renders unequivocal and important\nwitness on the same side.\n\n(11) Next, the ANONYMOUS AUTHOR claims notice [A.D. 430], whose\ncomposition is found in the Appendix to the works of Athanasius. See\nabove, page 475.\n\n(12) You will be anxious to see your friend EUTHALIUS, BISHOP OF SULCA,\nduly recognized in this enumeration. He comes next. [A.D. 458.] The\ndiscussion concerning him will be found above, at page 459 to page 461.\n\n(13) MACEDONIUS II, PATRIARCH OF CP. [A.D. 496] must of necessity be\nmentioned here, as I have very fully explained at page 470 to page 474.\n\n(14) To the VIth century belongs the GEORGIAN Version, as already noted at\npage 454.\n\n(15) And hither is to be referred the testimony of SEVERUS, BISHOP OF\nANTIOCH [A.D. 512], which has been already particularly set down at page\n458.\n\n(16) To the VIIth century [A.D. 616] belongs the HARKLEIAN (or\nPHILOXENIAN) Version; concerning which, see above, page 450. \u201cThat \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\nwas the reading of the manuscripts from which this Version was made, is\nput beyond reach of doubt by the fact that in twelve of the other places\nwhere \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 occurs,(1089) the words \u0729\u0726\u071d\u0715\u0718\u0710 \u0715\u0717\u072c\u0710 (or \u0710\u072c\u0717\u0715 \u0710\u0718\u0715\u071d\u0726\u0729)\n(\u2018_beauty-of-fear_\u2019) are found _without_ the addition of \u0710\u0720\u071a\u0710 (or \u0710\u071a\u0720\u0710)\n(\u2018GOD\u2019). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2),\nwhere the Peschito reads \u2018_fear of_ GOD,\u2019 the Harkleian reads \u2018_fear_\u2019\nonly. On the other hand, the Harkleian margin of Acts iii. 12 expressly\nstates that \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03b1 is the Greek equivalent of \u0729\u0726\u071d\u0715\u0718\u0710 \u0715\u0717\u072c\u0710 (or \u0710\u072c\u0717\u0715\n\u0710\u0718\u0715\u071d\u0726\u0729) (\u2018_beauty-of-fear_\u2019). This effectually establishes the fact that\nthe author of the Harkleian recension found \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in his Greek manuscript\nof 1 Tim. iii. 16.\u201d(1090)\n\n(17) In the VIIIth century, JOHN DAMASCENE [A.D. 730] pre-eminently claims\nattention. He is _twice_ a witness for \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7, as was explained at\npage 457.\n\n(18) Next to be mentioned is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA; whose memorable\ntestimony at the 2nd Nicene Council [A.D. 787] has been set down above, at\npage 475. And then,\n\n(19) THEODORUS STUDITA of CP. [A.D. 790],\u2014concerning whom, see above, at\npages 475-6.\n\n(20), (21) _and_ (22). To the IXth century belong the three remaining\nuncial codices, which alike witness to \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af:\u2014viz. the\n\u201cCOD. MOSQUENSIS\u201d (K); the \u201cCOD. ANGELICUS\u201d (L); and the \u201cCOD.\nPORPHYRIANUS\u201d (P).\n\n(23) The SLAVONIC VERSION belongs to the same century, and exhibits the\nsame reading.\n\n(24) Hither also may be referred several ancient SCHOLIA which all witness\nto \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, as I explained at page 476.\n\n(25) To the Xth century belongs \u0152CUMENIUS [A.D. 990], who is also a\nwitness on the same side. See page 476.\n\n(26) To the XIth century, THEOPHYLACT [A.D. 1077], who bears express\ntestimony to the same reading. See page 476.\n\n(27) To the XIIth century, EUTHYMIUS [A.D. 1116], who closes the list with\nhis approving verdict. See page 476.\n\nAnd thus we reach a period when there awaits us a mass of testimony which\ntransports us back (_per saltum_) to the Church\u2019s palmiest days;\ntestimony, which rightly understood, is absolutely decisive of the point\nnow under discussion. I allude to the testimony of EVERY KNOWN COPY OF S.\nPAUL\u2019S EPISTLES except the three, or four, already specified, viz. D of S.\nPaul; \u05d0, 17, and perhaps 73. A few words on this last head of Evidence may\nnot be without the grace of novelty even to yourself. They are\nsupplementary to what has already been offered on the same subject from\npage 443 to page 446.\n\nThe copies of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles (in cursive writing) supposed to exist in\nEuropean libraries,\u2014not including those in the monasteries of Greece and\nthe Levant,(1091)\u2014amount to at least 302.(1092) Out of this number, 2 are\nfabulous:(1093)\u20141 has been destroyed by fire:(1094)\u2014and 6 have strayed\ninto unknown localities.(1095) Add, that 37 (for various reasons) are said\nnot to contain the verse in question;(1096) while of 2, I have been\nhitherto unsuccessful in obtaining any account:(1097)\u2014and it will be seen\nthat the sum of the available cursive copies of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles is\nexactly 254.\n\nNow, that 2 of these 254 cursive copies (viz. Paul 17 and 73)\u2014exhibit\n\u1f45\u03c2,\u2014you have been so eager (at pp. 71-2 of your pamphlet) to establish,\nthat I am unwilling to do more than refer you back to pages 443, -4, -5,\nwhere a few words have been already offered in reply. Permit me, however,\nto submit to your consideration, as a set-off against those _two copies_\nof S. Paul\u2019s Epistles which read \u1f45\u03c2,\u2014the following _two-hundred and\nfifty-two copies_ which read \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.(1098) To speak with perfect accuracy,\u20144\nof these (252) exhibit \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7;(1099)\u20141, \u1f45\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2;(1100)\u2014and 247,\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 absolutely. The numbers follow:\u2014\n\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.\n24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.\n43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 52. 55. 56. 57. 59. 62. 63. 65. 67. 68. 69.\n70. 71. 72. 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 90. 91.\n92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107.\n108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 120. 121. 122. 123. 125.\n126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141.\n142. 143. 144. 145. 149. 150. 151. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 164.\n165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180.\n182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198.\n199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211. 212. 213. 215. 216. 217.\n218.(1101) 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231.\n232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246.\n247. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 255. 256. 257. 258. 260. 262. 264. 265. 266.\n267. 268. 269. 270. 272. 273. 274. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281.\n282.(1102) 283. 285. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298.\n299. 300. 301.\n\nBehold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the\neffectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written\nWord! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the\nHOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the \u201cmystery of Godliness;\u201d\ndeclaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,\u2014namely, that \u201cGOD WAS\nMANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.\u201d And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_\ncopies of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are\ndiscovered to have preserved that expression. Such \u201cConsent\u201d amounts to\n_Unanimity_; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this\nsubject-matter, is conclusive.\n\nThe copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were\nproduced in every part of ancient Christendom,\u2014being derived in every\ninstance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts\nof copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or\ncontrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,\u2014where, for\nhundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,\u2014(I repeat the\nquestion already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to\n_you_, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favour me\npublicly with an answer;)\u2014For what conceivable reason can this multitude\nof witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to\ndeceive mankind?\n\nTrue, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other\nplace. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been\ncarping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of\nCHRIST,\u2014in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must\nhave been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the\nresult of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle\nmust be held to have written no other thing but _this_.\n\nTo the overwhelming evidence thus furnished by 252 out of 254 cursive\n_Copies_ of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles,\u2014is to be added the evidence supplied by\nthe _Lectionaries_. It has been already explained (viz. at pp. 477-8) that\nout of 32 copies of the \u201cApostolus,\u201d 29 concur in witnessing to \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. I\nhave just (May 7th) heard of another in the Vatican.(1103) To these 30,\nshould be added the 3 Liturgical codices referred to at pp. 448 and 474,\n_note_ 1. Now this is emphatically the voice of _ancient Ecclesiastical\nTradition_. The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore\nto be briefly this:\u2014\n\n(I.) In 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16, the reading \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, is\nwitnessed to by 289 MANUSCRIPTS:(1104)\u2014by 3 VERSIONS:(1105)\u2014by upwards of\n20 Greek FATHERS.(1106)\n\n(II) The reading \u1f45 (in place of \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2) is supported by a single MS. (D):\u2014by\n5 ancient VERSIONS:(1107)\u2014by 2 late Greek FATHERS.(1108)\n\n(III.) The reading \u1f45\u03c2 (also in place of \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2) is countenanced by 6\nMANUSCRIPTS in all (\u05d0, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):\u2014by _only one_\nVERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic(1109)):\u2014_not for certain by a single\nGreek_ FATHER.(1110)\n\nI will not repeat the remarks I made before on a general survey of the\nevidence in favour of \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7: but I must request you to refer back\nto those remarks, now that we have reached the end of the entire\ndiscussion. They extend from the middle of p. 483 to the bottom of p. 485.\n\nThe unhappy Logic which, on a survey of what goes before, can first\npersuade itself, and then seek to persuade others, that \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is a \u201c_plain\nand clear error_;\u201d and that there is \u201c_decidedly preponderating\nevidence_,\u201d in favour of reading \u1f45\u03c2 in 1 Timothy iii. 16;\u2014must needs be of\na sort with which I neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaintance. I\ncommend the case between you and myself to the judgment of Mankind; and\ntrust you are able to await the common verdict with the same serene\nconfidence as I am.\n\nWill you excuse me if I venture, in the homely vernacular, to assure you\nthat in your present contention you \u201chave not a leg to stand upon\u201d?\n\u201cMoreover\u201d (to quote from your own pamphlet [p. 76],) \u201c_this case is of\ngreat importance as an example_.\u201d You made deliberate choice of it in\norder to convict me of error. I have accepted your challenge, you see. Let\nthe present, by all means, be regarded by the public as a trial-place,\u2014a\ntest of our respective methods, yours and mine. I cheerfully abide the\nissue,\n\n(p) INTERNAL EVIDENCE _for reading_ \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16,\n_absolutely overwhelming_.\n\nIn all that precedes, I have abstained from pleading the _probabilities_\nof the case; and for a sufficient reason. Men\u2019s notions of what is\n\u201cprobable\u201d are observed to differ so seriously. \u201cFacile intelligitur\u201d\n(says Wetstein) \u201clectiones \u1f45\u03c2 et \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 esse interpretamenta pronominis \u1f45:\nsed nec \u1f45 nec \u1f45\u03c2 posse esse interpretamentum vocis \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u201d Now, I should\nhave thought that the exact reverse is as clear as the day. _What_ more\nobvious than that _\u0398\u03a3_, by exhibiting indistinctly either of its delicate\nhorizontal strokes, (and they were often so traced as to be scarcely\ndiscernible,(1111)) would become mistaken for \u039f\u03a3? What more natural again\nthan that the masculine relative should be forced into agreement with its\nneuter antecedent? Why, _the thing has actually happened_ at Coloss. i.\n27; where \u1f4d\u03a3 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 has been altered into \u1f45, only because \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\nis the antecedent. But waiving this, the internal evidence in favour of\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 must surely be admitted to be overwhelming, by all save one\ndetermined that the reading _shall be_ \u1f45\u03c2 or \u1f45. I trust we are at least\nagreed that the maxim \u201c_proclivi lectioni pr\u00e6stat ardua_,\u201d does not\nenunciate so foolish a proposition as that in choosing between two or more\nconflicting readings, we are to prefer _that_ one which has the feeblest\nexternal attestation,\u2014provided it be but in itself almost unintelligible?\n\nAnd yet, in the present instance,\u2014How (give me leave to ask) will you\ntranslate? To those who acquiesce in the notion that the \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 means our SAVIOUR CHRIST Himself, (consider Coloss. i. 27,)\nit is obvious to translate \u201c_who_:\u201d yet how harsh, or rather how\nintolerable is this! I should have thought that there could be no real\ndoubt that \u201c_the mystery_\u201d here spoken of must needs be that complex\nexhibition of Divine condescension which the Apostle proceeds to rehearse\nin outline: and of which the essence is that it was very and eternal GOD\nwho was the subject of the transaction. Those who see this, and yet adopt\nthe reading \u1f45\u03c2, are obliged to refer it to the remote antecedent \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n_You_ do not advocate this view: neither do I. For reasons of their own,\nAlford(1112) and Lightfoot(1113) both translate \u201c_who_.\u201d\n\nTregelles (who always shows to least advantage when a point of taste or\nscholarship is under discussion) proposes to render:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cHe who was manifested in the flesh, (he who) was justified in the\n    spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was preached among\n    Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) was\n    received up in glory.\u201d(1114)\n\n\nI question if his motion will find _a seconder_. You yourself lay it down\nmagisterially that \u1f45\u03c2 \u201cis _not emphatic_ (\u2018He who,\u2019 &c.): nor, by a\n_constructio ad sensum_, is it the relative to \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; but is a\nrelative to an _omitted_ though easily recognized antecedent, viz.\nCHRIST.\u201d You add that it is not improbable \u201cthat the words are quoted from\nsome known _hymn_, or probably from some familiar _Confession of Faith_.\u201d\nAccordingly, in your Commentary you venture to exhibit the words within\ninverted commas _as a quotation_:\u2014\u201cAnd confessedly great is the mystery of\ngodliness: \u2018who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,\u2019 \u201d\n&c.,(1115)\u2014for which you are without warrant of any kind, and which you\nhave no right to do. Westcott and Hort (the \u201cchartered libertines\u201d) are\neven more licentious. Acting on their own suggestion that these clauses\nare \u201ca quotation from _an early Christian hymn_,\u201d they proceed to print\nthe conclusion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 stichometrically, as if it were a\n_six-line stanza_.\n\nThis notwithstanding, the Revising body _have adopted_ \u201cHe who,\u201d as the\nrendering of \u1f45\u03c2; a mistaken rendering as it seems to me, and (I am glad to\nlearn) to yourself also. Their translation is quite a curiosity in its\nway. I proceed to transcribe it:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cHe who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen\n    of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world,\n    received up in glory.\u201d\n\n\nBut this does not even pretend to be a sentence: nor do I understand what\nthe proposed construction is. Any arrangement which results in making the\nsix clauses last quoted part of the subject, and \u201cgreat\u201d the predicate of\none long proposition,\u2014is unworthy.\u2014Bentley\u2019s wild remedy testifies far\nmore eloquently to his distress than to his aptitude for revising the text\nof Scripture. He suggests,\u2014\u201cCHRIST _was put to death_ in the flesh,\njustified in the spirit, ... seen _by Apostles_.\u201d(1116)\u2014\u201cAccording to the\nancient view,\u201d (says the Rev. T. S. Green,) \u201cthe sense would be: \u2018and\nconfessedly great is the mystery of godliness [in the person of him], who\n[mystery notwithstanding] was manifested in the flesh, &c.\u2019 \u201d(1117)...\nBut, with submission, \u201cthe ancient view\u201d was not this. The\nLatins,\u2014calamitously shut up within the limits of their \u201c_pietatis\nsacramentum, quod_,\u201d\u2014are found to have habitually broken away from that\niron bondage, and to have discoursed of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, as being\nHimself the \u201csacramentum\u201d spoken of. The \u201csacramentum,\u201d in their view, was\nthe incarnate WORD.(1118)\u2014Not so the Greek Fathers. These all, without\nexception, understood S. Paul to say,\u2014what Ecclesiastical Tradition hath\nall down the ages faithfully attested, and what to this hour the copies of\nhis Epistles prove that he actually wrote,\u2014viz. \u201c_And confessedly great is\nthe mystery of godliness_:\u2014GOD _was manifested in the flesh, justified in\nthe spirit_,\u201d and so on. Moreover this is the view of the matter in which\nall the learning and all the piety of the English Church has thankfully\nacquiesced for the last 350 years. It has commended itself to Andrewes and\nPearson, Bull and Hammond, Hall and Stillingfleet, Ussher and Beveridge,\nMill and Bengel, Waterland and Berriman. The enumeration of names is\neasily brought down to our own times. Dr. Henderson, (the learned\nnon-conformist commentator,) in 1830 published a volume with the following\ntitle:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe great mystery of godliness incontrovertible: or, Sir Isaac\n    Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a\n    corruption in the text 1 Tim. iii. 16: containing a review of the\n    charges brought against the passage; an examination of the various\n    readings; and a confirmation of that in the received text on\n    principles of general and biblical criticism.\u201d\n\n\nAnd,\u2014to turn one\u2019s eyes in quite a different direction,\u2014\u201cVeruntamen,\u201d\nwrote venerable President Routh, at the end of a life-long critical study\nof Holy Writ,\u2014(and his days were prolonged till he reached his hundredth\nyear,)\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cVeruntamen, quidquid ex sacri text\u00fbs historia, illud vero haud\n    certum, critici collegerunt, me tamen interna cogunt argumenta\n    pr\u00e6ferre lectionem \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, quem quidem agnoscunt veteres\n    interpretes, Theodoretus c\u00e6terique, duabus alteris \u1f45\u03c2 et \u1f45.\u201d(1119)\n\n\nAnd here I bring my DISSERTATION on 1 TIM. iii. 16 to a close. It began at\np. 424, and I little thought would extend to seventy-six pages. Let it be\nclearly understood that I rest my contention not at all on Internal, but\nentirely on External Evidence; although, to the best of my judgment, they\nare alike conclusive as to the matter in debate.\u2014Having now\nincontrovertibly, as I believe, established \u0398\u0395\u038c\u03a3 as the best attested\nReading of the place,\u2014I shall conclude the present LETTER as speedily as I\ncan.\n\n(1) _\u201c__Composition of the Body which is responsible for the __\u2018__New\nGreek Text.__\u2019__ \u201d_\n\nThere remains, I believe, but one head of discourse into which I have not\nyet followed you. I allude to your \u201cfew words about the composition of the\nbody which is responsible for the \u2018New Greek Text,\u2019 \u201d(1120)\u2014which extend\nfrom the latter part of p. 29 to the beginning of p. 32 of your pamphlet.\n\u201cAmong the sixteen most regular attendants at your meetings,\u201d (you say)\n\u201cwere to be found most of those persons who were presumably best\nacquainted with the subject of Textual Criticism.\u201d(1121) And with this\ninsinuation that you had \u201call the talents\u201d with you, you seek to put me\ndown.\n\nBut (as you truly say) \u201cthe number of living Scholars in England who have\nconnected their names with the study of the Textual Criticism of the New\nTestament is exceedingly small.\u201d(1122) And, \u201cof that exceedingly small\nnumber,\u201d you would be puzzled to name so much as _one_, besides the three\nyou proceed to specify (viz. Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Westcott, and Dr.\nHort,)\u2014who were members of the Revision company. On the other hand,\u2014(to\nquote the words of the most learned of our living Prelates,)\u2014\u201cit is well\nknown that there are _two opposite Schools_ of Biblical Criticism among\nus, _with very different opinions as to the comparative value of our\nManuscripts of the Greek Testament_.\u201d(1123) And in proof of his statement,\nthe Bishop of Lincoln cites \u201con the one side\u201d\u2014_Drs. Westcott and Hort_;\n\u201cand on the other\u201d\u2014_Dr. Scrivener_.\n\nNow, let the account be read which Dr. Newth gives (and which you admit to\nbe correct) of the extraordinary method by which the \u201cNew Greek Text\u201d was\n\u201c_settled_,\u201d(1124) \u201cfor the most part at the First Revision,\u201d(1125)\u2014and it\nbecomes plain that it was not by any means the product of the\nindependently-formed opinions of 16 experts, (as your words imply); but\nresulted from the aptitude of 13 of your body to be guided by the sober\ncounsels of Dr. Scrivener on the one hand, or to be carried away by the\neager advocacy of Dr. Hort, (supported as he ever was by his respected\ncolleague Dr. Westcott,) on the other. As Canon Cook well puts it,\u2014\u201cThe\nquestion really is, Were the members competent to form a correct\njudgment?\u201d(1126) \u201cIn most cases,\u201d \u201c_a __ simple majority_\u201d(1127)\ndetermined what the text should be. But _ponderari debent testes_, my lord\nBishop, _non numerari_.(1128) The vote of the joint Editors should have\nbeen reckoned practically as only _one_ vote. And whenever Dr. Scrivener\nand they were irreconcilably opposed, the existing Traditional Text ought\nto have been let alone. All pretence that it was _plainly and clearly\nerroneous_ was removed, when the only experts present were hopelessly\ndivided in opinion. As for the rest of the Revising Body, inasmuch as they\nextemporized their opinions, they were scarcely qualified to vote at all.\nCertainly they were not entitled individually to an equal voice with Dr.\nScrivener in determining what the text should be. Caprice or Prejudice, in\nshort, it was, not Deliberation and Learning, which prevailed in the\nJerusalem Chamber. A more unscientific,\u2014to speak truly, a coarser and a\nclumsier way of manipulating the sacred Deposit, than that which you\nyourself invented, it would be impossible, in my judgment, to devise.\n\n(2) _An Unitarian Revisionist intolerable._\u2014_The Westminster-Abbey\nScandal._\n\nBut this is not nearly all. You invite attention to the constituent\nelements of the Revising body, and congratulate yourself on its\nmiscellaneous character as providing a guarantee that it has been\nimpartial.\n\nI frankly avow, my lord Bishop, that the challenge you thus deliberately\noffer, surprises me greatly. To have observed severe silence on this part\nof the subject, would have seemed to me your discreeter course. Moreover,\nhad you not, in this marked way, invited attention to the component\nelements of the Revising body, I was prepared to give the subject the\ngo-by. The \u201c_New Greek Text_,\u201d no less than the \u201c_New __ English\nVersion_,\u201d must stand or fall on its own merits; and I have no wish to\nprejudice the discussion by importing into it foreign elements. Of this,\nyou have had some proof already; for, (with the exception of what is\noffered above, in pages 6 and 7,) the subject has been, by your present\ncorrespondent, nowhere brought prominently forward.\n\nFar be it from me, however, to decline the enquiry which you evidently\ncourt. And so, I candidly avow that it was in my account a serious breach\nof Church order that, on engaging in so solemn an undertaking as the\nRevision of the Authorized Version, a body of Divines professing to act\nunder the authority of the Southern Convocation should spontaneously\nassociate with themselves Ministers of various\ndenominations,(1129)\u2014Baptists, Congregationalists, Wesleyan Methodists,\nIndependents, and the like: and especially that a successor of the\nApostles should have presided over the deliberations of this assemblage of\nSeparatists. In my humble judgment, we shall in vain teach the sinfulness\nof Schism, if we show ourselves practically indifferent on the subject,\nand even set an example of irregularity to our flocks. My Divinity may\nappear unaccommodating and old-fashioned: but I am not prepared to unlearn\nthe lessons long since got by heart in the school of Andrewes and Hooker,\nof Pearson and Bull, of Hammond and Sanderson, of Beveridge and Bramhall.\nI am much mistaken, moreover, if I may not claim the authority of a\ngreater doctor than any of these,\u2014I mean S. Paul,\u2014for the fixed views I\nentertain on this head.\n\nAll this, however, is as nothing in comparison of the scandal occasioned\nby the co-optation into your body of Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian\nMinister of S. Saviour\u2019s Gate Chapel, York. That, while engaged in the\nwork of interpreting the everlasting Gospel, you should have knowingly and\nby choice associated with yourselves one who, not only openly denies the\neternal Godhead of our LORD, but in a recent publication is the avowed\nassailant of that fundamental doctrine of the Christian Religion, as well\nas of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture itself,(1130)\u2014filled me (and many\nbesides myself) with astonishment and sorrow. You were respectfully\nmemorialized on the subject;(1131) but you treated the representations\nwhich reached you with scornful indifference.\n\nNow therefore that you re-open the question, I will not scruple publicly\nto repeat that it seems to me nothing else but an insult to our Divine\nMaster and a wrong to the Church, that the most precious part of our\ncommon Christian heritage, the pure Word of GOD, should day by day, week\nby week, month by month, year after year, have been thus handled; for the\navowed purpose of producing a Translation which should supersede our\nAuthorized Version. That the individual in question contributed aught to\nyour deliberations has never been pretended. On the contrary. No secret\nhas been made of the fact that he was, (as might have been anticipated\nfrom his published writings,) the most unprofitable member of the Revising\nbody. Why then was he at first surreptitiously elected? and why was his\nelection afterwards stiffly maintained? The one purpose achieved by his\ncontinued presence among you was that it might be thereby made to appear\nthat the Church of England no longer insists on Belief in the eternal\nGodhead of our LORD, as essential; but is prepared to surrender her claim\nto definite and unequivocal dogmatic teaching in respect of Faith in the\nBlessed TRINITY.\n\nBut even if this Unitarian had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would\nremain in full force; for I hold, (and surely so do you!), that the right\nInterpretation of GOD\u2019S Word may not be attained without the guidance of\nthe HOLY SPIRIT, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer.\n\nIn the meantime, this same person was invited to communicate with his\nfellow-Revisers in Westminster-Abbey, and did accordingly, on the 22nd of\nJune, 1870, receive the Holy Communion, in Henry VII.\u2019s Chapel, at the\nhands of Dean Stanley: declaring, next day, that he received the Sacrament\non this occasion without \u201cjoining in reciting the Nicene Creed\u201d and\nwithout \u201ccompromise\u201d (as he expressed it,) of his principles as an\n\u201cUnitarian.\u201d(1132) So conspicuous a sacrilege led to a public Protest\nsigned by some thousands of the Clergy.(1133) It also resulted, in the\nnext ensuing Session of Convocation, in a Resolution whereby the Upper\nHouse cleared itself of complicity in the scandal.(1134)...\n\nHow a good man like you can revive the memory of these many painful\nincidents without anguish, is to me unintelligible. That no blessing from\nHim, \u201c_sine Quo nihil validum, nihil sanctum_,\u201d could be expected to\nattend an undertaking commenced under such auspices,\u2014was but too plain.\nThe Revision was a foredoomed thing\u2014in the account of many besides\nmyself\u2014from the outset.\n\n(3) _The probable Future of the Revision of_ 1881.\n\nNot unaware am I that it has nevertheless been once and again confidently\npredicted in public Addresses, Lectures, Pamphlets, that ultimate success\nis in store for the Revision of 1881. I cannot but regard it as a\nsuspicious circumstance that these vaticinations have hitherto invariably\nproceeded from members of the Revising body.\n\nIt would ill become such an one as myself to pretend to skill in\nforecasting the future. But of _this_ at least I feel certain:\u2014that if, in\nan evil hour, (quod absit!), the Church of England shall ever be induced\nto commit herself to the adoption of the present Revision, she will by so\ndoing expose herself to the ridicule of the rest of Christendom, as well\nas incur irreparable harm and loss. And such a proceeding on her part will\nbe inexcusable, for she has been at least faithfully forewarned. Moreover,\nin the end, she will most certainly have to retrace her steps with sorrow\nand confusion.\n\nThose persons evidently overlook the facts of the problem, who refer to\nwhat happened in the case of the Authorized Version when it originally\nappeared, some 270 years ago; and argue that as the Revision of 1611 at\nfirst encountered opposition, which yet it ultimately overcame, so must it\nfare in the end with the present Revised Version also. Those who so reason\nforget that the cases are essentially dissimilar.\n\nIf the difference between the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Revision\nof 1881 were only this.\u2014That the latter is characterized by a mechanical,\nunidiomatic, and even repulsive method of rendering; which was not only\nunattempted, but repudiated by the Authors of the earlier work;\u2014there\nwould have been something to urge on behalf of the later performance. The\nplea of zeal for GOD\u2019S Word,\u2014a determination at all hazards to represent\nwith even servile precision the _ipsissima verba_ of Evangelists and\nApostles,\u2014_this_ plea might have been plausibly put forward: and, to some\nextent, it must have been allowed,\u2014although a grave diversity of opinion\nmight reasonably have been entertained as to _what constitutes_ \u201caccuracy\u201d\nand \u201cfidelity\u201d of translation.\n\nBut when once it has been made plain that _the underlying Greek_ of the\nRevision of 1881 is an entirely new thing,\u2014_is a manufactured article\nthroughout_,\u2014all must see that the contention has entirely changed its\ncharacter. The question immediately arises, (and it is the _only_ question\nwhich remains to be asked,)\u2014Were then the Authors of this \u201cNew Greek Text\u201d\n_competent_ to undertake so perilous an enterprise? And when, in the words\nof the distinguished Chairman of the Revising body\u2014(words quoted above, at\npage 369,)\u2014\u201c_To this question, we venture to answer very unhesitatingly in\nthe negative_,\u201d\u2014What remains but, with blank astonishment, not unmingled\nwith disgust, to close the volume? Your own ingenuous\nadmission,\u2014(volunteered by yourself a few days before you and your allies\n\u201cproceeded to the actual details of the Revision,\u201d)\u2014that \u201c_we have\ncertainly not acquired sufficient Critical Judgment_ for any body of\nRevisers hopefully to undertake such a work as this,\u201d\u2014is decisive on the\nsubject.\n\nThe gravity of the issue thus raised, it is impossible to over-estimate.\nWe find ourselves at once and entirely lifted out of the region originally\nproposed for investigation. It is no longer a question of the degree of\nskill which has been exhibited in translating the title-deeds of our\nheavenly inheritance out of Greek into English. Those title-deeds\nthemselves have been empirically submitted to a process which, _rightly or\nwrongly_, seriously affects their integrity. Not only has a fringe of most\nunreasonable textual mistrust been tacked on to the margin of every\ninspired page, (as from S. Luke x. 41 to xi. 11):\u2014not only has many a\ngrand doctrinal statement been evacuated of its authority, (as, by the\nshameful mis-statement found in the margin against S. John iii. 13,(1135)\nand the vile Socinian gloss which disfigures the margin of Rom. ix.\n5(1136)):\u2014but we entirely miss many a solemn utterance of the SPIRIT,\u2014as\nwhen we are assured that verses 44 and 46 of S. Mark ix. are omitted by\n\u201c_the best ancient authorities_,\u201d (whereas, on the contrary, the MSS.\nreferred to are _the worst_). Let the thing complained of be illustrated\nby a few actual examples. Only five shall be subjoined. The words in the\nfirst column represent what _you_ are pleased to designate as among \u201cthe\nmost certain conclusions of modern Textual Criticism\u201d (p. 78),\u2014but what\n_I_ assert to be nothing else but mutilated exhibitions of the inspired\nText. The second column contains the indubitable Truth of Scripture,\u2014the\nwords which have been read by our Fathers\u2019 Fathers for the last 500 years,\nand which we propose, (GOD helping us,) to hand on unimpaired to our\nChildren, and to our Children\u2019s Children, for many a century to come:\u2014\n\nREVISED (1881).             AUTHORIZED (1611).\n\u201cAnd come, follow me.\u201d      \u201cAnd come, _take up the\n                            cross and_ follow\n                            me.\u201d(1137)\n\u201cAnd they blindfolded       \u201cAnd when they had\nhim, and asked him,         blindfolded him, _they\nsaying, Prophesy.\u201d          struck him on the face_,\n                            and asked him, saying,\n                            Prophesy.\u201d(1138)\n\u201cAnd there was also a       \u201cAnd a superscription\nsuperscription over him,    also was _written_ over\nThis is the King of the     him _in letters of Greek,\nJews.\u201d                      and Latin, and Hebrew_,\n                            This is the King of the\n                            Jews.\u201d(1139)\n\u201cAnd they gave him a        \u201cAnd they gave him a\npiece of a broiled fish.\u201d   piece of a broiled fish,\n                            _and of an\n                            honeycomb_.\u201d(1140)\n\nBut the next (S. Luke ix. 54-6,) is a far more serious loss:\u2014\n\n\u201c \u2018Lord, wilt thou that     \u201c \u2018Lord, wilt thou that\nwe bid fire to come down    we command fire to come\nfrom heaven, and consume    down from heaven, and\nthem?\u2019 But he turned and    consume them, _even as\nrebuked them. And they      Elias did_?\u2019 But he\nwent to another village.\u201d   turned and rebuked them,\n                            _and said, _\u2018Ye know not\n                            what manner of spirit ye\n                            are of. For the Son of\n                            man is not come to\n                            destroy men\u2019s lives, but\n                            to save them\u2019. And they\n                            went to another village.\u201d\n\nThe unlearned reader sees at a glance that the only difference of\n_Translation_ here is the substitution of \u201cbid\u201d for \u201ccommand.\u201d\u2014which by\nthe way, is not only uncalled for, but is a change _for the worse_.(1141)\nOn the other hand, how grievous an injury has been done by the mutilation\nof the blessed record in respect of those (3 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 24 = )\n_forty-three_ (in English _fifty-seven_) undoubtedly inspired as well as\nmost precious words,\u2014even \u201cordinary Readers\u201d are competent to discern.\n\nI am saying that the systematic, and sometimes serious,\u2014_always_\ninexcusable,\u2014liberties which have been taken with the Greek Text by the\nRevisionists of 1881, constitute a ground of offence against their work\nfor which no pretext was afforded by the Revision of 1611. To argue\ntherefore from what has been the fate of the one, to what is likely to be\nthe fate of the other, is illogical. The cases are not only not parallel:\nthey are even wholly dissimilar.\n\nThe cheapest copies of our Authorized Version at least exhibit the Word of\nGOD faithfully and helpfully. Could the same be said of a cheap edition of\nthe work of the Revisionists,\u2014destitute of headings to the Chapters, and\ncontaining no record of the extent to which the Sacred Text has undergone\ndepravation throughout?\n\nLet it be further recollected that the greatest Scholars and the most\nlearned Divines of which our Church could boast, conducted the work of\nRevision in King James\u2019 days; and it will be acknowledged that the\npromiscuous assemblage which met in the Jerusalem Chamber cannot urge any\ncorresponding claim on public attention. _Then_, the Bishops of Lincoln of\n1611 were Revisers: the Vance Smiths stood without and found fault. But in\nthe affair of 1881, Dr. Vance Smith revises, and ventilates heresy from\nwithin:(1142) the Bp. of Lincoln stands outside, and is one of the\nseverest Critics of the work.\u2014Disappointed men are said to have been\nconspicuous among the few assailants of our \u201cAuthorized Version,\u201d\u2014Scholars\n(as Hugh Broughton) who considered themselves unjustly overlooked and\nexcluded. But on the present occasion, among the multitude of hostile\nvoices, there is not a single instance known of a man excluded from the\ndeliberations of the Jerusalem Chamber, who desired to share them.\n\nTo argue therefore concerning the prospects of the Revision of 1881 from\nthe known history of our Authorized Version of 1611, is to argue\nconcerning things essentially dissimilar. With every advance made in the\nknowledge of the subject, it may be confidently predicted that there will\nspring up increased distrust of the Revision of 1881, and an ever\nincreasing aversion from it.\n\n(4) _Review of the entire subject, and of the respective positions of Bp.\nEllicott and myself._\n\nHere I lay down my pen,\u2014glad to have completed what (because I have\nendeavoured to do my work _thoroughly_) has proved a very laborious task\nindeed. The present rejoinder to your Pamphlet covers all the ground you\nhave yourself traversed, and will be found to have disposed of your entire\ncontention.\n\nI take leave to point out, in conclusion, that it places you individually\nin a somewhat embarrassing predicament. For you have now no alternative\nbut to come forward and disprove my statements as well as refute my\narguments: or to admit, by your silence, that you have sustained defeat in\nthe cause of which you constituted yourself the champion. You constrained\nme to reduce you to this alternative when you stood forth on behalf of the\nRevising body, and saw fit to provoke me to a personal encounter.\n\nBut you must come provided with something vastly more formidable,\nremember, than denunciations,\u2014which are but wind: and vague\ngeneralities,\u2014which prove nothing and persuade nobody: and appeals to the\nauthority of \u201cLachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,\u201d\u2014which I disallow and\ndisregard. You must produce a counter-array of well-ascertained facts; and\nyou must build thereupon irrefragable arguments. In other words, you must\nconduct your cause with learning and ability. Else, believe me, you will\nmake the painful discovery that \u201cthe last error is worse than the first.\u201d\nYou had better a thousand times, even now, ingenuously admit that you made\na grievous mistake when you put yourself into the hands of those ingenious\ntheorists, Drs. Westcott and Hort, and embraced their arbitrary\ndecrees,\u2014than persevere in your present downward course, only to sink\ndeeper and deeper in the mire.\n\n(5) _Anticipated effect of the present contention on the Text of_ 1\nTimothy iii. 16.\n\nI like to believe, in the meantime, that this passage of arms has resulted\nin such a vindication(1143) of the traditional Reading of 1 TIMOTHY iii.\n16, as will effectually secure that famous place of Scripture against\nfurther molestation. _Faxit __DEUS__!_... In the margin of the Revision of\n1881, I observe that you have ventured to state as follows,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe word GOD, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient\n    ancient evidence.\u201d\n\n\nIn the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it\n    has long been known to be by all careful students of the New\n    Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with\n    which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their\n    manuscripts,\u2014a reading which was the natural result of the growing\n    tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble\n    Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as \u2018God manifested in\n    the flesh\u2019 \u201d (p. 39).\n\n\nSuch remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray,\nmy lord Bishop, of what were _you_ thinking when you permitted yourself to\nmake the serious mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs\nhave meant thereby that,\u2014\u201cThe word _He who_ in place of GOD, on the\ncontrary, _does_ rest on sufficient ancient evidence.\u201d I solemnly call\nupon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to\nprove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are\na refutation.\u2014You add,\n\n\n    \u201cSome ancient authorities read _which_.\u201d\n\n\nBut why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great\nmany \u201c_More_ ancient authorities\u201d read \u201cwhich\u201d (\u1f45), than read \u201cwho\u201d (\u1f45\u03c2)?\n\n(6) _The nature of this contention explained._\n\nAnd yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at\nfirst I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the\nTraditional Text,\u2014(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years\nold,)\u2014which I aimed at illustrating: the essential rottenness of the\nfoundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been\nconstructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,\u2014which I was determined\nto expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure\nis tasteless and unlovely to a degree,\u2014but also that you have reared it up\non a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (GOD is my witness!), but\nout of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,\u2014your\nwork, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the\npresent volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent\nto every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of\nday as a shapeless ruin.\n\nA ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored.\nAnd why? Because the mischief, which extends to every part of the edifice,\ntakes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the\nfoundation.\n\nAnd further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated\nthat no compromise is possible between our respective methods,\u2014yours and\nmine: between the NEW GERMAN system in its most aggravated and in fact\nintolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given\nin your adhesion; and the OLD ENGLISH school of Textual Criticism, of\nwhich I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott\nand Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present\nCorrespondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are\nantagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,\u2014except\ncertain documents; which _I_ insist on interpreting by the humble\nInductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of\ndeducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of\nyour own,\u2014every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to\ndisprove.\n\nSuch, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination\u2014(1) That the\ntraditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style \u201c_The Syrian\ntext_,\u201d) is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch, A.D. 250\nand 350:(1144)\u2014(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a\nRecension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:(1145)\u2014(3) That\nCureton\u2019s is the Syriac \u201cVetus,\u201d and the Peschito the Syriac\n\u201cVulgate:\u201d(1146)\u2014(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two\nIVth-century Codices, B and \u05d0, \u201cdiverged from a common parent extremely\nnear the apostolic autographs:\u201d(1147)\u2014(5) That this common original\nenjoyed a \u201cgeneral immunity from substantive error;\u201d and by\nconsequence\u2014(6) That B and \u05d0 provide \u201ca safe criterion of genuineness,\u201d so\nthat \u201cno readings of \u05d0 B can be safely rejected absolutely.\u201d(1148)\u2014(7)\nSimilar wild imaginations you cherish concerning C and D,\u2014which, together\nwith B and \u05d0 _you_ assume to be among the most trustworthy guides in\nexistence; whereas _I_ have convinced myself, by laborious collation, that\nthey are _the most corrupt of all_. We are thus diametrically opposed\nthroughout. Finally,\u2014(8) _You_ assume that you possess a power of\ndivination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of\nInduction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of\nScripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of\nthe largest number of the best COPIES, FATHERS, VERSIONS.(1149) There is,\nI am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this\ndepartment of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,\u2014only\nby self-renouncing labour,\u2014may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine.\n_They_ do but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who\nfirst _invent their facts_, and then proceed to build thereupon their\npremisses.\n\nSuch builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,\u2014with whom (by your own avowal)\nyou stand completely identified.(1150) I repeat, (for I wish it to be\ndistinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those\nCritics is,\u2014_not_ that their superstructure rests upon an insecure\nfoundation; but that it rests on _no foundation at all_. My complaint\nis,\u2014_not_ that they are _somewhat_ and _frequently_ mistaken; but that\nthey are mistaken _entirely_, and that they are mistaken _throughout_.\nThere is no possibility of approximation between _their_ mere assumptions\nand the results of _my_ humble and laborious method of dealing with the\nText of Scripture. We shall only _then_ be able to begin to reason\ntogether with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they\nhave unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and\nunreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.\n\n(7) _Parting Counsels._\n\nLet me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that\nof your friends,\u2014(I.) \u201cTHE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK\u2019S GOSPEL:\u201d\u2014(II.)\nTHE ANGELIC HYMN on the night of the Nativity:\u2014(III.) The text of 1\nTIMOTHY iii. 16,\u2014these three,\u2014(in respect of which up to this hour, you\nand I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)\u2014as convenient _Test\nplaces_. When you are prepared frankly to admit,\u2014(I.) That there is no\nreason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S. MARK xvi.\n9-20:(1151)\u2014(II.) That \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 is unquestionably the\nEvangelical text of S. LUKE ii. 14:(1152)\u2014and (III.) That \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1\nTIMOTHY iii 16,(1153)\u2014we shall be in good time to proceed to something\nelse. _Until_ this happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of\ntime to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.\n\nI cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your\npart will amount to an admission that \u201cthe whole fabric of Textual\nCriticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by\nsuccessive editors of the New Testament,\u201d\u2014Lachmann namely, Tischendorf,\nand Tregelles,\u2014is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence of\nthis admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has\nbeen, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.\n\n(8) _The subject dismissed._\n\nThe issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility,\nto ALMIGHTY GOD. The SPIRIT OF TRUTH will, (I know,) take good care of His\nown masterpiece,\u2014the Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance,\nand graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to\nhave anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of\nScripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.\n\nBut if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my conclusions are\nsound throughout, then may He enable men freely to recognize the Truth;\nand thus, effectually avert from our Church the supreme calamity with\nwhich, for a few months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having\nan utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament\nthrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable \u2019Revision\u2019 of the\nEnglish.\n\nMy lord Bishop,\u2014I have the honour to wish you respectfully farewell.\n\nJ. W. B.\n\nDEANERY, CHICHESTER,\n_July, 1883_.\n\nTHE GRASS WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL\nSTAND FOR EVER.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX OF SACRED CODICES.\n\n\nThe inquiries into which I was led (January to June 1883) by my\nDISSERTATION in vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16,\nhave resulted in my being made aware of the existence of a vast number of\nSacred Codices which had eluded the vigilance of previous Critics.\n\nI had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly enlarging\nScholz\u2019s list. We had in fact raised the enumeration of \u201c_Evangelia_\u201d to\n621: of \u201c_Acts and Catholic Epistles_\u201d to 239: of \u201c_Paul_\u201d to 281: of\n\u201c_Apocalypse_\u201d to 108: of \u201c_Evangelistaria_\u201d to 299: of the book called\n\u201c_Apostolus_\u201d to 81:\u2014making a total of 1629.\u2014But at the end of a\nprotracted and somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of\nnot a few great Continental Libraries, I am able to state that our\navailable \u201c_Evangelia_\u201d amount to at least 739(1154): our \u201c_Acts and Cath.\nEpp._\u201d to 261: our \u201c_Paul_\u201d to 338: our \u201c_Apoc._\u201d to 122: our \u201c_Evstt._\u201d\nto 415(1155): our copies of the \u201c_Apostolus_\u201d to 128(1156): making a total\nof 2003. This shows an increase of _three hundred and seventy-four_.\n\nMy original intention had been to publish this enumeration of Sacred\nCodices in its entirety as an APPENDIX to the present volume: but finding\nthat the third edition of Dr. Scrivener\u2019s \u201cIntroduction\u201d would appear some\nmonths before my own pages could possibly see the light, I eagerly\ncommunicated my discoveries to my friend. I have indeed proposed to myself\nno other object throughout but the advancement of the study of Textual\nCriticism: and it was reasonable to hope that by means of his widely\ncirculated volume, the great enlargement which our previously ascertained\nstores have suddenly experienced would become more generally known to\nscholars. I should of course still have it in my power to reproduce here\nthe same enumeration of Sacred Codices.\n\nThe great bulk however which the present volume has acquired, induces me\nto limit myself in this place to some account of those Codices which have\nbeen expressly announced and discoursed about in my Text (as at pp. 474\nand 492-5). Some other occasion must be found for enlarging on the rest of\nmy budget.\n\nIt only remains to state that for most of my recent discoveries I am\nindebted to the Abbate Cozza-Luzi, Prefect of the Vatican; who on being\ninformed of the object of my solicitude, with extraordinary liberality and\nconsideration at once set three competent young men to work in the\nprincipal libraries of Rome. To him I am further indebted for my\nintroduction to the MS. treasures belonging to the Basilian monks of\nCrypta-Ferrata, the ancient Tusculum. Concerning the precious library of\nthat monastery so much has been offered already (viz. at pp. 446-448, and\nagain at pp. 473-4), as well as concerning its learned chief, the\nHieromonachus Antonio Rocchi, that I must be content to refer my readers\nto those earlier parts of the present volume. I cannot however\nsufficiently acknowledge the patient help which the librarian of Crypta\nFerrata has rendered me in the course of these researches.\n\nFor my knowledge of the sacred Codices preserved at Messina, I am indebted\nto the good offices and learning of Papas Filippo Matranga. In respect of\nthose at Milan, my learned friend Dr. Ceriani has (not for the first time)\nbeen my efficient helper. M. Wescher has kindly assisted me at Paris; and\nDr. C. de Boor at Berlin. It must suffice, for the rest, to refer to the\nNotes at foot of pp. 491-2 and 477-8.\n\nADDITIONAL CODICES OF S. PAUL\u2019S EPISTLES.\n\n282. ( = Act. 240. Apoc. 109). Paris, \u201cArm\u00e9nien 9\u201d (_olim_ Reg. 2247).\n_membr._ foll. 323. This bilingual codex (Greek and Armenian) is described\nby the Abb\u00e9 Martin in his _Introduction \u00e0 la Critique Textuelle du N. T._\n(1883), p. 660-1. See above, p. 474, note 1. An Italian version is added\nfrom the Cath. Epp. onwards. _Mut._ at beginning (Acts iv. 14) and end.\n(For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim. iii. 16, see above, p. 473-4.)\n\n283. ( = Act. 241). Messina P K Z (_i.e._ 127) [xii.], _chart._ foll. 224.\n_Mut._ begins at Acts viii. 2,\u2014ends at Hebr. viii. 2; also a leaf is lost\nbetween foll. 90 and 91. Has \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b8. and Commentary of an unknown author.\n\n284. ( = Act. 195). Modena, ii. A. 13 [xiii.?], _Mut._ at the end.\n\n285. ( = Act. 196), Modena, ii. Cf. 4 [xi. or xii.]. Sig. Ant. Cappelli\n(sub-librarian) sends me a tracing of 1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n286. Ambrosian library, E. 2, _inf._the Catena of Nicetas. \u201cTextus\nparticulatim pr\u00e6mittit Commentariis.\u201d\n\n287. Ambrosian A. 241, _inf._, \u201cest Catena ejusdem auctoris ex initio, sed\nnon complectitur totum opus.\u201d\n\n288. Ambrosian D. 541 _inf._ [x. or xi.] _membr._ Text and Catena on all\nS. Paul\u2019s Epp. \u201cTextus continuatus. Catena in marginibus.\u201d It was brought\nfrom Thessaly.\n\n289. Milan C. 295 _inf._ [x. or xi.] _membr._ with a Catena. \u201cTextus\ncontinuatus. Catena in marginibus.\u201d\n\n290. ( = Evan. 622. Act. 242. Apoc. 110). Crypta Ferrata, A. \u03b1. i. [xiii.\nor xiv.] foll. 386: _chart._ a beautiful codex of the entire N. T.\ndescribed by Rocchi, p. 1-2. Menolog. _Mut._ 1 Nov. to 16 Dec.\n\n291. ( = Act. 243). Crypta Ferrata, A. \u03b2. i. [x.] foll. 139: in two\ncolumns,\u2014letters almost uncial. Particularly described by Rocchi, pp. 15,\n16. Zacagni used this codex when writing about Euthalius. _Mut._,\nbeginning with the argument for 1 S. John and ending with 2 Tim.\n\n\u2020292. ( = Act. 244). Crypta Ferrata, A. \u03b2. iii. [xi. or xii.]. _Membr._,\nfoll. 172. in 2 columns beautifully illuminated: described by Rocchi, p.\n18-9. Zacagni employed this codex while treating of Euthalius. _Menolog._\n\n293. ( = Act. 245). Crypta Ferrata, A. \u03b2. vi. [xi.], foll. 193. _Mut._ at\nthe end, Described by Rocchi, p. 22-3.\n\n294. ( = Act. 246). Vat. 1208. Abbate Cozzi-Luzi confirms Berriman\u2019s\naccount [p. 98-9] of the splendour of this codex. It is written in gold\nletters, and is said to have belonged to Carlotta, Queen of Jerusalem,\nCyprus, and Armenia, who died at Rome A.D. 1487, and probably gave the\nbook to Pope Innocent VIII., whose arms are printed at the beginning. It\ncontains effigies of S. Luke, S. James, S. Peter, S. John, S. Jude, S.\nPaul.\n\n295. ( = Act 247). Palatino-Vat. 38 [xi.] _membr._ foll. 35. Berriman (p.\n100) says it is of quarto size, and refers it to the IXth cent.\n\n296. Barberini iv. 85 (_olim_ 19), dated A.D. 1324. For my knowledge of\nthis codex I am entirely indebted to Berriman, who says that it contains\n\u201cthe arguments and marginal scholia written\u201d (p. 102).\n\n297. Barberini, vi. 13 (_olim_ 229), _membr._ [xi.] foll. 195: contains S.\nPaul\u2019s 14 Epp. This codex also was known to Berriman, who relates (p.\n102), that it is furnished \u201cwith the old marginal scholia.\u201d\n\n298. (= Act. 248), Berlin (Hamilton: No 625 in the English printed\ncatalogue, where it is erroneously described as a \u201cLectionarium.\u201d) It\ncontains Acts, Cath. Epp. and S. Paul,\u2014as Dr. C. de Boor informs me.\n\n299. (= Act. 249), Berlin, 4to. 40 [xiii.]: same contents as the\npreceding.\n\n300. (= Act. 250), Berlin, 4to. 43 [xi.], same contents as the preceding,\nbut commences with the Psalms.\n\n301. (= Act. 251), Berlin, 4to. 57 [xiv.], _chart._ Same contents as Paul\n298.\n\n302. (= Evan. 642. Act. 252.) Berlin, 8vo. 9 [xi.], probably once\ncontained all the N. T. It now begins with S. Luke XXIV. 53, and is _mut._\nafter 1 Thess.\n\n303. Milan, N. 272 _inf._ \u201cExcerpti loci.\u201d\n\n304. (= Act. 253) Vat. 369 [xiv.] foll. 226, _chart._\n\n305. Vat. 549, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 380. S. Paul\u2019s Epistles, with\nTheophylact\u2019s Commentary.\n\n306. Vat. 550, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 290; contains Romans with Comm. of\nChrysostom.\n\n307. Vat 551, _membr._ [x.] foll. 283. A large codex, containing some of\nS. Paul\u2019s Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom.\n\n308. Vat. 552, _membr._ [xi.] foll. 155. Contains Hebrews with Comm. of\nChrysostom.\n\n309. Vat. 582, _membr._ [xiv.] foll. 146. S. Paul\u2019s Epistles with Comm. of\nChrysostom.\n\n310. Vat. 646 [xiv.], foll. 250: \u201ccum supplementis.\u201d _Chart._ S. Paul\u2019s\nEpp. with Comm. of Theophylact and Euthymius. Pars I. et II.\n\n311. (= Evan. 671). Vat. 647. _Chart._ foll. 338 [xv.]. S. Paul\u2019s Epistles\nand the Gospels, with Theophylact\u2019s Commentary.\n\n312. Vat. 648, written A.D. 1232, at Jerusalem, by Simeon, \u201cqui et Saba\ndicitur:\u201d foll. 338, _chart._ S. Paul\u2019s Epistles, with Comm. of\nTheophylact.\n\n313. (= Act. 239). Vat. 652, _chart._ [xv.] foll. 105. The Acts and\nEpistles with Commentary. See the _Preface_ to Theophylact, ed. 1758, vol.\niii. p. v.-viii., also \u201cActs 239\u201d in Scrivener\u2019s 3rd. edit. (p. 263).\n\n314. Vat. 692, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 93, _mut._ Corinthians, Galatians,\nEphesians, with Commentary.\n\n315. Vat. 1222, _chart._ [xvi.] foll. 437. S. Paul\u2019s Epp. with\nTheophylact\u2019s Comm.\n\n316. (= Act. 255). Vat. 1654, _membr._ [x. or xi.], foll. 211. Acts and\nEpistles of S. Paul with Chrysostom\u2019s Comm.\n\n317. Vat. 1656, _membr._ [xii.], foll. 182. Hebrews with Comm. of\nChrysostom, _folio_.\n\n318. Vat. 1659, _membr._ [xi.] foll. 444. S. Paul\u2019s Epp. with Comm. of\nChrysostom.\n\n319. Vat. 1971 (Basil 10) _membr._ [x.] foll. 247. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0395\u1f50\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n320. Vat. 2055 (Basil 94), _membr._ [x.] foll. 292. S. Paul\u2019s Epp. with\nComm. of Chrysostom.\n\n321. Vat. 2065 (Basil 104), [x.] _membr._ foll. 358. Romans with Comm. of\nChrysostom.\n\n322. (= Act. 256) Vat. 2099 (Basil 138) _membr._ foll. 120 [x.]. Note that\nthough numbered for the Acts, this code only contains \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b9\u03b4\u1fbd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76, \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n323. Vat. 2180 [xv.] foll. 294, _chart._ With Comm. of Theophylact.\n\n324. Alexand. Vat. 4 [x.] foll. 256, _membr._ \u201cOptim\u00e6 not\u00e6.\u201d Romans with\nComm. of Chrysostom, \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3. \u03ba\u03b2\u1fbd. \u201cFuit monasterii dicti \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\u201d\n\n325. (= Evan. 698. Apoc. 117). Alexand. Vat. 6. _chart._ foll. 336 [xvi.],\na large codex. The Gospels with Comm. of Nicetas: S. Paul\u2019s Epp. with\nComm. of Theophylact: Apocalypse with an anonymous Comm.\n\n326. Vat. Ottob. 74 [xv.] foll. 291, _chart._ Romans with Theodoret\u2019s\nComm.\n\n327. Palatino-Vat. 10 [x.] _membr._ foll. 268. S. Paul\u2019s Epp. with a\nPatristic Commentary. \u201cFelkman adnotat.\u201d\n\n328. Palatino-Vat. 204 [x.] foll. 181, cum additamentis. With the\ninterpretation of \u0152cumenius.\n\n329. Palatino-Vat. 325 [x.] _membr._ foll. 163, _mut._ Inter alia adest\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4. \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n330. Palatino-Vat. 423 [xii.], partly _chart._ Codex miscell. habet\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3.\n\n331. Angelic. T. 8, 6 [xii.] foll. 326. S. Paul\u2019s Epp. with Comm. of\nChrysostom.\n\n332. (= Act. 259). Barberini iii. 36 (_olim_ 22): _membr._ foll. 328\n[xi.]. Inter alia \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb. \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3.\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n333. (= Act. 260). Barberini iii. 10 (_olim_ 259) _chart._ foll. 296\n[xiv.]. Excerpta \u1f10\u03ba \u03a0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be. (f. 152): \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 (f. 159): \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 (f. 162):\n\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd. (f. 165): \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4. (f. 166): \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a1\u03c9\u03bc. (f. 167): \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03c1. (f. 179):\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb. (fol. 189): \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c2. (f. 193): \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc. \u03b1\u1fbd (def. infin.).\n\n334. Barb. V. 38 (_olim_ 30) [xi.] foll. 219, _mut._ Hebrews with Comm. of\nChrysostom.\n\n335. Vallicell. F. [xv.], _chart._ miscell. Inter alia, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n336. (= Act. 261), Casanatensis, G. 11, 6.\u2014Note, that though numbered for\n\u201cActs,\u201d it contains only the Catholic Epp. and those of S. Paul with a\nCatena.\n\n337. Ottob. 328. [All I know as yet of this and of the next codex is that\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is read in both at 1 Tim. iii. 16].\n\n338. Borg. F. vi. 16. [See note on the preceding.]\n\nADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE \u201cAPOSTOLUS.\u201d\n\n82. Messina \u03a0\u0393 (_i.e._ 83) foll. 331, 8vo. Perfect.\n\n83. Crypta Ferrata, A. \u03b2. iv. [x.] _membr._ foll. 139, Praxapostolus.\nRocchi gives an interesting account of this codex, pp. 19-20. It seems to\nbe an adaptation of the liturgical use of C P. to the requirements of the\nBasilian monks in the Calabrian Church. This particular codex is _mut._ in\nthe beginning and at the end. (For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim.\niii. 16, see above, p. 473-4).\n\n84. Crypta Ferrata, \u0391. \u03b2. v. [xi.], _membr._ foll. 245, a most beautiful\ncodex. Rocchi describes it carefully, pp. 20-2. At the end of the Menology\nis some liturgical matter. \u201cPatet Menologium esse merum \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd alicujus\nMenologii CPtani, in usum. si velis, forte redacti Ecclesiae Rossanensis\nin Calabria.\u201d A suggestive remark follows that from this source \u201crituum\nrubricarumque magnum segetem colligi posse, nec non Commemorationem\n_Sanctorum_ mirum sane numerum, quas in aliis Menologiis vix invenies.\u201d\n\n85. Crypta Ferrata \u0391. \u03b2. vii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 64, Praxapostolus. This\ncodex and the next exhibit \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 in 1 Tim. iii. 16. The Menology is\n_mut._ after 17 Dec.\n\n86. Crypta Ferrata \u0391. \u03b2. viii. [xii. or xiii.] fragments of foll. 127.\n_membr._ Praxapostolus. (See the preceding.) Interestingly described by\nRocchi, p. 23-4.\n\n87. Crypta Ferrata \u0391. \u03b2. ix. [xii.], foll. 104, _membr._ Praxapostolus.\nInterestingly described by Rocchi, p. 24-5. The Menology is unfortunately\ndefective after 9th November.\n\n88. Crypta Ferrata, \u0391. \u03b2. x. [xiii.?] _membr._ 16 fragmentary leaves.\n\u201cVere lamentanda est qu\u00e6 huic Eclogadio calamitas evenit\u201d (says the\nlearned Rocchi, p. 25), \u201cquoniam ex ejus residuis, multa Sanctorum nomina\nreperies qu\u00e6 alibi frustra qu\u00e6sieris.\u201d\n\n89. Crypta Ferrata \u0391. \u03b2. xi. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 291, _mut._, written in\ntwo columns. The Menology is defective after 12 June, and elsewhere.\nDescribed by Rocchi, p. 26.\n\n90. (= Evst. 322) Crypta Ferrata, \u0391. \u03b2. ii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 259, with\nmany excerpts from the Fathers, fully described by Rocchi, p. 17-8,\nfragmentary and imperfect.\n\n91. (= Evst. 323) Crypta Ferrata, \u0391. \u03b4. ii. [x.] _membr._ foll. 155, a\nsingularly full lectionary. Described by Rocchi, p. 38-40.\n\n92. (= Evst. 325) Crypta Ferrata, \u0391. \u03b4. iv. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 257, a\nbeautiful and interesting codex, \u201cCalligrapho Joanne Rossanensi\nHieromonacho Crypt\u00e6ferrat\u00e6\u201d: fully described by Rocchi, p. 40-3. Like many\nother in the same collection, it is a palimpsest.\n\n93. (= Evst. 327) Crypta Ferrata, \u0391. \u03b4. vi. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 37,\n_mut._ at beginning and end, and otherwise much injured: described by\nRocchi, p. 45-6.\n\n94. (= Evst. 328) Crypta Ferrata, \u0391. \u03b4. ix. [xii.], _membr._ foll. 117,\n_mut._ at beginning and end.\n\n95. (= Evst. 334) Crypta Ferrata, \u0391. \u03b4. xx. [xii.] _membr._ foll. 21, a\nmere fragment. (Rocchi, p. 51.)\n\n96. (= Evst. 337) Crypta Ferrata, \u0391. \u03b4. xxiv. A collection of fragments.\n(Rocchi, p. 53.)\n\n97. (= Evst. 339) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. ii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 151,\nelaborately described by Rocchi, p. 244-9. This codex once belonged to\nThomasius.\n\n98. (= Evst. 340) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2 iii. [xiv.] _membr._ foll. 201.\nGoar used this codex: described by Rocchi, p. 249-51.\n\n99. (= Evst. 341) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. vi. [xiii. or xiv.], _membr._\nfoll. 101: described by Rocchi, p. 255-7.\n\n100. (= Evst. 344) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. ix. [xvi.], _membr._ foll. 95,\n_mut._ at beginning and end, and much injured.\n\n101. (= Evst. 346) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. xii. [xiv.], _membr._ foll. 98,\n_mut._ at beginning and end.\n\n102. (= Evst. 347) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. xiii. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 188:\nwritten by John of Rossano, Hieromonachus of Cryptaferrata, described by\nRocchi, p. 265-7.\n\n103. (= Evst. 349) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. xv. [xi. to xiv.] _membr._ foll.\n41.\u2014Described p. 268-9.\n\n104. (= Evst. 350) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. xvii. [xvi.]. _Chart._ foll. 269.\nDescribed, p. 269-70.\n\n105. (= Evst. 351), Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. xviii. [xiv.] _chart._ foll. 54.\n\n106. (= Evst. 352) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. xix. [xvi.] _chart._, foll. 195,\ndescribed p. 271.\n\n107. (= Evst. 353) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. xxiii. [xvii.], _membr._ foll.\n75,\u2014the work of Basilius Falasca, Hieromonachus, and head of the\nmonastery, A.D. 1641,\u2014described p. 273-4.\n\n108. (= Evst. 354) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. xxiv. [xvi.] _chart._ foll.\n302,\u2014the work of Lucas Felix, head of the monastery; described, p. 274-5.\n\n109. (= Evst. 356) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. xxxviii. [xvii.]. _chart._ foll.\n91, the work of \u201cRomanus Vasselli\u201d and \u201cMichael Lodolinus.\u201d\n\n110. (= Evst. 357) Crypta Ferrata, \u0393. \u03b2. xlii. [xvi.] _chart._ foll. 344.\n\n111. (= Evst. 358) Crypta Ferrata, \u0394. \u03b2. xxii. [xviii.] _chart._ foll.\n77,\u2014described foll. 365-6.\n\n112. (= Evst. 312) Messina, _membr._ in 8vo. foll. 60 [xiii.],\u2014\u201cfragmentum\nparvi momenti.\u201d\n\n113. Syracuse (\u201cSeminario\u201d) _chart._ foll. 219, _mut._ given by the Cav.\nLandolina.\n\n114. (= Evan. 155) Alex. Vat.\n\n115. [I have led Scrivener into error by assigning this number (Apost.\n115) to \u201cVat. 2068 (Basil 107).\u201d See above, p. 495, note 1. I did not\nadvert to the fact that \u201cBasil 107\u201d had _already_ been numbered \u201cApost.\n49.\u201d]\n\n116. Vat. 368 (Praxapostolus) [xiii.] foll. 136, _membr._\n\n117. (= Evst. 381) Vat. 774 [xiii.], foll. 160, _membr._\n\n118. (= Evst. 387) Vat. 2012 (Basil 51), foll. 211 [xv.] _chart._\n\n119. Vat. 2116 (Basil 155) [xiii.] foll. 111.\n\n120. Alexand. Vat. 11 (Praxapostolus), [xiv.] _membr._ foll. 169.\n\n121. (= Evst. 395) Alexand. Vat. 59 [xii.] foll. 137.\n\n122. Alexand. Vat. 70, A.D. 1544, foll. 18: \u201cin fronte pronunciatio Gr\u00e6ca\nLatinis literis descripta.\u201d\n\n123. (= Evst. 400) Palatino-Vat. 241 [xv.] _chart._ foll. 149.\n\n124. (= Evst. 410) Barb. iii. 129 (_olim_ 234) _chart._ [xiv.] foll. 189.\n\n125. Barb. iv. 11 (_olim_ 193), A.D. 1566, _chart._ foll. 158,\nPraxapostolus.\n\n126. Barb. iv. 60 (_olim_ 116) [xi.] foll. 322, a fine codex with\n_menologium_. Praxapostolus.\n\n127. Barb. iv. 84 (_olim_ 117) [xiii.] foll. 185, with menologium. _Mut._\n\n128. Paris, _Reg. Greek_, 13, _membr._ [xiii. or xiv.], a huge folio of\nLiturgical Miscellanies, consisting of between 6 and 900 unnumbered\nleaves. (At the \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2. \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, line 11, \u03b8\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1.) Communicated by the\nAbb\u00e9 Martin.\n\nPOSTSCRIPT (NOV. 1883.)\n\nIt will be found stated at p. 495 (line 10 from the bottom) that the\nCodices (of \u201cPaul\u201d and \u201cApost.\u201d) which exhibit \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 amount in\nall to 289.\n\nFrom this sum (for the reason already assigned above), _one_ must be\ndeducted, viz., \u201cApost. 115.\u201d\n\nOn the other hand, 8 copies of \u201cPAUL\u201d (communicated by the Abbate\nCozza-Luzi) are to be added: viz. _Vat._ 646 (Paul 310): 647 (Paul 311):\n1971 (Paul 319). _Palat. Vat._ 10 (Paul 327): 204 (Paul 328). _Casanat._\nG. 11, 16 (Paul 336). _Ottob._ 328 (Paul 337). _Borg._ F. vi. 16 (Paul\n338). So that no less than 260 out of 262 cursive copies of St. Paul\u2019s\nEpistle,\u2014[not 252 out of 254, as stated in p. 495 (line 21 from the\nbottom)],\u2014are found to witness to the Reading here contended for. The\nenumeration of Codices at page 494 is therefore to be continued as\nfollows:\u2014310, 311, 319, 327, 328, 336, 337, 338.\n\nTo the foregoing are also to be added 4 copies of the \u201cAPOSTOLUS,\u201d viz.\n_Vat._ 2116 (Apost. 119). _Palat. Vat._ 241 (Apost. 123). _Barb._ iv. 11\n[_olim_ 193] (Apost. 125). Paris, _Reg. Gr._ 13 (Apost. 128).\n\nFrom all which, it appears that, (including copies of the \u201cApostolus,\u201d)\nTHE CODICES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO WITNESS TO \u0398\u0395\u1ff8\u03a3 \u1f18\u03a6\u0391\u039d\u0395\u03a1\u038f\u0398\u0397 IN 1 Tim. iii.\n16, AMOUNT [289-1+8+4] TO EXACTLY THREE HUNDRED.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX I, OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE,\u2014QUOTED, DISCUSSED, OR ONLY REFERRED TO IN\nTHIS VOLUME.\n\n\nNote, that an asterisk (*) distinguishes references to the Greek Text from\nreferences to the English Translation. [Where either the Reading of the\nOriginal, or the English Translation is largely discussed, the sign is\ndoubled (** or ++).]\n\nGenesis ii. 4, 119\n  10, 180\n  iii. 7, 180\n  v. 1, 119\n  xviii. 14, 183\n\nExodus x. 21-23, 61\n\nLeviticus iv. 3, 183\n\nDeut. xxxiv. 1-12, 48\n\nJudges iv. 13, 181\n\n2 Sam. vii. 2, 3, 192\n\n1 Kings viii. 17, 18, 192\n\n1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2, 192\n\n2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11, 201\n\nJob xxxviii. 2, 235\n\nPsalms xxxiii. 18, 185\n  xlv. 6, 182\n  lxxxiii. 9, 181\n\nIsaiah xiv. 15, 56\n  lvii. 15, 185\n  liii. 9, 467\n\nJeremiah xv. 9, 64\n\nAmos viii. 9, 64\n\nZecharia xi. 12, 150\n\nApocrypha\u2014Baruch iii. 38 [or 37] 177*\n\nS. Matt. i. (genealogy), 167+\n  1, 119-21+\n  3, 7, 10, 12, 186+\n  18, 119-22+**, 204+, 224+\n  21, 165+, 184+\n  22, 173+\n  23, 186\n  25, 123-4**+, 311*, 315*, 416*, 417\n  ii. 1, 156+\n  2, 155+\n  4, 156+\n  5, 173+\n  6, 7, 156+\n  9, 155+\n  11, 12, 13, 156+\n  15, 155+\n  16, 146+\n  17, 156+\n  22, 167+\n  23, 156+, 157+, 184+\n  iii. 5, 184+\n  6, 175+\n  10, 164+\n  15, 193+\n  16, 175+\n  iv. 3, 511+\n  11, 193+\n  13, 15, 186\n  18, 184+\n  18, 20, 21, 180+\n  v. 15, 141+\n  22, 141+, 180+, 317*, 358-61**\n  23, 161+\n  37, 214+\n  39, 129+, 214+\n  40, 193+\n  44, 410-1**, 412\n  vi. 8, 317*\n  12, 163+\n  12, 14, 15, 193+\n  13, 105, 311*, 316*\n  vi. 29, 167+\n  30, 167+\n  vii. 4, 193+\n  9, 168+\n  28, 199+\n  viii. 3, 153+\n  4, 259\n  8, 511+\n  13, 316*\n  19, 183+\n  ix. 2, 32\n  3, 33\n  5, 32\n  6, 259\n  9, 141+\n  17, 148+\n  ix. 18, 183+\n  23, 148+\n  33, 33\n  x. 8, 108*\n  9, 201+\n  21, 511+\n  35, 317*\n  xi. 11, 128+, 166+\n  23, 54-56**, 217*\n  29, 317*\n  xii. 24, 27, 317*\n  29, 143+, 168+\n  38, 204+\n  40, 128+\n  43, 164+\n  47, 311*, 315*\n  xiii. 3, 164+\n  5, 154+\n  19, 38, 214+\n  32, 164+\n  35, 316*\n  36, 195++\n  xiv. 2, 141+\n  2, 3, 13, 68\n  15, 22, 23, 195+\n  22, 154+\n  30, 71*, 317*\n  31, 153+\n  xv. 14, 361\n  32, 39, 195+\n  xvi. 2, 3, 105, 311*, 316*\n  7, 159+\n  12, 199+\n  17, 181\n  21, 317*\n  xvii. 15, 205++\n  20, 139*+, 317*\n  21, 91-2**, 206**, 217+, 311*, 317*, 417\n  22, 176*+, 317*\n  24, 147+, 150\n  25, 146+\n  27, 128+, 147+\n  xviii. 6, 181+\n  11, 92**, 311*, 315*, 417\n  17, 164+\n  35, 143+\n  xix. 17, 105, 139*+, 217, 316*\n  xx. 15, 168+\n  20, 193+, 512+\n  21, 512+\n  34, 153+\n  xxi. 1-3, 57\n  2, 154+\n  8, 59, 61, 145+\n  28, 178+\n  31, 316*\n  xxii. 9, 141+\n  33, 199+\n  xxiii. 35, 316*\n  xxiv. 3, 178+\n  xxv. 18, 27, 148+\n  39, 167+\n  46, 207+\n  xxvi. 3, 143+\n  7, 200++\n  15, 149-150++\n  22, 128+\n  24, 173+\n  36, 182+, 210*\n  48, 203+\n  53, 168+\n  69, 183+\n  74, 154\n  xxvii. 34, 315*\n  37, 87\n  45, 61, 64\n  46, 159+\n  49, 33-4*, 309*, 315*\n  50, 193+\n  60, 162+, 198++\n  61, 88\n  xxvii. 61, 64, 66, 198+\n  xxviii. 1, 198+\n  2, 162+\n  19, 174+, 316*\n  20, 182+\n\nS. Mark i. 1, 132**, 135, 316*\n  8, 204+\n  9, 174+, 175+\n  13, 165+\n  16, 184+\n  16, 18, 19, 180+\n  18, 193+, 194+\n  22, 199+\n  23, 172+\n  27, 105, 139+\n  28, 316*\n  44, 259\n  ii. 1-12, 30-33**\n  11, 259\n  21, 139*+, 148+\n  22, 148+\n  iii. 5, 141+\n  14, 16, 316*\n  27, 143+\n  29, 139*+\n  iv. 13, 170+\n  29, 178+\n  36, 145+, 195+\n  v. 31, 402*\n  36, 139*+, 316*\n  43, 511*\n  vi. 11, 118, 137-8**, 409-10**, 412*\n  14, 16, 68\n  16, 70\n  17, 68\n  20, 66-69**, 315*, 417\n  22, 68, 315*\n  24, 25, 68\n  27, 147+\n  29, 167+\n  30, 32, 68\n  33, 258*\n  36, 45, 195+\n  vii. 8, 194+\n  27, 179+\n  31, 315*\n  33, 35, &c., 180+\n  viii. 7, 511+\n  viii. 9, 195+\n  23, 143+\n  26, 259*\n  ix. 1, 316*\n  18, 20, 22, 26, 205+\n  23, 139*+, 217*\n  23, 24, 29, 69-71*\n  38, 260*\n  39, 169+\n  42, 181\n  44, 46, 510\n  49, 260*\n  x. 17-31, 326-31**\n  21, 217*, 510*\n  35, 37, 512*\n  44, 46, 105\n  xi. 1-6, 57\n  3, 56-58**, 217*, 417\n  4, 182+\n  6, 193+\n  8, 58-61**, 418, 439*\n  26, 217*\n  xii. 37, 146+\n  42, 183+\n  xiii. 19, 160+\n  32, 210**\n  xiv. 3, 200++, 184-5++*\n  6, 193+\n  8, 185\n  11, 150\n  30, 71**\n  30, 68, 72, 316*\n  32, 182+\n  50, 194+\n  65, 139*\n  68, 141+, 316*\n  72, 316*\n  xv. 8, 139*, 191+\n  31, 167+\n  33, 61\n  39, 71-2**\n  47, 89\n  xvi. 9-20, 33, 36-40**, 47-9**, 51*, 281-4*, 311*, 317*, 418, 419,\n              422-4**, 519*\n  17, 20, 204+\n  19, 470\n\nS. Luke i. 15, 180+, 204+\n  26, 316*\n  37, 183+\n  42, 139*+\n  51, 172+\n  78, 179+\n  ii. 9, 144+\n  12, 203+\n  14, 41-7**, 51, 139+, 316*, 340-1**, 418, 419, 420-2**, 519*\n  29, 178+\n  33, 161+\n  38, 144+\n  iii. 3, 184+\n  9, 164+\n  20, 68\n  22, 115**\n  iv. 1, 218-219*+\n  3, 403*+, 511+\n  7, 8, 17, 18, 21, 23, 27, 35, 403*+\n  29, 129+, 403+*\n  32, 199+\n  38, 43, 404*+\n  39, 144\n  44, 315*, 404*+\n  v. 2, 180+\n  4, 141+, 162+\n  5, 159+\n  9, 128+, 352\n  13, 153+\n  18, 19, 32\n  20, 32\n  21, 33\n  36, 139+\n  37, 148+\n  39, 110\n  vi. 1 (\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4.) 73-5**, 311*, 316*\n  1 (\u1f24\u03c3\u03b8.) 93-4*\n  6, 129+\n  35, 146+\n  38, 352\n  39, 235\n  48, 110, 315*\n  vii. 7, 511*\n  17, 172+\n  37, 200++\n  viii. 35-44, 16-7**\n  45-6, 401-3**+\n  46, 158+\n  ix. 7, 66-9**, 405*\n  7, 8, 68\n  10, 68, 260-1*\n  12, 195+\n  31, 184+\n  39, 42, 205+\n  54-6, 311*, 315*, 511*\n  55, 56, 93*, 217, 418\n  x. 1, 316*\n  10, 68\n  11, 128+\n  15, 54-6**, 418\n  20, 128+\n  40, 144+\n  41, 42, 116-117* , 311*\n  41 to xi. 11, 510*\n  42, 315*\n  xi. 2-4, 34-6**, 418\n  4, 163+, 317*\n  11, 179+\n  15, 18, 19, 317*\n  21, 143+\n  54, 261*\n  xii. 2, 169+\n  18, 261*\n  39, 194+\n  45, 195-6++\n  xiv. 1, 179+\n  21, 169+\n  xv. 16, 181+\n  16, 17, 139+*\n  17, 407*+\n  21, 315*\n  22, 180+\n  23, 405*\n  31, 178+\n  xvi. 3, 159+\n  9, 139+*\n  11, 180+\n  12, 316*\n  21, 139+*\n  xvii. 2, 181+\n  xviii. 7, 169+\n  xix. 10, 92\n  18, 406*+\n  23, 169+\n  29, 184+\n  29-34, 33, 57\n  xix., xx., 94-5**\n  xx. 1, 144+\n  25, 406*+\n  44, 170+\n  xxi. 24, 316*\n  34, 144+\n  37, 184+\n  xxii. 5, 6, 150\n  19, 20 to xxiv. 53 75-7*\n  19, 20, 78-9**\n  22, 173+\n  43-4, 75, 76, 79-82**, 131, 281*, 311*, 316*, 340**, 411*\n  60, 154\n  64, 511*\n  xxiii. 8, 204+\n  17, 75, 76, 311*\n  23, 25, 191+\n  32, 317*\n  33, 165+\n  34, reverse of title, 75, 76, 82-5**, 131, 281-3*, 311*, 316*, 411*\n  38, 75, 76, 85-8**, 281-3, 311*, 418, 511*\n  42, 72*\n  45, 61-5**, 315* 419\n  55, 88-9**\n  xxiv. 1, 75, 76, 88-9**\n  3, 76\n  4, 144+\n  6, 76\n  7, 96-7**\n  9, 76\n  10, 89\n  12, 76, 89-90**, 281-3*, 311*\n  13, 316*\n  17, 105, 139*+\n  36, 40, 76, 90-1**\n  41, 93*\n  42, 76, 511*\n  44, 407*+\n  51, 76, 281-3*, 470\n  52, 76\n  53, 76, 261-2*\n\nS. John i. 1, 469\n  3, 132*+, 135, 174+\n  3, 10, 174\n  4, 316*\n  9, 180+\n  10, 174+\n  13, 347\n  14, 178+\n  18, 182+, 315*\n  34, 316*\n  42, 181+*\n  ii. 3, 316*\n  iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 347\n  13, 132-5**, 311*, 315*, 510*\n  iv. 6, 145\n  15, 407-8**+\n  v. 2, 5-6**\n  3, 4, 282-3, 311*, 316*\n  34, 105\n  vi. 4, 353**, 354*\n  21, 154+\n  29, 160+\n  32, 180+\n  33, 142+\n  51, 316*\n  70, 164+\n  vii. 39, 316*\n  53 to viii. 11, 311*\n  ix. 4, 139+*, 316*\n  5, 142+\n  11, 140+*, 316*\n  35, 315*\n  38, 316*\n  x. 14, 220-1**+, 315*\n  32, 160+\n  39, 142+\n  xi. 12, 141+\n  27, 163+\n  xii. 3, 184-5*++\n  6, 201+\n  7, 139*+, 185\n  41, 140*+\n  43, 142+\n  xiii. 10, 141+, 316*\n  12, 145+\n  14, 164+\n  21-6, 105\n  24, 316*\n  24-5, 145*+\n  29, 201+\n  xiv. 4, 72-3*+, 141+, 419\n  5, 9, 170+\n  10, 14, 140+*\n  18, 163+\n  22, 142+\n  xv. 1, 180+\n  15, 179+\n  20, 352\n  26, 451*\n  xvi. 13, 335\n  15, 210\n  16, 17, 19, 163+\n  21, \u03c4 164+\n  23, 140*+\n  32, 169+\n  xvii. 4, 140*+\n  4, 6, 158+\n  11, 352\n  11, 12, 140*+\n  14, 158+\n  24, 217-8**+\n  25, 158+\n  xviii. 1, 181+\n  5, 316*\n  18, 161+\n  24, 162+\n  27, 128+\n  35, 160+\n  37, 178+\n  xix. 16, 128+\n  18, 87\n  20, 86\n  29, 128+\n  34, 33, 309*\n  39, 317*\n  40, 128+, 436\n  41, 317*\n  42, 129+\n  xx. 2, 159+\n  4, 167+\n  12, 162+, 165+\n  13, 159+\n  16, 140+\n  28, 469\n  30, 204+\n  xxi. 1, 9, 128+\n  xxi. 12, 15, 142+\n  15, 162+, 181*+\n  15, 16, 17, 180+\n  25, 23-4**, 317\n\nActs i. 2, 204+\n  3, 128+\n  5, 317*\n  9, 470\n  18, 153+\n  19, 316*\n  23, 150\n  ii. 22, 173+, 352\n  43, 173+\n  iii. 6, 316*\n  14, 191+\n  iv. 1, 144+\n  6, 129+\n  16, 173+\n  16, 22, 204+\n  24, 178+\n  36, 142+\n  v. 24, 183+\n  vi. 7, 129+\n  12, 144+\n  15, 129+\n  vii. 13, 129+\n  16, 141+\n  17, 352\n  45, 186+, 352\n  46, 191+\n  viii. 3, 167+\n  5, 316*\n  20, 148+\n  ix. 13, 160+\n  25, 171+\n  x. 11, 180+\n  15, 146+, 160+\n  17, 144\n  19, 316*\n  xi. 5, 180+\n  11, 144+\n  12, 146+\n  16, 143+\n  17, 142+\n  xii. 7, 144+\n  13, 195+\n  17, 162+\n  20, 192+\n  25, 316*\n  xiii. 28, 191+\n  xiv. 9, 161+\n  xvi. 16, 195+\n  29, 192+\n  xvii. 5, 144+\n  19, 143+\n  28, 316*\n  29, 128+\n  31, 150+, 160+\n  xviii. 2, 24, 142+\n  7, 53-4**\n  xix. 12, 140+\n  xx. 28, 353-4*\n  xxi. 37, 149++\n  xxii. 13, 144+\n  15, 352\n  20, 144+\n  xxiii. 1, 129+\n  3, 169+\n  11, 27, 144+\n  xxv. 13, 316*\n  xxvi. 28, 29, 151-2*++\n  xxvii. 14, 176+\n  26, 167+\n  37, 51-3**, 316*\n  xxviii. 1, 177-8**+\n  2, 144+\n  3, 177+\n  4, 160+\n  11, 147+\n  13, 317*\n\nRom. i. 7, 127*\n  7-xiii. 1, 440*\n  20, 207+\n  iii. 22, 167+\n  29, 168+\n  iv. 8, 315*\n  v. 5, 204+\n  vi. 2, 160\n  3, 168+\n  vii. 1, 142+, 168+\n  15, 142-3+\n  ix. 5., 208++, 210-4**++, 354*, 412*, 469, 510\n  13, 160\n  22, 167+\n  xi. 2, 142+\n  4, 156+\n  xii. 6, 167+\n  xii. 9, 214+\n  xiv. 4, 167+\n  15, 143+\n  xv. 20, 167+\n  xvi. 23, 127+\n  25, 143+\n  25, 26, 464\n\n1 Cor. i. 27, 160\n  iv. 21, 441*\n  vi. 20, 160\n  viii. 6, 174+\n  ix. 11, 160\n  x. 1, 167+\n  xii. 8-10, 166+\n  20, 167+, 168+\n  27, 167+\n  xiii., 201-2++\n  3, 316*\n  xiv. 7, 148+\n  36, 168+\n  xv. 34, 141+, 178+\n  44, 142+\n  55, 142+, 440*\n  xvi. 12, 164*, 170+\n  22, 180+\n\n2 Cor. i. 3-7, 189+\n  4, 352\n  23, 167+\n  ii. 12, 167+\n  iii. 3, 140*+\n  v. 8, 167+\n  17, 19, 440*\n  vi. 11, 440*\n  12, 153+\n  13, 167+\n  15, 153+\n  viii. 11, 14, 441*\n  xii. 7, 219-20**+\n  xiii. 1, 169+\n\nGal. ii. 4, 167+\n  16, 146+\n  iii. 1, 440*\n  iv. 21-31, 196++\n\nEph. i. 1., 317*\n  6, 352\n  10, 173+\n  iii. 13, 192+\n  21, 178+\n  iv. 1, 167+, 352\n  14, 199+\n  17, 178+\n  20, 160\n  29, 178+\n  vi. 16, 214+\n\nPhil. i. 1, 129+\n  8, 153+\n  15, 139+\n  18, 128+\n  ii. 6, 143+\n  10, 513*\n  23, 146+\n  iii. 16, 128+\n  iv. 3, 440*\n\nCol. i. 9, 192+\n  16, 172+, 174+\n  23, 441*\n  27, 497-8*\n  ii. 8, 128+\n  18, 355-6**, 140+\n  22, 23, 441*\n  iii. 2, 441*\n  12, 153+\n\n1 Thess. i. 9, 441*\n  iv. 15, 127+\n\n2 Thess. i. 3, 127+\n\n1 Tim. ii. 2, 489*\n  10, 440*\n  17, 440*\n  19, 439*\n  iii. 1, 441*\n  13 to iv. 5, 476\n  16, 98-106***, 165+, 316*, 353, 419, 424-501***, 515, 519*\n  iv. 1, 2, 440*\n  10, 439*\n  14, 441*\n  v. 13, 441*\n  vi. 15, 441*\n  20, 344\n  20, 440*\n\n2 Tim. i. 13, 28, 351*\n  ii. 1, 143+\n  17, 25, 440*\n  iii. 6, 441*\n  16, 208-9++\n  iv. 3, 164+\n  17, 166+\n  18, 215\n\nTitus i. 2, 178+*\n  2, 3, 143+\n  4, 143+\n  7, 128+\n  7, 9, 164+\n  13, 439*\n  ii. 1, 164+\n\nPhilemon, ver. 12, 153+\n\nHeb. i. 1, 2, 172+\n  2, 174+\n  8, 182\n  ii. 4, 204+\n  14, 216\n  16, 143+\n  iii. 19, 169+\n  iv. 8, 162+, 186+\n  vi. 2, 199+\n  viii. 2, 180+\n  ix. 24, 180+\n  x. 21, 183+\n  xi. 17, 160+, 161+\n  17, 28, 163+\n  26, 146+\n  28, 160+\n  35, 143+\n  38, 141+\n  xii. 2, 146+\n  9, 164+\n  14, 164+\n  18, 178+\n  xiii. 9, 199+\n\nS. James i. 11, 163+, 170+\n  15, 164+\n  17, 317*\n  17, 18, 217+\n  ii. 2, 3, 190+\n  6, 160+\n  11, 511*\n  16, 128+\n  19, 148+\n  iii. 3, 140+\n  5, 143+\n  11, 164+\n  iv. 1, 143+\n  7, 129+\n  v. 16, 141+\n\n1 S. Peter i. 5, 141+\n  23, 216*\n  ii. 2, 179+\n  22, 467\n  iii. 20, 178+\n  v. 9, 129+\n  13, 129+, 141+\n\n2 S. Peter i. 5-7, 174+, 400\n  20, 179+\n  ii. 15, 142\n  22, 106, 335\n  iii. 7, 178+\n  10, 355-6**\n  13, 167+\n\n1 S. John i. 2, 169+\n  3, 167+\n  ii. 14, 160*\n  22, 164+\n  27, 169+\n  29, 347\n  iii. 4, 143+\n  8, 129+, 216\n  9, 347\n  15, 359\n  17, 153+\n  iv. 3, 6, 127+\n  7, 347\n  14, 129+\n  19, 140+\n  v. 1, 347\n  2, 127+, 129+\n  4, 347\n  6, 164+\n  7, 483\n  12, 164+\n  18, 347-50**\n  20, 469\n\n3 S. John 1, 129+\n  14, 154+\n\nS. Jude 1, 129+\n  5, 140+\n  6, 207+\n  14, 178+\n  18, 129+\n\nRev. ii. 5, 143+\n  iii. 2, 140+\n  iv. 6, 143+\n  v. 12, 143+\n  vi. 9, 127+\n  viii. 13, 183+\n  ix. 13, 183+\n  xiii. 18, 135-7**\n  xiv. 6, 165+\n  14, 165+\n  19, 172+\n  xv. 6, 140+\n  xvi. 17, 172+, 199++\n  xvii. 1, 200++\n  xviii. 21, 183+\n  22, 148+\n  xix. 6, 129+, 162+\n  17, 183+\n  21, 129+\n  xxii. 18, 19, 1\n  19, 409\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX II, OF FATHERS.\n\n\nFathers referred to, or else quoted(*), in this volume. For the chief\nEditions employed, see the note at p. 121.\n\n_Acta Apostt._ (Syriac), 40, 62, 84, 423\n  _Philippi_, 84\n  _Pilati_, 45, 62, 84, 423\n\nAlcimus Avit., 213\n\nAmbrosius, 24, 40, 73, 79, 85, 87, 90, 91, 92, 123, 132, 133, 213, 215*,\n            218, 410, 423\n\nAmmonius, 23, 29, 88*, 89, 91\n\nAmphilochius, 133, 213 [_ed._ Combefis]\n  ps. ----, 85\n\n_Anaphora Pilati_, 62\n\nAnastasius Ant., 213 [_ed._ Migne]\n  Sin., 44, 81, 84, 421 [_ed._ Migne]\n\nAndreas Cret., 23, 44, 84, 421 [_ed._ Combefis]\n\nAnonymous, 43, 100, 102\n\nAntiochus mon., 84, 360 [_ed._ Migne]\n\nAphraates, 40, 43, 133, 421, 423\n\n_Apostolical_, see \u201c_Constitutiones_.\u201d\n\nArchelaus (with Manes), 84\n\nArius, 80\n\nAthenagoras, 410\n\nAthanasius, 44, 62, 64, 80, 84, 90, 91, 121, 122, 123, 133, 212, 220, 359\n  ps. \u2014\u2014, 133, 402, 475\n\nAugustinus, 24, 40, 81, 85, 90, 91, 92, 116*, 123, 132, 133, 213, 356,\n            360, 410, 423, 500*\n\nBarnabas, 103*, 463*\n\nBasilius M., 44, 79, 84, 91, 102*, 108, 122, 123, 133, 210*, 212, 218,\n            219, 360, 402, 464*\n  \u2014\u2014 Cil., 133\n  \u2014\u2014 Sel., 43, 421\n\n_Breviarium_, 213\n\nCapreolus, 133\n\nCassianus, 81, 133, 213, 348, 411 [_ed._ 1611]\n\nC\u00e6lestinus, 218\n\nC\u00e6sarius, 212, 215*\n  ps. \u2014\u2014, 55, 74, 81\n\n_Catena_ (Cramer\u2019s), 353\n\nChromatius, 348\n\n_Chronicon Paschale_, 40, 74, 353 [_ed._ Du Fresne]\n\nChrysostomus, 5, 23, 26, 27, 40, 43, 44, 53, 55, 62*, 71*, 72, 74, 80, 84,\n            90, 91, 92, 99, 101*, 108, 121, 122, 123, 133, 151*, 152*,\n            177, 212, 218, 219, 220, 353, 356, 360, 402, 410, 421, 423,\n            457\n  ps. \u2014\u2014, 85, 90, 133, 218, 360, 402, 427\n\nClemens, Alex., 115, 121, 208*, 218, 327, 336*, 410\n  \u2014\u2014 Rom, 38*\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 (Syriac), 91\n\n_Clementina_, 84\n\n_Concilia_ [_ed._ Labbe et Cossart] _passim._\n\n_Constitutiones Apostolic\u00e6_, 43, 84, 212, 360, 410, 421, 423, 463*\n\nCosmas Indicopleustes, 44, 63, 133, 421 [_ed._ Montfaucon]\n  \u2014\u2014 ep. Maium\u00e6, 44, 421\n\n_Cramer_, see _Catena_.\n\nCyprianus, 213, 218, 359\n\nCyrillus Alex., 5, 23, 43, 55, 62, 79, 80, 84, 86, 89, 90, 96, 102*, 103,\n            121, 122, 132, 133, 163, 213, 218, 219, 220, 353, 356, 360,\n            402, 410, 421, 423, 427, 428*, 464-469**\n  \u2014\u2014 Hieros, 43, 62, 72, 123, 151*, 177, 421, 470\n\nDamascenus, _see_ \u201cJohannes.\u201d\n\nDamasus, P. 92\n\n_Dialogus_, 208*, 402\n\nDidymus, 5, 40, 43, 80, 101, 122, 123, 133, 212, 219, 348, 402, 421, 423,\n            427, 456\n\nDiodorus Tars., 101, 458\n\nDionysius Alex., 163\n  ps. \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014, 23, 80, 101, 133, 212, 462*\n  ps. \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 Areop., 80, 84\n\n_Eastern Bishops at Ephesus collectively_ (A.D. 431), 43, 80, 421\n\nEpiphanius, 40, 43, 44, 74, 79, 80, 90, 96, 116, 122, 123, 133, 212, 360,\n            402, 421, 423, 427\n  ps. \u2014\u2014, 427\n  \u2014\u2014 diac. Catan. [A.D. 787], 102, 103, 475\n\nEphraemus Syrus, 43, 62, 64, 80, 82*, 84, 122, 123, 215*, 348, 360, 421\n  ps. \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014, 84, 353, 423\n\nEulogius, 44, 212, 421\n\nEusebius C\u00e6s., 5, 23, 40, 43, 62*, 72, 80, 84, 86, 87, 88*, 89, 90, 96,\n            108, 122, 136, 163, 218, 219, 323-324**, 353, 359, 410, 421,\n            423\n  \u2014\u2014 His _Canons_, 91\n\nEustathius, 133, 212\n\nEuthalius, 102, 458, 459-461**\n\nEutherius, 84, 103, 427\n\nEuthymius Zig., 360, 410, 465, 476* [_ed._ Matth\u00e6i]\n\nFacundus, 81, 213\n\nFaustus, 115\n\nFerrandus, 213, 500*\n\nFulgentius, 213, 500*\n\nGaudentius, 24\n\nGelasius Cyzic., 100, 213, 479\n\nGennadius, 80, 213\n\nGermanus CP., 44, 122, 421\n\n_Gospel of Nicodemus_, 62\n\nGregentius, 423\n\nGregorius Nazianz., 23, 43, 73*, 80, 101*, 121, 134, 421, 457\n  ps \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014, 163, 220\n  \u2014\u2014 Nyssen., 23, 40, 43, 44, 84, 87, 89, 101*, 123, 134, 208*, 212, 360,\n              410, 421, 456, 458\n  \u2014\u2014 Thaum., 44, 45, 102*, 463*\n\nHegesippus, 84\n\nHesychius, 84, 163, 423\n\nHieronymus, 24, 40, 41, 63*, 64*, 73*, 79*, 81, 85, 90, 92, 103*, 108,\n            123*, 133, 213, 348, 356, 359, 360*, 423, 427\n\nHilarius, 79, 81, 85, 91, 92, 115, 133, 213, 218, 281, 360, 410\n\nHippolytus, 62, 64, 80, 84, 102*, 133, 136, 212, 353, 423, 463*\n\nIgnatius, 103*, 463*\n  ps. \u2014\u2014, 84\n\nJohannes Damascenus, 44, 81, 85, 91, 102, 123, 133, 177, 213, 220, 356,\n            360, 421, 457\n  \u2014\u2014 Thessal., 96, 423\n\nIren\u00e6us, 42, 64*, 80, 84, 122, 132, 212, 220, 353, 356, 359, 409, 420, 423\n\nIsidorus, 23, 74, 123*, 360, 410\n\nJovius mon., 92\n\nJulian h\u00e6ret., 80\n\nJulius Africanus, 62*, 64\n\nJustinus Mart., 79, 80, 115, 121, 360, 410, 423\n  ps. \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014, 84, 90\n\nJuvencus, 91, 108, 115\n\nLactantius, 115\n\nLeo ep., 213, 423\n  \u2014\u2014 _ap._ Sabatier, 41\n\nLeontius Byz., 81, 213, 423, 480\n\nLiberatus of Carthage, 471-3\n\nLucifer Calarit, 133, 360, 410\n\nMacarius Magnes, 40, 62*, 220, 423 [_ed._ 1876]\n\nMacedonius, 470-475**, 102, 103\n\nMalchion, 212\n\nMarcion, 34, 35, 61, 64, 96, 402\n\nMarius Mercator, 133, 213, 423, 468\n  \u2014\u2014 Victorinus, 500*\n\nMartinus P., 421, 473\n\nMaximus, 23, 79, 81, 84\n  \u2014\u2014 Taurin, 91, 133, 213, 219, 220, 360\n\nMethodius, 44, 115, 212 [_ed._ Combefis]\n\nModestus Hier., 423\n\nNestorius, 80, 121, 212, 423, 427\n\nNicetas, 123\n\nNilus mon., 62, 359, 410\n\nNonnus, 23, 133, 218, 353\n\nNovatianus, 133, 213\n\n\u0152cumenius, 102, 348, 476\n\nOrigenes, 23, 41, 43, 58, 60, 62*, 63**, 64, 72, 84, 87, 92, 122*, 133,\n            136, 163, 208*, 212, 219, 220, 348, 353, 356, 359, 360, 402,\n            410, 421, 427\n\n_Opus imperf._, 85, 91\n\nPacianus, 410\n\nPalladius, the Arian, 213\n\nPamphilus C\u00e6s., 177\n\nPapias, 423\n\n_Paschale_, see \u201c_Chronicon._\u201d\n\nPatricius, 423\n\nPaulinus, 81\n\nPaulus Emes., 43, 80, 133, 213, 421\n\nPhilastrius, 24, 360\n\nPhilo, 43, 421\n\nPhotius CP., 81, 123, 360\n\nPorphyrius, 132\n\nProclus CP., 43, 123\n\nProsper, 423\n\nSalvianus, 360\n\nSedulius, 24\n\nSeverianus Gabal., 132, 212\n\nSeverus Ant., 23, 40, 89, 102*, 133, 213, 348, 360, 458\n\nps. Tatianus, 80, 84, 122, 123, 402 [_ed._ Moesinger, 1876]\n\nTertullianus, 62*, 90*, 91, 92, 120, 122, 208*, 213*, 215*, 410, 423\n\nTitus Bostr., 43, 421\n\nTheodoretus, 43, 55, 79, 80, 84, 91, 102, 122, 133, 152*, 213, 218, 219,\n            220, 336, 356, 360, 410, 421, 456, 458*\n\nTheodorus Herac., 84, 92, 133\n  \u2014\u2014 h\u00e6ret., 81\n  \u2014\u2014 Mops., 23, 62, 80, 103, 121, 133, 212, 356, 360, 480-482*\n  \u2014\u2014 Studita [_ed._ Sirmondi], 475\n\nTheodosius Alex., 81\n\nTheodotus Ancyr., 43, 212, 421\n  \u2014\u2014 Gnosticus, 102*\n\nTheophilus Alex., 212\n  \u2014\u2014 Ant., 410\n\nTheophylactus, 102, 147, 348, 360, 410, 476 [_ed._ Venet. 1755]\n\nVictor Antioch., 23, 40, 66*, 132, 409, 423\n\nVictorinus, 133, 213\n\nVictricius, 218\n\nVigilius, 133, 348\n\nVincentius, 423\n\nZeno, 133\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX III, PERSONS, PLACES, AND SUBJECTS.\n\n\n_General Index of_ Persons, Places, _and_ Subjects _referred to in this\nVolume. But_ Scriptural References _are to be sought in_ INDEX I.; _and_\nPatristic References, _in_ INDEX II. \u2019New Codices\u2019 _will be found\nenumerated in the_ APPENDIX.\n\n\u201cA,\u201d _see_ \u201cAlexandrinus.\u201d\n\n\u05d0 and B: _see_ \u201cB,\u201d _and_ \u201cAntiquity.\u201d\n\n\u05d0 A B C D, in conflict, 12, 13, 14, 16-7, 30-1, 46-7, 75-8, 94-5, 117,\n            249, 262, 265, 289, 386\n\n\u201cAbutor\u201d, 146\n\nAcacius, Bp. of Melitene, 178\n\nAccident, 50-6\n\n\u00c6thiopic, _see_ \u201cVersion.\u201d\n\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7, 201-2\n\n\u1f00\u0390\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, 207\n\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, 191-3\n\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd, 182, 208\n\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, 207\n\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, 200-1\n\nAlexander (Dr.), Bp. of Derry, 107-8\n\n\u201cAlexandrian\u201d readings, 271-2, 357\n\nAlexandrinus (cod.) (A), 11-17, 345-347, 431-7\n\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, 180\n\nAlford (Dean), 381, 456, 498\n\nAllocution, 413-5\n\nAlterations, yet not improvements, 139-143\n\nAmmonius, 29\n\nAmos (in S. Matt, i.), 186\n\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, 184\n\nAmphilochius, 210\n\n\u1f04\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, 182\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c2, 139\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ce\u03bd, 145\n\nAnastasius (Imp.), 472-3\n\nAncient Authority, _see_ \u201cEllicott.\u201d\n\n\u201cAncoratus\u201d, 427\n\nAndrewes, Bp., 500\n\nAntioch, 385, 391\n\n\u201cAntiochian,\u201d _see_ \u201cSyrian.\u201d\n\n\u201cAntiquity\u201d, 333\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, 129\n\nAnziani (Dr.), 445, 492\n\nAorist, 158-60, 162\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, 146\n\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, 193-5\n\nApolinaris, 456, 458\n\nApollonides, 323-4\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, 195\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, 448\n\n\u201cApostolus\u201d, 446-8, 476-8, 482, 491. _See the_ APPENDIX.\n\nAram (in S. Matt. i.), 186\n\nArgument _e silentio_, 469\n\nArmenian, _see_ Version.\n\nArticle, the, 164-5\n\nArticles (Three) in the \u201cQuarterly Review,\u201d their history _pref._ ix-xiv\n\n\u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, 179\n\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, 180\n\nAsaph (in S. Matt. i.), 186-7\n\nAsclepiades, 323-4\n\n\u201cAsk\u201d (\u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd), 171-3\n\n\u201cAssassins\u201d, 147\n\nAssimilation, 32, 65-69\n  \u2014\u2014, proofs of, 66\n\n\u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, 129\n\n\u201cAttraction\u201d, 351-2\n\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af, 148\n\nAuthority, (ancient) _see_ \u201cEllicott.\u201d\n\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, 165\n\n\u201cB,\u201d _see_ \u201cVaticanus.\u201d\n\nB and \u05d0 (codd.), sinister resemblance, 12\n\nB and \u05d0, 12, 255-7, 315-20, 333, 357, 361, 365, 408, 410\n\nBandinel (Dr.), 445\n\n\u201cBaptist\u201d Revisers, 504-5\n\nBaptismal Renunciation, 215\n\nBasil to Amphilochius, 210\n\nBasilides, 29\n\nBeckett, Sir Edmund, 38, 222\n\nBelsheim, Dr. J., 444, 453, 493\n\nBengel (J. A.), 246, 500\n\nBentley, Dr. R., 432, 467, 499\n\nBerlin (_see_ \u201cDe Boor\u201d), 492, 493\n\nBerriman, Dr. J., 432, 433, 446, 468, 474, 480, 500\n\nBethesda, 5\n\nBeveridge (Bp.), 351, 500\n\nBeyer (Dr.), 477\n\nBez\u00e6, cod. (D), 11-7, 77-9, 117, 264-5\n\nBirch (Andreas), 246, 383, 467\n\nBlunders, 149, 150, 180, 181;\u2014172, 176, 177, &c.\n\nBois (John), 228\n\n\u201cBondmaid\u201d, 196\n\n\u201cBoon\u201d, 217\n\n\u201cBowls\u201d, 200\n\n\u201cBranch\u201d, 184\n\nBroughton (Hugh), 513\n\nBull (Bp.), 212, 500\n\n\u201cC,\u201d _see_ \u201cEphraemi.\u201d\n\nCaius (A.D. 175) on the Text, 323-4\n\nCambridge, Codex (D), _see,_ Bez\u00e6.\n  \u201c\u2014\u2014 Greek Text\u201d, _Pref._ xxviii\n\nCapper (S. Herbert), Esq., 492\n\nCappilli (Sig.), 491-2\n\nCarob tree, 181\n\nCastan (M.), 477\n\nCastiglione, 452\n\nCatalogue of Crypta Ferrata, 447\n\nCedron, 181\n\nCeriani (Dr.), 381, 452, 477, 491-2-3. _See the_ APPENDIX.\n\nChanges (licentious), 127, 403-7\n\n\u201cCharity\u201d, 201-2\n\n\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, 182\n\nChronicle of Convocation, 507\n\n\u201c_Church Quarterly_\u201d (1882), _Pref._ xvi\n\n\u201c_Church Quarterly_,\u201d (1883), _Pref._ xvi-xx., xxiv-vii.\n\nCitations, _see_ \u201cFathers.\u201d\n\nClemens, Alex., 326-7, 327-31\n\nCodd. B\u2014\u05d0\u2014A\u2014C\u2014D, 11-17, 30, 108, 249, 262, 269-71\n  \u2014\u2014 F and G, 438-43\n  \u2014\u2014 Paul 73, 444\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 181, 444-5\n  \u2014\u2014 new, _see the_ APPENDIX.\n\nCollation of MSS., 125, 246-7;\n  with the Received Text, 249-50, 262\n\nComplutensian, 391\n\n\u201cConflate readings\u201d, 258-65\n\n\u201cConflation\u201d examined, 258-65, 285\n\n\u201cCongregationalist\u201d Revisers, 504-5\n\nConjectural emendation, 351-7\n\nConsent of copies (_see_ \u201cFathers\u201d), 454-5\n\n\u201c_Conversantibus_\u201d, 176\n\nCook, (Canon), 204-5, 214, 234, 372, 381, 470, 502\n\nCornelius \u00e0 Lapide, 473\n\nCorruptions in the N. T., 334-5\n\nCotelerius, 473\n\nCoxe (Rev. H. O.), 306, 445, 491\n\nCozza-Luzi (Abbate), 447, 477, 491-2-3, _see the_ APPENDIX.\n\nCranbrook, Viscount, page v-viii\n\nCreyk (John), 433\n\n\u201cCrib\u201d, 238\n\nCross, title on, 85-8\n\n_Crux criticorum_, the, 98\n\nCrypta Ferrata, 447, 473-4, 478, 521\n\n\u201cD,\u201d _see_ \u201cBez\u00e6.\u201d\n\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, 179\n\nDarkness, 62-4\n\nDartige (M.), 493\n\nDated codices, 292\n\n\u03b4\u03ad, 167-8\n\nDeane (Rev. H.), 450, 481, 489\n\nDe Boor (Dr. C.), 492-3\n\nDefinite, _see_ Article.\n\nDelicate distinction, 402\n\nDemoniacal possession, 206\n\nDenis (M.), 493\n\nDerry (Bp. of), _see_ Alexander.\n\nDesign, 56-65\n\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, 73\n\n\u201cDevil\u201d, 214-6\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac, 170, 173-4, _see_ \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\n\nDialogue (supposed), 320-8, 328-42\n\nDiatessaron, _see_ \u201cTatian.\u201d\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, 199\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, 179\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae, 199\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, 407\n\nDionysius Alex., 461-2\n\n\u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, 147\n\nDissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16 _Pref._ xxi-iv, 424-501\n\nDivination. _See_ \u201cVerifying faculty.\u201d\n\n\u201cDoctrine\u201d extirpated, 199\n\n\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, 179\n\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, 204\n\nDublin (Abp. of), _see_ Trench.\n\n\u1f24 interrogative, 168-9\n\nEbionite Gospel, 116\n\nEcclesiastical Tradition, 495\n\nEclipse, 63-5\n\nEditions of Fathers, 121\n\n\u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, 159\n\nEgyptian, _see_ Version.\n\n\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5 for \u03b9\u03b4\u03b5, 140\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6, 359-61\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, 511-2\n\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03c2, 183\n\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, 63-5\n\n\u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd, 139\n\n\u1f11\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af, 149\n\nEllicott (Bp. of Gloucester), on the \u201cold uncials\u201d, 14-5\n  \u2014\u2014 on the A. V., 112, 368\n  \u2014\u2014 on \u201cRevision\u201d xlii, 112, 124, 126, 226-8, 368\n  \u2014\u2014 on \u201cMarginal Readings\u201d, 136-7\n  \u2014\u2014 on \u201cTextus Receptus\u201d, 383-8, 389-91\n  \u2014\u2014 on 1 Tim. iii. 16, 428-31\n  \u2014\u2014 on 2 Tim. iii. 16, 209\n  \u2014\u2014 on Textual Criticism, 234\n  \u2014\u2014 on \u201cinnocent Ignorance\u201d, 349-50\n  \u2014\u2014 on the Greek Text, 369, 509\n  \u2014\u2014 on \u201cEuthalius\u201d, 460-1\n  \u2014\u2014 his jaunty proposal, 216\n  \u2014\u2014 his Pamphlet _Pref._ xx-xxii, 369 _seq._\n\nEllicott, his critical knowledge, 370, 376, 385, 430, 457, 459-61, 471-2,\n            _Dedication_ p. viii\n  \u2014\u2014 his requirement anticipated, 371, 397\n  \u2014\u2014 his method of procedure, 372-4, 419-24, 459-61\n  \u2014\u2014 method of his Reviewer, 375-383, 496-7, 517, _Pref._ xxiv-vii\n  \u2014\u2014 appeals to _Modern Opinion_, instead of to _Ancient Authority_,\n              376-8, 415-6, 438-9, 483-5, 514-5\n  \u2014\u2014 follows Dr. Hort, 391-8, 455, 517-8\n  \u2014\u2014 complains of Injustice, 399, 400-13\n  \u2014\u2014 suggested Allocution, 413-5\n  \u2014\u2014 his defence of the \u201cNew Greek Text,\u201d examined 415-9, 419-24\n\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, 140\n\n\u1f10\u03bd, its different renderings, 171-2\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u1ff3, 151-2\n\nEnglish idiom, 154-5, 158-75\n\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7, 427, 468\n\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, 144\n\nEphraemi cod. (C), 11-17, 325\n\n\u201cEpileptic\u201d, 205-6\n\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ce\u03bd, 145\n\nEpiphanius, 427\n\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1, 144\n\n\u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 [_see_ Scrivener, _ed._ 3, pp. 581-2], 66-9\n\nErrors (plain and clear), 3, 4, 105, 148, 172, 216, 222-3, 228, 348,\n            400-1, 430, 496, 512\n\nEscher (Dr.), 493\n\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, 61\n\n\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, 150\n\n\u201cEternal\u201d, 207\n\nEternity, 208\n\nEthiopic, _see_ \u201cVersion.\u201d\n\nEudocia, 465\n\n\u201cEuraquilo\u201d, 176\n\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, 356\n\nEuripides (papyrus of), 321-2\n\n\u201cEuroclydon\u201d, 176\n\nEuthalius, 429, 460-1\n\nEutherius, 427\n\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, 153-4\n\nEuthymius Zigabenus. _See_ INDEX II.\n\n\u201cEverlasting\u201d, 207\n\n\u201cEvil One\u201d, 214-6\n\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, 402\n\n\u1f14\u03be\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, 184\n\nExodus, 184\n\nExternal evidence, 19-20\n\n\u201cF\u201d and \u201cG\u201d (codd.), 257\n\n\u201cFactor of Genealogy\u201d, 256\n\nFarrar, Canon (now Archd.), _Pref._ xv\n\nFathers, 121, 125-6, _see_ INDEX II.\n\nFell (Bp.), 432\n\nField (Dr.), 146, 148, 163, 177, 180, 382\n\nFlorence, _see_ \u201cAnziani.\u201d\n\nFlute-players, 148\n\nForstemann (Dr.), 441, 493\n\nFuture sense, 163-4\n\nGabelentz and Loebe, 452\n\nGandell (Professor), 184\n\nGardiani (Sig.), 492\n\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, 347\n\nGelasius of Cyzicus, 479, _see_ INDEX II.\n\n\u201cGenealogical Evidence\u201d, 253\n\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 119-22\n\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, 347\n\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, 142\n\nGeographical distribution of Patristic Testimony, 45, 134\n\nGifford (Dr.), 214\n\n\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, 149\n\nGloucester (Bp. of), _see_ \u201cEllicott.\u201d\n\n\u03b3\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, 201\n\n\u201cGOD blessed for ever\u201d!, 211\n\nGorresio (Sig.), 492\n\nGospel incident, 194-5\n  \u2014\u2014 (the Ebionite), 116\n  \u2014\u2014 of the Hebrews, 29\n\nGothic, _see_ Version.\n\n\u201cGr\u00e6co-Syrian,\u201d _see_ \u201cSyrian.\u201d\n\n\u201c_Great_ priest\u201d, 182\n\nGreen, Rev. T. S., 499\n\nGregory (Dr. C. R.), 477\n\nGregory Naz., 73\n\nGriesbach (J. J.), 380, 456, 482, 483\n\nHall, Bp., 500\n\nHammond (Dr.), 432, 500\n\nHeadings of the Chapters, 223, 412\n\nHellenistic Greek, 182-4, _See_ \u201cSeptuagint.\u201d\n\nHenderson (Dr.), 500\n\nHeracleon, 29\n\nHermophilus, 323-4\n\nHerodotus, 65\n\nHesychius, 29, 163\n\nHilary on \u03bc\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, 281\n\nHincmar, Abp. of Rheims, 472\n\nHoerning (Dr.), 453\n\n\u2019HOLY GHOST\u2019, 204\n\nHort, Dr., 37, 135, 182, 211, 248, 394, (_see_ Westcott and Hort).\n  \u2014\u2014 hypothesis and system, _see reverse of Title-page_.\n  \u2014\u2014 his \u201cIntroduction\u201d analyzed, 246-69\n  \u2014\u2014 \u201cstrong preference\u201d for codd. B and \u05d0, 252, 269-271, 298-305, 307-8,\n              312-14\n  \u2014\u2014 mistaken estimate of B and \u05d0, 315-20\n  \u2014\u2014 divining and verifying faculty, 253, 290, 291, 307-8\n  \u2014\u2014 imaginary  history of the Traditional Greek Text, 271-88, 296-8\n  \u2014\u2014 antagonism with Patristic Antiquity, 283-5, 298-300\n  \u2014\u2014 fatal dilemma, 292-3\n  \u2014\u2014 Reiteration, 306\n  \u2014\u2014 ultimate appeal to his own individual mind, 307-8\n  \u2014\u2014 \u201cArt of Conjectural Emendation\u201d, 351-7\n  \u2014\u2014 absurd Textual hypothesis, 293-4\n  \u2014\u2014 intellectual peculiarity, 362\n  \u2014\u2014 method of editing the Greek Text, 363\n  \u2014\u2014 Text of the N. T., 364-5\n  \u2014\u2014 often forsaken by Dr. Westcott, 352\n\nHug (J. L.), 381\n\nHuish (Alex.), 432\n\nIdiom, _see_ \u201cEnglish.\u201d\n\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 (\u1f41 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2), 182\n\nImperfect tense, 161\n\nIncident (unsuspected), 194-5\n\n\u201cIndependent\u201d Reviewers, 504-5\n\n\u201cInnocent ignorance\u201d of the Reviewer, 347-9, 411\n\nInspiration, 208\n\n\u201cInstructions,\u201d _see_ \u201cRevisers.\u201d\n\nInstrumentality (ideas of), 173\n\nInternal Evidence, 253\n\nInterpreters, (modern), 211\n\n\u201cIntrinsic probability\u201d, 251-2\n\nJacobson (Dr. W.) Bp. of Chester, 37\n\nJechonias (in Matt. i.), 186\n\nJerome, 73, 427, 449\n\n\u201cJESUS\u201d, 184\n\n\u201cJoanes\u201d, 181\n\nJohn (S.) and S. Mark, 185\n\nJona (son of), 181-2\n\nJosephus, 52\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03af, 169-70\n  \u2014\u2014 its force,  209\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2, 170\n\nKaye (Bp.) on Clemens Al., 336\n\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, 181\n\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, 356\n\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1, 181\n\nKidron, 181\n\nKippax (Rev. John), 433\n\nKishon, 181\n\n\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd, 181\n\nKnowledge of CHRIST not limited, 210\n\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2, 71-2\n\nLachmann\u2019s Text, 21, 242-3, 246, 270, 380-1\n\nLagarde (P. A. de), 493\n  \u2014\u2014 _Analecta Syr._, 481\n\nLatin Version, 9\n\nLaubmann (Dr.), 493\n\nLawrence (Abp.), 380\n\n\u201cLayers of leaves\u201d, 58-61\n\n\u201cLecythus\u201d, 201\n\nLee (Archd.) _on Inspiration_, 208, 230, 382\n\nLeontius Byzantinus, 480, _see_ INDEX II.\n\nLiberatus of Carthage, 471-3\n\nLicentious, _see_ \u201cChanges.\u201d\n\nLightfoot (Dr.) Bp. of Durham, 145, 498, _Pref._ xxxi.\n\nLimitation of our SAVIOUR\u2019s knowledge, 210\n\nLincoln (Bp. of), _see_ Wordsworth.\n\n\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, 181\n\nLloyd (Bp.) ed. of N. T., _Pref._ xvii-ix, 16\n\nLORD\u2019s Prayer, 34-6, 214-6\n\n\u201cLove\u201d, 201-2\n\nLucian, 29\n\nLuke (Gospel according to S.), 16, 34-5, 75-91, 249, 403-7\n\n\u201cLunaticus\u201d, 205-6\n\nMacedonius, 103, 470-5, 489\n\nMai (Card.), 121\n\nMalan (Dr. S. C.), 67, 120, 123, 124, 348, 356, 382, 451, 453-4\n\nManich\u00e6an depravation, 220\n\n\u201cMaranatha\u201d, 180\n\nMarcion, 29, 34-5, 61\n\nMargin, 3-6, 33, 115, 130, 131, 137, 175, 236-7\n\nMarginal References, 223, 412\n\nMarius Mercator, 468\n\nMark (Gospel according to S.), 30, 262\n  \u2014\u2014 collation of 15 verses, 327-31\n  \u2014\u2014 last Twelve Verses, 36-7, 39-40, 48, 49, 51, _Ded._ vii, _Pref._\n              xxiii\n  \u2014\u2014 and S. John, 185\n\nMartin (Abb\u00e9), 382, 446, 474, 477, 478, 492, 528\n\nMartin I. (Pope), 421, 473\n\nMassmann (H. F.), 453\n\nMatranga (Papas Filippo), 477, 492, _see the_ APPENDIX, p. 522-3\n\nMatth\u00e6i (C. F.), 246\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 Scholia, 348, 380, 427, 434, 465, 468\n\nMatthew (S.) chap. i. (Greek), 119-24, 186\n  \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 (English), 156-7, 186\n\nMedial agency, 173\n\nMelita and Melitene, 177-8\n\nMenander, 361\n\nMerivale (Dean), 230\n\nMessina, _see_ \u201cMatranga\u201d: and p. 523\n\n\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, 183\n\nMiddleton (Bp.), 165, 209\n\nMilan (_see_ \u201cCeriani\u201d), 452, 477, 491-2-3\n\nMill (Dr. John),  245, 383, 432, 437, 472, 500\n  \u2014\u2014  on cod. D, 13\n  \u2014\u2014  (Dr. W. H.), 354\n\nMilligan (Dr.), 39, 48\n\n\u201cMiracle\u201d, 202-4\n\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, 197-9\n\nMoberly (Dr.) Bp. of Salisbury, 106, 228-9\n\nModena, _see_ \u201cCappilli\u201d: and p. 523\n\nModern Interpreters, 411\n  \u2014\u2014  Opinion, _see_ \u201cEllicott.\u201d\n\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, 182\n\nMontfaucon, 121\n\n\u201cMoreh\u201d, 180\n\nMorier (Sir Robert), 492\n\n\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03ad, 180\n\n\u03bc\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, 181\n\nMutilation, 69-93\n\nMystical interpretation, 185\n\n\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2, 184-5\n\nNazareth, 184\n\n\u201cNecessity\u201d of Revision, 127, 150, 223, 228\n\nNeedless changes, 87-8, 224-5; 97, 224-5, 399, 403-7\n\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, 108\n\nNemesis of superstition, 350\n\n\u201cNetser\u201d, 184\n\n\u201cNeutral\u201d readings, 271-2, 357\n\n\u201cNew English Version\u201d, 225-6\n\n\u201cNew Greek Text\u201d, 130, 224-5\n\nNewth (Dr.), 37-9, 109, 126, 369, 502\n\nNewton (Sir Isaac), 426, 480, 500\n\nNilus Rossanensis, 447\n\nNineteen changes in 34 words, 401\n\nNominative repeated, 165\n\n\u201cNon-Alexandrian\u201d readings, 357\n\n\u201cNon-Alexandrian Pre-Syrian\u201d, 357\n\nNonsensical rendering, 218\n\n\u201cNon-Western\u201d, 357-8\n\nNotes in the margin, 175\n\nNumerals in MSS., 52-3\n\n\u201cNumber of the Beast\u201d, 135\n\n\u1f41 \u1f64\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7, 133\n\nOccupation (Right of), 199-206\n\n\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5, 139\n\n\u201cOlivet\u201d, 184\n\nOllivant (Bp.), 146\n\nOmission, intentional, 69-93\n\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, 181\n\n\u201cOr\u201d not meant by \u1f24, 168-9\n\nOpinion, (modern) _see_ \u201cEllicott.\u201d\n\nOrigen, as a textual critic, 292\n\n\u1f45\u03c2, 165\n\n\u1f45\u03c2 and \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, in MSS., 99-105\n\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 for \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5, 140\n\n\u201c_Otium Norvicense_,\u201d _see_ \u201cField.\u201d\n\n\u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, 145\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7, 195-6\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd, 57\n\nPalmer (Archd.), 49, 126\n\nPapyrus, 321-2\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u1ff7, 178\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 190\n\nParalytic borne of four, 30-3\n\nParis cod., _see_ \u201cEphraemi.\u201d\n  \u2014\u2014, _see_ \u201cWescher,\u201d \u201cMartin.\u201d\n\nParquoi (M.), 437\n\nParticles (Greek), 166\n\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae, 208-9\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, 152\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f78, 353\n\nPaul \u201c17,\u201d \u201c73,\u201d \u201c181\u201d, 443-8\n  \u2014\u2014  (S.), Codd., 493-4\n  \u2014\u2014  New Codd., _see the_ APPENDIX.\n\nPearson (Bp.), 212, 432, 471, 500\n\nPeckover (Alex.), Esq., 493\n\nPenerino (Sig.), 492\n\nPerfect (English), 158-60\n  \u2014\u2014  (Greek), 163\n\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, 184\n\nPerowne, (Dean), _Pref._ xxx\n\nPerverted sense, 218-9\n\n\u201c_Phaseolus vulgaris_\u201d, 181\n\nPhavorinus, 140\n\nPhotius, 467\n\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, 200\n\n\u201cPistic nard\u201d, 184\n\n\u201cPlain and clear,\u201d _see_ \u201cErrors.\u201d\n\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, 145\n\nPluperfect sense of Aorist, 162\n\n_Ponderari debent testes_, 455\n\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, (\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6), 214-6\n\nPossession (Demoniacal), 206\n\nPossession (right of), 199-206\n\nPowles (Rev. R. Cowley), _Pref._ xxviii, 322\n\n\u201cPraxapostolus,\u201d _see_ \u201cApostolus.\u201d\n\n\u201cPre-Syrian\u201d, 357-8\n\n\u201cPre-Syrian Non-Western\u201d, 357\n\nPreface of 1611, 187-91, 198-9\n  \u2014\u2014 1881, 189\n\nPreponderating evidence, 411, 496\n\nPrepositions, 170-5\n\n\u201cPresent\u201d (Greek), sometimes a Future, 163-4\n  \u2014\u2014 sense of \u201cperfect\u201d, 163\n\nPrinciple of translation, mistaken,    187-96\n\n\u201cPrinciples of Textual Criticism\u201d, 125-6, 227, 349-50, 374-5, 411\n\nProbability, 497\n\nProper names in S. Matt. i. 186\n\n\u201cProud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts\u201d, 172\n\nProvision (GOD\u2019s) for the safety of His Word, 8, 9, 338, 494\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, 146\n\nPronouns, 165\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7, 180\n\nPulcheria, 465\n\nPusey (P. E.), 345, 382, 449, 468\n\nPyramus and Thisbe, 171\n\nPyramid poised on its apex, 342-5\n\n\u201c_Quarterly Review_\u201d, _Pref._ ix-xiv\n\n_Quia_, 448, 473\n\n_Quod_ (in 1 Tim. iii. 16), 448\n\nQuotations, _see_ \u201cFathers.\u201d\n\nRandell (Rev. T.), 481, 493\n\n\u201cRavine\u201d, 181\n\n\u201cReadings,\u201d _see_ \u201cVarious.\u201d\n  \u2014\u2014 before \u201cRenderings\u201d, 106, 225\n\nReceived Text, _see_ \u201cTextus.\u201d\n\nRecension (imaginary), 271-88\n\nReiche (J. G.), 380-1\n\nReiteration not Proof, 306-7\n\nRendering of the same word, 138, 152-4, 187-202\n\nResult of acquaintance with documents, 337\n\nRettig (H. C. M.), 442\n\n\u201cRevised Version,\u201d _see_ \u201cRevision.\u201d\n\nRevisers exceeded their Instructions:\u2014\n  (1) In respect of the English, 112, 127-30, 155-7, 225-6, 368, 400-3\n  (2) In respect of the Greek, 57-8, 97, 118-26, 224, 399, 403-6\n\nRevising body (composition of), 504-5\n\nRevision, original Resolution and Rules concerning, 3, 97, 114, 127, 130\n  \u2014\u2014 of 1611, 167, 508-14\n  \u2014\u2014 of 1881, how it was conducted, 37, 117-8, 369\n  \u2014\u2014 unfair in its method, 116, 131-8\n  \u2014\u2014 essentially different from that of 1611, 508-14\n  \u2014\u2014 rests on a foundation of sand, 110, 516\n  \u2014\u2014 incapable of being further revised, 107\n  \u2014\u2014 its case hopeless, 226-7\n  \u2014\u2014 characterized, 238\n  \u2014\u2014 its probable fate, 508-14\n  \u2014\u2014 unfavourable to Orthodoxy, 513\n  \u2014\u2014 interesting specimens, 171, 401\n\nRhythm in translation, 188\n\nRieu (Dr.), 453\n\nRight of possession, 199\n\n\u201cRing of genuineness\u201d, 307, 309-12\n\nRoberts (Dr.), 36, 39-40, 48, 98, 230\n\nRocchi (Hieromonachus), 447-8, 474, 492, _see the_ APPENDIX.\n\nRogers, the poet, 162\n\nRomans ix. 5, 210-4\n\nRome, (_See_ \u201cCozza Luzi,\u201d \u201cEscher\u201d), 521\n\nRose, (Rev. W. F.), of Worle, Somersetshire, _Pref._ xxviii\n\nRouser (Professor), 306\n\nRouth (President), 152, 211, 444, 452, 501\n\nSachau, 481\n\nS. Andrews (Bp. of), _see_ \u201cWordsworth.\u201d\n\nSalisbury (Bp. of), _see_ \u201cMoberly.\u201d\n\nSamaria, (woman of), 407-8\n\nSanday, (Dr.), _Pref._ xvi\n\nSaville (Prof.), 306\n\nScholium misunderstood, 467, 468\n\nScholz (Dr.), 246, 380, 445, 456\n\nScott (Sir Gilbert), 306\n\nScripture, God\u2019s provision for its safety 8, 9, 338, 494\n  \u2014\u2014 depraved by heretics, 336\n\nScrivener (Prebendary), 13, 30, 37, 49, 106, 108, 126, 231, 237-8, 243,\n            246, 317, 381, 405, 431, 474, 477, 493, 502-3, _see back of\n            Title._\n\nSeptuagint, 182, 183, 184, 228\n\n\u201cSepulchre,\u201d the Holy, 198\n\n\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, 203-4\n\n\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, 147\n\nSieber (M.), 493\n\n\u03c3\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1, 180\n\nSinaiticus, cod. (\u05d0), 11-17, 265, 286,,289, 291, 314-5, 325-6, 343-5\n\nSixteen places, 415-9\n\nSmith (Dr. Vance), 174, 204-5, 503-8, 513, 515\n\nSocinian gloss,  210-4\n\n\u201c_Solvere ambulando_\u201d, 126, 228, xxxi\n\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, 147\n\nSpelling of proper names, 186-7\n\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1, 153\n\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c2, 171, 180\n\nStanley (Dean), 135, 507\n\nStillingfleet (Bp.), 500\n\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, 58-60\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1, 185\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, 176-7\n\nSyndics of Cambridge Press, xxx-i\n\nSyracuse, 494\n\nSyriac Version, 9\n\n\u201cSyrian,\u201d \u201cAntiochian,\u201d \u201cGr\u00e6co-Syrian,\u201d\u2014Dr. Hort\u2019s designations of the\n            Traditional Greek Text 257-65, 269\n  \u2014\u2014 its assumed origin, 272-88\n  \u2014\u2014 and history, 290-1\n  \u2014\u2014 characterized, 87, 288-290\n\n\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, 298\n\nTatian (_see_ INDEX II.) 29, 336, 350\n\n\u201cTeaching\u201d, 199\n\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, 153, 179\n\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, 51\n\nTenses, 157-64, _see_ \u201cAorist,\u201d \u201cImperfect,\u201d \u201cPerfect,\u201d \u201cPluperfect,\u201d\n            \u201cPresent.\u201d\n  \u2014\u2014 unidiomatically rendered, 402\n\nTest-places (three), 47, 519\n\nText to be determined by external evidence, 19-20, 45\n  \u2014\u2014 provision for its security, 10\n  \u2014\u2014 (Received), _see_ \u201cTextus Receptus\u201d and \u201cSyrian.\u201d\n\nTexts, _see_ INDEX I.\n\n\u2019Textus Receptus\u2019, 12-3, 17-8, 107, 118\n  \u2014\u2014 (Bp. Ellicott on), 388\n  \u2014\u2014 needs correction 21, 107\n  \u2014\u2014 _see_ \u201cSyrian,\u201d \u201cTraditional.\u201d\n\nTheodore of Mopsuestia, 480, _see_ INDEX II.\n\nTheodotus, the Gnostic, 323-4\n\nTheophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 29\n\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, 208-9\n\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and \u1f45\u03c2 in MSS., 99-105, 425-6\n  \u2014\u2014 , not \u1f45\u03c2, to be read in 1 Tim. iii. 16, _Pref._ xxi-iv, 424-501\n\nThierry (M.), 493\n\nThirty changes in 38 words, 171\n\n1 Timothy iii. 16. _See_ \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\n\nTischendorf (Dr.) 22-4, 45, 243-4, 246, 270-1, 370, 383, 437-8, 451, 467\n\nTitle on the Cross, 85-8\n\n\u201cTitus Justus\u201d, 53-4\n\n\u201cTomb\u201d, 198\n\nTradition (Ecclesiastical), 495\n\nTraditional Text departed from 6000 times, 107\n  \u2014\u2014 _see_ \u201cSyrian.\u201d\n  \u2014\u2014 meaning of S. Mark xiii. 32, 209-10\n\n\u201cTranscriptional probability\u201d, 251-2\n\nTranslators of 1611, 187-91, 207\n  \u2014\u2014 of 1881, mistaken principle of 138, 187-96\n\nTransposition, 93-7\n\nTregelles (Dr.), 22, 45, 243, 246, 270, 370, 380, 383, 431, 451, 467, 498\n\nTrench (Abp.), xlii, 106, 229\n\nTrinitarian doctrine, 174-5\n\nTrue Text, (only safe way of ascertaining), 339-42\n\nTusculum, 446\n\nTyndale (William), 167, 191, 192\n\nUncials (depravity of the old), 12-17, 30-5, 46-7, 75-6, 94-5\n\nUniformity of rendering, 166, 187\n\n\u201cUnitarian\u201d Reviser, intolerable, 503-8\n\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc and \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac, 156\n\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 351\n\nUppstr\u00f6m (Andr.), 452\n\nUpsala, 444, _see_ \u201cBelsheim.\u201d\n\nUssher (Abp.), 432, 469, 500\n\nValckenaer, 228\n\nValentinus, 29\n\nVarious Readings, 49-50, 56, 65, 130-1\n\nVaticanus, codex (B), 11-17, 265, 273, 286, 289, 291, 314-5, 325, 342-5,\n            _see_ \u201cB and \u05d0.\u201d\n\nVeludo (Sig.), 492\n\nVercellone (C.), 381\n\nVerifying faculty, 95-6, 109, 253, 290-1, 307-8\n\nVersion (Authorized), 112-4\n  \u2014\u2014 (old Latin), 9, 448\n  \u2014\u2014 (Vulgate), 9, 419\n  \u2014\u2014 (Peschito), 9, 449-50\n  \u2014\u2014 (Harkleian), 450\n  \u2014\u2014 (Coptic), 9, 451-2\n  \u2014\u2014 (Sahidic), 9, 451-2\n  \u2014\u2014 (Gothic), 9, 452-3\n  \u2014\u2014 (Armenian), 9, 453\n  \u2014\u2014 (\u00c6thiopic), 9, 453\n  \u2014\u2014 (Georgian), 454\n  \u2014\u2014 (Arabic), 453-4\n  \u2014\u2014 (Slavonian), 454\n\n\u201cVials\u201d, 200\n\nVon Heinemann (Dr.), 493\n\nVulgate, _see_ \u201cVersion.\u201d\n\nW. (M.), _Pref._ xxviii\n\nWalton (Bp. Brian), 432\n\nWaterland (Dr.), 500\n\nWay (only safe) of ascertaining the True Test, 339-42\n\nWeber (M.), 437\n\nWescher (M.), 492\n\n\u201cWesleyan Methodist\u201d Revisers, 504-5\n\nWest the painter, 162\n\nWestcott (Dr.), xlii, 124, _see_ \u201cHort.\u201d\n\nWestcott and Hort (Drs.), 24-9, 33, 49, 51, 72, 83, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97,\n            110, 114, 125, 134-5, 177, 239-41, 245, 247, 370, 380, 382,\n            499, 502, 518-9, _See reverse of Title-page, and Pref._ xi-iv,\n            xxvi-viii, xxxi\n\n\u201cWestern,\u201d, 357\n  \u2014\u2014 readings, 271-2\n  \u2014\u2014 and \u201cSyrian\u201d, 361\n\n\u201cWestminster Abbey scandal\u201d, 507\n\nWetstein (J. J.), 246, 383, 426, 456, 467, 469, 480, 497\n\nWilberforce (Bp.), 229, 415, 505, 507\n\nWoide (C. G.), 434-7\n\nWolfii _Anecd. Gr\u00e6ca_, 458\n\nWood (C. F. B.), 183\n\nWord, incarnate and written, 334-5, 390-1\n\nWordsworth (Dr. Charles), Bp. of S. Andrews, 106, 165, 229-30, 382\n  \u2014\u2014 (Dr. Christopher), Bp. of Lincoln, 37, 112, 147, 184, 226, 368, 382,\n              400, 502, 505, 513, _Ded._ vi\n\nWotton (Henry), 433\n\nXenophon, 149\n\nYoung (Patrick), 432\n  \u2014\u2014 (Dr.), of Glasgow, 477\n\n\u03b6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7, 201\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to\n      read from page 399 to page 413 of what follows.\n\n    2 Dr. Newth. See pp. 37-9.\n\n    3 See pp. 24-9: 97, &c.\n\n    4 See below, pp. 1 to 110.\n\n    5 This will be found more fully explained from pp. 127 to 130: pp. 154\n      to 164: also pp. 400 to 403. See also the quotations on pp. 112 and\n      368.\n\n    6 See below, pp. 113 to 232.\n\n    7 See below, pp. 235 to 366.\n\n_    8 Gospel of the Resurrection_, p. viii.\n\n    9 Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the \u201c_Contemporary\n      Review_\u201d for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon\n      (now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist\n      for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The\n      Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those \u201c_last\n      Twelve Verses_.\u201d In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in\n      the \u201cQuarterly,\u201d) he says:\u2014\u201cIn spite of Dean Burgon\u2019s Essay on the\n      subject, the minds of most scholars are _quite unalterably made up_\n      on such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of\n      S. Mark.\u201d [_Contemporary Review_, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the\n      ensuing October,\u2014\u201cIf, among _positive results_, any one should set\n      down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ... _formed no part of\n      the original apostolic autograph_ ... He, I say, who should\n      enumerate these points as being _beyond the reach of serious\n      dispute_ ... would be expressing the views which are _regarded as\n      indisputable_ by the vast majority of such recent critics as have\n      established any claim to serious attention.\u201d [_Expositor_, p. 173.]\n\n      It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be\n      reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by\n      such language as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is\n      surprised to have to tell a \u201cfellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,\u201d\n      so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually\n      put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is \u201c_quite\n      unalterably made up_\u201d that the end of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel is not\n      authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore\n      incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to\n      reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach\n      of conviction.\n\n   10 No. xxviii., page 436. If any one cares to know what the teaching\n      was which the writer in the \u201cChurch Quarterly\u201d was intending to\n      reproduce, he is invited to read from p. 296 to p. 300 of the\n      present volume.\n\n_   11 Contemporary Review_, (Dec. 1881),\u2014p. 985 seq.\n\n   12 Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.\u2014The passage referred to will be found below\n      (at p. 14),\u2014slightly modified, in order to protect myself against\n      the risk of _future_ misconception. My Reviewer refers to four other\n      places. He will find that my only object in them all was to prove\n      that codices A B \u05d0 C D _yield divergent testimony_; and therefore,\n      so habitually _contradict_ one another, as effectually to invalidate\n      their own evidence throughout. This has never been _proved_ before.\n      It can _only_ be proved, in fact, by one who has laboriously\n      collated the codices in question, and submitted to the drudgery of\n      exactly tabulating the result.\n\n   13 \u201cDamus tibi in manus Novum Testamentum _idem profecto_, quod ad\n      textum attinet, cum ed. Millian\u00e2,\u201d\u2014are the well known opening words\n      of the \u201cMonitum\u201d prefixed to Lloyd\u2019s N. T.\u2014And Mill, according to\n      Scrivener, [_Introduction_, p. 399,] \u201conly aims at reproducing\n      Stephens\u2019 text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it,\n      whether by accident or design.\u201d Such places are found to amount in\n      all to _twenty-nine_.\n\n   14 See below, pp. 257-8: also p. 390.\n\n_   15 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament_,\n      &c.\u2014Macmillan, pp. 79.\n\n   16 See below, pp. 369 to 520.\n\n   17 Pages 371-2.\n\n_   18 Pamphlet_, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41.\n\n   19 See below, p. 425.\n\n   20 Pages 424-501.\n\n   21 From January till June 1883.\n\n_   22 Pamphlet_, p. 76.\n\n_   23 E.g._ pages 252-268: 269-277: 305-308.\n\n_   24 E.g._ pages 302-306.\n\n   25 Page 354.\n\n   26 On that day appeared Dr. Hort\u2019s \u201c_Introduction and Appendix_\u201d to the\n      N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. Westcott.\n\n   27 \u201c_Charge_,\u201d published in the _Guardian_, Dec. 20, 1882, p. 1813.\n\n   28 Preface to _History of the English Bible_ (p. ix.),\u20141868.\n\n   29 Preface to _Pastoral Epistles_ (p. xiv.),\u20141861.\n\n_   30 The Authorized Version of the N. T._ (p. 3),\u20141858.\n\n_   31 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour __JESUS CHRIST__\n      translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth __A.D.__\n      1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised\n      __A.D.__ 1881._ Printed for the Universities of Oxford and\n      Cambridge, 1881.\n\n_   32 The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text\n      followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations\n      adopted in the Revised Version._ Edited for the Syndics of the\n      Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L.,\n      LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.\n\n      \u1f29 \u039a\u0391\u0399\u039d\u0397 \u0394\u0399\u0391\u0398\u0397\u039a\u0397. _The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by\n      the Revisers of the Authorized Version._ [Edited by the Ven.\n      Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.\n\n_   33 On Revision_,\u2014pp. 215-6.\n\n   34 Tertullian, _bis._\n\n   35 Hieron. _Opp._ ii. 177 c (see the note).\n\n   36 Apud Hieron. iii. 121.\n\n   37 iv. 617 c (ed. Pusey).\n\n   38 P. 272.\n\n   39 i. 548 c; viii. 207 a.\n\n   40 iv. 205.\n\n   41 A reference to the _Journal of Convocation_, for a twelvemonth after\n      the proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously\n      entertained, will reveal more than it would be convenient in this\n      place even to allude to.\n\n   42 We derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr.\n      Newth,\u2014_Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881), p. 116.\n\n_   43 On Revision_, pp. 26-7.\n\n   44 Dr. Scrivener\u2019s _Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New\n      Testament_, 2nd edition, 1874 (pp. 607), may be confidently\n      recommended to any one who desires to master the outlines of Textual\n      Criticism under the guidance of a judicious, impartial, and\n      thoroughly competent guide. A new and revised edition of this\n      excellent treatise will appear shortly.\n\n   45 Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener\u2019s _Full\n      and exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy\n      Gospels (hitherto unexamined), deposited in the British Museum, the\n      Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, &c., with a Critical\n      Introduction_. (Pp. lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter\n      deserves very attentive perusal.\u2014With equal confidence we beg to\n      recommend his _Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a\n      Gr\u00e6co-Latin Manuscript of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles, deposited in the\n      Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; to which is added a full\n      Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, containing various portions of the\n      Greek New Testament, in the Libraries of Cambridge, Parham,\n      Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum, &c. With a Critical\n      Introduction_ (which must also be carefully studied). (Pp. lxxx. and\n      563.) 1859.\u2014Learned readers can scarcely require to be told of the\n      same learned scholar\u2019s _Novum Testamentum Text\u00fbs Stephanici,\n      __A.D.__ 1550. Accedunt vari\u00e6 Lectiones Editionum Bez\u00e6, Elzeviri,\n      Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii._ Curante F. H. A. Scrivener,\n      A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior.\n      1877.\u2014Those who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the\n      subject may be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener\u2019s Six _Lectures\n      on the Text of the N. T. and the Ancient MSS. which contain it,\n      chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek_. 1875.\n\n   46 Scrivener\u2019s _Plain Introduction_,\u2014p. 118.\n\n_   47 Bez\u00e6 Codex Cantabrigiensis: being an exact Copy, in ordinary Type,\n      of the celebrated Uncial Gr\u00e6co-Latin Manuscript of the Four Gospels\n      and Acts of the Apostles, written early in the Sixth Century, and\n      presented to the University of Cambridge by Theodore Beza_, A.D.\n      1581. Edited, with a Critical Introduction, Annotations, and\n      Facsimiles, by Frederick H. Scrivener, M.A., Rector of S. Gerrans,\n      Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) Cambridge, 1864. No one who aspires\n      to a competent acquaintance with Textual Criticism can afford to be\n      without this book.\n\n   48 On the subject of codex \u05d0 we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to\n      Scrivener\u2019s _Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the\n      Received Text of the New Testament. To which is prefixed a Critical\n      Introduction._ [1863.] 2nd Edition, revised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.)\n      1867.\n\n   49 Bishop Ellicott\u2019s _Considerations on Revision_, &c. (1870), p. 40.\n\n   50 The epithet \u201c_cursive_,\u201d is used to denote manuscripts written in\n      \u201crunning-hand,\u201d of which the oldest known specimens belong to the\n      IXth century. \u201c_Uncial_\u201d manuscripts are those which are written in\n      capital letters. A \u201c_codex_\u201d popularly signifies a _manuscript_. A\n      \u201cversion\u201d is _a translation_. A \u201crecension\u201d is _a revision_. (We\n      have been requested to explain these terms.)\n\n_   51 Considerations on Revision_, p. 30.\n\n   52 Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do\n      not, by any means, claim _perfection_ for the Received Text. We\n      entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we\n      shall have occasion to point out (_e.g._ at page 107) that the\n      _Textus Receptus_ needs correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is\n      an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or\n      Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the\n      \u201cNew Greek Text\u201d of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved,\n      the _Textus Receptus_ will have to be revised on entirely different\n      \u201cprinciples\u201d from those which are just now in fashion. Men must\n      begin by unlearning the _German prejudices_ of the last fifty years;\n      and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of _facts_.\n\n   53 Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, pp. 342-4.\n\n_   54 Ut supr\u00e0_, p. 46. We prefer to quote the indictment against\n      Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, from the pages of Revisionists.\n\n   55 \u201cEx scriptoribus Gr\u00e6cis _tantisper Origene solo_ usi\n      sumus.\u201d\u2014_Pr\u00e6fatio_, p. xxi.\n\n   56 Scrivener\u2019s _Plain Introd._ p. 397.\n\n_   57 Ut supr\u00e0_, p. 48.\n\n_   58 Ut supr\u00e0_, p. 47.\n\n   59 Prebendary Scrivener, _ibid._ (ed. 1874), p. 429.\n\n_   60 Ibid._ p. 470.\n\n_   61 Ibid._\n\n_   62 Concilia_, i. 852.\n\n_   63 Ut supr\u00e0_, p. 47.\n\n_   64 The New Testament in the Original Greek._ The Text revised by\n      Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D.\n      Cambridge and London, 1881.\n\n   65 From the Preface prefixed to the \u201climited and private issue\u201d of\n      1870, p. vi.\n\n_   66 Ut supr\u00e0_, p. xv.\n\n_   67 Ibid._ p. xviii.\n\n_   68 Ibid._ p. xvi.\n\n_   69 Ibid._ pp. xviii., xix.\n\n   70 [_Note,\u2014that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the\n      ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within\n      brackets] those printed portions of it for which there really was no\n      room. The third Article in the present volume will be found to\n      supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and\n      Hort\u2019s Textual Theory._]\n\n      While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the\n      long-expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors\n      proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is briefly\n      _this_:\u2014Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (B and \u05d0, both of\n      the IVth century), they invent the following hypothesis:\u2014\u201cThat the\n      ancestries of those two manuscripts _diverged from a point near the\n      autographs, and never came into contact subsequently_.\u201d [No reason\n      is produced for this opinion.]\n\n      Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the\n      sacred autographs, the Editors claim that the _coincidence_ of \u05d0 and\n      B must \u201cmark those portions of text in which two primitive and\n      entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from\n      each other through independent corruption:\u201d and therefore that, \u201cin\n      the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,\u201d\n      \u201cthe readings of \u05d0 and B combined _may safely be accepted as\n      genuine_.\u201d\n\n      But what is to be done when the same two codices diverge _one from\n      the other_?\u2014In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any\n      \u201cbinary combination\u201d of B are to be preferred; because \u201con the\n      closest scrutiny,\u201d they generally \u201chave the _ring of genuineness_;\u201d\n      hardly ever \u201c_look suspicious_ after full consideration.\u201d \u201cEven when\n      B stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.\u201d\n      [We are not told why.]\n\n      But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codex B,\n      has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)\u2014What\n      is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a\n      reading of B? How is \u201c_mumpsimus_\u201d for example to be\n      treated?\u2014\u201c_Mumpsimus_\u201d (the Editors solemnly reply) as \u201cthe better\n      attested reading\u201d\u2014(by which they mean the reading attested by B,)\u2014we\n      place in our margin. \u201c_Sumpsimus_,\u201d apparently the _right_ reading,\n      we place in the text within \u2020\u2020; in token that it is probably \u201c_a\n      successful ancient conjecture_.\u201d\n\n      We smile, and resume:\u2014But how is the fact to be accounted for that\n      the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the\n      IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our\n      critical materials, and who must have employed codices fully as old\n      as B and \u05d0: how is it, we ask, that the text of all these, including\n      codex A, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codices B\n      and \u05d0?\u2014The editors reply,\u2014The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we\n      designate \u201cSyrian,\u201d and assume to have been the result of an\n      \u201ceditorial Revision,\u201d which we conjecturally assign to the second\n      half of the IIIrd century. It is the \u201c_Pre-Syrian_\u201d text that we are\n      in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codex B.\n\n      We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we\n      rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitive _Syriac_, which is older by\n      full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically\n      still the same text?\u2014This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the\n      learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumption.\n      \u201c_A Revision_\u201d (say they) \u201cof the Old Syriac version appears to have\n      taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in\n      some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the\n      readings being to a very great extent coincident.\u201d\n\n      And pray, where _is_ \u201cthe _Old Syriac_ version\u201d of which you\n      speak?\u2014It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the\n      fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as \u201cCureton\u2019s.\u201d\u2014Your way (we\n      rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is\n      certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary,\n      imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry\n      like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion\n      from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing upon\n      your imagination for every one of your facts?\n\n      We decline in short on the mere conjectural _ipse dixit_ of these\n      two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a\n      Revision of Cureton\u2019s Syriac Version;\u2014or that it was executed about\n      A.D. 325;\u2014or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal\n      IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded \u201cAntiochian\n      Revision\u201d which took place about the year A.D. 275.\n\n      [But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of\n      the visionary structure before us,\u2014which reminds us painfully of a\n      house which we once remember building with playing-cards,\u2014we begin\n      by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire\n      superstructure in an instant to the ground.]\n\n      For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited by B \u05d0 can have\n      \u201cdiverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come\n      into contact subsequently.\u201d We are able to show, on the contrary,\n      that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest\n      presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but\n      specimens of those \u201ccorrected,\u201d _i.e._ _corrupted_ copies, which are\n      known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the Church. From the\n      prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they\n      are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote depraved\n      original: and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ\n      from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking \u201ctwo\n      primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission\u201d of the\n      inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same\n      corrupt common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent\n      witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved into _a single\n      witness to a fabricated text of the IIIrd century_.\n\n      It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and\n      excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the\n      tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and\n      constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced\n      them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same.\n      Doubt,\u2014unbelief,\u2014credulity,\u2014general mistrust of _all_ evidence, is\n      the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort\n      solemnly assured their brother Revisionists that \u201cthe prevalent\n      assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be found\n      _somewhere_ among recorded readings, _does not stand the test of\n      experience_;\u201d[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the\n      same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every\n      dark corner. \u201cThe Art of _Conjectural Emendation_\u201d (says Dr. Hort)\n      \u201cdepends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility\n      of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of\n      language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections,\n      that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation\n      founded on knowledge and method.\u201d[_Introd._ p. 71.] Specimens of the\n      writer\u2019s skill in this department abound. _One_ occurs at p. 135\n      (_App._) where, _in defiance of every known document_, he seeks to\n      evacuate S. Paul\u2019s memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of\n      all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort\u2019s handling of\n      this important text will be found later in the present volume.] May\n      we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer that IN BIBLICAL\n      TEXTUAL CRITICISM, \u201cCONJECTURAL EMENDATION\u201d HAS NO PLACE?\n\n   71 Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 453.\u2014Stunica, it will be remembered,\n      was the chief editor of the Complutensian, or _first printed_\n      edition of the New Testament, (1514).\n\n   72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7,\u2014S. Matt. ix. 2.\n\n   73 Scrivener, _Plain Introd_. p. 472.\n\n   74 The words omitted are therefore the following 22:\u2014\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 ... \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2\n      ... \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1fe5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n_   75 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 61.\n\n_   76 The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark,\n      vindicated against recent critical Objectors and established_, by\n      the Rev. J. W. Burgon,\u2014pp. 334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871.\n\n   77 As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth,\u2014the learned Bishops of\n      Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. Ellicott\n      \u201c_considers the passage doubtful_.\u201d (_On Revision_, p. 36.) Dr.\n      Scrivener (it is well known) differs entirely from Bp. Ellicott on\n      this important point.\n\n_   78 Lectures on Bible Revision_, pp. 119-20.\n\n   79 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f09\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\u2014Clemens Rom., c. 45.\n\n_   80 Should the Revised New Testament be authorized?_\u2014p. 42.\n\n_   81 Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered,_\u2014by Canon\n      Cook,\u2014pp. 221-2.\n\n   82 At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present\n      Articles.\n\n_   83 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.\n\n_   84 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.\n\n_   85 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 63.\n\n_   86 Ibid._ p. 62.\n\n   87 Viz. Eusebius,\u2014Macarius Magnes,\u2014Aphraates,\u2014Didymus,\u2014the Syriac _Acts\n      of the App._,\u2014Epiphanius,\u2014Ambrose,\u2014Chrysostom,\u2014Jerome,\u2014Augustine. It\n      happens that the disputation of Macarius Magnes (A.D. 300-350) with\n      a heathen philosopher, which has recently come to light, contains an\n      elaborate discussion of S. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Add the curious story\n      related by the author of the _Paschal Chronicle_ (A.D. 628)\n      concerning Leontius, Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 348),\u2014p. 289. This has\n      been hitherto overlooked.\n\n   88 Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 515.\n\n   89 Tisch. specifies 7 Latin copies. Origen (iii. 946 _f._), Jerome\n      (vii. 282), and Leo (ap. Sabatier) are the only patristic quotations\n      discoverable.\n\n   90 i. 459\n\n   91 i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15.\n\n   92 vii. 47; viii. 13.\n\n_   93 Dem. Ev._ pp. 163, 342.\n\n   94 i. 180, 385.\n\n   95 In loc. Also _in Luc._ xix. 29 (_Cat. Ox._ 141).\n\n_   96 De Trin._ p. 84; Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 450, 745.\n\n   97 i. 845,\u2014which is reproduced in the _Paschal Chronicle_, p. 374.\n\n   98 P. 180; cf. p. 162.\n\n   99 i. 154, 1047.\n\n  100 i. 355, 696, 6; 97 iii. 346.\n\n  101 Gr. iii. 434.\n\n  102 Ap. Galland. ix. 754.\n\n  103 i. 587; ii. 453, 454; vi. 393; vii. 311, 674; viii. 85; xi. 347.\n      Also _Cat. in Ps._ iii. 139.\n\n  104 Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417.\n\n_  105 In Luc._ pp. 12, 16, 502 ( = Mai, ii. 128). Also Mai, ii. 343,\n      _Hom. de Incarn._ p. 109. _Opp._ ii. 593; v.1 681, 30, 128, 380,\n      402, 154; vi. 398. Maii, iii.2 286.\n\n  106 i. 290, 1298; ii. 18; iii. 480.\n\n  107 Ap. Galland. ix. 446, 476. _Concil._ iii. 1001, 1023.\n\n_  108 Concil._ iii. 1002.\n\n  109 Ap. Galland. ix. 629.\n\n_  110 Concil._ iii. 1095.\n\n_  111 Concil._ iii. 829 = Cyr. _Opp._ vi. 159.\n\n_  112 Nov. Auctar._ i. 596.\n\n  113 Montf. ii. 152, 160, 247, 269.\n\n_  114 Hexaem._ ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 899.\n\n  115 Ap. Galland. xii. 308.\n\n  116 Ed. Combefis, 14, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 123.\n\n  117 Ap. Galland. xiii. 235.\n\n  118 ii. 836.\n\n  119 Ap. Galland. xiii. 212.\n\n_  120 E.g._ Chrys. _Opp._ viii.; _Append._ 214.\n\n  121 P. 6 D.\n\n  122 Ap. Galland. iii. 809.\n\n  123 ii. 602.\n\n  124 ii. 101, 122, 407.\n\n  125 iii. 447.\n\n  126 ii. 298.\n\n  127 ii. 804; iii. 783; v. 638, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821.\n\n  128 Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 960.\n\n  129 Of the ninety-two places above quoted, Tischendorf knew of only\n      _eleven_, Tregelles adduces only _six_.\u2014Neither critic seems to have\n      been aware that \u201cGregory Thaum.\u201d is not the author of the citation\n      they ascribe to him. And why does Tischendorf quote as Basil\u2019s what\n      _is known_ not to have been his?\n\n  130 But then, note that C is only available for comparison down to the\n      end of ver. 5. In the 9 verses which have been lost, who shall say\n      how many more eccentricities would have been discoverable?\n\n_  131 Companion to the Revised Version_, pp. 62, 63. _Words of the N. T._\n      p. 193.\n\n_  132 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.\n\n  133 Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) put them _on the\n      self-same footing_ with the evidently spurious ending found in L.\n\n  134 True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth,\n      showing every change which has been either actually accepted, or\n      else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of\n      the accomplished editor), \u201cthe _Revisers are not responsible for its\n      publication_.\u201d Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a\n      sealed book to all but Scholars.\n\n      It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of\n      Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of\n      sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning\n      of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from\n      the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be\n      of abiding interest and value. _Both_ volumes should be in the hands\n      of every scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr.\n      Scrivener has (with rare ability and immense labour) set before the\n      Church, _for the first time, the Greek Text which was followed by\n      the Revisers of 1611_, viz. Beza\u2019s N. T. of 1598, supplemented in\n      above 190 places from other sources; every one of which the editor\n      traces out in his _Appendix_, pp. 648-56. At the foot of each page,\n      he shows what changes have been introduced into the Text by the\n      Revisers of 1881.\u2014Dr. Palmer, taking the _Text of Stephens_ (1550)\n      as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers\n      of the \u201cAuthorized Version,\u201d and relegates the displaced Readings\n      (of 1611) to the foot of each page.\u2014We cordially congratulate them\n      both, and thank them for the good service they have rendered.\n\n  135 The number is not excessive. There were about 600 persons aboard the\n      ship in which Josephus traversed the same waters. (_Life_, c. III.)\n\n  136 ii. 61 and 83.\n\n  137 Isaiah xiv. 15.\n\n  138 S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34.\n\n  139 \u05d0 D L read\u2014\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03a0\u0391\u039b\u0399\u039d \u1f61\u03b4\u03b5: C*,\u2014\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u0391\u039b\u0399\u039d \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\n      \u1f61\u03b4\u03b5: B,\u2014\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03a0\u0391\u039b\u0399\u039d \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f61\u03b4\u03b5: \u0394,\u2014\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03a0\u0391\u039b\u0399\u039d \u1f61\u03b4\u03b5:\n      yscr\u2014\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03a0\u0391\u039b\u0399\u039d.\n\n  140 iii. 722, 740.\n\n  141 iii. 737, iv. 181.\n\n  142 S. Matt. xxi. 8.\n\n  143 Exod. x. 21-23.\n\n  144 S. Matth. xxvii. 45; S. Mark xv. 33; S. Lu. xxiii. 44.\n\n  145 Ap. Epiphan. i. 317 and 347.\n\n_  146 Intenebricatus est sol_\u2014a: _obscuratus est sol_\u2014b: _tenebricavit\n      sol_\u2014c.\n\n  147 Ap. Routh, _Opusc._ i. 79.\n\n  148 i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 1006.\n\n_  149 Syr._ ii. 48. So also _Evan. Conc._ pp. 245, 256, 257.\n\n  150 Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi. 64.\n\n  151 i. 305.\n\n  152 Ap. Mai, ii. 436; iii. 395. Also _Luc._ 722.\n\n  153 i. 288, 417.\n\n  154 P. 233.\n\n  155 Ed. by Wright, p. 16.\n\n  156 \u201cSol medi\u00e2 die _tenebricavit_.\u201d _Adv. Jud._ c. xiii.\n\n  157 iii. 922-4. Read the whole of cap. 134. See also ap. Galland. xiv.\n      82, append., which by the way deserves to be compared with Chrys.\n      vii. 825 a.\n\n  158 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f26\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\u2014Routh,\n      ii. 298.\n\n  159 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03af\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, p. 29.\n\n  160 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 [sc. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf] \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6. \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03bd; \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72\n      \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1fe5\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc7.\u2014vii. 825 a.\n\n  161 i. 414, 415; iii. 56.\n\n  162 Ap. Mai, iv. 206. But further on he says: \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\n      \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\u2014Cyril of Jerusalem (pp. 57, 146,\n      199, 201, 202) and Cosmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177 _bis_) were apparently\n      acquainted with the same reading, but neither of them actually\n      quotes Luke xxiii. 45.\n\n  163 \u201cIn quibusdam exemplaribus non habetur _tenebr\u00e6 fact\u00e6 sunt, et\n      obscuratus est sol_: sed ita, _tenebr\u00e6 fact\u00e6 sunt super omnem\n      terram, sole deficiente_. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi\n      manifestius aliquid dicere volens, pro, _et obscuratus est sol_,\n      ponere _deficiente sole_, existimans quod non aliter potuissent\n      fieri tenebr\u00e6, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod\n      insidiatores ecclesi\u00e6 Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniam\n      _tenebr\u00e6 fact\u00e6 sunt sole deficiente_, ut verisimiliter evangelia\n      argui possint secundum adinventiones volentium arguere illa.\u201d (iii.\n      923 f. a.)\n\n  164 vii. 235. \u201c_Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia_, suspicantur deliquium\n      solis,\u201d &c.\n\n  165 This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch. _Cod. Ephr. Syr._\n      p. 327.\n\n  166 \u1f18\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is only found besides in eleven lectionaries.\n\n  167 The Thebaic represents \u201cthe sun _setting_;\u201d which, (like the mention\n      of \u201c_eclipse_,\u201d) is only another _interpretation_ of the\n      darkness,\u2014derived from Jer. xv. 9 or Amos viii. 9 (\u201c_occidit_ sol\n      meridie\u201d). Compare Iren\u00e6us iv. 33. 12, (p. 273,) who says that these\n      two prophecies found fulfilment in \u201ceum _occasum_ solis qui,\n      crucifixo eo, fuit ab hor\u00e2 sext\u00e2.\u201d He alludes to the same places in\n      iv. 34. 3 (p. 275). So does Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 45),\u2014\u201cEt hoc\n      factum reor, ut compleatur prophetia,\u201d and then he quotes Amos and\n      Jeremiah; finely adding (from some ancient source),\u2014\u201cVideturque mihi\n      clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, retraxisse radios\n      suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum; aut impii blasphemantes su\u00e2\n      luce fruerentur.\u201d\n\n  168 Our old friend of Halicarnassus (vii. 37), speaking of an eclipse\n      which happened B.C. 481, remarks: \u1f41 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u1f15\u03b4\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n  169 For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the\n      reading vouched for _only by codex_ B. What c* once read is as\n      uncertain as it is unimportant.\n\n  170 Bp. Ellicott\u2019s pamphlet, p. 60.\n\n_  171 On the Revised Version_, p. 14.\n\n  172 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, as (probably) Victor of Antioch\n      (_Cat._ p. 128), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 129)\n      who exhibits \u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9; and who explains it of Herod\u2019s difficulty\n      _about getting rid of Herodias_.\n\n  173 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f02 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd, will have\n      been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which\n      is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,\u2014as\n      explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar\u2019s\n      _Collation of four important MSS._, etc. (Dublin 1877). The same\n      reading is also found in Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196.\n\n      Different must have been the reading of that other venerable\n      exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But\n      of this let the reader judge:\u2014\u201c_Et cum audisset illum multa facere,\n      libenter_,\u201d &c. (c: also \u201cCodex Aureus\u201d and \u03b3, both at Stockholm):\n      \u201c_et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter_,\u201d &c. (g2 q): \u201c_et\n      audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et libenter_,\u201d &c. (b). The\n      Anglo-Saxon, (\u201c_and he heard that he many wonders wrought, and he\n      gladly heard him_\u201d) approaches nearest to the last two.\n\n      The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in\n      strictness exhibits:\u2014\u201c_And many things he was hearing [from] him and\n      doing; and gladly he was hearing him._\u201d But this, by competent\n      Syriac scholars, is considered to represent,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2014Cod. \u0394 is peculiar in exhibiting \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac, \u1f21\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd,\u2014omitting \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af.\u2014The\n      Coptic also renders, \u201c_et audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat\n      corde_.\u201d From all this, it becomes clear that the actual _intention_\n      of the blundering author of the text exhibited by \u05d0 B L was, to\n      connect \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac, _not_ with \u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, but with \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. So the Arabian\n      version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,\u2014as\n      Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.\n\n  174 Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate\n      the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10\n      (\u03df\u03b1 / \u03b7) and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 (\u03be\u03b1 / \u03b7) are bracketed together\n      by Eusebius, the former place in codex A is found brought into\n      conformity with the latter by the unauthorized insertion of the\n      clause \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd.\u2014The parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix.\n      10 is the reason why D exhibits in the latter place \u1f00\u03bd- (instead of\n      \u1f51\u03c0)\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5.\u2014In like manner, in Lu. ix. 10, codex A exhibits \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n      \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, instead of \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd; only because \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n      is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32.\u2014So again, codex \u05d0, in\n      the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03ac, only in order to assimilate its text to that of\n      the two earlier Gospels.\u2014But there is no need to look beyond the\n      limits of S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of\n      \u1f10\u03ba \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 (in ver. 14), B and \u05d0 exhibit \u1f10\u03b3\u03ae\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba\n      \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u2014only because those words are found in Lu. ix. 7. A\n      substitutes \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 (for \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7)\u2014only because that word is found in\n      Lu. ix. 8. For \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, C substitutes \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u2014only because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2. D inserts \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd into ver. 17\u2014only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu.\n      iii. 20. In \u05d0 B L \u0394, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (for \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) stands in ver.\n      24\u2014only by Assimilation with ver. 14. (L is for assimilating ver. 25\n      likewise), \u039a \u0394 \u03a0, the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose\n      \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 (in ver. 14)\u2014only because those words are\n      transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2.... If facts like these do not open men\u2019s\n      eyes to the danger of following the fashionable guides, it is to be\n      feared that nothing ever will. The foulest blot of all remains to be\n      noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, codices \u05d0 B D L \u0394\n      conspire in representing the dancer (whose name is _known_ to have\n      been \u201cSalome\u201d) as _another _\u201cHerodias\u201d\u2014_Herod\u2019s own daughter_? This\n      gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history\u2014a\n      reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected\n      hitherto by _all_ the editors and _all_ the critics\u2014finds undoubting\n      favour with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calamitous to relate, _it also\n      disfigures the margin of our Revised Version of S. Mark_ vi. 22, _in\n      consequence_.\n\n_  175 i.e._ \u201c_And_\u201d is omitted by B L \u0394: \u201c_immediately_\u201d by \u05d0 C: \u201c_with\n      tears_\u201d by \u05d0 A B C L \u0394: \u201c_Lord_\u201d by \u05d0 A B C D L.\u2014In S. Mark vi.\n      16\u2014(viz. \u201cBut when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom\n      I beheaded. He is risen [from the dead],\u201d)\u2014the five words in\n      brackets are omitted by our Revisers on the authority of \u05d0 B (D) L\n      \u0394. But \u05d0 D further omit \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd: C D omit \u1f41: \u05d0 B D L omit \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9. To\n      enumerate and explain the effects of all the barbarous Mutilations\n      which the Gospels alone have sustained at the hands of \u05d0, of B, and\n      of D\u2014_would fill many volumes like the present_.\n\n  176 Chrysostom, vii. 825.\n\n_  177 On the Creed_, Art. iv. \u201cDead:\u201d about half-way through.\n\n  178 The Coptic represents \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5.\n\n  179 Namely, of \u1f18\u039d \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0392\u03b1\u03c2. \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, which is the reading of _every known copy\n      but two_; besides Origen, Eusebius, Cyril Jer., Chrysostom, &c. Only\n      B L read \u0395\u1f38\u03a3,\u2014which Westcott and Hort adopt.\n\n  180 i. 261.\n\n  181 i. 936, 1363.\n\n  182 i. 158.\n\n  183 P. 301.\n\n  184 Ap. Galland. vi. 53.\n\n  185 P. 396.\n\n  186 vii. 431.\n\n  187 \u201cUt ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu\n      est.\u201d\n\n  188 But then, 25 (out of 320) pages of D are lost: D\u2019s omissions in the\n      Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codex A does not admit\n      of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished;\n      but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it\n      is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted\n      from its text.\u2014The discrepancy between the texts of B \u05d0 D, thus _for\n      the first time brought distinctly into notice_, let it be distinctly\n      borne in mind, is a matter wholly irrespective of the merits or\n      demerits of the Textus Receptus,\u2014which, for convenience only, is\n      adopted as a standard: not, of course, of _Excellence_ but only of\n      _Comparison_.\n\n  189 Viz. the 1st, the 7th to 12th inclusive, and the 15th.\n\n  190 Concerning \u201cthe _singular codex_ D,\u201d\u2014as Bp. Ellicott phrases it,\u2014see\n      back, pages 14 and 15.\n\n  191 Bp. Ellicott _On Revision_,\u2014p. 42. Concerning the value of the\n      last-named authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the deliberate\n      testimony of the Chairman of the Revisionist body. See below, p. 85.\n\n  192 i. 156.\n\n  193 ii. 254.\n\n  194 i. 344\n\n  195 iv. 220, 1218.\n\n_  196 In Luc._ 664 (Mai, iv. 1105).\n\n  197 ii. 653.\n\n  198 \u201cIn Luc\u00e2 legimus _duos calices_, quibus discipulis propinavit,\u201d vii.\n      216.\n\n  199 \u03a4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n      \u1f61\u03c3\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n      \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  200 P. 1062.\n\n  201 ii. 747.\n\n  202 i. 1516. See below, p. 82.\n\n  203 Abbott\u2019s _Collation of four important Manuscripts_, &c., 1877.\n\n  204 ii. 354.\n\n  205 Pp. 543 and 681 ( = ed. Mass. 219 and 277).\n\n_  206 Contra Noet._ c. 18; also ap. Theodoret iv. 132-3.\n\n  207 Ap. Galland. xix.; _Append._ 116, 117.\n\n_  208 Evan. Conc._ pp. 55, 235.\n\n  209 Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785.\n\n  210 It is \u00a7 283 in his sectional system.\n\n  211 P. 1121.\n\n  212 ii. 43; v. 392; vi. 604. Also _Evan. Conc._ 235. And see below, p.\n      82.\n\n  213 Pp. 394, 402.\n\n  214 i. 551.\n\n  215 [i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42.\n\n  216 v. 263; vii. 791; viii. 377.\n\n  217 ii. 39.\n\n  218 Ap. Theod. Mops.\n\n  219 In loc. bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi.\n      306.\n\n_  220 Concilia_, iii. 327 a.\n\n  221 Ap. Mai, iii. 389.\n\n_  222 Concilia_, iii. 1101 d.\n\n  223 Schol. 34.\n\n  224 i. 692; iv. 271, 429; v. 23. _Conc._ iii. 907 e.\n\n_  225 Concilia_, iii. 740 d.\n\n  226 Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19.\n\n  227 Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331.\n\n  228 i. 544.\n\n  229 In Dionys. ii. 18, 30.\n\n  230 Ap. Galland. xii. 693.\n\n_  231 Ibid._ 688.\n\n  232 Pp. 108, 1028, 1048.\n\n_  233 Epist._ 138\n\n  234 P. 1061.\n\n  235 ii. 747.\n\n  236 iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564.\n\n  237 P. 373.\n\n  238 Ap. Galland. ix. 40.\n\n_  239 Ibid._ xi. 693.\n\n  240 Let their own account of the matter be heard:\u2014\u201cThe documentary\n      evidence clearly designates [these verses] as _an early Western\n      interpolation_, adopted in eclectic texts.\u201d\u2014\u201cThey can only be _a\n      fragment from the Traditions_, written or oral, which were for a\n      while at least _locally current_:\u201d\u2014an \u201cevangelic Tradition,\u201d\n      therefore, \u201c_rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second\n      century_.\u201d\n\n  241 Consider the places referred to in Epiphanius.\n\n  242 The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of\n      the \u201cSeven last Words:\u201d\u2014\u201cWe cannot doubt that _it comes from an\n      extraneous source_:\u201d\u2014\u201cneed not have belonged originally _to the book\n      in which it is now included_:\u201d\u2014is \u201c_a Western interpolation_.\u201d\n\n      Dr. Hort,\u2014unconscious apparently that he is _at the bar_, not _on\n      the bench_,\u2014passes sentence (in his usual imperial style)\u2014\u201cText,\n      Western and Syrian\u201d (p. 67).\u2014But then, (1st) It happens that our\n      LORD\u2019S intercession on behalf of His murderers is attested by\n      upwards of forty Patristic witnesses _from every part of ancient\n      Christendom_: while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it\n      is _not found_ are certain copies of the old Latin, and codex D,\n      which is supposed to be our great \u201cWestern\u201d witness.\n\n  243 Dr. Hort\u2019s _N. T._ vol. ii. _Note_, p. 68.\n\n  244 Ap. Eus. _Hist. Eccl._ ii. 23.\n\n  245 P. 521 and ... [Mass. 210 and 277.]\n\n  246 Ed. Lagarde, p. 65 _line_ 3.\n\n  247 ii. 188. _H\u00e6r._ iii. 18 p. 5.\n\n  248 Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127.\n\n_  249 Ibid._ ii. 714. (_Hom._ xi. 20.)\n\n_  250 Evan. Conc._ 275.\n\n  251 Ap. Routh, v. 161.\n\n  252 He places the verses in _Can._ x.\n\n  253 i. 1120.\n\n  254 iii. 289.\n\n_  255 Cat. in Ps._ iii. 219.\n\n  256 i. 290.\n\n  257 15 times.\n\n  258 ii. 48, 321, 428; ii. (_syr._) 233.\n\n_  259 Evan. Conc._ 117, 256.\n\n  260 i. 607.\n\n  261 Pp. 232, 286.\n\n  262 P. 85.\n\n  263 Pp. 11, 16. Dr. Wright assigns them to the IVth century.\n\n_  264 Eph._ c. x.\n\n  265 ii. 166, 168, 226.\n\n  266 6 times.\n\n  267 Ap. Mai, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392.\u2014Dr. Hort\u2019s strenuous\n      pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is\n      plainly against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive\n      \u201c82\u201d on his side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits\n      throughout his ingenious volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to\n      find an upright and honourable man contending so hotly, and almost\n      on any pretext, for the support of those very Fathers which, when\n      they are against him, (as, 99 times out of 100, they are,) he treats\n      with utter contumely. He is observed to put up with any ally,\n      however insignificant, who even _seems_ to be on his side.\n\n  268 Ap. Theod. v. 1152.\n\n  269 Pp. 423, 457.\n\n_  270 Cat. in Ps._ i. 768; ii. 663.\n\n  271 Pp. 1109, 1134.\n\n  272 i. 374.\n\n  273 P. 93.\n\n  274 ii. 67, 747.\n\n  275 i. 814; ii. 819; v. 735.\n\n  276 P. 88.\n\n  277 Ap. Chrys. vi. 191.\n\n  278 11 times.\n\n  279 P. 782 f.\n\n  280 12 times.\n\n  281 More than 60 times.\n\n  282 Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c.\n\n_  283 On Revision_,\u2014p. 42 _note_. See above, p. 78 _note_.\n\n_  284 Eclog. Proph._ p. 89.\n\n_  285 In Luc._ 435 and 718.\n\n  286 See pages 93 to 97.\n\n  287 i. 1528.\n\n  288 So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595.\n\n  289 iii. 2.\n\n  290 Euseb. _Ecl. Proph._ p. 89: Greg. Nyss. i. 570.\u2014These last two\n      places have hitherto escaped observation.\n\n  291 See above, pp. 49-50, note 2.\n\n  292 Viz., thus:\u2014\u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, \u1f49 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  293 Dean Alford, _in loc._\n\n  294 \u1f41 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n      \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u0394\u038e\u039f \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7, \u03b1\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1; \u03b1\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n      \u0394\u038e\u039f, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.,\u2014_ad Marinum_, ap. Mai, iv. 266.\n\n  295 Ps. i. 79.\n\n_  296 Dem._ 492.\n\n  297 Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293.\n\n  298 i. 364.\n\n  299 Ap. Mai, ii. 439.\n\n  300 Ap. Galland. xi. 224.\n\n_  301 Cat. in Joann._ p. 453.\n\n  302 Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thessal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189.\n\n  303 Ap. Mai, iv. 293 _bis_; 294 _diserte_.\n\n  304 i. 506, 1541.\n\n  305 iii. 91.\n\n  306 iv. 1108, and _Luc._ 728 ( = Mai, ii. 441).\n\n  307 iii.2 142; viii. 472.\n\n  308 So Tertullian:\u2014\u201c_Manus et pedes suos inspiciendos offert_\u201d (_Carn._\n      c. 5). \u201c_Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert_\u201d (_Marc._ iv.\n      c. 43). Also Jerome i. 712.\n\n_  309 De Resur._ 240 (quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762).\n\n  310 Ap. Mai, iv. 294.\n\n  311 i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003.\n\n  312 Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141.\n\n  313 i. 49.\n\n  314 i. 510; ii. 408, 418; iii. 91.\n\n  315 iv. 1108; vi. 23 (_Trin._). Ap. Mai, ii. 442 _ter._\n\n  316 iv. 272.\n\n_  317 Cat. in Joan._ 462, 3.\n\n  318 i. 303.\n\n  319 See above, pp. 78 and 85.\n\n  320 iii. 579.\n\n  321 ii. 114 (ed. 1698).\n\n  322 ii. 9, 362, 622.\n\n  323 ii. 309; iv. 30; v. 531; vii. 581.\n\n  324 vi. 79.\n\n_  325 Ep._ i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.)\n\n  326 ii. 464.\n\n_  327 Text_, pp. 565 and 571.\n\n_  328 Append._ p. 14.\n\n  329 We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan: pp. 31, 44.\n\n  330 ii. 147. _Conc._ v. 675.\n\n  331 Cord. _Cat._ i. 376.\n\n  332 vii. 599, 600 _diserte_.\n\n  333 Ap. Photium, p. 644.\n\n  334 Three times.\n\n  335 i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137.\n\n  336 Pp. 367, 699.\n\n  337 vii. 139.\n\n  338 Ap. Galland. vi. 324.\n\n  339 iii. P. i. 760.\n\n_  340 Text_, p. 572.\n\n_  341 Append._ p. 14.\n\n  342 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2.\n\n  343 Viz. from ch. xix. 7 to xx. 46.\n\n  344 We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate\n      Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and\n      importance of the Vatican Codex (B), nothing can excuse their\n      summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all\n      evidence adverse to that of their own favourite guide. They _pass\n      by_ whatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular\n      announcement that the rival reading is \u201c_Syrian_,\u201d \u201c_Western_,\u201d\n      \u201c_Western and Syrian_,\u201d as the case may be.\n\n      But we respectfully submit that \u201c_Syrian_,\u201d \u201c_Western_,\u201d \u201c_Western\n      and Syrian_,\u201d as Critical expressions, are absolutely without\n      meaning, as well as without use to a student in this difficult\n      department of sacred Science. They supply no information. They are\n      never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are\n      often demonstrably wrong, and _always_ unreasonable. They are\n      _Dictation_, not _Criticism_. When at last it is discovered that\n      they do but signify that certain words _are not found in codex_\n      B,\u2014they are perceived to be the veriest _foolishness_ also.\n\n      Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If\n      these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what\n      the Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the\n      world with the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the\n      contrary, they are merely relying on their own inner consciousness\n      for the power of divining the truth of Scripture at a glance,\u2014they\n      must be prepared to find their decrees treated with the contumely\n      which is due to imposture, of whatever kind.\n\n  345 Marcion (Epiph. i. 317);\u2014Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266);\u2014Epiphanius (i.\n      348);\u2014Cyril (Mai, ii. 438);\u2014John Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188).\n\n  346 [The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it\n      originally stood,\u2014the rather, because the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16\n      will be found fully discussed at the end of the present volume. See\n      _Index of Texts_.]\n\n_  347 Companion to the Revised Version_, &c., by Alex. Roberts, D.D. (2nd\n      edit.), pp. 66-8.\n\n  348 Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the 2\n      pages of codex A which are exposed to view at the British Museum.\n\n  349 For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73,\n      181), the second proves (on enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an\n      abridgment of \u0152cumenius, who certainly read \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2; and the last is\n      non-existent.\n\n_  350 Concilia_, ii. 217 c.\n\n  351 viii. 214 b.\n\n  352 A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude\n      of proofs that CHRIST is GOD, Gregory says:\u2014\u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03ae\u03b4\u1fc3\u03bd\n      \u03b2\u03bf\u1fb7; \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9. ii. 693.\n\n  353 \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1. (i. 215 a.)\u2014\u03a4\u03af \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\n      \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd?... \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. (i. 685 b.)\n\n_  354 De Trin._ p. 83\u2014where the testimony is express.\n\n  355 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af.\u2014_Concilia_, i. 853 d.\n\n  356 Cramer\u2019s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.\n\n  357 One quotation may suffice:\u2014\u03a4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n      \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f42 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2\n      \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1; \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6; \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2,\n      \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. i. 497. = Galland. xiv. 141.\n\n  358 The following may suffice:\u2014\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd;\n      \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2; \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9. v. p. ii.; p. 154 c d.\u2014In a newly-recovered treatise of\n      Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is quoted at length with \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, followed by a\n      remark on the \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. This at least is decisive.\n      The place has been hitherto overlooked.\n\n  359 i. 92; iii. 657; iv. 19, 23.\n\n  360 Apud Athanasium, _Opp._ ii. 33, where see Garnier\u2019s prefatory note.\n\n  361 \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f42 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 [sc. \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2] \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f94\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n      \u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 ... \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. Cramer\u2019s _Cat._ iii. 69.\n      The quotation is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of\n      Halicarnassus.\n\n  362 Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and\n      Gallandius.\n\n  363 i. 313; ii. 263.\n\n  364 Ap. Athanas. i. 706.\n\n  365 iii. 401-2.\n\n  366 Ap. Phot. 230.\n\n_  367 Contra H\u00e6r. Noet._ c. 17.\n\n  368 Ap. Clem. Al. 973.\n\n  369 Cap. xii.\n\n_  370 Ad Eph._ c. 19, 7; _ad Magn._ c. 8.\n\n  371 See Scrivener\u2019s _Plain Introd._ pp. 555-6, and Berriman\u2019s\n      _Dissertation_, pp. 229-263. Also the end of this volume.\n\n  372 i. 887 c.\n\n  373 ii. 74 b.\n\n  374 See above, p. 98.\n\n  375 As, that stupid fabrication, \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6; (in S.\n      Matth. xix. 17):\u2014the new incidents and sayings proposed for\n      adoption, as in S. Mark i. 27 (in the Synagogue of Capernaum): in S.\n      John xiii. 21-6 (at the last supper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the\n      way to Emmaus):\u2014the many proposed omissions, as in S. Matth. vi. 13\n      (the Doxology): in xvi. 2, 3 (the signs of the weather): in S. Mark\n      ix. 44 & 46 (the words of woe): in S. John v. 3, 4 (the Angel\n      troubling the pool), &c. &c. &c.\n\n  376 It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary\n      Scrivener is _wholly guiltless_ of the many spurious \u201cReadings\u201d with\n      which a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word of\n      GOD. He pleaded faithfully,\u2014but he pleaded in vain.\u2014It is right also\n      to state that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles\n      Wordsworth) has fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity,\n      by his printed (not published) remonstrances with his\n      colleagues.\u2014The excellent Bp. of Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended\n      only 121 of their 407 meetings; and that judicious scholar, the Abp.\n      of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. The reader will find more on this\n      subject at the close of Art. II.,\u2014pp. 228-30.\n\n  377 Eusebius,\u2014Basil,\u2014Chrysostom (_in loc._),\u2014Jerome,\u2014Juvencus,\u2014omit the\n      words. P. E. Pusey found them in _no_ Syriac copy. But the\n      conclusive evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1\n      out of 20 of which contain this clause.\n\n  378 \u201cRevised Text\u201d of S. Luke vi. 48.\n\n  379 \u201cAuthorized Version,\u201d supported by A C D and 12 other uncials, the\n      whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gothic versions.\n\n  380 \u201cRevised Text\u201d of S. Luke v. 39.\n\n  381 \u201cAuthorized Version,\u201d supported by A C and 14 other uncials, the\n      whole body of the cursives, and _all_ the versions except the\n      Peschito and the Coptic.\n\n_  382 Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,\u2014p. 16.\n\n_  383 On Revision_,\u2014p. 99.\n\n_  384 Dial._ capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352).\n\n  385 P. 113.\n\n  386 Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d.\n\n  387 iv. 15 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b).\n\n  388 42 b, 961 e, 1094 a.\n\n  389 Ap. Galland. iv. 605 (ver. 365-6).\n\n  390 Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e.\n\n  391 \u201cVox illa Patris, qu\u00e6 super baptizatum facta est _Ego hodie genui\n      te_,\u201d (_Enchirid._ c. 49 [_Opp._ vi. 215 a]):\u2014\n\n      \u201cIllud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa\n      voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est, _Filius meus es tu: ego\n      hodie genui te_, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Gr\u00e6cis non\n      inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus\n      confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est\n      quolibet verborum ordine de c\u00e6lo sonuisse?\u201d (_De Cons. Ev._ ii. c.\n      14 [_Opp._ iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine seems to allude to what\n      is found to have existed in the _Ebionite Gospel_.\n\n  392 Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the\n      statement.\n\n  393 \u0391\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\u2014\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2: also\u2014\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n  394 For my information on this subject, I am entirely indebted to one\n      who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is\n      perhaps the sole living depositary in England,\u2014the Rev. Dr. S. C.\n      Malan. See his _Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised_,\u2014p.\n      3. But especially should the reader be referred to Dr. Malan\u2019s\n      learned dissertation on this very subject in his _Select Readings in\n      Westcott and Hort\u2019s Gr. Text of S. Matth._,\u2014pp. 1 to 22.\n\n  395 So Dr. Malan in his _Select Readings_ (see above note 1),\u2014pp. 15,\n      17, 19.\n\n  396 \u201cLiber _genitur\u00e6_ Jesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham\u201d ...\n      \u201cGradatim ordo deducitur ad Christi _nativitatem_.\u201d\u2014_De Carne\n      Christi_, c. 22.\n\n  397 A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of\n      the Fathers we quote. Our reply is\u2014This [was] a Review, not a\n      Treatise. We are _constrained_ to omit such details. Briefly, we\n      always quote _the best Edition_. Critical readers can experience\n      _no_ difficulty in verifying our references. A few details shall\n      however be added: Justin (_Otto_): Iren\u00e6us (_Stieren_): Clemens Al.\n      (_Potter_): Tertullian (_Oehler_): Cyprian (_Baluze_): Eusebius\n      (_Gaisford_): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. (1622):\n      Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732): Jerome (_Vallarsi_): Nilus\n      (1668-73): Chrysostom (_Montfaucon_): Cyril (_Aubert_): Isidorus\n      (1638): Theodoret (_Schulze_): Maximus (1675): John Damascene\n      (_Lequien_): Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg.\n      Nazianz., Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are\n      quoted from the Benedictine editions. When we say \u201cMai,\u201d we always\n      mean his _Nova Biblioth. PP._ 1852-71. By \u201cMontfaucon,\u201d we mean the\n      _Nov. Coll. PP._ 1707. It is necessity that makes us so brief.\n\n_  398 Concilia_, iii. 521 a to d.\n\n  399 i.2 340.\n\n  400 P. 889 line 37 (\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd).\n\n  401 i. 943 c.\n\n  402 i. 735.\n\n  403 v.1 363, 676.\n\n_  404 Concil._ iii. 325 ( = Cyril v.2 28 a).\n\n  405 vii. 48; viii. 314.\n\n  406 In Matth. ii. 16.\n\n  407 Ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694.\n\n  408 P. 470.\n\n  409 Gall. ix. 215.\n\n_  410 Trin._ 188.\n\n  411 i. 250 b.\n\n  412 i. 426 a (\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2).\n\n  413 \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2; \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\n      \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\n      \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae.\u2014Galland. xiv. _Append._ pp. 73, 74.\n\n  414 [dated 22 May A.D. 359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d.\n\n  415 i. 722 c.\n\n  416 P. 20 of the newly-recovered _Diatessaron_, translated from the\n      Armenian. The Exposition is claimed for Ephraem Syrus.\n\n  417 Dr. Malan, _Seven Chapters of the Revision, revised_, p. 7.\n\n  418 See below, note 13.\n\n  419 See p. 122, note 11.\n\n  420 i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently.\n\n_  421 Trin._ 349.\n\n  422 P. 116.\n\n  423 i. 392; ii. 599, 600.\n\n  424 ii. 229.\n\n  425 See p. 122, note 11.\n\n  426 i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3.\n\n  427 vii. 76.\n\n  428 Galland. ix. 636.\n\n  429 P. 6 (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2: which is also the reading of Syrev and of the\n      Sahidic. The Memphitic version represents \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03bd.)\n\n  430 i. 276.\n\n  431 Gal. xiii. 662.\n\n_  432 In Cat._\n\n  433 ii. 462.\n\n  434 \u201c_Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios\n      habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et\n      fratres_\u201d (vii. 14). He refers to his treatise against Helvidius,\n      ii. 210.\n\n_  435 Preface to Pastoral Epistles_,\u2014more fully quoted facing p. 1.\n\n  436 The Preface (quoted above facing p. 1,) is dated 3rd Nov. 1868.\n\n_  437 Lectures on Biblical Revision_, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp.\n      37-9.\n\n_  438 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.\n\n_  439 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, translated\n      out of the Greek: being the Version set forth_ A.D. _1611, compared\n      with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised_ A.D. _1881_. Printed\n      for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.\n\n      _The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text\n      followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations\n      adopted in the Revised Version._ Edited for the Syndics of the\n      Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L.,\n      LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.\n\n      \u1f29 \u039a\u0391\u0399\u039d\u0397 \u0394\u0399\u0391\u0398\u0397\u039a\u0397. _The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by\n      the Revisers of the Authorized Version._ [Edited by the Ven.\n      Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.\n\n      _The New Testament in the Original Greek._ The Text revised by\n      Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D.\n      Cambridge and London, 1881.\n\n  440 Malan\u2019s _Gospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest\n      Versions_.\n\n  441 Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis.\n\n_  442 C. Noet._ \u00a7 4.\n\n  443 i. 1275.\n\n_  444 Trin._ 363.\n\n  445 Ap. Gall. v. 67.\n\n  446 i. 282.\n\n  447 i. 486.\n\n_  448 Ep. ad Paul. Sam. Concil._ i. 872 e; 889 e.\n\n  449 Ap. Galland. iv. 563.\n\n  450 vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277.\n\n  451 iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153.\n\n  452 iv. 150 (text); vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69.\n\n_  453 Concilia_, iii. 1102 d.\n\n  454 Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693).\n\n_  455 In Cat._ Cord. 96.\n\n_  456 Ibid._ p. 94.\n\n_  457 Cat. in Ps._ ii. 323 and 343.\n\n  458 Ap. Photium, p. 281.\n\n  459 Montf. ii. 286.\n\n  460 i. 288, 559, 567.\n\n  461 Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii.\n      287.\n\n  462 i. 863, 903, 1428.\n\n  463 Gall. iii. 296.\n\n  464 32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis.\n\n  465 Gall. vi. 192.\n\n  466 iv. 679.\n\n  467 Ap. Athan. ii. 646.\n\n  468 Gall. v. 124.\n\n_  469 Ibid._ iii. 628, 675.\n\n_  470 Ibid._ ix. 367.\n\n_  471 Ibid._ ix. 493.\n\n  472 Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts\n      of the several VERSIONS above enumerated, and mentally assign each\n      FATHER to his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind\n      that 995 out of 1000 of the extant MANUSCRIPTS agree with those\n      Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS.\n      (executed at different dates in different countries) must severally\n      represent independent remote originals, inasmuch as _no two of them\n      are found to be quite alike_.\u2014Next, let him consider that, _in all\n      the Churches of the East_, these words from the earliest period were\n      read as _part of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week_.\u2014This\n      done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers\n      of codex B\u2014A.D. 1881\u2014should attempt to thrust all this mass of\n      ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of\n      exclusion,\u2014\u201cWESTERN AND SYRIAN.\u201d\n\n      Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that \u201c_the character of the\n      attestation_ marks\u201d the clause (\u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7), \u201cas a WESTERN\n      GLOSS.\u201d But the \u201cattestation\u201d for retaining that clause\u2014(_a_) Comes\n      demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom:\u2014(_b_) Is\n      more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it:\u2014(_c_)\n      Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1:\u2014(_d_) In point of\n      respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we have _proved_\n      that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome,\n      _recognize_ the words in dispute, of what possible Textual\n      significancy can it be if presently (_because it is sufficient for\n      their purpose_) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii.\n      13 _no further than down to the words _\u201cSon of Man\u201d? No person,\n      (least of all a professed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few\n      grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a\n      circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome,\n      Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy\n      of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place.\n      The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]),\n      writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse\n      no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy)\n      to adduce it.... About the _internal_ evidence for the clause,\n      nothing has been said; but _this_ is simply overwhelming. We make\n      our appeal to _Catholic Antiquity_; and are content to rest our\n      cause on _External Evidence_;\u2014on COPIES, on VERSIONS, on FATHERS.\n\n  473 Pp. 798, 799.\n\n  474 iii. 414.\n\n_  475 Ant._ c. 50; _Consum._ c. 28.\n\n_  476 Hist. Eccl._ v. 8.\n\n  477 \u1f18\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9;\u2014\u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f23 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. Phavorinus,\n      quoted by Br\u00fcder.\n\n  478 Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20.\n\n  479 S. Luke ii. 9 (where \u201c_came upon_\u201d is better than \u201c_stood by_ them,\u201d\n      and should have been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. 13: xxiii.\n      11.\n\n  480 S. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5\n      (\u201cassault\u201d): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm,\u2014which, by the way,\n      suggests for \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 a different rendering from \u201c_the\n      present_\u201d).\n\n  481 S. Luke ii. 38.\n\n  482 S. Luke x. 40.\n\n  483 Cf. ch. xi. 20. So in Latin, _Illa plurima sacrificia_. (Cic. _De\n      Fin._ 2. 20. 63.)\n\n  484 \u201cThe context\u201d (says learned Dr. Field) \u201cis too strong for\n      philological quibbles.\u201d The words \u201c_can by no possibility bear any\n      other meaning_.\u201d\u2014_Otium Norvicense_, p. 40.\n\n  485 \u03a3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f42\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\u2014Theophylact, i. 201 e. Boys\n      quotes Seneca _De Ir\u00e1_:\u2014_Tunc centurio supplicio pr\u00e6positus condere\n      gladium_ speculatorem _jussit_.\n\n  486 Trench, _Study of Words_, p. 106.\n\n_  487 Otium Norvicense_, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155.\n\n  488 Compare Xenophon (_Cyrop._ vii. 6. 8), \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n      The _plena locutio_ is found in Nehem. xiii. 24,\u2014\u03bf\u1f31 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f25\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\n      \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f09\u03b6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\n      (quoted by Wetstein).\n\n  489 Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin is \u201c_statuerunt_\u201d or\n      \u201c_constituerunt_.\u201d The Revisionists give \u201cappointed\u201d in the second\n      of these places, and \u201cput forward\u201d in the first. In both,\u2014What\n      becomes of their uniformity?\n\n  490 P. 279.\n\n  491 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f37\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. x. 307 b. (= xii. 433 a).\n\n  492 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u1ff3; \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd. ix. 391 a.\n\n  493 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. ii. 516 d.\n\n  494 iii. 399 d.\n\n  495 v. 930 (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd).\n\n  496 MS. Note in his copy of the N. T.\n\n  497 And the Revisionists: for see Rom. xi. 4.\n\n  498 Yet even here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the\n      peculiarly infelicitous alternative,\u2014\u201c_Why didst thou forsake Me?_\u201d\n\n  499 As in Rom. vi. 2: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 27: vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv.\n      20, &c. &c.\n\n  500 Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.\n\n  501 \u1f18\u1f70\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c2.\n\n  502 ii. 155.\n\n  503 Routh, _Rell_. iii. 226 _ad calc._\n\n  504 Ap. Mai, iv. 266.\n\n  505 ii. 1324.\n\n  506 ii. 380.\n\n  507 Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403.\n\n  508 So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11.\n\n  509 Comp. \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certain Greek verbs,\n      the _preterite_ in form is invariably _present_ in signification.\n      See Dr. Field\u2019s delightful _Otium Norvicense_, p. 65.\n\n  510 See above, pp. 98-106. Also _infra_, towards the end.\n\n  511 As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where \u03b4\u03ad is rendered\n      \u201cnotwithstanding:\u201d\u2014Phil. i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is\n      \u201cnevertheless.\u201d\n\n_  512 Eight_ times in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, \u03b4\u03ad is not\n      represented in the A. V. The ancients _felt_ so keenly what Tyndale,\n      Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit,\n      that as often as not they leave out the \u03b4\u03ad,\u2014in which our\n      Revisionists twice follow them. The reader of taste is invited to\n      note the precious result of inserting \u201cand,\u201d as the Revisionists\n      have done six times, where according to the genius of the English\n      language it is not wanted at all.\n\n  513 38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.\n\n  514 Rom. xiv. 4: xv. 20.\n\n  515 Rom. ix. 22.\n\n  516 1 Cor. xii. 27.\n\n  517 Gal. ii. 4.\n\n  518 Act xxvii. 26.\n\n  519 Rom. iii. 22.\n\n  520 Ephes. iv. 1.\n\n  521 2 Cor. v. 8.\n\n  522 S. Mark xv. 31.\n\n  523 S. Mark vi. 29.\n\n  524 1 Cor. x. 1.\n\n  525 S. Matth. vi. 30.\n\n  526 S. John xx. 4.\n\n  527 2 Cor. i. 23.\n\n  528 2 Cor. vii. 13.\n\n  529 2 Cor. ii. 12.\n\n  530 2 Pet. iii. 13.\n\n  531 S. Matth. ii. 22.\n\n  532 1 Cor. xii. 20.\n\n  533 1 S. John i. 3.\n\n  534 S. Matth. xxv. 39.\n\n  535 Acts viii. 3.\n\n  536 Rom. xii. 6.\n\n  537 S. Matth. vi. 29.\n\n  538 As in S. Matth. vii. 9: xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii. 29.\n\n  539 S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.\n\n  540 S. John xvi. 32.\n\n  541 S. Luke xix. 23.\n\n  542 2 Cor. xiii. 1.\n\n  543 S. Luke xii. 2.\n\n  544 S. Luke xviii. 7.\n\n  545 S Luke xiv. 21.\n\n  546 1 S. John ii. 27.\n\n  547 1 S. John i. 2.\n\n  548 S. Mark ix. 39.\n\n  549 Acts xxiii. 3.\n\n  550 Consider S. Matth. iii. 16,\u2014\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2: and ver.\n      6,\u2014\u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u1fc3.\n\n  551 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7.\n\n  552 Galland. iv. 6 b _bis_.\n\n  553 P. 279.\n\n  554 ix. 400.\n\n  555 ii. 707.\n\n  556 The circumstance is noticed and explained in the same way by Dr.\n      Field in his delightful _Otium Norvicense_.\n\n_  557 Concilia_, iv. 79 e.\n\n  558 Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to Acacius Bp. of\n      Melitene,\u2014_Concilia_, iii. 1111.\n\n  559 See Dr. Field\u2019s delightful _Otium Norvicense_ (Pars tertia), 1881,\n      pp. 1-4 and 110, 111. This masterly contribution to Sacred Criticism\n      ought to be in the hands of every student of Scripture.\n\n  560 See Hesychius, and the notes on the place.\n\n_  561 Notes designed to illustrate some expressions in the Gk. Test. by a\n      reference to the_ LXX., &c. By C. F. B. Wood, Pr\u00e6centor of\n      Llandaff,\u2014Rivingtons, 1882, (pp. 21,)\u2014p. 17:\u2014an admirable\n      performance, only far too brief.\n\n  562 \u039c\u1f74 \u1f00\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1?\n\n  563 \u039f\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n  564 [Pointed out to me by Professor Gandell,\u2014whose exquisite familiarity\n      with Scripture is only equalled by his readiness to communicate his\n      knowledge to others.]\n\n  565 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2,\u2014S. Mark xiv. 3 and 8: S. John\n      xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud Hieron. iii. 517):\u2014\u201cNon de nardo\n      propositum est nunc Spiritui Sancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis\n      intuemur, Evangelista scribit, unguento; sed _de nardo spirituali_.\u201d\n      And so Jerome himself, vii. 212.\n\n  566 Ps. xxxiii. 18 (\u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u1f7a\u03c2 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd): Is.\n      lvii. 15.\n\n  567 Consider Ignatius, _ad Ephes._ c. xvii. Also, the exquisite remark\n      of Theod. Heracl. in Cramer\u2019s _Cat._\n\n  568 We prefer that readers should be reminded, by the varied form, of\n      the _Greek_ original. In the extreme case (Acts vii. 45: Hebr. iv.\n      8), is it not far more edifying that attention should be in this way\n      directed to the identity of the names \u201c_Joshua_\u201d and \u201c_Jesus_,\u201d than\n      that the latter word should be entirely obliterated by the\n      former;\u2014and this, only for the sake of unmistakeably proclaiming,\n      (what yet must needs be perfectly manifest, viz.) that \u201c_Joshua_\u201d is\n      the personage spoken of?\n\n  569 So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14: xiii. 28,\u2014still\n      following Tyndale.\n\n  570 Acts xii. 20.\n\n  571 Eph. iii. 13.\n\n  572 For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1,\n      2), it was only \u201c_in his heart_\u201d to build GOD an house (1 Kings\n      viii. 17, 18). Hence Cranmer\u2019s \u201c_he would fain_\u201d have done so.\n\n  573 Acts xvi. 29.\n\n  574 Col. i. 9.\n\n  575 S. Matth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (= S. Mark vi. 36, 45, [and note the\n      substitution of \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 in ver. 46]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv.\n      32, 39 (= S. Mark viii. 9).\n\n  576 S. Matt. xiii. 36: and S. Mark iv. 36.\n\n  577 Acts xii. 13.\n\n  578 Acts xvi. 16.\n\n  579 Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31.\n\n  580 Twice he calls it \u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n  581 Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1.\n\n  582 Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16,\u2014where \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd is rendered _ad\n      docendum_.\n\n  583 Except in Rom. xii. 7,\u2014where \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3 is rendered \u201c_on\n      teaching_.\u201d\n\n  584 Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it \u201c_doctrine_.\u201d\n\n  585 And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal\n      note to inform us that \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 means \u201c_Teacher_\u201d\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\n      (rather than \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae) might have claimed to be rendered \u201c_teaching_.\u201d\n\n  586 Viz. Rom. xii. 7: 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16: v. 17: 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.\u2014Rom.\n      xv. 4.\n\n  587 Eight times in Rev. xvi.\n\n  588 S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.\n\n  589 \u03b3\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. Consider the LXX. of 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.\n\n  590 \u03b6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n_  591 E.g._ S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.\n\n  592 \u0394\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 is rendered \u201cmiracle\u201d in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.\n\n  593 Acts iv. 16, 22.\u2014On the other hand, \u201csign\u201d was allowed to represent\n      \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd repeatedly in the A. V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and\n      the parallel places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.\n\n  594 Canon Cook\u2019s _Revised Version of the first three Gospels\n      considered_, &c.\u2014p. 26: an admirable performance,\u2014unanswered,\n      because _unanswerable_.\n\n  595 Dr. Vance Smith\u2019s _Revised Texts and Margins_,\u2014p. 45.\n\n  596 S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.\n\n  597 Consider our LORD\u2019S solemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,\u2014\u201c_But this kind\n      goeth not out save by prayer and fasting_,\u201d\u201412 words left out by the\n      R. V., though witnessed to by _all the Copies but_ 3: by the Latin,\n      Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following\n      Fathers:\u2014(1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the\n      Syriac _Canons of Eusebius_, (5) Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose,\n      (8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10) _Opus imp._, (11) Hilary, (12)\n      Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked),\n      why have the Revisionists left them out? Because (we answer) they\n      have been misled by B and \u05d0, Cureton\u2019s Syriac and the Sahidic,\u2014as\n      untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of Scripture as\n      could be named.\n\n  598 The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs\n      twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the\n      rendering of \u1f00\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  599 S. Matth. xxv. 46.\n\n  600 Clemens Al. (p. 71) says:\u2014\u03c4\u1f70\u03c3 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6,\n      \u1f60\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. Tertullian,\u2014_Legimus omnem Scripturam \u00e6dificationi\n      habilem, divinitus inspirari._ Origen (ii. 443),\u2014\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f60\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),\u2014\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808),\u2014\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril,\n      Theodoret, &c.\n\n  601 See Archdeacon Lee _on Inspiration_, pp. 261-3, reading his notes.\n\n  602 S. John xvi. 15.\n\n  603 Study by all means Basil\u2019s letter to Amphilochius, (vol. iii. p. 360\n      to 362.)\u2014\u1f1c\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd\n      \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1; \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\n      \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f21 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b2\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n      \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3.\u2014(p. 362\n      c.) Basil says of this interpretation\u2014\u1f02 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n_  604 Notes_, p. 109.\n\n_  605 Celebre effugium_, (as Dr. Routh calls it,) _quod ex fals\u00e2 verborum\n      constructione Critici quidam h\u00e6reticis pararunt._ _Reliqq._ iii.\n      322-3.\n\n  606 C alone has a point between \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd and \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. But this is an entirely different thing from what is\n      noted in the margin.\n\n  607 MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan.\n\n  608 i. 506.\n\n_  609 Opusc._ i. 52, 58; _Phil._ 339.\n\n  610 iv. 612.\n\n  611 Routh, _Reliqq. Sac._ iii. 292, and 287. (_Concil._ i. 845 b. c.)\n\n_  612 Concilia_, i. 873 d: 876 a.\n\n  613 vi. c. 26.\n\n  614 i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908.\n\n  615 i. 282. And in _Cat._ 317.\n\n_  616 Trin._ 21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303.\n\n  617 ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [_Concil._ v. 697] and the\n      _Chronicon Paschale_, 355), 693, 697; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575.\n\n  618 i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74.\n\n  619 Ap. Cyril (ed. Pusey), v. 534.\n\n  620 Ap. Gall. iii. 805.\n\n  621 Ap. Gall. iv. 576.\n\n  622 Ap. Phot. col. 761, 853.\n\n  623 Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80.\n\n  624 Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560.\n\n_  625 Concilia_, iii. 522 e ( = iv. 297 d = ap. Gall. viii. 667). Also,\n      _Concilia_ (Harduin), i. 1413 a.\n\n  626 Ap. Gall. ix. 474.\n\n  627 Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 ( = _Concil._ iii. 1230, 1231).\n\n_  628 Homilia_ (Arm.), p. 165 and 249.\n\n  629 i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172.\n\n  630 v.1 20, 503, 765, 792; v.2 58, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii.\n      70, 86, 96, 104; iii. 84 _in Luc._ 26.\n\n_  631 Concilia_, iii. 1099 b.\n\n  632 i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295,\n      1309; v. 67, 1093.\n\n  633 Cramer\u2019s _Cat._ 160.\n\n_  634 Ibid. in Act._ 40.\n\n  635 P. 166.\n\n_  636 Concilia_, ii. 195.\n\n  637 Ap. Gall. xii. 251.\n\n  638 Ap. Gall. xii. 682.\n\n  639 ii. 64.\n\n  640 i. 557; ii. 35, 88.\n\n  641 Prax. 13, 15\u2014\u201cChristum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit, _Quorum\n      patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia\n      Deus benedictus in \u00e6vum_.\u201d\n\n  642 P. 287.\n\n  643 Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313.\n\n  644 i. 1470; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790.\n\n_  645 Concilia_, ii. 982 c.\n\n  646 78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232.\n\n  647 i. 870, 872.\n\n  648 Ap. Gall. viii. 157.\n\n  649 Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590.\n\n  650 Ap. Gall. viii. 627.\n\n  651 709, 711.\n\n  652 Ap. Gall. x. 722.\n\n  653 Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237.\n\n_  654 Concilia_, iii. 1364, 1382.\n\n  655 Ap. Gall. 352, 357.\n\n_  656 Ibid._ 674.\n\n  657 ii. 16, 215, 413.\n\n  658 i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421.\n\n  659 Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may\n      consult with advantage Dr. Gifford\u2019s learned note on the passage in\n      the _Speaker\u2019s Commentary_. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that \u201cit is\n      the natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would\n      adopt without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were involved.\u201d\n\n  660 Note, that this has been the language of the Church from the\n      beginning. Thus Tertullian,\u2014\u201cAquam adituri ... contestamur nos\n      renuntiare diabolo, _et pomp\u00e6 et angelis ejus_\u201d (i. 421): and\n      Ambrose,\u2014\u201cQuando te interrogavit, Abrenuntias diabolo _et operibus\n      ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio. Abrenuntias _s\u00e6culo et\n      voluptatibus ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio\u201d (ii. 350 c): and\n      Ephraem Syrus,\u2014\u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      (ii. 195 and iii. 399). And C\u00e6sarius of Arles,\u2014\u201cAbrenuntias diabolo,\n      _pompis et operibus ejus_ ... Abrenuntio\u201d (Galland. xi. 18 e).\n\n  661 2 Tim. iv. 18.\n\n  662 S. John xvii. 24.\n\n  663 P. 140.\n\n  664 Marcell. p. 192.\n\n_  665 In loc. diserte._\n\n_  666 Eth._ ii. 297.\n\n  667 viii. 485.\n\n_  668 Text_, iv. 1003; _Comm._ 1007, which are _two distinct\n      authorities_, as learned readers of Cyril are aware.\n\n_  669 Concilia_, iii. 356 d.\n\n  670 iv. 450.\n\n  671 Pp. 235, 321.\n\n  672 i. 412; ii. 566, 649.\n\n  673 Pp. 1017, 1033.\n\n  674 Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 230. Also ps.-Chrys. v. 680.\n\n  675 iii. 966 _dis._\n\n_  676 Dem._ 92.\n\n  677 i. 319.\n\n_  678 Trin._ 190.\n\n  679 v. 1039, 1069.\n\n  680 ii. 460.\n\n  681 v. 615.\n\n  682 ii. 584. Cyril read the place both ways:\u2014v.2 156, and _in Luc._ p.\n      52.\n\n  683 i. 720.\n\n  684 ii. 381; iii. 962; iv. 601.\n\n  685 Ap. Galland. vii. 183.\n\n  686 Ap. Montf. ii. 67.\n\n  687 iii. 333; v. 444; x. 498, 620; xii. 329.\n\n  688 ii. 77; iii. 349.\n\n  689 ii. 252.\n\n  690 \u201cDeseruimus fere quos sequi solemus codices.\u201d\n\n  691 P. 38 ( = Gall. vii. 26).\n\n  692 i. 298, 613.\n\n  693 viii. 351, 352.\n\n  694 iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.\n\n  695 i. 748; iv. 274, 550.\n\n_  696 In Dionys. Ar._ ii. 192.\n\n  697 As these sheets are passing through the press, we have received a\n      book by Sir Edmund Beckett, entitled, _Should the Revised New\n      Testament be Authorized?_ In four Chapters, the author discusses\n      with characteristic vigour, first, the principles and method of the\n      Revisers, and then the Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the\n      Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as fair samples of their work, with a\n      union of sound sense, forensic skill, and scholarship more skilful\n      than to deserve his cautious disclaimer. Amidst details open, of\n      course, to discussion, abundant proofs are set forth, in a most\n      telling style, that the plea of \u201cnecessity\u201d and \u201cfaithfulness\u201d\n      utterly fails, in justification of a mass of alterations, which, in\n      point of English composition, carry their condemnation on their\n      face, and, to sum up the great distinction between the two Versions,\n      illustrate \u201cthe difference between working by _discretion_ and by\n      _rules_\u2014by which no great thing was ever done or ever will be.\u201d Sir\n      Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exposure of the abuse of the\n      famous canon of preferring the stranger reading to the more obvious,\n      as if copyists never made stupid blunders or perpetrated wilful\n      absurdities. The work deserves the notice of all English readers.\n\n  698 It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not\n      fair to say that \u201cthey were appointed to do one thing, and have done\n      another.\u201d We are glad of this opportunity to explain.\n\n      That _some_ corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well\n      aware: and had those _necessary_ changes been made, we should only\n      have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found\n      that by Dr. Hort\u2019s eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists\n      have made a vast number of _perfectly needless changes_:\u2014(1) Changes\n      which _are incapable of being represented in a Translation_: as \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\n      for \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\u2014\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 for \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\u2014\u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 for \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5. Again, since \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\n      at least as much as \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, means \u201c_birth_,\u201d _why_ \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in S.\n      Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead of \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9\n      \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, they prefer \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6?\n      and instead of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd,\u2014\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd? Now this they have done\n      _throughout_,\u2014at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far\n      worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet they _do\n      not adopt_. These numerous changes are, _by their own confession_,\n      not \u201cnecessary:\u201d and yet they are of a most serious character. In\n      fact, it is of these we chiefly complain.\u2014But, indeed (3), _How\n      many_ of their _other_ alterations of the Text will the Revisionists\n      undertake to defend publicly on the plea of \u201c_Necessity_\u201d?\n\n      [A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of\n      the present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages 87-88.]\n\n  699 \u201cWe meet in every page\u201d (says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bishop of\n      Lincoln,) \u201cwith small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and\n      irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small\n      insects sting most sharply), _which seem almost to be made merely\n      for the sake of change_.\u201d\u2014p. 25.\n\n_  700 On the Revision of the English Version_, &c. (1870), p. 99.\n\n  701 Bp. Ellicott, _Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882,\u2014p. 19.\n\n  702 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_,\u2014p. 49.\n\n  703 \u201c_Qui_ LXX _interpretes non legit, aut minus legit accurate, is\n      sciat se non adeo idoneum, qui Scripta Evangelica Apostolica de\n      Gr\u00e6co in Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem transferat, ut ut in\n      aliis Gr\u00e6cis scriptoribus multum diuque fuerit versatus_.\u201d (John\n      Bois, 1619.)\u2014\u201c_Gr\u00e6cum N. T. contextum rite intellecturo nihil est\n      utilius quam diligenter versasse Alexandrinam antiqui F\u0153deris\n      interpretationem_, E QU\u00c2 UN\u00c2 PLUS PETI POTERIT AUXILII, QUAM EX\n      VETERIBUS SCRIPTORIBUS GR\u00c6CIS SIMUL SUMTIS. _Centena reperientur in\n      N. T. nusquam obvia in scriptis Gr\u00e6corum veterum, sed frequentata in\n      Alexandrin\u00e2 versione._\u201d (Valcknaer, 1715-85.)\n\n_  704 On the Authorized Version_,\u2014p. 3.\n\n_  705 Preface_, p. xiv.\n\n_  706 Quarterly Review_, No. 304.\n\n_  707 Quarterly Review_, No. 305.\n\n  708 At the head of the present Article, as it originally appeared, will\n      be found enumerated Dr. Scrivener\u2019s principal works. It shall but be\n      said of them, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather\n      unapproached, in their particular department. Himself an exact and\n      elegant Scholar,\u2014a most patient and accurate observer of Textual\n      phenomena, as well as an interesting and judicious expositor of\n      their significance and value;\u2014guarded in his statements, temperate\n      in his language, fair and impartial (even kind) to all who come in\n      his way:\u2014Dr. Scrivener is the very best teacher and guide to whom a\n      beginner can resort, who desires to be led by the hand, as it were,\n      through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism. His _Plain\n      Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of\n      Biblical Students_, (of which a third edition is now in the press,)\n      is perforce the most generally useful, because the most\n      comprehensive, of his works; but we strenuously recommend the three\n      prefatory chapters of his _Full and Exact Collation of about twenty\n      Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels_ [pp. lxxiv. and 178,\u20141853], and\n      the two prefatory chapters of his _Exact Transcript of the Codex\n      Augiensis_, &c., to which is added a full Collation of Fifty\n      Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,\u20141859,] to the attention of\n      students. His Collation of _Codex Bez\u00e6_ (D) is perhaps the greatest\n      of his works: but whatever he has done, he has done best. It is\n      instructive to compare his collation of Cod. \u05d0 with Tischendorf\u2019s.\n      No reader of the Greek Testament can afford to be without his\n      reprint of Stephens\u2019 ed. of 1550: and English readers are reminded\n      that Dr. Scrivener\u2019s is the only _classical_ edition of the English\n      Bible,\u2014_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible_, &c., 1870-3. His Preface or\n      \u201cIntroduction\u201d (pp. ix.-cxx.) passes praise. Ordinary English\n      readers should enquire for his _Six Lectures on the Text of the N.\n      T._, &c., 1875,\u2014which is in fact an attempt to popularize the _Plain\n      Introduction_. The reader is referred to note 1 at the foot of page\n      243.\n\n  709 \u201cAgmen ducit Carolus Lachmannus (_N. T. Berolini_ 1842-50), ingenii\n      viribus et eleganti\u00e2 doctrin\u00e6 haud pluribus impar; editor N. T.\n      audacior quam limatior: cujus textum, a recepto long\u00e8 decedentem,\n      tantopere judicibus quibusdam subtilioribus placuisse jamdudum\n      miramur: quippe qui, abject\u00e2 tot c\u00e6terorum codicum Gr\u00e6corum ope,\n      perpaucis antiquissimis (nec iis integris, nec per eum satis\n      accurat\u00e8 collatis) innixus, libros sacros ad s\u00e6culi post Christum\n      quarti normam restituisse sibi videatur; versionum porr\u00f2 (cujuslibet\n      codicis \u00e6tatem facil\u00e8 superantium) Syriac\u00e6 atque \u00c6gyptiacarum\n      contemptor, neutrius lingu\u00e6 peritus; Latinarum contr\u00e0 nimius fautor,\n      pr\u00e6 Bentleio ipso Bentleianus.\u201d\u2014Scrivener\u2019s Preface to _Nov. Test,\n      text\u00fbs Stephanici_, &c. See above, p. 238, _note_.\n\n  710 Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 429.\n\n  711 N. T. Part II. p. 2.\n\n  712 No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be\n      assured that \u201c_The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to\n      the text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the\n      variations adopted in the Revised Version_,\u201d edited by Dr. Scrivener\n      for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by\n      any means represent his own views. The learned Prebendary merely\n      edited the decisions of the two-thirds majority of the\n      Revisionists,\u2014_which were not his own_.\n\n  713 Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the\n      strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p.\n      238 (_note_) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly\n      understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication of _exact_\n      collations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid\n      on which to build up the _Science_ of Textual Criticism. We may\n      safely keep our \u201c_Theories_\u201d back till we have collated our\n      MSS.,\u2014re-edited our Versions,\u2014indexed our Fathers. They will be\n      abundantly in time _then_.\n\n_  714 Introduction_, p. 18.\n\n  715 See lower part of page 17. Also note at p. 75 and middle of p. 262.\n\n  716 P. 13, cf. p. viii.\n\n  717 They are as follows:\u2014\n\n      [1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the\n      multitude, when they beheld our SAVIOUR and His Disciples departing\n      in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot\n      thither,\u2014(\u03b1) \u201c_and outwent them_\u2014(\u03b2) _and came together unto Him_\u201d\n      (_i.e._ on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely\n      imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His \u201cretirement\u201d\n      in \u201csome sequestered nook\u201d).\n\n      Now here, A substitutes \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd [_sic_] for \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014\u05d0 B with\n      the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (\u03b2).\u2014D omits clause (\u03b1), but\n      substitutes \u201c_there_\u201d (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) for \u201c_unto Him_\u201d in clause\n      (\u03b2),\u2014exhibits therefore a fabricated text.\u2014The Syriac condenses the\n      two clauses thus:\u2014\u201c_got there before Him_.\u201d\u2014L, \u0394, 69, and 4 or 5 of\n      the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one\n      another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S.\n      Mark\u2019s Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses\n      which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. Of\n      _Confusion_ there is plenty. \u201cConflation\u201d\u2014as the Reader sees\u2014there\n      is none.\n\n      [2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, our SAVIOUR (after restoring sight to the\n      blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,\u2014(\u03b1) \u201c_Neither enter\n      into the village_\u201d\u2014(\u03b2) \u201c_nor tell it to any one_\u2014(\u03b3) _in the\n      village_.\u201d (And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way\n      of exhibiting the text is vouched for by A C N \u0394 and 12 other\n      uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and\n      Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and \u00c6thiopic Versions: and by the\n      only Father who quotes the place\u2014Victor of Antioch. [Cramer\u2019s _Cat._\n      p. 345, lines 3 and 8.])\n\n      But it is found that the \u201ctwo false witnesses\u201d (\u05d0 B) omit clauses\n      (\u03b2) and (\u03b3), retaining only clause (\u03b1). One of these two however\n      (\u05d0), aware that under such circumstances \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad is intolerable, [Dr.\n      Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it in B,) considers\n      \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad \u201c_simple and vigorous_\u201d as well as \u201cunique\u201d and \u201cpeculiar\u201d (p.\n      100).] substitutes \u03bc\u03ae. As for D and the Vulg., they substitute and\n      paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11), \u201c_Depart\n      unto thine house_.\u201d D proceeds,\u2014\u201c_and tell it to no one_ [\u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f76\n      \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u1fc3\u03c2, from Matth. viii. 4,] _in the village_.\u201d Six copies of the\n      old Latin (b f ff-2 g-1-2 l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the\n      following paraphrase of the entire place:\u2014\u201c_Depart unto thine house,\n      and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one._\u201d The same\n      reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i,\n      (except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit \u201c_say nothing_ [from Mk. i. 44] _to\n      no one_.\u201d) All six however add at the end,\u2014\u201c_not even in the\n      village_.\u201d Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,\u2014\u201c_Depart unto\n      thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any\n      one_,\u201d\u2014to which 124 [not a] adds,\u2014\u201c_in the village_.\u201d... _Why_ all\n      this contradiction and confusion is now to be called\n      \u201cConflation,\u201d\u2014and what \u201cclear evidence\u201d is to be elicited therefrom\n      that \u201cSyrian\u201d are posterior alike to \u201cWestern\u201d and to \u201cneutral\u201d\n      readings,\u2014passes our powers of comprehension.\n\n      We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed\n      our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received\n      Text in this place; Tischendorf, _alone of Editors_, adopts the\n      reading of \u05d0 (\u03bc\u03b7 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2): while Westcott and Hort,\n      _alone of Editors_, adopt the reading of B (\u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n      \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2),\u2014so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous\n      is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow\n      Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text?\n      The consequence is, that henceforth,\u2014instead of \u201c_Neither go into\n      the town, nor tell it to any in the town_,\u201d\u2014we are invited to read,\n      \u201c_Do not even enter into the village_.\u201d\n\n      [3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,\u2014S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils\n      in CHRIST\u2019S Name, says\u2014(\u03b1) \u201c_who followeth not us, and we forbad\n      him_\u2014(\u03b2) _because he followeth not us_.\u201d\n\n      Here, \u05d0 B C L \u0394 the Syriac, Coptic, and \u00c6thiopic, omit clause (\u03b1),\n      retaining (\u03b2). D with the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (\u03b2),\n      but retain (\u03b1).\u2014Both clauses are found in A N with 11 other uncials\n      and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only\n      Father who quotes the place,\u2014Basil [ii. 252].\u2014Why should the\n      pretence be set up that there has been \u201cConflation\u201d here? Two\n      Omissions do not make one Conflation.\n\n      [4th] In Mk. ix. 49,\u2014our SAVIOUR says,\u2014\u201c_For_ (\u03b1) _every one shall\n      be salted with fire_\u2014_and_ (\u03b2) _every sacrifice shall be salted with\n      salt_.\u201d\n\n      Here, clause (\u03b1) is omitted by D and a few copies of the old Latin;\n      clause (\u03b2) by \u05d0 B L \u0394.\n\n      But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen\n      words by Cod. D is so nearly without textual significancy, as\n      scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort\n      really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so\n      flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of \u05d0 B L\n      \u0394,\u2014especially in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, which those codices exhibit more\n      unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them,\n      are to be set on the present occasion A C D N with 12 other uncials\n      and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both\n      Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and \u00c6thiopic Versions; besides\n      the only Father who quotes the place,\u2014Victor of Antioch. [Also\n      \u201cAnon.\u201d p. 206: and see Cramer\u2019s _Cat._ p. 368.]\n\n      [5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, our\n      SAVIOUR \u201c_withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called\n      Bethsaida_:\u201d which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 [2]\n      \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd [3] \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd [4] \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 [5] \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 [6] \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03c3\u03b1\u03ca\u03b4\u03ac: of which\n      six words,\u2014\n\n      (_a_)\u2014\u05d0 and Syrcu retain but three,\u20141, 2, 3.\n\n      (_b_)\u2014The Peschito retains but four,\u20141, 2, 3, 6.\n\n      (_c_)\u2014B L X \u039e D and the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,\u20141, 4,\n      5, 6: but for \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 D exhibits \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n      (_d_)\u2014The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,\u20141, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for\n      \u201c_qui_ (or _quod_) _vocabatur_,\u201d the Vulg. _b_ and _c_ exhibit\n      \u201c_qui_ (or _quod_) est.\u201d\n\n      (_e_)\u20143 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while,\n\n      (_f_)\u2014A C \u0394 E, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the\n      cursives,\u2014the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and \u00c6thiopic\n      Versions,\u2014retain _all the six words_.\n\n      In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before\n      to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of\n      \u201cconflation,\u201d _i.e._ of _spurious mixture_. Note, that \u05d0 and D have,\n      this time, changed sides.\n\n      [6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (\u03b1)\n      \u201c_lying in wait for Him_,\u201d (\u03b2) _seeking_ (\u03b3) _to catch something out\n      of His mouth_ (\u03b4) \u201c_that they might accuse Him_.\u201d This is the\n      reading of 14 uncials headed by A C, and of the whole body of the\n      cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is\n      to be said against it?\n\n      It is found that \u05d0 B L with the Coptic and \u00c6thiopic Versions omit\n      clauses (\u03b2) and (\u03b4), but retain clauses (\u03b1) and (\u03b3).\u2014Cod. D, in\n      conjunction with Cureton\u2019s Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause\n      (\u03b2), and _paraphrases all the rest of the sentence_. How then can it\n      be pretended that there has been any \u201cConflation\u201d here?\n\n      In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised\n      Text of clauses (\u03b2) and (\u03b4)\u2014(\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 ... \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n      \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd)\u2014which are attested by A C D and 12 other uncials, together\n      with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all\n      the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that \u05d0 B, and the\n      Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named?\n\n      [7th] The \u201crich fool\u201d in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (\u03b1)\n      \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 (\u03b2) \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5. (So A Q and 13 other\n      uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil,\n      and Cyril.)\n\n      But \u05d0 D (with the old Latin and Cureton\u2019s Syriac [which however\n      drops the \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1]), retaining clause (\u03b1), omit clause (\u03b2).\u2014On the\n      other hand, B T, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the\n      Armenian, and \u00c6thiopic,) retaining clause (\u03b2), substitute \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n      (a gloss) for \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 in clause (\u03b1). Lachmann, Tisch., and\n      Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So\n      does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,\u2014only substituting \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u03c3\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd for \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. Confessedly therefore there has been no\n      \u201cSyrian conflation\u201d _here_: for all that has happened has been _the\n      substitution_ by B of \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd for \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; and the omission of\n      4 words by \u05d0 D. This instance must therefore have been an\n      oversight.\u2014Only once more.\n\n      [8th] S. Luke\u2019s Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the\n      Apostles were continually in the Temple, \u201c(\u03b1) _praising and_ (\u03b2)\n      _blessing _GOD.\u201d Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and\n      every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg.,\n      Syraic, Philox., \u00c6thiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found\n      that \u05d0 B C omit clause (\u03b1): while D and seven copies of the old\n      Latin omit clause (\u03b2).\n\n      And this completes the evidence for \u201cConflation.\u201d We have displayed\n      it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards\n      the esteemed writers on _the only occasion_ which they have\n      attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at last _forced\n      them_ to make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual\n      specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30\n      years, they have at last fastened upon _eight_: of which (as we have\n      seen), several have really no business to be cited,\u2014as not\n      fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil\n      however, let _all but one_, the [7th], pass unchallenged.\n\n  718 The Reader is referred to pp. 17, 75, 249.\n\n_  719 E.g._ pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.\n\n  720 Referred to below, p. 296.\n\n  721 See above, pages 257 (bottom) and 258 (top).\n\n  722 See above, pp. 37 to 38.\n\n_  723 Ibid._ p. 39.\n\n  724 To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to\n      believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions of A.D.\n      250 and A.D. 350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with\n      between 2877 (B) and 3455 (\u05d0) spurious words; mutilated the genuine\n      Text in respect of between 536 (B) and 839 (\u05d0) words:\u2014substituted\n      for as many genuine words, between 935 (B) and 1114 (\u05d0) uninspired\n      words:\u2014licentiously transposed between 2098 (B) and 2299 (\u05d0):\u2014and in\n      respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without\n      authority between 1132 (*B*) and 1265 (\u05d0) words.\n\n  725 Quoted by Canon Cook, _Revised Version Considered_,\u2014p. 202.\n\n_  726 i.e._ say from A.D. 90 to A.D. 250-350.\n\n  727 See above, p. 269.\n\n  728 \u201cIf,\u201d says Dr. Hort, \u201can editor were for any purpose to make it his\n      aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of\n      Antioch in A.D. 350, he could not help taking the approximate\n      consent of the cursives as equivalent to _a primary documentary\n      witness_. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for\n      being unable to say precisely by what historical agencies THE ONE\n      ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL\u201d\u2014[note the fallacy!]\u2014\u201c_was multiplied into the\n      cursive hosts of the later ages_.\u201d\u2014Pp. 143-4.\n\n  729 Preface to the \u201climited and private issue\u201d of 1870, p. xviii.:\n      reprinted in the _Introduction_ (1881), p. 66.\n\n_  730 Ibid._\n\n  731 P. 65 (\u00a7 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.), \u201c_Personal\n      instincts_\u201d are substituted for \u201c_Personal discernment_.\u201d\n\n_  732 The Revisers and the Greek Text_,\u2014p. 19.\n\n_  733 Introduction_,\u2014p. xiii.\n\n_  734 Notes_, p. 22.\n\n_  735 Notes_, p. 88.\n\n_  736 Notes_,\u2014p. 51.\n\n  737 Scrivener\u2019s _Plain Introduction_,\u2014pp. 507-8.\n\n  738 Scrivener\u2019s \u201c_Introduction_,\u201d pp. 513-4.\n\n  739 In S. MATTH. i. 25,\u2014the omission of \u201c_her first-born_:\u201d\u2014in vi. 13,\n      the omission of the _Doxology_:\u2014in xii. 47, the omission of _the\n      whole verse_:\u2014in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of our LORD\u2019S memorable\n      words concerning the _signs of the weather_:\u2014in xvii. 21, the\n      omission of the mysterious statement, \u201c_But this kind goeth not out\n      save by prayer and fasting_:\u201d\u2014in xviii. 11, the omission of the\n      precious words \u201c_For the Son of man came to save that which was\n      lost_.\u201d\n\n      In S. MARK xvi. 9-20, the omission of the \u201c_last Twelve\n      Verses_,\u201d\u2014(\u201cthe contents of which are _not such as could have been\n      invented_ by any scribe or editor of the Gospel,\u201d\u2014W. and H. p. 57).\n      All admit that \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 is an impossible ending.\n\n      In S. LUKE vi. 1, the suppression of the unique \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3; (\u201cthe\n      very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its\n      genuineness,\u201d\u2014Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):\u2014ix. 54-56,\n      the omitted _rebuke to the_ \u201c_disciples James and John_:\u201d\u2014in x. 41,\n      42, the omitted _words concerning Martha and Mary_:\u2014in xxii. 43, 44,\n      the omission of the _Agony in the Garden_,\u2014(which nevertheless, \u201c_it\n      would be impossible to regard_ as a product of the inventiveness of\n      scribes,\u201d\u2014W. and H. p. 67):\u2014in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause\n      omitted:\u2014in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord\u2019s _prayer for His\n      murderers_,\u2014(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that \u201c_few\n      verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the\n      truth of what they record than this_\u201d\u2014p. 68):\u2014in xxiii. 38, the\n      statement that the Inscription on the Cross was \u201c_in letters of\n      Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew_:\u201d\u2014in xxiv. 12, _the visit of S. Peter\n      to the Sepulchre_. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix.\n      56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,\u2014\u201c_It seems impossible to believe\n      that these incidents are other than authentic_,\u201d\u2014(p. 28.)\n\n      In S. JOHN iii. 13, the solemn clause \u201c_which is in heaven_:\u201d\u2014in v.\n      3, 4, the omitted incident of _the troubling of the pool_:\u2014in vii.\n      53 to viii. 11, _the narrative concerning the woman taken in\n      adultery_ omitted,\u2014concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that \u201c_the\n      argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is\n      its own internal character_. The story itself has justly seemed _to\n      vouch for its own substantial truth_, and the words in which it is\n      clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives\u201d\u2014(p. 87).\n      Bishop Lightfoot remarks that \u201c_the narrative bears on its face the\n      highest credentials of authentic history_\u201d\u2014(p. 28).\n\n  740 To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince\n      himself of this, by examining the rejected \u201calternative\u201d Readings in\n      the margin of the \u201cRevised Version.\u201d The \u201cMany\u201d and the \u201cSome\n      ancient authorities,\u201d there spoken of, _almost invariably\n      include_\u2014sometimes _denote_\u2014codd. B \u05d0, one or both of them. These\n      constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt\n      readings exhibited by B \u05d0; but they will give English readers some\n      notion of the problem just now under consideration.\n\n      Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages 16 and 17:\u201430\n      and 31:\u201446 and 47:\u201475:\u2014249:\u2014262:\u2014289:\u2014316 to 319] concerning B and\n      \u05d0,\u2014(the result of laborious collation,)\u2014some particulars shall now\n      be added. The piercing of our SAVIOUR\u2019S side, thrust in after Matt.\n      xxvii. 49:\u2014the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu.\n      xxiii. 45:\u2014the monstrous figment concerning Herod\u2019s daughter, thrust\n      into Mk. vi. 22:\u2014the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and\n      xviii. 11:\u2014in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:\u2014the wretched glosses\n      in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:\u2014the\n      substitution of \u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (for \u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03c2) in Matt. xxvii. 34,\u2014of \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 (for\n      \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) in Jo. i. 18,\u2014of \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 (for \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5) in ix. 35,\u2014of \u03bf\u1f51 (for \u1ff7)\n      in Rom. iv. 8:\u2014the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv.\n      44:\u2014the omission in Matt. xii. 47,\u2014and of two important verses in\n      Matt. xvi. 2, 3:\u2014of \u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 in Acts i. 19:\u2014of \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 in iii.\n      6;\u2014and of \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03c9 in Lu. vi. 1:\u2014the two spurious clauses in Mk.\n      iii. 14, 16:\u2014the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:\u2014in Acts xii.\n      25\u2014besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,\u2014make up a heavy\n      indictment against B and \u05d0 jointly\u2014which are here found in company\n      with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at\n      Lu. ii. 14:\u2014the gloss at Mk. v. 36:\u2014the mere fabrication at Matt.\n      xix. 17:\u2014the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4.\n\n      B (in company with others, but apart from \u05d0) by exhibiting\n      \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in Matt. xxviii. 19:\u2014\u1f61\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd in Mk. ix.\n      1:\u2014\u201cseventy-_two_,\u201d in Lu. x. 1:\u2014the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:\u2014and the\n      grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (CHRIST\u2019S Agony in the\n      Garden),\u2014and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),\u2014enjoys\n      unenviable distinction.\u2014B, singly, is remarkable for an obvious\n      blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:\u2014Lu. xxi. 24:\u2014Jo. xviii. 5:\u2014Acts x. 19\u2014and\n      xvii. 28:\u2014xxvii. 37:\u2014not to mention the insertion of \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd in\n      Jo. vii. 39.\n\n      \u05d0 (in company with others, but apart from B) is conspicuous for its\n      sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:\u2014its substitution of \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n      (for \u03b7\u03bd) in S. John i. 4:\u2014its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv.\n      13:\u2014its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.\u2014\u05d0, singly, is remarkable\n      for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:\u2014its addition to i. 34:\u2014its\n      omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:\u2014Mk. i. 1:\u2014Jo. ix. 38:\u2014its insertion of\n      \u0397\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 in Matt. xiii. 35:\u2014its geographical blunders in Mk. i.\n      28:\u2014Lu. i. 26:\u2014Acts viii. 5:\u2014besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51\u2014and\n      xiii. 10:\u20141 Tim. iii. 16:\u2014Acts xxv. 13:\u2014and the clearly fabricated\n      narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30,\n      68, 72; of which the object was \u201cso far to assimilate the narrative\n      of Peter\u2019s denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to\n      suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed\n      twice.\u201d\n\n  741 Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1)\n      The _exclusive_ omission by B and \u05d0 of Mark xvi. 9-20:\u2014(2) The\n      omission of \u03b5\u03bd \u0395\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u1ff3, from Ephes. i. 1:\u2014(3) The blunder,\n      \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, in James i. 17:\u2014(4) The nonsensical \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd in\n      Matt. xvii. 22:\u2014(5) That \u201cvile error,\u201d (as Scrivener calls it,)\n      \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, in Acts xxviii. 13:\u2014(6) The impossible order of words\n      in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary order in Acts i. 5:\u2014(8)\n      The omission of the last clause of the LORD\u2019S prayer, in Lu. xi. 4;\n      and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; and (10) Of \u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd in\n      Matt. xiv. 30:\u2014(11) The substitution of \u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd (for \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd) in Matt.\n      xi. 29:\u2014(12) Of \u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 (for \u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1) in Jo. xix. 39,\u2014and (13) of \u03b7\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (for \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b7) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of\n      \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 into Matt. xvi. 21,\u2014and (15) Of \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 into vi. 8:\u2014besides\n      (16) So minute a peculiarity as \u0392\u03b5\u03b5\u03b6\u03b5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24,\n      27: Lu. xi. 15, 18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and\n      (18) The omissions at Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.\u2014It must be admitted\n      that such peculiar blemishes, taken collectively, constitute a proof\n      of affinity of origin,\u2014community of descent from one and the same\n      disreputable ancestor. But space fails us.\n\n      The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the\n      Gospels, B combines exclusively with A, but 11 times; and with C,\n      but 38 times: with D, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with \u05d0,\n      239 times: (viz. in Matt. 121,\u2014in Mk. 26,\u2014in Lu. 51,\u2014in Jo. 41\n      times).\n\n      Contrast it with A:\u2014which combines exclusively with D, 21 times:\n      with \u05d0 13 times: with B, 11 times: with C, 4 times.\n\n  742 The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They\n      are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer\n      (in 1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been\n      written _in Italy_,\u2014the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [_not_ Egypt,\n      but] _either Palestine or Syria_. Thus, considerations of time and\n      place effectually dispose of Tischendorf\u2019s preposterous notion that\n      the Scribe of Codex B wrote _six leaves_ of \u05d0: an imagination which\n      solely resulted from the anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own\n      cod. \u05d0 the same antiquity which is claimed for the vaunted cod. B.\n\n      This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf\u2019s rests on the same fanciful basis\n      as his notion that _the last verse_ of S. John\u2019s Gospel in \u05d0 was not\n      written by the same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There\n      is _no manner of difference_: though of course it is possible that\n      the scribe took a new pen, preliminary to writing that last verse,\n      and executing the curious and delicate ornament which follows.\n      Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, pp. 23-4.\n\n  743 Tischendorf\u2019s narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript\n      (\u201c_When were our Gospels written?_\u201d), [1866,] p. 23.\n\n  744 \u201cPapyrus In\u00e9dit de la Biblioth\u00e8que de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot.\n      Nouveaux fragments d\u2019Euripide et d\u2019autres Po\u00e8tes Grecs, publi\u00e9s par\n      M. Henri Weil. (Extrait des _Monumens Grecs publi\u00e9s par\n      l\u2019Association pour l\u2019encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France_.\n      Ann\u00e9e 1879.)\u201d Pp. 36.\n\n  745 The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical\n      readers:\u2014\u201cCe n\u2019est pas \u00e0 dire qu\u2019elle soit tout \u00e0 fait sans int\u00e9r\u00eat,\n      sans importance: pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend\n      que, au vers 5, \u1f00\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, pour \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd (correction de Wakefield)\n      \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 l\u2019ancienne vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s\u2019ils sont\n      alt\u00e9r\u00e9s, comme l\u2019assurent quelques \u00e9diteurs d\u2019Euripide, l\u2019\u00e9taient\n      d\u00e9j\u00e0 dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9.\n\n      \u201cL\u2019homme ... \u00e9tait aussi ignorant que n\u00e9gligent. Je le prends pour\n      un Egyptien n\u2019ayant qu\u2019une connoissance tr\u00e8s imparfaite de la langue\n      grecque, et ne poss\u00e9dant aucune notion ni sur l\u2019orthographe, ni sur\n      les r\u00e8gles les plus \u00e9l\u00e9mentaires du trim\u00e8tre iambique. Le plus\n      singulier est qu\u2019il commence sa copie au milieu d\u2019un vers et qu\u2019il\n      la finisse de m\u00eame. Il oublie des lettres n\u00e9cessaires, il en ajoute\n      de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les\n      mots ou il les alt\u00e8re, au point de d\u00e9truire quelquefois la suite de\n      la construction et le sens du passage.\u201d A faithful copy of the\n      verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification of\n      Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital\n      letters:\u2014\n\n      \u201c\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b5\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n      \u039c\u03b7\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u0395\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03c9\u03b4 \u03b5\u03b3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c2 \u0399\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u03bf\u03c4 \u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b7\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\n      \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n      \u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c6\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\u201d\n\n      An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,\u2014\u201cThe fragment must have\n      been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and\n      by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might\n      expect from a half-educated reader enunciating Milton for a\n      half-educated writer.\u201d\n\n  746 See p. 324 _note_ 1.\u2014Photius [cod. 48] says that \u201cGaius\u201d was a\n      presbyter of Rome, and \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. See Routh\u2019s _Reliqq._ ii.\n      125.\n\n  747 Eusebius, _Hist. Ecol._ v. 28 (ap. Routh\u2019s _Reliqq._ ii. 132-4).\n\n  748 Tregelles, Part ii. p. 2.\n\n  749 Scrivener\u2019s prefatory _Introduction_,\u2014p. xix.\n\n_  750 Ibid._ p. iii.\n\n_  751 On Revision_,\u2014p. 47.\n\n  752 Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31 _exactly_ fills two columns\n      of cod. \u05d0. (See Tischendorf\u2019s reprint, 4to, p. 24*.)\n\n  753 Clemens Al. (ed. Potter),\u2014pp. 937-8.... Note, how Clemens begins \u00a7\n      v. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p.\n      336, note 3.\n\n  754 \u201cThis Text\u201d (say the Editors) \u201cis _an attempt to reproduce at once\n      the autograph Text_.\u201d\u2014_Introduction_, p. xxviii.\n\n  755 Westcott and Hort\u2019s _Introduction_, pp. 112-3.\n\n  756 Besides,\u2014All but L. conspire 5  times.\n      All but T. 3 times.\n      All but Tr. 1 time.\n      Then,\u2014T. Tr. WH. combine 2 times\n      T. WH. RT. 1 time\n      Tr. WH. RT. 1 time\n      L. Tr. WH. 1 time\n      Then,\u2014L. T. stand by themselves 1 time\n      L. Tr. 1 time\n      T. WH. 1 time\n      Lastly,\u2014L. stands alone 4 times.\n      Total: 21.\n\n_  757 Twice_ he agrees with all 5: viz. omitting \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd in ver.\n      21; and in omitting \u1fc6 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 (in ver. 29):\u2014_Once_ he agrees with\n      only Lachmann: viz. in transposing \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (in ver. 20).\n\n  758 On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits\n      peculiar readings of his own,\u2014sides with _no one_.\n\n_  759 Q. R._ p. 360.\n\n  760 Article xx. \u00a7 1.\n\n  761 \u0395\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\u2014S. John xvi. 13.\n\n  762 Theodoret, _Opp._ iv. 208.\u2014Comp. Clinton, _F. R._ ii. _Appendix_, p.\n      473.\n\n  763 The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaye (of Lincoln)\u2019s\n      _Account of the writings of Clement of Alexandria_,\u2014and to read the\n      vith and viiith chapters.\n\n  764 \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. (\u00a7 v.),\u2014p. 938.\n\n  765 Alford\u2019s N. T. vol. i. proleg. p. 92.\n\n  766 See p. 197 (\u00a7 269): and p. 201 (\u00a7 275-9):\u2014and p. 205 (\u00a7 280).\n\n_  767 Preface_ (1870), p. xv.\n\n  768 See above, pp. 79 to 85.\n\n  769 Pp. 359-60.\n\n  770 P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii.\n\n  771 Pp. 91-119 and pp. 133-146.\n\n  772 \u201cI perceived _a large and wide basket_ full of old parchments; and\n      the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already\n      _committed to the flames._ What was my surprise to find amid this\n      heap of papers,\u201d &c.\u2014(_Narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic\n      Manuscript,_ p. 23.)\n\n  773 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd.\u20141 Tim. vi. 20.\n\n  774 [While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my\n      papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented\n      Editor of Cyril,\u2014Philip E. Pusey,\u2014with whom I used to be in constant\n      communication:\u2014\u201cIt is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from\n      outside, why B C L, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each\n      other, and therefore nearly = 1-\u00bd MSS., are to be held to be\n      superior to A. It is still less obvious to me why \u2014\u2014 showing up (as\n      he does) very many grave faults of B, should yet consider B superior\n      in character to A.\u201d]\n\n_  775 Introduction_, p. 567.\n\n  776 Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, 6,\n      7, 8; 1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. 9 _bis_, iv. 7; v. 1 _bis_, 4, 18 _bis_.\n      _Why_ is it to be supposed that on this last occasion THE ETERNAL\n      SON should be intended?\n\n  777 A*, B, 105.\n\n  778 The paraphrase is interesting. The Vulgate, Jerome [ii. 321, 691],\n      Cassian [p. 409],\u2014\u201c_Sed generatio Dei conservat eum_:\u201d Chromatius\n      [Gall. viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. 646],\u2014\u201c_Quia\n      (quoniam) nativitas Dei custodit (servat) illum._\u201d In a letter of 5\n      Bishops to Innocentius I. (A.D. 410) [Galland. viii. 598 b], it\n      is,\u2014\u201c_Nativitas qu\u00e6 ex Deo est._\u201d Such a rendering (viz. \u201c_his\n      having been born of_ GOD\u201d) amounts to an _interpretation_ of the\n      place.\n\n  779 From the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D.\n\n  780 iv. 326 b c.\n\n  781 Gall. viii. 347,\u2014of which the Greek is to be seen in Cramer\u2019s _Cat._\n      pp. 143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the\n      present passage included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia\n      published by C. F. Matth\u00e6i [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7].\n\n  782 i. 94, 97.\n\n  783 In _Cat._ p. 124, repeated p. 144.\n\n  784 iii. 433 c.\n\n  785 ii. 601 d.\n\n  786 By putting a small uncial \u0395 above the \u0391.\n\n_  787 Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882.\u2014[pp. 20] p. 19.\n\n_  788 Introduction_, p. 283. _Notes_, pp. 3, 22, and _passim_.\n\n  789 Sermons, vol. i. 132,\u2014(\u201c_A form of sound words to be used by\n      Ministers._\u201d)\n\n  790 Quoted by ps.-Ephraem _Evan. Conc._ p. 135 l. 2:\u2014Nonnus:\u2014Chrys.\n      viii. 248:\u2014Cyril iv. 269 e, 270 a, 273:\u2014Cramer\u2019s _Cat._ p. 242 l. 25\n      (which is _not_ from Chrys.):\u2014_Chron. Paschale_ 217 a\n      (_diserte_).\u2014Recognized by Melito (A.D. 170):\u2014Iren\u00e6us (A.D.\n      177):\u2014Hippolytus (A.D. 190):\u2014Origen:\u2014Eusebius:\u2014Apollinarius Laod.,\n      &c.\n\n  791 This is the _true_ reason of the eagerness which has been displayed\n      in certain quarters to find \u1f45\u03c2, (not \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2) in 1 Tim. iii. 16:\u2014just\n      as nothing else but a determination that CHRIST shall not be spoken\n      of as \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, has occasioned the supposed doubt as to\n      the construction of Rom. ix. 5,\u2014in which we rejoice to find that Dr.\n      Westcott refuses to concur with Dr. Hort.\n\n  792 See Dr. W. H. Mill\u2019s _University Sermons_ (1845),\u2014pp. 301-2 and\n      305:\u2014a volume which should be found in every clergyman\u2019s library.\n\n  793 Rev. xxii. 18, 19.\n\n  794 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n  795 This happens not unfrequently in codices of the type of \u05d0 and B. A\n      famous instance occurs at Col. ii. 18, (\u1f02 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n      \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd,\u2014\u201c_prying into the things he hath not seen_\u201d); where \u05d0* A\n      B D* and a little handful of suspicious documents leave out the\n      \u201c_not_.\u201d Our Editors, rather than recognize this blunder (so obvious\n      and ordinary!), are for conjecturing \u0391 \u0395\u039f\u03a1\u0391\u039a\u0395\u039d \u0395\u039c\u0392\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a5\u03a9\u039d into \u0391\u0395\u03a1\u0391\n      \u039a\u0395\u039d\u0395\u039c\u0392\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a5\u03a9\u039d; which (if it means anything at all) may as well\n      mean,\u2014\u201cproceeding on an airy foundation to offer an empty\n      conjecture.\u201d Dismissing that conjecture as worthless, we have to set\n      off the whole mass of the copies\u2014against some 6 or 7:\u2014Iren\u00e6us (i.\n      847), Theodoras Mops, (in _loc_.), Chrys. (xi. 372), Theodoret (iii.\n      489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211)\u2014against no Fathers at all (for\n      Origen once has \u03bc\u03ae [iv. 665]; once, has it not [iii. 63]; and once\n      is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the\n      diversity of reading, _but only to reject it_.\u2014The Syriac versions,\n      the Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, \u00c6thiopic, Arabic and\n      Armenian\u2014(we owe the information, as usual, to Dr. Malan)\u2014are to be\n      set against the suspicious Coptic. All these then are with the\n      Traditional Text: which cannot seriously be suspected of error.\n\n  796 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n  797 Augustin, vii. 595.\n\n  798 ii. 467: iii. 865:\u2014ii. 707: iii. 800:\u2014ii. 901. _In Luc_. pp. 428,\n      654.\n\n  799 ii. 347.\n\n  800 Preface to \u201cProvisional issue,\u201d p. xxi.\n\n_  801 Introduction_, p. 210.\n\n_  802 Ibid_. p. 276.\n\n  803 Apud Mai, vi. 105.\n\n_  804 Opp._ vii. 543. Comp. 369.\n\n  805 Ap. Cramer, _Cat._ vi. 187.\n\n  806 So, Nilus, i. 270.\n\n_  807 Interp._ 595: 607.\n\n_  808 Dem. Evan._ p. 444.\n\n  809 P. 306.\n\n_  810 Epist. ad Zen._ iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learned Cave considered\n      this to be a _genuine_ work of Justin M. (A.D. 150).\n\n_  811 Cantic._ (an early work) _interp._ iii. 39,\u2014though elsewhere (i.\n      112, 181 [?]: ii. 305 _int._ [but _not_ ii. 419]) he is for leaving\n      out \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6.\n\n  812 Gall. iii. 72 and 161.\n\n  813 ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in the _Cat._ of Nicetas) _expressly_:\n      265.\n\n  814 i. 818 _expressly_.\n\n  815 ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome\u2019s Latin translation, i. 240).\n\n  816 i. 132; iii. 442.\n\n  817 472, 634.\n\n  818 Ap. Chrys.\n\n  819 iii. 768: _apud Mai_, ii. 6 and iii. 268.\n\n  820 i. 48, 664; iv. 946.\n\n  821 Cramer\u2019s _Cat._ viii. 12, line 14.\n\n  822 128, 625.\n\n  823 Gall. vi. 181.\n\n  824 Gall. x. 14.\n\n  825 Gall. vii. 509.\n\n  826 i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he was\n      84.\n\n  827 vii. 26,\u2014\u201c_Radendum est ergo_ sine caus\u00e2.\u201d And so, at p. 636.\n\n  828 1064.\n\n  829 ii. 261.\n\n  830 ii. 592.\n\n_  831 Amphilochia_, (Athens, 1858,)\u2014p. 317. Also in _Cat._\n\n_  832 Apophthegm. PP._ [ap. Cotel. _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ i. 622].\n\n  833 S. Matth. xv. 14.\n\n_  834 Gospel of the Resurrection_,\u2014p. vii.\n\n_  835 Introduction_, pp. 300-2.\n\n_  836 Ibid._ p. 299.\n\n_  837 Appendix_, p. 66.\n\n  838 See Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 432.\n\n_  839 On Revision_,\u2014p. 99.\n\n_  840 Speech in Convocation_, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.)\n\n_  841 On Revision_,\u2014p. 205.\n\n_  842 Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,\u2014p. 25.\n\n_  843 Ibid._,\u2014p. 27.\n\n_  844 Considerations on Revision_,\u2014p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May,\n      1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June.\n\n      We learn from Dr. Newth\u2019s _Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881),\n      that,\u2014\u201cAs the general Rules under which the Revision was to be\n      carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any\n      lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company\n      upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work\u201d (p.\n      118) ... \u201cThe portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i.\n      to iv.\u201d (p. 119) ... \u201cThe question of the spelling of proper names\n      ... being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of\n      the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an\n      established method of procedure.\u201d\u2014\u201cAll proposals made at the first\n      Revision were decided by simple majorities\u201d (p. 122) ... \u201c_The\n      questions which concerned the Greek Text were decided for the most\n      part at the First Revision._\u201d (Bp. Ellicott\u2019s _Pamphlet_, p. 34.)\n\n_  845 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by two\n      Members of the New Testament Company_,\u20141882. Macmillan, pp. 79,\n      price two shillings and sixpence.\n\n  846 \u201cTo these two articles\u2014so far, at least, as they are concerned with\n      the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers\u2014our Essay is intended for an\n      answer.\u201d\u2014p. 79.\n\n  847 See above, pages 235 to 366.\n\n  848 Article III.,\u2014see last note.\n\n_  849 Pamphlet_, p. 79.\n\n_  850 The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered in its\n      bearings upon the record of our __LORD\u2019S__ Words and of incidents in\n      His Life_,\u2014(1882. pp. 250. Murray,)\u2014p. 232. Canon Cook\u2019s temperate\n      and very interesting volume will be found simply unanswerable.\n\n  851 P. 40.\n\n_  852 Ibid._\n\n  853 As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40.\n\n  854 See above, pp. 348-350.\n\n  855 P. 40.\n\n  856 P. 40.\n\n  857 P. 77.\n\n  858 P. 41, and so at p. 77.\n\n  859 P. 41.\n\n  860 P. 5.\n\n  861 P. 3.\n\n  862 P. 77.\n\n_  863 On Revision_, pp. 47-8.\n\n  864 Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_,\u2014p. 423.\n\n_  865 Ibid._ p. 421.\n\n  866 \u201cNon tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto\n      silentium,\u2014sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum\n      viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto,\n      deque summ\u00e2 Codicum dissonanti\u00e2 querel\u00e6, nec non ips\u00e6 corruptiones\n      inde a primis temporibus continuo propagat\u00e6,\u2014satis sunt documento,\n      neminem opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidi\u00e6 et\n      calumniis obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de\n      singulis locis disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in\n      rebus criticis fuisse.\u201d\u2014_Codd. MSS. N. T. Gr\u00e6corum &c. nova\n      descriptio, et cum textu vulgo recepto Collatio, &c._ 4to. Gotting\u00e6,\n      1847. (p. 4.)\n\n  867 He proceeds:\u2014\u201cHucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto,\n      continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium\n      singulorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium\n      testimonium pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero\n      aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum,\n      certum firmumque sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio\n      careamus.\u201d\u2014_Ibid._ (p. 19.)\n\n_  868 Commentarius Criticus in N. T._ (in his Preface to the Ep. to the\n      Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to\n      this. See by all means his _Revised Text of the first three\n      Gospels_,\u2014pp. 4-8.\n\n  869 It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abb\u00e9 to the\n      present writer,) the \u201cPost-scriptum\u201d of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from\n      p. 234 to p. 236,) is a _jeu d\u2019esprit_ only,\u2014intended to enliven a\n      dry subject, and to entertain his pupils.\n\n  870 It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott\u2019s notice, (and yet the fact\n      well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and\n      Tregelles on the Church\u2019s gratitude, are not by any means founded on\n      _the Texts_ which they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill,\n      Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that they _patiently accumulated\n      evidence_. \u201cTischendorf\u2019s reputation as a Biblical scholar rests\n      less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the\n      chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the\n      world.\u201d (Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_,\u2014p. 427.)\n\n  871 P. 12.\n\n  872 P. 13.\n\n  873 See above, pp. 12: 30-3: 34-5: 46-7: 75: 94-6: 249: 262: 289: 319.\n\n  874 P. 40.\n\n  875 P. 19.\n\n  876 P. 4.\n\n  877 Acts xix. 35.\n\n_  878 Supr\u00e0_, pp. 339-41.\n\n  879 P. 13.\n\n  880 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_, &c.\u2014p. 30.\n\n  881 P. 15.\n\n  882 P. 16.\n\n  883 P. 17.\n\n  884 P. 18.\n\n  885 P. 19.\n\n  886 P. 19.\n\n  887 P. 20.\n\n  888 P. 21.\n\n  889 Pp. 23-4.\n\n_  890 Supra_, pp. 258-266.\n\n  891 Pp. 25-7.\n\n  892 See _Art._ III.,\u2014viz. from p. 235 to p. 366.\n\n  893 You refer to such places as pp. 87-8 and 224, where see the Notes.\n\n_  894 Chronicle of Convocation_, Feb. 1870, p. 83.\n\n  895 See above, p. 368.\n\n  896 The clause (\u201cand sayest thou, Who touched me?\u201d) is witnessed to by A\n      C D P R X \u0393 \u0394 \u039b \u039e \u03a0 and _every other known uncial except three of\n      bad character: by every known cursive but four_:\u2014by the Old Latin\n      and Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the \u00c6thiopic\n      Versions; as well as by ps.-Tatian (_Evan. Concord_, p. 77) and\n      Chrysostom (vii. 359 a). It cannot be pretended that the words are\n      derived from S. Mark\u2019s Gospel (as Tischendorf coarsely\n      imagined);\u2014for the sufficient reason that _the words are not found\n      there_. In S. Mark (v. 31) it is,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03a4\u03af\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f25\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf; in S.\n      Luke (viii. 45), \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03a4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f01\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5. Moreover, this\n      delicate distinction has been maintained all down the ages.\n\n  897 Page 154 to p. 164.\n\n  898 You will perhaps remind me that you do not read \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. I am\n      aware that you have tacitly substituted \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd,\u2014which is only\n      supported by _four_ manuscripts of bad character: being disallowed\n      by _eighteen uncials_, (with A C D at their head,) and _every known\n      cursive but one_; besides the following Fathers:\u2014Marcion (Epiph. i.\n      313 a, 327 a.) (A.D. 150),\u2014Origen (iii. 466 e.),\u2014the author of _the\n      Dialogus_ (Orig. i. 853 d.) (A.D. 325),\u2014Epiphanius (i. 327\n      b.),\u2014Didymus (pp. 124, 413.), in two places,\u2014Basil (iii. 8\n      c.),\u2014Chrysostom (vii. 532 a.),\u2014Cyril (Opp. vi. 99 e. Mai, ii. 226.)\n      in two places,\u2014ps.-Athanasius (ii. 14 c.) (A.D. 400),\u2014ps.-Chrysostom\n      (xiii. 212 e f.).... Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text should be\n      put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are avowedly\n      (for see page 369) unskilled in Textual Criticism, and who were\n      appointed only to revise the authorized _English Version_?\n\n  899 This I make the actual sum, after deducting for marginal notes and\n      variations in stops.\n\n  900 I mean such changes as \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 for \u1f10\u03b3\u03ae\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (ix. 7),\u2014\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 for\n      \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (xv. 23), &c. These are generally the result of a change\n      of construction.\n\n  901 MS. communication from my friend, the Editor\n\n  902 I desire to keep out of sight the _critical impropriety_ of such\n      corrections of the text. And yet, it is worth stating that \u05d0 B L are\n      _the only witnesses discoverable_ for the former, and _almost the\n      only_ witnesses to be found for the latter of these two utterly\n      unmeaning changes.\n\n  903 Characteristic of these two false-witnesses is it, that they are not\n      able to convey even _this_ short message correctly. In reporting the\n      two words \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5, they contrive to make two blunders. B\n      substitutes \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 for \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9: \u05d0, \u1f66\u03b4\u03b5 for \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5,\u2014which latter\n      eccentricity Tischendorf (characteristically) does not allude to in\n      his note ... \u201cThese be thy gods, O Israel!\u201d\n\n  904 Rev. xxii. 19.\n\n  905 iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference is _not_\n      to S. Matt. x. 15.\n\n  906 P. 123.\n\n  907 Viz. vi. 7-13.\n\n  908 i. 199 and 200.\n\n_  909 In loc._\n\n  910 See above, pp. 347-9.\n\n  911 See above, pp. 79-85.\n\n  912 See above, pp. 409-411.\n\n  913 See above, p. 399.\n\n  914 Bp. Ellicott _on Revision_, p. 30.\n\n  915 The Bp. attended _only one meeting_ of the Revisers. (Newth, p.\n      125.)\n\n  916 Page 4.\n\n  917 See above, pp. 41 to 47.\n\n  918 Pages 17, 18.\n\n  919 See above, p. 37, note 1.\n\n  920 Pages 98-106.\n\n  921 Pages 64-76.\n\n  922 The exceptions are not worth noticing _here_.\n\n  923 N. T. ed. 2da. 1807, iii. 442-3.\n\n  924 i. 887 c.\n\n  925 Called _Ancoratus_, written in Pamphylia, A.D. 373. The extract in\n      _Adv. H\u00e6r._ extends from p. 887 to p. 899 (= _Ancor._ ii. 67-79).\n\n  926 ii. 74 b. Note, that to begin the quotation at the word \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\n      was a frequent practice with the ancients, especially when enough\n      had been said already to make it plain that it was of the SON they\n      were speaking, or when it would have been nothing to the purpose to\n      begin with \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Thus Origen, iv. 465 c:\u2014Didymus on 1 John _apud_\n      Galland. vi. 301 a:\u2014Nestorius, _apud_ Cyril, vi. 103 e:\u2014ps-Chrysost.\n      x. 763 c, 764 c:\u2014and the Latin of Cyril v.1 785. So indeed\n      ps-Epiphanius, ii. 307 c.\n\n  927 i. 894 c.\n\n_  928 Apud_ Theodoret, v. 719.\n\n  929 iv. 622 a,\u2014_qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu_.\n\n_  930 De incarn. Unig._ v. part i. 680 d e = _De rect\u00e2 fide_, v. part ii.\n      b c.\n\n_  931 Ibid._ 681 a = _ibid._ 6 d e.\n\n  932 Page 98.\n\n  933 Note at the end of Bishop Ellicott\u2019s Commentary on 1 Timothy.\n\n  934 Berriman\u2019s MS. Note in the British Museum copy of his\n      _Dissertation_,\u2014p. 154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian.\n\n  935 \u201cCerte quidem in exemplari Alexandrino nostro, linea illa transversa\n      quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud\n      dubitarim ipse scriptum _\u039f\u03a3_, quod proinde in variantes lectiones\n      conjeceram.... Verum postea perlustrato attentius loco, lineol\u00e6, qu\u00e6\n      primam aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa\n      deprehendi, pr\u00e6sertim ad partem sinistram, qu\u00e6 peripheriam liter\u00e6\n      pertingit,\u201d &c.\u2014_In loco._\n\n_  936 Clem. Rom._ ed. Wotton, p. 27.\n\n  937 Berriman, pp. 154-5.\n\n_  938 Ibid._ (_MS. Note._) Berriman adds other important testimony, p.\n      156.\n\n_  939 Dissertation_, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in\n      recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading\n      of the place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common\n      black ink, and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the \u03b8. There\n      has been no attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could\n      deceive no one.\n\n  940 \u201cQuanquam lineola, qu\u00e6 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 compendiose scriptum ab \u1f45\u03c2 distinguitur,\n      sublesta videtur nonnullis.\u201d\u2014N. T. p. 710.\n\n  941 Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report:\u2014\u201cManibus hominum inepte\n      curiosorum ea folii pars qu\u00e6 dictum controversum continet, adeo\n      detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere\n      possit ... Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuisse videntur,\n      ut primitivam illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent.\u201d\n      (_Symb. Crit._ i. p. x.) The MS. was evidently in precisely the same\n      state when the Rev. J. C. Velthusen (_Observations on Various\n      Subjects_, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 1773.\n\n  942 As C. F. Matth\u00e6i [N. T. m. xi. _Pr\u00e6fat._ pp. lii.-iii.]\n      remarks:\u2014\u201c_cum de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui\n      dissimilior deprehenditur_.\u201d Woide instances it as an example of the\n      force of prejudice, that Wetstein \u201capparitionem lineol\u00e6 alii caus\u00e6\n      adscripsisse, _quia eam abesse volebat_.\u201d [_Pr\u00e6fat._ p. xxxi.]\n\n  943 \u201cPatet, ut alia mittamus, e consensu Versionum,\u201d &c.\u2014ii. 149.\n\n  944 Woide, _ibid._\n\n_  945 Supra_, p. 100.\n\n_  946 Introduction_, p. 553.\n\n_  947 Introd._ p. 553.\n\n  948 Any one desirous of understanding this question fully, should\n      (besides Berriman\u2019s admirable _Dissertation_) read Woide\u2019s\n      _Pr\u00e6fatio_ to his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (\u00a7\n      87).\u2014\u201cErunt fortasse quidam\u201d (he writes in conclusion) \u201cqui\n      suspicabuntur, nonnullos hanc lineolam diametralem in medio \u0398\n      vidisse, quoniam eam videre volebant. Nec negari potest pr\u00e6sumptarum\n      opinionum esse vim permagnam. Sed idem, etiam Wetstenio, nec\n      immerito, objici potest, eam apparitionem lineol\u00e6 alii caus\u00e6\n      adscripsisse, quia eam abesse volebat. Et eruditissimis placere\n      aliquando, qu\u00e6 vitiosa sunt, scio: sed omnia testimonia, omnemque\n      historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nec mirum\n      est nos ea nunc non discernere, qu\u00e6, antequam nos Codicem\n      vidissemus, evanuerant.\u201d\n\n_  949 Prolegomena_ to his ed. of Cod. C,\u2014pp. 39-42.\n\n  950 \u201c\u039f\u03c2 habet codex C, ut puto; nam lineola illa tenuis, qu\u00e6 ex \u039f facit\n      \u0398, non apparet.\u201d (_In loc._) And so Griesbach, _Symb. Crit._ i. p.\n      viii. (1785).\n\n  951 \u201cQuotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc biennium\n      s\u00e6pissime) mihi prorsus apparebat.\u201d \u201cQuam [lineolam] miror hucusque\n      omnium oculos fugisse.\u201d [_Prolegg._ p. 41].... Equidem miror sane.\n\n  952 Page 75.\n\n  953 Pages 64, 69, 71, 75.\u2014Some have pointed out that opposite _\u039f\u03a3_ in\n      F\u2014above _\u039f\u03a3_ in G,\u2014is written \u201cquod.\u201d Yes, but not \u201c_qui_.\u201d The\n      Latin version is independent of the Greek. In S. Mark xi. 8, above\n      \u0391\u0393\u03a1\u03a9\u039d is written \u201c_arboribus_;\u201d and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, \u0391\u0393\u03a9\u039d\u0399\u0396\u039f\u039c\u0395\u0398\u0391 is\n      translated by F \u201c_maledicimur_,\u201d\u2014by G, \u201c_exprobramur vel\n      maledicimur_.\u201d\n\n_  954 Introduction to_ Cod. Augiensis, p. xxviij.\n\n_  955 E.g._ Out of \u039f\u039c\u0395\u039d\u03a4\u039f\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0395\u039f\u03a3 [2 Tim. ii. 19], they both make \u039f \u00b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n      \u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf \u00b7 \u03b9\u03c3 \u00b7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. For \u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd [Tit. i. 13], both write \u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u00b7\n      \u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd:\u2014for \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 [2 Cor. v. 17] both give \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u00b7\n      \u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2:\u2014for \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 [1 Tim. iii. 10], both exhibit \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u00b7\n      \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u00b7 \u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (\u201cnullum crimen habentes\u201d):\u2014for \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\n      \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f15\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 [2 Tim. ii. 17], both exhibit \u03c9\u03c2 \u00b7 \u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1 \u00b7 \u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u00b7 (F G)\n      \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03b9, (G, who writes above the words \u201c_sicut cancer ut\n      serpat_\u201d).\n\n  956 He must be held responsible for \u1f5d\u03a0\u039f\u039a\u03a1\u0399\u03a3\u0399 in place of \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 [1\n      Tim. iv. 2]: \u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u0396\u039f\u039c\u0395\u039d\u039f\u03a3 instead of \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 [2 Cor. v. 19]:\n      \u03a0\u03a1\u0399\u03a7\u039f\u03a4\u0397\u03a4\u0399 instead of \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author\n      of \u0393\u0395\u03a1\u039c\u0391\u039d\u0395 in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of \u039f \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 in 1 Tim. iv.\n      1.\n\n      But the scribes of F and G also were curiously innocent of Greek. G\n      suggests that \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be \u201cinfinitivus\u201d\u2014(of\n      course from \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03ba\u03c9).\n\n_  957 Introduction_, p. 155.\n\n  958 Thirteen times between Rom. i. 7 and xiii. 1.\n\n_  959 E.g._ Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (_\u03bf_\u03c2 and _\u03bf_).\n      Those who have Matth\u00e6i\u2019s reprint of G at hand are invited to refer\n      to the last line of fol. 91: (1 Tim. vi. 20) where \u1f6e \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03b5 is\n      exhibited thus:\u2014_\u039f_ \u1f6e \u03a4\u0399\u039c\u039f\u0398\u0395\u0395.\n\n  960 Col. ii. 22, 23: iii. 2.\n\n  961 As 1 Tim. iii. 1: iv. 14: vi. 15. Consider the practice of F in 1\n      Thess. i. 9 (_\u039f_; \u03a0\u039f\u0399\u0391\u039d): in 2 Cor. viii. 11, 14 (_\u039f_; \u03a0\u03a9\u03a3).\n\n  962 Rarest of all are instances of this mark over the Latin \u201ce\u201d: but we\n      meet with \u201c_sp\u0113_\u201d (Col. i. 23): \u201c_s\u0113_\u201d (ii. 18): _r\u0113p\u0113ntes_ (2 Tim.\n      iii. 6), &c. So, in the Greek, \u1f21 or \u1f97 written _\u0397_ are most\n      unusual.\u2014A few instances are found of \u201cu\u201d with this appendage, as\n      \u201c_dom\u016bs_\u201d (1 Tim. v. 13): \u201c_spirit\u016b_\u201d (1 Cor. iv. 21), &c.\n\n  963 This information is obtained from a photograph of the page procured\n      from Dresden through the kindness of the librarian, Counsellor Dr.\n      Forstemann.\n\n  964 See Rettig\u2019s _Prolegg._ pp. xxiv.-v.\n\n  965 \u201cYou will perceive that I have now succeeded in identifying every\n      Evangelium hitherto spoken of as existing in Florence, with the\n      exception of Evan 365 [Act. 145, Paul 181] (Laurent vi. 36), &c.,\n      which is said to \u2018contain also the Psalms.\u2019 I assure you no such\n      Codex exists in the Laurentian Library; no, nor ever did exist\n      there. Dr. Anziani devoted full an hour to the enquiry, allowing me\n      [for I was very incredulous] to see the process whereby he convinced\n      himself that Scholz is in error. It was just such an intelligent and\n      exhaustive process as Coxe of the Bodleian, or dear old Dr. Bandinel\n      before him, would have gone through under similar circumstances.\n      Pray strike that Codex off your list; and with it \u2018Acts 145\u2019 and\n      \u2018Paul 181.\u2019 I need hardly say that Bandini\u2019s Catalogue knows nothing\n      of it. It annoys me to be obliged to add that I cannot even find out\n      the history of Scholz\u2019s mistake.\u201d\u2014_Guardian_, August 27, 1873.\n\n  966 \u201c_Whose_ word on such matters is entitled to most credit,\u2014the word\n      of the Reviewer, or the word of the most famous manuscript collators\n      of this century?... Those who have had occasion to seek in public\n      libraries for manuscripts which are not famous for antiquity or\n      beauty or completeness (_sic_), know that the answer \u2018_non est\n      inventus_\u2019 is no conclusive reason for believing that the object of\n      their quest has not been seen and collated in former years by those\n      who profess to have actually seen and collated it. That 181 \u2018is\n      non-existent\u2019 must be considered unproven.\u201d\u2014Bp. Ellicott\u2019s\n      _Pamphlet_, p. 72.\n\n  967 The learned Abb\u00e9 Martin, who has obligingly inspected for me the 18\n      copies of the \u201cPraxapostolus\u201d in the Paris library, reports as\n      follows concerning \u201cApost. 12\u201d ( = Reg. 375),\u2014\u201cA very foul MS. of\n      small value, I believe: but a curious specimen of bad Occidental\n      scholarship. It was copied for the monks of S. Denys, and exhibits\n      many Latin words; having been apparently revised on the Latin. The\n      lection is assigned to \u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bb\u1fbd (not \u03bb\u03b4\u1fbd) in this codex.\u201d\n\n  968 \u201c_Codices Cryptenses seu Abbati\u00e6 Crypt\u00e6 Ferrat\u00e6 in Tusculano,\n      digesti et illustrati cura et studio_ D. Antonii Rocchi,\n      Hieromonachi Basiliani Bibliothec\u00e6 custodis,\u201d\u2014_Tusculani_, fol.\n      1882.\u2014I have received 424 pages (1 May, 1883).\n\n  969 Not a few of the Basilian Codices have been transferred to the\n      Vatican.\n\n  970 In an APPENDIX to the present volume, I will give fuller\n      information. I am still (3rd May, 1883) awaiting replies to my\n      troublesome interrogatories addressed to the heads of not a few\n      continental libraries.\n\n  971 Rufinus, namely (_fl._ A.D. 395). _Opp._ iv. 465\n\n  972 MS. letter to myself, August 11, 1879.\n\n  973 MS. letter from the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John\u2019s College, Oxford.\n\n  974 See above, page 429.\n\n  975 Page 71. And so p. 65 and 69.\n\n  976 MS. letter to myself.\n\n  977 See above, page 429.\n\n_  978 Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. Versionis Goth. fragmenta qu\u00e6\n      supersunt_, &c. 4to. 1843.\n\n  979 \u201cSi tamen Uppstr\u00f6m \u2018_obscurum_\u2019 dixit, non \u2018_incertum_,\u2019 fides illi\n      adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me\n      enim pr\u00e6sente in aula codicem tractabat.\u201d\u2014(Private letter to\n      myself.)\n\n      Ceriani proceeds,\u2014\u201cQu\u00e6ris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii.\n      16, nota 54 _Proleg._ Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n      Putarem ex loco Castillion\u00e6i in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos\n      fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh pr\u00e6cepti \u2018_Let me\n      recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references,\n      sir_.\u2019 \u201d\n\n      The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the\n      former editor of the codex, was in favour of \u201cGOD\u201d in 1835, and of\n      \u201c_soei_\u201d (_qu\u00e6_ [ = \u1f45], to agree with \u201c_runa_,\u201d _i.e._ \u201cmystery,\u201d\n      which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured\n      to print \u201c_saei_\u201d = \u1f45\u03c2. \u201cEt \u2018saei\u2019 legit etiam diligentissimus\n      Andreas Uppstr\u00f6m nuperus codicis Ambrosiani investigator et editor,\n      in opere _Codicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c._ Holmi\u00e6\n      et Lipsi\u00e6, 1868.\u201d\n\n  980 Stuttgard, 1857.\n\n  981 Of the department of Oriental MSS. in the Brit. Mus., who derives\n      his text from \u201cthe three Museum MSS. which contain the Arabic\n      Version of the Epistles: viz. _Harl._ 5474 (dated A.D.\n      1332):\u2014_Oriental_ 1328 (Xth cent.):\u2014_Arundel Orient._ 19 (dated A.D.\n      1616).\u201d\u2014Walton\u2019s Polyglott, he says, exhibits \u201ca garbled version,\n      quite distinct from the genuine Arabic: viz. \u2018_These glories\n      commemorate them in the greatness of the mystery of fair piety.\n      _GOD_ appeared in the flesh_,\u2019 \u201d &c.\n\n  982 See above, pp. 271 to 294.\n\n  983 i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 a _bis_.\u2014ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b\n      (these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615,\n      from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full, _supra_,\n      p. 101.]\u2014iii. 39 b _bis_: 67 a b.\u2014_Ap. Galland._ vi. 518 c: 519 d:\n      520 b: 526 d: 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these\n      places, I believe, exhibit \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2,\u2014which seems to have been the\n      reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four\n      instances of it,\u2014(they will be found distinctly specified below,\n      page 493, _note_ 1),\u2014are known to exist. More places must have been\n      overlooked.\n\n      Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name\n      Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for\n      \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read\n      thus:\u2014\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7. Griesbach borrowed that\n      quotation and that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in\n      turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question are _not\n      the words of Gregory Nyss. at all_; but of Apolinaris, against whom\n      Gregory is writing,\u2014as Gregory himself explains. [_Antirrh. adv.\n      Apol._ apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]\n\n_  984 De Trin._ p. 83. The testimony is express.\n\n  985 i. 92: iii. 657.-iv. 19, 23.\n\n  986 i. 313:\u2014ii. 263.\n\n  987 i. 497 c d e.\u2014viii. 85 e: 86 a.\u2014xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.\u2014(The first\n      of these places occurs in the Homily _de Beato Philogonio_, which\n      Matth\u00e6i in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited\n      from an independent source [_Lectt. Mosqq._ 1779]. Gallandius [xiv.\n      _Append._ 141-4] reprints Matth\u00e6i\u2019s labours).\u2014Concerning this place\n      of Chrysostom (_vide supr\u00e0_, p. 101), Bp. Ellicott says (p.\n      66),\u2014\u201cThe passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer] does allege,\n      deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as an illustration\n      of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this passage\n      attests the reading \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest\n      the reading \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator\n      has introduced it?\u201d... I can but say, in reply,\u2014\u201cNo, certainly not.\u201d\n      May I be permitted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible\n      how Bp. Ellicott can show himself so _plan\u00e8 hospes_ in this\n      department of sacred Science as to be capable of gravely asking such\n      a very foolish question?\n\n  988 i. 215 a: 685 b. The places may be seen quoted _supr\u00e0_, p. 101.\n\n  989 The place is quoted in Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 59.\n\n_  990 Antirrheticus_, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77.\n\n  991 The full title was,\u2014\u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd\n      \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5. _Ibid._ 518 b, c: 519 a.\n\n  992 Apolinaris did not deny that CHRIST was very GOD. His heresy (like\n      that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the\n      Godhead with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret:\u2014\u0391. \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76\n      \u1f11\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. \u039f. \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n      \u1f10\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03bd? \u0391. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5. \u039f. \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2? \u0391. \u039d\u03b1\u03af. _Dial._\n      vi. _adv. Apol._ (_Opp._ v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.)\n\n  993 Cramer\u2019s _Cat. in Actus_, iii. 69. It is also met with in the Catena\n      on the Acts which J. C. Wolf published in his _Anecdota Gr\u00e6ca_, iii.\n      137-8. The place is quoted above, p. 102.\n\n  994 Cramer\u2019s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.\n\n  995 P. 67.\n\n  996 P. 65.\n\n  997 P. 65.\n\n  998 See above, p. 429.\n\n  999 Bentley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and others adduce\n      \u201c_Euthalius_.\u201d\n\n_ 1000 Concilia_, i. 849-893. The place is quoted below in note 3.\n\n 1001 \u201cVerum ex illis verbis illud tantum inferri debet false eam\n      epistolam Dionysio Alexandrino attribui: non autem scriptum non\n      fuisse ab aliquo ex Episcopis qui Synodis adversus Paulum\n      Antiochenum celebratis interfuerant. Innumeris enim exemplis constat\n      indubitat\u00e6 antiquitatis Epistolas ex Scriptorum errore falsos\n      titulos pr\u00e6ferre.\u201d\u2014(Pagi ad A.D. 264, apud Mansi, _Concil._ i.\n      1039.)\n\n 1002 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u0390\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f15\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; \u0398\u0395\u1ff8\u03a3 \u0393\u1fba\u03a1 \u1f18\u03a6\u0391\u039d\u0395\u03a1\u038f\u0398\u0397 \u1f18\u039d\n      \u03a3\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u038a, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f10\u03ba \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u1f11\u03c9\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u2014_Concilia_, i. 853 a.\n\n 1003 Cap. xi.\n\n_ 1004 Ad Ephes._ c. 19: c. 7. _Ad Magnes._ c. 8.\n\n 1005 Cap. xii.\n\n_ 1006 Contra H\u00e6resim Noeti_, c. xvii. (Routh\u2019s _Opuscula_, i. 76.) Read\n      the antecedent chapters.\n\n_ 1007 Dialog._ ii. \u2019_Inconfusus._\u2019\u2014_Opp._ iv. 132.\n\n 1008 Cod. 230,\u2014p. 845, line 40.\n\n 1009 vii. 26, _ap. Galland_. iii. 182 a.\n\n 1010 iii. 401-2, _Epist._ 261 ( = 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4\n      follows.\n\n 1011 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f18\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03ae\u03bb,\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\u2014Vol. v. Part ii. 48 e.\n\n 1012 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f61\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03ce\u03c2.\u2014_Opp._ V. Part 2, p. 124 c d. (=\n      _Concilia_, iii. 221 c d.)\n\n 1013 N. T. vol. xi. _Pr\u00e6fat._ p. xli.\n\n 1014 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2014_De Incarnatione Domini_, Mai,\n      _Nov. PP. Bibliotheca_, ii. 68.\n\n 1015 Earlier in the same Treatise, Cyril thus grandly paraphrases 1 Tim.\n      iii. 16:\u2014\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2,\n      \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, \u1f21 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9.\u2014_Ibid._ p. 37.\n\n 1016 P. 153 d. (= _Concilia_, iii. 264 c d.)\n\n_ 1017 Ibid_, d e.\n\n 1018 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Presently,\u2014\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n      \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n      \u1f62\u03bd \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. p. 154 a b c.\u2014In a subsequent page,\u2014\u1f45 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n      \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3,\n      \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 ... \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n      \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\u2014_Ibid._ p. 170 d e.\n\n 1019 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u1fbd.\u2014\u0395\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n      \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\n      \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9.\u2014vi. 148 a.\n\n_ 1020 Ibid._ b, c, down to 149 a. (= _Concilia_, iii. 815 b-e.)\n\n 1021 Preserved by \u0152cumenius in his _Catena_, 1631, ii. 228.\n\n 1022 Ellis, p. 67.\n\n 1023 In loc.\n\n_ 1024 Vari\u00e6 Lect._ ii. 232. He enumerates ten MSS. in which he found\n      it,\u2014but he only quotes down to \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7.\n\n 1025 In loc.\n\n 1026 P. 227 _note_.\n\n 1027 Pointed out long since by Matth\u00e6i, _N. T._ vol. xi. _Pr\u00e6fat._ p.\n      xlviii. Also in his ed. of 1807,\u2014iii. 443-4. \u201cNec ideo laudatus est,\n      ut doceret Cyrillum loco \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 legisse \u1f45\u03c2, sed ideo, ne quis si Deum\n      factum legeret hominem, humanis peccatis etiam obnoxium esse\n      crederet.\u201d\n\n 1028 See Berriman\u2019s _Dissertation_, p. 189.\u2014(MS. note of the Author.)\n\n 1029 Not from the 2nd article of his _Explanatio xii. capitum_, as\n      Tischendorf supposes.\n\n 1030 See how P. E. Pusey characterizes the \u201cScholia,\u201d in his _Preface_ to\n      vol. vi. of his edition,\u2014pp. xii. xiii.\n\n 1031 Cyril\u2019s Greek, (to judge from Mercator\u2019s Latin,) must have run\n      somewhat as follows:\u2014\u1f49 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd\n      \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03b9; \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\n      \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n_ 1032 Opp._ vol. v. P. i. p. 785 d.\u2014The original scholium (of which the\n      extant Greek proves to be only a garbled fragment, [see Pusey\u2019s ed.\n      vi. p. 520,]) abounds in expressions which imply, (if they do not\n      require,) that \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 went before: _e.g._ ___quasi Deus homo\n      factus:____\u2014____erant ergo gentes in mundo sine Deo, cum absque\n      Christo essent:____\u2014____Deus enim erat incarnatus:____\u2014____in\n      humanitate tamen Deus remansit: Deus enim Verbum, carne assumpt\u00e2,\n      non deposuit quod erat; intelligitur tamen idem Deus simul et\n      homo,___ &c.\n\n 1033 P. 67.\n\n_ 1034 Opp._ vi. 327.\n\n 1035 ii. 852.\n\n 1036 Matth\u00e6i, N. T. xi. _Pr\u00e6fat._ pp. lii.-iii.\n\n 1037 Vol. V. P. ii. pp. 55-180.\n\n 1038 \u201cHow is the Godhead of Christ proved?\u201d (asks Ussher in his _Body of\n      Divinity_, ed. 1653, p. 161). And he adduces out of the N. T. only\n      Jo. i. 1, xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Jo. v. 20.\u2014He _had_ quoted 1 Tim.\n      iii. 16 in p. 160 (with Rom. ix. 5) to prove the union of the two\n      natures.\n\n 1039 Burgon\u2019s _Last Twelve Verses_, &c., p. 195 and note. See Canon Cook\n      on this subject,\u2014pp. 146-7.\n\n_ 1040 Supr\u00e0_, p. 102.\n\n 1041 Pp. 68-9.\n\n_ 1042 Proleg. in N. T._,\u2014\u00a7 1013.\n\n_ 1043 Opp._ (ed. 1645) ii. 447.\n\n_ 1044 Concilia_, v. 772 a. I quote from Garnier\u2019s ed. of the\n      _Breviarium_, reprinted by Gallandius, xii. 1532.\n\n 1045 iv. 465 c.\n\n_ 1046 Concilia_, vi. 28 e [= iii. 645 c (ed. Harduin)].\n\n 1047 \u201cEx sequentibus colligo qu\u00e6dam exemplaria tempore Anastasii et\n      Macedonii habuisse \u1f45\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2; ut, mutatione fact\u00e2 \u1f45\u03c2 in \u1f61\u03c2,\n      intelligeretur _ut esset Deus_.\u201d (Cotelerii, _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ iii.\n      663)\u2014\u201cQ. d. Ut hic homo, qui dicitur Jesus, esset et dici posset\n      Deus,\u201d &c. (Cornelius, _in loc._ He declares absolutely \u201colim\n      legerunt ... \u1f45\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u201d)\u2014All this was noticed long since by Berriman,\n      pp. 243-4.\n\n 1048 \u201cApost. 83,\u201d is \u201c_Crypta-Ferrat._ A. \u03b2. iv.\u201d described in the\n      APPENDIX. I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta\n      Ferrata, the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe\n      the letter which conveyed information which the writer knew would be\n      acceptable to me:\u2014\u201cClme Rme Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci\n      illius Paulini non modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his\n      ipsis variationes, adsequutus es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam,\n      descriptis prope sexcentis et quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel\n      MSS. Tres autem, quos primum nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad\n      Liturgicorum ordinem. Jam felici omine tuas prosoquere\n      elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et labore nimio valetudinem\n      tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. Maias, an. R. S.\n      MDCCCLXXXIII. ANTONIUS ROCCHI, Hieromonachus Basilianus.\u201d\n\n      For \u201cPaul 282,\u201d (a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as \u201cArm\u00e9nien 9,\u201d) I\n      am indebted to the Abb\u00e9 Martin, who describes it in his\n      _Introduction \u00e0 la Critique Textuelle du N. T._, 1883,\u2014pp. 660-1.\n      See APPENDIX.\n\n 1049 Prebendary Scrivener (p. 555) ably closes the list. Any one desirous\n      of mastering the entire literature of the subject should study the\n      Rev. John Berriman\u2019s interesting and exhaustive _Dissertation_,\u2014pp.\n      229-263.\n\n 1050 The reader is invited to read what Berriman, (who was engaged on his\n      \u201c_Dissertation_\u201d while Bp. Butler was writing the \u201cAdvertisement\u201d\n      prefixed to his \u201c_Analogy_\u201d [1736],) has written on this part of the\n      subject,\u2014pp. 120-9, 173-198, 231-240, 259-60, 262, &c.\n\n 1051 Apud Athanasium, _Opp_. ii. 33; and see Garnier\u2019s introductory Note.\n\n 1052 \u201cAudi Paulum magn\u00e2 voce clamantem: _Deus manifestatus est in carne_\n      [down to] _assumptus est in glori\u00e2_. O magni doctoris affatum!\n      _Deus_, inquit, _manifestatus est in carne_,\u201d &c.\u2014_Concilia_, vii.\n      p. 618 e.\n\n 1053 Theodori Studit\u00e6, _Epistt_. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirmondi\u2019s _Opera\n      Varia_, vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,\u2014Venet. 1728.)\n\n 1054 Paul 113, (Matth\u00e6i\u2019s a) contains two Scholia which witness to \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7:\u2014Paul 115, (Matth\u00e6i\u2019s d) also contains two Scholia.\u2014Paul\n      118, (Matth\u00e6i\u2019s h).\u2014Paul 123, (Matth\u00e6i\u2019s n). See Matth\u00e6i\u2019s N. T.\n      vol. xi. _Pr\u00e6fat._ pp. xlii.-iii.\n\n 1055 ii. 228 a.\n\n 1056 ii. 569 e: 570 a.\n\n_ 1057 Panoplia_,\u2014Tergobyst, 1710, fol. \u03c1\u03ba\u03b3\u1fbd. p. 2, col. 1.\n\n 1058 \u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n 1059 But in Apost. 12 (Reg. 375) it is the lection for the 30th (\u03bb\u1fbd)\n      Saturday.\u2014In Apost. 33 (Reg. 382), for the 31st (\u03bb\u03b1\u1fbd).\u2014In Apost. 26\n      (Reg. 320), the lection for the 34th Saturday begins at 1 Tim. vi.\n      11.\u2014Apostt. 26 and 27 (Regg. 320-1) are said to have a peculiar\n      order of lessons.\n\n 1060 For convenience, many codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of\n      \u201cApostolus\u201d) which are rather \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf-\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1. Many again which\n      are but fragmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the\n      Epistles: such are Apostt. 97 to 103. See the APPENDIX.\n\n 1061 No. 21, 28, 31 are said to be Gospel lessons (\u201cEvstt.\u201d). No. 29, 35\n      and 36 are Euchologia; \u201cthe two latter probably Melchite, for the\n      codices exhibit some Arabic words\u201d (Abb\u00e9 Martin). No. 43 and 48 must\n      be erased. No. 70 and 81 are identical with 52 (B. M. _Addit._\n      32051).\n\n 1062 Viz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Menologies with a few Gospel\n      lections): 15: 16: 17: 19: 20: 24: 26: 27: 32: 37: 39: 44: 47: 50:\n      53: 55: 56: 59: 60: 61: 63: 64: 66: 67: 68: 71: 72: 73: 75: 76: 78:\n      79: 80: 87: 88: 90.\n\n 1063 Viz. Apost. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, 42 at Rome: 54\n      at St. Petersburg: 74 in America.\n\n 1064 Viz. Apost. 2 and 52 (Addit. 32051) in the B. Mus., also 69 (Addit.\n      29714 verified by Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: 7 at the\n      Propaganda (verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 at Paris\n      (verified by Abb\u00e9 Martin): 13, 14, 18 at Moscow: 38, 49 in the\n      Vatican (verified by Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow (verified by\n      Dr. Young): 46 at Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besan\u00e7on\n      (verified by M. Castan): 57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65 B-C (all\n      three verified by Scrivener): 58 at Ch. Ch., Oxford: 77 at Moscow:\n      82 at Messina (verified by Papas Matranga): 84 and 89 at Crypta\n      Ferrata (verified by Hieromonachus Rocchi).\n\n 1065 Viz. Apost. 34 (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Codex. The Abb\u00e9 Martin\n      assures me that this copy exhibits \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; | \u03b8\u1fe2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7. Note\n      however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation,\n      proves that nothing else but \u03b8\u03c2 was intended. This is very\n      instructive. What if the same slip of the pen had been found in Cod.\n      B?\n\n 1066 Viz. Apost 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. \u03b2. iv.)\n\n 1067 Viz. Praxapost. 85 and 86 (Crypta Ferrata, A. \u03b2. vii. which exhibits\n      \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1 | \u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af; and A. \u03b2. viii., which exhibits\n      \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10 ... \u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 | \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cd. [_sic._]). Concerning these\n      codices, see above, pp. 446 to 448.\n\n_ 1068 Concilia_, ii. 217 c ( = ed. Hard. i. 418 b).\n\n 1069 He wrote a history of the Council of Nic\u00e6a, in which he introduces\n      the discussions of the several Bishops present,\u2014all the product (as\n      Cave thinks) of his own brain.\n\n 1070 viii. 214 b.\n\n 1071 Cited at the Council of CP. (A.D. 553). [_Concilia_, ed. Labbe et\n      Cossart, v. 447 b c = ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.]\n\n_ 1072 Concilia_, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d.\n\n 1073 Harduin, iii. 32 d.\n\n 1074 A Latin translation of the work of Leontius (_Contra Nestor. et\n      Eutych._), wherein it is stated that the present place was found in\n      _lib._ xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 660-99: the passage\n      under consideration being given at p. 694 c d]: but Mai (_Script.\n      Vett._ vi. 290-312), having discovered in the Vatican the original\n      text of the excerpts from Theod. Mops., published (from the xiith\n      book of Theod. _de Incarnatione_) the Greek of the passage [vi.\n      308]. From this source, Migne [_Patr. Gr._ vol. 66, col. 988] seems\n      to have obtained his quotation.\n\n 1075 Either as given by Mai, or as represented in the Latin translation\n      of Leontius (obtained from a different codex) by Canisius [_Antiqu\u00e6\n      Lectt._, 1601, vol. iv.], from whose work Gallandius simply\n      reprinted it in 1788.\n\n_ 1076 Theodori Mops. Fragmenta Syriaca, vertit_ Ed. Sachau, Lips.\n      1869,\u2014p. 53.\u2014I am indebted for much zealous help in respect of these\n      Syriac quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,\u2014who, I\n      venture to predict, will some day make his mark in these studies.\n\n_ 1077 Ibid._ p. 64. The context of the place (which is derived from\n      Lagarde\u2019s _Analecta Syriaca_, p. 102, top,) is as follows: \u201cDeitas\n      enim inhabitans h\u00e6c omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam\n      gratia Spiritus Sancti adjuvabat ad hunc effectum, ut beatus quoque\n      Apostolus dixit: \u2018_Vere grande ... in spiritu_;\u2019 quoniam nos quoque\n      auxilium Spirit\u00fbs accepturi sumus ad perfectionem justiti\u00e6.\u201d A\n      further reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16 at page 69, does not help us.\n\n 1078 I owe this, and more help than I can express in a foot-note, to my\n      learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John\u2019s.\n\n 1079 Pages 437-43.\n\n 1080 See above, p. 444.\n\n 1081 See above, pp. 446-8; also the _Appendix_.\n\n 1082 See pp. 426-8.\n\n 1083 See pp. 480-2.\n\n 1084 N. T. 1806 ii. _ad calcem_, p. [25].\n\n 1085 Page 76.\n\n 1086 See above, pp. 376-8.\n\n 1087 Viz. from p. 431 to p. 478.\n\n 1088 See above, pp. 462-4.\n\n 1089 Viz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit.\n      i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; iii. 11.\n\n 1090 From the friend whose help is acknowledged at foot of pp. 450, 481.\n\n 1091 Scholz enumerates 8 of these copies: Coxe, 15. But there must exist\n      a vast many more; as, at M. Athos, in the convent of S. Catharine,\n      at Meteora, &c., &c.\n\n 1092 In explanation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to\n      the APPENDIX at the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing\n      words have been in print I have obtained from Rome tidings of about\n      34 more copies of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles; raising the present total to\n      336. The known copies of the book called \u201c_Apostolus_\u201d now amount to\n      127.]\n\n 1093 Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, 3rd ed. p. 251): and\n      Paul 181 (see above, at pp. 444-5).\n\n 1094 Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg.\n\n 1095 Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_): 15 (which is not in\n      the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener\u2019s\n      _Introduction_): 209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are\n      no longer preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the\n      suppression of the Jesuits, is any one able to tell what has become\n      of them).\n\n 1096 Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (_Vat._ 165,\u2014from Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: 64:\n      66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: 161:\n      162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (_Milan_ N. 272 _sup._,\u2014from\n      Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (_Modena_ II. A. 13,\u2014from Sig.\n      Cappilli [Acts, 195\u2014_see Appendix_]): 286 (_Milan_ E. 2 _inf._\u2014from\n      Dr. Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 287 (_Milan_ A. 241 _inf._\u2014from Dr.\n      Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 293 (_Crypta Ferrata_, A. \u03b2. vi.\u2014from the\n      Hieromonachus A. Rocchi [_see Appendix_]): 302 (_Berlin, MS. Gr\u00e6c._\n      8vo. No. 9.\u2014from Dr. C. de Boor [_see Appendix_]).\n\n 1097 Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_): and\n      Paul 261 (Muralt\u2019s 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330).\n\n 1098 I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles at 1 Tim.\n      iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,\u2014chiefly the result of the\n      labours of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matth\u00e6i, Scholz,\n      Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute\n      to the number,\u2014thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names\n      follow:\u2014\n\n      In the VATICAN (Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose\n      friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently\n      acknowledge. See the _Appendix_) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294,\n      295, 296, 297.\u2014PROPAGANDA (Dr. Beyer) No. 92.\u2014CRYPTA FERRATA (the\n      Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See the _Appendix_,) No. 290, 291,\n      292.\u2014VENICE (Sig. Veludo) No. 215.\u2014MILAN (Dr. Ceriani, the most\n      learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288,\n      289.\u2014FERRARA, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.\u2014MODENA (Sig. Cappilli) No.\n      285.\u2014BOLOGNA (Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.\u2014TURIN (Sig. Gorresio) No. 165,\n      168.\u2014FLORENCE (Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.\u2014MESSINA (Papas\n      Filippo Matranga. See the _Appendix_,) No. 216, 283.\u2014PALERMO (Sig.\n      Penerino) No. 217.\u2014The ESCURIAL (S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the\n      British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at\n      the instance of his Excellency, Sir Robert Morier, who is requested\n      to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.\u2014PARIS (M.\n      Wescher, who is as obliging as he is learned in this department,)\n      No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164.\u2014(L\u2019Abb\u00e9\n      Martin. See the _Appendix_) No. 282. ARSENAL (M. Thierry) No.\n      130.\u2014S. GENEVIEVE (M. Denis) No. 247.\u2014POICTIERS (M. Dartige) No.\n      276.\u2014BERLIN (Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, 300, 301.\u2014DRESDEN\n      (Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.\u2014MUNICH (Dr. Laubmann) No. 55, 125, 126,\n      128.\u2014GOTTINGEN (Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.\u2014WOLFENBUTTEL (Dr. von\n      Heinemann) No. 74, 241.\u2014BASLE (Mons. Sieber) No. 7.\u2014UPSALA (Dr.\n      Belsheim) No. 273, 274.\u2014LINCOPING (the same) No. 272.\u2014ZURICH (Dr.\n      Escher) No. 56.\u2014Prebendary Scrivener verified for me Paul 252: 253:\n      255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: 277.\u2014Rev. T. Randell, has\n      verified No. 13.\u2014Alex. Peckover, Esq., No. 278.\u2014Personally, I have\n      inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: 234: 235: 236: 240: 242:\n      249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: 269: 270: 279: 280: 281.\n\n 1099 Viz. Paul 37 (the _Codex Leicest._, 69 of the Gospels):\u2014Paul 85\n      (Vat. 1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi:\u2014Paul 93 (Naples 1. B.\n      12) which is 83 of the Acts,\u2014noticed by Birch:\u2014Paul 175 (Ambros. F.\n      125 _sup._) at Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See above, p. 456\n      _note_ 1.\n\n 1100 Viz. Paul 282,\u2014concerning which, see above, p. 474, note 1.\n\n 1101 The present locality of this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218)\n      is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the\n      \u201cSeminario\u201d at Syracuse are an \u201cEvst.\u201d and an \u201cApost.\u201d (which I\n      number respectively 362 and 113). My authority for \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in Paul 218,\n      is Birch [_Proleg._ p. xcviii.], to whom Munter communicated his\n      collations.\n\n 1102 For the ensuing codices, see the APPENDIX.\n\n 1103 Vat. 2068 (Basil. 107),\u2014which I number \u201cApost. 115\u201d (see APPENDIX.)\n\n 1104 Viz. by 4 uncials (A, K, L, P), + (247 Paul + 31 Apost. = ) 278\n      cursive manuscripts reading \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2: + 4 (Paul) reading \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2: + 2 (1\n      Paul, 1 Apost.) reading \u1f45\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2: + 1 (Apost.) reading \u0398\u1fe2 = 289. (See\n      above, pp. 473-4: 478.)\n\n 1105 The Harkleian (see pp. 450, 489): the Georgian, and the Slavonic (p.\n      454).\n\n 1106 See above, pp. 487-490,\u2014which is the summary of what will be found\n      more largely delivered from page 455 to page 476.\n\n 1107 See above, pp. 448-453: also p. 479.\n\n 1108 See above, pp. 479-480.\n\n 1109 See above, pp. 452-3.\n\n 1110 See above, pp. 482, 483.\n\n 1111 See above, page 436, and middle of page 439.\n\n 1112 See his long and singular note.\n\n_ 1113 Fresh Revision_, p. 27.\n\n_ 1114 Printed Text_, p. 231.\n\n 1115 P. 226.\n\n 1116 \u201c_Forte_ \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f41 _\u03c7\u03c2_ \u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af ... \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\u201d\u2014Bentleii _Critica Sacra_, p. 67.\n\n_ 1117 Developed Criticism_, p. 160.\n\n 1118 Thus Augustine (viii. 828 f.) paraphrases,\u2014\u201c_In carne manifestatus\n      est_ FILIUS DEI.\u201d\u2014And Marius Victorinus, A.D. 390 (ap. Galland.\n      viii. 161),\u2014\u201c_Hoc enim est magnum sacramentum, quod_ DEUS\n      _exanimavit semet ipsum cum esset in_ DEI _form\u00e1:_\u201d \u201c_fuit ergo\n      antequam esset in carne, sed manifestatum dixit in carne_.\u201d\u2014And\n      Fulgentius, A.D. 513, thus expands the text (ap. Galland. xi.\n      232):\u2014\u201c_quia scilicet Verbum quod in principio erat, et apud_ DEUM\n      _erat, et_ DEUS _erat, id est_ DEI _unigenitus Filius_, DEI _virtus\n      et sapientia, per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia, ... idem_ DEUS\n      _unigenitus_,\u201d &c. &c.\u2014And Ferrandus, A.D. 356 (_ibid._ p.\n      356):\u2014\u201c_ita pro redemtione humani generis humanam naturam credimus\n      suscepisse, ut ille qui Trinitate perfecta_ DEUS _unigenitus\n      permanebat ac permanet, ipse ex Maria fieret primogenitus in multis\n      fratribus_,\u201d &c.\n\n_ 1119 MS. note in his interleaved copy of the N. T._ He adds, \u201cH\u00e6c\n      addenda posui Notis ad S. Hippolytum contra Noetum p. 93, vol. i.\n      _Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Opusculorum._\u201d\n\n 1120 Page 29.\n\n 1121 P. 29.\n\n 1122 P. 30.\n\n_ 1123 Address_, on the Revised Version, p. 10.\n\n 1124 See above, pp. 37 to 39.\n\n 1125 Bp. Ellicott\u2019s pamphlet, p. 34.\n\n 1126 P. 231.\n\n 1127 Fifth Rule of the Committee.\n\n 1128 Bp. Ellicott\u2019s pamphlet, p. 30.\n\n 1129 No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing\n      paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall\n      effectually protect me from being misunderstood.\n\n      Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the\n      Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All,\n      (for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and\n      attainment, as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in\n      early life, I numbered several professing Unitarians among my\n      friends. It were base in me to forget how wondrous kind I found\n      them: how much I loved them: how fondly I cherish their memory.\n\n      Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are\n      bound to seek help at the hands of _any_ who are able to render\n      help,\u2014_who_ ever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,\u2014if a\n      devotee of Buddha,\u2014could contribute anything,\u2014_who_ would hesitate\n      to sue to him for enlightenment? As for Abraham\u2019s descendants,\u2014they\n      are our very brethren.\n\n      But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the\n      Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even\n      Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of\n      Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when\n      the Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th \u201cResolution\u201d of the\n      Upper House,\u2014viz., that the Revising body \u201cshall be at liberty to\n      invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever\n      nation or religious body they may belong;\u201d\u2014the Synod of Canterbury\n      did not suppose that it was pledging itself to sanction _such_\n      \u201cco-operation\u201d as is implied by actual _co-optation_!\n\n      It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the\n      5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that \u201cin\n      framing it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the\n      admission of any member of the Socinian body.\u201d _Chronicle of\n      Convocation_ (Feb. 1871,) p. 4.\n\n      \u201cI am aware,\u201d (says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,) \u201cthat\n      the ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the\n      translation of a renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish\n      heretics, like Symmachus and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine\n      profited by the expository rules of Tychonius the Donatist. But I\n      very much doubt whether the ancient Church would have looked for a\n      large outpouring of a blessing from GOD on a work of translating His\n      Word, where the workmen were not all joined together in a spirit of\n      Christian unity, and in the profession of the true Faith; and in\n      which the opinions of the several translators were to be counted and\n      not weighed; and where everything was to be decided by numerical\n      majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius were to\n      be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or a\n      Cyril.\u201d (_Address on the Revised Version_, 1881, pp. 38.)\n\n_ 1130 The Bible and Popular Theology_, by G. Vance Smith, 1871.\n\n_ 1131 An Unitarian Reviser of our Authorized Version, intolerable: an\n      earnest Remonstrance and Petition_,\u2014addressed to yourself by your\n      present correspondent:\u2014Oxford, Parker, 1872, pp. 8.\n\n 1132 See letter of \u201cOne of the Revisionists, G. V. S.\u201d in _the Times_ of\n      July 11, 1870.\n\n_ 1133 Protest against the Communion of an Unitarian in Westminster Abbey\n      on June_ 22nd, 1870:\u2014Oxford, 1870, pp. 64.\n\n 1134 See the _Chronicle of Convocation_ (Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,\u2014when a\n      Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of\n      Winchester,\u2014\u201cThat it is the judgment of this House that no person\n      who denies the Godhead of our LORD JESUS CHRIST ought to be invited\n      to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the\n      Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the\n      judgment of this House that any such person now on either Company\n      should cease to act therewith.\n\n      \u201cAnd that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, and\n      their concurrence requested:\u201d\u2014which was done. See p. 143.\n\n 1135 The Reader is invited to refer back to pp. 132-135.\n\n 1136 The Reader is requested to refer back to pp. 210-214.\n\n 1137 S. Mark x. 21.\n\n 1138 S. Luke xxii. 64.\n\n 1139 S. Luke xxiii. 38.\n\n 1140 S. Luke xxiv. 42.\n\n 1141 \u0395\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is \u201c_to command_\u201d in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S.\n      Mark v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand,\n      the Revisers have thrust \u201c_command_\u201d into S. Matth. xx. 21, where\n      \u201c_grant_\u201d had far better have been let alone: and have overlooked\n      other places (as S. Matth. xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where\n      \u201c_command_\u201d might perhaps have been introduced with advantage. (I\n      nothing doubt that when the Centurion of Capernaum said to our Lord\n      \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f72 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], he entreated Him \u201conly\n      to give _the word of command_.\u201d)\n\n      We all see, of course, that it was because \u0394\u03cc\u03c2 is rendered \u201c_grant_\u201d\n      in the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S.\n      Mark x. 37), that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to\n      represent \u0395\u1f30\u03c0\u03ad in the earlier Gospel differently; and so they\n      bethought themselves of \u201c_command_.\u201d (Infelicitously enough, as I\n      humbly think. \u201c_Promise_\u201d would evidently have been a preferable\n      substitute: the word in the original (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) being one of that\n      large family of Greek verbs which vary their shade of signification\n      according to their context.) But it is plainly impracticable to\n      _level up_ after this rigid fashion,\u2014to translate in this mechanical\n      way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after an\n      impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably\n      sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon\n      above, at pp. 187-206.\n\n      Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with\n      their Mother, have evidently agreed together to \u201c_ask a favour_\u201d of\n      their LORD (cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins \u0395\u1f30\u03c0\u03ad,\u2014the\n      sons begin, \u0394\u03cc\u03c2. Why are we to assume that the request is made by\n      the Mother in _a different spirit_ from the sons? Why are we to\n      impose upon her language the imperious sentiment which the very\n      mention of \u201c_command_\u201d unavoidably suggests to an English ear?\n\n      A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The\n      Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond\n      their prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized\n      Version after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct\n      \u201c_plain and clear errors_,\u201d\u2014_not_ to produce a \u201cNew English\n      Version.\u201d\n\n 1142 Take the following as a sample, which is one of the Author\u2019s proofs\n      that the \u201cResults of the Revision\u201d are \u201cunfavourable to\n      Orthodoxy:\u201d\u2014\u201cThe only instance in the N. T. in which the religious\n      worship or adoration of CHRIST was apparently implied, has been\n      _altered_ by the Revision: \u2018_At_ the name of JESUS every knee shall\n      bow,\u2019 [Philipp. ii. 10] is now to be read \u2018_in_ the name.\u2019 Moreover,\n      no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to\n      make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.\n      T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the\n      religious worship of JESUS CHRIST.\u201d\u2014_Texts and Margins_,\u2014p. 47.\n\n_ 1143 Supra_, p. 424 to p. 501.\n\n 1144 See above, pp. 272-275, pp. 278-281.\n\n 1145 See above, p. 275.\n\n 1146 See above, pp. 276-7.\n\n 1147 See above, pp. 303-305.\n\n 1148 See above, p. 304.\n\n 1149 See above, pp. 339-42; also pp. 422, 423.\n\n 1150 See above, pp. 391-7.\n\n 1151 See above, pp. 36-40: 47-9: 422-4.\n\n 1152 See above, pp. 41-7: 420-2.\n\n 1153 See above, pp. 98-106: 424-501.\n\n 1154 Evan. 738 belongs to Oriel College, Oxford, [xii.], small 4to. of\n      130 foll. slightly _mut._ Evan. 739, Bodl. Greek Miscell. 323\n      [xiii.], 8vo. _membr._ foll. 183, _mut._ Brought from Ephesus, and\n      obtained for the Bodleian in 1883.\n\n 1155 Evst. 415 belongs to Lieut. Bate, [xiii.], _chart._ foll. 219,\n      mutilated throughout. He obtained it in 1878 from a Cyprus villager\n      at Kikos, near Mount Trovodos (_i.e._ Olympus.) It came from a\n      monastery on the mountain.\n\n 1156 Apost. 128 will be found described, for the first time, below, at p.\n      528.\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Revision Revised: Three Articles Reprinted from the \"Quarterly Review.\" I. The New Greek Text. II. The New English Version. III. Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory. To Which is Added a Reply to Bishop Ellicott's Pamphlet in Defence of the Revisers and Their Greek Text of the New Testament: Including a Vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Timothy III. 16.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":182871}