(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
See other formats

Full text of "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"




(, · ( r 
 C- /!IC -' .. é
rr-/ ..e 



p IU 

1l{EEI A
G CHO:\S. 




1. TIlE XE'V GnEEl

'\L TlrEOU






l1y .JOlIN 'Y1LLIÂJI l
(}O.N., n.D. 


.. It is happened unto them according to the true prO\.erb, KtÍwl' nrí- 
O'Tpt.paç È7rt TÒ t
ipafJ.a . and, "Yç AovO'afJ.ÉV1} Eíç ICvAtO'fJ.a ßopßópov. II 
-2 I'HElt ii. 22. 
.. Little chihlrcll,-Keep your
clves from iduls."-] JOHX v. 21. 

JOHN 1\IUltIL.\ Y, .L\.LßEl\IAI

The followi'J1!J is I J REBEXDARY SCRIYEXEn'S 'recently p7lhli::;hed 
estÍ1nate of the SystenL on 'lchieh Dns. 'VESTCOTT AXD ] fonT 
have constr'ltctecl theÍ1" C Revised Greek Text of the N C\v 
Testal11ent' (1881). - That System/, the ChaÍ1'1nan of the 
Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) !lets entircl(lJ adopted (see 
below, pp. 391 to 397), and'l1utde the basis of his Defence of 
l'HE I
EYISERS ctlld thei1" c N e\v Greek Text.' 

(1.) "There is little hope for the stabili(}'" of their ilnposing 
structure, if its foundations have been laiel on the srOld!! 
g'l"ound of ingenious conjecture. And, since 1Jarely the 
smallest vestige of historical evidence haR ever been 
alleged in support of the vie'ws of these acc01npliHhef1 
Edi tors, their teaching nl ust either be received as in- 
tuitively true, or dismissed from Olt1. considei"ation as 
preca1.ious and even visionary." 

(2.) "DR. HORT'S Systeln is enth.cZll destitute of ltistm'ical 
foundation. " 

(3.) "'Ve are cOlupelled to repeat as eluphatically as ever our 
strong conviction that the Hypothesis to ,vhose proof he 
has devoted so nlany laborious years, is destitute not onl!! 
of ltistm'.ical foundation, but of all p1"obability, resulting front 
the intm'nal goodness of the Text 'which its adoption wouZ(Z 
fm.ce 'ltpon 'lts." 

(4.) '" 'Ve cannot doubt' (says DR. HORT) 'that S. Luke 
xxiii. 34 conles froin an 
xtraneous source.' [Notes, 
p. 68.J-Nm' can we, on om' part, doubt," (rejoins DR. 
SCRIVE!\ER,) "that the System, wlziclt entails such conse- 
quences is hopelessly self-conde'ìnned." 

SCRIVENER'S 'Plain Illtr o d uctl . on ' & [ I 1883J 
, c. ec. : 
 531, 537, 542, 60



&c., &c., &c, 


Allow me the g1'atification of dedicating the present 
Vollinw to yourself; but for 
v/lOm-(I1"ese1"t'e lite explanation 
fm- another day)-'it -would nevel' have been u'ritten, 

.s not, (as YOM 'will perceive at a glance,) the T'reaNse 
'l(}hich a feu) years ago 1 told you I had in Itand ; and'lfhich, 
but for the pr.esent hindrance, '11u"ght by this tinU3 hat'e been 
completed. It has hO'll'ever grown out of that other 'll'o'rk 'hlJ 
tlie mannel- eXplained at the beginning of 'Jny Preface. ltlore- 
over it contains not a few specilnens of the argumentation o.f 
'll'ltich tlte work in qlle8tioJl, u'hen at last it sees tlte lig/it, 'Ifill 
be discoverell to be full, 

]Iy one object has been to dpf at the nÛschievous atte1npt 
'lvhir:h 'u:as made in 1881 to th1.'ltSt 'upon this OhU1.ch an(l 
Reabn a Revision of the SaC1.ed Text, 'lcltich-'recOJnmencZed 
though it be by eminent names-I an." thoroughly cont'inced, 
a}ul (un abk to proce, is llntnlstll'Orthy Jt'OJn beginning to mul. 



The 'reason ,is plain. It has Leen constj'llefelZ tlU"Olly/wut on 
an 'utterly eo"oneOllS hypothesis. Ancl I inscribe this Volume 
to yon, nzy ffl
eJul, as a conspicuous nwnzb(}" of that botly qf 
faithful ((Utl h:a,rTW(l Laity by whose delibej"ate verdict, 'when 
the 'le/wle of the evÙlence has been producccl and the case 
has been fully argued out, I shall be quite 'trilling that ìJlY 
contention ?nay stand or fail. 

The English (as well as the Greek) of the neu:ly" Revisal 
Version" is hopelessly at fanlt. It 'l
S to 1JW sinzply unintel- 
ligible how a con
pany of Scholars can have spent ten years 'i.n 
elaborating slu:h a very 'ltnsat'isfactory production. Tln,i j. 
'uncouth phraseology and their ;"erky senten-ces, their pedantic 
obscurity and theil. 'llnidio1ìlatic EngUslz, contrast l]ainfully 
'with" the happy turns of eæpl'ession, the lH liSlC of the cadences, 
the feUcities of the rhythm}" of our Authorized Version. The 
transition ft.om one to the other, as the Bishop of Lincoln 
remarks, is like exchanging a 'lvell-built carriage for a veil icle 
without sproings, in which YOlt get :jolted to death on a lWICly- 
mended and ntrely-tr(lver:5e(l 'roall. But the "Revified Ver- 
sion" is inaCCUìyde as It'ell; eæh ibits defecth:e sc/wlaJ"sh ip, I 
JlLLan, in èOUlltless lJlaces. 

It is, ho'Zeever, tllf} systematic depravation of the underl ying 
Greek 1J.:hich cloes so grievously oj-end 11'le: 1m. tlds is nothing 
else but a lJoisoning of the River of L'ife at its sacred source. 
Our Revisl:'rs, (u:ith tllP befit and purest 'ildenlioJls, no dOlllJt,) 
stand convicted of having deliberately rejected tlte 1L'ords o.f 



Inspiration in every page, (oul oj' having 
titllte(l for thell/; 
.fllhricatetl Rea,dings u:hiclt the Olturch has lOllg since refused to 
acknolcledge, OJ. else has rejected 
fith aùhorrence; and 
only survive at this tinw in, a little handful of doClliJWnts of 
the lìwst depra ved type. 

As Critics they have had abundant 
varning. Tu'eZv8 years 
ago (1871) a vol,one appeltred on 'the last Twelve ,r er
es vf 
the Gospel accorùing to S. Mark,' -of 'which lhe declaretl 
object u.as to vindicate those Verses against certain, critical 
oldectors, and to e
tabUsh them by an eæhaustive arglllnentatit'e 
IJrocess. Up to this hour, for a very obvious 'reason, no answer 
to that VOZUl1l8 has been attempted. And yet, at the end of ten 
years (1881 ),-not only in the Rerised English but also in the 

(;hich professes to c:æhibit the 'ltuderlying Greek, (zchich 
at least is 'indefensible,)-the Revisers are oLser
'ed to separate 
oj" those Tweh'e precious V"erses frorn thr:ir context, in token that 
they are no part of the genuine Gospel. Such a deliberate pre- 
jLrence of' nlulllpsimus ' to' sumpsimus ' is ùy no l1zeans calcu- 
lcded to conciliate favour, or even to 
vin '}.espect. The Revisírs 
lUlve in fact been the d.upes of an ingenious Theorist, concerning 
u:lwse t:ætraordinary vieu.:s YOlt are 'invited to read 'lchat D)-_ 
Scrivener has -recently put forth. The 'lcords of the last-name(l 
'lrrite1" ('ll'ho is facile l>rinceps in Teætual Criticism,) 'will be 
found facing the beginning of the present Dedicafion. 

If, tll(;1.efore, any do complain that I have sOlnetirnes h'lt my 
opponents j.atltt,/. hard, I lake leaL'e to point out tltat .. to every- 



thing there is Ct season, (t}tcl a tirite to every jJurpo:;e IUHler the 
': ., (t t-line to eiubrace, and a time to be flu' jfom C1Jt- 
bracing": a tinw for speaÀ:ing smoothly, and a tÍ1ne for 
speaking sharply. Ancl that when the 'w01'cls of Inspiration a}'e 
sefj'iousl.ll imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for 
one who is deterlnined 
Dèctually to prese-rve the Deposit in its 
integrity, /0 hit either too straight or too hard. In handlin!J . 
certain recent 
tlterances of Bishop Ellicott, I conside-red 
throl/;ghout that it was the' Textual Critic,' -not the SltCCessor 
of the Apostles, -1.vith W1Wll
 I hacl to do. 

And thus I com/mend my Volnme, the frnit of rnany yea}'s 
of incessant anx-io1.ts toil, to YOU}. indulgence: 1'equesting that 
YOlt will 1'ecei-ve it as a token of n
y since}'e respect and ad- 
1niration; and desiring to be 'reì1w1J
ny dear lJord 
Oranb'ì'ook, as 

Your graleful and qDèctionate 
llriend and Be'i'vant, 


ALL S11fN1'S' DAy. 1883. 

( IX ) 


THE ensuing three Articles from the 'Quarterly Revie\y,' 
-(wTung out of me by the publication [J\Iay 17th, 1881] 
of the 'Revision' of our 'Authorized ,r ersion of the N e\v 
Testalnent,')-appear in their present fornl in conlpliance 
,,'ith an anloullt of continuous solicitation that they should 
be separately pu1lished, which it would have been alike un- 
reasonable and ungracious to disregard. I \\Tas not prepared 
for it. It has caused IHe-as letter after letter has reached 
Iny hands-mixed feelings; has revived all my original 
disinclination and regret. For, gratified as I cannot but feel 
by the reception my labours have Inet with,-(ånd only the 
Author of my being kno\vs \vhat an amount of antecedent 
toil is represented by the ensuing pages,)- I yet deplore 
Blore heartily than I am able to express, the injustice done 
to the cause of Truth by handling the subject in this frag- 
Inentary w"ay, and by exhibiting the evidence for \yhat is 
nlost certainly true, in such a yery incolnplete forIlI. A 
systelnatic Treatise is the indispensable condition for securing 
cordial assent to the yie\v for \yl1Ïch I mainly contend. The 
cogency of the argnnlent lies entirely in the cunnllati ve 
character of the proof. It require
 to be delllonstrated by 
induction frolll a large collection of particular instances, as 
,,-en as by the cÛlnplex exhibition of Dlany converging lines 
of evidence, that the testilnony of one slllaU gronp of 
, or rather, of one particular lnalillscript,-(llaluely 



the Vatican Codex n, ,,yhich, for SOlne unexplainetl reason, it 
is just no\v the fashion to regard ,vith superstitious deference,) 
-is the reverse of trust,vorthy. Nothing in faet but a 
considerable Treatise ,viII eyer effectually break the yoke of 
that iron tyranny to ,vhich the excellent Bishop of Gloucester 
and Bristol and his colleagues have recently bo,ved their 
necks; and are no, v for in1posillg on all English-speaking 
luen. In brief, if I 'v ere not, on the one hand, thoroughly 
d of the strength of Iny position,-(alld I kno,v it 
to be absolutely iInpregnable) ;-yet luore, if on the other 
hand, I did not cherish entire confidence in the practical 
gooù sense and fairness of the English nlÏnd;- I cou III 
not have brought Inyself to conle before the public in the 
ullsysteluatic ,yay ,vhich alone is possible in the pages of 
a TIevie\v. I Inust have ,vaited, at all hazards, till I haù 
finished ' my Book.' 

But then, delay ,vould have been fatal. I sa,v rlainly 
that unless a sharp blo,v ,,"'as delivered inl111ediately, the 
Citadel would be in the enemy's hands. I kne,v also that it 
,vas just possible to condense into 60 or 70 closely-printed 
pages \vhat Inust logically prove fatal to the 'Revision.' So 
I set to ,vork; and during the long summer days of 1881 
(June to September) the foremost of these three Articles ,vas 
elaboratell. 'Vhen the October nunlber of 'the Quarterly' 
appeared, I comforted myself \vith the secret consciousness 
that enough \vas by this time on record, eyen had 111Y life 
been suddenly brought to a close, to secure the ultimate re- 
jection of the' Revision' of 1881. I kne\v that the 'Ne,v 
Oreek Text,' (and therefure the 'N c,v EnO'lish Version ' ) 
b , 

PHEF..\.< 'E. 


had received its death-blow.. It luight for a fc,v years ùrag 
out a lllai111ed e
istencc; eagerly defended oy sOllle,-tÏ1nidly 
llleJ for Ly others. nut such efforts could be of no avail. 
Its days w.ere already lllunbered. The effect of more and 
yet more learned investigation,-of rnore elaborate and IHoro 
extcndea inquiry,-?71/ust be to convince mankind more and 
yet IHore thoroughly that the principles on ,vhich it had oeen 
constructed ,,"'ere radically unsound. In the en a, ,\yhell parti- 
:5anship had cooled clO'\Yll, and passion had evaporated, and 
prejudice had ceased to find an auditory, the 'Revision' of 
1881 Blust cOine to be universally regarded as-,vhat it 11l0st 
certainly is,-tlw rnost astonishing, as '[vell a,S the 1/l0st cala1Jtituus 
lihl'ary blundcr of the Age. 

I. I pointed out that 'the NE\V GREEK TEXT,'-,vhich, in 
defiance of their instructions, 1 the lleyisionists of 'the 
....\.uthorizeù English '7" ersion' had becn so ill-advised as to 
spend ten years in elaborating,-,vas a "yholly ulltrust\vorthy 
perfUl'111ance: ,vas full of the gravest errors fronl beginning 
tv end: had Leen constructed throughout on an entirely 
lllistaken Theory. Availing Inyself of the published confes- 
sion vf one ùf the Ilevisionists, 2 I explained the nature uf 
thc cahnnity \vhich had befallen the Ilevision. I tracell the 
hief hOlne to its true authors,-Drs. 'Vestcott and 11ort; 
a copy of ,vhose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the nlost 
vicious in e
istence) hall been confidentially, and unùer 
pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of cyerv 

1 Anyone who dC:5ires to see this charge established, is invitcù to read 
f},()ll1 pa
e :m
1 to page 413 of what follows. 
2 Dr. Xewth. S(;C pp, 37 -D. 



luemùer of the revIsIng Body.l I called attention to the 
fact that, unacquainted \vith the difficult and delicate science 
of Textual Criticisn1, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, 
surrendered thelnselves to Dr. Hort's guidance: had preferred 
his counsels to those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely 
more trust\vorthy guide): and that the \york before the 
public ,vas the piteous-but incritable-result. All this I 
eXplained in the October nU111ber of the' Quarterly TIevie\v' 
for 1881. 2 

II. In thus demonstrating the \vorthlessne
s of the 'K e\v 
Greek Text' of the Revisionists, I considered that I haù 
destroyed the key of their position. And so perforce I 
had: for if the underlying Greek Text be Inistaken, \vhat 
else but incorrect Inust the English Translation be? But on 
examining the so-called 'llevision of the Authorized Ver- 
sion,' I speedily made the further discovery that the 11evised 
English would have been in itself intolerable, even had the 
Greek been let alone. In the first place, to my sùrprise and 
annoyance, it proved to be a Nc1.() Translation (rather than a 
Revision of the Old) \yhich had been attempted. Painfully 
apparent \vere the tokens ,y hich l11et Ine on every side 
that the Revisionists had been supremely eager not so much 
to correct none but" plain and clear eI70rs," -as to introduce 
as nlany changes into the English of the New Testanlent 
Scriptures as they conveniently could. 3 A skittish impatience 
of the admirable ,york befo
e them, and a strange inability 

1 See pp. 24-9: 97, &c. 2 See below, pp. 1 to 110. 
S This will be found more fully eXplained from pp, 127 to 130: pr. 1:14 
tu IG4: abu pp. .100 tu 403, See al
o the quotatiolls on pp. 112 and 368, 



to appreciate its Inanifold excellences :-a singular ilnagina- 
tion on the part of the pronliscuous COlnpany ,vhich met in 
the J el'usalern Chamber that they ,,-ere competent to iInprove 
the ..Authorized ,.... ersion in eyery part, and an unaccountabl

forO'etfulness that the funclalnental condition under ,,-!licIt 

the task of TIeyision had l)een by themselves undertaken, 
,vas that they should aLstain froln all but "necessary" 
changes :-this proyed to be only part of the offence ,vhich 
the neyisionists had cOlnmitted. It ,yas found that they had 
erred through difcctÍ1.
e Scholarship to an extent, and ,yith a 
frequency, "hich to 111e is sÌInply inexplicable. I accordingly 
made it DIY vusiness to demonstrate all this in a secoIHI 
.A.rticle ,vhich appeared in the next (the ,January) ntunbcr 
of the 'Quarterly TIevie,y,' and ,vas entitled 'THE NE\\Y 
\SSL.\.TIOX.' 1 

III. Thereupon, a pretence \vas set up in lllany quarters, 
(but only by the Revisionists and their friends,) that all nIY 
labour hitherto had been thro,vn aw-ay, because 1 had omitted 
to disprove the principles on \vhich this' X e\v Greek Text' 
is founded. I flattered 111ysclf indeed that quite enough had 
heen said to D1ake it logically certain that the underlying 
C Textual Theory' 1nust be ,vorthless. But I \yas not suffered 
to cherish this conyiction in quiet. It \vas again and agûin 
cast in my teeth that I had not yet grappled 'with Drs. "r est- 
cott and Hort's C arguments.' cc Instead of cOlldelnning tlll'LI' 
Text, "hy do you not disprove their fhco1'Y?". It ,vas taunt- 
ingly insinuated that I kne\v better than to cross s\vorù" 

ce below, pr. 113 to 



"\vith the t,,
o Can1bridge Professors. This reduced n1e to the 
necessity of either leaving it to be inferred fron1 n1Y silence 
that I had found Drs. ,-"r estcott and 11ort's 'arguments' 
unans\verable; or else of con1Ïng for\\Tard \vith their book ill 
IUY hand, and demonstrating that in their solemn pages an 
attentive reader finds hÏ1nself encountered by nothing but a 
series of unsupported assumptions: that their (so called) 
, Theory' is in reality nothing else but a \yeak effort of tIlt, 
In1a.gination: that the tissue \vhich these accoInplished 
scholars have been thirty years in elaborating, proyes 011 
inspection to be as fìÏ1nsy and aR \vorthless as any spider's 

I nlade it my business in consequence to expose, SOIne- 
\vhat in detail, (in a third Article, \vhich appeared in the 
, Quarterly TIevie\v' for April 1882), the absolute absurdity, 
-(I use the \\Tord advisedly)-of' 'VESTCOTT AND HORT'H 
K E\V TEXTUAL THEORY;' 1 and I now respectfully conln1elld 
those 130 pages to the attention of candid and unprejudiced 
readers. It \vere idle to expect to conyince any others. 'Ve 
have it on gooù authority (Dr. 'V estcott's) that" he ","ho has 
long pondered over a train of Reasoning, beemnes unable to 
detect its 'weak points." 2 A yet stranger phenolllenon is, that 
those \yho have once conunitted themselves to an erroneou
Theory, seenl to be incapable of opening their eyes to the 
untrust\yorthiness of the fabric they have erected, even "Then 
it conles do\vn in their sight, like a child's house built ,,
playing-cards,-anc1 presents to every eye but their o\vn the 
appearance of a shapeless ruin. 

1 bee beluw, 1>p. 23,) to 3()(j. 

2 Gu,r:.pcl of the Ee:mrn'cti(m, I', viii. 

l!'AC I


 1, Two full years haye elapsed since the first of thc
ssays ,,'"as published; an(l Iny Cl'iticisill-for the Lest of 
rea:-;ons - relnains to this hour unanswered. The puùlic 
haF; heen assured iudeed, (in the course of SOllle hysterical · 
rcnlarks by Canon Farrar 1), that "the ' Quarterly Rcvic".cr ' 
can be refuted as fully as he desires as soon as any scholar 
has the lcisure to ans,ver him." The' Quarterly Hcvic,ver ' 
can afford to "Tait,-if the l
eviscrs can. But they arc 
l'l'lnindcd that it is no answ"er to unè ".ho has ùenlolished 
their 1nastcr's 'Theury,' fur the pupils to kcep on reproclucing 
fraguleuts of it; and by their n1Ïstakes and exaggerations, to 
lnake 1Joth theillselvcs and hÜn, ridiculous. 

1 TIeference is ll1ac1e to a vulgar effusion in the ' Contelflporary lleview' 
for March 1882: from which it chiefly aprears that Canon (now Arch- 
deacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. 
Iark the Evangelist for having . 
written the lüth verse of his concluding chapter. The Yenerable writC'r 
is ÍIl con
equellce for ever denouncing those" last TU'elve Verses." 1n 
l\Iarch 1882, (pretending to review D1Y Articles in the' Quarterly,') he 

ays :-" In spite of ÐC'an Burgon's Essay on the subject, the miuds of 
most scholars are quite unalt(rably 'lIWtlC 'Up on such questions as the 
authenticity of the last twelve verses of S. 
Iark." [ContempoTary Re- 
ViC1V, yo!. xli. p. 36;).] And in the ensuing October,-" If, aIllong pvsitit'e 
'j't>lHt1ts, anyone should set down such facts as that. . . l\Iark xvi. 9-20. . . 
j;wml'd 'JW part vi tile original npostolic nutograph . . . Ire, I say, who 
should enumerate these points aH being beYOJul the rrack of RCriOUS ,zi.r;pLlte 
. . . would Le expressing the vi
ws which arc 'l'egarde{l as indisputaúle l)y 
t hu vast majority of such recent critics as have established any claim to 
S('fious attention." [E.-rpnsilof, p. 173,J 
It n1ay not be without use to the Venerable writer that he shouhlll{' 
reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by such lall- 

nage as the foregoing, are not even toucherl therehy. One is surprised to 
have to tell a "fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge," so obvious a truth 
as that hy such writing he does but effectually put himself out of court. 
By proclaimin
 that his n1ind is "quite unalterably made lip" tl1at the 
end of S. :àIark'g Gospel is not authentic, he admits that be is impervious 
to argument awl therefore incapaùle of understalHling proof. It Ü; a mere 
wa:-.te of time to reason with an unfortunate who :mnOHnc('
 that he 
is ùP.Ylllltl the )"t':lch of L'IIH\'icti4lh, 



 2. Thus, a ,vriter in the' Church Quarterly' for January 
1882, (\vhose kno,vledge of the subject is entirely derivtì<l 
fronl ,vhat Dr. Hort has taught hiIn,)-heing evidently 
luuch exercised by the first of Iny three Articles in the 
'Quarterly Revie,v,'-gravely inforllls the puLlic that" it is 
useless to parade such an array of venerable ,vitnesseK," 
(meaning the enuluerations of Fathers of the IIII'd, IYth, and 
vth centuries ,,
hich are giyen belo,v, at pp. 42-4: 80-1 : 
84 : 133 : 212-3 : 359-60 : 421 : 423 : 48G-90 :)-"/01' they 
have absol1dely nothinfJ to say 'lclârh deðcrres (t ?Jlo/llcnt's hrar- 
iNfJ." 1_ "That a pity it is, (,vhile he ,va::; a bout it), that 
the learned gentlelnan did not go 011 to explain that the 
11100n is Inaùe of green cheese! 

 3. Dr. Sanday,2 in a kindred spirit, delivers it as his 
opinion, that "the one thing" I lack "is a grasp on the 
central condition of the problem: "-that I do " not see!n to 
have the faintest glimmering of the principle of 'Genealogy:'" 
-that I anl "all at sea : "-that Iny "heaviest Latteries are 
discharged at randolll : "-and a great deal more to the sanle 
effect. The learned Professor is quite \VelCOlne to think such 
things of me, if he pleases. Où cþpOVT
S '17T7To/(,ÀElóy. 

 4. At the end of a year, a ..Jevic\ver of quite a different 
calibre made his appearance in the ,J alluary nUIllLcr (188:1) 
of the 'Church Quarterly:' in return for ,,-hose not very 

1 -"T ... 4 <) 6 If 
_nO. XXVlll., page 0). anyone cares to know what the teaching 
was which the writer in the' Church Quarterly' waH intending to repro- 
duce, he is invited to read frOln p. 2ÐG to p. 300 of the present yolume. 
:.! Contempol'ary Review, (Dec. 1881),-1). 985 seq. 


"X \'11 

encouraging estiInate of my labours, I gladly recon1 IllY 
conviction that if he 'will seriously apply his po"Terful and 
accurate mind to the departnlent of Textual Criticisln, he 
,vill probably proùuce a work "Thich 'will help materially to 
establish the study in ,yhich he takes such an intelligent 
interest, on a scientific basis. But then, he is invited to 
accept the frienrlly assurance that the indispensable condi- 
tion of success in this departnlent. is, that a man should give 
to the subject, (",'hich is a very intricate one and abounds in 
unexplored problems), his undivided attention for an extended 
period. I trust there is nothing unreasonable in the suggestion 
that one "Tho has not done this, should be very circuln
\yhen he sits in judgnlent on a neighbour of his who, for 
very many years past, has given to Textual Criticism the 
'\Thole of his tÎ1ne ;-has freely sacrificed health, ease, re- 
laxation, eyen necessary rest, to this one object ;-has made 
it his one business to acquire such an independent mastery 
of the subject as shall qualify hinl to do battle succes
for the imperilled letter of GOD'S ,y" ord, !Iy friend hO"'-8ye1' 
thinks differently, He says of me,- 

"In his first Al"ticle there ,,",as something amusing In the 
simplicity with which 'Lloyd's Greek Testament' (whi<.:h is 
only a convenient little Oxford edition of the ordinary kind) 
was put furth as the final standard of appeal. It recalletl to 
our recollection Bentley's sarcasm upon the text of Stephanus, 
,vhich 'your learneù 'Vbitbyus' takes for tbe sacred original in 
every sJIlable." (P. 35-1.) 

 5. On referring to the passage ,,-here IllY 'simplicity' 
has afforded amusenlent to a friend ,vho
e brilliant conyer- 
sation is ahvays a delight to 'nW, I reaù as follo".s,- 




"It is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of a copy 
of LloJTd's Greek Testament, in which alone these fiye manu- 
scripts are collectively available for comparison in the Gospels, 
-the serious deflections of  from the Textu8 Beceptu8 amount 
in all to only 842: whereas in c they amount to 1798: in B, to 
2370: in 
, to 3392: in D, to 4697. The readings peculia1. to A 
within the same limits are 133 : those peculiar to care 170. But 
those of B amount to 197: while 
 exhibits 443: and the read- 
ings peculiar to D (within the same limits), are no fewer than 
1829 . . .. We sul)mit that these facts are not altogether 
calculated to inspire confidence in codices B 
 c D." I 

 6. But ho,v (let me ask) does it appear frolll this, that 
I have "put forth Lloyd's Greek Testanlent as the final 
standærd of Appeal"? True, that, in order to exhibit clearly 
their respectiye divergences, I have referred five famous 
codices (A B 
 C D)-certain of which are found to have 
turned the brain of Critics of the new school-to one and the 
sa'lne familiar exhibition of the cO'JJt'Jnonly received Text of the 
New Testa'lnent: but by so doing I have not by any means 
assuilled the Text'ltal p'lt1'ity of that common standard. In 
other ,vords I have not made it "the final standard of 
Appeal." All Critics,-"\vherever found,-at all times, have 
collated with the comnlonly received Text: but only as the 
Inost convenient standa1'd of Omnparison; not, surely, as the 

1 Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313,-The pas
age referred to will be found below 
(at p. 14),-slightly modified, in order to protect myself against the risk 
offuture rnisconception. :My Reviewer refers to four other places. He will 
find that TI1Y only object in them all was to prove that codices A B 
 C D 
yield divergent testimony; and therefore, so ha.bitually contradict one 
another, as effectually to invalIdate their own evidence throughout. fJ.'his 
has never been proved before. It can only be proved, in fact, by one who 
has laboriously collated the codices in question, and submitted to the 
rlrudgery of exactly tabulating the result. 



absolute standard of Exc 'lle/lce. The result of the e-xperiment 
already referred to,-( and, I beg to bay, it ,vas an exceed- 
ingly laborious e
periment,)-has been, to demonstrate that 
the five l\fanuscripts in question stand apart from one another 
in the follo,ving proportions:- 
842 (A) : 1798 (c) : 2370 (B) : 3392C:
): 4697 (D). 

Rut ,,",ould not the san1e result have been obtained if the 
'five old uncials' had been 1'lfc1'red to any othcr conl1non 
standa1,d 'which can be named? In the Ineantime, ,vhat else 
is the inevitable inference from this phenomenon but that 
four out of the five 1nllst be-\vhile all the five n
ay be- 
outrageously depraved documents? instead of being fit to be 
Inade our exclusive guides to the Truth of Scripture,-as 
Critics of the school of Tischendorf and Tregelles ,,,"ould baye 
ns believe that they are ? 

 7. I cited a book ,vhich is in the hands of every school- 
hoy, (Lloyd's 'Greek Testament,') only in order to facilitate 
reference, and to make sure that my statements ,vould be 
at once understood by the least learned person 'v ho could 
Le supposed to have access to the' Quarterly,' I presulned 
every scholar to be a\vare that Bp. Lloyd (1827) professes to 
reproduce l\Iill's text; and that l\Iill (1707) reproduces the 
text of Stephens; 1 and that Stephens (1550) exhibits ,yith 
sufficient accuracy the Traditional text,-\vhich is confessedly 

1 "Damus tibi in manus N ovum Testamectum idem p1'ofecto, quod ad 
textum attinet, cum 
d. Nillianâ,"-are the well known opening words 
of the '
ronitum' prefixed to Lloyd's N. T,-And :\Iill, according to 
Scrivener, [Introduction, p. 399,] "only aims at reproducing Stephens' 
text of 1550, though in a few places he departs fronl it, whether by accident 
or design." Ruch places are found to amonnt in all to twenty-rdne. 




at least 1530 years old. I N O\Y, if a tolerable approximation 
to the text of A,D, 350 Inay not be accepted as a standcl1'd of 
OompariS01ì,-\vill the \vriter in the 'Church Quarterly' Le 
so obliging as to infornl us 'which exhibition of the sacred 
Text rnay ? 

 8, A pan1phlet by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, 
\vhich appeared in April 1882, remains to be considered. 
Written expressly in defence of the Revisers and their N e\v 
Greek Text, this composition displays a slenderness of 
acquaintance \vith the subject now under discussion, for 
\vhich I \vas little prepared. Illasnluch ho\vever as it is the 
production of the Chairman of the Revisionist body, and 
professes to be a reply to n1Y first t\VO ....:\..rticles, I have 
besto\ved upon it an elaborate and particular rejoinder 
extending to an hundred-and-fifty pages. 3 I shall In 
consequence be very brief concerning it in this place. 

 9. The respected \vriter does nothing else Lut reproduce 
"\Vestcott and Hort's theory in 1Vcstcott alul Hart's words. 
He contributes nothing of his OWll. The singular infelicity 
,vhich attended his complaint that the' Quarterly Reviewer' 
" censures their ['Vestcott and Hort's] Text," but, "has not 
attempted a serious exconination of the argurrwnts which they 
allege in its support," I have sufficiently d\velt upon else- 
\vhere. 4 The rest of the Bishop's contention may be sUlnllled 

I See below, pp. 257-8: also p. 390. 
2 The Revisers and the Greek 'l'ext of the New Testament, &c.-
n1il1an, pp. 79. 
S See below, pp, 369 to 520. 4 Pages 371-



up in t\VO propositions :-The first, (1.) That if the Revision- 
ists are wrong in their' .Ne,v Greek Text,' then (not only 
'Vestcott and l1ort, but) Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles 
Inust be "Tong also,-a statement ,vhich I hold to be incon- 
trovertible.-The Bishop's other position is also undeniable: 
viz. (II.) That in order to pass an equitable judgment on 
ancient documents, they are to be carefully studied, closely 
compared, and tested by a more scientific process than rough 
comparison \vith the Textus Receptus,l . .. Thus, on both 
heads, I find myself entirely at one 'with Bp. Ellicott. 

 10. And yet,-as the last 150 pages of the present 
YOIUnle show,-I haye the misfortune to be at issue with the 
learned writer on alnlost every particular ,vhich he proposes 
for discussion. Thus, 

 11. At page 64 of his pamphlet, he fastens resolutely 
upon the famous problem ,vhether 'GOD' (0eó,), or 'who' 
(ö,), is to be read in 1 Timothy iii. 16. I had upheld 
the former reading in eight pages. He contends for the 
latter, with sOInething like acrinlony, in twelve,2 I have 
been at the pains, in consequence, to write a 'DISSERTATION' 
of seventy-six pages on this inlportant subject,3-the prepar- 
ation of \v hich (may I be allo\ved to record the circumstance 
in passing ?) occupied Ine closely for six months/, and ta
me severely. Thus, the only point ,yhich Bishop Ellicott 
has condescended to discuss argumentatively with me, ,vill 
be found to enjoy full half of my letter to hÜn in reply. 

1 Pamphlet, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41. 
3 Pages 424-501. 

2 See below, p. 425. 
· From January till June 1883. 

c 2 



The' Dissertation' referred to, I submit ,vith humble confi- 
dence to the judgment of educated Englishmen. It requires 
no learning to understand the case. ..And I have particularly 
to request that those ,vho win be at the pains to look into 
this question. ,vill remember,-(l) That the place of Scrip- 
ture discussed (viz. 1 Tim, iii. 16) ,vas deliberately selected 
for a trial of strength by the Bishop: (I should not have 
chosen it nlyself) :-(2) That on the issue of the conten- 
tion 'which he has thus hiInself inyited, ,ve have respectively 
staked our critical reputation. The discussion exhibits very 
fairly our t,yO methods,-his and nlÍne; and" is of great 
importance as an example," "illustrating in a striking 
manner" our respective positions,-as the Bishop hinlself 
has been careful to remind his read ers. 1 

 12. One merely desirous of taking a general survey of 
this question, is invited to read from page 485 to 496 of the 
present volunle. To understand the case thoroughly, he 
must sublnit to the labour of beginning at p.424 and reading 
do\vn to p. 501. 

 13. A thoughtful person ,vho has been at the pains to do 
this, ,vill be apt on laying do,vn the book to ask,-" But is 
it not very remarkable that Sf) many as five of the ancient 
Versions should favour the reading' ,vhich,' (fLV(J'T
plOV. () 
Ècþavepw01J,) instead of 'GOD' (8eó
)" 1-" Yes, it is very 
remarkable," I ans\ver. "For though the Old Latin and the 
t,yO Egyptian Versions are constantly observed to conspire 

1 Pamphlet, p. 76. 



ill error, they rarely find allies in the Peschito and the 
.lEthiopic. On the other hand, you are to remelnber that 
hesiùes \TEHSION
, the FATHERS have to be inquired after: 
,vhile more ÍInportant than either is the testimony of the 
COPIES. N o\\r, the combined ,vitness to 'GOD' (E>eóç ),-so 
multitudinous, so respectable, so varied, so unequivocal,-of 
the Copies and of the Fathers (in addition to three of the 
\T ersions) is simply overwhelming, It becomes undeniable 
that E>eó)' is by far the best supported reading of the present 

 14, 1Vhen, ho\vever, such an one as Tischendorf or 
Tregelles,-I-Iort or Ellicott,-,,"ould put me down by re- 
minding 111e that half-a-dozen of the oldest Versions are 
against me,-" That argument" (I reply) "is not allo\vable 
on yoztr lips. For if the united testimony of fi'Loe of the 
,-r ersions really be, in your account, decisive,- "llY do you 
deny the genuineness of the' last T"relve ,r erses of S. 
Gospel, 'lchich are recognized by evcry one of the 1 T ersions? 
Those Verses are besides attested by evel'y known Copy, except 
tw'o of bad character: by a 1nt"ghty chorus of Fathcrs: by the 
'[tnfaltering Tradition of the Ch'ltrch 'llniversal. First relllove 
. 1\Iark xvi. 20, your brand of suspicion, and then 
come back to me in order that ,ye may discuss together how 
1 TÜn. iii. 16 is to be read. And yet, \vhen you come back, 
it Blust not be to plead in favour of '\vho' (öç), in place of 
, GOD' (8eóç), For not' \vho' (ó)'), renlelnber, but' ,,"hich' (ö) 
is the reading advocated by those five earliest Versions." . . . 
In other "Tords,-the reading of 1 Tinl. iii. 16, \vhich the 
Revisers have adopted, enjoys, (as I have show'n from page 
428 to page 501), flu' feeblest attestation oj allY,. beside



being condemned by internal considerations and the universal 
Tradition of the Eastern Church. 

 15. I pass on, after modestly asking,- Is it too much to 
hope, (I covet no other guerdon for my labour!) that 'we 
shall hear no more about substituting (( who" for (( GOD" in 
1 Tim. iii. 16? We may not go on disputing for ever: and 
surely, until men are able to produce some more cogent 
evidence than has yet come to light in support of "the 
nlystery of godliness, who" (TÒ rijc; EvuEßEíac; fl-VUT-Ý]PlOV. 
õc; ),-all sincere inquirers after Truth are Lound to accept 
that reading which has been delnollstrated to be by far the 
best attested, Enough however on this head. 

 16, It \vas said just no\v that 1 cordially concur ,vith 
Bp, Ellicott in the second of his two propositions,-viz. That 
"no equitable judgnlent can be passed on ancient documents 
until they are carefully studied, and closely compared with 
each other, and tested by a more scientific process than rough 
comparison \vith" the Textus Recept'lts. I wish to add a few 
,vords on this subject: the rather, because what I alll about 
to say,vill be found as applicable to my Reviewer in the 
'Church Quarterly' as to the Bishop. Both have misappre- 
hended this matter, and in exactly the same \vay. Where 
such accomplished Scholars have erred, ,vhat \vonder if 
ordinary readers should find themselves all a-field? 

 17. In Textual Criticism then, "rough comparison" can 
seldom, if ever, be of any real use. On the other hand, the 
exact Collrttion of documents ,vhether ancient or modern ,vith 



the received Text, is the necessary foundation of all scientific 
Criticism. I employ that Text,-( as 
Iill, Bentley, vYetstein; 
latthæi, Scholz; Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, 
enlployecl it before me,)-not as a criterion of Excellence, but 
as a standard of C01Jlparison. All this \vill be found fully 
explained belo\v, from page 383 to page 391. 'Vhenever I 
\yould judge of the authenticity of any particular reading, I 
insist on bringing it, \vherever found,-whether in Justin 

Iartyr anù Irenæus, on the one hand; or in Stephens and 
Elzevir, on the other ;-to the test of Catholic Antiquity. If 
that \vitness is consentient, or very nearly so, whether for or 
against any given reading, I hold it to ùe decisive. To no 
other system of arbitration \vill I sublnit myself. I decline 
to recognise any other criterion of Truth, 

 18. 'Vhat conlpels Ine to repeat this so often, is the 
impatient self-sufficiency of these last days, which is for 
breaking a\vay from the old restraints; and for erecting the 
individual conscience into an authority from which there 
shall be no appeal. I kno\v but too \vell how laborious is 
the scientific method which I advocate. A long summer day 
disappears, \vhile the student-with all his appliances about 
is resolutely threshing out SOllle n1Ïnute textual problem. 
Another, and yet another bright day vanishes. Comes Saturday 
evening at last, and a page of illegible lnanuscript is all that 
he has to sho\v for a "reek's heavy toil. Quou.squc tandc1ì
And yet, it is the indispensable condItion of progress in an 
unexplored region, that a fe\y should thus labour, until a 
path has been cut through the forest,-a road laid do,,'"n,- 
huts built,-a 1nodus vircndi established, In this department 




of sacred Science, Inen have been going on too long in ven ting 
th e ir facts and deliverin o ' thelnselves of oracular decrees, on 
, 0 
the sole responsibility of their o\vn inner consciousness. 
There is great convenience in such a method certainly,-a 
channing simplicity which is in a high degree attractive to 
flesh and blood. I t dispenses \vith proof, I t furnishes no 
evidence. It asserts \vhen it ought to argue. l I t reiterates 
when it is called upon to explain. 2 cc I am sir Oracle." . . . 
This,-which I venture to style the unscicntific nlethod,- 
reached its cuhninating point \vhen Professors 'Vestcott and 
Hort re
ently put forth their Recension of the Greek Text. 
Their \vork is indeed quite a psychological curiosity. 
Incomprehensible to me is it ho\v t\VO able men of 
disciplined understandings can have seriously put forth 
the volulne \yhich they call cc IXTRODUCTION-ApPENDIX," 
It is the very Rcductio ad absu1'dum of the uncritical 
method of the last fifty years, And it is especially in 
opposition to this ne\v method of theirs that I so strenuously 
insist that the conscnticnt voice of Catholic Antiquity is to be 
diligently inquired after and submissively listened to; for 
that this, in the end, ,vill prove our only safe guide. 

 19, Let this be a sufficient reply to lny Revie\ver in 
the 'Church Quarterly,'-who, I observe, notes, as a funda- 
Inental defect in my Articles, cc the want of a consistent \vork- 
ing Theor y , such as \vould enable us to \veiO'h as ,,-ell as 
b , 
count, the suffrages of MSS., Versions, and Fathers." 3 He is 
ren1Ïnded that it was no part of my business to propound a 

1 E.g, pagc8 232-
U8 : 26U-277 : 305-30S. 
3 Pagc 354. 

2 E,g. P.LgCS 30



Iy 'Jnetlwd I have explained often and fully enough. 
l\fy business ,vas to prove that the theory of Drs. 'Vestcott 
and IIort,-,vhich (as Bp. Ellicott's paulphlet proves) has 
been Inainly adopted by the l1evisionists,-is not only a 
\vorthless, but an utterly absurd one. And I ha ve proved 
it. The luethod I persistently advocate in every case of a 
supposed doubtful lleading, (1 say it for the last tune, and 
request that I luay be no more Inisrepresented,) is, that 
(ot appeal shall be l.ln1'eservedly 'lnade to Catholic Antiqztity; 
and that the cOlnbined verdict of l\Ianuscripts, Versions, 
Fathers, shall be regarded as decisive. 

 20. I find myself, in the nlean time, met by the scoffs, 
jeers, misrepresentations of the disciples of this ne\v School; 
,vho, instead of producing historical facts and intelligible 
arguments, appeal to the decrees of their teachers,-,vhich I 
disallo\v, and ,vhich they are unable to substantiate. They 
delight in announcing that Textual Criticism Inade " a fresh 
departure" with the edition of Drs, 'Vestcott and Hort: that 
the ,york of those scholars" 'nza'rks an era," and is spoken of 
in Gernlany as " epoch-mIlking." l\Iy o,vn belief is, that the 
Edition in question, if it be epoch-making at all, marks that 
epoch at \vhich the C 1 1rrent of critical thought, reversing 
its \vayward course, began once more to flo,v in its ancient 
healthy channel. 'Cloud-land' having been duly sighted on 
the 14th September 1881, 1 "a fresh departure" was insisted 
upon by public opinion,-and a dehLerate return ,vas made, 
-to terra firrna, and teTra cognita, and conlnlon sense, So 

I On tha.t day appeared Dr. Hort's ' Introductiun (tntl .Appcndix' to the 
N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. \Y e



far froill "its paramount claÏ.1n to the respect of future 
aenerations" beina "the restitution of a Dlore ancient and 
b '0 
a purer Text,"-1 venture to predict that the edition of the 
t\VO Canlbridge Professors \vill be hereafter remembered as 
indicating the furthest point ever reached by the self-evolved 
imaainations of Enalish disci p les of the school of Lachmann, 
o 0 
Tischendorf, Tregelles. The recoil promises to be complete. 
English good sense is ever 0 bserved to prevail in the IODg 
run; although for a few years a foreign fashion may acquire 
the ascendant, and beguile a few unstable ,,

 21. It only remains to state that in republishing these 
Essays I have availed myself of the opportunity to Dlake 
several corrections and additions; as well as here and there 
to expand what before had been too briefly delivered. J\Iy 
learned friend and kind neighbour, the Rev. R. Co\vley 
Powles, has ably helped me to correct the sheets. J\fuch 
valuable assistance has been zealously rendered me through- 
out by my nephe\v, the Rev. 'Villiaul F. Rose, Vicar of 
'V orle, Somersetshire. But the un,vearied patience and con- 
summate skill of my Secretary (IV!. "T.) passes praise. Every 
syllable of the present volume has been transcribed by her 
for the pr
ss; and to her I am indebted for t\VO of DIY 1n- 
dices.-The obligations under \vl'ich many learned men, both 
at home and abroad, have laid me, will be found faithfully 
ackno\vledged, in the proper place, at the foot of the page. I 
aln sincerely grateful to them all. 

 22. It \vill be readily believed that I have been sorely 
telnptcd to recast the \vhole and to strengthen nlY position 



in èvery part: but then, the ,york \vould have no longer Leen, 
-" Three Articles reprinted from the Quarterly Revie\v." 
Earnestly have I desired, for many years past, to produce 
a systenlatic Treatise on this great subject. l\fy aspiration 
all along has been, and still is, in place of the absolute 
Empiricisln \vhich has hitherto prevailed in Textual inquiry 
to exhibit the logical outlines of what, I am persuaded, is 
destined to become a truly delightful Science. But I l110re 
than long,-I fairly ache to have done with Controversy, and 
to be free to devote myself to the work of Interpretation. 
l\Iy apology for besto\ving so large a pOltion of IllY time on 
Textual Criticism, is David's \vhen he \vas reproached by his 
brethren for appearing on the field of battle,-" Is there not 
a. cause?" 

 23, For,-let it clearly be noted,-it is no longer the 
case that critical dou bts concerning the sacred Text are 
confined to critical Editions of the Greek. 
o long as scholars 
\vere content to ventilate their crotchets in a little arena of 
their o\vn,-ho\vever mistaken they Inight be, and even 
though they changed their opinions once in every ten years,- 
no great hann ,vas likely to çome of it. Students of the 
Greek Testalllent ,vere sure to have their attention called 
to the subject,-\vhich must al\vays Le in the highest degree 
.desirable; and it \vas to be expected that in tlus, as in every 
other departlnent of learning, the progress of Inquiry ,vould 
result in gradual accessions of certain l\:no,vledge. After 
lllany )Tears it Inight be found practicable to put forth by 
authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly 
received (}reck Tc.xt. 



 24, But instead of all this, a Revision of the English 
A uthorised Version having been sanctioned by the Con vocation 
of the Southern Province in 1871, the opportunity \vas 
eagerly snatched at by two irresponsible scholars of the 
University of Canlbridge for obtaining the general sanction 
of the Revising body, and thus indirectly of Convocation, for 
a private venture of their own,-their o\vn privately devised 
Revision of the G1
eek Text. On that Greek Text of theirs, 
(which I hold to be the most depraved \vhich has ever 
appeared in print), \vith some slight lllodifications, our 
Authorised English Version has been silently revised: silently, 
I say, for in the lllargin of the English no record is preserved 
of the underlying Textual changes \vhich ha ve been introduced 
by the Revisionists. On the contrary, Use has been made 
of that Inargin to insinuate suspicion and distrust in count- 
less particulars as to the authenticity of the Text \vhich 
has been suffered to renlain unaltered. In the Dleantinle, 
the country has been flooded with two editions of the New 
Greek Text; and thus the door has been set wide open for 
universal mistrust of the Truth of Scripture to enter. 

 25. Even schoolboys, it seems, are to have these crude 
views thrust upon theln. Witness the' Call1bridge Greek 
Testament for Schools,' edited by Dean Perowne,-\vho in- 
forms us at the outset that 'the Syndics of the Oantb'J
Un'ivers'ity Press have not thought it desirable to l'eprillt the 
text in COInmon use.' A consensus of Drs. Tischendorf and 
Tregelles,-who confessedly elllployed the self-same nvistaken, 
major premiss in remodellin g the Sacred Text -seelns in a 
, , 
general way, to represent those Syndic/:,' notion of Textual 



purity, By this means every lllost SerIOU'3 defonnity in the 
edition of Drs. 'Vestcott and Hort, hecolnes prolnoted to 
honour, and is being thrust on the unsuspecting youth of 
England as the genuine utterance of the l-IoL Y {j HOST. 
'V oulJ it not have Leen the fairer, the 1110re faithful as well 
as the nlore judicious course,-seeing that in respect of thi" 
ah.,trust. and inlpurtant question adhuc sub judice lis est,- 
to \vait patiently a\vhile? Certainly not to snatch an oppor- 
tunity " \vhile men slept," and in this \vay indirectly to pre- 
judge the 801e111n issue ! Not by such methods is the cause 
of (:OD'fS Truth on earth to be promoted, Even this however 
is not all. Bishop Lightfoot has been infonl1ed that "the 
ocicty has pennitted its Translators to adopt the Text 
of the TIevised ,r ersion u,hcrc it commcnd..; itself to theÍ1
judg'JìU'nt." 1 III other \vords, persons wholly unacquainted 
\vith the danf!ers \vhich beset this delicate and difficult 
problem are invited to deternlÎne, by the light of Nature 
and on the ':;ulvere aTnbulando' principle, \vhat is inspired 
Scripture, \vhat not: and as a necessary consequence are en- 
couraged to disseminate in heathen lands I{eadings which, a 
few years hence,-(so at least I venture to predict,)-,vill 
be llni versally recognized as \vorthless. 

 2G. If all this does not constitute a valid reason for 
descending into the arena of controversy, it \\üuld in Iny 
judgment he iInpossible to indicate an occ.:'l
ion \vhen the 
Christian soldier is called upon to do so :-the rather, because 
certain of those ,vho, fr011l their rank and station in the 

1 'Charge,' published in the fluardirtfi, Dee, 20, 18R
, p. 1813. 



Church, ought to be the cluunpions of the Truth, are at thiH 
time found to be an10ng its most vigorous assailants. 

 27. Let me,-(and \vith this I conclude),-in giving the 
present V olulne to the \vorld, be allo\ved to request that it may 
be accepted as a sample of ho\v Deans employ their time,-- 
the use they make of their opportunities. No,vhere but 
under the shadow of a Cathedral, (Ol
 in a College,) can such 
laborious endeavours as the present pro Ecclcsiâ DEI be 
successfully prosecuted. 

J. 'V, B, 



DISSERTATION on 1 Timothy iii. 16 
POSTSCRIPT, showing that the traditional Reading of 1 Timothy iii. 16, 
is found in 300 Codices.. 
INDEX L TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE quoted, discussed, or only re- 
ferred to . . 



424: to 501 



( XXXlll ) 




ca.) Gravity of the issue raised by the' Revision' of 1881 .. 1 
in consequence of the course adopted by the Revisers 3 
, Bethesda,' C Bethsaida,' and 'Bethzatha' .. 5 
The Reconstruction of the Greek Text, was a fatal mistake 6 
as we shall presently show :- 7 
but a few elementary textual facts must first be stated .. 8 
(b.) The oldest copies of the N. T. (B and N), which are among the 
most depraved extant, are just now blindly foHowed 9 
Codex D exhibits the wildest Text of all 1
The five' old Uncials' characterized by Bp. Ellicott 14 
Codices NBC D demonstrably corrupt in a high degree .. 16 
The merit or demerit of the' Received Text' is a matter 
wholly beside the question 17 
S, AND FATHERs,--our three great helps 18 
Erroneous systen1s of Lachmann, 'l'regelles, Tischendorf 21 
Treatment of S. John, xxi. 25, by the last-named editor.. 23 
\Yestcott and .Hort's printed Text, the most vicious which has 
hitherto appeared 24 
Their Theory briefly examined 26 
The popular estimate of the five oldest 
lSS. shown to be 
erroneous . 29 
by analysis of their handling of 8. 
Iark, ü. 1-12 30 
and of the LORD'S Prayer (S. Luke xi. 2-4) 34 
, Last Twelve Verses' of 8. Mark's Gospel 36 
A new way of ' settling' the Text of the N. T. 37 
The Traditional Reading of S. Luke ü. 14, established against 
Codices NAB D 41 
(d,) , rarious Readings' are frequently the result of Accident 50 
as in Acts xxvii. 37: xviii. 7.-8. l\Iatth. xi. 23.- 
8. Luke x. 15 51 
(e.) (v.) , Various Readings' are often the result of Design 56 
as in S. Mark xi. 3 ('1i"UÀLV ) :-8. .\1 k. xi. 8 :-8. Luke xxiii. 45 58 
ASðBIILATIOX, a fertile cause of' Various Readings' .. 65 
as in 8. )Iark, xi. 20 (
7rÓpfL) 68 

IUTILA TIOX, another cause ;-as in 8. l\Iark xi. 24 :-8t. :Maith. 
xiv. 30 :-8. l\Iark xv. 39 :-8. Luke xxiii. 42 :-8. John 
xiv. 4 :-and in 8. Luke vi. 1 (ðnJTEpÖ'1i"pCùTOV) 69 
8 in 8. Luke xxii., xxiii., xxiv,-for which Cod. D 75 
is chiefly responsible :-xxii. 19, 
O :-xxÏi. 43, 44 77 




Our LORD'S' Agony in the Garden,'-His 'Bloody Sweat' and 
iinistering Angel (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 ),-together with 79 
His prayer for His murderers (S. Luke xxiii. 34),-vindicated 
aaainst \Vestcott and Hort and the Revisers .. 82 
The Inscription on His Cross (S. Luke xxiii. 38) established .. 85 
Seven precious places in the Gospel (viz. S. Luke xxiv. 1:- 
xxiv. 12 :-xxiv. 36 :-xxiv. 40 88 
S. Matthew xvii. 21 :-xviii. 11 :-S. Luke ix. 55-6) defended 
and established aaainst vVestcott and Hort and the Revisers 91 
TRAKSPOSITION of words, as in S. Luke xxiv. 41 93 
also in S. Luke vi. 1. Other instances of ' Transposition' 95 
S. Luke xxiv. 7, a fair sample of unauthorized transposition 96 
(/.) Two grounds of complaint against the Revisers.. 97 
(g.) Discussion of 1 rrimotby iii. 16, the crux Griticorum,-(more 
largely discussed from p. 424 to p. 501) 98 
The foregoing are samples only of about 6000 departures for 
the worse from the traditional Text .. 106 
An 'Eddystone lighthouse' built on the' Goodwin sands' no 
unapt image of the' Revised Version' before us .. 110 

(a.) The tremendous risk incurred by Biblical Revision 113 
And yet, who was to have foreseen the mischief which actually 
has come to pass? 114 
(b.) Unfairness of the Revisers, illustrated by their treatment of 
S. Luke iii. 22 .. 115 
as compared with their treatment of S. Luke x. 41, 42 .. 116 
Their one anxiety seenlS to have been to Ï1npose \Vestcott and 
Hort's vicious Recension on the public 117 
The Revisers' Greek text calamitously depraved throughout ., 1] 8 
e.g. in S. Matthew i. 18: and in S. 
Iatthew i. 25 119 
(c.) Bp. Ellicott and Dr. Westcott had already declared [see page xlii] 
that a Revised Greek Text would be as yet premature 124 
(d.) Proof that the Rules laid down at the outset for the Revision 
of the Authorized Version 126 
and of the underlying Greek Text,-have been disregarded 130 
(e,) Unfairness of the Revisers in stating the evidence 131 
notably in respect of S. John iii. 13 132 
and of the' number of the Beast' (Rev. xiii. 18) .. 135 
Unfair suppression systematically practised by them; e,g., in 
respect oÎ S. 
iark vi. 11 137 
Revisers' notion of making' as few alterations as possible' 138 
Novel expressions which they have introduced.. 147 
MistranRlation of Acts xxi. 37, and of S. Matth. xxvi. 15 14H 



Unwarrantable change in Acts xxvi. 28, 29 151 
(/.) Mechanical uniformity of rendering, a grievous mistake 152 
(g.) Vicious system of rendering the Greek Tenses and representing 
the Greek Article .. 15! 
Specimens of infelicitous and unidiomatic rendering 155 
Pedantry of the Revisers in respect of the Greek AORIST IS. 
and of THE 1'E
SES generally 161 
The Greek ARTICLE misunderstood by the Revisers 164 
PROROUKS and PARTICLES tastelessly and inaccurately rendered 165 
Unidiomatic rendering of PREPOSITIOKS .. 170 
.A specimen (2 S. Peter i. 5-7) 171 
Violated proprieties of the English language 172 
(ll.) The l\IARGIX of the Revision is encumbered with Textual Errors 175 
Take two specimen blunders: 176 
also, some sorry alternative Renderings :-sonle useless 
marginal glosses 178 
some erroneous' Explanatory Notes' 180 
some foolish mistakes resulting from slender acquaintance 
wi th Hellenistic Greek 182 
Specimens of' l\Iarginal Notes' desiderated 184 
Absurd note on S. Mark xiv. 3 .. 185 
Marginal inconsistency in respect of proper Names 186 
(i.) :Mistaken principle of Translation 187 
Theory of the Translators of 1611 188 
The work of 1881 inferior to that of 1611 190 
(j.) The same word must sometimes be diversely rendered :-as aLTEiv 191 
àcþtivUl., '1ral.
íulC1J. And certain renderings:- 193 
as ' Sepulchre,' 'Doctrine,' , Vials,' , Charity,' , Miracles' .. 197 
and' HOLY GHOST '-may, on no account, be in
erfered with 204- 
, Epileptic' (S. 
Iatth. xvii. 15), a sorry gloss, not a translation 205 
(k.) 'Everlasting' unfairly excluded as the rendering of aLó>VLo
 .. 206 
, Inspiration' :-{Bp. Middleton versus Bp. Ellicott) .. 208 
Discreditable handling of S. Mark xiii. 32 209 
Socinian gloss on Romans ix. 5, patronized by the Revisers 210 
(1.) 'The Evil One' improperly introduced into' the LORD'S Prayer' 214 
Other changes for the worse in the Revision of 1t;81 217 
The Revisers prefer' nl,umpsimus t to ' sumpsimus ' :- 218 
8.nd nave corrupted the text of S. John x. 14 220 
(m.) The Authorized Version is better than the Revision 221 
Sir Edmund Beckett.-Novel Phraseology 222 
(n.) \Vhere are our ' Headings' and our 'Marginal References ?' 223 
The ' New English Version J characterized 225 
The Book has been Inade unreadable 226 
(0.) Case of 'the Revision ' hopeless .. 227 




Certain of the Revisers at least are frfle fr0111 blame 


(a.) The general disappointment occasioned by 'the ReviRion' 23:; 
having been proclaimeJ by the Reviewer in Oct. 1881 237 
he found hinlself taunted with not having grappleJ with 
Drs. 'Vestcott and Hort's 'New Textual Theory' 240 
that omission he proposes to repair effectually now 24] 
(b.) He begins by rehearsing the method of their predecessors :-.. 242 
(Lachmann, Tl'egelles, Tischendorf): and pointing out 
what had been the underlying fallacy of them all 243 
The Edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort, unlike the rest, 
proves to be destitute of Critical apparatus 245 
which nlakes its oracular tone peculiarly unbecOlning 247 
(c.) Dr. Hort takes no account of gross 'fextual errors which have 
been the result of Design 248 
and which prevail in his favourite Codices Band D 249 
His account of his own Edition inspires distrust and disnlay.. 250 
for he clahns that Readings [by himself] "strongly pre- 
ferred" shall be accepted as the Truth of Scripture 252 
thereby setting up himself as the supreme authority 253 
(d.) He vaunts the 'factor of Genealogy' (a term to be explained 
further on) as the great instrument of Textual progress 254 
and identifies the Traditional Greek Text with the 
dominant'Sy'rian Text' of A.D. 350-400 257 
(e.) His' Theory of Confiation' critically'examined .. 258 
and ascertained to be visionary 264 
On it, nevertheless, Dr. Hort proceeds to build .. 265 
frequently asserting (never proving) that 'Syrian readings' 
are posterior to all other .. .. 266 
and that' Præ-Syrian ' readings must be A posto1ic .. 268 
The' Traditional Greek Text,' Dr. Hort chooses to call' Syrian' 269 
and readings peculiar to B and 
, he arbitrarily desig- 
nates' Præ-Syrian' and' Neutral' 271 
By an effort of the Imagination, he aSSUlnes (a) that the 
, Syrian' Text was the result of a deliberate and autho- 
ritative Recension,- .... 272 
of which he invents (1) the Occasion (2) the History, and 
(3) the Date (nalnely, between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350).. 273 
He further assumes (ß) that the Syriac Version underwent 
a similar fantastic process of Recension at the same time 275 
Dr. Hort's fabulous account of the origin of the Traditional 
Greek Text.. .. .. .. ., .. . , 278 

'1'..\13LE U:F CO


which recuils inconycniently on himself 2t34 
For (by the hyputhe
is) that Text was the llirect product 
of the collective wisdom of the Church in her best days 286 
Dr. IIort's estimate of the result of the (imaginary) labours 
of the Church .A.D. 2.30-.A.D. 350: which (he says}-.. 289 
resulted in a fabricated Text \\hich, in some unexplained 
way instantly e
ta blished ibelf all over the wor11 290 
and-(unrecorded by a single writer of Antiquity}- 293 
became the direct lineal Ancestor of every copy of the 
:K. 'r. in existence .. 297 
inuating it
e1f into the writings of all the Greek Fathers 2V8 
and thus e
hing the importance of the 'factor of 
Genealogy' (yaunted at p. 
5-1] 299 
(f.) The one object of all this wild writing shown to be the glorifi- 
cation of' Codices B and 
'- 300 
for the lost original of which two Codices, , general immu- 
nity from sub8tantive error' i... claimed by Dr. 110rt 30-1 
(g.) The Reviewer remollstrates with the Professor .. 305 
who insists that the readings of 'codex B' have the' ring 
of genuinene
s ' 306 
but is reminded that his own' inner consciousness' is an 
unsafe guide in this respect 308 

roreover, his proposed test is proved to be inapplicable 310 
(h,) Dr. Hort is fur shutting us up for ever within' Codices B and 
' 312 
but we decline to submit to the propo
ed bondage 313 
for the bad character of those two Cod
ces is a fact 315 
their very prescn-ation being probably attributable solely 
to the patent fütùness of the Text they exhibit.. 319 
(i.) And thus we part company from our learned, and accomplished 
but certainly nlOst incompetent and lnistaken Guide .. 320 

(}.) DIALOGUE of the Reviewer with a SL'PPOSED OBJECTOR, in proof 
that the mo
t ancient document accessible is not of 
'necessity the purest also 321 
Fragment of the' j11edca' written B.C. 200 321 
Caius (A.D. 175) on heretical depravations of the Text 323 
e of the Codices' B 
 c' .. 325 
Visit to the library of CIClnens .Alexandrinus (A.D. 183).. 3

(A'.) DIALOGUE of the Reviewer with a FRIEXDLY CRITIC,-who 
remon8trates with hinl on the (supposed) dangerous tendency 
of the foregoing renlarks 328 
The Reviewer in reply, explains what is meant by appealing 
to ' ...\.ntiquity' 329 
Endeavours to account for the deformity occasionally 
exhibited by certain of the earliest documents .. 334 




and describes his own hunlble method of procedure when 
he would himself ascertain the Truth of Scripture 336 
(l.) GOD hath lllade anlple provision for the security of IIis own 
wri tten 'V ord .. 338 
(1n.) The only trustworthy method of Textual Cri ticisln explained.. 339 
That must be held to be the true Text which enjoys the 
fullest and most varied attestation 340 
., Whereas Dr. Hort's 'Theory,' (founded on the hypothesis 
that Codex B is almost imnlaculate), suggests the image 
of a pyramid balanced on its apex 342 
And the Revisers by adopting his preposterous method, have 
done their best to make the Church of England as well 
as themselves, ridiculous .. 344 
(n.) The case of the Codex Alexandrinus (A) stated .. 345 
,. 1 S. John v. 18 discussed by the Reviewer 347 
and proposed as a specimen of his own' innocent ignorance' 349 
(0.) rrhe Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry 350 
, Dr. Hort on 'Conjectural Enlendation :'-2 Tim. i. 13 351 
S. John vi. 4 :-Acts xx. 28 353 
, Conjectural Emendation' can be allowed no place 354 
2 S. Peter iii. 10 vindicated against Dr. Hort 356 
also ElKij (' without a cwltse') in S. 
iatthew v. 22 358 
(p.) vVestcott and Hort's method of dealing with the Inspired Text 
shown to be wholly indefensible 362 
('1.) The subject of' 'rEXTUAL CRITICISM' may no longer sleep 364 
But the great underlying problem will have now to be 
fairly threshed out: and,-' GOD DEFEND THE RIGHT !' 365 


(a,) Bishop Ellicott's reply to our first two Articles.. 369 
scarcely deserves serious attention .. 370 
and was anticipated by our owù third Article 371 
The unfairness of his procedure pointed out .. 372 
and a question proposed to him in passing.. .. .. 374 
He appeals to 'JJlodern Opinion': we, to ' Ancient .Âutho'J,ity' .. 375 
'fhe Bishop in May 1870, and in May 1882 .. .. .. 378 
His estimate of' the fabric of Modern Textual Criticisln' 379 
proved to be incorrect, by an appeal to historical facts . . 380 
He confuses the standard of Comparison with the standard 
of Excellence . . 383 
and misrepresents the Reviewer in cOllbequence .. 387 
But why does he prejudice the question .. 388 



by pouring contempt on the' first edition of .Erasmus?' .. 38!> 
since he admits that the Traditional Text (which is not 
the' first edition of Erasnlus ') is at least 1550 years old 3UO 
And since he has nothing to urge against it 3Ð1 
except Dr. Hort's fantastic hypothesis 3Ð4 
(11.) Nothing (gays the Bishop) can be more unjust on the part of 
the Reviewer than to suggest that the Revisers exceeded their 
Instructions , 3Ð9 
But the Reviewer demonstrates that, both in respect of the' New 
h Yersion ' 400 
and in respect of the' New Greek Text,' the Revisers have 
outrageously exceeded their Instructions 403 
not even suffering a trace to survive in their :l\1argin of 
the mischief they have effected in the Text 407 
e.g. at S. John iv. 15 :-8. :Mark vi. 11 :-8. l\Iatth. v. 44 407 
On the other hand, they encumber their )Iargin with the 
readings they deliberately reject 411 
and omit the' Headings,' and the' l\larginal References' .. 412 
(c.) Suggested Allocution,-Bp. Ellicott to Drs. \Vestcott and Hort 413 
(d.) Examination of the 16 Places in which the Bishop proposes 
to defend his' New Greek 'fext' 415 
Viz. S. Matth. i. 25 :-xvii. 21 :-xviii. II :-8. l\Iark vi. 
20 :-xÏ. 3 :-xi. 8 :-xvi. 9-
0 :-8. Luke ix. 55, 6:- 
x. 15 :-xi. 2-1 :-xxiii. 38 :-xxiii. 45 :-8. John xiv. 
4 :-Acts. xviii. 7 :-1 Tim. Hi. 16 417 
(e,) 1'hree of these Readings singled out for special laborious study, 
viz. (a) S. LUKE ii. 14 :-(13) S. MARK xvi. 9-20 420 
(for it is the Reviewer,-not the Bishop,-who makes, 
and insists on making, his appeal to Catholic Antiquity) 423 
(I.) Lastly (oy) 1 TUIOTHY iii. 16.- 
A Díssrrtatíon follows, in proof that "GOD WAS ][ANI- 
FESTED IN THE FLESH" is the correct Reading. 
Preliminary remarks in explanation .. 424 
Evidence in favour of P.VUT
pWJl . ör, as stated by Bp. Ellicott.. 429 
shown to be in every respect mistaken 430 
[1] Testimony of the CoPIES to 1 Timothy iii. 16. Of Cùd. A.. 431 
next, of Cod. c 437 
next, of Codd. F and G. of S. Paul .. 438 
next, of the Cursi"e Copies,-' Paul 17,' , 73' and' 181 ' .. 443 
[2] Testimony of the VER
IOKS concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16. 7'he 
old Latin,- 448 
the YuIgate,-the Peschito,-the Harkleian,-the Egyp- 
tian,-the Gothic,-the Ethiopic,- the ...\rmcnian,-the 
Arabic vcr:-;ion 449 




Up to this point, the sanction obtained for ""VUT
pLOJI. ór is 
wondrous slender . . 454 
[3] Testimony of the FATHERS concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16 455 
Gregory of Nyssa,-DiJymus,-Theodoret.... 456 
Chrysostom,-Gregory of K azianzus,-the title "llfpì 
Bfías uapKWUf(OS" .. 457 

evcrus of Antioch,-Diodorus of rrarsus .. 45H 
(Bp. Ellicott as a Controversialist.) rl'he case of Euthalius 45D 
1)S.- Dionysius Alexandrinus .. 461 
gus,-the Apostolical Constitutions,-Basil 4()
Cyril of Alexandria . . 464 
rrhe arrrument e silentio considered 469 
rl'he story about Macedonius examined, and disposed of 470 
Anonymus,-Epiphanius (A.D. 787),-
'heo<.lorus Studita, 
-Scholiasts, - <Ecumenius, - rrheophy lact,- Euthymius, 
-Ecclesiastical Tradition,-the ' Apostolus' 475 
(1.) Sum of the evidence in favour of ""VUT
pLOJl' Ö in 1 Tim. 
Hi. 16, shown to be insufficient.-Theodore of 
Iopsuestia .. 47U 
(II.) Sum of the evidence in favour of ""VUT
pLOJI. ós in 1 Tim. 
iii. 16, shown to be vastly inferior to the preceding .. 482 
Bp. Ellicott is reminded that not' Modern Opinion,' but 
, Ancient Authority' (i.e. Fact not Fiction) is to settle 
this, and every other Textual question .. 483 
(III.) Sum of the evidence in favour of efÒS ÈrþaJlfpwBT} in 
"im. iii. 16, shown to òe overwhelnling and decisive 485 

'estimony of 20 Fathers, 3 Versions, 4 Uncial Codices 487 
and 252 (out of 254) cursive Copies-[or rather, 260 out of 
262, for see the POSTSCRIPT at page 528] 491 
also of 33 Lectionaries-[ or rather, of 36] .. 495 
Internal evidence for reading efÒS lcþaJlfpwBT} in 1 rrim. iii. 16, 
shown to be the strongest possible 497 
Close of the Dí.å.5tdation (which began at p. 424) 501 
(g.) Composition of the Revising Body a breach of Church Order.. 501 
An Unitarian Reviser intolerab]e 503 
The' 'Vestminster Abbey scandal' (22nd June 1870) .. 507 
(h,) Forecast of the probable Future of the Revision of 1881 508 
which differs essentially from that of 1611 50D 
:M:utilation of S. Mark x. 21: S. Luke ix. 54-6: xxii. 64: xxiii. 
38: xxiv. 42 510 
(i.) Review of the entire subject, and of our respective positions .. 514 
The nature of the present contention explained.. 516 
])arting counsels.-rrluee convenient Test places indicated 519 
rrhe subject dismissed 520 


( xlii ) 

"One question in connexion with the Authorized Yersion I haye plU'- 
posely neglected. It seemed useless to tli8cuss its REVISIOX. The Revision 
of the original Texts rn'Ust precede the Revision of the Trawilation: and 
the time for this, even in the New Testam.ent, has not yet fuZZy come."- 

" It is my honest conviction that for any authoritative nEVISIO
, we 
are not yet filature; either in Biblical learning or llellenistic scholarship. 
rrhere is good scholarship in thi
 country, . . . . but it has cel.tainly 'not 
yet been sufficiently directed to the study of the }.,"Tew Testament. . . . to 
render any national attempt at REVISIO
 either hopeful or lastingly profit- 
able."-BIsHOP ELLIcOTT. 2 

CC I am persuaded that a REVISIO:S ought to conlC: I all1 convinced that 
it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; for 'We are not as yet 
in any respect prppared for it. The Greek and the English which shoulù 
enable us to bring this to a successful end, might, it is feared, be 'Wanting 

1 Preface to HiRtory of the Engli
h RiMe (p. ix.),-18GR. 
2 Preface to Pastoral Epistles (p. xiv.),-18Gl. 
S TI"e Authorized Version of the N. T. (p. 3),-1858. 





"It is happeneà unto them according to the true proverb, KVCI>JI l,n- 
'.1.. ,. \,,
 'l:. ' d " y '" '''', ß ß ' " 
fTTpE'I' as' f1rt TO toLDJI fc;Epapa . an, S' J\OVUUJ-LfJl1J fLS K.VJ\LUJ-LU op opov. 
-2 PETER ii. 22. 
" Little chilclren,-I
eep yourselves fronl idols."-l JOH
 v. 21. 

AT a period of extraordinary intellectual activity like the 
present, it can occasion no surprise-although it may 
reasonably create anxiety-if the most sacred and cherished 
of our Institutions are constrained each in turn to submit to 
the ordeal of hostile scrutiny; sometÜnes even to bear the 
brunt of actual attack. 'Vhen how.ever at last the very 
citadel of revealed Truth is observed to have been reached, 
and to be undergoing sYRtelllatic assault and battery, 
lookers-on luay 1e excused if they sho,v thenlselves more 
than usually solicitous, 'ne quid detrÏ1nenti Civitas DEI 
capiat.' Å. Revision of the .L
uthorized Version of the X ew 
Testalnent, l purporting to have been executed by authority 
of the Convocation of the Southern Province, and declaring 
itself the exclusive property of our two ancient Universities, 
has recently (17th l\Iay, 1881) appeared; of ,,'"hich the 
essential feature proves to be, that. it is founded on an 

1 The l-lew Testament of Our Lord and Saviour JEsr;s OHRIST translated 
out of the Greek: being the l'"ersion set forth A,D. 1611, comparf'd 'lcith the 
most ancient .Authorities, and Revised A.D. 1881. Printed for the Univer- 
sities of O
fof(l ancl Cambridge, 1881. 





cntÙ'cly New Rccension oj the GrccJ
 Trxt. 1 A claÌ1n is at 
the saIne tinle set up on behalf of the last-nallled production 
that it exhibits a closer approxÏ1llation to the inspired .A.uto- 
graphs than the ,vorld has hitherto seen. X ot unreasonable 
therefore is the expectation entertained ùy its Authors that 
the 'N e,v Eno'!ish Version' founded on this 'K e,\T Greek 
Text; is rlestined to supersede the '..ctuthorized ,r crsion' of 
1611. Quæ C1.t1n ita sint, it is clearly high tÍIne that cvery 
faithful man among us should bestir hinlself: and in 
particular -that such as have Blade Greek Textual Criticisnl 
in any degree their study should address theulselves to the 
investigation of the claims of this, the latest product of the 
conlbined Biblical learning of the Church and of the sects. 

For it must be plain to all, that the issue which has been 
thus at last l'aised, is of the most serious character. The 
Authors of this ne,v Revision of the Greek have either entitled 
thenlselves to the Church's profound reverence and abiding 
gratitude; or else they have laid theulselves open to her 
gravest censure, and 111ust experience at her hands nothing 
short of stern and ,yell-merited rebuke. No middle course 
presents itself; since assuredly to construct a new G1
eck Text 
fonned no part of the Instructions 'which the Revisionists 
received at the hands of the Convocation of the Southern 
Province. Rather were they ,yarned against venturing on 
such an experiment; the fundamental principle of the entire 
undertaking having been declaled at the outset to be-That 

1 The New Testament in the Original Greek, acco'rding to the Text 
followed in the .Authorized Version, together with the T ariations adopted 
in the Revised Version. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge 
University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, J\I.A., D.C.IJ., LL.D., Prebendary 
of Exeter a:'J.d Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881. 
"H KAINH âIA0HKH. The Greek Testament, 'with the Readif'lg
adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version. [Edited by the Ven. 
Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881. 




'a Reyision of the A uthm'ized Version' is desirable; and the 
tenus of the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870, being, 
that the rell10val of 'PLAIX AXD CLEAR ERRORS' ,vas alone COll- 
tCluplated,-' w"hether in the Greek Text originally adopted 
by the Translators, or in the Translation maùe from the 
saIue.' Such ,vere in fact the lÍ1nits for1l1ally Í1nposed by Oon- 
oeation, (10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th l\Iay, 1870,) on the 'lcor,.k of 
Revision. Only KECESSARY changes w"ere to be Blade. The 
first Rule of the Committee (25th l\Iay) ,vas similar in 
character: viz.-' To int')'oduce as fm.1) alte1Ydions as possible 
into the Text of the Authorized Ve1'sion, consistently ,vith faith- 
But further, w"e "Tere reconciled to the prospect of a 
Revised Greek Text, by noting that a liIuit was prescribed to 
the alllount of licence ,vhich could by possibility result, by 
the insertion ùf a proviso, ,,
hich ho,vever is now. discovered 
to have been entirely disregarded by the Revisionists. The 
condition ,vas enjoined upon them that ,,
henever 'decidedly 
prepondc1'atin!] evidence' constrained their adoption of sonle 
change in 'the Text from ,,
hich the Authorized Version ,vas 
made,' they sh01:ld indicate such alteration in the 1itargin. 
\Vill it be believed that, this not,vithstanding, 'not one of the 
luany alterations ,,
hich have been introduced into the 
original Text is so cOIumeIuorated? On the contrary: sin- 
gular to relate, the l\fargin is disfigured throughout ,vith 
on1inous hints that, had 'Sonle ancient authorities,' , l\Iany 
ancient authorities,' '::\Iany very ancient authorities,' been 
attended to, a vast m3.ny more changes might, could, ,vould, 
or should have been introduced into the Greek Text than 
have been actually adopted. .A.nd yet, this is precisely the 
kind of record ,vhich ,ve ought to have been spared :- 

(1) First,-Because it "
as plainly extel'nal to the province 
of the TIevisionists to introduce any such details into their 
margin at all: their yery function heing, on the contrary, to 




investigate Textual (luestions in conclave, and to present the 
ordinary Reader 'with the 1'csnlt of their deliberations. Their 
business ,,"'as to correct "plain and clear errors;" not, 
certainly, to invent a fresh crop of unheard-of doul,ts and 
difficulties, This first.-N 0""', 
(2) That a diversity of opinion \yould sOlnetinles he fountl 
to exist in the revising body ,vas to have l)CeIl expected; hut 
,vb en once t,vo-thinls of their nnnlber had finally" settletl " 
any question, it is plainly unreasonable that the discOlllfitecl 
minority should claÍ1n the privilege uf eveflnore parading 
their .grievance before the public; and in effect should IJe 
allo\ved to represent that as a corpurate douLt, ,,"'hich "as in 
reality the result of individual idiosyncrasy. It is not 
reasonable that the echoes of a forgotten strife shuultl he 
thus prolonged for ever; least of all in the 11largin of 'the 
Gospel of peace.' 
(:1) In fact, the privilege of figuring in the lllargin of 
the N. T" (instead of standing in the Text,) is even attended 
by a fatal result: for, (as TIp. Ellicott remarks,) 'the judg- 
Inent comll1only entertained in reference to our present 
margin,' (i,e, the lllargin of the A. V.) is, that its contents arc 
'exegetically or critically superior to the Text.' 1 It ,viII 
certainly be long before this popular estÍlnate is uncondi- 
tionally abandoned. But, 
(4) Especially do ,ve deprecate the introduction into the 
lllargin of all this strange lore, because \""e insist on behalf 
of unlearned persons that they ought not to be nlolested 
with infornlatioll \vhich cannot, by possibility, be of the 
slightest service to thenl: \vith vague statements about 
" ancient authorities," -of the importance, or unÍInportance, 
of "ThieR they know absolutely nothing, nor indeed ever can 
know. Unlearneù readers on takin a the Revision into their 
hands, (i.e.- at least 999 readers out of 1000,) ,yill never be 

1 On Revisio71,-pp. 215-6. 




a ,yare 'v hether these ( so-called) 'Various Readings' are' to be 
scornfully scouted, as nothing else but ancient perversions 
of the Truth; or else arc to he lovingly cherished, as 'alt{'r- 
na.tive' [see the Revisers' rtr/ace (iii, 1.)] exhibitions of the 
inspired Verity,--to their o,vn abiding perplexity and infinite 

Undeniable at all events it is, that the effect ,vhich these 
ever-recurring announcements produce on the devout reader 
of Scripture is the reverse of edifying: is neyer helpful: is 
ahvays he,vildering. .A. lllan of ordinary acuteness can but 
exclauu,-' Yes, very likely. But 
{)hat of it? :\ly eye 
happens to alight on "Bethesùa " (in S. J uhn v, 2); against 
\vhich I find in the margin,-" Sonle aneient authorities read 
Bcthsaida, others Bcthzatha." .A.nl I then to understand that 
in the judgment of the nevisionists it is uncertain which of 
those three names is right?'. . Not so the expert, \vho is 
overheard to nloralize concerning the phenomena of the case 
after a less cereillonious fashion :-' " Bcthsaida " r Yes, the 
old Latin 1 and the Vulgate,2 countenanceù by one manuscript 
of haù character, so reads. "Bethzatha "! Yes, the blunder 
is found in t.wo lnanuscripts, both of bad character. "Thy do 
you not go on to tell us that another lnanuscript exhibits 
" Eelzetha" 1-another (supported by Eusebius 3 and [in one 
place] by Cyril 4), " Bezatha " 1 Nay, 'why not say plainly that 
there are found to exist 'upwards 'of tkiTty Llundering repre- 
sentations ûf this saIne ,,-ord; but that "Bethesda "-(thp 
reading of sixteen uncials and the \vhole body of the cursives, 
ùesides the Peschito and Cureton's Dyriac, the Arlnenian, 
Georgian anù Slavonic Versions,-DidYUlUS,5 Chrysostonl,6 
anù CyriI 7 ),-is the only reasonalJle ,yay of exhiLiting it? To 

1 Tertullian, bis. 2 Hieron. Opp. ii. 17. c (see the note). 
S ...\.puJ IIicroll. iii. 121. 4 iv. 617 c (ed. Pus
15 p, 
. 6 i. 5-18 c; yiii, 
O. a. 7 iy. 20,3. 




speak plainly, TVhy encumber your rnargin 'with sucl
 a note at 
all ? J . . But we are moving forward too fast. 
It can never be any question alnong scholars, that a fatal 
error 'was cOllunitted ,,,,"hen a body of Divines, appointed tv 
revise the A uiho1'izcd English VC1"sion of the N e,v Test::unen t 
Scriptures, addressed thelnselves to the solution of an entirely 
different anù far more intricate problenl, namely the Tc-cun- 
struct-ion of the Greek Text. 'Ve are content to pass over 
1l1uch that is distressing in the antecedent history uf their 
enterprise. vVe forbear at this time of day to inve8tigate, Ly 
an appeal to doculnents and dates, certain proceedings in and 
out of Convocation, on which it is kno,vn that the gravest 
diversity of sentiment still prevails anlong Churclllnen. 1 
This ,ve do, not by any means as ourselves' halting bet,veell 
t,,,,"o opinions,' but only as sincerely desirous that the ,york 
before us may stand or fall, judged by its o,vn intrinsic 
nlerits. "\Vhether or no COllvocation,-
-.hen it 'nou1Ïnated 
certain of its own 111elnbers to undertake the ,york of Revi- 
sion,' and authorized them 'to refer when they considered it 
desirable to Divines, Scholars, and Literary men, at hon1e or 
abroad, for thcir opinion;' -.whether Convocation intended 
thereby to sanction the actual co-optation into the Conlpany 
appointed by themselves, of n1elnbers of the Presbyterian, 
the Wesleyan, the Baptist, the Congregationalist, the Sociniall 
body; this we venture to think may fairly be doubted.- 
Whether again Convocation can have foreseen that of the 
ninety-nine Scholars in all ,vho have taken part in this work 
of Revision, only forty-nine ,vould be Churclnnen, w'hile the 
ren1aining fifty ,yould belong to the sects: 2-this also ,ve 

t A referen('e to the Journal of Convocation, for a twelvemonth after the 
proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously entertained, 
will reveal more than it would be convenient in this place even to allude to. 
2 'Ve derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr. 
Newth,-Lectures on Bible RC1Jision (1881), p. 116. 




yenture to think may be reasonably called in question,- 
'Vhether lastly, the Cauterbury Convocation, had it been 
appealed to ,vith reference to 'the 'Vestrninster-.A.LLey 
scandal J (June 22nd, 1870), "","ould not have cleared itself of 
the suspicion of cOluplicity, by an unequivocal resolutioll,- 
"re entertain no luanner of douùt.-BuL ,ve decline to enter 
upon these, or any other like Inatters. Our business is exclu- 
sivcly ,vith the result at which the Revisionists of the N e\v 
Testalnent have arrived: and it is to this that we now 
address ourselves; with the mere ayo,val of our grave anxiety 
at the spectacle of an asselnbly of scholars, appointed to 
revise an English Translation, finding thenlselves called 
upon, as every fresh difficulty elnerged, to develop the skill 
requisite for critieall.1J revising the original Greek Text. 'Vhat 
else is Ï111plied 1y the very enùeavour, but a singular ex- 
pectation that experts in one Science luay, at a In0l11ent's 
notice, sho,v themselves proficients in another, -and that one 
of the lllost difficult and delicate Üuaginable ? 

Enough has been said to make it plain ",'hy, in the ensuing 
pages, we propose to pursue a different course frolll that 
,vhich has been adopted by TIevie,vers generally, since the 
111en10rable day (i\Iay 17th, 1881) ,vhen the work of the 
Rcvisionists ".as for the first tinle subnlitted to public 
scrutiny. The one point ,vhich, ,vith rare exceptions, has 
eyer since nlonopolized attention, has been the Inerits or 
ùeulcrits of their English rendering of certain Greek w'"OrtIs 
and expressions. nut there is clearly a question of prior 
interest aud infinitely greater Í1ll1)ortance, ,vhich has to be 
settlea first: na1uely, the nlerits or denlerits of tiLe changes 
'lthieh the sante Selwlars ha
'e taken 'Upon tltc'ìnsclvcs to intro- 
duce into the Greek Text. Until it has been ascertained that 
the result of their labours exhibits a drcided inlprovement 
upon ,,,hat he fore "
i.ls read, it iR clearly a n1e1'C ,vastc of tÜllC 
to CU(luirc into the merits of their ,vork as Re1:iscrs of a 




Translation. But in fact it has to be proved that the 
n,evisionists have restricted then1selves to the relnoval of 
"plain and clear c17'ors" from the conln1only received Text. 
We are distressed to discover that, on the contrary, they 
have done something quite different. The treatIllent ,vhich 
the N. T. has experienced at the hands of the Revisionists 
recals the fate of some ancient edifice "Thich confessedly 
required to be painted, l)apered, scoured,-with a IniniInum 
of Inasons' and carpenters' ,vork,--in order to be inhabited 
",Tith conlfurt for the next hundred years: but those 
,vith the job ,vere so ill-advised as to persuade thenlselves that 
it required to be to a great extent rebuilt. Accordingly, in an 
evil hour they set about relnoving foundations, and did so 
much structural n1Ïschief that in the end it became necessary 
to proceed against thelll for damages. 

Without the remotest intention of ÏlllPosing vie\vs of our 
o\vn on the general Reader, but only to enable hÜn to give 
his intelligent assent to much that is to follo,v, ,ye find our- 
selves constrained in the first instance,- before conducting 
hÜn over any part of the domain \vhich the Revisionists have 
ventured uninvited to occupy,-to premise a fe\v ordinary 
facts ,vhich lie on the threshold of the science of Textual 
Criticism, Until these have been clearly apprehended, no 
progress ,vhatever is possible. 

(1) The provision, then, ,vhich the Divine Author of 
Scripture is found to have made for the preservation in its 
integrity of His ,vritten Word, is of a peculiarly varied and 
highly con1plex description. First,- By causing that a vast 
llluitiplication of COPIES should be required all down the ages, 
--beginning at the earliest period, and continuing in an ever- 
increasing ratio until the actual invention of Printil1g,-He 
provided the most effectual sequrity ÌInaginable against fraud. 
True, that n1Ïllions of the copies so produced have long since 


'I\L\TEUL\I.S }1
On 1']
XTU.AL C1UT1018:\1. 


perished: Lut it is nevertheless a plain fact that there 
suryive úf the Gospels alone lllHvanls of one thousanù copies 
tú the present tlay. 
(2) Next) 'TEH
IOXS. The necessity of translating the Scrip- 
tures intu <Ii vel'S languages for the use of different Lranches 
of the early Church) prucured. that InallY an authentic record 
has lJcen In'e
erYed uf the N e,v Tesbullent as it existed in the 
first fc,'" centuries of the Christian era, Thus, the Peschito 
Syriac and the old Latin yersion are Lelieveù to have Leen 
executed in the IIud century. "It is no stretch of ÏInagina- 
tion)) (wTute 11p. Ellicutt in 1870)) "to snppose that portions 
of the l)e
ehitu rnight have Leen in the hands of S. John, or 
that the Old Latin represented the current view.s of the 
ROlllan Christians of the Ilnd century."l The t,yO Egyptian 
translations are referred to the IIIrd and l'{th. The Vulgate 
(or revised Latin) and the Gothic are also claimed for the 
IYth: the Armenian, anù possiLly the LEthiopic, belong to 
the Vth. 
(3) La8tly, the re(luirelnents of assailants and apologists 
nlike) the Lusiness of Conlmentators, the neeJs of contro- 
versialists and teachers in every age, ha ye resulted in a vast 
accunlulation of additional evidence, of ,vhich it is scarcely 
possible to over-estimate the Ìlllportance. For in this way it 
has COlne to pass that every falnous Doctor of the Church in 
turn has quoted lllore or less largely frolll the sacred "Titings, 
and thus has Lorne testÏ1nony to t
le contents of the codices 
,,'ith ,,'hich ho "'as indiyidually fan1Íliar, P.\TlnSTlc CITA- 
s accordingly arc a thirù lllighty safeguard of the integrity 
of the depusit. 

To ,veigh these three illstrulllellts of Criticislll-COPIES, 
\TIIEm:ì--one against another, is obviuusly inl- 

1 On Bcvi:ÛuJl J pp. 




possible on the present occasion. Such a discussion 
gro\v at once into a treatise. l Certain explanatory details, 
together with a fe\v \yorùs of caution, are as lIluch as lnay be 

I. And, first of all, the reader has need to be apprised 
(\vith reference to the first-nfuned class of evidence) that most 
of our extant COPIES of the N. T. Scriptures are cOlnparatively 
of recent date, ranging froID the Xth to the XI'Tth century uf 
our era. That these are in every instance copies of yet ulder 
Iualluscripts, is self-eyident; and that in the lllain they 
represent faithfully the sacred autographs thenlselves, no 
reasonable person doubts. 2 Still, it is undeniable that 

1 Dr. Scrivener's Plain introduction to the Criticism of the }tew 
Testament, 2nd edition, 1874: (pp. 607), may be confidently recomn1endcd 
to anyone who desires to master the outlines of Textual Criticislll under 
the guidance of a judicious, in1partial, and thoroughly competent guide. A 
new and revised edition ûf this excellent treatise will appear shortly. 
2 Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener'
 Full (tnd 
exact Collation of about T1Benty Greek lJIan uscripts of the [Ioly Gospels 
(hithe'fto unexamined), deposited in the British JIusell'ln, the Archiepis- 
copal Library at Lambeth, &c., 'with a Oritical Introduction. (Pp. 
lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter ùeseryes very 
attentive perusal.- 'Vith equal confidence we beg to rccoIDlneud his 
Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a Græco-Latin JI(liiuscript 
of 8. Pa'ul's Epistles, deposited in the Library of Trinity Cullege, 
Cambridge; to which is added a full Collation rif Fifty J.[an'ilscripts, 
containing various po'rtions of the Greek .1Vew Testament, 'in the Libraries 
of Cambridge, Parham, Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British .illusl'um, 
&c. TVith a Oritical Introduction (which must also be carefully 
(Pp. lxxx. and 563.) 1859.-Learned readers can scarcely require to 
1e told of the same learned scholar's NOVllììì Testarnentu1n Textíìs 
Stephanici, A.D. 1550. Åccedunt variæ Lectiones Editionmn Bezæ, Elzeviri, 
Lac71manni, 'l'ischendorfii, T1Y:gellesii. Curante F. II. A. Scrivener, 
A.M., D,C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior. 1877.- 
Those who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the subject 
lnay be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener's Six Lectures on the Text of 
the 1'1. T. and the Ancient .11188. which contain it, chiefly add,.essed to 
those who do nút read Greek, 1875.. 




they are thus separatell by about a thousand years from their 
inspired archetypes. l:eaJers are re1ninùed, ill passing, that 
the little handful of copies on "hich "e rely for the texts of 
lIerodotus aULI Thucydides. of ....Eschylus and Sophocles, are 
reulo\9 c (1 frun1 tlnir originals Ly full 500 years 1110re: anù 
that, instead of å thousand, or half a thousand copies, 've are 
dependent for the text of certain of these authors Oll as nlauy 
c0pies as lllay Le counted on the fingers of Olle hand. In 
truth, the security ,vhich the Text of the X ew Testal11ent 
enjuys is altogether unique and extraordinary. To specify 
one single consideration, "hich has never yet attracted nearly 
the i.1111ount of attention it de
erves,-' Lectionaries' ahound, 
,,,hich establish the Text ,vhich has been publicly read in the 
churches of the East, froIn at least A.D. 400 until the time of 
the invention of printing, 

I3ut here an inlportant consiùeration claims special atten- 
tion. "r e allude to the result of increased acq uaintal1ce "ith 
certain of the oldest extant codices of the :N. T. T"To of 
these,-viz. a copy in the \T atican technically indicated by 
the letter B, and the recently-discovered Sillaitic codex, styled 
after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet 
,-are thought 
to ùelung to the I\Tth century. T,vo are assigned to the \rth, 
viz. the ....\1exandrian (A) in the British ::\Iuselull, and the 
rescript codex preserved at "Paris, designated c. One is pro- 
bably of the '"'"Ith, viz. the cOllex Bezæ (D) pre:)eryed at 
Ca111 bridge. Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and 
fifth of these codices (B 
 C D), but especially B and 
, have 
,vithin the last t,vcnty years established a tyrannical ascend- 
oncy over the ÏInagination of the Critics, ,,
hich can only ùe 
fitly spuken of as a ùlinLl superstition. It 1uatters llothiucr 
that all four are di
cuvered on careful scrutiny to differ 
essentially, not only fronl ninety-nille out of a hundreù uf 




the ,vhole body of extant l\lSS, besides, but even fro?n one 
another. This last circUIllstance, obviously fatal to their 
corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlouked. .L\lld 
yet it adlllÌts of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. that 
in differcnt deg1'ccs they all five exhibit a fabricated text. 
Bet-ween the first t,vo (n and 
) there subsists an al110unt of 
sinister reselnblance, \vhich proves that they Blust have been 
derived at no very reillote perioll froln the saIne corrupt 
original. Tischendorf insists that they "rere partly \vritten 
by the saIne scribe. Yet do they stand asun<Jer in eyery 
page; as well as differ \videly frolll the counHollly received 
Text, \vith ,yhich they have been carefully collated. On 
being referred to -tI1Ïs staullard, in the Gospels alone, B is 
found to oluit at least 2.877 ,vords: to add, 536: to substi- 
tute, 935: to transpose, 2008: to llloùify, 1132 (ill all 7578) : 
-the corresponding figures for 
 Leillg severally 3455, 839, 
1114, 2299, 12G5 (in all 8972). Anù be it relllelubered that 
the onlÌssions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, anù 
modifications, {ere by no 1ìleans the sa1J
e in hoth, It is in 
fact easier to find two con::;centive 'Vcrses in 'lohich these two 
MSS. differ the one froll
 the othc1', than tzoo co'nsccutive 
in which they entire! y agree. 

But by far the most depraved text is that exhiùitetl 
by codex D. ' No kno\vn lllanuscript contains so lllany 
bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations froln 
the sacred Text are ùeyond all other exaluple.' 1 This, 
ho,vever, is not the result of its being the lnost recent of 
the five, but (singular to relate) is due to quite an opposite 
cause, It is thought (not without reason) to exhiLit a 
IInd-century text. 'When \ve turn to the Acts of the 

1 Scrivener's Plain Introduction,-p. 118. 




tIcs,' (says the learned eùitor of the coùex in question, 
])1', 8crivener,I)- 
, 'Ye find ourselves confronted with a text, tho like to which we 
have no experience of elHc,vhere. It is hardly an exaggeration 
to a

ert that codex D rcproduces the Te,rtus '}.crf'ptIl8 mueh in 
the Harne ",ray that one of the best Chaldee Targurnt; does tho 
] febre,v of tho Oh1 Testament: so wide are the yariationH in 
tho diction, HO constant and inveterate the practice of expound- 
ing the narrative by Ineans of interpolations which HelùOJn 
recOlnmenù themselves as genuine by even a semblance of 
internal probability.' 

., Vix dici potcst' (says l\Iill) 'quam supra omncrn modllrn 
licenter .fie gesscrit, ae plane lasciverit Intcrpolator.' Though 
a large portion of the Gospels is nlÏssing, in ,vhat rcuutÏns 
(tested by the saIne standard) "
e find 370-1: "\vords olllitted: 
no le

 than 2
13 added, and 2121 substituted. The ,yords 
trallsl'<J8étl aUlùunt to 34:71: and 1772 haye been lllodified: 
the deflections froln the Heceived Text thus anlounting in all 
to 13,
81.-:N ext to D, the luost ulltrust,vorthy codex is 
,dlich Leal's on its front a 11181110rahlc note of the evil repute 
unùer ,,,hich it has ahyays laboured: viz. it is found that at 
least ten revisers bet\yeen the IVth and the XIIth centuries 
Lusietl thmllsel Ye
 ,vith the task of correcting its nlan y and 
traunlillary l)erversiolls of the truth of Scripture. 2 -Next in 

1 Eczæ Cudex Cantltbrigiensis: being an cxa-ct Copy, in ordinary Type, 
of tiLe eel brated Uncial Græco-Latin lllanuscript 
f the Four Gospels and 

 lets of the Aposth's, If'ritto
 early in tile Sixth Oentury, and presented to 
the University of C(tmbridge by Theodore Beza, A.D. 1581. Edited, with 
a Critical Introtluctiun, Annotations, and Facsimiles, by Frederick H. 
Scriycncr, ::\L...\., Rector of S. Gcrrans, Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) 
Cambridge, 186-4:. Xo one who aspires to a competent acquaintance with 
'rcxtual Critici::;lll can afi(,rd to be without thb book. 
2 On the subjcct of cudex 
 we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to 
Scrivener':; Full Collation of the Codt::x Sinaiticus w'ih the Received Text 
0/ the 
Tew 'l'est{l1Ilent. To 'u.:ltich is prtfixed a Critical Introduction. 
[18l53.] 2nd Edition, rcvised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.) 1öG7. 




Ï1npurity conIes B :- then, the fragmentary codex c: our own 
A being, beyond all doubt, disfigured by the few'est blemishes 
of any. 
'Vha t precedes adn1Ï ts to some extent of further numerical 
illustration. It is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) 
pages of an ordinary copy of the Greek Testament, in ,vhich 
alone these five manuscripts are collectiyely available for 
comparison in the Gospels,-the serious deflections of A from 
the Text/us recept1tS amount in all to only 842: "\\Thereas in C 
they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in 
, to 3392: in D, to 
4697. The readings peculiar to A ,vithin the same limits are 
133: those peculiar to care 170. But those of n amount to 
197: while 
 exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D 
(,vithin the same limits), are no fe,ver than 1829. . . . "r e 
submit that these facts-which result from 'lnercly referring 
five man1tScripts to one and the santc common standa'J"d-are 
by no means calculated to inspire confidence in codices 
 c D :-codices, be it remembered, which come to us ,vith- 
out a character, without a history, in fact ,vithout antece- 
dents of any kind. 
But let the learned chairman of the New Testament com- 
pany of Revisionists (Bp. Ellicott) be heard on this subject. 
He is characterizing these same' old uncials,' which it is just 
now the fashion-or rather, the craze-to hold up as oracular, 
and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly attached 
as any of his neighbours :- 
'The simplicity and dignified conciseness' (he says) 'of the 
Vatican manuscript (B): the greater expansiveness of our own 
Alexandrian (A): the partially mixed characteristics of the Sinaitic 
): the paraphrastic tone of the singldar codex Bezæ (D), are now 
brought home to the student.' 1 
Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a 

1 Bishop Ellicott's Considerations on Rtvision, &c. (1870), p. 40. 




(ll 1 scription of four professing transc1.ipts of a book; and that 
l)ook, the everlasting Gospel itself? - transcripts, be it 
ohserved in passing, on \vhich it is just no,v the fashion to 
rely iInplicitly for the very orthography of proper names,- 
the spelling of COlllmon ,vords,-the lllinutiæ of granllnar. 
'Vhat (,ve ask) \voul<l be thought of four such 'copies' of 
Thucy(lidcs or of 
hakspeare? IInagine it gravely proposed, 
hy tIlc aid of four such conflicting documents, to re-adjust 
the text of the funeral oration of Pericles, or to re-edit 
'Hamlet.' Risu1n tcneatis a'J1tÍei? 'Vhy, some of the poet's 
most familiar lines would cease to be recognizable: e,g. A,- 
, Toby or not Toby; that is the q1wstion:' B,-' Tob 01. not, 
is the question:' 
i-: To be a illb, or not to be a t
lb,. the ques- 
tion is that:' c,-' The q'ltestion is, to beat, or not to beat 
Toby? ': D (the 'singular codex '),-' The only q1.wstion is 
this: to beat that Toby, or to be a tnb ? ' 

And yet-without by any lneans subscribing to the precise 
te1'n18 in \vhich the judicious Prelate characterizes those ignes 
fatui ,vhich have so persistently and egregiously led his lord- 
ship and his colleagues astray-(for indeed one seems rather 
to be reading a description of four styles of composition, or 
of as many fashions in ladies' dress, than of four copies of 
the Gospel)-\ve have already furnished indirect proof that 
his estimate of the coùices in question is in the main correct. 
Further acquaintance ,vith thelu does but intensify the bad 
character \vhich he has given then1. Let no one suppose 
that \ve deny their extraordinary value,-their unrivalled 
critical interest,-nay, their actual 'Use in helping to settle 
the truth of Scripture. \Vhat ,ve are just no\v insisting upon 
is only the drpravcd text of codices NAB C D,-especially of 

 B D. And because this is a n1atter ,vhich lies at the root of 
the ,vhole controyersy, and because ,ve cannot afford that 
there shall exist in our reader's Inind the slightest doubt on 


thi'] part of the subject, \ve shall be constrained once and 
again to trouùle hinl with detailed specÏInens of the contents 
 B, &c" in proof of the justice of ,vhat "Te have been 
alleging. 'Ve venture to assure him, \vithout a particle of 
hesitation, that 
 B D are tlw
ce of the ?J/;ost scandalously 
corrupt copics extant :--exhibit the most shamefully '1n'lttilatcd 
texts ,vhich are any,vhere to be lllet ,vith :-have become, by 
\vhatever process (for their history is \vholly unkno\vn), the 
depositories of the largest amount of f{lbricatcd 'readings, 
ancient bl1tnders, and intentional perre'ì'sions of T1ruth,- 
\vhich are discoverable in any kno,yn copies of the 1V ord of 

But in fact take a single page of any ordinary copy of the 
Greek Testalnent,-Bp. Lloyd's edition, suppose. Turn to page 
184. It contains ten verses of S. Luke's Gospel, ch. yiii. 35 to 
44. Now, proceed to collate those ten verses. You will make 
the notable discovery that, 'within those narroW" lin1Ïts, by codex 
D alone the text has been depraxed 53 tinles, resulting in no 
less than 103 corrupt readings, 93 of which a'ì
C found only in 
D. The ,vords omitted by Dare 40: the words added are 4. 
T,venty-five words have been substituted for others, and 14 
transposed. Variations of case, tense, &c., amount to 16; and 
the phrase of the Evangelist has been departed from 11 tinles. 
Happily, the other four' old tmcials' are here availaùle. And 
it is found that (\vithin the same limits, and referred to the 
same test,) .A exhibits 3 omissioll.3, 2 of \vhich are l}ec'ltlia'J
A.-B omits 12 words, 6 of 'which are peculiar to B: substi- 
tutes 3 words: transposes 4: and exhibits 6 lesser changes 
-2 of them being its o,vn peculiar property.-
 has 5 read- 
ings (affecting 8 "
ords) pecltlia'J
 to itself. Its omissions are 7 : 
its additions, 2: its substitutions, 4: 2 \yords are transposed; 
and it exhibits 4 lesser discrepancies.-c has 7 readings 
(affecting 15 words) pec'lllia'J
 .to itself. Its omissions are 4: 


\ 'OnnrPT (,()Dlf'E


it!:) a(ldition
, 7: it!=; suhstitutions,7: its ,yords tl'au:-3posed, 7. 
It has 
 lesser (liscrepancies, and it altcr
 the EYallgelif't'
phrase -! ti)n


But (","e Hhall he asked) ,,'hat a1l10unt of (l91'c('m(',
t, in 
respect of' \.. arious Readings,' i<:; discovered to Ruhsist het\vl'
thrse 3 codices? for t!tal, after all, is the practical question. 
\\T e ans'ver,-
\ has becn already sIlo" n to 
tand alonl' 
t,,'ice: B, f) tÏ111es: 
, 8 tÏ1nes: c, 13 tÏ1ues; D, 93 tin1es.- 
'Ve hayc further to state that \ u stand together by thcln- 
selyes once: n
, -! tÍ1ues: n c, 1: n D, 1: 
 C, 1: CD, L- 
 C conspire 1: B 
 C', 1: n 
 D, 1: .\ B 
 C, once (viz. in 
reading ÈPWT1}UEV, ,,
hich Tischendorf a(lmits to be a corrupt 
reading): n 
 CD, also oncc.-The 5 'old uncials' therefore 
(A n 
 CD) cOlnbine, and again stand apart, ,,'ith singular 
impartiality,-Lastly, they are nCVC1
 once found to be in 
accord in respcct of (t1
!1 single' 1.:a]'ious Reading.' - \Yill any 
one, after a canùid survey of the premisses, decnl us Ull- 
reasonaLle, if "
e avo\v that such a specÏ1nen of the rOllco/'diu 
disco1's ,vhich every,vhere prevails bet"Teen the oldest 
uncials, but ,vhich especially characterizes 
 n D, indisposès 
us greatly to suffer their unsupported authority to detennine 
for us the 'fext of Scripture? 

Let no one at all eyents obscure the on(1 question at 
issue, by askillg,-' 'Vhether \re consider the T'xtlls Rccept/ls 
infallible? ' The merit or den1erit of the Becei \Ted Text has 
absolutely nothin[j whalerc,' to do with the fj1/CSt , i01l "r e care 
nothing aLout it. .A,lY Text ,yould equally suit our present 
purpose. Lln!J Text ,vould sho\v the lold uncials' per- 
petually at discord (l'J/lon[j th(1)zsclvcs. To raise an irrelevant 
discussion, at the outset, concerning tht. Tcxtus Rl'ccptus:- 
to dcscriLc the hastp ".ith which Erasmu
 produced the first 
pnhlish{'d crlition of the .N. '1', :-tn lllak
 :-.po1't allout the 





copies ,yhich he elllployeà :-all this kind of thing is the 
proceeding of one ,yho seeks to n1Ïslead his readers :-to thro\v 
dust into t.heir eyes :-to divert their attention froln the p1'o- 
blen1 actually before theln :-not-( as ,ye confidently expect 
,yhen ,ve have to ùo ,yith such \yriters as these)-the lllethod 
of a sincere loyer of Truth. To proceed, ho,yeyer. 

II. and III. Nothing has been said as yet conc
rning the 
Text exhibited by the earliest of the ,TERSIOXS and by the 
most ancient of the FATIIEUS. But, for the purpose \ve have 
just no,v ill hand, neither are such details necessary. 'Ve 
desire to hasten fo1'\yard. A sOlne\vhat fuller revie,v of 
certain of our oldest available 11laterials 11light prove even 
more discouraging. But that w'ould only ùe ùecause it is 
impossible, ,vithin such narro\v lin1Ïts as the present, to give 
the reader any idea at all of the \yealth of our actual 
resources; and to con yince hinl of the extent to \y hich the 
least trust\vorthy of our guides prove in turn inyaluable 
helps in correcting the exorbitances of their fellow's. The 
practical result in fact of \vhat has been hitherto offered is 
after all but this, that \,e haye to be on our guard against 
pinning our faith exclusively on t\VO or three,-least of all 
on one or t\VO ancient doculnents; a
ld of adopting tlw1n 
exclusively for our guides. 'Ve are sho\yn, in other ,vords, 
that it is utterly out of the question to rely on any single 
set or grO'llp of authorities, luuch less on any single docu- 
ment' for the determination of the Text of Scripture. 
Happily, our 1\fANUSCRIPTS are ntunerous: lIlOSt of them are 
in the main trust\yorthy: all of them represent far older 
documents than themselves. Our "V'EUSIOXS (t,vo of ,yhich 
are more ancient by a couple of centuries than any sacred 
codex extant) severally correct and check one another. 
Lastly, in the writings of a host of FATHERs,-the principal 
being Eusebius, Athanasius
. Basil, the Gregories, DidYlnus, 




piphanius, Chry
ostonl, the Cyrils, Theo(lorct,-"Yc arc pro- 
yided ".ith contenlporaneous eyidencc ".hich, ,vhenever it 
can ùe had, beconles an effectual safeguard against the un- 
supported decrees of our oldeRt codices, A n 
 C D, as ".ell as 
tho occasional yagaries of the ,.... ersions, In the "Tritings of 
Irenfl'us, Clel11ens ..Alex" Origen, Dionysius Alex" IIippo- 
lytus, 'ye n1eet 'with older e\.idence still. Ko In ore precarious 
founùation for a reading, in fact, can be nanled, than the 
unsupported adyocacy of a single 
Ianuscript, or ,-r ersion, or 
:Father; or eyen of t\yO or three of these con1bined. 

But indeed the principle inyol yed ill the foregoing renlarks 
adn1Ïts of being far more broadly stated. It even stands 
to reaRon that ".0 111ay safely reject any reading ,vhich, out 
of the \vhole hody of ayailable authorities,-:\Ianuscripts, 
,.... ersions, Fathors,-finds support nowhere saYe in Ol1e and 
the Ranle little handful of suspicious documents. For "T() 
resolutely nlaintain, that cxte1
nal Evidence I11ust after all be 
our best, our only safe guide; and (to COlue to the point) \ye 
refuse to thro\v in our lot ".ith those ",110, disregarding the 
".itness of erery other kno".n Codex-erery other ,.... ersion- 
c1"cry otlte'}" available Ecclesiastical "Triter,-insist on follo,ving 
the dictates of a little group of authorities, of ,vhich nothing 
"\vhateyer is kno\,n ,nth so luuch certainty as that often, 
"hen they concur exclusively, it is to mislead. "r e speak of 
codices B or N or D; the IXth-century codex L, and such 
cursives 1 as 13 or 33; a fe\v copies of the old Latin and 
one of the Egyptian yersions: perhap
 Origcn.-Not theory 

1 The epithet 'cursive,' is used to denote manuscripts written in 
'running-hand,' of which the oldc
t known 
pechnens belong to the IXth 
century. 'Fncial' manuscripts are those which are written in capital 
letters. A' codex' popularly signifies a 1n((l1USCl'Ïl't. A\. , version' is a 
translation. ...\' recem;ion' is a r(,ln'.
ioli. (". e have heen reqncMed to 
t.':\ plain these terms.) 

c 2 


\nY ,rORD:-; 01" 

[...\ UT. 

therefore :-not prejudice :-not conjecture :-not unproved 
assertion :-not any single codex, and certainly not codex B: 
-not an imaginary 'Antioehene Recension' of another 
imaginary' Pre-Syrian Text: '-not antecedent fancies about 
the affinity of doclunents :-neither 'the [purely arbitrary] 
method of genealogy,' -nor one man's notions ('u3âeh 'Jnay be 
rcvc1'scd by another 'Jnan's notion:i) of 'Transcriptional Proba- 
bility: '-not 'instinctive proeesfses of Criticisn1,'-least of 
all 'the individual 111ÌllÙ,' \vith its 'SUpIJuscd po\yer of 
divining the Original Text '-of \yhich no intelligible account 
can lJe rendered :-nothing of this sort,-(ho\\eyer specious 
and plausible it Inay sound, especially \\Then set forth in 
confident language; advocated \vith a great sho\v of unin- 
telligible learning; supported by a forn1ida LIe array of 
cabalistic symbols and mysterious contractions; above all 
\Vhell recommended by justly respected nan1cs,)-nothing of 
this sort, \ve say, n1ust Le allo\vcd to determine for us the 
Text of Scripture. The very proposal should set us on our 
guard against the eC1'tainty of in1position. 

"Ve deem it even axiolnatic, that, in every case of doubt 
or difficulty-supposed or real- our critical n1ethod n1ust 
lIe the same: namely, after patiently collecting all the 
available evidence, then, ,vithout partiality or prejudice, to 
adjudicate bet\veen the conflicting authorities, and loyally to 
accept that verdict for \vhich there is clearly the preponder- 
ating evidence. The best supported Reading, in other ,,'"ords, 
must al\\Tays be held to be the t'J'ue Rcading: and nothing 
lIlay be rejected from the C01l1nlonly received Text, except on 
evidence ,vhich shall eleærly outw.eigh the evidence for 
retaining it. 'Ye are glad to kno\v that, so far at least, ,ve 
once had Bp. Ellicott ,yith us. He announced (in 1870) that 
the best way of proceeding ,vith the ,vork of Revision is, "to 
ake the Textus Recept1.lB the standard,-departing fronl it 




only 'when critical or graIllluatical consiùerations slto'lv that it 
is clearly ncccssa'ì.!J." 1 \Ve ourselves mean no lllorc. \\Then- 
cycr the eviùcnce is about evenly halanced, fe\\ it is hoped 
,viII deny that the Text 'which hm; been' in po
se:-;8ion ' for 
three cl'uturies anù a half, and ,yhich res1ß on intinitely 
hetter l11anu
cript evidence than that of any ancient w.ork 
,dlich can Le nalncd,-should, for every reasun, lJ
alunc. 2 

ut, (\\Te shall perhaps Le asked,) has any critical Editor 
of the 
. T. seriously taught the revcrse of all this ? Yes 
illùeeù, ,ve ans,ver. Laclnnauu, Tregclles, Tischclldorf,-the 
lllost recent and lllost faluous of 1110dc1'n editors,-haye all 
three adopted a directly opposite theory of textual revision. 
'Vith the first-nalned, fifty years ago (1831), yirtuaIly origi- 
naÜ'd the principle of recnrring excluHively to a fe\v ancient 
dOCUllwuts to the ex.clusion of the nlany. ' L.\CIDL\XX'H text 
seltloBl rests on lllore than four Greek cud ices, very often on 
thrce, not unfrequcntly 011 tw.o, sOlncti1nc
 on ouly olte.'3 
Ðishop Ellicott Sl)caks of it as "a text cOlnpo:o,ed on the 
na,To'west u1ul '{nost e 'clusi1'C 1 rincíples."4 uf the Greek 

1 (}UllsÙlt rations ()/
 Ecvisiun, p, 30. 
2 Once fur aU, we reque:;t it Inay be clearly understood that we do not, 
hy any means, claim pClj'ectiun fur the Received Text. "r e entertain no 
c\.travagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have 
occasiun to point out (c. g. at })age 107) that the 'l'extus Rt:ceptl S n
correction. 'Ye do but insist, (1) That it i::; an incomparably better text 
than that which either I.achmann, or Ti
chendorf, or Tregelle
 has pro- 
duced: infinitely preferaùle tu the' New Greek Text' of the Revisionists. 
Aud, (
) That to ùe improved, the Tc,:dus Reccl'tus \\ ill have to be revised 
un cntirely difrCl'cllt ' principle!:;' from those which are just now in fashion. 
ß[en Inust Lcgin by unlearning the GCl'm(t1
 p'l'{'Judices uf the la
t fifty 
years; and adùre
:; themselves, in:;tead, to the stern logic of facts. 
crivencr's lnt,'oduction, pp. 34
4 Ut suprà, p. 4G. ".,. e prefer to quote the indictment again:;t Lachmann, 
1'h,chelHlurf, Tr{'gell('
, froIll the !)agrs of Revisionists. 




Fathers (Laclllnanll says) he eillployed oldy Ol'iyelll,l Paying 
extraordinary deference to the Latin Version, he entirely 
disregarded the coëval Syriac translation. The result of such 
a systeln Inust needs prove satisfactory to no one except its 

Lachmanll's leading fallacy has perforce proved fatal tu 
the value of the text put forth by DR. TREGELLES. Of tho 
scrupulous accuracy, the indefatigaùle iridustry, the pious 
zeal of that estinlaùle Hnd devoted seholar, ,ve speak not. 
All honour to his 1l1enlory! As a specÏInen of conscientious 
labour, his edition of the N. T. (1857-72) passe
 praise, and 
will never lose its value. But it has only tu be stated, that 
Tregelles effectually persuaded hinlself that 'eigldy-nine 
s' of our extant Iuanuscripts and other authorities 
lnay safely be rejected and lost sight of when ,ve conlO to 
anlend the text and try to restore it to its prÏ1nitive purity,2 
-to Inake it plain that in Textual Criticislll he lllust needs 
be regarded as an untrust\vorthy teacher. 1V7
y he should 
have condescended to elnploy no patristic authority later 
than Eusebius [fl. Ä.D. 320], he does not explain. " His 
critical principles," (says Bishop Ellicott,) "especially his 
general principles of estÏ1nating and regarding modern InaUll- 
scripts, are 1l0\V perhaps justly called in question." 3 

"The case of DR. TISCHENDORF" (proceeds Bp. Ellicott) "is 
still nlore easily disposed of. H7
ieh of this Inost inconstant 
Critic's texts are ,ve to select? Surely not the last, in ,vhich 
an exaggerated preference for a single 1\1anuscript ,vhich he 
has had the good fortune to discover, has betrayed hÜn into 

J 'Ex scriptoribus Græcis t(tntispcl' OJ'Í[Jene solo usi sumu
2 Scrivener's Plain Int1'od. p. 397. 3 Ut SillJi'å, 1). 48. 


' 'fI
 XXI, 2.1. 


an ahnost chilll-like intìnnity uf critical judgnlcnt. Rurely 
also not hi
 seventh etlitiou, ,vhich . . . exhibits all thù 
in:-;tahilit) ,vhich a comparatively recent recognition of the 
authority úf cursive manuscripts u1Ïght Le supposed likely to 
introduce." 1 '\Vith Dr. Tischendorf,-(,vhom one vastly his 
superior in learning, accuracy, and judgnlcnt, has generously 
styled c the first Biblical Critic in Europe' 2)_" the ecidcnce 
of codex 
, SUI)ported or even unsupported by one or t".o 
other authorities of .any description, is sufficient to outweigh 
auy other ".ituesses,-\vhether 1Ial1uscripts, ,r ersions, or 
ecclesiastical 'V riters." 3 "T e need say no Inore. Until the 
foregoing charge has been disproved, Dr, Tischendorfs last 
crlition of the N. T., ho,vever precious as a vast storehouse of 
]naterial::; tor criticisIn,-how'ever achlliraùle as a specÏ1nen 
of lUHvetlried labour, critical learning, and first-rate al,ility, 
-Blust be adulitted to be an utterly unsatisfactory exhi- 
bition of the inspired Text. It has been ascertained that 
his discovery of coùex 
 caused his 8th eùition (1863-7"2) 
to differ froln his 7th in no less than 3505 places,-" to the 
sca1Hlai of the science of COInparative Criticislll, as ,,'ell as to 
his o\vn graye discredit fur discerIllUent and consistency." 4 
J1ut, in fact, ,diat is to Le thought of a Critic ,,-ho,-because 
the last verSe uf S. J oh11's Gospel, in 
, seelHed to himself to 
Le written 'l
ith u different pen fronl the rest,-has actually 
olnittctl that t'crsc (xxi. 23) cntirely, in defiance of evc]"!! 
knot.n Copy, c
.cry knmvn Version, and the explicit testÜllony 
of a host of Fat/Lers? Such are Origen (in 11 plact's),- 
Ensebius (in 3),-Gregory :N yss. (in 2),-Gregory Nazian.,- 
ps.-l)ionys. .Alex.,5 -Xonnus,-Chrysostolll (in 6 places),- 
Theodorus ::\Iops. (in 2),-Isillorus,-Cyril ..c\.lex. (in 2),- 
'Tictor ..A.nt.,-..A.nl111uniu
, - Severns, -l\laxllnus,-Anùrens 

1 Ut S1ljJrfl, p. -17. 
S ibid. p, 470. 

2 Prehcndary Scrivener, ibid. (cd. 1874), p. 42
4 1 bid. [; Cuncilia, i. 83



[.A ItT. 

Cretensis,-...1111brose,-Gaudentius,-Philastrius, - Sedulius, 
-J eronle,-Augustine (in 6 places), That Tischendorf ,vas 
a critic of [unazing research, singularshre\vdness, indefatig- 
able industry; and that he enjoyed au uuriyalled fanliliarity 
\vith ancient docun1ents; no fair person ,viII deny. But (ill 
the ,yords of Bishop Ellicott,! "ThOD1 \\Te quote so perseveringly 
for a reason not hard to diyine,) his ( great inconstallcy,'-his 
(natural "Tant of sobriety of critical judglnent,' -and his 
'unreasonable deference to the readings found in his OW11 
codex Sinaiticus ; '-to ,vhich should Le added (tlte 'utter 
absence in hint of any intelligible fired critical J]1"inciples; '- 
all this makes Tischendorf one of the ,yorst of guides to 
the true Text of Scripture. 

The last to enter the field are DRS, "rESTCOTT and HORT, 
,vhose beautifully-printed edition of (the N e\v Testament in 
the original Greek' 2 ,vas published u,ithin jìfl:C- days of the 
( Revised Authorized Version' itself; a (( confidential" copy of 
their "Tork having been already entrusted to every menlber 
of the N e,v Test. cOlnpany of Revisionists to guide theIll in 
their labours,-ullder pledge that they should neither 8ho,,,"" 
nor cOlumunicate its contents to anyone else.-The learnfi.d 
Editors candidly avow., that they (have deliberately chosen 
on the "Thole to rely for docnnlelltary evidence on the stores 
acculllulated by their predecessors, and to confine thelnselyes 
to their proper ,vork of editing the text itself.' 3 Nothing 
therefore has to be enquired after, except the critical pTill- 
ciples on \vhich they haye proceeded. And, after assurIng 

1 Ut s'llprà, p. 47. 
2 The New 'J estaTlwnt in the Original Greek. The Text revised by 
Bl'Ooke Foss 'Vestcott, D.D" and Fenton John Anthony IIort, :D,D. 
unbridge and London, 1881. 
S }'rmn the l)rcface lu'cfixcd to the 'linÜtcd and lîrÍyatc i:;:::;uc' of 1870, 




 that (the study of Grouping is the fuundation of all 
enduring Criticism,' 1 they pruduce their secret: viz. That in 
( eycry one úf our ,yitnesscs' c;J'ccpt code. v B, thl 1 ( corruptions 
are innulnerable ; '2 and that, in the (}ospels, the une ' gruu}) 
of ,vitlle
ses' of ( incompa1 o ablc 'talue,' is cUllex B in 'C01HLiua.- 
tion ,vith another prÏ111ary Greek lIlanuscript, as 
 B, B L, B C, 
B T, B D, B 
, A B, B Z, B 33, and in S. l\Iark B Å.' 3 This is 
(Textual Criticislll lllacle easy,' certainly, "r ell a,vare of the 
preposterous results to ,,-hich such a" Iuajur l)reluis8 U1Ust 
incyitably lead, ,ve arc not surprised to find a plea straight- 
,\pay put in for' instinctivc procc:;:;es of C1'iticÙnn,' uf ,vhich the 
fuundation '.needs perpetual correction and rceon.celio/t.' But 
our confidence fairly gives ,yay ,vhen, in the saIne breath, the 
accolnplished Editors proceed as follo,ys :-' But we a1 0 C 
obli!Jcd to C01nc to thc individual 'Jnind at last; and canons of 
Criticislll are useful only as ".arllings against natU'ral illu- 
siuns, and aids to circunlspect consideration, not as absolute 
rules to prescribe the final decisioll. It is true that no indi- 

'idual 'Jnind can ever "york "pith perfect ullifornlity, or free 
itself cOlnpletely froIll its own idiosyne1"asies. Yet a clear 
sense of the llallger of 'Unconscious caprice lllay do luuch 
to\ntnls excluding it. "r e trust also that the present Text 
has escaped SOille risks of this kind by being the joint pro- 
duction of t,yO l
(litors of different habits of n1Ïnd '4 . .. .A 
HOllle"phat insecure safeguard surely! 
Iay ,\Te be pernlitted 
,vithout offence to point out that the' idiosyncrasies' of an 
, individual nlÍlld ' (to \\yhich ,\
C learn "pith astonislnnent ' ".e 
are obligeù to COllle at last ') are probably the very ,yorst 
fuuIHlatioll po
siLle on ".hich to build the recension of an 
inspiretl "Titillg? 'Vith regret ,ye reconl our conviction, 
that these acconlpIished scholars have succee<led in producing 
n Text yastly more rmnotc froin the inspired autogra})h

1 l't s1 l prà, p, x\-. '1. ] bid, p, xviii, 3 J bi,l, p. Å vi. i Ibid, pp. xviii" xix. 



[..A 1..r. 

the Evangelists than any ,vhich has appeared since the 
invention of printing. \'Then full l)rolegolnena have lJecn 
furnished 've shall kno,v lllore about the matter; 1 but to 

1 [Note,-that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the 
ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within brackets] 
those p'ì'inted portions of it fOl' which there really was no room. The third 
Article in the present volume will be found to supply an (tmple exposure 
of the slu.dlowness of Drs. TVestcott and 110rt's Textual Theory.] 
'Vhile these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the long- 
expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors proves 
tu be the shallowest inlaginaùle. It is briefly this :-11"astening on the two 
oldest codices extant (B and 
, both of the 1Yth century), they invent the 
following hypothesis :-' That the ancestries of those two manuscripts 
dil}erged frO'Jn a point nea'r the autographs, and never came iuto contact 
subsequently.' [No reason is produced for this opinion.] 
Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the 
sacred autographs, the Editors claiIll that the coincidence of 
 and n nlust 
'mark those portions vf text in which two primitive and entirely separate 
lines of transn1Îssion had not COllIe to differ from each other through 
independent corruption:' and therefore that, 'in the absence of specially 
strong internal evidence to the contrary,' 'the readingl5 of 
 and ß COlll- 
bined may safely be accppted as gtn'ltine.' 
But what is to be done when the smne two codices diverge one from the 
other ?-In all such cal5es (we are assured) the readings of any' binary 
combination' of B are to be preferred; because 'on the closest scrutiny,' 
they generally' have the ring of genuineness;' hardly ever 'look suspi- 
cious after full consideration.' 'Even when B stands q'ltite alone, its 
readings must never be lightly rejected.' ['Ye are not told why. 
But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codex B, has 
arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,}- 'Vhat is to be 
done when internal and external eviden
e alike condemn a reading of n? 
How is 'm'ltmpsim'lls' for exalnple tv be treated ?-' ltlumpsim'lts' (the 
Editors solmnnly reply) as ' the better attested reading'-(by which they 
mean the reading attested by n,)-we place in our margin. 'Surnpsimns,' 
parently the 'dght reading, we place in the text wi
hin tt ; in token that 
it is probably' (t sllccessfnl æncient conJecture.' 
\Ye I5mile, and resmne :-But how is the fact to be accounted for that 
the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the IVth-century 
Fathers, to whOln we are so largely indebted for our critical materials, and 
who must have employed codices fu.lly as old as B and 
: how is it, we 




judge frOlll the TIelìlarks (in pp. 5-!1-G2) ,vhich the lcarnetl 
 (Revisiunists thelnsclvcs) have suhjoined to their 
elegantly-printed vohune, it is to be feared that the fa.LrÍc 

ask, that the text of all these, including codex A, differs essentially fronl 
the text exhibited by codices D and 
?-The editors reply,-The text of 
Chrysostom anù the rest, we de
ignate 'Syrian,' and assume to bave been 
tho result of an 'editurial Uevision,' which ''''0 conjectural1y assign to the 
seconù half of the IIIrù century. It is the' Pre-Syrian' text that we are 
in sea.rch of; and we recognize the object of our :;carch in codex B. 
'Ve stare, anù smile again. But how then dues it come to pass (we 
rejoin) that the Pe::icbito, or primitive Syriac, which is older by full a 
century and a half than tho last-nanIeù date, is practically still the 
text ?-This fatal circumstance (not uverlooketl by the learned Editors) 
they encounter with another conjectural assunlption. ' A Revision' (say 
they) 'of the Old :5yriac version appears to have taken place early in the 
IV th century, or sooner; and dou htless in some connexion with the 
Syrian revision of the Greek text, the readings being to a very great 
tent coincident.' 
And pray, where is ' the Olll 
C:yriac version' of which you Rpeak ?-It 
is (reply the Editur
) our way of designating the fragmentary Syriac :\18. 
commonly known as 'Cureton's.'-Your way (we rejoin) of manipulating; 
filCb;, and disposing of evidence is certainly the most convenient, as it is 
the mo:::.t extraordinary, imaginable: yet is it altogether inadnlÏssible in a 
grave enquiry like the present. 
yriac scholar:; are of a widely different 
opinion from your
c1ves. Do you not l)erceive that you have been draw- 
ing upon your imagination for everyone of your facts? 
\Ye decline in short on the mere conjectural ip
e dixit of these two 
respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a Revi::-;ion of 
Cureton's Syriac Yersiun ;--ür that it was executed about A.D. 3
5 ;-u1' 
that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal IYth-celltury Father
is the result of an unrecorded' Antiochian Revision' which took place 
about the year A.D. 2.3. 
But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper 
t()ry of 
the vi
ionary structure before us,-which rCluinds us painfully of a hou
which we once remeluber building with playing-cards,-we begin l)y 
removing the basement-story, which brings the entire huperstructure in 
an instant to the ground.] 
For we decline to adnlÎt that the texts exhibited by B 
 can have 
'divcrged from a point near the 
acrcd autographs, and never comc into 
contact :;\ll)
t."p\cntly.' \\"c are ahle to 
}ww, (In thc contrary, that the 

28 \\

,yill Le found to rest too exclusiyely on vague assun1ptiol1 
and unproved hypothesis. In other \vords, a painful appre- 
hension is created that their edition of (The N e,\r Testa.lllellt 
in the original Greek' \vill be found to partake illcon- 

readings they jointly enlbody afford the strongest presumption that the 
:ThISS. which contain them are nothing else but specimens of those (cor- 
rected,' i.e. C01'Tupted copies, which are known to have abounded in the 
earliest ages of the Church. :FrOlll the prevalence of identical depravation
in either, we infer that they are, on the contrary, derived from the same 
not very renlOte ùepraved original: and therefore, that their coincidence, 
when they differ frOln all (or nearly all) other l\ISS., so far fr0111 marking 
, two primitive and entirely separate lines of transnlÏssion' of the inspired 
autographs, does but nmrk what was derived fr0111 the SaIne corrupt 
C01111110n ancestor; ,,"hereby the supposed two independent witnesses to the 
Evangelic verity become resolved into a single witness to a fab'J'icated text 
of the III'J'd century. 
It is Ïlnpossible in the nIeantÏ1ne to withhohl frOlll these learned and 
excellent 111en (who are infinitely better "than their theory) the tribute of 
our sympathy and concern at the eddent perplexity and constant distress 
to which their own fatal luajor pren1Ïss has reduced thenl. 
rhe N eUlcr-;is 
of Superstition and Idolatry i:s ever the 
mlle. Doubt,-unbelief,- 
credulity,-general nlÏstrust of all evidence, is the ineyitable ::;equel and 
penalty. In 1870, Drs. 'Yestcott and Hort solC111nly assured their brother 
Hevisionists that' the prevalent assuluption, that throughout the N. T. the 
true text is to be found somewhere among recorded readings, does not stand 
the test of experience: ' a and they are evidently still haunted by the SaIne 
:;pectral suspicion. They see a ghost to he exorcised in every dark corner. 
rhe Art of Ooniectural .E'Jnendation' (says Dr. Hort) 'depend::; for it$ 
success so nluch on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first 
instance, and even lllOre an appreciation of language too delicate to aC<luiesce 
in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character 
as a critical opcration founded on knowlct.lge and lllethod.' b SpecÏ1nens of 
the writer's 
kin in this departIllent abound. GuP occurs at p. 135 (App.) 
where, 'iOn defiance of tvery known document, he 
eeks to evacuate S. Paul's 
lllemorable injunction to TinlOthy (2 rrim. i. 13) of all its 
[A fuller exposure of Dr. I10rt's handling of this ÎJnportant text will be 
found later in the present volun1e.] 
Iay we be allowed to assure the 

a p, xxi, 

'41 Intl"Qd, po '11, 


\ unnur'l lOPTEH ..\XCIEXTL Y rnEVA T.EXT. 


veniently uf the nature of a ,york uf the Ilna
ination, .As 
 pro' cd fatal to 1)1'. Tischendorf, so is coùex B evi- 
dently the ruck on ,,'hich 1)rs. \,r estcott and IIort have split. 
Did it ever occur to those learned Ulen to enquire ho,v the 
Septuagint ,r ersion of the Old Testament has fared at the 
hands of co(lex B ? They are respectfully invited to aùdress 
theillsel ves to this very flaluaging ellfl1Üry. 

TIut surely (rejoiuR the intelligent TIeader, conlillg fresh Lo 
these studies), the oldest extant 
Ianuscripts (n 
 A CD) '/fU/st 
cxhihit the purest text! Is it not so? 
It ought to be so, no doubt (,ye ans'\ver); hut it certainly 
n d not be the case. 
"\y e kno"
 that Origcn in Palestine, Lucian at ltntioch, 
Ilesychius in Egypt, 'revised' the text of the N. T. Unfor- 
tunately, they did their ,york in an age ".hen such fatalluiR- 
apprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn ,viII 
have inevitaLly llnported a fresh assortIncnt of 'lnonstra into 
the sacred "TitillgS. Adll, the baneful influence of such 
spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of 
tntioch, A.D. 1G8), 
Tatiall, ....\.lnn1onins, &c., of ,,'h01l1 ,,'e kno". there ,yere yery 
IHan)'" in the prin1ÌtiYc age, - sonle of ,vhose production
".e further kno", ,,'ere freely 111ultiplied in eyery quarter 
of ancient Christendoll1 :-adll, the fabricated Gospels "Thich 
anciently abounded; not aLly the Gospel of the Hcbrc'l(..',,>, 
ahout ,,'hich Jerome is so COlnIl1Unicative, and ,vhich (he 
says) he had translated into Greek and Latin :-lastly, freely 
grant that here and there, ,,'ith ,,-ell-Ineant assiduity, the 
orthodox thelll
elves lllay haye sought to prop up truths 
,vhich the early heretics (Basilides, A,D. 134, \"ralentillus, .A,V. 
140, "pith his disciple IIeracleon, ::\Iarcion, .\.D. 150, and the 
rest,) most pcrseyeringly assailed ;-and ',e lHlYC sufficicntly 
explained ho\v it conIes to pass that not a fe,v of the codices 
of prill1Ïtive Christclldonl nlust haye exhihitecl Texts ,vhich 




,ycre even scandalously corrupt. (It is no less true to fact 
than paradoxical in sound,' \vrites the Inost learned of the 
TIevisionist body, 
, that the ,vo
t corruptions, to ,vhich the Kew Testalllent has 
ever been subjected, originated ,vithin a hundred years after it 
was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150J and the African Fathers, 
and the whole 'Yestern, ,vith a portion of the Syrian Church, 
llsed far inferior manuscripts to those enlployed by St.unica, or 
EraSll1l1S, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, wbf'n moulding 
the rrextus Receptus.'l 
And ,vhat else are codie-es 
 BCD hut spccÍ7ncns-in vastly 
diffc1'cnt deg1YCS-Of tlte C[llS,'; thns cha1YlCtcrizcd Ly Prebendary 
Scriyener ? Nay, ,,,ho "Till venture to deny that those 
codices are indehted for their preseryation solely to the C1r- 
cunlstance, that they ,vere long since recognized as the 
depositories of Iteadillgs \vhich rendered them utterly un- 
trust,yorthy ? 

Only by singling out sonle definite portion of the Gospels, 
and attending closely to the handling it has experienced at 
the hands of A 
 B C D,-to the last four of \yhich it is just 
110\Y the fashion to bo\\"'" do\vn as to an oracular yoice froll1 
\yhich there shall be no appeal,-can the student become 
a\vare of the hopelessness of any attenlpt to construct the Text 
of the N. T. out of the materials \vhich those coclices ex- 
clusively supply. Let us this time take S. 
lark's account of 
the healing of 'the paralytic borne of four' (ch. ii. 1-12),- 
and confront their exhibition of it, \\Tith that of the conllnonly 
received Text. In the course of those 12 Yerses, (not reck- 
oning 4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) 
there \vill be found to be 60 variations of reacling,-of \vhich 

1 Scrivener, Introduction, p. 453.-Stunica, it will be remembered, was 
the chief editor of the COluplutensian, or fi,'st printed edition of the New 
Testament, (1514). 




55 arc nothing else uut (leprayations of the text, the result 
of inattention or licelltiou
ness. "... estcott and lIort adupt 
23 of these :-(18, in which 
 n cOllspire tu youch for a 
reaùing: 2, ,,-here 
 is unsupported by B: 2, ,,-here B 
is unsupported hy 
: 1, ,,-here C I) are supported. Ly 
 nor H). X 0\"", in the present instance, the 'fi vo 
olll uncials' cannot bc the deptJsitories of a traditioll,- 
\yhethcr 'Vestern ur Eastern,-Lecausc they render inconsis- 
tent testÜuony in C1;c1'Y VC1'se. It lnust further be adn1Ïtted, 
(for this is really not a question of opinion, but a plain 
luatter of fact,) that it is unreasonable to place confidence in 
such docunlcnts, ''"'"hat ,,-ould be thought in a Court of La",- 
of five ,vitnesses, called up 4:7 tÜnes for exall1Ïnation, ,,-ho 
ShOlÙd be obseryed to bear contradictory testiInony cvcrry tirlne? 
But the ,,-hole of the problem does not by any Ineans lie 
on the surface. ....\11 that appea1.s is that the five oldest 
uncials are not trust\yorthy ,,-itnesses; \vhich singly, in the 
e of 1
 verses separate thmllselves frolll their fello\rs 
33 tiInes: viz..A, t\\-ice ;-
, 5 tÜnes ;-B, 6 tinles ;-c, thrice; 
-D, 17 tÍ1nes: and \yhich also enter into the 11 follo\ying 
cOlllùinations ,,'ith one another in opposition to the ordinary 
Text :-A C, t\\Tice ;-
 B, 10 tÏInes ;-
 D, once ;-c D, 3 tÌlnes; 
 n c, once ;- 
 B D, 5 tÜue
 CD, once;- neD, once; 
 CD, once ;-.A BCD, once ;-.A 
 BCD, once. (X ate, that 
on this last occasion, \yhich is the only time "Then they all 5 
agree, they a7.C certainly all 5 uTong,) But this, as \yas obseryecl 
before, lies on the surface, On closer critical inspection, it is 
further discoyered that their testinlony betrays the baseness of 
their origin hy its intrinsic ,yorthlessness. Thus, in 
lk, ii. 1, 
the delicate precision of the announcement 
KOV(J"e1} ÖTt EI':I 
KO/N 'E:ITI (that 'lle has [fone in '), disappears froln 
 B D :- 
as "rcll as (in Yef. 2) the circumstance that it bCCaIlle the 
signlll for 1I13.ny 'Í1n'nl diatcly' (N n) to assembh} about the 
door.-In Ycr. 4, S. l\[ark CX1)lains his predecessor's concist> 

') .) 
.) ..... 

 n D, 'YIIICU 


Btatelnent that the paralytic was 'brought to ' our SAVIOUR, 1 
by relnarking that the thing ,vas' Í1npossiblc' by the ordinary 
Inethod of approach. Accordingly, his account of the ex- 
pedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire verse (vel', 4) 
of his Gospel. In the Inean time, 
 ß by exhibiting (in 
S. l\Iark ii. 3,) 'bringing unto HÜn one sick of the palsy' 
(cþÉPOVTfS 7rpÒc; aVTòv 7rapaÀvTucóv,-,yhich is but a senseless 
transposition of 7rpÒc; aVTóv, 7TapaÀvTtKÒV cþÉPOVTEc;), do their 
best to obliterate the exquisite significance of the second 
Evangelist's Inethod,- In the next verse, the perplexity of 
the bearers, ,vho, because they could not 'conte nigh Hinl' 
 aVTrjJ), unroofed the house, is lost in 
7rpOuEvÉ"IKat has been obtained either fronl l\:1att, ix. 2, or else 
froln Luke v. 18, 19 (EluEvEryKE'iV, EiuEVÉryKWUtV). 'The bed 
'VIIERE 'VAS the paralytic' (TÒV Kp(lßßaTov r/ono'r '>'HN Ó 7rapa- 
ÀVTtKÓc;, in in1Ítation of 'the roof 'VIIERR 'Y AS' Jesus (T
UTÉry1}V Clono'r 7HN [ó '1 1}UOVC;], "Thich had inllnediately pre- 
ceded), is just one of those tasteless depravations, for ,yhich 

 B, and especially D, are conspicuous anlung l1lanuscripts.- 
In the last verse, the instantaneous Irisin!J of the paralytic, 
noticed by S. l\:1ark (
ryÉp8TJ Ev8Éwc;), and insisted ul!on by 
S. Luke (' and i1n1nediatcly hr rose 1(P before them,'-Kat 
7rapaXP?Jfla àvauTðs ÈVW'lTtov aVTwv), is ulJliterated by 
shifting Ev8Éwc; in 
 Band c to a place ,vhere Ev8Éwc; is not 
"ranted, and ,,,here its significancy disappears. 

Other instances of Assil11Îlatio...l are conspicuous. All 11lUst 
see that, in yer, 5, Kaì lSwv (
 B c) is derived from Matt. ix, 2 
and Luke v. 20: as ,veIl as that' Son, be of gooel ChCC1
' (c) is 
inlported hither frolll 1\latt. ix. 2. 'lIIy son,' on the other hand 
), is a mere effort of the inlagination. In the same verse, 
(You aí áflapTlat (
B D) is either frolll Matt, ix, 5 (sic); or 

1 7rpOO"ÉíþfpOV m)T(tJ,-S, Matt. ix. 2. 


 F \T.\ LLY :\TI

, , t') 
. >>.) 

cl:;e fl'UIn \-er. 
', l<J\n)r dcnnl in
. .::\fark's narrative. i.\ , É"fOVTEc; 
in ,(}r. f;(H), if' fI'mn B. Luke \,.. 
1. rIT7ru"fE (
) in Yer. 
}, aIHl 
V7ra"fE Eì() TÒV oilCóv (J"ou (v), are clearly ÏInportations fro]}} 
ypr 11. The strange confuc:;ioll in ycr, 7,_' ]}(,Nt1lS(, lhi.ç; 'l/Ut II 
fbll."; ."pe({l-rtb, Ill' ùl({.')jJh('u
ctli ' (n),-all<l ' 1J71!/ dulll fhi.
tli If."; sp('({l.;? [If blm.;ph('mdh ' (
 n),-is due 8ulely to .::\[tt, ix. :
-\dlile tIle appt}ndix propose<<l hy 
 as a sul)stitute for' \\rp 
fl"T it on thiK fa:-;hion' (OÙSÉ7rOTE OVTClJ() E tSO}1Æ v), ill 
yel' 1 
 (viz. ' It ,vas nevcr So sccn in Isracl,' OÙSf.7rOTE OVT(1J
ÈcþlíVT) Èv TcjJ 'ICTpu
X), hflS lJcen trfln
plantecl hither froni 

. 1\Iatt, ix, 3

,\r e shall perhaps bl) told that, scandalously corrupt as the 
text of 
 Be}) hereabouts Inay he, no reaSOll has 1 )een sho,,"u 
 yet for suspecting that hercti('({l deprayation ever hall 
anything to dù ,\"ith such phenonlcnfl, Tlud (,,,,e ans,,"er) is 
only becausc the ,,"ritings of the eflrly dcpraycrs aud fa1lri- 
cators of Uospels havc uni\'ersally perished. FroIll tIll' 
r-;lender relics of their inirplÍtous perfonnances ,,-hich haYl) 
suryiyc<l to our tÜlle, "Te are sonletÏIues ablc to lay our finger 
on a foul 1 )lot an<l to say, 'Tld.ç; caIne fro111 Tatian's 1 'iates- 
saron; and that from 
Iflrcinn's 111utilated recension ()f thp 
Gospel according to S. Luke.' The piercin
 of our S
\. YIOUn'S 
side, transplanted by codices 
 n c fronl S. .T nbn xix. 34 into 
S. 1\Iatt. xxyii. 49, is an instance of tht> fonner,-,vhich it 
lllay reasonably creatc astonisllluent to finr] that r>rs, ,\r est- 
cott antI IIort ((/l n nc (unong Editm's) haye neverthcless 
:HInlÍttc(l into their text, as cqually trust\\"orthy "Tith thc last 
12 verseS of S, ::\Iark'R Gospel. But it occasions a stronger 
scntÏ1nent than surprise to diRcovcr that this, 'the gravest. 
intcrpolation yet lait] to thp chflrge of B,'-this 'scntence 
,vhich neither they nor finy other COl11pctent Hcholar can 
I!os:-;ibly helic\"p that the E,pangeliRt (
Y(\r ,vrotc,' I-Las L(jen 

1 Serin'IH'I', PlrÛIi In/rod, p. 1.





actually foisted into the nutrgin of the Reviscll Version of 
S. l\Iatthe\y xxvii. 49. "r ere not the Revisionists a\\rare that 
such a disfigurenlent lllust prove fatal to their \\Tork 1 FUJ' 
rwhose benefit is the information yolunteered that 'lnauy 
ancient authorities' are thus grossly interpolated? 

An instructive specÏInen of depravation follo\\Ts, ,,-hich call 
be traced to l\larcion's nlutilated recension of S. Luke's 
Gospel. "r e venture to entreat the fayonr of the reader's 
sustained attention to the license ,\yith ,,"hich the LORD'
Prayer as giveu in S. Luke's Gospel (xi, 2-4), is exhibited by 
 ABC D. For every reason one ,vould have expected 
that so precious a formula "Tonld have been founù enshrined 
ill the 'old nnciald' in peculiar safety; handled by copyists 
of the IY"th, 'Tth, and \'Ith centuries "rith peclùiar revercnce. 
Let us ascertain exactly \\That has befallen it :- 
(a) D introduces the LORD'S Prayer by interpolating the 
follo\villg paraphrase of S. l\latt. vi. 7 :-' Use not 'Cain 
rrepct-itio1ls a.s the rest: for S01ne suppose that they shall be 
heltrd by theÍ1" ?nueh speaking. B'ltt 'when ye p1,,[lY' . . . ..After 
,vhich portentous exordiulll, 
(b) B 
 onlÏt the 5 ,vords, , Ou)" , ''lvhieh art in heaven,' Then, 
( c) D onlÍ ts the article ( TÓ) before 'naHle:' and s u 11plo- 
luents the first petition \vith the "yords 'upon us' (Ècþ' 
It nlust needs also transpose the words' Thy Kin[Jdom
' (
ßauLÀEía uov). 
(d) B in turn on1Íts the third petition,-' Thy 'lv'Íll be done, 
as in heaven, also on the ea1,th;' ,vhich 11 ,yords 
 retains, but 
adds' so' before' also,' and on1Ïts the article (T1}()); finding for 
once an ally in A C D. 
 D for òiòov -\vrite SÓ() (fronl l\Iatt.). 
 omits the article (TÓ) before' day by day.' And, 
(g) D, instead of the 3 last-n[uned \vorùs, ,vrites ' this day' 
(frol11 1\latt,): substitutes 'dcu
s' (Tà òcþElÀllflaTa) for' SI'JlS' (Tà 


 ...\ BCD, 


áJLapT}JJLaTa,-also fron1 )Iatt.): and in vlace of 'for [we] 
l ' ( " " ) . t ' I ' ( ,. 'r "" 
ourse res Kat "lap aVTOL \V1'1 es os (( SO U)(J W<) Kat 1]JLffS, 
again froln )ratt.).-]
 sho".s its synlpathy \"ith D by accepting t,vo-thirds 
of this last blunder: exhibiting' as also [we] {)Z1I'sdcI'S ' (w\' Kaì 
, ' ) 
aVTOL . 
(i) D consistently reads' ou,. debtors' (Toî
in place of ' ercry one that ,is indebtal to u.
 ' (7TavTÌ, ÒcþE{À,OVTt 
(j) n 
 onlit the last petition, -' but dclive1
 lIS f1
O?n eril' 
(ùÀ.M pûuat 1JJLâ, lì7TÒ TOV 7TOV1]pov)-unsupported by A C or D. 
Of le8
er discrepancies ,vo decline to take account. 

Ro then, these five 'first-class authorities' are found to 
throw" thenlselves into six diffcrent cO'inbinations in their 
departures froIn S. Luke's ".ay of exhibiting the LORD'S 
Prayer,-,,-hich, aluong thCJll, they contriyc to falsify in 
respect of no less than 43 w'ortIs; and yet thcy (( I'e nero' aùle 
to ((gree amo/
!J thc1nscZ.vcs as to any sin!Jle 'rario/ls 'J'cailing: 
,vhile only once are more than t,vo of thenl observed to f:;tand 
togetlter,-viz. in the unauthorized onlission of the article. 
In respect of 3
 (out of the 43) \\"on18, they beal' in turn soli- 
tary evidence. 'Vhat need to declare that it is ccrtainly false 
in every instance? Such ho,veyer is the infatuation of the 
Critics, that the vagaries of B are all taken for gospel. Besides 
onÜtting the 11 \vords ".hich B onlÍts jointly ,vith 
, Drs. \\T est- 
cott and IIort erase fr01l1 the Book of Life those other 11 
precious ,,"ord:3 ,vhich are omitted by n only. AntI in this 
\yay it comes to pass that the nlutilated condition to ,d1Ïch 
the scalpel of )larcion the heretic reùuced the LOJ:D'::; Prayer 
some 1730 years ago,! (for the lllischicf can all Lc traced bal'k 

1 The words omitted are therefore the fullowing 22 :-
p.wv, ó Iv ToîS' 
oi'pavo'iS' . . . Ï'fllT}e
TCJJ TÙ BtÀT}p.lÍ uou, 6JS' Iv oùpallcê, Kaì 11iì TijS' }'ijS' . . . 
ùX}uì pvum 

11 2 




to hint!), is pahlled off on the Church of England by the 
llevisionists as the ,york of the IIoL Y G IIu
T ! 

\.) 'Ve Dlay no,y proceed \vith our exanlÏnation of their 
,york, beginning-as Dr. TIoberts (one of the llevisiollists) 
does, ,,,"hen eXplaining the luethod and results of thcir labuurs- 
?hat ,,?e hold to be the gravest blot of all, viz. the Hunks 
of serious suspicion ,,, hich ,ye find set against the last T,yelve 
verses uf S, 
Iark's Gospel. "r ell may the learned Presby- 
terian anticipate that- 
',The reader "\vill be struck by the appea.rance \vhich this long 
paragraph presents in the Hovisell Version. Although iUHorteù, 
it is marked off by a considerable space frOlll the rest of the 
Gospel. A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief 
explanation of this.'] 

.1\ 1"Cry brief' explanation' certainly: for the note c,ìp!ai?ls 
nothing. Allusion is lllade to the fullo,villg ,,"orJs- 
, The t"\vo oldest Greek n1annscri pts, anù sOJne other autho- 
rities, oluit frOlll Vel'. 9 to the end. Some othor authoTities hayc 
a different enùing to the Gospel.' 

Rnt no,v,- For the use of whont has this piece of in for- 
]nation been volunteered ? Not for learned readers certainly: 
it being fanliliarly kno,vn to all, that codices n and 
 alun( of 
1Jl(l1UlPolTipfs (to their O'VIl effectual conùeulnation) olnit these 
12 verses. TIut then scholars kno,v sODlething more ahout 
the Inatter. They also kno,v thau these 12 verses haye been 
Inade the subject of a separate treatise extending to uIHvarcls 
of :
oo pages,-which treatise has no,v been before the ,vorld 
for a full decade of years, and for the Lest of reasons has 
neyer yet been ans,vered. Its object, stated on its title-page, 
,vas to vindicate against recent critical oLjectors, anù to 

1 (}07npaninn to the llevised r'"n'sion, p. 61. 


E'r \\rA Y OF '

,) .... 
.) , 

estahlish c the last Twelve Verses' of S. l\[ark's Gospel. l 
1\[oreovcr, cOIllpetcnt judges at once adrllitted that the author 
ha(l succeeùed in doing what he undertook to do. 2 Can it 
then Le right ("
e re
pectfully enquire) still to insinuate into 
ulllearne(l ulÏnd
 distrust of t\velve consecutive verses of the 
erlasting (
ospel, \vhich yet have been deUlonstrateù to be 
as trust-worthy as any other verses \vhich can be nallleù? 

The question arises,-But ho\v did it COIlle to pass that 
such evil counsels ,,
ere allo\ved to prevail in the J erusalclIl 
Chaulher? Tjght has been thro\vn on the suùject by t,,
of the Ne\v Te')t. conlpany, .J..nd first by the learned Con- 
gregationalist, Dr. N e\vth, \vho has been at the pains to 
cribe the lllethod ,,-hich \",as pursued on every occasion. 
The practice (he informs us) "ras as follow's. The TIishop of 
Gloucester and Dristol, as chail'luan, asks- 

, ',""hether any Tc:ctual Changes are proposed? rThe evidence 
for and against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. 
rThe duty of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved 
upon (sic) two members of the Comp:lny, ,dIo from their pre- 
vious studies are specially entitled to speak ,vith authority upon 
such que
crh.ener and Dr. Hort,-and w'ho cornu 
prepared to enumerate particularly the authorities on either 

ide. Dr. 
crivener o})ens U}) the matter by 
tating the facts of 
the case, and by givin
 his judgment on tho bearings of the 
evitlence. Dr. 1101't fullo,vlS, and n1entions any additional 
matters that may call fur notice; and, if differing from Dr. 
8crivene1"s e
timate of the weight of the evidence, gi\
es hi8 

1 Thp last 1'welve Verses of tlle Uùsp Z a"t: ding to S. J/(ult., viwlic ded 
ClJ(l;nst recent cdticnZ Ob}ertol's and establisherl, hy the He,'. .J. \V. llurgon,- 
Pl'. 33-1, published by Parker, Uxford, 1B,1. 
2 As Dr. Jacohson and Dr. Chr. \Vorrlsworth,-the learned Bi::;hops of 
Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Hp. Ellicott 'considel's the 
pa!)sage doub(ful.' (0,1 Rel:is;nn, p.36.) Dr. Scrivener (it is well known) 
ditrers cntirely fn 1m HI" Ellicott on this important point. 




reasonR and states his O\Vl1 view. After discu
lsion, the vote of 
the COlnpany it:; taken, ancl the propo
ed l
eading accepted or 
rejected. The Text being thUB 8cttle(l, the Chainnan asks for 
proposals on the Rendering.'l 

And thus, the IHen "Tho ,vere appointed to in1prove the 
English Translation are exhibited to us renlodelling thr 
ú?'iginal Greek. At a lllolllent's notice, as if by illtuition,- 
by an act ,rhich can only be described as the exercise of 
instinct,-these en1Ïnent Divines undertake to decide ,yhich 
shall be deenled the genuine utterances of the HOLY GHORT,2 
-,vhich not. Each is called upon to give his vote, and he 
gi yes it. C The Tcxt bcing thus settled,' they proceed to do the 
only thing they ,vere originally appointed to do; viz, to try 
their hands at Ï1uproying our Authorized.V ersion. But ,ve 
venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such C rough and 
ready' process is that 11lOSt delicate and difficult of all critical 
problel11s-the truth of Scri}!ture-to be C settled,' 

Sir Edll1untl Beckett re111arks that if the description above 
gi ven "of the process by ,v"hich the Revisionists' settled' the 
Greek alterations, is not a kind of joke, it is quite enough to 
C settle' this ltevised Creek Testalllent in a very <lifferent 
8ense."3 And so, in truth, it clearly is.-" Such a proceeding 
appeared to me so strange," (wTites the learned and judicious 
Editor of the Speaker's Com'JJlcnta?'y,) cc that I fully expected 
that the account ,yould 1e corrected, or that SOlne explanation 
\\Toultl be given ,yhich Inight reUlove the very unpleasant 
Ünpressioll." 4: "\Ve have since heard on the best authority, 

] Lectnres on Bible Revision, pp. 119-20. 
2 ràr à^YJBEÎr pquEtr IIvEvfLaror rov (Ayíov.-Clcmens Rom., c. 45. 
3 SllOliid the Rc-visell New Testamerd be authorized ?-p. 42. 
4 llevised Version of the first thrce GUS11('1s, cOllsidered,-by Canon 


DR. nODEllTS 0"" R l\L\nK XVI. 9-20. 


that n:-unely of nishop I
llicott hilllself,1 that }Jr. X e,vth's 
aecount of the Illethml of 'settling' the text of the N. T., 
pursued in the ,T ernsalcln Chalnher, is correct. 


nut in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, 
n. definite part of the })rogr::unme. The chairman of the 
nevisionist Ludy, Bishop "Ellicott,-,vhen he had" to crnsider 
the practical question,"-,vhether cc (1), to construct a critical 
Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though not exclusively, 
SOInc current Text: or (3), simply to proceed onw((.Ird ,vith the 
,,'ork of l
evision, ,vhether of TeÀt or Translation, making the 
current Tc:ctus Receptus the standard, and departing frollt it 
only ".hen critical or gramnultical considerations sho,v that 
it is clearly necessary,-in fact, solrere a1ì
bulando;" announces, 
at the end of 19 pages,-" 'Ye are driven then to the third 
'Ve naturally cast about for some evidence that the 
I11Clubers of the Ne,," Testament company possess that mas- 
tery of the subject ,vhich alone could justify one of their 
nUlnber (Dr. 
lilligan) in asserting roundly that these 12 
verses are C not from the pen of s. Ala1'k hÙìlself;'3 and another 
(Dr, Hoberts) in lnaintaining that C the passage is not the 
inl1ncdiate production of s. .Jfark.'4 Dr. I
obcrts assures us 

, Gregol'y of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severns of 
Antioch, J eronle, as wt:ll as other ,vriters, e
peciany Greeks, 
testify that these verses were not 'written by S. l\Iark, or not 
found in the best copies.'5 
'Yill the learned ,,-riteI' penn it us to assure hÏ1n in 
return that he is entirely nlistaken? He is requested to 
believe that Gregory of Nyssa says nothing of the sort-says 

1 At p. 3.1 of his l)arnphlet in reply to the first two of the present 
2 Un Revisioll, pp. 30 and 49. s 
Vords of the N. T. p. If13. 
4 Campa niuJl to the Revisul Version, p. 63. ð ibid. p. 62. 




nothing at all concerning these verses: that Victor of Antioch 
vouches cnlphatically for their gcnnineness: that Severus does 
but copy, \vhile J eron1e does but translate, a few random 
expressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius hÏ1nself nowhere 
'testifies that these verses "Tere not \vritten by S. l\Iark.' So 
far from it, Eusebius actually q'lwtcs the vcrscs, quotes theln 
as gcn tine. Dr. TIoberts is further assured that there are no 
I other "Titers,' \vhether Greek or Latin, \vIto insinuate doubt 
concerning these verses. On the contrary, besides both the Latin 
and all the Syriac-besides the Gothic and the two Egyptian 
versions-there exist four authorities of the IInd century;- 
as Inany of the IIII'd ;-five of the Vth ;-four of the VIth;- 
as nlanyof the 'TIlth ;-together \vith at lcast tcn of the IVth l 
(contcrnporarics thereforc of codices B and 
) ;-\vhich actually 
'J'c1'ognize the yerses in question. N O\V, \vhen to cvcry know'JiJ 
J1Iu.nnsc1'ípt but t'lCO of bad character, besides every aJlcicnt 
, S01ne O1lf'-Cuul-thirty Fathcrs have been added, 18 of 
,,,hOlll llluSt haTe used copies at least as old as either ß or 
-Dr. lloherts is assured that an alnount of external autho- 
rity has been accullullated \\Thich is sÍ1nply over\vhehllillg in 
discussions of this nature. 
ut the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, 
of \vhich up to this point nothing has been said, is alone 
suffieient to detennine the controversy. "r e refer to the fact 
that in c
'cry jJ(l1
t of EastÍJrn Chr'istcnrlO1n these sanle 12 verses 
-neither lnore nor less-have been frolll the earliest recorded 
period, and still are, a propc1
 lCðS( Jl both for thc Þ)astcr season 
(/ nd fOI' Asccnsion Day. 

1 Viz. 'Ell
, -l\[acariu
, - Aphraatc
, - Didynllls, - the 
Syriae ..1ds if ti,e .App., - Epipballius, - Ambrose, - ChrysoHtom,- 
Jennne,-.Augustine. It happens that the dit-:putation ()f l\Iacarius :\lagnes 
OO-350) with a heathen philo
opher, \\"hich has recently COllle to 
light, contains an elaborate l1i::;l'u:.;
iou of H. l\Iark XYÏ. 17, LR Add the 
curious story related by the author of the Tftsl'/uÛ Ulzroniclc (A,D. (j28) 
concerning Leontius, ni
hop llf ....\Jl
i(Jl'h (.\.1>. :.H8),-p, 28U. Thi:.; haH 
heen hitherto overlooke<1. 




"\Ve pass on. 

(u) ..A more grievous pcrversion of the truth of Scripture 
is scarcely tu be found than occurs in the proposed rcvisea 
exhibition uf S. Luke ii. 11, in the Greek and English alike; 
fot' inùeeù not only is the proposeù Greek text (Èv àv8pw7rOtc; 
EvðoKLar;;) ÍlllpossiLle, but the English of the l{evisiunists 
(' peace a1JL071[J 'lnen in 'lI"h(m
 he is 'lcell plt[lsed') C can 1)0 
arrivetl at' (as one of thelllselves has justly remarked) 'only 
through SOUl(} process ,vhich ,vould 11lake any phrase lJeal' 
ahnost any }lleaning the translator n1Íght like to put upon 
Iore than that: the harn10ny of the exquisite three- 
part hynln, ,,,hich the ...lngels sang on the night of the 
Katiyity, becolllcs hopelessly nUlrred, and its structural SYIU- 
lnctry destroyed, by the "Telding of the second and third 
lllclllbers of the sentellce into one. Singular to relate, the 
tH l( lition of Ct single finallctlc'J' (r;;) has done all this Inischicf. 
uite as singular is it that ,,'e should be aLle at thc c}HI 
of IIp,yards uf 1700 years to discover ,,-hat occasioned its 
calanlÍtous insertion. :FrOU1 the archetypal copy, by the aid 
of ,vhich thc old Latin translation ,vas Blade, (for the Latin 
copies ull read' pax h01ninibus bUllw 1.:olnntatis,') the preposi- 
tion Èv "
as e\'Ülently a,yay,-absorLed apparcntly by the tÌv 
,,-hich inllllcdiately follo\\Ts. In order therefore to luake a 
sentence of SOlne sort out of ,,-orùs ,,'hich, "yithout Èv, are 
SilIlply unintelIigiLle, EvDoK{a ,vas turncd inio eVúuK{ac;. It 
is aceon1ingly a significant cirCUlllstance that, ,yhereas there 
cxists 1iO Ureck copy of the (Jospel::; which omit::; the Èv, then' 
 Rcareely a J.Jatin exhilJitiun of the place to Le fuund ,,-hich 
cl)utaills it,2 To return ho,vcver to the gelluinc clau5e,- 
, Good-,,'ill to,yanls lllcn' (Èv åvOpw7rotc; evúoKía). 

criYener's Introd ct 'on, 1'. 31;,. 
2 Tb('h. 
 7 Latin co pic:,. Urigeu (iii. !Hü .t.), Jerome (yii. 2t:i:!)) 
aud Leo (ap. t;aLaticr) arc the ullly patrÜ-tic (lu()tatiom; di




Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage 
-irrespectively of internal considerations-ought to be the 
consideration that it is vouched for by every knou'n copy of 
the Gospels of \vhatever sort, excepting only 
 A B D: the 
first and third of \vhich, hO\'Tever, ,vere anciently corrected 
and brought into confornlity \"ith the Received Text; \vhile 
the second (A) is observed to be so inconstant in its testi- 
nlony, that in the prin1Ïtive C l\lorning-hymn' (given in 
another page of the same codex, and containing a quotation 
of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found. 
D'S cOlnplicity in error is the less inlportant, because of the 
ascertained sYl11pathy bet\veen that codex and the Latin. 
In the meantinle the t\VO Syriac ,r ersions are a full set-off 
against the Latin copies; \vhile the hostile evidence of the 
Gothic (\vhich this tinle sides \vith the Latin) is l110re than 
neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version 
frolll the opposite call1p. The Armenian, Georgian, .LEthiopic, 
Shtvonic and Arabian versions, are besides all with the 
eceived Text. It therefore COlnes to this :- Weare invited 
to make our election bet\veen every other copy of the 
Gospels,-eyery kno\vn Lectionary,-ancl (not least of all) 
the ascertained ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church 
froIll the beginning,-on the one hand: and the testinlony of 
four Codices ,,-ithout a history or a character, ,,?hich concur 
in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. 'ViII any Olle 
hesitate as to ,vhich of these t\VO parties has the stronger 
claÌ1n on his allegiance? 

Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, 
it must at all events he horne 
t\vay by the torrent of Pat- 
ristic authority ,vhich is available on the present occasion:- 
In the TInd century,-\ve have the testinlony of (1) 
Irenæus. 1 

1 i.. 459. 




In the TI1rd,-that of (2) Origc1l 1 in 3 placcs,-and of (3) 
the ....lpo
tulical Constitutions 2 in 2. 
In the TY"th,-(4) Euschius,3-(5) ...\phraatcs the Pcrsian,4 
-(6) Titus of Rostra, 5 each t,vice ;-(7) Didymus 6 in 3 
p1aces ;-(8) Gr
gory of N aziallzus, 7 -(9) Cyril of J erusaleln, 8 
-(10) Epiphanius 9 t\vice; -(11) Gregory of Nyssa 10 4 
tÏ1nes,-(12) Ephraeul Syrus,1l-(13) l}hilo bishop of Car- 
pasus,12-(14) Chrysostonl,13 in 9 places,-and (15) a nanlC- 
less preacher at Antioch,14 - all these, contemporaries (be 
it rCnlonbcrcd) of B and 
, arc found to bear concurrent 
tCStÏ111011Y in fayour of the cOlllnlonly received text. 
In the Vth century,-(16) Cyril of .A.lexandria,15 on no 
less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also ;-(17) Theodoret 16 
on 4 ;-(18) Theodotus of Ancyra 17 on 5 (once 18 in a hOll1Íly 
preached Lefore tJl(> Council of Ephesus on Christnuts-c lay, 
A,D. 431) ;-(lD) Proclus 19 archbishop of Constantinople;- 
(20) Paulus 20 bishop of Enlesa (in a f5ermon preached before 
Cyril of 
\Jexandria on Christnlas-day, A,D. 431) ;-(21) the 
Eastern bishops 21 at Ephesus collectively, A,D. 431 (an 
unusually "reighty piece of evidence) ;-and lastly, (22) nasil 

1 i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15. 2 vii. 47; viii. 13. 
s D
IIl. Ev. pp. 163, 342. 4 i. 180, 385. 
ð In loco Also in L'llC. xix. 
f) (Gal. Ox. 141). 
6 Dc T.,.in. p. H4; Cord. Gat. in Ps. ii. 450, 74.3. 
7 i. ti-!.3,-which is reproduced in the PaRchnl Chronicle, p. 37-1- 
8 P. 180; cf. p. 162. 9 i.154,1047. 10 i. 353, 6
6, ô;Ð7 iii.3!G. 
11 Gr. iii. 434-. 12 Ap. Galland. ix. 734. 
l:i i. 587; ii. 453, 43-1; vi. 3Ð3; vii. 311,67-1; viii. 83; xi. 347. 
C t. in Ps. iii. 139. 14 Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417. 
 L'llC. pp. l
, 16, 502 (= )1:li, ii. 1
8). Also 1\Iai, ii. 343, 110m. de 
Incm.n. p. IOU. Oþp. ii. 5!J3; v-.I litH, 30, I
R, 380, 40
, 134; vi. 3U8. 

laii, iii. 2 
S(). 16 i. 
!JO, l
Ðt;; ii. 18; iii. 480. 
17 1\p. Gallantl. ix. 4-16, 17fì. Concil. iii.IOOI, 10
18 Conci!. iii. 100
. 19 A p. Galland, ix. fì

I) Coucil. iii. 10
),"), 21 ('uncil. iii. t>2Ð = ('yr. OJ}p. vi. 139. 




of Seleucia. 1 N o,v, let it be relnarkeù that thcsc 'wc're contc'in- 
lJuratrics of codcx A. 
In the VIth century,-the I)atristic ,vitnesses are (23) 
CosInas, the voyager,2 5 times,-(24) Anastasius Sinaita,3- 
(25) Eulogius 4 archbishop of Alexandria: contc1i
be it rcmcrnbcrcd, of codcx D. 
In the VIIth,-(26) Andreas of Crete 5 t,vice. 
And in the VllIth,-(27) Cosmas 6 bishop of l\Iaiullw. 
near Gaza,-and his pupil (28) John Damascene, 7 -aud 
(29) Gennanus 8 archbishop of Constantinople. 
To these 29 illustrious nanles are to be added unkno"Yll 
"yriters of uncertain date, but all of considerable antiquity; 
and sonle 9 are proved by internal evidence to belong to 
the I'Tth or ,rth century,-in short, to be of the date of 
the Fathers \\yhose names 16 of thenl severally bear, but 
alnong ,vhose genuine ,yorks their productions are probably 
not to be reckoneù. One of these ,vas anciently Inistaken 
for (30) Gregory Thaulnaturgus: 10 a second, for (31) l\Ietho- 
dius: 11 a third, for (32) Basil. 12 Three others, ,vith different 
degrees of reasonableness, have heen supposed to be (33, 34, 
35) Athanasius.]3 One has passed for (36) Gregory of 
a; 14 another for (37) Epiphanius; 15 ,vhile no less than 
eight (38 to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostonl,16 some 
of thenl being certainly his contenlporaries. Add (46) one 
anonymous Father,!7 anù (4:7) the author of the apocryphal 

1 Nov. .Au..clar. i. 5ÐG. 2 
rontf. ii. 152, 1HO, 2--17, 2GÐ. 
3 Hexaem. ell. 
1igne, yol. 8U, p. 8UU. 4 A p. Galland. xii. 308- 
fj Ed. COlnbcfis, 1-1, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 1
6 A 1 1 . GallanJ. xiii. 233. 7 ii. 836. 
8 A p. Galland. xiii. 212. 9 E.g. Clll'YS. Opp. viii.; Append. 214. 
10 P. 6 D. 11 Ap. Galland. iii. 80Ð. 12 ii. 602. 
13 ii. 101, 122, 407. H iii. -!47. 15 ii. 2Ð8. 
16 ii. bO--1; iii. 7t-\3; Y. (mS, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821. 
17 Uord. Ca,t. ill 1'8. ii, UÜO. 


A:4 TO 'filE TEXT ()F 
. LlTI{E II. 14. 


Ada, Pilafi,-fUHl it \vill he perceived that 18 ancient 
authurities have lJeen added tù the list, cyery ,,'hit as COl11l'è- 
tent to "itllc::,s ,,,hat ".ac; thc text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time 
,,,hen \. 13 
 D \\"ere \\Titten, as Basil or Athallasius, El'i- 
phanius or Chrysostolll themsehres. 1 For our pl.esent purpose 
they arc Co lices of the I'Tth, Vth, and \Tlth centuries. In 
this ,,'ar then, far lnore than jOì.ty-seven ancient ,,'itnesses 
hase COlne back to tcstify to the InCH of this generatioll that 
thl' COlnlll(JIlly reccivetl reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is the lniP 
reading, and that the text ,vhich the I

visionists are seeking 
tu palIn utf upon us is a fabrication and a 'Jluncler. 'Yil1 
anyone lJc found to lllaintain that the authority of B and 
is appreciable, ,,'hen confronted by the first 15 contemporary 
J!,'('clc:>i stical 1JT1'itcrs above enulnerated? or that _\. can stand 
against the 7 \\'hich follo"r? 
This is not all ho\vever. Surycy the preceding enumc- 
ration geographically, and note that, besides 1 llal11e frOll} 
Uaul,-at least :3 stand for Const:llltinople,-,d1Íle 5 are 
dotted oyer Asia ::\Iillor :-10 at least repre
ent Antioch; and 
-G, other parts uf Byria :-3 stand for l)alestine, and 1 
othcr Churches of the East :-at least 5 are ...\lexalldrian,- 
2 are nlen of Uyprus, and-l is froIll Crete. If thc articulate 
voices of so Iuany illustrious Bishops, con1Ïng back to us in 
this ,yay froul cyery part of ancient Christcndolu and all 
delivering the saIne unfaltering Ines
age, - if this ùe not 
allo,,'ed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now' hefore 
11!-\, then pray let us hayc it eXplained to US,- 'Yhat an10unt 
of evidence 
rill IHcn accept as final? It is high tiulù that 
this \\'ere kno,\'n . , . The plain truth is, that a case has 

I ()f the ninety-two p1aces ahove quoted, 'l'ischcndorf knew of only 
devell, 1'rcgelles aùduc(::, only six.-Keithcr critic becnlS to have heen 
aware that 'Gre
ory Thaum.' is not t11c author of the citation they 
ascribe to him. Ami why does Ti
chcI.lClorf quote as Basil's what is Jowu'n 
Hilt to ha\"c lll\t\ll hi!'? 


been established against NAB D and the Latin version, ,vhich 
ttI1l0unts to proof that those docuinents, even "Then they con- 
spire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be depended 
on as ,vitnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of 
the reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this :- It 
em.erges into notice In the rInd century; and in the '"7" fib, dis- 
appears fro]}
 sight entirely. 

Enough and to spare has no,v been offered concernIng 
the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14. But because \ve propose 
to ourselves that no 'ltJlcertainty u'hatever shall relnain on 
this subject, it ,yill not be \\yasted labour if at parting "ye 
pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and shell to 
leave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable 
doubt hereafter to hide in. 
 o,v, it is confessedly nothing 
else but the high estimate \\'hich Critics have conceived of 
the value of the testÏInony of the old uncials (N A n CD), 
,vhich has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in this behalf. 
Let the learneù Reader then ascertain for hÏ1nself the 
character of codices NAn C D hel'eaLouts, by collating the 
conteæt in 
l'hich S. Luke ii. 1.1 'l.s founcl, viz. the 13 verses 
,vhich precede anù the one verse (vel'. 15) \yhich imlnediately 
follo,ys. If the olù uncials are observed all to sing in tune 
throughout, hereabouts, ,yell and good: but if on the COll- 
trary, their voices prove utterly discordant, 'lcho sees not that 
the last pretence has been taken a,vay for placing any con- 
fidence at all in their testimony concerning the text of 
vel'. 14, turning as it does on the presence or absence of a 
single lettm-? . . . He ,yill find, as the result of his analysis, 
that \vithin the space of those 14 verses, the old uncials are 
responsible for 56 'various readings' (so-called): singly, for 
41; in conlLination \vith one another, for 15. So diverse, 
ho\vever, is the testimony they respectively render, that they 
are found severally to differ fronl the Text of the cUl'sivcs llO 

. LUKE II, 14, !)nOVED TO DE UXTlll;ST,rORTIIY. 47 

less than 70 titncs. 
\lnong thcIn, besides t,vice varying the 
phrasc,-thcy contrive to oInit 19 ".ords :-to add 4 :-to 
suùstitute 17 :-to alter 10 :-to transpose 
4:.-Lastly, these 
fh"c codices are observeù (,,-ithill the sallle Ilarro\\r limits) to 
fall intu ten different cOInLinatiulls: viz. B 
, fur j readings; 
-B D, for 2 ;-
 D,. A C, 
 B D, A 
 D, A B 
 D, B 
 C D, 
.A B 
 C D, for 1 each, A therefole, ".hich stands alune tu'ice, 
is founù in cOlnbillatioll 4 tilnes ;-c, ,vhich stands alune 
once, is fuund in conlbination 4 tilnes ;l-n, ,yhich stands 
alone 5 titnes, is found in combination 6 times ;-
, ,vhich 
stands alone 11 tÏ1ues, is founù in combination 8 tinles ;-D, 
,vhich stands alone 22 tirnes, is found in cOlnbination 7 
tinlCS. . . . ..A.nd no,v,-fur the last tÍ1ue ,ve ask the question, 
- 'Vith ,,,hat sho\\' of reason can the uniutelligible EùðoKLac; 
 A n D) be upheld as genuinc, in defiance of the 1(;/wle 
hody of J[anllscripts, uncial anù cursi\.e,-the great hulk of 
the \Ter
,-and the nlighty array of (upwarùs of fifty) 
Fa.thers exhiLited above? 

(c) "re are at last aLle to proceed, ,,'ith a pronllse that 
,ve shall rarely prove so tedious again. But it is aLsulutely 
nece:;sary to begin by clearing the grounù. 'Ve lUllY not 
go 011 douLtillg fur ever. The' ..,..\.ngelic hYUlll,' and 'The 
last 12 "'{ ersc8' uf 
. l\Iark's (i.ospel, are convenient places 
fur a trial uf strength, It has ItV1fJ bu it lJrocccl that the CÙ111- 
ulonly received text of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true text,-the 
evisionists' elnenùatiull of the place, a palpaLle mistake. 
Un behalf of the second Gospel, '\'e claim tv have also 
e:;taLlished that an Ì1nportant portion of the sacred narrative 
has been unju::;tly branded ,vith a note uf ignon1Ïny; fro III 
,vhich \VO bolen1uly call upon the TIevisionists tu Set the 
Evangelist free. The pretence that no hanll has Lcen ùone 

1 But then, notc that c is onlyayailahlc for comparison down to the end 
of vel'..). In the 9 VCI":-,cs which havc hcen 10:-;t, who 
ay l1u\\' many 
mure ecc<:utricitit:s would havc Lccu di


s. l\1:ARK XVI. 9-20, AND S. LUKE II. 14 


hinl by the Inere statclllent of "yhat is an undeniable fact,- 
(viz. that' the t\VO olùest Greek TIlanuscripts, and SOlne other 
authorities, olnit frOTIl verse 9 to the end;' and that' SOlne 
other authorities have a different ending to the Oospel,')- 
".ill not stand exan1Ínation, rin to the shoulder of an 
honourable nUlll a hearsay lilJe] on his character, and see 
\vhat he ".ill have to say to you! Besides,- H71Y ha'Cc the 
 'rCJ'scs bcen furthe1' separated off fr01n the 1'CSt of thc Gospel? 
This at least is unjustifiable. 
Those \vho, "\vith Drs. Ituberts and l\Iilligan,1 have been 
taught to l11aintain 'that the passage 'j.s not the i111111e(l/afe 
'oduction of s. ìJ[al'l
,'-C can hardly be 'regarded as (( part 
of the original Gospel; but is rather an aÙllitiun. lllade to 
it at a very early age, ,,-hether in the lifetinle of the 
Evangelist or not, it is ÏIupossible to say:' -such Critics are 
infurnled that they stultify thelllselves "yhell they proceea 
in the sallIe breath to assure the offended reader that the 
passage' is nevertheless possessed of full canonical authority.'2 
1\Ien \yho so \vrite sho\v that they do not understand the 
qucstion. For if these 12 verses are' canonical Scriptul'e,'- 
as nluch inspired as the 12 verses ".hich preceae thel11, ana 
as \vorthy of undoubting confidence,-then, ,,"'hether they 1)(-' 
(the production of S. 1\lark,' or of sonle other, is a purely 
irrelevant circumstaI1ce. The A'ldhorship of the passage, as 
everyone nlust see, is not the question. The last 12 verses 
of Deutcronoluy, for instance, \vere prohably not ,yrittell by 
1\loses. Do ,YO therefore separlte thCIll off fronl the rest of 
lJeuteronolny, and enculllber the luargin \yith a note expres- 
siye of our opinion? Our l1evisionists, so far frolll holding 
\vhat foIlo\ys to be C canonical Scripture,' arc careful to state 
that a rival ending to be found else,vhere 111erits serious 
attention. S. 1\Iark xyi. 9-20, therefore (according to them), 

1 Cmnpan ion to the RCl'is('(l rf}'.'
i()l1, pp. G2, fi3. Tl""m'ds of the 
, T, 
p. lÐ3. ':l TVo1'ds c:f tlie .Z\T. T. p, 1



:\1.\ y 


is not certainly a genuine part of the (}ospel; ?Jlay, after all, 
be nothing else hut a. f'}!urious accretion to the text. And:lR 
long as such doubts are put forth by our ]:evisionists, they 
publish to the ".01'1<1 that, ÙL tllf'h. account at all events, 
these \'erses arp not' possessed of full 
an(Jnical authority.' 
If 'the t\\ 0 oldest Greek manuscripts' Justly 'olnit fron1 
yerse !) to the end ' (as stated in the lllargin), "'ill anyone 
deny that our printed Text ought to olnit theln also? 1 Ûn 
the other halHl, if the circunlstance is a lucre literary 
curiosity, "'ill anyone Inaintain that it is entitled to 
abiding record in the Inargin of the English Version of the 
cyerlasting page ?-affords any 'If'((}Tllnf 'wlu([cr(,1' 1m' ."rpa- 
'rating' flu' laJ;{ TlCdre Vr}"s{'s' fTmJ
 their ('onte,ì;! ? 

(n) "T e can probably render ol'(linary rea,ders no l110rc 
effectual service, than by offering no,v to guide thenI over 
n fe\\r select places, concerning the true reading of ,,
the TIevisionists either entertain such serious doubts that 
they haye rcc01'dcd their uncertainty in the lllargin of their 
\vork; or el
e, entertaining no doubts at all) haye delibe- 
rately thrust a Ile\\r reading into the botly of their text, and 
((tJ \vithout explanation) apology, or indeed record of any 
kind. 2 One renutrk shnul(l he prenlÏsed, viz. that 'various 

1 Dr
. ,y e
tcott and IIort (c()n
istently enough) put them nl1 tllr self- 
srune luutillg with the evidently :-;l'lll"iollS ending found in I.. 
:t True, that a ,.;eparate volume of Greek 'fext has heen put forth, show- 
ing every change which ha:ò been either actually acceptc,i, or else suggested 
for future posöible acceptance. But (in the words of the acc01uplished 
editor), 'the llLvisers (ue 'not l'{'spollsible for its publication: 
(and this i
 the chief point,) it is a scaled ht,d,- to all but ::)cholars. 
It were unhalHì
ome, however, to take le.we of tlIC learneJ labours of 
Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, withuut a few wurds of 
l;,ympathy and allmirati"D. 'l'heir volumes (mentioned at the beginning 
of the present Article) are aU that ,,
 to ha\ye been e
pected from the 
eX(Plisite !':cholarship of their re
pecti\'e edit()r
, and \\ ill he of abiding 
intel"l':-;t and valut'o lJuth \Oolunws shnultl \,(> in tIlt' 11:lJHIH (If every 




Readings' as they are (often most unreasonably) called, are 
seldom if ever the result of conscious frraud. An itnmense 
nlunber are to be ascribed to sheer accident. It" as through 
erroneous judglnent, ,ve repeat, not ,vith evil intent, that 
men took liberties ,vith the deposit. They Ï1nported into 
their copies ,vhatever re
ulings they considered highly recom- 
nlende<.l. By son1e of these ancient Critics it seenlS to have 
been thought allo\vaLle to abbreviate, by siInply leaving out 
,,"hatever did not appear to the111Selves strictly necessary: 
by others, to t1YlnSpOSe the ,vords-even the Inembers-of a 
sentence, alnlost to any extent: by others, to srubstitute easy 
expressiuns for difficult ones. In this ,yay it comes to pass 
that ,ve are often presented, and in the oldest documents of 
all, ,vith Readings ,yhich stand self-condeulned; are clearly 
fabrications. That it ,vas held allo,vable to assinlÏlate one 
Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add, that as early as 
the IInd century there abounded in the Church documents,- 
'Diatessarons' they ,vere sonletÏInes called,-of \yhich the 
avo" ed uLject ,vas to ,veave one continuous and connected 
narrative' uut of the four; '-and ,ve shall find that as lnany 
heads have Leen provided, as "Till suffice for the classification 
of ahnost every various reading "Thich "Te are likely to 
encounter in our study of the Gospels. 

I. To ...'\..CCIVEXT4\.L CAUSES then "Te give the furel1lost place, 

scholar, for neither of thenl Rupersede
 the other. Dr. Scrivencr has (with 
rare ahi1ity and iJll1nen
e labour) f,et uefore the Church, for thejirst tÜne, 
fliP {h'eek Text which 'Was follou'rd by the llpvisers of 1G11, viz. Beza's 
N. 1'. of 15
::;, supplemented in above 190 11laccR fr0111 other sources; 
everyone of which the editor traces out in his 
lpp(,lIdl;æ, pp. G-!8-5G. 
At the foot of each page, be shows what changes have been introduced intu 
the Text by the ReviserH of 1881.-D1'. Pahner, taking the Text of Stepltem; 
(1550) as his ba
is, pre:,enb; us with the Headings adopted by the Revisers 
of the' Authorized Yersion,' and relc
ates the displaced Headings (of IGll) 
to the foot of each page.- 'V e cordially congratulate thell1 both, and thank 
them for the good 
ervice they h
ve rendered. 



.) t 

and of thèSC ".C havc aln'atIy fnrllishell the reader \\ ith t\\'o 
notahle and altogether dissÌ1nilar specinlens, TIle first (viz. 
the nUli'3sion of B. :ðlark xvi. Ð-20 fronl ccrtain ancient copies 
of the Gospel) SCCl11R to have originated in an unique circum- 
stancc. According to the 'Vestern order of the four, S. l\[ark 
occu!)ies the last place. From the earliest period it had been 
custolnary to ,vrite 7"ÉÀoç (" EXD") after the Rth vcrse of 
t chapter, in tOken that tlLC,.e a Ünnous ecclesiastical 
lecti.)n comes tu a clu
e. Lct tlL(, last lcaf vf one T('}"Y (( 11CÙ
ÎI f 
archetypal copy have bcgu 11; at rci'. g; aut! let tliat last [Ntj 
hore perish,cd ;-and all is plain. 
\. faithful copyist \vill 
Ita ve ended the Gospel perforce - as B and 
 ha vc done- 
at S. l\Iark xvi. 8. . . . Our other exanlple (S. I.uke ii, 14) 
,,-ill have resulted froln an accident of the nlost ordinary 
description,-as ".as explained at the outset.-To the fore- 
going, a fe,\" other specÏ1nens of erroneous readings resulting 
from .Accident shall nO\\T he ad(Ied. 

(a) ...lhvays instructive, it is sOlnetirnes cven entertp,ining 
to trace the history of a Inistake \\-hich, dating frolll the lind 
or IIII'd century, has renlained \vithout a. patron all do".n the 
subsequent ages, until at last it has been suddenly taken 
up in our o\vn times by an Editor of the sacred Text, and 
straight\vay pahned off upon an unlearned generation aR 
the genuine \vork of the IIoLY GnosT. Thus, ".hereas the 
Church has hitherto supposed that t;. l}aul's cOlnpany , ".ere 
in all in the ship two hundrc l threescore and s'ixt n sOils' 
(A.cts xxvii. :17), l>r
. 'Vestcott and 110rt (relying on the 
authority of B anel the Rahidic ycrsion) insist that \\.hat 
Luke actually "Tote "'W; 'about 
(,l'CJltl/-si.v.' In other ,\.ords, 
instead of ðla"óulal Éßðofl;rl"OV7"aÉ
, we are inviteel hence- 
forth to read 'we ÉßðOfL)lKOvTaÉ
. 'Yhat Ciln hayl' given rise 
to so fUl'lnidablc a lIi
crepan('y? :\lere aCl;ident, \\ e ans".er. 
Jïrst, \\.hereas S, Luke certainly ,,-rote 
f-I.EV oÈ Èv T
V 7rÀOL(P 
r .J 




aí 7râUal ývXat, his last six ,vords at some very early period 
Undef\Vent the familiar process of Transposition, and lJeCallle, 
aí 7râuat ý-vXal Èv Tip 7rÀoírp; ,vherehy the 'word 7rÀoírp and 
the ?l/ll/lnbers (naKóUtat ÉßSOjJ/l]KOvTaÉg '\
ere lJrought into 
close proxilnity. (It is thus that Laclllnann, Tischendorf, 
Tregelles, &c., ,vrongly exhibit the place.) But since' 27ß ' 
,vhen represented in Greek nlunerals is coç, the inevitable 
consequence ,vas that the ,ven-ds (,vritten in uncials) ran 
thus: ':ÞYXAIENTwnAOIWCOÇ. Behold, the secret is out! 'Yho 
sees not ,vhat has happened? There has been no intentional 
falsification of the text. There has been no critical disin- 
clination to believe that' a corn-ship, presulnably heavily 
laJen, ,vould contain so l11any souls,' -as an excellent judge 
sn pposes. 1 The discrepancy has been the result of sheer 
accident: i
 the Inerest blunder. SOllIe lInd-century copyist 
connected the last letter of n^OIW ,,,ith the next ensuing 
lluilleral, ".hich stands for 200 (viz, c); anù lnaùe an inde- 
pendent 'word of it, viz. wç-i,e. 'about.' But ,vhen c (i.e. 
200) has been taken a,vay fron1 Coç (i.e. 276), 76 is per- 
force all that renutÍns. In other ,,'ortIs, the result of so 
slight a blunder has been that instead of ' t
L'O /Lund'red and 
seventy-six' (coç), S0111e one "Tote W
' - i.e. 'aùout 
seventy-six.' His blunder ,vould have been diverting had 
it been confined to the pages of a codex ,,'hich is full of 
blunders. vYhell ho,,
eYer it is adopted by the latest Editors 
of the N. T. (Drs. v\Testcott and Hort),-and by their influ- 
ence has been foisted into the margin of our revised English 
Version - it becomes high time that ,ve should reclaÏ1n 
against such a gratuitous depravation of Scripture. 
All this ought not to have required explaining: the 
blunder is so gross,-its history so patent. But surely, had 

1 The Dum her is not excessive. 'There were about ßoo persons aboard 
the ship in which Josephus traversed the saIlle waters. (Life, c. Ill.) 




its origin heen ever so obscure, the D10st elemcntary critical 
kno".ledgc joined to a little l11other-,vit ought to convince 
a IlUUl that the reading cd" éßôop:rlKovTaÉç c nnot be trust- 
,,'orthy. .A. reading discov'crable only in codex D anù one 
Egyptian ,.ersioll (\vhich "'as evidentlyexecutcù froIll codices 
uf the saniC corrupt type as coùex n) may a['Wfl!}S be dis'ìni.'i.'icd 
((.., certainly spllrious. nut further,-....\lthough a Ulan Inight 
of course Ray' about scrcJlt!} , or 'about eighty,' (,vhich is ho\V' 
Epiphanius 1 quotes the place,) 
who sees not that (about 
se" entY-bi.:c' is an impossible expression? Lastly, the t\\ 0 
false witnesses give divergent testÏInony even \rhile they 
seenl to be at one: for the Sahidic ( or Thebaic) version 
arranges the \\Tords in an order peculia?' to itself 

(b) .A.nother corruption of the text, ,vith ,vhich it is 
proposed henceforth to disfigure our Authorized 'T ersiou, 
(originating like the last ill sheer accident,) occurs in .....<lcts 
xviii. 7. It is related concerning S. Paul, at Corinth, that 
having forsaken the synagogue of the J e\\ s, 'he entered into 
a certain Dutn's house na'ìncd Justus' (òvóJ.LaTt 'IOVO"TOU). 
That this is ",'hat S. Luke '\Tute, is to Le inferred from the 
fact that it is found in alnlost every kno\vn copy of the _\.cts, 
beginning ,vith A D G II L P. Chrysostom-the only ancient 
Greek :Father ".ho quotes the place-so quotes it. This is, 
in consequence, the reading of Laclllnaull, Tregelles, and 
Tischelldorf in his 7th edition. But then, the last syllable 
of '}HUlle' (ONOMATI) anù the first three letters of 'Justus' 
(IOYCTOY), in an uncial copy, Inay easily get n1Ïstaken for 
au indepenllent "ord. Inùeed it only "ants a horizontal 
stroke (at the sUIDlnit of the second I in TIIOY) to proùuce 
, l'itus' (TITOY). [n the Syriac anù Bahidic versions accorù- 
ingly, 'Titus' actually stands in, place of ' Justus,' -a reaùing 

1 ii. l31 aud b3. 

(: EHS,-K l\L\'r'l'H, XI. 23 AND [AI

no lungeI' di
coverahle in any extant codcx, 
\s a Inatter of 
t, the error resulte(l not in the snù8tihllivn of 'Titus' for 
'Justus,' but in the intruduction of ooth )laIneS \vhere 
s. Luke \vrote but one. 
 and E, the V ulgate, and the 

nptic vcrsion, exhibit ' Titus Justus.' And that the fore- 
going is a true account of the birth and parentage of ' Titus' 
is proycd by the tell-tale circuIHstallCe, that in B the letters 
TI aud IOY are all religiously retained, and a superllulucrary 
letter (T) has been thrust in bet\Veell,-the result of which 
is to give us one 1110re imaginary gell tlen1 an, viz. 'Titius 
,J ustuR;' ,yith "Those appearallce,-(and he is founù nOlcltC1'G 
hut ill codex B,)-Tischelldorf in his 8th ed., \vith 'Vestcott 
and Hort in theirs, are so captivated, that they actually give 
hÜn a place in their text, It ,vas out of compassion (,ve 
})reSulne) for the friendless stranger' Titus Justus' that our 
l:evisionists have, in preference, prollloteù hÍ1n to honour: in 
w11Ïch act of lnllnanity they stand alone. Their' ne,v Greek 
Tcxt' is the only one in existc'nC(, in "Thich the imaginary 
foreigner has been advanced to citizenship, and assigned' a 
local habitation and a naIne.' . . . . Those must have been 
,nnulrous dro,vsy days in the ,Jerusalelll Cluunber ,vhen 
such Inanipulations of the inspired text ,yere possible! 

(c) The t\VO foregoillg deprayatiuns gre,v out of the 
ancient practice of ,vriting the Scriptures in uncia] cha- 
racters (i, e. in capital letters), no spaee being interposed 
Let,veell the ".or<1s. Another striking inBtance is supplied 
by S. l\Iatthe"r xi. 23 and S. Lu1..e x. 15, ,,'herc ho\vevcr the 
error is so transparent that the 'yonder is lllnv it can ever 
have Ï1nposed upun anyone. 'V hat TIlakes the lnatter 
 is, that it gives a tUJ'1l to a certain Diyine saying, 
of \vhich it is incredible that either uur S
\. VIOUR or Iris 

Evallgclists kne,v anything. "r e !lase liÏtherto belieyecl that 
the 80Ie11111 \\Tunls ran as follu\rs :-' And thuu, Uapernaulll, 

I.] S. LlTKE X, 15, JIO'V lll..UXVEHED BY 
 B U lJ L. 55 

h art exaltell ell. . . ÍJ'\rWBEîa-a) unto heayen, shalt Lc 
brought du\YIl (KaTaßtßauB1}u'[J) tu hell.' _For this, our l:p- 
yisionists illyite us to suLstitnte, ill ;:;. Luke a
 \"ell as ill 
S, l\latthe\\r,-' _\ll(l thuu, Cal)L'rlltUllll, Rhalt thou he p"\.altc(l 
 . . . Íro/wBJ}u'[J;) unto lll'nscn?' ... \u( I theIl, iu S. l\Iat- 
the\v, (Lut llut in S, Luke,)-' Thuu 
halt go dU\\TIl (KllTaßrjuTJ) 
into llaùes.' No\v, ".hat can haVl:) happened tu ucea
sueh a curiuu
 l)erversioll of ùlU LouD's true utterance, anù 
to CtHlSP lIiul to a
k au unuleaning questiun aLout the future, 
\vheu IIp \vas clearly announcing a facl, foundcll on the 
histury of the past? 

\. stupid Llullder has been lnaùe (\\Te anr-;\ver), of ,,'hich 
traces survive (as usual) only in the sanle little handful of 
suspicious doculnents. The final letter of CapernauIu (M) by 
cleaying to the next eusuing letter (H) has BLaÙe an inde- 
pendent \yorù (M H); ,,'hich ne\v \vonl necessitates a change 
in the construction, and causes the sentence to LecoIlle inter- 
rogati \'e. oJ. \ntl yet, fuurteen uf the uncial manuscripts and the 
\\'hole hotly uf the cursives kno\v notbing of this; neither dues 
the Peschitu-nor the Gothic version; nO,-nor Chrysostom,- 
nul' Cyril,-nor ps.-Cæsarius,-nor Theodoret,-the only 
Fathers ,,-ho quote either place. The sole ,,'itnesses for JLl} 
. . . Ír\rWB1}uTJ in both Gospels are 
 B, copies of the old Latin, 
Cureton's Syriac, the Coptic, and the .LEthiopic versiolls,-a 
consensus of authorities \vhieh ought to be held fatal to any 
rmHlillg, C joins the con
piracy in ::\Iatthe\v xi. 
3, lJlIt not 
in Luke x. 13: D L COllsént in Luke, hut not in 
The \Tuigate, ".hich billed ,,'ith 
 B in :::;. :\Iatthe\,', fursake8 
thmu in 8. Luke. In \\Titing buth tÏ1ues KaTaßrju'[J (' thou 
shalt go do\vn '), codex ß (fursaken this tÏlne Ly 
) is sup- 
ported Ly a single nll.lllU8cript, yiz.}), Hut IJecause, in 

latthc\v xi. 2:3, B 01 )taill
 thl} sa llctiun of the Latin copie
KUTUß1}UTJ is actually illtrodu
ed intu the l:evisl'ù Text, aud 
\\ c are quietly inforlnell in tIle margin that 'l\Iany Hllcient 

 OF S. l\IARK XI. 3, [AR'!". 

authorities read be brought down:' the truth being (as the reader 
has been lllade <t\vare) that there are ultly two 'lnan'UC\cripts 
in c.J;'istcnec 1.ckich 1'ea(l ctnytkin!} cl:5c. ..And (". hat deser\res 
attention) those t\yO Inanuscripts are convicted of having 
burrowed tlwÚ' qltotativn f1"01n the Scpl-ll((!Jint, l and therefore 
stand self-condelllnetl. . . . 'Vere the occupants of the J e1'U- 
salcllL Chalnbel' all-saving the t,,'o ,,,ho in their puhlished 
edition insist on reading (\\rith n and D) lCaTaß11(J''[J in hotJ. 
places-all faRt asleep ,,'hcn they hecaluc consenting parties 
to this sad lllistake ? 

II. It is titne to explain that, if the nlost serious depra- 
vations of Scripture are due to .Accident, a vast llulnLer are 
u1l1nistakahly the result of DESIl

, and are yery clulllsily 
execnteù too. The enullleratioll of a fc\v of these Inay pro\Te 
illstructi\re: au(l "re shall begin \"ith s0111ething \vhich is 
found in S. )[ark xi. 3. 'Vith nothing perhaps ,viII each 
several instance so nluch Ï1npress the devout student of 

cripture, as "Tith the cxq 1 1Ïsitc structure of a narrative in 
"rhich corrupt readings stand self- rev-caled and self-condenulcd, 
the instant they are ordered to come to the front and sho\v 
elves. But the l)oint to \yhich "Te especially invite his 
attention is, the sufficiency of the cxte1"nal evidenee ,,'hidl 
1 )ivine 'Vísdo111 is observed to have illvariahly provided for 
the establishlnent of the truth of His ""'fitten "T ord. 

(0) "Then onr LOUD ,vas alout to enter His capital in 
lo\vly t1'Ïlnnph, lIe is ob
ervcd to have given to ' t"ro of His 
disciples' directiuns ,yell calcnlated to suggest the 11lyste- 
rious nature of the incitlent which "ras to follu,,,.. They 
,yere cOllllnanrled to procee(l to the entrance of a certain 
village,-to unloose a certain ('olt ,vhidl they "rould find 

1 Isaiah xiv. 15. 


IP08ED uro


tied there,-and to hring the creature straight\vay to J ERU
Any obstacle ,\yhich they Inight encounter would at unce 
disappear before the sÏ1uple announcelnent that 'the LORD 
hath l1ec(l of him.' 1 nut, singular to relate, this transaction 
is found to ha\"e struck SOlne third-rate IIInl-century Critic 
as nut altogether correct. The good JHan ,vas eyidcntly úf 
opinion that the colt,-as soon as the purpose had Leen 
accoluplished for ,\"hich it had been obtained,--ought iu 
COUlluon fairness to have been returned to 'the o\\yners 
thcreof.' (S. Luke xix. 33.) A yailing hiIllself therefore uf 
there being no n01ninative Lefore ',\'ill send' (in S, )Iark 
xi. 3), he assullled that it "Tas of Hí1nself that our LOUD \,yas 
still speaking: feigned that the sentence is to be eXlJlaineù 
thus :-' say ye, Co that the LORD hath need of hÏ1u and 
will stlyti[Jht
vay send hint hither.'" .L\.ccording to this vie\v 
uf the case, our 8..\ VIOUR instructed His t",.o Disciples to 
cunvey to the u\vner of the cult an undertaking froIll Hiul- 
se) f that He wouid senll the C1'catZl1'c bac!!; as soon as He had 
done with it: ,vollld treat the colt, in short, as a lVlin. .A. 
1Hore stupid inuLgination one has seldoln had to deal 
But in the IneantiIne, by ,yay of clenching the matter, the 
Uritic proceeded on his o\vn responsibility to thrust into the 
text the ,vol'll '(([Jain' (7ráÀtv). The fate of such an unau- 
thorized accretion 111Íght haye been confidently predicted. 
After skipping about in quest of a fixe(l resting-place for a 
fe\v centuries (see the note at foot 2), 7rúÀtv has shared the 
in variable fate of all sueh spurious adjuncts to the truth of 

cripture, viz,: It has ùecn effectually l
linlÏnated frolll the 
eopies. Traces of it linger on only in those untrustwurthy 
 ß C D LA, and about twice a
 luallY cursivc 

I 8. 
Iatthew xxi. 1-3. S. :\[ark xi. I-G. 
. Luke xix. 
 D L rcat!-aVTUII à7TO(TTEXÀn rr.\.\I
 cðÒE: C*,-aVTOII nA.\I
o-nXXu ÖJÒE: n,-à7i"OO"TEXXH n.\_\I
 aùTolI WÒE: 
Û>Òf: yscr-avTOV å7TOO'TEXXH nA.\I




copies, also of depravcd type. So transparent a fabrication 
ought in fact to have been long since forgotten. Yet have 
our l{evisionists not been afraid to revive it. In S. l\Iark 
xi. 3, they invite us henceforth to read, , ..A_Bel if anyone say 
unto you, 'Yhy do ye this? say ye, The LOUD hath need of 
hinl, and straight,yay He (i,e. the LORD) will send hÙn BACK 
hither.' . . . . Of "That can they have been drealllÏng? They 
cannot pretend that they have Antiqnity on their side: for, 
besides the ,yhole Inass of copies \vith .A at their head, both 
the Syriac, both the Latin, and both the Egyptian versions, 
the Gothic, the .....\..rlneniall,-all in fact except the ....Ethiopic, 
-are against them. Even Origen, ,vho t,vice inserts 71'áÀtv,1 
t"Tice leaves it out. 2 Qllid plnra ? 

 0 need to look else,vhere for our next instance. ..A. 
novel 8tatement arrests attention five verses lu,ver do,vn: 
viz. that' l\Iany spread their ganncnts upun the ,yay , [and 
,,-hy not 'in the ,vay'? Elc; does not luean 'upon ']; 'and 
others, branches 'which they had cut fr07JL the fields' (S, ::\Iark 
,xi, 8). But how in the ,,?orld could they have done thai? 
They Jnust have been clever people certainly if they 'cut 
branchcö fruIn' anything except trec.'
. "r as it because our 
Revisionists felt this, that in the Inargin they volunteer the 
illforlnation, that the Greek for 'branches' is in strictness 
'layers of !ea.,ves'? But ,vhat arc 'layers of leaves'? and 
,vhat proof is there that UTOtßá'òEC; has that llleanillg? and 
ho,v could 'layers of lea./res' hàve been suddenly procured 
frolli such a quarter? 'Ve turn to our Authorized Version, 
and are refreshed by the familiar and intelligible ,yords: 
'Ând others cut dO\\Tll Lranches off the trees and stra,ved 
thenl in the ,yay.' "Thy then has this been changed? In 
an ordinary sentence, consisting of 12 ,vords, \ve find that 2 

1 iii. 72
, 7-10. 

2 iii. 737, iv, 181. 




""onls Iut\ e 1.ecn suhstitutetl fur other 2; that 1 has under- 
gonc lllùllifieatiun; that [) have Leen ejected. HThy is all 
this? asks the unlearne(ll
eader. Jle shall be told. 
An instance is furnished us of the perplexity \vhich a 
difficult \\"'01'<1 SOlllctimes occasioned the ancients, as well 
 of the serious cOnSC(p1enCes \vhich havc SOlnctÏ1nes re- 
sulteù therefrolll to the text of Scripture itself. S. :\Iatthe"T, 
after narrating that 'a yery !,rreat nrultitlule spread their 
ganllents in the "ay,' adds, 'others cut branches (KÀaðov,,) 
frOtH the trees and straw-ed theu1 in the \vay.' 1 nut \"ould 
not LranL'he
 uf any considerable size have ÌInpeded pru- 
gress, inconveniently enculnlJerillg the road? Ko douLt they 
\vould. .\.ccorùingly, as S. :\Iark (w'ith S. J\latthev/s Gospel 
before hinl) is careful to explain, they \\Tere not 'branches 
of any considerable size,' but' leafy t\vigs '-'foliage,' in fact 
it 'nlS-' cut fronl the trees and stra\\Ted in the ,yay.' The 
\vorl!, ho\\"ever, \vhich he enllÜoys (uTotßáôa,,) is an uni(!ue 
".ord-very like another of similar sound (uTtßáSaíì), yet 
distinct froln it in sense, if not in origin. U llfortunately, 
aU this ,vas not understuod in a highly uncritical and nlo
lieentiuus age, "Tith the best intentiun
, (for the good Ulan 
,vas only seeking to reconcile t\VO inconvenient parallel 
statelllents,) some llevisionist of the lInd century, having 
cOllyillCed hinlself that the latter 'YOI'd (U7tßÚ&S) lllight ,vith 
advantage take the 11lace of S. J\Iark's ,yord (UToLßcíðac;), 
substituted this for that. In consequcnce, it sur\-i\-es to this 
day in nine uncial copies headed by 
 B. Hut then, UTtß(íc; 
does not llleall 'a hranch' at all,. no, nor a ' layer of leases' 
either; Lut (( pollcl-a floor-bed, in fact, of thl
type, constructell of 6'1'a!-;
, rushes, stnt\\-, hrush".u()(l, leaYes, 
or any t-;in1Ílar sulJstance. On the other halHl, hecau
c such 
nutterials are not uLtainahle fru/I"t tr cs èxactly, the ancient 

1 s. 
Iatt. xxi. 8. 




Critic judged it expedient further to change òévòpwv into 
årypwv (' ficÜls '). E\ren this \yas not. altogether satisfactory. 
!.Ttßác;, as eXplained already, in strictness llleans a 'Led.' 
Only by a certain amount of license can it be supposed to 
denote the Jnaterials of \\Thich a Led is cOlnposeù; \yhereas 
the Eyangelist speaks of something" stra\'Tn." The sclf-scone 
copies, therefore, \\Thich exhibit 'jù;lds' (in lieu of 'trces '), 
by introllucing a slight change in the construction (Kó'Ý'avTEC; 
K07T'TOV), and omitting the \yords 'and stra\\Ted thenl in 
the \yay,' are oLseryed--after a sUlnmary fashion of their O\Yll, 
(,vith \rhich, how'ever, readers of B 
 D are only too falni- 
liar )-to dispose of this difficulty by putting it nearly uut 
of sight. The only result of all this n1Ïsplaced officiousness 
is a IniseraLle tra vestie of the sacred \yorùs :-aXXot òÈ UTL- 
ßcîðae;, "ó'o/avTEe; f.K TWV årypwv: 7 words in place of 12 ! 
]Jut the calan1Ìtous circulnstance is that the Critics have all 
to a 111an fallen into the trap. True, that Origen (Wl10 once 
\\Tites uTotßcîòae; and once uTtßcîðac;), as ,veIl as the t\VO 
Egyptian versions, siùe \vith 
 BeL A in reading 
" TWV 
årypwv: but then both versions (\\Tith c) decline to alter the 
construction of the sentence; and (\vith Origen) decline to 
o1nit the clazlse ÈUTpwvvuov Ele; T
V óòóv: \\Thile, against this 
little hand of disunited "Titnesses, are marshalled all. the 
relnaining fourteen uncials, headed by AD-the Peschito and 
the rhiloxenian Syriac; thé Italic, the Vulgate, the Gothic, 
the Arnlenian, the Georgian, and the .LEthiopic as ,veIl as the 
Slavonic versions, besides the \vhole body of the cursives. 
'Vhether therefore Antiquity, Variety, l
espectability of \vit- 
nesses, numbers, or the reason of the thing be appealed to, 
the case of our opponents breaks hopelessly dO\\Yll. Does 
anyone seriously suppose that, if S. 1\fark had ,vritten the 
COlnmon 1\ T ord uTIßcîòac;, so vast a Inajority of the copies at 
this ùay \vould exhibit the Ï1nprobable UTOIßcîòae;? IratI the 
saIne t;. l\fark expres:;ed llot
ling else. but KO''I'ANTE


c.\ p( Jr lIT I
 THE TRAP.-S, l..UKB XXIII, 45, 


'AfP rrN, ,,,in any one persu
l.(le us that (t(,l'!] cupy in cyistc1l(,( 
hilt fire ".ould present us "yith "'EKonTON ÈIl T;W 
 TH'N 'O
O'N? ....\nd let us not be told that 
thrre 1 ias been AssÏ1nilation here. There has been none. 
S,l\Iatthc,v (xxi. 8) \\Tites 'Ano' TWV öÉvopwv . . . . 'EN 'Tß óoijJ : 
S. ::\Iark (xi. 8), 'EK TWV öÉvopwv. . . . . El'
V óöóv. The 
types are distinct, and hayc been faithfully retaineù all 
ùown the ages. The COllnnon reading is certainly correct. 
The Critics are certaÍlùy in error. And \\YC e
claÜll (surely 
not \\.ithout good reason) against the hardship of tlnts having 
an c\. plodeù corruption of the text of Scripture furbishea up 
h and thrust upon us, after lying ùeseryeilly forgotten 
f( >1' U 1>\varc1s of a thousand years. 

(r) Take a yet grosser specimen, w'hich has nevertheless 
Ílnposed just as cOlnpletcly upon onr l:eyisionists. It is 
found in S. Luke's Gospel (xxiii. 45), and helongs to the 
tory of the Crucifixion. All are a\yare that as, at the 
typical redeulption out of Egypt, there had Leen a preter- 
natural darkness over the land for three days, l so, pre- 
lÜninary to the actual Exodus of' the Israel of GUD,' , there 
1\ y as darkness oyer all the land' for three hours. 2 S. Lnkp 
adlls the further stateluent,-' ..LInd tile S'll n 'If"((,I) da rkcncd ' 
(Kaì ÈðKOTlu81) Ó i}ÀLO
). N 0\\. the proof that this is ,vhat 
S. Luke actually \\Tote, is the most obyious and conclusiyc 
!=ìiLle. 'EUKOTíð81} is found in all the 11l0st ancient docu- 
lllents. ::\larcion 3 (whose ùate is A,D. 130-:>0) so c\:hibits 
the place :-besiùes the old Latin 4 and thp ,... ulgate :-the 
Pesehito, Cureton's, and the Philû\:enian 
yriac ver
iolls :- 
the l\.rmcniall, - the ....Etlúopic, - the Geurgian, - ana the 

\ Exod. x. 21-
2 s. )Iatth. xxvii. 45; S. )Iark xv. 03; H. Ln. x
iü. 44. 
sAp. Epiphan. i. 317 aud 3t7. 
.. Juf"ml,,.imflls u;f S4ll-a: oIJ.'i(,,,,.afll."; t'sf sol-b: fcm.JJI'i('((/1;f t;ol--c. 




Slavonic. - Hippolytus 1 (
\.D. 1DO-227), - .i\thanasius,2- 
Ephracm Syr,,3-Gregory Naz,,3*-Theodorc J\Iops.,4-Nilus 
the nlonk,5-S eyer ianus, (in a hOlnily preserved in Arlneniall, 
p. 439,)-Cyril of Alexandria,6-the apocryphal Gospel vi 
.iV1:cod C'J11/ltS - and the A napho1"a P'ilati,'7 - are all witnesses 
to the same effect. Add the Acta P'Ílati 8 - and the Syriac 
Acts of the Apostlcs. 9 - Let it suffice of the Latins tu quute 
Tertullian. 10 - nut the nlost striking evidence is the con- 
sentient testiInuny of the Inanuscripts, viz. all thc 'Uncials but 
3 and -a- half, and CVC1 9 Y lí:nown Evangcliun
That the darkness spoken of ,vas a divine portent-not an 
eclipse of the sun, but an incident ,yholly out of the course 
of nature-the ancients clearly recognize. Origen,ll-J ulius 
Africanus 12 (A,D. 220),-
lacariu3 J\Iagnes l3 (A,D. 330),-are 
even eloquent on the subject. Chrysostolll's evidence is Ull- 
cquiyocal. 14 It is, nevertheless, well kno\yn that tlús place of 
S. Luke's Gospel "
as taul}>cred ,,
ith from a yery early period; 
and that Origen 15 (A.D. 186-253), and perhaps Eusebius,16 

1 Ap. Routh, Opllse. i. 79. 2 i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 100ô. 
S Syr. ii. 4B, 80 also Evan. Cone. pp. 245, 256, 257. 3* i. B67. 
4 l\Iai, Srriptt. Tldt. vi. 64. 5 i. 305. 
6 Ap. l\Iai, ii. 43G; iii. 395. Also LllC. 722. 7 i. 288, 417. 
8 P. 
33. 9 Ed. by \Vright, p. 1ô. 
10 'Sol mediâ die tenebrieavit.' Adv. Jud. c. xiii. 
11 iii. f)22-4. ne
\ll the whole of cap. 13-t See also ap. Galland. xiv. 
, append., which by the way deserves to be CoIn pared with Chrys. vii. 

;j a. 

12 àAA
V UKÓTO!) Bf01TOí"TOV, ÔtÓT(. TÒV Kvpwv uvvlß'7 1TaBÚv.-Routh, ii. 
13 ';' 
 'é ',rl,. B \ .,_ "\,rl,.' , t "\ ' , ", ,\ 
HT fc;;m
VT}!) KaT
VfX EJ,' 'f'T}l\a'fJT}TOV UKOTO!), T}I\WV TT}V OtKftall avy'7v 
Ù1TOKp-úo/aVTO!), p. :29. 
1-1'" \ '?
' "\ .1.. [ , , '''' ] '' ^ B ' Ô ^"\ 
(JT(. yap OVK T}V fKI\H't' t!) SC. TO UKOTO!) fKHIIO OVK fllTfV fll J-LOIIOV T}I\OV 
? ',,\ "\ ' \" ^ ^ ,..,.., , t 1:!0' 
, "\ .1.. . 
T}V, al\l\a Kat a1TO TOV KatpOV. TPH!) yap wpa!) 1TapfJ-LHllfll. T} Uf fKI\H't' t
 KatpOV yíVfTat porrfJ.-vii. 825 a. 
15 i. 414, 415; iii. 5G. 
16 .Ap. l\Iai, iv. 20G. But further on he says: aVTíKa yoûv f1rì Tcê 1r(íBH 
W5t p.óvov fUKóTaufll K. T. A.-Cyril of Jerusalmn (pp. 57, 11G, l!)Ð, 

J ] 



enlploycd copies ,vhich had been <lepraved, In SOlne copies, 
,vrites l )rigen, instead ùf ' and the sun ,vas darkened' (Kaì 

uKoT{aB1) Ó 
), is found' the sun having hccollle eclipsed' 
). He points out ,,'ith truth that the 
thing spoken of is a physical Ünpossibility, and <leliyers it as 
his opinion that the corruption of the text ,vas due either to 
SOUle friendly hand in order to account JOT the darkness; or 
else, ('v hich he,! and J erOBle 2 after him, thought more 
likely,) to the cnelnies of l
evelation, ".ho sought in this ,vay 
to provide theulselyes ".ith a pretext for cavil. Either ,vay, 
Origen and Jerollle elaboratel)"" a
sert that ÈUKOTLu81] is the 
only true reading of S. Luke xxiii. 4.3. 'Yill it be believed 
that this gross fabrication-for no other reason but because 
it is found in 
 B L, and probably once existed in c 3-has 
been resuscitated in 1881, and foisted into the sacred Text 
by our Itevisionists ? 
It ,,,"ould be interesting to haye this proceeding of theirs 
eXplainecl IfThy should the truth dw.ell exclusively 4. ".ith 

 L? It cannot be pretended that bet,reen the I\Tth and \

ellturies, ,vhen the copies 
 B ,vere Inade, and the \''1h and 
\Tlth centuries, ,yhen the copies A Q D R ,yere executed, this 

201, 202) and Co
mas (ap. :Ì\Iontf. ii. li7 bis) were apparently acquainted 
with the same reading, hut neither of theln actually quotes Luke xxiii. 4'>. 
1 C In quibusåa1u exemplaribus non habetul' tellebræ factæ sunt, et oh- 
scuratus est sol: sed ita, tenebræ factæ sllnt super onUleln terram, sole 
dt'ficlt'ntr. Et for
itan alUms est aliqui!-\ quasi manife:::;tius aliqui{l dicere 
volem;;, pro, et obscltratfts est sol, ponere dt'ficicnle sole, existimans quod non 
aliter potui

ent fieri tenebræ, ni:-:i sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod 
 ecc1esia\ Christi lllutaverunt hoc verbum, quouiam tPIt 'bræfactæ 
$llnt sole deficiente, ut verisimiliter evangelia argui pussint secundum aùin- 
ventioneH vulentium arguere ilIa.' (iiL Ð

 f. a.) 
2 vii. 235. 'Qui sCrllJ:senlut contra Emw!Jdia, sus!)ic:1ntur deliquium 
80lis,' &c. 
S This rests on little 1110re than conjecture. Tbch. Cod. Epltr. Byr. p. 
ù_ , . 
 i:-; on]
 ftl\mtl hc:--ilh.'
 in eleven ]ectionarics. 




corruption of the text arose: for (as ,vas explained at th(1 
outset) the reading in question (Kaì ÈUKOTlu{)1J Ó ?JAto,) is found 
in all the oldest and nlost fanlous doculnents. Our TIpvi- 
sionists cannot take their stand on' Antiquity,'-for as ,ye 
ha ye seen, all the Versions (".ith the single exception of the 
Coptic l),-anJ the oldest Church "Titers, (l\larcion, Origen, 
Julius ..i\.fricanus, Hippolytus, .i\thanasius, Gregory Naz" 
Ephraenl, &c.,) are all against them,- They cannot advance 
the claÏ1n of ' clearly preponderating evidence; , for they have 
but a single \T ersion,-not a single Father,-and but three- 
and-a-half Evangelia to appeal to, out of perhaps three 
hundred and fifty tilHes that number.- They cannot pretend 
that essential probability is in fayour of the reading of N B; 
seeing that the thing stated is astronomically iInpossible.-- 
They ,,-ill not tell us that critical opinion is ,vith thenl: for 
their judglnent is opposed to that of every Critic ancient and 
nloderu, except Tischendorf since his discovery of codex N,- 
Of ,yhat nature then ".ill be their proof? . . .. ]{othing 
results fron1 the discovery that 
 reaùs TOV -ÝJAíov ÈKA"7rÓVTO" 
B ÈKÀEi7TOvTo,,-except that those t".o codices are of the saIne 
corrupt type as those ".hich Origen deliberately conden1ned 
!()JO years ago. In the n1eantÏ1ne, ".ith 1110re of ingenuity 
than of ingenuousness, our llevisionists attelnpt to conceal 
the foolishness of the text of their choice by translating it 

1 The Thehaic represents' the sun setting;' which, (like the mention of 
'f'clipsp,') is only another interpretation of the ùarknegs,--derived from Jer. 
xv. !) or AITIOS viii. Ð (' occidit solluericlie '). COlupare Irenæus iv. 33. 12, 
(p. 273,) who gays that these two prophecies found fulfillllent in 'eum 
orras'U'Ir" solis qui, crucifixo eo, fuit ab horâ sextâ.' He alludes to the same 
places in iv. 3-1. 3 (p. 275). eo does Jerome (on )latt. xxvii. 45),-" Et 
hoc factum reor, ut cOlllpleatur prophetia," and then he quotes Amos and 
Jcren1Ïah; finely adding (fr01n some ancient source),-" Videturque 11lihi 
:;imuln lumen mundi, hoc est luminare lnajus, retraxisse radios suos, 
ne aut pcndenteln vidcrct Dominum; aut impii blasphClnantes suâ luce 


'I'll E nEYJtHO
. LUKE XXJTI. 4-5. 


unfairly. They present us ,vith, , the 8/1 n's li!lht frtiliil!f.' nut 
this is a gloss of their O\VI1. There is no mention of ' the 
sun's light' in the Greek. Nor perhaps, if the rationale of 
the original expression ,vere accurately ascertained, \\"oulù 
such a paraphrase of it prove correct. l But, in fact, the 
phrase ;"ÀEt,'iI'lS 11À{ou Ineans ' an ecljpse of the sun,' and no 
oihc)' thing. In like Hlanner, TOÛ 
À{ov È1CÀEí7rOVTOf;) 2 (as our 
ltcvisionists are perfectly "\-vell a\vare) llleans 'the :SLln bc('o)J
ilLg eclipsed,' or ' suffering ('clipsc.' It is easy for Uevisionists 
to " en1phatically deny that there is anything in the Greek 
,vord È1CÀE{7rEtV, ,,-hen associated \vith the SUll, ,,-hich involves 
necessarily the notion of an eclipse,"3 The fuet referred to 
may not be so disposed of. r t lies outside the province of 
( emphatic denial.' Let theln ask any Scholar in Europe \vhat 
TOÛ Í}Àíou ÈKÀt,7rÓVTOÇ means; and see if he does not tell 
theul that it can only nlean, , the sun having beeorne eclipsed'! 
They know' this every bit as ,v"ell as their Review'er. An(l 
they ought either to have had the lllanliness to render the 
"yords faithfully, or else the good sense to let the Greek 
alone,-\vhich they are respectfully assured \yaf; their only 
proper course. Kal ÈUKOTlu()1) Ó 17ÀtOf;) is, in fact, clearly 
alluve suspicion. Toû 
Àíov ÈKÀÆí7rOVTOÇ;, \vhich these learned 
BIen (\\ ith the best intentions) have put in its place, is, to 
speak plainly, a transparent fabrication. That it enjoys 
'clearly p1.cponde1yäíng evidence,' is "That no person, fair or 
unfair, ,vill for an instant venture to pretend. 

III. Next, let us produce an instance of (lepra,.ation of 
Scripture resulting frOlll the practice of AssnnL.\TTO
, ,d1Ích 

lOur old friend of lIalicarna::,sus (vii. 37), Rl'eaking of an eclipse which 
happened B.C. 481, rem'1rks: Ó qÀI.O
 (K.À':TrWlJ T
V (I( Toii ovpalloû ;
2 .For it will he perceive(} that onr Hl',.isioni:;t:-; have ;H}opted tlw rra<lin
,'ouchccl for {July b!/ cn,ztJ' ß. \Yhat ('* once read i
 as unLcrtain a
 it if; 
unilllpol"tant. S Bp. Ellicott's paJllphlet, p, fiO.. 




prcvailed anciently tu an extent ,vhich bafHes aritlnnetic. 
"r e choose the nlost falnous instance that pre
ents it

(a) It occurs in S. l\lark vi. 20, and is Illore than un- 
suspected. The substitution (on the authurity of 
 n Land 
the Coptic) of 7;7rÓPEt for È7rOíEL in that vcrse, (i.e, the state- 
InellL that Herod ',yas llluch perplexed,' -instcad of J1erU(l 
'did lllany things,') is even vaunted by the Critics as the 
recovery of the true reading uf the place-lung o1scured 1y 
the ' very singular cxpre

iun 'È7ToíEt. Tu oun;elve
 the only 
'very singular' thing is, how nlen of first-rate ability can 
fail to see that, on the contrary, the proposed substitute is 
sÜnply fatal to the SrIRIT's teaching in this place. "Collllllon 
sense is staggered by such a rendering," (l'elllarks the learned 
Bishop of Lincoln). "People arc not '\
Ollt to he(u> gladly 
those by,,'honl they are 111./11Ch perple:rcd." 1 TIut in fact, the 
sacred "Titer's ohject clearly is, to record the striking cir- 
CUlllstance that 11ero<1 ,yas so nloved by the discourses of 
John, (".holn he used to 'listcn to ,yith pleasure,') that he 
even 'did 1nany things' (7roÀÀà È7roí
t) in eOllfm>'ìnity with 
the Baptist's teaching. 2 . . . l\nd yet, if this be so, ho,v (,ye 
shall be askcd) has' he "
as nUlch perplexed' (7roÀÀà '1) 7TÓp Et ) 
contri \Ted to effect a lodgulent in so 'Jnany as three copies of 
the second Gospel ? 

It has resulted fron1- nothing else, ,ve reply, but the deter- 
n1Ïnation to assinlÌlate a statrulcnt of S, l\Ial'k (yi, 20) con- 
cerning IIcrod and John the Ea ptist, "Tith another and a dis- 
tinct statelnent of S. Luke (ix. 7), having reference to Herod 

1 On the Reoised rersion, p. 14. 
2 Tro}..}..à KaTà yvwf1-1}V aVTov SLETrpcíTTfTO, as (probably) Victor of Antioch 
(Cat p. 1
8), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 1
9) "Who 
exhibits 1/7TbPU; and who explains it of Herod's difficulty about getting rid 
of Rerudias. 


. 1tL\HT\: VI. :!o. 


cl1111 "nu" LOUD. 
. Luh.c, speaking uf tIll> frulle út (IHr 
SAt \iOUn'S llliraclcs at a perÌf)(l sUhscci\lcnt to the Baptist'
lllunlcr, declarcs that ,,-hCll llerod 'heard II hin!Js that were 
dVltC BY Ih
I ' (1ílCoua-e Tà rytVó/-u2va in,' aÙTov 7Táv7a), 'he 'Leas 
m Nch pC'J"plcJ'cd' (Ot1}7rÓpEt).-Statcrncnts so entirely distinct 
alHl di"crse frolll onp another as this of S. Luke, and t/ud 
(giyen al)o,'"e) uf S. J[ark, I1lÍght surely (one \\.ould think) 
haYé been let alone. On the contrary. A glance at tJH"l 
fout of the page ,,
ll show that in the lInt! century S. l\Iark's 
,yords ,vere solicited in alllSurts uf ,vays. A persistent deter- 
111Ïnation existed to nlake hinl say that I1erod haying' heard 
of 'J1tany things which TIlE BAPTIST did,' &c.1-a strange per- 
version of the Evangelist's lueaning, truly, and only to be 
accounted for in one ,yay,2 

1 Kuì àKOVUU
 aVTOV 1roÀÀù c1 È7ToíÆL, Kuì 
 UVTOV fjKoVEV, will have; 
been the reading of that lost ,.enerahle coùex of the Gospels which is 
chiefly repre
cnted at this day by Ev::mn. 13-ß9-12--l-3--l(),-as explained 
hy Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar's COllation of 101 1 7 
important .11[88., etc. (Dublin 1877). The !'ame reaùill
 is also found ill 
Evann. 28 : 12:3 : 541 : .372, and Evst. 196. 
Different must have been the reading of that other ,.encrable c
which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But of this let 
the reader judge:-' Et cum audisset ilium multafacerc, 'ibenter,' &c. (c: 
also' Codex Aureus' and y, hoth at Stockholm): 'et (wditu eo (plOd mlllta 
facicbat, et libenter,' &c. (ft q): 'et audiens 1.'llum quia multu facieb t, et 
I ibeutc)',' &c. (h). The Ån
lo-Sax.on, (' aUfllze heard tllal he ma n'!J ll'ondel'S 
1 -rought, and' he gladly heal"d him ') approaches nearest to the last two. 
The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in strict- 
ness exhibits :-' .Ann m,(lny things he U'((,S hero-iug [from] him and dO;l1[/; 
mid gladly he u'as hcw"illY him.' But this, by competent ::;yriac scholars, 
is cOll
idered to represent,-Kuì 7roÀÀ.(Ì ÙKOÚCùV aVTov, brotH. lcuì 

ljKOtJEV uVToû.-Cod. .ð is peculiar in exhibiting Kuì ÙKOVUUS- UÌJTOV 7TOÀÀÚ, 

Éws- avrov ljKovEv,-onÚtting ÈTrOtH, Kul.-The Coptic abn renders, 'd 
audi bat 11 uZta ab eo, et anxio erat corde.' From all this, it bccomc
that the actual intention of the hlundering author of the te
t exhibited l}y 

 B L wa
, to connect 7ToÀ.Àá, not with q7TÓpU, but" ith (ìKOvua
o the 
Arabian version: but not the G'Jthic, Anucuian, Sclavullic, or Gcorgian,- 
 Dr. S, C. lIalan infurms the Hevicwcr. 
 ntl"', that tokens ahound c..f a d(.termination a.nciently to assimi1ate 
F 2 



[Au r. 

Had this been all, ho,vever, the rnatter wunld baxe 
attracted no attention. One such fabrication 1110re or less 
in the Latin version, ,vllÏch ahuunds in fabricated l'cadings, 
is uf little 11101nent. But then, the Greek scrihes had recuur
to a Inure subtle device for assiInilating 1\1ark vi. 20 to Luke 
ix, 7. They perceived that S. l\Iark's È7rOlEI, might be ahno
itlcntifiell ,vith S. Luke's ðt'Y)7rÓpEI" by '}Jwrcly changing t'lVO of 
the {cUm's, viz. hy substituting 'Y) for E and p for t. FroIn this, 
there results in S, l\fk, vi, 20: 'and having heard Inany things 
of hiIn, he 'was pC1 1 JlCtJ:;cd;' ,vhich is very nearly identical 

the Gospels hereabouts. 'rhus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10 cta) 
and the whole of l\lk. vi. 30 c
;) are bracketed together by Eusebius, the 
fonner place in codex A is found brought into confornlity with the latter 
by the unauthorizeù insertion of the clan
e Kaì ôCTa Èôíòu
av. - The 
llaralle1isln ùf l\Itt. xiv. 13 and Ln. ix. 10 i
 the rea::,on why D exhibits in 
the latter place àv- (instead of íJ7r)EXWPTJCTE.-In like nlanner, in Lu. ix. 
10, codex A exhibits Eì
teaa of E!!; TÓ7TOV EPTJJ.LOV; only 
hecause EPTJJ.LOV TÓ7TOV is the order of 
Itt. xiv. 13 and 
Ik. vi. 32,-So 
again, codex N, in the same verse of S. Luke, entirely Olnits the final clause 
'1r(íÀECù!; KaÀovJ.LÉV1J!; BTJeCTUï
á, only in order to assimilate its text to that of 
the two earlier Gospels.-But there is no need to look beyond the linlits of 
Iark Yi. 14-1G, for proofs of Assin1Ïlation. Instead of 'K VEKp6JV 
(in ,er. 14), B and 
 exhibit ÈYTryEpTUI. 'K VEKp6Jv-only because those words 
are found in Lu. ix. 7. A substitutes àVfOTTJ (for 
y/pe1J)-only because that 
word is found in Lu. ix. 8. For 
"tfpeTJ ÈK VEKp6JV, c substitutes 
YfpeTJ Ù7ïÒ 
T6JV VEKp6Jv-only because S. 
Iatth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2. D inscrts Kaì 
;ßaÀEv Eì
v into Ycr. 17-only l)ecause of l\Itt. xiv. 3 and Ln. iii. 
20, In N II 1. Å, ßa7TTí'oVTO
 (for ßU7TTl.CTTOiJ) stands in vel'. 24-only hy 
Assimilation with vel'. 1-1. (L is for :1Rsilnilating Yer. 23 likewise). K Å II
the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, "ranspose 'VEPYOVCTLV ai ôVVrtJ.LEL!; (in 
ver. 14)-only because tho:;e words are transposed in )ftt. xiv. 2. . . . [f 
facts like these do not open nlen's eyes to the dan
er of following the 
fashionable guides, it is to be feared that nothing eyer will. 'fhe foulest 
blot of all remains to be noticed. 'Yill it he belicyed that in Yer. 2
 B D L Å conspire in representing the dancer (whose name is 
kno1l'n to haye heen 'SalOlne') as another '1lel'odias '-IIercd's OlJ.)n, 
daughter? 'fhis gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and uf 
history-a reading as preposterous as it is re\?olting, and thercfore rejected 
hitherto by all the editors and all the critics-finds undonl)ting favour 
with Drs. \Yestcott anù Hort. C:ilmnitous to relate, it also disfigures the 
margin of OUf' Revised l"àsion of s. A/ar/" d, 22, 'ill CV1lse f j1tence, 


1STH IX S. :\1..-\HK \'1. :!o. 


\,ith what is foun(l in S. Lu. ix. 7. This fatal substitution (of 
Ì]7rÓpEL for È7rO{Et) survives happily only in co(liccs 
 n Land 
the Cuptic version-all of bad character. nut 
 calallÜtous tu 
relate) the Critics, having disinterred this long-since-fulgotten 
fabrication, are making vigorous efforts to galvanize it, at the 
eUll of fifteen centuries, into ghastly life and actiyity. "r e 
venture tu assure thelll that they \vill not succeed, IIerod's 
C perplexity' did nut begin until J uhn had been heheadell, 
and the fan-Ie reached Herod of the n1Ïracles "yhich our 
SA YIO"GR wrought. The apocryphal statenlent, no'\\'" for the 
first titne thrust into an English copy of the N e\v Testalncnt, 
Inay be sUlnlnarily disnlÏssed. But the lnarvel will for ever 
remain that a conlpany of distinguisheù Scholars (A,D, 1881) 
could so effectually persuaùe thernselyes that È7rOíEt (ill 
S. :\Iark vi. 
O) is a "plain alul clear crror," and that there is 
" decidedly p1 o cpondcJ"atiny evidence" in fayour of Ì]7TópEt,-as tu 
venture to substitute tlw [aUc}" wurd for the fornwp. This 
ill for ever reluain a lllarvel, ,\\T e say; seeing that all the 
llilcials except three of bad character, together ,,
ith cz.cry 
knmvn cU'rsirc 'without exccption ;-the old Latin and the 
\T ulgate, the Peschito and the l'hiloxenian Syriac, the .Anne- 
nian, .LEthiopic, Slavonian and Georgian versions,-are ,,
the traditional Text, (The Thebaic, the Gothic, and Cureton's 
Syriac are defective here. The ancient Fathers are silent,) 

lore serious in its consequences, howeyer, than allY 
other source of nlÏschief \\yhi..h can be luuncd, is thp process 
of ) [UTIL.\TIOX, to ,,-hich, frOIl! the beginning, the Text of 
Heril'ture has been subjected. TIy the' :\lutilation' (JÍ 
hue \Ye du hut nlcan the intentional Úlnission-froln u.h( tCVC1
ca'w..fJ jJrocudilly-of genuine portiuns. .A.utI the causes of it 
have been nUluerous as ,vell as diverse, Often, indeed, 
there seenlS to haye hl\Cn at \vork nothing else but a 
strange pa
sion for getting rill of ,vhate\"er portil)llS of tJl(' 




inspirc<l Text have seemed to anybudy superfiuous,-or at 
all cyents have appeared capahle of being renloYed ,yithout 
nlanifest injury to the ::,ense. But the estÏInate of the 
tasteless lInd-century Critic will never be that of the ,yell- 
informed Reader, furnished with the ordinary instincts of 
piety and reverenCe. This barLarous nlutilation of the 
Gospel, by the unceremonious excision uf a multitude of 
little words, is often attended by nu "\\ orse consequence than 
that thereby an extraordinary baldness is Ílnparted to the 
Evangelical narrative. The reIlloval of so 1nany of the 
coupling-hooks is apt tu cause the curtains of the Tabernacle 
to hang ,vondrous lUlt,rracefully; but often that is all. SOlue- 
times, ho,,-ever, (as n1Ïght have been confidently anticipated,) 
the result is calanlÏtous in a high degree. Not only is the 
beauty of the narrative effectually lnarred, (as c,g. ùy the 
b b .. f ' ' 8 ' \ 
 ' K ' 
ar arous eXCiSion 0 Kat - EV EW
 - J.LE"Ta oaKpvwv - VptE, 
fro1n S. :\lark ix. 24): I-the doctrinal teaching of our 
SA" lOUR'S discotu'ses in countless places, damaged, (as e. g. 
by the omission of Kaì V1]UTElCf fron1 verse 29) :-absurd ex- 
pressions attributed to the lloly One \vhich He certainly 
never uttered, (as e.g. by truncating of its last w'ord the 
phrase TÓ, El Ovvauat 7TtUTEvuat in verse 23) :-but (I,) The 
narrative is often rendered in a nlanner unintelligible; or 
else (II.), The entire point of a precious incident is made to 
disappear froJll sight; or else (III.), An inutginary inciùellt 
is fabricated: or lastly (IV.), SOllie precious saying of our 
Divine LORD is turned into .1bsolute nonsense. Take a 

I i.e. '.And' is omitted by B L Â: 'immediately' by 
 c: 'with tears' 
 ABC L Â: 'Lord' by 
 ABC D L.-In S. 1\Iark vi. 16-(viz. 'nut 
when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom I beheaded., He 
is risen [frOln the dead ],')-the five words in brackets are omitted by our 
ers on the authority of 
 B (D) L A. But 
 D further omit 'lwállllTJlI: 
C D omit ó: 
 B D L omit ón. To enumerate and explain the effects of all 
. the barbarous 
I\ltilations which the Go
pels alone have sustained at the 
hands úf 
, of B, and ùf D-would fill mcwy volltmes like the present. 


, 'L\TTIIE'V XIV". 30, AXIJ R '\L\HK xv, 39. 


single short exanlpll' of ,,,hat has last heCIl offered, from each 
uf the Guspels in turn. 

(1.) In S. )[atthc,v xiv. 30, we arc inviterl henceforth to 
<<3ulHuit to the infuftnation concerning Hinlun Peter, that 
, 1"!zrn Iw sai" th' 'willd, he ,va::; afraid.' The sight HUlst have 
hecn peculiar, certainly. So, indeed, is the expression. Gut 
Simon Peter "Tas as unconscious of the one as 
. :\Iatthew' of 
the uther. ::;uch curiosities are the peculiar pruperty of 
 n-the Coptic version-and the ltevisionists. The 
predicate of the pruposition (viz. ' that it 'was slroJl[J: con- 
tained in the single \\?orù la-xupóv) has been ,vantonly excised. 
That is all I-although Dr. Hort succeeded in persuading his 
colleagues to the contrary. A lllore solelun-a fill' sadder 
instance, a waits us in the next Gospel, 

(n.) The first three Eyangelists ilre careful to nute 'the 
lOi l cry' ,vith ,,-hich the. I:edeeJncr of the 'Y orld expired. 
Ðut it "as reseryed for S. :L\Iark (as Chrysostolu pointell out 
long since) to record 
xv. 39) the lnelllorablc circumstance 
that this p rticular portent it \vas, ,yhich ,,?rought conviction 
in the soul of the Honlan soldier ".hose office it 'vas to be 
present on that terrible occasion. The Ulan had often ,yit- 
nessed death by Crucifixion, and HUlst haxe been ,veIl 
acc! uainted ,\
ith its ordinary pheHCnneUtl, X eyer before had 
he ,vitnesscd anything like this, lIe ,va'3 stationed ,,-here he 
could see and hear all that happened: 'standing' (
. )Iark 
says) , near' uur 
t\. YIOUR,-' orer aJain.-;t Him.' ' No", ,,,hell 
the Centurion sa',- that it \yas after so crying out ("plÍça
that lie expired' (xv. 3!)) he uttered the 11lculoraLIe ".ords, 
'Truly thi
 lHan 1ras the SOX OF G.OD!' "Vhat chiefly 
llloved hÜn to make that cOllfes8ion of hi::; faith "-as that our 

A YIOUn eyiùently died 1cith pou:er.'l "The n1Ïracle" (says 
TIp. l)èar
oll) " \\-a8 nut in thé death, but Ít
 tlte 'colce. The 

1 Chrysostom, vii. 825. 




strangeness ,vas not that He should die, but that at the point 
of death lIe should cry out so loud. He died not by, but 
"Tith a l\liracle."l . . . All this ho,vever is lost in 
 13 L, \vhich 
literally stand alone 2 in leaving out the central and only 
Ï1nportant \yord, /Cpá
a,_ Calaluitous to relate, they are fol- 
lo"Ted herein by our llevisionists: \vho (nlisled by Dr. Hort) 
invite us henceforth to read,-' N o\v \vhen the Centurion sa\v 
that He so gave 
(;P the ghost.' 

(III.) In S, Luke xxiii. 42, by leaving out two little words 
(TOO and /CE ) , the saIne blind guides, under the sanle blind 
guidance, effectually lllisrepresent the record concerning the 
repentant lllalefactor. Henceforth they \vould have us be- 
lieve that' he said, " JESUS, reIllember Ule "Then thou COlllest 
in thy IGngùoln.'" (Dr. 110rt \,Tas fortunately unable to per- 
suade the Revisionists to follo\v hinl in further substituting 
'into thy kingdoln ' for C in thy kingdolll;' and so converting 
\'That, in the A. 'T., is nothing \vorse than a palpable Iuis- 
trallslatioll,3 into ,,"hat "Tonld have been an indelible blot. 
The record of his diSColllfiture survives in the margin). 
"\Yhereas none of the Churches of Christclldolll have ever yet 
doubted that S. Luke's record is, that the dying man' said 
to JESUS, LORD, rClllenlber me,' &c. 

(IV,) In S. John xiv. 4, by eliminating the second /Cat and 
the second oYSaTE, our SAVIOUR is no\," nlade to say, C ....\.nd 
,,-hither I go, ye knorw the way;' \vhich is really ahnost non- 
senSe. \Vhat He actually said \vas, , And "Thither I go ye 
knu\v, and the ,yay ye kno\v ;' in consequence of whirh (as \Vé 
all relucnl ber) , Thomas saith unto Hinl, LORD, w.e kno\v 

1 011/ the Creed, Art. iv. 'Dead:' about half-way through. 
2 The Coptic represent
 ôn È
3 Nmuely, of 
EN rll ßau. uov, which is the reading ùf every known cupy 
but two; besiJcs Origen, Eusebiu
, Cyril Jer., Chrysostum, &c, Only ß L 
read El'
,-which "\\T estcuit and l1urt adopt. 

L] S. I.rI\:E XXIII. 42: t:;, JOH
 XIV. 4: 
. Ll.TKE VI. 1. 73 

not ",,
hither" Thou gocst, and ho,v can ,,
c kno,v cc the 
"Tay "?' . . . Let these four sanlples sutlìce of a stylc of depra- 
vation ,vith ,,'hich, at the ell(l of 1800 years, it is (leliherately 
l>roposed to disfigure cyery page of the everlasting Go
aud for ".hich, '\'ere it tolerated, the Church ,nnùù have 
to thank no one so llluch as })r8. ,V cstcott and 11ort. 

"Tt 1 cannut afford, lIo" ever, so to ùisn1Ïss the phenomcna 
already opened up to the l
ea<1cr's notice. For indeed, this 
astonishing taste for Dlutilating and mainling the Sacred 
] )epusit, is perhaps the strangest phenolnenon in the history 
uf Textual CriticisIn. 

It is in this ,yay that a famous expression in S. Luke yi. 1 
has disappeared fronl codices 
 B L. The reader lllay not Le 
displeased to listen to an anecdote ,vhich has hitherto escaped 
the vigilance of the Critics :- 
C I once asked IllY teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,'-(the 
,vords are Jeroluc's in a letter to Repotianus),-' to explain tu 
111e the nlealling of S. Luke's expression (]'áßßaTov OEVTEPÓ- 
?TpWTOV, l
terally the" second-first saLLath." "I ,vill tell you 
an ahout it in church," he replied. "The congregation 

hall shout applause, aud you shall have y
ur ehoice,-cither 
tu :5tand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretcnd you 
understand ,\-hat you do not.'" But C clf'gl.udc1" lusit,' says 
Jerullle. 1 The point of the joke ,vas this: Gregory, beiug 
a great l'hetorician anù orator, ,,,auld have descanted so 
elegantly 011 the siguification of the ,\.onl OEVTEPÓ7rPWTOV that 
the congregation '\'uuhl have been Lurne a"way hy his lllClli- 
fluous periuds, 'plÍte regardlc:5s of the SCllbC. In uther ,,",ords, 
Gregory uf Nazianzus [A.D. 3GO] is found to hayc no Dlorc 
understuod the "'ord than JeroDlc did [370]. 
1\I11Lr080 2 of 
lilan [370] attelllpts to c)1>-!)lain the diffi- 

I i. :!1;1. 

2 i, 

.w, 1


s. LUKE YI. 1, l\IUTIL...\ TED. 


cult expression, but ,,'ith indifferent success. Epiphanius 1 of 
Cyprus [370] does the same ;-and so, Isidorus 2 [400] called 
, relusiota ' after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt,- 
J>s.-Cæsarius 3 also volunteers remarks on the ,vord [A.D. 400 ?]. 
-It is further explained in the Paschal Oh1'oniclc,4'-and by 
Chrysoston1 5 [370] at .L\ntioch.-' Srtbblltu'rn seenndo-pri'lìl/ll'J1"/;' is 
found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier 
evidence on the sul)ject does not exist. '"\T e venture to aSSUlllC 
that a ,vord SO attested l1lust at least be entitled to its plaee in 
the Gospel. Such a Lody of first-ratc positive I\Tth-ccntury 
testiInony, cOIning frcnn every part of ancient ChristclldoIll, 
added to the significant fact that ÓEVTEPÓ7rPWTOV is found in 
every eodex extant except 
 B L, and half a dozcn cursives of 
suspicious character, o:ught surely to be regarded as decisive. 
That an unintelligible "
ord should have got o1nittcd from a 
fe\v copies, requires no explanation. Eyery one ,vho has 
attended to the lnatter is aw"are that the negative evidence of 
certain of the Versions also is of little "peight 011 such occa- 
sions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave 
out ","hat they either failed quite to understand, or else 
found untranslateable. On the other hand, it ,,,ould be ill ex- 
})licaLle indeed, that an unique expression like the present 
should have established itself 
{;nÍ1;ersall!J, if it ,vere actually 
spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to Inind 
the precept proelivi seriptioni præstat ardlla. .Apart froIn 
external evidence, it is a thousand tÜnes 1110re likely that 
such a peculiar ,yord as this should be genuine, than the re- 
verse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very 
consideration. 6 It got excised, ho\vever, here and there froIn 
TI1anuscripts at a very early date. ..A.nd, incredible as it may 
appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence froIn 

1 i. 158. 2 P. 301. sAp. Galland. vi. 53. 
4 P. 396. 5 vii. 431. 
6 'Ut ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in proID}Jtu 

I ] 



the lllutilated codices aLoyc rcferred to, S. Luke's faIIlous 
, second-first Sabbath' has Lecn tlU'l st out of his Guspel b!J Oi'1' 
if' 'isionisls. 
nut indeeù, ::\lutilation has bccn practised throughout. 
By codex u (collated \vith the tratlitioual Text), no less than 
"2877 ".ol'lls have heen excised fronl the four GosIJels alune: 
Ly cud ex 
,-3455 "UftI:::;: by codex D,-37u4: ,vorùs. l 

As interesting a set of instances of this, as are to lJl} 
any,vhere lllet ,,'ith, occurs ,vithin the conllmss of the last 
three chapters of S, Luke's (iospel, flOlll ,vhich about 2('0 
,vonls have Leen cithl}r forcibly ejectùd by uur l
or cl:5e serYcd with' nutice to liuit.' \Ye proceed to Sl)ccify 
the chicf of these :- 

(1) 8. Luke xxii. 19, 
O. (Account of the Institution of 
thc 8acraUlcnt of the LORD'
 Supper,-frol11 ",\.hich is t!iven 
for you" to the end,-32 ,vords.) 
(2) ibid. 43, 44. (Our SAVIOUR'
 Agony ill the gartlen,- 
26 ,vords.) 
(3) xxÍü, 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passovcr, 
-8 \V ()l'd s. ) 
(4) ibid. :34, (Our LORD'S prayer un behalf of Ilis lllunlerers, 
(5) ibid. 38. (The rccord that the title on the Cross ,,'as 
,vritten in Gre
k, Latin, and IIebre\\ ,-7 '\Tords.) 

1 nut then, 25 (out of 3
0) pages of D are lo
t: D'S omissiom
 in the 
Gospels nlay therefore be e
timated at 4000. Cudex A lloes not admit of 
comparison, the first 
-! chapters of 8, )Iatth2w havin
 perished; but, frum 

nnining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it is found that G30 
would about repre
ent the nU1nber of word
 ùmitted frOln its tc
discrepancy between the texts uf B 
 D, thus/or tliefil'sl time brought dis- 
tinctly into notice, let it be tli::;tinctly borne in nûml, I::; a matter wholly 
irrespective of the merits or ò.elllcrits of the Textus TIcceptus,-which, f{,r 
convenience only, is adopted 3S a standard: not, of course, of Excellence 
but only of Compan'son. 




(6) xxiv. 1. (" and certain ,vith thenl,"--4 words,) 
(7) ibid. 3. (" of the LORD JE8US,"-3 ,vords.) 
(8) ibid. 6, (" He is not here, but He is risen,"-5 ,,-ords,) 
(9) ibid. 9. (" froIll the sepulchre,"-3 "ronIs,) 
(10) ibid. 12. (The lllelltioll of S. l)eter's visit to the 
sepulchre,-22 ,vords.) 
(11) ibid. 36, (" and saith unto thenl, Peace be unto you !" 
-5 ,yords,) 
(12) ibid. 40. (" and ",hen He had thus spoken, lIe showed 
thelll His hanùs and IIis feet," -10 ,yords.) 
(13) ibid. 42. (" anù of an honeycolub,"-4 'words.) 
(14) ibid. 51. (" and \vas carried up into Heaven,"-5.) 
(15) ibid. 52. (" ,vorshipped HÏ1n," -2 words,) 
(16) ibid. 53. (" praising and,"-2 words,) 

On an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances 
of unauthorized Omission, it will be perceived that the 1st 
passage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20) must have Leen eliminated 
frolH the Text because the mention ùf two Cups seelned to 
create a difficulty.- The 2nd has been suppressed because 
(see 1', 82) the incident was deemed derogatory to the lnajesty 
of GOD Incarnate,- The 3nl and 5th 'were held to be super- 
fluous, because the inforlnation \vhich they contain has been 
already cOllyeyed by the parallel passages.-The 10th will 
have Leen ol11Ïtted as apparently inconsistent \vith the strict 
letter of S. John xx. 1-10.-The 6th and 13th are certainly 
instances of enforced HarnlOn). -l\fost of the others (the 
4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to 
have been excised through nlere \lrantonness,-the veriest 
licelltiousness.-In the IneantÜne, so far are Drs. Westcott 
and IIort fròln accepting the foregoing account of the Inatter, 
that they even style the 1st 'a pe'pverse interpolation:' in 
,vhich vie\vof the subject, ho\yever, they enjoy the distinc- 
tion of Rtanding entirely alone. \Vith the same 'nloral cer- 
tainty,' they further proceed to shut up "rithin double 


\TlIY \\ï1'11 "ï
p 1I0HT. 


nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th: 
,\"hile the 3rd, 3th, Gth, 13th, and 16th, they exclude frotn 
their Text as indisputaLly spurious Inatter. 

Ko,v, ".e are llot al)out to abuse our l
e:HlerR' patience hy 
an inye:;tigatioll of the several p()int
 rai8etl Ly the foregoing 
F:tatelllCllt. In fact, all 8hunld have heen pa
sed lJY in silence, 
})llt that unlutl)pily the 'TIeyision' of our .6.\uthorized \-r e1'- 
siun is touched thereby yery nearly indf'cd. Sù intÏ1natc 
(n1ay "e not say, so fatal?) proves to 1e the sYlnpathy 
bet\\"een the laLours of Drs. 'Vestcott and IIort and those of 
our I
eyisionists, that 
chate1:e'r the forJrwJ" have shut up 
double brackets, the latter are discorered to have branded 'with Ct 
note oj sZlspidon, conceiveù invariably in the same tenus: 
yiz., , Sonle ancient authorities olllit.' .i.1n<1 further, 11'ludeccr 
thosc Editors hare rejected front their TC,ft, theRc Rc
!ta1'(, J'cJectetl also. It hecorues necessary, therefore, hriefly to 
l'll(l uire after the precise fil1l0unt vf Inanuscript authority 
,vhich underlies certain of the foregoing changes. .6..\nd 
happily this lnay be done in a fe,v ,yords. 

The s()le authority for just half of the places ahoyc enUlnr- 
ratptl 1 is a single Greek codex,-and that, the 1110St depraved 
of all,-yiz. Dcza's D. 2 It should further be statcll that the 
only allies discoverable fur D are a fe\v cupies of the old 
Latin, 'Vhat "e are saying ,rill 8CClH scarcely crcdil)le: but 
it i8 a plain fact, of "hich anyone tnay conyince" hiJu'3elf \vho 
"ill be at the pains tv inspect the critical appdratus at the 
fuut of the pages of Tischclldorf's last t 8th) 
dition, Uur 
lteyisionists' llution, therefure, of ,,'!lat constitutes ',\"eiHht y 
l'yitlellce' is no'v Lefore the l
cadcr. If, in Ids judglllcnt, thë 
tilllony of one siil!Jlc 'i,u(nuscript, (and that luanuscript the 

1 Yiz. the 1st, the .th to l:!th inclusive, ana the 15th. 
2 lltlnCl'rllin
 'the sil1!Jlllar coder n.'-as HI'. Ellicl)tt phra
(':-, it,-sl'f' 
Lack, 1':1
l':-; II aUll 1;). 




COllex TIezæ (D ),)-lloes really inyalidatc that uf all othc?' 
)J[llnllscripts and all othc1' VC1'Sl
OnS in the \,,"orld,-then of 
course, the Greek Text of the TIevisionists \vill in hi8 judg- 
llll'nt be a thing to be rejoiced OYer. But \vhat if he should 
he of opinion that such testimony, in and by itself, is sÜnply 
,vorthless 1 '.Ve shre\nlly suspect that the TIcvisiollists'vie\v 
of \vhat constitutes ' "
eighty Evidence' "Till be found to end 
,vhere it began, viz. in the J erusalenl Chaull)er. 

For, \\Then \ve reach do\vn codex D fronl the shelf, ,ve are 
reu1Ïnded that, \vithin the space of the three chapters uf S. 
Luke's Gospel no\v under consideration, there are in all no 
less than 354 \vords on1Ïtted; of 1.1'hich, 250 are 07/litted by D 
alonc. 1\Iay "
e have it explained tu us ,vhy, of those 354 
\yords, only 25 are singled out by Drs. "T estcott and 110rt 
fur perlnanellt excision froln the sacred Text 1 'Vithin the 
saIne cOlllpass, no less than 173 ,vords have been aildCfl by 
D to the COIlllllOllly neceived Text,-14G, sllbstitlltcd,-243, 
transposed. 1\lay ,ve ask ho,y it COllles to pass that of those 
562 \vords not one has been pronloted to their margin by 
the Revisionists 1 . . . Return "
e, hO\\Tevcr, to our list of the 
changes \v hich they actually have effected. 

(1 ) No,,,", that ecclesiastical usage and the parallel places 
,yould seriously affect such precious ,yords as are found in S. 
Luke xxii. 19, 20,-,vas to have been expected. Yet has the 
type been preserved all alon
, fronl the beginning, \vith 
singular exactness; except in one little handful of singularly 
licentious documents, viz. in D a ff2 i 1, ,yhich leave all out; 
-in b e, \yhich substitute verses 17 and 18 ;-and in 'the 
singular and sOlnetimes rather ,vild Curetonian Syriac Ver- 
sion,'l \vhich, retaining the 10 ,vords of Yer. 19, substitutes 

1 TIp. Ellicott On Revision,-p. 42. Concerning the value of the last- 
nalned authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the "deliberate testimony 
of the Chainnan of the Hevisionist body. See ùelow, p. 85. 


K I,CKE XXII. 1 0, 
O AXD XXII. 43, -1-1:. 


'\ crRCS 17, 18 for Ycr. 
O. Enough for thc cOlldemnation of 
] I suryivl\
 in Justin, I-Basil,2- Epi}Jhanius,3- ThcU(lol'ct,.- 
Crril,5-ì\L:txÏInus,6-Jcronlc. 7 But \\'hy delay oUl
elyc:-; con- 
cerning a place vouched for by c . ry known Cf)l'Y úf th (]o,'il' t,e; 
c I'ccpt D? 11rs. 'Y cstcott and 110rt entertain 'no 'IuD/'( l 
doubt that the [32] ".orùs [giycn at foot 8] ,,'ere absent frOI11 
the original text of S. Luke;' in \\'hich opinion, happily, 
thc!! Sillllc! II10 IU'. ]
ut \vhy did our l
eyisionists suffer tlLeul- 
sph'es to he led astray by such hlind guidance? 

The Jll'xt place is entitled to far grayer attention, and lllay 
on 110 account Le lightly disluisscJ, Reeing that thesc t\\.o 
verses contain the :-;ole record úf that' .Agony in the Garden' 
,,-hich the uniyersal Church has ahnust erected into an 
article of the Faith. 

(2) That the inciùent of the nlinistering Angel, the ...\gony 
anù blooùy s\\.eat of the \vorl<1's Itedcelner (
. Luke xxii. 4:1, 
-1-1), \vas ancicntly absent from certain copies uf thc Gospels, 
is expres
ly recorded by Hilary, 9 by J eronle, 10 and uthers. 
Only nece:-:sary is it to reat! the al)ologetic renlarks '\vhieh 
.Alnbrose introduces '\vhcn he reaches R. I.uke xxii. 43,J1 to 
l.11Hh'rstand \vhat has eyi(léntlv led to'this seriuus 111utilation 
of Scripture,-traces of \yhich suryiye at thiR day l'\:clu
in four cOllices, viz. A B R T. Singular to relate, in the 
Gospel ,,'hich \vas read on l\Iaundy- Thursday these t\\-O 
verses of S. Luke's Gospcl are thrust in bet\vecn the 39th 

1 i. 15ü. 2 ii. 234:. B i. 34:4. f Ï\'. 
20, 1218. 
ð In L'llc. f;r.-t (Mai, iv. 110;')). 6 ii. r.,'):t 
7 'in Lncâ lcgimu::; duos calices, quibus tliscipu1is prnpinavit,' vii. 216. 
8 Tò ÍY1rÈp ÚfLwV ÒI.Ò(íIJ.EVOV. roûTo 1rol.áTE EÌr T
V ;fL
v tìvrífLV7JcTl.v. 
pWV fLfTtÌ TtJ òfl.Trvijum, ).11OOV, TOÛTO TÒ 7TOT
 IwtV 1 ì 
Kl} iv TC:> aífLaTí fLOV, TÒ íl1rfp ÚfLWV /ICXVVOfLEVOV. 

 p, 10',2. 10 ii. ;-1;. 11 i. 151G, 
Cè hdow, p, 

80 THE '_\GO

\ LT

and the 40th verses of 8. 1\Iatthe,v xxyi, Hence, -! cursive 
copies, yiz, 13-69-124-346-( confessedly derived fron1 a 
COlnlnon ancient archetype,1 and therefore not four \vit- 
llesses but only one ),-actually exhibit these tw"O \T erses 
in that place. But \vill any unprejudiced person of sound 
lnind entertain a doubt concerning the genuinene::;s of the::;e 
t,vo Yerses, ,,-itnessed to as they are Ly the 1cholf body of the 
JlIan1lscripts, uncial as ,veIl as cursive, and by e'fe1'y ancient 
Version? . . . . If such a thing ,vere possible, it i8 hoped 
that the follo,ving enumeration of ancient Fathers, ,vhu 
distinctly l"ecognize the place under rliscussion, luust at least 
be held to be decisive :-viz. 
Justin 1\I.,2-Irenæus 3 in the 1Ind century:- 
Hippolytus,4 - Dionysius Alex.,6- ps . Tatian,6 In the 
IIII'll :- 
..A.rius,7 - EuseLius,8 - ..Athanasius,9 - Ephraenl 8Y1',,10- 
l)idYUlus,ll-Gregory N az" 12-Epiphallius, 13-Uhrysostunl, 14 
-ps.-Dionysius Areop,,15 in the IVth:- 
Julian the heretic, 16_ Theodorus 1\lops., 17_ N estorius, 18_ 
Cyril Alex,,19-raulus, bishop of Enlesa,20-Gennadins,21- 
Theodoret,22- all d several Oriental Bishops (A,D. 431),23 in 
the Vth :-besides 

1 Abbott"s Collati01l of four imp01 0 tant .Jllanusc7 o ipts, &c., 1877. 
2 ii. 35-1. 3 Pp. 5-13 and 681 (=ed. l\Iass. 21U and 277). 
4 Cont1"U Noel. c. 18; also ap. Theotloret iv. 132-3. 
Ô Ap. Galland. xix.; Append. 116, 117. 
6 Evan. Conc. pp. 55, 235. 7 Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785, 
8 It is 
B3 in his sectional system. 9 P. 1121. 
10 ii. 43; v. 392 ; vi. 60-1. Also Evan. COliC. 235. AllÙ f;ee helow, p, 82. 
11 Pp. 394, 40
, 12 i. 551. 
13 [i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42. 14 v. 
()3; vii. TVl; viii. 377. 
15 ii. 39. 16 .Ap, Theod. 1\10ps. 
17 In loco bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and 1\Iai, Scriptt. rTctt. vi. 306. 
18 Coneilia, iii. 327 a. 19 Ap. 1\lai, iii. 3ÖV. 
20 Cone ilia, iii. 1101 d, 21 Schol. 3-1. 

;3 i. ß92 j iv. 271, 429; v, 23. Conc, iii. Ð07 e, 23 C01lcili.a, iii. 740 d. 


f) TIlE ItEVJ:-3EH


Ps.-Cn"\sariUR,I-Thcodosius Alcx.,2-John Damascene,3- 
Ï1llus,4-Theoùorus hLerct.,5-Lcoutius BYZ.,6 - .L\nasta- 
sius Sin.,7-1)hotius :8 and of the Latins, llilary,9-J crVIue, 10_ 
..Augustine, ll-Cassian, 12-I")aulinus, 13_ Facll1Hlus, U 
It ,,'ill he seen that \YC ha\ e heen et1uTIlcrating 1I1n"((1Y1.
fvrf!! j{lIìlOll.
 pcrso'na!J(.'; jrO'/Ïz, cvcry lJa1't of (UU'if,d Ch,.Ú;lrn- 
dm'l, ".ho recognize these ycrscs as genuine; fourteen uf thcIn 
lu,ing as old,-some of the1l1, a great deal uldcr,-thal1 our 
ohlcRt .:\I::SS.-IV71Y therefore nr
. 'Vestcott all(I Hort shoul(} 
insist on shutting up these 
G precious ,,"ortIs-this article 
of the Faith-in double brackets, in token that it is ' 1l10ral1y 
certain' that verses 43 and 44 are of spurious origin, \VC arc 
at a luss to diyine,15 \'Te can hut ejaculate (in the ycry 
\\Tords they proceed to disallo\v),-' 
F.ATHER, forgiyc thenl; for 
they kno\\T not ,vhat they do.' But our e
pecial concern is 
,,"ith ollr Rrvisionists,. and "e do not exceed our prOyillCC 
".hen we conle for,va.rd to reproach then1 sternly for having 
RUeCUTIlhed to such evil counsels, and deliherately lJrande(l 
thcsc 'Verses with their O\Dl corporate expression uf douht. 
}"or unless that be the purpose of the luarginal Note \\-hich 
they have set against these Yerses, ,ve fail to understand the 
I tcvisers' language ana are ,,,,,hony at a Joss to divine ,\-hat 
purpose that note of theirs can be meant to serve. It is prc- 

1 Ap. Galland. vi, lG, 17, IV. 2 Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331. 
s i. 5-14-. 4 r n Dionys. ii, 18, 
6 A p; Galland. xii. GÐ3. 6 lb 'd. 688. 
7 })p. lOb, lO

, 10-l-;-;. R Epist. 138. 
9 P. lOfi!. 10 ii. 7-1'.. 11 iv. n01, 
O'2, 1013, 13f)-l. 
12 P. 373. 13 .c\ p. Galland. ix.. to. 1-1 ibid. xi. (i03. 
16 Let their (ìwn account (If the matter hl> heanl :-' The documentary 
c\'idencc clearly d
s [these yerses J a.... ale rl!1 If" st rn . k 'polation, 
ëHlol'ted in eclectic tcxts.'-' They {'an only he (t fragmelit from III 
'lh tlitioJts, writtcn or oral, which \\ ere for a while at least lucally C I OT'ld :' 
-an ' evangelic Trndit ion,' t } WJ"{'fnr(>, ' '1'( .
r.:lfl'il.f"1JJ1l oU him, lJY t h ,vrilJ('ll 
of the sec(jl/(.l ('llit U J-Y,' 


82 Dun LORD'S rnA YEU FU}{ IllS 3IUllDEREllS, [AUT, 

faced by a forlllula "Thich, (as w.e learn fronl their o"'n 
Preface,) offers to the reader the" alternatiye" of omitting the 
\r erses in question: iInplies that "it 'lcould not be safe" any 
longer to accept thelll,-as the Church has hitherto done,- 
,,"ith undoubting confidence, In a ,,'"orel,-it brands thcuL u'ith 
suspicion. . . , . "r e have Leen so full on this snhject,-(not 
half of our references ,vere know"]} to Tischendorf,)-becau
of the unspeakable preciousness of the record; and hecause 
,ye desire to see an end at last to expressions of doul,t and 
uncertainty on points \vhich fpally afford not a shado\v of 
pretence for either, These t\VO ,..... erscs ,yere excised through 
lnistaken piety l,y ccrtain of the orthodox,-jealous for the 
honour of their LORD, and alanned hy the use \vhich the 
Î1npugners of lIis Gonhead freely Inade of then1,l lIence 
phraeln [Carl/lÍ/1ft ]{isibrua, p. 14[)] puts the fol1o\\'ing "Torùs 
into the 1110uth of 
atan, addrl'ssil1g the host of Hell :-" One 
thing I \vitnessed in IIÎ1n ,,'IlÏch especially C(Hllforts Ine. I 
sa,,' JIÏ1n praying; and 1 rejoiced, for IIis countenance 
changed and He "'"as afraid, IIi,') S1ccat 1.vas drops of blood, 
for I [e ha(l a prcscntÏ1nent that IIis day had COllIC. This "Tas 
the fairest sight of all,-unless, to be sure, Hc ,vas practising 
deception on TIle. }"or verily if lIe hath deceived 1ne, then it 
is all over,-both ,vith Ine, and \\Tith you, DlY servants!" 

(-+) :Next in Ünportance after the preceding, comes tIll"' 
Prayer ,yhieh the SA YIOUR of the ,V orld breathed froIn the 
Cross on hehalf of IIis lllurderers (f;. Luke xxiii. 34). These 
t,velye precious \'
ords,-(' Then said JESUS, FATHER, forgive 
theul; for they kno\v not "That they do,')-like thu::;e 
t"\\renty-six ,yonls in S, Luke xxii. 43,44 \d1Ïch 'v"c have been 
considering already, I)rs. 'Vestcott and 1101't enclose ,vithin 
douLle Lrackets in token of the C Inol'al certainty' they enter- 

1 COIl sider the l'Iac
s refer!'cd to ill El'i}Jhaniu:5, 


D non r 


ta i II that the "'Ut'( h; are spurious,l ... \nd yet these ,,'orùs arc 
foullt1 in ('rcry known nncirtf and in fl'f]'Y known c1l;'.
il'e Cnll!!, 
cx('('pt four; hesirles heing found in every ancient J T c;'sioll. AIHI 
w!uTf,-(,,"'c ask thc (l'l.cstion ,vith 
inccrc silnplicity,)- 
'what aIllount of cvidence is calculated b1 inspirc unduuhting 
confidence in any existing lleaùillg, if not such a concurrenl:C 
of Authorities as this 1. . . 'Ve forbear to insist upon the pro- 
babilities of the case. The l)iyine po,ver and s,veetness of the 
incident r-;hall not he pularged upon. ,yo e introùuce no 
considerations resulting fronl Intrrnal E,.illence. True, that 
(C fe'v vcrses of the Gospels bear in thclllsel yes a surer ".itness 
to the Truth of what they record, than this," (It is the 
adulission of the very IHan 2 ".ho has nevertheless dared to 
brand it with suspicion,) But "
e reject his loathsolue patron- 
age ,vith indignation. "Internal Eyidence,"-" Transcriptioual 
l)robability,"-aud all such · chaff and drafl:' "ith "rllÍch he 
fills his pages ad nauscarn, and nlystifies nobody but hiInself, 
-shall be allo,yed no place in the present discussion. Let 
this verse of Scripture stand (lr fall as it Inects ,,-ith sufficicnt 

xtcrllal testÏInollY, or is forsaken thereby. Ho,v then a bout 
the Patristic eyi(lence,-for this is all that rClnains unex- 
plored ? 
Only a fraction of it ".a
 kllO\\?ll to Ti
chen<lorf. "r e 
fin (1 our S.\ VIOUR'S Prayer attested,- 

1 The Editors shall speak for theInseh-es concerning this, the first of the 
'8C\-en la
t \Y ords :'-' \Ye cannot doubt that it com.es/rom au e.rtralleom: 
source :'-' need not have belonged ori 6 inally to the book in 
,'hicll, it is nOl" 
Ùlclwled :'-is 'a 1rcst.ern interpoltltio".' 
Dr. IIort,-ullCOll!=icÌOUS apparently that he i!-- ( t tli -' bUl', not Oil the bendl, 

 sentelwe (in his usual imperial 
l'ylc)-" TC':\t, "... e:-.tern and 
Syrian" (p. (),).-But then, (l
t) It happens that our LORD'R interees:-;ion 
on hehalf of lli:-; mur(lcrers is attestetl hy upwards of forty Patristic 
witnc!'scsfrom every part rif ancicnt Cllrist,'udom: while, (211dly) On thp 
contrary, the place..; in which it is 110t fmulfl are certain copies of the oM 
Latin, and codex D, which i
 supposed to he our 
reat C \\\>:-;tel'n ' witnc

2 nr, Hurt's N. T. yoI. ii. ...VI/l t , p. fj

( ... ) 
-c _ 




In the fInd century ùy Hegesippus, I_ana by Irenæus : 2_ 
In the IIII'd, by Hippolytus,3-by Origen,4-by the 
Apostolic Constitzäions,5-by the Clementine IIo1ìziliu;,6-by 
ps.-Tatiall,7- an d by the disputation of Archelaus "Tith 
l\fanes :8_ 
In the IVth, by Eusebius,9-by Athanasius,lO-by Gregory 
N yss., ll-by Theollorus Herac.,12-by Rasil, 13_by Chry
8t0111,14-by Ephraeul Syr.,15-by ps.-EphraÏ1n,16-by ps,- 
Diouysius Areop,,17-by the Apocryphal Acta Pilati,18-by 
the .
4cta Philippi,19-and by the Syriac Acts of the App.,20 
-by pS,- Ignatius,21-alld ps,-J ustin :22_ 
In the Vth, by Theodoret,23-hy Cyril J 24 -by Eutherius :25 
In the 'TIth, by -L
llastasius Sill,,26-by JlesyehiuH :27_ 
In tlll' 'TIltll, by Alltiuchus 111011,,28-by 
....<11111reas Cret. : 30_ 

1 Ap. Eus. Ilist. Eecl. ii. 
3. 2 r. 521 and. . . [
Iass. 210 and 277.] 
3 Ed. Lagarùe, p. ô5 line 3. f ii. 188. J-Jær. iü. 18 p. 5. 
ð Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127. 8 ibid. ii. 714. (lImn. xi. 20.) 
7 Evan. Cone. 275. 8 Ap. Ruuth, v. 16l. 
9 He places the verses in Can. x. 10 i. 1120. 11 iii. 289. 
12 Cat. 'l
n Ps, iii. 219. 13 i. 290. 14 15 times. 
15 ii. -18, 321, 428; ii. (syr.) 233. 18 .E
van. Gone. 117, 256. 
17 i. 607. 18 rp. 23
, 286. 19 P. 85. 
20 Pp. 11, 16. Dr. 'V right assigns them to the IVth century. 
21 Epll. c. x. 22 ii. 166, 168, 226. 23 6 times. 
21 .Ap. )Iai, ii. 187 (= Cranler 5
); iii. 3Ð2.-Dr. Hort's strenuous 
pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is plainly 
against hiIn) is 3.1nusing. 80 is his dailn to have the cursive" 82" on his 
side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits throughout his ingenious 
yolmne. Yet are we scarcely prepared to finù an upright and honourable 
Ulan contending so hotly, and ahnost on any pretext, for the support of 
those very Fathers which, when they arc against him, (as, 9Ð tÌlnes out of 
100, they are,) he treats with utter contUlnely. He is observed to put up 
with any ally, however insignificant, who even seems to be on his side. 
25 .Ap. Theod. v. 115
, 26 Pp. -:123, 457. 
Z1 Cat. in Ps. i. 768; ii. 663. 28 Pp. 1109, 1134. 
29 i, 374. so P. 93. 



 'l'll I.; CHù


In the \''lIlth, l)y John I )aIllasccne,1-beside.s p:-,.-Chry- 
soStt)lU,2_ pS . ...'\.ulphilochius,3_ allù the Opus ir,tpcrf' 
..Add to this, (since Latin authorities have becn bruught to 
the [runt ),-..t\.lllLrose,f'-1Iilary,6-J erollle,7- \ugu:-5tine,8- 
all(I other earlier ,vriters. 5J 
\Ve have thus again enulllcraÜ,d 'upwurd.') of Im't!! ancicnt 
}"athcrs. ...\nd again we a
k, 'Yith ,vhat f;ho,v of reason is 
the hrand set upon these 12 ".on1s? Grav(oly to cite, as 
if there ,vcre anything in it, such cuunter-evi(1cnce a:-5 the 
fuIlo,,-ing, to the foregoing torrent of TestÌ1110ny fr0111 e\ ery 
part of ancient ChristcnùoJll :-viz: 'B D, 38, 435, a h d . and 
one Egyptian version '-might really hayc bcen nlistaken fur 
a 'lnauraise plais(lJltcric, ".cre it not that the gravity of the 
occasion effeetual1y prechHles the supposition. 11 U\\' could 
our l
(oyisionists dare to insinuate ùouhts into ,nn criu(' 
- - '" 
hearts and unlearned heads, ""here (as here) they ".erc ÙVlllld 
tu knu'v, there exists nu '1nannCl' of dUllbt at all? 

(5) The record of the san1e Evangelist (S. Ll1 ke xxiii, 38) 
that th
 Inscription over our S
\ YIOUH'S Cro8s was '''Tittcn 
. . . in letters of Greck, anù Latin, and IIelnew,' disappe(trs 
entirely frol11 our ' Ite,.ised' version; and this, for no uther 
reasou, but becausc the incident is onlitted by BeL, the 
COITUl't Egyptian ver
ions, and Cureton's depra,-cd 
the tc"'\.t of \\-hich (aceunlillg to 131" Ellicott 10) "is of a 
very cOluposite nature,-so/lu:timcs inclilLÏuy to the shortncss 
and SiJllplicity 01 the Vatican lII.all USCl'ipt" (13): e.g. UIl the 
present occasion. But surely the ncgati,'c testÜuuny of this 
little band ûf disreputable ,,'itnesses is cntirely out\\ eighc(l 
Ly thü l'úsitivc evidence of 
 \ D (l It ,,-ith 13 other uncial::;,- 

1 ii. G7, 747. 2 i. 814; ii. 819; v.733. s P.8b. 
" Ap
 Chrys. vi. un. ð 11 times. 6 P. 7t::! f. 7 I:? timc:s. 
8 )Iore than r.O times. 9 .Ap. Cypr. (cd. Halul'c), &e. &c. 
10 On J:f.. cisiuu,-p. 4.2 notf-. See above, p. 78 1wtC. 




the evidence of the entire body of the eursi
'es,-the sanction 
of the Latin,-the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac,-thc 
Annenian,-LEthiopic,-and Georgian versions; besides Euse- 
hius-,vhose testÏ1nony (,vhich is express) has been hitherto 
strangely overlooked, I-and Cyril. 2 Against the threefold 
plea of Antiquity, Respectability of witnesses, Universality 
of testÜnony,-,vhat have our Revisionists to sho\v 1 (a) They 
cannot pretend that there has been AssÏ1nilation here; for 
the type of S. John xix. 20 is essentially different, and has 
retained its distinctive character all do,,
n the ages. (b) Nor can 
they pretend that the condition of the Text hereabouts bears 
traces of having been jealously guarded. vVe ask the Iteadcr's 
attention to this lnatter just for a 1l10lnent. There lllay be 
SUllle uf the occupants of the J erusalClll CluunLer even, to 
'VhOlll "hat ,ve are al)out to offer Inay not be altogether 
,vithunt the grace úf novelty :- 

That the Title ull the Cross is diversely set do,vn by each 
of the futH Evangelists,-all nlen are aware, liut perhaps 
all are not a ,vare that S. LllJ
e's rccord of the Title (in 
eh, xxiii, 38) is exhibited in fo"nr diffcl'cnt WCtys by codices 
ABC D :- 
B (,vith 
 L and a) exhibits-o BACI^EYC TWN IOYðAIWN 
c exhibits- 0 BACI^EYC TWN IOY ðAIWN (which is nlk. 
xv. 26). 
D (with e and fI-:l) exhibits-o BAC'^EYC TWN IOY 
OYTOC ECTI N (which iÑ the words of the Evangelist 
transposed ). 
'Ve propose to recur to the foregoing specÏ1llens of licen- 
tiousness by-and-by.3 For the 1l10lllent, let it Le added that 

1 .EdO!J. Proph. 1)' 8ft. 

2 In 1 Uf. 435 and 71

e(' pascf. 



TEH BY N n c n. 


co(lex x and the Sahidic ycrsion conspire in ß fifth variety, 
(\\yhieh is S. :ì\Iatt. xxvii, 37); \vhile Anlùrosc 1 is foun<l to 
have used a Latin copy ,vhich represcnted IHCOYC 0 NAZW- 
PAIOC 0 BACI^EYC TWN IOY ðAIWN (\\-hich is S. John xix. 18)_ 
"r e s!)arc the reader any rC1narks of our o\\pn 011 all this. ITe 
is conlpetent to dra\y his o\vn painful inferences, and ,yill not 
fail to nUlkc his u\vn dalnaging reflectiuns. IIc shall only lJc 
further inforIued that 11 uncials and the ,,-hole Lody of the 
cursive copies side "yith codex _\. in upholding the Traditional 
Text; that the 'Tulgate,2-the reschito,-Cureton's Syriac,- 
the l>lliloxenian; - besides the Coptic, - .A.nneniall, - and 
Æthiopic versions-are all on the sallie side: lastly, that 
Origen,3-Eusehius,-and (1regory of Nyssa 4 are in addition 
cUllsentient "yitnesses ;-and \''"e can hardly he lliistaken if 
we venture to anticipate (lst),-That the TIeader ".ill agree 
".ith us that the Tc-xt "
pith ,,"hich ,ye arc best aC<llulÏnted 
(as usual) is here deserving ûf all cùnfidence; aud (2ndly), 
-That the I:evisionists \\'ho ap-sure ns 'that they did llot 
estccIll it "ithiu their proyince to construct a continuuus and 
coulplete Greek Text;' (and \,.ho "'ere Heyer authurized to 
construct a neu: Creel.; Text at all;) "Tere not justifieù ill the 
eourse they have pursued ,,'ith regarll to S. Luke xxiii. :

C THIS IS THE l\::IXG OF TilE JE\\T8' is thl' only idioluatic "'ay 
of rendering into English the title according to 
_ l..u1.e, 
,dlcther the reaùing of .A or of B Le allopted; but, in urder tu 
Blake it plain that they reject the Ureek of A in frtt"our (If TI, 
the l
e\yisionists have gone out ùf their \\pay. They have 
instructed the t\VO Editors of ' The G1'cck Tcstaulcnt tJJith tile 

1 Í. 1528. 
2 So Seduliu
chalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595. s iii. 
4 Euseb. Eel. Proph. p. 89: Greg, Nyss. i. 570.-Thc::;e last tWl' places 
have hitherto cSt:apctl oh;crvation. 


TEX'!' O!i' 8. LUKE XXI'-. 1, FAL

[A Itrr 

IlcadÙlgs adopted by th Revisers of the Authorized Version' 1 
to exhibit B. Luke xxiii. 38 as it stands in the 'ì71/ltlilatcd 
'ì"eccnsion of Drs, 1fT cstcott tnd H01"t. 2 And if this procedure, 
repea.ted nutny hundreds of tÌlnes, be not constructing a 'nc\v 
Greek Text' of the N. T., we have yet to learn ,vhat is. 

(6) Frolll the first verse of the concluding chapter uf 
S. Luke's Gospel, is excluded the fanliliar clause-' and certain 
othc'rs 'with thC1n' (Kat TlVEC; uvv aVTaîc;). And pray, \yhy? 
For no other reason but because 
 BeL, with 801ue Latin 
authurities, umit the clause ;-and uur Revisionists do the 
like, on the plea that they have only been getting ria of a 
, hannonistic insertion.' 3 But it is nothing uf tlll:} sort, as \ve 
proceed to explain, 

AUl111onÏ118, or soniC predecessor of his early in the IInll 
century, sa" fit (,vith veryerse ingenuity) to seek to force 
s. Luke xxiii. 55 into agreelllent ,vith S. l\Iatt. xxvii. G1 and 
S. Mark xv. 47, by turning KaTa/('oÀOVe
uaG"at ùÈ /(,aì ryvvaîKE" 
-into KaT'1}KoÀo-ú8'11uav ùÈ AT'O "yvvaîKEC;. This done, in order 
to produce' harnlonistic' agreement and to be thorough, the 
same lnisguided individual proceeded to run his pen through 
the "Tords 'and certain ,vith them' (Kaí TlVEf) uvv aVTa'i
) as 
inopportune; and his ,york "as ended. 1750 years ha vo 
rolled by since theu, and- "That traces renuÜn of the luan's 
foolishness 1 Of his firl'st feat (,ve ans,ver), Eusebius,4 D and 
Evan. 29, besides five copies of the old Latin (a b e ff2 q), arc 

1 See above, pp. -H)-50, note 2. 
2 Viz.) thus :-
v ð; Kaì È7rc"ýpa

 È7r t aùTCi', (0 ßac]'tÀfùr Twv'Iovôaíwv 
. S Dean Alford, in loco 
 ÀÉ"ýfL TWV uaßßáTCùv ðpBpov ßaBÉor 
ÉpfLV cÌp(
p.aTa "ýuvaîKn
, , t À B ' t -.. 'i' t, - r À À ' À 
A Y 0 Tas- aKO ou T}uaua
 aUT':': at nVH T}UUV a7rO TT}
 a" aw
 uvvaKO OU- 
'Taum, ÖTf ;ea7TTov aÙTÒV tÀ.BovUat È7rì TÒ ,wijJ-La. uïnVH AY'O, K.T.À,,- 
f(fll11arinulIl, ap. :Mal, iv, 


. 1:!. 


the s(JI
 survi\ iug \Vitnesses. Of his s 'It' achievclIll'ut, 
NBC J., 
3, 124, have prescrved a record; Lcsides s \ven copi 18 
of the O hl Latin ( a b c e ff-2 (r- 1 1 ) toaether \vith the \Tu]fJate 
o , 0 r- , 
the Coptic, and EuseLius in une place 1 though not in allother. 2 
The He.HIer i;3 thercfore invite(l to notice that the talJlcR ]mve 
1 )een unexpectedly turneù upon uur oppollellts. S. T..u ke 
introduced the ,,,,ords 'anù certain ,,,ith thcIn,' in oilIer tu 
rrepare us for ,,
hat he ,,-ill have tu say in xxiv. ] U,-viz. 'It 
,vas l\Iary 
Iagdalene, and Joanna, and 1\la1'Y the nlothcr uf 
Janles, and other 'l/'Ofnen 'lcitlt tlwfn, ,vhich told these things 
unto the Apostles.' Some stupid hanllonizer in the IInù 
ccntury omitted the ,yords, because they ""ere in his '\"ay. 
Calamitous ho,vever it is that a clause ,vhich the Church has 
long since deliberately reinstated Sh01Ùd, ill the year 1881, Ù 
as deliberately banished fur the second tiIne frolll the sacred 
page by uur llc,"isionists; ,vIto under the plea of fl7llClulÙI[1 
ollr l
'n!/lish Altth()
izcd Versi01b have (,,,,ith the hest inten- 
tions) fal::,ificd the G'reck l'cxt of the Gospels in cuuntle

places,-often, as here, "yithout notice and ,vithout apology. 

(10) 'Ve find it Ünpossible to pass by in silence the treat- 
Iuent ,vhich 
. Luke xxiv. 12 has experienced at their hands. 
They have branded ,villi doubt S. Luke's llleulorable accouHt 
of S. })eter's visit to the sepulchre. 
<\.nd \vhy? Let the 
cvi(lence for thi:j precious portion uf the narrative be first 
rehear:-)ed, Xilleteen uncials then, with N .A B at their head, 
supported IJY CL"c'ry knÚI()'n cursirc copy,-all these youch fur 
the genuineness of the verse in question. The Latill,-the 
byriac,-alld the Egyptian versions alsu contajn it. :Eusc- 
Lius,3-Grcgory of Kys::;a,'-Cyril,5-Severus,6-_\..111111011ius, T 

1 Ps. i. 7ft. 
3 .Ap. \lai, iv. 
87, :.!U3. 
e Ap, nallallll. xi. 
:! 1. 

2 Dun. .H'
f i. 3ü-1. ð _\ p. )Iai, ii. 43:). 
7 nit. ill J(J(l71 11 , p. 433 

90 S. LUKE XX IV, 36 ...\
O 40; S. l\L\TTII. XVII. 21, [ART. 

and others 1 refer to it: ,vhile no ancicnt 'writcr is found tu 
Ï1npugn it. Then, 'll,hy the duu hIe brackets of l)rs. "T estcott 
and Hort? and 'Ichy the correlative Inarginalnotè of our Hcvi- 
sionists ?-SÏ1nply because D and 5 copies of the old Latin 
(a bel fu) leave these 22 ,vords out. 

(11) On the same sorry evidence-( viz. D and 5 copies of 
the old Latin )-it is proposed hen
eforth to onlÏt our 
SA VIOFR'S greeting to His disciples \vhen He appeared alllong 
thCIll in the upper clHunl)er on the 
velling uf the first l
Day. And yet the precious ,vords (' a/Lt! saith nntu thel/I, 
Peace be 'U nto YOlt;' [Lu. xxiv. ;36],) are vouched for by 18 
uncials (,,-ith N A II at their hea<l), and cvery 7.,;nown curs-i'vr 
copy of thp G-ospcls: by all the Versiolls: and (as before) by 
Euscbius,2-and -L\Jubro::)c,3-by Chrysostom,4-alld Cyril,5- 
and Augustille. 6 

(12) The sallle rel11arks suggest thenlscl ves un a survey uf 
the evidence fur S. Luke xxiv. 40 ;--' 
lJld wlu'n He harl 
tll/US spoken, He shozocd tllC'Jli llis h(l'}lds foul IIi::; feet,' The 
,vords are found in 18 uncials (beginning ,,
 An), alltl ill 
eycry kllo,vn cursive: in the Latin, 7 - the Syriac,-the 
Egyptian,-in short, in all the ancient Versions, :Besides 
these, ps.-J ustin, 8_ Eusebius, 9-_Athanfisius, lO-Anlhrose (in 
Greek),ll- Epiphanius,12 - Chrysostolll,13 - Cyril,14-Theo- 

1 Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thcssal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189. 
2 Ap. l\Iai, iv. 293 bis; 294 diserte. S i. 506,1541. 4 Hi. 9l. 
5 iv. 1108, and L'llc. 728 (= 
Iai, ii. 441). 6 iii. 2 142; viii. 472. 
7 So Tertullian :-' Manus et pcdes SlWS inspiciendos offert' (Garn. c. 5). 
'Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert' (Jlærc. iv. c. 43). Also 
J crome i. 712. 
8 De Res'll]'. 240 (quoted by J. D:unascenc, ii, 762). 
9 Ap. 
Iai, iv. 294. 11) i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003. 
11 Ap. rrhcodorct, iv. 141. 12 i. 4V. 13 i. 510; ii, 408, 418; iii. Ul. 
11 iv. 110R; vi. 23 (1;'in.), .L\p, 
[ai, ii. 142 ler. 




dnret,t- \.uullonius,2- anù John DalUaStCnc 3-(luute theill. 
'Vhat hut the verie
t trifling i
 it, ill the faee of 
nH'h a 
l)()(ly of evi(lellee, to bring fOl'\nlrtl tllP fact that D allc1 j 
copies of tlH' 01(1 IJatin, ,vith Curcton's 
yriac (of which 
"'è have had the dutractcr already'), úrnit the \vurds in 
<luestiun ? 

The foregoing enulncration uf instances of Thlutilatiull 
lnight be enlarged to almost any ex.tent. Take only thn",
Illure short hut striking speeiUlellS, before ,vc pass on :- 
(a) Thus, the precious verse (8, l\Iatthev{ xvii. 21) ,vllich 
declares that' this kind [of evil spirit] [Jocth not out but by 
lJìYlYCJ' and fa/sting,' is expunged by our TIevisionists; 
although it is vouched for by every kno\vn uncial but two 
(ll N), every kno,vn cursive lnä one (Evan. 33); is \\yitncssed 
to by the Old Latin and the Vulgate,-the Syriac, Coptic, 
Arrnenian, Georgian, .LEthiopic, and Sla vonie versions; Ly 
Origen,5- Athanasius,6- Basil,1- Chrysostom,8 - thc Opus 
Ùnpcrj,9-the Syriae Clelnent, lO--and John Dalnascene; lI_ 
Ly Tertlùlian,-AlllLrose,- Hilary,-J uvencus,-.A.ugu'3tillc, 
-:\IaxÎ1nns Taur.,-and by the Syriae vel"sion uf the Canons 
uf Eusevilts: aLuve all by the U ni, ersal East,-having been 
lead in all the churches ûf Oriental Christellduln un the 10th 

unday after rentecost, froln the earliest periud. 'Yhy, in 
the ,vorld, then (our reaùers \vill ask) havc the l
left tho::;c ,yords out 1 . . . For no other reason, "pc ans"per, 
but Lecause Drs. \Vestcott and Hart place thelll tl.lllong the 
interpolatiolls \,,-hich they consider un,,, orthy of being even 

l' 9-') 
IV. ...

2 Cat. in Joan. 4G2, 3. 
cc above, pro ,H and h3. 
8 ii. It-I (ct!. IfJUH). 
8 ii. ;;OU; iv. ::1); v. .jjl; vii. :')HI. 
)0 I ' . ( I' II . .. ) f1" í' f 
}), J. "p, ua . 1, p. Xli, 11, In:t. 

:s i. 303. 
:; iii. 5,U. 
7 ii. 
(;:!, 'j

p vi, 7!t. 

 s. l\L\TTII. XYIII, 11 .AND S, LUKB IX. 55, 56, [AnT. 

, exceptionally retained in association ,,'ith the true Text.' 1 
, \Vestern and Syrian' is their oracular sentence,2 

(b) The blessed declaration, , The Son of J[an is COllW to 
save that 'which was lost,'-has in like lllanner been expunged 
by our Revisionists frolll S. l\latth. xviii. 11; although it is 
attested by every kno"Tn uncial except B 
 L, and eyery 
kllo"Tn cursive except three: by the old Latin and the Vul- 
gate: by the Peschito, Cureton's and the l)hiloxenian Syriac: 
by the Coptic, Armenian, LEthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic 
versions: 3 - by Origen,4 - Theoùorus IIeracl., 5 - Chrysu- 
stoll1 6 -and Jovius 7 the monk ;-by Tertullian,8-.L
Hilary, 10_J crOl11e, ll_pope Darnasus 12_ all d Augustine :13_ 
above all, by the Universal Eastern Church,-for it has been 
read in all asselnblies of the faithful on the 11l01TO,V of J>ente- 
cost, frOln the beginning. \'''"hy then (the reader "Till again 
ask) have the l{evisionists expunged this yerse? \Ve can 
only ans,ver as before,-because Drs. \Vestcott and lIort 
consign it to the limbus of their Appendix; class it anlong 
their 'llejected lleadings' of the most hopeless type. 14 
before, all their sentence is ' Western and Syrian.' They 
add, 'Interpolated either from Lu. xix. 10, or fronl an in- 
dependent source, "Tritten or oral.'15 . .. \\Till the English 
Church suffer herself to be in this ,yay defrauded of her 
priceless inheritance,-through the irreverent bungling of 
,vell-intentiuned, but utterly Inisguided Illen? 

1 Text, pp. 565 and 571. 2 Append. p. 1-t 
S 'tV c depend for our Ver::;iuns on Dr. S. C. :Malan: pp. 31, 4-!. 
4 ii. 1-17. COIlC. v. 675. 5 Cord. Cat. i. 376. 
6 vii. 599, 600 discrtc. 'i Ap. Photium, p. G 1-1. 
8 Three times. 9 i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137. 
10 Pp. 367, 699. 11 vii. 139. 
12 Ap. Galland. vi. 324. 1:1 iii. P. i. 760, 
14 Text, p. 572. 1:5 Append. p. 1-1. 


t;nU TIL\ \ 


(r) J n the ,.,aIDe' ,yay, uur LOUD'S ÌInportant saying,-' }rc 
klUJll' Iwt 'wlu t IIlftlllll r vi ,"pirit yc 1'C ùl: for the Sun oj '1fl."'/ 
i,') nut C lite tv deðtJ'vy 'nl,cn's Ii]; s, but to s .C ilL lit' (
. T...ukc 
ix. 35, 5G), has disappearcll fronl uur C ltcvised' V crsiun ; 
although :\Ianuseripts, Versions, Fathers frunl the scco/td 
century ÙO\\"lnnu'ùs, (as Tisehcnùorf aùn1Ïts,) ".itness elo- 
(lUClltly in its fayuur. 

'Y'. In cunclusion, we prop()
e to advert, just for a mOlnent, 
to tho:se five sevcral nlÏs-rcple
entations of S. Luke's' TitIt-. 
on thl' Cross,' ,dtich 'were rehearsed aùo\Tc, yiz. in page Hô. 
....i\t so gross an exhibition of liccntiousness, it is thc luere 
instinct of Natural Piety to exclaÎ1n, -But then, could not 
those Inen even set down so sacred a record as that, correctl \r ? 
They could, had they ùecn so Inindcd, no doubt, (\ve ans\\Tcr): 
but, 11lar\rcJ]ous to relate, the TIL\X:::;P08ITIO
 of \\yorus,-no 
nuttter ho\\ significant, sacred, solclnn ;-uf short clau
even of ,,"hole sentences of Scripture; - ,,'as aneientIy 
accounted an allo\nLble, e, en a graceful exerci:se uf thr critical 

The thing alluded to is incredible at first sight; being so 
often dune, apparently, ,yithout any rcason ,,"hatever,-ur 
rather in defiance of all reason, l..et candidus Ie 'lor he the 
judge \\yhether \ye speak truly or not. 'Vhereas
. Luke 
(xxi,". 41) says, 'And 
fhilc tlley yet bcliered 1Wt JOI. joy, 
and 1.1'ondcrfd,' the scril>e of codex 
\ (by ""ay of Ï1npro\'ing 
upon the Evangeli:.;t) transposes his f\entellee illto this, C .i\.ull 
 they yet disbeliryed JIirll, alul u'oJl,t!crecl fur Juy: ' 1 
,,,hidl is abuust llonbens
, or quite. 

nut takr a lc

 solenln exanlplc. Instead of,-' _\.n<1 Jli

1 ;n Sf (ì7TllTT()VVTWV Ut/Tef), leal Bd\Jp.a(t:vTwV (ìr.(
 Tijr Xapûr. 


D XX. 


disciples plucked the ca'ì's of corn, and ale them, (.ovç; 
uTáxvaç;, Kaì 
U810V,) rubbing them in their hands' (S. Luke 
vi. l),-n C L R, by transposing four Greek \yords, present us 
\yith, , And His disciples plucked, and ate the cars of COTn, 
(Kaì 1]u8tov TOVÇ; uTáxvaç;,) rubbing theIn,' &c. N O\V this 
Inight have been an agreeable occupation for horses and for 
another quadruped, no ùoubt; but hardly for luen. This 
curiosity, ,vhich (happily) proved indigestible to our 11evi- 
sionists, is nevertheless s\vallo"Ted \vhole by nI's. 'Vestcott 
and Hort as genuine and \vholesonle Gospel. (0 d lira 
Doctol'u/nL ilia f)-But to proceed. 

Then further, these prcposterous TranRpositious arc uf 
such perpetual recurrence,--are so utterly useless or else so 
exceedingly mischievous, always so tasteless,-that fan1iliarity 
\vith the phenolnenon rather increases than lessens our 
astonisJllnent. 'Yhat does astonish us, ho\vever, is to fiull 
learned 111cn in the year of grace 1881, freely resuscitating 
these 10Ilg-since-forgotten bétiscs of 101lg-sincc-forgotten 
Critics, and seeking to palIn then1 off ul)on a busy and a 
careless age, as so many ne\v revclations. That "Te luay not 
be thought to have s11o\yn undue partiality for the xxiind, 
xxiiiI'd., and xxivth chapters of S. Luke's Gospel by selecting 
our instances of Afu.lilation frol11 those three chapters, \ye 
,,'ill no\,,"" look for specÏ111ens of Transposition in the xixth 
and xxth chapters of the sallle Gospel. The reaùer i.s 
invited to collate the Text of t 1 1e oldest uncials, throughout 
these t,vo chapters, \vith the conullonly Received Text. He 
,vill filH.l that \vithin the cOlllpass of 88 consecutive yerses, l 
codices NAn C D Q exhibit no less than 74 instances of Trans- 
position :-for 39 of ,,'hich, D is reRponsible :-
 ll, for 14:- 

 n D, for 4 each :-A Band N .A B, for 3 each :-A, for 

1 Yiz, from ch, xix. 7 to xx. -!G, 




2 :-B, C, l
, N A, and ft D, each for I.-In other ".or<<ls, he will 
nlHl that in no less than 44 of these installcrs uf Tr(ln:-.posi- 
tion, D is iInplicatcd :-
, in 26 :-ß, in 
j :-A, in 10 :-"9hilc 
C alHl Q arc concerncd in only one a-piece. . . . . It should 
ùe addpcl that Drs, \Vcstcott 1.UÙ 110rt llaye adopted CVC)'Y ,w 
nf tit 
j in wll irlL ('odr.(' H is c(JJl('cl'll{'d-a significant inùica- 
tion of the sUl)erRtitious rCVl'rence in .which they hold that 
ùernollstra hly corrupt and lIl()
t untrust".orthy <loculllellt. 1 
EYl}ry other case of Transp()
ition they have rejected. TIy 
their o,vn confession, therefore, 49 out of the 74 (i.e. t", 0- 
thirt1s of the entire llunlùer) arc instances of depravation. 
'Ve turn ,,-i th curiosity to the TIc \9ised "\r ersion; and discover 
that (Jut of the 
3 so retained, the l
ditors in question ,,"cre 
only ahle to pcrsuaùe the l
cyisiollists to adopt 8. So that, 
in the judgulent of the l
eyisiollists, Gß out of 74, or clcvcn- 

1 \Ye take lc:tve to l}oint out that, howeyer favouraùle the estimate Dr::;. 
,y c
tcott and lInrt may have perf;onally f(mnc<l of the v:tlue and import- 
ance of the Yatican Cmlex (B), nuthing call excuse their summary hanùling, 
not to say their contcmptuous di
rcganl, of all evidence adverse to that of 
t.hcir own fanmrite guidc. r:I.'hcy pass by whatevcr makc::; again
t the 
reading thcy adupt, with the omcular announcement that the rival reading 
Ï::; , Syrian,' 'n"{ stenl,' 'rrf stern and ::Jyrian,' a
 the case may he. 
But we respectfully submit that 'Syrian,' 'nrest -rn,' 'nTe
tern awl 
Syrian,' as Critical expres!o;ions, are absolutely 
ithout meaning, as well as 
v. ithout use tu a student in this difficult departmcnt of sacrcd Science. 
Thcy :mpply no information. They are neyer !o;upporteJ by a particle uf 
intelligible eYidence. Thcy arc often dcnlOJ)!.;trahly \non
, and always 
unrea.sonable. They are Dictation, not Criticism. 'Vhen at last it is 
ùiscoyercd that they do Lut signify that certain words are not found in 
cod(x ß,-thcy are perceh 9 L'(.1 tû be the vcrit::.t foolishness al:.;o. 
 is impus::.ible while this mcthud is permitted to prc,,"ail. If 
the:,(' dbtiugllishcJ Profcs::;urs have enjoyed a UC\ elation as t\l what tho 
Evangelist::; actually wrote, thcy would du \, ell to aC'luaint the wurld with 
t.he fact at th
 earlicst pus
iLlc mumcnt. If, 011 the contrary, tJwy arc 
merely relying on thcir own inner con::;ciou
ness for the power of divining 
tIle truth (If 
cripture at a g]a.nc<",-they mu::;t he prepared to find thcIr 
decree::; trcatcd with the contUlncly which is duc to impostun. a , of whatc\'cr 




t1vclfths, are instances of licentiçnls tampering \vith the 
deposit. . . . . 0 to participate in the yerifying faculty \vhich 
guided the teachers to discern in 25 cases of Transposition 
out of 74, the genuine ,,"ork of the HOLY GHOST! 0, far 
111ore, to have been born \vith that loftier instinct ,vllÌch 
enabled the pupils (Doctors I
oLerts and 
Iilligan, N e,vth 
Ioulton, 'T ance Su1Ïth aud Bro,vn, Angus and Eadie) to 
\VillnO\V out frorn the entire lot exactly 8, and to reject the 
reulaining 66 as nothing \vorth! 

According to our o\vn best judgment, (and \ve have care- 
fully exanlÏned theIn all,) C'VC1'Y one of the 74 is \vorthlcss. 
TIut then 'U.C Inake it our fundaInelltal rule to reason ahvays 
fron] grounds of external Evidence,-never fronl postulates of 
the Illiagination. 
foreover, in the application of our rule, 
\,e begrudge no anlount of labour: reckoning a long SUIll111er'S 
day \yell spent if it has enaùled us to ascertain the truth 
concerning une :single euntroverted \vord of Scripture. Thus, 
\\yhen \ve find that uur l
evisionists, at the suggestion of 
1>1'. Hort, have transposed the familiar Angelic utterance (in 
S L k . 7) "'\' 
,.., '" ,.., e ' 
. u 
Do81}val,,-into this, Àf:rywv TÒV VLÒV Toil àv8pW7TOV ÖTt DE'ì, &c" 
\yo at once enquire for thc cvidcncc. And \vhen \ve find that 
no single Father, no single 'T ersion, and no Codex-except 
the notorious 
 n C L--ad vocates the proposed transposition; 
but on the contrary that every Father (froln A,D. 150 do"Tn- 
"Tards) \,Tho quotes the place, 
uotes it as it stands in the 
Textus receptus; 1 - \ve have no hesitation \vhatever in 
rejecting it. It is found in the u1Ïdst of a very thicket of 
fabricated readings. It has nothing \\Thatever to recolllmend 
it. It is conde1uned by the consentient voice of Antiquity. 

larcion (Epiph. i. 317); - Eusebius (ì\Iai, iv. 2öG); - Epiphanius 
(i. 34:8) ;-Cyril (Mai, ii. 438) ;-J ohn Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188). 


, \\.E


It l
ltcll only hy four copicFt,-".hich 11. 'cr cOlnhinl) 
exclusiycly, e
ccpt to n1Ïsrcprrscnt the truth of Rrriptnre 
anel to Rccluce the 

Hut the foregoing, which is a fair typical R
llnple of count- 
f; other instances of ullauthorizcd Transposition, l11ay not 
he disnlÍsscd \vithout a t'e". \yords ùf seriouR reTI10nstrancc. 
Our contention is that, ina.slnuch as the eftect of such transposi- 
tion Ù, inc (pablc úf bcing idiO'Jnatic lly 1'Cp1'c8cntcd in tile Eng- 
h Za11!J71n!Jc,-(for, in all such cases, the Iteviscd Version 
retains the rendering of the Authorized,)-our TIevisionists 
ha. \pe violated the spirit as ,,'ell as the letter of their instruc- 
tions, in putting forth a nC1C GJ'fck Tc;r;t, and silently intro- 
clueing into it a countless nUluher of these and siInilar 
deprnxations of Scripture, These Textual curiosities (for 
they are nothing nlore) are ahsolutely out of place in a 
llcrision of thc English JTcrsion: achieye no la-wful purpose: 
are sure to mislead the un\vary, This first.-Secondly, \f'e 
subu1Ït that,-strong as, no tloubt, the telllptation lllUSt have 
been, to secure the sanction of the N. T. Revisionists for their 
O\\YIl pri vate l
ccension of the Greek, (printed long since, but 
published sinnlltalleously \vitb the C TIeyised ,r ersion ')-it is 
to be regretteLl that nrs. 'Vestcott and 110rt should have 
yiel(h'd thereto. 
Ian's ÏInpaticnce never prOlnotes GOD'
Truth. The interests of Textual CriticisTI1 ,voul(l rather ha\ye 
suggested, that the TIecension of that accomplish ell l)air of 
l-'rofec::sors should haye becn suhn1Ïtted to public inspection 
in the first instance. The astonishing Text \vhich it a(h-ocates 
n1Ïght have been left \\yith cOlllparativ"e safety to take its 
chance in the J erusalenl Chanl bel', after it had underO'onc 
the searching ordeal of conlpetent Criticisln, and heen freely 
yentilated at hOlue and abroad for a decade of years. nut 
on the contrary. It \vas kept close. It Inight be seen only 
Ly th
 Hevisèl's: and even thcy ,vere tiell do\vn to secrecy as 


 ox 1 TI:\l, III, 1 H. 


to the letter-pre
s Ly ,,
hich it \Ya
this strikes us as painful in a high tlegrec. 

, All 

'TI. Hithertu 'VE' have referred alnlost exclnsi\
ely to thl' 
pcls. In conclusion, ,ve invite attcntion to uur [:cyi- 
SiUllists' treatment of 1 Tiin, iii, 16-the crnÆ criticOTll?J1, 
as l)rcl)cndary Scrivener styles it. l 'Ve cannot act 11101'C 
fairly than by iuyiting a lcarncd 111elU1Jer of the revising 
Ludy to speak un l)ehalf uf his brethren, "r e shall in this 
,yay ascertain the an10unt of acquaintance \vith the subject 
enjoyed by SOlne uf those ,vhu IULye been so ubliging as to 
furnish the Church \vith a ne\V l
ecension uf the Greek of 
the N e\v Testamcnt. Ur. Rubcrts says :- 
'The English reader will probably be startled to find that 
the fan1Íliar text,-" And 'lcitlwut controt'C'l"sy great is the mystery of 
godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh," has been exchangetl in 
the Revised 'T ersion for the following,-" .A.nd without cont1.ove1'sll 
fJ'l.eat is tlte mystm.y of godliness; He who 'lva
 nuu-dfested in the 
flesh." A. note on the Inargin states that "the ,\-orù Gun, in 
l)lace of He 'lvlw, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence;" and 
it may be well that, in a passage of so great importance, the 
l'eader should be convinced that such is the case. 
, 'V hat, then, let us enquire, is the amount of evidence ,vhich 
can l)e produced in support of the reatling "GOD"? This is 
soon stated. Rot one of t.he early Fathers can be certainly 
quoted for it. None of the very ancient ver
ions support it. 
No uncial witnesses to it, ,vith the doubtful exception of A . . . . 
But even granting that the ,veighty suffrage of the Alexandrian 
manuscript is in favour of "GOD," far rnore evidence can be 
produced in support of" who." N and probably c witness to this 
reading, and it ha
 also powerful testÜnony frOlll the versions 
and Fathers. l\Ioreover, the relative" ,vho" is a far 111 ore diffi- 
cult reading than" GOD," and could hardly have been substituted 
for the latter. On every ground, therefore, ,ve conclude that 

! [The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it originally 
stood,-the rather, because the -reading of 1 Tinl. iii. 16 will be found 
fully discussed at th
 end of the present volunlc. See Index of Texts.] 




thiH interesting and ilnportant passage must stand as it has been 
giycn in the Hevi
ed Version.' 1 
Allù ]}O\V, IUl\"ing heard the learIlelll)reshyterian on l)ehalf 
of his brothe1'- Hevisionists, "Te request that ,ve lilay he ou1'- 
sel Ye
 listened to in reply. 

The place of Scripture lJefore us, the TIefHler is assurell, 
presents a lllcnLurable instance uf the n1Ïschief ,vhich u
sionally resulted to the inspired Text froln the ancient 
practice of executing copies of the Scriptures in uncial 
characters. S. l
aul certainly "Tote fLÉrya ÈUTl TÒ Ti}
 ÈcþavEpÓJB1} Èv uap"í, (' Great is the 
'In!l,,tcry of godliness: GOD 'was 'manifested in the flesh.') But 
it requires to be explained at the outset, that the holy Nanle 
,,,hen abbrcyiated (which it ah,.ays \vas), thus,- ec (' GOD '), 
is only distinguishaLle frulll the rclati\.e pronoun' ".110' (oe), 
hy t\VO horizontal strokcs,-,yhi
h, in nlanuscripts of early 
datè, it ,vas often the practice to trace so faintly that at 
present they can scarcely be discerned. 2 Keed 've go on? 
...\n archetypal copy in ,vhich one or both of these slight 
strokes had vanished fronl the "
orù èe (' GOD '), gaYe rise 
to the reading oc (' ,vho '),-of ".hich nonsensical suLstitutc, 
traces surviye in only two 3 Inanuscripts,-
 and 17: not, for 
certain, in one single ancient Bather,-no, nor fur certain in 
one single ancient ,.,. ersiun. So transparent, in fact, is the 
ahsurdity of ,vriting TÒ j.LVUT1}PLOV Õ
 (' the Inystery 'lvlto '), 
that copyists prolnptly substituted õ (' 'lr7âc/t '): thus fur- 
nishing anuther illustration of the \vell-kno".ll property ()f 

1 Compa 11 ion to the Revised rersion, &c., Þy Alex. Roberts, D,D. (2nd 
edit.), pp. 66-8. 
2 Of this, anyone n1ay convince him
elf hy merely inspecting the 

 pages of codex A which are e
posed to view at the British 
S For, of the 3 cursives usually cited fur the same reading (I., .:3, 181), 
the second proves (on enquiry at Ursala) to he merely an abriùgment of 
tEcumenius, who certainly read BfÓS-; and the last is non-e
H 2 

100 t::JC KOT OC THE HEADING OJi' 1 TIl\1. III, 16, [ART' 

a fabricated reading, viz. sooner or later inevitably to becomp 
the parent of a second, Happily, to this second 111istake 
the sole surviving ,vitness is the Codex Claronlontanns, of 
the 'TIth century (D): the only Patristic evidence in its 
favour being Gelasius of Cyzicus,1 (,vhose date is A,D. 476) : 
and the unkno,vn author of a hon1ily in the appendix to 
Chrysostonl,2 The"\r ersions-all but the Georgian anù the 
Slavonic, "Thich agree ,vith the TIeceived Text-fayour it 
unquestionably; for they are observed invariably to Inake 
the relative pronoun agree in gender "yith the ,vord \vhich 
represents fLVUT
ptoV (' lnystery') "Thich illunediately pre- 
cedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, oç; (' 1vho') is found, 
-but only because the Syriac equivalent for fLVU'T1}ptoV is 
of the nlasculine gender: in the Latin, quod (' 'which ')-but 
only because 'JnysterÍ1un in Latin (like fLVUT
ptOV in Greek) 
is neuter. Over this latter reading, ho"rever, ,ve neeù not 
linger; seeing that 0 (10es not find a single patron at the 
l)resent day. And yet, this ,vas the reading \vhich ,ras eagerly 
upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac 
Ne\vton being its lllost strenuous advocates. 

It is time to pass under hasty review the direct eVI- 
dence for the true reading. A and c exhibited ec until 
ink, tlnunbing, and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated 
what once w'as patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to 
contend on the negative side of this question,-F and G, 
which exhibit oc and Oc respectively, \vere confessedly 
derived froln a comlnon archetype: in "Thich archetype, it is 
evident that the horizontal stroke "yhich distinguishes e 
from 0 Inust have been so faintly traced as to be scarcely 
discernible. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke 
in question represents the aspirate, is scarcely admissible. 
There is no single exa'lnple of oç; written OC in any part of 

1 Concilia, iÏ. 217 c. 

2 viii. 214 b. 


.\rrEAJ.J '1'0 AXTIQUITY. 


illt'J" Cod. :F or Cu l. G, On the other hand, in the only place 
,,"here DC represents ee, it is \\ ritten DC in butl
. Prc- 
juùice herself lUllY ùe safely calletl upon tu accept the oL\'ious 
ilnù only Ia wful inference. 
To c.Ullle to the point,-l-jfó
 is the reading of all the 
uncial copi S CJ'tant but two (viz. N \vhich exhibits õ
, and 
D ,,"hich exhibits õ), and of all the cursives but one (viz. 17). 
Till' uni \-ersal consent (.f the Lectionaries pro yes that efÓ
has been read in all the asselublies of the faithful fronl the 
I'Tth or '"P"th century of our era. At "That earlier period of 
her existence is it supposed then that the Church (' the 
witness and keeper of IIoly 'Vrit,') availed herself of her 
pri\"ilege to suhstitute 8fÓÇ for Õi) or õ,-\vhether in error 
or in fraud ? Nothing I:)hort of a c.onspiracy, to ,,"hich every 
region of the Eastern Church 111ust have been a party, "\vould 
acc.ount for the phellolnenon. 

'Ye enquire next for the testÏ1nony of the Fathers; anù 
\ve discoyer that-(l) Gregory of Nyssa quotes 8fÓÇ tll'cnt!/- 
two tÙltcs: I-that E>EÓ, is al'3o recognized by (2) his luuue- 
sake of Nazianzus in t"wo places; 2_ as \yell as by (3) Didy- 
U1US of ...11exandria; 3_(4) by ps.-Dionysius Alex. ;4-and (3) 
by Diodorus of Tarsus. 5 -(6) Chrysostoln quotes 1 Tin1. iii. 
16 in c.ûnfonnity \yith the received text at least three tÏ1nes;6 

1 A single quotation is better than nlany references. Among a multi- 
tude of proofs that CHRIST is GOD, Gregory 
ays :-TLp.o8icp 

 ., r 8 ' 'A,. , L'I) , , 
 ' L'I' , . . p ( '.J 
o(}.. on 0 fOS' E'jJaIlEp!ùU1] Ell uaplCL, EULKaLWU1] Ell 7rIlEvp.an. II. v,f". 
p.îll TÒ p.É)'a p.vur
pI.OV . . ó Èvav8pw7r
P.âfà Kaì 
, 8 ' of , , \' ( . " 1 - ) T ' \. , 
7TrWxnJUaS' fOS', Lva avaaT1]urJ T1]1I uapKa. 1. - .) a. - L TO P.E)'U P.VO'T?- 
pLOII; . . 8EÒS' dv8pW7TOS' yíllETaL. (i. tiS') b.) 
S De Tri t. }J. t\3-where the testimony is e
4 8H)S' y(Ìp ÈcþavEp&J81] Èv uapKí.-Coucilia, i. 833 d. 
ð Cramer's Cut. Ù Rom. 1). 1
, Onc quutation may suflìce :-Tò 

 8EÒII 6J1Ta, tIv8pW7TOV 8f').
-YfvÉu8m Kaì àllfuxiuBm Karaßijvm TouoiiTOV. . . Tovró Èun TÒ ÈK7T').;'
yip.oll, :, 

 Ic:aì llaû').oS' 8avp.(í(wll ;
Ei'EV. Ic:uì òp.o
oyovp.illwS' p.iya Èur, 
Tb rijç EÙUf{jEÍUS' P.VUTÍJPWV. 7TOLOII p.Éya; 8EÒS' icþav!pw8TJ Èv uavKí. Ic:uì 


Y Ü}i' THE 11'ATJIEn


-and (7) Cyril AI. as often: 1-(8) Theodoret, fuur tiInes: 2_ 
(0) an unkno,vn author of the age of N estorius (A,D. 430), 
once: 3-(10) Severns, Bp. of Antioch (A,D. 512), once. 4 - 
(11) l\lacedonius (A,D. 506) patriarch of C1).,5 of 'VhOlll it 
has been absurdly related that he invented the reading, is a 
"yitness for 8EÓ, perforce; so is-(12) Euthalius, alld-(13) 
John Dalnascene on t,YO occasions. 6 -(14) An ullknO'YH 
"Titer "\vho has been mistaken for Athanasius,7-(15) besides 
not a fe,," ancient scholiasts, close the list: for ,ve pass by 
the testimony of-(16) Epiphanius at the 7th Xicelle Council 
(A,D. 787),-of (17) illclunellius,-of (18) Theophylact. 

It ,Yill be oùserved that neither has anything been said 
about the n1ftny indirect allusions of earlier Fathers to this 
place of Scripture; and yet son1e of these are too striking 
to be overlooked: as ,vhen-(19) Basil, "Titing of OLlI' 
SAVIOUR, says aVTò, ÈcþavEpwB1] Èv uapICL: 8-and (20) Gre- 
Tl '" 

""\ B ' f), , , 
gory laUlll" ICat EUT(, ÖEO, a"-1] tvo, 0 auapICO, EV uapICt 
cþavEpw8Eí,: 9-and before hiln, (21) IIippolytus, OiJTO
8 ' " 
....\'" ' cþ , e 10 d 
7rpOEÀ WV El8 ICO aj.Lo V, ÖEOS' EV aWf-LaTt E aVEpw 1]: -an 
(22) Theodotus the Gnostic) ó IWT
p wcþ81] ICaTtwv Toî, 

1TåÀLV åÀÀaxov. OV yàp åyyiÀCiJV l1TLÀap.ßávETUI. Ó SEÓS-, K. T.
. Î. 497. 
=Galland. xiv. 141. 
1 'fhe followin
 n1ay suffice :-p.Éya yàp TÓTE T
S- Eù(u/3flas- P.VUT
rf,.' ,) , e ' 1<- " \. I )
 , L'I 
, " I 
1TE'YaVEpCiJTat yap EV uapKL EOS- WV Kat 0 i oYOS'. EULKaLWUT} uE Kat EV 1TVEV- 
p.an. v. p. Ïi.; p. 154 c d.-In a newly-recovered treatise of Cyril, 1 Tim. 
iii. 16 is quoted at length with SEór, followed by a relllark on the lv aVTrp 
8fì.S' SEÓS-. This at least is decisive. The place has been hitherto 
overlooked. 2 i. 92; Hi. 657; iv. 19, 23. 
3 Apucl AthanasÏtlln, Opp. ii. 33, where see Garnier's prefatory note. 
4 Ku8' B yàp tJ1fryPXE eEÒS' [sc. á XPUTTÒS'] TOVTOV nTH TÒV vop.o8ÉTr]J' 
ðo8ryvaL 1TâuL ToîS' ;8VEUI. . . . TOLyapovv Kaì. 
áJLEVa Tà ;ev1] TÒV vop.oei'n}v, 
TÒV lv uapKì. fþavEpCiJ8ivTa SEÓV. Cramer's Cat. iii. 69. The quotation 
is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of IIalicarnassus. 
li Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and 
6 i. 313; ii. 263. 
g iii. Ll01-2. 

7 Ap. Athanas. i. 706. 
9 Ap. Phot
 230. 10 Cuutra Ilær. ....Yutt, c. 17. 


 1 Tnt. III. 16. 


/l'Y'YJÀOtç;: l-atHl (:!3) Barnaùas, '111CToûÇ . . . . ó V;Ò
(-)fOÛ 7'úrrr:' Kat, Èv 'JapKl cþavfpwBfl.;: 2- ttIl (1 carlier still (
: (--)EOÛ lìvBp6J7T'lvwc:; cþavfpovj1ivov:-f.V CTapKì 'YfVÓ- 

, ... ( ,,' r rI.. ' t , 
" 1 ,.. 
1a:voc:; l:'Jêoç; :-êtÇ "')fOç; êCT7'tV 0 oyavêpwuaç; faVTOV ota '1]UOV 
XptU7'OV TOÛ v[oû aùroû. 3 -....\re "pe to suppuse that nCl/w of 
thl'se prÍIniti ye "Titers reaù the place as 'iPC f 10 1 
Against this arrny of TestÍ111ony, the only evidcncc \"hich the 
ll11\veal'ied industry of IJO years has succel'(leù in eliciting, 
is a
 follo\vs :-(1) The expluded Latin fa LIe that l\Iaee- 
donius (A.D, 5UG) inrcntcd the re(lding: 4_(
) the fact that 
Of(."sin!l to t7Ytnscribc 5 fronl an cnrliel' trea- 
tise of his o\vn 6 (in ,,"!lich ÈcþavêpwB1] stands 
cit1wut a n(JII"i- 
native), prefixes Ö
 :-(3) the statClnent of an ullkno\vu 
scholia.st, that in one particular place of Cyril's \\Titings 
\\phere the Greek is lust, Cyril \\Tote õc:;,-(\\'!1ich 
eenlS tl} 
lIe an entire ulÎstake; Lut which, evcn if it "yere a f
tct, \voul(l 
Le sutHcielltly eXplaincd Ly the discovcry that in t,,"O other 
places of Cyril's \\Titillgs the e\"idence fluctuates Letwcen õç 
and eêÓ
) :-(4) a quotation in an epistle of Eutherius of 
Tyalla (it exists only in l.atin) \dwre '(lui' is fuund :-(3) 
a casual reference (ill Jerolne's eunlnlcntary on Isaiah) to 
our I.oult, as One 'qui apparuit in c(trllC, justifi
atus est in 
spiritu,'-\vhich TIp, Pearson Inight haye \\Tittcn,-Lastly, (f;) 
a passage uf Theodorus :\lopsncst, ((1 noted at the Council 
of Constantinoplc, _\,D. 553), \,"here the reading is 'qui,'- 
,dlÍch is Lalanceù Ly the discovery that in another place 
of his \\Titings fplotetl at the saIne Council, the original is 
traw-;lated 'qU()(l.' .And this clo
es the eviflenec. "rill any 
llllpreju<1icl'c1 pen;oJl, on reviewing the preIni

, seriously 
declare that Ö
 is the lletter sustained rea<lillg of the t\\"O ? 

1 ...\p. Clem. .At Ð73. 2 Cap. xii. :5 A'll
plt. c. lÛ, 7; ad .1[(([/11, c, R 
4 See 8crivcncr'8 Pl,u'll lutrod. Pl'. ,j,j,j-G, and Hcrriman's Dissertation, 

t'-:!'i:;' ..\bll the cml (If this '.lIIUlllC. ð i. 
tl7 e. I) ii. 7-1 b. 




For ourselves, ,ye venture to deenl it increùiùle that a 
l{ea(ling ,vhich-(a) Is not to be found in 1110re than two 
copies (
 and 17) of S. Paul's Epistles: ,vhich-(b) Is not 
certainly supported by a single Version :-( c) N or is clearly 
advocated by a single Father,-cwn be genuine. It does not at 
all events adn1Ít of question, that until far stronger evidence 
can be produced in its favour, öç (' ,vho') lllay on no account 
Le perll1Ïtted to usurp the place of the cOllllnollly receiveù 
E)t:óç (' GOD') of 1 Tiln. iii. 16. But the present exhibits in a 
striking and instructive ,yay all the characteristic tokens of 
a tlepra vation of the text. (1st) ....4..t an exceedingly early 
l)eriod it resulted in a1wther deflection. (2nd) It is ,vithout 
the note of Contin
tity,. haying died out of the Church's 
lllclllory ,yell-nigh 1400 years ago. (3rd) It is deficient in 
Unil:ersality,. haying ùeen all along denied the Church's cor- 
porate sanctioll. As a necessary consequence, (4th) It rests 
at this day on ".holly insufficient EcÙlence: l\Ialluscripts, 
Versiolls, Fathers ùeing all against it. (5th) It carries on 
its front its o,yn refutation. For, as alllllust see, ec n1Ïght 
easily Le mistaken for oc: but in order to lllake OC into 
ec , t1VO hU/
izont((i lines '1nust of set j/llrpose be added to the 
copy. It is therefore a vast deal '1I'U)ye likely that ec becalne 
OC, than that oc becanlè ec , (6th) Lastly, it is condenlned 
by internal considerations. r/Qç is in truth so grossly i1l1- 
proLable-rather, so Ùnpos.'.;-i"ble-a reading, that under any 
circulllstances ,ve must have anxiously enquired ,vhether no 
escape fronl it ,yas discoverable: ,,
hether there exists nu 
\,.ay of eXplaining lWfLV so p
ltent an absurdity as fLV(J"T
ptOV öç ?nay have arisen? And on being reminded that the 
disappearance of t,vo faint horizontal strokes, or c?;cn of one, 
,vould fully account for the impossible reading,-(and thus 
much, at least, all adl11Ït,)-should ,ve not have felt that it 
required an oyer,vheln1Ïng consensus of authorities in favour 
of ÕC- to render such an altelnatiyC deseryin
 of serious 

, L 


1 TIlL III. 16 'CLEAnLY pnEJ'()Xl))


attention 1 It is a luere a lHl:)e of Rengel's fauluus a "XI( Hll 
to reeal it on occa
ions like the pre
ent, 'V e 
hall he lanlleù 
in a batho
 ilHleell if "Té allo\\p gro..,;-J illiprov vility tu lJec.;oulC II 
cun:-:;training llluti,'c ,,'ith us in re\'ising the sacreù Te)..t. 

l\ntl thus luuch for the true real1illg of 1 TiIn, iii. IG. "T e 
inyite the realler tu refer Lack 1 to a neviser's estÏ111ate uf 
the evi(lellce in fa,"our of E>êóÇ and öç respectively, antI tu 
contrast it \vith our o\,n. If he is iInpressed \yith the 
strength of the caUSe of our opponents,-their nlastery of the 

ul)ject,-antl the rcasonaLleness of their contention,-"Te 
shan lJt' surpriséll. .....\.nd yet that is not the question just 
now Lefure us, The only question (Le it clearly rClllcm- 
here,l) \\"hich ha
 to be considereù, is tltis :-Can it be said 
,\'ith truth that the "evidence" for öç (as against 8êÓ") 
in 1 TiIll, iii. In iR "clCllI.ly pN!pmulcl'ating"? Can it ùe 
Illailltaillcll that f-)êÓ" is a 'pla i/
 and clcal' error'? Unless 
 can ùe attinned-cadit quæ''Ítio. The traditional rending 
of the place ought to have ùeen let alone. )Iay \VC ùe 
pennitte(.l to say \vithout offence that, in our lnunhle judg- 
1uent, if the Church uf :England, at the llevisers' bidding, 
,vere to adopt this and thousands uf other depr:tvations uf 
the sacred page,2-\vith \vhich the Church Universal \,as once 
".ell aC(l uaintell, but ,vhich in her corporate character she has 
long since unconditionally condeulned anù aùandoneù,-she 
\voultl deserye to be pointed at \\yith scorn hy the rest of 
ChristcuùOlll 1 Yes, a1ul to have that openly said of her 

I :-;ee ahove, p. 
2 ..\s, that stupid fabrication, Ti J-tE lpCl)T

 1i"Epì TOV àyaBov; (in R. )[atth. 
xix. 17) :-the Dew incidents and 
ayings proposed for adoption, a
)'iark i. 
j (in thc Synagogue uf Cal'crll<lUm): in S, John xiii. :!l-G (at the 
last f-upper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the \\ay to Emmaus):-the mauy 
proposeù mnbsions, a3 in 
ratth. vi. 13 (the Doxology): in x,yi. 
, 3 
igns of the weather): in S. )Iark ix. 4-1- &, -tG (the wurùs of woe): in 

, John v, 3, -1 (the ..\ngcl truubling the poo!), &L, &c. &c. 





,vhich S. l)etcr openly said of the false teachers of his day 
"rho fell back into the- very errors ,vhich they had already 
abjured. The place ,vill be found in 2 S. Peter ii. 22. So singu- 
larly applicable is it to the nlatter in haud, that we can but 
invite attention to the quotation on our title-page and p, 1. 
And here ,ve Blake an end. 
1. Those ,vho lllay have taken up the pres
llt Article in 
expectation of being entertained ,vith another of those dis- 
cussions (of ,vhich ,ye suspect t
le public HUlst be already 
getting some"rhat "Teary), concerning the degree of ability 
\\rhich the N e"T Testal11ent Revisionists ha ye displayed in 
their rendering into Rnglish of the Greek, ,viII at first experi- 
ence disappointI11ent. lleaders of intelligence, ho,vever, "rho 
have been at the pains to follo,v us through the foregoing 
pages, ,yill be constrained to adn1Ìt that ,ve have done l110re 
faithful service to the cause of Sacred Truth by the course 
,,"e have been pursuing, than if ,,"e had Inerely lllultiplied 
instances of incorrect and unsatisfactory Tra'nslation. There 
is (and this ,ve elHleavoured to e
plain at the outset) a ques- 
tion of prior interest and far graver importance ,vhich has to 
ett1ed fi'tst, viz, the degree of confidence ,,"hich is due to 
the underlying KE'Y GREEK TEXT ,yhich our l
eyisionists have 
constructed, In other ,,,"ords, before discussing their new 
Rendcrings, ,ye have to examine their new Readings. 1 The 
silence \\rhich Scholars have hitherto Inaintainccl on this part 

1 It cannot he too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary 

criYener is wholly guiltless of the m'Lny spurious' Reaùings' with which 
a luajority of his co-Hevisionbts have corrupted the 'Vord of GOD. He 
l)lcatled faithfully,-but he pleaded in vain.-It is ri
ht also to I:jtate 
that the -. 
cholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles 'V orùsworth) has 
fully 11urged himself of the suspicion of cOlnplicity, by hh; printed (not 
published) ren10nstrances \\"ith his colleagues.-The excellent Rp. of 
bury (Dr. l\loberly) attended only 121 of their 407 meetings; anJ 
that judiciolU; scholar, the Ahp. of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. rrhc 
reaùer will find Illorc on thi
 ::;uhject at the clo::;c of Art. II,,--pp. 




uf the subject is to oursel yes scarcely illtelligiùlc. ]Jut it luakes 
us the IJlOre anxiun
 to inyite attention to this lll'glecte<l aspect 
of'the l'l'ulllelll; the rather, hecanse ,ve haYe tho}"(Hlghly Con- 
"\ illl'e(l oursdyes that the' llC'V Greek Text' put forth hy the 
neyisionists of our l\.uthorizcd ,.. ersio]l is uttcrl!! in (7/1( Ï:;- 
sible. The traditional Text has hl;cn llepartcd frOlli by thClll 
nearly GOUO tinleS,-(lhllost invariably fur tlL 'W011SC. 
2, Fully to dispose of all these lllultitu(1inous corruptioJls 
,,'ouItl require a Lulky Treatise. nut the re
Hler is re(luested 
to oLselTe that, if "-e are right in the fe,v instaJl
e:; "c 
haye culled out fnnll the Inass,-thcn 'wc a1'C 'right in all. If 
'Vl' Ita Ye succeeded in proving that the little handful of 
authurities un ,,,hich the 'ne,v Greek Text' depends, are the 
reverse of trusb\Torthy,-are absolutely n1Ïsleading,-then, 
,,,e haye cut a,vay from unùer the l
evisionists the very 
ground on ,,'hich they have hitherto been standing. And in 
that case, the structure ,,,hich they have built up throughout 
a decade of years, ,,,ith such evident self-coluplacency, col- 
lapses 'like the Laseless fabric of a vision.' 

3. For no one Inay flatter hinlself that, by underguiug 
a furthcr process vf 'Revision,' the 'TIevised ,.,.. ersion' llWY 
after all Le rendered trustw'orthy. The eloquent and excel- 
lent 13ishop of Derry is 'convinced that, ,,,ith all its undeni- 
able lllerits, it ,yill have to be sOllle,,'hat extensively revised.' 
.Anù so perhaps are "'e. But <,,'hat is a far 1110re Ï1upol'tant 
cirCuIllstance) ,yc are further convinced that a In-ior act of 
penance tu lIe sulnnitted to hy the TIeyisers ,,"ould be the 
restoratiun of the underlying Ureek Text to very nearly-not 

tate in ,yhidi they fOlLud it ",hen they l'ntered 
upon their ill-fHh"islJt! undertaking, ' 'T ery nl
arly - not 
quite:' for, in not a fc,v particulars, the 'Textus rec('ptu
docs call for 11e,"isiou, certainly; although l{cyision UIl 
entirely different 1'1'iuciph'R frOIli thllse \vhieh arc found to 
ha ve l'rentilt:( 1 ill the 
.T erusalclll ChaJuLer, To ]llentioll a 




single instance :- '.Vhen our LORD first sent forth His T,yclve 
Apostles, it ""as certainly no part of His Ininisterial COlll- 
nlÏssion to thelll to '1'aise the dead' (VEKPOV() ÈryElpETE, S. 
l\latthe,v x, 8). This is easily delllonstrable. Yet is the 
spurious clause retained by our llevisionists; because it is 
found in those corrupt ,vitnesses-
 BCD, and the Latin 
copies. l \Vhen ,yill nlen learn unconditionally to put a,vay 
fron} thelllselves the "Teak superstition ,vhich is for investing 
,vith oracular authority the foregoing quaternion of deuIon- 
straLly depraveù Codices? 

4. 'It Illay be said '-(to quote again from TIp. Alexander's 
ent Charge),-' that there is a ""ant of llloùesty in dissent- 
ing fronl the conclusions of a t\yo-thirds Inajority of a Lody 
so learned, TIut the rough process of counting heads Ï111poses 
uIHluly on the Î111agination.. One could easily .nanle eight 
in that a::5::5cln1ly, ,vhose 'll?Ulni1nity ,vonld be practically 
ahllost decisive; but ,ve have no means of kno,ving that 
these did not fornt the 'JJ1inority in resisting the changes 
"Thich ,,"e lllost regret.' The Bi
hop is speaking of the 
English I
eyision. Having regard to the Greek Text exclu- 
siyely, 'we also (strange to relate) had singled out exactly eight 
frolll the Inenlbers of the N e,v Testalllent cOll1pany- Divines 
of undouhted orthodoxy, ,vho for their splendid scholarship 
and proficiency in the best learning, or else for their refined 
taste and adnlÌrable judgment, n1Îght (as we humLly think), 
under certain safeguards, have bfìel1 safely entrusted even ,vitlt 
the responsiLility of revising the Sacred Text. U neIer the 
guidance of PreLendary Scrivener (,,-ho alllong living Eng1ish- 
nleIl is facile princrps in these pursuits) it is scarcely to Le 
alltieipated that, \\
IIEN UXAXIl\IOUS, such Divines ,,,"ould ever 

1 Eusebius,-Basil,-Chrysostom (in loc.),-JerOlue,-Juvencus,-OJuit 
the words. P. E. Pusey found theIn in no 8yriac copy. But the conclusive 
evidence is 
mpplied by the 
Ianuscripts; not more than lout of 20 of 
which conta.in thi::; clause. 



lOf l 

have Inatcrially ûlTC(l. But then, uf courso, a In'eyiou
long fanliliarity \\"ith the Science of Te.xtu I Criticism, or at 
asi lcisure for prosecuting it now., for ten or t"-Cllty years, 
,,"ith absolutely unùivideù attentioll,-,n)ulù he the ÜHlisp('n- 
sable requisite for the success of such an uIHlertaking; anù 
this, undeniably, is a qualification rather to be de
than lookcd for at the hands of Ellglish l}ivines of note at 
the present Jay. On the other hand, (luyalty to our .:\ra
constrains us to make the avo\val,) the 1uotley ass0rtInent of 
nal11es, t\venty-eight in all, specified by Dr. X e,,"t11, at 1', 125 
of his interesting little volume, joined to the fact that the 
ayerage attendance 1.cas not so many as si..d >cn,-concerning 
'VhOl11, moreover, the fact has transpired that sonle of the 
Illost juùicious of their nunlùer often declined to [JU'C allY 
'tote at all,-is by no Illeflns calclùated to inspire any sort of 
confidence. But, ill truth, consiùerahle fan1Ïliaritv ,,-ith these 
pursuits Inay easily co-exist váth a natural inaptituùe for 
their successful cultivation, ,yhieh shall pru,.e :-;Ünl'ly fatal. 
In snpport of this relllark, one has but to refer to the 
instance supplieù by 1)1'. Hort. The Sacred Text has nonl' 
to fear so much as those \yho fcel rather than think: ,,-ho 
i1naginc rather than reason: \vho rcly on a supposed 1.:crify- 
iïZ9 facldty of their o"
n, of ,yhich they are able to render 
no intelligible account; and ,,-ho, (to use Bishop Ellicott's 
phrase,) have the n1isfortune to cOllceiye thenlselycs po
of a "p01.vcr of divining the Original Te.rt,"-,dlich \\"onld 
he evcn diverting, if the practical result of their self-decep- 
tion ,,-cre not so exceedingly serious. 

5. In a future nUHlber, w.e may perhaps enquire into the 
l11casurc of success" hich has attended the I
evisers' RcvisiO/lJ 
of the English of our ...\uthorizcd 'T er
ion of 1611. "r e have 
occupied ourselves at this time exclusively ,,-ith a survey 
of the seriously Inntilatcd and other,vi
e grossly depraved 
NE'V GREEK TEXT, on ,vhich their edifice has been reared. 

, [.AUT. I. 

And the circulllstance \\
hich, in conclusion, \\Te desire to 
ÏInpress upon our l
eaders, is this,-that the insecurity 
of that foundation is so alal'lnillg, that, except as a con- 
cession due to the solenlnity of the undertaking just no\v 
uUller revie\\T further Criticisl11 n1ÏO'ht ver y \\Tell be dis- 
pensed ,vith, as a thing superfluous. Even could it be proved 
concerning the superstructure, that' it had been [ever so] 1.()ell 
buildcd,' 1 (to adopt another of our nevisionists' unhappy per- 
versions of Scripture,) the fatal objection ,yould relÍlain, viz. 
that it is not' founded 1.lpOn the rock.' 2 It has been the ruin 
of the present undertaking--as far as the Sacred Text is con- 
cerned-that the luajority of the llevisionist boùy have been 
luisled throughout by the oracular decrees and ÏInpetuous 
advocacy of IJrs. "r estcott and Hort; ,yho, \\Tith the purest 
intentions and 11l0st laudable industry, have constructed a 
Text delllunstrably l110re remute frol11 the Evangelic verity, 
than any "Thich has ever yet seen the light. 'The old is 
good,'3 say the TIevisionists: 1)ut "Te ve1)ture suleu1nly to 
assure thenl that' the old is better ;'4 and that this relllark 
holds every Lit as true uf their I
evisiun of the Greek 
throughout, as of their infelicitous exhibition of S, T.Juke v. 39. 
To atteulpt, as they ha
Ye done, to build the Text of the :N e\v 
Testal11ent on a tissue of unproved assertions and the eccen- 
tricities of a single codex of bad character, is about as hopeful 
a proceeding as \\
ould be the attelllpt to erect an ]
lighthouse on the Goo(h\yin Sands. 

1 'Revised Text' of S. Luke vi. 48. 
2 'Authorized Yersion,' supported lJY A C D and 1
 other uncials, the 
whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, anù Gothic versions. 
8 'Rcvi::;ed Text' of S. Luke Y. 3D. 
4 'Authorized Yer::;ioll,' :::;upvurtetl by A C and 14 other uncials, the whole 
body of the cur
iYe:." and all the yersiuns except the Pc:;chito and the 


" SUell is the tÌIne-honourecl Yersion which we haye heen called npon 
to revise! \Ye have had to study thiR great Yersion carefully and 
minutely, line hy line; and the longer we have heen engageJ upon it the 
l11Ol'e we have learned to atlll1Ïre its simplicity, its dignity, its po Wet', it,r.; 
happy turns of exp,.e:;:;ion, its general accu,}'((cy, and we lllust not fail to 
a(ld, the music of its C(tflenre.
, (tnd the felicities of ï'fs 'rlzytlun. To render 
a work that had reached this high standard of excellence, still 1110re 
excellent; to increase it
 fidelity, without destroying its charIn; was the 
task committed to US."-PREFACE TO THE REYISED YEmnoN. 

"To pass frOln the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from a 
well-built and well-hung carriage which 
lides easily over a macadamized 
road.,-and to get into one which has bad springs or 1WUP at all, and in 
which you are jolted in ruts with aching boncs over the stoncs of a newly- 
1nended ((nd raì'cly traversed road, like some of the roads in our Korth 
Lincolnshire villages." - RI:-;HOP \Y ORDS"'ORTH. 1 

" No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour's 
acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhytlllll, and dictiun of the 
present Authorized Yersiun."-BIsHOP ELLIcOTT. 2 

I Atldress at, Lincoln DiOf'csan Conference,-p. !ô. 

 On R{'viÛou,-p, !)9, 




" r te
tify unto every luan that hcareth the \Vord
 of the prophecy of 
this I1ook,-If any man Rhall aad unto these things, GOD Rhall add unto 
him the plagues that are written in this Book. 
"Anti if any Juan shall take away fronl the words of the nook of 
this prophecy, GOD ::.;hall take a,\ay his part out of the Book of Life, and 
out, {If the holy City, and fr01n the things which are written in this Book." 
- .HEVELATION xxii. 18, If!. 

\YUATEYEH. }nay be urgcd in favour of Biblical Revision, it 
iF; at least unùeniable that the undertaking involves a tre- 
luenùous risk. Our Authorized Vel'sion is the one religious 
link ,d1Ïch at prescnt hinds together ninety nÜlliolls of 
English-speaking InCH scattered over the earth's surface. Is 
it reasonalJle that so unutteralJly precious, so sacred a hond 
Hhoul(l b.. en(langered, for the sake of representing certain 
,,-ords lllore at.:curately,-here anù there translating a tenso 
,vith greater precision,-getting rid of a fe"T archaisms? It 
lllay Le confiùently assulned that no 'H
visiull' of anI' 
.A.uthorized Version, h(),,
cvcr juùiciously executed, ,,
ill ever 
()ecupy the place in public esteeIll \\"hich i
 actually enjuyed 
hy the ,\"<n-k: of the Translators of IGll,-the llol)le
t literary 
,\ Clrk in tIlt} ..Al1glu-
a)..on language. \Ve !::;hall in fact never 
hayc a }totltiT '.. \uthorizeù \T crsiun.' ...\11<1 this single COll- 
sideration ]llay he thought absolutely fatal to thr p]'oj
except in (t greatly Jllodified f01'111. To ùe brief,-.....\s a. 
cOlll}Jttnion in th
 study and for priyate edification: as a 
l)ook of rpft'1't-'Hl'P for eriti('al purposes, esp }ciallv in n.}




of difficult and controverted passages :-'ve hold that a 
revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English 
Bible, (if executed w"ith consunlnlate ability and learning,) 
'v auld at any tiIne be a ,york uf inestÏInable value. The 
method of such a perforlnance, ,vhether by Inarginal Notes 
or in SOlne other ,yay, ,ve furbear to detern1Ïne. But 
certainly only as a hanthnaid is it to be desired. As SOlne- 
thing intended to supersede our present English Bible, ,ve are 
thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation 
is not to be entertained for a Illoment. For ourselves, "re 
deprecate it entirely. 

On the other hand, 'who could have possibly foreseen ,vhat 
has actually COlne to pass since the Convocation of the 
Southern Province (in _E'eb. 1870) declared itself favourable 
to 'a Revision of the Authorized Version,' and appointed a 
COlllmittee of Divines to undertake the ,vork? IVho "\\Tas 
to suppose that the Instructions given to the 11evisionists 
,vould be by them systematically disregarded 1 HTho ,vas 
to imagine that an utterly untrust,vorthy , new Greek Text,' 
constructed on mistaken principles, - (say rather, on no 
Jyrinciplcs at all,)-,vould be the fatal result 1 To speak 
more truly,- TVho could have anticipated that the oppor- 
tunity ,vould have been adroitly seized to inflict upon the 
Church the text of Drs. Westcott and Hart, in all its 
essential features,-a text which, as ,vill be found else,vhere 
largely explained, ,ve hold to l'e the 'Jnost vicious Recension of 
thc original G1.eek in existcnce? Above all,-lVho was to 
foresee that instead of removing 'plain and clear errors' 
from our Version, the Revisionists,-(besides systematically 
removing out of sight so nlany of the genuine utterances of 
the SPIlUT,)-,vould themselves introduce a countless number 
of blelnishes, unkno,vn to it before? Lastly, how ,yas it to 
have been believed that the Hcvisionists ,,,"ould show thenl- 


 TIlE ::u \RGIX. 


 industrious in so\\ying hroadcast oyer fnur continents 
doubts as to the Truth of Rcripturc, \\ hich it will never 
he in their po\\ycr either to rC1nove Of to recal? }..Y"escit "'OX 
11l iss({ ,.cl'crti. 

.For, the ill-ad vised practice of recording, in the margin of 
an T
nglish niLle, certain of the Llunders-(such things 
cannot by any stretch of courtesy be styled ' Various Read- 
ings ')-"rhich disfigure' some' or 'many' 'ancient authori- 
ties,' can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith of 
nlÎlliüns. It cannot l,e defended on the plea of candour,- 
the cantionr \\"hich is detennined that men shall' kno\v the 
\\yorst.' 'The u.orst' has XOT been tolrZ: and it \\yere dishonesty 
to insinuate that it has. If all the cases \,ere faithfully 
exhibited ,,-here 'a fp".,' 'some,' or 'lnany ancient authori- 
ties' read differently from ,,""hat is exhibited in the actual 
Text, not only "youhl the margin prove insufficient to contain 
the recorù, but the very page itself \vould not nearly suffice. 
Take a single instance (the first \vhich comes to n1Ïlld), of 
the thing referred to. Such illustrations might be multiplied 
to any extent :- 

Tn S. Luke iii. 22, (in place of 'Thou art my beloved Son ; 
in Thee I a1n 'LCcll pleased,') the folIo\ving authorities of 
the lInd, 111rt! and IY"th centuries, read,-' this day hare I 
begotten The :' viz.-codeÀ D and the Inost ancient copies of 
the old Latin (a, b, c, ff-2, l),-J ustin 
Iartyr in three places 1 
(.\.,D. 140),-Clelnens Alex. 2 (\..D. IHO),-au(l !Iethntiius 3 
(.\,D. 290) fl1nong the Greeks. T..4actantius. (A.D. 300),-Hil ary 5 
(A,n. 3JO),-,Jnvencu
 ' (A.D. 330),-F
ustus 7 (A.D.400), all(l- 

1 Dial. cappo St; and 103 (pp. 30G, 310, 35
2 P. 113. I Ap. Galland, iii. it!), c d. 
4 iv. I,') (ap. Gall. iv. 2U6 b). ð 4-2 h, 
Ita c, 10
t-1 a. 
II Ap. (;al1alHl. iv. r.O,') (n>l'. 3();,)-f;). 7 Ap. Au
. viii. -t:?2 P. 
I 2 




Augustine 1 alllongst the Latins. The reading in question 
,vas doubtless deriyed froln the Ebionitc Gospcl 2 (IInd cent.). 
N 0\"", ,ve desire to have it eXplained to us 1.vhy an exilibitioll 
of thé Text supported by such an alnount of first-rate 
prÏ1nitive testÏ1nollY as the preceding, oLtains no notice 'Lcltat- 
ever in our Revisionists' lnargin,-if indeed it \vas the ol)ject 
of their perpetually recurring luarginal annotations, to put 
.the unlearned reader on a level \vith the critical Scholar; 
to keep nothing Lack frOlH him; and so forth? . .. It 
is the gross one-sidedness, the patent u'lfaÜoncss, in a critical 
point of vie"r, of this \".ork, (\yhich professes to be nothing 
else but a Revision of thc English VC1'sion of 1Gll,)-\vhich 
chiefly shocks and offends us, 

For, on the other hand, of \vhat possible use can it Le 
to encumber the lllargin of S. Luke x. 41, 42 (for exanlple), 
\vith the announcement that ' .A. fe\v ancient authurities reaù 

[(l1,tha, J.lla1,tha, thon a1't troubled: Jlary hath cho:-;cn &c.' (the 
fact being, that D alonc of l\ISB. on1Íts 'Clt1y'ful and' . . . 
, avunt 'Jnany things. But one thin!] is needful, and' . . .)? 
'Yith the recol"d of this circuIllstance, is it reasonable (".e 
sk) tu choke up our English Dlal'gin,-to create perplexity 
ana to insinuate duubt? The author of the foregoing 

1 "Vox illa PatriH, qUill super baptizatU111 facta est Ego l/Odie genui ie," 
(E'llcll irid. c. 49 [Opp. vi. 213 a J):- . 
." Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucaln, hoc illa 
voce sonuisse quod in Psahno scriptunl est, Filius 'lneus es tlt: ego l/Odic 
gen'lti ie, quanquaIn in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non inveniri perhi- 
beatur, taInen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus confirnlari possit, 
quid aliud quanl utrunlque intelligendum est quolibet verborum ordine 
de cælo sonuisse?" (De Cons. Ev. ii. c. 14 [Opp. iii. P. ii. 46 d eJ). AUgUH- 
tine SeeI!lS to allude to what is found to have existed in the Ebionite 
2 Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the state- 

I I.] 


01'.ATJ( )S:::; IX TIII


lIlarginal .Annotation ".as of course a".arc that the same 
<<singular co(le:\.' (as Dp. Ellicott styles coù. D) omits, in 

. Luke's G()
pcl alone, no lesR than 1552 "
ords : and he ,,
of cnurS0 have ascl'rtained (hy counting) that the ,vards in 
H. Luke's Gospel al110unt to 19,
'41. "Thy then did he not 
ten tllC ll o !Zolc truth; and instead of '(f;c.,' proceed as follows? 
_I; But Ì1ulsnluch as cod. D is so scandalously corrupt that 
about one ll:ord in thirteen is missing throughout, the absence 
of nine ".ords in this place is of no lUanneI' of inlportance or 
significancy. The predous saying on1Ïtt
d is above suspi- 
cion, and the first half of the present Annotation Dlight have 
l)ccn spared.' . . . "T e sulHllit that a X ote like that, although 
rather <<singular' in style, really 'I 'onlrl ha YO been to SOlne 
extent helpful,-if nut to the learned, at least to the un- 
learned reader. 

In the meantime, unlearned and learner} readers alike 
are cOInpetellt to see that the foregoing perturbation of 
S. Luke x, 41, 42 rests on the saine luanuscript authority 
as the perturlxttioll of ch, iii. 23, ,vhich Ï1umediately preceded 
it. The Patristic attestation, on the other hand, of the reading 
".hich has heen prOllloted to the Inargin, is ahnost nil: 
,vherea!-; tlirtf of the neglccted place has been sho\vl1 to be 
considerable, yery ancient, and of high respectaLility. 

But in fact,-(let the Truth be plainly stated; for, ,vhen 
GOD'S 'V ord is at stake, circuInlocution is contenlptible, 
".hile conceahnent ,yould he a crÌ1ne;) -<< Faitlilul (, 
towards the public, a stern 1'esol ,'e that the English reaùer 
'shall kno\v the ,vor
t,' and all that kind of thiug,-such 
consideratiull:i ha,ye had nothing ,,"hatever tu ùo \vith the 
matter. ..A va
tly ditferent principle has prevaileù ,vitIl the 
cvisionists. Theln5elves the tluþes uf an utterly nllstaken 
Theory of Te),.tual l i r iticislll, their suprelne solicitude has 




been to Ï1npose tltat same Tltcory,-( 1cltich is TV cstcott and 
Hort's,)-,vith all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned 
and unsuspicious public. 

"r e shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain 
'vhat ,ve nlean by so injurious-so dalnning-an iInputation ? 
For all reply, ,ye are content to refer to the salnple of our 
Ineaning ".hich ,viII be found below, in pp. 137-8. The expo- 
sure of ,yhat has there been sho'\"'11 to be the method of the 
RevisionÍsts in respect of S. l\Iark vi. 11, might Le repeated 
hundreds of times. It ,yould in fact fill a rcolu'J1lc. "r e shall 
therefore pass on, ,y hen ,ve ha ve asked the Rcvisionists in 
turn-How they have dared so effectually to blot uut thuse 
many precious ,vords from the Book of Life, that no mere 
English reader, depending on the l{evised 'Y. ersion for his 
ledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their 
existence? . . . Supposing even that it 'was the calalnitous 
result of their n1Ïstaken principles that they found theln- 
sel yes constrained on countless occasions, to on1Ït fronl their 
Text precious sayings of our LORD and Iris Apustles,-,vhat 
possible exctlse ,viII they offer for llot having pl'eserved a 
record of ,vords so an1ply attested, at least in tlteh- 1nargin ? 

Even so, hO"
vever, the "whole amount of the mischief "rhich 
has been effected by our Revisionists has not been stated. 
For the Greek Text ,yhich they haye iuyented proves to be 
so hopelessly deprayed throughout, that if it ".e1'e to be 
thrust upon the Church's acûeptance, \ye should be a thou- 
sand tÏ1nes ,vorse off than "
e ,yere \vith the Text ,vhich 
EraSlllUS and the Complutensiall,-Stephens, and Beza, and 
the Elzevirs,-bequeatlled to us up,vards of three centuries 
ago. On this part of the subject 've have remarked at length 
already [pp, 1-110]: yet shall ,ve be constrained to recur once 
and again to t11e underlying ({reck Text of the Revisionists, 


TEXT OF ::;, '1.\'1'111. I. 1 R, UEl"IL\ V ED. 


inasmuch as it is irnpossil,le to stir in any direction ,vith the 
task hefol'c us, ,,"ithout heing painfully reminded of its exist- 
cnce. Not only (10 the familiar Parables, l\Iiracles, }>iRcnurses 
of uur TA)HD, trip us up at every step, but ,,-c cannot open 
thù first page of the Gospel-no, nor indeed read tlLC first line 
-.without being brought to a standstill. Thus, 

1. S. :\Iatthew' begins,-' The book of the generation of 
uS CHRIST' (ver. l).-Good. But here the lllargin volun- 
teers t\'"O pieces of infofluation: first,-' Or, birth: as in 
Ycr. 18.' 'Ve refer to '"er. 18, and read-' N O'Y the 1Jirth of 
JESUS CHRIST 'was on this ,,-ise,' Good again; hut the 
ll1argiu says,-' Or, generation: as in Yer. 1.' Are we then 
to understand that the sante Greek 1.oord, diversely rendered 
in English, occurs in both places? 'Ve refer to the ''ìtc1.0 
Greek Text:' and there it stanùs,-')'ÉVEUL
 in either verse. 
But if the ""01'<1 be the saIne, ,,"hy (on the Revisers' theory) 
is it diycrsely rendered? 

In the meantinlC, 'lcho kno".s not that there is all the 
difference in the world het\veen S. l\Iatthe\v's 'YÉNEUL
, in 
vcr. I,-and the saIne S. l\latthe\v's ')'ÉNN H(TL
, in ver. 18? 
The latter, the Evangelist's announcement uf the circum- 
stances of the human Nativity of CHRIST: the former, the 
}:vangelist's unobtrusive ,yay of recalling the Septuagilltal 
rendering of Gen, ii. 4 and v. 1: 1 the same Evangelist's 
cahn nlcthod of guiding the devout and thoughtful stuùent 
to discern in the Go
pel the I-listory of the C ne\v Creatio11,'- 
llY thus proviùing that ,,"hen first the GOf-'pel 01)e11S its lips, it 
shall syllahle the nalne of the firsL book of the elder Cove- 
nant? "\Ye are pointing nut that it more than startles-it 
supreulely offellùs-one ,,"ho is even sleullerly acquainted 

1 AVTJ} 
 ßí,3ÀOí YfvECTfCIJr-Ol'IJavov Kni 'Yijr: abo--à




,vith the treasures of "risdOlU hiù in the yery diction of the 
N. T. Scriptures, to discover that a deliberate effort has heen 
Inade to get ric] of the very forClnost of those notes of Diyine 
intelligence, by confounding t,yO "Tords "Thich all do,vn the 
ages have ùeen carefully kept distinct; and that this effort 
is the result of an exaggeraterl estÏInate of a fe,v codices 
,vllÏch happen .to he ,vritten in the uncial character, viz. 
tw'o of the IY"th century (n N); one of the "\Tth (c); t,yO of 
the \TIth (r z); one of the IXth (ð.); one of the Xth (8). 

The Versions l_("rhich are uur oldest "ritllesses)-are 
perforce only partially helpful here. Note hu,veyer, that the 
only one whicl
 favou1's "If.VEUI8 is the heretical Harkleian 
Syriac, executed in the '
1 [th century. The Peschitu anù 
Cureton's Byriac distinguish bet"reell "IlVfU18 in Yer. 1 and 
"IÉVV7JUI8 in Yer. 18: as do the Slaxonic and the Arabian 
'T ersions. The Egyptian, .,1rmenian, .... Ethiopic and Georgian, 
have only one 'YOI'd for both. Let no une suppose ho,yever 
that thc'rlfure their testimony is anlbiguous. It is ryÉVV7JUL!) 
(nut ryf.VEUL!)) ,yhich they exhibit, Luth in Yer. 1 and in Yer. 18,2 
The Latin (' genc1yttio') is an e(plÍvocal rendering certainly: 
but the earliest Latin "Titer ,yho quutes the t".o places, 
(viz. Tertullian) en1ploys the ".ord 'genit1ll'a' in S. l\Iatth. 
i. 1,-but 'nati-,;ita:i' in Yer. 18,-,rhich no one seelllS to 
have noticed. 3 Now, Tertullian, (as one ,vItu sOllletÏ111es 

1 For my infoflnation on thi
 suhjf'ct, I mIl eñtirely indcbted to one 
who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he i8 perhaps the 
sole living depositary in England,-the Hev. Dr. S. C. 
Ialan. See his 
Se11en Chapters of the Revision of Ib81, '1'evised,-p. 3. But especially 
should the reader be referred to Dr. 
Ialan's learned dÍð8ertation on thi8 very 
subject in his Select Readings in frestcott and Hort's Gr. Text of s. 
1Jfatth.,-pp. 1 to 22. 
2 So Dr.l\Ialan in his Select ReadiJlfjs (see above note l),_pp. 15,17, If). 
8 "Libel' guâlltræ JC8U Christi filii David, filii Abraham" . . . "Gra- 
datill1 ordo dcducitur ad Chrbti nativitaJem."-Dc Carne Christi, c. 22. 


G OF K )I...\TTII. I. It:). 


\\Tote III Greek,) IS kno,vn to have lJeen conversant ,vith 
the Ch'eck copies of hi
 aay; ana 'hi
 l1ay,' he it TPIIIelll- 
Lered, is A.H. 1 fH1. JIe evidently recognized the parallelisJn 
llüt".PPH S. ::\Iatt. i, 1 and Gen. ii. 4,-,,'here the old Latin 
 'libel' crcal1trm' or 'facluræ,' as the' rendering of 
ßíß^.o() ryEVÉUE(i)(). And so lllnch for the testÍIuony of the 
\T ersions. 

But on reference to 
Ianuscript and to Patristic authority 1 
,\"c arc encountered by an over,,-hclmiHg aillount of testi- 
lLlOUY for ryÉVV7JUL() in Ycr. 18: and this, considering the 
nature of the case, is an extraordinHl'y circunlstance. Quite 
plain is it that the ..A..ncients ""ere "ide awake to the llifter- 
encp between spelling the "Tord ,vith one N or ,vith two,- 
 the little dissertation of the heretic N estorius 2 in itself 
unl(l Lc enough to prov
. réVV17Ul(), in the IncantÏ1ne, is 
the ,,"ord eJnploycd by Justin 1\I.,3-by Clcmens .Alex,,4-hy 
Athanasius,5-by Gregory of Naziallzus,6-by Cyril ..L\1ex.,1 
-by .Nestorius,8 - by Chrysostolu,9 - by 'rheodorus ßlop- 

1 A friendly critic complains that we do not 
pecify which editions of the 
 we quote. Our reply is-This [was] a Ueview, not a Treatise. 'Ve 
are constrained to omit such deta.il
. Briefly, we always quote the best 
diti(Jlt. Critical readers can experience no difficulty in verifying our 
references. A few t1etails shall however he a(lded : Justin (Otto): Irewcus 
(Stieren): Clenlen
\.1. (l)otte)-): Tertullian (Oehle)'): Cyprian (Baluz -): 
El1sel,ius (G({i
f()rd): Athanas. (lGÐ8): Greg. Nyss. (lG38): Epiphau. 
(1HZ:!): Didymus (17m)): Ephmem f'yr. (1702): J ermue (Vallarsi): 
Kilns (If.fi8-7?'): Chrysostonl (.Jlouifuucoll): Cyril (.Jube)ot): Isid()rllS 
8): rl'hcoùttret (Sclutlzp): .\{aximus (1ß7fi): John Dmll3,:,Cene (/.t:- 
quitn): Photius (lß5;
). :\Iost of the others (as Origcn, Greg. Xaziauz., 
Basil, Cyril of ,Tel'" ..\mhrn
e, lIilary, Augustine), are qUlItetl from t1m 
Hcncllictiue e(litioll
. \VhCll we sa.y '1\Iai; we a1wa
':; mean bis ..LVOl.'(l 
lliblioth. P P. lti,)
-71. By' 
Iontfaucon,' we Incan the }.T OU . Cull. P I). 
] 707. It is necessity that makes U
o hrief. 
2 Concilia, iii. 521 a to d. S i. 2 310. 
ð J, !)J:1 c. ø i. 733. 
8 ( 1 " 1 " . .") . ) - ( C " I 2 (). ) 
011ft . IJI. oJ_,J = yn v. _H a. . 

.. P. 8SÐ line 37 (yÉJlY)ULJI). 
7 v. l 3G3, G7ü. 

8; viii. :H L 




suest., I-and by three other ancients. 2 Even Inorc deserving 
of attention is it that Irenæus 3 (A.D. 170)-(\,ho111 Ger- 
Inanus 4 copies at the end of 550 years)-calls attention to 
the difference bet,yeen the spelling of vel'. 1 and vel'. 18. 
So ùoes l)idymus: 5_ S0 does Basil: 6_ S0 does Epiphanius,7 
-Origen 8 (A,D. 210) is even eloquent on the subject.-Ter- 
tullian (A,D. 190) ,ye have heard already.-It is a significant 
circunlstance, that the only l">atristic authorities discoveraLle 
on the other side are Eusebius, Theoùoret, and the authors 
of an heretical Creed 9-,vholll Athanasius holds up to scorn. 10 
. . . 'Vill the Revisionists still pretend to tell us that ryÉVV1}(J"lS 
in verse 18 is a 'plain and clear error' ? 

2. This, ho,vever, is not all. Against the ,vords 'of JESUS 
CHRIST,' a further critical annotation is volunteered; to the 
effect that' Sun1e ancient authorities read of the Christ.' In 
reply to which, ,ye assert that not one single knofwn J,IS. 
on1Ïts the word 'JESUS:' ,vhilst its presence is vouched for 
by ps.- Tatian, 11_ Irenæus, -Origen,- Eusebius,- Did) lnus,- 
Epiphanius, - Chrysostonl, - Cyril, - in addition to every 
known Greek eopy of the Gospels, and not a fe" of the .Y. er- 
sions, including the Peschito and both the Egyptian. "That else 
but nugatory therefore is such a piece of inforlllation as this? 

3. And so much for the first, seconù, and third Critical 
annotations, \\
ith ,vhich the JUargill of the revised N. T. is 
1 In Matth. ii. 16. 
2 P
.-..Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694. 
3 P. 470. f Gall. ix. 215. 
t) Trin. 18ö. 6 i. 250 b. 7 i. 426 a (yÉllT}Utr). 
8 Atacþipn yill
Utr Kuì yillllT}utr. yill
Utr fLÈv y(íp Èun 7rupà E>
, '" ' , 
, f , 
 e ' Ò " ' ß ' l:. 
'TrpWT1} 7r^uutr, YEllllT}Utr UE T} EK KUTllULKT}r TOlJ UllUTOlJ ta T1}ll 7rUPU UUtll Eç 
oXry.-Galland. xiv. .Append. pp. 73, 74. 
I) [dated 23 lIay A.D. 359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d. 10 i. 722 c. 
11 P. 
O of the newly-recovered Diatesðaron, transhtetl from the Armenian. 
'l'he Expl'sition is claimed for Ephracll1 Syrus. 


CORnECT.-TEXT of S. l\IATTII. I. 2á, 

1 ')" 

disfigured. Tloping that the ,n)rst is no\V oyer, we read 011 
tin Wp rcn.ch Yer. 23, ,vherc "c encounter a statcluent 
'which fairly trips us up: viz.,-' .A.nl! klle\V her not till ske 
kad brourjld forth a son.' K 0 intilnation is afforded of \\'ltat 
has becn here effected; Lut in the Ill
'1ntÏInc eycry one's 
n1el11ory SUl)p1ics the epithet (' her first-Lorn') ,,'hich haR 
Leen ejected. "rhether SOlllcthing yery like indignatioIl is 
not excited Ly the discoycry that these Ï1nportant ,vonl
haye heen surreptitiously" ithdrawn from their place, let 
ay. -r"or ourselyes, ,vhen "e find that only N B Z 
and tw'O cursive copies can be produced for the ulnission, 
we are at a loss to understand of ,vhat the I
evisionists can 
have b
en dreanlÍng, Did they kno,v 1 that,-besides the 
Vulgate, the L'eschito and Philoxenian 8yriac, the .LEthiopic, 
Annenian, Georgian, and Slayonian Versions,2- a \yho1e 
torrent of .Fathers are at hand to vouch for the genuineness 
of the epithet they "'ere so uncereIllOniouf.:Iy e4cising? 
1"hey art") invited to refer to ps.-Tatian,3-to .i.\thanasius,4- 
to ])illYllnl
,5-to Cyril of Jer.,6-to Basil,7-to ti-reg. Xyss,,8 
-to Ephraeu1 Syr.,9-to Epiphanius,Io-to Chry
to Proclus,12-to Isidorus Pelus.,13-to John Dalnasc.,14-to 
1)hotius,15-to :Kicetas: 16-besides, of the Latins, 
\..nl brose, 11 
-the Dims imp.,-_\.ugustine,-alld not least to Jerolllè 18_ 
cighteen :Fathers in all. Aud ho,y is it possible, (\ve ask,) 

1 Dr. 1\Ialan, Sel'en Chaplers of the Revision, 'revised, p. 7. 
 below, note IS. J See p. 122, note 11. 
4 i. 93tí, !J32. Also l*,.-.Athan. ii. 409, excellently. 
6 Triu. 349. 6 1). 116. 7 i. 3U
; ii. 5U9, GOO. 8 iÏ. 229. 
II See 1 .)') t 11 10. 4 ') () 1 /\ 1 9 ( - t . ) 10 -') 3 
p, __, no c . 1. 'J:_ , \N:. 0 IIDes, t..>_-. 
11 vii, 76. 12 Gallaml. ix. 636. 
IS p, () (róv tJíòv aÌJrijs: which is abo the reading of Syr n and (If the 
Sahidic. 1'he :Mcmphitic version reprc
 TÒV víóv.) 
14 i. 27{). 16 Gal. xiii. üü2. 16 In Cut: 11 ii. 4()2. 
18 'Ex hoc loco quidam perve1'sissime s1.lspÎcalltuT ct alios filios habuis.\c 
Jfarlaln, dicenlf'." pn"mOJenitll1ìl 11011 dici nisi qui haÞütf et fl,,,tns' (vii. 1 n. 
lIe refers t
1 hi::; trcati:-c a
ainst Hdvit1ius, ii. 


that t\yO copies of the IVth century (n
) and one of the 
,rlth (z)-all three \vithout a character-backed by a few 
copies of the old Latin, should ùe supposen. to he any 
counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate con- 
tenlporary evidence as the foregoing 1 

Enough has been offered by this time to prove that an 
authoritative Revision of the Greek Text "Till hayc to pre- 
cede any future J{e,-ision of the English of the N e"w Testa- 
1nent, Equally certain is it that for such an uIlllertaking 
the tÏ1lle has not yet COIl1e. " It i
 IllY honest conyietion,"- 
(relllarks Up. Ellicott, the Chainnan of the Revisiunists,)- 
" that for any authoritatiye Heyision, ,,-e are not yet lnature: 
either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship." 1 
The same opinion precisely is found to have Leen cherishetl 
hy I)r. "r estcott till 'within about u yc(u t -and..a-hulf2 uf the 
first assclnbling of the N e\v Tesbnnent COTI1pany in the 
(.Terusaleln Ch
2nd .Tune, 1870. True, that \ve enjoy 
access to-suppose froln 1000 to 2UOO-more MANUSClnPTS 
than \yere ayailahle \vhen the Textus TIecept. ,,-as fonned. J
nineteen-t,velltieths of those doculnents, for any use ,vhich 
has been 1nade of theIn, nlÍght just as ,,-ell be still lying in 
the 1110nastic libraries 1'1'0111 ,vhich they \vcre ol>taillecl.-True, 
that four out of our fi ye oldest uncials ha ye COille to light 
since the year 1628; l>ut, 'lcho kîW'WS how to 'llSC th(,11l ?- True, 
that "ye haye In[1(le acquaintance ,yith cel
taill ancient 
,rEUSIONS, about \vhich little or nothing ,vas knO\\Tll 200 
years ago: but,-( '\Tith the solitary exception of the l:ey. 
SOIOIllOll Cæsar .:\lalan, the learned 'Tical' of Broad"Tilldsor,- 
\vho, by the "yay, is ah,-ays rea(ly to lend a torch to his 
henighted Lrethrell,)-\\rhat liying Ellglislullan is able to tell 

1 Preface to Past01'al Epistles,-nlOre fully quoted facing p. 1. 
2 Tlw Prefacc (quoted above facing p. 1,) is datcd 3rt! Nov. 18ü8. 

I I.] 



US \vhat they all contai1l1 A slnattering acquaintance ,,"ith 
the languages of ancient Egypt,-the Gothic, .LEthiopic, Ar- 
Hlenian , Ueoro'iau and Rlavouian ,r cTsions,-is of no Illanner 
of nxail. In no departlllcnt, prohably, is 'a littlè learning' 
IDon- sure to prove 'a dangerous thing,' -True, lastly, that 
the .F
\.TnEHs haye been better cdited ,vithin the last 2:10 
years: <.luring ,v!licIt period senne fresh l)atristic \\Titings 
have also COlne to light. lJut, \vith the exception of Thco- 
doret :uuong the Greeks and Tertullian alnong the Latins, 
'which of the Fathers has becn satisfactorily indexed? 

E\Ten "That precmIes is not nearly all. The fll/
])rinciplu5 uf the Science uf Textual Criticisnl are not yet 
apprehendee1. In proof of this assertion, \Ye appeal to the 
no\\? lh'cek Text of ])rs, 'Yestcott and] [ort,-" hich, IJcyond 
all cOlltrOYCrsy, is lHore hopelessly relnoto fronl the inspired 
Original than any \vhiclt has yet appeared. Let a generation 
of Students giye thclllsel yes entirely up to this neglected 
hranch of sacrcel Science. Let 500 1110re COPIES of the 
pels, .A.cts, and Epistles, be diligently collated. Let at 
least 100 of the ancient Lfctioluo'ics be ycry exactly collated 
also, Let the lllost ÍIHportaut of the aneient '
ellited afre:-;h, anlI let the languages in \\-hich these are 
\\Titten l,e for the first tiUIC really 1nastcrcd hy }:nglislnuen. 
Abo1:c all, let thc FATHERS bc calla1 upon to !Jive 'lIp thci1' 
p1'ccious sec1'cts. Let their \\-ritings be ransa
ked and indexed, 
antI (,,-here needful) lot the .l\ISS. of t}ll
ir ,yorks Le dili- 
gently inspected, in order that \\Te luay kno\v \yhat actually 
is the eyiùence \vhich they afford. Only so \vill it C\Ter he 
possihle to obtain a Greek Text on "ThicIt absolute reliance 
111ay be plaeeel, and \vhidl lllay serye as the basis for a 
satisfactory nevision uf our 
\.uthorizell \r er:-;iOl1. X ay, let 
,vhatever unpul)lished ,yorks uf the ancient (heck Fathers are 
anywhere knO\nl to cxist,-( and not a fe"w precious rClnains 

,.. ) 

of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at 
h0111e and abroacl,)-let these be printed. . The men could 
easily be found: the 11loney, far more easily.- 1Vhen all this 
has been done,-not bifore-then in GOD'S :KaIne, let the 
Church adùress herself to the great undertaking. Do but 
revive the arrangements \vhich were adopted in I(ing Jalnes's 
days: and we venture to predict that less than a third part 
of ten yeals will be found abundantly to suffice for the ,york. 
Ho"\\ the cOIning men ,vill sn1Ïle at the picture 1)1'. N e,vth 1 
has drawn of what \vas the method of procedure in the reign 
of Queen \Tictoria! "Till they not peruse with dO"Tnright 
InerrÏ1nellt Rp. Ellicott's jaunty proposal "si'Jnply to proceed 
01l/10(Frd 'with the 'work,"-[to ,vit, of constructing a new Greek 
Text,]-" in fact, solrcl'c a1nblllando," [nccnon in laqucu11
cadcndo] ? 2 

I. 'Ve cannot, it is presun1ed, act more fairly by the 
Revisers' "\Vork,3 than by follo\"ing thelll over some of the 
ground ".hich they claim to haxe lllade their O"Tll, and 
\vhich, at the conclusion of their laLours, their Right 

1 Lectures on Biblical Revision, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp. 37-9. 
2 On Revision, pp. 30 and 4:9. 
3 The New Testament of Ú1U' Lord and Saviuu,r JESUS CnBIST, tl"a n sla led 
out of the Gl.æk: being the J""erswn set forth A.D. 1611, compared with 
the most al1cÙmt A'utlwrities, and RelJised A.D. 1t;
1. Printed for the 
Universities of Oxford and Caillbridge, 1881. 
The New Testament in the Urigi1lal Greek, according to the Text 
followed in tlle Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in 
the Revised rerswn. Edited for the Syndics of the Calubridge University 
Press, by 
". H. A. Scrivener, 
I.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter 
and Vicar of IIendon. Cambridge, 1881. 
c H KA1NH ðIA0HKH. The Greek TeSÚLment, with the Readinys 
adopted by the Revisers (1 the Authorized lérsion. [Edited by the Ven. 
Archdeacon Palmer, D,D.] Oxford, 1881. 
The ]...Tew 1'estament in the Original G't"eek. The Text revised by 
Brooke Foss 'Yestcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. 
Cambridge and London, 1881. 




1 ()- 

UevcrcIHl Chairlnan evÜlcntly surveys ,,'ith self-coTnplacenry_ 
Firf;t, 11(") inyites attention to thu I)rinC'iple tllHl Hnlp for 
their guidanc(' agreed to by the COlnIllittcc of Convocation 
(25th 1\lay, 1
70), viz. C To ISTRODLCE A;-3 FE\\T .\LTEIL\TIO:\;-; 
COX:::;I:-;TEXTLY ".ITII }'_\ITIIFULXESS.' 'V orùs could not be II10re 
clnphatic. c rL
\IY AXD CLEAU EltltORs' ".erc to be correct 'ù. 
c :NEcE8S
RY cluendations' ,vere to be lllade. nut (in the 
"'onIs of the Southern Convocation) C "T e do not contelllplate 
any lle\\T Translation, or any alteration of the ZcOlfJllO!JC, 
EXCEPT 'VIIERE, in the judglncnt of the most competent 

cholars, SUCH CH.\XGE IS KECESSARY.' The ,,"atclnn)nl, 
therefore, briven to the con1pauy of Hevi
ionists "as,- 
'XECESSITY.' .l'''''cccssity ,yas to determine "Thether they ".erc 
to depart fronl the language of the .Authorized 'T ersion, or 
not; for the alterations ".ere to be AS FE"" AS POSSIBLE. 

(a) No\v it is idle to deny that this fundamental Principle 
has Leen utterly sct at defiance. To such an extent is 
this the case, that even an unlettered I
eader is competent to 
judge theln. 'Vhen v;e find C to' snbstituteJ for C unto' 
(pnssÍ1n) :-' hcrL'by' for C by this' (1 J o. Y. 2) :-' all that arc,' 
for' all that be' (TIull1. i. 7) :-' alway' for C ah
;ays' (2 Thess. 
i. 3) :-' Wè that,' 'them that,' for '\\-e u'hich,' 'them which' 
(1 Thess, hr. 1j); and yet C every spirit u'hich/ for C every 
spirit that' (1 J o. iv. 3), and 'he u,ho is not of GOD,' for C he 
that is not of GOD' (yer. G,-although C he that kno\\.cth GOD' 
ha,1 prccedeù, in the sallIe verse) :-' 'Jny host' for C llline host' 
(Holn. xvi. 2:3); and C 'underneath' fur ''lIIHIcr' (He\-. vi. 9): 
-it beCUllle
 clear that the nevi
ers' notion uf KECE

is not that uf the rest ùf Illankind. But let the plain Truth 
be 8tateJ. Certain of theIn, when renlonstrated ,,-ith Ly their 
fcllo\vs for the luanifest ùisrcgarc.l they "'cre sho\,"inO' tû the 
Instructions suLject t() ,vhich they had undertaken the work 




of Rcyision, are reported to h
 ve even gloried In their 
shalne. The Inajority, it is clear, have even ostentatiously 
set those Instructions at defiance. 

'V" as the course they pursued,-("re ask the question 
respectflllly,)-strictly honest? To decline the ,vork entirely 
under the prescribed Conditions, ,vas al '\Tays in their po,ver. 
But, first to accept the Conditions, and straightway to 
act in defiance of theln,-this strikes us as a 11lethod of 
proceeding ,vhich it is difficult, to reconcile ,vith the high 
character of the occupants of the (J erusalenl ChalllLcr. To 
proceed ho\vever. 

, Nevertheless' and 'notwithstanlling' have had a sad 
tÜne of it. One or other of then1 has Leen turned out in 
favour of ' howùeit' (S. Lu. x. 11, 
O),-of ' only' (Phil. iii, 16), 
-of' only that' (i. 18),-of ' yet' (S. 1\Iatth. xi. 11 ),-of ' ù'nt ' 
(xvii. 27),-of ' and yet' (J alnes ii. 16). . . . ".,. e find' take lwcll' 
substituted for' be,yare ' (Col. ii. 8) :-' cust01J
' for' Inanner' 
(S. J o. xix. 40) :-' he ,vas a1}ulzcrl,' for 'he "Tas astonished:' 
(S. Lu. v. 9) :-' Is it I, LORD?' for' LORD, is it I ? ' (S.l\fattll. 
xxvi, 22) :-' stl'ai[jht1vay the cock cre'v,' for 'imnlediately 
the cock crew' (S. J o. xviii. 27) :-' Then thcrcf01'e he delivered 
lIi1/1;,' for 'Then delivered he HÌ1n therefore' (xix. 16):- 
, b'i'o1l[jht it to His lllouth,' for' put it to IIis nlouth' (vel'. 29) : 
_, IIf ?JLanijcstcd HÙnsclj O1t this wise,' for 'on this "Tise 
she"Tecl He HÜnself' (xxi. 1) :-' So 'lchcn they [jot aut upon the 
land,' for' As soon then as they \vere COllle to land' (vel'. D) : 
_, the things conccTnin[j,' for 'the things pertaining to the 
kingdolfl of GOD' (Acts i. 3) :-' as GOD'S steward,' for' as 
the ste\vard of GOD' (Tit. i. 7): but' the belly of the whale' 
fùr ' the ,vhale's belly' (S. 1\fatth. xii. 40), and' device of man' 
'for'l11an's device' in Acts xvii. 29.- These, and hundreds of 
sill1Ílal' alterations have been evidently Inaùe out of the 






llicrest \\"antonnc:-;:-;. 
\.fter suhstitutin
 ' tlU1 ('ful c' for' tht'li ' 
 the rendering of ovv) a score of times,-the Hcvisionists 
II uitfl Hccdlessly substitute' then' for' therefore' in 
. ,J o. xix. 
.-...\.llÙ ,vhy has the singularly beautiful greeting of 'the 
cIder unto the ,,"ell-beloved Gaius,' ùeen exchanged for' unto 
 the beloved'? (3 John, vel'. 1). 

(b) "T e turn fl fe,\" page:), and find 'he that docth sin,' 
sulJstituted for' he that committeth sin; , and' To this end' put 
in the place of' For this purpof,e' (1 J 0, iii, 8) :-' lw ce bd
and bClO. 'witness,' for' have seen and do testify' (iv. 14):- 
'hcreby' for' by this' (v. 2) :-' Judas' for 'Jude' (Jude 
ycr, 1), although '.I.1Ia1.k' ,vas substituted for '
Iarcus' (in 
1 Pet. v. 1:1), and' Ti1nothy , for' TiInotheus' (in Phil. i. 1): 
-' ho\v that they said to you,' for' how that they tola you' 
(.Jude yer, 18).-But "Thy go on? The substitution of 'o
ingly' for' greatly' in Acts vi. 7 :-' the birds' for' the fo\vls,' 
in Rev. xix. 2] :-' Alrnighty' for 'Olnnipotent' in 'Tel'. 6: 
-' throw down' for 'cast down,' in S. Luke iv. 29 :-' inncr 
cha1nber' for (closet,' in vi. 6 :-these are Itot 'necessary' 
changes. . , . . 'Ye "Till giye but three instances 1110re:- In 
1 S. Pet. v. 9, 'wh0111 'resist, stedfast in the faith,' has been 
altered into '\VhOnl 'wit7
stand.' But ho\v is '\\yithstanù' a 
hetter renflering for ÙVT{UT7JTE, than 'resist'? ' Resist,' fit 
all events, 1.()a.
(' R('ri
ionists' 'lcm'd in S. il[atth. v. J
flnd S, Janl,cs iv. 7,- 'Vhy also substitute' thp 'race' (for (thl) 
kindred ') , of Joseph' in ....-\cts vii. 13, although ryf.VOç; '\a
rcndered 'kindred' in i \Y. 6 1- Do the Revisionists think 
that 'fastening their eye,: on hinl' is a better rendcring of 
åTEvíuavTE\j Eì
 aÙTóv (...\.cts vi. 15) tÌldJl 'lonkin!J .c;fN1fastly on 
hinl' ? They certainly rlid not think so when they got to 
xxiii. 1. There, hecause they founel' rnrstly ncholdÙ19 thp 
council,' they must needs alter the phn
se into 'lookil1!J 
.'Jtcrlfa.')t1!J' it is clear thercforc that Crrpl'ice, not J.tc 'c..;sil,l/,- 




an itclling Í1np{tticnce to introduce changes into the A.V., not 
the discovery of 'plain and clcar errors,' -has determined 
the great bulk of the alterations ,vhich lllolest us in e\ ery 
part of the present unlearned and tasteless performance. 

II. The next point to ,,'"hich the IIevisionists direct our 
attention is their :KE\V GREEK TEXT,-' the necessary foundation 
of' their ,,'"ork. .A.nd here "'"e Blust rene,v our protest against 
the ,vrong ,,'"hich has been done to English readers by the 
Revisionists'disregard of the I"'''th TIule laid do,vn for their 
guidance, viz. that, ,vhenever they adopted a new Textual 
reading, such alteration ,vas to be ' indicatcd in the margin.' 
This 'proved inconvenient,' say the ltevisionists. Yes, ,ye 
reply: but only because you sa,,," fit, in preference, to choke 
up your margin ,vith a record of the preposterous readings 
you did not admit. Even so, however, the thing n1Ïght to 
SOlne extent have been done, if only by a system of signs 
in the margin ,vherever a change in the Text had been by 
yourselves effected. And, at ,,,hatever 'inconvenience,' you 
"Tere bound to do this,-partly because the TIule before you 
,vas express: but chiefly in fairness to the English l{eader. 
IIo,v comes it to pass that you ha ve never furnished hÏ1n 
,vith the information you stood pledged to furnish; but have 
instead, volunteered in eyery page infonnation, ,vo1'thless 
in itself, ,,
hich can only serve to unsettle the faith of un- 
lettered nÜllions, and to suggest unreasonable as ,yell as 
miserable doubts to the nlinds of all ? 

For no one Inay for an instant Í1nagine that the marginal 
statements of which ,ve speak are a kind of equivalent for 
the Apparatus Critic1ls ,yhich is found in every principal 
edition of the Greek Testanlent-exceptillg ahvays that of 
Drs, Westcott and Hort, So far are ,ve from deprecating 
(,vitb Daniel "\Vhitby) the lllultiplicatioll of' Various Read... 


PE ""1'1' OIi1 THEIn )L\HG[


iugs,' that "re rejoice in thelll exceedingly; knfJ,ving that 
they are the very fc )\lJulation of our confi(lence allel the secret 
of our strength, VOl' this reason "'e consicler 1 )1'. Tischen- 
dorf's last (Hth) edition to be furnished ,vith not nearly 
enough ùf thenl, though he left all his predeée::,sors (an(I 
clf in his 7th edition) far behind. Our quarrel with the 
ncyisionists is iLOt by any InoanS that they have COlnmelno- 
rated actual 'alternative I
eadings' in their Inargin: Lut 
that, ,rhile they have gÏ\'en pron1Înence throughout to pat 'nt 
Errors, they hayc 'IIllfairly CJxl"dcd (Ill ?ll('lltion of,-lta/L'c not 
JJladc the sli!Jhtc
t allusion to,-hIl1U1J'cds of R(,(lrlin.'lS 'which 
O"f/ht in fact 'Jytthcr to havc stood in the Text. 
TIll" nlarginal readings, ,vhich our Revisers have been so 
ill-a(hrised as to put l->l'oluinently fOl',vard, and to introduce 
to the Header's notice ,vith the vague statenlent that they are 
Htlnctioncd by '
ollle' (or by , l\lallY ') , ancient authorities,'- 
are SpccÜllcns arbitJ.arily selcctcd out of an iuunense Blass; 
are 11lagisterially recolllnlenùeù to public attentioll and 
fannlr; SCCl1
 to be invested ,vith the sanction and authority 
of Convocation itself. And this hecollles a very f.:erious 
Blatter Ï1u1eed. 
 0 hint is given 1r7,idl be thl' 'ancient 
...\uthorities' so referred to :-nur ,,,hat propcn'tioll they lwar 
tù the' ancient Authorities' prot1ncilJle on the opposite fo\idc: 
-nor "hether they are the 'mo.st 'ancient ...\..uthoritie:s' obtain- 
ahle :-nor ,vhat aUlount of attention their trstÏ1nony Inay 
rea:-.;onably claÏ1n. Dut in the lueantÏ1ne a fatal assertion is 
hazanled ill the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect that i l cas s 
WhCì'C ' it 'lcullid ìlot be S(ifC to ({('ccpt onr Rcarfill!/ 10 tlu flbsol"te 
exclusion of Ot7UTf
,' 'altcì'natil'c Rcadi,l.,/S' have lWl'n gi, en 'in 
the Inargin,' 
o that the ' Agony and bloody :-,,,.cat' of the 
'V orld's HEDEE)lER (Lu. xxii. !;3, 44),-antll lis Prayer for Ilis 
 (xxiii. 34),-and much beside of tran,;; 'cndent 
i1nl'ortance and inestÜnalJIe value, l11ay, aCCOl'rlÙ1J to UlI.1' 
ioni:)lg, pru,.e tu r(l
t upon nu fouu<1atillll whate, el'. 
K :! 


s. l\IAUK J, 1: :::;. JUH
 J. 3, AND III. 13. 


At all events, 'it 1.uould not be safe,' (i,e, it is not safe) to place 
absolute reliance on them. Alas, how Inany a deadly blo\v 
at Rcyealed Truth hath been in this ,yay aimed \vith fatal 
adroitness, \yhich no anlount of orthodox learning \vill ever 
be able hereafter to heal, llluch less to undo! Thus,-- 

(a) Fronl the first verse of S. 
Iark's Gospel we are 
infoflned that 'Solne ancient authorities omit the Son of 
GOD.' "Thy are ,ve not infol'lued that every kno,vn uncial 
Copy cæcept one of bad cha1'"acter,-every cursive but two,- 
evcry Ve1'"sion,-and the follo,ving Fathers,-all contain the 
precious clause: viz. lrenæus,-Porphyry,-Severianus of 
Gabala,-Cyril Alex,,- Victor Ant.,-and others,-besideB 
Ambrose and Augustine alnong the Latins :-,vhile the sup- 
posed adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil and 
Victorinus, Cyril of J er. and Epiphanius, proves to be all 
a n1Ïstake 1 To sl)eak plainly, since the clause is above 
suspicion, TfThy a1'"e we not 1'"ather told so ? 

(b) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John's 
Gospel, wre are left to take our choice bet\veen,-' ,,'ithuut 
HÏ1n \vas not anything nlade that hath been nlade. In him 
\vas life; and the life,' &c,,-and the follo,ving absurd alter- 
native,-' 'Vithout hÏIn ,,,"as not anything Inane. Thctl 'which 
hath been 'made 'lvas life in him,. anù the life,' &c. But ,ve 
are not infonneJ that this latter Inonstrous figment is kno,vn 
to have been the Ünportation of the Gnostic heretics in the 
lInd century, and to be as destitute of authority as it is of 
sense. 1Vlty is p1'"01ninence gÙ;en only to tlw lie? 

(c) At S, John iii. 13, ""e are informed that the last clause 
of that fanlous verse (' No Inan hath ascended up tu heaven, 
but He that came ÙO\\-ll from hea\Ten, e\Ten the Son of l\Ian- 
which is ,in heaven '), is n<?t found in 'many ancient autho- 

II,] THE Tl':X'r O}1' 
. JOll
 III. 13 E
I1ED. 133 

rities.' But ,yhy, in the name of COllUIlon fairne

, arc "Te not 
o reminded that this, (as ".ill be found more fuByexplained 
in thr note overleaf,) is a circumstance of no Text at signi- 
ficancy lchat rer? 
'Y"hy, above all, are ,ve not assured that the precious clause 
in question (ó wv Èv TCP ovpavtjJ) is founù in every 
lS. in 
the ,,"urld, except fiye of had character ?-is recognizeù lty 
all the Latin and all the Syriac versions; as "rell as by the 
Coptic,-lEthiopic,-Georgian,-and Anncllian ? I-is either 
quoted or insisted upon by Ûrigcn,2-IIippolytus,3-...1thana- 
sins,' - I)idYUIUS,5 - Aphraates the Persian,6 - Basi] the 
Great,7 -Epiphanius,8 -Nonnus, -ps,-Dionysius .A.lex,,9- 
Eustathius; IO_by Chrysostoul, 11_ Theodoret, 12-and Cyril,13 
each -1: tÏ1lles ;-by Paulus, Bishop of Elnesa 14 (in a sennon 
on Christmas Day, A.D. 431) ;-by Theodorus :\10pS.,15- 
AUlpIlilochins, 16-S e 'Terus, 17_ Theodorns Heracl.,18-Rasilius 
Cil.,19-Coslnas,20-John Dalnascene, in 3 places,21- all d 4 
other ancient Greek "'Titers; 22 - besides ....\.n1brose,23- 
Xovatian,24 - Hilary,25 - Lucifer,26 - 'Tictorinus,-Jerome,2'l 
- Cassian, - 'Tigilius,28 - Zeno,29 - l\larius,30 - ::\IaxÜllus 
Taur,,31-Capreolus,32_..c\.ugustille, &c. :-is ackno".ledged by 
Laclnnalln, Tregelles, Tischelldorf: in short, is quite abm;e 
l>uspicion: ,vhy are "'e not told that? Those 10 V ersiulls, 

1 'Malan's Gospel (I S. John translated from the Eleven old st rers 'ons. 
2 Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis. S C. Noel. 9 4. 4 i. 1275. IS Trill. 3fj3. 
6 Ap, Gall. v. 67. 7 i. 2b2. 8 i.486. 
9 Ep. ad Paul. 
.am. Concil. i. b72 e; böD e. 10 AI'. Galland. iv. 5G3. 
11 vii. 546; viii, 153, 1:>4,277. 12 iii. 570; h.. 2:!(), 1049, 1133. 
18 iv. 150 (text); ,'i. 30, 169. )lai, ii. 6Ð. 14 Concilia, iii. 110
105 Quuted by Leontius (Gall. xii. (93). 16 III Cat. Cord. Uß. 
17 Ibid. p. 9-1. 18 Cat. in Ps. ii. 3
3 and 343. 19 Ap. Photium, p. :.!Hl. 
20 :Montf. ii. 286. 21 i. 2')
, 339, .')G7. 
22 Ps,-Athan. ii. 464. .Another, 6
.3. }..nother,630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii. 2ö7. 
23 i. 863, 903, 1-128. 
 Gall. iii. 296. 2ð 32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis. 
26 Gall. vi. 192. 27 iv. G79. 28 Ap. Athan. ii. l).H), 29 Gall. v. 12.!' 
30 Ib " d '" ")101 f\-- 81 lb . / '. n,
- :to! lb ' I . 40 3 
l . JB. tLa, u'
. U . IX. ùÙ I. t( . IX. -:to.1 . 

.E IX S. JOHN III. 13, TO [AHT. 

those 38 Fathel's, that host of Copies in the proportion of 
995 to 5,-why, concerning all these is there not so much 
as a hint let fall that such é:L maS:-3 of counter-evidence 
exists? 1 . . . Shalne,-yes, 
ha'ìnc un the learning ,vhich 
COlnes abroad only to perplex the ,veak, and to unsettle the 

1 Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts 
of the several VERSIONS above enumerated, and mentally assign each 
FATHER to hi
 own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind that 
ÐU5 out of 1000 of the extant 
IAXUSCRIPTS agree with those Fathers and 
Versions; and let him further recognize that those 
S. (executed at 
different dates in different countries) must 
everally represent independent 
remotc originals, inmnnuch as no two of thetn are found to be quite alike. 
-Next, let hinl consider that, in all the ChUl'cileS of the East, these words 
from the earlie
t period were read as part of the Gospel for tll,e Thursday 
in Easter 'lVeek.-Thi
 done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that 
two worshippers of codex B-A.D. 1881-should attempt to thrust all this 
DlasS of ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentcnce 
of exclusion,-' \V ESTERN A
Drs. \Yestcott and Hort infoflll us that' the character of the attestation 
luarks' the clau:::;e (ó &v Èv Tcê ovpavcê),' as a \YESTERS GLOSS.' But the 
, attestation' for retaining that clause--( a) Comes demonstrably from 
every q muter of ancient Christendom :--(b) I
 more ancient (by 200 years) 
than the evidence for Olnitting it :--( c) I
 more nUlllerons, in the propor- 
tion of U9 to 1 :-(d) In point of respectability, stands absolutely alone. 
.For since we have proved that Origen and DidYlnus, Epiphanius and Cyril, 
Alnbrose and Jeronle, 'recognize the words in dispute, of what possihlc 
Textual significancy can it be if presently (becau:;e it 'ls sufficieJd for their 
purpose) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii. 13 Jtofurthe'i' 
than down to the words I Son of .11Ian'? Ko person, (least of all a pro- 
fessed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few grains of conlmon scnse and a 
little candour, can be misled by su('h a cirCUlnstance. Origen, Eusebiu::" 
Proclus, Ephraim t;yrus, Jeronle, )larius, when they are only insisting 
on the doctrinal significancy of the earlier words, naturally end their 
quotation at thi
 place. The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Kyss. 
[Galland. vi. 522]), writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course 
quoted the verse no further than Apolinaris himself was accustonled (for 
his heresy) to adduce it. . . . About the internal evidence for the clause, 
nothing has been said; but this is simply overwhelming. \Ve make our 
appeal to Catholic Antiquity; and are content to rest our cau::;e {In 
E.rtenwl Evidence ;-on COPIES, on YERSJOKb, on FATHERS. 

TATED.-' :XU:\lIn:n OF TI[J.
 BEA'-\ f.' 135 

doulJting, and to lnislcad the bliud! Shanlc,-ycs, sh me 
011 that two-thirds majority of \vell-intentioned but IHusl 
inCOlnpetent lllcn, ,,-ho,-finiling thcmsel\ es (in an evil hour) 
appointed to correct" l}lnin and clcaì' errors" in the ]
, .Authorized Version,' - occupic(l then1selve
 iIlHtead "ith 
f((hii/!fing ilu; in:
piJ'C(l Gi"('cl' Text in count1e8s places, and 
l'fanding ,,'ith suspicion SOJne uf the Jnost precious utterances 
of the BrIRIT ! Bhame,-yes, sha'l/
e upon them! 

'Yhy then, (it \vill of course be asked,) is the Inargin- 
(a) of S. 
Iark i. 1 anù-(b) of S. John i. 3, and-(e) of 
John iii. 13, encUlubered after this discreditable fa
It is (,,-e ans\ver) only because tlte Text of Drs. TVcstcott II Jul 
HVi"t is thus tlepruyed in all three places. Those Scholars 
enjuy the unenviable distiuction uf haying dared tu e
froul S. John iii. 13 the w'ord$ Ó tJv Èv rriþ ovpavcp, ,,-hirh 
Laclllnann, Tregelles and. Tischendorf \vere afraid to touch. 
'VeIl nlay Dean Btanley have bestowed upon ])1'. Hort the 
epithet of" fearless" ! . . . If report speaks truly, it is by the 
merest accident that the clause in question still retains it
place in the Rcvised TCJ,t. 

(rl) Only once lllore. ..A.lld this titne ,ve ,vill turn to the 
'ery end of the blesseLl vohune. .....\gainst ]
ev. xiii. 18- 
" Here is "
SdOIll. He that hath understanding, let hitu 
" count the n1.unlJer uf the Beast; for it i::; the nUluLer uf 
Ian: and his nUluber is six hundred and sixty aud six." 
...Against this, \ve find noted,-' Some ancient authorities 
read si
 hundrcd and sixteen.' 

Hut ,vhy is not the ?.I'lwlc Truth told? viz. ,,-hy are ".e not 
infurnleù that only one corrupt uncial (c) :-only vile cursive 
copy (11) :-only onc Father (Tichonins): and /Lot one ancieut 
\r ersion-advocate
 this reading ?-,vhich, un the l'untrary, 




Irenæus (A.D. 170) kne,v, but rejected; relnarking that 6G6, 
,vhich is 'found in all the best anù oldest copies and is 
attested by Inen ,vho saw John face to face,' is unquestion- 
ably the true reading. 1 'Vhy is not the ordinary Reaùer 
further informed that the sanle nlunber (666) is expressly 
vouched for by Origen,2-by Hippolytus,3-by Eusebius : 4_ 
as ,veIl as by Victorinus-alld PrÎ1nasius,-not to Inention 
Andreas and Arethas ? To COllle to the moderns, as a Inatter 
of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, Tregelles,-even by Westcott and Hort. 1Vhy 
therefore-for ,vhat possible reason-at the end of 170U 
years and up,vards, is this, \vhich is so clearly nothing else 
but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention 
of 90 n1Ïllions of English-speaking people? 

'Vill Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that 
it has been done because " it ,vould not be safe to accept" 
666, "to the absolute exclusion of " 616? . . . " We have 
given alternative Readings in the margin," (say they,) 
"\vherever they seenl to be of sufficient inlportance or 
interest to deserve notice." Will they venture to claiIn 
cither 'interest' or 'inlportance' for this? or pretend that it 
is an 'alternative l
eading' at all? Has it been rescued fronl 
oblivion and paraded before universal Christendom in order 
to perplex, nlystify, and discourage' those that have under- 
standing,' and would fain' count the nUlnber of the Beast,' 
if they were able 1 Or ,vas the intention only to insinuate 
one lllore ,vretched doubt-ol1e more miserable suspicion- 
into Ininds ,vhich have been taught (and rightly) to place 
absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest 
utterances uf the SPIInT: 111inds \vhich arc utterly incapable 

1 })p. 798, 7UU. 
3 .A.ul. c. 50; Uonsllm. c. 

iii. 414. 
4 Ilist. .Eccl. v. 8. 


UXli'.\.[H sepPRES


of dealing ,,'ith the subtleties of Te\.tual Cl'iticÜnn; and, 
fruIn a one-sided statclllCut like the l)}'csent, "'ill c1.rry a"'ay 
none but entirely n1Ïstaken inference
, :-Iud the "Jnost un- 
reasonahle di
trust? . . Ur, lastly, was it only bccnu
e, in 
their opinion, the Inargin of every Englishman's N. T. i-; the 
fittest place for reviving the mClllory of oLsolete blunder
and ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth? . . . 'Ve 
really pause for an ans,ver. 

(e) But serious as tIus is, IllOte serious (if possible) i8 the 
unfair Sltpp1'essiol/; systnnotically practiserl throughout the 
,vork before us. H'V e have given alternative 1:eadings in 
the Inargin," -(says Bishop Ellicott on behalf of his b1'othe1'- 
Uevisionists,)-" 'wherever they seem to be of suffieie/zt Ù;ll
ance or interest to dCðCr'CC notice." [iii. 1,] From ,,,hicIt 8taic- 
luent, readers have a right to infer that ,vhenever " alterna- 
tive Ileadings" are not "giyen in the luargin," it is because 
such l"eadings do not" seeln to be of sufficient i1nporta LeC (Jr 
Ùdcl'cst to deser
7C notice." 'Vill the llevisionists venture to 
tell us that,-(to take the first instance of tUlfair Suppression 
".hich presents itself,)-our LORD'S saying ill S. 
lark vi. 11 
is not "of sufficient Ï1nportance or interest to deserve 
notice" ? "T e allude to the fanlous words,-" \T erily I :--ay 
unto you, It shall be nlorc tolerable for Sudom and G0111or1'ah 
in the day uf judglnent, than for that city:" -"
ord8 ,vhich 
are nut unly on1Ïtted fronl the" N e'v English \T ersion," but 
are not ðtlffcrcd to leave so much as a trace of th 1M l1:es 
in the margin. And yet, the saying in que
tion is attested 
by the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac 'T ersions: by the 
Uld Latin: by the Coptic, ..]
thiupic and Gothic \T ersions :- 
by 11 uncials and by the ,vhole bulk uf the cursives :-hy 
lrenæus and by 'Tictor of .Antioch. So that ".hctJll'l' 
...\ntiquity, ur Variety of 
\ttestation i::) ëOIlsiùllred -,,,hether 
\\re louk for S ulltlJer:-; or for Hespectabilit) ,-the genuillelll'





of the passage Inay be regarded as cC1'tain. Our cOlnplaint 
ho,yever is not that the Revisionists entertain a different 
opinion on this head fron1 ourselves: but that they give 
the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence is 
such, that it is quite "safe to accept" the shorter reading, 
-" to the absol1,de cæcl1tsion of. the other," - So vast is 
the field before us, that this single specÏ1nen of ,yhat ,ye 
venture to call 'unfair Suppression,' n1ust suffice. (Sollle 
,yill not hesitate to bestow' upon it a harsher epithet.) It 
is in truth by far the nlost dalllaging feature of the ,york 
1efore us, that its ..Authors should have so largely and so 
seriously falsific l the Deposit; and yet, (in clear violation 
of the IVth Principle or l
ule laid (lO'Yll for their guiùance 
at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive in the Inargin 
of the deadly mischief ,vhich they have effected. 

III. Froln the Text, the Revisionists pass on to the 
TUAXSLATION; and surprise us by the avo,val, that 'the 
character of the Revision ,vas detennined for us frolll the 
outset by the first nule,-" to introduce as fe,v alterations 
as possible, consistently ,,
ith faithfulness." Our task ,vas 
l1evision, not Retranslation.' (This is naïve certainly,) They 

'If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase 
that 'was before us in the Authorized Version, we made no 
change, even where rigid adherence to the rule of Translating, as 
la-r as po
siblc, the same G'J"eek word Ly the same English wurd nlight 
have prescribed some modificatiun.' -[iii. 2 init.] (The italics 
are our own.) 

To the' 1'ule' thus introduced to our notice, ,ye shall recur 
by and by [pp. 152-4: also pp. 187-202]. \Ve proceeLl 
to remark on each of the five principal Classes of altera- 
tions indicated by the Revisionists: and first,-' Alterations 


 FE"" .ALTER.A.TIOXt4 ...\ 


itively required by change of reading in the Greek Text' 
(1) Thus, in S. ,John xii. 7, '\e find' SI'iter 710" to l'('cp it 
against the <lay of IllY burying;' and in thp Illilrgiu (a
alternative), 'Let her alone: it u.aç th t ::;he might l pit,'- 
Instead of ' as soon as J:E
CS heard the ,vord,'-,\e are in\ itcd 
to choose bet\veen 'not 7Lccding,' and' cn:erh' ring the ,,'onl' 
Ik. v. 36): these being intended for renderings of 7rap- 
,-an expression ,vhich S. 
Iark certainly neyer l'I11- 
ploye(l.-' On earth, veace :.nnong men in zr7uJ}J/; he is /1"( II 
pleased' (S. Lu. ii. 14): ,,,here the lllargin infurills us that 
'nlany ancient authorities read, good plcasure a'IIlO/If! 1nClt.' 
(And ,vhy not 'good 'will,' -the rendering adopted in "Phil. i. 
15 1) . . . Take son1e more of the alterations which have 
resulted fronl the fuloption of a corrupt Text :-' 'Vhy (tS"" 
t7w'lt 'mc conccrnin!J that 'lchich is good? ' (
latth. xix, 17,--an 
aLsurd fabrication).-' He ".ould fain have been filled ,vith thl lo 
husks,' &c. . . . 'and I perish here ,vith hunger r' (xoprau- 
vat, borrow'eù froll1 Lu. xvi. 21: and eyW
ECt)SE, a tran
parent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).-' "11en it shall fail, they 
Inay receh e you into the eternal tabernacles' (:xvi. Ð).- 
-Elizabeth' lifted up her voice with a loud cry' (Kpau'Y
the private prol>erty of three bad 
S. and Origen: Ln. i, 
42).-' And they stood still looking s d' (xxiv. 17,-a foolish 
transcriptional blunder).-' The multitude u'cnt p and began 
to ask hiIn,' &c. (àvaßlíc; for àvaßo
uac;, \Ik. x\r. 8).-' nnt is 
guilty of a'lL etcJanal sin' (iii. 29).-' And the officers rfccil'cd 
lIÍ1n ,vith blo,,"s of their hands,'-lllarg. 'or strokes of rot/.'i : ' 
E^ABON for EBA^ON (xiv. 65).-' Else, that ,vhich shouhl fill 
it up taketh from it, the new froll/; thc old' (ii, 
1): and ' No 
nlan re1wcth a picce from a ew [Jar1iL nt and putteth it upon 
an old garment; else lw u'ill 
I'end the n w,' &c, (Lu. v, 36),- 
"Yhat is this? a new l(((ching!' t)Ik. i. 27).-' J L::;G
unto hÍIn, If lholf CfOist !) (
Ik. i
;;).-' ne('al1
e of your liltl 




fltith' (
fatth. xvii. 20).-' JVe 1nust ,york the ,yorks of Hilll 
that sent 1\1e, ,,
hile it is day' (Jo, ix. 4).-' The 'lnan that is 
called JESUS lllade clay' (vel'. 11).-' If ye shall ask fife any- 
thing in fiIy nCl'lne' (xiv. 14).-' The Father abiding in 1\1e 
doeth His w01'ks ' (xiv. 10).-' If ye shall ask anything of the 
Father, He will give it you in ]'Iy na1ne' (xvi. 23),-' I glorified 
Thee on the earth, hctving acco'lnplishcd the 'work ,vhich Thou 
hast given 1\1e to do ' (xvii. 4).-' Huly _Father, keep thenl in 
Thy .lvante which Thou hast given l\fe , . . I kept them in 
Thy .J..Va'lne which Thou hast given 111e' (yer, 11, 12).-' She 
. . . saith unto IIim in Hcb1'e1.v, Rabboni' (xx. 16).-' These 
things said Isaiah, bcca'ltse he saw' his glory' (xii. 41,-OTI for 
OTE, a COllllllon itacisnl),-' In tables that a're hCCl1,ts of flesh' 
(Èv 7TÀa
ì KapôlaLc; aapKívatc;, a ' perfectly absurd reading,' as 
Scrivener relnarks, p. 442 : 2 Cor. iü. 3).-' J-tT"o'w if "?e put the 
horses' bridles [and pray, ,vhy not 'the horses' bits' 1] into 
thcir mouths' (EI
E, an ordinary itacism for lðE, J anles iü, 3). 
-' Unto the sick ,vere carried away f1'om his body handker- 
chiefs,' &è. (Acts xix. 12).-' Ye know all things once for all' 
(J ude vel'. 5).-' JVe love because he first loved us ' (1 J o. iv. 19). 
-'I have found no w01'k of thine fulfilled before my GOD' (l{ev. 
iii. 2).-' Seven .A.ngels ar'rayed with [preci01ts] stone' (xv. 6), 
instead of 'clothed in linen,' ÀíBov for Àívov. (Fancy the 
Angels' clothcd in stone'! 'Precious' is an interpolation of 
the l
evisers).-' D'l['clliJ
g in the things ,vhich he hath seen:' 
for ,,-hich the Inargin offers as an alternative, , taking his stand 
'ltpon' (Colossians ii, 18). But ÈJ.LßaTEvwv (the ,vord here 
elllployed) clearl:r llleans neither the one nor the other. 
S. Paul is delivering a ,yarning against unduly' p1'ying into 
the things not seen.' 1 A fe,v l\fSS. of bad character omit the 
, not.' That is all! . . . These then are a handful of the less 

1 'Ep.ßaTEVUUI. .-'E1rLß
 uK01rijUUI., rhavori- 
TIll:;, quuted by Bruder. 

G 'I
COHnECTXI'::--:---' AXI) 'Oß
CUH[TY' 14l 

cow:;picuous instan(;('s ùf èl chang.. in the Engli!--h I positively 
required by a change uf reading in tIll' Greek Text: ' cyery 
one uf theJll being either a pitiful bluntlcr or else a gro:--s 
fabrication,-Take only t".o IHore: '1 neither kno,v, nor 
understanll: thou, u.hat s(fycsl thVl ?' (
Ik, xiv. 68 lllargin):- 
'And wlâtltu' I go, ye knoll' the 'way' (Jo. xiv. 4). . . . The 
A. V. is better in every instance. 

(2) and (3) 
 ext, alterations lllade hecaus0 thl) ....\, 'T. 
'appeared to Le incorrect' or else 'ob
cure.' They Blust 
needs be such as the follo,ving :-' He that is bathed needeth 
not save to ,vash his feet' 
S. John xiii. 10).-' LORD, if he is 
fallen asleep he will reCOVC1"' ((TWe
(TETat, xi. 12).-' Go ye 
therefore into the pa')'lin9'
 of thc high'll.ays ' (
Iatth. xxii. 9).- 
I Being grieyeù at the hardening of their heart ' (
Ik. iii. 5).- 
, Light a lamp and put it on the stand' (:\Iatt. Y. 13).-' Sitting 
at the lJlace of toll' (ix. 9).-' The supplication of a righteous 
Juan availeth 111uch in its 'li'OJ'king' (Jaules v. 16),-' ....\'vake 
up righteously' (1 Cor. xv. 34),-' Guarded through faith unto 
a salL-ation' (1 Pet, i. 5).-' "r alldering in . . . tlu;, /ioles of 
the ca1..th' (Heb. xi. 38-very queer places certainly to be 
, ,vandering' in).-' She that is in Babylon, elect together 
\\yith you, saluteth you' (1 I)et. v. 13),- -' Therefore ùo tlLC$ 
pou:Cl'S 'lvorl" in IIÍ'Jn' (
latth. xiv. 2).-' In danger of the 
hdl of fl.rc' (\'. 22).-' Put out into the deep' (Luke y. 4).- 
'The tOlnu that 
\.hrahanl Lought for a price in silrer ' (..Act
vii, 16). 

'Yith reference to everyone of these places, (anù they are 
but salnples of \vhat is to be IllCt ,vith in every page,) lfC ven- 
ture to assert that they are either lc.s
 intelligible, or else more 
inaccurate, than the expressions 'which they are severally in- 
tenùed to supersede; \vhi1e, in SOUle instanees, they arc both. 
\Vill anyone seriously content! that' flu: ld e vi 'll"l'Vllg-t!villg , 


is better than 'the 
V(fges of unrighteousness' (2 Pet. ii. 15) 1 
or, ,viII he venture to deny that, 'Colne and dÙw,' -' so ,vhen 
they had dined,'-is a hundred thues better than' COlne and 
breed.;; your feu
t,'-' so ,vhen they had broke'7t their fast' (Jo. 
xxi. 12, 15) 1-exprcssions ,vhich are only introJueeù Lecause 
the Revisionists ,,-ere ashanled (as ,veIl they lllight be) to 
,vrite 'breakfast' and 'breakfasted.' The seven had not Leen 
'faðti'ng.' Then, ,,"hy introduce so incongruous a nution here, 
-any 11101'e than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12 ? 

Has the reader any appetite for nlore specÏ1nens of 'in- 
correetness' '7"cntedied and 'obscurity' renlovcd? Rather, as 
it seClns, haye both Leen largely Ï1nported into a Translation 
,,-hich ,vas singularly intelligible before. 'Vhy darken ROln, 
vii. 1 and xi, 2 by introducing the interrogative particle, 
and theIl, by Inistranslating it 'Or' ?-....\lso, ,,,,hy translate 
ryÉvor;; , 1YlCC '? (' a IHan of Cyprus by "paee,' 'a n1an of Puntus 
by race,' 'an .L\.1exandrian by "paee,' Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24). 
-' If there is a natural bo<.ly, there is also a spiritual boùy,' 
say the l1evisionists : ' 0 death, ,,"here is thy victory? 0 death 
"'here is thy sting l' (Could they not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 
and 55 alone 1)- Why alter' For tIlt:' bread of GOD is He,' into 
'VOl' the bread of GOD is that ,vhich cOlueth do,vn from 
IIeaven '1 (J 0, vi. 33),-' As long a
 I Cl'in in the "-0 rId,, ,vas 
surely better than' TVhen I ant in the ,vorld, I anl the light 
of the ,,-orld' (ix. 5),-ls ' lIe 1.ccnt forth O'lä of their hand' 
supposed to be an Ì1nprOyelnent upon' He escaped ornt of their 
hand'1 (x. 39): and is 'They luyed the gl01'Y of nlen 1nore 
than the glory of. GOD' an Ì1nproveluent upon 'the p'7"(tise ' 1 
(xii. 43),-' J uc1as saith unto JliIn, LORD, 1.i'hat is C01JW to pass 
that Thou ,yilt luanifest Thyself to us' 1 Is that supposed to 
be an ÏIllprOyeluent upon xiv. 22?- How is 'If then' an 
Î111provelllent on 'Forasllluch then' in .L\cts xi. 17 ?-or ho,v 
is this endurable in Ronl. vii. 15,-' For that ,vhich I ùo, I 


I1u\r nE:\IEDIED BY 'fIIB nE'.J


kn01./7 not: for not u.ltat J 'l.ould, that do I practise: '-or thi
in xvi. 2;;, 'The lllvstery ,,'hieh hath b -en l'('pt i sil ,tce 
tlU.Vl/(fh ti1lle
 clernal, Lut no". i
 lllanifest -ù,' &c.-' Thou 
thereforc, 111!J dl ild,'-addre
sing the J
ish()p of .Ephel..;us 
 TÏIll. ii, 1): and 'Titus, lIl!/ tJ'lIe ehild,'-aù(lrcs
ing the 
Bishup uf Crete (Tit. i, 4), 

....\re the fullo"ying demned iInprovelnents? 'E\ycry une 
that doeth 
ill doeth also lau,l "'
ncss: a1ld 
in i
 [((1(:[ .'i.'iIL('.
(1 J 0, iii. 4): '[ ,viII more thy candlestick out uf its place' 
(Hey". ii. 5) :-' a glassy sea' (iv. 6) :-' a g1'C t voice' (,r. 12): 
-' 'T erily, not of Angels doth lIe take hold, Lut lIe tal' th hold 
of the seed of Abraham: '-' He tooll, hold of the Llinù luan by 
tlll hand:' -' They took hold of hÙn and hrought him untû the 
.\rcopagus' (Heb. Ïi. 16: H. ::\Ik. ,iii. 23: ..lcts xvii. 19):- 
'".llPrefore GOD is not asha17tcd of thClIZ, to be called their 
GOD' (....\.cts xi. 1 G) :-' Counted it not a prize to be on an 
equality,vith GOD' (Phil. ii. 6).-"\Vhy are 'n:
 to substitute 
, court' for' palace' in 
Iatth, xxvi, 3 and Lu, xi. 21? (Con- 
sider l\Iatth. xii. 29 and 
lk. iii, 27),-'"\V Olllen received 
their ùead by a resurrection' (IIeb. xi. 35) :-' If ye forgivc 
not e\'cl'Y one his brother fJ'Oln their hearts ' (
Iatth, xviii. 35) : 
-' If bcallise of ìllcat thy Lrother is gripvcd, thou ,valkest no 
lon!Jo' in lore' (TIOlll. xiv, 15) :-' ,vhich GOD, ,vho cannot 
lie, pron1Ïsell before timt.8 etu'nal; Lut in his men :;ca.c;OIlS 
ted his word in the 'J1lCð
age' (Tit. i. 
, 3) :-' Your 
plCllSllrU; rand "hy not' lusts' 1] that ,var in your Inelnbers' 
lJnes iv. 1) :-' Dehold how much 'lcood is kindled by lww 
srn II a fire!' (iii. 5).-Are these realJy 
upp()sed to he less 
, obscure' than the passages they aH
 intended to supersede? 

(a) Not a fc" ùf the lllistakcn renderings uf the I
ists can unly IJe established LJ' an alllount uf illustration \vhich 
b at unCe inconvenient tu the Itc\'ic,,-er and unwclCülllC pI'ù- 


. LUKB II, 38 A
D X, 40: AI$O 


ha hly to the general Reader. Thus, we take leave to point out 
that,-' And cO'lning 'lip at that very hour' (in Lu. ii, 38),- 
as ,veIl as 'she ca'Jìle np to Hilll' (in Lu, x. 40), are inexact 
rcnderings of the original. The verb ÈcþUYTLÍvat, \vhich 
etynlologically signifies" to stand upon," or " over," or "by,"- 
(but \vhich retains its literal signification on only four out of 
the eighteen occasions 1 \vhen the ,yord occurs in the Gospels 
and Acts,)-is found ahnost invariably to denote the" couting 
suddenly 1.i]Jon " a person. Hence, it is observed to he used 
five tÜnes to denote the sudden appearance of friendly 
visitants frolH the unseen \vorld: 2 and seven times, the 
sudden hostile approach of ,vhat is formidable. 3 On the 
tw.o reluaining occasions, \\Thich are those before us,- 
(nanlely, the sudden conlÏng of Anna into the Teluple 4 and 
of l\Iartha into the presence of our LORD,5)_" coming sud- 
denly in" ,vould probably represent S. Luke's È7T"uYTâua 
exactly. And yet, one ,yolùd hesitate to ÎIuport the \vord 
" sudùenly" into the narrative, So that" c01ning in " \yould 
after all have to stand in the t
xt, although the attentive 
student of Scripture ,vould enjoy the kno,vledge that some- 
thing more is implied. In other ,vords,-the Revisionists 
\vould have done better if they had left both places alone. . . 
These are nlany ,vords; yet is it iInpossiLle to explain 
such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly. 

(b) But l110re painful by far it is to discover that a 
luorbid striving after etynlological accuracy,-added to a 

I Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20. 
2 S. Luke ii. 9 (where' came upon' is better than' stood by them,' and 
should have been left): xxiv..4: Acts xii. 7: xxii, 13: xxiii. 11. 
:3 t;. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii, 5 
(" assault"): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-stonn,-which, by the W8Y, 
suggests for TÒV /cþffJTWTa a different rendering fro1l1 'the pTeserd '). 
4 S. Luke ii. 38. 5 S. Luke x. 40. 


. .TOIIS' XIIi. 1 


 pr'f'rl'Jlc-' for a depraycd Tcxt,-has pruvcd t]lP 
ruiu of oup of the lllu
t aflt'<:Liug scene
. ,John':; Go
p ,I. 
itu()n P ,t '1' L 'ckoncth to h iUl, fuul !\fI it/I IIIi!o Ju" III, 'l'f I us 
who it i
f whoJn 1ft .
Jt'((l'dh,' [a fahulouR sta.tl'llH'l1t t'\ i- 
dl'llt1y; for Peter In'('kolll'rl, l'cC'ausp It" lnight ,wt spt>ak]. 
, TT,' 1((1J1IIl.! bock, ".
 hr 11'((
,'-[ a very hul tenderillg of OÚTW
hy tlw "ay; alHI MIre to reeal inopportunely thl' rendering 
of W, 
v in ::;. 1\Iark iv. 3ô, insterul of sU(J
csting (a
oLvif usly ought) the oricrinal of S_ J()hn iv. 6 :]-' on JE
hre'lst, s'tith unto IIÏ1n, .LOUD 'who is it ?' (
. John xiii. 24-5). 
:Now, s. ,10hn'R \\.onl cont'crning hÍJu...;clf in this place is 

 f7r I:TjfU(V I'. lfe 'jll...., .
(fill.,'-lt,t his hl'ad 'fall'-oll 
ler's hreast, an (1 "hi:-,pcrf>d his question. For tItiR, a 
f '\\- corrupt 'opit"S substitutc ùva7Tfuwv. But ùva7Tf(J"wv 'ilCl"C1. 
 'Üu IZ i II!.! h((rl
.' It is (1 'scriptivc of the posture ûf 011(1 
'rtf,li,LÚ1! at ((, '1/11"" (
. .To. 
iii.12). .A.cconlingly, it is 10 tÏ1ncs 
Tl'lIelerl'(l hy tIlt' nt" iRionists to ','iit down.' '\Thy, in this 
p!acc, nlH1 in (;hapter x
t), (( nClI' 'JìlraniJl.l iR thrust upon 
thc \\ orel, it i
 for tht" I:pvisionist
 tu c).})Iain. l1ut theJ 
Jilust p'\l'lain th. luattcr a \"ast deal hetter than TIp. Ijghtfoot 
 clone in his iI1tere
ting littI } \vork on ]:cyision (pp_ 7:!-3), 
or thl')" ,,-ill fail to per
uaele any,-excr'pt one another. 

(r) Thus it happcnR that W'P n('ver 
lwnd half-an-hour 
O\.l'r th > unfortunat } pr()(luf.tion lwforc us \\-ithout excJaÏ1uing 
(\\ ith one in th · Gosp'l), '/'I l is L ttrr.' Changt's of an!! 
sort ar l111welt'unH.' ill such a Look aq tlil' Bihle. hut the 
e'o\"l'ry that chang('s have bcen J1Hulc for II . rs , onclleIs 
{,'Tt'atly. To takl' ill
tan('es at rantlolll :-- 0 7rÀfmo'\ õXÀoç 
(in ,ratth. xxi_ 
) is ri
htlj rendc1't'(1 in OHr A. V. 'a v TY gr t 
.' 1 \rhy then has it he ell alt....red by the H. ,..., into 

1 ('f. eh. ).i. _0. 
.1 in Latin, IlIa },IUTi It SflrrijicÌtl. (Ci('. De Fill. 
20, G





, thr. 1nost prtrt Of the nlultitude ' ?_C 0 7roXVC; ðXXoc; (l\fk. xii. 
37), in like manner, is rightly rendered' the co?n?non people,' 
and ought not to have Leen glossed in the nlargin ' the g?
1n'llltitl.lde.' -In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we lìlld ' lJlake thou 
not conlmon,' introduced as an Ï1nprovement on, ' That call 
not thou cOlnmon.' But' the old is better:' for, besides its 
idiolnatic and helpful' That,'-the old alone states the case 
truly. Peter did not ''Inake,' he only 'called,' something 
, cOlumon.' -' All the 1nale children,' as a translation of 7ráVTac; 
TOUC; 7ra'i8ac; (in l\Iatth. ii. 16) is an unauthorized statelnent. 
There is no reason for supposing that the female infants uf 
Bethlehenl "
ere spared in the general nlassacre: and the 
Greek certainly conveys no such information.-' 'Vhen he 
canle into the house, JESUS spake first to hinl '-is really an 
incorrect rendering of l\Iatth. xvii. 25: at least, it imports 
into the narrative a notion \vhich is not found in the Greek, 
and does not exhibit faithfully \yhat the Evangelist actually 
says. 'Anticipated,' in modern English,-' prevented,' in 
ancient phraseology,-' was beforehand 'lcitlz hi?n 
 in language 
neither ne,v nor old,-conyeys the sense of the original 
exactly.-In S. Lu. vi. 35, ' Love your enen1Ïes, . . . and lend, 
never despairing,' is sÏ1nply a nlistaken translation of à7rEX7r{- 
tOVTEc;, as the context sufficiently proves. The old rendering 
is the true one,1 And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,-nihil inde 
sperantes. (Consider the use of à7roßXÉ7rElV [Heb. xi. 26] : 
àcþopâv [Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii, 2]: abutor, as used by Jerome 
for utor, &c.)-' Go with them '{naking no distinction,' is not the 
meaning of Acts xi. 12: ,vhich, ho Never, ,vas correctly trans- 
lated before, viz. 'nothing doubting,'-The mischievous change 
(' save' in place of 'but') in Gal. ii. 16 has been ably and 
faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivallt. In the \vords of the 

1 "The context" (says learned Dr. Field) "is too strong for philological 
quibbles." rrhe words" can by no possibility bear any other rrlÆaning."- 
Utiu/ln Nm'vicen se, p. 40. 




arneù anù pious TIp, of Lincoln, ' it is illogical allù erroncous, 
:nul contJ'{uli,ts the 1.l'hole drift of s. ]>a nl's A1yumcnt.ïn that 
tle, all(I in the EI}istle to the Jtoluans.' 

(d) 'Ve should llc dea1ing insincerely \vith our l
eaders \vpro 
'YO to conceal our grave dissatisfaction at Hot a fo"T of the 
novel ('.rprc.
i:ions \vhich the nevisionists have sought to 
introduce into the English Nc,v Testanlont. That the 
Inalefactors lJet\veen \VhOlll 'the LOUD o
 glory' ,vas crueitic(l 
"yere not ordinary 'thieves,' is obvious; yet ,voult1 it have 
been ,viser, \ve think, to leaye the olLl designation undis- 
turbcll. '" e shall never learn to call thenl '1
obbers.' -' The 
king sent forth a soldie1
 of his guard' is a gloss-not a 
traJlslation of H. 
rark vi. 27. 'An executioner' surely is far 
preferahle as the equivalent for U7TEICOVXáT(i)P 11_' Assassins' 
(as the rendering of UlKáptol) is an objectionable substitute 
for 'murllerers,' ..A. "TortI \vhich "belongs probably to a 
ronlantic chapter in the history of the Crusades" 2 has 
no Lnsinec::;
 in the N. T.-And \vhat did these learned lllcn 
suppose they should gain by suhstituting 'the tl()i/
for (Castur and ])ollux' in Acts xxviii. II? The Greek 
(j.tÓUKoVPOt) is neither the. one nor the other.-In the s
R})irit, insteal1 of, 'they that receivcd tribute-1]lUn(;!J' (in 

. )IattIl. xvii. 
4), ""e are llO\V presented ,vith 'they that 
reccivc(l tIle Iud/-shekel:' anlI in verse 27,-instead uf 
'\vhen thou hast opened his ulouth, thou shalt find a 
pi ce of IItoney,' "c are favoure( I ,,'ith 'thou shalt find a 
_"I,ck,t.' But II'hy the change ha
 been Jlladc, 've fail to see. 
The Jnargin i
 still oLlige(t tc) explain that }lot one of these 
r'IHr ""orùs is found in the ori(rinal: the Ureek in the fontler 
lllaee 11eing Tà óíópa)(jLa,-in the latter, uTaTJ1P.-' þ'lute- 

 1fpùr TÙ 
OJlfí,ftJl TfTalcTat,-Thcophylact, i. 
Ol c. 
BII)S quutes S
lleca. ])e ]/,(;:-TllIlC ceillurio f,lIjJplicio ]wæposilus COll- 
rlere yltlJÙl11l 
peculaÜlrcm jUMil. 2 Trench, Study nf Jr"ords J p. lOG. 


GES J'()l
 THE 'VOl{SE. 


plaYl'1's' (for 'Ininstrels') in S. l\Iatthe,,- ix, 23, is a 11118- 
take. An aVA1JT1}f) played the In'pc (av^,ó
, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),- 
hence' pipers' in Rey. xviii. 22; (,,-here Ly the ,yay j.LovutKoi 
[' musicians'] is peryersely and less accurately rendered' 'JILÏn- 
st1'cls ').- Once 1110re. 'Undrcssed cloth' (l\Ik. ii. 21), 1Jecause 
it is an expression popularly ullderstood only in certain 
districts of England, and a 'cox (('i,tis, ought not to have been 
introduced into the Gospels, 'Nc'U' , is preferahle.-' JTTinc- 
skins' (:
Itt. ix. 17: l\Ik. ii, 2
: Lu. v. 37) is a term unin- 
telligible to the generality; as the 11eyisiollists confess, for 
they explain it hy a llote,-' That is; .')kins 'used as bottles.' 
'Yhat else is this but substituting a 11e,v difficulty for an old 
one 1-' Silrc1',' uo,v for the first tÌ111e thrust into Acts viii. 
20, is unreasonable. Like' argent,' in French, lÌpryvPLoV as 
Inuch llleans 'Illoney,' here as in S. l\latthe,,'" xxv. 18, 27, 
, Jalnes Ïi. 19, "Te should like to kllO'Y ,yhat is 
gained by the introduction of the 'sh'ltddcring' devils,- To 
take an exaulple froIl1 a different class of ".ords,- "\Yho 
,vill say that 'Thou mindest not the things of GOD' is a bet- 
ter rendering of ou cþpoveÎs, than the old' Thou sa770urcst not,' 
-w"hich at least had un ambiguity about it 1 . . . Å friend 
points uut that Dr. Field (a 'nlaster in Israel') has examined 
104 of the changes made in the llevised 'T ersion; and finds 
8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (i.e. cases in 
,,-hich the A. 'T. required amendment, but ,,-hich the R. V. 
has not succeeded in alnending): 64 changes for the worse,! . . . 
This is surely a terrible indicÌ111ent for such an one as Dr. 
Field to bring against the Revisers,-'wlto 'lI'C'i"e dirccted only 

(e) \Ve really fail to understand hO",,7 it has come to 
pass that, not,,-ithstallding the amount of scholarship \vhich 

1 Otium, }."'orvic( rise, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155. 


 XXI. :.57, )Il


SUlllctillleS sat in thc J erusalcIll CluunLcr, su Illany nuycltics 
are founù in the present 1 tevision \vhieh hetoken a want 
of fall1Ïliarity \vith the retÌne1nents of the Greek language 
on the one hanl[; and (\\ hat is even more illeAcusahle) only 
a. slender acquaintance with the resources all( I proprietie:-> 
of English speech, un the other. A. fair ayerage iWitallee 
of this occurs in ...lets xxi, 37, \vhere (instead of 'Canst 
thou spcal
 Greek?') tEÀÀ1]VLCTTì rytvwUKEIS; is renùered ' lJost 
thuu know Greek?' That rytvwUKftV IueallS 'to kno\v ' (and 
Ilut 'to speak') is undeniable: and yet, in the account of 
all, except the tlrie
t and stupide::;t of pedagogues, tEÀÀ'1}VlCTTì 
rylVWCTKHc;; lllust he translated 'Canst thou RJ1eak Greek!' 
For (as eyery schoolboy is aware) tEÀÀ'1}VICTTí is an adyerb, 
ignifies 'in (/-rcck la.-;7âu,.
 :' so that sOlnething has to be 
supplied: and the full expressiun, if it lllust needs be giyen, 
\nnlhl Le, 'j)ost thou kno\v [hQ\v to talk] in l
reek ? ' But 
then, this condensation of phrase proves to be the established 
illiolll of the language: 1 so that the rejection of the learned 
relHlering of Tyndale, Crml1ner, the Geneva, the HheÏ111s, 
aud the Translator:; uf 1611 (' Callst tlwn spcrlk Greek.?')- 
thl" rejection uf this, at the end of 270 years, in favour uf 
, IJost tl ou know Greek? ' really betrays ignorance, It is ,,'orse 
than bad Taste. It is a stupid and deIiLerate blllilde/'. 

(I) The f;ubstitution of 'they lcdyh d 'Untu lÚ1/
' (in place 
of 'they cUl'cnantcd with 7âll
 /0/"') 'thirty pieces of silYer' 
. 1\Iatth. XX\--j, 1.3) is anotber of those plausiLle 11li:::takes, 
into \vhich a little lllarning (proycrl)ially 'a dangerous thing') 
is for eYer conducting' it
 unfortunatp l'o:"\sessur; but froBl 
\vhich it w.as to ha\-c Lcen expected that the undouLted 

1 Compare XenopllOn (Gyro]>. vii. I). 8), TOÌJ
UpLUTì f.rrtuTafLiJlOu
, The 
plnut lorutio is fUlllHl in Kchclll. xiii. :!-t-,-oi uioì aVTWJI ijfLLUU 
'.\(WTtUTí, lcaì oinc fìuìJl frrtYLJlWUKOJlTf.f 
fîJl 'Iouôai"rrTi (quotcll }'\_ 
"-l't:-teill), . 

150 So l\I...\TTHE'Y XXVI. 15, No,r l\IISTRA

attainments of SOlne who frequented the Jerusalenl Chamber 
would have effectually preserved the llevisionists. That 
lUT'1}UaV is intended to recal Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as 
,yell as that t1w1
e it refers to the ancient practice uf 1.l)ci!Jh- 
infJ uncoined nloney. It does not, however, by any 11leanS 
follo,v, that it ,vas custcllnary to 1.Ixigh shekels in the days 
of the Gospel. Coined nloney, in fact, ,vas never "
but ahvays counted; and these ,yere shekels, i.e. didracluJls 
(l\latth. xyii. 2-:1:). The truth (it lies on the surface) is, that 
there exists a happy anlbiguity aùout the ,vord ËUT'1}UaV, 
of ,,"hich the Evangelist has not been slo,v to avail hiInself. 
In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that 
in the first instance llloney did not pass,-only a bargain \yas 
Ina<1e, and a certain sunl prolllÌsed. S. l\lark's record is that 
the chief priests "
ere glad at the pruposal of Judas, 'and 
prúlltis >d to give hilll llloney' (xiv. 11): S. Luke's, that' they 
coz:cnanted' to do so (xxii. 5, G). ..A.n<1 ,,
ith this, the state- 
lllent of the first Evangelist is found to ùe in strictest 
agreelnent. The chief l}riests 'set' or 'appuinted' 1 hini 
a certain sunl. The perfectly accurate rendering of S. l\latth. 
xxyi, 15, therefore, exhibited by our Authorized \T ersion, has 
l)een :set aside to Blake ,yay for a 1nisfl'cp1'cscJäatÙJl
 of thr 
Erangclist's 1neanillg. 'In the judgluent of the lllost coni- 
petent scholars,' \vas ' such change :KECESSARY' ? 


(g) 'Ve respectfully think that it \\
ollld have ùeen lliorc 
lJeCÙluing in such a COlllpany as that \vhich asseluLled in tht; 

T erusaleln Chalnber, as ,veIl as 1110re consistent \\
ith their 
tructions, if in doz{;btjul casl's they had abstained froBl 
tonchinO' the Authorized \T ersion, but had recorded their o,vn 
conjectural eluendations in the 1n(oyin. Ho\y rash and in- 

1 Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin i
 C statuer'itnt' or C constituerunt.' 
The Hcvisionists give' appointcll' in the f;ccond of the
e places, and' put 
forward' in the first. ] n both,- \rhat bCCtlUlCS uf their unifurmity? 

11.] UX\V
(jE I
R, 2U. 151 

felicitous, fur CXQlllple, is the follo
ving rendering of the 
faluous "
orùs in ..lcts xxvi. 28, 29, ,vhich ,ve find thrust 
upon us ".ithout apology or explanation; "ithout, in fact, 
any llunginal nute at all :-' A-\.nd A-\.grippa. said unto Paul, 
nrith vut little persuasion thon 'wouldcst fain make 'lílC a 
Christian, ....\nd l)aul said, I ,voultl to GOD, that ,vhether 
with little or tvith 1nllch,' &c. 1\ ow this is indefensible. For, 
in the first vlace, to get any such Ineaning out of the "
our l
evisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabri- 
cated 7fotija-at (the peculiar property of 
 \. B and a. fe\v 
cursi ves) for ,,/f.vf.a-Bat in vel', 28, 1\loreover, even so, the 
,,'urds do not yield the required sense. '.Ve venture to point 
out, that this is precisely one ,of the occasions "There tho 
('pinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paralllount Ï1nport- 
ance. The llloderns confe:5s thelnselves unaùle tu discoycr 
a single instance uf the phrase Èv òÀlryCfJ in the sense uf ' 'within 
a littlc.' Cyril of J erusaieln (A.D. 350) and ChrysostoIn 
(A.D. 4UO), un the contrary, evidently considered that here 
the expression can Illean nothing else; and they \vere conl- 
petent judges, seeing that Greek ,vas their native language: 
far hettcr jlHlges (bc it relnarked in passing) on a point of 
this kind thau the ,,
hole body of Revisionists put together. 
'Such an alllount of victorious grace and ".isdom did l'aul 
(lerive froin the I-IOLY SPIRIT' (says Cyril), 'that eyen l
Agrippa at last exclaÍIned,' 1 &c. FrOIH ,vhich it is evident 
that Cyril regarded ....\grippa's ,yonls as an avowal that he 
,vas "Tell-nigh o\-erCOlne hy the ...\J!o!Stle's arglunellt. Aut! -so 
Chrysostonl,2 ,,-ho says plainly that Èv òÀ{ry
ù IlleanS ',yithin 
a little,' 3 and aSSUlllCS that 'within a little' 
. }'nul had 

1 P. 
2 \ ,
 ,,.,.., ,
 '" ,.. " 
 TOV UI.Ka<TTf}V HAE"V 0 TECa>S' KaTaUI.KOS' Hva.. VOJlt
OJlfVOS' Kat TlJV víl(TJV 
aVTòS' Ó XHpw8flS' óp.o}..oyEÏ }..aJl1rp
 Tll cþwviJ 1T"ClpúvrwV ú7rå VTWV ÀÉYWãI, (-:I 
Àíyc:' 1(. T, }... x. a07 b, (= 
ii. -!0a a). 
· iv (;Àí-y,:>' TOVTf<TTL 1rapù p.tKp(ív. ix. 3U 1 a. 


8, 20. 


persuaùed his judge.! He even puts 7rap" òÀlryov into Agrippa's 
Inouth. 2 So also, in effect, Theodoret. 3 FroIl1 all ,vhich it is 
reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to 
infer that our A. V. reflects faithfully ,vhat ,vas the Church's 
traditionary interpretation of Acts xxvi, 28 in the first half 
of the fourth century. Let it only be added that a Letter 
judge of such luatters than any \vho frequented the Jerusalelll 
Chalnber-the late President of l\fagdalen, Dr. llouth,- 
rites: 'Vc'rtcnd llÆ
 esse scqncntia s1tadent, JIc feTc Clwisti- 
(t'JUIÆt fiC'J'í s'lu6dcs. Intc'J'p. Vlll!lntn habet, In 1nodico s'ltades 
7JW Christian'll/In fic'J'i.' 4 Yes, the Apostle's rejoinder fixes the 
lueaning of \vhat Agrippa had said hefore.-And this shall 
suffice. "r e pass on, only repeating our ùeyont ,vish that 
hat the TIevisiollists failed to un(lerstaIHl, or \vel'e unahle 
1natc1'ially and certainly to Ünprove, they \,
oulù haye Leen 
so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the .Å. V. 
is prohaùly right; the It V., probably "Tong. No one, at all 
cyents, can pretend that the rendering ,,
ith \vhich \\Te are all 
fan1Ïliar is " n plain and clcct1' c1'1'or." And confessedly, unless 
it \yas, it should ha\ e 1.een left ulnllolested. But to proceed. 

(4) and (5) There can be no questiun as to the absolute 
duty of rendering iùentical expressions in strictly pa1'allcl 
places of thc Gospels hy strictly identical language, So far ,ve 
are "holly at one \vith the Revisionists. But' alterations 
[supposed to be] rendered necessary by c J
scqucncc' (Prefacc, 
iii. 2.), are quite a different nlatter: and \,e venture to think 
that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical ulliforn1Ïty 
of renJ.ering, that our Revisionists have most often as ,yell as 
I110St grievously lost their ,yay, \Ve differ froll1 theln in fact 
in lÍ1nine. '\Vhen a particular ,vord' (say they) 'is found to 

1 ' , 
 'r ,.. ,.. < " \ ''''"" ' 
Kat TOJJ utKa
Ta7rft(Tal, c.JS' Kat aVTOJJ 
'YftJJ, fJJ 
ÒÀL'YfP 1(. T. À. ii. 516 d. 2 iii. 3ÐÐ d. 
s v. tl30 (-Trap' òAí'YOJJ). 4 l\IS. Note in his copy of the N. T. 


nAA'rXNA :-E"'f'eE'n


recur viÎth characteristic fl'eq ueney in any Ulle of the 
"rriters, it is oln.iously {lesirahle to 
ul()pt fur it sonlC ullifunn 
rendering' (iii. 2). 'Desirahle'! Yes, hut in ,vhat sell
I t is llluch to be ùesired, no duulJt, that the English language 
ahvays contained the C,fact coltntcrpal'ts of Greek ,vorùs: and 
of coursc, if it ùid, it ,vould ùe ill the highest degrec ' ùesiraLle ' 
that a Translator should ah\pays elnploy those ,vurùs and 
no other. But then it happens unfortunately that l J 7'cciscl!/ 
t'f.JltÍculcnt /I'ord.
 do Iwt exist. TÉICVOV, uine tÍ1nes out of ten 
siO'nifies nuthiuQ: el:se but 'child.' On the tenth occaqiun, 
howe,-er, (e.g. ,yher
\ ùrahaln is aùdressing the rich Ulan 
in IIa(les,) it ,youhl be absurd so to render it. "\Ve translate 
'Son,' \Ve are in fact ,yithout choice.-Take anuthcr onliuary 
Greek tenn, G"7rÀá'Yxva, ,vhich occurs 11 titnes in the N. T., 
and ,vhich the .Â. V. unifonnly renders' Lo"Tels,' "r ell, anll 
, bowels' confessedly (J'7T"Àá'Yxva arc. Yet ha,pe uur nevision- 
ists felt theillsel \'es \Hlller the 'lleces8ity' uf rendering the 
word 'he((}'t,' in Col. iii, 1:2,-' 1;Cl"Y hcært,' in Philelnon, 
Vel'. 12,-' aJTl'clions,' in 
 Cor. vi. 12,-' in'l "ard affection,' 
in "ii. 15,-' lUlClcr mercies' in Phil. i. 8,-' cOlllp
ion ' in 
1 ,To. iii, 17,-' b01Cds' only in 
-\.cts i. lS.-These learned 
men, howeycr, put for"
anl in illustration of their o,vn principle 
of translation, the "yorù Etj8Éw
,-,,-hich occurs aùont 80 
tilllCS in the X, T.: nearly half the instances ùeing fonnd in 
Iark's Go.;;pel. "T e accept their challenge; and assert 
that it i
 tasteless ..al'lliUislll to seek to Í1npose upon Ev8Éw
IlO Blatter '1 'llat the context in 'which it stands,-the sellse of 
',<;fj"ai[JhtlCa!/,'-only ùe
ause Eù8v\), the a(ljeeti,
e, generally 
(not always) l1leans 'straight,' 'Vhele a Iniracle of hcaling 
 (lpscrilJed (as in B. l\Iatth. ,.iii. :3 : xx, 34. S. Ln. Y. 13), since 
the hcnefit ",.as no doubt instantaneolls, it is surely the lllere 
instinct úf 'faithfulness' to translate Eù8Éw
So, in respect of the sud(len act ,,'hich saycd Peter frolll 

inking (
latth. xi,'. 31); and that puuctual cuck-cro\\T 


ES, ..\

[An r. 

(xxvi. 74), ,yhich (
. Luke 
ays) did nut so lunch fullow, 
as acco'Jï1pany his denial (xxii. GO). I
ut surely not so, "Then 
the g1
01/Jth of a sced is the thing spuken of (l\Iatth. xiii. 5) ! 
Acts again, which Blust needs have occupied sonle little tÎlne 
in the doing, reasonably suggest SOllIe such renùering as 
'forth1oith ' or 'st'J
aig7dlcay,' -(e.g. S. l\Iatth. xiv. 22 : xxi, 2: 
and S. John vi. 21): w"hile, in 3 John vel'. 14, the Ineallillg 
(as the llevisiollists confess) can ol
ly he 'shortly.' . . . So plain 
a l1latter really ought not to require so lllany \vords. "r e 
repeat, that the llevisionists set out \vith a n1Ïstakell 
iple. They clearly do not undcrstand their Trade. 

They invite our attention to their rendering of certain 
of the Greek Tenses, and of the definite Article. 'V c 
rl\gl'ct to discover that, in l)oth respects, their "york is 
disfigured throughout by changes ,vhich conyict a Inajority 
of their body alike of an inlperfect acquaintance ,,-ith 
the genius of the Greek language, and of scarcely a lllode- 
rate appreciation of the idimnatic proprieties of their o,vn. 
Such a charge Inust of necessity, "yhen it has been sUù- 
stantiated, press heavily upon such a ,,-ork as the present; 
for it is not as "yhen a solitary error has been detected, 
,yhich Inay be rectified. A vicious systc'})
 of rendering 
Tenses, and representing the Greek Article, is sure to crop 
up in every part of the undertaking, and Inust occasionally 
be attended by consequences of a serious nature. 

1. No,y, that ,ye may not be IJlisunderstood, ,ye adnÜt 
at once that, in teaching boys ho,y to turn Greek into English, 
,ye insist that every tense shall be lllarked by its O\\Tn appro- 
priate sign. There is no telling ho,v helpful it ,yill prove 
in the end, that every ,yord shall at first have been rendered 
,vith painful accuracy. Let the Article be [lllis-]representeù 
-the rJ.'epo
ition8 caricatured-the rarticles magnified,- 




let the very order uf the ".ortls at first, (ho\yevcr iUlpossihlc,) 
be religiously retained. l\Icrciless accuracy having becn in 
thi::; ,vay (lclluired, a youth has to be untaught these servile 
hal,its. He has to be ren1Ïndeù of the rcquirclnents of the 
.E"'n!Jlish idiom" and speedily becomes a".are that the iùiolluÜic 
rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievc- 
1uent by far, than his fornler slavish endeavour al ""ays to 
render the saIne '''TortI anù tense in the same slavish ".ay. 

2. TInt ,,,hat suprenlely annoys us in the ".ork just now 
UIl( ler royie,,,' is, that the schoolhoy nlethod of tralls1ati( Hl 
already notiLc(1 is therein exhilJited in constant operation 
throughout. It ùecomes oppressive. 'Ve are never 1ler- 
nlÏtted to believe that w.e are in the cOlnpany of Schul aI's 
,\'ho are altogether masters of their o,vn language. Their 
solicitude e\.er seenlS to be t\yofold :-(1) To exhibit a singular 
indifierence to thc proprieties of English speech; ,\-hile they 
Inaintain a servile adherence (etynlological or iditnnatic, as 
the casc luay be) to the Greek :-(2) night or "Tong, to part 
COlnpany frolH "rillÜull Tynùale anù the giants ".ho gave us 
our' Authorized ,r ersion.' 

Take a fe,,,. illustrations of ,yhat precedes fronl the second 
chapter (Jf S. l\Iatthe'v's Gospel :- 

(1.) Thus, in vel'. 2, the correct English rendering C 'we 
"a rc seen' is luade to give place to the incorrect "we S((7.o 
his star in th
 east.' - In vcr. 9, the idionuÜic ''ll"hcn they 
hurl hcard the king, they departeù,' is rl)jected for the un- 
idiolllatic ' .. \.nd they, having hear) the king, ,vent their way.' 
-In Yer. 13, "Te are tre
lted to 'that it ulight be fulfilled 
,yhich ,vas spoken by the LOHD tllroll!Jh the prophet, saying, 
Out uf l
gY1>t dÙl 1 call Iny son.' 
\..nd yet ,\.110 sees not, 
that in Luth Üu;tallces the olù rellÙl)rillg i
r? Impor- 



[.A In'. 

tant as it may be, in the lcctllTe-rOUIIl, tu ill
ist on \vhat is 
inlplied by TÒ p1jÐÈv 'Tno' TOÛ Kvpíov 
IA' TOÛ 7rpOcþ
TOV, it is 
sÏInply preposterous to CO'J7W (ÛJ1'oad \yith such refinCIuents. 
It is to stultify oneself and to render one's authur unintel- 
ligible. l\Ioreover, the attenlpt to 1e so \volldrous literal 
is safe to break ùo"Tn at the end of a fe\v verses. Thus, if 
Dtá is 'tlt]"ough' in verse 15,-\vhy not in verse 17 anù ill 
verse 23 ? 

(2.) Note hO"T infelicitously, in S. l\fatth. ii. 1, 'there callIe 
"rise nlen froln the east' is changed into' 1üise '/Jl('n frOJn the 
('{(:it ca1ne.'-In vel'. 4, the accurate, ' .L\nd ,,-hen [Herod] had 
gathered together' (uvvarya'Ywv) &c., is tlisplaced for the 
inaccurate, 'And gatherin!J together' &c.- In vel'. 6, ,ye are 
presented ,vith the unintelligihle, ' .1\nd thou BcthlcheJrt, land 
of Judah:' ,,
hile in vel', 7, 'Then Herod ptivily eaUrd the 
ise Inen, and learJled of thent ca?'efully,' is Ï111properly put 
in the place of 'Then Jlerod, ,,-hen he had priyily called 
the ,vise men, enquireù of thenl diligently' (
KpíßltJue 7rap' 
aÙTwv).-In vel'. 11, the fanliliar ' And ,vhen they ,vere conle 
into the house, they sa,v' &c., is needlessly changed into 
, They C((/}}W into the house, and sa,v:' ,vhile 'and "'hen they 
had opened (lÌvoí
avTe<;) their treasures,' is also needlessly 
altered into' and openin!] their treasures.'-ln Yer. 12, the 
It V. is careful to print' of GOD' in italics, ,vhere italics are 
not necessary: seeing that XP7Jp.aTl-u8ÉvTe<; i1nplies 'Leing 
,yarned of GOD ' (as the translators of 1611 ,vere ,veIl 
a,yare 1): \vhereas in countless othLr places the sanle ltevi- 
sionists reject the use of italics ",here italics are absolutely 
re<luired,-Their 'until I trll thee' (in vel'. 13) is a nlost 
un,vorthy suLstitute for' until I bring thee 'lvord.' -And "Till 
they pretend that they have Ï1nproved the rendering of the 

1 .And the Hcvisioni
ts: for t;ce Utlnl, xi, 4. 




cOllchuling worùs of the chapter? If N a
docs not mean' 1 [p shall l,c calh
(l a 
 azarenc,' ,,-hat in the 
""( Irld t!o('.-; it Inean? The ÕTt uf (luotation they e18e,,-he1'e 
olllit. Then ,,
hy, llcre,-' l'ltat it Illight l)c fulfilled. . . thot' ? 

url'lr, cycry one uf thes
 is an alteratiun Inadc for altera- 
tion's sake, alHI in every instance for the u'orsc. 
,\\) 1wgan by surveying the Creel.; of the first chapter of 

, l\[atthe,,-'s Go
pe1. 'Ye haye no\v sur\ eyeù the 
glish of 
 second chapter, 'Yhat does the l
eader think of the result? 

1'-. Next, thl; ]:{:)"isiunists inyite attention to certain 
 of detail: and first, to their rendering of TIlE TEx
(){.' TilE ,... ERR They hegin ,,-ith the Greek Aorist,-(in 
their account) 'perhaps the Illost ÏInportant' detail of all :- 
, ,r e have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language 
l)y funns of expression ,,,hich it wonld not bear. But ,ve have 
often ventured to repre
ent the Greek aorist by the "EngliRh 
preterite, even when the reader Iuay find some pa
sing difficnlty 
in such a rendering, becau
A ,ve have felt convinced that the 
true meaning of the original 'vas obscured by the presence of 
the familiar auxiliary. A Temarkable illustration may be 
found in the scventeenth chapter of S. John's Gospel.'- 
Prcfare, iii. 2,-( latter part). 
(a) "e turn to the place indicated, anù are constrained 
to a:-;sure thes,-) '\
ell-intenti()ned lllell, that the phenomenon 
"e thcre 'witness is a1)
olutely fatal to their pretensions 
as ' II l:i-,>C1.S' uf our ...\uthorized ,r ersion. ,yo ere it only' some 
passing difficulty' ".hich their method occasions us, \\TC 
nlÏght haye hoVed that tinle ,yould enable us to oyercome 
it, nut since it is the genius of th English lan!Juage to 
,,-hich "-e find they haye offere\.l violence; the fixed and 
uniycrsally-understood i(liolll of our llatiye tongue ,yllÌch 
they Ita \
e S) 8trlnatically set at defiance; the nlatter is 
al)sulntely ,vithout reluedy, The difference bet,vcen the 

\. \T. and the It y, seems to ourseh-es to be simply this,- 




that the renderings in the forlner are the idion1atic English 
representations of certain ,yell-understood Greek tenses: 
".hile the proposed substitutes are nothing else but thp 
pedantic efforts of nlere granuuarians to reproduce in an- 
other language idiolns "rhich it abhors. nut the Ileader 
shall judg(\ for hiInself: for this at least is a point on ,y]1Ïch 
eyery educated Englis]llllan is fully competent to paSR 

'Vhen our Divine Lonn, at the close of His 
(TIc had in fact reached the very last night of Jlis earthly 
life, and it "ranted but a fe"
 hours of His rassion,)-,yhen 
lIe, at such a moment, addressing the Eternal FATHER, says, 
" '
't: "" " '" , , 
eyw UE Eooc;aua ern T17c; f'f17C;. TO Epryov ETEÀEtWUa . . . . 
ÈcþavÉpwuá UOV TÒ ðvo}La Toîc; cÌv8pW7rOtc;, &c. [J o. xvii. 4, 6], 
there can be no doubt ,yhatever that, had He pronounced 
those ,yords in English, He ,vould haye said (".ith our A. ,T,) 
(I hare glo1
ificd Thee on the earth: I ha1:e finished the 
,vork:' (I have manifested Thy Name.' The pedantry ,vhich 
(on the plea that the Evangelist eßlploys the aorist, nut the 
perfect tense,) "Tould t,yist all this into the indefinite past,-' I 
glorified' . . . 'I finished' . . . 'I n1allifested,' -we pronounce 
altogether insufferable. "T e absolutely refuse it a hearing. 
rresentIy (in vel'. 14) He says,-' I have given thell1 Thy 
".ord; and the ,yorld hath hated thc1ìL' .A.nd in vel'. 25,- 
'0 righteous FATHER, the ,vorld hath not kn.01rn Thee; hut 
I lia
'e kn01.cn Thee, and these have kJ
01Cn that Thou hast 
fe.' H7to ,vould consent to substitute for these ex- 
pressions,-' the ,yorld hated them:' and' the ,yorld knew. 
Thee not, Lut I kne,v Thee; and these kne,v that Thou elidst 
send 1\1e' 1-01' turn to another Gospel. H7ticlz is better,- 
(Solne qne hath touched 1\1e: for I perceive that virtue is 
gone out of 
fe,' (S. Lu. yiii. 46) :-01',-' SOlne one did touch 
1\le: for I pcrccÍ1'ecl that po'n
r had gone forth fronl 1\fe'? 




"ThPll tho refercnce is to an act so extl'Olllely recent, ?cho is 
uot a".are that the second of these rendering:-i is al)horrent to 
the g('ninf; of the English language? .As for Er-./VWV, it if; 
(like IlOr; in Latin) present in scnse thou!!h past in for'JIl,- 
lll're as in S. Lu. xvi. 3,-Dut' turn to yet anuther GO
H7/ id
 hetter in B, l\Iatth, xvi. 7 :-' 'Ice tool
 no l)read,' or 
, It iR hecauso 'we have taken no bread' ?-Again. "Then SÜnon 
Peter (in reply to the cOlnnland that ho should thrust out 
into dcep ,rater and let do,\Tn his net for a draught,) is heard 
to exclainl,-:-' I\Iaster, "TO haye toiled all tho night, and hayo 
takl1n nothing: nevertheless at Thy "Tord I \vill let do\vn 
the net' (Ln, y. 5),-1J3/;0 "Tould tolerate the proposal to put 
in the place of it,-' l\faster, 'Ice toiled all night, and toole 
nothing: but at Thy ,vord,' &c. It is not too luuch to 
(leclare' that the idionl of the English language refuses 
perClllptol'ily to subnlÏt to Ruch handling, Quito in yaill 
is it to l'nccmnter us \yith renlinc1er that K07ruí.uavTE
ÈÀllßOfLEV are aorist:=;o The answer is,- "r e kno,y it: but "TO 
(lllny that it follu\YS that the ,vords are to be rendered' 'YO 
toiled all night, and toolt nothing.' There are law"S of 
English [dioHl as "Tell as la,,-s of Greek Grannnar: and ,,-hen 
theç:c clash in "That is Ineant to he a translation into English 
out of Urcek, the latter must perforce give ,yay to the fornler, 
-or \'-C llwke ourselves riùiculous, anù misrepresent "That ".0 
propose to translate. 

.All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to bo 
isted upon. ]
ut in fact our Itcyisionists Ly their occa- 
sional practice ::; 110 ,\T that they fully aùlllit the rl'i/
ciple ,,-e 
arc contending for. Thus, ?jpav (in S. J o. xx. 2 and 13) is 
l,y thClll translated' they II vc t((l
cn: '-LvaTí J1Æ ÈryKaTÉÀt7rEÇ; ; 
latt. xxvii, 46) "Vhy hast Thou fm"sake'lL I\10 ?' 1 :-ËóEL

1 Y ct cYen here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the 
l<<uliarly iufelicitouf' alteruative,-' Trhy elitist thouforsake Jle l' 




(R. tT o. x. 32) '}lare I shou'ed : ' -à7rÉlT7etÀÆ (vi 29) c He h(1th 
.,\('nt : ' - 
TLJLáuaTe (.J alnes ii. 6) 'ye hare dishonoured:'- 

 ÈKa8ápLue (Acts x, 15) 'hath cleansed: '-EUT'TJUeV (xvii. 31) 
'He hath appointed.' TIut indeed instances abound e\Tcry- 
,vhere. In fact, the requirelllents of the case are often observc(l 
to force thenl to be idiolnatic. Tí È7rot1]ua't; (in J 0, xviii. 35), 
they rightly render" 'Vhat hast thou done?" :-and lrypa'ta 
(ill 1 Jo. ii, 14, 21), "I have ,yritten; "-and i}lCovua (in Acts 
ix. 13), "I have heard."-On the other hand, by translating OVIC 
eLauev (in Acts xxviii, 4), "hath not suffered," they lnay be 
thought to have overshot the In ark. They seenl to have 
overlooked the fact that, "Then ,once S. Paul had been låtten 
by the viper, "the harbarians" looked upon him as a dead 
man; and therefore discoursed ahout ,vhat Justice "did not 
suffer," as about an entirely past transaction, . 

But no,v, lV7"o sees not that the admission, once and 
again deliberately made, that sOlnetimes it is not only 
la\yful, but even necessary, to accommodate the Greek aorist 
(\vhen translated into English) ,vith the sign of the perfect,- 
reduces the ,vhole 111atter (of the signs of the tenses) to a 
mere question of Taste? In vie,v of such instances as the 
foregoing, ,,"'here severe logicnl necessity has cOlnpelled the 
Revisionists to abandon their position and fly, it is plain that 
their contention is at an end,-so far as right and 'lvrong are 
concerned. They virtually achnit that they haye been all 
along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien 
yoke. l Henceforth, it sinlply becomes a question to 1e 
repeated, as every fresh emergency arises,- "Vhich then is 
the 'lnore idio1natic of these t\VO English renderings? . . . . 
Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and 28), the Revi- 

] .A'd in Honl, vi. 
: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 
7 : vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv. 
20, &c. &c. 



If a 

ioni"ts havl' represented tIh
 Gtc'k pClfe'l by t1H. 1 EngIi-;h 
i1Hlt,tillitc preterite. 

(h) He",iùcs this oftl'llsiYl 1 pellantr,v in respect of thc 
...\nl'ist, "'C are oftcn annoyed Lyan úìlidiom{ ti' rCIHlering of 
the 1I1lperfect. True enough it is that 'the servants and the 
oflìcl'l'S 'ìI"C/'C struulillg . . . . and 'It'cre u.ar'lIân:J theIllSeh"l'S : ' 
1 \'te1' al
o 'If((.f) 
t{( nrling with thcln and 'lC:W:5 1I'fU'11l ill!! hitn- 

(\lf' (
. IT 0, xyiii, 18). But \ve do not so exprc:-ìs ourselves ill 
.English, unless ,,'e are ahout to ad(l sOlnething ,'d1Ïdl shall 
a 'cúunt f01' onr particularity and precision. ... \.ny one, for 
l'\:(ullple, ùesirous of stating \,"hat hall lll'en for years his 
(laily practice, would say-' I lcft Iny house.' Only ,,,hCll he 
".alltcll to explain that, 011 leayillg it for the 100()th titne, he 
lllct a friend cU111ing up the steps to pay hinl a yisit, 
".ould an .Englislllllan think of Raying, 'I l"as lc(tI.;i/
!J the 
house.' A Greek writer, on the other hand, would nut trU,f)t 
this to the Ï1npel'fect. TIe ,,'oula u
e tIlt.> pre
ent participle 
in the dativc ca
c, (' To JllC, [cavill!! 11lY hOUSt,' 1 &c.). One i
hed to have tu e:\. plain such things . . . . 'If there- 
fore thou art (
tfcring thy gift at the altar' (l\latt. v. 
3), lllar 

ccnl to Sùllie a cle\.er translation. To ourseh'es, it rea(ls 
like a senseless exaggeration of the origilla1. 2 It sounds 
(and is) as unnatlllal as to say (ill S. Lu. Ü, 33) '.And IIi
father [a depraxatioll of the text] and His lllothcr lI"C1"f 11Ut,.- 
n lli'l.fJ at the things ,,"hich ".ere spoken cun
el'nillg HiIn: '- 
or (in lIeL. :\.i. 17) 'yea, he that hall reeeiycd the prcl1ni
'II. ) 11' riny p hi
 only-hegotten &Oll: '-or, of the cripple at 
Lystra (Acts xiv, 9), , the 
alnc heal'll Panl '
1' king.' 

(c) On tIll' other ha1H1, thcre arc occasion:-; confcs:::::c(l1y 
when tIll} Grl'l'k ....\orist ah
olut('ly dellHU1d
 to hl' renLlered 

1 C\lrnp. s. 
latth. viii. I, ;" :!:
, :!
; ix. :!ï, :!h; xxi, 
' F. · '9 "" ' 
.av nt1V npmT'fJEp'lÇ. 




E:S, )II

[A RT. 

into English by the sign of the ])lujJofcct. _\n instance 
Dleets us ,,,hile w.e ,yrite: W
 ðÈ È7iaVUaTO ÀaÀwv (S. I,u, y.4), 
-"There our l
eyisiollists are found to retain the idionultic 
rendering of our Authorizrd ,-r ersion,-' 'Yhen He had left 
speaking.' Of ,vhat possible ayail could it 1e, on Ruch an 
occasion, to insist that, because È7raVUaTO is not in the 
pluperfect tense, it luay not he accol1ullodated ,,'ith fllc si[JJt 
of the pluperfect ,yhell it is l)eing translated into English 1- 
Thp 1:' .Y. has sho,,,n less consideration in 8. .To. xyiii, 24,- 
,yhere ' K O"T Anna
 /1(((7 8(11 f JIÌ1n hOUll(1 unto Caiaphas the 
high priest,' is right, and ,,'anted no reyision,-Snch p1ace..s aR 
:\latth. xxxii. 00, .To. xxi. I;:), Acts xii, 17, and Heb, iy. 8, 
on the other hand, sÏ1uply defy the lleyisionists. :For per- 
force Joseph 'had hf'l{,Jl out' (èÀaTÓ}J/r}UE) the lle,v tOlnb 
"Thieh Lecalnr nul' l..oHH's : anù thr seyen Apost1e
, confessedly, 
'had dined' (
píUT1JUav): and 
. Peter, of course, 'declared 
Ullt0 thenl ho\v the LORD bad brought him ouf of the prison' 
(Èçl/"yaryEv): and it is ÍInpossible to substitute anything for 
'If J esu
 L Joshua] It La gil:rn thenl rest' (/CaTÉ7T"aVuEv).-- 
Then of course there are occasions, (not a fe,v,) ,,,here the 
Anrist (often an indefinite present in l}reek) clain1s to 11H 
Englishe(l by the sign of the present tense: as ,,,,here S. John 
says (Hey. xix, 6), 'The LunD GOD Onluipotent reiglleth' 
(Èßaut^-ÆvuE). There is no striYÍllg Hp-ainst such instances. 
They insist on being reIH1ere<1 according to the genius of thp 
language into ,yhich it is pl'op()
ed tn re11l1e1' thel11 :-as ,yhC>ll 
;/CEtTO (in H. .To. xx. 12) exacts for itf; n?11<1ering 'had lrti'l,' 

(d) It shall only Le pointe(l out llel"e in i:llldition for the 
student's benefit, that there is ont1 highly interesting place 
(yiz, S. l\latth. xxviii, 2), ,vllÍch in eycry age has n1Ïsled 
Critics and Diyines (as Origen and Eusebius); Poets (as 
TIogers); Painter
 (as "rest) ;-yes, and ,yill continue to nlis- 
ImH1 rearlcrs for n1any n year to COlne :-and nn h0cause InCH 


TIII:O("(;)I0l:T BY TilE UE\ï:-'I().\"I

1 t):) 

}lin e faile(l tu pprcei,rc that the auri.::;t is used thcrc fur the 
plupcrfect. Trauslate,-' There Ita 1 b 'en a grcat eartluluake : ' 
[and su (1011-1881) our lllargin,-uuril ill Rl}()rt 'the [
t:3' interfered:] 'fpr the Ange1 of the L( HtD had de.. 
st'l'Jl(lc(1 frolll heaYCll, alHl CfJJ/U' (In,! frolll'd al/"(//J (å7rEKÚÀICTE) 
the stulle flUIH the duor, an<l sat npon it,' StraJlgc, that for 
] suo years CUIllmentators should have faiIl
(l to pcrcei\ e that 
the Evan(Teli
t is .lc:-,crihin rr \vhat terrifil
t1 'the kC(' l J1 rs,' 'TIN 
l'" ð 
a\\. n l ) Angel 
itting lll,on the stone! - though 
OI'igcn,1 - Dionysiub of 
\Jcxan(lria,2 - EUf;ehius,3 - }Js.- 
regory Kaz,!-Cyril ..Alex,,5-IIesychius,6- all d so 11lany 
-have taken it for granted that they did. 

(f) Then further, (to disn1Îss the subject and pa

There are occasiuns \vhe1'e the Greek Jl{ ifcct exact:-) the -;igll 
of the prest' /ll at the hands of the }:nglish translator: 8:-. 
when )Iartha says,-' Yea LORD, I belicve that Thou art the 
(111InsT' (S. .To. xi. 27),7 'Yhat else but the véricst pedantry 
is it to thrust in there' I Ilave belicl:cd,' as the English equi- 
valent for 7TE7T{CTTEvKa ?-(T ust as intolcraùle is the officious- 
IlC::,S which \voult! thrust into the LORD'B prayer (
fatt, yi. 12), 
"as ".e alsu have fO}:qil'cn (åqY1]KaJLEv) our debtors."8-0n the 
other hand, there are Greek prc.'
 (\\Thatevcr the Ucvi- 
siunists lllay think) which are just as perenlptory in rC(p1Ìrillg 
tI, .(;i!Jn of tile fl'ture, at the halHls of the i(liolnatic tl'tlns- 
1ator into English, Three such ca::;es are found in S. .Jo, x\'i. 
1 (), 17, 1 !), 
urcly, the future is inlu'rc,d in the present 
Ëpx o j1at! In Jo. xiv. 1H (and nlany 5inlÏlar plat'('s), l,,/iu can 
l'IHlllrc, , I \\.ill not lea ,re yuu (lesulate: 1 ('01i1 l//äu !/UU ' ? 

Iii.!.,),,). 2 Itouth, Rell. iii. 
:!G d ("f 1 r. :I ..\p. ..\tai, iv. 
· ii. l
:!-l. ð ii. :
t:itt 6 .Ap, Oreg. Xy
s. iii. 40:1- 
7 S" also II('h. xi, 1 ï, 
R ... \nd :-;ec t he Hcyi
ion (If S, .James i. II. 
S ("(Imp. (LcþífJ.l.fV in 
. Ln. xi. .1. In the C.LSC of certain Grcek '"Cr1IS, the 
prdf.'/'ife in fì'flH is in\":lriahly })1"P,o:., ,,' in si
ec I>r. Fif'Icl'" 
delightful O';'l1lt J.Yun'ialtsc, 11, 4);). 

)[ ") 




(I) But instances abound, Ho,v does it happen that the 
inaccurate rendering of ÈKKÓ7r'TE'Tal-ÈICßáXXeraL-has been 
retained in S. l\Iatth. iii. 10, S. Lu. iii. 9 ? 

yo. Next, concerning the DEFIXITE ARTICLE; In the case 
of \\Thich, (say the l{eyisiouists,) 
'many changes have been made.' "Y e have l)(
en careful to 
obFerve the use of the Article ,vherever it semned to he 
idiomatically possible: ,vhere it did not Heem to l)e possible, 
,ve have Jielded to necessity.' -(Preface, iii. 2,-ad fin.) 
In reply, instead of offering counter-stateluents of our 0'1{Il 
,,-e content ourselyes ,vith su1)lnitting a fe\v specin1ens to the 
l{eader's judgnlent; and invite hiIll to decide Lebveen the 
}{evie\ver nnd the l{eview'ed . . . ' The so\ver ,,"'ent forth to SO\v ' 
fatth. xiii. 3),-' It is greaier than the herbs' (vel'. 32).- 
, Let him ùe to thee as the Gentile and the puùlican' (xyiii. 
17),-' The unclean spirit, ".,.hen he is gone uut uf the man' 
(xii. 43),-' Did I not choose you the t\velve l' (,To. vi. 7u). 
-' If I then, the Lord and the nlaster' (xiii, 14).-' 
For the 
joy that a IHau is born illtu the ,vorld' (xvi. 21).-' But as 
tuuching .L\pollos the Lrother' (1 Cor. xvi. 12),
' The Bishop 
Illust Le Llallleless , . . able to exhort in the sound doctrine' 
(Titus i, 7, 9).-' The lust ,yhen it hath conceivetl, Lenreth 
sin: and the sin, \Vhell it is full gro,yn' &c. (J ailles i, 15),- 
'Doth the fountain send forth froul the salue opening s\\ eet 
,vater and Litter l' (iii, 11),-' Speak thou the things \vhich 
befit the sound doctrine' (Titus ii, 1).-' The tÍ1ne 'v ill conle 
hen they ,,"'ill not endure the sound doctrine' (2 TÍ1u. 
iv. 3),-' "r e had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us' 
(Heb. xii. 9).-' Follo,v after peace ,yith all luell, aud tll6 
sanctification' (vel'. 14).-' 'Yho is the liar but he that 
deuieth that JESUS is the CHRIST l' (1 ,J 0, ii. 22).-' Not 
,vith the "Tater only, but \vith tlte "Tater and \vith the blooù ' 
(v. G),-' He that hath the Sox, hath the life: he that 
hath not the SO
 of (-}OD hath nut the life' (vel', 12). 

] I.] 

BY rng I
,-TJI E pn()

1 !;,) 

Tu rejoin, as if it \\Tere a suffieient answer, that the ùefinitt) 
.A rtiele is fOUIH I in all these places in the original G reck,- 
is preposterous. In ]
'rench also we say C Telle est la yic:' 
hut, in translating froll1 the }'rcnch, \\'e <<10 not tit Tlfurc say 
'Such is the life.' :\lay \\'C, \vithuut offence, suggest the 

tudy of 
Iid(lletoll On the ])of'trine of the th'l'c!.; .Ll"ticle to 
those IneJllhers of the ]
e\-isionists' bo(ly who have favuureù 
us with the foregoing crop uf lllistaken renderillg

So, in respect of the intlefinite article, we arc presented 
\vith,-' ....1n eternal' (fur 'the everlasting ') 'guspel tu 1'1'0- 
claiIn' (Hev. xiv. 6) :-and 'one like untu a ßon uf luan,' for 
, one like unto the Bon uf :\Ian ' in ver. 1..1.- 'Vhy , II S
\ YIOCJ{ , 
in Phil. iii. 2u? There is but une! (.A.cts iv. 12).-On the 
other hanù, l\..pavíov is rendered 'The skull' in 8. Ln. xxiii. 
:3;{. It is hard to see ,vhy.- These instances taken at l'alltlunl 
IllHst suffice. They lnight be lllultiplied to any extent, If 
the Header consiùers that the iùiolllatic use of the English 
.... \rticle is understuod by the authors of these specÏ1nell cases, 
e shall Le surprised, antI sorry -for hÍJ/

L The neyisionists announce that they' 113xe heen parti- 
cularly careful' as to TIlE Pnoxoux
 [iii. 2 ad filL]. \Ye reLal 
\vith regret that this is alsu a particular ""herein \\e haye heen 

pecially annoyed and uffended. ...\.nlloyed-at their practiLl' 
of ?cpcatin!J the ,Lo')/
inatit.c (e.g. in l\lk. i. 13: ,To. xx. I:!) tu 
an extent ullkno\Vll, aLhorrent even, to our langungc, except 
iIHlePtl \vhen [1 fresh substalltiye statClnellt is InatIe: offclllled 
-at their license of translatiun, 'when it suits them to DC liceIl- 
ti( IUS.- TInts, (as the lJp. of S. Andre,n; has ,veIl pointed out,) 
, it is lIe t!tat' is all incorrect translation of aùTó" iu 
. 1\Iatth. 
i. :!l,-i.l falnous passage. Eyen \Yllr
e, because it is unfair, i" 
'lIe u'h ' i.lS the l'Cllllering uf Õ, in 1 Tinl. iii. l(),--auother 
sage, \\
hich we lwye t1i
Lu::;:-;ed el:-:e\\'Ìlere,l 


I ='l'C a1,0\-e, pp, 
o Al:-:o il,/Ion, towartl
 the end. 




'Tll. '"In the caSe uf the PAHTICLES' (say the Hevisiollists), 

',ve have l)een able to nlaintain a rpasonahle alllount of con- 
sistency. rrhe l)articles in the Greek 'restamont are, as is well 
known, comparatively fow, and they are cOlnmonly u:-5ed with 
precision. It has therefore boon the more necessary here to 
preserve a general uniformity of 'rende1.ing.' -(iii. 2 ad fin.) 

Such an announcement, ,,"'e SUbll1Ït, is calculated to 
occasion nothing so luuch as uneasiness and astollislllncllt. 
Of all the parts of specch, the Greek rarticles,-(especially 
throughout the period "Then the Language \yas in its deca- 
dence,)-are the least capaLle of Lcing drilled into C a general 
uniforIuity of rendering;' and he ,vho tries the èxperinlcnt 
ought to be the first to be R\yare of the fact, The refineIllcnt 
and delicacy \vhich they impart to a narrative or a senti- 
Inent, are not to be told. But then, franl the very nature of 
the case, '1lnifOr7níty of 'rendering' is precisely the thing 
they \vill not su lnllit to. They take their colour froln their 
context: often lncan t,vo quite different things in the course 
of t\yO successive yerses: sonlctin1Cs are Le
t renlh'rea by a 
long and fonnidable ,,'ora; 1 SOIllctin1es cannot (\vithout a 

ertain HUIOlUlt of iInpropriety or inconvenience) be rendered 
at all. 2 Let us illustrate \yhat ,ye hayt;.1 Leen saying by 
actual appeals to Scripture, 

(1) And first, "Te \yill dcri ye our pruofs frOl11 the use 
\yhich thl' sacred "r riters nlake of the particle of Inost 

1 As in S. 
Iatth. xi. 11 and 2 Tinl. iv. 17, where 
É is rendered" not- 
tanding : "-Phil. i. 24 and IIeh. xii. 11, where it is "nevertheles
2 Eight thues in succes
ion in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, ôÉ is :not repre::;ented in 
the A. V. The ancient
fdt so keenly what Ty:nllale, Cralllller, the Genrva, 
the Hheim
, and the 
\. v. ventun
J to exhibit, that as often as not they 
leave out the 
É,-in which our Heyisio:nists twice follow thmn. rrIw 
reader l}f ta
te is illyiteJ to note the precious result of insertiug 'and,' as 
the Revisiunists IU"'\Te done six times, where according to the gcniu
 of the 
English language it is not walltcc.l at all, 



1 fjj 

freeptent re
urrence-ôÉ. It is said to be elnploycd in the 
X. T. :1113 tÏIIlCf;. _\.s fur its meaning, w'e haye the UllUll- 
 authority of the ltevisionists thelnselvcs for saying 
that it llla.y be represented by any of the fullo,ving 'worù
, hu t ' -' and' 1_' Y ea' 2_' ,vhat ' 3_' neHV ' '-' and that' 5_ 
, , , , , , 
, howheit,' 6 -' eYCll,' 7_' therefure,' 8_' I say,' 9_' alRo,' 10_ 
'vet' 11_' for,' 12 To" hich 1
 ren<1erin u s lCinn' Jallle
" , ð , ð 
translators (nlostly folIu,ying Tyndale) are lIIJ
crYed to adel at 
least these other 12 :-' ,vl1erefore,' 13_' bO,' 14_, 1nOreOyer,' 15 
--' ) ea and,' 16 -' furthernlore,' 17 -' nevertheless,' 18 -' llot- 
".ithstaneling,' 19_' yet hut,' 20_, truly,' 21_' or,' 22_' as for,' 23 
-' then,' 2'_' and yet.' 25 It 
hall sutfice to ndd that, IJY the 
pitiful substitution ûf 'but' or 'and' on most of the fure- 
going occasions, the freshness and freedonl of ahnost every 

e has becn lllade to disappear: the plain fact being 
that the Inen uf IGll-aboye all, that 'Villialll TYlldale 77 
years before thelu-pro(lucc(l a ,vul'k of real genius; seizing 
ith geneTou
annth the Ineanillg au(l intention of the 
:-;al'l'è(l \Yriters, an(1 perpetually varyiug the phrase, as they 
felt ùr fancie(l that Eyangelists and .f\.postles ,,
oulcl haye 
varied it, had they had tu express thelllselves in English: 
 the TIlen of It;81 IHt\re fulfilled their task in ,vhat 
can only be descri1ed as a spirit of :scrrilc pet/a ntry. The 
Granllnarian (pnre and si1nple) crop
 up every\vhere. 'Yp 
seelll never to rise aboyc the atlllosphere of the lecture-routH, 
-the startling fact that JLlv Incans ' indce(l,' and ôl ' Lnt.' 

1 ;1
 times in the Genealogy, S. )Iatth. i. 
3 Horn. ix. :!
, .. 1 Cor. xii. 
6 ....\ct:-: xxvii. :!(i. 7 Hum. iii. 

 Cor. v. R 10 S. )Iark À v. 3l. 
12 1 Cor. x. 1. 13 K ::\Iatth. vi. 20. 
 Cor. i. 
3. 16 
 Cor. vii. 13. 
 Pet. iii. 13. 19 S. )Iatth. ii. 

21 1 S. John i. 2. 2"2 s. )Iatth. Xx\
. 3!1. 
24 Hom, Áii. G. 2
, )IaUh. vi. 

2 Hom. xiv. 4-: xv. 

 Gal. ii. 4-. 
8 Ephes, iv. l. 
11 R 
J ark vi. 
,John xx. 4. 
 Cor. ii. I:!. 
20 1 Cor. xii. 
Z3 ...\cts viii. 3. 




'Ve subjoin a single speciInen of the countless changes 
introduced in the rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. 
In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englislllnen 
have been contented to read (,,'ith '\Tillianl Tyndale), ' But 
no\v are they lllany Inelubers, YET nUT one body.' Our 
Revisionists, (oyerCOnle by the kno,vledge that óÉ llleans 
, but,' and yielding to the supposed' necessity for preserying 
a genera] uuiforn1Ïty of rendering,') substitute,-' But now. 
they are luany 111('1111)81'8, but oue bOlly,' Conlnlent ought to 
be superfluous. "r e neither oyel'look the fact that ól occurs 
here t\\rice, nor deny that it is fairly rppresented by , but' in 
the first instance. "\Ye assert 1lcycrtheless that, on the 
second occasion, 'YET nUT' ought to have been let alonc'. 
And this is a fair 
(llnple of the changes \vhich hayc been 
etlected J}
aJlY timrs in fec}'!! pagc. To proceed hO\\Teyer. 

(2) The interrogatiye particle 17 occurs at the beginning 
of a sentence at least 8 or 10 tÏ111es in the N. T,; first, ill 
S. :ßlatth. yii. 9. It is often scarcely translateablc,-being 
apparently inyested \\Tith no Inore elnphasis than belongs to 
our colloquia] interrogatiye ' Eh?' nut sOlnetÏ1nes it ,yould 
e\'i(lently Lear to be representeù by' l>ray,' I-being at least 
cquiyalent to cþÉpE in Greek or a!Je in Latin. Once only 
(viz, in 1 Cor. xiv, 36) does this interrogative particle so 
eloquently plea(l for recognition in the text, that both our 
...l. 'T. aIlll the It 'T. haye renùered it "Vhat 1 '-by ,vhich 
'YOI'll, hy the "Tay, it nlÏght yery fairly haye been represented 
in 8, l\Iatth. xxyi. 53 and l
oln. yi. 3: vii. 1. In fi,,-e of the 
places "There the particle occurs, ICing J alnes's Translators are 
observed to haye given it up in despair,2 But ,,
hat is to be 
thought of the adycnturous dulness "Thich (\\Tith the single 
exception alre:uly indicated) has inra1'iably rendered 17 by 

1 As in R l\Iatth. "ii, 9: xii. 
n: xx. 13. ROln. iii. 2D. 
2 K. _Mattb, xx. 15: xxvi, 5:3. Hom, iii, 2D: vi. 3: vii, 1. 




the COlljullctiolL 'VI" ? The blunder is the Illore inexcusable, 
lu'can::;e the intrusion of such an irrelcyant conjunction into 
plact.:) ,,"here it is ,\"itlwut either use or Illeanillg caunut haye 
failetl to attract the notice of every Iuember of thc l:cyising 

(3) ..At the risk of being '\TeariSoIIle, "e nlU'3t ada a fc\\" 
\\'onls.- Kaí, thuugh nu particle but a conjunction, lllay for 
our pre:sent purpuse Le reasonaLly sþuken uf under the 
head; being di ,-ersely rendered' and,' -' and yet,' 1_' then,' 2 
-' or' 3_, neither' 4_' thouO'h ' 5_' so' 6_' but' 7_' for' 8_ 
, , 0' , , , 
, that,' 9-in confonnity ,\-ith "That lnay be called the genius 
of the English language, The last six of these renderings, 
ho,,'ever, our Itevisionists disallo,v; eycry\vl1ere thrusting 
out the ".ord ,dlich the arguluent seeIllS rather to require, 
and ,\'ith Incchanical precision thrusting into its place eyery 
tinle the 
perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) 
,vol'll, 'and.' \rith ,dlat aUlount of benefit this has been 
effected, one or t\vo stunples ,,,ill sufficiently illustrate :- 

(n) The Hevisionists infornl us that ,yhen "the high priest 
.Ananias COnlTIlanded them that stuut! by hinl to SI11Îte hint 
ull the In{)uth,"-
. Paul exclaiIned, "GOD shall slnite thee, 
thou ,vhited ,vall: AXD sittest thou to judge 11le after the 
la.\\, and cOllunandest lue to be slnitten contrary tu the 
la,v ? "10 . . . 1)0 these learned Inen really iInagine that they 
hayc ÍInpr.oyed upon the ..c\.. \Y". by their officiousness In 
altering' FOR' into' XXD ' ? 
(b) The S
lIne ....\postle, haying ended his argulllent to the 
I r ehrc,,"s, relllarks,-' So ,ve see tlhlt they could nut enter in 
hce;(luse of unlJelief' (IIcb. iii. 19) : for w"hich, our ncyisioni:;tl) 

1 R .J l,hn xvi. 

. Luke xii. 
; 1 K .Tohn ii. 
\d:-- :\xiii. ;t 

2 8. Luke xix. 
. Luke xviii. ;, 

 1 R .Tll1m i. 

 Cor. xiii. l. 
6 K Luke xiv, 
9 f', 'lark ix, 3


G U.F 


agalll substitute 'And.' Begin the sentence \yith '_\ND,' 
(instead of 'So,') and, in c01npensation for "That you lU1ve 
clearly lost, "That have you gained? . . . Once 111ore:- 
(c) Consiùer \yhat S. l)aul "Trites concerning .L\pollos 
(in 1 Cor. xvi. 12), and then say ,yhat possible ad \"antage 
is obtainetl by "Triting , AXD' (instead of 'BUT) his "Till \vas 
not at all to come at this time'. . . . Yet once 1110re; and on 
this occasion, scholarship is to sonle extent involved :- 
(d) 'Vhen S. James (i. 11) says åvÉTEtÀe 'Yàp ó if^to
. . . 
Kaì ÈçrJpave TÒV X,óPTov,-1.cho kno,vs not that ,yhat his 
language strictly lllcans in iùionlatic :Ellglish, is,-' .Zf"o soonrr 
(loes the sun arise,' 'than it \\Tithereth the grass'? 
\nd so 
in effect uur Translators of 1611. 'Vhat possible iInprnye- 
lnent on this can it be to substitute, 'For the snn ariseth , . . 
AX!> ,,-ithereth the grass' ?-Ûnly once l110re :- 
(c) Thuugh Kaí undeniably llleallS 'and,' and 7TWÇ;, 'hO,\T,' 
-lI.hu knu\\Ts not that Kat 7TW
 lllCans '1101" flll '" ?' ...luLl 
yet, (as if a stupid little Luy had been at ,york,) in t\yU 
,-(na1nely, in 8. 
fark iv. 13 au(t 
, Luke xx, 4-1,)- 
, XXv IIU\V' is found. nlereile

ly thrust in, to the great detI'i- 
Inent of the discour:::;e; \vhile in other t,vo,-(nalucly, in 
8. John xiv. 5 and 9,)-the text itF;elf has heen lnercile
(1eprived of its characteristic Kat by the TIevisionists.--Let 
this suffice, Une n1Ïghi fill 111 allY (lllÏres of paper ,vith such 
instances of tasteless, senseless, ycxatious, ana 'most l{ Jl- 
:-whnl(( rl ik(' innoyation. 

III. '
lany changes' (,ye are infonned) 'ha.Yc been intro- 
duced i.n th0 rendering of the rHEPOSITIOXS.' [PJ'(fa('c, iii. 
2, ad fin,] :-and "Te are speedily ren1Ïnded of the truth of the 
statenlent, for (as "as sho,vn above [pp. 155-6J) the second 
chapter of S. 
Iatthe"'N's Gospel exhibits the Revisionists 
C all a-field' in respect of ðuí. ",r e have rarely Illade allY 
ehange' (they add) '\vhere the true III caning of the original 
"Toula be apparent to a Reade1
 of oTdina1'y intclli[!ence.' It 

I I.] 

TilE ])HEPO:--:ITIOXS.-:! PETEH 1. 5-7. 


,,"cml(l of COUl'-;e ill Leculne such an OIlC a
 thc present 
e,"iewer to lay claim to the furegoing flattering designatiun : 
but really, ,,"hen he no\v fur the first tiIne reat1
 (in ...lets 
.'j) that the t1isciples of I)allHlscuS let S. Paul do\\.n 
, tit rOllgh tln 1.call, , he )nust be l'al'doneLl for re
TfettiI1g the 
cnce uf a Inarginal reference to the history uf !>yraIIlus 
antI Thisbe in order to suggest ho1'J the operation \yas effected: 
for, as it stands, the It. V. is to hinl sÍInply unintelligilJle. 
Inasnulch a
 the Lasket (u7rvpír;;) in ,,-hieh the _ \postl
cflected his escape ,vas of consiùerable size, do Lut think 
".hat an extravagantly large hole it Blust ha,-e been to ellabl
thcrll butll to get through! . . . But let us look further. 

'Vas it then in order to bring Scripture ,yithill the CClptus 
of ' a l
eader of ordinary intelligence' that the TIevisers hayp 
intro(1uced no less than thiJ.ty changcs into cight-and-thirty 
1.cords of S. l)eter's 2n(1 EpL'3tle? Particular attention is 
invitetl to the following interesting speeÏ1nen of 'Rt rision.' 
It is the only ont' "-e f-;hall offer of the rnany contrcnds ,ve 
ha(I llmrked for insertion. "r e venture also to enquire, 
\vhether the l
evisers "TilJ consent to aLide hy it as a 
specimen uf their skill in dealing \vith the Preposition Èv ? 

.A. ,r . 

'And beside all thi
, giving 
all diligence, add to your fa.ith 
vinup; and to virtue kllO\V- 
ledge; and to knowledge teJll- 
perance; and to teDlperanee 
patience; and to patience god- 
liness; and to godliness bro- 
therly kinclnl'
s; and to bro- 
therly killalle
8 charity.'-[2 
1 > t . .. - ] 
e . 1. i.)-,. 


1 2 S 4 
'Yea, and for this very causp 
1) 6 7 
adding 011 your part all dili- 
8 9 
gence, in JUU'" faith supply 
10 11 
virtue; and in your virtuo 
]2 ]3 
kno\vledge; and in 
ro1Jr know- 
H 15 
lc,lge temperance; and in your 
temperanco patience; and in 
your patieneo godliness; and 
tf! ]9 20 2] 22 
in yonr godline
s love ûf the 
23 2.. 25 26 27 
ùrethren; and in your love of 
28 2!1 so '" 
thc brethren loye.' 


:30 OIL\XGE:-j I:S- 38 "'OllD::;.-YIOLATED 


The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of 
the l
eyisionists' statenlent (Pnjacc, iii, 2),-' "T e Inade flO 
change if the 'lllcaning u'as fairly exppcsscd by the ,,'onl or 
phrase that ,yas before us in the .A.uthorized V'" ersion,' To 
ourselyes it appears that everyone of those 30 cha71[Jf',S is a 
cho Jl[JC for the 1C01'SC" and that one of the nlost exquisite · 
passages in the N. T, has he en hopelessly spoiled,-rendered 
in fact ".cll-nigh unintelligible,-by the pedantic officious- 
ness of the l
evisers. 'V. ere they-(if the question be allo\\r- 
able)-bent on renloving none but' plain and clear errurs,' 
,yhen they substituted those 30 ,yords? 'Yas it in tuken uf 
their stern resolve' to intruduce into the Text åS fC?/) alÜ ra- 
tions as possiblc,' that they ::;pared the eight ,yards ,vhich 
reIllain out of the eight-and-thirty ? 

As for their 1voodcn rendering of Èv, it ought to suffice 
to refer theul tu S. l\lk. i. 
3, S, Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that SOlue- 
titnes Èv can only be rendered' 1cith : '-and to 8, Luke vii. 17, 
to ShO\\T thC1u that Èv sonletÜues Jlleans ' throughout : '-and tv 
CoI. i. 16, and lIeb, i. 1, 2, in prouf that sOlnetÜues it nleans 
'by.'-On the other hand, their suggestiun that Èv 11lay be 
rendered 'by' in S. 
uke i. 51, convicts thenl of nut Laing 
é.t\\Tare that 'the proud-in-the-Ìlnagination-of-their-hearts' is 
(t ph1Ylse-in ,,,"hich perforce' by' has no business "rhateycl'. 
One is surprised to have to teach professed Critics and 
Scholars an elelllentary fact like this. 

In brief, these learned nlen are respectfully assureù that 
there is not one of the' Parts of Speech' "Thich ,vill consent 
to be han(Ued after the inillunaue fashion ,yllÌch seeIlls to be 
to theJnselves congenial. 'Vhatever they lllay think of the 
l11atter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an .Angel 
, casting his sickle into the eCl?,th' (I
eY. xiv. 19),-As for his 
'pouring out his 1>o\vl 'Upon the air' (xvi. 17),-,ye really 
fail to uuderstand the nature of the operation.-And pray, 


pnoPJUETIE:-:: OF TIlL EX(.I.J:--II L.\XGU \(iE. 


'Vhat i
 SUpl'o:-;l'(l to be thl 1 llleanin:L of 'tIu ì things upon 
t/ir llcaren,') '-in El'he
ians i, 10? 

Hcturning to thr preposition Duí follo,vcd by the geniti \TC, 
- (in reqpcct of ,vhich the l:evisionists challenge Criticislll by 
cc)}nplaillillg in their Preface [iii, 3 ad fin.] that in the À. \T. 
'ideas of instl'lllllentality or of Inediate agency, {listillctly 
lllêll'kl1d in the original, hnxe l)l'en confuscd or ouscurcd in tlte 
Translation,')-\fe have to puint out:- 

(1st) That thesc distinguished indiyilluals Reelll not to l)c 

nnlre that the proprieties of English speech forbid the use of 
, throu!Jh ' (as a suhstitute for 'by') in certain e"'\ pressiuns 
,vhere instrumentality is concerned. Thus,' the Son of man' 
,,-as not betrayed' tltro'llflh' J ueIas, but' by' hinl (
Iatt. xxvi. 
24: Luke xxii. 22).-Still less is it allo\\Table to say that a 
I n'ophecy ,vas' spoken,' nay' writtcn,' 'through the I)rophet' 
(l\Iatth. i. 22 and inargin of ii, 5), ' \Vho spake BY the J)'J'o- 
pllctç,' is even an article of the :Faith. 
..llnd (2ndly),-That these scholars have in consequence 
adopted a see-saw nlethod of rendering Dtá,-sometinles in 
one ,yay, sOlnetimes in the uther. "First, they give us '\\Tonùers 
and signs llone by the ..1postles' (.lcts ii. 43; hut in the 
lllargin, 'Or, through '): presently, 'a notabl
 n1Ïraele hath 
Lecn "Tought throu!Jh theIn' (iv. 16: and this tÜne, the 
lllargin ,vitWlolùs the alternatiyc, 'Or, by'). J s then 'thl' 
truc Illealling' of 'by,' in the fonner place, 'apparent to a 
e(lder uf ordinary intelligence'? Lut so ubscure in thc latter 
as to render ItCCU5Slt1'Y the alteration to 'through'? Or t

. lâa 'licrbo ),- 'Yas it a lUere ' tu",..;-u LJ ' ,vith the l:cyisionists 
'u;h t is the proper rendering uf Duz ? 
(3rdlv), In an earlier placc (ii. 
:!), ,ye rea(l of 'llliracles, 
".onders, and signs' ,,'hich 'GOD did by' J ESU
 of X azareth. 
\\Tì.l:-3 it rC\Tercncc, 'rhieh, un that occasion, furLad the u:se uf 


 of TIlE 


, ih,'ough '-eyen in the lllargill 
 ,\r e hope so: Lut the in>e- 
position is still the srune-ôtá not Ú7ró. 
Lastly (4thly),-The doctrine that Creation is the "
ork of 
the Di "lue "r OUD, all Scripture attests. 'All things ,ycre 
Jllade by HiIn' (S. J o. i. 3) :-' the "
orld ,vas lllaùe h!J I[Üll ' 
(vel'. 10),- 'Yhy then, in CuI. i, 16, ,,
hcre the saIne state- 
Dlellt is repeated,--(' all thingR ,vere created ùy l[iIn and for 
] [Ün,')-do "Te find ' t7
1>ou[jh' substituted for' by '? Au(1 why 
is thr saIne offellce repeated in 1 Cor. yiii. (),--(,,
here \YC 
ought to read, - 'one GOD, the FATHEn, of \"hc)}n are all 
things . . . and one LOUD JE
l', by \"h0I11 arf\ aB 
things ') ?- 'Vhy. espcciaBy, in Hcb, i. 2, in place of '
\yhOUl also [\-iz, by 'rHE SOX 1 lIe lllade the \yorhls,' do \YC 
find snhstitnted 'th1'Ollgh \"hom'? . . . , l\ntl ,,
hy ad(l to 
this glaring iuconsistency the \\'retched yacillation of ::dying 
us the choice of ' t7
ollgh' (in place of 'by') in the Inargin of 
r ohn i. :{ and IV, and not e\ en offering us the alternati\
of 'by' (in place of 'through') in any of the other places,- 
nlthough the preposition is ÔlÚ Oll eyery occasion? 

And thus nlllch for the lleyisers' handling of the l)reposi- 
tions, 'Ve shall haye said all that ,ye can find room for, 
\ylU_'1l \\Te haye further directed attention to the uncritieal 
nlHI nuscholarlike Note \vith ,,,hidl they haye disfigured the 
1nargin of g, l\Iark i. 9. 'Ye are there infornled that, 
according to the (treek, our SA YIO"c1{ '\yas baptize(1 into the 
Jordan,'-an unintelligible statenlcnt to English readers, ns 
ll ns a Inisleadil1f! one. Especinlly un their guard shonld 
the Reyisers IUl,ye been hel.eahouts,-
eeing that, in a pIncl' 
of vital ÏInportance on the opposite side of the ol)en page 
(viz. in S, l\latth. xxyiii. 19), they lli:ul already substituted 
, into' for 'in.' This latter nlteration, one uf the lleyisers 
(Dr. Vance Sll1Ïth) rejoices over, hecause it ulJliteratt..'s (ill hi:..; 
account) the evidencc for Trinitarian (Io
trine. That the 

I I.] 

lI 1..\Xca..\( a:.- JL\ItGIS_\L XOTEs, 


1:.-\ i
, a
 a L(Hly, intenlled nothing less, - wIlli can 
(loul)t? But then, if they really ùeelue(l it necessary to 
nppelHI a n()tl
 to R, 
lark i. !) ill ()}'(ler to explain to the puhlie 
th.lt the prcp()
itiun fie; significs "iulo' rather than' l,1,'- 
,,-Ily (lid they not at least go 011 to reeonl the l'lelllentar
fact that fie; llêls here (what granll11arian:-, call) a 'pl"cg-llant 

ignitication ' ? that it Ï1nplic
-( cyery bchoolLoy kno" s it :)- 
"1/(1 flift! il 1.,<; 71srd i n u/
 to impl !I-that the ] luly Unp 
· wOlf du ll" II, ISTI),' ctlHI SO, ' WG,"" b tpii::'ll IX the ,Jordan' 1 1 . . . 
nut wll!!, in the naluC of conllnon scnse, did nf)t th( III risio/LÍsts 
1'1 II,e ])r( pl).'
iii()}l ((In /;f ? 

IX, The :\L\I
(ax of thë I
cyision is the last point to \\ hich 
our attention is in \
itc(l, and in the following tenns :- 

uhject of the .llarginal Xotes Lleseryes special attention. 
Thcy r('pre:-;f>11 t the rt.snlts of rt lfll'ye fl1i1muzt of ('fll"Cflll nntl 
dab(JIYllc dÙ; 'us
 .on, and ,vill, pcrhaps, by their Ycr
y prescnce, 
iwlicate to borne extent the intricacy of many of the questions 
tltat have alnloHt daily COIl1Û before us for decibion. Thebe 
Xotes 1':.11 into four Inain gnHJpS :-First, Sotes spccifying 8uch 
differcnces of reading as "-ere judged to l
e of sufficient iluport- 
ance to requirc a particular notice ;-Secolldly, Kutt..
thc exact renùering of words to ,vhich, fur the sake of EJ:gli:-;h 
icli01u, 'Ve ,,-ere obli
ea to give a le
H exact rendering ill the 
text ;-ThiJ O tlly, XtJtes, ycry fe\\" in nUlllher, affording some ex- 
planation ,,-hich the original appearcd to requi, e ;-FVlll'ildy, 
.\lternativc Ucnderillg s in difficult or debatca.blo paSH'lges. Th

 úf tltÏs last group are nUlnerous, and ]argely in cxcûs
tlWF,C ,vhich ""Tere iL(hnitted by our pret1ece:SSiJTs. In the 
years that huye pUb
cd uwa,. since their labours ,veJe concluded, 
thc ::;acred Text hab been 11linutely exan1Ïned, discussed in cyery 
detail. ancl ana.lysed with a granullatit'all}recisio!1 ullknown in 
the days of the la
t Rcvi:-;iun. Tbcre has thl.1
 1een aCCUllll1- 

1 ComÜder
rattho iii, lti,-cìvi;j'1 å7rò Tali vSaToç: find \"('T. f),-È=JC11f- 
'v rciJ 'IopS(Îvn- 

. [_\Wl'. 

late(l a large anlount of Inaterial
 that have prepareù the way 
ftH. different renderings, which necessarily came untler discus- 
sion.' -( p'j.eface, iii. 4.) 
"\Yhen a body of distinguished Scholars hespeak attention 
to a certain part of their \vork in such tenllS as these, it is 
painful for a Critic to be ohliged to declare that he has 
surycyed this department of their undertaking 'vith cyen less 
satisfaction than any other. So long, ho,ve\Ter, as he assigns 
the grounds of his (lissatisfaction, the IIeyie"red cannot COll1- 
plain, The l
eyie'rer puts hÜnself into their pO"Ter. If he is 
Inistaken in his censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the 
groups in order:- 

(1) IIaying already stated our objections against the many 
K otes "Thich specify TC1:t/fal crrors ,vhieh the I
declined to adopt,-,ve shall here furnish only t,vo instances 
of the 111Ï::;chief "Te deplore :- 
(a) .L\.gainst the ,yorcls, , And ,vhile they (lbode in Galilee' 
(S. :ßIatthe,v xyii. 22), ,ve find it stated,-' Senne ancient 
authorities read 1.Ce1'1C gathC1'ing tllnìlsclvc8 together.' The plain 
}:nglish of ,vhich qneer piece of information is that 
 and ß 
exhibit in this place an Ïlnpossible ana untranslatable l{ead- 
ing,-the substitution of ,yhich for ùvauTpfcþop-ÉVClJV öÈ aVTwv 
can only have proceeded froBl SOllle 'Vestern critic, ,vho ,vas 
sufficiently unacquainted ,yith the Greek language to suppose 
YN-UTpfcþOJ.LÉVClJV öÈ aVTwv, n1Ïght possibly be the exact 
equivalent for Go
v-1:ersantiblls Clu.iC1n illis. This is not the 
place for discussing a kind of L.allucinatiol1 "Thich preyaileJ 
largely in the earliest age, especially in regions ,vhere Greek 
,vas habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus it ,vas, 
obviously, that the preposterous substitution of EUR
for 'Euroclydon,' in Acts xxvii, 14, took its rise.) Such 
blunders ,yould be laughable if encountered anY"There except 
on holy ground. Apart, ho"reyer, frolll the lanlentable lack 




of critical judgulent \vhich a Inarginal note like the present 
displays, ,vhat is to he th()ught of the scholarship ,,-hich 
elicits' TIT/tile tI/fY 'wcrc !]r thcring tltC1nselccs to[Jcthc/" out of 
(J"UUTpEcþO}LÉVlIJV öÈ aVTwv? Are \\"e to suppose that the clue 
to the l
eyisers' renùering is to l)e found in ((J"u(J"TpÉ1/ravTo
l\cts xxyiii. ;
? "T e should he sCJrry to think it. They are 
sure(l that the source of the TCjJtual blunder \vhich they 
JUistrallslate is to be fOUI1l1, instead, in Baruch iii. 38. 1 

(b) For ,,-hat conceivable l"eason is the ,vorhl no\v informed 
that, instead of 11Iclita,-' son1e ancient authorities read 
J.1E'litcnc,' in 
\.cts xxviii. I? Is every pitiful blunder of cod. 
H to live on in the luargin of eyery Englishman's copy of the 
K e\v Testanlent, for e\"er? 'Yhy, all other .:\ISS,-the Syriac 
and the Latin versiolls,-Palnphilus of Cæsarea 2 (.A,D, 294), 
the friend of Eusebius,-Cyril of Jerusaleln,3-Chrysu- 
stonl, (-tTohn ])ê:unascene, 5_ all the Fathers in short who 
quute the place; - the coins, the ancient geographers;- 
all read 
IEÀtT1]; \v hich has also been acquiesced in by every 
critical Editor uf the X. T.-(cxccpti,l,[J olu.ays Ð1'S. HTcstcolt 
and Hort), fronI the invention uf Printing till no'v. But 
because these t\VO nlÎsguided l11en, ,vithuut apology, ex- 
planation, note or conuuent of any kind, have fi(lopted 
, l1Iclitcnc' into their text, is the Church uf England to be 
dragged through the ]llire also, and lluHle ridiculous in the 
eyes of Christendolll? This ùlunder Inorcover is 'gru
s as a 
n101ultaiu, open, palpable.' One glance at the place, "Titten 
in unciab, explains huw it aro
e :-l\IEÀLT1]HNHuouKaÀElT(u. 
SOlne stupid bcribe (as the reader sees) has .co.pnected the 
yllahle of v'
 ".ith the la
t syllahle of :\lfÀtT1].6 That 

J (II TOtS' àIl8pW7rOI.S' UVIIClIIEOTpácþ". 2 Galland. iv. 6 b bis. 
s P. 279. · ix. 100. ð ii. 707. 
I) The circumstance is noticed and explained in the 
ame way by Pr. 
!<'ield in his delightful Otiltlt





is all ! The Llunder-(for a blunder it most certainly is)- 
belongs to the age anù country in ". hich ' Jlclitcnc' ,vas by 
far the nlore fan1Ïliar ,yord, being the na111e of the metropoli tan 
see of Armenia; 1 mention of ".hich crops up in the Coneilia 
repeatedly. 2 

(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group 111ay be con- 
sidereù together. The fornler cOlllprises those ,yorùs of ,vhich 
the less exact rendering finùs place in the Text :-the latter, 
, .Altc'l'natit"e renderings in difficult anù deLatea 1le passages.' 
'Ve presume that here our attention is specially invited to 
such notes as the fullo,ving. Against 1 Cor. xv. 34,-' A'wake 
out of drunkenness 'rightcously : '-against S. J OIUl i. 14,-' an 
only bfgotten frOln a father:' -against 1 ret. iii. 20,-' into 
1-,.7âch few, that is, eight so If Is, 'lcere brought safely t7u
1-cater: '-against 2 I>et. iii. 7,-' storcd 'with fire: '-again::;t 
Tohn xyiii. 37,-' Tholl sayest it, beeausc I arn a king:'- 
against Ephes. iii. 21,-' All the generations of the aye of the 
ayes:' -against J uùe vel'. 14,-' IIis holy 'JnY'ì
iads: '--against 
11e1>. xii. 18,-' a palpable and kindled fire: '-against Lu, xv. 
31,-' Child, thou art eYer ,,,ith 1ne: '-against l\Iatth. xxi. 28, 
-' Child, go ,york to-day in IllY yineyard : '-against xxiv. 

,-' 'Yhat shall be the sign of Thy p1'csenee, and of the con- 
S1f JJl'17zation of the ayc1' - against Tit. i. 
, - 'before time
etrrnal :' against :ThIk. iv. 2D,-' "Then the fruit allou.cth [and 
"ohy not 'yicldcth itself' ?], straight,yay he scndcth fo'rth the 
sickle: '-against Ephcs. iv. 17,-' through erery ioint of t?/e 
sl/l'l'ly: '-against Yer. 29,-' thv huilding 'lip of tlzc need:'- 
against Lu, ii, 29,-' J.,[a8tc'J
, no,v lettest thou Thy bond- 
S(,}'1"U1tt depart in peace: '-against j\..cts iv. 24,-' 0 ilJastcr, 
thou that didst n1ake the heaxen and the earth : '-against 

1 Concilia, iv. 7Ð e. 
2 Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to .Acacin
 Bp, of l\Te1it.ene,- 
Concilia, iii. 1111. 


:-: ,L\H(HX ..\L G LOS

] 79 

I u. i. 78,-' Becausc of the h al't of 711 rey úf our Gon.' Con- 
cerning all such rcnderings ,yc ,vill but say, that although 
they are unqucstionably Letter in the l\fargin than in the 
TCÀt; it also a(hllits no lnanner of doubt that they \\ronld 
have been best of all in neither.\V ere the l:evisionists 
serious ,,,hen they sngge'3ted as the lllore ' exact' rendering of 
2 Pet. i. 20,-' X 0 prophecy of Scripture is of sp('cial inter- 
pretation' ? ....\.ncl ,vhat diel they Inean (1 l)et. ii. 2) by , the 
spiritual 1Jli17
 1.l"hich is 'lcithout unile' ? 

X ot a fe\v Inarginal glosses might have been disp(.nsed 
\vith. Thus, against ôlSáalCaÀ.o
, up\varùs uf SO times stands 
\nnotation, 'Or, teaclwr.' -!'
, (another ,,?ord of per- 
petual recurrence,) is every tÍ1ne eXplained to mean ' a loaf.' 
But is this reasonable? seeing that <þaryEîv lípTOV (Luke xiv. 1) 
can Il1ean nothing else but' to eat b,.cad :' not to nlention 
the petition for' daily bread' in the LORD'S prayer. These 
learne(l lllen, ho,yever, do not spare us eyen ,,?hen Inention is 
111aÙe of 'taking the children's brcad and casting it to the 
dogs' (:\lk. yii. 27): ,,-hile in the enq niry,-' If a son shall 
k brcad of any of you that is a father' (Lu. xi, 11), 'loof' is 
actually thrust into the text,- "... e cannot understand ,vhy 
such marked favour has heen ShO\\-I
 to sinlÌlar ea
y \\-ortIs. 
, occurring up,yards of 100 tÍ1nes in the X ew Testa- 
ment, is invariably honoured (SOnlctÍ1nes [as in Jo. xv. 15] 
twice in the course of the saine 'lxrse) ,,-ith 2 lincs to itself, to 
explain that in (
reek it i
 ' bo,
"scrL'ant.' -About (}O tinles, 
Ôalj.LóvloV is explained in the lnargin to be 'rlcn
on' in tlw 
Greek.-It has been deen1ed nece
sary 1.') tiules to devote 
thrcr lincs to explain the value of 'a pellny.' - 'Yhenever 
7"ÉKVOV is rendered 'Sun,' ,,?C are IIlolesteL1 \\?ith a JnarO'inal 
annotation, to thc effect that the Greek ".ord Ineans ' child.' 
J{ad the Revisionist:) been consistent, the luargins ,vould not 
nearly have sufficed for the lllany interesting details of this 
x 2 




nature "Tith "Thich their kno\vledge of Greek ,vould have 
fnrnished then1. 
l\Iay "re ùe allo,ved to suggest, that it ,vonld have Leen 
Letter ,\rorth ,vhile to explain to the unlearned" that åpXai 
in S. !)eter's vision (Acts x. 11; xi. 5) in strictness means 
not 'corners,' Lut 'bcginnings' [cf. Gen. ii. 10] :-that T
WPWT7jV (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally' the first' [cf. Gen. iii. 7] 
(not' the best') 'robe: '-that ùÀ1]lhvóç; (e.g. in Lu. xvi. 11 : 
J u. i. 9: vi. J2; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and 
ix. 24) 111e:1nS 'VC1
Y' or 'rcal,' rather than 'true' ?-And 
\vhen t\VO different ,vorùs are elnployed in Greek (as in S. Jo. 
xxi, 15, 16, 17 :-S. J\lk. vii. 33, 35, &c, &c.), ,vould it not 
have lJeen as "Tell to try to ftCprc5cnt theln in English? For 
,vant of such a:ssistance, no unlearned reader of S. l\Iatth. i \T. 
IH, 20, 21: S. 
Ik. i. IG, 18, 19: S. Lu. v. 2,-,vill ever be 
able tu lUlllerstand the precise circlunstances under ,vhich 
the first fuur .i\l'ostles left their' 'itcts.' 

(3) The third group consists of Explanatory ...Vutcs required 
lJY the obscurity of the original. Snch lllnst be the anno- 
tation against S, Luke i. 15 (explanatory of ' strong <-h'ink '),- 
, Gr. sil.;cra.' And yet, the ,vord (u{KEpa) happens to be not 
Greek, but Hebre\v.-On the other haud, such must Le the 
annotation against fLwpÉ, in S. :\Iatth. v. 22 :-' Or, Jlul'ch, a 
HeLre\v expression of condelllnation;' \vhich stateu1ent is 
incorrect. The ,vord pro yes to be nut HeLre\v, but Greek.- 
And this, against' l\Iarall atha' in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,-' That is, 
 LORD COJlwth:' \vhich also proves to be a mistake, The 
phrase Ineans 'OZl1
 LURD is c01nc,'-which represents a \videly 
different notion. I-Surely a room-full of learned 111en, volun- 
ering to put the N. T. to-rights, ought to have lllade 1110re 

] See Dr. Field's delightful Otillrn J\Torviccllse (Pars tertia), 1881, pp. 
1-4 and 110, 111. '{'his nlasterly contribution to Sacred CriticislU ought to 
be in the hanùs of eyery student of Scripture. 




sure fir their elenlcntary facts hefore they ventureù to COIll- 
prolI1Ïsp the Church of EnghuHI after this fashion !-..A.gainst 
, tILe /tusks ,vhich the swine (lid eat' (Lu, xv. 16), \ve find, ' Gr. 
tlte pods oj tIle carob tr('(J,' -\vhich is really nut true. The Greek 
,vol'll is KEplíTta,-\vhich unly Sigllitit:'s 'the pulls of the carob 
tree,' as 'French Leall
' ::,ignifies 'the pods ùf the Pha.-;eu!us 
1ft/!/oris,' - Dy the "
ay, is it qllÍte certain that p.vÀo't ÒVtKóÇ; 
[in 1\Iatth, xyiii, 6. and Lu, xyii. 2 (not 
lk. ix, 4
)] signifies 
, tt 1,dll-..dviW tlt7''ncd by an ass'? llilary certainly thought so : 
but is thc thing at all likely ? 'Yhat if it should appear that 
p.úÀo't ÒVtKÓ't nlerely denotes the 'Uppcr llliU-stone (À[Bo't 
p.vÀtKÓ't, as S. ::\Iark calls it,-tlw stone t!tat grinds), and \vhich 
,ve kno,v ,\.aR called ovoç; Ly the ancients? 1_ \Vhy is 'the 
Lrook Ccdroll' (J o. xviii. 1) first spelt 'Kidron,' and then 
l)xplained to llleall '1'arÙu. of the ccda-1's'? ,vhich ' Kid1
on' no 
n1ure llleans than' Ki.'i7wn' rneans 'of the irics,'-(though the 
Septuagintal nsage [J utlges iv. 13: Ps. lxxxiii. 9] sho,ys that 
TWV KtU(]"WV \vas its COffilnon Hellenistic designation). 
for calling the K.itlron 'a 1
avine,' you n1Ïght as \vell call 
, :\Icrcury' in 'Ton1 quad' 'a lake.' , Infelicitous' is the 
n1Ïldest epithet \ve can besto\v upon rnarginal annotations 
crude, questiollahle,-eyen inaccurate as these. 
Then further, ' Sinlou, the son of Jona' (ill S. John i. 42 
and xxi. 15), is for the first tinle introduced to our notice 
hy the Uevisionists as 'the son of Jolt n :' with an officious 
1nargillal annotation that in Greek the nalne is \\Titten 
'Ioane.r::.' TInt is it fair in the Revisers (\"e nlotlestly ask) 
to thrust in this ,vay the bétises of their favourite codex B 
upon us? In no codex in the u'orld except the Vatica,
B. is 'Ioannes' spelt ' [oanes' in this place. Besides, the 
naIne of SiInoll l)eter's father ,vas not ' John J at all hut 
, Jona,' -as appears frolu S. 
Iatth. x\.i, 17, anti the pre

1 ::5ce Hcsychius, and the llutes un the plal:e. 




t\VO places in S. J 01n1's Gospel; \vhere the evidence agaÍ1LSt 
<<Iol1nnes' is over\vhehning. This is in fact the handy-\vork of 
Dr. Hort. But surely the office of nlarginal notes ought to be 
to assist, not to lllÏslead plain readers: honestly, to state facts, 
-not, by a side-\vintl, to COlllluit the Church of England to a 
ncw (and absurd) Tcxt ual thcofry! The act ual T1"uth, \ve insist, 
should be stated in the llutrgin, \vhenever unnecessary infor- 
Illation is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and unsuspicious 
Teaders. . , . Thus, \ye avo\\" that \ve are offended at reading 
(against S. John i, 18)-' 
fany yery ancient authorities read 
'GOD only begotten:' \vhereas the 'authorities' alhuled to 
read JLovo'Yf.v
r; 8f.ór;,-( \yhethcr \vith or \vithout the article 
[ó] pl'etixetl,)-\yhich (as the llevisionists are perfectly \vell 
a\val'c) llleans 'the (J1dy-begotten GOD,' and no other thing, 
\Yhy then did they not say so? Bccau::,c (\ve ans\ver)-thcy 
1"cre asha?Jwd of the c;rpressíuIL. But to proceed.- The iu- 
fOrIllation is yoluntcered (against 
Iatth. xxvi. 3ö and :\Ik, 
xi Y. 32) that ')(lIJp{ov lueans 'ctn cncloð(Æl piece of ground,'- 
\,,-hieh is not true. The stateInent seeIns to IUt\Te proceede(l 
froln the indivillual \vhu translated aJLcþoSov (in 1\Ik. xi. 4) 
the' upc'n ðt1'CCt:' \vhereas the \vord lllerely denotes the' high- 
\vay,' -literally the' tl101'ollgllfa1'c.' 

A very little real fallliliarity \vith the Septuagint \youltl 
haye secured these TIevisers against the perpetual exposure 
\vhich they nlake of thernselyes in their luarginal K otes.- 
(a) náua
JLÉpar;, for instance, is quite an ordinary 
expression for' al \yays,' and therefore should not be exhibited 
(in the luargin of S. 1\fatth, Àxviii. 20) as a curiosity,--' Gr. 
all tltc days.' -So (b) "Tith respect to the \vord alwv, ,,'hich 
seeillS to have greatly exercised the I
eyisionists. 'Vhat nee(l, 
every timc it OCCllrs, to explain that f.lç; TOÙ
alwvCJJv Jneans literally '
to the agrs of thc ages'? Surely 
(as in r.:;, xl\T, 6, quoted 11eb, i, 8,) the established rendering 


 l::;TIC G HEEl{, 


(' for evcr and ever') is plain cnough and lleeùs no gloss 1- 
Again, (c) the llull1eral Er
, representing the IIebre,v substitute 
f()r tIw indcfinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. 
Exanlplcs of its use occur in the N. T. in S, )latth. viii. 1
and ix. 18 ;-xxvi, 69 (fLía 7ratÒlaïC7J), l\[k. xii. 42: and in 
Hcv. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and xix. 17 ;-where 'one 
. L ' 1 , . d ' , I ' , ., 
sen e, 'one TIl or, 'one 'VI o'v, olle eag e, one VOIce, 'one 
:.lngel,' are really nothing el
e l)ut luistranslations, True, that 
 is fuund in the uriginal Greek: Lut ,vhat- then? l3ecause 
, u ne' llle:.lnS 'unc,' ,viII it be pretended that ' Tzt es une bête' 
,vould lJc pruperly rendered ' Tho1t art one bcast ' ? 

(d) Far n101'e serious is the substitution of 'having a [JI'cat 
IH"iest over the house of GOD' (Heb, x, 21), for' having an 
high priest:' inasilluch as this obscures' the pointed reference 
to our LOUD as the antitype of the J e\vish high priest,' -who 
(except in Lev, iv. :
) is designated, not àPXtEpEÚ
, l)ut either 

 f , f, I ff' I . 
 2 f 1 
o lEpEVÇ; 0 fLeyaç;, or e se 0 l
 on y,-as In ..a.cts v. -:t,.. 
l\nd (e) ,vhy are ,ve presented ,yith 'For no 
['ord front GOD 
shall be void of pOlte1"' (in S. Luke i, 37)? Seeing that the 
Gl"eek of that place has l)een fashioned un the Septuagintal 
rendering of Gen, xviii. 14 ('Is anything too hard f01'" the 
LORD?' 2), ,ve venture to think that the A. 'T. (' f01" 'with GOD 
nothing shall be Í1npossible' 3) ought to ha ye Leen let alone. 
It cannot be n1elHleù. One is surpriseù to disco\"er that 
all10ng so lllany respectaLle Diyines there seeIUS not to hayp 
Leen one sufficiently fanÚliar ,,-ith the Septuagint to preserve 
his Lrethren froll1 perpetuall y falling intu such Iuistakes as 
the foregoing. We really had no idea that the IIellellistic 

1 }.,Tøtes designed to illustrate some exp,'csS;OllS in the G7
. 7't:st. by a 
reference to the I.XX., &c. Bv C. F. ß. ,V ood, Præcentor of Llanùafì',- 
Rivingtons, 188
, (pp. 21,)-p. 17 :-an admirahlc performance, only f:tr too 
2 M
<TH 7rapà Trf Bfrf pijJ-La ; 
s OVIC àStJvaT
<TH rrapcì Trf B(rf rrâv pijp.a. 




scholarship of those \vho represented the Chureh and the 
Sects in the J erusaleln Chalnber, ,yas so inconsiderable. 

T\vo or three of the foregoing exaluples refer to lnatters of 
a recondite nature. N at so the lllajority of the Annotations 
\vhich belong to this third group; \vhich \ve have exan1Ïned 
\vith real astonislnuellt-and in fact haye relllarked upon 
already. Shall ,ve Le thought hard to please if ,ve avo\v 
thfit "-e rather desiderate ' Explanatory Notes' Oll lllatters 
,yhich really do call for explanation? as, to be ren1Ïnded of 
"That kind \vas the' net' (àJ.LcþLß^.7Ju'Tpov) Inentioned in l\latth. 
iv. 18 (not 20), and 
Ik. i. 16 (not 18) :-to see it eXplained 
(against l\Iatth. ii. 23) that nctsc]
 (the root of 'K azareth ') 
denotes' Branch: '-and against :\Iattll. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3, that 
1j 7T'EptXC1JpO't 'TOÛ 'Iopôávov, signifies 'the dCJn"csscd 
callcy of 
thc Jordan,' as the usage of the LXX. proves,1 "r e should 
have been glad to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,-' Gr. E.ì.;odus.'- 
.At least in the margin, ,ve nlight have been told that' Olivct ' 
is the trup rendering of I-Iu. xix. 29 and xxi. 37: (or "Tere the 
Revisionists Hut a\vore of the fact? They are respectfully rc- 
ferred tu tlll:) TIp. of Linculn's note on the place last quoted.) 
-X ay, ,vhy not tell u:-; (against 
Iatth, i. 21) that ' JESUS' 
lueans [not' S(tViOll1',' lJut] 'JElIOJ"AlI is SalraUon'? 

But aboye all, surely so Inany learneù lllen ought to have 
spared us the aLsurd _'\.Jlllotation set against 'oint1Jwnt of 
ð p il'cnal'd' (vápôov 7T'tuTudjc;,) in S. ::\Iark xiv. 3 and in S. JolIn 

ii. 3. Their lllarginal Note is as follo\vs :- 
'Gr. pistic na1.d, pistic being perhaps a local nallle. Others 
take it to mean genuine; others liqztid.' 

Can Scholars require to be told that' liquid' is an irnpossiblc 

t [Puinted out to Ine by Professor Gamlell,-whose exquisite falniliarity 
with Scripture is only equalled hy his readines
 to communicate his 
knowledge to other:-;.] 


AIs:--rHD XOTE OS So l\L\UK XIV. 3. 


enf.;e of 7rUTTlK
 in this place? The epithet so interpreted 
lllust he dcriycd (like 7rUTTÓÇ; [])Tom. V. v. 48D]) fronl 7r{vCJJ, and 
"oult! 1I1ean drinkable: but since ointlllent cannot be drunk, 
it is certain that ,ve nlust seek the etYlnology of the ".orù 
elsc".here. _\.nd ,,"h)" should the ,veak ancient conjecture 
he retained that it is ' perhaps a local nallle'? Do Divines 
re(luire to have it explained to thelll that the one' locality' 
\vhich effectually fixes the \yon.1's lueaning, is its plctce in the 
l'ferlastin!] Gospel?.. TIe silent on such lofty Inatters if 
you \\ ill, by all IneanH; lnlt ' ,vho are these that darken 
eoun::;el by words \vithuut kno,vledge?' s. 
Iark and S. 
John (\vhose narratives by the "
ay never touch exclusively 
except in this place 1) are ohserved here to enlployan ordinary 
word ".ith lofty spiritual purpose. The pure faith (7r {UTl ç;) 
in \vhich that offering of the ointlnent ,vas made, cletennines 
the choice of an unusual epithet ( 7rlUTlKÓÇ; ) \v hich shall 
signify 'faithful' rather than ' genuine,' -shall suggest a 
1noral rather than a c01nmcrcictl quality: just as, presently, 
l\Iary's ' hreaking' the box (UVVTpí,yuua) is designated Ly 
a ,,-ord which has reference to a broken heart. 2 She' con- 
trital' it, S. :\Iark says; and S. John adds a statement 
which Ï1nplies that the Church has been rendered fragrant lJY 
her act for ever. 3 ( 'Ve trust to be forcriven for havin cr said 
o 0 
a little luore than the occasion absolutely re(luires.) 

(5) Under which of the four previuus 'groups' certain 
Aunotations \,"hich disfigure the lnargin of the first chapter uf 

1 p.vpov våpSov 1TLUTUCijS- and IllTu<!>Luup.ós-,-R :l\fark xiv. 3 and 8 : S. J oh
xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud lIieron. iii. 517) :-' Kon de nardo pro- 
itnm est nunc 
ancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis iutuc- 
mur, Evangeli:.;ta 
crihit, unguento; 
eJ de nardo spirituali.' ..Aud 
Jerome himself, ,"ii. 
2 P:.;. xxxiii. lö (lyyùs- Kvpws- Tois- fTVlITfTPLP.p.ivOLS- T
V lCapSíav): I
lvii. 13. 
s rlln
hler Ignatius, ad L"p/IC";. c, xvii. 
\bu, the c
q nisitc remark uf 
Theod. Heme!. in Cramer\. Cat. 




S. l\Iatthe,v's Gospel, should faU,-,ve kno\v nut. Let theul 
be briefly considered by thenlsel \res. 
So dull of comprehension are we, that ,ve fail tu see 
on ,,-hat principle. it is stated that-' naIn,' 'Asa,' 'AnloB,' 
'Shealtiel,' are in Greek (' Gr.') '...1Ira1/
,' '.L1saph,' '../I.nuJ.'),' 
icl.' For (1 ),-Surely it ,vas just as needful (or just 
as needless) to explain that 'Perez,' 'Zarah,' 'Ilezroll,' 
'Nahsoll,' are in Greek' Pharcs,' 'Zara,' 'Esro'in,' 'Naasc;on.'- 
TIut (2), Through what 'necessity' are the nanles, "TI1Ích ,ve 
haye been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist ,vrote 
theu1, no\v exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any 
other ,vay? 1_ (3) Assun1Ïug, hO\\Teyer, the 0, T, spelling 
is to be adopted, then let us hare it cJ']Jlained to 'us 
chy , Jeco- 
niah' in 'CC1". 11 is not 'lV1"ittcn ' J ehoiakirn ' ? (..As for ' J eco- 
niah ' in vel'. 12,-it ,vas for the l:evisionists to settle \vhether 
they ,,"ould call hinl 'J ehoiachin,' 'J econiah,' or 'Coniah.' 
[By the ,yay,- Is it la,yful to suppose that thcy did not knuw 
that' Jechonias' here represents t\VO different persons ?])- 
On the other hand, (4) '...1'/1l08' I)rol)ably,-'Asaph ' certainly,- 
are corrupt exhibitions of ' ...1.n10n ' and' .Llsa :' and, if noticed 
at all, should haxe l)een intru(hlcell to the reader's notice 
,vith the custon1ary fonnula, ' S0111C ancicnt authorities,' &c.- 
To proceed-(5), "Thy substitute 'Inunanuel' (for' EUlula- 
nuel') in vel'. 
3,-only to have to state in the nlargin that 
S. l\Iatthe\v \yritcs it 'E)Jl'J1utn11c!'? By strict parity of 
reasoning, against 'N aphtali' (in ch. iv. 13, 15), the l
visionists ought to have "Titten 'Gr. NcphthaleÍ1n.'-Alld 
(6), If this is to be the rule, then ,,,hy are \\'e not told that 

1 \ Ye prefer that readers should be ren1inded, by the varied form, of the 
Greek original. In the extrenle ca::;e (Acts yii. 45: Hebr. iv. 8), is it not 
far 1110re edifying that attention should be in this way directed to the 
identity of the nmnes 'Joslwn' and 'JrFollS,' than that the latter word 
should be entirely obliterated by the former ;-and this, only for the sake 
of unmi
takeahly proclaiming, (what yet nlust needs be perfectly 111anifest, 
viz.) that' Jusluut' i::; the per:;unagc .::;l)ukcn of? 





'::\Iary is in "Gr. JIlu'ia'lIl" J? and "Thy is not Zacharias 
\\Tittcll 'Z '!ul1'iah'? . . . l
ut (to conclude),- "\Yhat is the 
ohject of all this officiousness? and (its unayoi(lal,le adjunct) 
all this inconsistency? Has the spelling vf the 4
been rcyolutionized, in order to sever ,vith the l)ast ilIHI 
tv luake 'a fresh departure J ? Or ,vere the four TIlarginal 
notes ad(led mdy 1m" the sake of obtaining, by u side-lcÍ1al, the 
(upparent) sanction of th
eh to the preposterous notion 
that' Asa' \\Tas \\Titten '.Llsu]Jh' by the Evangelist-in con- 
forluity \\-ith six 
ISS, of bad character, but in defiance of 
IIistorYJ documentary E\Tiùence, and internal Probability? 
Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has S0111e Ï111portant relnal'ks on 

x. ,,-r e UIUSt needs 
1(lYert again to the onlÍnous adu1Íssion 
luade in the rleyjsionists' Preface (iii. 2 init.), that to sonIC 
extent they recognized the duty of a '?'igid adherencp to the 
1'ule of translatill!J, as far as possible, the S(l'l/W G?'eck n'ord lJY 
(l1ìie English 1.cord.' This mistaken principle of theirs lies 
at the root of so luuch of the mischief ,,-hich has befallen the 
Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller consideration at our 
hands than it has hitherto (yiz. at pp. 138 and 152) received, 

The' Translators' of 1611, to,,'ards the close of their long 
anù quaint Adùress 'to the l
eader,' offer the follo\\ying 
statelnent concerning ,vhat had been their o\\yn practice:- 
, ,\r e have not tied our.'icll'C8' (f.\ay they) , to an 1.lnifo}']nity of 
phra.(jin!J, ur to an identity of 1.I.:Ord8, as some peradyenture 
,,'ould ,vish that ,ye had done.' On this, they presently 
enlarge, 'Ye haye Leen 'especi
lly careful,' have c\-en 
'Illade a conscience,' 'not to vary froln the scn
e of that 
\dlÍch ,,'e had translated bcfore, if the "yord signified the 
same thing in Loth places.' ]1ut then, (as they shre\nJly 
point out in passing,) , there be sornc words that be not oj


SLATOnS OF 1611:- 


sa'Jnc scnsc crcl'yzrllc1'c.' .1\nd had this been the sum of their 
a\Towal, no one ,,
ith a spark of Taste, or with the least 
appreciation of \vhat constitutes real Scholarship, would 
IULye been found to differ froIl1 the1TI. :Nay, even ,,-hen 
they go on to explain that they bave not thought it desiralJle 
to insist on in\-ariahly expressing' the sanle notion' hy e111- 
ploying 'the Rallle particular \vord;' -( ,,-hich they illustrate 
by instancing terms \vhich, in their account, ll1ay ,,-ith 
advantage be diversely rendered in different places ;)-,,-e 
are still disposed to avow. oursel \reS of their luind. 'If ' (say 
they,) ( \ve translate the Ileùre". or Greek ,yoI'ù once purpose, 
neyer to call it intent,. if one ,vhere journeying, never t1
ling,. if one ,,-here tli inl', neyer suppos ,. if one ,,-here pain, 
never arh ,. if OIle ,,-here joy, never !Jladness ;-thus to mince 
the nlatter, ,,-e thought to sayour l110re of curiosity than 
of \viscloln.' An(l yet it is plain that a different principle 
is here indicated froln that \vhich ".ent lJefore. The reTnark 
( that niceness in \Yord
 \vas ahvays counted. the next 
tep to 
trifling,' suggests that, in the Translators' opiniun, it lllatters 
little 1.rhich word, in the se\Teral pairs of \yor<ls they instance, 
is e1nployed; and that, for their u\vn parts, they rather 
l'ejoice in tbe ease and 1'1'ee<10111 \vhich an arnple vocal)ulary 
supplies to a Translator of Holy Rc1'ipture. IIere also ho\\.- 
cver, as already hinted, ".e are disposed to go along \vith 
the1n. 1lhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties 
of diction ,vhich are rather to be felt than analysed,-anyof 
such causes lllay reasonahly determine a Translator to reject 
'purpose,' ( journey,' 'think,' C pain,' 'joy,' -in fay our of 
( intent,' ( travel,' ( suppose,' ( ache,' , gladness.' 

nut then it speedily becomes evident that, at the 
bottom of an this, there existed in the minds of the 
Revisionists of 1611 a })rofouncl (shall ".e not rather say 
a lJ]'ophctic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English 




Language itself \yas bound up \vith the fate of their Trans- 
lation. l{c)lc
 their reluctance to incur the responsibility of 
tying theln
el yes ' to an unifornÜty of phrasing, or to an 
iclentity of ,yords,' 'Ve should be liable to censure (such is 
thcir plain avo,,"al), , if "Te should say, as it "ere, unto certain 
,,"ords, Btand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; 
anù to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for 
e\.er.' But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and 
a sOlne\vhat novel consideration, "r e "Tould not be thought 
to deny that there is some-perhaps a great deal-of truth 
in it: but by this time ,ve seem to have entirely shifted our 
ground. ......\..l1d \ve more than suspect that, if a jury of English 
scholars of the highest lnark could be inlpanelled to declare 
their nlÌnd on the subject thus submitted to their judglnent, 
there ,vould be practical unanimity anlong thenl in declaring, 
that these learned Inen,-,,-ith ,vhOln all ,vould avow. hearty 
sYlnpathy, and \yhose taste and skill all ,yould eagerly 
ackno,,-ledge,-have occasionally pushed the license they 
enunciate so vigorously, a little-perhaps a great deal-too 
far. }'or ourseh"es, \ye are glad to be able to subscribe 
cordially to the sentiment on this head expressed by the 
author of the Prlfacc of 1881 : 

'They SeE'ill '-(he says, f'peaking of the Revisioni
ts of 1611) 
-' to have been guiùed by the feeling that their ,-r ersion would 
secure fur the ,vords they used a lasting place in the language; 
and they express a fear lest they should" be cbarged (by scoffers) 
,dth t:;ome unequal dealing towards a great number of good 
h words," which, ,vithout this liberty on their part, ,vould 
not have a place in tbe pages of the English Bible. Still it can- 
not be doubted that their studied avoidance of unifonnity in the 
rendering of the saIne ,vords, even when occnrring in the same 
context, is one of tbe blemishes in their ,vork.'-Preface, (i. 2). 

Yes, it cannot Le doubted. 'Yhcn S. Paul, in a long and 
falllÌliar passage (
 Cor. i, 3-7), is ubseryed 
tlllliously to 




linger oyer the saIne ,,"'orù (7rapáKÀ?]UIS namely, \yhich is 
generally rendered' c01nfort ') ;-to harp upon it ;-to l
duce it tcn ti'l1LCS in the course of those five verses ;-it 
seems unreasonable that a Translator, as if in defiance of the 
Apostle, should on four occasions (viz. \vhen the ,yord comes 
back for the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th times), for 'cO'Jnfort' 
substitute' consolation.' And this one example may serve as 
,,"'ell as a hundred, It would really seem as if the 11evisionists 
of Ifill had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the 
English phrase even on occasions \vhere a Inarked identity of 
expression characterizes the original Greek. 'Yhen ,ye find 
theIll turning' goodly apparel,' (in S. James ii. 2,) into' gay 
clothing,' (in vel'. 3,)-,,,,e can but conjecture that they con- 
ceived themselyes at liberty to act exactly as S, James 
hirnself ,vould (possibly) have acted had he been ,vriting 

nut if the learned Inen ,vho gave us our A. V. may 
lJe thought to have erred on the side of excess, there can he 
no doubt \\yhatever, (at least among competent judges,) that 
our Revisionists have sinned far 1110re grievously and \yith 
greater injury to the Deposit, by their slayish proclivity to 
the opposite form of error. "r e lnust needs speak out 
plainly: for the question before us is not, 'Yhat defects are 
(liscoverable in our 
\.uthorized 'T ersiun ?-l)ut, "That amount 
of gain ,vould be likely to accrue tu the Church if the 
present I
evision ,,"ere accepted as a substitute? And ,ye 
assert ,,
ithout hesitation, that the amount of certain loss 
"Toultl so largely out\veigh the fnnount of possible gain, 
that the proposal may not lJe seriously entertained for a 
lTIOment. .L\s well on g-rounds of Scholarship and Taste, as 
úf Textual Criticisnl (as explained at large in our former 
Article), the ,york before us is Ï1nmensely inferior. To 
'Speak plainly, it is an utter failure. 


".onK OF löl1.-TJIE YERn Al'TEI-N, 


XI. Vor the re
pected Authors of it practically ùeny the 
truth of the principle cnunciateù by their preùecessors of 
1 Gl1, viz, that' there be some 'words that be not of the S(llllC 
S It.\C L' l'ywlu:J'c.' On such a fUIHhnnental truisnl ".e are 
ashanlCd to enlarge: hut it hec()}ues necessary that \ve shoulfl 
do F;O, \Ve proceed to illustrate, 11Y t\yO fallliliar instancCR,- 
the first \dlÎch COllle to hanù,-the n1Ï
ehievous result \vhich 
 inevitahlc to an enforced uniformity of rendering. 

(a) The verb aìTEîv confessedly Ineans 'to ask.' .,And 
perhaps no better general English equivalent could be 
suggested for it. But then, in a cCl"tain context, ' ask' 'would 
Le an inadequate rendering: in another, it \,,"ould be im- 
proper: in a third, it \yould be simply intolerable. Of all 
this, the great Scholars of 1611 sho\\.ed themselves profoundly 
conSCIOUS. .Á\.ccordingly, \vhen tlus same verb (in the Iniddle 
voice) is eInployed to descriLe ho\y the clamorous rabble, 
Lesieging l)ilate, clairned their accustoined privilege, (viz. to 
have the prisoner of their choice releaseù unto thenl,) those 
ancient nlen, "With a fine instinct, retain Tyndale's rendering 
, c!n:;iral ' 1 in S. ::\Iark (xv. 8),-and his' '}'cqu il"cd ' in S. Luke 
('{xiii. 2;1).- 'Yhen, hO\\Tever, the humble entreaty, \vhich 
Joseph of .....\.rilnathea addressed to the sanle Pilate (viz, that 
he Inight be allo\yed to take a\\.ay the Dolly of JESCS), is in 
(luestion, then the same Scholars (follo\ying Tyndale and 
( 'ranIner), \\.ith the same propriety exhibit 'blgged.' - J{ing 
I hl yill, inasllluch as he only' desircd to find a habitation for 
the GOD of J acoh,' of course lllay not be said to have' askc 1 ' 
to <10 so; and yet S. Stephen (.A.cts vii. 46) does not hesitate 
to e1nl'luy the verL VT17uaTo.-So again, \vhen they of Tyre 
and Sidon approached ITerod 'whom they had offended: they 

1 bt1, in S. Luke xxiii. 
.), ana .\ct
 iii. 14: xiii. 2R,-
till followinO' 


r:!'HE SAl\JE "


did but' desirc' peace.I-S. Paul, in like luanner, addressing 
the Ephesians: 'I dcsÙ'c that ye faint not at nlY tribulations 
for you.' 2 

But our TIevisionists,- possessed ,,
ith the single idea 
that alTEw nleans ' to ask' and alTEwOat 'to aSh' f01 9 ,'-have 
In'oceeded lllechanically to inflict that rendering on everyone 
of the foregoing passages. In ùefiance of propriety,-of 
reason,-even (in David's case) of historical truth,3-they 
have thrust in ' asked' every\vhere. A.t last, hO"Tever, they 
are encountered by t"ro places \vhich absolutely refuse to 
sublnit to such iron bonùage, The terror-stricken jailer of 
J)hilippi, \"hen lw 'asked' for lights, must needs have done 
so after a truly Ünperious fashion. Accorùingly, the' called 
for' 4 of Tyndale and all subsequent translators, is pro hâc 
viee allo"red by our l{evisionists to stand. And to conclude, 
- 'Vhell B. l)aul, speaking of his supplications on behalf of 
the Christians at Colosse, uses this same verb (aiTov/JÆVOL) in 
a context \vhere 'to ask ' "Tonid be intolerable, our l
render the \vord 'to 'l1
al.;c rreqllcst;' 5-though they might 
just as w'ell have let alone the rendering of all their prede- 
ors,-yiz. ' to desire.' 

These are nlany ,vords, but \ve kno\v not ho,v to make 
thell1 fe\ver. Let this one exanlple, (only because it is the 
first \vhich presented itself,) stand for a thousand others. 
Apart fro III the grievous laGk of Taste (not to say of Scholar- 
ship) ,yIticll such a nlethotl ùetrays,-'who sees not that the 
only excuse ,,'hich Gould Ita, e been invented for it has 

1 Acts :xii. 20. 2 Eph. iii. 13. 
S :For, as the story plainly shows (2 Saul. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2), 
it was only' in Ids heart' to build GOD an house (1 Kings viii. 17, 18). 
Hence Cranmer's' he 'would fain' hRye done so. 
4 ..lets xYÏ. 20, l) CoI. i. 9. 




disappeared hy the tÏ1ne "'e reach the cnd of our investiga- 
tion? If aiTÉw, aiTOvJ.LaL had Leen inno'iaúly translateù 'ask,' 
k for,' it llLight at least have lleen pretended that 'the 
English Uealler is in thiR ,,'ay put entirely on a level ,,'ith the 
cholaI' ; '-though it \vould have heen a vain pretence, 
as all IlHlst adn1Ït \vho understand the pO\\'er of language. 
(J1U'f' nlake it apI,arent that just in a single place, perhaps in 
two, the Translator found himself forced to hreak through 
hif: rigid uniful'lnity of rendering,-and 1('hat ren1ains hut an 
uncasy suspicion that then there must have been a strain 
put on the Evangelists' 1neaning in a vast proportion of the 
other seventy places w'here alTEîv occurs? An unlearneù 
reader's contìdence in his guide vanishes; and he finds that 
he hrtf1 had not a few deflections fr0111 the 
\.uthorize(l \T ersioll 
thrust upon hiIn, of \yhich he reasonably questions alike the 
taste and the necessity,-e,g, at S. 
Iatth, xx, 20. 

(b) Hut take a Inore interesting cxanlple, In S. 1\fark 
1. lH, the .A.. V. has, 'and straight,,'ay they forsOOh" (\vhich 
the Hevisionists alter into 'left ') 'their nets,' 'Vhy ? 
e in verse 20, the sanle "
orù àcþÉVTE'à "'ill recur; and 
hecause the Hevisionists propose to let the stateulent (' they 
l('ft their father Zebedee ') stand. They' leyel up' accord- 
ingly; an(l phune thelIlSelyes on their consistency, 

'\T e venture to point uut, ho'wever, that the verh 
ticþtÉvat is one of a large f(unily of verùs \vhi
retaining their O"'U essential signification,-yet ùepend for 
their English renÜering entirely on the context in w'hich 
they occur. Thus, àcþtÉz1at is rightly iendered 'to ðll1fcr,' in 

Iatth. iii. 15 ;-' to IC(tcc,' in iv. 11 ;-' to let ha
'e,' in v. 40 ; 
-' tv for!Jive,' in vi. 12, L4, 1.3 ;-' to let,' in vii. 4 ;-' to yield 
'lip,' in xxvii, 50 ;-' to let go,' in S. l\Iark xi. 6 ;-' to let lo/
iv. 6, lIere tlwn, hy the a(hnis:-;ion of the neyisionists, 




are eight ùiversities of l11eaning in the srune "TO I'd , nut they 
n1ake the achnissioll grudgingly; and, in order to render 
àcþtÉvaL as often as possible' lca/L"e,' they do violence to many 
a place of Scripture ,vhere SOlne other "Tord ,yould haxe been 
l110re appropriate. Thus' laying aside' n1Ïght have stood 
in S. 
Iark vii. 8, ' Suffered' (or 'let') ,vas preferable in 
S. Luke xii, 39. 
\nd, (to return to the place frOln ,,
hich w'e 
started,) in S. 
Iark i, 18, 'forsook' ".as better than' left.' 
..L\nd "Thy? Because l11e11 '!care their father,' (as the Collect 
. J aHles'S Day bears "Titness); but 'fm"sake all coyetous 
clesires' (as the Collect for S. l\Iatthe,y's ])ay aptly attests). 
Fur Vdlich reason,-' .A..nd they all forsúvl-;, HÏ1n ' ,vas infinitely 
prcfel'alJle tu 'and they all llft HiIn, and fled,' in 
xi'T, 50. "r e insist that a vast deal more is lost by this 
perpetual disregard of the idiolnatic proprieties of tllC English 
language, than is gained by 3 pedantic striving after unifor- 
n1Ïty of rendering, only Lecause the Greek ,yord hapl'ens to 
Le the sanle. 

:Fur it is sure sOluetiules to happen that what seeIUS 
l11e1'e liccntiousness proyes on closer inspection tu be unoL- 
trusiye Scbolan;;hip of the 1 lest kind, ...\n illustratiun presents 
itself in connection ,vith the ,vord just no,v llefore us. It is 
found -to haye lleen our SAYIUPU'S practice to 'f)l'Jld ({'/."a,1J 7 
the ulultituùe ,,,hOl11 lIe had been feeding" or teaclting, in 
SOllle fUl'lllal Inanner,-,,-hether ,,'ith an act of solel11n bene- 
diction, or \\Torùs of cOlumendatory prayer, or both. Accord- 
ingly, on the lllenloraLle uccadion ,vhen, at the close of a 
lung day of sllperlnullall exertion, His bodily po,vers suc- 
CUIll bed, anù the Disciples ,,-ere fain to take Hilll 'as He 
,vas' in the ship, and at once He 'fell asleep ; '-on that 
solitary occasion, the Disciples are related to have 'SOlt (l'll'ltJj 
the llnlltitudes,' -i.e. to haye formally dismissed thelll on 
] lit; behalf, as they haù often seen their l\lastcr do, The 




worù C1111'loyed to llesiguate this practiee on t,vo 111elliurahle 
ul'casious iH ll7TOÀÚELV: 1 ull the uther t".o, àcþtÉvat. 2 This 
1'ru\ c:-; tu have Leen perfectly ,yell understood as ,veIl by the 
learned authors of the Latin ,or ersion of the N. T., as by the 
schulars \dl0 translated the Gospels into the yerllacu]ar of 
l)alestine. It hac; Leen reserved for the boasted learning of 
the XIXth century to lnisunderstand thi
 little cirCulllstallce 
entirely. The n. 'T. renùers S. 1\Iatth. xiii, 3ß,-not' Then 
 scnt the 'nlultitude 01l)((!!,' (' rlÍ'Jni8si..;; t
t1'bis' in eyery 
Latin copy,) but-' Then JIe lejt the lnultitudes.' Also 
S, l\Iark iy. :36,-not '..Anll ,vhen they had sent alG((!! ill) 
'JJllllt it urle,' (,vhich the Latin aI-way
 ren<1er:-:; 'cl d illlittc Jllcs 
l1J7'b '1n,') but-' .....\nd Ica1./ill!J the lnultitude,' ,y ould it he 
altogether creditable, "Te respectfully ask, if at the end of 
] 800 years the Church of England \vere to put forth with 
authority such specÏ1nens of ' Hevision ' as these? 

(c) 'Ye \vill trouble our I:eaclers with yet another illus- 
tration of the principle for \\?hich \\?e are contcnding.- 'Ye 
are soon Ina<le conscious that there has been a fìdgetty 
anxiety on the part of the Reyisionists, eyery\\yhere to suh- 
stitute C 'JJl{( it!' for' r!a'iJl8d' as the rendering of 7TalðÙrlC'1]. It 
offends us. '
A.. (laIllSel nalued l
hotla,' 3-and the 'ùanlsel 
possessed 'with a spirit uf diyination,' 4-1uight <".e think) 
haye been let alone. But out of curiosity ,ye look further, to 
see ,vhat these gelltlenlen \yill du ,vhen they COlne to S. Luke 
xii, 45. 11ere, because 7Taîða
 has been (properly) rendered 
'lnellSer'"ants,' 7raLðíG"lCa
, the) (not unreasonably) render 
'?Jlaid-scrranls,'-,vherehy they break their 1'ulc, The crucial 

1 s. )Iatth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (=::;. )Iark Yi. 36, -15, [and note the 
tution of à7TOT(lEápÆVO
 in Yet'. 4G]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv. 32, 39 (=8. 
)Iark viii. 9). 2 s. )Iatt. xiii, 
f): and R )Tark Ï\
. 36. 
S Acts xii. 13, 4 Acts x\yi. HL 

o .) 




place IS behind. 'Vhat ,vill they (10 \vith the l)ivinc 
, Allegory' in Galatians, (iv. 21 to 31,)-\vhere all turns OIl 
the contrast 1 Let\veen the 7ratùíu"7J and the ÈÀEvBÉpa,-the 
fact that Hagar ,vas a ' bondJJutid,' ,,"hereas Sarah "ras a 'frCf) 
'l()ornan' ? ' J\Iaid' clearly could not stand here, ' J\laid- 
servant' ,,"ould be intolerable. 'Vhat is to be done? The 
eyisionists adopt a thirrd variety of rea<.ling,-thus S1.l1
dcring their principle cntí1'cly. .r\..ntl 'v hat reader \vith a 
spark of taste, (\ve confidently ask the question,) <.loes not 
resent their substitution of 'hand1naid' for 'boluhnaid' 
throughout these verses? IVho ""ill deny that the lllentiun 
of ' bondage' in verses 24 and 
5 clainls, at the hands of an 
intelligent }:nglish translator, that he shall ayail hÏIllself of 
the adn1Ïralde and helpful equivalent for 7ratù{uK7J \vhich, as 
it happens, the English language ]!USSèsses? 
Iore than 
that. HTho-( except one ,vIlo is hiIllself 'in hondage-\vith 
his children ')-'lcho doe
 nut re
pun(l gratefully tu the exqui- 
site taste and tact with \vhich 'ùundnutid' itself has been 
cxchangt>ll fur 'bundzl"u'Jllan' hy our translators of 1Gl1, in 
erses 23, 30 and 31? . . . Verily, thuse lllen understood 
their craft! 'There ".ere giants in those days.' As little 
".ould they subn1Ït to be l)(lUnd by the ne\r cords of the 
Philistines as by their green ,yithes. IT pOll occasioB, they 
could shake thenlsclves free fronl either. And ,vhy? For 
the selfsaillc reason: yiz. 1 )ecause the SPIRIT of their GOD 
,vas lllightily upon theul. 

Our contention, so far, ha
 heen but this,-that it does 
not Ly any rneans follo\v that identical Greek ,yords and 
expressions, 'LChc1>ever occ1.l1Ting, are to be renùered by identi- 
cal ,vords and expressions in English. \Ve desire to pass on 
to SOlllething of Inore Í1nportance. 

1 Verses 

5, 26, 30, 31. 




l..ct it not he suppnscd that w'e lllake light of the difficnl- 
 ,,'hich our Hcvisionists have had to encou
ter; or are 
\vallting in generous appreciation of the conscientious toil 
of lnauy Inen for Illany years; or that "Te overlook the I)crils 
of the cnterln'ise ill ,vhieh they have seen tit to adyenture 
their reputation. If ever a severe expression escapl1t) us, it 
 hecause onr He\Tisionists thelliselves SeOlTI to have so very 
iInperfeetly realized the responsibility uf their undertaking, 
and the peculiar difficulties hy which it is unavoidably Lesct. 
The truth is,-as all ,vho have given real thought to the 
subject nHlst Le a\vare,-the phenolnena of Language are 
anlong the lnost suLtle and delicate imaginable: the problenl 
of Translation, one of the nlost lnanysided and difficult that 
can Le nauled. .A.nù if this holds universally, in ho,v llluch 
greater a (legrce \vhen the Look to be translated is THE BIBLE! 
Here, anything like a mechanicallerclling up of tenns, eyery 
attcillpt to Dnpose a pre-arranged SysteIll of unifornl render- 
ing on \vol'ds,-every one of ,,'hich has a history and (so to 
speak) a will of its o\vn,-is inevitably destined to result in 
con1fì.ture and dÜ;appointlnent. But what luakes this so 
very serious a Illatter is that, lJecause HOI.,y SCRIPTrRE is the 
Book experilIlcntecl upon, the luftiest interests that can he 
nalned Lecollle Í1nperilled; and it \vill constantly happen 
that \vhat is nut perhaps in itself a very serious u1Ïstake nlay 
yet inflict irreparaLle injury. 'Ye suLjoin an hUlllble illus- 
tration of our nleanillg-the rather, Lecause it \vill afford us 
an opportunity for penetrating a little (1eeper into the pru- 
prieties of Rcriptural Trans1atioll :- 

(d) The place of our LORD'S l
ul'ial, ,vhieh is lnentioned 
ul',var(1s of 30 tinlCs in the Gos p els, is st y led in the oricrinaJ 
t> , 
J.L v 1JI.JÆîov. This appel1ation is applied to it three tiIues Ly 
fatthe\v;- six til11e
. l\[ark; - eight timcR hy 




s. Luke; I-eleven times by 
, John, Only on four occa- 
sions, in close succession, doe
 the first Evangelist call it by 
another nalne, viz. rácþoç,2 }(ing Janles'S translators (fol- 
lo\ving Tyndale and Cran1l1er) decline to nutice this diyersity, 
and uniforlnly style it the' scpulch1'c.' So long as it belunged 
to Joseph of ArÏ1nathea, they call it a ' to In Ù ' (l\latth. :xxvii. 
GO): \vhen once it has been appropriated hy , the LORI> of 
(1 lory,' in the Slunf "L'ersc they give it a different English 
appellation. But our l1eyisionists of 1881, as if bent on 
, BULking a fresh departure,' cvcJ'!}1L'hc1'e substitute ' tmnb' for 
, sepulchre' as the renùering of fLV'1]fIÆîov. 

Does anyone ask,-And \vhy should they not? "r e 
\Ver, Beeause, in connection \\'ith ' thc Sepulchrc' of our 
LOUD, there has gro\vn up such an alllple literature and such 
a faluous history, that \\'C are 110 longcr able to seyer ourselves 
frotH those cllyironlnents of the problcln, even if \ye tlesired 
to do so. In all such cases as the present, ,ve have tù 
l)alanee the LOBS against the Gain. Quite idle is it for the 
pl'(lallt of 1881 to insist that 'Tácþoç and J.Lv'1]J.LEîov are t,vo 
differeut ,vords. "redo not dispute the fact. (Then, if he 
'/I Ul::d, let hÏ1n rcpresent rácþoç ill son1e other \vay.) It 
 true, nut\yithstanding, that the receptacle of our 
ody after IIilS dissolution ,viII have tu Le spoken 
of as ' the fIol!} Scpulehrf' till the end uf tÏ1ne; and it i:s 
altogether to he desiretl that its fanlÌliar designation should 
he suffere(l to suryive ulllllolestell on the eternal page, in 
consequence. There arc, after all, 111ightier la,vs in the 
Universe than those of grallllnar. In the quaint language of 
our Translators of 1611: 'EoI' is the )(ingdoln of GOD becülue 
word'S or syllal)les? "Thy shoul(l '\?e Le in Londage to thetH 

1 Twicl']1(' calls it pv?pa. 

2 Ch, xxyii, Ü 1, 64, ()(); xxyiii. 1. 




if \ve HUt.)"" be free?' . . . As for considerations of etynlo- 
logical propriety, the nearest English equivalent for fLV1}fLEîov 
(he it rellleluLereù) is I
Ot ' tOlnb,' hut' 'IllOiUl?Jlcnf,' 

(e) Our TIeyisionists seenl not to be a\vare that 270 years 
of unùistur1,ed possession have given to certain ,vonIs rights 
to \\ hich they could not else have lwetendetl, but of w'11Ìch 
it is Ï111possil)le any more to dispossess theln. It savours uf 
folly as ".ell as of pedantry even to nlake the attelupt. 

 occurs 30,-ðtðauKaÀta 21 tin1es, -in the X. T. 
Etyulologically, 1Joth \, onIs alike luean " tcaching ;" and are 
therefure indifferently rendereù 'doctrina' in the 'Tulgate,I- 
for ,vhieh reason, 'duettine' represents both "Tords inùifferently 
in our 
\., 'T.2 But the I:evisers have ,yell-nigh extirpated 
'nUCTRI).,TE' fron1 the 
. T.: (1st), By nlaking , tcaching,' the 
rendering of ðlðax
,3-(reserving , doctrine' for ðtðauKaÀía 4 ) : 
and (2ndly), By 6 tÍlnes substituting' teaching' (onee, ' learn- 
ing ') for' doeltine,' in places ",.here ðtðauKaÀía occurs. 5 This 
is to be lanlented every ,yay. The ,vord cannot ùe spared so 
often. The' teachill[JS' of our LOHD and of His .Apostles \,ere 
the 'dOctí'ÍilC.
' of ClLristlcllâty. 'Yhen S. Paul speaks of 'the 
doetfine of haptislllS' (Heb, yi. 2), it is sÍInply incolnprehen- 
silJle to us why' the teachi'lg of ùaptislllS' should ùe deelllell 
a preferable expression. ..And if the warning against being 
(carried about with eyery ,,?inll of doctrine,' 111ay stand in 
El'hes, iv. 14, \vhy may it not Le left. standing in Heb. xiii. 9 ? 

1 Except in 
 Tim. iii. 16,-where -rrpÒ{; ð,ðuUKU^-LUV is rendered ad 
ducl udma. 
2 Except in Rom. xii. 7,-where iv Tý Ô'ÔUUKUÀtc: is rendered 'on 
tear.}ti II g.' 
S Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it 'doctrine.' 
4 .And yet, since upwards of 50 titues we are lllole
tcd with 3. Inarginal 
nute to inform us that ò,òfÍUKaÀor means' Teflcher,'-Ôtl)auKaÀía (rather 
than ôc.l3aXq) Inight haye claimed to be rendered' te(t('lliIlY.' 
6 Yiz. num. xii. ;: 1 Tim. Í\T. 13, 16: y. 1;: 3 Tim. iii. 10, 16,- 
Horn. xv. 4. 


C VIAL.'-' BOX.'-' CRUSE.' 


(f) In the saIne spirit, '" e cilll but \vonder at the extravagant 
bad taste \vhich, at the end of 500 years, has ventured tv 
substitute C bowls' for' vials' in the Buuk uf TIevelation,l 
L\.s a 
matter of fact, \re venture to point out that cþtáÀ1} no 1110re 
l11cans C ú b01,cl' than 'saucer' lneans ' a cup.' But, ,vaiving 
this, ".e are confident that our I
eyiscrs ,,"ould haye sho\vn 
l110re ,visdom if they had let alulw- a \Yo
d ,,-hich, having no 
"English equivalent, has passed into the sacreù yocahulary úf 
the language, and has acquired a con\ entiunal signification 
".hich \vill cleave to it for ever. C Vials of wrath' are under- 
stoorl to signify the outpouring of GOD'S \Yl'athful visitations 
on }llankilld: ,vhereas ' bo,vl::; , really conyey::; no Iueaning at 
an, except a lllcan and un\yorthy, not to sayan illCUnye- 
lliently alllhiguous one. "That Blust be the impres
ion lll(ule 
011 persons of ycry Inu11hle statioll,-labouring-men,-\vhcn 
they hear of 'the seven Angels that had tlu' seven buwls' ? 
(Hey. xvii. 1.) Thp cþuíÀ1],-if \ve Blust needs talk like 
.L\.Jlti(1l1aries-is a circular, ahnost flat and yery shalluw 
vessel,-of \\.hich the eontellts ean he discharged ill an 
illstant. It ,vas used in pouring out lihations, There is, at 
the Lack of it, in the centre, a hollow. for the first joint of 
the forefinger to rest ill. ]>atC1Yt the Latins called it. 
SpeeÏ1nens are to be seen in abundance. 

Thp Sal1le Hevisionists ha ye also fallen foul of the 
, alahaster bo.( of ointInent,'-for ,,'hich they have substituted 
'an alabaster C1
U.W' of ointInent.' 2 But ".hat is a C cruse' ? 
Their lnarginal note says, 'Or 'a jlrf.Sh':' hut once Inore, 
\\'hat i." 'a flask'? Certainl), the receptacle:=;; to \vhich that 
ual11e i
 no"Y c0I111nÓnly applied, (e,g. a po,vùer-fiask, a 
:FlorCllCl} flask, a flask uf ,,'ine, &c.) bear no reselllblance 
,,'hateyer tu the va
e called LÌÀáßa(Y'Tpov, The proLability is 

1 Eisht tinle
 in Hev. xvi. 
2 fj, Thlatth. xxyi, 7. K .Mark xi\". :3, S, Luke "ii, :37, 




that the receptacle for the precious ointInent ,,,ith ,yhich the 
sister of TÆzarus provided herself, ,vas likest of all to a slnall 
nledicine-bottle (Zecythus the ancients called it), made hO"",T- 
eyer of alabaster. SpecÍ1nens of it ahound. But ,,,hy not 
let such "Tonls alone? The saIne Critics have had the goud 
sense to leave standing 'the hag,' for ,,-hat ,,
as confessedly 
a box 1 (B. John xii. 6: xiii. 29); and' your purses' for ,yhat 
in the Greek is unmistakably' your gi'ì'dles' 2 (s. 
Iatth. x, 9). 
'Ye can but repeat that pvssesRion for fire centuries conveys 
rights" hich it is ahvays useless, and sOlnetÍInes dangerous, 
to dispute. ' 'Tials ' ,viII certainly have to be put back into 
the Apocalypse. 
(!J) IIaving said so much about the proposed rendering 
of such unpromising vocables as jLV'T}f1Æîov-ðtðaX1}-cþtáÀ,7], 
it is tinle to invite the TIeader's attention to the calamitous 
fate ,,'hich has befallen certain other ".ords of infinitely 
greater Ï1nportance. 

And first for 'Aryá7r7]-a substantive noun unkno,vn to 
the heathen, even as the sentinlent ,vhich the 'YOI'd expresses 
proves to be a grace of 1>urely Christian gro,vth, 'Vhat else 
but a real calan1ity ,yould be the sentence of perpetual 
banishment l)a"sed by our TIevisionists on ' that 1l10St excel- 
lent gift, the gift of Charity,' and the general substitution 
of 'Love' in its place? Do nut these learned men perceive 
that 'Loye' is not an equivalent term? Can they require 
to l,e told that, because of S. raul's exquisite and life-like 
portrait of 'CHARITY,' and the use "Thich has been luade of 
the ,,'ord in sacred literë:tture in consequence, it has come to 
pass that the ,yorù 'Charity' connotes nlany ideas to ,,-hich 
the ".onl 'Love' is an entire stranger? that 'Love,' on the 
contrary, has COlne to connote 11lany ull".ol'thy notion
,\'hich in 'Churity' fÌ1HI no place at all? Aud if this be 

1 yÀCùUUÓKOP.OV. l'(ln
idcr the LXX, of 
 Chnm. xxiy, 
, 10, 11. 
2 (wvus-. 





so, ho,v can our TIevisionist8 expect that ,,"'e shall endure 
the loss of the nallle of the very choicest uf the Christian 
graces,-and ,vhich, if it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, 
,vill presently conle to be only traditionally kno,vn ë:llllong 
lnankind, anù ,viII in the enù cease to be a tenll clearly 
understood? Have the llevisionists of 1881 considered ho\v 
firmly this ,vord 'Clut1
ity' has established itself in the 
phraseology of the Church,-ancient, llleùiæval, lllodern,- 
as ,veIl as in our Book of COllllllon rrayer? ho\v thoroughly 
it has vindicated for itself the right of citizenship in the 
nglish language? ho,,, it has entered into our conunOll 
vocabulary, and beCOlllC one of the best understood of 
, household ,vords' ? Of "That can they have been thinking 
,vhen they deliberately obliterated from the thirteenth 
chapter of S. !)aul's 1st }:pistle to the Corinthians the nine- 
fold recurrence of the naUle of 'that 1l10st excellent gift, the 
gift of CUAIUTY , ? 

(lz) "rith equal dis}!leasure, but "Tith even sadder feel- 
ings, ,ve recognize in the present TIevision a resolute 
eliIniuation of 'l\IIRAcLEs' from the N. T,-Not so, (".e shall 
ùe eagerly renlindeLl,) but only of their lta1nc. True, but the 
t,vo perforce go together, as every thoughtful nlan kno"Ts. 
At all events, the getting rid of the ]{a?Jtc,-( except in the 
fe\v instances ,vhich are enumerated belo\v,)-,,"'ill in the 
account of 111Ïllions Le regarded as the getting rid of thc 
thirifJ. And in the esteem of all, learned and unlearned 
alike, the systelllatic olJliteration of the signifying w.ord 
from the pages of that nook to ,vhich 've refer exclusively 
for our kno"Tledge of the relnarkahle thing signified,-cannot 
but be looked upon as a lllelnOralJle and Illonlentous circum- 
stance. Some, it nlay be, ,vill he chiefly struck by the 
foolishness of the proceeding: for at the end of centuries 
of familiarity ,,
ith such a ,vord, \ve are no longer able to 
part conlpany,vith it, even if w"e ,yere inclined. The tenn 




has struck root finuly in our Literature: has established 
itHclf ill the tenninology of Divines: has gro"Tn into our 
counuon speech. nut further, even ,vere it possible to get 
rid of the "Tords '
liracle' and 'l\liraculous,' ,vhat else lJut 
aùidin(r inconvenience ,voulll he the result? for "Te luust 

till desire to speak about the thing::5" ana it is a truiSlIl to 
renlark that there are no other ,yords in the language ,vhich 
connote the saIne ideas. 'Vhat therefore has been gained 
hy sulJ::;tituting '::5i!Jn' for ''JJ
Í1Ytcle' un SOlne l
 or 20 occa- 
sions-(' this beginning of his signs did JESUS,'-' this is 
again the sccoud sign that JESUS did ')_"Te really fail to see. 

That the "Tord in the original is (7)J1Æîov, and that (7)J1Æîov 
means 'a sign,' "Te are a"Tare, nut "That then? Because 
a11EÀO(), in strictness, llleans 'a messenger,'---I'\fpacþ1j, 'a 
. t . , t " t " À " 1 ] , 
WTl BIg, -VTrOlCpLT1](), an ac or, -EICIC '1}ULa, an aSSe111 J y, 
" ,1 . d ' , " , 
-Eva11EÀLOV, 'goou tI Ings, -ETrlUICOTrO(), 'an overseer,- 
ßa7rTLUTi}(), 'one that dips,' - TrapáðELUO(), 'a garden,'- 
(), 'a learner,' -Xáp'(), 'fayour : '-are "Te to forego 
the established English equivalents for these ,yords, and 
neyer 1110re to hear of 'grace,' 'disciple,' 'raradise,' 'Bap- 
tist,' '1 
ishop,' 'C
ospel,' 'Church,' 'hypocrite,' 'Scripture,' 
, Angel' ? J s it then desired to reyolutionize our sacreù 
tennillology? or at all events to sever ,vith the rast, and 
to translate the Scriptures in to English on etYlllological 
 ? ,yo e are alllazed that the first proposal to 
resort to such a prepusterou
 Inethod ,vas not instantly 
scouted by a large n1ajority of thuse ,yho frequented the 
J erusalenl ChaIn ùer. 

 ,yords under consideration hrc not only not eqluva- 
lent, but they arc quitc dissÜnilar. ..\ll' signs' arc not 
c Jli,'ac!c::5,' 1 though all '.L1Iiraclcs' are unlleniably 's-iglls.' 

1 f:,g. S, )Iatth, x),.Yi. -t
. Luke ii. l




"r ould not a marginal annotation concerning the original 
,yo1'(l, as at S. Luke xxiii. 8, have sufficed? And 'why ,vas 
the ternl ' l1Iiraclc' as the rendering of (7)J1Æîov 1 spared only 
on that occasion in the Gospels; and only in connection ,vith 
S. !)eter's miracle of healing the inlpotent man, in the .A..cts 1 2 
'Ve ask the question not caring for an answ'er. "r e arc 
Inerely bent on subluitting to our Headers, ,vhether,-espe- 
cially in an age like the present of ,vide-spread un belief in 
the l\liraculous,-it ,vas a judicious proceeding in our l:evi- 
sionists ahnost eyery,vhere to substitute' Sign' for' l\Iiracle' 
as the rendering of (7)IJÆîov. 

(i) Eyery Lit as offensiye, In its ,yay, is a marginal 
note respecting the Third Person in the Trinity, "Thich does 
duty at S. 1\latth, i. 18: S. )Iark i. 8: S, Luke i. 15: ..\..cts 
i, 2: nom. v. 5: Heb. ii. 4. .A.s a rule, in short, against 
cyery fresh first Inention of 'the IIoLY (i-HOST,' fiye liups are 
punctually dpyoted to the rClnark,-' Or, IIoly Spirit: and 
so thT01'ghout this book,' K O'V, as Canon Cook very fairly 
}Hlts the Cfise,- 
"Does this in1ply tbat the marginists object to the word 
, GHOST'? If so, it must be asked, On ,vhat grounds? Cer- 
ta.inly not as an archaism. r:rhe ,,'ord is in every Churchman's 
nlouth continually. For the sake of consistency? But Dr. 
,r ance Sn1Ïth compl
ins bitterly of the inconsistency of his 
colleagues in reference to this -very question,-see his Te,'rts 
and Jlargins, pp. 7, 8, 45. I ,voulcl not suggest a doctrinal 
Lias: but to prove that it hacl no influence, a strong, if not 
unauimous, declaration on the part of the Revisers is calleù for. 
Dr. 'Tance Bmith allege
 this notice as one of the clearest proofs 

1 'SúvujLU; is rendered' lniracle' in the R. V. about ha1f-a-dozen times. 
2 Acts iv. 16, 22.- On the other hand, , sign' was allowed to represent 
lTYJJlfÎov rcpeatcdly in the 
\. V., as in S, 
l:1tth. xii. 38, &c., and the parallrl 
placcð: S. )Jark xvi, ] 7, 
O: S, John xx. ::>0. 


· EPILEPTIC,' ..\ 
OnnY GLû


that the ReviHcrs ought in consistency to discard the ,vord as 
, a pom. and almost ubsulete cquivalent for Spirit.' " 1 

But in fact ,yhen one of the l
e\ isionists openly clainls, 
on 1Jchalf uf the TIevision, that "in the Blost substantial 
sense," <,vhatever that l11ay happen to Bleau,) it is " contrary 
to fact" "that the ductrines of popular Theology rell1ain 
unaffecteù, untouched by the results of the l
evision," 2_ 
Charity itself is constraineù to use language \vhich by a 
certain school \yill be ùeelneù uncharitable, If ùoctrinal 
prepossession had no share in the production uIHIer revie\v, 
-\vhy is no protest publicly put forth against such language 
as the foregoing, ".hen elllployeù by a conspicuous l\Ieluhcl' 
of the l
evisionist body? 

(J) In a siInilar spirit to that \vhich dictated our remarks 
on the attenlpted elin1ination of 'J[irac/cs' frol11 the X. T, of 
the fllture,-"e altogether disapprove of the attelupt to 
introduce 'is Epileptic,' as the rcndel'ing of G"EÀ'1}vuí S ETat, in 
Iatth. xvii. 13. The Iniracle perfoflued on 'the lUIl(dic 
child' Inay never lllore come abroad under a ditlerent HalliC. 
Iu a luatter like this, 500 years of occupation, (or rather 
17üú, for' lunalicus' is the reaùing of all the Latin copies,) 
constitute a title \yhich 111ay not be disputed, 'EPILEPTIC' 
is a sorry gloss-not a translation. Even \vere it delnon- 
strable that Epilepsy exclusi\.ely exhibits every feature re- 
lated in connection \yith the present case; 3 and that sufferers 
frolll J
pilepsy are specially affected by the l11uon's changes, 
(neither of ,vhieh things aloe ccrfctinly true): eyen so, the 
Itevisionists 'would be \vholly ull\varranted in doing yiolence 
tù the Evangelist's language, in order to hring into pronlÏ- 

1 Canon Couk'
 Revise(l J
{;rsion of tlte first three Gospels considered, &c. 
6: an admirable pcrformancc,-unanswered, becau
e unanswerable. 
2 Dr. Vance Smith's R(visc(l Text!; awl J.llargÏ1ls,-p. 45. 
. 1\[atth, xvii. 1:>: S. 
Ik. ix. IH, 
n: So Ln. ix, 3D, -t? 



[A RT. 

nence their o"rn private opinion that \vhat is called' Lunary' 
here (and in ch. iv. 2-1) is to be identified ,vith the ordinary 
nlalady called 'Epilepsy.' This "ras confessedly au extra- 
ordinary case of dC1noniacal possession 1 besides. The llevi- 
siouists have ill fact gone out of their ,yay in order to 
introduce us to a set of difficulties "rith ,yhich before ,ye 
had no acquaintance. And after all, the English. reader 
desires to kno"T-not, by any lneans, \vhat t\vo-thirds of the 
llevisionists conjcct1t1'e ,vas the lllatter \vith the child, but- 
'lchat the child's Father actually saÙl "ras the Blatter ,yith hÏ1u. 
K O\V, the .Father undeniably did not say that the child ,vas 
, Epileptic,' but that he ''''as' Lztnatic.' The IHan elnployed a 
tel'ln ,vhich (singular to relate) has its o,vn precise English 
equivalent ;-a tel'lll ,yhich elubodies to this hour (as it did 
anciently) the popular belief that the Bloon influences cer- 
tain fOrIns of disease. "rith the advance of Science, civilized 
nations surrender such Deliefs; but they do not therefore 
revolutionize their TernlÏnology. 'The ad vance of Science,' 
lto,,-ever, has nothing ,vhatever to do "rith the Tl'anslation of 
the 7cord before us. The Author of this particular rendering 
(begging his pardun) is o1>en to a pru
e8s C de lunatico in- 
fjuirc,ulo' for having Ünagilled the contrary. 

(k) The foregoing instances suggest the renlark, that the 
Ecclesiastical Historian of future years ,,,ill point ,vith concern 

1 Consider our LORD'::; solen1n worJ
Itt. xvii. 21,-' But this kiud 
goeth 'flot 01..lt save by p1'ayer and fasting,'-12 wonh left out by the R. V., 
though witne
sea to by all the Copies but 3: by the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, 
and Anneniall Y er
ion8: and by the following Fathers :-(1) Origen, (2) 
Tertullian, (:1) the Syriac Clenlent, (4) the f;yriac Canons of Ellsebius, (5) 
Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Alnhrose, (8) Juvencus, (9) Chryso.stonl, (10) 
Opus imp., (11) Hilary, (12) ...\ugustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. 

rhen (it will be asked), why have the Revisionists left thmn out? Because 
(we answer) they ha\Te been 111isled by ß and 
, Cureton's Syriac and the 
Sahidic,-as untrustworthy a quatcfnion of witnesses to the text of 
Scripture as could he nalned. 




to the saù cvitlellccs that the Church InHI fallen on cvil days 
whell the prescnt nevi
ion ,yaR undertaken. 'Yith fatal 
fitlelity (lues it, every here and there, reflect the sickly hues 
of 'D10tIerll Thuught,' ,,-hich is too often but another namc 
for the latest phase of G nfaithfulness. TInIs, in vie,v of 
the pre:=;ent controversy about the "Eternity of :E'uture l)ullish- 
luent, ,yhich has brought into pron1Ïnence a supposed dis- 
tinction het\reen the iInport of the epithets 'ETERX_\L' and 
, EYEHL.\.::5TIXG,' -ho\v painful is it to discover that the latter 
epithet, (,,-hich is the one oLjected to by the unl)elieying 
sehoul,) has been hy our TIeyisionists diligently excluded 1 
(ecry time -it occnrs as the translation of alwvloç;, in favour of 
the l110re palataLle epithet' eternal' ! l
ing J allleS'S Trans- 
lator::; showed thelllbelyes in1partial to a fault. As if to D1ark 
that, in their account, the ,,-ol'lls are of identical Í1nport, they 
cven introduced both words into the sct/lW 'CCí"SC 2 of Scripture. 
I g it fair that such a body of 111en as the l
evisionists of 
1881, claÜning the sanction of the Convocation of the 
Southern l'rovillce, should, in a luatter like the present, 
thro\\r all their ,,'eight into the scale of 
Iisùelief ? They 
were authorized only to reU10ve 'plain and clear c1Tors,' 
They \vere ill:;tructed to introduce 'as fe\\T changes as pos- 
sible.' 'Yhy haye they needlessly gone out of their "yay, 
on the conh"ary, indirectly tu sho,v their sJ']llpathy ,vith 
e ,vItu deny ,,'hat ha::) heen the Church's teaching fur 
18uU years? Our Creeds, Te Deuln, Litany, Ofhces, ...\.rtieles, 
-our "yhole Prayer Book, breathes a different spirit and 

peaks a ùifferent language. . . . Haxe our Hevisionists per- 
suaded the Olù Testaluent cOlllpallY to follo,v their exa1nple 1 
It will be calanlÍtous if they hUff! There ,,'ill be serion

1 The word is unly nut bani
hed entirely fr0111 the X. '1'. 1 t occurs 
t\\ ice (yiz. in HUUl. i. :!O, and J uJe Yer. 6), but only as the remleriu cr of 

(l&U&U,", 2 S. )Tatth. xxv. 46. 



[A RT. 

discrepancy of teaching Let'ween the Old and the N e,v 
Testalnent if they haye not, 

(l) 'Yhat Ineans also the fidgetty anxiety manifested 
throughout these pages to explain a"Tay, or at least to 
evacuate, expressions ,vl1Ïch have to do ,vith ETERXITY 1 
1V7LY, for exalnple, is 'the world (alwv) to come,' invariaLly 
glossed' the age to cOllIe' 1 and fl
 so persistently 
explained in the lnargin to mean, 'unto the ages' ? (Bee the 
luargin of I
onl. ix. 5, 
\.re ,ve to read ' GOD blessed 1.lnto the 
ages'?) .... \lso tl
 7"WV a lwvCJJ v, 'unto the ages of 
the ages' ? Snrely "Te, "yhose language furnishes expressions 
of precisely similar character (viz. 'for ever,' and 'for ever 
and eyer '), might dispense ,vith illfonnation hazy and un- 
profitable as this! 

(m) Again. At a period of prevailing un belief in the 
IXSPIHATION of Scripture, nothing but real necessity coultl 
,varrant any Ineddling ,,-ith such a testinlony on the subject 
as is found in :2 Tim. iii, 16, "T e have hitherto been taught 
to believe that 'All Scripture is gÍ1;en by Í1upÙ'atio/
 of GOD, 
and is profitable,' &c. The ancients 1 clearly so understood 
s. raul's "Tords: and so do the lllost learned and thoughtful 
of the nloùerns. nâua "Ipa

, even if it be interpreted 
'eyery Scripture,' can only mean eyery portion of those 
IEpà rypáfLfLaTa uf ,vllÎch the ....t\.po
tle ha(l heen speaking in 
the previous verse; and therefore Inust needs signify the 
'whole oj Seripture,2 So that the expression 'all Seriptu1

1 Clemens AI. (p. 71) says :-Tà
1C1lÀfÎ, WcþfÀíp.ov
 ovuaç. rrertullian,-Legimus omnern Scl'iptnram 
;edlficationi habilem, divinifus inspi1'al'i. Origen (ii. 443),-1râua }'pacþ
e ' ? 'A..
 , t G 1\.T ( .. 
 O - ) - A.. , 
 ovua W"Pf^LP.O
 fUTL. Tregory..l\ yss. n. li L) ,-1raua }'p a "P1J 
 Àf-YfTaLo Dial. (ap. ()rig. i. 80b),--1i"âua }'pacþ
ÀÉ}'fTUL 7rapà TOV t A7rOUTÚÀOV. 
o Ba:-:il, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theoùoret, &c. 
:! See Archdeacon Lee on Iw;piration, pp. 2()1-3, reading his notes. 




l':\ l)1'l'SS(\
 R. PauYs Jllealling exactly, .and shou](l not have 
])eeJl (listurbcll. 
flut-' It is \"cry difficult' (
O at least thinks the Hight 
Ue\r. Chairillan of the Uevisers) 'to llccÜlc \vhether BEÓ7TVfUUTOÇ; 
is a part of the predicate, Kaí being the silnplc copula; or 
,rhether it is a part of the suhject. Lcxi
(Jgraphy and 
gl'aUlInar contrihute but little towards a de
ision.' K ut so 
thought Bishop )Iidlllcton. 'I do nut recolle
t' (he says) 
'any passage in the N. T. in ,vhieh t,vo Adjecti\ cs, apparùntly 
connectcd by the copulatiye, ,yere intended by the "Titer tü 
he so unnaturally disjoined, lIe ,,
ho can produce such an 
instance, ,,,ill do nutch to"
ards establishing the plausibility 
(If a translation, ,vhich othel',vise Blust appear, to say the 
least of it, to be forced and iInprobable.'-- _\.11<1 yet it is 
proposed to thrust this 'forced and Ílnprohable' translation 
on the acceptance of all :English-speaking people, \vhereyer 
fUUIllI, on the plea of necessity! Our I
eyisionists translatc, 
'E\'cry Scripture inspired of GOD is also l)}'ojitablc,' &c.,- 
,,-hidl of COlUSl
 Inay be plausibly tlcclaretl to Í1nply that 
a distinction is dra "Tn by the .....1 1!o
tle hiInself bet\\"l'cn in- 
spirl'll antl uninspired Scripture. l\.n(l pray, (,vc }:;houhl bl
ent1y asked,) is not 111auy a Scripture (or ,vriting) 'pro- 
fitable fur teaching,' &c. \vhich is not cunllllonly held to be 'in- 
spirëd of GOD'? . . . nut in fact the proposetl rendering is 
ina(hnissihle, boing ,vithuut logical coherence and consistency. 
The utnlost that could he pretended \\-ould be that 
. Paul's 
as::;ertioll is that 'eyery portion of Scripture being inspircd' 
(i,c. inasllludl as it is-because it Ü;-inspirc(l); 'is a/sf) 
profitable,' &c. Else there \youhl 1>0 nn 11lealling ill the Kaí. 
But, in the BaIlle of conunon sense, . f thi:-; 1 J(' sO, "I'll?! hayc 
the lJle
sed \\ords Leen lllCddlc(1 ,vith ? 

(n) ..All are unhappily fanÚliar ,vith the (tvidity ,,'ith 
"hich the c1isciplcs of a certain 
l'ho()l fasten upon a In





rious cX1u'cssion in S. 
Iark's 0081)01 (xiii. 32), ,vhich seems 
to predicate concerning the Eternal SO
, linlÏtation in respect 
of I(n0 \"leclge. This is not the place for vindicating the 
Catholic Doctrine of the Sox's 'equality ,vith the F ATIIEU as 
touching }Iis GODhead;' or for eXplaining that, in consc- 
quence, all things that the FATHER hath, (thc kno'lt1cd!lc of 
, that Day and HùuT' included,) the Sox hath like,vise. 1 JhlL 
this is the l)lace for calling attention to the deploraùle 
circu1l18tallce that thp clause' neither thc SON,' ,vhich has an 
illdisputaLle right to its place in S. 1\Iark's Gospel, has on 
insufficient authority by our IIeyisionists Leen thrust into 
latth. xxvi. 36, ,,-herc it has no husiness ,vhateycr, and 
from ,,-hich the 'YOI'd 'only' effectually excludes it. 2 ".,. e 
call attention to this circulnstance ,vith sincere SOITO',",: but 
it is sorro,y largely n1ixed ,vith indignation. 'Yhat else Lut 
thr betrayal of a sacred trnst is it ,,-hen Diyine
to correct lnanifest errors in the E'Jl!Jlið71 of the N. T. go out 
of their ,,-ay to introduce an 01'1'01' like thiB into the Greek 
Text ,,,hich Catholic Antiquity ".oul<1 hayc repudiated ,,-ith 
indignation, and for ,yhich ('ertailll
- t.h0 plea of 'neces
cannot he pretrnc10tl1 

(0) A l\IARGIXAL AX1\OTATIOS set oycr against l
ollunls ix. [) 
js the last thing of this kind to \\Tlùch \\Te shaJl invite atten- 
tion. S. l)aul declares it to be Israel's highest Loast and 
glorJ rhat of t.hem, 'as concerning the flesh [caInc] CURIST, 

J S. John xvi. 15. 
2 Study by all nleans na
il's letter to An11'hilochius, (vol. iii. p. 
GO to 
.... 6 ') ) " E ? r 
 r ,
, - n ' S). , - r , 
V ""'. - UTtJl ot/JI 0 Jlot/r 0 'ffapCl TCf r.IapleCf TotovTor. 
pt of T1Jr W1Æpar 
ÈleflJlTJr q wpar, oÌlòEìr olÒfJl, OÚTE oi l1}')'fÀOt Toil efoil, ùÀÀ' oùò' åv ó Yíòr 
E}'IICAJ, El f'lì ó nar
p. Èle )'àp Toil naTpòr aùTCp V1T
flJo}liJlTJ lj yvwUtr . . . 
 alTía TOt) flòivUl. TÒV Yiòv 'ffLlpcÌ TOV nUTpór. leaì àßíuUTór ;un 
-, , ", r,I:.' ,., ,
", " 
Tlf ft/}'VCAJfLOIlCAJr ClleOt/OJln TJ fç1j)'l}utr at/T1j. f1TfLV1j Ot/ 'ffPOUKfl,TQI, TO ,.LOvor. 
wr Kaì 'ffapà Tef) Mar8aíCf.- (r). 3(-)2 c.) na
il say
 of thi
â Toivvv ÈK 7rmòò
 'ffapà TWV 'ffar{pCAJv 


:--: n, nO
 IX, 5. 


1/'110 i.
 Ol'cr all [things], GU/J [J!C8Sf't! fOì' (;f(')'! .A.lllell,' A 
uHler or Inore UtlCCluivocal testilllony to our LÛRU'H etcrnal 
(i-( )ohead is nowhcre to Le found in 8criptnre. ..l\ccordingly, 
 ,vords have been as coufidclltly appealed to Ly faithful 
l)octors of the Church in eyery age, as they have Leen un- 
sparingly assailcd by unhelicvers. The dishonest shifts by 
,,"hich the latter seek to evacuate the record ,yhich thcy are 
po\ycrless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred 
evisionists in the follo,ving tcrnlS :- 
'Some modern_ Interpreters l)lace a full stop after flcsh, and 
translate, He 'lv/tO is God ore)" all be (is) blesscd for erCl": or, He 
tL'lw is orc? all is God, blesscd 1m. ever. Others punctuate, flesh, 
?VILO is over all. God be (is) blesse(l for evcr.' 
N o,,
 this is a nlatter,-let it be clearly observed,-,,"hich, 
 ])1'. 1Iort is aware,) "lJelongs to Intcì'prctation,-and not 
to Tcxtlfal Critici:5J1t." 1 \Vhat business then has it in these 
pages at all? Is it then the function of Divines appointee} 
to 1'rvise tlw AUtlW1'izcd VC1'sion, to giye information tu the 
DO n1Íllions of }:nglish-speaking Christians scattered through- 
out the ,vorlel as to the unfaithfulness of 'some muLlcrn 
tcl'prctcrs' 1 2 'Ye have hitherto supposed that it "
'Áncirnt authorities' exclusively, - (\\
hether 'a fe"
,' or 
, sOllIe,' or 'many,')-to \\yhich ,ve are invited to suLnlÏt our 
j lH 19luent. IIo\\' does it CODle to pass that the Socinian !floss 
on this grana text (Holn. ix. 5) has becn brought into such 
(\\.traorc1inary proHlÍnence? l)icl our Iteyisionists consider 
that their Inarginal note ,,"ould travel to earth's rClnotest 
\'erge,-giyc uni,.ersal currency to the vic\v of 'some 111o(lcrn 
Interpreters,' -and in the end' tell it out alHong the hcathen' 
a1so? "\Ye refer to l\Ianuscripts,- \-r ersions,-Eathers: and 
what do \ve find? (1) It is delllonstral)le that the oldest 

1 ...Y(lfl.
, p. 1 ()!). 
2 ('d(bre t:!Tu,qillJJ1, (as ()ro. Houth call:-ö it,) 'l"()(! t. falsii v(,l'bvnlJn f'(lIf- 
...Iruclionf ('rifici 'Initio"" IlitTctÙ'i.
 jJ(II'([J'ltuf. Rtf;,]'}. iii, 




 IX, 5, I[O'V lTNDEllSTOOf) 

[A HT. 

CudicN;, hcsidc..'3 the 1IJhoie body of the /1l1'si1'CS, kllu,v nothing 
about the D1etho<1 of 'sonle lllo<1ern Interpreters.' 1_ (2) 
'There is al.
olnt('ly Hot a shatlu\\", not II tilfh> oj i'ri,lfJlf'r, ill 
(( Jl,ll (
f the ({nricut TTcJ'sions, to ,varrallt ,,-hat t.hey (10,' 2_(3) 
llo,v theil, al)()ut the 01<1 Fathc1':3? for the Sl'lltÜnents uf nul' 
hest llludern T)i yincs, as I )earson antI TIu 11, ,,
c kno,v h
heart. "r e fina that the expression' 1cho is orerr all [things], 
G Of) blessed for ere'}'" is expressly ackllo,,'lctlgetl to refer tü 
uur SA YIOUn Ly the follo,,-ing GO illustrious Ballles :- 

Irenæus,3-1Iippolytus in 3 places,4-0 r igen,5-::\lalchion, 
in the nalne of six of the nishops at the Council uf .i-\ntioeh, 
A.D. 2ü9,6- ps ,-I)ionysius .L\lex" t,vice,7-the Cunstt. ...1pp,,s- 
Athanasius in ü places,9 -Basil in 2 places,lO- Didymns in 
5 places,ll-Greg. K yssen, in 5 places, 12_ Epiphanius in 5 
places, 13_ Theodorus 
Iops" 14-
Iethodius/5- Eustathius,16- 
Eulogius, t"Tice,17-Cæsarius, 3 tÏInes,18-Theophilus Alex., 
t,vice,19 - Nestorius, 20_ Theodotus of Ancyra,21- Proclus, 
t,vice,22-S eycr ianus Hp. of Gabala,23-Chrysostoln, 8 times,24 

1 C alone has a point between Ó 6Jv f.7i"1 7TcÍJ/TWV and efòr fì/À(Y'yr}'íòr fì
. But thi
 i:; an cntirely different thing fr(ln1 what is noted in 
the margin. 2 :\1
. communication frOln the Rev. S. C. :Malan. 
s' r. 0 . 4 0 . ;") 5 u, 1 )7 . z 
Õ)1ì ð' 
 1 '> 
I. iJ ü. 'lJllSC. I. iJ_, 0, Ill. Vvv. . IV. u ..... 
6 !louth, Eelifj'l. Sac. iii. 292, and 287. (Conci!. i. 845 b. c.) 
7 Concilin, i. 873 d: 876 a. 8 vi. c. 26. 
9 i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908. 10 i. 282. .And in Cat. 317. 
11 'l'rin. 21, 2U, 327, 3U2. .Mai, vii. 303. 
12 ii. 5UG a, (quotecl by the Enlp. Ju
tinian [Concil. v. 697] and the 
Clu'onicon Paschale, 355), 693,.G
7; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 573. 
13 i. -181, 487, 891, 978; ii. 74. HAp. Cyril (cd. Pusey), y. 534. 
lð .A p. Gall. iii. 805. 16 A p. Gall. iy. 57G. 
17 .Ap.l)hut. co!. 761, t$53. 18 Ap. Gall. vi. t$, U, 80. 
19 Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. HiCl'on. i. 5GO. 
20 C y . Z " ... 5 9') ( . 2 0- 1 G II .., {'('- ) Al ( 1 
(JJlCl la, 111. _..Je = IV. '-"t=ap. a.VJlI.uu'. so, un- 
ciUn (llanluin), i. 1-113 a. 21 .Ap. GalL ix. 474. 
 A G 11 '
 ('0 0 ( '0 1 ( - n ' Z '" 1 '>'.) 0 1 9'.1 1) 
p. Ta . IX. u'-' , h} - v01ICI . 111. ....ù, _ù . 
23 ][ornilÙt (Arm.), p. 1G5 and 
2-1 i. 4G-!, 483; vi. 53-1; vii. 51; viii. 1Ð1; ix. GO-!, G53; x. 172. 


T F...\TIIEH8. 


-Uyril_\ll'x" Lj iilne:-;;-Paulus Hp. of Elllcsa,2-ThcOllorct, 
12 tiulcs,3-Uenllaùius, ..A.Lp. of U. 1).,4.-Sevcrns, .A.Lp. of 
Alltioch,5 - AIUphilochius,6 - Gelasius CYZ.,7 - Allastasius 
.Ant.,s - Leontius .Dy l., 3 timcs,9- ::\laxÏlllus,lO - ,J. DaUHts- 
cene, :) tinles,ll ] 
esidcs of the I..Iutins, Tertullian, t\viee,12- 
Uyprian,13-Xovatian, t\vice,u-..L\Juhrose, 5 tiulCs,15-I)alla- 
tliu:-; the .L\rian at the Council uf ..A(l1lÍleia,16-IIilary, 7 
tilllcs,17-Jerofilc, t\vice,18- 1 \ugustine, about 30 tÏ1nc
'Tictorinus,H*-thc lJ,.cviariu 1110, t,vice,20-l\Iarius l\Iercator,21 
-Cassian, t\\Ti<;c, 22-....\lcilIlUS 
\. yit., w_ .Fulgcntius, t\ViCC,2!- 
Lco, Bp, of ItoIIlC, t\\
ice,25-:Ferranùus, tw.ice,26-F'acunùus : 21 
-to ,,"hOl11 Blust DC aùùed G ancient \\Titers, of 'VhOlU 3 2
hayc Lecn Inistakell fùr _\.thanasius,-alld 3 29 for Chrysostolll. 
..All thcsc sec in l
Olll. ix. 5, a gloriuus assertion of the eternal 
GODhead of CIUUST. 

Against such an oyer\vhelnlillg torrent of I>atristic testi- 
lllully,-fur "
e havc cnuluenÜcù upwards of sixty ancient 
Fathcrs-it ,,,ill not surely he pretended that the Sociuiall 
interpretation, to ,\rhich our Ue\Tisionists giyc such proulÍ- 

1 v. 1 20, 503, 765, 7Ð
; v. 2 58, 105, lIt;, 148; vi. 0
t3. .\.p. .:\Iai, ii. .O
öG, t}U, 1u-l; iii. 8-1 in Luc. 2G. 
! Concilia, iii. lOUD b. 
3 i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 213, 170; h.. 1., 433, 11-1
, 12G-l, 1
93, 130U; v. 
Hì, 10V:t · Cramer'
 Cu.t. 1UO. [j Ibid. in ...let. 40. 
6 P. 166. 7 Concilia, ii. 1V5. 8 ...\.p. Gall. xii. 
t) A p. Gall. xii. G83. 10 ii. 6-1. 11 i. 557; ii. 35, bt;. 
12 Pmx. la, 15-' Christurn antcIll ct ip::,c Dcum cognuminayit, Qlwru/U, 
l,atrt::i, ('t ex fJuibu.s ClLl'istus secundum caJ"'uem, (fill cst sllpt!r O1n"Ùt IJUtS 
/;( nt:dictus in JCVUll
.' 13 P. 
b7. 1-1 ...\.p. Gall. iii. 
n(j, 313. 
 i. 1-170; ii. 457, 51G, GOU, 790. 16 Cancilia, ii. U8
17 7H, 153, :m:J, 850, n.o, 11
5, 1
a2. 18 i. 870, 8.2. 
19 ...\p. Gall. viii. 13.. 20 .Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 500. 
21 Ap. Gall. viii. l)
7. :!"! 709, 711. 23 ...\p. Gall. x. 72
21 _\ p. Ga.ll. xi. 
3.. 25 Concil Ùt, iii. 13U-l, 138
26 ...\p. Ga.ll. 35:!, 35.. Z1 JúÙl. uï-1-. 
28 ii. Hi, 
 13, U:.t 29 i. 8JH; v. 7Gt}; 
E. 1




nence, can stand. nut ,vhy has it lJeen illtl"oduced ill all? 'Ve 
shall have every Christian reader ,vith us in our contention, 
that such perverse in1aginations ùf 'nludern Interpreters' are 
not entitled to a place in the lnargin of the N. T. For onr 
Reyisionists to have even giyen then1 currency, and thereby a 
species of sanction, constitutes in our view a very grave offence.! 
___\. public retractation and a very lnnnble .Ltpology,' e claÏ111 at 
their hands. Inrlifferent Schularship, and l11istaken yie\ys of 
Textual Critici
In, are at least venial Inatters. TIut {t 
gloss gratuitollsly thrust into tllC lunl'gin of ceery En!Jlish- 
'lnan's .LV. T. adnlÏt8 of no excuse-is not to be tolerated on 
any terlns. It ,yould by itself, in our account, have been 
sufficient to ùetel'lnillC the fate of the present l{evision. 

XII. ..Are ,YO to regard it as a kind of 8et-off against alJ 
that goes before, that in an age ,yhen the personality of 
Satan is freely called in question, 'TIlE EYIL OXE' has been 
actually thrust into the Lord's Prayer? A n10re injudicious 
and unwarrantable innovation it ,yould be Ünpossible to 
inùicate in any part of the present unhappy YOlUllle. The 
case has Leen argued out ,yith luuch learning anù ability 
by t".o en1Ïnent Divines, Dp, Lightfoot and Canon Cook. 
The Canon relnains Iuaster of the field. Thåt the ehangc 
o7tght nevc}" to have been rnade is delllollstraLle. The grounds 
of this assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is adll1Ïtted 
on all hands that it Inust for eyer renutin a Inatter of opinion 
only \\Thether in the expression Ù7TÒ TOÛ 7TOVTJPOÛ, the nonÜna- 
tiye case is TÒ 7TOVTJPÓV (its in S. l\latth. v. 37, 39: l
xii. 9), or Ó 7TOVTJPÓr;; (as in ::;. l\Iatth. xiii. 19, 38: Eph. vi. 

1 Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further nlay 
consult with advantage Dr. Gifford's learned note on the pa

age in the 
Spc(tker's CommenÜtry. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that 'it is the 
natural and simple cOllstruction, which every Greek scholar would a<.101't 
without helSitation, if no q ue:::til)n of th}ctrine were illy()lvetl.' 


To 'rIlE L()HD'
 PJL\ YEn. 


If)),-cithcr of whidl yielll
 a good sensc. nut then-(
The Church of "Englallll in her formularies having clnphati- 
cally dl
c1arcd that, for her part, she adheres to the fortllcr 
l'J\ative, it \\ ns in a vcry high Jl
gree unl)CColllÏng for the 
yiRionisis to pretcnd to the enjoYIuent of ccria'in kno\\r- 
ll'llgc that the Uhureh of EnglanJ in so doing ,vas InÜ;takell : 
allll unless' froIll evil' ùe " a clear and pia,in crror," the ltc- 
yisionists \\'ere ùounù to let it alune. X ext-(3), It call 
HCyer be right to ÏIllpose the nalTO\Ver interpretation on 
,,'onls \vhieh hayc al\\ ays heen uIHlerstood to Lear the larger 
c: e"peeially ,dWll (as ill the present ill
tanee) the 
larger llwaning llistinctly illeludes anù covers the le

witness thc paraphrase in our Church Cateehislu,-' and that 
lIe 'will heep us (a) frolll all sin and ,,'ickedness, [lIlll (b) 
 uur ghustly atc'lny, and (c) fro111 cycrlastillg death.' -( 4-) 
Hut indeed Catholic Traditiun elaillls tu lJe heard in this 
ltehalf. Every Christian at his Baptislu renounces not only 
(the I )eyil,' hut also' all his wurks, the vain pOlllp and glury 
of the \\.odd, ,\'ith all coyetous desires of the $unc, tUHI the 
carnal Jesires of the flesh.' 1 Anù at this POillt-(5), The 
,.oice uf an inspired A postle interposcs in attestation that 
this is iIllleeù the true acceptation of the last petition in the 
 Prayer: for ,,,'hcn S. Paul says-C the LOHD \\"ill 
lleli Yer llle j'J'()}n evcry evil lOur/,; aud ,,-ill 1'1'escn-o Uie unto 
Ilis heavculy kingdolu; tù \\-hOUl Le glory for eyer anll ever. 
.A.lHeU,' 2-,d1at else is hc referring to Lut to the \\Tol'lls just 

1 Sote, that this has heen the langua
e of the Church fronl the 
illuiug. Thus Tcrtulliau,-' &\'lU:Ull atlituri. . . cOllte:,talllur llo
llulltiare ùia.bolo, ct 110/ "1)(V et augclis eius' (i. 421): and _\.mbro
\lautlo tc illtcrrogavit, AhrCllulltias diahulo et oll{,ribns 'iu,,., quid re- 

pùllùisti? ALrenulltio. _\.lJrenuntias sæculo ct vuluptutibus CJ1t"o;, quid 
respondbti? .A.lJrellulltiu' (ii. 3,')0 c) : and Ephraclll 
 KUt 7TâuLV TUtS' EPì'OLS' CIVTOV (ii. IH3 awl iii. 0UU). Awl Cæsarius 
of .Arles,-' _\.ùrclluntia;; dialJolo, pumpis t t O/I( ribus {jus. . . ALrcnulltio ' 
i. 18 e). 2 :! Tim. iv. 18. 




no\v undcr consideratiun'
 TIe explains that in the T
J>rayer it is 'froì1
 evcry Cl:il 1.uork' that ,ve pray to be 
, deliycred.' (
ote also, that he retains the DO.J;olo!JY.) C0111- 
pare the plaee
S. l\Iatth. vi, l:3.-åx^à 'PY

.\.1 'lI
npoy". 90TI 

L\ErA . . . /Caì 'U .lO'E.\. EI'
, 'AMlI'N. 
') rJl. . 18 ' ( K ' 
.... .1.1nl, 1Y. .-/Cat 'py' 
ET.\l' :\IE 0 VpLOÇ '.\.IIO' II.\.XTO'
lIPOY" /Caì UwuEt Elc; TII'N D.\.
 AY'TOY" , , . . 6J 'H 
O':=.\. EI'

 . . . . 'A:MII'

Theu fnrther-(6), 'Vhat Inure unlikely than that OUl' 
ToIORD \\?ouhl end ,vith giying such prunlÍnenco to that rebel 
....\ngel \\ThOln by dying lIe is declared tu have' destruyed ' ? 
(Hob. ii. 14: 1 
rohn iii. 8.) For, take 
n\Tay tho Doxulogy 
(as our Iteyisiouists propose), and "Te shall begin the LouD's 
l)raycr ,,'ith 'OCll }(\.TIIEH,' and literally end it "rith-thc 
Dcvil !-Rut above a11,-(7) Let it no\ er be forgottcn that 
this is the pattern Prayer, a. portion of evcry Christian 
child's daily utterance,-the 1l10st sacred of all our fOl'lllU- 
larios, and by far the lllost often repcated,-into \vhich it is 
atteulpted in this \yay to introduce a startling novelty. 
La::;tly-(8), "\Vhell it is called to lllind that nuthing short uf 
1U CU;8it y has \yarrantcd the }
evisiullists Ül i1itl'uducing a 
single change into thc ..Lt. \7".,_" clear and lJlain errors "-and 
that nu such plea can be feigned on the prescnt occasion, the 
lilJerty ,,-hich they ha\Te takeu in this v1ace lllust ùe adllIitted 
tu be ah
olutely \\-ithout excuse. . . . Such at least arc the 
grounds OIl \vhich, fur uur o\\'n part, \\Te refuse tv entertain 
the pruposed introductiun of the 1 )e\.il into the Louv's 
})rayer. -FroBl the positiun \\TC havc takcn up, it \\-ill 1e 
fuund utterly ÜnpossiLlc to disludge us. 

XIII. It is uften urged on behalf of thc Revisiunists 
that over not a fe\y dark places uf S. Paul's Epistles their 
laLours IUl\ e thrown Ì1llportallt light. Let it nut Le suppu

11.] PH \ YEU - OTHER C]L\XnE
 FOl: 'rITE 'rOR
E. 217 

that ".C (Ieny this. 1\f:\11Y a. t;criptural dif1ìculty vanishe:-; 
the instant a place i:-; accurately translated: (1, far grcater 
llUl11Ler, \\'hen the rendering is idioluatic. It ,vould he 
strange indeed if, nt the end of ten years, the cOI111)incd 
laLunrs uf lll>\vanls uf t,venty Bcholars, \\yhosc raison d'être as 
t'visiunists ,vas tu do this ycry thing, had not resulted in 
the rClllOyal uf Illany an úbscurity ill the A, V. of Guspels 
and J1:pistles alikc. \Vhat offcnds us is the discovery that, 
fur every olJscurity \rhich has Leen renloved, at least half a 
dozen others have Leen introduced: in other ".ords, that the 
ult of this l
cyision has Lcen thc planting in of a f1'(;
crop of d iffiCZllt irs, before undrealned of; so that a perpetual 
"TestIing \vith t7
CS) is ,,,hat hereafter tt\vaits the diligent 
student of the X e\v Testalnellt. 

\Ve speak not 110". of passages ,vllÎch hayc ùecn Iuercly 
altered for the \vorse: as ,vhcn, (in S. J alnes i. 17, 18,) "ye 
are invited to rca<1,-' Every good gift and every pC/fect boon 
is fruBl al )OVC, cUB1Ïng ùo\vn frol11 the :Father of lights, ".ith 
WhUIll can be no 'Variation, ncither shadow that is cast by 
t urnill!J. Of his O'Yll ,viII he bruu!Jht 'us furth.' Grievous as 
such Llclnishes are, it is Seen at a glance that they Illust l)e 
bet dO"-ll to nothing w"QrSe than ta
 a::ssiduity. "That \Vc 
cUlllplain of is that, n1Ïsled l)y (t ùepraycll Text, uur Heyisers 
havc uften Il.lade nonscnse of ,dwt before "Tas IJerfectly clear: 
and haye not only thrust nlany of our LOHD'
 precious utter- 
ances out of sight, (e.g. ::\Iatt. xyii. :21 : l\Iark x. 21 and xi, 2G : 
Luke i\:. 55, 56); Lut haye attributed to IIÍ1n absurù sayings 
\\.hieh lIe certainly neyer uttered, (e,g. 
latt. xix. 17) ; or else, 
given such a. t\\.ist to \\-hat ] Ic actually said, that Ilis 
Llebßell \\yorlls are nu lungeI' recugnizable, (as in S, 1\latt. 
i, 23 : 

. }'Iark ix. 
3: xi, 3). Take a sillllple :- 
(1.) Thc Church has ah,-ays understood her LÜHD to sa), 
-' F
\TlIEU, I will that they al
o, \\ hOll1 Thou ha::st gi \ ell l\lc, 


, l\llDIPSI:\[L"S' IL\nITU


be \vith )[c ,vhere I run; that they 11lay hehold l\fy glory.' 1 
"r C reject ,,-ith ùo,vllright indignation the proposal hence- 
forth to read instead,-' FATHER, that 1.ohich Thon hust fJilY)/
J[e I 1.vill that, 1.vhcrc I a1n, t!tey also 'Jnay be Leith ]JIc,' &c. 
"r e suspect a luisprint. The passage realls like nonsense. 
Yos, and nonsense it is,-in Greek as ,veIl as ill English: 
(õ has Lecn "Titten for ov
-onc of the countless bétiscs for 
 B Dare exclusiycly rcsponsiLlc; and ,vhich the 
\veak superstition of these last days is for erecting into a 
ne\\T l{e\relatioll). ,V c appeal to the old Latin and to the 
Vulgate, -- to the ùetter Egyptian and to all th0 Syriac 
vcrsions: to c'fcry known Lectionary: to Cleulens 1\.lex,,2- 
to :EuseLius,3-to 
onllus,4-to Dasil,5-to Chrysustulll,6_to 
Cyril,7-to Cælestinus,8-to Theodoret: 9 not to ltlcntion 
Cyprian,Io-.....\..lnLrose,1l-Ililary,I2 &c.: 13 and aùoyc all, 16 
uncials, Legiullillg ,,-ith A anù c,-and the "hole ùody of 
the cursiycs. So lllallY ,,'ords ought not to ùe required. If 
lucn prefer their' lllUlllPSÎ111US' to our' sluupsiIuus,' let thelll 
by alllllcans haye it: but pray let thelll keep their ruLbish to 
thclnsclvcs,-alld at least leave our S
\YIúült'S \\yords alone. 

.) ",.. e shall ùe told that the foregoing is :l)l uutrageuus 
instance. It is. Then take a fe\v n1Ïldcr cases. TheyaLuund, 
turn ,,'hicheyer ,vay "
e \vill. Thus, ,ye are iuvited to belieye 
that S. Luke relates concerning uur 8.A YIOUR that 1Ie ''lellS 
led by the Spirit in the lcilderness dlU'iJlfj furty days' (iv. 1). 
'Ve stare at this llC\V revelation, and refer tu the failliliar 
Greek. It provcs to be the Greek of all the copies i,

1 :-:;. J uhn xvii. 
-t 2 P. 1-!0. 3 :l\Iarccll. p. 192. 
-1 In loco discrte. ð Eth. ii. 
tI7. 6 viii. 483. 
7 Text, iv. 1003; Comn
. 1007, which arc two distinct authorities, a8 
lcarncd rcaùcrs of Cyril arc a \\ arc. 8 Concili(t, iii. 35G d. 
9 iv. 450. 10 1'1>. 235, 3
1. 11 i. 41
; ii. 3GG, G-!U. 
12 1'p. 1017, 1033. 
13 Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 
O. ...\1::;0 ps.-Chrys. v. G80. 


TO '


'world ont fOtll'" the Greek \vhich supplic(l the Latin, the 
Hyrian, the Coptic Churches, ,,
ith thc to-x:t of their 1'0- 
o \T cl'sions; the Greek \yhich "
as familiar to 
Ol'igCll,l_to EuseLius,2-to TIasil,3 - to DidYluus, 4: - to 
Theu1luret,5-to l\laxÏ1nus,6- an d to t,,
o other ancient 
\\Titers, Ol1e of 'v LOlli has been mistaken fur ChrysustoIu,1 the 
other for Dasi1. 8 It is therefure quite above suspicion. ..lnd 
it infurlns us that JESUS '\\?as led by the Spirit into the 
u;ildcrne:38;' and there ,vas 'furty days tC1npted of the Dcril.' 
""'hat then has happened tu uùscure so plain a statcIneut? 
K otl1Ïng n10ro seriuus than that-(l) Four copies uf Lad 
character (N n D L) exhibit' in' instead of 'into:' and that 
-(2) Our IIeyisionists have been pcrsuaded to believe that 
thc1"lfore S. Luke HUlst needs IUlve done the saIne. ..Accord- 
ingly they invite us to share their conviction that it ,vas the 
leadin!J about of our LOUD, (and not His Tcuzptation,) ".hich 
lasted for 40 days. ...c\.l1d this sorry nlisconception is to be 
thrust upon the 90 lllillio11S of English-speaking Christians 
throughout the \rorld,-ullder the plea of 'necessity'! . . . . 
TIut let us turn to a luore interesting specimen of the ll1ÏS- 
chieyous consequences ,,
hich ,,"uuld ellsue froln the acceptance 
of the prc::3ent so-called' TIevision.' 

(3.) ''"""hat is to be thought of this, as a substitute for the 
fUluiliar language of 
 Cor. xii. 7 ?-'.....1,
d by ,.cason of the 
o'eeediJl!J greatness oj the '}'cl:clatíons-whc'i'cfore, that I should 
'Iwt be cJYt!ted ol:cnnuch, there ,,-as giyon to Iue a thorn in the 
h.' The \\"01'<1 ',,-herefore' (ðtÓ), \\.hich occasions all the 
llilliculty-(hreaking the hack uf the sentence allù lleces- 
:)itating tho hyputhesis uf a change of cOllstructiOll)-is due 
sulely to the influence ùf 
 .A ß. The urdinary Text is recog- 

1 iii. ÐliG <lis. 2 Dem. Ð
. s i. 31Ð. 4 T, Ùl. IÐO. 
ð v. lU;
U, 10m). 6 ii. 1liO. 7 v. 615. 
8 ii. 3b L Cyril reall the place buth waYð: _\".2 l,jli, aud in Lac. p. 3:!. 

220 'rEX'I' O}1" S. JOII
 X. 1-1-, COUUrl)'I'ED.-'rJI E [AHT, 

llizcd hy ahllost every other copy; hy the Latin,-SYl'iac,- 
Gothic,-....\l'lnenian "\r ersiollS ;-as ,yell as by IrenH.'u:o;,I- 
()rigen,2 -l\Iacarius,3 -Athanasius,4 - Uhrysostolll,5-Theo- 
doret, 6_J ohn Damascene. 7 Eyen Tischelldurf here Inakes 
a stand and refuseti to fullu,v his aCCUSi01I1Ccl guides. 8 In 
plain tCl'lllS, the text of 
 Cor. xii. 7 is LpYOlld the I"each of 
suspiciun. Scarcely intelligiLle is the infatuation uf ,vhich 
our l{evisers haye Leen the dupes,-QilollSQ'llC tandCln? 

(4.) N o'v this is the luethod of the l{evisillg 10ùy thruugh- 
out: viz. so seriuusly to lllaÍ1n the Text uf Inany a fau1Ïlial' 
pa:ssage of Jluly 'Y'rit as effectually to 1uar it. Eyen ,vhere 
they reilledy an inaccuracy in the rendering of the .A.. V., 
they often inflict a n10re grievous injury than lllistranslatiou 
on the inspired Text. .A.ll instance occurs at S. John x. 14, 
,,-here the good Shepherd says,-' I kno,y .l\Iine O""U ((nd (('lJ
known of 11Iinc, eYell as the }"
\.TIIER knu,,"eth 1\le and I kno,v 
the :Father.' By thru
ting ill here the l\lallichæan depra Yil- 
tion (' and illínc ou.n kn01.c JIc '), our lteyisionists have 
obliterated the e:X:tluisite diyersity of expression in the 
original,-,yhich iIul'lies that ,,
hercas the kno".leùge \\?hich 
suhsists bct'Yeen the F
\TIIEU and the Sox is identical on 
either side, nut such is the kno\\?!eùgc \\"hieh subsists Let,veen 
the creature ftlHl the Creator. The refinement in question 
has Leen faithfully retained all do\\-n the ages Ly eycry cupy 
in existence except four uf Lad charfttter,-
 BDL. It is 
,,'itllessed to hy the Syriae,-by l\Iacarius,9-Gregory Naz.,1O 
_ Chry
ostulll, ll-Uyril ..Alex" 12_ Theodoret, 13-l\IaxÍ1nus. 14 

1 i. .
o. 2 ii. 3tH; iii. U()
; iv. UOl. S ..Ap. Gallanù. vii. 183. 
4 Ap. 
IOlltf. ii. ß7. ô iii. 333; Y. 444; x. 4US, ß
O; xii. 0
6 ii. 77; iii. 349. 7 ii. 
8 'Dc:::;cruinnlS fere quos ::;equi soleIDus codices.' 
9 r. 38 (= Gall. yii. 
ß). 10 i. 
9S, ß13. 
11 viii. 351, 35
. 12 iv. G3
 c, G53 a, G54 tl. 
13 i. 718; i v. 
7-1, 530. HIll lJionys. A1", ii. lU2. 

I()\"' nETTEU TH.\ x TIlE nEYI

Hut why go on 1 I)ol}s any onc in his soher sen8CS RllPl)OSP 
that if 
. John hall \vrittcn ' Jliiu' own knulv :Ale,' Ð0G llUUIU- 
f'cri l't
 nut of 10llO, at the en<l of 18UO years, ,,"oulll b
 foun( L 
to (}xhil)it ' I {('In knOll:n of Jli,lC ' ? 

(.).) The foregoing instances 111Ust suffice. _\ hrief enu- 
Ineratioll uf lllauy Blore has been gi,
en alreaùy, at pp. 144(b)- 

K O'Y, in yie,v (Æ the phenolncnon just discoyerecl to us, 
-(viz, for one crop of deforInities "eeùed out, an infinitely 
larger crop of far grosser deforn1Ïties as industriously 
planted in,)-"e confess to a feeling of distress and an- 
noyance ,,'hich altogether indisposes us to accord to thc 
e,yisionists that language of congratulation "ith ,,'hich it 
ould haye been so agreeablc to rcceive their "ell-n wall t 
cn(leavours. The serious question at oncc arises,-Is it to 
be thought that upon the \\
hole ,ve are gainers, or losers, hy 
the llevised ,,.. ersion 1 .1\nd there seenlS to be no certain 
'l;ar of resolving this duubt, but by opening a 'Profit and 
Loss account' w"Ìth the ne, isers,-crediting them "ith eyery 
item of gain, and debiting them ,yith eyery iteln of loss. 
nut then,-(and ,ve ask the question ,vith sanguinc sim- 
plicity,)- 'Yhy should it not be all gain and no loss, "hen, 
at the end of 270 years, a confessedly noble "
ork, a truly 
uni(luC specÏ111ell of genius, taste and learning, is suLll1Ïtted 
to a lJody of Scholars, equipped ,vith every external a(lyan- 
tap-c, only in or<ler that they 111ay iInproyc upon it-if they 
.al'C ([hlc? These learned indiyiduals have had uIHvarJs of 
ten years ,vherein tu Jo their ,vork. They have enjoyed the 
benefit ûf thc tentative labours of a host of predeûessurs,- 
SUIlle for their ,yarning, SOlllC for their help and guiùancc. 
They have all alullg had llcforc their cyes the solenul in- 
jUllctiun that, \dultever they "yerc not ahlc cc;.tainly to 
ÏInpruve, thcy "crp to Lc f5ujJrLIJzdy cllriful tv let alone. 

') .J ') 



They ,vere ,yarnell at the outset against any but C ncccssar!!' 
changes. Tl11}ir sole l>usiness \\Tas to reJllove 'plain and clc(('ì
crrors, ' They had pledged thelllselves to introduce '((8 /C1 1 ' 
altcrations as possible.' \Vhy then, \\Te again ask,-TVhy 
should not every single innovation \\Thich they introduceù 
into the grand old exenlplar before theIn, prove to bc a 
Dlallifest, an undcniable change for the better? 1 

XIV. The 1110re ,ye ponder over this unfortunate pro- 
duction, the 1Hore cordially ùo ,ye regret that it \\Tas eyer 
undertaken. 'T erily, the Northern COllvocation displayed a 
far-sighted ,,'isdo111 ,,"hen it pronounced against the project 
frolll the first. 'Y" e are constrained to declare that could ,ve 
have conceived it possible that the persons originally ap- 
pointed by the Southern :Proyince ,yould have co-opted into 
their body persons capalde úf executing their ,york ,vith 
such extravagant licentiousness as "Tcll as such conspicuous 
had taste, "'"e shoulll Ilever have entertaincd one hupefn 1 
thought on the sul)ject. For indeed every c1wractcristic 
feature of the \\Tork of the TIevisionists offends uS,-as ,yell 

1 As these sheets are passing through the pres
, we haye received a book 
l)y Sir 1
tlnluncl Beckett, entitlell, Slwuld the Revised Nell' Te,.,talnrnt be 
.Autltorized'! In four Chapt
rH, the author di8cus
es with characterir.;tic 
yigour, first, the principles and method of the Revisers, and then the 
Gm;pel of S. :Matthew, the Epir.;tle to the IIeùrew
, and the Apocalypse, as 
amples of their work, with a union of 
oullll sense, forell
ic 8kill, and 
scholarship more skilful than to de
erve his cautious disclaimer. Anlitlst 
details open, of course, to discussion, abundant proofs arc :::;et forth, in a 
]1108t telling 8ty1e, that the plea of 'ne 
Hity' awl 'faithfl1lne
s' utterly 
fails, in justification of a ]na:;8 of alterations, which, in point of English 
cOll1position, carry their condemnation on their face, and, to sunl up the 
great distinction bct\veen the two Yersions, illustrate C the difference be- 
tween working by discretion and by ?'ldes-by which no great thing was ever 
done or ever will be.' Sir Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exp08ure 
of the abuse of the fanlOus canon of preferring the stranger reading to the 
nwrc o1)Yiou
, as if copybts lle\'er made 
tupi(l l)lundcr::; or 11erpetrated 
wilful absurdities. 1'he work de8crve::; the Illltice of all English readers. 

) r.] 

NE"" PHT: \
THO])r( ED. 

... -' .-, 

ill respect of ,,,hat they hayc left ul111one, as of ".hat they 
have Lcen the tirst to yenture to (10:- 
((() (1]wrge(1 'to intro(lut;ü as f'w altcration,; as possible into 
the Tc\:t of the ..Authorized Version,' they haye on the contrary 
l'vÌ(lelltly acted throughout on the principle of Juaking as 
')JUf ny changes in it as they conyelliently could. 
(ù) ] Jirccted 'to IÜnit, as fa1
 as possible, thc ex!)rcssion of 
such alterations to the language of the Authorized and 
carlier English yO" crsions,' -they hoye intro<luccll such tenus 
ae; , assassin,' 'apparition,' , hOOll,' 'disparagCIllcnt,' 'diyinity,' 
, cflhlgellce,' 'cpileptic,' 'ficklencss,' 'gratulation,' 'irksoIlle,' 
. , .' 11 ' I . ] " " " t 
' Interpose, , pILla) e, 's UgglS 1, stupor, surpasH, ran- 
<plÌl :' such COlllpounds as ' self-cuntrul,' "\
orld-ruler : ' such 
phrases as 'draw 'ltp a narratiyc:' 'th(' Ùnpnlsc of the 
steerSluan :' 'in lack uf daily fuul1:' 'e;rereisin!J oversight.' 
e are but a yery fe,v saulples of the offence conllnittc
hy our l
cyisionists, of ,yhich ,ve cunlplain. 
(c) 'Yhereas they ,vere required' to 'revise the IIeadings of 
the Chapters,' they haye not eyen 'retained them. 'V C 
(lClnand at least to haye our excellent' IIeadings' hack. 
(d) .And ,,
hat has becollle of our tÌIne-holloured '::\larginal 
I:eferellces,' -the 'l:ery best CO'Jn'Jnenta1'Y on the Bible, as "
lJclieye,-certainly the '-ery hest help for the right under- 
stan<lÏllg of Scripture,-,vhich the "'it of Ulan hath eyer yet 
devised? The' l\Iarginal lIeferenccs' ,vould hc lost to the 
Church f()r e\Tcr, if the "Tork uf the TIe,-isionists ,vere allo,red 
to stand: the space requil'Cl1 fur their in
ertion haying l)een 
cOlupletely s,yallo"\\Ted up . by the sen
eless, and "
orse than 
scnseless, Textual .Annotations \\
hich at present infest the 
lnargin of evcry sacred page, 'V p are beyond lllca
aUHl.zed that the I
eyisionists haye even depriyec1 the reader 
of the c::isential aid of references to the places of the Old 
T est:.uncut \\ hich are (111\ )ted ill the X cw. 
(c) Let the rCllunk he added in passing, that ".e greatly 


\ TTi

[A nT. 

tlislikc thc affcctation of printing ccrtain quotatiolls froln 
the Old Testal11ent after the strange IllCthotl adoptcd by our 
ltevisers fro III Drs. "r estcott and] fort. 
e!) The further external assÍ1nilation of the Sacred TT o l1l1J1C 
to an ordinary book Ly getting rid of the diyision into Verses, 
"pc also hold to be a great n1Ïstake. In the Greek, by nIl 
lllcans let the yerses l)e merely noted in the nlargin: but, 
for luore thnn one ,,-eighty reason, in the En!Jli.-;h Dihle let 
the estab1ished and peculiar luethod of printing the "r ol'd of 
GOD, tide ,vhat tide, be scrupulously retained. 
(g) But inconlpara1-Iy the grasest offence is hehind. By 
far the IllOst serious uf all is that Error to the considera- 
tion of which ,ve deyoted our foruler .l\rticle. TIlE NE\V 
GnEEK TEXT ,vllich, in defiance of their Instructions,! our 
l1evisionists haye constructed, has been proved to be utterly 
undeserving of confidence. Ruilt up 011 a fallacy ".hich since 

1 It has been ohjected l)y certain of the llevif'ionists that it is not fair to 

ay that' they were appointed to do one thing, and have done another.' 
'Ve are glad of this opportunity to e
'!'hat S01ne corrections of the Text were nece5sary, we are well aware-: and 
had tho
e nCCt;ssary changes been 111ade, we should Öl1]y have had words of 
cOl1nllendation and thanks to offer. But it is found that by Dr. 1Iort'::, 
eager adyocacy two-thinls of the Revh;ionists have Inade a yast number 
of perfectly needless clwnges :-(1) Changes which are incapable of being 
td ' T. It . , -1' ' 1'rI rI 
'J"cl'rescll e 'In a rans II tOn: as EfLov lor fLOV,--'lfllVTH lor Cl1TClVTH,-OTE 
for Ó1T(
TE. Again, since yivv1J(J"L
, at least as llluch as YfVE(J"L
, means 
, birth,' 'why yÉVECJ"Lfi in S. 
[atth. i. 18? \Vhy, also, infonn us that inE'tead 
of Èv Tef) àfL1TEÀWVI. aVTov 1TEcþVTEVfLfV1JV, they prefer 1TEcþVTfVJ.LÉVfJV Iv Tef) 
àJ-L1TfÀWVI. ClVTOV? and instead of KClp1TÒV C1JTWV,-(1JTé:w KCl{J1TÓV ? Now this 
they have done throllgllOllt,-at least 3-11 tirnes in S. Luke alone. Bnt 
(what is far worse), (2) They suggf':3t in the margin changes which yet 
t hey do not adopt. rrhese nUlnerous changes are, by their own confession, 
not' necessary:' and yet they are of a lllo
t serious character. In fact, it 
is of these we chiefly cOlHl'lain.-But, iudeed (8), flow m.any of their Út1lC'J' 
alterations of the Text will the He'dsionists undertake to defend publicly 
011 the plea uf' Necessity'? 
[A vast deal more will be found on this su hject towards the close of the 
present YOIUllle. In the llleantinlC, see ahove, l\ages 87-88,] 


· TlTn ..i\?ETr FXGLl.',ll VERSION' lJE


1831 has Leen J.olllinant in Cennany, and \vhieh has lately 
founa hut too uluch fa,"our allloug ourseh
es, it is in tht, 
Jllaiu n reproduction of the recent labours of Ductors \Yest- 
cott and Jrort. nut \ye have already recorded our convictiol1, 
that the results at ,,-hich those elninent Scholars have arrive(l 
are ,,"holly inadnlÍssiLlc. It foll(nvs that, in our account, the 
, X c\v English Version,' has Leen all along a foredoolned thing. 
I f the 'K e\v Greek Text' be iudeed a tissue of fahricated 
ea(lings, the translation of these into English lllust needs 
prove lost labour. It is superfluous to en(!uire into the 
 of the English rcudering of \\
ords ,,-hich Evangcli
and ....\postles dClllonstrably never "Tote, 

(h) Even this, howevcr, is not nearly all. As Tran
full t,,-o-third
 of the I
eyisiouists Ita\ e slHywn thmllse!ves 
singularly deficient,-alike in their critical aC(luailltanee 
,,-ith the language out of ,,-hich they had to translate, anti 
in their fanÜliarity "Tith the idiolnatic requirelnellts of their 
o\vn tongue. They had a noble \T ersion before thenl, ,,"hich 
they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignifie(l 
silnplicity and essential faithfulness, its manly grace and 
its delightful rhytllln, they have sho\vn thenlselves alike 
unable to Í1nitat0 and lunvilling to retain. Their queer 
unl'uuth phraseology an(l their jerky sentences :-their 
l,eùantic olJ
curity an (I their :stiff, constrained luanneI':- 
their fi<lgetty atTeetatioll of aceuracy,-and their halJitual 
achievclllent of Engli
h "which fails to exhibit the spirit of 
the original r;reek ;-are sorry substitutes for the living 
freshness, and clastic fl'cedoln, and habitual fidelity of the 
granù olù \T ersion \\Thich "Te inherited frolll our Fathers, an(I 

'hich has sustained the spiritual life of thc Church of 
Rllglanc1, and of all l.
peaking Christians, for 330 
yearR. Jjnketl \vith all our holiest, happiest JUCIllOries, and 
bound up \\ ith all our pUH
:-;t aspirations: part :l1ul parcel of 


whatever there is of good about us: fraught ,vith nlen's hopes 
of a blessed Eternity and Inany a bright vision of the never- 
ending Life ;-the Authorized Version, ,vherever it ,vas pos- 
sible, shonld have bccn jcalously 'J'claincd. TIut on the contrary. 
Every fan1Îliar cadcnce has Leen dislocated: the congenial 
flow of ahnost every verse of Scripture has ùeen hopelessly 
lllarred: so 111any of those little connecting ,vords, which 
give life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously 
displaced, that a perpetual sense ûf annuyance is created. 
The countless n1Ïnute alterations ,vhich have been needlessly 
introduced into every ftuniliar page prove at last as tor- 
lllenting as a S'VêU'ln of flies tû the ,yeary tra veller on a 
summer's day.l To speak plainly, the bouk has been llHLÙe 
'llJw'ca dablc. 

But in fact the distinguished Chainnan of the N e,v Testa- 
ment COlnpany (TIishop Ellicott,) has ùelivered hinlself on 
this subject in language ,vhich leaves. nothing to be desired, 
and ,yhich ,ve ,yillingly Blake our O'Yll. " No Reyision" 
(he says) "in the present day could h011c to 'Incct 'lvith an 
horn]" s acccptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhytlul1, and 
diction of the present Authorized Version." 2_ 'Vhat else is 
this but a vaticination,-of ,yhich the uninspired .A.uthor, by 
his ow.n act and deed, has ensureLl the punctual fulfilnlellt? 

"\Ve lay the Revisers' yohune do,vn convinced that the 
case of their "
ork is siInply hopeless. 
"Ton cgo l)((uC'Ís 
offcndar 'Jnaculis. Had the blcll1Ïshes been capable of being 
17"eckoned up, it 111Ïght have been ,vorth ,vhile to try to 
relnedy SOllIe of theln. But ,\
hen, instead of being disfigured 

1 "'V e meet in every page" (says Dr. 'V ordgworth, the learned Bishop 
of Lincoln,) "with sl:nall changes which are 'Vexatious, teasing, and 
irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small insects sting 
Inost sharply), which stem almost to be made mel.dy for the sake of 
change."-p. 25. 
2 On the Revision of the English Ve1'sion, &c. (1870), p. Ð9. 




hy a fc,v ,veods scattereù here anù thcre, the \yhole field 
ves to be SO\\Yll over ill every directioll ,,'ith thorns [tIlt { 
hriars; abovc all ,vhell, deep heneath the surface, roots of 
s to he countc<l hy thuUSê111ds, nre foun<l to have 
l'ecIl silently planted in, \vhich arc sure to prutluce poisonous 
fruit after III any days :-under such circUlnstances only uno 
e can be prescribed. Let the entire area be l'loughe<l 
up,-ploughed deep; and let the ground be left for a tlecent 
:;;pace of tÏIne ".ithout cultivation. It is idle-\\Torse than 
idle-to dreanl of revising, 'with ({, view to 1'ctainin!J, this 
Ucvision. Another generation of students lllUSt be suffered 
to arise. TÏ111e nlust be given for Passion antI Prejudice 
to cool effectually do\vn. rartizanship, (\vhich at present 
prevails to an extraordinary extent, but ,vhich is \vondrousIy 
out of plaGe in this ùepartlnent of Sacred Learning,)- 
Pal.tizrtnship Blust be cOlnpletely outlived, - before the 
Church can venture, \vith the remotest prospect of a SUCCCðS- 
ful issue, to organize another attmnpt at revising the 
Authorized Version of the N e,v Testament Scriptures. 

Yes, and in the IneantÜne-(let it in all faithfulness he 
a<lcled)-the Science of Textual Criticislll "yill have to be 
prusecuteù, 1m' the jiTSt ti1ìlc, in a scholarlike IUanIleI'. FUN- 
JU)[EXT \L rUIXCIPLES, - sufficiently axiolllatic to ensure 
general acceptallce,-,,'ill have to be laid dO\Yll for Incn's 
guidance. The tÏ1ne has quite gone 1y for yaunting C tlu' 
now estflblishul rl'incipl(
 of Textual CriticÙml,'l-as if they 
had an actual existence. Let us be ShOW11, instead, IJ)ltieh 
those Principles be. 
\s for the \\Teak superstition ûf thc::;e 
last days, which-'without 171'001 of anl! kind-,youlù erect t,vu 
I\Tth-cclltury Copies of the X e'v Testalllcnt, (dmllollstraLly 
<1l'riyed frolll one and the saIne utterly depraveù archetype,) 

1 HI'. Ellicott, Dioresatl rr(lgres.
, .Jan. Ibt;2,-p. HL 




into an authority from ,vhich there shall be no appeal,-it 
C'1UllOi be too soon or too unconditionally abandoneù. And, 
perhaps beyond all things, nlcn Blust ùe inyited to disabuse 
thcir ulÏnùs of the singular inlagination that it is in their 
po\ver, \\'hen adùressing thelllselves to that most difficult and 
delicate of problenls,-the imp1'0'L'clJlCnt of tILe TTaditional 
Tc.'Ct,-' solyere alubulando.' 1 They are assured that they 
111a)'" not take to Textual Criticisnl as ducks take to the 
w'ater. They ,vill be dro\vned inevitably if they are so ill- 
advised as to make the attelnpt. 

Then further, those \vho \vol.dd interpret the N e\V Testa- 
ment Scriptures, are l'en1Ïnded that a thorough acquaintance 
\vith the Septuagintal '"1" ersion of the Old TestaII1ent is one 
intlispensable cUll<lition of succes
. 2 ..A.nd finally, the Revi- 
sionists of the future (if they tlesire that their labours should 
be cro"Tned), \vill find it their \visdolll tu practise a severe 
self-denial; to confine thenlselves to the correction of "plain 
and cicco' crrors ;" and in fact to "introduce into the Text as 
.fclL' altcrations as possible." 

On a reyie"T of all that has ha ppenecl, fronl first to last, 
\ve can but feel greatly concerned: greatly surprised: 1110st of 
all, disappointed. "r e had expected a vastly different result. 
It is partly (not quite) accounted for, by the rare attendance 
in the J erUI:;ale111 Chnulber of 80111e of the names on \yhich 
\ye had chiefly relied. J1ishop 1\lobe1'ly (of Snlisbury) \,as 

I TIp. Ellicott, On Revision,-p. 49. 
2 , Qui LXX interpretes non leg if, aut minus legit accurate, is sciat se 
"non adeo idoJleU1n, qui Scripta Evaugelica ..t1.postolicft de G'J'æco in 
Latinum, aut alillm aliquem sel.monem tramfcrat, 'lit ut in aliis Græcis 
s('riptoribus multum diufjuefu(,Tit versatus.' (John Bois, IG1Ð.)-' G1'æcwn 
þ..Y. T. contextum 'f'ite iutellectnro nihil est utilius qu(t'Jn diligenter versasse 
Alexandrimtm ant "qui Faderis Ùderprtfationem, E QU
.\ ux PLrs PETI 
ITIS. Centcna repericntur in It. 1'. 'Ji'?lsquam obvia in scriptis r;ræcorum 
veterWtL, sed jrf'.f}llcntatn in Alexanrlrinâ versione.' (Yalcknacr, 1715-85.) 





prescnt on only 121 occasions: Bishop ,y ords\vorth (of S, 
An<1rc,,'s) on only 10!) : 
\.rchbishop Trench (of Dublin) on only 
ß3: I3ishop 'Yilberforce on only one. The Archbishop, in his 
Charge, adverts to ' the not unfrequent sacrifice of grace and 
case to the rigorous requirelnellts of a literal accuracy;' and 
regards theul 'as pushed to a faulty excess' (p. 22). Eleven 
years Lefore the scheme for the present ' Revision' haù been 
l11atured, the sanle distinguished and judicious }>relate, (then 
Dean of 'Vestlllinster,) persuaded as he \vas that a Revision 
ought to COllle, and convinced that in time it would come, 
deprecated its being attenlpteù yet. Iris ,,"ords were,-" Not 
ho,vever, I ".ould trust, as yet: for ,,"e are not as yet in any 
respect prepared fo')
 it. The Greek, and the English ".hich 
should enable us to bring this to a successful end nlÌght, it is 
to be feared, Le ,yanting alike," 1 Archbishop Trench, \vith 
\vise after-thought, in a second edition, explained hÜllself 
to lllean " that special Hellenistic Greek, here required." 

The Bp. of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest nlanncr, 
cleared hinlself froll1 the suspicion of conlplicity in the errors 
of the ,,"ork before uS,-as ,veIl in respect of the' 
ew Greek 
Text' as of the 'N e,v English Version.' In the Charge 
\vhich he delivered at his Diocesan Synod, (22nd Sept. 
1880,) he openly stated that t\VO years before the "Tork \vas 
finally cOlnpleted, he had felt obliged to adùress a printed 
circlùar to each member of the COlnpany, in ".hich he 
strongly remonstrated against the excess to \yhich changes 
had been carried; and that the renlonstrance lweI been, for 
the most part, unheeded. Had this been other\\
ise, there 
is good n
ason to believe that th
 reception \vhich the 
evision has met \vith \vould have been far less unfavour- 
able, and that Inany a controversy \vhich it has stin'eù up, 
,voltld have been avoided. "r e have been assured that the 

1 On the .Authoriud Vu 5Ù.IIl,-p. 3. 




Dp. of S. Andrc,vs ,voulJ have actually resigned his place ill 
the COlllpany at that timo, if he had not been led to expect 
that some opportunity \vould ha ve been taken by the 
1\linority, ,vhen the work ,vas finished, to express their 
fornlal dissent frolll the course which had been follo"Tcd, 
and lunny of the conclusions .which had been adopted. 

Were certain other excellent personages, (Scholars and 
Divines of the best type) who ,vere often present, disposed 
at this late hour to COIne forward, they too ,vould doubtless 
tell us that they heartily regretted ,,,hat was done, but ,yere 
po\rerless to prevent it. It is no secret that Dr. Lee,- 
the learned Archdeacon of Dublin,-( one of the fe,v really 
competent Inembers of the Revising body,)-founcl himself 
perpetually in the minority. 

The saIne is to be recorded concerning Dr. Roberts, ,vhose 
,york on the Gosl)els (puLlished in 18G4) sho,vs that he is 
not by any llleans so entirely a novice ill the Iuysteries of 
Textual Criticisnl as certain of his colleagues.-One fanlous 
Scholar and excellent Divine,-a Dean ,vhonl "Te forbear to 
nalue,-,vith the lllodesty of real learning, often ,vithheld 
,vhat (had he given it) ,vould have been an adverse vote.- 
Another learned and accolllplished Dean (Dr. l\lerivale), after 
attending 19 nleetillgs of the I
evising boùy, ,vithdrc\v in 
disgust froln them entirely. He disapproveù the method of 
his colleagues, and ,,,,as deternlÍnecl to incur no share of re- 
sponsibility for the proba
le result of their deliberations.- 
By the ,yay,- What about a certain solenln I>rotest, by 
Ineans ûf ,vhich the ]'linority had resolved libcrare anÙnas 
S1.las concerning the open disregard sho\vn by the 
for the conditions under ,vhich they had been entrusted \vith 
the ,york of Revision, but \vhich ,vas \vithheld at the last 
monlent 1 InasllulcIJ, as their reasons for the course they 
eventually adopted sceln
d sufficient to those high-Illindcd and 




honourable nlen, \ve forbear to challenge it. Nothing ho,vever 
sh1.11 deter us frolll plainly avo,ving our u\\ n opinion that 
]nunan regards scarcely deserve a hearing \vhen GOD'S 
Truth is ÏInperilled. .And that the Truth of GOD'S 'V ord in 
countless instances has been ignorantly sacrificed by a Inajo- 
rity of the TIevisionists-( out of deference to a ,,,"orthless 
Theory, ne\vly invented and passionately advocated by t\VO 
of their body),-has been already ùelnonstrated; as far, that 
is, as denlonstration is possible in this subject l11atter. 

As for Prebendary Scriyener,-tlw only really C01npetcnt 
Textual Critic of the '["hole party,-it is ,yell kno,vn 
that he found hirllself perpetually outvoted by two-thirds 
of those present. 'Ve look for\vard to the forthcon1Ïng 
ne\v eùition of his Plain Introduction, in the confident 
belief that he ,vill there Blake it abundantly plain that he is 
in no degree responsible for the llionstrous Text "Thich it 
bccmlle his painful duty to conduct through the Press on 
behalf of the entire boùy, of ,,,,hieh he continued to the 
last to be a 1nenlber. It is no secret that, throughout, ] Jr. 
Scri yener pleaded in vain for the general vie,v ,ye have 
oursel yes advocated in this and the preceding Article. 
.l\.ll alike may at least enjoy the real satisfaction of 
knowing that, besides having stiInulated, to an extraordi- 
nary extent, public attention to the contents of the Book 
of Life, they have been instnuuental in a,vakening a living 
interest in one Ünportallt but neglected ùepartnlen"G of 
Sacred Science, ,vhich ,,,,ill not easily be again put to sleep. 
It Iuay reasonably prove a solace to the111 to reflect that 
they have besides, although perhap
 in \vays they ùid not 
anticipate, rendered excellent service to mankind. A nlOllU- 
nlcnt they have certainly erected to the111selves,-though 
neither of their Taste nor yet of their Learning. Their "e11- 
Blcaut endeavours have pro\ idcd au achllirable text-Look for 



[.AH'l'. ll. 

Teachers of Divinity,-\vho ,vill hencefurth instruct their 
pu pil
 to LC\n1re of the Textual errors of the Revisionists of 
1881, as \vell as of their tasteless, injudicious, and unsatis- 
factory essays in Translation. This w'ork of theirs \vill l1iS- 
charge the oflice of a \varning beacon to as Illany as shall 
hereafter eluhark on the sanle perilous enterprise ,vith thelll- 
selves. It ,viII convince nlen of thc danger of pursuing the 
sanlC ill-olnened course: trusting to thc sanlC unskilful 
guidance: venturing too Ilcar the saIne \vreck-stre"'
n shore. 

lts effect \viII be to open 1I1en's eyes, as nothing clse 
could possibly have llone, to the dangers ,vhich beset thc 
Hevision of ScriIJture.. It \vill teach faithful hearts to cling 
the closer to the priceless treasurc \vhich ,vas bequeathe(l 
tu thmll by the piety and \ViStlOIlI of their fathers. It \vill 
dispel for ever the dre
nn of those \vho have socretly ÏIna- 
gined that a n10ro exact \T crsion, undertaken ,vith the 
lJu(lsted h
lps of this nineteenth century of ours, \\?oultl 
hring to light sOlllething \\?hich has been hitherto unfairly 
kept cuncealetl or else lllisrepresented. Not the least 
service ,vhich the l{evisionists have rendered has been 
the prouf their ,york affords, ho,v very seldoUI our 
Authorized Version is nlaterially \vrong: ho,v faithful and 
trust\vorthy, on the contrary, it is throughout. Let it be 
also candidly atllllitted that, even \vhere (in our jUllgnlent) 
the Revisionists have erreù, they have never had the n1Ìs- 
fortune SC1'iUllSly to ubscure a singlc feature uf Divine Truth; 
nor have they in any quarter (as" e hOIJe) inflicted ,vounds 
\\Thich ,viII Le attenued \vith ,vorse results than to leave a 
hideous scar behind theul. I t is but fair to add that their 
,york bears Illarks of an aUlount of conscientious (though 
lllisdirected) labour, w'hich those only can fully appreciate 
,vho have lllnde the S
Ulle province of study to SOll1e extcnt 
their O\VIl. 

AltTICLE Ill. 

rU.AL r

"In the determination of disputed readings, these Critics avail them- 
selves of so SIn all a portion of existing materials, or allow so little weight 
to others, that the Student who follows thenl has po1:;itively less grultnd 
for his cUlwictions than former Scholars had at any period in the history 
of ' modern Criticis'm."-CAKox COOK, p. 16. 

"'Ye have no right, doubtless, to assume that our Principles are in- 
fallible: but we have a right to claim that anyone who rejects them. . . . 
should confute the l\.rguments and rebut the Evidence on which the 
opposite conclusion has been founded. btrong expressions of Individual 
Opinion are not Argltments."-ßp. ELLICOTT'S PaInphlet, (1882,) p. 40. 

Our" method involves vast research, unwearied patience. .. It will 
therefore find but little favour with those 
V7LO adopt the e((,sy method. . . . . 
of 'Using some fa vourite Manuscript, or some supposed power of divining 
the Original Text."-ßp. ELLICOTT, ibid. p. 19. 

"Non enim sumus sicut pluriIni, adulterantes (Ka7rT}À
r) verbUlIl 
DEI."-2 Cor. Ïi. 17. 





"'Vho is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge (" 
-Jon xxxyiii. 2. 
"Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the 
ditch? "-S. LUKE vi. 39. 

PROPOSIXG to ourselves (1\lay 17th, 1881) to enquire into 
the luerits of the reccnt Revision of the Authorizeù Versioll 
of the N e\V TestaIuent Scriptures, ,ve speedily ùecalne a,vare 
that an entirely different problem a\vaited us and delnanded 
prelin1Ïnary investigation. 'Ve Ilutde the distressing discovery, 
that the unùerlying Greek Text had been COlllpletely re- 
fashioned throughout. It was accordingly not so 11luch a 
, R!"viscd English VC1
sio'Jl,' as a 'New Greek Text,' "which was 
challenging public acceptance. Prelllature therefore,-not to 
say preposterous,-\vould have been any enquiry into the 
degree ûf ability \vith \vhich the original Greek had been 
rendereù into English by our Revisionists, until \ve had first 
satisfied ourselves that it \vas still' the original Greek' \vith 
\vhich \ve had to deal: or \vhether it had been the suprelne 
infelicity of a ùody of Scholars cl'ìiming to act by the 
authority of the sacred Synod of Canterbury, to put thenl- 
&elves into the hanùs of SOllIe ingeniou:::; theory-rllonger, and 
to ùeconle the dupes uf any uf the strange delusions ,vhich 




are found unhappily still to prevail in certain quarters, on 
the suLject of Textual Criticislll, 

The correction of kno,vn Textual errors of course ,ve 
eagerly expected: and on every occasion ,yhen the Tradi- 
tional Text ""as altered, ,,"e as confidently depended on 
finding a record of the circulllstance inserted ,vith religious 
fidelity into the lllargin,-as agreed upon by the Revisionists 
at the outset. In both of these expectations ho,,"ever ,ve 
found ourselves sadly disappointed, The }{evisionists have 
not corrected the 'kno,yn Textual errors,' On the other 
hand, besides silently a<.lopting nlost of those ,vretched fabri- 
cations ,,"hich are just no,v in favour ,vith the GerIuan school, 
they have encumbered their nlargin "Tith those other Readings 
,vhich, after due exalnination, they had tllc?iv:5dvcs deliberately 
rejected. For ,vhy? Because, in their cullective judgnlent, 
, for the present, it ,yould not be safe to accept one TIeading 
to the absolute exclusion of others.' 1 .A. fatal adn1Ïssion 
truly! 'Vhat are found in the luargin are therefore 'altcr- 
'n('ttivc Readings,' -in the opinion of these self-constituted 
representatives of the Church anù of the Sects. 

It becollles evident that, by this ill-advised proceeding, 
our l{evisionists ,vould con vert every Englislllnan's copy 
of the N c,v Testaluent into a one-sided Introduction to 
the Critical difficulties of the Greek Text; a la byrinth, 
out of ,vhich they have not been at the pains to supply 
hiIn ,vith a single hint as to ho,v he nlay find his ,vay. 
On the contrary. By candidly avo,ving that they find theln- 
selvès enveloped in the sallle Stygian darkness ,vith the 
orllinary English Reader, they give hÜu to understand that 

1 J'reface, p. xiv. 




there is ahsolutely no e
cape fronl the difficulty. 'Vhat 
else Blust he the result of all thi::, but general uncertainty, 
confusiun, distrc
s? A hazy Inistrust of all Scripture has 
heen insinuated into the hearts and minds of countless 
nlillions, ,vho in this ,ray have Leen forced to become doulJt- 
ers,-yes, (IoulJters in the Truth of l{evelation itself. One 
recals sorro,vfully the terrihle 

oe denounceù by the Author 
of Scripture on those ,vho n1Ìnister occasions of falling to 
others :-' It Blust needs be that offences come; but ,voe to 
that man by ,vhom the offence conleth! ' 

For uurselyes, shocked and offended at the unfaithfulness 
which could so <.lea] with the sacred Deposit, "yo Inade it our 
business to expose, sonlewllat in detail, ,vhat had been the 
nlethod of our Revisionists. In our October nunlber 1 we de- 
monstrated, (as far as was possible ,vithin such narro,v lin1Ïts,) 
the utterly untrustw'orthy character of not a fe,v of the 
results at ,vhich, after ten years of careful study, these 
distinguished Scholars proclaim to the civilized 

orld that 
they have deliberately arrived, In our January nunlber 2 
also, ,ve founù it impossible to avoid extending our enume- 
ration of Textual errors and nlultiplying our proofs, 'while 
we ,,"ere Inaking it our business to show' that, e,Ten had their 
Text been faultless, their T1Ytnslation must needs be rejected 
as intolerable, on grounds of (Iefectiye Scholarship an <.1 
egregious bad Taste, The popular verdict has in the mean- 
tiIne been pronounceù unnlistakalJly. It is already adn1Ïtted 
on all hands that the TIevision has been a prudigious hluuder. 
IIo,v it came ahout that, ,vith such a first-rate textual Critic 
alllong theul as Prebendary Scrivcncr,3 the Reyisers of 1881 

1 Q1wrtcrly llrvieu', X o. :10-1. 2 Qllm.tcrly Rcvie1J', Xo. 30;). 
S .At the head of the l)fcscnt Article, as it originally appearctl, will he 
fOlllHl enumerated Ur. bcrivener's principal work:;. It f'hall hut he said of 




should have deliberately gone back to those vile fahl'ications 
frolll ,vhich the good Providence of GOD preserved Erasnnls 
and Stunica,-Stephens and TIeza and the Elzevirs,-three 
centuries ago :-how it happened that, with so 11lany spleullid 
Scholars sitting round their table, they should have pruduced 
a Translation which, for the 1l10st part, reads like a first-rate 
school-boy's c1
ib,-tasteless, u111u\Tely, harsh, unidio1l1atic;- 
servile ,,
ithout being really faithful,-pedantic \vithout Leing 
really learned ;-an unreadable Translation, in short; the 
result of a vast anlount of labour illùeed, hut of \vonllrous 
little skill :-ho\v all this has cùme about, it ,vere utterly 
eless at this time of day to enquire. 

thern, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather unapproached, in their 
particular departlnent. Hinlself an exact and elegant Scholar,-a lllost 
l)atient and accurate observer of Textual phenonlella, as well as an 
interesting and judiciows expositor of their significance and value;- 
guarded in his statenlents, tenlperate in his language, fair and impartial 
(even kind) to all who come in his way :-Dr. Scrivener is the very best 
teacher and guide to whOIn a beginner can resort, who desires to be led by 
the hand, as it were, through the intricate lllazes of Textual Criticism. 
IIis Plain Il1trodllction to tlte 01'i'ticism of the New Testr17nent for the 'llse of 
Biblical Students, (of which a third edition is now in the press,) is perforce 
the 1110st generally useful, because the lllost conlprehensive, of his works; 
hut we strenuously recommend the three prefatory chapters of his Full and 
E'a'act Collation of about twe1lty GTeek J.l1anuscnjds of the Gospels [pp. 
lxxiv. and 178,-1833], and the t\\O prefatory chapters of his Exact 
Transcript (if the Codex ...1ugiensis, &c., to which is added a full Collation 
of Fifty :Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,-1859,] to the attention of 
students. His Cullation of Codex Bezæ (D) is perhaps the greatest of his 
\\ or1\:s: hut ,,'hatever he has done, he haR done best. It is instructive to 
conlpare his collation of Cod. 
 \vith TischendorPs. K 0 reader of the 
Greek Testmllent can afford to be without his reprint of Stephens' ed. of 
1550: and English readers are reminded that Dr. Scrivener's is the only 
classical edition of the English Bible,-The Camh1'idge Paragraph. Bible, 
&c., 1870-3. His Preface or ' Introduction' (pp. ix,-cxx.) pas
es praise. 
Ordinary English readers should enquire for his Six Lectures on the 'l'ext 
of the 
T. T., &c., 1t$75,-which is in fact an attmnpt to popularize the 
Plrrin Int1'oduction. The reader is referred to nnte (1) at the foot 
of page 243. 




Unable to disprove the correctness of our Criticislll on 
the I
eyiseù Greek Text, even in a single insta.nce, certain 
partizans of the TIevision,-singular to relate,-have ùeen 
eyer since industriously promulgating the notion, that the 
I:evie\ver's great n1Ïsfortune and fatal disadvantage all along 
has heen, that he \vrote his first Article before the pub- 
lication of lJrs. \Vestcott and lIort's Critical' Introduction.' 
IIad he but Leen so happy as to have been Inaùe a\vare by 
those en1Ínent Scholars of the critical principles \vhich haye 
guided tbeIn in the construction of their Text, ho,v differently 
Illust he have expressed hhnself throughout, and to \vhat 
,videly different conclusions HUlst he have inevitably arrived 1 
This is ,,-hat has Leen once anù again either openly declared, 
or else privately intimated, in 1uany quarters. SOllIe, in the 
".arnlth of their partizanship, have been so ill-advised as to 
insinuate that it argues either a deficiency of nloral courage, 
or else of intellectual perception, in the TIevie\,er, that he has 
not long since grappled definitely ".ith the Theory of 1'rs. 
\Vestcott and IIort,-and either published an Ans,yer to it, 
or else frankly adll1Ïtted that he finds it unans,veraLle. 

(a) All of 'which strikes us as queer in a high degree. 
First, because as a nlatter of fact 'we "Tere careful to nlake it 
plain that the Introduction in question had duly reached us 
before the first sheet of our earlier ..lrticle ha<lleft our hands. 
To bc brief,-\\Oe Inaùe it our business to procure a copy ana 
reaù it through, the instant W'C heard of its publication: and 
on our fourteenth page (see above, pp, 26-8) ".e endeavoured 
to COIlll)ress into a long foot-note sOlne account of a Theory 
which (\\ e take leave to say) can appear fonnidaLle only to 
one ,,'ho either lacks the patience to study it, or else the 
knowledge requisite to understand it. 'Ve found that, froln 
a diligent perusal of the P1'cfacc prefixed to the C IÍ1nited 
and private issue' oÎ 1870, \\'e had funued a perfectly correct 




estÏ1nate of the contents of the Introdnction,. and had already 
characterized it with entire accuracy at pp. 24 to 29 of uur 
first Article. Drs. 'Vestcott and Hort's J\T"eu' Tcsta1ncnt in 
the original G'l'Cck ,vas discoyered to C partake inconyeniently 
of the nature of a ,york of the Imagination,' -as ,ve had 
anticipated. \Ve became .easily convinced that C those ac- 
complished Scholars had succeeded in producing a Text 
vastly more remote from the... inspired autographs of the 
Evangelists and ..A.postles of our LORD, than any ,vhich has 
appeared since the invention of Printing.' 

(b) But the queerest circu111stnnce is behind. IIo,v is it 
supposed that any ftJllOunt of study of the last n(''U' Theory of 
Textual TIevision can seriously affect a Reyie\ver's estÏ1nate 
of the evidential yalue of the historical facts on w"hich he 
relies for his proof that a certain exhibition of the Greek 
Text is untrnst\vorthy? The onus p1 9 0bandi rests clearly not 
\yith hi'ln, but ,vith those ,yho call those proofs of his in 
question. l\lore of this, ho\\yever, by and by. \Ve are iUl- 
patient to get on. 

(c) And then, lastly,-\Vhat haye 'lee to do ,vith the Theory 
of I )1's. "r estcott and IT ort? or indeed ,yith the Theory (ìf 
any other pe'rson 'U.:ho can be na'lncd ? \Ve have been exan1Ïll- 
ing the ne"T Greek Text oj the Revisionists. "r e have con- 
delllned, after furnishing detailed proof, the results at \yhich- 
by ,vhatever means-that distinguished body of Scholars has 
arrived. Surely it is compp.tent to us to upset thcir con- 
clusion, ,vithout being constrained also to investigate in detail 
the illicit logical processes oy ,,
hich tw"O of their nUlnber in 
a separate puùlication have arrived at far grayer results, and 
often even stand hupelessly apart, the one froIn the other! 
,yo e say it in no ooastful spirit, but ,ve have an undoubted 
right to assnUle, that unless the Revisionists arc able hy a 


'rEX'I, XU\\" 'fo DE EX


stronger array of authurities to :ìct asi( Ie the evidence ,re 
hit \
e already Lrought forward, the cahunitous destiny of their 
cyisioll,' so far as the N e\\. TestaJllcHt i
 concerned, is 
sÏ1nply a thing inevital)Je, 

Let it not he inwgined, hu".ever, fr0111 ,vhat goes before, 
that ,ve desire to shirk the proposed encounter ,vith the 
.HI \.oeates of thi
 last ne'y Text, or that ,ye entertain the 
slightest intention of doing so, 'V c ,yillingly accept the 
assurance, that it is only ùecause Drs, 'Vestcutt and 110rt are 
\rirtually responsible for the Itevisers' Greek Text, that it is 

o Ï1l1periously delnandeù hy the I
eyisers aud their partizans, 
that the Theory of the t\\TO Canlbridge .Professors Inay be 
critically examined, 'Ye can synlpathize also \yith the secret 
distress of certain of the l)o<1y, ,vho no,y, ".hen it is all 
too late tu rernedy the n1Ïschief, Legin to suspect that they 
have Leen led a"Tay by the hardihood of ::;elf-assertion;- 
o\.erþo\yered by the facztndía præccps of one ,vho is at least a 
thorough Leliever in his o,vn self-evolved opinions ;-Ünpused 
upon by the seemingly COllsentient pages of Tischendorf and 
Tregelles, "T estcott and IIort.- 'Yithout further preface ,ye 

It is presluned that "Te shall be rendering acceptaLlc 
scryice in certain quarters if,-before investigating the par- 
ticular Theory ,vhich has been proposed for cOllsideratioll,-\\re 
ellÙea\-Uur to gi\-e the unlearned English TIeader SOUle general 
notion, (it nUlst perforce be a yery iInperfcct one,) of the 
nature of the controversy to ,yhich the Theory now to be 
cunsidered Lelongs, and out of ,yhich it has sprung, Clainl- 
ing to be an attelnpt to determine the Truth of 
cripture on 
scientific principles, the ,york before us 1uay be regarded as 
the late
t outconle of that violent recoil fro1n the Traditional 
Ureek Tcxt,-that strange Ï1upaticnce uf it" authority, or 




[A 1

rather denial that it possesses any authority at all,-\vhich 
began ,\
ith Laclunann just 50 years ago (viz. in 1831), and 
has prevailed ever since; its nlust conspicuuus promoters 
being Tregelles (1857 -7
) and Tischendorf (1865-72). 

The true nature of the Principles \vhich respectively 
aninlate the t\yO parties in this controversy is at this tÏIne as 
luuch as ever,-perhaps '!/tore than e\
er,-popularly nâsunder- 
stoud. The conln1on vie\v uf the contention in ,,-hich they 
arc engaged, is certainly tht' reverse of cOlllpIÏ1llelltary to the 

rhuol of \vhich 1)1'. Scrivener is the mo:-;t accolllplished living 
exponent. We hear it confidently aSRerted that the conten- 
tion is nothing else but an irrationa] endeavour on the one 
part to set up the lUallY Illodern against the fe"T ancient 
'Vitnesses ;-the later cursiye copies against the' old IT ncials ;' 
-inveterate tra(litional Error against undouhted prÏ111itive 
Truth, The disciples of thp neW pupular school, on the con- 
trary, are represented as relying exclusively on Antiquity. 
'Ve respectfully assure as Tuan,y as require the assurance, 
that the actual contention is of an entirely different nature. 
But, before \ve offer a single \vorrl in the \vay of explanation, 
let the position of our assailants at least be correctly ascer- 
tained and clearly established. \Ve have already been con- 
strained to some extent to go over this ground: but "Te 'will 
not repeat oursel Yes. The l{eader is referred back, in the 
Ineall tinle, to pp. 21-24, 

'S ruling principle then, \vas exclusiye reliance 
on a very fe\v ancient authorities-bcca'ltsc they are t ancient,' 
He constructed his Text on three or four,-not unfrequently 
on one or two,-Greek codices. Of the Greek Fathers, he 
relied on Origen. Of the oldest Versions, he cared only for 
the Latin. To the Syriac (concerning \vhich, see above, p. 9), 
he I)aid !lO attention. We venture to think his method 




Ù.,.atioIL l. Dut this is really a ]Juint un which tlh' thuught- 
ful reader is cOlllpetent to judge fur hilll
elf. lIe is inyited 
tu read the nute at fuot of the page. J 

TREGELLE:-3 adopted the sanlC strange luethod. He resorted 
to a \.ery fe\v out of the entire lnass of ' ancient... \uthorities ' 
1'111' tlw construction of his Text, Iris pruceeding is exactly 
that of a nUln, \vho-in order that he lllay the lJetter explure 
a curnparatively unknO\Vll regiun-begins by putting out both 
hil:> eye8; and resolutely refu
ms the help of the llative:-3 
to sho\v hiIn the \vay. IVhy ht' rejected the testÏ1nuny uf 
'I'erg }'atlw1' of the 1 Vth tentn1"!I, w.;ccpt .b?lu,cbiztð,-it \vere 
unprufitable tù enquire, 

l'I::;CHEXDORF, the last anù Ly far the aLlcst Critic of the 
three, knew Letter than to reject' riyhl!J-,ân' nindi -tlM' of 
the extant ,vitnesses. He had recourse to the ingenious expe- 
Jient of adduciny all the available evidence, but aduptÍlL!/ 
just as little of it as he chose: and he cho
c tu adopt those 
readings only, ,,
hich arc vouched fur bj the 
allle little band 
of authorities \vhuse partial testÏ1110ny had already pruved 
fatal to the decrees of Lacllluann and Tregelles. Happy in 
having discovered (in 1859) an uncial codex (N) second in 
antiquity only to the uldCðt befure kno\vn ( B), antI strongly 

1 'Agmen ducit Carolus Lachmannu
 (N. 7', Berolini 18-l
-f)O), ingenii 
viriLu:s et eleganti:l doctrinæ haud pluri bu:s impar; editor 1'. T. audaciur 
(l'lam limatior: cujus textulll, a. reeepto IOllgè deecùenteIll, tautopere 
jwlicibus lj uihu
clam subtiliorihus placui
sc jamdudum miramuI': lluippc 
lilli, ahjectâ tot eæterorllm eoclieum Græeorum ope, perpaucis antiquis- 

imi:) (nee iis integri:-;, nec per eum 
atis :wcnratè eollatis) innixus, 1ibro
"a.l'ros ad ISæculi pu:st Chrbtulll II uarti normam resti tui:sse :si hi viJeatllr; 
Yersionulll I'lIrrù (cujuslihet euùieis éptatem faciJè :mperantiull1) b,} riacæ 
atll'le ...}:gyptiacarunl cflntemptor, llcutrius lingua"' peritus; Latinarum 
cllntrà nimills fautor, præ BClltlcio ipso nentleianus.'-
tu Suo. Test, leJ'tûs ;:)tepluwici, &c, 
ce aLuvc, p. 
, Iwte. 





resenlLling that fanlous IVth-century codex in the character 
of its contents, he suffered his jll\lg111ent to be OVcl'}Ju\vered 
by the circulllstance. He at once (1
G5-72) rClnudelled his 
7th edition (1856-9) in 

503 pla
es,-' tu the scandal of the 
e of COlllparati ve Critieislll, as "\,ell as to his uwn grave 
discrellit for discernUlent and cunsistency.' 1 And yet he 
kIle\y con
erning Cod. N, that at least ten llifferent llevisers 
floln the 'Tth century dU\\Tn1\ T ardB lUHl lalJoured to reluedy 
the scandalously corrupt eundition of a text which, 'as it 
proceeded frOIll the first scrilJt',' even Tregelles describes as 
, very Iróu!JIt.' 2 TIut in fact the infatuation \vhich prevails to 
this hour in this depal'tIlleut of sacred Science can only be 
spoken of as illcrel1ible. Enough has been said to sho,,
(the only point \ve are bent on estahlishing)-that the one 
llistillcti,'e tenet of the three Blost falnous Critics since 1831 
has been a superstitious reyel'ence for ,,'hate\'er is found in 
tl'ie srunc little hundflli of early,--but nut the earliest,-nor 
yet of necessity tlte PllJ'cst,-doclunents. 

Against this arlJitrary lllethud uf theirs "-e solclnnly, stiffly 
reUlollstrate. 'Strange,' \ve yellture to exclaÏ111, (address- 
ing the liying represel1tati,
es of the school of Laclnnann, 
and Tregelles, and Tischendorf) :-' Strange, that you should 
not perceive that you are the dUIJcs of a fallacy \yhich 
is even transparent, You ta1k of "Antiquity." But you must 
kno\v yery \yell that you actually '}/lcan sonlethillg different. 
 uu fasten upon three, or perhaps four,-on t\VO, or 1)01'- 
hap:-, tlll'ee,-on one, or ]1crhl'ps two,-clocUlllents of the IVth 
or \Tth century. But then, confessedly, these are one, t\VO, 
three, or four spceÍ'Jnens only of .A.ntiquity,-not " Antiquity" 
itself, .A.nLl \vhat if they should even prove to be 
sa'lnplCS of Antiquity? Thus, you are olJseryed ahvays to 

1 Scrivener's IntJ'od'ltction, p. -129. 

2 N. T. Part II. p. 2 

III ] 



quote cod. n or at least co(!.
. Pray, ".hy may not the Truth 
reside instead ,vith 
\, or c, or D 1-\'" ou quote the 01(1 T..ntin 
or the Coptic. 'Vhy 111ay not the I>eschito or the Snhidic 
be right rather ?- Y ou quote either Origen ur else EuselJius, 
-hut 'v by not I)i(lynlus ana .....\thanasius, El'iphanius and 
Basil, ChrysostolIl nn(l Theuduret, the Gregcries and the 
Cyrils? . . . . It 'will appear therefore that \ye are every bit 
ns strongly convince( 1 as you can lJe of the paralllount clnÜns 
of ' Antiquity:' but that, esche"Ting prejudice and partiality, 
\\ e differ frorn yon unly in this, viz. that 've absolutely refuse 
to bO\\T do"Tn lJefore the j}a7"ticular specirncns of A IltÏrj 7 lÍty 
".hich you lun.e arbitrarily selected as the objects of your 
superstition. You are illogicnl enough to propose to include 
within your list of "ancient 
\uthorities," co(ld, 1, 33 and 69, 
-which are seyerally :\1;-38. of the Xth, Xlth, anù XI\'"th 
centuries. And ,yhy? Only because the Text of those 3 
copies is obseryed to hear a sinister reseulblance to that of 
codex ß. nut then why, in the nallle of conlBlon sense, do you 
not sho,\" cnrrespolll1illg favour to the renulÌning 997 cursi ye 
Copies of the 
,T,,-seeing that these are obseryed to bear 
tlU) S(t1}W !Jc1uTrÛ 'j'c8clnblltIlCC to code,
 .\ ? , . . You are for ever 
talking about" uld I
eë:tdings." Have you not yet discovered 
that ALL " Readings" are " OLD" ? ' 

The last contribution to this departInent of sacred 
is a critical edition of the N e,v Testêunellt 1>y I)rs, 'VESTCOTT 
and HORT. About thi'3, ,ve proceed to offer a fe,v relnarks. 

I. The first thing here "Thich unfayourablyarrests atten- 
tion is the circulllstance that this proves to 1 Ie the only 
Critical Edition of the X e"T Testan1ent since the days of l\Iill, 
,vhich does not even pretend to contrihute 
olllething to our 
previous critical kno,vledge uf the subject. 1\Iill it ,vas 
(1707) ,vIto gave us the grt>at hulk of uur Ynriou


,vhich Bengel (1734) slightly, and Wet stein (1751-2) very 
considerably, enlargetl.-The accurate l\latthæi (1782-8) ac- 
quainted us \yith the contents of ahout 100 codices more; and 
,vas follo\ved hy Griesbach (17
'6-1806) with Ï1npoTtant addi- 
tional Inaterials,- Rirch had in the nleantime (1788) culle(l 
froln the principal libraries of "Europe a large i.lSSortulent of 
new l{eadings: ,vhile truly 11larvel1ou
 the accession of 
evidence which Schulz l)rought to light in 1830,-And 
though I.Jaclullann (1842-50) òid ,\ondrous littl
 in this 
departn1ent, he yet furnished the critical authority (such as 
it is) for his own unsatisfactory Text.-Trt>gelles (lR57-72), 
by his exact collatious of 1\188. and exa1l1inatioll uf the 
earliest Fathers, has laid the Church under an ahiding 
ohligation: and ,,
hat is to he said of Tischendorf (1856-72), 
who has contributed IHore to our kno\vledge than any other 
editor of the N. T. since the days of 1vlill 1-])r. Scrivener, 
though he has not independently erlited the original Text, is 
clearly to be reckoned alllong those who "({1
e, by reason of 
his large, Ünportant, and accurate contrihutions to our kno\\T- 
ledge of ancient doculnents. Transfer his collections of 
various Headings to the foot of the page of a copy of the 
comnlonly Heceived Text,-and ' Scri
'ener's ..I.V('1V Tcstarncnt'l 
nlÏght stand het,yeen the editions of Mill and of 'Vetstein. 
Let thp truth be told, C. F. ]'latthæi and he are the only 
t'lVO Schola1"s 'who ha'Ce collated any considerable n111nbcr of 
sacred Codire.,; with the needful amount of accuracy.2 

1 Noone who attends ever 
o little tu the subject can require to he 

ur('d that · Tlte .1.\ l W Testament in tlte Uì'igiuul G 'reek, according to tlte 
text jo7lou'ed in thr AutJlOJ'ized l
cn;io1t, to!Jdltcr with. tile variatiulis udujJlu[ 
"'11 the Revised rCl'sion,' edited hy ])1'. Scrivener for the Syndics uf the 
Cambridge University Pre
s, 1881, does not by any means represent hi
own views. rl'he learned Prebendary nlerely edited the deci
ion8 uf the 
 majurity of the Heviðiuni
t:-;,-w"iclt wt:l'e /lot Ilis OWlt. 
2 rrho
e who have never tried the experin1ent, can have no idea of the 
strain on the attention which sUl
h workð a
e enulnerated in p. 238 

II 1.] 



x ow, \\ye trust \\ye :shall he forgi \yen if, at the close of the 
precetlillg ellUllleration, \\ye confess to sOlllething like ùis- 
pleasure at the uracular tone assulneù by VI's. \Vestcott and 
110rt in dealing \vith the Text of Scripture, though they 
adn1Ït (page 
O) that they' rely for (locumentary evidence on 
thl A stores accuillulateù Ly their predecessors.' Confident a
 llistinguished Prufessors lllay reasuuably feel uf their 
ahility to clispense \'Tith the ordillary appliances of Textual 
Uriticislll; and prouù (as they Ulust naturally l)e) of a verify- 
ing faculty which (although they are al)le to gi\ye nu account 
of it) yet enables thelll infallil)ly to discrÏ1ninate bet\veen the 
e and the true, as \\yell as tu as
ign ' a local habitation and 
a nalllP' to every \\yord,-inspired or uninspired,-\vhich 
purports to Lelung to the X. T. :-they Blust not Le offended 
\vith us if \\Te freely assure them at the outset that \ve shall 
decline to accept a 
ingle argulllentative assertion of theirs 
for \\yhich they fail to offer sufficient proof, Their \vholly 
unsupported decrees, at the risk of being thought uncivil, \\ye 
shall uncerenlouiously reject, as soon as \\ye have alIo\ yed 
thenl a hearing, 

This resol ye Lodes ill, \ve freely admit, to harIlloniou
progress. But it is inevita LIe. For, to speak plainly, \ve 
never before met \vith snch a singular tissue of n1agisterial 
statelllellts, unsupported hy a particle of ratioual eyidell
e, a
we llleet \\yith here. The ahstruse grayity, the long-\vil1ded 
earne::5tness of the ,,"'riter's lUanneI', cuntrast \vhÜllsically 
"ith the utterly inconSe(luential character of his antecedents 

(note) occasion, 
\.t the 
lne time, it cannot be too clearly understood 
that it is chiefly by the multiplication of exact collations of :\lSS. that 
an al,iding foundation will 
ome day be laid on which to build up the 
Science úf Textual Criticism. ".,. e may safely keep our ' Theories' l
till we have collated our 
.,-re-edited our \" crsior.s,-indexed our 
FathEr;,. They will be abundantly in time then, 




and his consequents throughout, Professor Hort-(for 'the 
,vriting of the volume and the other accompaniments of the 
Text clevol ved' on him, I )-Dr. Hort seelns to mistake his 
Opinions for facts,-his Assertions for arguments,-and a 
Reiteration of either for an accession of evidence. There is 
throughout the volume, apparently, a dread of Facts ,vhich is 
cyen extraordinary. An actual illustration of the learned 
Author's meaning,-a concrete case,-seelns as if it were 
never forthcon1Ïng. At last it COlnes: but the phenonlenon 
is straightway discovered to adInit of at least two interpre- 
tations, and therefore never to prove the thing intended. 
In a person of high education,-in one accustomed to exact 
reasolling,-"\ye should haye supposed all this inlpossilJle, . . . . 
But it is high tÏlne to unfold the Introduction at the first 
page, and to begin to read, 

II. It opens (p. 1-11) ,vith some unsatisfactory Remarks 
on 'Transn1Ïssion by Writing;' vague and inaccurate,-unsup- 
por:ted by one single Textual reference, -and labouring under 
the grave defect of leaving the nlost instructive phenonlena 
of the problem wholly untouched. For, inasIIluch as ' Trans- 
Dlission by writing' involves two distinct classes of errors, 
(1st) Those which are the result of Accident,-and (2ndly) 
Those ,vhich are the result of Desifjn,-it is to use a TIeader 
l)adly not to take the earliest opportunity of eXplaining to 
hÏ1n that ,vhat makes codd. B 
 D such utterly untrust\vorthy 
guides, (except ',vhen supported by a large anloullt of ex- 
traneous evidence,) is the circumstance that Dcsign. had 
evidently so nluch to do with a vast proportion of the peculiar 
errors in which they severally abound. In other ,vords, 
each of those codices clearly exhibits a fabricated Text,- 
is the result of arbitrary and reckless Recension. 

1 IntrodlLction, .p. 18. 




Now', this is not a luatter of opinion, hut of fact. III 
R. Luke's Gospel alonc (collated \\Tith the traditional Text) 
the fra1lRjJ{)sitio/ls in co(lex n anlount to 22S,-atlccting GGJ 
"'0]'(18: in c()(lex H, to 4()-!,-atfe
ting 1401 \\ OT(ls. I)rocee<l- 
ing with onr e:\.an1Ínatiun of the bfllue Gospel according to 
p., T.Juke, ,ve find that the ,vor(ls o'lnittcd in n are 757,-in D, 
1552, The ,vonls szÛ);)titnted in R aIIlount to 309,-in D, to 
lOuG. The readings peculiar to n are 138, and affect 215 
,vords ; - those peculiar to D, are 1731, anù affect 40
\\Torùs. 'V ondrous fe,v of these can have been due to acci- 
dcntal causes. The Text of one or of both codices nlust 
ds be depraved. (As for N, it is so frequently found in 
accord", ith R, that out of consideration for our Readers, "Te 
Olllit the corresponding figures.) 

'Ve turn to codd. A\ and c-( executed, suppose, a hundred 
years after B, and a hundred years before D)-and the figures 
are found to be as follo,vs :- 

In A. In c. 
The transpositions are 75 G7 
affecting . . . 199 ,vords 197 
The ,vords omitted are 208 175 
The \\Tords substituted 111 115 
The peculiar readings 90 87 
affecting . . . 131 ,yards 127 

No", (as \ve had occasion to explain in a prcyious page, I) 
it is entirely to nlÏsullderstand the question, to ohject that 
the preceding Collation has been lllade \\ ith the Text of 
Stephanus open hefore us. TIolJert Etienne in the X"\Tlth 
century ,vas not thc causc "hy cod. R in the IVth, and cod. D 
in the '71th, are so "Tidely discordant fron1 one another; 
A and c, Sf' utterly at variance ,vith hath. Tho siIuplest 

ec lower part of page 17. ...\lso Iwh.' at p. 7:5 and midtlle of p, 2()2. 




explanation of the phenolnena is the truest; nanH
ly, that B 
and D exhibit gTossly depl'ave(l Texts ;-a cÏ1.cUlll
tance of 
w'hich it is Ï1npossiLle that the ordinary Reader should lJè too 
soon or too uften ren1Ïnded, But tu proceed, 

III. Sonl(-"} reillarks follow, on "'hat is strangely styled 
nnission lJY pr
nted ]
ditiolls :' in the course of \vhich 
Dr. Hort inforIlls us that Lacluuann's Text of 1831 \vas 
'the first founded on doculuentary authority,' I . . . . On 
'ifllCd then, pray, (loes thp learned }>rofessor imagine that 
the Texts of Eraslllus (1516) and of Stunica (15
2)' \\Tere 
founded? His statel11ellt is incorrect. The actual difference 
het".een Lachlllann's Text and tho:-ìe of the earlier Editors is, 
that his 'docunlentary authority' is partial, J unTO \\., self- 
eontradictory; and is proyed to he lultrust\vorthy hy a free 
appeal to .Antiquity. Their documentary authority, derived 
from independent sources,-though partial and narro\v as 
that on \vhich Lachnlann relied,-exhibits (undcr the good 
Proridenee of GOD,) a Traditional Text, the general purity 
of \vhich is delllonstrated Lyall the evidence \vhich 350 
yearR of subsequent research ha"e succeeded in accunlU- 
lating; and \yhich is confessedly the Text of A.D, 375. 

IV. "r e are favoured, in the third place, \vith the' History 
of this Edition:' in ,,?hich the point that chiefly arrests 
attention is the explanation afforded of the Inany and serious 
occasions on which Dr. Westcott (' W.') and Dr. Hort (' H.'), 
finding it in1possible to agree, have set do\vn their respective 
notions separately and subscribed them ,vith their respective 
initial. 'Vl} are reminded of \vhat \vas \vittily said con- 
cerning Richard Baxter: viz. that even if no one but himself 
existed in the Church, 'IUchard' \vould still be found to 

1 p, 13, cf, p. yiii. 

II r.] 



disagree ".ith 'Baxter,'-an<l 'Baxter' ".ith 'Uichal'tl' . . . . 
'Ve reaù ".ith uneasiness that 

, no individual lliind can ever act with perfect unifurmity, ur 
free itself cUlupletely from it.
 UlVn Idios!Jncrasies;' and that 
'the danger of lWCOJlSC;OltS Capl'.ice is inseparable from personal 
judgnlent.' ---(po 17.) 

.\ll thi
 rell1Ïnds us painfully of certain stateillents l1Htùe 
l)y the saIne Editurs in 1870 :- 
, 'Ve are obliged to come to the individual mind at last; and 
Canuns of Criticism are useful only as \varnings against natural 
illusions, and aids to CirCUlllSpect consideration, not as absolute 
rules to prescribe the final decision.'-(pp. xviii., xix.) 
l\fay \\Te be pennitted w"ithont uffence to point out (not for 
the first tÏIne) that 'idiosyncrasies' and 'unconscious caprice,' 
and the fancies of the' individual mind,' can be allo"Ted no 
place 'wllafc7"rr in a problenl of 
uch grayity and inlportance 
as the present? Once admit such elelnents, and ,ve are 
safe to find ourselves in cloud-land to-ulorrow. A ".eaker 
foundation on "Thich to build, is not to he nanled. And 
"Then w.e find that the learned Profe

ors 'venture to hope 
that the present Text hns escaped sonle risks of this kind by 
being the production of t\yO Editors of different habits of 
nlÏlld, \yorking independently and to a great extent on 
different plnns,' -,ve can but ayo,v our conviction that the 
safeguard is altogether inaùeq nate. 'Vhen two men, devoted 
to the S
l1ne pursuit, are in daily cunfidential intercourse on 
Huch a :-;ubject, the 'Natural illusions' of either haYe a 
lllaryelluu:s tendency to COlllllllulÍcate theillseives. Thcir 
Hcader's only protectiun is rigidly to 
nsÜst on the production 
uf ])roof for e\ érythiu
 \vhieh these authurs say. 

,.,.. The dissertation on 'Intrinsic' and 'Transcriptional 
l)robahility' ,vhich follo\,?s (pp. 20-30),-being unsupported 
by one Sill!Jl(' i,u;;anc( or illllslrrliioll,-WC Vêl:jS by. It ignorc




throughout the fact, that the 1nost serious corruptions of 
1\[88. are due, not to '8cril )es' or ' Copyists,' (of \vh(nn, hy 
the \vay, \ve find perpetual lllentioll every tÜne \ve open the 
page;) but to the persons ,,-ho on1ployed thelll. So far fronl 
thinking \vith Dr. Hort that 'the value of the evidence 
oLtailled fr01n Transcriptional rrolJalJility is incontestaùle,' 
-for that, '\vithout its aid, Textual Criticism could rarely 
oùtain a high degree of security,' (p, 24,)-\ve venture to 
declare that inasllluch as one expert's notions of \"hat is 
'transcriptionally pro haLle' prove to be the diallletrical 
reverse of another expert's notions, the supplJsed evidence 
to be derived fronl thÜ
 sonrce Inay, \vith aùvantage, 1e 
neglectetl altogether. Let the study of ])oC1l1ìlcntaTY El:idcncc 
be allo\ved to take its place, N otioBs of ' ProLability , are 
the very pest of those departInents of Science \yhich <ltbnit 
of an appeal to J/act. 

VI. ..A. signal proof of the justice of our last remark is 
furnished by the plea \vhich is straight\"ay put in (pp. 30-1) 
for the superior necessity of attending to ' the relative ante- 
cedent credibility of 'Vitnesses.' In other \yorùs, 'The com- 
parative trust\vorthiness of doculllelltary ..A..uthorities' is 
proposed as a far \\
eightier consideration than 'Intrinsic' 
and 'Transcriptional l)robability.' Accordingly \V'e are 
assured (in capital letters) that 'ICllo\\Tledge of Docullleuts 
should precede final judglllent UPOll reaùings' (p. 31), 

, ICnu\vledge ' ! Yes, but ho\v acquired? Suppose t\VO 
riyal doculllents,-cod. A and cod. B. 
Iay \ve be inforlned 
-ho,v you would proceed ,vith respect to them? 

, 'Vhere one of the documents is found habitually to contain 
mO'l.ally certain, or at least strongly preferred, Readings,-and the 
other habitually to contain their rejected rivals,-"ve [i.e. Dr. 
HortJ can have no doubt that the rrext of the first l1as been 




tran...n1itted in comparati \'0 purity; and that the 'rext of tho 

econd ha:s :suffered comparativèly large corruption.'-( p. :32.) 
ut Can bUl'h ,yonls haye hCCll ,yrittcn seriously? Is 
it gr(lyely pretended that ]:eadings Lccollle ' IItoTally c rtrrin,' 
l)ecause they are 'st1'oJl[Jly þ1YfcTrcd'? _\..re \ve (in other 
'nn'd::;) seriously inyitetl to adlllÎt that the 'STROXG rHEFE- 
HEXCr:' of 'the intliyiùual Inillù' is to Le the ultinulte 
standard of appeal? If so, though YOll (1)1'. 110rt) lllay 
'It DC no doubt' as to "rhich is the purer Inanuscript,-see 
yuu not plainly that a luan of different' idiosyncrasy' from 
yuurself, llUl.Y just as reasonaLly claÏ1n to 'hayc no doubt' 
--that YOlt arc rnistaÀ'cJl ? . . . One is relllÎ1Hletl of a passage 
ill p, Gl: Yiz.- 
'If ,ve find in any group of documents a succession of 
H('aJings exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, tha.t i
lleatlill!Js which the fullest cOllsidenltion of Internal Erirlence 
j)l'Onnu.tlCes to be ri!Jld, in oppuÛtion to fút"ntidable arrays of 
Ducumentary Evidence; tho cau
e ruu:::t be that, as far at least as 
thcsù Reaùings are concerned, some one exceptionally pure M
,vas the comnlon ancestor of all the members of the group.' 
But ho,v ùoes that appear? 'The cause' 'inay Le thc crr()- 
IlCUUS judgnLcnt of the Critic,-lnay it not? . . . Dr. Hort is 
fur setting up ,,-hat his O'Yll inner consciousness' pronounces 
tu be right,' against 'Doculneutary Eyidence,' ho,vever n111l- 
tiÜHliuous, He claiuls that his o\yn ycrifyillg faculty shall Le 
snpreIue,-shall settle every question, Can he be in earnest? 

VII. 'Y"l} are ncxt intro(luceù to the subject uf 'Genea- 
logical E\"idellee' (p. 3U); and are lllade attelltiye: for "?c 
spee(1ily filltl uur::sel ve::) challenged to atlulÌt that a 'total 
change in the Learing ûf the eyidellCe' is ' luade Ly the intro- 
duction of the factor of Uenealogy' (p. 4:.:>). l)resun1Ïllg 
that the ntcanin[J uf the learned \Y riteI' Blust rather IJe that 
if we did but J..:,ww the genealogy of .:\l
S" \ye should be ill a 
pusitiull to reil:-5un IllUre confidently cOllcerning their Texts,- 


DU. IIOlt'fAXU THE 'JIl...'1'lIUlJ 


\ve read un: and sþeedily COBle to a 
ecund nxicHll (which i:.;; 
again printed in capital letters), viz. that' .A11 truRt\vorthy 

toration of corrupted Texts is founded on the study of 
their History' (p. 40), \,r e really read and \vunder. Are 
"'e then engaged in the' rC8toj'ution of l'or1'll1Jtcd Tc.cts'? If 
Ro,-\vhich 1.e they? "r e requil'e-(l) To he sho\vn tIte 
, CU1Tuptal Tc.L'fs' referred to: and then-(2) To be eOllyincl}d 
that 'the study of theil' History' -( as distinguished frUlll an 
l1nillation uf the evidence for or against thci1' llcadiJlfjs)- 
is a thing feasil,le. 
, A simple instance' (says Dr. Hort) '\vill show at onl'e the 
practical bearing' of ' the principle here laid down.' -(po 40.) 
But (as usual) Dr. Hort produces no instance. He luerely 
proceeds to 'suppose' a case (
 50), ,vhich he confesses (
does not exist. So that \ye are nloyiug in a land of shadows, 
.A ntI this, he straight\vay follo\vs up by the assertion that 
, it would be difficult to insist too strongly on the transforma- 
tion of the superficial aspects of numerical authority effected by 
recognition of Genealogy.'-(p. 43.) 
1 Þrcsently, he nssurèS us that 
'a few documents are not, by reason of their lnerc paucity, 
:\ppreciably less likely to be right than a multitude oppo
ed to 
theIn.' (p. 45.) 
On this head, ,ve take leaYe to entertniu a some'what 
difterent upinion. .Apart front the cha1'actu' of the HTitllÆSSCð, 
,,-heu 5 men say one thing, alld 

5 say the exact contra- 
dictory, \\e are apt to regard it even as axiolnatic that, 'by 
reasðh of their nlere paucity,' the fe\v 'are appreciably far 
less likely to be right thall tIle lnultitude opþused tu theJn.' 
Dr. Hort seelllS tu share our opinion; for he relnarks,- 
'A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant 
documents is more likely to repre
ent a majority of ancestral 
dUCUllWllts, than vice 'l,'C1'SlÎ.' 

III ] 

uP nR.V1?ALOnY:-C()f)(('E
 B AX]) 

 ;} ;"'; 

Exaet]y so! 'Ve Ineant, i.llHl \ye Blean that, ëlnd n0 uther 
thing. But theIl, we yenture to point out, that the learned 
1 t ru fe:'5sor con:;ideraLly understates the case: seeing that the 
''liie 'Ce7
sâ prc...,u/Jllptiuli' is absulutely non-existent. On the 
other hanù, apart fronl ]>roof to the contrary, \ve are (lisposeù 
to Inaintaill that 'a luajority of extant tlocuments' in the 
proportion uf 99G to 5,- and souletÏ1nes of 1

 to 1,- 
creates Illore than' a presunlption,' It allluunts to 1)1'001 of ' it 
majority of anccstral docU'/Ilcnts,' 

X ot so thinks Dr, Hort. 'This preslnnption,' (he seenlS to 
have persua(led hÏInseIf,) lnay bp disposed of by his luere 
ass(11'tion that it 'is too luinute to \veigh against the slnallest 
tangihle e\
idcnce of other kinds' (Ibid,), As usual, ho\v- 
(,yer, lit, furnishes us \vith '/10 evidcnce at all,-' taugihle t or 
'intangible,' Can he ,yonder if "Te sll1Ïle at his unsupported 
dictum, and pass on? . .. The argulllentatiye Ílnport of hi
twenty weary pages OIl ' Genealogical Eyidcnce' (PI" 39-59), 
appears to be resol va LIe into the follo\viug barren trui:;lll: 
viz. That if, out of 10 copies of :::;criptul'e, 9 could be pfocal 
to have Lecn executed fruln one and the same COInmon 
original (p, -11), those 9 would cease to be regarded as 
ilHlt'pelulent \vitnesses. But does the learned Critic really 
fl'(plÏre to he tùld that \H:
 \"ant no diagralll of all Í1naf,rinary 
e (p, G4) tu con yiuce us of thai? 

The oue thing here which llloves our astonishment, is, that 
1)1', 110rt dOe
 nut seelll to reflect that therefore (indceù ùy 
his ()ten ðhuwÍJ1!J) codices H and 
, haying been dcmo//:itrably 
" if 1 I ., I " 
executel rUIn vue aUl t Ie sanle C0111nl01l ungllHt, are not 
to Le reckoned as tu:o independent witnesses tu tlw Text uf 
the .x e\V Testalllcnt, Lut as little more than U7le, (See p, 237,) 

High tilHe ho".ever is it to tleclare that, in strictness, 
all this talk a l)out 'Geuealogical l
vidence,' ,,
hen . applieù to 




l\lanuscripts, is-'ìnoonshine. The expression is llletaphorical, 
and aSSUlllCS that it has fared \vith l\ISS. as it fares ,vith the 
sncccssi '
e gcnerations of a ftunily; and so, to a rClnarka1lc 
extent, no ùou1t, it has. TIut then, it happens, unfurtunately, 
that \ve are unacquainted ,vith one single instance of a kno,vn 

IS. copied fron1 another known 
IS. .A.nd perforce all talk 
ahout 'Genealogical eyidence,' ,vhere 'hO single step in the 
dC8ecnt can 1e proùuced,-in other ,vords, 'where no Genealo- 
gical evidence cxists,-is al)surc1. The living inhabitants 
of a yillage, congregated in the churchyard \vhere the 
I )odies of their furgotten progenitors for 10UO years repose 
,,'ithout Illel110rials of any killd,-is a faint image of the 
relation \vhich buùsists Let,yeen extant copies of the Gospels 
anù the sour<.;e
 froln ,vhich they ,yere derivetl. That, in 
either caSe, there ha:; Leen repeated u1Íxture, is undeniable; 
l)ut since tIt.. l)arish-register is lost, antI not a ve
tige of 
Tr:.ulition survives, it is idle to pretend to argue on thctt part 
of the subject, It rnay be reason aLly aSSH1l1ed huwever 
that those 50 yeoIllcn, 1earìng as Iuany Saxon surnanles, 
indicate as lllany relllote anccstors of sonle sort. That they 
represent as lllany ja'milics, is at least a 
f(lct, Further ,,
canllot go. 

nut the illustration is misleading, because inadequate. 
AssenlLle rather an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scot; a 
Frcnclunau, a Gerrnan, a Spaniard; a Ilussian, a Pole, an 
Jlungarian; an Italian, a Greek, a Turk. ..FruIn Noah these 
12 are all confessedly descended; but if they are silent, and 
YUlt- kno\y nothing \vhatever about their antecedents,-your 
relnarks about their l'espective 'genealogies' .nlust needs 
prove as barren-as Dr. Hort's about the' genealogies' of 
copies of Scripture. 'The fact01
 of Genealogy,' in short, in 
this discussion, represents a mere phantonl of the Ll'ain: is 
the nallle of an ilnagination--not uf a fact, 




The nearest approximation to the phenolncnon about ,yhich 
] )1'. Hort \vrites so gliLly, is supplied-(I) by Codd. F and G 
of s. raul, ,vhich are found to be independent transcripts of 
the saUle veueraLle lost original :-(2) Ly Codd. 13, 69, 124 
and 3-:16, ,,'hich \vere confessedly derived fronl one and the 
saIne queer archetype: and cspcciall!J-(3) by Codcl. B and 
These t\VO famous Inanuscripts, because they are disfigured 
exclusively by the self-sanle n1Ìstakcs, are convicted of being 
desccnded (and not very renlotely) fronl the self-sanle very 
corrnpt original. By consequence, the cOlllbined evidence 
of F arid G is but that of a single codex. Evan. 13, 69, 124, 
346, \vhen they agree, ,vould be conveniently designated by 
a synlbo1, or a single capital letter.. Codd. B and 
, as already 
hinted (p. 255), are not to be reckoned as t,vo ,vitnesses. 
Certainly, they have not nearly the Textual significancy and 
Í111portance of B in conjunction \yith A, or of A in conjunction 
,,'ith c. At best, they do but equal1! copies. Nothing of 
this kind ho,vever is \vhat Drs. 'Vestcott and Hort intend 
to convey,-or Üideed seem to understand. 

VIII. It is not until ,ve reach p. 94, that these learned nlen 
favour us \vith a single actual appeal to Scripture. At p. 90, 
Dr. Hort,-,vho has hitherto been ski.Tlnishing oyer the 
ground, and leaving us to ,vander \vhat in the "Torld it can 
be that he is driving at,-announces a chapter on the 
'ltesults of Genealogical evidence proper;' and proposes to 
'ùetennine the Genealogical relations of the chief ancient 
Texts.' Ilupatient for argument, (at page 92,) ,ve read as 
follo,vs :- 

, The fundaInental Text of late extant Greel(, .1JISS. generally 
iF: beyond all qne8tion identical with the dominant Antiochian 
or Græco-SJ 7 rian Text of the 8ccond ltalf of tlie foltrtlt century.' 
\Ye rcquest, in passing, that the foregoing statClllent may 
Le carefully nuted, The Traditiollalt1reek Text of the N C\v 




Testament,-the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, in short,-is, according to 
Dr. Hort, 'BEYO
HALF OF THE }'OURTH CENTURY.' "r e shall gratefully avail 
ourselves of his candid adlnission, by and by. 

Having thus a:;sll'JJwd a ' don1Ïnant Antiochian or Græco- 
Syrian text of the second half of the IVth century,' Dr. H. 
attenlpts, by an analysis of ,vhat he is pleased to call' C01t- 
flah Readings,' to prove the 'posteriority of "SJ'Tian" to 
" "\Vestern" and other "N eutral" l'eadings.' . . . Strange 
Iuethoc1 of procedure! seeing that, of those second and thinl 
classes of readings, we have not as yet so llluch as heard 
the names. Let us however ,yithout more delay be ShO"-ll 
those specimens of 'Conflation' ,yhich, in Dr. Hort's judg- 
ment, supply {the clearest eyidence' (p. 94) that' Syrian' 
are posterior alike to ",r estern' and to 'N eutral readings.' 
Of these, after 30 years of laborious research, Dr. "r estcott 
and he flatter themselves that they have succeeded in de- 
tecting eight. 

IX. Now' because, on the one hand, it would be unreason- 
able to fill up the space at our disposal \vith details ,vhich 
none but professed students ,viII care to read ;-and because, 
on the other, ,ve cannot afford to pass by anything in these 
pages w'hich pretends to be of the nature of proof ;-we haye 
consigned our account of Dr. Hort's 8 instances of Conjla- 
tion (,vhich prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.] 

1 They are as follows:- 
[1st] s. 
lark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, 
when they beheld our SAVIOUR and His Disciples departing in order to 
cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot thither,-(a)' and 
outwent the1n-(ß) and came together unto Hirn' (i.e. on His :stepping out 
of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely hnagines [po 99], on His emerging 
from the scene of His 'retirement' in ' SOlne sequestered nook '). 
Kow here, A suh
titutes uVlIÉòpapov [sic] for UVV
 B with the 
Coptic and the Yulg, omit clause ({3).-D omits clause (a). but substitute
, there' (ntlToû) [(II' 'unto I/Ùn' in clause (ß),-exhibits therefore a 




Ana, after nn attentive survey of the Te)..tual phenOH1ClHt 
connected "7ith thèse 7 specimens, \ve are constrained to 

fabricated text.- The t;yriac cunden
es the two clauses thus :-' got there 
befure lIim.'-I., ð, G
), and -! or 5 of the ûld Latin copies, read diversely 
from all the rest and from one another. rrhe present is, in fact, one of 
those many places in S, :Mark's Gospel where all i
 contradiction in those 
depraved witnes
es which Lachmann made it his businc:-,s to bring into 
hion. Of Confusion there is plenty. 'Conflation '-as the Header 
scc::;-thcre is none. 
[2ndJ In 8. 
Iark viii. 26, our SA VIOUR (after restoring sight to the. 
blind man of Beth
aida) is related to have said,-(a) '....Vt:ither enter into the 
village '-(,3) 'nor tell it to any one-(y) in the village.' (And let it 11e 
noted that the trustwurthiness of this way of exhibiting the text is 
vouched for by A C :N ð and 12 other uncials: by the whole 10dy uf the 
cur:;ivcs: by the Pe
chitu and. Harklensian, the Gothic, ArulCuian, and 
..lEthiol)ic Yersions : and by the only Father who quotes the l)lace- VIctor 
ûf Antioch. *) 
But it is found that the' two false witne::;ses' (
 B) omit clau::;es (8) and 
(y), retaining only clause (a). One of these two however Ct
), a ware that 
under such circmu:;tances J.L1Jòi is intulerable, t substitutes J.L
. As for lJ 
and the V ulg., they substitute and paraphrase, importing from 
latt. ix. G 
(or )Ik. ii. 11), , Depart unto thilte house.' D proceeds,-' and tell it to 
no one [fL1JÒEVì E7:rrn
, from )latth. viii. 4,J in tlte village.' 
ix copies of 
the old Latin (b f ff- 2 g-I-21), with the Vulgate, exhibit the folluwing 
paraphrase of the entire place :-' Depart unto thine hOltse, and if thon 
fnterest into the village, tell it to no one.' The saIne reading exactly 
is found in E,.an. 13-69-3-1G: 
8, 61, 4.3, and i, (except that 28, 61, 
3-!G exhibit' say nothing [frOl11 1tlk. i. 4-1J to no one.') All six however 
add at the end,-' /tut even in the v ll r tge.' Evan. 124: and a stand alone in 
e),.hibiting,-' Depart unto thine house; and enter not into the village; 
7leitlwr tell it to any one,'-to which 12-1 [not a J add
,-' in the 
'l'illage.' . . . JJ7lY all this contradiction and confusion is now to be 
called' Conflation,'-and what' clear evidence' is to be elicited therefrom 
tbat ' Ryrian ' are posterior alike to "Y estern' and tu 'neutral' readings,- 
passes our powers of comprehension. 
'Ve shall be content to hasten forward when \\-e have further informed 
our Headers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Heceived 
'feÀt in this place; Tischend0rf, alone of Editors, adopts the reading of 

 (p.1J Et
 T1JV KCùfL1JV EL<Tû\e1J
): while 'Vestcott and Hort, alone oj Þ.-'cZitors, 

· Cramer's Cat. p. 345, lines 3 and 8, 
t Dr. Hort, on the contrary, (only becau
e he finds it in R.) cono;iåers fJ.T}8é c simple anJ 
'fJigorous' as well as · unique' and · peculiar' (p. 100). 





assert that the interpretation put upon them by Drs. West- 
cott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless Í1uagination,- 

adopt the reading ùf B (P.f}Òf HS' TTJV ICWP.f}V fLUfÀBf}S' ),-so ending the 
sentence. "\Vhat else however but calamitous is it to find that 'VeHtcott 
and Hort have persuaded their fellow Revi
ers to adopt the san1e Il1utilated 
exhibition of the Sacred Text? The consequence is, that henceforth,- 
instead of 'Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town,'- 
we are invited to read, , Do '/lot even enter into the village.' 
[3rd] In S. l\lk. ix. 38,-S. John, speaking ùf one who cast out devils in 
CJIRIST'S Name, says-(a) 'who followeth not us, and we forbad him-(ß) 
because he followeth not 'Us.' 
 BeL 6. the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (a), retain- 
ing (ß). D with the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (ß), but retain 
(a).-Both clauses are found in A N with 11 other uncials and the whole 
body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only Father who quotes 
the place,- Baðil [ii. 252].- 'Vhy should the pretence be set up that there 
 been ' Conflation ' here? r.l\vo Omissions do not make one Conflation. 
[4th] In 
Ik. ix. 49,-our SAVIOUR says,-' For (a) everyone shall be 
salted with fire-and (ß) every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.' 
Here, clause (a) is omitted by D and a few copies of the old Latin; 
clause (ß) by 
 D L 6.. 
But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen 
words by Cod. D is so nearly without textual significancy, as scarcely to 
merit commeIlloration. And do Drs. 'Vestcott and Hort really l)ropose 
to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so flinlsy a circumstance 
as the concurrence in error of 
 n L 6.,-especially in S. 
Iark's Gospel, 
which those codices exhibit more unfaithfully than any other codices that 
can be named? Against theIll, are to be set on the present occasion A C D 
with 12 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and 
V. ulgate; both Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic 
Yersions; besides the only Father who quotes the place,- Victor of 
Antioch. [Also' Anon.' p. 206: and see Cramer's Cat. p. 3G8.] 
[5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates hùw, on a certain occasion, our SAVIOUR 
, withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called Betllsaida:' which 
S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] fìS' [2J ró1rov [3] fPf}JLOV [4] 1rÓ^f(JJ
[5] lCaÀovp.ivf}
 [6] Bf}Buaïðá: of which six words,- 
 and Syr CU retain but three,-I, 2, 3. 
(b}-The Peschito retains but four,-I, 2, 3, G. 
(C}-B LX z: D and the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,-l, 4, 
5, 6: but for 1rÓÀfWS' lCaÀovJLÉvf}S' D exhibits ICWP.f}V Àeyop.ÉvTjv. 
(d)-The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,-l, 2, 3, 5, G: but for 
'qui (or lJuod) .vocabatur,' the Vulg. band c exhibit' qui (or 
qu.od) cst.' 





a rlrc:un and nothing morc. Sonlething has hcen attclnptcù 
analogous to thc fan1Ïliar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a 

(p)-3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, G: while, 
(.f)-A c 
 E, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the cursives, 
-the JIarklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic 
Yersions,-retain all the six words. 
In view of which facts. it prohably never occurred to anyone before to 
suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of 'collflation,' 
'i.p. of srurious mixture. Note, that 
 and D have, this time, changed 

[Gth] R. Luke (xi. 54:) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (a) , lying 
in 'Wait for flim,' (ß) seeking (y) to catch something out of IIis tn01.tlh (B) 
that they miyht accuse Him.' This is the reading of 1-1 uncials headed by 
A c, and of the whole body of the cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also 
and of the Syriac. '\'"hat is to be said against it? 
It is found that N B L with the Coptic and Æthiopic Yersions omit 
clauses (ß) and (
), but retain clauses (a) and (y).-Cod. D, in conjunction 
with Cureton's S.rriac and the old Latin, retains clause (ß), and paraphrases 
all the rest of the sentence. II ow then can it be pretended that there has 
been any 'Conflation ' here? 
In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision frOIn the Revised Text 
of clauses (ß) and (
}-('1JTOVVTH . . . Zva K.a77]Yop
uCJ)ULV aVTóv)-which are 
attested by A C D and 12 other uncial
, together with the whole body of 
the cur
ives; by all the Syriac and by all the Latin copies! . . . Are we 
then to understand that N fi, and the Coptic Version, outweigh every other 
authority which can be named? 
[7th] The' rich fool' in the parable (
. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (a) 7Tá v Ta 
nì ì'Ev
,..mTá p.ov, lcaì (ß) Tà àya8á P.OV. (So A Q and 13 other uncials, 
ides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Ba
il, and Cyril.) 
 D (",ith the old Latin and Cureton's Syriac [\vhich however drops 
the 7Tá v Ta ]), retaining clause (a), OInit clause (ß).-On the other hand, B T, 
(with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the Armenian, and ...EthilJpic,) 
retaining clause (ß), 
uhstitute TÒV U'iTOV (a gloss) for Tà Yfv
p.aTa in clause 
(a). Lachnlann, "rï
ch., and .Alford, accordingly retain the traditional 
text in this place. So does Tregelles, and bO do 'Vestcott and Hort,- 
only suhstituting ròv ULTOV for Tà YEv
p,aTa. Confes
edly therefore there 
has been no ' Ryrian conflation 7 he)'e: for all that has happened has heen 
fhp snbstitution by B (If TÒV uÍTov for rå YEv
p.aTa; and the omission of 4 
words by 
 D. 'l'his instance must therefc)rc have heen an over
Only once more. 
th] S. Luke's Gospel ends (xxiv. ;;3) with the record that the Apostles 
"ere continually in the Temple,' (a) j>raisiu[Jrmd (ß) hltssin,'l nOD,' Such 




false and hitherto unheard -of doctrine on a fe\v isolated 
places of Scripture, divorced from their context. The actual 
facts of the case shall be submitted to the judgnlent of 
learned and unlearned Readers alike: and \ve pronÜse 
beforehand to abide by the unprejudiced verdict of either:- 
(a) S, l\lark's Gospel is found to contain in all 11,64:6 
,vords : of \yhich (collated ,vith the Traditional Text) A on1Ïts 
138: B, 762: 
, 870: D, 900.-S. Luke contains 19,941 
,vords: of \vhich A OlllÏts 208: B, 757; 
, 816: D, no less 
than 1552. (Let us not De told that the traditional Text is 
itself not altogether trust,vorthy. That is a ulatter entirely 
beside the question just no,,," before the l1eatler,-as ,ve have 
already, over and again, had occasion to explain.! Codices 
must needs all alike be cOlupared 
vith sornct7âug,-nlust per- 
force all alike De referred to somc one com?non standard: and 
\ve, for our part, are content to elllploy (as every Critic has 
Deell content before us) the traditional Text, as the most con- 
yenient standard that can be nauleù. So elnployed, (viz. as 
a standard of cO'lItparison, not of excellence,) the commonly 
Received Text, 1110re conveniently than any other, reveals 
- certr.inly does not occasion - different degrees of dis- 
crepancy. And no\v, to proceeù,) 

is the reaùing of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few 
copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syriac, Philox., 
Ethiopic, and Annenian 
ions. I3ut it is found that 
 Be omit clause (a): while D and seven 
cùpie:; of the old Latin omit clau
e (ß). 
And this cOlnpletes the evidence for 'Conflation.' \\T e have displayed 
it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfair.ness tû\yard.s the 
esteemed writers on the only occasion on which they have attClnpted argu- 
mentative proof. Their theory has at last forced them to make an appeal 
to Scripture, and to proùuce some actual specimens of their meaning, 
After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at Ia
t fastened upon 
eight: of which (as we have seen), several have really no business to be 
cited,-as not fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To 
prevent cavil however, let all but one, the [7th], pass unchallenged. 
1 The Reader is referred to pp. 17, 75, 

I II.] 





(b) Dr. IIorL has detected four instance
 In S. l\Iark's 
Gospel, only th1'CC in S. Luke's-su'cn in all-\vhere Codices 
 and D happen to concur in nlaking an omission at the 
.'iame place, Lut not of the sarne uJords. 'Ve shall probably 
he hest understood if we produce an instance of the thing 
spoken of: and no fairer example can be Ünagined than the 
last of the eight, of,vhich Dr, Hort says,-' This siInple instance 
needs no explanation' (p. 1 OJ). Instead of alvovvTEC) ICaì 
o'YovvTf\',-(w1lÌch is the reading of every kno
vn copy of 
the Gospels except five,)-
 BeL exhibit only EVÀO"lOVVTEC) : 
D, only alvovvTf\'. (To speak quite accurately, 
 BeL OllÚt 
alVOVVTf\' Kat and are follo\yed by 'Vestcott and Hort: D 
mnits Kat EÙÀO"lOVVTfC), and is followed by Tischendorf. 
Lachulann declines to follow either, Tregelles doubts,) 

(c) No\v, upon this (and the six other instances, \vhich 
ho\vever prove to be a vast deal less apt for their purpose 
than the present), these learned Inen have gratuitously built 
up the follo\ving extravagant and astonishing theory:- 

(d) They assume,-(they do not atteInpt to prove: in fact 
they ncvn' prove anything :)-(1) That alvovvTEC) Kat-and 
Kat EÙÀO"lOvvTEc;--are respectively fragments of t,vo inde- 
pendent PrÜnitive Texts, ,vhich they arbitrarily designate as 
, 'Vestern' and ' Neutral,' respectively:-(2) That the latter 
úf the t\VO, [only ho\vever because it is vouched for by B 
,] must needs exhibit ,vhat the Eyangelist actually 
wrote: [though why it nlust, these learned men forget to 
explain :]-(3) That in the nlÏddle of the IIII'd and of the 
I\Tth century the t\VO Texts referred to \Vere \vith design 
alHI by authority \velded together; and hecalne (\vhat the 
same irresponsible Critics are pleased to call) the 'Syrian 
text.' -(4) That alvovvTE\' ICaì Eti^oryOVVTE\', being thus sho,vn [?] 
to be 'a Syrian Oonflation,' Inay he rejected at once. (ltvtes, 
IJ, 73.) 




x. But we delllur to this \veak imagination, (\vhich only 
by courtesy can be called C a Theory,') on every ground, and 
are constrained to renlonstrate \vith our \vould-be Guides at 
eyery step. They aSSUlue everything. They prove nothing. 
And the facts of the case lend them no favour at all. 
For first,- "r e only find EVÀO'YOVVTE') standing alone, in t\VO 
docunlellts of the IVth century, in t\VO of the Vth, and in 
OIle of the VIlIth: \vhile, for alvovvTE') standing alone, the 
only Greek voucher produciLle is a notoriously corrupt copy 
of the Vlth century. True, that here a fe\v copies of the 
old Latin side \vith D: but theu a fe\v copies also side with 
the traditional Text: and J eronle is found to have adjudi- 
cated bet\\Teen their rival claÏ111s in favour of the latter. The 
probabilities of the case are in fact siInply over\vhelming; 
for, since D omits 1552 \vords out of 19,941 (i.e. about one 
\vurd in 13), 1chYlllay not Kaì EVÀoryOVVTE') be two of the 
it ornits,-in \vhich case there has been no C Conflation ' ? 

Kay, look into the luatte1' a little I1101'e closely :-(for surrly, 
before \ve put up \vith this qneer illusion, it is our duty to 
look it very steadily in the face :)-and note, that in this 
last chapter of S. Luke's Gospel, \vhich consists of 837 
\vurds, no less than 121 are olllitted by cod. D. To state the 
case differently,-D is uLserved to leave out one 'lv01'd in screen 
in the very chapter of S. Luke \\Thich supplies the instance of 
, Conflatioll ' under review. \Vhat possible significance there- 
fore call be sUP1!u
ed tu attach to its olnission of the clause 
Kat EÙÀO'YOVVTE') ? .Llnd since, in'lltatis 'fnutandis, the sanle re- 
llHtrks apply to the G renlaining cases,-(for one, \iz. the [7th], 
is clearly an oversight,)-\vill any I
eader of ordinary fairness 
and intelligence Le surprised to hear that \ve reject the 
assluned C Couflatiun' unconditionally, as a silly dream? 
It is foundeJ pntir
ly upon the olnissioll of 21 (or at lnost 
42) \vords out uf a total of 31,G87 frolll Coùc.l. B 
 D, AuJ 




yet it is (lenlonstrablc that out of that total, n omits lfiJ!) : 

, lG8G: D, 2452, The occasional coi'ncidence in O,nission of 
n + Nand D, ,vas in a 111anner inevitable, and is undeserving 
of notice. If,-(\vhich is as likely as not,)-on six occasions, 
n + Nand D have but on1Ïtted different u'ords in the same 
sentence, then there has been no' Conflation;' and the (so-called) 
'Theory,' ,yhich ,vas to have revolutionized the Text of the 
N. T., is discoyered to rest absolutely 1.tpon nothing. It 
hursts, like a very thin bubble: floats a\vay like a fihn of 
gossanler, and disappears from sight. 

nut further, as a Blatter of fact, at lcast five out of the 
eight instances cited,-viz. the [1st], [2nd], [ 5th], [6th], [7th], 
-fail to e:rhibit the alleged phcnOìncna: conspicuously ought 
nc\ er to have been adduced, For, in the [1st], D 111erely 
abridgcs the sentence: in the [2nd], it paraphrases 11 ,yords 
1,y 11; and in the [Gth], it paraplw"ases 12,vords by 9. In the 
[3th], B D merely abridge. The utmost residuum of fact which 
suryives, is therefore as follo\vs:- 

[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words, B N omit 4 : D other 4. 
[4th]. " " 9 \vorùs, B N omit 5 : D other 5. 
[8th]. " " 5 ,vords, B N on1Ït 2 : D other 2. 

But if this be 'the clearest Evidence' (p, 94) producible 
for 'the Theory of Conflation,' -then, the less said about the 
'Theory,' the better for the credit of its distinguished Inven- 
tors. Ho,v any rational Textual Theory is to be constructed 
out of the foregoing Oluissions, ,ve fail to divine. TIut indeed 
the ,yhole nlatter is delllonstraLly a ,veak Ìlnagination,-a 
d,'c(I iìl, and nothing more. 

XI. In the lllcantilne, TIrs. "r estcott and Hort, instea(l of 
realizing the insecurity uf the groun(l under their feet, p1'o- 
ceetl gray-ely tu build u}Jun it, and tu treat their hypothetieal 




assulnptions as \vell-ascertained facts. They imagine that they 
have already been led by 'independent Evidence' to regard 
'the longer readings as conflate each from the t\VO earlier 
readings: '-\rhereas, up to p. 105 (\yhere the staten1ent 
occurs), they have really failed to produce a single particle 
of e\Ticlence, direct or indirect, for their opinion. ' "r e have 
founù reason to believe' the Readings of 
 B L, (say they,) 
, to l)e the original Readings.'-But ,vhy, if this is the case, 
haye they kept their' finding' so entirely to theillselves?- 
..L,....o reason 'lchatevcr haye they assigned for their belief. The 
Reader is presently assured (p. 106) that' it is ce1
tain' that 
the Readings exhibited by the traditional Text in the eight 
supposed cases of 'Conflation' are all posterior in date to 
the fragnlentary readings exhibited by Band D. But, once 
nlore, "That is the gro'ltnd of this' certainty' ?-Presently (viz. 
in p. 107), the Reader llleets ,vith the further assurance that 

'the proved actual use of [ shorter] documents in the conflate 
TIeadingH renders their u::;e else,vhcre a vera causa in the New- 
tonian sense.' 

But, once lllore,- IVhere and what is the 'proof' referred 
to? :\Iay a plain lllan, sincerely in search of Truth,-after 
a::;ting many precious hours over these barren pages-be 
pern1Ítteù to declare that he resents such solemn trifling? 
(He cra yes to be forgi \Ten if he a vows that 'Pickwickian J 
-not 'N e\vtonian '-\vas the epithet \vhich solicited him, 
,vhen he had to transcribe for the Printer the passage which 
iuuuediately precedes.) 

XII. Next conle 8 pages (pp, 107-15) headed-' Posterio- 
rityof "Syrian" to "'V estern" and other (neutral and" Alex- 
all<.lrian'') Readings, sho,vn by Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence.' 

In \vhich ho,vever \ve are really' sho\vn' nothing of the 

ort. Bold Assertions abound, (as usual \vith this respected 




,vriter,) 1 Hlt 1)1
(J(1 he ncyer attempts any. :K ot a particle of 
, Evial'IlCl
' i
 ndlluced.-::Next COlne 5 pages heaùed,-' Pos- 
teriori ty uf Syrian to 'Vestern, Alexanùrian, anli other 
(neutral) TIeadings, sho\vn Ly Internal evidence of Syrian 
readings' (p. 113). 
But again \\re are 'shown J absolutely nothing: although 
,ve are treated to the assurance that ,ve have ùeen shù,vn 
Inany "Tonùers. Thus,' the Syrian confiate Readings ha-ce 
shown the 
yriall text to he pusterior to at least t,vo ancient 
fonlls still extant J (p, 115): "Which is the yery thing they 
ha ,re signally failed to ùo. :x ext, 
'Patristic evidence has shown that these two ancient Texts, 
and also a thinl, Illust have alrcac1y existed early in the third 
century, and sugge:-;ted very strong grounds for believing that 
in the middle of the century the ;Syrian Text had not yet been 
'Vhereas no single G1Jpeal has been lnade to the eyidence 
supplied by one öinglc ancient Ffdhcì" 1- 
, .Another step i
 gained by a close exan1Ïnation of all Readings 
yrian.' -(Ibid.) 
..And yet ,ve are never told \vhich the' Readings distinctively 
Syrian' ctre,-althuugh they are henceforth referred to in 
e\Tery page. Neither are ,ve instructed ho,v to recognize 
theul \vhen ,ve see thenl; ,vhich is unfortunate, since 'it 
follo\vs,' -(though ,ve entirely fail to see from (what,)-' that 
all distinctively Syrian lleadillgs luay be set aside at once as 
certainly originating after the 111Ïddle of the third ècntury , 
(p. 11 7) . . . Let us hear a little more on the su Lject :- 
'The saIne Fads '-(though Dr. 110rt Las not hitherto fa.voured 
us with any)-' lead to another conclusion of equal or even 
greater importance reHpecting non-distinctive SJrian Readings 
. . . 
illce the Syrian Text is only a lllodified eclectic combina- 
tion of earlier Texts independentl)y attested,'- 
(for it ic; in this confiùent stylc that these en1Ïnent Scholars 




handle the problem they undertook to solve, but as yet 
have failed even to touch ),- 
'existing documents descended from it can attest nothing but 
itself.' -(po 118.) 

Presently, \ve are informed that' it follo\vs frolll what has 
heen said a hove,' -(though hou' it follows, \ve fail to 8ee,)- 
, that all lleadings in \vhich the Pre-Syrian texts concur, ')}lust 
b(' accepted at once as the Apostolic Readings:' and that 'all 
distinctiyely Syrian Readings 'ìn'ltst be at once rejected.'- 
(p. 119.) 

Trenchant decrees of this kind at last arrest attention. 
It beconles apparent that ,ve have to do \vith a 'V riteI' ,yho 
has discovered a sUllllnary \vay of dealing \vith the Text of 
Scripture, and. \vho is prepared to Î1npart his secret to any 
\vho care to accept-\yithout questioning-his vie\vs. 'Ve 
look back to see ,vhere this accession of confidence began, 
and are reminded that at p. 108 Dr. Hort announced that for 
can venience he should henceforth speak of certain' groups of 
documents,' by the conventional names "V estern' -' Pre- 
Syrian '-' Alexandrian '-and so forth. Accordingly, ever 
since, (sollletiines eight or ten tinles in the course of a single 
page,1) \ve have encountered this arbitrary ternlinology: have 
been required to accept it as the expression of ascertained 
facts in Textual Science. Not till \ve find ourselves flounder- 
ing in the deep n1Ïre, do ,ve becolne fully aware of the 
absurdity of our position. The.l at last, (and high time too I), 
,ve insist on kno,ving ,vhat on earth our Guide is about, 
and ,vhither he is proposing to lead us? . . . . 1\lore con- 
siderate to our Readers than he has been to us, we propose 
before going any further, (instead of mystifying the subject 
as Dr. Hart has done,) to state in a fe,v plain ,vords \vhat 

1 E.g. pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c. 




the present Theory, divested of pedantry and circulnlocution, 
proves to Le; ana \vhat is Dr. 110rt's actual contention. 

XIII. The one great Fact, 
\Vhich especially trouhles hiIn 
and his joint Eùitor,I-(as \vell it lllay)-is TILe T1>acZitional 
C/'cck TCLJ't of the N e,v Testalllcnt Scriptures. Call this Text 
rasn1Ïan or COlllplutensial1,-the Text of Stephens, or of 
Ueza, or of the Elzevirs,-call it the 'lleceived,' or the 
r,.aditional G?'cck Text, or whatever other name you please; 
-the fact reIllains, that a Text 7
as COlne do,vn to us 'which 
is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient 
Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at all events, is a point on 
,vhich, (happily,) there exists entire confornlÍty of opinion 
bet\veen Dr. Hort and ourselves, Our neaders cannot have 
yet forgotten his virtual adn1Ïssion that,-Beyond all fjllcstion 
the Tcxtus Rcecptus is the d01ninant Græco-SYl'ian Text of 
A.D, 350 to A.D. 400. 2 

Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be 
essentially the same in all. That it requires Revision in 
respect of many of its lesser details, is undeniable: but it is 
at least as certain that it ig an excellent Text as it stands, and 
that the use of it ,,"ill never lead critical students of Scripture 
seriously astray,-,,
hich is \"hat no one \vill venture to pre- 
dicate concerning any single Critical Edition of the N. T. wJlÎch 
has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the 
disciples of Griesbach's school, 

XI'T. III luarked contrast to the Text ,ye speak of,-(,vhich 
is identical \vith the Text of every extant Lectionary of the 
Greek Church, and Inay therefore rea::;onal)ly claim to he 
spoken of as the Traditional Text,)-is that contained in a 


1 Hefcrrcd to below, p. 
oo abuve, pagc::; 
.) 7 (Luttonl) and 
58 (tup). 




little handful of doclnnents of which the Dlost famons are 
codices B 
, and the Coptic ,r ersion (as far as it is kno\'Tll), on 
the one hand,-cud. D and the uld Latin copies, on the other. 
To magnify the lnerits of these, as helps and guides, anll 
to ignore their luany patent and scandalous defects and 
blen1Ïshes :-pCl' Jas ct ncJas to vindicate their paranluunt 
authority \,herever it is in any \vay possible to do so; tuul 
\Vhell that is clearly Ï1npus:;ihle, then to treat their errurs as 
the ancient Egyptians treated their cats, dogs, nlonkeys, and 
other venllin,-nalnely, to eUlbalnl theIn, and pay thenl 
Diyine honours :-such for the last 50 years has l)cen the 
practice of the ùOIninant school of Textual Criticislll aIllong 
ourselves, The natural and even necessary correlative of 
this, has been the disparagelnent of the Inerits of the conl- 
monly TIeceived Text: ,,
hich has come to be spoken of, (\ye 
kno,v not ,vhy,) as contelllptuously, ahnost as bitterly, as if 
it. had been at last ascertained to be untrust\vorthy in every 
respect: a thing undeserving alike of a place anù of a name 
anlong the IllOlluments of the Past. Even to have C used the 
TIcceived Text as a basis JOl' cO'J"j'cction' (p. 184) is stiglnatized 
by Dr. IIort as one C great cause' why Griesbach \yeut astray. 

X\-r. Drs. \Vestcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their 
predecessors in this singular race. Their absolute contempt for 
the Traditional Text,-their superstitious veneration for a fe,v 
ancient docunlents; C\vhich doculuents ho\,ever they freely 
confess arc not 'Jnorc ancient thrn the C Tratlitiollal Text' \yhich 
they despise ;)-kno\vs no bounùs. But t
le thing just no\v to 
be attended to is the argunlentative process ,,
hereby they 
seek to justify their preference,-LACH)IAXN avowedly took 
his stand un a very fe, v of the oldest kno\vn llocuments : and 
though TnEGELLES slightly enlarged the area of his prede- 
cessor's observations, his nlethod ,vas practically identical 
\vith that of Lacllll1ann,-TIscHE
DORF, appealing to every 




kno,,-n authority, invariably shows hinlsclf regardless of the 
e,-i(lence he has himself accunndate(l. 'Yhere certain of the 
uncials are,-thcrc his ycrdict is sure also to Le . . .. Any- 
thing lllore un
cientific, lllore un philosophical, lllore trans- 
parently foolish than such a lllethoJ, can scarcely be con- 
ceiyed: but it has prevailed for 50 years, and is no\v at last 
nlorc hotly than ever advocated by Drs. 'YE;:;TCOTT and HOUT. 
Only, (to their credit be it recorded,) they haye had the SenSl} 
to perceive that it Inust needs be reconlnlendec1 by Al'[fUlllcnt.
of some sort, or else it ,viII inevitably fall to pieces the 
first fine day anyone is found to charge it, \vith the neces- 
sary know1edge of the su hject, and \vith sufficient resolutene:Sð 
of purpo
e, to lllake him a fornlÍdable foe. 

X\TI, Their expedient has been as follo\ys,-A "are that 
the Heceived or Traditional Greek Text (to quote their 0\\-11 
,vords,) 'is viTtually identical 
cith that used by Chrysosto.m and 
othcr A/
tiochian Fathers in the latter part of the ITTth cen- 
tury:' and fully aliye to the fact that it 'must therefore havc 
been represental by Jlanusc1'ipts as old as any u'lâch aTc 
now s'l/;rL'iving' (Text, p. 547),-they haye invented an extra- 
ordinary Hypothesis in order to account for its existence:- 

They assunle that the ,vritings of Origen ' establish the prior 
existence of at least three types of Text : '-the 11l0st clearly 
luarked of which, they call the ",r estern: '-another, less 
prornillent, they designate as ' Alexandrian:' -the third holds 
(they say) a middle 01' ' X eutral ' position. (That all this is 
lucre rnoonshinc,-a clay-drealn and no rnore,-,ye shall insist, 
until SOlne proofs have been produced that the respected 
Authors are moving amid luaterial forms,-not discoursing 
with the creations of their o\\"n brain.) 'The priority of t"WO 
at least of these three Texts just noticed to the Syrian Text,' 
they are confirleut has heen e
talJlished hy the eight' conJl(tle ' 




Syrian Readings which they flatter theulselves they have 
already resolved into their' 'Vestern ' and' Neutral' eleluents 
(Tc:rt, p. 547). This, how"ever, is a part of the suLjcct 011 
"Thich \ve yenture to hope that our Readers by this tÏ1ue have 
forlued a tolerably clear opinion for thelllSelyes. The ground 
has been cleared of the flinlsy superstructure \vhich these 
Critics haye been 30 years in raising, ever since ,ye ble\v 
a\yay (pp. 258-65) the airy foundation on ,,
hich it rested. 
At the end of SOllIe confident yet singularly hazy statelllents 
concerning the characteristics of "'T estern' (pp. 120-G), of 
, K eutral ' (126-30), and of ' Alexandrian' Readings (130-2), 
Dr. Hort favours us \yith the assurance that- 

, Tho Syrian Text, to "\vhich the order of time no"\v brings us,' 
'is the chief monunlent of a ne'w period of textual history.'- 
(p. 132.) 
'No"\v, the three great lines were brought together, and made 
to contribute to the formation of a new Text different from 
an.' -(po 133.) 

Let it only be carefully relnen1bered that it is of something 
virtually identical \vith the Tcxtus RccclJtns that we are just 
1l0\V reading an Ì1naginary history, and it is presullled that 
the n10st caTeless \vill be made attentive. 

'The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a " Recension," 
. . . performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by 
Scribes.' -(Ibid.) 
nut 'why 'nlust' it? In
tead of 'mu,st in fact,' we are 
disposed to read ''})
ay-in fiction.' The learned Critic can 
but mean that, on comparing the Text of Fathers of the IVth 
century ,vith the Text of cod. B, it beco111es to hiInself self- 
evident that one of the two has been fabricated. Granted. 
Then,- "Thy should not the solitary Codcx be the offending 
party 1 For \vhat iInaginable reason should cod. B,-,vhich 
COllles to us \vithout a character, and ,yhich, ,vhcn tried Ly 




the test of prin1Ìtiye .i.\.ntiquity, stands convicted of ' UniVC1"Sa 
vitiositas,' (to use Tischenùorf's expression) ;-1.l)hy (\ve ask) 
should codex II Le upheld 'contra lllUlHhUll'? . . . Dr. IIort 
procceùs-(still speaking of' thr [iIuaginary] S!Jì"ian Tc,},t '),- 
'It ,vas probably initiateù by the distracting and incon- 
vcnicnt currency of at least three conflicting 'rexts in the same 
rf.'gion.'-(p. 133.) 
\,r ell but,- 'V ould it not haye been Ulore Inethodical if 
, tho currcncy of at least three conflicting Texts in the stune 
region,' had 1 locn first d cmonstratcd? or, at least, sho\yn 
to he a thing prohable? Till this' distracting' phcnonlenon 
has been to SOU1C extent proyed to haye any existence in fact, 
\-dlat po
sible ' probalálity' can be claÌ1ned for the history of 
a' Hecollsion,'-"Thich yery Recension, up to this point, 7Ul..., not 
bcrm l)]'ored to harc evcr taken place at all ! 

'Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in SOine leading 
personage or see, anll thUR have seeIlled to call for a conciliation 
of rival claims.'-(p. 134.) 
'Yhy yes, to he sUle,-' each Text [if it CJ;'istcd] Jllay per- 
haps [or pcrhaps 1nay nùt] haye found a Patron in SOBle leading 
personage [as Dr, Hort or ])1', Scriyener ill our O\Vll days] : ' 
Dut then, be it renlelnbered, this \vill only baye Leen þo

-(a) If the Rûcensioll CD'}' took place: and-(b) If it ,vas 
conducteù after the extraordinary fashion ,vhich prevailed in 
the Jerusalenl Chalul)er frolll 1870 to 1881: for \vbich ,ve 
haye the ullÏInpeachable testiInony of an eye-witness; 1 COll- 
finued by the Chainnan of the 1
evi8ionist body,-by WhOlll 
in fact it was deliLerately invented. 2 
nut then, since Hut a shadu\v uf prouf is forthcoming 
that any such Recension as .Dr, lIurt Í1na!JÙiCs evc/" took 
place at all,-\vhat else but a purely gratuitous exercise of 

1 Rec aboyc, pp. 
7 to 38. 

2 ibid, p. :m. 





the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Jlort should proceed 
further to invent the method ,vhich might, or could, or ,vould, 
or should have Leen pursued, if it had taken place? 
Having however in this ,yay (1) Assumed a ' Syrian llecen- 
sion,'-(2) Invented the cause of it,-alld (3) Drealllcd the 
process by 'which it ,,-as carried into executioll,-the Critic 
hastens, '}n01'C SZlO, to characterize the historical '}'csult in the 
follo,ving terrns :- 

, The qualities ,vhich THE 
to have nlost desired to impre
H on it are luciùity anù C0111- 
s. 'rhey ,vere evidently anxious to reJllOVQ all 
stlllubling-blocks out of the ,yay of the ordinary I'eader, so 
far as this could be done ,vithout recour
e to violent 1nea8nros. 
'rhey were apparently equally desirous that he should ha\'c the 
})euefit of instructive matter contained in all the ùxisting Texts, 
provided it did not cOllfu
e the context or introduce t:;eeJlling 
contradictions. .Ne\v Oluissions accunlingly are rare, and where 
they occur are u
ually found to contribute to apI)arent sim- 
plicity. Ke,v Interpolations, on the other hand, are abundant, 
Illvst of them being aue to harmonistic ur other a
fortunately capricious aHd inconlplete. Both in matter and in 
diction TilE SYla.A
 f).'EXT is conspicuously a full Text. It delights 
in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and t-iupplied links 
of all kindH, as ,veIl as in more considerable Additions. As 
distinguished from the bold ,t'igour of the "'V estern" scribes, 
and Ow f'cfincd sclwllu.slâp of the " .Alexandrians," the Rpirit of itB 
own ccrrections i
 at once sensible and fce1)le. Entil'c)y })lmllo- 
less, on either literary or religious grounds, as regards vulgarized 
or unworthy dict.ion, yet sltewing no marks of either Critical or 
Spiritual in
ight, it p1.esents the New Tcstamcnt in a form snlOotlt antl 
aUrartirc, but appreciably impoverished in sensc and force; mure 
fitted for cursO'1'Y pC1'usal or recitation than for relJcaled and diligcnt 

llldy.' -Cpp. 134-5.) 

X\"'II. 'Ve forbear to offe
' any relnarks on this. "\Ve 
should be thought uncivil "rere ,\ e to declare our o\vn canùid 
estÌ1nate of . the critical and spiritual' perception of the nUln 
,vho conl(1 perIuit hÜnself so to '\Tite. "\V c prefer to proceed 


AX}) O
., TIlE SynL\C VEU8IOX-A.D. 350. 

.-)... - 

,,"ith our sketch of the Theory, (of the D"c(l'ln rather,) ,vhich 
is intClHleù to account fur the exiRtellcc of the Traditional 
t of the X.T.: only yenturing again to sulnuit that surely 
it ,,"uultl have l)cen high tÏ1ue to discuss the characteristics 
,vhich (the Authors of the Syrian Text' Ï1npressed upon their 
,,-urk, ,,"hen it had Leen first established-or at least rendere(} 
prohahle-that the supposed Operators and that the assluned 
Operation haye any existence except in the fertile brain 
of this distinguished and highly Ï1nagillatiye \vriter. 

XYIII. K O\V, the first consideration \vhich strikes us as 
fatal to Dr. Hort's unsupported conjecture concerning the 
date of the Text he calls ( Syrian' or ( Alltiochian,' is the fact 
that what he so designates bears a Inost inconyenient rese111- 
lJlance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac ,.,.. ersion ; \vhich, like 
the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally assigned 
to the second century of our era. 'It is at any rate no 
stretch of Ï1nagination,' (accorlling to Bp. Ellicott,) 'to supposp 
that portions of it n1Ìght IUìye been in the hands of S. John.' 
[p, 26.] .A.ccordingly, these Editors assure us that- 

, the only war of explaining the \vhole body of facts is to supposc 
that the Syriac, like the "Latin .V. ersion, under\vent l
long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syrinc JISS. 
represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.'- 
(p. 136.) 
, A l
evision of the old 
'yriac 'T ersion appears to have taken 
place in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in 80mr 
connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text, the readings 
being to a yery great extent coincident.' -( Text, 552,) 
'Till recently, the Peschito has becn kno\vn only in the 
f(nm which it finally received by an evidently authm"itatlL'e Rcl'Í- 
sion,'-a S!J'l"iac 'rulgate' answering to tlle Latin' r"lllgalc.'-(p. 84.) 
torical antecedents render it loli>ralJly certain that tLe 
locality of such an authoritative Revision '-(which Revision 
however, be it observed, 
till rests wholly on unsupported 
conjecture)-' \vonlù be either I'
dc:-;s(\ or 
.'-(l'. 136.) 




In the IneantÎ1ne, the abonllllably corrupt doculnent kno\vu 
as ' Cureton's Syriac,' is, by another bold hypothesis, assluneLl 
to he the only surviving specimen of the unreviseù VersioIl, 
anù is henceforth invariably designated by these authors as 
. c the old Syriac;' and referred to, as C syr. vt.,' -(in llnitation 
of the Latin' vct1tS '): the venerable Pes chi to being referred 
to as the C \Tulgate Syriac,'-c syr. vg.' 
"Yhen therefore ,vo find large and peculiar coincidences 
between the reviscd Syriac Tcxt and the 'rext of the Antiochian 
Fathers of the latter part of the IVth century,'-[ of which 
coincidences, (be it remHrked in llassing,) the obvious explana- 
tion is, that the Texts J eferred to are faithful traditionaJ 
representations of the inspired autographs ;J-' and strong indi- 
cations tbat the Rcyision was dclibC'l.ate anll in some 'way authm.ila- 
live in both cases,-it bCC01nCS nalwJ"al tù slLp1!o
e that the two 
operations had SOlne hi
torical connexion.'-(pp. 13ß-7.) 
XIX. But Ito,v lloes it happen-(let the question he asked 
ithout offence )-that a Ulan of gooa abilities, bred in a 
U 11Ïversity \yhich is supposed to cultivate especially the 
Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allo\v hÏ1nself 
in such slipshod \\Titing as this? The very fact of a C Revi- 
sian' of the Syriac has an to be proveù; and until it has 
ùeen dcntoltst1
atcd, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a 
fact. Instead of tlelnonstration, \ve find ourselves invited (1) 
-' To 
'llppúse' that such a Revision took place: and (2)-' To 
s'UppU:iC' that aU our existing 1\Ianuscripts represent it. But 
(as \ve have said) not a sh
do\v of reason is produced 
\ve should Le so cOlnplaisant as C to suppose' either the one 
thing or the other. In the lueantÏIne, the accolnplishetl Critic 
hastens to assure us that there exist 'strong indications'- 
(w hy are we not shown them ?)-that the J{evision he speaks 
of ,vas' deliberate, and in SOlne ,yay authoritative.' 
Out of this gro\vs a 'natural supposition' that H t,vo 
[pun.ly inw,ginary] operations," cc had SOUle In."sfurical con- 




'flexion." .L\lready therefore has the shadow thickened into a 
substance. "The llevised Syriac Text" has Ly this thue COlllC 
to he spoken of as au adu1Ïtted fact. The process \vhereby it 
caUle into being is even assnnled to haye l,ecn cc dcli1Jerate 
and autl1oritative." These Editors henceforth style the 
}>eschito the ( Syriac Vulgate,' -as confidently as J eroIne's 
l:e\rision of the old Latin is styled the 'Latin Vulgate.' They 
even assure us that' Cureton's Syriac' 'renders the con1para- 
tively late and cc revised " chara
ter of the Syriac Vulgate II 
'mattcr of cC1'tainty' (p. 84), The very city in ,vhich the 
latter underw.
nt l1evision, call, it seeIns, be fixed \vith 
( tolerable certainty' (p. 136). . . . Can Dr. Hort be serious? 
At the eud of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of 
\vhieh is the hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the 
Greek,) the learned \vriter announces that-' The textual 
elenlents of each principal ùocluuent ha ving been tI,/US asccr- 
taincd, it now be
OllleS possihle to dete1''lnine the Genealogy of 
(( 11i1ueh larger nU/Jnber 0/ individual 1'cadings than be/arc' 
(Tut, p. 552).-'Ye read and lllarvel. 
So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. "r estcott and Hort is 
this :-that, sonIe\vhere bet\veen Å,D. 250 and A,D. 350, 
'(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led 
to an authoritative Revision at Antioch :-which (2) was then 
taken as a standard for a lSin1Ïlar authoritative Revision of the 
Syriac text :-and (3) ,vaH itlSelf at a later time 
>ubjected to a 
SCCOJlll authoritative Revision '-this' final process' having been 

 apparently conlpleted by [A.D.] 350 or thereabouts.'--(p. 137.) 

XX, Now, instead uf insisting th
t this entire Theory 
is lllade up of a series of purely gratuitous assunIptions,- 
ùestitute alike of attestation anù of probability: and that, as 
a 111ere effort of the IUlagination, it is entitled to no lllanner 
of cOllsiùeration or re
pect at our hands :-illstcad of dealing 
lS with what precedes, \ve propose to be lllost kind and 




al'COlllluuåating tu 1)1'. Jlort. \Y c proceed tv accept his 
Thevry in its entirety. ,V c will, \vith tho Reader's pennission, 
snnle that all he tells us is historically true: IS an 
authentic narratÏ\ e of \yhat actually did take place. \Ve 
shall in the cud invite the saIne Reader to recognize the 
inevitable consequences of our adnlÍssion: to \vhich \ve shall 
inexorably pin the learned El1itors-Lillù theni hand and 
foot ;-of course reserving to ourselyes the right of disallo\ving 
for OZl'rselccs fiS luuch of the nlatter as we please. 

S0mewhere bet\ycen A.D. 250 and 350 therefure,-(' it is 
Í111possiblc to sar \vith confidencc' [po 137] \\That ,vas the 
actual date, Lut these Editors cyidently incline to the latter 
half of the IIIrf1 century, i.e. circa A.D, 275) ;_\\TO aro to 
helieve that the }:cclesiastical heads of the four great l)atri- 
arehates of Eastern Christendolll,-Alexandria, Antioch, 
J erusalenl, Constantinople,-had become so trouLled at 
\vitnessing the prevalencc of depraved copies of Holy 
Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by 
COlnlllon consent on achie\.illg an authoritative I
".hich should henceforth become the standard Text of all the 
l)atriarchates of the East. The same sentÏ1nellt of distress- 
(hy the hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the 
TIishops úf Edessa or Nisibis, (' great centres of life and 
culture to the Churches \vhose language \vas Syriac,' [po 130,]) 
lent themselves so effectually to the project, that a single 
fraglnentary clocUlnent is, at the present day, the only ves- 
tige rel11ailling of the Text '\Thich before hadlJeell uniyersally 
prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity , The 
al1nost total extinction o.f Old S!Jriac J1ISS., contrasted \vith the 
great nU111ber of extant TTulgatc S!J1
iac 11ISS..'-(for it is thus 
that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits evidence !),-is to be attri- 
 it seenlS, to the po".cr and influcnl:c of tIH' Authors 
of tlH' illUl
inary Syriac Hevisioll. [ibid.] TIp, Ellicott, b.v 





the \va)" (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton's 
Syriac as ( sinJular and sometimes rather 'wild.' (The text, of 
, ry compo.nte natnrc,. sonletimes incli.nin[J to the shortness 
and simplicity of the Vatican rnanuscript, but mm.c cOlnmonly 
presenting tlte same palYlphra13tic character of te.:rt as the Codex 
Ec:æ.' [p. 42.] (It is, in fact, an 'llttlTly dcpraced anù fabri- 
c(dcd ùüculnent.) 
'Ye venture to relnark in passing that Textual nlatters 
lllust have every,vhere reached a very alarming pass indeed 
to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as 
a rcprpsentative Conference of the 'leading Personages or 
Sees' (p, 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at 
least inevitable, that men in high place at that tÜne deemed 
thelllselves cOlnpetent to grapple ,vith the problem. Enough 
,vas fanlÏlial'ly knO'Yll about the character and the sources of 
these corrupt Texts to nlake it certain that they ,voulù be 
recognizable ,vhen produced; and that, ,vhen conùelllued by 
authority, they ,yould no longer be propagated, and in the 
end ,vould cease to nlolest the Church. Thus nluch, at all 
events, is legitiInately to be inferred frOln the hypothesis. 

XXI, Behold then froIn every principal Diocese of ancient 
Christendom, and in the Church's pabniest days, the most 
f:nnous of the ante-:Sicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They 

o up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics 
of the highest theological attaÏ111nent. Bearers are they 
perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and 
(l1Y the hypothesis) the latcst lJOssible dotes of any of these 
Copies lllust range Let,veen A.D. 250 and 330. But the 
Delegates of so many ancient Sees ,vill have h0011 suprOlnely 
careful, before starting on so Í1nportant and solelnn an 
errand, to JIlake diligent search for the oldest COl1Ïes any- 
where discovel"able: HIHI ,Yhel1 they rcach the scene of tlwir 
flelil'crations, \\e lnay he certain that they are able to appeal 




to not a fc\y codices 'wl'ittcn u'ithin a hundred years of the 
.late of the inspired .Lltttlographs theillseives. Copies of the 
Scriptures authenticated as haying belonged to the lnost 
faulous of their predeccssors, -and held by thenl in high 
repute for the prestullcd purity of their Texts-\vill haye been 
freely produced: \vhile, in select receptacles, ,yill haye been 
sto\\Ted a\vay-for purposes of cOIllparison and ayoÜlance- 

peeiInens úf those dreaded Texts ,vhose existence has l)een 
the 1501e cause \vhy (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary 
concour:;c of learned Ecclesiastics has takcn place. 

.After solc111nly inyoking the Diyine lJlcssing, thc:;c Illcn 
(l( I<1re5s theulselyes a:;
iduously to their task; and (by the 
hypothesis) they proceed to condelnn eyery codex ,vhich 
exhihits a ' strietly "T estern,' or a ' strictly 
 \lexalldrian,' or a 
(strietIy Neutral' ty p.e , In plain English, if codices TI, 

uHl D had Leeu before theIn, they ,,,ould have un cere- 
llloniously rejected all three; hut then, (by the hypothesis) 
neither of the t,yO first-llalueù had yet COllle into being: 
\V hile 200 years at least HUlst roll out hefore Cod. D \vould 
see the light. In the Ineantiule, the Í'ln'JìU'diate ancestors of 
 and D "rill perforce have COlne under judicial scrutiny; 
and, (Ly the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully 
rejected by the general consent of the J utlges. 

XXII. rass an interval-Care \ve to suppose of fifty 
years 1)-an<1 the \vork referred to is 'subject 'd to a second 
authoritative RC1),i8ioJl.' Ag,Ûn, therefore, behold the piety 
and learning of the four great l)atriarchates ùf the East, 
fornlally represented at Antioch! The Church is no\v in her 
pahniest days. SOlne of her grcatest 111C11 belong to the 
period of \vhich \ve are speaking. EuseLius (A.D. 308- 
340) is in his glory. One ".hole generation has conle ana 
gone since the last Textual Conference "Tas held, at .Antioch. 




Yet is no inclination lnanifested to I'C\Tcrsc the decrees of the 
earlier Conference. This seconù Reccnsion of the Text of 
Scripture does Lut (carry out 1110rc cOlllpletely the 1)U1'p08eS 
of the first;' and 'the nnal process 'vas apparently conl- 
plctcù hy A.D. 330' (p, 137),-80 far the CruuLridge I'rofessor. 

XXIII. But the one Ï1nportant fact i.nlp1ied by tIns 
august deliheration conccrning the Text of Scripture has 
l)Cell convcniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound 

ill'Jlce. 'Ve take leaxe to repair his omission by inviting 
the Iteader's particular attention to it. 

'Ye request hiln to note that, by the hypothesis, there ,vill 
hnxe been suþmitted to the scrutiny of these n1:1ny ancient 
Ecclesiastics not a few codi.ccs of exactly tlw same type as 
codices B and 
: especially as codex B. 'Ye are able even 
to specify \vith precision certain features \vhich the cQdices 
in question \vill have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,- 

(1) From S. J\Iark's Gospel, those depraved copies ,viII 
}1(1\-e on1Ïtted THE L
\ST T'YELYE ,TERSES (xvi. 9-20). 
(2) From S. Luke's Gospel the saIne corru}!t copies \rill 
have olnitted our S-\. YIOUR'S Aaoxy IX THE GARDE
43, 44). 
(3) IIis PRAYER OX BEHALF OF IllS :MUHDERERS (xxiii. 34), 
will havc also been a,vay. 
(4) The IxscHlrTlo
 ox TIlE CROSS, ill CHEEK, L_\TI
, AXD 
IT FRUF."r (xxiii. 38), ,yill have Leen partly, lllisreprcsentel1,- 
partly, a"
(5) .And there "Till have l)een no account ùiscoveraLle of 
(6) Absent ,,
ill have been also the record of our LORD'S 
A<;;CEXSION IXTO J-IEAvEx (ibid. 51). 
(7) Also, froIn S. J OIUl'S Oospel, the codices in question 




\vill have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLIKG OF THE 
\ (v. 3, 4). 

N O"T, ,ye request that it may be clearly noted that, 
accordifl{J to Dr. Hort, against every copy of the Gospels so 
maÏ1ned and mutilated, (i.e. against every copy of the Gospels 
of the SCl1nc type as codices B and 
,)-the lIHlIty illustrious 
Bishops ,vho, (still according to Dr. JIurt,) assenlùled at 
Antioch, first in A,D. 250 and then in A,D, 350,-by COlnnlon 
consent set a nlark of condc'Jnul.ltion. 'Y. e are assured that 
thuse fallluus nlen,-those Fathers of the Church,-were 
cIllphatic in their sanction, instead, of co(lices of the type 
of Cod. A,-in ,vhich all these seven Olllitteù passages (and 
Inany hunùreds besides) are duly found in their proper 

'Yhen, therefore, at the end of a thousand anù half a 
thousanù years, Dr, Hort (guideù l)y his inner consciousness, 
and depending on an intellectual illlllllinatioll of \\Thich he is 
able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the 
deliberate sentence of Antiquity,-his position strikes us as 
bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seyen places above 
refcrred to, ,vhich the assclllbleJ. }'athers pronounce to be 
genuine Scripture, and declare to be ,vorthy of all accepta- 
tion,-lJr. Hort expresses hÌlnself in ternlS ,yhich-could 
they haye l,een heard at Antioch-l11ust, it is thought, ha\ye 
brought do\vn upon his head tokens of displeasure ,vhich 
lllight haye even proyed incollyenient. TIut let the respected 
gentlellHln by al1 Ineans be allu\ved to speak for hiJnself:- 

(1) TIlE LAST T'YELVE ,rERSES of S. l\Iark (he would have 
l)een heard to say) are a 'yery early interpolation.' 'Its 
authorship and precise date must remain uuknow.n.' , It 
rnanifest]y caI,lllot claÏ1n any ....\ po:stolic authority,' 'It is 


UF 'fIlE IIIRD ...\


ùoul,tless founded un SOllie tradition uf the ..Apostulic age.'- 
(1'Totr8, l' p. 4() allJ 51.) 
(2) TIlE ...\l;OXY IX TilE GARDEX (he \\youhl have told thenl) 
is 'an eilrly 'Vestern interpolation,' and 'can only he a 
fraguICl1t fronl traditions, \\Titten or oral,' -' rescued from 
ohlivion by the scribes of the second century.'-(pp. G6-7.) 
IURDEREn8 (1)1'. 
] fort \vould have said),-' I cannot doubt conIes frOlll an 
extrancous source.' It is ' a "T estern interI)ulation.'-(p.G8.) 
AXD IIEBItE'V [So Luke xxiii. 38], he would not have allo\\red 
so nnlch as a hearing. 
(5) The spuriousness of the narrative uf S. PETER'S \T ISIT 
TO Tln
 SEPULCHRE [So Luke xxiv. 12] (the same Ante-Nicene 
:Fathers ,vould hayc learned) he regarùs as a 'moral certainty.' 
]Ie \\yould have assureù thelll that it is ' a \Vestern non-in- 
terpolation.' -(po 71.) 
(6) They w'oul(l have learned that, in the account of the 
Sallte Critic, S. Luke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to 
the inspireù Tcxt: another "'T estern non-interp
] )1'. 110rt ,vould have tried to persuade them that oun LOUD'S 
 '1.vas evidently inserted frmn a.n 
aSSllJllption that a separation from the disciples at the close 
of a Go
pel 1n1lst be the Ascension,' (.1YÓtcs, p. 73). . . . <"That 
the .L\nte-Nicene Fathers "\yould have thought of their tea
we forlJcar to conjectufe.)-(p. 71.) 
 POOL OF BETHESDA [So tT ohn v. 
3, 4] is not e\ en allo,ved a bracketed plaee in VI'. ] [OI't'S 
Text. lIO\\T the acconlplished Critic \\'ould haye set about 
persu(l(ling the Ante-Kicene _Fathers that they ,vere ill error 
for holùing it to be genuinG Scripture, it is hard to Ï111agine. 

XXI". It is plain therefore that 1)r. Hort is in direct 
antag()nisrn ,vith the collectiyc BlÏnd uf Patri:;tie :\ntiquit\". 




1Vhy, ,vhen it suits hinI, he 3houlù appeal to' the same 
J\ncients for support,-\\Te fail to understand. 'If Baal be 
GOD, then folIo \\7 hÍ1n!' Dr. 110rt has his codex n and his 
cud ex 
 to guide him. He infol'lns us (p. 276) that' the fullest 
cunsideration does but increase the conviction that the prc- 
em incnt 'rl'lati1:c purity' of those t\VO codices' is approximately 
absolute,-a true approlt'i1natc re]J1'oduction of the Text of the 
Autographs.' On the other hand, he has discoyered that 
the TIeceivecl Te
t is virtually the production of the Fathers 
of the Nicene Age (A.D. 230-A,D. 350),-exhibits a Text 
fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those ''''ell- 
intentioned but thoroughly lllÏsguided luen. 'Yhat is it to 
him, henceforth, ho,,{ Athanasius, or Didynlus, or Cyril ex- 
hibits a place? 

Yes, ,ve repeat it,- Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism ,yith 
the Fathers of the IIII'd and the I\....th Century. His O\Vll 
fantastic hypothesis ûf a 'Syrian Text,' -the sole111n ex- 
l)ression of the cullectiye \visdolll and deliberate judgment 
of the Fathers uf the Nicolle ..Age (A,D, :230-A.D. 330),-is the 
lJest anS\\Ter \vhich can by possibility De invented to his O\VI1 
pages,-is, in our account, the une sufficient and conclusive 
refutation of his o\vn Text. 

Thus, his prolix and peryerse discussion of S. l\fark xvi. 
9-20 (yiz. from p. 28 to p. 51 of his .L\Tvtl's),-\yhich, careful1y 
analysed, is found Inerely to a"nount to 'Thank you for sho\\T- 
ing us our n1Ïstake; but \ye nlean to stick to our Jlu'JJlpsi- 
mus!' : - tho'3e many inferences as \\Tell f1'Ol11 what the 

Fathers do not say, as from ,,'hat t.hey do ;-are all effectually 
disposed of by his O\\Tn theory of a ' Syrian text,' A mighty 
array of forgotten Bishops, Fathers, Doctors of the Nicene 
period, COlne back and cahnly assure the acconlplished Pro- 
fessor that the evidence OIl \\ hich he relies is but an insigni- 

II 1.] 



ficant fraction of the eyidence ,rhich \\Tas before themselves 
,,-hen they delivered their judglIlent. 'IIad you kno,vn but 
the thou.;;andth part of ,vhat \\.e kne,v familiarly,' say they, 
'you ".oulù have spared yourself this exposure. You seeUl 
to ha, e furgotten that Eusehius ""as one of the chief persons 
in our asselllhly; that Cyril of J erusalenl and .i\thanasius, 
Ðasil and Gregory of N azianzus, as ,veIl as his nrunesake 
of N y ssa -were all livin
 ,yhen \YC hele lour Textual Con- 
, < 
ference, and SOUl(} of thenl, thuugh young nlen, ""ere even 
parties to our decree.' . . . X o,v, as an rt1''f/il'JncntWJlt lid 
lwnlÍnclIl, this, be it observed, is decisive and aùn1Ïts of no 

xxv. Ho,v then about those' Syrian Conflations' con- 
cerning \vhich a fe,v pages back \\"e heard so llluch, anù for 
which Dr. Hort considers the august tribunal of \\yhich ,ve 
arc no"r speaking to be responsible? lIe is convinced that 
the (so-called) Syrian Text (\\"hich he regards as the product 
of their deliberations), is ' an eclectic text cOlnbining Rf'adi71[Js 
f1'U?Jl tltc tliree principal Tc,rts' (p. 145): ,,?hich Ileadings in 
consequence he calls' conflatc.' Ho,v then is it to be sup- 
posed that these' Conffations ' arose? The ans\\?er is obvious. 
As ' Conflations,' thcy liare no cl'iBtCJlCC,-sa.ve in the fertile 
hrain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Xicene fathers ,Yho 
never lllet at .Antioch have 1Jeen interrogated by hÜn con- 
cerning this matter, - (let the Jlibernian supposition be 
allo\\?cù for argulnent sake I)-they ".ould perforce ha.ye n1ade 
allswer,-' \.on quite n1Ïstake the purpose for which \\
e calue 
together, learned sir ! Yon are eyidpntly thinking of your 
J erusalmll Chaluher and of the unheard-of Inethod devised hy 
your Bishop , [see pp. 3ï to 39: also p. 273] 'for ascertaining 
thr Truth of Scripture. "\V Cllll1ay the resuscitation of so nlany 
forgotten Llunders have occupic(l you and your colleagues 
for as long a periud as '\Ta
 expeu( led 011 the 
iege of Troy! 





On1- business \vas not to Í11/lxnt readings \vhether by " Con- 
flation" or other\vise, but only to distinguish bet\veen 
spurious Texts and genuine,-families of fabricated 1\188., 
and those \vhich "Te kne\v to be trust\\
orthy,-mutilated and 
unnlutilated Copies. Everyone of \vhat you are l)leased to 
call "Conflate l
eadings," learned sir, \ye found-just as YOll
finù theIn-in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and \ve gave 
thelll our deliberate app
oval, and left them standing in the 
Text in consequence. \Ve believed them to be,-\ye are 
confident that they arr,-the very \vords of the Evangelists 
and Apostles of the LORD: the ipsissÍ1na vCl'ba. of the 8rnuT: 
" the t1.UC sayings of tlw HOLY GHOST." J [See p. 38, note 2,] 
All this how'ever by the \vay. The eRsential thing to be 
borne in mind is that, according to Dr. Hort,-on t1.DO distinct 
occas.ions bet'ween A.D. 250 and 350-the ,,
hole Eastern Church, 
lneeting by representation in her palnliest days, deliberately 
IHlt forth that Traditional Text of the N,T. \vith \yhich \ve at 
this day are chiefly fan1Ïliar. That this is incleed his vie\v of 
the lllatter, there can at least be no douht. He says:- 

, An autltaritatire Rerlsion at Antioch. . . . was itself subjected 
to a sccond authoritath'e Rel:
.sion carrJing out Inore c01l1pletcl,v 
the purposes of the first.' 'At ,vhat date between A.D. 250 ana 
350 the fi,'sl process took place, it is impossible to say with confi- 
aence.' 'The final p1'ocess was apparently cOlnpletecl by A.D. 350 
or thereabouts.'-(p. 137.) 
, The func1an1ental text of late extant Gl"eek 1\ISS. generally 
is beyond all question ident.ical ,vith the dominant Ant.iochian or 
Græco-::;yrian text of the second half of lite IJTth century.' -(po 92.) 
TIe it so. It follo\vs that the Text exhibited by such 
codices as n and 
 'lL'aS dclibc/.atcly condcntned Ly the assembled 
piety, learning, and judgnlent of the four great I>atriarchates 
of Eastern Christenùom. At a period \vhen there existed 
nothin!J more rnodcrn than Codices B and
, - nothing so 
moùern as A and c,-all specinlens of the former class \verc 

D F...\TIIETIS, ..:\,D. 250-A,D. 350. 287 

rejccted: \vhi1e such codices as bore a general resell 1 blance to 
A \vere hy COllllnon consent pointed out as tlcserving of 
confidence and 'J'cconrmcndcd for repcated T'tanscription. 

XX.VI. rass fiftecn lUf1ulrcd years, anrl the Reader is invited 
to nute attentively \vhat has come to pass. Time has madc 
a clean s\Ycep, it 1nay be, of every Greek codex belonging to 
either of the t\VO dates aboyc indicated. "Every tradition 
belonging to thc period has also long since utterly perished. 
'Vhen 10, in _\.D. 1831, under the auspices of Dr, Lachnlann, 
C a nc\v <leparture' is Inade. Up springs \vhat Illay be called 
the new' German school of Textual Criticisnl,-of \vhich the 
fundalnentu1 principle is a superstitious deference to the 
decrees of cod. D. The heresy prevails for fifty years (1831- 
81) and obtains nlany adherents. The practical result is, 
that its chief promoters make it their business to thro\v dis- 
credit on the l'esult of the t\yO great ...A.ntiuchian Revisions 
already spoken of! The (so-called) C Syrian Text' -although 
assunled by Drs. 'Yestcott and Hort to he the product of the 
cOlnbineù \\"isdoIll, piety, and learning of the great Patriar- 
chates of the East from A.D. 250 to A,D. 350; C a "l
in the proper sense of the \yord; a \york of attenlpted Criti- 
cisln, perfonned deliberately lJY Editors and nut nlerely by 
Scribes' (p. 133) :-this C Syrian Text,' Doctors 'Vestcùtt and 
Hart denounce as C showing no marks of citlu.';. criticu.l 01' spi- 
ritual insi!Jht : ' - 
It 'presents' (say tbey) 'the Ke\v Tef';tamcnt in a form 
smooth and attractive, but app'ì"cciably im]JOl.'l>rislte,z in sense and 
fm.ce; more fitted fur cursory penuml or recitation than fur 
pcatea and diligent stuùy.'-(p. 135.) 

XXVII. 'Y c arc content to leavc this matter to tht> 
l:eader's judglllent. .For ourselves, \'"e luake no secret uf 
the grotes(lueness of the cuntrast thus, for the second timc, 
presented to the imaginatiun. On that side, hy the hypo- 




thesis, sit the greatest Doctors of primitive Christendoln, 
aSSClll bled in solenlll conclave. Every Illost illustrious naIue 
is there. By ingeniously dra,ving a purely arbitrary hard- 
and-fast line at the year A,D. 350, and so anticipating III any 
a 'fiOrltit' by sonlething between five and five-and-t\vellty 
years, Dr. Hort's intention is plain: but the expedient 'v ill 
not serve his turn. Quite content are ,ve ,vith the nalnes 
secured to us ,vithin the proposed limits of tinle. On that 
side then, ,ye behold congregated choice representatives 
of the \\-isdoIll, the piety, the learning of the Eastern 
Church, froln A,D. 
50 to A.D. 350,-On this side sits- 
Dr. Hort! . . . An interval of 1532 years separates these 
t\VO parties. 

XXVIII. ....\nd first,-IIo\\ may the ronnel' asselnl)lnge be 
supposed to have l)een occupying thenlselves? The object 
,vith ,,-hich tho
e distinguished }Jersonages canle together ,vas 
the loftiest, the purest, the holieHt iUlaginable: viz. to purge 
out froln the sacred Text the Illany corruptions by ,vhich, in 
their judglnents, it had become depraved during the 250 (or 
at the utnlost 300) years ,vhich have elapsed since it first 
caIne into existence; to detect the counterfeit and to elin1Ïnate 
the spurious. Not Ulla\Vare by any Illeans are they of the 
carelessness of Scribes, nor yet of the corruptions \vhich have 
Leen brought in through the officiousness of critical (Correc- 
tors' of the Text. To \vhat has resulted froln the lllisdirected 
piety of the Orthodox, they are every Lit as fully aliye as to 
\\yhat has crept in through the malignity of IIeretical Teachers. 
J\Ioreover, ,,-hile the Inelllory survives in all its freshness of 
the depravations \yhich the inspired Text has experienced 
froln these and other sinlÎlar corrupting influences, the '/lwans 
abound and arc at hand of testing every suspected place of 
Scripture. 'VeIl, and next,-IIo\v haye these holy IneH 
I )ro
pel'ed in thrir holy enterprise ? 

, J( r.] 

COlll'( )R.\TE ,rOIU\:,-.A,D, 250 TO .\.D, 350. 


XXIX. ...\.ccurding to Dr. 1Jort, hy a strange fatality,-a 
lllost unaccountable and truly disastrous proclivity to error, 
-these illustrious :Fathers of the Church have heen at every 
instant suh3tituting the spuriou
 for the genuille,-a fahri- 
cated Text in place of the Evangelical Verity. l\fiserable 
l11C11 ! In the Gospels alone they have interpolated about 

100 "ords: have 01l1ittBd about 700 : have substituted about 
lUaU; have transposed about 2200: have altered (ill respect 
of number, case, nlood, tense, person, &c.) about 1200. 1 This 
done, they huxe anlused thenlselves ,vith the give-and-take 
process of lllutual accomulodation "Thich 'we are taught to call 
, Conflation :' in plain tenlls, they have bc
n manujactu'ring 
Scripture. The Text, as it comes forth from their hands,- 

(a) If Shews no 'Jnarks oj eithc1. critical or sjJiritu(ll insi!Jht:"- 
(b) "Presentg the N e,v Testalnent in a fornl slnooth an(! 
attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense llnd force :"- 
(c) "Is more fitted for cursory pCl.uBal or recitation, than for 
?'cJ1catcd and diligent study." 

loreover, the nlischief has proved infectious,-has spread. 
In Syria also, at Edessa or Nisibis,-(for it is as "Tell to be 
circlunstantial in such nlatters,)-the self-same iniquity is 
about to be perpetrated; of 'which the Peschito "ill be the 
alJidillg UlonUluent: one solitary ,vitness only to the pure Text 
heing suffered to escape. Curet()n's fragmentary Syriac 'will 

1 To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. "\Yestcott and Hort require us to 
helieve that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions of A.D. 250 
and A,D, 35û, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with between 

Hj'7 (n) and 3-155 (
) spurious words; mutilated the genuine Text in 
respect of between 536 (n) and 83û (
) words :-suhstituted for as 11l3.DY 
gelluine words, between Ð35 (n) and 1114 (
) unin
pired. word8 :-licen- 
ly trall
ed between 2m,S (B) and 22u
) :-and in respect of 
number, case, nlo0l1, tell:;c, per::;un, &c., altered without authurity between 

 (n) and 1:!63 (N) w()rd




[A TIT. 

alone remain to exhil)it to Inallkind the outlines of prilnitivc 
Truth. (The reader is ren1Ïndecl of the character alrea(ly 
given of the docHlnent in question at the slunmit of pagc 
279. Its cxtravagance can only be fully appreciated Ly onc 
\vho \\?ill Le at the pains to read it steadily through.) 

xxx. And pray, (\ve ask,)- 1J T ho says all this? 1J"7tO is it 
".ho gravcly puts forth all this egregious nonsense? . . . It is 
Dr. IIort, (\\re ans"
er,) at pp. 134-5 of the vo!tuue now? uIHler 
review'. In fact, according to hÚu, those primitive }'athers 
have been the great falsifiers of Scripture; have provcll the 
\rorst cnenlÍes of the pure "r onl of GOD; have slutlllcfully 
Letraycd their sacred trust; have (lone the dialnetrical reverse 
of \yhat (Ly the hypothesis) they canle together for the sole 
purpose of doing. They ha,ye depraved and corrupted that 
sacred Text \yhich it ,vas their aÌ1n, their ùuty, and their pro- 
fessed oLject to purge froln its errors. And (by the hypo- 
thesis) Dr. Hort, at the end of 1532 years,-aided by cuJex B 
and his own self-evolyed l)o\\'ers uf divination,-has found 
thell1 out, and now hulùs thenl up to the conten1pt and scurn 
of the British puhlic. 

XXXI, In the Ineal1tÏ1ne the illustrious rrofessor invites 
us to believe that the Inistaken textual juùgnlent pronounceù 
at ....\ntioch in _\.D. 350 had an innnediate effect on the Text 
of Scripture throughout the \\?orlù. "r e are requested to sup- 
puse that it resulted in the instantaneous extinction of codices 
the likè of n 
, \\?herever found.; and caused codices of the A type 
tu Bpring up like nlushroolns in their place, and that, in every 
library of ancient Christendom. "r e are further required to 

lune that this extraorclinary su hstitution ûf new evidence 
for ollt-the false for the true-fully explains ,,-hy Irenæus 
and IIippolytus, Athanasius and I)iclynll.ls, Gregory of 




N azianzns and Gregory of ..Nyssa, Basil and Ephraem, Epipha- 
nins and Chrysostoln, Theodore of l\lopsuestia and Isidore 
of relusiulll, Xilus and N onnus, rroclus and Severianus, 
the t\\PO Cyrils and Theoùoret-one and all-sho\\p theln- 
sel,pes strangers to the text of ß and N . . . 'Ye read and 

XXXIL .For, (it is time to enquire,)-Does not the learned 
JÞrofessor see that, by thus getting ri<l of the testÜuony of 
the \vholc bo(ly of the Fathers, he leaves tl
e Science \vhich he is 
so good as to patronize in a most destitute condition,-besides 
I )lacing hin1self in a Inost inCOnyellient state of isolation? If 
clear and consentient Patristic testÍlnony to the Text of Scrip- 
ture is not to be deelned forcible ,,"'itness to its Truth,- 
'whither shall a man betake hinlself for constraining Eyidence? 
1)1'. Hort has already set aside the Traditional Text as a thing 
of no luanneI' of inlportance. The venerable Syriac 'T" ersion 
he has also insisted on reducing very nearly to the level of 
the (lespised cursives. As for the copies of the old Latin, 
they had confessedly becoIlle so ulltrust\vorthy, at the tinle of 
,,-hich he speaks, that a lllodest Revision of the Text they 
clnbody, (the C Vulgate' namely,) becalne at last a nlcasure 
of necessity. "11 at reluains to hÜn therefore? Can he 
seriously suppose that the \yorld 'will put up \vith the' idio- 
syncrasy' of a living Doctor-his 'personal instincts' (p. xi,)- 
his' personal discernment' (p. 65),-his ' instinctive processes 
of Criticislll' (p. 66),-his 'indiyidual Inind,'-in preference 
to articulate voices con1ing to us across the gulf of Time froln 
ery part of ancient Christendol11? IIo\v-\vith the faintest 
chance of success-does J)r. Hort propose to reIlledy the 
absence of External Te
tin1ony 1 If n1ankinù can afford to 
do \yithout cither conscnt of Copies or of Fathers, \vhy does 
mankind any longer adherc to the ancicnt lllethods of proof? 
'Yhy do Critics of every school still acculllulatc references to 




[A fiT. 

ISS., explore the ancient '
ersions, and ransack the Patristic 
 in search of neglected citations of Scripture? That 
the ancients "Tore indifferent Textual Critics, is true euough. 
The nlÏschief done 1y Origcn in this ùepartulent,-throllgh 
his fondness for a branch of Learning in ,vhieh his relllarks 
sho\v that he ,vas all unskilled,-is not to be told. TIut then, 
these In en lived ,vithin a very fe,v hundred years of the 
Apostles of the LORD JESUS CIIRIST: and ,vhen they ".itness 
to the reading of their o"Tn copies, their testiInony on the point, 
to say the least, is ,vorthy of our nlost respectful attentjon. 
Dated codice.s, in fact are they, to all intents and p1/rposcs, 
as often as they bear clear ,vitness to the Text of Scripture: 
-a fact, (,ve take leave to thro,v out the remark in passing,) 
,vhich has not yet nearly attracted the degree of attention 
\vhich it deserves. 

XXXIII. For ourse1ves, having Rairl so Dluch on this 8u1.- 
ject, it is fair that we shuuld add,- "r e devoutly ,vish that 
J )1'. Hort's hypothesis of an authoritative and de1iberatel:ecen- 
sion of the Text of the New TestaInent achieved at .L
first, about A.D. 250, and next, about A.D. 350, "ere indeed an 
historical fact. "r e desire no finneI' basis on \yhich to rest 
our confidence in the Traditional Text of Scripture than 
the deliberate yerdict of Antiquity,-the ascertained sanction 
of the collectiyc Church, in the Nicelle age. The Latin 
c,'" ulgate' [A.D. 385] is the ,york of a single mall-J eronle. The 
Syriac 'Vulgate' [A.D. 616] ,vas also the \vork of a single 
ulan-Thomas of Harke!. But this G'l'cek C 'Tulgate' ,vas (hy 
the hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [A,D. 250- 
A.D. 350,] in her corporate capacity. Not only should \ve hail 
such a monument of the collective piety and learning of the 
Chul'ch in her best days \vith ulln1Ïngled reverence and joy, 
\vere it introduced to our notice; but '\"e should insist that 
no important deyiation frolll such a ' Tcxt'lls Rcccpl-us' as that 

lJCII 11l
TOUY. 293 

wouhl ùeser\re to he li!îtened to. In other \,"onls, if 1)1'. 
Ilort's theory ahout the origin of the Tcxtus Il.cccptus ha, e 
(( ny fvzllulaiion at all in fact, it is (all up' \vith Dr. Ilort, 
lIe is ab:-;olutely IWWhC1.C. lIe has lllost ingeniously placeù 
hÜnself on the horns of a fatal dileulnla, 

:For,-(let it be carefully noted,)-the entire discussion 
becolnes, in this ,yay, brought (so to speak) \vithin the com- 
pass of a nutshell, To state tho case briefly,- ,yo e are invited 
to llulke our election betw.een the Fathers of the Church, 
A,D. 250 and .\.D. 35U,-and Dr. 1Iort, .A.D, 1881. The issue is 
really reduced to that, The general question of THE TEXT OF 
SCRIPTURE being the Inatter at stake ; (not any particular 
passage, reJnember, but the Text of Scripture as a 'whole ;)-and 
the conflicting parties being but two;- TVhich are we to 
helieye? tlw conscnticnt Voice of Antiquity,-or the solitary 
ulotIern Professor? Shall ,ve accept the august TestÏ1nony 
of the ,vhole body of the Fathers? or shall ,,-e prefer to be 
guided by the self-evolved iInaginations of one w.ho con- 
fessedly has nothing to offer but conjecture 1 The question 
he fore us is reduced to that single issue, But in fact the 
alternati ve admits of being yet 1110re concisely stated. ,yo e are 
itell to make our election between FACT and-FICTIOS . . . 
..All this, of course, on the supposition that there is any truth 
at all in Dr, Hort's ( N e\\? Textual Theory.' 

XXXIV. Apart ho,vever fron1 the gross intrinsic Ünpro- 
haLility of the supposed Recension,-the utter absence of 
one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever 
did take l)lace, lllust he held to he fatal to the hypothesis 
that it did. It is simply incredible that an incident of such 
luagnitude and interest ,yould leaye no trace of itself in his- 
tory. As a conjecture-(and it only professes to lIe a conjec.- 
ture)-1)r, IIort"s notion of ho\v the Text of the Fathers of 




the IIII'd, IVth, and \Tth centuries,-,vhich, as he truly 
remarks, is in the Illain identical \vith our o\vn Received Text, 
-came into being, luust be unconditionally abandoned. In the 
,yords of a learned living Prelate,-" tlte supposition" on \vhich 
Drs. 'Vestcott and 110rt have staked their critical reputation, 
" is a 'manifest abs
(/tdity." 1 

xxxv. 'Ve have been so full on the subject of this ima- 
ginary , Alltiuchian ' ur (Syrian text,' Hut (the reader Jllay be 
sure) \yithout sufficient reaSon. Seant satisfactiun truly is 
there in scattering to the ,vintls au airy tissue ,vhich its 
ingenious authors have been industriously \vcaving for 
30 years. TIut it is clear that \vith this hypothesis of a 
, Syrian' text, -the ÌIllrnediate source and actual prototype of 
the COllllllOllly received Text of the N. T.,-stands or falls 
their enti1>c Textual theory. I{eject it, and the entire fabric is 
observed to collapse, and subside into a shapeless ruin. And 
\vith it, of necessity, goes the ( N e\v Greek Text,' -and there- 
fore the' lVC1.V English JTcrsion' of our Revisionists, \vhich In 
the lllain has been founded on it. 

XXX\TI. In the nleantime the phenolnena upon \vhich this 
phantoIll has heen based, relnain unchanged; anlI fairly in- 
terpreted, ,vill he found to conduct us to the ditunetrically 
opposite result to that ,vhich has been arrived at by Dl's, 
'Vestcott and IIort. 'Vïth perfect truth has the latter 
reuHtrkecl on thc practical' identity of the Text, nlore espe- 
cially in the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, in all the knO'Yll 
cursive l\ISS., except a fe\v' (p. 143). 'Ve fully athnit the 
truth of his statenlcnt that- 

, Before the close of the IVth century, a Greek Text not Inatorially 
differing fro In the almost universal Text of the IXth,' -[antI 

1 Quuted by Canon Cook, RCl1ised rersioJl CUllsidu'crl,-p. 




,\rhy not of tho Vlth? of the Vllth? of the Vlllth? or again 
of tho Xth? of the Xlth? of the Xllth ?]-' century, ,vas 
ùOIlliuant at Antioch.'-(p. 142.) 
And ,vhy not throughout the ,vhole uf Eastern Christendom? 
IVh!J this continual mention of '....!ntioch,' -this perpetual 
introduction of the epithet 'S!Jriu,t' ( Neither designation 
 to Iren
eus or to JIippolytus,-to .L\thanasius or to 
IJidynllls,-to Gregory of N azianzus or to his nalneSah.e uf 
Ny::;:-;a,-to Dasil or to Epiphanius,-to Nonnus or to l\faca- 
rius,-to Proclus or to Theoùorus l\Iops.,-to the earlier or 
to the later Cyril.-In brief, 

'The fundaIllontal text of the late extant Greek 1\188. gene- 
rally is, beyond all question, identical with [,vhat Dr. Hort 
chooses to call] the dUlnÌnallt A.ntiochian or Gra
co-Syrian text 
of the second half of the IVth century. . . . The Antiochian [and 
other] Fathers, anll the bulk of extant l\IðS. "Titten froln 
about three or four, to ten or eleyen centuries later, must 
have had, in the greater number of extant variations, a comInon 
original either contempora1.Y with, or oldeJ" than, om. oldest extant 
]I8S.'-(p. 92.) 

XXX,TII. Su far then, happily, ,ve are entirely agreed. The 
only questiun is,-IIo"r is this resemblance to Le accounted 
Vot, "'e ans,,'er,-Iwt, certainly, by putting for\vard so 
violent and inlprobable-so irrctlional a conjecture as that, 
first, about 
\..D. 250,-alld then again about A.D. 330,- 
an authoritative standard Text \vas fabricated at Antioch; of 
\vhich all other kllo,vn 1\188. (except a very little handful) 
are nothing else but transcripts :-but rather, hy luyally 
recognizing, in the practical identity uf the Text exhiLited 
by gg out of 100 of our extant l\1

., the probahle general 
fidelity of thos("\ lilany transcripts to the inspired c
thcmselves fJ'OJn 'which Toit()tcl!J they are confc
::;l'lll!J desccJldcd. 
...lnù surely, if it l,e allu\vablc to as:-;U1l1e (\vith Dr. Jlort) 
that fur Lj:J
 YCi.lrS; (viz. frolH A,O, 330 tv .A,1). 188
) the 




Antiochian standard has been faithfully retained and trans- 
mitted,-it ,vill be itnpossible to assign any valid reason 
why the inspired Original itself, the Apostolic standard, 
should not have been as faithfully transmitted and retained 
from the .A.postolic age to the .A.ntiochian,l-i.e. throughout 
an intel'val of less than 250 years, or one-sixth of the period. 

XXXVIII. Here, it ,vilI obviously occur tu 
\vhat has been Drs. "T estcott and 11urt's motive for inventing 
such an iInprobaLle hyputhesis 1 and \vhy is 1)1'. Hart so 
strenuous in nlaintaining it? . . . . . "T e reply by ren1Ïnd- 
iug the Reader of certain relnarks \vhich ,YO lllade at the 
outset,2 The Traditional Text uf the N. T. is a phenolnenon 
\vhich sorely exercises Critics of the new school. To depre- 
ciate it, is easy: to deny its critical authority, is easier still: 
to cast ridicule on the circUlllstances under which Eraslllus 
produced his first (very faulty) edition of it (1516), is easiest 
of all. But to ignorc the C Traditional Text,' is ÏlllPossible. 
Equally ÏInpossible is it to overlook its practical identity 
\vith the Text of Chrysostorn, ,vho lived and taught at An- 
tioch till A.D. 398, ".hen he became Abp. of Constantinople. 
N o\V this is a very a\vk,yard circumstance, and must in sonle 
\vay be got over; for it transports us, at a bound, fronl the 
stifling atmosphere of Basle and Alcala,-fronl Erasmus and 
Stunica, Stephens and Beza anù the Elzevirs,-to Antioch 
and Constantinople in the latter part of the IVth century. 
'Vhat is to be done? 

XXXIX. Drs. 'Vestcott and Hort aSSUllle that this C Anti- 
oehian text' -fuund in the later cursives and the Fathers of 
the latter half of the IVth centurY-lnust 10 an artificial, 
an armtra'rily in'Ccntrd standard; a text fabricated bet"Teen 

1 i,e. bay from A,D. UO to A,D. 

2 t;cc aboyc, p. 269. 




.\.0, 2:>0 anù A.D. 350. Aud if they lnay hut he so furtunate 
as to persuaùe the ,yorld to adopt their hyputhesis, then all 
will be easy; fur they ,vill have reduL:eù the sUPl-'osell ' con- 
sent of Fathers' to the reproùuction of une and the same 

ingle 'l'rÏ1nary duclllnentary w-itness:' I-and' it is hanUy 
::;ary t.o puint out the total change in the bearing 
of the evidence by the introduction uf the factor of Gene- 
alo!JY' (p. 43) at this particular juncture. Upset the 
hypothesis on the other hand, and all is reversed in a 
IIlOIllent. Every attesting Father is perceived to be a dated 
1\18. and an independent authority; and the cOlllLined evi- 
dence of seyeral of these beconles sÍInply unlllanageaLle. 
In like lUanneI', "the approxÍInate consent of the cursives" 
(see the foot-note), is perceived to be equiyalent not to "A 
AL," -but to be tantiullount to the articulate speech of 
many ,,'itnesses of high chæracter, conling to us frO?n every 
qnarter of prin1Ítive Christendom. 

XL. But-(the further enquiry is sure to he Blade)- 
I n favour of ,yhich doculnent, or set of docluuellts, have all 
these fantastic efforts been Blade to disparage the comlnonly 
received standards of excellence? The ol'dinary English 
Hcader may require to be reminded that, prior to the l\Tth 
c0utury, our Textual helps are few, fragnlentary, and-to 
speak plainly-insufficient. As for sacred Codices of that 
date, 've possess NOT OXE. Of our t,vo prin
itive Versiolls, 

1 'If,' says Dr. IIort, , an etli tor were for any parpose to make it his dim 
tu resture as cumpletely as possible the Sew Testament uf Antioch in A.D. 
3;)0, he could not help taking the approxiJnate consent of tbe cur
ives as 
e(lllÏ\.alent to (t, primary dOCllmelltar.l/ witllcs.r;;:. AntI he would not he the 
less justified in so doing for being unable to bay }}feciscly by what historical 
agencies THE O
:\I. '-[note the fallacy 1]-' U'as mul- 
tiplied Ùdo tlu" Clll'ÛVC hu
t:; (if the lahr ([yu;,'- Pl'. 113-1. 





( the Syriac and the old Latin,' the second is grossly corrupt; 
o\ving (says Dr, IIort) 'to a perilous confusion bet\vecn 
transcription and 'J'cprodnetioit,.' 'the preservation of a 
record and its Sllpposed Í1npr01:C1ncnt' (p, 121). 'Further 
acq uailltance \vith it only increases our distrust' (ibid.). In 
plainer English, 'the earliest readings \vhich can be fixed 
chronologically' (p. 120) belong to a ,,.. ersion ,,
hich is liccn- 
tious and corrupt to an increùible extent. ..And though 
'there is no reason to doubt that the Peschito [or ancient 
Syriac] is at least as old as the Latin ,r ersion' (p. 84), yet 
(according to Dr. Hort) it is 'Î1npossible '-(he is no,,
here so 
good as to explain to us "Therein this supposed 'Î1npossi- 
Lility' consists),-to regarù 'the present form of the \T ersion 
as it true representation of the original Syriac text.' The 
date of it (according to hi"t) m,ay be as late as A.D. ;)50, 
..t'\.nyho"r, \ve are assured (but only by Dr. Hort) that iInpor- 
tant 'evidence for the Greek text is hardly to 1Je looked for 
frolll this source' (p. 85).-The Fathers of the IIII'd century 
,vho have left behind them con
idera1Jle rCl1uLÎns in C
are Lut t,vo,-Clelllen::; .AJex. and Origen: and there are 
considerations attending the citations of either, ,vhich h'Teatly 
detract from their value. 

XLI. The question therefore recurs ,vith redoubled CIIl- 
phasis,- In favour of '{chich docUlnent, or set of ducunlcuts, 
does l1r. Hort disparage the Inore cOl1sÜlerable portion of 
that early eviùencc,-so much of it, llalnely, as belongs tu 
the l\Tth century,-on ,vhieh the Church has been hitherto 
accustolllcd confidently to rely? He asserts that,- 

'Almost all Greek Fathers after Eusebius have texts so 
deeply affected by mixture that' they' cannot at Inost count 
for more than so luauy secontlary Greek uncial 1\188., inferior 
in most cascs to tlte bellm" sort of secondary uncial .JISS. now ex- 
isting.' -(po 202.) 




.And thus, at a 
tr(jke, behold, 'ahnost all Grcek ]latlters 
after .E'as 'ÙÍ1lS' - ("rho died A,D. 340) - are disposed of! 
hed ovcrLoard! put clean out of sight! .Athanasius alHl 
Didymus-the 2 Basils and the 2 Gregories-the 2 Cyril
and the 2 Theoùores - Epiphanius aud l\facarius and 
El'hraelll-Chrysostolll aud Severiauus and l)roelus-Xilu
and N onnus- Isidore of PelusiulH and Theodoret: nut tu 
llwntion at least as lllauy IHore ,yhu bave left scanty, 
yet Blust precious, relliains behiud them :-all these arl' 
prunounced inferior in authority to as III any IXth- or Xth- 
ccntury copies! . . . "r e connnelld, in pasf:ìing, the fore- 
going dictum, of these acconlplished Editors to the critical 
judgll1ent of all candid and intelligent Readers. Not as 
dated Illanuscripts, therefore, at least equal in Antiquity tv 
the oldest w'hich \ye no\'" possess :-not as the authentic 
utterances of falnous l)octors and Fathers of the Church, 
(instead of being the ,york of unkno\vn and irrespollsilJle 
Scribes) :-not as sure witnesses of ,vhat ,vas accounted 
Scripture in a kno,vn region, by a fanlous personage, at a 
well-ascertained period, (instead of conlÍng to us, as our 
I codices 1.1niversally do, ,vithout a history and "Tithout R 
eharacter) :-in no such light are "ye henceforth to regard 
Patristic citations of Scripture :-but only 'as so InallY 
secondary l\ISS" i'lferior to the better S01't of secondary 'llncials 
, . , 
/LOW ex

XLII. That the Testimony of the Fathers, in the hUH p, 
I Blust perforce in some such ,yay either be ignored or else 
flouted, if the Text of I )1'8. 'Vestcott and IIort is to stand,- 
we ".ere perfectly ,veIl a\vare. It is sinlply fatal to thenl: 
(lit I they know it. nut ,ve "rere hardly prepared fur such a 
dClllonstration as this. Let it all pass ho\ve\'er. The que::,- 
tion "pe propo
e is only the follo,ving,-If the Text' used by 
'll'cat A nliuclzinn thcolo!Ji(l JlS not IUllg aftcr the lllithlle of the 




IVth century' (p, 14ß) is undeserving of our confidence:- 
if \VO are to believe that a systelnatic depravation of Scrip- 
ture \vas universally going on till about the end of tho IIlrd 
century; and if at that tilne, an authoritative and deliberate 
recension of it-conducted on utterly erroneous principles- 
took place at Antioch, and resulted in the vicious 'tradi- 
tional Constantinopolitan' (p. 143), or (as Dr, 1-Iurt prefers 
to call it) the' eclectic Syrian Text:' - TfThat rCHlains to us? 
Are ,ve hencefurth to rely on our own 'inner consciousness' 
for ilhnuination 1 Or is it seriously expected that for the 
restoration of the inspired V" erity we shall be content to 
surrender ourselves L1indfohl to the ipse di.rit of an unknown 
and irresponsible nineteenth-century guide? If neither of 
these courses is expected of us, "Till these Editors he so goot! 
as to give us the nanles of the dOC1Ullents on ,vhich, in their 
judgnlent, ,ve rnay rely 1 

XLIII. 'Ve are not suffered to l'Cnlalll long in a state 
of suspense. The assurance a\vaits us (at p. 150), that the 
Vatican codex, 

, n-is found to hold a unique position. Its text is through- 
out Pre-Sfp.ian, perhal)s purely Pre-Syrian. . . . From distinc- 
tively TITeb'tern readings it seems to be all but entirely free. 
. . . 'Ve have not been able to l'ecognize as Alexandrian any 
reaùings of B in any book of the :Ke\v Testament. . . . . 
that . . . neither of the early streams of innovation bas touched 
it to any appreciable extent.' -(p. 150.) 
'The text of the Sinaitic C'odex (
)' also' seems to be entirely, 
or all but entirely, P1'e-SY1'ian. A very large part of the 
text is in like manner free from Westm.n or Alexandrian cle- 
ments.'-(p. 151.) 
, Evcry other known Greek manuscript has eithf'r a mixed or a 
Syrian text,'-(p. 151.) 

Thus then, at last, at the end of exactly 150 \yeary pages, 
the secret comes out! The oue point "rhich the respected 


Ol)EX B .\ 


EditOl'$ arl' founù to lun c been all along driying at :-the 
OIW ailll of those luany hazy di
lluisitiolls of theirs about 
, r ntrillsic and Transcriptional rrobaLility,' -' Genealogical 
t A \ idencc, silnple and ùi\.ergent,' -and' the stuùyof Groups: ' 
-the one reason of all their vague tennillology,-alld of 
their baseless theory of ' COllfiation,' -and of their disparage- 
11lCnt of the .r\tthel's :-the one rlti
on d'être of their fiction 
uf a 'Syrian' anll a 'l>re-Syrian' and a 'X entral' text:- 
the secret of it all conles out at last! A delightful, a truly 
K ewtoniall sÌIl1plicity characterizes the final anuuUnCelllent. 
.All is sUlumed up in the curt fOl'lllUla-Codcx B ! 

Behold then the altar at which Copies, Fathers, 'T ersions, 
aro all to he ruthle
sly sacrificed :-the tribunal froin ,vhich 
thl're shall be absolutely nu appeal :-the Oracle which is tu 
silence every doubt, resolye every riddle, slnooth aw"ayevery 
difficulty. .L\ll has been stated, ,yhere the name has been 
pronounced of-codex B, One is renlÎnùed of an enigmatical 
epitaph on the floor of the Chapel of S. John's College, 
, TTrl'buJJl., non a1nplius-Fislwr'! To codex B all the Greek 
}'athers after Eusebius HUlst give ".ay. Eyen l>atristic 
c\"itlence of the ctnte-]{icene period 'requires critical sifting' 
(p. 20
),-nulst be distrusted, nlay 1e denied (pp. 
-if it shall be found to contradict Cod. B! I B ycry far 
exceeds all other docunlents in neutrality of Text.'-(p. 171.) 

XLlV.. '...\.t a long interval after B, but hardly a Il'ss 
interval before all other :\ISS., stands 
' (p. 171 ).-Such is 
the SUIll of the nlatter! . . . . A coarser,-a clunlsier,-a 
n10re unscientific,-a Illore stupid expedient for settling the 
I true Text of Scripture ,,-as surely never invented! But fur thp 
nlany fuggy, or rather unreadable di:-;quisitions "yith ,vhich 
the inti oduction is enculnLered, "Textual Cl'iticisUl luadc 
easy," luight very well ha,.e been the title of the little 




vulunle now under TIpvie,v; of ,vhieh at last it is diRCOyered 
that the general Infallibility of Codex B is the fUlldaUlcntal 
principle. Let us ho"Tever hear these learned men out. 

XLV. They begin by offering us a chapter on the' General 
relations of n and 
 to other doculuents:' ,vhel'ein ,ye are 
assured that,- 
, Two strildng facts successively come out with especial clear- 
ness. Every group containing both Nand D, is found. . . to 
have an apparently more original Text than every Ol)po
cd group 
containing neither; and every group containing D . . . Ù: found 
in a large preponderance of cases. . . to have an appa1.ently 
mm'e original Text than every opposed group containing 
(p. 210.) 

, L') found'! but pray,-By who1J
? And' appaJ 1 cntly'! but 
pray,-To 'lohorn? and On u'hat grounds of Eridcncc? }'or 
unless it be un certain grounds of Evidence, how can it 
Le pretcnded that 'Ve haye before us ' t,yO striking facts' ? 

Again, ,yith ,yhat sho,v of reason can it possibly be asserted 
that these" t,yO striking facts" "come out ,yith especial clear- 
ncss" ? so long as their yery existence l'enlains in ,
has never been established, and is in fact elnphatically 
(lenied 1 Expressions like the foregoing then only begin to 
be tolerable ,yhell it has been made plain that the Teacher 
has SOlne solid foundation on \vhich to build. Else, he 
occasions nothing but iInpatience and displeasure. Readers 
at first are sinlply annoyed at being trifled ,yith: presently 
they gro,v restive: at last they beconle clamorous for 
delnonstration, and \vill accept of nothing less. Let us go 
on ho,yever. "r e are still at p. 210:- 

, We found 
 and D to stand alone in their almost comp1ete 
immunity frol11 distinctiye Syriac readings . . . . and n to stand 
far above 
 in its appa1.ent freedolll frolu eit.her 'Vestern or 
Alexandrian readings.' -(po 210.) 




ut pray, gentlC1ncn,-IVhcrc and 'h('J
 did ',vc find' 
either of these t,vo things? "T e have ' found' nothing uf 
the sort hitherto. The TIevie"ycr is disposed to reproduce 
thl) I)uke uf \Yellington's courteous reply to the l)rince 
I:cgent, "yhen the latter clailned the arrangelllents \vhich 
resulted in the victory of \Yarerloo :-' I lta1:c heard YOltr 
Itf)yallligllnfss say so.' . . . . At the end of a fe,v pages, 
, ]lariug found 
 B the constant element in groups of every 
size, distingui:.;hed l)y internal excellence of readings, tce found 
no less excellence in the readings in ,vhich they concur with- 
out other attestations of Greek )188., or even of Versions or 
Fathers.' -(po 219.) 

'Vhat ! again? \Yhy, ,,'e ' lut1:c fOlltu1' nothing as yet but 
Hciteration. t"7"p to this puint ,ve have not been favoured 
with one particle of Eyidence! . . . In the nleantime, the 
convictions of these accolllplished Critics,-(but not, unfortu- 
nately, those of their TIeaders,)-are obseryed to strengthen 
as they proceed. On reaching p. 224, ,ve are assured that, 
'The independence [of Band NJ can be carried back so far,'- 
(not a hint is given lww,)-' that their concordant testilllony lllay 
l)f" treafed as equivalent to that of a \IS. olòcr than 
 and B 
t.hemselves by at least two centuries,-probably by a generation 
or two more.' 

110" tlnd 'independence' ".as established, and ho,," this 
'pruLability' has been arriyed at, "ye cannot even iInagine. 
The l)()int tu be attended to ho,,
eYer, is, that by the process 
in{licated, some such early epoch as 
\,n. 100 has been reached. 
So that now. ,ve are not surpri
ed to hear that, 
'The respective ancestries of 
 and ß nlust hayc diverged 
I fronl a comlllon parent extremely near tlle ...tpostolic autographs.'- 

o. See top of p. 221.) 
Or tbat,-' The close app1.oaclt to the time of the autographs rai
the prct:;uluption of purity to an unusual strength.' --(po 224.) 




And 10, before ,ve turn the leaf, this' preSllll1ption' IS 
found to have ripcned into certainty :- 

, This general immunit)T from sn bstantive error . . . . in tIle 
conlmon original of N B, in conjunction ,vith its very high 
antiquity, provides in a multitude of cases a 8afe criterion of 
genuinene88, not to be di8t1"lt8ted except on very clear internal 
evidence. Accordingly... it is our belief, (1) That Readings 
of N n should be ac('cpterl as Ow true Reailings until strong internal 
evidence is found to the contrary; and (2), That no Reading8 
of N B can be 8afely rejected ab8olutely.' -(po 225.) 
XL Y'1. ....\lld thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process 
of R,eitcration, acco111panied by a Luunùless exercise uf the 
Ilnaginative faculty, \ve have reached the goal to \vhich all 
that went lJefore has been steadily tending: viz, the absolute 
suprclnacy uf cuùices nand N alJu\ e all other cotlices,-allll, 
w'hen they differ, then of codex B. 

And yet, the' illUllunity frol11 substantive error' of a lost 
Codex of Ï1naginary date and unknovJn history, cannot but 
he a pure Ï1naginatioll,-(a Iuistaken one, as ,ye shall 
presently sho"r,)-of these respected Critics: ,vhile their 
proposeù practical inference from it, -( viz. to regard t"TO 
relllote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as 
'a srifc c1'itcl'ion of gCn'uincnc8s,')-this, at all events, is the 
reverse of logical. In the nlealltÏ1ne, the presunlcd proxÌ1nity 
of the Text of 
 and .R to the Apostolic age is henceforth dis- 
coursed of as if it "Tere no longer nlattcr of conjecture :- 

, The ancestries of both l\I:3S. having Htartcd froul a COJllIDon 
source not 1nlLCll latcr than the Autographs,' &c.- (p. 2-17.) 

And again :- 
, Near a8 tlte divergcnce of t.he respective ancestries of B and 
mU8t hat'e been to the Autog'raplls,' &c.-(p. 273.) 




IT ntil at last, "..c find it announced as a C Inoral ccrtainty: '- 

, It is mmO{tlly certain that tho ancestries of ß and 
from a point near tlle Allto[Jraplu;, and never camo into contact 
sub:-,cquently.' -( Text, p. 556.) 

.After ".hich, of course, 'vo have no right to complain if "TO 
arc assured that :- 

, The fuHest cOlnparison does but increase the conviction that 
their prc-enlincnt relative jJm'ify is approximately absolufe,-a 
true appro.-cimate 1"cp,.odltctioJl of the Text of tlw Alltog1"aplis.'- 
(p. 296.) 

XL,TIT. But ho,," docs it happen-(".c lllust needs repcat 
the cll(}.uiry, ".hich ho,,"eyer ,,"e make ".ith unfeigned 
astonishment,)-How. does it conle to pass that a 111an of 
ed intellect, addressing persons as cultiyated and per- 
haps as acute as hiInself, can handle a confe
se(lly obscure 
problelll like the present after this strangely incoherent, this 
foolish and ,\.holly inconclusive fashion? One ".ould haye 
supposed that Dr, 1Iort's mathenlatical training would haye 
luade hinl an exact reasoner. But he ".rites as if he had no 
idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process 
necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader's 
urely, (one tells oneself,) a n1Ïniulunl of C pass' Logic 
".ould haye effectually protected so accolllplished a gentle- 
Inan frolll luaking such a dalnagillg exhibition of hÜuself! 
:For surely he Illust be a,yare that, as yet, he has produced 
not one particle oj evidence that his opinion concerning B and 
 "Tell founded. .A.ud yet, henv can he po
sibly overlook the 
circlullstance that, unless he is a11e to dcnzoilstrate that 
those t"..o codict'
, and especially the fûrnler of thcnl, has 
, preseryed not only a yery ancient Text, but a 'lxry lure line 
of ancient Text' also (p. 231), his entire ".ork, (inasnluch as it 
reposes on that one assunlPtiun,) on being critically handled, 
erulnlJles to its base; or rather luelts into thin air lJefore the 




first l)uff of ,vind? ] [e cannot, surely, require teHing that 
those ,vho look for Deillonstration 'v ill refuse to put up ,vith 
Rhetoric :-that, ,vith no thoughtful person \rill Assertion 
pass for Arguluent :-nor 111ere Reiteration, how.cycr long 
persevered in, ever Le Inistaken for acclunulateù Prouf. 

"'Yhen I am taking a ride ,vith TIouser," -(quietly 1'0- 
Inarked Prufessor Saville to Bodley Coxe,)-" I observe that, 
if I ever denlur to any of his view.s, l
ouser's practice always 
is, to repeat the saIne thing over again in the same ,,"orc1s,- 
only in a louder tone oj 'Voiee" . . . The delicate rhetorical 
device thus indicated proves to Le not peculiar to !">rofessors 
of the University of Oxford; but to be fan1iliarly recognized 
as an instrulllcnt of conviction by the learned Inen ,vho clwell 
on the banks of the Cam, To Le serious ho"Tever.- Dr. Tlort 
has evidently failed to see that nothing short of a careful 
induction of particular instances,-a systelll of laborious 
footnotes, or an ' Appendix' bristling "Tith ÌInpregllable facts, 
-could sustain the portentons ,veight of his fundaillclltal 
position, viz. that Codex n is so exceptionally pure a docu- 
nient as to deserve to be taken as a chief guide in deter- 
n1Ìning the Truth of Scripture. 
It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott, 
-"Then he had to rebuilJ the Inassiye central to,ver of a 
southern CatheJral, and to rear up thereon a lofty spire of 
stone,-that he Inade preparations for the ,,"ork which 
astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused 
the entire area to be e..xcavated to "That seenled a most 
unnecessary depth, and proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of 
fabulous soliJity. The' ,vise Inaster-builder' ,vas deterlnilled 
that his ,york should last for eyer. Not so Drs. "r estcott 
and Hort. They are either troubled "Tith no sÌIllilar anxieties, 
or else too clear-sighted to cherish any sÌ1nilar hope. They 
are evidently of opinion that a cloud or a q uagnlÌre ,viII serve 




their turn eyery hit as \veIl as granite or Portland-stone. 
J)1', 1roft (as 'vc lU1YC secn alrcfuly, nrul1ely in p. 252,) 
cOllsillurs that his individual 'STROXG PREFEREXCE' of one 
set of ]
eadings al,ovè another, is sufficient to deternlÏnc 
whether the :!\Ialluscript \vhich contains those TIeaclingR is 
pure or the contrary. ' Forlnidable arrays oj [hostile] Ðocl.l- 
rnentary evidence,' he disregards and sets at defiance, 'v hen 
once his o,vn C jullest consideration oj Internal Eridcnce' has 
, pronounced certain Readings to be right' [p, 61]. 
The only inùication ,ye anyv.here nleet ,vith of the actual 
!Jround of Dr. Hort's certainty, and reason of his preference, 
, contained in his claÜn that,- 

, Every binary group [of 
ISS.] containing D is found to offer 
a large IH'Oportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutinJ", 
have THE RI
UINEXESS: while it is difficult to find any 
Readings so attested which LOOK SUSPICIOUS after full considera- 
tion.'-(p.227. Also vol. i. 557-,vhere the dictum is repeated.) 

XL YIII. Anù thus \\Te ha YC, at last, an honest confession 
of the ultimate principle ".hich has detennined the Text of 
the present edition of the N. T. 'The ring oj gen'ltinencss'! 
This it lllust be "hich ,vas referred to ,yhen 'instinctive 
processes oj Cl'iticisnL' "ere vaunte(l; and the candid ayo".al 
luade that' the experience ,yhich is their foundation needs 
perpetual correction and recorrection,'l 
"Ve are obliged' (say these accomplished ,vriters) 'to rO'ÐZe to 
the indit'idual rninll at la81.'2 

.And thus, Lehold,' at last' \ve have reached the goal! . . , 
Illdil:idual idiosy,wrasy,-not external l
\-iclence :-lleadings 
C strongly preferred,' -not TIeadings st1'ongly attested :_C per- 
sonal discerIllllent ' (self! still self!) conscientiously exercising 

1 Preface to the' limited :uu! private Ï:;:-;ue' of 1870, p. xviii,: repriutej 
in the Introduction (18tH), p. üt), 2 ibid. 

X .) 
.. ...J 




itself upon Codex n ;-this is a true account of the Critical 
Inethod pursueù by these accolllplishecl Scholars. They 
deliberately claÏ111 'personal discerurnzcnt' as 'the surest 
ground for confidence.'l Accordingly, they judge of l
by their looks and by their sound. \Yheu, in thei'r opinion, 
,,"ords 'look suspicious,' "Tords are to be rejected. If a ,,'ord 
has 'the ring of genuineness,' -(i.e. if it seems to them to have 
it,)-they claÏ111 that the ,vord shall pass unchallenged. 

XLIX. TIut it lllUSt be obvious that such a luethod is 
,vholly inadrnissible. It practically dispenses ,,'ith Critical 
aids altogether; substituting individual caprice for external 
guidance. It can lead to no tangible result: for llcadings 
"\\?hich 'look suspicious' to one expert, llIfty easily not' look' 
so to another. ..A. lnan's 'iullcr consciousness' cannot possibly 
furnish trust,,?orthy guidance in this subject Inatter. Justly 
does Bp. Ellicott ridicule 'the easy nlethod of . . . . 'llsing a 
favo1.lrite ltlanuseript,' cOlnbined váth 'some S1'pposcd power of 
divining the Original Text; '2-unconscious apparently that he 
is therehy aiming a cruel blo,v at certain of his friends. 
As for the proposed test of Truth,-(the enquiry, l1all1ely, 
,,,hether or no a reading has' the ring of genuineness ')-it is 
founded on a transparent n1Ïstake. The coarse operation 
alluded to n1ay be described as a 'rough and ready' 
expedient practised Ly 'receivers of 'Jnoncy in the ,,?ay of self- 
defcnce, and only for their o,vn protection, lest base Bletal 
should be pahned off upon them una,yares. But Dr. Hort 
is proposing an analogous test for the exclusive satisfaction 
of h
'i1t 'who 'utters the suspected article. 'Ve therefore dis- 
allo,v the proposal entirely: not, of course, because "We 
suppose that so excellent and honourable a luan as Dr. Hart 

1 P. ß5 (
84). In the Table of Contents (}). xi.), 'Personal instincts' 
are substituted for' Personal discernnl,ent.' 
2 The Revisers and the G'J'eck Text,-p. 1ft 




\vouhl atteJllpt to pass off as genuine \vhat he su:::;pects to 
Le fahricated; lJut because we are fully cunvinced-(for 
reasuns 'plenty as Llackberries ')-that through some natural 
defect, or constitutiunal inaptitude, he is not a C0111petent 
judge. The Illan \v ho finds 'no marks of either Critical or 
Spil.itl 1 al inðight' (p. 135) in the only Greek Text \vhich ,vas 
kllO\Vn to scholars till A.D. 1831,-( although he confesses 
thai 'the text of Chrysostoln and other Syrian Fathers of 
the IY"th century is substantially identical ,vith it' 1); and 
vaunts in preference' the bol(l vigollr' anù 'rrefincd scholar- 
ship' ,,
hich is exclusively met \vith in certain depraved 
uncials of the salue or later date :-the luan \vho thinks it not 
unlikely that the incident of the piercing of our S
\ YIOUn'S 
side (aÀÀoi) òÈ Àaß?øv ÀóryX7JV K. 'T. À.) \vas actually found in 
the genuine Text uf S. :\Iatt. xxvii. 49, as 1.cell as in S. John 
xix. 34: 2-the lnan \vho is of opinion that the incident of 
the "\V Olnan taken in Ad ul tery (filling 12 verses), 'presents 
serious differences fronl the diction of S. John's Gospel,'-- 
treats it as' an insertion in a cOluparatively late 'Vestern 
text' 3 anù declines to retain it even ,,
ithin brackets, on the 
grounù that it '\vould fatally interrupt' the course of the 
narrative if suffered to stand :-the IHan \vho can deliberately 
separate off frolu the end of S. J\lark's Gospel, and print 
separately, S. :i\Iark's last 12 verses, (on the plea that they 
'lnanifestly cannut claÜn any apostolic authority; Lut are 
douLtless founded on SOllie tradition of the Apostolic age;' 4)_ 
yet ,rho straight\vay proceeds to annex, as an alternative 
Conclusion (aÀÀwi)), , the \vletched supplement derived fronl 
codex L: ' 5-the luan (lastly) ,vho, in llefiallce of ' solid reason 
anù pure taste,' finds Inusic in the' utterly lnarred' , rhyth- 
luical arl'allgenlent' of the .A.ngels' IIYUlll 011 the night of the 

1 L f . l t . .... 2 ,... f C)C) s yO" ' 8 
II 10( HC l{m.,-l). Xill. ..L\O es, p. _.;... .J.\ otcs, p. 
Yult.s,-p. 31. :; Scrh'cllcr'
 Plaill Intj'oductiun,-Pl\. 307-8. 




Nativity :1-such an one is nut entitled to a hearing ,vhell 
he talks about 'the ring of gen'ltincncss.' He has already 
cffectually put hÎInself out of Court. He has convicted 
hÎ1nself of a natural infirn1Ïty of judgluent,-has given proof 
that he labours under a peculiar Critical inaptitude for this 
department of enquiry,-which renders his decrees nugatory, 
and his opinions \vorthless. 

L, But apart from all this, the Reader's attention is invited 
to a little circunlstance w'llich Dr. 11urt has unaccountably 
overlooked: but \vhich, the instant it has been stated, is 
oo::;erved to cause his picturesque theory to Inelt away--like 
a sno,v-",vreath in the sunshine. 

On reflexiou, it \vill be perceived that the nlost signal 
defonnities of co,lices B N D L are instances of Oïnission. In 
the Gospels alone, B onlÏts 2877 \vords. 
110w',-(",'e beg to ellquire,)-Ho\y \vill you apply your 
proposed test to a. J..Von-cntity? IIo\v \vill you ascertain 
,vhether sOIllethillg \vhich docs not exist in the Text has 'the 
ring of genuineness' or not? There can be no 'ring of 
genuineness,' clearly, ,vhere there is nothing to ring ,vith! 
'Vill anyone pretend that the o'lnission of the incillent of the 
troubling of the pool has in it any' ring of genuineness'?- 
or dare to assert that 'the ring of genuineness' is inlparted 
to the history of our S-\ vloun's l>assion, by the onâssion of 
His ....\gony in the Garden ?-or that the narrative of His 
Crucifixion bec()}ues 1110re IIP.lsical, ,vhen uur Lurd's Prayer 
fur IIis lllurdercrs has been U1nittcd ?-ur that ÈcþOßOVVTO ryáp 
(' fur they \vere afraid '), has' the ring uf genuineness' as the 
conclusion of the last chaptcr of the Gospel according to 
S. J\fark ? 
But the strangest cirClullstance is behind. It is notorious 

1 ScriVt'ller'::i ' Introductiun,' pp. 513-1. 




that, on tho contrary, Dr. 110rt is frequently constrained 
to atln1Ït that tlw omitted 'lcorrls actually luu"(' 'the ring of 
S. The \vorùs ,,,hich he insists on thrusting out 
of the Text are often conspicuous for the vcry quality \vhich 
(lJY the hypothesis) ,vas the w'arrant for their exclusion. Of 
this, the l
eader Inay convince hÏInself by referring to the 
note at foot of the present page. 1 In the llleantÏ1ne, the 

J In S. 
L\T'l'II. i. 25,-the omb;Rion of 'lwt first-born: '-in yi. 13, the 
ion of the Doxology :-in xii. 47, the O1niRsion of tile whol verse:- 
in xvi. 
, 3, the umission of uur LORD'S memorable words concerning the 
r.iglls of the ?('eatlw'i' :-in xvii. 21, tho omi

iun of the nlYf'teriou8 
mCllt, ' nut this kind goeth not out save by prayo' und fasting: '-in xviii. 
11, the omission of the precious words 'F01' the Son of man came to save 
that wh ich 'was lost.' 
In S. )[ARK xvi. 9-20, the omission of the' last 'l'welve Verscs,'-(' the 
contents of which are not sitch (l,S amld !lave been l.'nvented by any scribe 
or c(1itor of the Guspel,'- \V. awl II. p. 57). .All admit that JçþoßOVJlTO 
y(Îp is an impossible ending. 
III S. LlJKE vi. 1, the suppre:-ision of the unique 
fVTEp01rpWTCp; (' the 
\ ery ub::;curity of the expres:-;ion atte::;ting strongly to its genuineness,'- 
Scrivcner, p. 516, and so 'V. and H. p. 58) :-ix. 5-1-56, the omitted 
'rebula'e to the 'disciples James ((1HZ John: '-in x. 41, 4
, the omitteå 
words concerning Jlartha and llIal'y:-in xxii. 43, 4-1, the omission of the 
....lguny in the Gardcn,-(which nevertheless, 'it lL'ollld be impossible to 
rf ga,rd as a product uf the inventiveness of :;cribe:;,'- 'V. aud H. p. (7):- 
ill xxiii. 17, a memorable clause omitted :-in xxiii. 3-1, the omission of 
our Lonl's l,rayel' f01' ilis nwnlerers,-(concerning which "Testcott and 
IIort remark that 'jf:W verses of the Go
els bea}' in thernselvcs a SllrtT 
witnf:ss to tlte truth of wltat they record than this '-po (8) :-in xxiii. 38, 
the statement that the Inscription on the Cross was' in lettt;;l's of Greek, and 
Latin, and IJebrew: '-in xxiv. l
, the visit of ð. Pete1' to the Sepulchre. 
Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix. 56: xxii. -13, 4-1: anrl 
xxiii. 34,-' it seems impossible to believe that these incidents are otllf'r 
than llutlwntic,'-(p. 28.) 
. JOIIX iii. 13, the sulemn clause' ll'h 'cll, is .n lwav(:n: '-in v. 3, -1, 
the omitteå incident of the troubling of tlw puol :-in vii. 53 tv viii. 11, 
the narrative concLrning the woman taken in culultery omitted,-concern- 
ing which Vrs. 'V. and II. rCJuark that' tlte I.I1'gltment which has all1,((Ys 
tul,{ rwst in itsfitIJow. in 'modern times is its own internal cl/ftrarlcr. The 
story it:;clf ha.s justly seemed to l!UllCh fur its own substan!ia! t,.,ttlt, :1.Ilt1 


 rUOP08..\.L TO 


Dlatter discoursed of nlay be conveniently illustrated by a 
short a pologue :- 

Some,vhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stoo<.t a crazy old 
church (dedicated to S. Bee, of course,) the hells of ".hich- 
according to a learned C
nnhridge Doctor-"yere the must 
lllusical in the ,vorld. " I have listened to those lJells," (he 
".as accustollled to say,) "for 30 years. All other bells are 
cracked, harsh, out of tune. Conllnend me, for lllusic, to the 
bells of S. Bee's! Thcy alone have the 1'ing of genuinencss." 
. . ... .A.ccordingly, he published a treatise on Campanology, 
fuun<ling his theory on the musical properties of the lJells of 
S. lJee's,-At tIlls juncture, provokingly enough, SOllie one 
directed attention to the singular fact that S. Dee's is one 
. of the fe,v churches in that district 'withuut bells: a discovery 
\vhich, it is needless to add, pressed inconycniently on the 
learned })octor's theory. 

LT. nut enuugh uf this. 'Ve really have at last, (be it 
observed,) reached the end uf our enquiry. Nothing Cúlnes 
after Dr. 1Iurt'::; extravagant aud un
uppurted estÌlnate of 
COllices B alHl
, On the contrary. Tho
e t"o doculllcnts 
are causpd to cast their sUlllbre shallo\ys a lung ,ray ahead, 
and to darken all our future. Ur. Hort takes Ie aYe of the 
suhject ".ith the announcelllent that, ,rhateyer uncertainty 
lllay attach to the evidence for particular reallings, 

, Tltp general course of fntm.e Oritici
m must br slw]Jcd by tlle 
happy C;rCll'JJl:-stance that the fOllr1lz century lillS bcqltcathNl to 'liB two 
1JISS. [n and 
J, of ,vhich cyen the less incolTul)t [
J Blust have 
been uf exceptional purity among its cuntemporaries: anù 
,vhich rise into greater pre-eminence of character tho Letter 
the early history of the Text 1eco1l1es kno,vn.'-(p. 287.) 

the words in which it is clothed to harIllOnizo with th080 of other G08pcl 
narrativcs '-(1'. ö7). Bishop Lightfoot renmrks that' the 'Jlfo'ratice Ural'S 
ou its/ace the highest ('J'((/f'utials (1' autluutic histury '-(po 2


 13 .\XD 


In other ,vords, our guide assures us that in a dutiful suL- 
lllÏssion to codices II and 
,-( \vhich, he naïvely rC1narks, 
'happen likcu:ise to be ilt 
 uldest extant C
reek ::\185. of the Xe\v 
TestaluellL' [po 212J,)-lies all our hope of future progress. 
(J ust as if \\"e shuuld eyer have hea rd of these t,,-o codices, 
had their contents CUBle do\vn tu us "\\Titten ill the ordinary 
cursive character,-in a dated ::\18. (supl'ose) uf the XV"th 
century 1) . . . ::\Ioreover, Dr. Hurt 'BUISt not hesitate to 
:s ' his o\vn robust conviction, 

'Tbat no trusbvorthy ÏInproveInent can be effected, exccjJI in 
accordance 'with the leading Principles of mctlw(l 7chich 'We lllu,'e 
cndcavourcd to eXplain.' - (p. 285.) 

<\lld this is the end of the nlatter. Behuld our fate 
therefore :-(1) Coùices B anù 
, ,,
ith-(2) Drs. 'VestcutL 
and I-Iort's Introduction and 
otcs on Seleet Readin!J
vindication of. their contents! It is proposed to shut us 
up "ithill those lÜnits! . . . An uneasy suspicion ho,,-ever 
secretly suggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, 
SUlllething l11ay come to light ,vhich ,vill effectually dispel 
eyery drealn of the ne\v School, and reduce even prejuùice 
itself to silence. So Dr. Hort hastens to fro\vn it ùo\vn :- 

C It would be an illusion to anticipate hnportant changes of 
Text [i.e. of the Text advocated by Drs. 'Vestcott and IIol-t] 
frum any acquisition of new Evidence.' -(po 285.) 

.AIHI yet, 'why the anticipation of iInportant help fronl the 
ac(!uisition uf fresh documentary Eyiùence '".oulù be an 
illusiun,' -dues not appear. That the recovery of certain of 
the exegetical ,yorks uf Origen,-better ::;till, of Tatian's 
lJílllt..,)ðltrOn,-Lcst of all, of a couple uf ::\IS8. uf the ùate of 
Co(lices 13 HIHI 
; Lut nut, (like tlLUse t\"\ 0 corrupt ùucu- 
luellts) derived frOln one and th
 sanle depra\ ed archetype ;- 
That any Ò)uch \villdfall, (and it \\-ill COUle, SOllle of thl'
day:.;,) wuuld infallibly disturb 1)1':;. \\r è::,tcutt aud Jlul't''3 



[A RT. 

equanÍ1nity, as ,yell as scatter to the \vinds not a fc,v of their 
nlost confident conclusions,-"Te are ,veIl aware. So indeed 
are they. lIenee, ,vhat those Critics earnestly deprecate, we 
as earnestly desire. "r e are therefore Ly no means inclined 
to a(bnit, that 
'Greater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact 
study of the relations between the documents that we already 
s ; '-(Ibid.) 
kno,vil1g ,veIl that' thc documcnts' referred to are chiefly, (if 
not solely,) Codices B and 
: kno,villg also, that it is furthcr 
Jueant, that in estÏ111ating other evidence, of \vhatever kilHl, 
the only thing to Le enquired after is \vhether or no the 
attesting doculncnt is [jC1w'J'ally in a!]rcc'J/lcnt 1cith codex B. 

}'or, according to these ,vriters,-tide ,vhat tide,-codex n 
is to be the standard: itself not a Lsolutely requiring confir- 
Illation fronl any extraneous quarter. Dr. IIort asserts, (hut 
it is, as usual, 7l1C1"C assertion,) that" 

'Eeen lrhen B stands quite alone, its reallings must never be 
lightly rejected.'-(p. 537.) 
;\nd yet,- 1JThy a reading found only in codc.r n shouhl 
experience greater indulgence than anuther re{Jtlillg fouIHl 
olll!! in eodeJJ .A, 'vo entirely fail to sec. 

On the otber hand, 'an unique ("I"itcrion IS suppliell by the 
concorù of the independent attestation of B and 
p. 46.) 

nut pray, ho,v does that dippear? Since 13 and << are de- 
l'i, ell fronl one and the sanle original- \Yhy should not' the 
concord' spoken of Lo rather 'an unique criterion' of tlte 
'idter depravity of the archctypc? 

LIII. To conclude. 'Ye haye already listcned to Dr. Hort 
long enough, And llO'V, since confessedly, a chain is no 

II I.] 



stroncrer than it is at its ,veakest liuk; nor 1.11 edifice 1110re 
secure than the lXlsis ,vhereon it stands ;-\\'0 IJlnst be allo,veù 
to point out that ,vo ha vo Leen dealing throughout ,vith a. 
(!roanl, pure and siIllple; froI11 "whi
h it is high tiIuC that ,\ye 
should w.ake up, no,v that ,ve ha ve been plainly Sh(HVn on 
,,'hat an unsubstantial foundation these Editors have lJeen all 
alung building, A child's house, several stories high, con- 
structed out of playing-cards,-is no unapt ÏInage uf the 
frail erection before us. "\Ve began by carefully lifting off 
the tOplllost story; and then, the next: but "e Inight as ,veIl 
have savoù ourselves the troulJle. The basenlent-story has 
to be rellloved Lo(lily, 'which Blust bring the "hole edifice 
dO'Vll \vith a rush. III reply tû the fantastic tis
ue of un- 
provet! assertions ,vhich go before, ,\Te assert as follows :- 

(1) The ÏInpurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices Band 

 is not a 111atter of opinion, but a lllatter of fact. I These are 

1 To SOlne extent, even the unlearned lleaùer 111ay easily convince hinl- 

elf of thi
, by examining the rejected' alternative' TIeadings in the margin 
of the ' Hevi
ed V er
ion.' The' 'Thlany' and the' Some ancient authurities,' 
poken of, almost invaJ'Ïably include-sometimes denote-codd. 
, one or both uf them. The
'C conMitute the mere::;t fraction of the 
entire amount of currupt reaùings exhibited by B 
; but they will givc 
h reader
 sonle notion of the problmll ju
t now under consitleratiun. 

ides the details already supplied [Ree above, pages 16 and 17 :-30 
anù 31 :--4G and 47 :-75 :-
-!U :-2û2 :-28U :-31ü to 319J concerning n 
 ,-(the result of laburious collation,)--some IJarticulars shall now bo 
added. The piercing of our H.\. VIOUR'::; side, thru
t in after Matt. xx.vii. 
4!J :-the eclip
e of the sun when the nloon was full, in Lu. xxiii. 43 :_ 
the nlún
trous figment concerning Herot!'g d
ughter, thrust into )[k. 
2 :-the precious clauses omitted in :Matt. i. 25 and xviii. 11 :-in 
Lu. ix. 54-6, aud in .Jo. iii. 13 :-the wretched glosses ill Lu, vi. 4b: 
x. 4
: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and )Ik. vi. :!O :-the f'uh:-;titution of OLVOV (for 
) in 
latt. xxvii. 3!,-uf efO
 (for VLO
) in Jo. i. Ih,-of av8pw1T"ov (for 
ewv) in ix. 33,-01" ov (tur cé) in HOIll. iv. 8 :-the geographical blunder in 
)Ik, vii, ;.H: in Lu. i\". 14 :-the omi

ion in l\Iatt. xii, 4.,-and of t\\"o 


,-T'VO UF 'l'HE l\IOST 


t,vo of the least trustw.orthy documents in existence. So far 
froul allo,ving Dr. Hort's position that-' A Text formed' hy 
'taking Coùex B as the sole authority,' '''Tould be incolu- 
paraLly nearer the Truth than a Text sÏIllilarly taken frOlli 
any other Greek or other single docuulent' (p. 251),-,ve 
venture to assert that it ,voulù ùe, on the contrary, by fll?' 
the f01l1c:it Text that had C1;O' sCCJ
 thc light: ,vorse, that is 
to say, even than the Text of Drs. "r estcott aud IIort. .1\ud 
that is saying a great deal. In the ùraye aud faithful ,yords 

important verses in 
Iatt, xvi. 2, 3 :--of I.ôl.a in Acts i. 19 :-of e}'fl.pm Kat 
in iii. 6 ;-anù uf ÔfVTEP07rPWTW in Lu. vi. 1 :-the two spuriou13 clauses 
lk. iii. 14, 16 :-thp obviuus blunùers in Jo. ix. -! and 11 :-in .Acts 
xii. 25-besides the inlPossible reaJing in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,-lnake up a 
heavy indicÌlllent agaiu
t n and 
 jointly-which are here found in 
company with just a very few dhireputa1Jle allies. Add, the plain error at 
Lu. ii. 14 :-the gloss at )[k. v. BG :-the 111cre fabrication at .:\Iatt. xix. 
17 :-the omissions at !\latt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4. 

n (in cOlllpany with others, but apart frolll 
) by exhibiting ßæTrTl.UaV- 
TH' in )Iatt. xxviii. 19 :-WÔf TWV in 
lk. ix. 1 :-' sevcnty-twu,' in Lu. x. 
1 :-the blunder in Lu, xvi. 1
 :-and the 
rievous O1ni
sions in Lu. xxii. 
43, -!-! (CHlU:;T'S Agony in the Ganlen),-alld xxiii. 34 (His pra
'er for His 
nwnlcrcrs),-enjoY13 unenviable distinctiun.-B, singly, is re
narkable for 
an obyious blunder in )[att. xxi. 31 :-Lu. xxi. 
4 :-Jo. xviii. 5 :-Acts 
x. IV-and xvii. 28 :-xxvii. 37 :-not to nlention the insertion of 
ÔfôofLfVOV in J o. vii. 39. 

 (in company with others, but apart from n) is con8picuous for its 
f;orry interpolation of .Matt. yiii. 13 :-its suhstitution uf fUTl.V (for 1]v) in 
:::;. John i. 4: :-its geographical blunùer in S. Luke xxiv. 13 :-its tex- 
tual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.- N, singly, is rCInarkable for its sorry para- 
phrase in Jo. ii. 3 :-it
 additiun to i. 34 :-its ombsions in :Matt. xxiii. 
35 :-1\lk. i. 1 :-Jo. ix. 38 :-its insertion of Hual.Ov in :Matt. xiii. 35 :- 
its geographical blunders in l\Ik. i. 28 :-Lu. i. 2ö :-Acts viii. 5 :-besides 
the blunders in Jo. vi. 51-and xiii, 10 :-1 TÏ1n. iii. 16 :-Acts xxv. 13:- 
anù the clearly fabricated narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated 
text at 
lk. xiv. 30, ()
, 72; of which the object wa:, 'so far to assimilate 
the narratiye of Peter's Jcnials with those of the other E,'angeli:::\ts, as 
to suppress the fact, youched fur hy S. Mark only, that the cock croweù 




of Prebendary Scriycner (Introduction, p, 453),-\\yords ,vhich 
dcserye to Lecollle faulous J - 

'It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in ::;onnd, that tho 
worst corruptions to which the Xew Testml1ent has ever been 
suhjcctet1, originated within a hundred yeart; after it was com- 
posed: that Irenæus [LD. 1:>0], and tho ....\frican Fathers, and 
the whole 'Vestern, with a portion of the Syrian Church, useù 
far inferior lnanuscripts to tho so employed by Stunica, or 
Erasnnls, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding 
the Textus Receptus.' 
And Codices B and 
 arc, denlonstrably, nothing else but 
s oj tlte dCl)J'(tvcd class thus characterized. 

N ext-C
), "reassert that, so llutnifest are the disfigure- 
mcnts jointly and cJ:cll1sircly exhibited by coùices B and 

1 Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1) 
The exclusive onlission by B and 
[ark xvi. 9-20 :-(2) The omission 
of fV EcþHTCP, frmn Ephes. i. 1 :-(3) The hI under, U'rroUK.Wup.aTo
, in 
James i. 17:-(4) The nonscnsical UVUTpr:cþOP.fVWV in :Uatt. xvii. 2
(f)) That' vile error,' (a.s Scrivcner calls it,) 7rfptfÀOVTH, in Acts xxviii. 13 : 
-(ß) The impossible order uf words in Ln. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extra- 
ordinary ordcr in Acts i. 5 :-(8) The Olnission of the last clausc of the 
LonD':-\ prayer, in Lu. xi. 4; and (D) Of that solemn ver
e, :Matt. xvii. 21; 
and (10) Of r.uXVPOV in )Iatt. xiv. 30 :-(11) The substitution of fPYWV (for 
TfKVWV) in ::\fatt. xi, 2
 :-(12) Of fÀLYP.U (for p.r.yp.a) in Jo. xix. 3D,-and 
(13) of TjV TfBftP.fVOf; (for fTfBTj) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of 
XpLCTTOS: into )Iatt, xvi. 21,-antl (15) Of Ó 8fOS: into vi. 8 :-hesides (16) So 
minute a peculiarity as Bff(fßOVÀ in ::\Tatt. x. 35: xii. 24, 27: Lu. xi. 15, 
IH, 19. (17) Add, the glo::,s at :Matt. xvii. 20, and (18) The Olni:-.sions at 
:Ma.tt. v. 

: xvii. 
1.-It must be admitted that such peculiar hlemi
taken collectively, constitute a proof of affinity of origin,-cOlnmunity of 
dc:-:ccnt from one and thc samc disreputable ancestor. But space fi...ils us. 
Thc Reader will he intcrested to learn that ..lthough, in thc Gospels, B 
comhincs exclu
h'ely with A, but 11 timc::,; and with c, but 38 times: 
\\ ith D, it conlhines exclusively 141 timcs, and with 
, 23D times: (viz. 
in 1Iatt. 121,-in 1Tk. 
G,-in Lu. 51,-in Jo. 11 times). 
Contrast it with A :-which conlbincs exclusively with D, 21 timcs: 
 13 timc
: with 13, 11 times: with c, 4 tiJHcs. 




that instead of accepting these codices as t,yO C independent' 
'Vitnesses to the inspired Original, "
e are constrained to 
regard theln as little 1110re than a single reproduction of one 
and the saIne scandalously corrupt and (cornparativcly) late' 
Copy. By consequence, "Te consider their joint and exclusive 
attestation of any particular reading, C an 'uniquc cí'itcrion' 
of its ,vorthlessness; a sufficient reason-not for adopting, 
but-for uncerel11oniously rejecting it. 

Then-(3), .L\.s for the origin of thet;e tw.o curiosities, it can 
l)erforcc only be divined froln their contents. That they 
exhibit fabricated Texts is deI1l0nstra ble. No alIlount of 
hunest copyillg,-persevereù in for any nUlnher of centuries, 
-could by possibility have resulted in t,vo such doclunents. 
Separated froIn one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 
tOO years,l they nUlst needs have branched off frolll a 
COInnlon corrupt ancestor, and straight,vay becolne exposed 
continuously to fresh depraving influences. The result is, 
that codex 
, (\\
hich evidently has gone through 1110re ad- 
ventures and fallen into "
orse cOlnpany than his rival,) has 
been corrupted to a far grayer extent than codex B, and is 

1 The Reyiewer speaks from actual inspection of 10th doculnents. They 
are e
sentially dissinlilar. The learned Ceriaui assured the Reviewer (in 
1872) that whereas the Yatican Codex lllU13t certainly have been written 

.n ltaly,-the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [not Egypt, but] either 
Palestine or Syri(t. 1'hus, considerations of tÏ1ne and place effectually 
dispose of 'fischendorfb l)repo:,terous notion that the Scribe of Codex B 
wrote six leaves of 
 : an ilnagination which 
olcly resulted frolll the 
anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own colI. N the same antiquity 
which is claimed for the '
aunted cod. B. 
1'his opinion or" Dr. Th;chendorf'13 re
ts on the san1e fanciful ha::;is as his 
notioll that the last ve'rse of S. John's Gospel in 
 was not written by the 
sanle hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There iR '110 manner of 
tTerence: though of course it is possible that the scribe took a new pen, 
preliIninary to writing that last yC1'::;c, and cxecuting the curious and 
delicate ornamcllt which follow
. Concerlling S. J o. xxi. 25, f;ec above, 
pp. 23--:1. 




even lTIOrC untrust\yorthy. Thus, ,,
hereas (in the Gospels 
:llone) n has 580 TIeadings quite peculia?" to itself, affecting 
R38 ,,
 has 14GO such I
eadings, affecting 2640 "

One solid fact like the Ineceding, (let it he pointed out 
in pa
sing,) is luore helpful by far to one ,v11o "ouhl fOrJll 
a correct estiuuÜe of the value of a Co(lex, than any nUlnlJer 
of snch (reckless and un yerified assertions,' not to say 
perclnptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the highly 
Ï1naginative pages of Drs, "r estcott and Hort. 

(4) Lastly,- \Ve suspect that these t"TO J\lanuscripts arc 
illclcbted for their preservation, solely to their (tseertaincd ct"il 
character; w.hich has occasioned that the one eventually 
fonnll its "Tay, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the 
Vatican library: ,yhile the other, after exercising the inge- 
nuity uf several generations of critical Correctors, eventually 
(, iz. in A,D. 1844 1 ) got deposited in the "Waste-paper basket 
of the Conyent at the fuot of l\Iount Sinai. Had n and 
becn copies of average purity, they must long since have 
shared the inevitable fate of books ,,
hich are freely used and 
highly prizml; llalllely, they ,vould haye fallen into decadence 
and disappeared frolll sight. But in the nleantillle, behold, 
their vcry..A.ntiquity has conle to be reckoned to their adyan- 
tage; and (strange to relate) is even considered to constitute 
a sufficient reason ,,-hy they should enjoy not nlerely extra- 
ordinary cunsideration, Lut the actual surrender of the 
critical judglnent. Since 1831, Editors haye yied ,,
ith one 
another in the fulsonleness of the hOlnage they haye paid to 
these 't\\
O false 'Vitllesses,' -for such B and 
 aTC, as the 
concurrent testÜnony of Copies, Fathers and \-r ersiollS abun- 
, dantly pro\
es, Eyen superstitious revcrence has Leen claÏlned 

1 TischcndorPs narrative ûf the di::;covery of the ;:;inaitic manuscript 
(' H7LCn were OUT GOSIJels 7.l:ritten 1 '), [18ô(},] p. 23. 

 2 () 



for these t",.o codices: and Drs. ".,. cstcott and Hort are so far 
in a(lyance of their predecessors in the servility of their 
blind a(lulation, that they lllust be allow.ed to have easily 
\yon the race. 

LIV. ""'ith this,-so far as the Greek Text under reyie\v is 
concerned,-"\ve nlight, ,,"ere "
e so Blinded, reasonably Blake 
an end. ".... e undertook to sho\y that Drs. 'Vestcott and 
Hort, ill the yolumes before us, have built up an utterly 
"Torthless Textual fabric; and ""0 consider that "Te hayc 
already sufficiently sho,,-n it. The Theory,-the Hypothesis 
rather, on \vhich their Text is founded, "Te haye dC1J
to be siJ/lply absurd. llemove that hypothesis, and a heap 
of unsightly ruins is all that is left hohind,-except indeed 
astonishnlcnt (not ulullingled \\Tith concern) at the sin1- 
plicity of its accoluplishe(l ...\uthors. 

Jlerr then, ,ye n1ight leaye off. But we are nn,villing 
so to leaye the lllatter. Large con
ideration is due to 
ordinary English I
eaders; ,yhu Blust perfurce look on with 
utter perplexity-not tu say distre8
-at the strange spectacle 
prescnted by that Text (,yhich is in the l1lain tlu' Tc,èt oj the 
Ecriscd English Vcrsion) on the one halld,-and this l
of it, on the other:- 

(1) "And pray, \yllÏch of you am I to believe 1 "-,vill 
incyitably be, in hOluely English, the excl:llllation ,vith ,,-hich 
not a fe,v ,vill lay do,,-n the present nUlnber of the 'Qllar- 
tcrly.' "I pretend to no learning. I alll not prepared to 
argue the question "Tith you. nut surely, the oldest l\Ianu- 
script 'Jnust be the purest! It even stands to reason: does 
it not 1- Then further, I achnit that you SCC1n to have the 
hest of the argunlent so far; yet, since the three 11lOst faulous 
Ellitors of lllodern tÍ1nes are against you, - Lac11111ann, 


""ITH A 


Tregclles, Tischcndorf,-excuse me if I suspect that you 
'JlUlst be in the wrong, after all." 

LV. 'Vith unfeigned hunlility, the TIevie,ver [Q, E.] pro- 
ceeùs to explain the lllatter to his supposed Objector [S. 0.], 
in briefest outline, as follo,vs:- 

Q. R. "You are perfectly right, The oldest 1\Ianuscript 
'Jnust exhibit the purest text: 1n'llSt be the lnost trustworthy. 
But then, unfortunately, it happens that we do not possess it. 
'The oldest l\Ianuscript' is lost. You speak, of course, of 
the inspired Autographs. These, I say, have long since 
disappeared. " 

(2) S. O. "No, I llleant to say that the oldest l1IanuscTipt 
we possess, if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be 
the purest." 

Q. R, "0, hut that is an entirely different proposition. 'VeIl, 
apart fron
 experience, the probability that the oldest copy 
extant will prove the purest is, if you please, considerable. 
Reflection ,viII convince you however that it is but a pro- 
bability, at the utl110st: a probability based upon more than 
one false assunlption,-,,,,ith ,vhich nevertheless you shall not 
be troubled. But in fact it clearly does not by any means 
folIo,,,, that, because a l\1S. is very ancient, therefore the Text, 
which it exhibits ,vill be very pure. That you nlay 10 
thoroughly convinced of this,-( and it is really inlPossible 
for your lllind to be too effectually disabused of a preposses- 
sion ,,,,hich has fatally n1Ïsled so many,)-you are invited to 
enquire for a recent contribution to the learned French 
publication indicated at the foot of this page,1 in ,vhich is 

1 'Papyrus Inédit de la Bibliothèque de 1\1. Ambroise Firmin-Ditlllt. 
Xouveaux fragments d'Euripide et d'autrcs Poètcs Grecs, publiéf; par ltI. 
Henri \Veil. (Extrait des JIollurnens Grecs publi's par l'
lssocintion p01.J,r 
fellcourayemenl tit's Elwln; G reC'llles ell Fra /lee. ...\nnée Ib.
f.)' Pp. 36. 




exhibited a fac-sllnile of 8 lines of the Jfcdca of Euripides 
(ver. 5-12), ,vritten about B.C. 200 in slllall uncials (at 
Alexandria probably,) on papyrus. Collated ,vith any printed 
copy, the verses, you 'v ill find, have been penned ,vith 
scandalous, ,vith incredible inaccuracy. But on this head let 
the learned Editor of the document in question be listened to, 
rather than the present l
eview.er :- 
, On yoit que Ie texte du papyrus est hérissé des fautes lea 
plus graves. Le plus récent et le plus 1naUl'ltÏs (Ie nos mannscrits 
d'Ellripide 'Cant infinimeut miellx qlte cette copie,-faite, il y a deux 
mille ailS, dans Ie pays où florissaient l'érudition ltelléniqlw et la 
Critique des texles.'l_(p. 17.) 

1 The rest of the pasðage may not be without interest to classical 
aden:i :-' Ce n'est paR à dire qu'elle soit tout à fait sans intér&t, sans im- 
portance l)our la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend que, au vel'S 5, 
àpíUTWV, pour àpLuTlwv (correction de 'Yakefield) était déjà l'ancienne 
vulgate; et que les vel'S 11 et 12, s'ils sont altérés, comme l'asðurent 
quelques éditeurs d'Euripide, l'étaient déjà dans l'antiquité. 
'L'hon1me . . . était aUfo;si ignorant que négJigent. Je Ie prends pour 
un EgYl'tien n'ayant qu'une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue 
grecque, et ne pos::;édant aucune notion ni sur l'orthographe, ni sur les 
règles les plus élémentaires du triInètre iaulbique. Le plus singulier est 
qu'il COnllllenCe sa copie au 111ilieu d'un vel'S et qu'illa finisse de lllême. II 
oublie deð lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute de parasites, il les met les unes 
pour les autre
, il tronq ue les mots ou il les altère, au point de rlétruire 
quelquefois la suite de la construction et Ie ::;ens du passage.' A faithful 
copy of the verses in minuscule characters is subjuined for the gratifica- 
tiun of Scholars. 'Ve have but divided the words and inserted capital 
letter::; :- 

I avopwv apLUTWlI OL 
f 1Tavxpvuov 
nfAna fLfT1JA()OIl ov yap TOil 
fU1Tova fJL1J1I 
l\l1JOLll 1rvpyovr Y1Jr f1TAfVUf EWAKtar 
fpWTL ()VfLCJ)
 fy?rAaYLS- Iavouovos- 
OT av KTavn 1rLuas: llfAnaoas- Kovpas: 
1raTfpa K.aTotK1J TTJVOf 'Y1Jv Kopw()wlI 10 
UVlI avopL Kat. TfKVOLUW avoavOLua fLfll 
cþVY1J 1TOALTWV wv acþ1JKfTO X()ovos-.' 
An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,-' The fragment must have 
been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seClllS to me); and by an 
illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might expect from a half- 
educated reader enunciating 
Iilton for a half-educated writer.' 

3 ? 3 

"'Vhy, the author of the furegoing rmnarks Inight have 
heen "Titing concerning Codex B I" 

(3) S. O. " Yes: but I ",'ant (Jl
1'istian evidence. The 
author of that scrap of papynls 'J1l.,ay have been an illiterate 
slave. \\11at if it should Le a school-bay's exercise ,vhich has 
COllie do\vn to us 1 The thing is not impossible." 

Q. R. " Not C inlpossible' certainly: hut surely highly im- 
probable. How'ever, let it drop. You insist on Christian 
evidence. You shall have it. "That think you then of the 
folluwing staten1ent of a very ancient Father (Caius l ) ,vriting 
against the heresy of Theodotus and others ,vho denied the 
Diyinity of CHRIST? He is bearing his testinlony to the 
liberties ,vhich had been freely taken ,vith the Text of the 
1\ e\v Testament in his ov{n tÏ111e, viz. about A.D. 175-200:- 

'The Divine Scriptures,' he says, 'these heretics have auda- 
ciously corrupted: . . . laying violent hands upon them under 
pretence of cor'reeting them. That I bring no false accusation, 
anyone who is disposed may easily convince himself. He has 
but to collect the copies belonging to these persons severally; 
then, to conlpare one with another; and he will discover that 
their discrepancy is extraordinary. Those of Asclepiades, at aU 
events, will be found discordant from those of'rheodotus. Kow, 
plenty of specimens of either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as 
these men's disciples have industriously multiplied the (80- 
called) "corrected" copies of their respective teachers, which 
I are in reality nothing else but "corrupted" copies. 'Vith the 
foregoing copies again, those of I-Iermophilus will be found 
entirely at variance. As for the copies of ..Apollollides, t1)ey 
1 even contradict one another. Kay, let anyone compare the 
fabricated text which these per
on8 put forth in the first 
instance, with that which exhibits their latcst !Jerversions of the 
Truth, and he win discover that the disagreement bet\veen them 
is even exces
i ve. 

1 See p. 3
-1 note (l).-Photiu8 [cod. 48] says that C Gaius' was a 
presbyter uf RUllie, and fBJlWJI l7ríuK.01rO
. See Ruuth's Beli']']. ii. 125. 
y 2 



[A UT. 

'Of the enormity of the offence of \vhich thesc men have 'Lcen 
guilty, they must needs thenlselvel:) be fuBy a,varc. Eitber they 
do not believe tbat the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of 
the HOLY GHosT,-in ,,,hich case they are to be regarded as 
unbelievers: or else, they account themselves wiser 1han the 
IIoLY GHosT,-and "That is that, but to have the faith of devil
As for their denying their guilt, the thing is impo
sible, seeing 
that the copies under discussion are their own actual handy\vork; 
and they know full ,veIl that not such as these are the Scriptures 
,vhich they received at the hands of their catechetical teacherf'. 
e, let them produce the ori
inals from which they maùe 
their transcripts. Certain of them indeed have not eypn 
condescended to falsify Scripture, but entirely reject Law and 
Prophets alike.'l 

" N O\V, the foregoing statenlent is in a high decree sugges- 
tive. }'or here is an orthodox Father of the. IInd century 
inviting attention to four \vell-kno\vn fanlilies of falsified 
manuscripts of the Sacred Writings ;-complaining of the 
hopeless divergences \vhich they exhiLit (being not only 
inconsistent ,v"Ïth one another, but with tlLc1nsclvcs) ;-and 
insisting that such C01'TCCtcd, are nothing else Lut shanlefully 
corrnptcd copies. He speaks ùf the phenomenon as being in 
his day notorions: and appeals to Recensions, the very names 
of \vhose authors- Theodotus, Asclepiades, Herll1ophilus, 
A pollollides-ha ve (all but the first) long since died out of 
the Church's lllelnory. You \vill allow therefore, (\V'ill you 
not 1), that by. this tÏ1ne the clairn of the oldad existing copies 
of Scripture to be th
 purest, has been effectually disposed of. 
For since there once prevaiL
d such a multitude of corrupted 
copies, \ve have no security "Thatever that the oldest of our 
ISS. are not derived-rerllotely if not directly-from 
some of thc1n." 

(4) S. O. "But at all events the chances are even. Are 
they not?" 

1 Eusebius, Ilist. Eccl. v. 28 Cap. Routh's Reliqq. ii, 132


 II N C. 


Q. R. C( fly no Ineans. ..ct copy like coùex ll, once ri'-co[j1l1zcd 
 belonging to a corrupt fan1ily,-once kn01"n to contain a 
depraved exlil.l)ition of the Sacred Text,--\vas more likely by 
far to reluaill unused, and so to escape destruction, than a 
copy highly prized and in daily use.-As for Cudex 
, it 
carries on its face its o""n effectual condemnation; aptly 
illustrating the precept fiat exper'imentum in emporc vili. It 
exhibits the efforts of many generations of n1en to restore 
its Text,-(,,"hich, 'as proceeding fronl the first scribe,' is 
adn1Ìtted by one of 'its chief admirers to be every l'01.lfJh, l ')- 
to something like purity. C At lcast ten diifc1'cnt Rcviscrs,' 
frolu the IVth to the XIlth century, are founù to have tried 
their hanùs upon it. 2 -Codex 0, after having had C at least 
three correctors very busily at \vork upon it ' 3 (in the 'TIth 
and IXth centuries), finally (in the XIIth) ,vas fairly 
obliterated, - literally scraped ont, - to make ruom for the 
.writings of a Syrian :Father.-I alU therefore led by à priori 
considerations to augur ill of the contents of B N c. But 
\vhen I find thelu hopelessly at variance arnon[j thernsclvcs: 
alJove all, \vhen I find (1) all othcr }'Ianuscr'ipts of \vhatever 
date,-(2) the most anc'Ícnt Vcrsions,-ancl (3), the whole 
lJUdy of the primitive þ'(tthers, decidedly opposed to them,- I 
aln (to speak plainly) at a loss to understand ho\v any luan 
of sound understanding, acquainted "Tith all the facts of the 
case and accustomed to exact reasoning, can hesitate tt) 
regard the unsupported (or the slendcrly supported) testi- 
Inony of one or other of them as Ri1ì
pl!J 'l/'ortl1le.').
. The 
craven honlage \vhich the foreluost of the three hahitually 
receives at the han(ls of nrs, "T è
tC()tt ana J-Iort, T can only 
cribe as a \veak superstition. It is sOlIlething Inore than uu- 
reasonahle. It heconles even rif1icu1ou
.-Tischcn(lorrs pre- 
ference (in his last et1ition) for the bêtiscs of his o\\"n codex N, 

1 Tr('
, Part ii. p. 
I.:rivcuer'... l'rl'fatc'r
- Illf,"or/w"{itm,--p" xi,,-, 

3 I bid, 1', iii. 




can only be defended on the plea of parental partiality. 
But it is not on that account the less foolish. His C ex- 
aggerated preference for the single manuscript ,vhich he had 
the good fortune to discover, has bet1
ayecl him '-(in the 
opinion of Bishop Ellicott) - 'into an alrnost child-like 
infirmity of critical j
tdgrnent.' " 1 

(5) O. S. "\V ell but,-be all that as it may,-Caius, re- 
lllember, is speaking of heretical "-Titers. 'Yhen I said' I 
\vant Christian evidence,' I Ineant orthodox evidence, of 
course. You ,vould not assert (would you 1) that B and 
exhibit traces of heretical depravation 1" 

Q. R. "Reserving my opinion on that last héad, good Sir, 
and determined to enjoy the pleasure of your company on 
any reasonable terms,-(for convince you, I both can and 
"rill, though you prolong the l)resen t discussion till to- 
morrow morning,)-I have to ask a little favour of you: 
viz. that you ,viII Lear me company in an imaginary ex- 
pedi tion. 

"I request that the clock of history may be put back seven- 
teen hundred years. This is A.D. 183, if you please: and- 
(indulge me in the supposition I)-you and I are ,valking 
in ....'\..lexandria. We have reached the house of one Clenlens, 
-a learned Athenian, ,vho has long been a resiùent here. 
Let us step into his liùrary,-he is from hOlne. What a 
queer place! See, he has been reading his Bible, \vhich is 
open at S. l\Iark x. Is it not a ,yell-used copy? It must be 
at least 50 or 60 years old. "r ell, but suppose only 30 or 40. 
It was executed therefore within fifty yca'rs of the death of 
s. John the Evangelist. Come, let us transcribe two of the 

1 On Revision,-p. 47. 


AT ALEXAXDRL.\, A,D. 183. 


columns 1 (uéXíSEf)) hS faithfully as \VO possilJly can, and be 
off, . . . "r e are back in England again, and the clock has 
Lcen put right. Now let us sit do\vn and examine our 
curiosity at leisure. 2 . . . It proves on inspection to be a 
transcript of the 15 verses (vel'. 17 to vel'. 311) which relate 
to the coming of the rich young Ruler to our LORD. 

" "remake a surprising discovery. There are but 2
words in those 15 verses,-according to the traditional 'Text: 
of \vhich, in the copy "Thich belonged to Clemens Alexan- 
drinus, 39 prove to have been 1eft out: 11 ,vords are added: 
22, substituted: 27, transposed: 13, varied; and the phrase 
has been altered at least 8 times. No\v, 112 \vords out of a 
total of 297, is 38 per cent. 'Vhat do you think of that 1" 

(6) S. O. "Think? 0 but, I disallow your entire proceed- 
ing ! You have no business to collate with' a text of late 
and degenerate type, such as is the Received Text of the 
New Testament.' vVhen this 'is taken as a standard, any 
document belonging to a purer stage of the Text Inust by the 
nature of the case have the appearance of being guilty of 
omissions: and the nearer the document stands to the auto- 
graph, the more numerous must be the Olllissions laiù to its 
charge.' I learnt that from 'Vestcott and Hort. See page 
235 of their luminous Introduction." 

Q. R. "Be it so! Collate the passage then for yourself 
\vith the Text of Drs. "\Vestcott anù Hort: \yhich, (re- 
melnber !) aspires to reproduce' the autographs themselves' 
'".ith the utnlost exactness \vhich the evidence !)erlnits' 

1 Singular to relate, S. 
Iark x. 17 to 31 exactly fills two columns of 
cod, N. (See Tischen<lurfs reprint, 4to, p. 2--1:*.) 
2 Clemens 
\.l. (ed. Puttcr),-pp. fl37-8. . . . Xote, how Clemens begins 

 v. (p. Ð3
, line 30). This will be found nuticed below, viz. at þ. 336, 
note s. 


' COpy O:F ::;, 
IAnK X. 17-31. 


(pp. 288 and 289).1 You will find that this time the words 
omitted amount to 44. The ,vords added are 13: the ,vords 
substituted, 23: the words transposed, 34: the ,vords varied 
16. And the phrase has been altered 9 times at least. But, 
130 on a total of 297, is 44 per cent. You 'will also bear in 
mind that Clelnent of Alexandria is one of our principal 
authorities for the Text of the Ante-Nicene period. 2 

U And thus, I venture to presulne, the inlagination has been 
fit 1ast effectually disposed of, that beCa'lIBC Codices B and 
are the t,vo oldest Greek copies in existence, the Text 
exhibited by either nlllst tlzcrcfore be the purest Text \vhich 
is any,vhere to be met "yith. It is i'lupossible to 1J1
od1LCe (6 
fo'U1er exhibition of s. J.
[ark x. 17 -31 than is contained in 
a docurnent full t'wo centuries older than either B or 
the property of one of the r/lost ja'ìno'lts of the ante-Nicene 

L VI.-(7) At this stage of the argument, the Revie\ver 
finds hiIllself taken aside by a friendly Critic [F. C.], and 
privately remonstrated ,vith sOlne,vhat as follo,ys :- 

l'. C. cc Do you consider, Sir, ,vhat it is you are about? 
Surely, you have been proving a vast deal too much! If 
the foregoing be a fair sample of the Text of the N. T. ,vith 
,vhich Clemens Alex. ,vas best acquainted, it is plain that 
the testimony to the Truth of Scripture borne by one of the 
ll10st ancient and 1110st famous of the }-'athers, is absolutely 
worthless. Is that your o,vn deliberate conviction or not? " 

Q. R. cc Finish ,yhat you have to say, Sir. ...\.fter that, you 
shall have a full reply." 

1 'This Text' (say the Editors) C is an attempt to reproduce at once the 
autograph Text.' -I'll traduction, p. xxviii. 
2 \Yestcott and 110rt's Introduction, pp. 112-3. 


\ !--UrrORED nE:\IO


(R) F. C. CC 'V ell then. Pray understand, I nothing doubt 
that in your nlain contention you are right; but I yet 
cannot help thinking that this bringing in of a faluous 
ancient Father - obiter - is a very damaging proceeùing. 
'Vhat else is such an elaborate exposure of the badness of 
the Text \vhich Clelnens (A.D. 150) elnployed, hut the hope- 
less perplexing of a question \vhich \vas already sufficiently 
thorny and difficult ? You have, as it seems to me, imported 
into these 15 verses an entirely fresh crop of ' Various Read- 
ings.' Do you seriously propose thel11 as a contribution 
towards ascertaining the ipsissi1na verba of the Evangelist,- 
the true text of S. l\Iark x. 17-31 ?" 

Q. R. "Come back, if you please, Sir, to the company. 
Fully appreciating the friendly spirit in \vhich you just no\v 
dre,y lne aside, I yet insist on so lllaking Iny reply that all 
the ,vorld shall hear it. Forgive my plainness: but you are 
evidently profoundly unacquainted \vith the probleln before 
you,-in ",'"hich ho\vever you do not by any means enjoy the 
distinction of standing alone. 

CC The foulness of a Text \vhich must have been penned 
\vithin 70 or 80 years of the death of the last of the Evan- 
gelists, is a Inatter of fact-which must be loyally accepted, 
and made the best of. The phenomenon is surprising cer- 
tainly; and Inay ,veIl be a \varning to all "who (like Dr. 
Tregelles) regard as oracular the solitary unsupported dicta 
of a 'Vriter,-provided only he can claim to have lived in 
the IInd or IIII'd century. To myself it occasions no 
sort of inconvenience. You are to be told that the exorbi- 
tances of a single Father,-as Clemens: a single ,r ersion,- 
as the Egyptian: a singl Copy,-as cod. B, are of no manner 
of significancy or use, except as \varnings: are of no manner 
I of interest, except as illustrating the depravation \vhich 
systCluatically assailed the \\Titten "T ord in the age \vhich 
iInlnediately succeeded the ...\.postolic: firc, in fact, of no 




iìnportance ?'vhatever. To make them the basis of an induction 
is preposterous, It is not allo\vable to infer the universal 
from the particular. If the Lones of Goliath were to be 
discovered to-morrow, woulJ you propose as an inJuction 
therefrom that it was the fashion to wear four-and-tV\renty 
fingers and toes on one's hanJs and feet in the days of the 
giant of Gath? All the v,'"ild readings of the lost Codex 
Lefore us may be uncerenloniously disnlis8ed. The critical 
importance and value of this stray leaf from a long-since- 
vanished Copy is entirely different, and remains to be 

cc You are to remeDlber then,-perhaps you have yet to 
learn,-that there are but 25 occasions in the course of these 
15 verses, on ,vhich either Lachmann (L.), or Tischendorf 
(T.), or Tregelles (Tr.), or 'Vestcott and Hort ("T. H.), or our 
Revisionists (R. T,), advocate a departure from the Tradi- 
tional Text. To those 25 places therefore our attention is 
no\v to be directed,-on them, our eyes are to be riveted,- 
exclusively. And the first thing ,yhich strikes us as \vorthy 
of notice is, that the 5 authorities above specified fall into no 
fe\ver than twelve distinct combinations in their aùvocacy of 
certain of those 25 readings: holding all 5 together only 4 
times. l The one question of interest therefore which arises, 

1 Desides,-All hut L. conspire 5 tinlcs. 
All but T. " 3" 
All but 1'r. " 1" 
Then,-T. Tr. 'VH. cOlnùinc 2 " 
r.l'. \YH. RT. " 1" 
r.l'r. 'YR. nrr. " 1" 
L. r.l'r. 'VII. " 1" 
Then,-L, T. stand by thClnselves 1 " 
L. Tr. ,,1 " 
T. \VR." " 1" 
Lastly,- L. stands alone . 4 " 



TO TIlE TEXT OF S. l\IARK X. 17-31. 


is this,-\Vhat amount of sanction do any of them expe- 
rience at the hands of Clemens Alexanùrinus ? 

"I answer,-Only on 3 occasions docs he agree with any of 
tlw'Jn. 1 The result of a careful analysis sho,vs further that lw 
sides with the T1
aditional Text 17 tÙnes :-"itnessing against 
Lachmann, 9 times: against Tischendorf, 10 times: against 
Tregelles, 11 times: against \Vestcott and Hort, 12 tinles. 2 

CC So far therefore from adlnitting that 'the Testimony of 
Clemens Al.-one of the most ancient and n10st famous of 
the Fathers-is absolutely worthless,'-I have proved it to 
be of very greed value. Instead of 'hopelessly perplexing 
the question,' his Evidence is found to have sirnplified 
'Jnatters considC1
ably. So far fronl 'importing into these 
15 verses a fresh crop of Various Readings,' he has helpcd 
us to get rid of no less than 17 of the existing ones. . . . 
, Damaging' his evidence has certainly proved: but only to 
Lachmann, Tisclwndorf, Trc[}elles, 1Vestcott and Hort and our 
red Revisionists. And yet it remains undeniably true, 
that 'it is Ï1npossible to produce a fouler exhibition of 
S. :\lark x. 17-31 than is met ,vith in a document full two 
centuries older than either B or N,-the property of one of 
the TI1ûst faInous of the Fathers.' 3 . . . . Haye you anything 
further to ask? " 

(9) F. C. cc I should certainly like, in conclusion, to be in- 
formed ,vhether ,ve are to infer that the nearer ,ve approach 
to the date of the sacred Autographs, the 1Horo corrupt ,ve 

1 Twice he agrees with all 5: viz. omitting t:pa
 TÒV uTavpóv in vcr. 21 ; 
and in omitting 
 yvvaîKa (in vcr. 
Ð) :-Once he agrees with only 
Lachmann: viz. in transposing TavTa 7TáVTa (in ver. 20). 
2 On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 23), ClClucns m".hibits 
peculiar rcading8 of his oWll,-sidcs with no one. 
S Q, R. p. 360. 




shall fÌllÙ the copies. For, if so, pray-Where and \Vhell did 
:purity of Text begin ? " 

Q. R. " You are not at liberty, logically, to draw any such 
inference from the premisses. The :purest documents of all 
existed perforce in the first century: m1.tst have then existed. 
The spring is perforce purest at its source. l\ly ,vhole con- 
tention has been, and is,-That there is nothing at all 
unreasonable in the supposition that t\VO stray copies of the 
IVth century,-coming do\yn to our o,vn times \vithout a 
history and ,,
ithout a character,-may exhibit a thoroughly 
depraved text. J1Iore than this does not follo,v la,vfully 
froln the pren1Ïsses. ....
t the outset, remember, you delivered 
it as your opinion that 'the oldest ltlan1.!Jscnpt wc possess, 'if it 
be b1.tt a 'ì"cry'ancient onc, 'Jnust neclls be the p1.trcst.' I asserted, 
in reply, that 'it does not by any n1eans follow, because a 
manuscript is very ancient, that thcrefore its text ,viII Le 
very pure' (p. 321); and all that I have been since saying, 
has but had for its object to prove the truth of my assertion. 
Facts have been incidentally elicited, I adlllÏt, calcÏllated to 
inspire distrust, rather than confidence, in very ancient docu- 
nlents generally. But I an1 neither responsible for these 
facts; nor for the inferences suggested by thenl. 

" At all events, I have to request that you ,viII not carry 
ay so entirely erroneous a notion as that I alll the 
advocate for Recent, in preference to Ancient, Evidence con- 
cerning the Text of Scripture. Be so obliging as not to 
say concerning nle that I 'co1.tnt' instead of "weighing' Iny 
,vitnesses, If you have attended to the foregoing pages, and 
have understood thenl, you lllUst by this tÏ1ne be a\vare that 
in every instance it is to A
TIQUITY that I persistently Inake 
my appeal. I abide by its sentence, and I require that you 

hall do the saIne, 

lIT ] 

NOT COIHCER ß N D L, 1, 33, GD. 


u You fin(l your fricnds, un the contrary, reject the Tcsti- 
?/tony of Antiquity. You set up, instead, SOlne idol of your 
O\Vl1. Thus, Tregelles \yorshipped 'coùex B.' But' codex B ' 
is not C Antiquity' !-Tischendorf assigned the place of 
honour to C codex N.' But once more, C codex N' is not 
, Antiquity' I-You rejoice in the decrees of the VIth-century- 
codex D,-and of the Vlllth-century-codex L,-and of the 
Xth, Xlth, and XIVth century codices, 1, 33, G9. But \vill 
you venture to tell TIle that any of these are C Antiquity' ? 
S(unples of Antiquity, at best, are any of these. No nlore! 
But then, it is delnonstrable that they are unfair samples. 
'Vhy are you regardless of all other COPIES ?-So, ,vith respect 
to VERSIOXS, and F ATIIERS. You single out one or t\vo,-the 
one or t,vo which suit your purpose; and you are for 
rejecting all the rest. But, once more,-The Coptic version 
is not C Antiquity,' -neither is Origen C Antiquity.' The 
Syriac Version is a full set-off against the fOfluer,-Irenæus 
III ore than counterbalances the latter. Whatever is found in 
one of these ancient authorities HUlst confessedly he A
C ancient TIeading :' hut it does not therefore follo,v that it is 
THE ancient Reading of the place. Now, it is THE ancient 
Reading, of \\?hich ,ve are al\vays in search. And he \\?ho 
sincerely desires to ascertain \vhat actually is the TVitncss of 
Antiq'uity,-( i,c., ,,-hat is the prevailing testimony of all 
the oldest docunlents,)-\vill begin Ly casting his prejudices 
anù his predilections to the \vinds, and \vill devote hinlself 
conscientiously to an Ï1npartial survey of the \vhole field 
of Evidence." 

}'. C. "'V ell but,-you have once and again adn1Ítted that 
the phenomena before us arc extraordinary. 
\re you aLle to 
explain ho\y it comes to pass that such an one as Clelnens 
Alexandrinus eluployed such a scandalously corrupt copy of 
the Gospels as \ye have Leen considering?" 




Q. R. CC You are quite at liberty to ask me any question you 
choose. And I, for my o,vn part, am "Tilling to return you 
the best ans,ver I am able. You ,vill please to remember 
ho,vever, that the phenomena ,vill remain,-ho,vever infeli- 
citous my attempts to explain theln may seem to yourself. 
l\Iy vie\v of the matter then-(thillk ,,,hat you ,vill about 
it I)-is as follows :- 

LVII. "Vanquished by THE TVORD Incafrnate, Satan next 
directed his subtle malice against the 1Vu f rd wfritten. Hence, 
as I think,-hcnce the extraordinary fate ,vhich befel certain 
early transcripts of the Gospel. First, heretical assailants of 
Christianity,-then, orthodox defenders of the Truth,- 
lastly and above all, self-constituted Critics, ,vho (like 
Dr. Hort) inlagined themselves at liberty to resort to 
C instinctive processes' of Criticism; and ,vho, at first as 
,veIl as C at last,' freely made their appeal C to the indi- 
vidual nlind :'-such were the corrupting influences ,vhich 
,vere actively at ,york throughout the first hundred and fifty 
years after the death of S. John the Di vine. Profane litera- 
ture has never kno,vn anything approaching to it,-can 
sho,v nothing at all like it. Satan's arts were defeated 
indeed through the Church's faithfulness, because,-(the 
good Providence of GOD had so ,villed it,)- the perpetual 
multiplication, in every quarter, of copies required for 
Ecclesiastical use,-not to say the solicitude of faithful men 
in diverse regions of ancient Christendom to retain for 
themselves unadulterated speciIllens of the inspired Text,- 
proved a sufficient safeguard against the grosser fornls of 
corruption. But this ,vas not all. 

CC The Church, remember, hath been fronl the beginning 
the C "\Vitness and Keeper of Holy 'V rit.' 1 Did not her 
Divine Author pour out upon her, in largest measure, C the 

1 Article xx. 




SPIRIT of Truth;' and pledge Jlirnself that it should be that 
SPIRIT'S special function to C guide' her children C into all the 
Tl'uth' 1 ? . . . That by a perpetual Iniraele, Saered 
,vould be protected all down the ages against depraving 
influences of \vhatever sort,-\vas not to have been expecteù ; 
certainly, ,vas never pron1Ïsed. TIut the Church, in her 
collective capacity, hath nevertheless-as a nlatter of fact- 
Leen perpetually purging herself of those shamefully de- 
prayed copies \vhich once every\vhere abounded \vithin her 
pale: retaining only such an amount of discrepancy in her 
Text as n1Ïght serve to relnind her children that they carry 
their C treasure in earthen vessels/-as \vell as to stinlulate 
thCln to perpetual wntchfulness anù solicitude for the purity 
and integrity of the Deposit. Never, however, up to the 
present hour, hath there been any complete eradication of 
all traces of the attempted mischief,-any absolute getting 
riù of every depraved copy extant. These are founù to have 
lingered on anciently in Inany quarters. A fcw such copic..ç 
linger on to the prcscnt day. The ,vounds \vere healed, but 
the scars remained,-nay, the scars are discernible still. 

CC ''"'"hat, in the JneantiIne, is to be thought of those blind 
guides-those deluded ones-who \\Tould no\v, if they could, 
persuade us to go back to those s
nne codices of \v hich the 
Church hath already purged herself? to go Lack ill quest of 
those very Iteadillgs \vhich, 15 or IGOO years ago, the Ohurch 
 all lands is found to have rejected \vith loathing? \T erily, 
it is C happening unto them according to the true proyerb ,_ 
which S. Peter sets do,,'n in his 2nd Epistlc,-chaptcr ii. 
2. To proceed ho\veyer. 

CC ...As for Clemens,-hc lived at the very thuc and in the 
very country ,,'here the Inischicf referred to ,,'as 1l10St rife. 
For full t"\\ 0 centuries after his era, heretical "yorks \vere so 

1 Eìs- 7râuaJl T
eEtaJl.-S. John xvi. 13. 




industriously multiplied, that in a diocese consisting of 800 
parishes (viz. Cyrus in Syria), the Bishop (viz. Theodoret, 
"\\?ho \vas appointed in A,D. 423,) complains that he found 
no less than 200 copies of the DiatcssClTon of Tatian the 
heretic,-(Tatian's date being A.D. 173,)-honourably pre- 
served in the Churches of his (Theodoret's) diocese, and 
mistaken by the orthodox for an authentic performance,l 
Clemens moreover \vould seenl to have been a trifle too 
familiar "Tith the \vorks of Basilides, 
Iarcion, Valentinus, 
Heracleon, and the rest of the Gnostic cre\v. He habitually 
mistakes apocryphal ,vritings for inspired Scripture: 2 and 
-with corrupted copies al\vays at hand and before him-he 
is just the TI1an to present us with a quotation like the 
present, and straight\vay to volunteer the assurance that he 
found it c so \vritten in the Gospel according to S. 1\fark.'3 
The archetype of Codices B and 
,-especially the archetype 
from \vhich Cod. D ,vas copied,-is discovered to have ex- 
perienced adulteration largely from the sanie pestilential source 
\vhich must have corrupted the copies \vith \vhich Clement 
(and his pupil Origen after hinl) \yere lnost falniliar.-And 
thus you have explained to you the reason of the disgust and 
indignation \vith \vhich I behold in these last days a resolute 
attempt made to revive and to palm off upon an unlearned 
generation the old exploded errors, under the pretence that 
they are the inspired ,r erity itself,-providentially recovered 
from a neglected shelf in the Vatican,-rescued fronl destruc- 
tion by a chance visitor to :hlount Sinai." 
F. C. ""rill you then, in conclusion, tell us ho\v you 
\vould have us proceed in order to ascertain the Truth of 
Scripture 1 " 

1 Theodoret, Opp. iv. 208.-COlnp. Clinton, }? R. ii. .Appendix, p.473. 
2 1'he reader is invited to enquire for B}). Kaye (of Lincoln)'s Account 
of tlw writings of Olement if .Alexarzdria,-and to read thevith and viiith 
3 TllVTU p.Èv Iv Tcf KUTtì :\låpK()f) EÙ(l'Y'YEXícp 'Yf'Ypa'TrTCu. (
v.),-p. 938. 

. <) )37 
Ill,] RE

Q. ll. "To allS\VCr that question fully \vould require a 
cOllsideraLle Treati:je, I \vill not, ho,vever, \vithhold a 
sli(fht outline of ,,,hat I conceive to be the only safe 
lllethod of procedure, I could but fill up that outline, and 
illu8trat(' that nlethod, eyen if I had 500 pages at nlY 

LVIII, "On first seriously applying ourselves to these 
studies, many years ago, \ve found it ,yondrous difficlùt to 
di yest ourselves of prepossessions very like your o,vn. Turn 
,vhich ,yay \ve "Tould, \\Te \\Tere encountered by the same 
confident terminology:-' the best doculllents,' - ' prÍInary 
manuscripts,' -' first-rate authorities,' -' primitiye eyidence,' 
-' ancient readings,' -and so forth: and ,ve found that thereby 
cod, A or B,-cod, C or D-U7(]]"e invaTiably and exclusively 'Incant. 
It ,vas not until ,ve had laboriously collated these doclunents 
(including N) for ourselves, that we became aware of their 
true character. Long before coming to the end of our task 
(and it occupied us, off and on, for eight years) "e had 
ùecome convinced that the supposed' best documents' and 
'first-rate authorities' are in reality among the U'01
St :-that 
these Copies deserve to be called 'prÍ1nary,' only because in 
any enumeration of manuscripts, they stand foremost ;-and 
that their' Evidence,' \vhether 'primitive' or not, is contra- 
dictory throughout.-All Readings, lastly, ,ve discovered are 
, ancient.' 
"...\ diligent inspection of a v-ast nunlber of later Copies 
scattered throughout the principaJ libraries of Europe, and 
, the exact Collation of a fe,v, further convinced us that the 
deference generally claimed for B, N, C, D is nothing else but 
I a ,veak superstition and a vulgar error :-that the date of a 
I :1\18. is not of its essence, but is a Dlere accident of the 
problem :-and that later Copies, so far froDl 'érumbling 
do\vn salient points, softening irregularitifls, conforming 
, z 



Gon I L\ TH 'L\ Ug A


differences,' 1 anù So forth,-on countless occasions, and ((.') (( 
'1'nlc,-preserve those delicate lineaments and nlÏnute refine- 
ments \vhich the 'old uncials' are constantly observed to 
oLliterate. .1\nd so, rising to a systeluatic survey of the 
entire field of Evidence, ,ye found reason to suspect 11101'8 anù 
1Hore the soundness of the conclusions at ,vhich Laclunaun, 
Tregelles, and Tischendorf had arrived: ,vhile ,ye see1Heù 
led, as if hy the hand, to discern plain indications of the 
existence for ourselves of a far' nlore excellent "Tay.' 

LIX. "For, let the ample and highly c0111plex provision 
,vhich Divine "risdoll1 hath lllade for the effectual conserva- 
tion uf that crowning Inaster-piece of Jlis o\vn creative skill,- 
 '\Tolln,-Le duly considered; anù surely a 
recoil is inevitahle from the strange perversity \vhich in 
the8c last days ,voulù shut us up ,vithin the lÏIllits of a very 
fc\y docluuents to the neglect of all the rest,-as though a 
revelation fronl IIcaven had proclaÌ111eù that the Truth is to 
lIe found exclusively in tlw1n. The good Providence of the 
Author of Scripture is discovered to have furnished His 
household, the Church, \,'ith (speaking roughly) 1000 copies 
of the Gospels :-\vith t".enty V ersions-t" 0 of ,vhich go 
back to the Leginning of Christianity: anù \vith the \vritings 
of a host of ancient Fathers. IVhy out of those 1000 1\188. 
tu'o should ùe singled out Ly Drs. 'Vestcott and Hort for 
special fa vom', -to the practical disregard of all the rest: 
u,hy Versions and Fathers should by theul be sÜnilarly dealt 
,vith,-should Le practically set aside in fact in the lump,- 
\,e fail to discover. Certainly the pleas urged by the learned 
Editors 2 can appear satisfactory to no one but to themselves. 
LX. "For our method then,- It is the direct contradictory 
to that adopted by the t\VO Canl bridge Professors. Moreover, 

1 Alford's N. T. vol. i. l)roleg. p. ü2. 
2 Rct' p. In7 (
 2GU): awll)' 201 (
 275-U) :-aud 1), 
03 (




it conducts us throughout to directly opposite results. \Ve 
hold it to be even axiolnatic that a lteading ,vhich is sup- 
ported by only one doculnent,-out of the 1100 (more or 
less) already specified, - ,vhether that solitary unit be a 
, or a COPY, - stands self-condemned; 
may 1e dismissed at once, \vithout concern or enquiry. 

C( Nor is the case materially altered if (as generally happens) 
a fe,v colleagues of bad character are observed to side ,vith 
the else solitary ùocument. Associated with the corrupt ll, 
is often founù the Inore corrupt 
, Nay, six leaves of N are 
confidently declared by Tischenùorf to have been "Titten by 
the scribe of D. The sympathy between these two, and the 
Version of Lo,ver Egypt, is even notorious, That Origen 
should sometÏ1nes join the conspiracy,-and that the sallie 
ltcading should find allies in certain copies of the unrevised 
Latin, or perhaps in Cureton's Syriac :-all this "Te deem the 
reverse of encouraging. The attesting ,yitnesses are, in our 
account, of so suspicious a character, that the Reading cannot 
be allo"Ted. On such occasions, "e are reminded that there 
is truth in Dr. Hort's dictum concerning the importance 
of noting the tendency of certain documents to fall into 
C groups:' though his assertion that C it cannot be too often 
repeated that the study of grouping is the foundation of all 
enduring Criticis'ln.; 1 we hold to be as absurd as it is untrue. 

I.JXI. "So far negatively.-A safer, the only trust\vorthy 
method, in fact, of ascertaining the Truth of Scripture, "re hold 
to 1e the method ,vhich,-,vithout prejudice or partiality,- 
sÏ1nply ascertains "\YHICH FOR)f OI!' THE TEXT EXJOí8 THE 
T, THE :\108'1' nE
D-aùove all things-TIlE MOST YARIED ATTE
T.\.TIOX. That 
a Heading shoulù be freely recognized alike Ly the earliest 

1 Prrfar( (1
70)J p. x,.. 

z 2 


TilE TneE TEXT, 'l'IL\.'1' \rHICH E

[A wr. 

and by thl
 latest availal,Ie evidence,-,ye huld tu 1e a prin1e 
CirCUlllstance in its favour. That Copies, \r er8ions, and Fathers, 
sho111<1 all three concur in sanctioning it,-,ve hold to 1e even 
ll10re conclusive. If several Fathers, living in ditlerent parts 
of ancient Christendolll, are all observed to recognize the 
,,"'ords, or to quote thenl in the sanle ,,"'ay,-,ye have lllet ,yith 
all the additional continuation "Te ordinarily require. Let 
it only be further discoverable how or 'why the rival Reading 
canle into existence, and our confiùence beconles absolute. 

LXII. "An instance "Thich ,ve furnished in detail in a 
former article,1 n1ay be conveniently appealed to in illustra- 
tion of ,vhat goes before, Our LORD'S' Agony and bloody 
s,ycat,'-first mentioned by Justin J\Iartyr (A.D. 130), is 
found set down in every JIS. in the 'world except four. It is 
duly exhibited by every knm/)n TT c19s ion. It is recognized by 
'Jlpu;ards of forty famous Fathers ,vriting ,vithout concert 
in renlote parts of ancient Christendom. \Yhether there- 
fore Allti(luity, - Variety of testin10ny, - Respectability of 
,vitnesses, - or Nunlber, - is considered, the evidence in 
favour of S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 is simply over,vhelming. 
And yet out of superstitious deference to two Copies of 
bad character, Drs. 'Yestcott and Hort (follo,ved by the 
Revisionists) set the brand of spuriousness on those 26 
precious ,,"'ords; IH'ofessing themselves 'morally certain' 
that this is nothing else but a C "\\T estern Interpolation:' 
,vhereas, n1Ïstaken zeal for the honour of Incarnate JEHOVAH 
alone occasioned the suppréssion of these t,yO verses in a 
fe,v early lllanuscripts. This has been eXplained already,- 
namely, in the middle of page 82. 
LXIII. "Only one other instance shall be cited. The 
traditional reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is vouched for byet'e r 

1 See above, pp. 79 to 85, 


l"Ll..LE::;T &\
D )[U'-'1' Y..\UIEn ..\TTE'-'T.ATJUX. 


 cnp!J oj tlt J GO",p"z:;5 bitt jOlf'r-3 uf \vhich are of cxtl'elHcly 
Laù character, yiz, 
 B D. The V" ersions are divicled: lHlt 1Wt 
the :Fathers: of \"hOl11 ?Jlore th(/J
 jor(lj-srl'cn froln every part 
of ancient Christcndulll,-(Syria, Palestine, 
\lexandria, ...\sia 
l\finor, Cyprus, Crete, Gaul,)-colne back to attest that the 
traditional reading (as usual) is the true une. Yet such is 
the infatuation of the ne\v school, that ])rs. \Vestcott and 
] fort are content to Inake nonsense of the 
'\ngelic IIyuln on 
the night of the K ativity, rather than adnlÍt the l)ossiLility 
uf conlplicity in error in N ß D: error in respect of a sin!Jle 
l'llcr! . . . . The l
eader is invited to refer to ,vhat has 
already been offered on this subject, from p. 41 to p. 47. 

LXIV. u It "rill be perceived therefore that the Inetho(l 
\ve plead for consists nlerely in a loyal recognition of the \vhulc 
of the Evidence: setting utI' one authority against anuther, 
laboriously and ÍInpartially; and adjudicating fairly Let\veen 
them all. Even so hopelessly corrupt a dueunlent as Clement 
of Alexandria's copy of the Gospels proves to have been- 
(described at pp. 326-31)-is by no Ineans ,vithout critical 
value. Servilely follo,,'ed, it \vould confessedly land us in 
hopeless error: but, judiciously eInployed, as a set-off against 
other evidence; regarded rather as a check upon the exorbi- 
tances of other foul docunlents, (c,[J, B 
 c and especially D) ; 
resurted to as a protection against the prejudice and caprice of 
Illodern Critics ;-that venera1Jle doelnnent, \yith all its faults, 
pro yes invaluable. Thus, in spite uf its o\vn aberrations, it 

es to the tn.äh oj the TraditioN,al Tw.t of S. :\Iark ,. 
17-31-(the place uf 
cripture abuve referred tol)-in several 
Ï1nportant particulars; siding \yith it against Lachnlann, 
g tilnes ;-against Tischendorf, 10 times ;-against Tregelles. 
11 tÍ1nes i-against """ cstcott au(lllort, 12 tÏ1nes. 

1 Pp, 05U-UO. 




" We deem this laborious method the only true nlethod, 
in our present state of inlperfect knowledge: the method, 
namely, of adopting that Reading 'which has the fullest, the 
'widest, and the most varied attcstation. Antiquity, and Rcspec- 
tability 01 1Vitnesses, are thus secured. Ho,v 1uen can per- 
suade themselves that 19 COlJies out of every 20 may 
be safely disregarded, if they be but "Titten in minuscule 
characters,-we fail to understand. To ourselves it Seeln'3 
simply an irrational proceeding. But indeeù we hold this to 
Le nu scc'Jning truth. The fact is absolutely demonstrable. 
As for building up a Text, (as Drs. \Vestcott and 1Iort have 
done,) 'with special superstitious deference to a single codex,- 
we deem it about as reasonable as would be the attempt to 
build up a pyramid from its apex; in the expectation that 
it ,yould stand firm on its extremity, and renlain horizontal 
for ever." 

Anù thus much in reply to our supposed Questioner. \Ve 
have now reached the end of a prolonged discussion, ,vhich 
began at page 320; more Ï1nmediately, at page 337. 

LXV. In the meantime, a pyral1Ûd balanced on its apex 
proves to be no unapt image of the Textual theory of Drs."Test- 
cott and Hort. When \ve reach the end of their Introduction 
\ve find we have reached the point to \vhich all that went 
before has been evidently converging: but we make the fur- 
ther awk\\'ard discovery that it is the point on which all that 
\vent before absolutely dejJe ids also. Apart Iro?JL codex B, 
the present theory could have no existence. Bilt 101' codex R, 
it ,vould never have been excogitated. On codex B, it 
entirely rests. Out of codex B, it has entirely SP1'WJl[J. 

Take a,vay tIlls one codex, and Dr. Hort's volume becomes 
absolutely \vithout coherence, purpose, llleallillg. One-fifth 


AP'rLY nE:rnE


of it l iq devoted to relnarks on II and
. The fable of ' the 
Syrian text' is inyente(1 solely for the glorification of n an(1 

,-which are clainle<l, of course, to he 'Prc-Syrian.' ThiR 
fills 40 l)ages 1n01'e. 2 An<l thus it \vould appear that the 
Truth of Scripture has run a very narro,v risk of heing lOHt 
for ever to nlankind. VI', Hort contends that it nloro than 
half lay pcrdu on a forgotten shelf in the "\r atican Library;- 
_Dr. Tischendorf, that it had been deposited in a ,vaste-paper 
basket 3 in the convent of S. Catharine at the foot of l\Iount 
Sinai,-froln ".hich he rescued it on the 4th February, 1850 : 
-neither, \ye venture to think, a very likely circulnstance. 
'Ye incline to Lelieye that the Author of Scripture hath not 
by any IneallS sho,vn IIiInself so unnlÍlldful of the safety of 
the Deposit, as these distinguished gentlemen imagine. 

Arc \VO asked for the ground of our opinion? 'Ve point 
\vithout hesitation to the 998 COPIES \vhich relnain: to the 
lllany ancient VF.RSIOXS: to the l11any venerallle F
anyone of \vholn ,ve hold to be a 1nm'c trustu.orthy rudlwrit.'1 
for the Text of Scripture, 'lohcn hc spcaks out plai,Ûy, than 
either Codex B or Codex 
,-aye, or than both of thenl put 
together. Behold, (\ve say,) the abundant proyision \vhich 
the .All-,,'ise One hath Illade for the safety of the I Jeposit : 
the' threefold cord' ,vhich ' is not CJ.uickly broken'! 'Ye hope 
to be forgiven if ,vo add, (not \\.ithout a little \varnÜh,) that 
We altogether \\onder at the peryersity, the infatuatiun, the 
Llindness,-\vhich is prepared to l11ake light of all these pre- 
cious helps, in order to lllagnify t".o of the I110St corrupt 

1 P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii. 
2 Pp. U1-11ü and pp. 133-116. 
S "I l)Crceived a large allrl1.l'idc baslæt full of old parchments; and the 
librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already com71tÏtlerl to 
the flames. ""'hat was IllY surprise to find amid this heap of papers," &c.- 
(Na.rrntive of tilt, ,zi
coVtry of tlte SÙzailic 1IIanu:;tTipt, p. 



A In 'l'HA T 'l


codices in existence; and that, for no other reason hut because, 
(as Dr. Hort expresses it,) they 'l
((ppcn like\vise to be the 
oldest extant Greek 
ISS. of the N e\v Testament.' (p, 212.) 

LXVI. And yet, had "That precedes been the SUIn of the 
n1atter, \ve should for our o\vn parts have been perfectly \vell 
content to pass it by \vithout a syllable of conlnlent. So long 
as nothing lnore is endangered than thp personal reputation of 
a couple of Schulars-at hOIne or abroad-we can afford to 
look on \vith indifference. Their private ventures are their 
private concern. 'Vhat excites our indignation is the spec- 
tacle of the Ch1Ftch of England beconling to sorne extent 
involved in their disconlfiture, because inlplicated in their 
lnistakes: dragged through the n1Ïre, to speak plainly, at the 
chariot-\vheels of these t,,
o infelicitous Doctors, and exposed 
\vith thenl to the ridicule of educated Christendom. Our 
Church has boasted till no\v of learned sons in abundance 
\vithin her pale, ready at a monlent's notice to do her right: 
to expose shal1o\\T scioli SIll, and to vindicate that precious 
thing \vhich hath been conln1Ítted to her trust. 1 "There are 
the men nou'? 'Yhat has conle to her, that, on the contrary, 
certain of her o\vn Dishops and Doctors have not scrupled to 
enter into an irregular alliance ,,-ith Sectarians,-yes, have 
even taken into partnership \vith themselves one ,yho openly 
denies the eternal Goclhead of our LORD JESUS CUluST,-in 
order, as it \vould seelll, to give proof to the \yorlù of the lo\v 
ebb to \"hich Taste, Scholarship, and Sacred Learning have 
sunk alnong us? 

LXVII. "r orse yet. 'Ve are so llistressed, because the true 
sufferers after all by this ill-ad vised proceeding, are the 
DO n1Ïllions of English-speaking Christian folk scattered over 

1 T
V 7TupaKaTaBÝ]K1'}V.-l Tiln. vi. 20, 




the surface of the globe. These hayc had the title-deeds by 
\vhich they hol(1 their priceless birthright, shamefully tam- 
pered ,vith, TVho \,ill venture to predict the anlount of 
n1Ïschief ,vhich must follo,v, if the' }{C1V Grcck Tcxt' ,vhich 
has i,een put forth by the nlen ,vho "yere appointed to revise 
tlw ß'nglish .Authm"iz'd Version, should become used in our 
Rchools and in our Collegcs,-should impose largely on the 
Clergy of the Church of England? . . . But to return fronl 
this, 'v hich ho\vever \vill scarcely be called a digression. 

A pyran1Ïd poised on its apex then, we huld to be a fair 
enlblem of the Theory just no\v under revie\v. Only, unfor- 
tunately, its apex is found to be constructed of brick without 
straw: say rather of straw-without b?'ick. 
LX,TII!. TVhy such partiality has been evinced latterly 
for Cod. D, none of the Critics have yet been so good as to 
explain; nor is it to be expected that, satisfactorily, any of 
them ever ,,
in. TVhy again Tischendorf should haye sud- 
denly transferred his allegiance from Cod. B to Cod. 
unless, to be sure, he ,vas the sport ûf parental partiality,- 
nlust also relnain fI riddle. If one of the' aIel uncials' lllUSt 
needs be taken as a guide,-(though ,ye see no sufficient 
rcason \\yhy one should be appointed to lord it over the rest,) 
-\\ye should rather have expected thnt Cod, 4\. \vould have been 
selected, I-the text of ,,, hich 
, Stands in broad contrast to tbose of either B or 
, though tbe 
interval of 
rears [behveen it and thelu] is probably small.' 

1 [\Vhile this sheet is passing through the pres
, I find amollg DIY 
paper.:; a note (written in IbT6) by the learned, loved, and lamentcd 
Etlitor of Cyril,-Philip E. Pusey,-with WllUHl I u
ed to bc in constant 
communication :-" It is not obvious to me, looking at the subjcct from 
outside, why ß C L, constituting a class of ::\1t-:3. allied to each other, and 
therefore nearly = Ii :MSS., are to bc hcld to be superior to A. I t is 
still less obviouf' to me why **., 
 up (as he docs) very many gravc 
faults of B, :should yet consider II ::iupcrior in character to A."] 

j4G COD. ...\.. 
 COD, 13 :-ßUT [AUT. 

(p. 152.) 'By a curious and apparpntly unnoticed coincidence,' 
(pruceeds ])r. lIort,) , its Text in several books agrees 'with the 
Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid of old Latin 
attestation, ItS to leave little doubt that a Greek 1\18. largely 
eml>loyed by Jerome '-[and \vhy not' TIlE G'rcclc copies enlplo,yed 
by Jerome' ?J-' in his Revision of the Latin version must have 
had to a great extent a common original with A.' (Ibid.) 
Behold a further claÏIn of this copy on the respectful con- 
sideration of the Critics! 'Vhat \yould be thought of the 
Alexandrian Codex, if some attestation \vere discoveralJle in 
its pages that it actually had belongcd to the learned Palesti- 
nian father? ..According to 1)1'. J1ort, 
'Apart from this individual affinity, A-both in the Gospels 
and elsewhere-may serve as a fair example of the Jfa:illlSc'l'ipts 
that, to judge by ratristic quotations, were commoncst .in the IVth 
o but, the evidence in favour of Codex A thickens apace! 
Suppose then,-(for, after this achnission, the supposition is 
at least allo\vable,)-suppose the discovery \yere lllade to- 
morro\v of half-a-score of codices of the sa'ìne date as Cod. TI, 
but exhibiting the sarne Tcxt as Cod. A. ""hat a cOlllpletc 
revolution \vould be thereby effected in men's lninds on 
Tcxtual matters! }{ow impossible \\"ould it be, henceforth, 
for n and its henchman N, to obtain so nluch as a hearing! 
Such 'an elcven' ,vould safely defy thc \yorld! And yet, 
according to Dr. 11ort, the supposition may any day become 
a fact; for he inforrlls us,-( and \ve are glad to be able for 
once to declare that \,
hat he says is perfectly correct,)- 
that such manuscripts once abounded or rather prcvailcd;- 
, 'u:crc COrì1/Jnoncst in the IVth century,' ,yhen codices Band N 
,verc "Titten. 'Ve presulne that then, as no\v, such codices 
prevailed univcrsally, in the proportion of 99 to 1. 
LXIX. But-,vhat nced to say it 1-we entirely disallO"w 
any such llarro\villg of the platfornl \vhich Divine WisdoIll 

 v. 18. 3-17 

hath willed should Le at once very varied and very ample. 
Cud. A is sOlnetÏInes in error: sometimes even con.cqrircs in 
error cxclusi
.cly 'with Cod. ll. ..A.n instance occurs in 1 S. John 
v. 18,-a difficult passage, \vhich \\
e the nlore \villingly pro- 
ceed to rClnark upon, becausc the fact has transpired that it 
is one of the few places in \vhich entiJ'c l.lnanirnity prevailed 
anlong the TIevisionists,-who yet (as \\e ::;hall sho\v) have 
bcen, one and all, Inistaken in substituting' hirn' (avTóv) for 
(hÙnselj' (ÉavTóv) . . . 'Ve venture to bespeak the l1eader's 
attention \vhile \ve produce the passage in question, and briefly 
exan1Ínc it. JIe is assured that it exhibits a fair aycrage 
specinlen of \vhat has been the Revisionists' fatal lnethod 
in every page:- 

LXX. S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing 
between the lnere recipient of the ne\\T birth (ó rENNHeEI\
JK TOÛ (-)Eoû),-and the man who retains the sanctifying 
influences of the HOLY SPIRIT which he received \vhen he 
bccalne regenerate (ó rErENNHME'NO
 JK TOU fo)EOÛ). The 
latter (he says) ( sinneth not:' the forn1er, (he says,) (keepcth 
hÙnsclj, and the Evil One tOl.lchcth him not.' So far, all is 
intelligible. The non1Ínative is the san1e in both cases. 
Substitute hO\\Tever (keepeth hirn (avTóv ),' for (keepeth hÙn- 
selj (ÉavTóv ),' and (as Dr. Scrivener admits 1), ó ryEVV7JeEÌ
TOÛ 8eoû can be none other than the Only Begotten SO
GOD. .LL\.ncl yet our LORD is nO'lvhere in the N e\v Testanlcnt 
designated as ó 'YEVV7JeEÌ
 JK TOÛ 8EOÛ. 2 Alford accordingly 
prefers to Inake nonsense of the place; \vhich he trallslates,- 
( he that hath been begotten of GOD, it kccpcth hint.' 

1 In.troduction, p. 567. 
2 Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, G, 7, 8 ; 
1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. Ð bis, iv. 7; v. 1 his, 
1, 18 his. JVlIy is it to be supposed 
that on this last uccasion THE ETEI
 should be intended? 

: LI:8 

THE TUL"E BEADIXU 01f 1 So JOIlX y, 18. 


LXXI. N O"W., un every uccasion like the prcsent,-(instea(l 
of tampering \"Vith the text, as D1'. H01't and on?' Revisionistð 
hare done "-,,it/wnt explanation or apolo!J!J,)-our safety \vill be 
found to consist in enquiring,-TIut (1) \Yhat have the 
Copies to say to this? (2) "That have the \T ersions? and 
(3) "That, the Fathers? , . , The answer proves to be-(l) 
All the copies except three,! read 'hilnself,'-(2) So do the 
Syriac and the Latin; 2_ S0 do the Coptic, Sahidic, Georgian, 
Armenian, and .L"Ethiopic versions. 3 -(3) So, Origen clearly 
thrice,4-Didynlus clearly 4: tinlcs,5-Ephl'aCIH Syrus clearly 
t\vice,6-Severus also t\\rice,1- Theophy lact expressly,8- an d 
(Ecumenius. 9 -So, indeed, Cod. A; for the OJ'i!Jinal Scribe is 
found to have corrected hiJnself.lo The sunl of the adverse 
attestation therefore \vhich prevailed \vith the Revisionists, 
is found to have been-Codex B ((Jul a single cursive COp!! at 

Iosco'v . 

This does not certainly seem to the l
evie\Ycr, (as it seetHed 
to the TIevisionists,) 'ùecidedly preponderating evidence.' 
In his account, 'plain and CZC((1' error' d\\Tells ,vith their 
Revision. But this Illay be because,--(to quote ,vorùs recently 
addressed by the President of the Revising body to the Clergy 

1 A., TI, 105. 
2 The paraphrase is interesting. rl'he Y ulgate, J erOllle [ii. 321, mn], 
Casf'ian [po 409J,-' Sed geno'atio Dei conserrvat eU'ìn:' ChrUlnatius [Gall. 
viii. 347J, and Yigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. C-16J,-' Quia (quoll Ùaìì) 
'ìlativitas Dei c'Ustodit (s('r
'at) illum.' In a letter of 5 Bishops to Inno- 
ccntius 1. (A.D. 410) [Galland. viii. 5Ð8 bJ, it is,-' ltafivitus gum ex ]){'O 
uch a rendering (viz, 'his having been born of GOD') alllOunts to an 
iut(,rprdation of the place. 
S FrOln the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D. 4 iv. 3
(j h c. 
5 Gall. viii. 347,-of which the Greek is to l)e seen in Cramer's Cat, lip. 
143-4. Many portionH of the lost rrext of this Father, (the present passage 
included [po 231J) are to be found in the Scholia published by C. F. 

{atthæi [N. rr. xi. un to 245-7J. 
6 i. U4, 97. 7 In Cat. p. 124, rcpeated p, 144. 8 iii. 433 c, 
9 ii. G01 d, 10 By putting a small uncial E abovc the A. 




and Laity ..of the ] )iocese of Gloucester and Bristol,)- 
the 'Quarterly Ilevie,ver' is 'innocently ifJltorant of the nol1' 
established p1'inciplcs of Textual CriticisllL'l 

LXXII. 'It is easy,'-(says the learned Prelate, speaking 
on his o,vn behalf and that of his co- neyisionists,)-' to put 
forth to the ,vorld a s\\ eeping condemnation of nlany of 
our changes of reading; and yet all the ,,- hile to be innocently 
i!j1lO1"({uf of thc 1101.1' cslabliRhcd jJrinciples of Textual C?'iticism.' 

l\fay "
e venture to point out, that it is easier still to 
denounce adverse Criticism in the lump, instead of trying to 
refute it in anyone particular :-to refer vaguely to ' esta- 
blished principles of Textual Criticisln,' instead of stating 
,vhich they be :-to sneer contenlptuously at endeavours, 
("hich, even if unsuccessful, one is apt to suppose are 
entitled to syulpathy at the hands of a successor of the 
A postles,) instead of sho-wing 'wherein such efforts are repre- 
hensible? "Teare content to put the follo,ving question to 
any fair- 111inded man:- 'Yhether of these t,yO is the more 
facile and culpable proceeding ;-(1) Lightly to blot out an 
ilU;pired 'lL"OTd front the Book of Lifc, and to Í'Jnposc a wrong 
sense on SC1'ipture, as in this place the Bishop and his col- 
leagues are found to have done :-01', (2) To fetch the same 
,vord industriously back: to establish its meaning by 
diligent and laborious enquiry: to restore both to their 
rightful honours: and to set them on a basis of (ll ithcrfo 
'unobser'lvxl) eyiùence, from ,,-hich (faxit DEUS 1) it "ill be 
found iInpossible henceforth to dislodge thenl? 

Thi8 only "ill the llevie,ver add,-That if it be indeed 
one of the' now established principles of Textual Criticism,' 

1 Diocesan Progress, Jan. 1882.-[pp. 20] p. lÐ. 




that the evidence of t1/)0 'lnan'llsc'J'Îpts ({,nd-a-half out\veighs 
the evidence of (1) All the re'lnaining 997!,-(2) The whole 
Lody of the Versions,-(3) Every Fathcr 'who quotes the place, 
ffJ"om A.D. 210 to A.D. 1070,-and (4) The st1'ongest pOððible 
intc1'nal Evidence :-if all this indced be so,-he devoutly 
trusts that he may 
e pern1Ïtted to retain his' Innocence' 
to the last; and in his 'Ignorance,' \,Then the days of his 
\varfare are ended, to close his eyes in death.-And no\v 
to proceed. 

LXXIII. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever 
the sanIC. rhantollls of thc illlagillation henceforth usurp the 
place of substantial forms. IllterminaLle doubt,-,vretcheù 
lllisbelief,-chilùish crcdulity,-juùicial blilldness,-are the 
inevitable sequel and penalty. The mind that has long 
allo\vcd itself in a systelnatic trifling \vith Evidence, is 
observed to fall the easiest prey to Inlposture. It has doubted 
\vhat is dernonstrably true: has rejected \vhat is ind1.lbitably 
Divine. Henceforth, it is observed to 111Ïstake its o\vn 
fantastic creations for historical facts: to believe things 
\vhich rest on insufficient evidence, or on no evidence at all. 
Thus, these learned J1rofessors,-"\vho condemn the 'last 
T\velve Verses of the Gospel according to S. l\lark ;' \yhich 
have been accounted veritable Scripture by the Church Uni- 
versal for more than 1800 rears ;-nevertheless accept as 
the genuine 'Diatessa1'on of Tatian' [A,D. 170], a production 
\vhich was discovered yesterday, and which does not even claÍ1n 
to be the work of that primitive \vriter. 1 

Yes, the N en1esis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the 
same. General mistrust of all evidence is the sure result. 
In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their 

1 Introduction, p. 2ö3. J:.t"'otes, pp. 3, 22, find passim. 


])H, UOU1' O


lJrother-Hc\'isiollisrs that 'the IJrevalcnt assunlption that 
throuO'hont the X. T. the true Text is to ùe found sO'Jllcwhcre 
nJllong recorded Headings, dO(,8 /lot .'itllnd the tcst of c:rpcì>icncc.' 
They are eviùently still haunte(l hy the sallle spectral sus- 
picion. They invent a ghost to he exorcised in every dark 
corner. ....\.ccordingly, ])1'. Hort favours us with a chapter on 
the ..Art of 'renlùving Corruptions of the sacred Text it/de- 
cedcnt to cxtant dOCUl1tcnts' (p. 71). 'Ve are not surprised 
(though ,ve are a little alnusecl) to hear that,- 
'The Ad of Cunjcrfural Emendation depends for its success 
so llluch on personal endO\Vlnents, fertility of resource in the 
first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too 
deJicato to acquiesce in merely plausible correctiulls, that it i
y tu forget ih; true character as a critical operation founded 
on knuwledge and Itlethod.'-(p. 71.) 

LXXIV. JTcry' easy,' certainly. One sanlple of Dr. IIort's 
skill ill this departIllent, (it OCClU'S at page 135 of his Notes 
on Sl}ect Readings,) shall he cited in illustration. "\Ve venture 
to conl111cnd it to the attention of our Reaùers:- 

(a) S, Paul [2 Tim. i. 13] exhorts Tinlothy, ('Vh0111 he had 
set as Dp. oyer the Church of Ephesus,) to 'hold fa
t' a 
certain 'fo1'ln' or 'pattern' (tJ7TOTÚ7rWUtV) 'of sound 'lcords, 
'lclâch' (said he) , thou lUlðt lWft1'd of 1ì
e.' The flexihilityanù 
delicate precision of the Greek language enables the .1:\.postle 
to indicate exactly \vhat was the prÏIne object of his solicitude. 
It proves to have been the safety of the very 'll'ords w.hich he 
had syllabled, (VylalvóvTCJJV Àó,,/wv ".oN 7rap' ÈfLoV 1/lCovuac;). 
As learned TIp. TIeyeridge "Tell points out,-' which 'll.;ords, not 
'which lorin, thou hast heard of mc. So that it is not so luuch 
the form, as the 'lcords thelllselves, ".hich the .L\..postle ,,,"QuId 
have hÏ1n to hold fast.' 1 

1 Sermons, vol. i. 13
,-(' A form of sound 1.t'ords to be used b!J 



TEXT OF :! TIM. I, 13, VI


All this hO\'Tever proves aLhorrent to Dr. IIort. 'This 
sense' (says the learned l)rofes80r) 'cannot be obtained from 
the text except by treating 6JV as put in the genitive by an 
'ltnusllal and inexplicable attraction, It seems more probable 
that &v is a primitive corruption of öv after 7ráVTlIJV.' 

N O\V, this is quite impossible, since neither õv nor 7ráVTWV 
occurs any\vhere in the neighbourhood, And as for the sup- 
posed' unusual and inexplicable attraction,' it happens to be 
one of even COlnlnon occurrence,-as every attentive reaùer 
of thé N e\v Testalnellt is a\vare. Exalnples of it lllay be 
seen at 2 Cor. i. 4 and :Ephes, iv. 1,-al
0 (in Dr. IIort's text 
of) Ephes. i. 6 (i]
 in all 3 places). ..\gain, in S, Luke v. 9 
(\vhether V or 6JV is read); anù vi. 38 ((þ) ;-ill S. Jo. xv. 20 
(ots) :-and xvii. 11 ((þ): in ..:lcts ii, 22 (ots): vii. 17 (

) and 
45 (6Jv): in xxii. 15 (6Jv), 
\:c. . . . But why entertain the 
question? There is al,solutely no rOO1J
 for such Criticism in 
respect of a reading \vhich is found in evcry k1wu'n AI/3.,-in 
evcry kno'wn Vcrsion,-in ct'cry Father 'lcho quotes the place: a 
reading \vhich Divines, and Scholars \"ho \yere not Divines,- 
Critics of the Text, and graIllmarians \vho \vere \vithout 
prepossessions concerning Scripture,- Editors of the Greek 
and Translators of the Greek into other languages,-all alike 
have acquiesced in, fronl the beginning until no\v. 

'V. e venture to assert that it is absolutely unla\vful, In 
the entire absence of evidence, to call such a reading as the 
present in question. There is absolutely no safeguard for 
Scripture-no linlÎt to Controversy-if a place like this may 
be solicited at the mere suggestion of individual caprice. 
(For it is ,vorth observing that on this, and sirnilar occasions, 
Dr. Hort is forsaken by Dl
. TVestcott. Such notes are enclosed 
in brackets, and subscribed 'H.') In the meantime, \vho 
can forbear smiling at the self-co111placency of a Critic \vho 


...\ T.
O, of 
 VI. 4, A
D (H1
 ACTR XX, 2H, 

oJ .., " 

put:-) forth rClnarks like those ,vhich precede; and yet congra- 
tulates hÏ1nsclf on 'pc1 4 sonal cndo1"7ìlcnts, fertility of 'J'csourec J 
and a too d licate (11)lJlYxi tion nJ lan!Ju{l!Jp , ? 

(b) _\nother specimen of conjectural extravagance occurs 
at S. John vi. 4, ,vhere Dr. IIort labours to thro,v suspicion 
on 'the Passover' (TÒ 7ráuXa),-in defiance of every knUIO/l, 
'/'Van1.lscript,-crery kn01"n VC1'sion,-and evc1'y Father 'lvhu 
'illotes or recognizes the place. l 'Ve find nine colu1nns devoted 
to his vindication of this ,veak inlagination; although Su 
l)artial are his Notes, that countless 'various Readings' uf 
great interest and importance are left ,vholly undiscusseù. 
Nay, sonletimes entire Epistles are dismissed ,vith a single 
",.eak annotation (e.g. 1 and 2 Thessalonians ),-01' 'lcith none, 
as in the case of the Epistle to the Philippians, 

(e) 'Ve charitably presume that it is in order to Inake 
alnends for having conjecturally thrust out TÒ 7ráuxa fronl B. 
John vi. 4,-that Dr. Hort is for conjecturally thrusting into 
Acts xx. 28, TEo;:' (after TO;:' löíov),-an itnagination to ,vhich 
he devotes a colunlll and-a-half, but for 'l,.hich he is 1Wt able to 
produce a particle of evidence. It ,vould result in our read- 
ing, 'to feed the Church of GOD, ,vhich He purchased '-(not 
',vith IIis own blood,' but )-' ,,,ith the blood of IIis O'lI'll 
Sox:' ,vhich has evidently been suggested by nothin
luuch as by the supposed necessity of getting rid of a text 
,vhich unequivocally asserts that CHRIST is GOD. 2 

1 Quowd by ps.-Ephraenl Evan. Conc. p. 133 1. 2 :-Nonnug :-Chry
... ')1 8 C . 1 ' ') ß l ')- 0 ')- 3 C ' íf t ')1') 1 ')- ( 1 . 1 
Vill. _"1 :- ,yn IV. _ U e, ..... a, _I :- rai1
Cr s ,-,0 . p. ...."Ï.... . _,) W lIC 1 
i<; not frolll Chrys.) :-Chroll. Pusclwle 217 a (disedc).-Rccogni7.c(l hy 

Iclito (A,D. 170) :-Ircnæus (..:\,1>. 177) :-Hippolytus (A.D. l!JO):- 
Origen :-Eu
chius :-.A pollinarius Laml., &c. 
2 'rhiH is the tl'Uf rc..'1bOn of the eagern3
s which has been dir-;played ill 
certain íluarters to finel ör, (not 8fC;S-) in 1 Tim. iii. Hi :-just as n()thÍJJ




LXXV. SOlne ,vill be chiefly struck by the conceit and 
presulnption of such suggestions as the foregoing. A yet 
larger llulnber, as ,ve believe, ,vill be astonished by their 
essential foolishness. For ourselves, ,,,hat surprises us nlost 
is the fatal misapprehension they evince of the true office 
of Textual Criticism as applied to the N e\y Testanlent. It 
nCVC1. is to invcnt ncw Rcadings, but only to adjudicate 
bet,veen existing and conflicting ones. He ,vho seeks to 
thrust out C TIlE PASSOYER' fro In S. John yi. 4, (,vhere it may 
on no account be dispensed ,vith 1); and to thrust C THE SO
into Acts xx. 28, (,vhere 1Iis N anle cannot stand ,vithout 
evacuating a grand Theological statenlent) ;-,vill do ,veIl to 
consider \vhether he does not bring hÏ1nself directly under 
the R\vful nlalediction \vith \vhich the beloyed Disciple con- 
cludes and seals up the Canon of Scripture :-" I testify unto 
every nlan that heareth the ,,,'o1'(ls of the prophecy of this 
TIook,- If any luau shall ((dd unto these things, GOD shall 
add unto hinl thl} plaguPH that are ,vritten in this Book. 
And if any luan shall takf ((1"(//1 frrnm the ,vords uf the 
ook of this prophecy, GOD sha11 take a\yay his part out of 
the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, anò. from thH 
thingR ,yhich ar0 ,yritten in this Rook."2 

Iay ,ve be allo,ved to assure Dr. Hort that' CONJECTUHAL 
IEXT 1 lIe will no 
don l.t disregard our counsel. J\iay Dr. SCl'iyener then 

e but a detenninatioll that CHRIST shall not be spoken of as ó t>v f1rì 
7ráVTWV 8Eór, has occasioned the supl'osec1 doubt as to the construction of 
Rom. ix. 5,-in which we rejoice to find that Dr. 'Vestrott refuses to 
concur with Dr. I-Iort. 
1 See Dr. 'V. II, .Mill's Univen;ity ùermons (1845),-pp. 301-2 and 
805 :-30 volume which should be found in every clcrgYlnan's library. 
2 Uev. xxii. 18,19. 

If I,] 

() rJ ,...\CE I
 "EDITTNf: TIlE rNf4rIR"En TTi


(p. 433] hl
 perInittcd to rentint1 hiIlJ that" it is 1l0\V agree(} 
:ullong COlnpetent judges that COll;"rcturral e11len{/fff inn Blust 
')lCVC1' be resorted to,-cven in passages of nckuowledged 
difficulty" ? 

There is in fact no need for it,-nor can l)û: so \'
:uuple, as ,veIl as so very varied, is the eviJence for the 
,vol'lls of the N û,v Testalnent. 

LXXVI. JIere ho,vever ,ve regret to find ,ve have [)(Jflt 
E(litors against us. They propose' the definite question,'- 
'" Ar(' there, as ft matter of fact., places in which we arc 
('(msiraiurd by ovcrll,helmillg cridcllcc to recognize the exiHtence of 
Textual error in all extant documents?" To this question 
\ve }mve no hesitation in replying in the affirnlativc.'-(p. 279.) 

Dehold then the deliberate sentence of Drs. \Vestcott 
an(l Tlol't. They flatter themselves that they are able to 
produce 'overu'hchni'1lfJ evidence' in proof that there are 
places \vhere every extant doc'll'Jnent is in error. The instance 
on ,vhich they both rely, is S, reter's prophetic ann()unc
ment (2 I)ct. iii. 10), that in 'the day of the LOUD,' (the 
earth and the ,yorks that are therein she II be bU1"nrd 11}J' 
This statenlent is found to have been glossed or para- 
phrased in an age ,vhcn nlen kne\v no better. Thus, Coù. c 
substitutes - 'shall ranish a
()ay:' 1 the Syriac and on
Egyptian version,-' shall not be f()und,' (apparently in ÏJni- 
tation of TIev. xvi. 20). But, either because the I not' 'V:l8 
accidentally omitted 2 in SOl11e very ancient exeluplar;- 

l'A- B ' 
U'pllVLU '1UOVTUt. 
2 This happcns not unfrcqucntly in codices of the type of Nand ll. A 
famous instance occurs at CoI. ii. 18, (â ,.,.
 ÉÚJpanv l,U.ßUTEVWV,-' prying 
into tlæ things lte hath 'llOt swn '); where 
. A B D" and a 1ittle hanclful of 
l'icious documcnts lea,'c out the 'not.' Our F.:òitor:-l, ratJwr tllan re- 
2 .\ 




or else because' it ,vas deenled a superfluity by some Occi- 
dental critic ,,,ho in his sÏ1nplicity supposed that EVPEÐ17UETat 
Inight ,yell represent the Latin ul
hat as 
1\lrs. Quickly ,varranted ' hang 7
og' to be Latin for' bacon,') 
- codices 
 and B (with four others of later date) exhibit 
'shall be foltnd,'I-,vhich obviously nlakes utter nonsense of 
the place. (EÚpEe
UETaL appears, nevertheless, in Dr. Hort's 
text: in consequence of 'which, the nlargin of our 'l{evisecl 
Version' is disfigured w"ith the statement that 'The most 
ancient manuscripts read discovered.') But ,,-hat is there in 
all this to lllake one distrust the Traditional reading ?-sup- 
ported as it is by the ,vhole lnass úf Copies: by the Latin, 2 
-the Coptic,-the Harkleian,-ancl the .LEthiopic Versions: 
-besides the only Fathers ","ho quote the place; viz. Cyril 
seyen tÏ111cs, 3 and John Damascene 4 once? . . . As for pretend- 
iug, at the end of the foregoing enquiry, that' ,ve are CO/
sf1YlÍncd by OlxnchclJniíl[J evidence to recognize the existence 
of textual error in all c:ctant doczuncnts,'-it is evidently a 
mistake. N othiug else is it hut a lnisstatelllent of facts. 

cognize thi
 blunder (so obyiûus and ordinary!), are for conjecturing A 
it 111cans anything at all) may a:s well lllean,-' proceeding on an airy 
foundation to offer an empty conjecture.' DislJ.tissing that conjecture as 
s, we haye to set off the whole ll1ass of the copies-against some 
6 or 7 :-Irenæus (i. 8-17), Theodorus 
Iops. (in loc.), Chrys. (xi. 372), 
'l'hcodoret (iii. 4bU, 490), John Danl3.SCene (ii. 211)-against no Fathers 
at all (for Origen once has fL
 [iv. G()5]; once, has it not [iii. G3J; and I 
once is doubtful [i. 583J). JerumE and Augustine both take notice of the 
cliyersity of reading, but only to reJ'ect a.-The Syriac versions, the Yulgate, 1 
Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic and Armenian-(we owe the 
information, as usual, to Dr. 
lalan)-are to be set against the suspicious 
Coptic. .All these then are with the 1'raditional Text: which cannot 
seriously be suspected of errur. 
1 EVPE8ÝjUETaL. 2 Augustiu. vii. 595. 
3 ii. .tô7: iii. H()5 :-ii. 707: iii. 800 :-ii. 001. In Lttc. l'p. -128, 6.34. 
.! ii. 3-17. 




LXXYII. .And thus, in the entire absence of proof, Dr. 
110rt's vie,v of 'the existence of corruptions' of the Text 
'antecedent to all existing authority,' I-falls to the ground. 
His confident prediction, that such corruptions ',vill sooner 
or later have to be ackno,vledged,' may be dismissed with 
a snlile. So indifferent an interpreter of the Past may not 
presulne to forecast the Future. 
The one 'matter of fact,' ,vhich at every step more and 
more impresses an attentive student of the Text of Scripture, 
is,-(lst), The utterly depraved character of Codices Band 
N: and (2nd), The singular infatuation of Drs. \,r estcott and 
Hort in insisting that those 2 Codices 'stand alonc in their 
alrnost cOJnplctc im1nunity f1'onb c'rror:' 2-that 'the fullest 
cOlllparison does but increase the conyiction that tlwir prc- 
c1ninent 'rclat'ive p1lrity is approxirnately absolrztte.'3 

LXX'TIII. \Vhence is it,-(we have often asked ourselves 
the CJ.uestion, ,vhile studying these laborious pages,)-Ho,v 
does it happen that a scholar like ])1'. Hort, evidently 
accomplished and able, should habitually mistake the 
creations of his o\vn hrain for material forms? the echoe8 
of his o\vn voice while holding colloquy w'ith hiInself, for 
oracular responses? 'Ve have not hitherto expressed our 
astonisluuent,-but 111Ust do so now before \ve make an end, 
-that a ",Titer \vho desires to convince, can suppose that 
his o,,-n arbitrary use of such expressions as 'Pre-Syrian' 
and 'Neutral,' - "V estern' and 'Alexandrian,' - ':Non- 
'Vestern' and' Non-Alexandrian,'-' Non-Alexandrian Pre- 
Syrian' and' })re-Syrian Kon-'Y"estern,'-\vill produce any 
( except an irritating) effect on the Inind of an intelligent reader. 
The delusion of supposing that by the free use of such a 
vocabulary a Critic may dispense \vith the ordinary processes 

1 Preface to ' Provisional i::;suc,' p. xxi. 
2 Introcbu;tion p. 210. 3 Ibid. p. 276. 




of logical proof, luight possihly have its heginlling in the 
retircilleut of the cloister, ,vhere there are fe,v to listen and 
none to contradict: lnlt it can only pl'oye ahiding if there 
ha:-> lleell nu free yelltilation of the individual fancy. (}reatly 
is it to 1 Ie regretted that instead of keeping his Text a 
profound secret fur ;-{O years, Dr. Hort <lid nut fl'l}ely Ï1npart 
it to thl} pul,lic, HJl<l solicit the favour of candid critici
Ira:;; uo friend ever ren1Ïnded hÍ1n that assertions concern- 
iug the presence or absence of a C Syrian' or a C Pre-Syrian,' 
a "Vestern' or a C NOll-'Vestern cle1ncnt,' are but ,vind,- 
the merest chaff and draff,-ajJært fr01Jl proof? l
epeated ad 
, and eillployed \vith as luuch perCluptory precision 
as if they 'Yere recognized ternlS connoting distinct classes 
of l
eadings,-(,,'hereas they are aLsolutely ,vithout signifi- 
cancy, except, let us charitaLly hope, to hÏ1n "Tho elnploys 
thelll) ;-such expressions ,voulù only Le allo\vaLle on the 
part of the Critic, if he had first Leen at the pains to iJulc.JJ 
cfcry IJrincipal FathcJ",-alld to ,"cducc Tcxts to fll1ì
ilics by a 
lahorious process of Induction. Else, they are \vorse than 
foolish. 1\10re than an Ï1npertincHce are they. They Le\\rilder, 
and lllisleacl, and for a "rhile enCllluher nnd Llock the \vay. 

LXXIX. This is Hot all ho".ever. Even \vhen thesc 
ditors notice hostile evidence, they ùo so aftcr a fashioll 
\vhich call satisfy no one Lut thclnselves, Take for èxalnple 
their Hote on the "rorc! f.llC
 (' 'U;ithuut a CCl/l(;SC ') in S, l\Iatthe,v 
2 (' TIut I say unto you, that ".ho:soe\ er is angry ,yith his 
hrother 'lcithout a cause '). The l
eader's attention is specially 
iuyitetl to the treatlnent ,,-Inch this place has experienced at 
the hands of l)rs. "r estcutt and IIort:- 

((() They unceremoniously eject the ,vord froBl S. l\1at- 
the\v's Gospel ,vith their oracular sentence, , lVcsÜ n
S!J ria/no ' -A \v are that f.llCi] is recognized by , Iren. lat- 3 ; Eus, 
D. E. Cyp.,' they yet claÍ111 for olllÍtting it the authority of 


El'KH-, IN 
. "'\L\.Tr.r. v. 2


, Just. I>toleJll. (? lren. 242 fill.), Tert,; anù certainly' (they 
proceed) 'Orig. 011 Eph. iv. 31, noticing both readings, anù 
si1nilarly Hiel'. loc" ,vho proLably 1'o11o\\'s Origen: also ..Ath. 
Pasch. Syr. 11: l>s.-Áth. Oast. ii. 4; and others' . . . . Such 
is their 'Note' on S. l\Iatthe\v v. 22. [t is found at p. 8 of 
their vohune. In consequence, f.lKij (' 'without a Cll-USe ') dis- 
appears fronl their Text entirely. 

(b) But these learned men are respectfully inlfol'llled that 
neither Justin :\Iartyr, nor Ptolelnæus the Gnostic, nor 
Irenæus, no, nor Tertu11ian either,-that not one of these fuur 
te1.s,-supplies the ,vished-for evidence. .L\.
 for Origen,- 
they are assured that lw-not 'probably' but certainly-is the 
cause of all the trouble. They are reminded that Athanasius 1 
quotes (not S. 1\Iatt. v. 22, but) 1 J o. iii. 15. They are sho,vn 
that ,vhat they call 'ps.-Ath. Oast.' is nothing else but a 
paraphrastic translation (Ly Græc1Jl1ls q'lt
dal1t) of John Cas- 
sian's Institutcs,-' ii. 4' in the Greek representing viii. 20 in 
the Latin. . . . And no,v, ho,v nluch of the adverse Evidence 
remains ? 

(c) Only this :-JerOll1e'S three books of COlnmentaryon 
the Ephesians, are, in the Inaill, a translation of Origen's 
lost 3 books on the same Epistle. 2 Commenting on iv. 31, 
Origell says that f.lKij has been inlproperly adtlcd to the 
Text,3-'lcldch :;hO'l.vs that in Oriycn's copy f.lKij 'leas found 
there, A fe\v ancient "Titers in consequence (but only in 
consequence) of ,vhat J erOl11e (or rather Origen) thus delivers, 
are observed to olnit f.lKij.4 That is all ! 

(d) ]'iay ,ve ho\\ ever respectfully ask these learned 
Editors ,vhy, besides Irenæus,5-Eusebius,6- an d Cyprian,7- 

1 Apud )Iai, vi. 103. 
sAp. Cramer, Cat. vi. 187. 
ð Intel]). 5Ð5: 607. 

2 Opp. vii. 543. Compo 36Ð. 
4 So, Xilus, i. 270. 
6 Dem. Evltu. p. 44-1. 

7 P. 306. 



1'HE TEXT ü}i' S. ?tlATTHE"" V. 22, 


they do not 111ention that f.l"ij is also the reading of J ustill 

iartyr,t-of Origen hinlself,2- o f the Con:ititutioncs App,,3- 
of na
il three times,4- o f Gregory of Nyssa,6- o f Epi- 
phanius,6- o f Ephraenl Syrus t\vice,7- o f Isidorus twice,8- 
of Theodore of 
lops" - of Chrysostolll 18 times,-of tIle 
Opus i'Jnp. twice,9- o f CyripO-and of Theodoret ll -( each ill 
3 places). It \vas also the reading of Severus, Abp. uf 
Antioch: 12_ as ,veIl as of Jlilary, 13_ Lucifer, 14-Salvian, 15_ 
I)hilas trius, 16_ Augustine, and -J erOlne, 17_( although, \y hen 
translating from Origen, he pronounces against f.ì"1J 18) :-not 
to lllelltioll .A.utiochus mon.,19-J. Dalnascene,20- ß laxÎ1nus,21 
-Photius,22-EuthYll1Ïus,- Theo l)hylact,-and others 1 23 .... 
'Ve have adduced no less than thÍ'J
ty ancient witnesses. . 

(e) Our present contention ho\vever is but this,-that a 
}{eadillg \vhich is attested by every 'ltncial Copy of the Gospels 
c.Lcept n itnd 
; by a \vhole tor'J
ent of Fathers; by CVC'J'Y 
nOll)n CO]JY of the old Latin,-Ly all the Syriac, (for the 
})e8chito inserts [not translates] the ,vord f.ì"1J,)-by the 

1 Epist. ad Zen. iii. 1. 7ts. Note, that our learned Cave con!:;idered this 
to be a gcnuine work of Justin 
1. (A.D. 150). 
2 Cuntie. (an early work) interp. iii. 39,-though elsewhere (i. 112, ItU 
[?]: ii. 305 into [but not ii. 41V]) he is for leaving out fìKij. 
3 Gall. iii. 72 and 161. 
4 ii. 89 band e (partly quote(l in the GaL of Niceta
) expressly: 2G5. 
ð i. 818 expressly. 
6 ii. 312 (preserved in JerOlue's Latin translation, i. 
7 i. 132; iii. 442. 8 472, G34. 9 A p. Chrys. 
10 iii. 7G8: apltd .J.l1.ai, ii. 6 and iii. 2G8. 
11 i. 48, 664; iv. 946. 12 CraIuer's Cat. viii. 12, line 14. 
13 128, 625. 14 Gall. vi. 181. 15 Gall. x. 14. 16 Gall. vii. 50U, 
17 i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he 
was 84. 
18 vii. 26,-' R(tdend'un
 est ergo sine cau!:;à.' And t:50, st p. G36. 
19 1064. 20 ii. 261. 21 ii. 5U
22 Amphilochia, (Athell
, 1858,)-p. 317. Albo in Cat. 
23 ..Jpopltthegm. 1> P. [ap. Cotcl. E'ccl. G1'. Mun. i. 62




Cuptic,-as ,,'ell as Ly the Gothio-and Arllleni'1.n versions; 
-that such a reading is not to be set asido by the stupid 
dictulu, , TVBSTER.V A.V/) SYRIA.V.' By no such luethods "in the 
stntly of Textual Criticism be pronloted, or any progress ever 
lJC lI13,de in determining the Truth of Scripture. There really 
can Le nu doubt ,vhatever,-(that is to say, if ,ve arc to be 
guided by ancient Evidcnce,)-that ElKij (' without a cause') ,vas 
our S.\ vloun's actual ,vord; and that our Revisers have been 
here, as in so luany hundred other places, led astray by Dr. 
IIort. So true is that saying of the ancient poet,-' Evi] 
cOlupallY doth corrupt good lnanners.' 'And if the blind 
lead the blind,'-( a greater than Menander hath said it,)- 
, both shall fall into the ditch.' 1 
(f) In the nleantime, w'e have exhibited somewhat in de- 
tail, Drs. \Vestcott and Hort's Annotation on EiKij, [So l\fatth. 
v. 22,] in order to furnish our Readers ,vith at least one defi- 
nite spccÏ1ncn of the Editorial skill and Critical ability of 
these t,vo accolnplished Professors. Their general practice, 
as exhibited in the case of 1 Jo. v. 18, [see above, pp. 347-9,] 
is to tanlper ,vith the sacred Text, without assigning their 
authority,-indeed, without offering apology of any kind. 

(g) The SU/lìL of the matter proves to be as follows: Codd. 
ß and 
 (the' two false \Vitnesses '),-B and 
, alone of .JISS. 
-Oll1Ít flK1J. On the strength of this, Dr. Hort persuaded 
his fellow Revisers to omit 'without a cause' fronl their 
Hevised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence, that 
every Englislnnan's copy of S. ]'Iatthe,v v. 22 sliall be Dluti- 
latell in the saIne ,vay for ever. . . . Dclirant rcgcs, plec- 
t'untllf Achivi. 

(h) But the question arises-'Vill the Church of England 
:-;ulnllit to have her illlInelllorial heritage tInls filched froll1 

1 s. 
latth. xv. 1-1. 

G [ART. 

her? \,r e shall be aswnished indeed if she proves so regard- 
less of her birthright. 

LXXX. Lastly, the intellectual habits of these Editors 
have led them so to handle evidence, that the sense oÎ pro- 
portion seems to have forsaken them. "He ,vho has long 
pondered over a train of Reasoning,"-(remarks the elder 
Critic,)-" becomes 'unable to detect its weak points."l Yes, 
the' idols of the den' exercise at last a terrible ascendency 
over the Critical judgment. It argues an utter want of 
mental perspective, \vhen we find' the l\fan working on the 
Sabbath,' put on the saIne footing ,vith 'the 'Voman taken 
in Adultery,' and conjectured to have' come jrtO'iit the sante 
SO'll/tee : '-the incident of 'the ...t\.ngel troubling the pool of 
Bethesda' disn1Ïssed, as having ''JW claim to any kind of 
association 'with the trne Text: ' 2-and 'the two Supplelnents ' 
to S. l\lark's Gospel declared to 'stand on cqnal tert'ii
S as 
independent attelnpts to fill up a gap;' and allowed to be 
possibly 'oj equal antifJ.ltÍty.' 3 How can '" e ,vonder, after 
this, to find anything olnitted,-anything illserted,-anything 
branded ,vith suspicion? And the brand is very freelyap- 
plied by Drs. \Vestcott and llort. Their notion of the Text 
of the Ne\v Testalnent, is certainly the most extraordinary 
ever ventilated. It has at least the lllerit of entire originality. 
While they eagerly insist that many a passage is but' a 
Western interpolation' after all; is but an ' Evangelic Tradi- 
tion,' 'rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second 
century; , - they yet incortporate those passages with the 
Gospel. Careful enough to clap theln into fetters first, they 
then, (to use their o,vn queer phrase,) - 'provisionally 
associate thent with the Text.' 

1 Gospel of tlte Resur't'ection,-p. vii. 2 Introduction, pp. 300-2. 
S ibid. p. 2




LXXXI. \Ve sulnuit, on the contrary, that Editors ,vho 
( cannot dOltùt' that a certain verse ( con1es from an extraneous 
source,'-( do not believe that it belongeù originally to the 
()()k in ,,,'hich it is no,v includeù,' -are unreasonable if they 
eed tu assign to it any actual place there at all. \Vhen 
tllen haYe once thoroughly cUIlvinced then1selvcs that two 
,r erses of S. Luke's Guspel are not Scripture, but (only a 
fraQ'n1ent fron1 the Traditions, ,,'ritten or oral, ,vhich "'ere 
fur a ,dlile locally current;' l-,vhat else is it but the 
1uerest trifling ,vith sacred Truth, to promote those tw.o 
yerses to a place in the inspired context? Is it not to ùe 
fearc( 1, that the conscious introduction of h'ltman Tradition 
intu GUD'S 'written IVord ,vill in the end destroy the soul's 
cOlltìdcnce in Scripture itself? opening the door for per- 
plexity, and doubt, and presently for U llùelief itself to enter. 

LXXXII. And let us not be told that the Verses stand 
there (provisionally' only; and for that reason are ( enclosed 
,,,ithin llouùle ùrackets.' Suspected felons are (provisionally' 
locked up, it is true: but after trial, they are either con- 
victed and remoyed out of sight; or else they are acquitted 
anù suffered to COBle abroad like other Inen. Drs. \Vestcott 
and Hort have no right at the end of thirty years of investi- 
gation, still to encumber the Evangelists ,vith (provisional' 
fetters. Those fetters either signify that the Judge is afraid 
to carry old his 01.0lL righte01.ts sentence: or else, that he enter- 
tain,') (/.; secret suspicion that he has made a terrible mistal
(iftcr all,-ha.s condclluwrl the innoccnt. Let these esteeuleù 
Scholars at least have (the courage of their o,vn convictions,' 
and ùe throughout as consistent as, in two falnous instances 
(viz. at pages 113 and 
41), they have been. Else, in (}OD'S 
Xanw, let theIll haye the Inanliness to avow. thclllsel\ eS in 

J ...1ppcndix, p. GG. 




error: abjure their rrrpwTov VEÛÔOÇ; and cast the fantastic 
Theory, ,vhich they have so industriously reared upon it, 
unreservedly, to the winds! 

LXXXIII. To conclude.--It \vill be the abiding distinction 
of the Revised Version (thanks to D'r. lIort,) that it brought 
to the front a question ,vhich has slept for about 100 years; 
but w.hich may not be suffered now to rest undisturbed any 
longer. It might have slumbered on for another half- 
century,-a subject of deep interest to a very little band of 
Divines and Scholars; of perplexity and distrust to all the 
World besides ;-but for the incident which \vill make the 
17th of l\Iay, 1881, for ever menlorable in the Annals of the 
Church of England. 

LXXXIV. The Publication on that day of the 'Revised 
English Version of the N e'v Testanlent' instantly concen- 
trated public attention on the neglected problem: for men 
saw at a glance that the Traditional Text of 1530 .years' 
standing,-(the exact number is Dr. Hort's, not ours,)-had 
been uncerellloniously set aside in favour of an entirely different 
Recension. The true Authors of the mischief ,vere not far to 
seek. Just five days before,-under the editorship of Drs. 
\Vestcott and 11ort, (Revisionists themselves,)-had appeared 
the most extravagant Text ,vhich has seen the light since the 
invention of Printing. No secret ,vas made of the fact that, 
under pledges of strictest secrecy, 1 a copy of this wild per- 
formance (marked 'Confidential') had been entrusted to 
every member of the Revising body: and it has since trans- 
pired that Dr. Hort advocated his own peculiar views in the 
Jerusalem Chamber ,vith so much volubility, eagerness, per- 
tinacity, and plausibility, that in the end-not,vithstanding 

1 See Scrivener's Introduction, p. 432. 


)[AY NO 


the "yarnings, relllonstrallces, entreaties of Dr. Scrivener,- 
his counsels prevailed; ancl-the utter ship,vreck of the 
, Revised Version' has been, (as n1Ïght have Leen cunfidently 
predicted,) the disastrous consequence, Dr. Hort is calcu- 
lated to have ta17.;ed f01' three ycars out of the ten. 

But in the meantime there has arisen this good out of the 
calaDlity,-namely, that men "rill at last require that the 
Textual problem shall be fairly threshed out. They ".ill 
insist on having it proved to their satisfaction,-(l) That 
Codices B and 
 are indeed the oracular docunlents ,vhich 
their adnlirers pretend; and-(2) That a narro,v selection 
of ancient documents is a secure foundation on ,vhich to 
build the Text of Scripture. Failing this,-(and the onus 
In'obandi rests ,vholly ,,"'ith those ,,-ho are for setting aside 
the Traditional Text in favour of another, cntirely dissÍ1nilc11 9 
in charactc1',)-failing this, ,ve say, it is reasonable to hope 
that the counsels of the' Quarterly Rcvicw' ,vill be suffered 
to prevail. In the Inean time, ,ve repeat that this question 
has no'v to be fought out: for to ignore it any longer is 
inlPossible. CODlpromise of any sort betw'een the t,vo COll- 
flicting parties, is inlPossible also; for they simply cOlltra- 
(lict one another. Codd. B and 
 are either anlong the purest 
of nlanuscripts,-or else they are anlong the very foulest. 
The Text of 1)rs. 'Vestcott and Hort is either the very hest 
,vhich has ever appeared,-or else it is the very "Torst; the 
nearest to the sacred 
\..utographs,-or the furthest froBl theln. 
There is no 1'00111 for both. opinions; and there cannot exist 
any nlÎddle vie,v. 

The question ,vill have to be fought out; and it Blust be 
fought out fairly. It DUtY not be luagisterially settled; but 
nlllst be ad vúcated, on either side, by the olù logicallnethod. 
If éontin
cholars join in the fray, Englauù,-,vhich 



[AnT. III. 

in the last century took thl' lead in these studies,-,vill, it 
is to be hoped, maintain her ancient reputation and again 
occupy the front rank. The comLatants n1ay be sure that, 
in consequence of all that has happened, the public ,viII be 
no longer indifferent spectators of the fray; for the issue 
concerns the inner life of the ,vhole con1munity,-touches 
111en's very heart of hearts. Certain it is that--' GOD defend 
the Right!' ,vill be the one aspiration of every faithful spirit 
al1l0ng us. TIlE TRUTIl,-(,ve avo, v it on Lehalf of lJrs. 
"\Vestcott and 110ft as eagerly as on our o,vn Lehalf,)- Gon's 
TRUTH ,vill bo, as it has been throughout, the unè olJjcct of 
11 . . A ',"" ',", ",
, ';' , 
a our strIvIng, L^.tlJOlJ atl\.LlJOlJ EL7rE, TO 0 EV VLKUTW. 



ß 18 II OP ELLIC 0 TT, 

cc Nothing is more Ratisfactory at the present tÏ1ne tþan the evident 
feelings of vencration for our Authorized V cn-don, and the very gcncra.l1y- 
felt desire for as little change as possible."-TIIsHoP ELLICOTT. 1 

" 'Ve nlay be Rati
ficd with thc att.cmpt to corrcct lJlain ((nd dear 
errors, but there it is our duty to stop."-BISHOP ELLICOTT. 2 

" 'Ve have now, at all cvcnts, no fea.r of an over-cm'reeted VC1'sion."- 

" I fear we must say in candour that in thc llcviRed V crsion we nlcpt 
in every page with small changes, which are vexatious, teasing, and irri- 
tating, even the nwre so because they (t'J'C small; which seem al1nost to be 
'1nadefor the sake of c!tange."-llnmop 'VORDSWORTH. 4 

[The question arises,]-" \Vhether the Church of England,-which in 
her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a Revision of 
her Authori7ed Version under the express condition, which she nlùst wisely 
imposed, that no CllUnges should be nw,ze in 'it except 'll'lmt 'If'ere absolutely 
ttecessary,-could consistently accept a Version in which 36,000 changcs 
ha.ve been made; not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be ne('ded, or (vcn 
desira.,ble."-DIsHOP 'V ORDSWORTH.l'í 

1 On Rt:viÛon,-p. 99. 
2 Speech in Convocation, Feb, 1870, (p, 83,) 
3 On Revil<.zon,-p, 205, 
.. Address to Lincoln Dioc('8on COJlfcrcuce,-p. 25. 
5 lbid,,-p. 27. 

LET'JER '1'0 





 . . . 'VOULD 

Last May, rou published a palnphlet of seventr-ninp 
Imges 2 in vindication of the Greek Text recently put forth hy 

I Considerations on Revision,-p. .l1. The Preface is dated 23rd :Ma.r, 
1870. The Revisers n1et on the 22nd of June. 
'Ve learn from Dr. Newth's Lectures on Bible llevision ( 1881) 
that,-" As the general Hules under which the Revision was to be carried 
out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any lengthened 
gion (If preliminary arrangenlents, and the Company upon its first 
meeting was able to enter at once upon its work" (p. 118). .. "The 
portion prescribed for the first session was l\Iatt. i. to iv." (p. 119). . . 
"The question of the spelling of proper names . . . heing settled, the 
Company proceeded to the actual details of the Hevision, and in a 

urprisingly short time settled. down to an established method of 1)1'0- 
ccdure."-" All proposals made at the first Hevision were decided by 

imple majorities" (p. 12
) . . . " The questions which conce7'n'!d the G7'cck 
Te;d "'ere decided/m' the most part at the .FÙ'sf Rcvi
;on." (Bp. EUicott's 
Pamphlet, p. 31.) 
2 'J'he Rc'l';so's aud fll" Grell. Tl.,.},t qf ti,t' }..TCW Tcsf(unf'uf, by f1l'o 
2 Ð 



l}LY TO 

the N e\v Tesbuncnt COlllpany of TIcyisers, It \vas (you said) 
your Ans\ver to the first alH1 SCCOIlll of IllY """\rtieles in the 
Qllllrtci'l!J llcvicw: 1 - all thrce of ,vhieh, correctetl alHl 
enlarged, are 110\V sulnnitted to the pH blic for the second 
tÜne. See above, froID page 1 to page JG7. 

[1] I
rclÙnin([}'y Statc'1ncnt. 
You luay Le quite sure that I exan1Ïlled your palnphlet as 
soon as it appeared, ,vith attention. I have since read it 
through seycral titnes : anù-! nlust adù-\vith ever-increasing 
astollislnucllt. :First, because it is so CVitlClltly the production 
of one ,vho has never Iuade Textual Criticislll seriously his 
 ext, l)ecause your paluphlet is no refutation 'vhatever 
of )llY t\VO Articles. You flout 111e: you scol(llllC: you lecture 
nle. But I do llOt find that you cycr anS11'CJ" Inc. \...- ou re- 
produce the thpory of Drs. "r estcott anù JTort,-,vhich I 
claim to have dClllolished,2 You seck to put l11e dO\Vll l)y 
flourishing in IllY face the decrees of Laclllllnnn, Tischelldorf 
ana Tregelles,-,vhich, as )TOU arc ,veIl a\varc, I entil'ely dis- 
allo,v. J)enunciation, IllY lord Bishop, is not ...\rgul11ent; 
neither is TIeiteration, Proof. """\n<.1 then,- 'Yhy du you Ì1npute 
to 111e opiniuns 'v hich I do not huld? and charge TIle ,,
ith a 
lnethod of l)rocedure uf ,vhich I have never l)een guilty? 
Above all, ,vhy do you seek to prejudice the question at 
issue het,yecn us by importing irrelevant I11atter ,vhich can 
only iInposc upon the ignurant and 111islead the ull,vary? 
:E'orgive IllY plainness, but really you are so conspicuously 
unfair,-and at the san1e tinlf so Iuanifestly unacquainted, 

.llIembe1"s of the New Testament Compauy,-1882. 
Iacn1Ïllan, pp. 79, 
price two shillings and sixpence. 
1 "'ro these two articles--;;o far, at least, as they are concerned with 
the Greek Text adopted by the Hevisers-our Essay is intended for an 
answer."-p. 7U. 
2 See above, pages 235 to 366. 

\)IrIILET ,y


(e-x:cept at Rccond-haJHl and only in an elelllentary ,,,ay,) 
with the points a
tually under discussion,-that, ,,"ere it not 
fur the a(lveutitious Ï111p()rtan
e attaehing to any utterance of 
yours, deliherately put forth at this tinlP as Chail'lllan of the 
New Te:-;trunent hody of Hevisers, I Hhould havp taken no 
notice of your pa1uphlet. 

] Thr Bishop's pamphlet ""(18 (lJdieipa[f'(/ and effectually dis- 
posed oj, three 1"ceks beforc it appcarcd, by flu' Itcvicll.:er's 
Third ..l1rticlc. 
I a111 bouIHl, at the sanlP tiIue, to ackno\vledge that you 
have becn singularly unlucky. 'Yhile you \\
ere penning 
your Defence, (nalnely, throughout the first four months of 
,) I was making a fatal inroad into your position, ])y 
sho\ving ho\v utterly ,vithout foundation is the '
Theory" to ,,
hich you and your co-I
eyisers have been so 
rash as to COlllluit yourselves. 1 This fa,ct I find duly recog- 
nized in your' l)ostscript.' " Since the foregoing pages \vere 
in print" (rou say,) "a third article ha
 appeared in the 
Quartctly Rcvic1v, entitled "V estcott and Hort's Textual 
Theory.' "2 1 es. I came Lefore the puLlic un the IGth of 
April; YO'lL on the 4th of 
Iay, 1882. In this "
ay, your paul- 
phlet ,vas anticipated,-had in fact been fully dispu:sed of, 
three \veeks before it appeareù. "The Rcvie\ver," (you conl- 
plain at page J,) "censures their ['Vestcott and Hort's] Text: 
in ncithcl. ..clrticlc has he attempted (t scrious cxan
ination of 
the (u'[Jul1zents lClz ieh they allcgc in its support." But, (as 
explained,) the "serious exanlinatioll" \vhich you reproach 
Ine ,,
ith having hithcrtu failed to pro\.lucc,-haù been all'eac1y 
three \\
eeks in the hands of readers of the QUll}.tcJ'ly before 
your pan1phlet sa\\p the light. Yon ,,"ould, in consequence, 

1 Article II L,---scc la:-ot l1ote. 

2 P(nup/del, p. .



 UNF A In 

[HEPI,\' 'ro 

have best consulted your ow"n reputation, J anl persuaded, 
had you instantly recalled and suppre:ssed your printed 
sheets. 1T7zrtt, at all events, you can have possiLly 111cant, 
\vhile puhlishing theIn, by adding (in your 'I)ostscript' at 
paf!e 79,)-" In this contro'Ccrsy it is not f01
 'Us to intC1]Josc:" antI 
again,-" nY"e find nothing in the Revie.wcl"s third ClTticlc to 
'reqnire furthcr lll1S1.1"Cr fì'mn us :" -passes my comprehension; 
seeing that your panlphlet (page 11 to page 29) is an 
elaborate avowal that you have Inade "r estcott and Hort's 
theory entirely your o\vn. The Editor of the Spe((ker's 
COUl'Jllcntary, T observe, takes precisely the sanle vie'v of 
your position. "The tw.o Revisers" (says Canon Cook) 
(( actually add a l)ostscript to their palnphlet of a single 
short page noticing their unexpected anticipation by the 
third Qurl'rtcrl!J RCî"icu' article; \vith the renlark that 'in 
this controversy (l)et\veen "\Vestcott and IIort and the 
l{evie\ver) it is not for us to interfere : '-as if "\Vestcott and 
Hort's theory of Greek l:evision could Le refuted, or seriously 
daulaged, \vithout cutting the ground fr01n under the CO'llullittcc 
of lleviscrs on the 'wl
ol c of thÚ3 subJcct." 1 . 

[3] Bp. Ellicott rC1nonst1 4 atcd ?pith for his '11/tifaÚ. 
nct1wd of 
I should enter at once on an examination of your Reply, 
Lut that I aln constrained at the outset to remonstrate \vith you 
on the exceeding unfairness of your entire method of procedure. 
Your business ,vas to make it plain to the public that you 
have dealt faithfully ,vith the Deposit: haye strictly fulfilled 
the covenant into \vhich you entered t\velve years ago ,rith 

1 7'!le Revised rersion of the first three Gospels, considered in ifs ben?". 
ings UP01t- the 'l"er01'd of our LORD'S JJ
(),.ds and of 'inrÙlents ,in lJis Life,- 
. pp.250. l\Turrny,)-p. 232. Canon Cook's temperate [l1Ic1 very 
interesting volume wilJ be found simply un:m:.;weral,le. 




the Convocation of the Southern Province: have corrected. 
only (( plain {I nd clear errors." [nstead uf this, you labour to 
cnlist vulgar pn->ju<lice against ffiú :-partly, by insisting that 
1 [Ull fur tleteruJÏlling disputed Headings hy an appeal tu the 
'Textns HeGeptus,'-\vhich (according tù you) [ look upon a
s :-partly, by exhiLiting Ule in disagrcenlent \vith 
TJac1lInanu, Tischendorf and Tregelles. The irrelevancy of 
this latter contention,-the groundlessness of the fOrIner,- 
l11ay not be þassed over \vithout a fc\v \vorùs of serious reInon- 
strance. For 1 clailn that, in ùiscussing the Greek Text, 
1 haye invariaLly filled Iny pages as full of .Ll
for the opinions I aùvocate, as the liInits of the page ,vould 
allo\v. [luay have heen tediously denlonstrative SOI11etÍInes : 
lJut no onc can fairly tax me \\-ith having shrunk from the 
Re'"ercst lllethU{I uf evidential proof. To find 1l1yself there- 
fore Gharged \vith "ntere denunciation," l-\vith suhstituting 
"strong expressions of individual opinion" for "arguluents," 2 
-and \vith "attmnpting to cut the cord by reckless and un- 
verifieù assertions," (p. 
5,)-astonishes Ine. Such language 
is in fact even ridiculuusly unfair. 

The n1Ïsrepresentation of \vhich I cOluplaill is not only 
conspicuous, but systematic. It runs through your ,vhule 
paulphlet: is admitted by yourself at the close,-(viz. at 
p. 7ï,)-to be half Ute SUlJ
 of your entire contention. TIcsides 
cropping up repeatedly,3 it finùs deliberate and detailed 
eXJ!ression \vhen you reach the lllÍddle of your essay,-viz. at 
p. 41: \vÌ1ere, \vith reference to certain charge::) ,,'hich I not 
only bring against codices N n C L, but laLorionsly suLstantiate 
by a free appeal to the contelnpolary evidence of Copies, 
Versions, and Fathers,-you venture to e:\.press yourself con- 
cerning llle as follo,vs:- 

1 P. 40. 2 ibid. 
S Ai at p. 1, anll p. 13, and p. 13, and p. If', and p. 40. 


,rIllC}I BE "TIlE I


"1'0 attcn1pt to 
l1stain 8nch charges hy a :rongh cOlnpal"isOll 
uf these ancient authorities ,,,ith the TEXTGS HECEPTUS, and to 
lHe:u;ure the degree of their depravation hy the amount ofl1wÚ. 
dil'crgcllce from silell a tc,rt ((.
 lce llal'e shown tltis Rccclt'cd Tcxt 
'rcally to be, i
 to trifle ,vit.h the subject uf sacrcl1 Criticism."- 
p. 41. 
You adtl :- 

" Until the depravation of these ancient :llanuscripts has heen 
(1mnonstrated in a manner more consistent with the '1.ccoguizcd 
princl1Jll's of Criticism, such charges as those to wllieh ,ve allude 
Ull1st be regarded as expressions of passion, or l)rejudice, and set 
aside by every impartial rea<1er as assertJons for which no 
adequate evidence has yet been prÐducpd."-pp. 41-2. 

l4] (1l7iÍch be ( thc ,,'cco[lnizcd prinr-iplcs of Textual C1'iticis'l1l ' l 
-({ qucstion aSh:td in passin!!.) 
nut giye Ine leave to ask in passing,- TfThich, pray, arc 
(( the recognized principles of Criticism" to \yhich you refer? 
I profess I haye neyer lllet ,yith thenl yet; and I aln sure it 
has not heell fur ,yant of diligent enquiry. You have publicly 
charged Ine befure your I)Íocese ,yith being" innocently igno- 
rant of the noll' csÜtblishcd prinLiphs of Textual Criticisnl."l 
But ".hy do you Hot state ,,
hich those principles arc? I 
fun surprised. Yon arc for eyer yaunting (( lJrinciplcs ,,'hieh 
}utye been estal)lished by the investigations and reasonings" of 
Laclllllallll, Tischenclorf and Tregelles :2_(( the principles of 
Textual Criticisnl ,yhieh are accepted aud recognized hy the 
great lllajority of llll)(.lern Texthal Critics: "3_" the principles 
on ".hich the Textual Criticislll of the last fifty years has heen 
hased : "4-but you never condescend to explain 1chich be the 
( principles' you refer to. }'or the last tÏ111e,-117w estab- 
lished those (( rrillciples "? and, TVltc}'c are they to be seen 
C( established" ? 

C(' aùoyc, pp. 348-350. 

2 r, 10. 

 P. 10. 

<J p, 77. 

ClrLE" OF TE:\. TU.AL CRITICIR"\["? 375 

I ,vill be so callI lid ,vith you as frankly to avow that the 
only tzen "principles" \vith "Thich I aIll acquainted as held, 
,vith anything' like consent, by "tlH
 Illodern Textual Critics" 
to ".h(HIl you have surrenderetl your judglnent, arc-(lst) 
it I'olmst confidence in the revelations of their o,vn inner 
consciousness: and (2ndly) A superstitious partiality for 
t\\ 0 
udices ".rittcll in the uncial character,-for \yhich par- 
tiality they are ahle to assign no intelligible reason, y" ou put 
the Illatter as neatly as I could desire at page 19 of your 
Essay,-\\-here you contleInn, \vith excusalJle \varIllth, "those 
\vho adopt the easy Juethod of 1.lsill!J SOUlC farOlu
itc Jlllll'it- 
script," -or of exercising" .,;onw supposcd l W 'il'cr of dicinin.rJ tlte 
ori!Jinal To.t,." - as if those "yere "the only necessary 
agents for correcting the neceived Text," TVhy the evidence 
of codices B and 
, - and perhaps the éyidencû of the 
'Tlth-cl)utnry cudex D,-(' the singular codex' as you call it; 
awl it is 
ertainly a very singular codex indeed :)-'l'h!J, I 
:::ay, the evillence of these t\\TO or three codices should Le 
thought to ûut\\Teigh the evillence of all other doclunents in 
existence,-\\'hether C0pies, ,r er
ions, or :Fathers,-I have 
never been able to discuver, nor have their a.dlllirers ever 
Leen a11e to tell Ine. 

[3] JJp. Ellicott's an{l the Reviewcr's respective rltctlu)(ls, CUI/-- 

"Taiving this hl)\\ ever, (for it is lJe:-;idû tJH
 IHJillt,) I \ e11- 
ture to a
k,- 'Yith "hat s110\v uf rea:-,on can you pretend 
that I "::>llstain 'In!J charges" against codices 
 ß C L, "ùy a 
rough co1ttparison of thcse ancient auth01
ties with the Textus 
lleceptus" ? 1 . . . 'Vill you <.Ieny that it is a lllere Inisrepre- 
sentation of the plain facts of the case, to say so 1 IIave I 
not, on the contrary, on evcry occa.sion rl}ferred l
eadings in 

1 P. ll, and 
o at p. 77. 




dispute,-the reading of 
 BeL 011 the one hand, the reaùing 
of the TcxtllS Rcccptlls on the other,-sÍ1nultaneously to one 
and the saIne external standard? }Iave I not persistently 
enquired for the verdict-so far as it has been oùtainaùle-of 
T ANTIQUITY? If I have sonletÏ1nes spoken of 
certain f:llnous manuscripts (
 BCD naIllely,) as exhibiting 
fabricated Texts, have I not been at the pains to establish the 
reasonableness of nlY assertion by sho\ving that they yield 
tlivergent,-that is contradictory, testÏ1nony ? 

The task of laboriously collating the five 'old uncials t 
throughout the Gospels, occupied Ine for five-and-a-half years, 
and taxed me se\?erely. But I \\?as rewarded, I rose fronl the 
investigation profoundly convinced that, ho\vever Ï1nportant 
they 111ay be as instruIllcnts of Criticisln, codices 
 BCD are 
among the Illost corrupt documents extant. It ,vas a con- 
viction deri vell fronl exact Kn01clcdgc and ùased on solid 
grounds of RCCUJon. You, nlY lurd TIishop, ,vho have never 
gone deeply into the subject, repose sinlply on ].Jrcjndice. 
Never having at any time collated codices 
 ABC D for your- 
self, you are unable to gainsay a single statelnent of nline 
by a counter-appeal to facts. Your textual learning proves 
to have been all obtained at second-hand,-taken on trust. 
And so, instead of nlarshalling against nle a corresponding 
array of A
T AUTIIORITIES,-you invariably atteulpt to 
put Ine clO'Vll by an appeal to .:\loDER
 QpIXIOX. " The 
'lìutjority of modern Critics" (you say) ha\Tc declared the 
nlanuscripts in question" not oIlly to be "Tholly undeserying 
of such charges, but, on the contrary, to exhiLit a text of 
comparative purity." 1 

The stun of the difference therefore bet\veen our respec- 
ti\Te 11lethotls, IllY lord nishop, proves to be this :-that 

1 P. 41. 

ill', EI,LlLOTT,] 



,vhcrcas I endeavour by a laLorious accunutlation of 
uncicnt Eridcncc to denlonstrate that the decrees of Lach- 
Inann, of Tischenc10rf a.nd ùf Trcgelle.
, (t're 'llldr1lslwo1"tli!/; 
your' "
:1Y of reducing me to silence, is to cast IJachmalln, 
Trcgel1cs ana Tischendurf at every instant in my teeth. 1'" on 
luake your appeal exclusively to flu /It. " It ,rould 11e diffi- 
cult" (you say) "to find a recent English Commentator of 
any considerable reputation ,yho has not Leen influenced, 1l10re 
or less consistently, by one or the othcr 
f thcse th?yx Editors:" 1 
(as if that ,vere any reason ,vhy I should do the same!) 
ßecause I pronounce the TIevised reaùing of S. Luke ii. 14, 
" a grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture," you Lid nle 
consiùer "that in so speaking I am censuring La cltm ann, 
chcìldo1f and TTC!Jcllcs." You seem in fact to l13;ve utterly 
l11issed the point of lilY contention: \vhich is, that the 
ancient Fathers collectively (A.V. 150 to A,D.450),-inasmuch 
as they inust needs have kno\vn far better than Laclllnann, 
Tregelles, or Tischenclorf, (A,D. 1830 to A.D. 1880,) ,,-hat .was 
the Text of the N e\v Testanlent in the earliest ages,-are 
perforce far 1nore trust\yorthy guides than they. And further, 
that \vhene\
el' it can be clearly sho\\
n that the Ancients as a 
lJody say 011e tIling, anù the 
loderns another, the opiniun uf 
the 1\loderns 1nay De safely disregarded. 

\Yhcn therefore I open your palnphlet at the first l,agc, 
and reat! as follo\vs :-"..A 1)01(1 assault has Leen lllade ill 
re<.;ent nUluber
 of the QUll1,tcJ'l!f Ilo;Ù'IV Ul)Oll the \\-hole 
faùric uf Critici
n1 ,yhieh has 1leen built up (l" rill!} the last 
jifty years by the patient laùour uf 
iYe editors of the 

 c\V TestaInent," 2_1 fail to ùiscoycr that allY practical 
inconvcnience results to lllyself froI11 your annUUllCCH1Cllt. 
The same 1>laintiye strain reappears at p. 3
; ".hen
, having 

1 P. 5. 

2 P. 3. 




pointed out " that the text of the l
evisers is, In all essential 
features, the same as that text in w'l1Ïch the best critical 
editors, dnring the past fifty years, are generally agreed,"- 
you insist" that thus, any attack lnade on the text of the 
l:evisers is really an attack on the critical principles that 
haxe heen carefully and lahoriously estahlished dU1'ing the 
la.'it half-century." "Tit.h the self-saIne pathetic remonstrance 
you conclude your lahours. "If," (you say) "the I
are "Tong in the principles ,vhich they have applied to 
the deterIuinatiull ûf the Text, the 1JJ inciplcs on ,vhich the 
Textual Criticisn1 uf the la.,;t fifty years has lleen based, are 
'\Tong also."}. . . ..,.\.1"e you then nut yet a,vare that the altern a- 
ti \
e ".hieh seenlS to you so alarlllÏng is in fact n1Y ,,,hule cun- 
tention? "That else ùo you inla
'ine it Ü; that] :nl1 pro- 
posing to lllyself throughout, llut eftcctually to dispel the 
vulgar preju(lice,-say rather, to plant lIlY heel upun the 
"'oak superstitioll,-,,
hich "lv1> the lasf fifty yc((rs" has proved 
fatal to progress in this tll1partInellt of learning; aud ,vhieh, 
if it Le suffereù to prcvail, ,,
ill lnake n science of Te
Criticisln Ï111possiLle? A shallo"r clnpiricislll has l)een the 
prevailing result, up to this hour, of the teaching of 
LacIllnann, and Tischcudorf, and Tregelles. 

[G] Ep. Ellicott in J[((!J 1870, and in .ilIa!! 18
A ,yon.l in your private car, (by yonI' leave) iu passing, 
ì"ou f;celll to have forgotten that, at the tin1e \vhcn you 
lllltered on the ,york of ]
eyisi()u, your O'lln
 cstÜllate of the 
Texts put furth llY these J
:ditors \yas the reverse of faxour- 
able; i,e. \vas scarcely distiuguishable fron1 that of your 
present correspondent. Laclnnann's you described as "a 
text Ctl111posed on the narro'west and most exclusive prin- 
ci pIes," -" really Lased on little m01'e than fOUl' 'inan'llscripts." 

1 P. 77. 

:\I, IX


-" The case uf Tischendorf" (you said) "is still 11101'e easily 
p()scll ufo 'Yhich of this IIlOSt inconstant Critic's te-xts are 
\rc to select? Surely not the last, in \vhich an exaggeratcd 
preference for a single Inanuscript has Let:rnye(l hinl into (Ob 
alm.ost childlil.:e infirrnit!J of jildg?Jlf'nt. Surely also not the 
scventh editiun, \vhich exhihits alJ the instalJility \vl1Ïeh a 
cOlnparatively recent recognition of the authority of cursiyc 
luannscripts nlight l)e supposed likely to introduce."-....\s fur 
poor Trcgclles, you said :-" His critical prineiples . . . . are 
no\v, perhaps justly, called in question." His text U is rigid au<1 
lnechanical, and sometinles fails to disclose that critical i1t8lÏnct 
and pcc1llict7
 scholarly sagacity u'hich "1 haye since eyidently 
disclosed thelllselves in perfection in those l\lenlbers of the 
Hevisillg body \\-ho, \vith Dp. Ellicott at their head, syste- 
lllatically outvoted Prebendary Scriyener in the J erusalclu 
Chalnber. Hut ,vith \vhat consistency, lIlY lord Bishop, do 
you to-day vaunt" the principles" of the very men 'VhOlll 
yesterday you vilipellùed precisely because their" principles" 
then seelued to yourself so utterly unsatisfactory 1 

[7] "The Jab1-íc of 1nrx.lc17tJ Textual Criticið,n" (1831-81) 
CStS on an insecure basis. 
I have been guilty of little else than sacrilege, it seCIllS, 
becausc I hase ventured to send a sho\ver of shot and shell 
intu thc fliInsy decrees of these three Critics ,yhich no,y you 
are pleased grandilofluently to designate an (I descrihe as 
" the wlwle fabric of Cl'it Ù;is1J
 which lues been built 1/1' 1.1'itlt Ù" 
l1u' lrv;l jifty years." reru1Ït 111e to relnill(! yuu that tlll
"fabric" yon Rpeak of,-( eonfe

cdly a creation of yesterday,) 
- re
t:-; upun a t'uuudatioll of sand; all(1 has heen already so 
f O l'lni(lahly assailcll, or ebe tjl) graxely cOlldellllled ùy a snc- 
:::-ion t)f faluous Critic
, that as "a fabric," its ycry 

1 On Eu'itiiull, pp. -17-8. 




existcnce lnay bc reasonably called in qucstion. Tischenclol'f 
insists 011 the general depravity (" 'ltnir(,7'sa 'citiositas") of 
codex B; on ,,
hich cocle:x nevcrtheless Drs, ,yo estcott and 
Hort chiefly rely,-regarding it as unique in its pre-enlÌnent 
purity. The sallle l)air of Critics depreciate the Traditional 
Text as "beyond all question identical ,,
ith the dominant 
[ Greek] Text oj the second half oj the fO
l rth century:"- 
,vhereas, "to bring the sacred tc..rt back to the condition in 
it c.ì'isted during the fourth centll1'y," 1 "Tas Lachnlann's one 
object; the stun anù substance of his striving. "The fancy 
of a Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that has 
ùeen grounùcd on its presulned existence," 2 Tregelles 
declares to have been "s,,-e}Jt a \ray at once and for ever," by 
Scrivener's l)u1)lisheù Collations. And yet, ,,
hat else ùut 
tll is is "the fancy," (as already explained,) on \yhich Drs. 
'Vestcott antI Hurt have been for thirty years building 
up their vi:.,ionary Theory of Textua] Criticislll?- 'Yhat 
Griesbach attempted [1774-1805], ",yas denounced [1782- 
1805] by C. F. 
i; - disapproved by Scholz;- 
delllonstrated to be untenable by Abp. Laurence, Finally, 
in 1847, the learned J. G. l:eiche, in some Observations 
prefixed to his Collations of 
ISS. in the Paris Library, 
eloquently anù ably exposed the unreasonableness of any 
theory of ' I:cceusion,' -prol)crly so called;3 thereby effectu- 

1 Scrivener's Introdudion,-p. 4
3. 2 ibid. p, 421. 
S "Kon tanturn totius Antiquitatis altulll de tali opere suscepto si- 
lentiulll,-sed etiam frequentes Patr nn, usque ad quart urn bcculum 
viventium, de te
tu N. T. liberius tractatn, ÌJnpuneque corrupto, deque 
:-ìU1111uâ. Codicunl disðonantiâ querelæ, nee non ipsæ curruptione
 inùe a 
primis teIÌ1porilnu; continuu propagatæ,-satib bunt doculllentu, nelllÏnem 
opus taIn arduum, scrupuloruln plenum, atque invidiæ et calumniis 
ohnoxiuln, aggre
sum fuisse; etimllsi doctioruUl Patrulll de singulis locis 
disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in rebus criticis fuisse."- 
Codd. J.fSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nora descriptio, ct cum tcxtu vulgo 
,'ecepto Collutio, &c. 4to. Gottingæ, It{47. (p. 4.) 



ally anticipating \\T estcott anù 11ort's "yeak ÏlnaginatioJl 
of a '
ÍJ7'ian Text,' \d1ile he \vas dClllolishing thl) niry 
specnlatioll!4 of Grieslm,eh and lIng. 'There is no royal 
ro.-ul' (lU} 
aid) 'to the Criticism of thl} N. T.: no plain [uul 
easy nlethlHl, at once rel'(I
ing on a firm foun(lation, an,l 
conducting securely to the ,vished for goal.'l . . .. 
therefore in Gcrnlany had the bascluent-story heen laid 
of that' fabric of Criticisnl ,vhich has been built up during 
the last fifty years,' and w"hich you superstitiously a(hnirc,- 
"hen a fanious Gennan scholar w-as heart! dcnouncing the 
fahric as insecure. He foretold that the "rcgia l:ia.' of 
codiccs B and 
 \,ould In'ove a deccit and a snare: \\yhieh 
thing, at the end of four-and-thirty years, has punctually 
COllIe to pass. 

Seven years after, Lachmann's method ,vas solemnly 
appealed fronl by the same J. G. lleiche: 2 '" hose ,vorùs of 
,varning to his countrynlen deserve the attention of e\yery 
thoughtful scholar aniong ourselves at this day. Of the 
same general tenor and purport as Reiche's, are the utter- 
ances of those giants in Textual Criticisnl, V" ercellone of 
HOllle and Ceriani of :ðlilan. Quite unmistakable is the 
yerdict of our o\vn Scrivener concerning the yie\vs of 
Laclnnalln, Tischendorf and Tregelles, and the results to 
\\'hich their systelll has severally conducted thenl,-If ....\lford 
adopted the prejudices of his three Ï111mediate predece:-;sors, 

1 He proceeds :-" Hucusque nEmini contigit, nee in posterum, puto, 
continget, n1unumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testimn singu- 
lorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omniunl testimonimu 
pencleat, testes refcrre; aut e testium grege innunlCro aliquot duces 
auctoresque see ern ere, quorunl testimonium t3.1U plenum, certum firmum- 
qne sit, nt 
ine å:unno ceterormn testimonio careanHls."-Ibid. (p. If).) 
2 'om,m,clllarius Crit 'cus in J...V. T. (in his Preface to the Ep. to the 
I febrcwR). \\
 e are inc1ehtcc1 to Canon Cook for callin
 attpntion to thi-.;. 

f'l' l)y all meallS hi:o. Itez';s. d Tt.r! '117,,' ./i,.s! !Ioy'c (lfJ..,P, l.
,-pp. -I-S. 



[REI'LY '1'0 

his authority has been neutralized by the far different teach- 
ing of one infinitely his superior in judgn1ent and learning, 
-the present illustrious Bishop uf Lincolu.-On the same 
side ,,-ith the last named are found the late Philip E. Pusey 
and ...\.rchd. Lee,-Canon Cuok and Dr. :Field,-the Bishop üf 
S. ...llldre\ys and 1>1', 
. c. ::\lalan, La
t1y, at the end of 
fifty-one years, (viz, in 1881,) Drs, 'Yestcott anll 110rt have 
revived Laclllnann's unsatisfactory 11lethod,-superadding 
thereto not a fe\y extravagances of their own. That their 
vie\vs have been received w"ith expres:5ions of the gravest 
disapprobation, no oUP \yill deny. IndispensalJle to their 
contention is the grossly ilnprobable hypothe8is that the 
Peschito is to he regarded as the' ,-yo ulgate' (i.c. the Revised) 
Syriac; Cureton's, as the ( \"1" etu8' or ori!Jinal Syriac version. 
And yet, ,,-hile I \\Tite, the 
\bllé )[artin at Paris is giving it 
as the result of his lahours on this subject, that Cureton's 
Y" ersion cannot 1 Ie allY thing of the sort,l 'Yhether "r estcott 
and 110rt's theory of a (S!J'rian' Text has not received an 
effectual quietus, let posterity tlecide. c.A.
j-LÉpal 0' f.7Tï'xOffffot 
, cþ , 
j-Lap'TVpES ero CIJ'Ta'Tot. 

:From \vhich it llecollles apparent that, at all events, "the 
fabric of Criticislll ,,-hich has Leen lJuilt up \vithin the last 
fifty years" has not arisen \vithout solelllll and repeated 
protest,-as ,,-ell fro 111 \vithin as from \yithout. It lllay not 
therefore be spoken of by you as sonlething ,,'hich Incn are 
hound to luaintain inyiolate,-like an Article of the Creed, 
It is quite cOlnpetellt, 1 1nean, for anyone to denounce the 
entire systelll of Lachnlann, Tischendol'f and Tregelles,-as I 
do n01L',-aS an egregious blunder; if he 'will but be at the 

1 It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the ...\bh6 to the 
present writer,) the 'Po
t-8criptulll' of hb Fascic. IY., (yiz. fro111 p. 234 to 
p. 236,) is a fLU d't
prit unly,-intcnded to cllliycn a dry f3uhjcct, and to 
entertain his pupils. 


 to c
tahlish on a scyere logical ba
is the contradictory 
of not a fe\v of their 1l1oSt Ünportallt ùecrees. ,A.liÙ you, IllY 
lord Hishop, are rl'
l'ectfuny reulÏnded that your defence of 
thcir systel11, - if you Blust nee(ls de fell (1 \vhat T deCln 
".orthlc:;:;,- HUlst lJC conducted, not by 
neers aTHl an aflecta- 
tion of superior enlightenTnent; still le
:s 1y intÏInidation, 
scurnful language, and all those other bad lnethods "Therehy 
it has been the "yay of 
upcrstition in eyery age to riyet the 
fétters ûf intellectual bondage: but by seyere reasoning, al1(l 
cabn tliscussion, and a free appeal to ancient 
\.uthority, and 
a patient inYc
tigation of all the external eyiùence accessihle. 
1 request therefure that \ye lllay hear no more of this forIll 
of arglllllent. The Te
t of Laclllnann and Tischcndorf and 
Tregelles,-of "r estcott and IIort and Ellicutt, ([,c. of tlte 
Rcciscrs,)-is just now on its trial before the ".orld. 1 

[8] Bp. Ellicott's strange notions about the ' TeJ
tus RtCCl'tllS,' 
Your strangest lnistakes and Ini:;representations ho\veycr 
are connected \vith the 'Textus l
eceptus.' It eyidently 
exercises you sorely that" \vith the Quarterly Hevie\ycr, the 
Heceiyed Text is a standard, by comparison \vith \\.hich all 
extant documents, hOWC1:C1. indi..'
p'ldable their antiquity, are 
111easured,"2 nut pray,- 
(1) By conlparison ,vith \vhat other standard, if not by 
the l
eceiYed Text, w.olIld you yourself obtain the lueasure 

1 It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott's notice, (and yet the fact 
well deseryes conlmemoration) that the clailllH of Tif'chel1l1orf aud 
'l'regellcs on thc Church's gratitude, are not hy any mcans fuunded OIl 
tile Texts which thcy scycrally put for1.h. As in the case of )IiJI, 
\\Y et
tein and Birch, thcir luerit iH that thcy patiently accumula.t'd 
evid Ilce. "Tischcndorfs rcputation as a Biblical scholar re
ts leðs on 
his critical editil..ms of the 1\. __'., than on the text:, of the chief uncial 
authurities which in r3l'ill 
llcce:::;:;;iun hc ga\ e to the world." (
Iutroductiull,-p. l
ï.) 2 P. 1




of (C all cxtant doclunents," ho,veycr ancient? . . . . ThiR 
\nd next, 
) 'Vhy should the "indispntablc antiquity" of a docu- 
Hlcnt l)e supposed to disqualify it frolll being Ineasured by 
thc saU1C standard to \vhich (but only for con:ccnicncc) docu- 
luellts of \vhatever date,-by COl1111101l consent of scholars, at 
hOlne and abroad,-are invarialJIy referred? ....\n<1 next, 
(3) Surely, yon cannot require to have it eXplained to 
you that a standard of COJIP_4RISÚX, is not thc1"eforc of necessity 
a stalldan 1 of BXCELLEXCE, Did you eyer take the tron 1 )le to 
collate a sacred lnanuscript? If you eyer rlid, pray ,vith 
'Il'hat did you nlakc your collation? In other \vords, \vhat 
'standard' did you cluploy ? .. . Like ,yo alton and Ussher,-like 
Fpll and :\Iill,-like Bentley, and Bengel, and "r etsteill,-like 
Birch, and l\Iatthæi, and Griesbach, and Scholz,-like Lach- 
Blann, and Tregelles, and Tischendorf, and Scriyener,- I 
ycnturc to aSSlunc that you collated your Inanuscript,- 
\vhether it ,vas uf "disputaLle" or of "indisputable antiquity," 
-\vith an olYlinary copy of thc Reccivcd Text. If you did not, 
your collation is uf no lnanner of use. But, aLove all, 
(4) Hu\v tlocs it C0111C to pa
s that you speak so scofnful]y 
of the TIe
eiYed TeÀt, seeing that (at 1'. 12 uf your paluphlet) 
you assure your readers that its pcd'igrcc 11lay be traced bCtck to 
(l pcriOll pcrhaps anteculcnt to thc oldest of our cxt(tnt 1nan'l'- 
scripts? Surely, a traditional Text \vhich (accord in!! to you) 
dates froln a1)out .A.D. 300, is good enough for the purpose uf 
(3) At last you say,- 

"If thel c ,vere reason to suppose that the Received Text 
represented re1'batirn et litc1'atim the text ,,
hich "':18 cnrrent at 
Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it ,yould still 1:0 ÏInpossible 
to regard it as a stanùard from ,,,hich there ,vas no appeal." 1 

1 P. 13. 




eally, IllY lord Bishop, you luust excuse 111e if I declare 
plainly that the lllore I attend to your critical utterances, the 
III ore I aID astonished. .Fronl the confident style in \vhich 
you deliver yourself upon such Inatters, and especially from 
your having undertaken to preside oyer a I
evision of the 
Sacred Text, one \vould suppose that at sonle period of your 
life you lllust have given the subject a consideral,le anlouut 
of tÏIne and attention. But indeed the foregoing sentence 
virtually contains t\VO propositions neither of \vhich could 
possihly have been penned by one even nloderately 
acquainted \vith the facts of Textual Criticism, For first, 

(a ) You speak ÇJf "representing vC'ì'balim et litcratirrt THE 
Text \vhich \vas current at Antioch in the days of Chryso- 
stOlll." Do you then really suppose that there existed at 
Antioch, at any period bet,veen A.D. 354: and A,D. 407, SOlnc 
one definite TC:L,t oj thc .1'Z T. CAPABLE of bcing so rcprescnted ?- 
If you do, pray will you indulge us \vith the grounds for 
such an extraordinary supposition ? Your" acquaintance" 
(Dr. Tregelles) ,viII tell you that such a fancy has long since 
Leen s\vept a\vay " at once and for ever." .....\.nd secondly, 
(b) You say that, even if there \vere reason to suppose that 
the" Received Text" \vere such-and-such a thing,-" it \voulù 
still be Ünpossible to regard it as a standal'd front 'If)hicl1 thcre 
u'as no appeal," 

nut pray, \vho in his senses,-\vhat sane nlan in Great 
ritain,-ever dreanled of regarding the" IIeceiycd," -aye, 0,' 
any other k,wwn" Text," -as" a standardfrmn '[chich therc shall 
be no appeal" ? IIa ve I ever done so ? lIa ye I ever Ílllplied 
as luuch? If I have, sho\v mc u:hcre. You refer your 
readers to the follo\villg passagc in Iny first ..L\..rti
le :- 

u 'Vhat prûcede
 adn1Ïts to ROlliQ extûnt of further J11uuerif'al 
tration. It is discùycred that, in 111 page8, . . . the sorious 
2 C 



[nErLY T() 

defloctions of A frmll tho Texlu8 Recrptus amount in all to un1)" 
842: ,vhercas in c they anlount to 1798: in ß, to 2870: in
, to 
3302: in D, to 4697. The readings peculiar to .A ,,,it hin the Salnc 
liInits are 133; tho
e peculiar to c aro 170. But those of ß 
alllount to 197: while 
 exhibits 4-13: and the readings peculiar 
to D (within the saIne linlits), are no few.er than 1829 . . . . ,Yo 
subn1it that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspiro 
confidence in codices B 
 CD." -po 1-1. 
But, do you really require to haxe it eXplained to you that 
it is entirely to n1Ïsunderstand the question to object to such 
a coulpari
on of codices as is found above, (viz, in pages 14 
antI 17,) OJl the ground that it ,vas 1nade \vith the text of 
Stephanus lying open before 1ne? 'V ould not the sclf-santc 
phen01ìlcnoìl haye I)een eyolved hy collation \yith a/
Y othel" 
text? If you doubt it, sit tlO\\911 and try the experiInent for 
yourself. TIelirve lUe, I{obert Etienne in the X'T!th century 
,vas not the CWllS(' \yhy cod. n in the I Y.th and cod. D in the 
,r Ith are so \videly dis
ordant and diyergent froln one another: 
A and c so utterly at variance \vith both. l \Ve 11l1.lSt have SOJlW 
standard \vhereby to test,-,vhere\vith to c01nparc,-
scripts. 'Vhat is 11101'0, (give IHe leave to assure you,) to the 
end of time it \vill probal)ly he the practice of scholars to C0111- 
ISS. of the N. T. \vith the' TIeceivod Text.' The hopeless 
discrepancies ùet,veen our five "01<.1 uncials," can in no l110re 
convenient \vay be exhibited, than by referring each of thelll in 
turn to one anù the same COlnnlon standard, And,- H7ult 
standarù 1Hore reasonaùle and 1110re convenient than the Text 
\vhich, by the good l}rovidence of GOD, ,vas universally 
clnploycd throughout Europe for the first 300 years after the 
invention of printing? being practically identica7 ,yith the 
Text \vhich (as you yourself adlllit) ,vas in popular use at the 
end uf three centuries frolll the date of the sacred autographs 
thelllselvèS: in other \vords, being 1nore than 1500 years old. 

1 See above, pp. 12 : 30-3 : 34-5 : 46-7 : 7Ô : Ð 1-6 : 249 : 2G2 : 289: 319. 


] Tlte llevicwcì" vÍiulicatcs h i}'U
Clf (([f{( iast Bp, Ellicoft'.r;; 1n'l:
TIut you are quite ùetcrInineù that I shalllnean sOlllething 
essentially (lifferent. The Quarterly TIevie\ver, (ron say,) is 
one \vho "contends that the I
eceiYca Text neçtls hut little 
clnentlatinll; antI rUlrty be nscd 1.l)itlwl1t ('}IZCndfdion (18 a 
.ç;t(( IUZll ,'d,"l I an1, (you say,) one of "those \vho a(lopt the 
easy 1l1ethod of n1aking the lleceived Text a stantlard." 2 
1\ly "Criticisln," (it seems,) "ùften rests ultÜnat(
ly upon tIle 
notion that it is little else but sacrilege to ÏInpngn the 
tradition of the last three hundred years."3 (" The I(lst thi'C(' 
hltndi'c l years:" as if the Traditional Text of the X.- Testalnellt 
dated frOln the 23th of Queen Elizabeth 1)-1 regard the 
C Textus Heceptus' therefore, according to rou, as the Ephe- 
sians regarded the ÏInage of the great goddess Diana; nalnely, 
as a thing \vhich, one fine morning, " fell do,vn froln Jupiter." 4 
I luistake the IIeceiveù Text, (you Ünplr,) for the Divine 
Original, the Sacred ....\.utographs,-and erect it into" a standard 
froll1 \vhich there shall be no appeal," -" a tradition \yhich it 
is little else but sacrilege to ÍInpugn," That is ho\v YOlt state 
nlY case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of 
Comparison with the standard of E.l'ccllcnce. 
Dy this tinle, ho\vever, enough has been saiù to convince 
any fair person that you are ,vithout \yarrant in your present 
contention. Let any candid scholar cast an Ï1npartial eye 
over the preceding three hundreù and fifty pages,-open the 
vohune \"here he \vill, alHl read steadily on to the end of any 
textual discussion,-alld then say \vhether, on the contrary, 
nlY criticisnl ùoes not invariably rest 011 the principle that 
the Truth of 
cripture is to 1e sought in that f01'111 of the 
Sacred Text \vhich has the fullest, the LOÚ.l, ,;t, a/ul the I/lust 
varied attestatiun. 5 Do I not in variably lllake tlw cÚ/lr,;cnticnt 

1 P. 10. 2 P. l
. 3 P.!, 4 Acts xix. 
j. () bllprà, pp. 33D--! 1. 





voic!' Of Antiquit.1J Iny standard? If I do not,-if, on the con- 
trary, I haye eyer onc
 appealed to the' Rcceiyea Text,' and 
Inacle it lIlY stanåard,-w"hy do you not proye the truth of 
your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular 
instance? instead of Lringillg against llle a charge \yhich 
is utterly without foundation, autI \vhich can have no uther 
effect but to inlpose upon the ignorant; to n1Îslead the 
un\vary; and to prejudice the great Textual questiun \"hich 
hopelessly divides you and me? . . . I trust that at lea::;t you 
will not again confound the stanùarù of C01Jlparison \vith the 
standard of Truth. 

[10] Analysis of contents of Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet. 
You state at page 6, that what you propose to yourself 
by your pamphlet, is,- 

"First, to supply accurate information, in a popular form, 
concerning the Greek text of the N c,v Testalllent : 
" Secondly, to establish, by 11leanS of the information so sup- 
plied, the soundness of the principles on which the Revisers have 
acted in their choice of l'eadings; and by consequence, the im- 
portance of the' New Greek Text: ' "-[01', as :rOll phrase it at p. 
29,J-" to enable the reader to fOrIll a fair judgment on the que
tion of the trustworthines8 of the 'reading8 adopted by the Revise1's." 

To the former of these endeavours you deyote t"\"venty- 
three pages: (viz. p. 7 to p. 29) :-to the latter, you devote 
forty-t\vO ; (viz. p. 37 to p. 78). The intervening eight pages 
are dedicated,-( a) To the constitution of the Revisionist 
boùy: and next, (b) To the amount of good faith \vith \vhich 
you and your colleagues observed the conditions inlposed upon 
you by the Southern Houses of Con voca tion. I propose tu 
follo\v you oyer the ground in \vhich you ha\Te thus entrenched 
yourself, and to drive you out of every position in turn. 

[11] Bp. Ellicott's account of the' TExTus RECEPTVS.' 
First then, for your strenuous endeavour (pp. 7-10) to 


pr(1ju(lice the question hy pouring contempt on the humhlest 
anccstor uf the Tcxtns Rcccptns-namely, the first cdition of 
Erasmus. Yon know' very \\
ell that the 'Textus TIeceptus J 
is ,wt the first edition of Erasmus. \Vhy then do you so 
describe its origin as to imply that it is ? You ridicule the 
circunlstances under ,vhich a certain ancestor of the fanlily 
first sa\v the light. 1'" ou reproduce \vith eyÜlent satisfaction 
a silly \vitticism of ::\Iichaelis, yiz. that, in his judglllent, the 
EvangeIÜnn on \vhich Eraslllus chiefly relied \vas not w.ol'th 
the t\\yo florins ,vhich the monks of Basle gaye for it. 
E(plally contelnptible (according to you) \vere the copies of 
the Acts, the Epistles, and the .Apocalyp
e ,vhich the smne 
seholar clnployed for the rest of his first edition. Haying 
in this ,va)"'" done your best to blacken a noble house hy 
dilating on the lo\v ebb to ,vhich its fortunes ,vere reduced 
at a critical period of its history, some three centuries and a 
half ago,-you pause to lnake your o,vn COllllllent on the 
spectacle thus exhibited to the eyes of unlearned readers, lest 
any should fail to draw' therefroln the injurious inference 
which is indisvensaLle fur your argU111ent :- 
"'Ve have entered into the
e details, because we desire that 
the genera.l reatler should know fully the true pedigree of that 
11riuted text ûf the Greek Testament ,vhich has been in COlll1110n 
l1se for the ]ast three centnrie
. It will be olJseryed that its 
dOCUJllontary origin is not calculated to inspire any great confi- 
dence. Its parents, as ,ve have seen, ,vere two or threo Jate 
nw.lluscripts of little critical valne, ,vhich af>cidt.nt. Rooms to 
have bruught into tho hands of their first editor."-p. 10. 

XO\V, your account of the origin of the' Textus Heceptus J 
shall be suffered to stan(l unc,)utra(licted. But the inlportant 
Ùlfc7'cJlce which you intend that inattentive or incon1petellt 
Hlerg shuuld dra\v therefrum, 
hall he 
<:atterl'(1 to the 
 l,y the unequiyol'tll testÏIllony of l1u h':--
a witlle::;
 than yourf'l'lf. N otwithstalHling all that has gone 


TilE nI


Lefore, you are constrained to confess in the very next pagc 
that :- 

"The manuscripts ,vhich Erasmus used differ, for the most 
part, only in small and insignificant detailB from the bull. of the 
cU1.sive manuBcripts. 'rhe general character of their text is tho 
same. By thi
 observation the pel1igree ûf the Received '.rext 
is carried up beyond the Ïllllividual Inanuscripts used Ly 
ntSlllus . . . . That pedigree stretches back to a ren10te an- 
tiquity. The first ancestor of tlte Received Text zeas at least 
contemp01.ary 'witlt the oldest of om" extant manuscripts, if not ulder 
titan anyone of tltem."-l)p. 11, I:!. 

By your O\Yll sho\villg therefore, the Textus Receptus is, 'at 
least,' 1550 years old. X ay, \ve ,viII haye the fact oyer again, 
in \von.ls ,yl1Ïch you adopt frOlll p. 9
 of 'Yestcott and 
110rt's IIl,troduction [see aboye, p. 257], and clearly make 
yuur O\V11 :- 
" The fundamental text of Jate extant Greek :1\188. generally 
js beyond all qllcsti01J idclltical with the dOlllin
nt Antiochian or 
Græco-SJrian Text of the second 7lalf of the fourth centll1.Y." 
-po 12. 
But, if this be so,-(alld I aUl not concerned to dispute 
your statelnent in a single particular,)-of ,,
hat l)ossiLle 
significancy can it be to your present contention, that the 
ancestry of the 'YlnTTE
 "rORD (like the ancestors of the 
\.TE) had at one tilHe (leclined to the \vondrous 
"lo\v estate on \vhich you enlarged at first ,,"ith such eyident 
satisfaction? Though the fact be adn1Ïtted that J OSCl)h " the 
carpenter" ,vas "the husband of l\lary, of ,,'hOlll ,yas Lorn 
LS, \vho is called CIIRI
T," -".hat possible incouyeniellCe 
results froln that cirCUlllstance so long as the only thing COll- 
tended for he loyally cùnceded,-naulely, that the descent of 
l\IESSIAII is lineally traceable l)ack tu the patriarch _\brahuul, 
through l}axid the l\:ing? .A.nd the genealogy of the 
\\Tittcu, no le:,:-; than the genealogy uf the Incarnate 'V OHD, 

.' 3Vl 

is traceable hack hy 11"0 distinct lilies of desccnt, reInenlher: 
for the' COlllplutensian,' "hich Was printea in 151-1, exhihit:-; 
the 'Traditional Text' \vith the saIne general fidelity as the 
, El"a
IltÏan,' \\Thich did not see the light till t\'TO years later. 

[12] lip. Ellicott dcrirC8 his cstiì/
ate of the 'TEXTU
froJll lVc.-:;tcott alui IIort's fable of It 'SYRL\X TEXT.' 
Let us hear \"hat comes next:- 

"At thi8 l)oint a question suggests itself ,vhich ,ve cannot 
refuse to consiùer. If tho pedigrec uf the Heceived 'rext may 
be traced back to so early a period, doe8 it not dcser\'c the 
honour ,vhich is given to it h
T the Quarterly Heviewer?" 
-po 12. 
A very pertinent question truly. \Ve are Inade attenti\ e: 
the 1n01'e so, Lecause you anllounce that your reply to this 
(luestion shall "go to the bottolll of the controyersy \vith 
\rhich ,ve are concerned," 1 That reply is as follo\vs :- 

"If there ,yere reason to s11ppose that the Received Text 
represented ve7.batim et literatim the text ,vhich ,vas current at 
Antioch in the days of Chr.r
ustOln, it would still be Ï1l1po

tu regard it as a sta.ndard Il.om 'lvhiclt there was '110 appeal. The 
on why this ,vould be im po
sible may be stated hriefly as 
fullo,vs. In the ancient doclunents which have CODle dow'n to 
us,-amongst ,vhich, as it::; well kno\vn, an
 nlanuscripts ,vritten 
in the fourth century,-'yo posse
s evÎllence that other texts of 
the Greek Testalneut existed in the age of Chrysostoln, materially 
different from the text which he anù the _lntiochian writers 
generally enlployed. l\Ioreoyer, a rigorous 
xalninatioll of 
extant documents sho,vs that the Antiochian 01' (as ,ve sh
henceforth call it ,vith Dr. IIort) the 
)?rian text did not 
represent an earlier tradition than those other text
, hut ,vas 
in fact of later origin than the rest. 'Vo ('annot accept it 
therefo1'o as a final stonnai'd."-pp. 13, 14. 

1 p, l:



[REPLY '}'O 

" A fi/
al standard"! . . . Nay but, ,vhy do you suddenly 
introduce this unheard-of characteristic? JVho, pray, since 
the invention of Printing \vas ever kllo\vn to put for\vard any 
existing Text as "a final standard" ? Not the Quarterly 
e\?ie,ver certainly, "The honour \vhich is given to the 
Text-us Rccept'lts by the Quarterly Itevie\ver" is no other than 
the honour \vhich it has el
oyed at the hands of scholars, l)y 
universal consent, for the last three centuries. That is to say, 
he uses it as a standard of cOlnparison, and enlploys it for 
habitual reference. So do you. You did so, at least, in the 
year 1870. Yon did lnore; for you proposed "to proceed 
\vith the ,york of }{evision, \vhether of text or translation, 
'Jnaking the C1tr1'cnt (Tatus Rcccpt'ltS' the sta'Jiflard." 1 ,\r e 
are perfectly agreed therefore. For Iny o\vn part, being fully 
convinced, like yourself, that essentially the lleceived Text is 
full 1550 years old,-(yes, and a vast deal older,)-I esteenl it 
quite good enough for all ordinary purposes. 
\.nd yet, so 
far am 1 froin pinning nlY faith to it, that I eagerly Iuake Iny 
appeal fro1n it to the threefold \vitness of Copies, "\r ersiolls, 
Fathers, ,vhenever I find its testimony challenged.-....\.lld 
with this rellc\ved explanation of my sentinlents,-( \vhich une 
\vouhl have thought that no competent person cuuld require,) 
-I proceed to consider the reply \vhich you prolnise shall" go 
to the Lottunl of the controversy ".ith \vhich "'e are con- 
.-:erned." I beg that you ".ill not again seek to divert atten- 
tion from that \vhich is the real Inatter of dispute Letwixt 
you and Ine. 
\Vhat kind of argumentation then is this Lefore us? You 
assure us that,- 

(a) ".\. rigorous exan1Înation of extant doculnents,"- 
" :sho\vs" Dr. Hort-" that the Syrian tcxt"-[,,
hich for all 

J Bp. Ellicutt, 0", lÚ. ,-'isiun, &c.-p, 30. 

lip, ELLICOTT.]. [H
\,D. 18ö], 


practical purposes luay Le considered as only another nallle 
for the" Textns l
cceptus "]-\vas of later origin than "other 
texts of the (h'eek Testaluent" \vhich "existed in the age of 

(b) cc"\V e cannot accept it theref
)re as a final standard." 

But,-Of ,,,,hat nature is the logical process hy \vhich you 
have succeeded in conyincing yourself that this consequent 
can Le got. out of that antecedent? rut a parallel case :-" .L\. 
careful analysis of herLs C sho\vs' Dr. Short that the only safe 
diet for ::\fan is a particular kind of rank grass 'v hich gro\vs 
in the Ely fens. \Ve Ulust therefore leave off eating butcher's 
llleat." -Does that seem to you altogether a satisfactory 
argunlent? To nle, it is a mere non sequitur. Do Lut con- 
siùer the nlatter for a mOlllent. "A rigorous exaulÎnation of 
extant doculnents sho-ws" Dr. Hort-such and such things. 
" A rigorous examination of the" sanle "doclUllellts sho,,'s" 
'lne-that Dr. Hort is 'lnistaken. A careful study of his Look 
convinces ?ìW that his théory of a Syrian l
ecension, Inanu- 
factured bet\veen A.D. 250 and A.D. 350, is a drealn, pure and 
si1nple-a 'ntere phantom of the brain. Dr. Hort's course is 
obvious. Let him first Inake his processes of proof intelligihle, 
and then public. You cannot possibly suppose that the falJlc 
of "a Syrian text," though it has evidently satisfieù you, 
,\vill be accepted by thoughtful Englishmen \vithout proof. 
'Vhat prospect do you suppose you have of convincing the 
,vorld that Dr. Hort is competent to assign a date to this 
creature of his O\Vll imagination; of \vhich he has hitherto 
failed to denlonstrate so llluch as the probaLle existence? 

I have, for nlY o,vn part, estaLlished by abundant refer- 
ences to his ,vritings that he is one of those \vho, (through 
some intellectual pcculiarity,) are for ever Inistaking 
 fl)r facts,-as:,crtions for arglUllCllt.,,-and reite- 



[TIEPL Y '1'0 

rated asseveration for accunlulated proof. He deserves 
sYlupathy, certainly: for,-(like the lllan ,vho passed his life 
in trying to count ho\v In any grains of sand ,vill exactly fill 
a quart pot ;-01' like his unfortunate ùrother, ,vho lllade it 
his ùusiness to prove that nothing, nnlltiplied ùy a sufficient 
nUluùer of figures, alnounts to sonlething ;)-he has evidently 
taken a prodigious deal of useless trouùle. The spectacle 
of an able and estÜnaùle luan exhilJiting such singular inap- 
titude for a province of study \vhich, beyond all others, 
deluands a clear head and a caIrn, dispassionate juùglllent,- 
creates distress, 

[13] Ep. Ellicott has cOlllplctcl!J adopted IVcslcott and [fort's 
TIut in the 11lCantÎ111e, so confident are !JUlt of the existence 
of a 'Syrian text,'-(only "owc
'e}' beca11SC D}I. IIort is,)-that 
you inflict upon your re
lllers all the consequences \yhich 
, the Syrian text' is supposed to carry \vith it. Your nlethod 
is certainly characterized by llluuility: for it consists in 
Inerely serving up to the British puùlic a réchcll.lffé of "\Vest- 
cott and 11ort's Textual Theory. I cannot discover that you 
contriùute anything of your o\vn to the lueagre outline you 
furnish of it. Everything is assulned-as before. :N oUling 
is proved-as before. And \ye are referred to Dr. Hort for 
the resolution of every difficulty \vhich Dr. Hort has created. 
H According to Dr. Hort," -" as Dr. 1Iort obser,res," -" to 
use Dr. Hort's language,"-" stated Ly Dr. Hort,"-" as Dr. 
Hort notices,"-" says Dr. 11urt:" yes, from p. 14 of your 
paluphh}t to p. 29 you do nothing else but reproduce-Dr. 
Ilort ! 
First CaInes the fabulous account of the contents of the 
lnllk of the cursiycs: I-then, the Î1naginary history of the 

1 P. 15. 




':-5yriac \r ulgate ;' which (it secIHs) Leal's 'inùisputaLle 
traces' of Leing a revision, of ".hicb you IU:Lve learned frolJ
Dr. llort the date: I-then COllles the Sillne dispal'agelllCnt of 
the ancient Greek }-'athers,-" for reasons \\ hieh have Leen 
stated by DJ". Ilort \vith great elearness and cogency:" 2_ 
then, the saIlle depreciatory estÏ1nate of \ITiters sulJse(! uent 
tu Ew.;ebius,-,vho::;e evidence is declared tu "stand at ùe:>t 
on no higher le\rel than the evidence uf inferior Inanuscripts 
in the uncial class: "3 ùut oilly Lecause it is discuvered to lJC 
destructive of the theory of Dr. Hort. 

:IS ext cOllles "the ::\Iethod of Genealogy,"-\vhich you 
declare is the result of "vast research, un \vearied patience, 
great critical sagacity;" 4 lJllt \vhich I anl prepareù to prove 
is, on the cuntrary, a shallo\v expedient for dispensing \vith 
scientific Inductiun and the laLorious aCClllllulation of evi- 
denLe. This saIne "l\lethod of Genealogy," you are not 
asluuned to announce as "the great contribution of our O\vn 
titnes to a lnastery over luaterials." "For the full explana- 
tion of it, you rnast rifc]" YOU]" reader to Dr. Hort's Introd llC- 
tion." 5 Can you be serious? 

Then COlne the results to \vhich "the application of this 
luethoù luts conducted Drs. HTestcott and ][ort." 6 _\.ul! first, 
the faùle of the' Syrian Text '-,,'hieh ' Dr. 110ft considers to 
hayc Leen thc result of a deliberate I
ecensioll,' conducted 
on erroneous principles. This fa,Lricatcù product of the II Irù 
and I,rth centuries, (you say,) rose to suprclnncy,-hcc:unc 
dOll1Ïnallt at ..c\..ntioch,-passed thence to Constantinople,- 
and once estaLlisllea there, soon vindicated its claiIn to 1.0 
the N. T. of the East: "hence it overran the 'Ve:,t, Hnd for 
300 years as the ''fextus Heccptus,' ha.s held undisputed 

1 P. 11;. 
.. p, l

2 P. 17. 
:i P. IV, 

S p, It;. 
6 p, :.!o. 


s\vay.l Really, my lord Bishop, you describe imaginary 
events in truly Oriental style. One seenlS to be reading not 
so lllnch of the" Syrian Text JJ as of the Syrian Inlpostor. 
One expects every moment to hear of SOIne feat of this 
fabulous Recension corresponding \vith the surrender of 
the British troops and Arabi's triumphant entry into Cairo 
\yith the head of Sir Beauchamp Seynlour in his hand! 

All this is follo\ved, of course, hy the ,,?eak fable of the 
, Neutral' Text, and of the absolute supremacy of Cudex B, 
-\vhich is "stated in Dr. Hort's own 
cords:" 2- y iz. "n very 
far exceeds all other doclllllents in neutrality of text, bping 
in fact ahvays, or nearly ahvays, neutral." (The fact heillg 
that codex B is deulunstrably one of the 11l0St corrupt doeu- 
Inents in existence.) The posteriority of the (Ünaginary) 
"Syrian," to the (ituaginary) " Neutral," is insisted upon 
next in order, as a Blatter of course: and declared to rest 
upon three other consitlerations, -each one of \v hich is found 
tù 1)0 pure fable: viz. (1) On the fable of ' Conflation,' \vhich 
"scc'ms to supply a proùf" that Syrian readings are posterior 
1Joth to \
y estern and to Neutral readings-hut, (as I have 
e\vhere 3 sho\vu, at considerable length,) lUOst certainly docs 
not :-(
) On ...\nte-:Kicene })atristic evidence,-of ,,'hich 
hu\vever not a syllal)lc is produced :-(3) On ' TJ.au.'5C1.1p- 
tional probability '-\vhich is about as usefuJ a t;ubstitute for 
pruof as a s\ycet-pea for a \valking-stick. 

\Yiclely clissinlilar of course is your o\vn vie\v of the 
iInportance of the foregoing instrlllllents of conviction. To 
you, "these three reasons taken together scenl to Inake up 
an argU1l1cnt for the posteriority of the Syrian Text, \vhich it 
is Ï1npossible to resist. They fonn" (you say) "a threefold 
cord of evidence \vhich [you] belieye will bear any alllount 

1 P. 

2 J 'po 

3 :::llpnl, pp. 2Ü8-


of argutlll\utn.tive strain." You rise ,vith your subject, an(l at 
last break out into eloquence and vituperation :-' 'Vritcrs 
like the Hevie\\Tcr Illay attclupt to cut the cord by recld'ss 
and uJtrcrifi d assertio1ls: but the knzfe has not yct been f(túri- 
c t'ei tit t can eqZlitably ,wpllratc anyone of its strands.' 1 . . . 
Su effectually, as \\"ell as so l1elihcrately, have you lashetl 
yourself-for hetter or for \\ orse-to 'Yestcott and 1Iort's 
New Textual Theory, that you nlust no,,," of necessity either 
share its future triulliphs, or else Le a partaker in its cOluing 
\In I to congratulate you on your prospects? 

"For Iny part, I nlake no secret of the fact that I look 
upon the entire speculation aùout \vhich you arc so enthu- 
siastic, as an excursion into cloud-land: a dream and nothing 
lllore. l\ly contention is,-not that the Theory of Drs. ,yo cst- 
cott and Hort rests on an insecure foundation, but, that it 
rests on no foundation at all. l\loreover, I alll greatly lllis- 
taken if this has not been demonstrated in the foregoing 
pages. 2 On one point, at all events, there cannot exist a 
particle of doubt; nalnely, that so far froln its" not bcing f01" 
you to interp08e in this controver::;y," -you are \vithout alterna- 
tive. You 11lUSt either COlne for,vard at once, and bring it to 
a successful issue: or else, you lnust submit to be told that 
you have suffered defeat, inasnluch as you are inextricably 
involved in ,yo estcott and Hort's discolnfiture. You are sin1ply 
without rellleùy. JT 01t. luay ".find nothing in the Re'C.ic
ce'r' s 
third articlè to 'requirc (t f'lt'rtlter aJls'lce'J":" Lut reaùers of 
intelligence ,vill tell you that your finùing, since it does nut 
proceed froni stupiùity, can only result frorn your conscious- 
lll''jS that you have Illaùe a seriou.::)" l,lunder: and that no\y, 
the less you say about "'Y estcott and Hort's ne\\r textual 
Theory," the Letter. 

1 Pp. 23-.. 

I See Art. III.,-viz. from p. 
35 to , 




[RE!'I. Y Tú 

[14] The Qucstion ntodestly jJropo:-;('d,- TVllcthcJ' Ep. Ellicott's 
adoption of 1J T cslcott and Hm't's ''lie'll' Tc.?'tlla! Theory' docs 
not am.onut to ('what la10yers cal!) 'CoXSrIR
\CY' ? 
But, IllY lurd Bishop, \vhell I reach the end of your 
laborious ayo\val that you entirely accept ""r cstcott and 
Hort's ne\v TextuaJ Theory," -I find it Ï1upossible to \vithhohl 
the respectful eIHplÏry,-Is such a proceeding on your part 
altùgetlLCr allu\vaLle? I frankly confess that to 'J/l(' the 
ale aduptiun hy the Chainnan of the TIeyising body, of 
the theory uf t\VO of the Ilevisers,-aull then, his exclusive 
reproductiun and vinllication of that theory, \vhen he under- 

"to snpply tho reader ,vith a few broad outlines of rrextual 
Criticisln, so as to enable him to fornl a fnh. judgmcnt on the 
question of the tlu
tworthiness of tlte readings adolJted by tlte 
Revisers," -po 29, 

nIl this, Iny lord Bishop, I frankly avow', to ?nc, looks very 
llluch indce<l like \vhat, in the language uf la\vyers, is called 
" Conspiracy." It appears then that instead uf presiding 
over the deliherations uf the TIevisionists as an i1l11)(lrtial 
arbiter, you haye been throughout, heart and soul, an eager 
partizan. You have learned to elllploy freely Drs. "r estcott 
anù Hort's peculiar tennillology. You adopt their scarcely- 
intelligible phrases: their \vlId hypotheses: their arbitrary 
notions about' Intrinsic' anù 'Transcriptional Probal)ility:' 
their baseless theory of 'Collflation : ' their shallo\v ' ::\lethod 
of Genealogy.' You have, in short, evidently s\valIo\ved 
their novel invention \vhole. I can no longer \vonder at 
the result arrived at by the boò.y of Revisiunists. 'Vell 
luay Dr. Scrivener have pleaded in yain! He found Drs. 
Ellicott. and "\Vestcott and IIort too lllany for hiln... But 
it is high time that I should pass 011. 

1;1'. Er.U('OTT,] OF IX
 or COXYOC...\ TIO
, 3

[15] Proofs that the Re-viscrs hare oulrafjf011s1y c:J'cccdcrl the 
IWif J'uctions they 'J'cccircd f} Oln tlte Cunvoeatioll of the SVUilllTlb 
It follows nc:\.t to enquire ,vhcther your ,york as TIeviscrs 
'nlS conducted in confonnity ,vith the conditions inlposed 
npon you by the Southern IIouse of Convocation, or not. 
" l-lothi1lg" (you say)- 

"can be 'tn01'e unjust on the part of the Revie,ver than to suggest, 
as he has suggested in more than one passage,l that the Hevisers 
exceed 'd tIt 'ir Instructions in the course ". hich they adopted ,vi th 
regard to the Greek Text. On the contrary, as ,ve shall show, 
they adhered most closely to their Instructions; and did neither 
Illore nor less than they 'were required to do."-(p. 32.) 
'The Heyie,ver,' nlY lord Bishop, proceeds to dC11lonsirate 
that you 'excecded your Instructions,' cven to an extra- 
ordinary extent, TIut it ,,'ill be convenient first to hear you 
out. You proceed,- 
" Let us turn to the Rule. It is simply as follows :-' That 
the text to be adopted be that for ,vhich the Evidence is 
decidedly p1."ponderating: and that when the text so adopted 
differs from that from wbich t.be _\.uthorized Y. ersion was Inadp, 
the alteration be indicated in the margin.' "-( Ibid.) 
nut you seelll to have forgotten that the' TIule' ,yhich 
you quote fonned no part of the' I,u)t,'urtivllS ' ,vhich ,,'cre 
iInpused upon you by Convocation. It ,,-as one of the 
'Principles agrecd to by thc CVIIl1lâttce' (23 :\Iay, 1870),-a 
TIule of your own 1/zakill!l therefore,-for ,,-hich ConYOcatioll 
neither ,ya,s nor is responsiLle. The' fundaillental TIe
tions adopted by the Convocation of CantcrLury' (3rd and 
5th :\Iay, 1870), fiye in nUluher, contain no authorization 
,vhate,-er for Inakillg changes in the Greek Text. They ha, e 

1 You refer to ::;uch placc:; as l)P. 87-8 and 

4, where :-;ee the Kotes. 




reference only to the \\""ork of revising C thc Autho'rized Vcr- 
sion:' an un<1ertaking \vhich the first Resolution declares to 
be C desirable,' In order to ascertain \yhat "Tere the l1evisers' 
C Insl1'uctions "yith regard to the Greek Text,' \\e l11ust refer 
to the original l
esolution of Feb. 10th, 1870: in "yhich the 
l'cnloval of C plain and clear crrors, whether in the Greek 
Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Trans- 
lation nutde from the same,' -is for the first and last time 
mentioned. That you yourself accepted this as the limit of 
your authority, is proved by your Speech in Convocation, 
" "r e Inay be satisfied" (you said) "\vith the attempt to 
correct plain and clear errors: but tlW1'C, it is O'llr duty to 
stop." 1 

N o\\y I venture to assert that not one in a hundred of 
the alterations you have actually Ina(le, C \vhether in the 
Greek Text originally a<1opteù by the Translators, or in the 
Translation luaùe fronl the same,' are corrections of 'plain 
and clear e1 1 ]'Ors.' l{ather,-(to adopt the \vords of the learned 
Bishop of Lincoln,)-" I fear \ye must say in candour that in 
the Itevised 'T ersion \ve Incet in every page \yith changes 
'lohich seem abnost to be rnadc jor the sake of ehangc."2 .l\lay I 
trouble you to refer back to p. 112 of the present volunle for 
a fe,v \yords more on this subject fronl the pen of the saIne 
judicious Prelate? 

(a) And jh'st,-In 'respect of thc NC'lD English JTcrsion. 
For my o\vn part, (see aUove, pp. 171-2,) I thought the Lest 
thing I could do \yould be to illustrate the nature of nlY 
cOlnplaint, by citing and cOlnn1enting on an actual instance 
of your nlethod. I showed how, in revising eight-and-thirty 
,vords (2 Pet. i. 5-7), you had contrived to introduce no 
fe\yer than thirty changes,-every one of them being clearly 

1 Chronicle of Convocation, Feb. 1870, p. 83. 

2 See above, p. 3G8. 

1' OF S. LUl\:E YIII. 45-6, 401 

a change for the w'orse. You "rill perhaps say ,-Find lHe 
another such case! I find it, illY lord Bishop, in S. Luke viii. 
43, -!6,-,,'here you have Blade nÙu'lrcn chan!Jcs in revising 
the translation of four-and-thirty words. T proceed to 
transcribe the passage; requesting you to hear in lnind your 
o\vn elnphatic protestation,-""\V e Blade no change if the 
'/Ilcaning u'as fairly exp1"CSSaZ by the \vord or phrase before 

'Peter and they that ,vere 
,,,,ith hÏ1n said, i\Iaster, tho 
nlultitude throng thee and 
pres8 thee, anti t;ayetst thou, 
'Vho touched me? And J eSUB 
said, SOlllebody hath touched 
nlO: for I perceive that virtue 
is gone out of me.' 

H. 'T. 

'Petor said, and thoJ' that 
'were ,,'ith him, Master the 
2 s 
ll1Ultitudcts prCHS thee antl 
crush thee [5., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.] 
11 12 1" 
But Jesus said, Some one ditl 
14 16 
touch lue: for I pcrcei ycd that 
16 '7 lð 19 
1)0'\\,er had gone forth fronl 

N O,\T pray,- 'Vas not" the lueaningfairly expresscr! " before? 
'Vill you tell nle that in revising S. Luke viii. 45-6, you 
"1ìlade a.s fCio altcration..s as possible"? or ,vill you YCll- 
ture to asscrt that you have relnoyed none but" plain n1ul 
dcco" cr1.ors"? On the contrary. I challcnge any cOlnpctcllt 
scholar in Great Britain to say i"hcthcr CVC1'y one of these 
chan!Ju; be not either absolutely useless, or else decidcdly It 
change 1m" the 1Dm'sc: six of thenl being do,,'ul'ight crrors. 
The transposition in the opening sentence i
to say the least. (The English language ,,,ill not hear Ruch 
handling. Litcrally, no doubt, the ,\Tords lHean, "said retl'l', 
antI they that "
ere \yith hÏ1n." But you lnay not &u tFa li8- 
lotc.)-The omission of the six interesting ,,'or<ls, in<licatcll 
,,'ithill square brackets, is a serious blunder. l The ".01'<1s are 

1 The clau
c (' amI I"ayest thou, ,rho touelu.(1 me?') i:-. \\.itll(,s
('ll to 
hy A C ]) P It X r 
 ..\ :=: II aUll el.'ery ufher l.:UU/i'Ji uucial Ln" lit three of 




[llEI'L Y TO 

undoubtedly genuine, I ,vonder ho,v you can havc vcntured 
thus to Inutilate thc Book of Life. .A.nd ,vhy did you 
not, out of COlnn1on decency and reyerence, at least in the 
nUl'rgin, preserve a record of the striking clause \\Thich 
you thus, - ,vith ,yell-meant assiduity, but certainly ,vith 
deplorable rashness, - forcil)ly ejected from the text? 
To proceed ho\veyer.-' l\Iultitulles,' -' but,' -' onc,' -' did,'- 
'pu\ycr,'-' forth,'-' fron1 :'-are all seven (?itl1er needless 
changes, or ÍInpropcr, or undesiraùle, 'Did touclz,'-' per- 
CCi1Xd,'-' had gone fOí"th,'-are unidiomatic and incorrect 
expressions. I have already explained this else 'v here. 1 The 
aorist (-fJ'ÝaTo) has here a perfect signification, as in countless 
other l)laces :-l"lvwv, (like' ?lori,') is frcqucntly (as herc) to 
be }:nglished hy the present (' I pcrccil.c'): and 'is gone out 
of 1ne' is the nearest rendering of ÈgeÀBovuav 2 à7r) ÈJ.LOV 

bad characte'ì': by eve1'y 7
1wwn cursive but four :-by the Old Latin and 
Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the lEthiol)ic Yersions; 
as well as hy ps.-Tatian (Evan. Concord. p. 77) and ChrY80
t()m (vii. 
5Ð a). It cannot be l)retended that the words are derived fronl S. :Thiark's 
Gospül (as Tischendorf coarsely imagined) ;-for the sufficient reason that 
the w()rds are 'not found there. In S. l\fark (v. 31) it is,-Kuì À;YH
, T[
p.ov qtaro; in S. Luke (viii. 45), Kaì Àf'YH
, Tí
 Ó á"'áp.fVÓ
 p.ov. :Thlore- 
oycr, thi
 delicate distinction has been maintained all down the age:;. 
1 Page 154 to p. 164. 
2 You will perhaps ren1Ïncl 111e that you do not read l
EÀOov(]'av. I am 
aware that you have tacitly sub:;tituted lEfÀ1JÀvOvLav,-which is only 
8upported by fonr manuscripts of bad character: being disallowed by 
eiglztr!cn 'Uncials, (with A C D at their head,) and every known ("ltrsil'c hut 
one; beside
 the following Fathers :--:Thlarcion 1 (A,D. 150)
author of the Dialo[Jus s (A,D. 32f.),-Epiphanius/-Didymus,5 in two 
places,-Ba:;i1,6-Chrysostom,7-Cyri1 8 in two places,-ps.-Athanasius 9 
(.A.D. 400),-p
.-Chrysostom 10 . .. Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text 
should be put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are 
avowedly (for see page 3Gf)) unskilled in Textual Criticis111, and who 
were appniutccl only to revisc the authorized l

n!Jlish rei'sioJl 

1 Epipb. i. 313 <1, 32'; a. 2 iii. -166 e, 3 Orig. i. 853 d. 4 i. 327 b. 5 pp. 124,413. 
6 iii. 8 c. 7 vii. 532 a, 8 Opp. vi, 99 e, :Mai, ii. 2:!(j. 9 ii. 14 c. 10 xiii. 212 e f, 

IIp. EI.J.J('OT1'.] 



,vhich our language \viti bcar.-LastIy, t p1 'eS8' :1nll t rr7lfih,' 
as rClulerillgs of uvvÉxovut and å7roBÀlßoVUl, are inexact an(l 
ullsl'llolarIikc. !vvÉXElV, (literally t to CnC()nlpa
S' or t heHl 
in,') is ]le1'(' to t throng' ur t cfo\vd:' lÌ7roBÀ{ßElv, (Iiterally 
t to 
qnl'eze,') is here to 'press.' TIut in fact tIle \\yords \yen" 
perfectly "Pen rendered hy our Translators of IGll, mHl 
ought t() have Leen let alone.- This speciInen nlay suOìce, 
(an(1 it is a very fair sIJècinlen,) of ,yhat has been your 
cala1nitous 111etho(1 of reyising the 
\. V. throughout. 
So 1nuch then for the He vised English. The fate of the 
Itevised Grrcc7
 is even more extraordinary. I proceed to 
plaill myself by instancing \yhat has happened in respect 

(b) þtext, -In Ircspect of the J\Tc'w Grcek Tcxt. 
On exan1Ïning the 836 1 Greek Textual corrections ,vhich 
you have introduced into those 1151 verses, I find that at least 
:156 uf thenl do not affect the English rClulc1'ing at all. I 111ean 
to say that those 356 (supposed) emendations are either 
incapablc of being represented in a Translation, or at least 
are not represented. Thus, in S. Luke iv. 3, ,vhether El7rE 
ôÉ or Kaì Ei7rEV is read :-in ver. 7, ,vhether È}LOU or }Lov :-ill 
vcr. 8, \vhether I(vplov TÒV 8EÓV UOV 7rpOUKVV1]UElS, or llpou- 
, K ' L\ 1 tl " 
, , " 
KUV1}UElÇ; . TOV 0. uov; \Y le leI' 'Y}ryaryE DE or Kat, 17'YwYEV; 
\vhether véóç; or ó víóç; :-in ver. 17, \yhethcr TOU 7rpOcþl}TOV 
CHua{ov or cH. TOU 7rpOcþl}TOV; ,yhether lÌvo{çaç; or åVa7rTÚEaç;: 
-in vcr. 18, \vhether Eva'YryEÀ{uauOal or Eva'Y'YEÀí
EuBal :-iu 
vcr. 20, \vhether 0;' òcþBaÀ}Lo'ì Èv Tf} uvvarywryf} or Èv TV uvvarywryfi 
0; òcþBaÀ}Lo[ :-in ver. 23, ,vhether Elç; T
V or Èv TV :-in ver. 27, 
. 1 tl ' '" ' 1 ,,,,,, ' E '" ' ... cþ , , \ 
\'W le 1e1' EV T
 upa1}'" E7rL ",luuaLOV TOV 7rpO YJTOV or E7rt 
'EÀlUU., TOÛ 7r. Èv TtfJ '1. :-in \
er. 2!), \vhether òcþpúo, or TijÇ; 
òcþpúoç;; ,,,,hether WUTE or El, TÓ :-in vcr. 35, ,yhether lÌ7r' or 

1 This I make the al'ÌII;1I 
1I11), artpr tlC,ludill;.! for JHar
illal Jlott'
variat ions in stops. 

 II 2 

404 A\llUVT 35DO NEß

 :-in vcr. 38, ,vhcther Ù7rÓ ur èIC; ,vhether' 7rev()Epú ur 
'lJ 7rEv()epú: - in ver. 43, whether È7rl or Elç; ,vhether 
, ',\ ' , . 4 t 1 1 ' , 
a7rEUTa/\.7}V or a7rEUTaÀ}Lat :-In Yer. '"i:, 'v let leI' ElÇ Taç 
uvvary(i)ryáç or Èv Taîç uvvaryf1Y'/aîç :-in everyone of the
cases, the EnglÚ
h ?"entains the sauw, \vhichever of the 
alternative readings is adopted. At leaRt 19 therefor
of the :
3 changes ,yhich you introduced into the Greek Text 
of S. Luke iv. are plainly gratuitous. 
ThiTtecn of those 19, (or aLout t\\ro-thirds,) are also in 1ny 
opinion changes f01'" the 1,corse: are nothing else, I mean, but 
substitutions of 'wrong for 'rigId lteadillgs. But that is not 
Iny present contention. The point I alIl just no\\r contend- 
ing for is this :- That, since it certainly ,vas no part of your 
, J nstructions,' 'TIules,' or 'Principles' to Í1u:ent a new Creel..; 
Tcxt,-or indeed to meddle ,vith the original Greek at all, 
exccpt so f(lr as was absolutely nccessary for tlw RC1:ision of tlw 
English Version,-it is surely a very grave fonn of inaccuracy 
to assert (as you no,v do) that you "adhered IIlOst closely to 
your Instructions, and did neither Dlore nor less than you 
,ycre required." -You know that you did a vast deal nlore 
than you had any authority or right to do: a vast deal more 
than you had the shado,v of a pretext for doing. "T orse than 
that. Yon deliberately forsook the province to ,vhich you 
had been exclusively appointed by the Southern Convoca- 
tion,-and you ostentatiously invaded another and a distinct 
province; viz. That of the critical Editorship of the Greek 
Text: for ,vhich, by YOU1'" own confcssion,-(I take leave to 
ren1Ïnd you of your O\Vll honest avo\val, quoted abuve at 
page 369,)-you and your colleagues knc1.v yourselves to be 
incom petent. 

For, "Then those 356 ,,
holly gratuitous and uncalled-for 
changes in the Greek of S. Luke's Gospel come to be 
exan1Ïned in detail, they are found to affect far rnare than 


;J;)() "Torùs. TIy the result, !J2 \Vnrd8 have 1>oen onlÏtted; 
allll :t3 a(lded, 
 0 less than 1
9 \vords have been suùstituted 
foJ' others \vhich stoud in the text before; and there are GG 
instances of Transposition, involving the dislocation of 185 
ords. The changes of case,-' 1nooù, tense, &c., alnount in 
addition to 123. 1 The sum of the "yords \\
hich you have 
n 'dlcsly nleddleù \vith in the Greek Text of the thirù 
Gospel proves therefore to be 562. 

At this rate, - (since, [excluding 1narginal notes ana 
variations in stops,] Scrivener 2 counts 5337 various readings 
in his N otes,)-the nUl11ber of alterations gratuitoflsly and 
'w.;clc:'isly inf1'odnccd by you into the Greck Text of the entÍ1'c 
]{. T., is to be estiInated at 3590. 
And if,-(as seenlS probable,)-thc saIne general proportion 
prevails throughout your entire \vork,--it \vill appear that 
the \vorùs \vhich, \vithout a shado\v of excuse, you have 
onÛttcd froln the Greek Text of the N. T., 111Ust anlount to 
about 390: \vhile you have added in the same gratuitous 
\vay aùout 210; and have needlessly s1lbstituted about 820. 
Your instances of uncalled-for transposition, (about 420 in 
nU1noer,) \vill have involved the gratuitous dislocation of full 
1100 "Words :-\vhile the occasions on \vhich, at the bidding 
of 1 )rs. "r estcott and Hort, you ha ve altered case, lllood, 
tense, &c" nlust amount to about 780. In this \vay, the 
sn III of the changes you ha ye effected in the Greek Text of 
the N. T. in clCct1' defiance of your Insl1'uctions,-\\Toulù 
allloluÜ, as already stated, to 3590. 

N O\V \vhen it is considereù that not one of those 3590 

1 I mean such changes as 
yip(JYJ for fy;,y
pTaL (ix. 7),-fþipETE for flley- 
 (xv. 23), &c. FJ.'hese arc generally the rcsult of a change of con- 
2 )l
. communication frL'll1 my friend, the Editor. 




changes in the latst d r gl'cC affects thc English Revisiult,-it is 
undeniable, not only that you and your friends did ,vhat you 
,vere \vithout authority for doing :-but also that you violated 
as \vell the spirit as the letter of your Instructions. As for 
your present assertion (at p. 32) that you" adhered 1nost 
closely to the Instructions you received, and did ncither rnorc 
nor less than YOlt 
vcrc required to do," -you must submit tù 
lJe relninded that it sa vours strongly of the nature of pure 
faLle, The history of the nc\v Greek Text is briefly this:- 
A luajority of thl; Hevisers-includi1lg yoúrsclf, t7/;Lir C?tair- 
IIUtn,-are fou
Hl to ha\
e put yourselves alUlost unreservedly 
into the hanas of Drs. 'Yestcott and } [urt. The result \\Tas 
oLvious. "Then the n1Ïnority, headed by Dr. Scrivener, 
appealed to the chair, they found thenlselyes confronted by a 
prC'judiced .1\dvocate. They ought to have been listened to 
hy an Ï1npartial Jutlge. You, IllY lord Bishop, are in con- 
se(ptence (T regret to say) responsihle for all the Inischief 
".hieh has occurred. The Llanle of it rests at your door. 

And pray disabuse yourself of the iInagination that 111 
hat prece(les I have Leen :-;trctrhiJlg the nUluLers in order 
to Blake out a case against you. It \vould be easy to 
sho,v that in estÏ1natillg the alllount of ueedless changes at 
3.3() out of 83G, I alll greatly under the Dlark. I have not 
luded such cases, for instance, as your suùstitution of -lj 
J-Lvâ (TOU, KúptE fur KúptE, 'h J-Lvâ (TOU (in xix. 18), and of Tolvuv 
tÌ7rÓÙOTE for 'J.\'7rÓÙOTE TO{VVV (in xx. 2G)1,-only lest you 
should pretend that the trans}!ositioll affects the English, 
and therefore 'l "as necessary. Ilad 1 desired to s\vell the 
lluluùer 1 could have easily sho\\rn that fully half the 

1 [ (ll'sirc to keep out of sight the critÙ'al impl'oJ)i'Ù'ly uf such cOJ'- 
rectiOllH uf the tc
t. Aud yet, it is worth stating tha.t 
 U L are tlw 0111 y 
wil",'sscs di'SCuvu'uble fur tIll' forme/', aHd almm;l tlH
 (Jul!} witnesses to 1JC 
fUllllll fur the latter of these t \\'u utterly ullulCalliug challgcs, 

40 "" , 
TIl'. ELLICOTT.] DIRTIEr: .\nnEU 'rln'


changes you effected in the Greek Text \vere "'holly super- 
fluous .for the l{evision of the English Translation, and there- 
fore \vere entirely \vithout excuse. 

This, in fact,-(give Iue leaye to relnilld you in passing,)- 
is the true reason \vhy, at an early stage of your proceedings, 
you resolved that none of the changes you introùuceù into 
the Greek Text shuuld find a record in your English lllargin. 
IIatI any been recorded, all must have appeared. ..And had 
this been done, you \vould ha ve stood openly convicted of 
ha\'ing utterly disregarded the' Instructions' you had received 
froln Convocation. vVith \vhat face, for example, could you, 
(in the lnargin of S. I..uke xv. 17,) against the \yords "he 
saiù,"-haye printed" Ëcþ7J not el7rE" ? or, (at xxiv. 44:,) against 
the ,yards" unto thorn," -lnust you not haye ùeen ashanled 
to enculllber the alreaùy overcro\vded nlargin 'with such an 
irrelevant statelnent as,-" 7rpÒ
 not aÙTo'i
 " ? 

No,,', if this ".ere all, you Inight reply that by DIY own 
sho\yillg the Textual changes cOlllplaillecl of, if they do 
no good, at least do no harl11. But then, unhappily, you 
and your friends ha\ e not confined yourselyes to colourles
readings, \vhen silently up and do\vn eyery part of the N. T. 
you haye introduced innovations. I open your Now" English 
Version at random (S. John iy. 15), and inyite your atten- 
tion to the first instance \vhich catches IllY eye. 
You have Inade the \V o III an of Salllaria complain of the 
length of the 
valk frolll Sychar to Jacob's \veIl :-" Sir, giye 
1110 this \vater, that I thirst not, ncither come all the 
hither to ùraw"."- \Yhat has hapfencd? For gpxw/-Lat, I 
discoyer that you have silently substituted .llIÉpxw/-Lat. 
(Eyen DtÉpxwfLat IU1S no such 111caning: but let thai pass.) 
'Vhat then ,yns your authority for thrusting DtÉpXW/-Lat (\dlich 
hy the \nty is a patent ahsunlity) into the Text? The \\.onl 


. JOlIN IV. 15. 


is found (I discover) in o,Ûy two Greek JISS. of bad character 1 
), ,vhich, being derived froln a common corrupt original, 
can only reckon for onc: and the rcasoning \\Thich is supposed 
to justify this change is thus supplied by Tischendorf :-" If 
the Evangellst had ,yritten ÉpX-, ,vho ,vaulù ever have 
drealned of turning it into 8L-ÉpXf1Jp,at 1" . . . No one, 
of course, (is the obvious ans,ver,) except the inveterate 
l,lunderer ,vho, SOllle 1700 years ago, seeing MHllEEPXWMAI 
l)cforc hÜn, 'reduplicated the antecedent llE. The sum of the 
l11atter is that! . .. !)ass 1700 years, and the long-since- 
furgotten LluIlllcr is furbished up afresh by Drs. '\Vestcott and 
Jlort,-is urged upun the wondering body uf Revisers as the 
undouLted utterance of THE SPIRIT,-is accepted by yourself; 
-finally, (ill spite of lllany a relnonstrance frUIll Dr. Scriyener 
and his friends,) is thrust upon the acceptance of 90 ulillions 
of English-speaking men throughout the ,vorId, as the long- 
lust-sight-of, but at last happily recovered, utterance of the 
, \V OlllfUl of Saularia!' . . . t'A7rWYC:. 
Ordinary readers, in the llleantÏ111e, ,viII of course assume 
that the change results from the llevisers' skill in translating, 
-the advances ,vhich bave "been lllade in the study of Greek; 
for no trace of the textual vagary before us survi yes in the 

English margin. 

And thus I am reminded of ,vhat I hold to be your gravest 
fault of all. The rule of Committee subject to ,vhich you 
c01nlllcnced operations, - the Rule ,vhich re-assured the 
public and reconciled the Church to the prospect of a Revised 

1 Characteristic of these two false-witne
ses is it, that they are not able 
to convey even this short message correctly. In reporting the two words 
ÊpX6.>p.UI. 'Veá
f, they contrive to make two blunders. B substitutes 
ÒtÉpxop.aI, fur òdpX6.>p.m: 
, &Òf for fvBcíÒf,-which latter eccentricity 
'rischendorf (characteristically) doc:; not allude to in his note . 
 . "These 
be thy gods, 0 Israel! ,: 



. 'L\llK VI. 11. -lOg 

N e\V Testa111cnt, - expn'ssly providccl that, \\'hcncver the 
ullllerlyillg Greek Text \va:::; altered, surh altc,.atio/
 slw1fld be 
indicated in the 'Jna7"!/in. This provision you entirely set at 
defiance frolll the yery first. You have nC1xr indicated in 
the 11largin the alterations you introduced into the Greek 
Text. In fact, you nlade so many changes,-in other \yords, 
you seeln to have so entirely lost sight of your pledge and 
yuur cOlllpact,-that conlpliance \vith this condition \vould 
have LecH siInply Ï1npossible. I see not ho\v your Lody is to 
}Je acquitted of a deliberate breach of faith. 
(c) Fatal COnSCfj1WrUCS oj this nâstaken officiousness. 
IIo\v seriuus, in the 111eantime, the conscquciwes haye been, 
thc!} only know \vho have been at the pains to exalllÍnc your 
\vork \vith close attention. Not only have you, on countless 
occasions, thrust out words, clauses, entire sentences of 
genuine Scripture,-but you have been careful that no trace 
shall suryive of the fatal injury \vhich you have inflicted. I 
\\Tonder you \vere not afraid. Can I be wrong in deenling such 
a proceeding in a high degree sinful? Has not the SPIRIT 
pronounced a trelnendous dooln 1 against those \v ho do such 
things? 'Vere you not afraid, for instance, to leave out 
(from S. :\fark vi. 11) those solenln \vords of our SAVIOUR,- 
" "\r erily I say unto you, It shall be Inore tolerable for 80donl 
and GOlllorrha in the day of judgluent, than for that city" ? 

urely you \vill not pretend tD tell me that those fifteen 
precious \vords, \vitnesseù to as they are by all tlw known 
copies but ninc,-by the Old Latin, the I)cschito and the 
rhiloxenian Syriac, the Coptic, the Gothic and the .IEthiupic 
V crsions,-besides lrenæus 2 and 'Yictor 3 of ....\.ntioch :-you 
\\illnut venture to say (will you ?) that \"ortIs so attesteù are 

1 Rev. xxii. 19. 
2 i\". 
8, c. 1 (p. G33 = 
Gfi). Note that the reference is 'not 
to ::;. ::\Iatt, x. 1.). 8 P. 123. 



[REI'" Y TO 

so evidently a "plain and clear error," as nut to deserve even 
a nlarginal note to attest to posterity 'that such things 
,vere'! I say nothing of the ,vitness of the Tjturgical usage 
of the Eastern Church,-,vhich appointed these verses to be 
read on S. 1\lark's Day: 1 nor of Theophylact,2 nor of 
:EnthYlllÏuS. 3 I appeal to the eonscntient tcstÙnony of Cf(ttholic 
nntiqnity. Find me older ,vitnesses, if you can, than the 
':Ehlers ' ,vith 'Vh01Il Irenæus held converSC,-nlen ,vho lllust 
have Lccn contenlpol'aries uf S. J uhn the Divinc: or' again, 
than the uld Latin, the Pcschitu, anù the Coptic Versiolls. 
Then, fur the 1\158.,- ITave you studied S. l\fark's Text to so 
little purposc as not to lun e discovcred that the six uncials 
Ull ,,'hich you rely are tho depositories of an abon1ÏnaLly 
corrupt Reccnsion of tho second Gospel? 

TIut you conlnlittcd a yet Inore deplorable error ,vhen,- 
,vithout leaving lJchinù eithcr note or conlnlent of any sort, 
-you ol)literatcd froIll 
. :i\latth. v. 44, the solemn ,yords 
,vhich 1 pruceed to underlinc :-" Eless them that curse ymt, 
do !Joud to thc/liJ that lude yon, and pray for them ,yhich dc
fully use you u1ul persecute you." You relied ahnost exclu- 
siyely on those t"TO false ,vitnesses, of ,\-hich you are so 
superstitiously fond, n and 
 : regarùless of the testiInony of 
ahuost all the other COPIES hesides :-ùf ahnost all the 
s : - and uf a host of prin1Ïtive FATHERS: for the 
l11issillg clauses are more or less recognized by Justin l\fart. 
(.\.D. 140),-by Theophilus ..L1nt. (A,D. I(8),-Ly ....\thenagoras 
(A.D. 177),-hy Clelllens .1\le \:al1. (A,D. 192),-by Origen 
C\..D. 210),- hy the ....\postolic Constt. (IIII'd cent.),-hy 
EuseLius,-l)y Gregory Nyss.,-Ly Chrysostonl,-Ly Isidurus, 
-by Kilus,-by CYl'il,-by Thcodoret, and certain uthers, 
esides, of the Latins, hy Tertullian, - by Lucifer, - by 

1 Viz. vi. 7-1a. 

2 i. lÐÐ and 200. 

J In luc. 

rnIrTunE. 411 

e, - by IIilary, - hy Pacian,-by Augustine, - by 
Cassian, and 1nany more . . . . Verily, Iny lord Bishop, your 
notion of \vhat constitutes" clca'fly p'fcpondcrating Evidenec " 
l11ust be freely adnlÏtteù to be at once original anù ljcculiar. 
1 \"ill but respectfully ùeclare that if it be indeed one of " the 
nOl" estavlished J>rinc-iplcs of Tc.rt'llal (/rit-icisJl
" that a l)ishop 
is at lihcrty to blot out fron1 the Gospel such precepts of 
the Incarnate "r ann, as these: tu reject, on the plea that they 
arc' plain and clear errors,' sayings attested hy t\velvc prinli- 
ti\ e Fathers,-half of \vhum lived and died hefure uur t\\"o 
oldest nUllluscripts (u 3,11(1 
) canle into being :-If all this 1,e 
so inùccd, perluit l11e to declare that I \vould not exchange 
MY "innocent ignoranec" I of those' Principles' for ïOUHg"ilty 
kno'u:l{'d!Jc of thenl,-no, not for anything in the \yiùe \vorILl 
\rhich yonder sun shines dO\V11 upon. 

..As if \vhat goes hefore had not been inj ury enough, you 
are found tu have aùoptetI the extraordinary practicc uf en- 
eUlllbering your 1nargin \vith douLts as to the T
,,'hidl after due deliheration you hacl, as a hutly, retained. 
Strange perversity ! You could not find ruuln to retain a 
l'ccorll in your lnargin of the III any genuine \yords of onr 
JJi,'inc LORD,-His Evangelists and ...:\pustles,-tu \\ hieh 
C()pics, \'" ersions, }'athers lend the fullest attestation; but 
you cuuld fÌ1H 1 1'00111 fur an insinuation that His 'Agony and 
hlou(ly s\\Teat,'-together "rith IIis ' l)rayer on behalf of l-lis 
l11unlerers,'- nul !l after all prove to l)e nothing else but 
Hpuriuus accretiuns to the Text. ..A.utI yet, the pretence for 
su regar(IÏ1lg either S, Luke xxii. 43, 44, or xxiii. 34, is CUll- 
fesse(l1y foundc(l on a InillillHllll uf aocllIuentary eyi(lcllce: 
whilc, as has Leen already sho\\'ll else\vhere,2 fin over\yhehu- 
illg aUloullt of ancient testÏ1nony renùers it certain that nut a 

l:C aùoyc, Pl'. 3-:17 -U. 

2 S(:c aùove, lip. 79-85, 


[HEI'}, Y TO 

particle of (Ionbt attaches to tho Diyino record of either of 
those stupendous incidents . . . . Hoon1 could not be founa, 
it seems, for a hint in the Inargin that such ghastly ,vounds 
as those above specified had been inflicted on S. :l\lark vi. 11 
and s. 
Iatth. v. 44; 1 but t
vcnt!J-t1L'0 lines could be spared 
against ROllI. ix. 5 for the free ventilation of the vile 
Socinian gloss \vith \vhich unbelievers in every age have 
sought to evacuate one of the grandest assertions of our 
fay I be pel'lllitted, ,vithout offence, 
to avo\v Inyself utterly astonished? 

Even this ho,,?ever is not all. The 7th of the Rules under 
".hich you undertook the ,york of l{evision, ,vas, that 'the 
][cadin!Js of Chaptcrs should be 1Yl'ised.' This I
ule yuu have 
not only failed to COlllply \vith; but you have actually 
deprived us of those headings entirely. You have thel'elJY 
done us a grievous \vrung. \Ve clelnallù to have the headings 
of our chapters back. 
\....un haye further, \vithout ,varrant of any sort, deprived 
us of our J.l[aT'ginalllcferenccs. These ,ve cannot afford to be 
"Tithout. \\.,. e clainl that they also lllay be restored. The 
very hest Comlnentary on 1Ioly Scripture are they, \yith 
\vhich I am acquainted. They call for learned and judicious 
]:evision, certainly; and they Inight Le profitably enlarged. 
nut they l11ay never Le taken 
AntI no'v, Iny lurd Bishop, if I have not succeeded in 
convincing yon that the l:evisers not only" excecdul their In- 
strnctions in the course "Thich they adopted ,vith regard to 
the Greek Text," but even acted in open defiance of their 
Instructions; did both a vast deal ?nore than they ,vere 
authorizeù to do, and also a vast deal less j-it has certainly 
been no fault of Inine. As for your original contention 2 that 

I 8ee'above: P\), JOa-.t-l1. 

:l Sce ahoye: p. :





" nvth i/l.!] ('an be 1nore 'ltnjust" than TIlE CIL\UGE brought 
against t11C l{cyisers of having exceeded their T nstl'uctions, 
-I venture tn ask, on the contrary, \vhether anything can 
hc nlore unrcasonable (to giyc it no harsher naIHc) than TIlE 
L\L ? 

[IG] Tlt(' caZa1nity of the ,
T"cw Grcck Text' traced to its 

There is no difficulty in accounting for the Illost sorious 
of the foregoing phenoulena. They are the inevitahle con- 
sequence of your having so far succulnhed at the outsct to 
Drs. 'Vestcott and Hort as to pern1Ït theln to conullunicate 
bit by bit, under pron1ise of secrecy, their O\VI1 outrageous 
evised Text of the N. T. to their colleagues, accolnpanie<l 
hy a printed disquisition in advocacy of their o\vn peculiar 
critical views. One \youlù have expected in the ChairIllan 
of the 11evising body, that the instant he became a\\Tare of 
any such 'l)tanæUt'1
e on tbe part of t\ro of the society, he 
,vould have remonstrated \vith theu1 sOIne\vhat as follo\vs, or 
at least to this effect :- 

"This cannot be permitted, Gentlen1en, on any tenns. 'Y c 
haxe not been appointed to revise the Grcck Text of the :K. T. 
Our one business is to revise the A UlJW7
izcd English Vc}'siu/l, 
--introducing such changes only as are absolutely necessary. 
The Resolutions of Convocation are express on this head: 
and it is IllY duty to see that they are faithfully carried out. 
True, that \ve shall be obliged to avail ourselves of our skill 
in Textual Criticisln-(such as it is)-to correct 'plain Cl71(l 
cZC(o' errors' in the Greek: but there ..., e shaH be oLlige(l to 
stop. I stand l)ledged to Conyocation on thi
 point by IllY 
o\vn recent utrorances. That t\\TO of our Inelubers shoultl l)c 
solicitous (by a side-,vind) to obtain for their o\vn singular 
J:cYi:-5ion of the Greek Text the sanction of our united Lody, 




-is intelligible enough: but I should consider lnyself guilty 
of a breach of Trust \vere I to lend Inyself to the prolnotion 
of their object. Let me hope that I have yoü. all \vith lne 
\vhen I point out that on every occasion \vhen Dr, Scrivener, 
on the one hand, (\vho in nlatters of Textual Criticisln is 
facile p'rincc1Js among us,) and Drs, \Vestcutt and IIort on the 
other, prove to l)e irreconcileahly opposed in their vie\vs,- 
tl"e1'e the lleceived Greek Text must by all means be let 
alone. \Ve have agreed, you \vill relllelnber, to 'make thc 
C'll1"1'Cnt Tcxt'lls Rccept'u::; the stu/JlIlll1'll; dcpro,ting fl'01n it only 
'l"hcn critical 01' g1Yl1nlnatical considcrations show that it is 
clc({'rly nccessal'Y.' 1 It \vonlù be unreasonable, in my judg- 
lncnt, that anything in the lleceivetl Text should be claÎIned to 
be · a clear antI plain error,' on \yhich those \vho represent the 
o antagonistic schools of Criticisln find thenlselves utterly 
unable to COlne to any accord. In the nlean tillle, Drs, \Yest- 
cott and Hort are earnestly recollunellùcd to sulnnit to public 
inspection that Text \vhich they have been for t\venty years 
elaborating, and \vhich for 80Ine till1e past has been ill print. 
Their labours cannot be too freely ventilated, too searchingly 
exalllined, too generally kno\vn: but I strongly deprecate 
their furtive production herc, All too eager adyocacy of the 
novel Theory of the t\VO accoll1plished 1)rofessors, I shall 
think it nlY duty to discourage, and if need be to repress. A 
printed vohune, enforced by the suasive rhetoric of its t100 
proùucers, gives to one side an unfair advantage. TIut indeed 
I nlust end as I began, by respectfully inviting Drs. ,yo estcott 
and Hort to renlenlber that ,ve meet here, not in order to 
fabl>icate a ?lCU' Gl'cck Tcxt, hut in order to revise our' A'lltlwr- 
izcd E/l[Jlish VC1'sion,'" . . . . Such, in substance, is the kind 
of Allocution \vhich it \vas to have been expected that the 
Episcopal Chainnan of a Reyising body \vould address to 

] TIp. EJIicott 0'/7 llevision, p. :30. 



his fello,\y-lahourers the first tÏ1ne he s
nv thmn enter the 
tT eru
aleln chrtIuher furnished with the 
hcets of "r cstcott 
anll 11urt's N. T.; especially if he ,vas awale that thosp 
el's had been indivi<lually talkell over by the EllitOl'S of 
the ,york in question, (themselves Hevisionists); and per- 
ceiyed that the result of the deliberations of the entire body 
".as in consequence, in a fair ,yay of becon1ing a foregonc 
conclusion, - unless indeed, by earnest renlonstrancc, he 
n1Ïght be yet in tÏIne to stave off the threatened danger. 

But instead of saying anything of this kind, illY lord 
Bishop, it is clear frolli your palnphlet that you Blade the 
Theory of l)rs."r estcott and 110rt YOU?' O'lV1l Theory; and their 
Text, by necessary consequence, in the l11aill YO'llr 01C/
You lost sight of all the pledges you had given in Conyoca- 
tion. You suddenly heran1e a partizan. Ha ving secured the 
precious auvocacy of Dp. 'Vilberforce,-wl1ose sentÏInents on 
the subject you hall before adopteù,-you at once thre\\y hÜn 
and theln overboard,1 . . . . I can scarcely iIuagille, in a goull 
lllall like yourself, conduct Inore rec1dess,-n10re disap}!uillt- 
illg,-nlore unintelligilJle. But I must hasten on. 

[17] Ep. Ellicott's dcfcnce of the' lVC1IJ Crceli- Text,' in siL/'teen 
pa1,tícula?'s, c.Jxl1nincd. 
It follo,vs to consider the strangest feature of your 
paInphlet: viz. those t,vo-alld-thirty pages (p. 43 to p. 75) in 
,\'hich, ùesccnllillg fronl generals, you yellture to dispute in 
sixteen particulars the sentence passed upon your lie,,? Greek 
Text by the Quartcrly Rcvic11'. I call this part of your 
pamphlet "strange," because it displays such singular in- 
aptitude to appreciate the force of Eyidence, Hut in fact, 
.cnia 'Ccl"bo) your entire lllethod is l1 uite un"ol'thy of yon. 
\Vhereas I appeal throughout to A'lCic/
t Tcstinwny, you seek 

1 The Bp. attended on7y One meetiug of the l:evj::;er
. (X('wtlt, 1'. 1


to put 111e dO'Yll by flaunting in IllY face lJ[odel'n Opi/
This, ,vith a great deal of Reiteration, proves to be literally 
the SUIn of your contention. Thus, concerning S. l\fatth. i. 25, 
the Quarterly Reviewer pointed out (811ptà pp. 123-4) that 
the testimony of B 
, together ,vith that of the Vlth-century 
fragnlcnt z, and t,yO cursive copies of bad character,-cannot 
possibly stand against the testimony of ALL OTHEH copies. 
You plead in reply that on "those two oldest Inanuscripts 
the vast ?najority of Critics set a high valuc." Very likely: but 
for all that, you are I suppose a\vare that B and 
 are t\VO of 
the nlust corrupt doclunents in existence 1 . And, inasnHlch 
as they are confesseùly derived frolll 011e and the saIne 
dCl'rayed original, you ,vill I presullle allo"r that thcy lnay 
not be adlluced as tw'O independent authorities 1 At all evcnts, 
,vhen I further show. you that ahllost all the Versions, and 
literally erery one of the Fathers ,vho quote the place, (they 
are eighteen in nunlùer,) are against you,-ho,v can you pos- 
sibly think there is any force or relevancy ,y"hatever in your 
self-complacent announcement,-" 'Ve cannot hesitate to 
express 0'/.0. ag1'eenwnt with TisclwnrlO1f and Tl.egellcs ,vho see 
in these ,vords an interpolation derived from S. Luke. The 
same appears to have been the j'll,dgllwnt of Lachmann." Do 
you desire that that should pass for argu1nent 1 

To prolong a discussion of this nature \vith you, ,ycre 
plainly futile. Instead of repeating ,vhat J havc alrcady 
delivered-briefly indeed, yet sufficiently in detail,-I "ill 
content nlyself "ith hU1111Jly llnitating ,yhat, if I remelnber 
rightly, ,vas N elsun's l)lan ,vhen he fought thc battlû of the 
Nile. He brought his frigates, one by one, alongside those 
of the enenly;-lashed hinlself to the foe ;-and poured in 
his broadsides. "\Ve re111ClnLer "ith "hat result. The six- 
teen instances ,vhich you have yourself selected, shall no,v 
be indicated, First, on every occa8ion, reference shall be 

\J\rPHT.ET. 4-] 7 

111:1(lp, to the place in tI}(. prescnt ,,"oluIne \vhere nl
r lnvn Cri- 
tirislu on your Oreck Text is to he fOUIHI in detail. [
of your l'ill11phlet are illvite(lnext to refer to your O\Y11 seve- 
ral atternpts at refutation, \yhich shall also ],e indicate<l hy a 
reference to your p:1ges. r anl (iuite contented to ahi(le hy 
the vcr(licL of any unprejudiced person of avcrage under- 
standing and fair education :- . 

(1) ]/010' 1"ords omittl'd in S, ::\Iatth. i. 2j,-conlplained of, 
:1 ÙOVC, pp. 122-4.- ì?" on defend the on1Ïssioll in your pa111- 
pillet at pagcs 43-4,-fal1ing hack on TischC1Hlorf, Tregelles 
and Laclullaun, as eXplained on the oppusite page. (p. -!1 G.) 

(2) The o,nission of s. ::\iatth. xvii. 
l,-proYed to he in- 
defensilJle, above, pp. Ðl-2,-The on1Ïssinll is tlefende<l hy 
you at pp. 44:-5,-on the grountl, that although Laclllnaull 
retains the verse, and Tregel1cs only placcs it in 1 )rackets, 
(Ti:-;chendorf alone of the three un1Ïtting it elltirely,)-" it 
Jnw)t he ren1C1nhered that here Laclnuanll and Tregelles ,\yere 
not acquainted ,\'ith N." 

(3) l'llC OJízission of s. l\Iatth. xviii, 1] ,-sho\\'u to he 
ullrc:1sonahlc, ahoye, p, Ð2,-1 T on defend the on1Íssiou ill your 
pp. 4;j-7,-reluarkiug that" 11e1'0 there is even less rOOIn for 
(loubt than in the preceding cases. The three critical editor$ 
fire all agreet1 in rejecting this verse." 

(4) The S71b.
titlltioil of 1j7rÓpEt for J7roiEt, in S. 
[ark yi. 20, 
-strongly cOlllplained of, aho\'e, pp. Gô-D.-lour defence is 
at pp, 47-8. l
()u urge that" in this case again the ne, is(,l'f; 
have Tisdlenllorf only on their f;ide, and not LaeJuuauJI nor 
Tre'felles: but it Blust 1 Ie rCTllC11l1 )crell that these critic::; had 
not the reading (If N hefore t hmn." 

(;)) TILe thrustiJl!/ (
f 7rúÀtv (after tÌ7rOUTEÀEî) into S. ::\lark 

i. 3,-- ohjecte(l against, alulvt\ Pl'. .>1;-8.- -ìFou (l('felHl your- 




[fiEl'LY TO 

solf at pre 48-9,-an.1 "cannot (1ouht that the lleyisers ,vere 
perfectly justified" in doing "as Tischendorf and Tregelles 
had done hefè)}'o thelu,"-vi7.. in1.'rntin!l a ne\v Gospel incident. 

(G) l'hl' 'Jncss .lJon have 'Jlutflc of S. ::\lark xi, R,--exposed by 
the Quarterly Rcvie\ver, above, pp. 5G-()1,-you defend at 
pp. 49-52. You have" preferred to read ".ith Tischendorf and 
Tregelles," Ahout, 

(7) S. l\fark xvi, 9-20,-and (8) 8. Luke ii. 14,-1 shall 
have a fe,y serious ,vords to say inl111elliately. About, 

(9) the 20 ce f rtainl.7J genuine ".ords you have on1Ïtted froIll 
S. Luke ix. 55, 56,-1 promise to give you at no distant date 
an elaborate lecture. "Are ,,'e to understand" (you ask) 
"that the I
evie'rer honestly believes the added ,,"ords to 
have formed part of the Sacred Autograph 1" (' The O?nittCfl 
,vonls,' you mean.) To be sure you are 1-1 ans,yer. 

(10) Tlw rrlllazing bhtndcr endorsed by the Revisers in 
R. Luke x. 15; '" hich I have exposed above, at pp. 54-0.- 
You defend the blunder (as usual) at pp. 55-6, rClllarking 
that the Revisers, "'with Lacl
ann, Tisclzc'l1dOJ1, and TJ'c- 
flcllcs, adopt tho interrogative form." (ThiR seeIns to be a part 
of your style.) 

(11) The dcp},ltvcd cxlâbÜion of thc LORD'S pfr((yC'J
 (8. Luke 
xi. 2-4) ,vhich I have COllUllCllted on above, at pp. 34-6,- 
you applaud (as usual) at pp. 56-8 of your panlphlet, ",yith 
Tischendorf and Tregelles." 

) The OlllÙ,ðion of 7 inlportant ,yords in S. Luke XXlll. 
38, I have comnlented on, above, at pp. 85-8.- You defend 
the omission, and "the texts of Tischolldorf and Tregelles," 
at pp. 58-9. 

BI', "EU,WOTT,] 

 In'. ETII.ICOTT':, PA:\lrnLET. 


(1 ;
) Th(' gr().
." foll)'; 'alion in S. Luke xxi ii. 4';, L hav(' 
ed, aboyc, at 1>p. Gl-5.-ì T ou clefelHl it, at 1>p. f')!) -61. 

(14-) ..il plain ()}}lis..::ion in S. John xi\
. -1, I hnxe pointcù 
nut, aho\Te, at pr. 72-:3.- Y on r1cfentl it, at pp. () 1-2 of your 

(lG) 'Titus Ju,stns,' thrust hy the Revisors into .Act
7, 1 haxo ShO"
1l to Lc an Ünaginary personage, ahove, fit 
pp. ;)3-4.- Y.ou stand up for the illtelc:->ting stranger at pp. 
()2-4 of your palnphlet. Lastly, 

(If)) }\fy discussion of 1 TÜn. iii. lô (sllJ11'à pp. !JR-IO(}),- 
you contend against froln p. f)J to p. 76.- The trur reac1ing of 
thiR inlportallt place, (\\
hich is not Y(),1I1
 reading,) you ,,
find fully discussed froJn p. -!2-! to p, 501. 

I have already stated \\phy I (lisnlÏss thÙ'lc('/L out of your 
sixteen instances in this sUl1nnary )llfinner. The rellutÏlling 
three I have reserved for further discussioll for a reason I 
proceed to explain. 

[18] Ep. Ellicott's claÍ1n t1Lat the RcvÙ;crs 'lfCre !Juidôl b!l 'tll(' 
rOJlscuti(ut trstÍ1nony of the 1nost ancicnt .L{ulhoritÙ's,' -dÚ- 
]11'o1:cd b!J an appeal to thci7' handling of S. Luke ii. 14 ( /l(l 
nf 8. l\Iark xvi. !J-20. The self-scone claÙn,-(uu'i' cl!J, oj 
uùÙlinf/ ù!J the vcrdict of Catlwlic Antiquily,)-l:indicut d, 
on the co,dJ'ary, fo1' tlw ' QU((J.tcrl!J llccielccl'.' 
You labour hard throughout your paluphlet to nlake it 
appear that the point at ,,11ich our Hwtho(ls, (yours and luinc,) 
rcspectiyely diyerge,-is, that J insist on Hwking IllY appeal 
to the 'Te.:dus R,'ccptus,.' ynu, to Ancic,d 11utllo,'ity. l
happily, Iny 101'(1 Jjishop, this is a l)oillt \yhich adulÏts of 
illg Lrought tu issue hy an appeal to fact. Yon shall first 
2 E 



[1: EI'I.Y TO 

he heal'l1: antI you arc ohscryc(l to express yourself 011 Dehalf 
of thc npyising hody, as folhnvs : 

"It ,vaH Ünpo
sible to n1Ïstake tho cUIl\Fiction upon ,,,hich itH 
rrext1.lal aeclHinIlH ,vero h::tHf'll. 
" I t was a conyiction that (1) rrllE THUE TEXT 'VAS 
Ol' TO BE 
SOUGHT IN THE rrEXTUS RECEPTCS; or (2) III the Inl1k of t11f' 
(1ursive 1\lanll
; or un In tJu' 1-ncialH (,,-ilh or 'witIHmf. 
tho support of the GOllcx Alr,ralldrinu,f;;) cr (4) In t])O :FatherH 
\vho liYOll after ChrJslI
t()]ll; or (5) In CIll'Jso
tOJn hÌlllself and 
his contclnporaries; nUT (6) Ix TIlE CONSIU
TIlE l\IOsr A
."-(p. 2}).) 

In such terlTIS you YCnturl 1 to contrast our respectivc 
Inethods, 1
 on ,rant thl
 public to he]ieyc that J luake tho 
, Textus I
eceptus' "a 
ta71dwrd ftmJl 'lchirh tlzcl'C ",hall be no 
appcal,"-entertain " the notion that it is littlf else tlUtl/; s((rTi- 
legc to Í1}lpUf//
 thc lnlllitiull nf tllf' last 300 Yl'(l1'S," I-and so 
forth ;-,,'hilc JIOU and your colleagues act upon the conyic- 
tion that tho Truth is rather to Le sought" in thc eonscnlirnt 
to;! i?}lony oj' till' 'Jilost (I ucic III A 1dhoî'ities." I proceed to slio,,,, 
you, hy appealing to an actual instance, that neither of thoso 
statClucnts is correct. 
((l) And first, pern1Ït 1110 to speak for lllyself. Fin<ling 
that you challeuge the I:eceiycd reading of S. LUKE ii. 14-, 
(' !lood 1.cill tow((1'(ls 111C]l ') ;-antl that, (on the authority of 4 
Greck Coùices [
 _\ n D], all Latin dOC1UllOlltS, and the Gothic 
,r ersion,) you contend that' peace ({lIlOllf/ 'JJlcn in 'l,.7L01J1 he 1'S 
1.,.ell pleased' ought to Le rcad, instead ;-1 Iuake Iny appeal 
ulH'osel'ycdly to A
rIT1.2 1 rc({nest the Ancicnts to a(1ju- 
<licato bet,yecu you ana 1ile hy fayouring us '\7ith their 
yenlict. .A.cconlingly, I find as fol]o,ys : 
That, in the lInd century, - the Syriac ,r crsions and 
I rcnæus snppoî't the Recci c('d 1"'e

1 r3ge 1. 

ee ahove, Pl'. 41 to J7. 

Hi'. ELLlcOT'l'.] 

 II 1.1. 


Th:Lt, in the IIII'll centnry,-the (joptic \T el'..,ioll,-( )I'igcn 
in 0 place'), alllI-the 
\.l'()stGlic:LI (Jollstitutions ill 2, do tllA' 
ðlU/W : 
That, in the l Vth century, {tv which ccntlu'y, you are 
invitell to l'elnClllher, cOfliccs B an l 
Aphran.tcs the l\
l'siall,-Titus uf Bustra,-cach ill 
 places :- 
I )ÏllYIIlUS ill 3 :-Grcgury of Nazianzus,-C.rril uf J er.,- 
Epiphallius 2-anc.1 Gregory of Nyssa-4 tÏInes: Ephraelll 

.rr.,-l)hilo L1>. of Carpasus,-Chrysostulll !) tÜucs,-alld an 
unknown .Ântiuchiall conteulpurary uf his :-thesc cle\ren, I 
unce Inure find, are l'ecry one {{!jaÙv.;t !Jon: 
That, ill the \Tth century,-ùesides the .....-\.rnlcnian \T er:5iol1 J 
Cyril of .Alex. ill 14 places :-Thcudoret in 4: :--Theu<lotllS of 
.L \ llcyra. in j:- Pruclus :- Paulus uf EUleHa :-the Eastern 
hislwps of Ephesus cullectiyely, A.D. 4Jl ;-aull nasil of 

eleucia :-tltcse C07ÛCl1ljJOtarÍl's of cud. A 1 tìud are all ci:Jht 
tl!}ai/L8t !JO'll : 
That, ill the \Tlth century,-besiLlcs the Ueorgiall-and 
... }:thiopic ,.. ersions,-COSlllaS, 5 tÍ1nes :-..l11astasius 
anù Eulogius, (contC1npv1'lu'ics of cod. n,) are all t!trce ?vith thc 
TJ'llditioJlltl l'c.l;t: 
That, in tl1e \TIlth anJ. VIIlth ccnturies,-.A.ndreas of 
Crete, 2 :-pope :\Iartiuus at the Lat. Council :-Uu
, l)p. 
of ::\Iailullc ncar Gaza,-allù his pUJ?il J Uhll ] hunascene;- 
together ,,"ith l
J flU:;, abp. uf CUll
tantinuplü :-arc again 
all jicc 'with tlu; Traditional Te.d. 
Tù these ;)3, Blust Lo added 18 úther ancient authorities 
with \\"hich tho readcr has lJeen already lnade aClluaÏ1ltt'd 
(viz. at 1>P, 44-G): all of \d1Ích Lear t!lè selr-
alne e\ illeHcl'. 

Thus I JUt\ c cllUlnerated fifty-t/L"CC ancient Ureek authuri- 
ties,-of \vhich si.r/ten Lelollg tu the lInd, IIII'd, and I V tIt 
centuries: and thirl!J-sfccn tu the \Tth, Vlth, Vllth, and. 
\TI I [tho 


4 ') .J 
... ..J 


\lld. no\\', ,,,hieh of us t\VO is found to have lllade the 
fairer antI the fuller appeal to 'the cOllsentient testil11011Y of 
the Ili0st ancient authorities:' you or I? . . . This first. 

.A.nd next, since the foregoing 53 Ilanles belong to SOIne 
of the lllost fauions personages in Ecclesiastical antiquity: 
arc dotted over every region of ancient Christendolll: in 
l11allY instances are fll/I' 'lnore ancient t1
a1" codices B and 
\vith "yhat show' of reason \vill you pretend that tho cvidenee 
cuncerning S. Luke ii. 14 " clca1'ly ß'1'lpú'lllcJ'(tles" in fa.volli' 
of the reading "yhich you and your frienùs prefer? 

I clain1 at all events to have denlonstrated that both your 
statculcllt:3 are unfounded: viz. (1) That I seck for the truth 
of Scripture in the 'Textus Itcceptus:' and (2) That YUlt 
seek it in 'the conscntient testÏ1nony of the IIlUðt rtncltJLt 
llut1uwitics.'-('Vhy not frankly ayo\\y that you Le1icve the 
Truth uf Scripture is to Le sought for, and found, in "tlte 
cvnscnticnt tc-:;tÍ'lnou!f uf codic
 and n " 1) 

(b) Sin1ilarly, concerning TIlE LAST 12 VEUSES OF S. 
\vhich you hrand \rith suspicion anù separate ofr froln 
the rest of the Go:;pel, in token that, in your opiniun, 
there is " a breach of continuity" (1" 53), (,rhatever that nlay 
]l1ean,) het\veen verses 8 and 9. YU/IT ground for thus 
disallo\ving the last 12 \' erses of the second Gospel, is, that 
B anù N onlÏt thelll :-that a fe\v late 1\188. exhilJit a "Tetched 
altcrnatiyc for theni :-and that Eusehins says they \yere 
often tl,\yay. N O\V, '1ny luethod on the contrary is to refer all 
such qnestions to "the consenticnt testiulO/l!} of the 1ìlO
llJlcicnt autÌloriti{'s." ...\.nd I illyitC you to nute the result of 
such an appeal in the pre:sent instance. The V crses in 
tioH 1 íìud arc recugnized, 



lh'. ELLICOTT,] ..\PPJ.IED TO H. :\1.\ UK XVI. f)-20. 

4 ..)" 

Tn the TIna céntury,-ny the Old I./atin-au(l Syriac 
\r crss .: -hy Papias ;-Justin :\1. ;-Irenæus ;-Tcrtullian. 
III the IIII'd century,-By the Coptic-and the Rahidic 
\T crsions :-by lIippolytus ;-hy \Tincentius at the scycnth 
Council of Carthage ;-by the '
\.cta Pilati;' -and by the 
, A postolical Constitutions' in tw'o places. 
In the J\Tth century,-By Cureton's Syr. and the Gothic 
\r erss . :-hesides the Syriac Tahle of Canons ;-EuseLius;- 
fagnes ;-Aphraates; - ])idYIllUS; - the Syriac 
, Acts of the 
\.p, ;'-Epiphanius ;-Leontius ;-ps,-Ephraell1 ; 
-Amhrose ;-Chrysostolll ;-Jerolne ;-Augustine. 
In the \"th century,-Desides the Arnlenian 'Ters.,-by 
codices A anù C ;-by Leo ;--Nestorius ;-Cyril of .L\..lex- 
anùria;- \tictor of .A.ntioch ;-Patricius ;-:\farius 
In the Vlth and ,rIIth centuries,-Besides cod. D,-the 
Georgian ana L}
thiopic Y- erss. :-hy Hesychius ;-Gregentius ; 
-Prosper; - J ohu, abp. of Thessalonica; - and 
J)ishop of Jerusalelll. . . . (See above. pages 3ß-40.) 

\.nJ no\"" once Il1ore, IllY lord Bishop,-Pray \vhich of us 
is it,-yon or 
-\vho seeks for the truth of Scripture "ill 
the conscntícnt tcstÙnony of the 'inoðt ancient (
lltlwJ'itics "? On 
my siùe there have been adduced in evidence 
i:c \vitnesses of 
the IInd century:-six of the IIIrd:- fifteen of the IY'th: 
-nine of the \Tth :-cight of the VIth anù \TIlth,-( 4-1 in all) : 
\vhile YOll are found to rely on codices ß and 
 (as Lefore), 
supported hy a single oùiter dictull
 of EuseLius. I have 
said nothing as yet ahout tlw 'ielwic body of tlte CVlìics: 
nothing ahout ?lnÍ'versal, inwncnu),ì"ial, Litur!Jical 'llSC. 1)0 you 
seriously Î111agille that the testiulOIl) on your sÜle is 'ùc- 
citlcdly preponderating'? Abovc all, \vilJ you \-ellture 
again to exhihit our respective lllcthoùs as in your p:unphlot 
you have done? I protest solcuully that, in your l'agl)
, I 
l'l)cogllizc neither lliYSèlf nul' yuu, 


424 THE.\T)IE
. 1T.\.Hl\ XVI. H-20. [UEPLY TO 

Pel'lnit Jne to (leclare that I hold your (lisallo,vance of 
S. 11ark xvi. 9-20 to be the grayest and nlost dalnaging of 
all the lllany lllistakes ".hich you and your frien(ls haye 
COlllIllitted. "The textual facts," (say you, spcaking of the 
last 12 'T erses,)-" ha ye becn placed before the rca(ler, 
Lccause Truth itself delnallded it." This (,vith Canon Cook 1) 
1 entirely ùeny. It is hecause " the textual facts haye" KOT 
"been placed before the reaùer," that I alll offended. .As 
usual, you :present your reader::; ,,-ith a one-sided statcluent, 
-a partial, and therefore iuadu1ÏssiLle, exhiLition of the facts, 
-facts ".hich, fully stated and fairly explaincd, ,,'ould, (as you 
cannot fail to Lo [ny-are,) be fatal to your contention. 
nut, I forbear to state so llluch as one of thcIn. The evidence 
has already filled a YOhlllle. 2 -E,ren if I ,,-erc to allo"T that in 
your luarginal note, cc the textual facts hare ùcen [fully and 
fairly] placed ùefore tlte ,'cadcr," -,,,hat possihle pretence do 
you suppose they afford for scyering the last 12 ,r erses fronl 
the rest of S. :\Iark, in token that they fortH 110 part of 
the genuinc Gospel? . . . This, ho".eyer, is only by the ,yay. 
l have proyed to you that it is I-not L/01l-,yho rest IHY 
case on au appeal to C
TIQUITY: and this is the 
only thing I alll concerned just no"T to estaLlish, 

I proceed to contriLute sonlcthing to the Textual Criticislll 
uf a fanlous place in S. raul's first Epistle to TÍ1nothy,-ull 
\r hieh you have challenged ]11e to a trial of strength. 

[lÐ] "l'õfIDID was Inanife.stcn in tbe fiesb" 

In conclusion, you insist on ripping up the discussion 
rOllcerlling 1 TÌ111. iii. If>. I had already deyoted eight pages 

I Pa;;t.'
 17, It( 

t.'t.' a bon>, 1" :
ï, note e). 


 1 TIlIOTIIY III lô 42.) 

to this suhject. 1 You reply in t\\.c]vc. 2 That I Illay not be 
thought \ntuting in courtcsy, the present rejninller shall 
cxteIHI to seventy-six. 1 propose, "ithout repeating Jllyself, 
to fullo\v you over the ground you have re-openeù. TIut it 
\\.ill he conyenient that I should detine at the uutset "hat is 
preuisely the point in dispute bet\veen you and Ille. I preslune 
it to be undeniaùly this :-That ".hereas the Easterns fronl 
tÏ1llC in11l1CIllOrial, (and \\.e ".ith theIn, since Tyndale in 1334 
gave us our English ,.,.. ersion of the 
. T.,) have read the 
place thus :-(1 set the ".ords do\\.n in plain English, Lecause 
the issue adnlÎts of being every bit as clearly exhibited iu 
the vernaclùar, as in Greek: and because I aUl detern1Ïned 
that all ".ho are at the pains to read the prescnt 1 h

shall understand it also :)- 'Yhereas, I say, \\.e have hitherto 
read the place tInIs, 

"GUE_\.T I
 :-GOD \y
\.xc EL

1 ""Vlt insist that this is a "plain aad clent cl'ror." You 
coutend that there is "decidedly prLjJululcral ill!] erÙlc,
ctJ" fur 
reading instead, 

\T IS TilE 
S, "
\S )L\

'Vhich contention of your
 I hold to be de1110nstraLly incur- 
rect, and proceed to prove is a cOlllplete misconception. 

(.LI) P1'clÍìninar!J c.rplanatiuhs and cautions. 
nut English readers \vill require to have it explained tu 
theul at the outset, that ill:.1S111Uch as SEOC (GOD) is illvariaLly 

1 P;l 
l'::; 0
-1 Ol

2 Pa.gt.'S G-l-ÎÎt. 



[HEI'LY '1'0 

\\Titten eo ill llHtlluscripts, the only diffcrence betw'ccn the 
\vorl! ' GOD' and the ,vord ' who' (DC) consists of t\VO hori- 
zOlltal strokes,-one, \\
hich distinguishes e froln 0; and 
another sin1Ïlar stroke (above the letters ec) \vhich indicates 
that a ""ord has been contracted. And further, that it \\-as 
the custoln to trace these t\VO horizon tal lines so \\Tondrous 
faintly that they sometÏInes actually elude observation. 
Throughout cod. A, in fact, the letter e is often scarcely 
distinguishable fronl the letter o. 

It requires also to be eXplained for the benefit of the Sa111C 
English reader,-( and it ,vill do learned readers no ha1'1n to 
be rell1inded,)
that "111ystery" (fLVUT
ptOll) being a neuter 
noun, cannot be follo,,"ed by the lnasculine pronoun (õç),- 
" '[c!ln." Such an expression is abhorrent alike to Granllnar 
and to Logic,-is intolerable, in Greek as in English, By 
consequence, öç (" 'who") is found to have been early ex- 
changed for ö (" wkich "). Froln a copy so depraycd, tho 
Latin \T ersion \vas executed in the second century. Accord- 
ingly, every kno\vn copy or quotation 1 of the Latin exhibits 
" (Iuod." Greek authorities for this reading (õ) are fe\v 
enough. They have been specified already, yiz. at page 100. 
.i\nd \vith this brief statelnent, the reading in question nlight 
have Leen dismisscd, seeing that it has found no patron since 
Griesbach declared against it. It \vas ho\'''e\"er very hotly 
contended for during the last century,-Sir Isaac N c\vton 
and 'Vetstein lleing its I110St strenuous advocates; and it 
\vould be unfair entirely to 10sfJ sight of it nO\\T. 

The t\VO rival readings, ho\veyer, in 1 Tiu1. iii. 16, arc,- 
 JcþavEpwB1] (' GOD 'It'as 11utnifestcd '), Ull the onc haud; 
and TÒ Tij
 EvuEßE{a\ì fLVU'TlíptOV, õ
 (" the mystery of godlincss, 
lC!lO "), un thc other. These are the t,vo readings, I say, 

1 The c
l"l'l'tion::; arc nut worth Iloticing heft.,. 



])etween whose cunflicting claÜlls \ve are to adjudicate. Eor 
I rc(!uest that it lllay he loyally adllLittcù at the outset,- 
(thuugh it has been conveniently oyerlookeù lJY the Critics 
\VhOl11 YOlt follo\v,)-that the expression &
 ÈcþavEpwB7] in 
Patristic quotations, 'llnless it be iln1ìlCdiatcly prcccded by the 
wortl }LU(J"Tl}ptOV, is nothing tu the purpose; at all events, does 
nut prove the thing \vhich you are Lent on proving. English 
reatlers \vill see this at a glance. ....\.n .Anglican ùiville,- 
with reference to 1 TÍIllOthy iii. 16,-lnay surely spcak of our 
S \ VIüUH as One " 'loho \vas manifested in the flesh," -\vithout 
risk of being straight\vay suspected of elllþloying a copy of 
the English \T ersion \vhich exhibits" the 1llyslet"Y oj !Jol.lliness 
'who." "Ex hUjUSlllOdi locis" (as ::\Iatthæi truly rel11ark
"neillo, nisi luente captus, in contextu sacro proùaùit ó
." 1 

\Vhen Epiphanius therefore,-projcssing to trafl.sc}'ibe 2 froln 
all earlier treatise of his 0\V1l 3 \vhere ÈcþavEpwB7] stands 
'wilhon! II nonânatire,' \vrites (if he really docs \vritc) &
ÈcþavEpwB1],5-\ve arc not at liLcrty to infer therefrolll that 
piphallius is opposed to the reading 8Eó
.-8till le
s is it 
la\\Tful to tInnv the saIne inference froln the Latin 'T ersion of 
a. letter uf Euthcrius [A.D. 4:31] in \\Thich the èxpression ' qui 
Jlhluifcstatlts cst in carne,' G occurs.-Least of itll should wû he 
\ntrranted in citing J erOllle as a \vitness for reading Õ

1 N. T. ed. 2da. It>07, iii. 44
-3. 2 i. HS7 c. 
3 Callell ....lncVì'atus, writtcn in rmnphylia, A.D. 373. The cxtract in 
....1,[0. !hm.. extend::; from p. öS7 to p. SUU (= ...lJlCOl". ii. ö7-7U). 
t ii. 74 h. Note, thi.1t to begin the quotation at the word IcþuvfjJwBT} was 
a frcq nent pra.cticc with the ancicnts, cS}J{'cially WhCll enough had becn 
sa.id alreaùy to make it plain that it was of the ::;O
 thcy wcre speaking, 
or whcn it would havc becn nothing to the purpose to bcgin with 8fÚS-. 
Thus Origcn, iv. 4133 c :-Didymns on 1 John apwl Galla.ud. yi. 301 a: 
, apwl Cyril, yi. loa c :-ps-Chrysost. x. ,();
 c, 7(H c :-and 
the Latin of l'yril y.l 783. 
ù indced ps-El'iphauins, ii. 307 c. 
[, i, ð
H c. Ii ...1plt.l Theodoret, v. 7H'. 




this place, l)ccausc (in his ConUlll'ntary on Isaiah) hc spl'(
of our 
..\ VIOUR as One ,dlO ',vas nlanifested in the Hesh, 
justified in the 

..L\s f( II' reasoning thus concerning Cyril of Alexandria, it is 
dellHJllstraLly inadlllÏssihle: seeing that at the least 011 two 
distinct occasions, this .F'ather exhiLits 8EÒ" ÈcþavfpwB1J. [fun 
not una\\Tare that ill a certain place, apostrophizing the 
1 )oceta.), he says,-" Y e do err, not kllO,villg the Scriptures, 
nul' indeed the !Jreat n
!/stc/'!/ of godliness, that is ClIHI
T, ,rho 
cas 1JUlnifcstcd in tltc jlc."h, jnstificd in thc Spirit," 2 
&c. &c. .And presently, " I consider tltc '1nystcry of gVllli/
tp Le no other thing Lut the \\r ord of GOD the :F.\THEH, \\.ho 
(õç) 1 [iInself 
(;as '}JUlll ifcstcd in the flesh." 3 ]
ut there is 
nothing \\Thatever in this to invalidate the testÏ1nony of those 
other places in \\Thich f')EÓ" actually uccurs. Ii i
 logically in- 
fuhllissible, I IncaH, to set aside the places ,vhere Cyril is found 
actually to wTite 8EÒ" ÈcþavEpWC1J, Lecause in other plal'cs he 
Clllploys 1 Tinl. iii. If) less precisely; leaving it to Le iufl'ITed 
-(,dLich indecll is allundantly plain)-that (--)EÓ" is ahnlYs 
his rClHling, frutH the course uf his argulllellt and frOl11 the 
nature of the lliatter in hand. But to proceed. 

(E) Ep. Ellicott inz:itc I to state the cridc,tce fU)> read i'L!J Õ
in 1 TillI. iii. 1 G. 
[a] 'Thr ðtat
 ()f the C-,;ÙlC1tCC,' as declarcd by lip. Ellicott. 
"rhün ]ast the evillünce fur this q nestioll canlC Lefurc us, 1 
introducell it by inviting a lllelllLer of the Heyit'iug LUlly 
(1 h'. T
oLerts) to be spukeSllHtll on Lehalf uf his Lrethren. 4 
This tillie, I shall call upon a lllore distinguished, a ,\'hu11y 
ullexceptiollaLle ,vitlless, viz. yuursclj,-\\.ho are, of cuurse, 

1 iv. G

 a,-qui appw'uit in r{l'rne, }llstijicatus Ujt in spirillf. 
2 De incal'n. U1tÌ!J. v. part i. GSO de = De 'rectâ fide, 'T. l'art Ïi. L c. 
3 ibid, Gt'l a = ibid, () (I c. 4 Page f)H. 

TIp. ELI.ICO'IT,] EYIlfEXCE ("oXCEHXINO 1 TI:\I. In, 10. l


grcatly in fulyance of your fello,v-I:evisers in reRpect of 
critical attainlllellts. The extent of your indiyidllal falni- 
1 ii.ll'ity with the sul tject "hen (ill 187U n:.unely) you l'l'()po
to rcyise the Greek Text of the N. T. for the Church of 
}:llgl:.lIHl (,n the solrc1'c. aJnullla }llo principle,-lllay I l'resulllc 
 lawfully inferred fro111 the fullowing annotation in your 
"Critical (oal G1'(l1JlJ'lldical CUJJuJll'Ji!aJ'!J on the Fastoral 
l)istlcR." I quote fl'(Hn the last Edition of lRoD; only 
taking the liLerty-(l) To lJreak it up into short l'aragral'hs: 
) To give in c.1.iU1-S0 the proper names ,,"hich you 
ahhreyiate. Thus, instead of "Theod." (\yhich I take lcayc to 
poi nt out to you lllÍght 111ean either Theodore of 1 Ieraclea or 
his nalnesake of l\Iopsuestia,-either Theotlotus the Onostic 
or his nanlesake of Ancyra,) "Euthal.," I "Tite "Theoùoret, 
Enthalius." l\nL1 no\y for the external testilnony, as YON gi YO 
it, cuncerning 1 TiInothy iii. lö. Yon iufonn your readers 

"The state of the evidence is briefly as follows:- 
(1) r'OÇ is read with Al [indisputably; after 111Ïnuto personal 
pection; see note, p. 10!.] c i [Tischendorf Prol. Cod. 
Ephracmi. S 7, p. 39.] F G 
 (see beluw); 17, 73, 181; Syr.- 
I>hiloxenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic; also (öç or ö) Syriac, 
Araùic (Erponins), Æthiopic, .Armcnian; Cyril, Theodorus 
'Iop:.;uest., Epiphanius, Gelasius, Ificl'olJYlllUS in Esaiæm, liii. II. 
(2) ö, wjth n i (Clarornontanus), Yulgate; nearly all Latin 
(3) 8EÓÇ, 'with D 3 K L; nearly all )188.; Arahic (Polyglott), 

laYonic; DiùYU1l1S, Chrysostom (? Eee 'rregelles, p. 227 note), 
'fhcotloret, }
uthalius, Damasc('ne, Thcoph:rlact, CEculnenius,- 
Ignatius Ephcs. 29, (but very doubtfnl). 1\ hand of the 1 
century has pTefixed ()E tn oç, the reading of 
; see Tischendorf 
ulit. 'J}Zrtjm., Plate xvii. of 
criYener's Collation of 
, fac- 
sÏ1nilc (13). 
On retie"ring this eyit1enco, as 110t only tho nlost inlportant 
uncial l\It>S., lnlt all the '
enåolls uhler than the ;tl celltury 
a l"(' di
tiJlet]y in favour of n Î.claiif( ,-a
 <" scellH; {I]l] y a Latin- 

4:30 TII

nor'R ST

i7.ing variation of õç,-and lastly, aH õç is the 11101'0 clifficnl t, 
though roally tho 1110re intolligi1)lo, roading (IIofnw,nn, Sdlrijfb. 
,-r 01. T. p. 143), anù on every reason more likely to have been 
changed into ÐEÓÇ ()lacedonius is actually said to hase 1)oen 
expelled for 111aking the change, Libc'rati Diaconi Brcl'l{l1'iu'in 
cap. lÐ) than vice vC1"sâ, ,ve unhesitatingly decide in fayour of öç." 
-(Pastoral E1JÏstlcs, cd. 1869, pp. 51-2.) 

Such then is your o,,'n statement of the cyidence on this 
suhject. I proceeù to del110nstrate to you that you are 
cOlllpletely luistaken: - Inistaken as to ".hat you say 
about öç, - luistaken as to ö, - lnistaken fiS to E>EÓÇ:- 
n1Ïstaken in respect of Codices,-nlistaken in respect of 
'T crsions,-mistaken in respect of Fathers. Your slipshod, 
inaccurate statelnents, (all obtained at second-hand,) "Till 
occasion nle, I foresee, a vast deal of trouble; hut I filn 
dctenuincd, no,v at last, if the thing be possihle, to set this 
question at rest. And that I may not be lnisunderstood, T 
beg to repeat that all I propose to luyself is to pr01'C- 
beyond the possibility of denial-that the evidence for (-')EÓÇ 
(in 1 TÏ1nothy iii. 16) 'Castly In'cpoJulcratcs 0
'C1' thc crÙlcncc for 
cithc7' õç 07' ö. It ,viII be for you, after,yards, to COlne for,vard 
and prove that, un the contrary, 8EÓÇ is a 'plain and ClCrl1' 
cr1'07' :' so plain and so clear that you and your fellow.- 
TIeviscrs felt yourselves constrained to thrust it out froln tho 
place it has confessedly occupied in the Ne,y Testalnent for 
at least 1530 years. 

You are further reminded, Iny lord Bishop, that unless 
you. do this, you ,yill Le consi(lered by the whole Church to 
have dealt unfaithfully ,vith the "r ord of GOD. For, (as I 
shall ren1ind you in the sequel,) it is yourself w.ho have 
invited and proyoke<l this enquiry. You devote t\yelye pages 
to it (pp. ß4 to 7ß),-" cOlllpelled to do so Ly the I:evie,yer." 
" J\loreover" (you announce) "this case is of great Ï1npor- 
tance as an exalnple. It illustrates in a striking manner the 

Hr. ELJ.lOOTT.] 

Y OF ('( )DEX A, 


C'olnplete isolatioll of tho Revie\yer's position. If ho is right 
all other Critics aro "Tong," &c., &c., &c.-Perlllit Ble to 
relllilH 1 you of the "Tarning-" Let not hiru that ginlcth on 
his harness boast hillumlf a8 he that putteth it 011'," 

[ b] Tcsti'Jnony of thc JLL.VrSCRIPTS conccrning 1 Tinl. iii. lô: 
and first as to the testimony of CODEX A. 
lOu hegin then vtith the J[an'llsc'ript cyidence; and you 
venture to assert that oc is "indisputably" the reading of 
Codex.A. I am at a loss to understand how. a " professl'( 1 
Critic,"-(\yho must be presunled to be acquainted \vith the 
facts of the case, and \vho is a lover of Truth,)-can pern1it 
hinlself to nlake such an asscrtion. Your certainty is based, 
you say, on "minute personal inspection." In other \\yords, 
you are so good as to explain that you oncc tried a coarse 
cxperÜnent, l by \\Thich you succeeùed in convincing yourself 
that the suspected dianleter of the 0 is exactly coincident \\"ith 
the sagitta of an epsilon (e) \vhich happens to stand on thc 
back of the pagc. But do you not see that unless you start 
\\Tith this for your major pren1Ïss,-' Theta cannot exist on 
one side of a page if cpsilo/b stands iIllffiediately behind it on 
the other side,'-your experinlent is nihil arl1'crn, and pro\'"es 
absolutely nothing 1 

lour "inspection" happens how-ever to he i,ulccu ratc be- 
sides. You performed your experÏ1ncl1t unskilfully. _\.. Ulan 
need only hold up the leaf to the light on a vcry brilliant 
day,-as Tregelles, Scrivener, and Inany besideF: (including 
your present correspondent) have dOlle,-to be a\vare that 
the sagitta of the epsilon on fo1. 142b does not cover Dluch 
nlore than a third of the area of the theta on fo1. 145ft. 
Dr. Scriyencr further points out that it cuts the circle too 

1 Xotc at the cud uf Bit-hop Ellicott's Commcntary on 1 Timothy. 


 TIlE HE....\ DINO 


I/lOfl h to haxc heen reasonaLly nlistakell by a careful observer 
for the (lÜullcter of the theta ( e). Thc experiIllcnt ,,-hich you 
describe \\'ith such cirClullstalltial grasity \ras sÏ1nply 
nugatory tllercfore. 
}l(1\v is it, IllY lord ßishop, that you do not perceiye that 
the "'ay to ascertain the reading of (;orlcx A at 1 TiIn. iii, 1 Ö, 
is,-(l) To inycstigate /lot "'hat is found at tlic bac7
 of the leaf, 
but \\'hat is \\Tittell on the front of it? and (2), K ot so llluch 
to enquire \yhat can be deciphered of the original \\Titing hy 
the aid of a po".erful lens liJulO, as to ascertain ,,-hat 'nlS 
apparent to the eye of cOlnpetent ohser,.ers "Then the Codex 
"Tas first hrought into this country, viz. 230 years ago? That 
ratrick Young, the first custodian and collator of the Codex 
[1 G28-1 ()3
], read SC , is certain,- Young COnlTI1Unicateù the 
'various l:eadings' of A to .L'tbp. U ssher :-and the latter, 
priur to IG53, cOlnmunicatecl theTIl to 1Ialnlllund, ,yho clearly 
kne,y llothing of oc.- It is plain that èc ,vas the rca(ling 
seen by IIuish-".hen IH
 sent his collation of the C()(lex 
(nla<1e, according to TIontley, ,,,ith great oxactness,l) to l
"Talton, ".Ito pul)lished the fifth volume of his l>olyglott in 
IG37.-Dp. Pearson, ,,,ho \yas very curious in such Inatter
says" \ye find not Õ
 in {( ny COlJY," -a sufficient proof 110". he 
read the place in IGJ
"cll, \yho published an edition 
of the :N. T. in IG73, certainly considered èc the reading of 
COlt . A.-
Iill, ,,-ho "Tas at "Tork on the Text of the N. T. 
froln IG77 to 1707, expressly decJares that he sa,,," the 
relnains of ec in this place. 2 TIelltley, ".ho had hÍ111solf 

1 Hf'rrill1an'S 
IS. Kote in the British ::\Iuseum copy uf his Diss(rtation, 
-po 1;),-1. Another annotated copy is in the TIodleian. 
2 "Certe quidenl in ex:enlplari Alexalldrino nostro, linea ilIa transversa 
quanl loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud 
(lubitarinl ip
e scriptaln ÖC , quod proinde in variantes lcctiolle
jecermn . . . . Yennn po:-;tea perlustrato attentius loco, linc()læ, quæ l'rimmn 
adem fugcrat, duetus qlH1s(lmn ac vcstigia satis ccrb (h'pn.'hcJHH, pr:p
acl partelll sini:::-tram, Cpl:l' l)eriphcriam litera' rcrtingit," &c.-l/l loco. 

\. 4


(171 G) collatl'<<l thr l\IS. ,vith the utInost accuracy (CC (lCfllra- 
iJJlC ipst' cOntuli "), kne\v nothing of any other reading.- 
]4:nlphatic testilnony on the subject is borne by 'V otton in 
1718 :-" There can he no ùoubt" (he says) "that this 11
always exhibited ëè. Of this, anyone mad C( s-ily con1'ÍnCf 
Ii imsdf 
,'ill be at thc pains to erarnine the place 'with ( tlCll- 
tio1l."I-T,,'o years earlier,-(,,'e have it on the testiIuony of 1\11'. 
.J ohn Creyk, of S. .J ohn's Coll" Canlbri(lge,)-" the old line ill 
the letter e "'as plainly to be 
eell." 2-It was cc nutch aùout 
the sanle til1le," also, (viz. about 1716) that ,\r etsteill 
ackno\yIcdgrd to the nov. John T(ippax,-cc ,,'ho took it dO"'ll 
in "Titing fr01n his o"'n Inouth,- that though the uliddle 
stroke of the e has been evidently retouched, yet tIH
stroke \vhich 'YfiS originally in the body of the e is discover.... 
aLle at each end of the fuller stroke of the corroctor."3- 1 \nd 
HcrriInan hinlsclf, (,vho delivered a course of Lectures on the 
true reaùing of 1 TÜn, iii. 16, in 1737-8,) attests eJnphatically 
that he had seen it also. " If therefore" (he adds) "at any 
tÍ1nc l
e1"c((ftcT' the old line slw'lllcl bcc01ne alto[Jcthe1' 
able, there 'will never be just cause to doubt but that the gcnuin , 
and O1'i[JiJ
al 'rcading of the 111S. VYlS ec : and that the ne,\" 
strokes, added at the top and in the middle by the corrector 
w'cre not designed to corrupt and falsify, but to preserve and 
perpetuate the true reading, 'which was in danger of being 
lost by the decay of Time." 4_ Those nleJl10rable \vord ':) 
(which I respectfully commend to your notice) \,ere "....ritten 
in A.D. 1741. Ho" you (A,D. 1882), after surveying all this 

1 Clel/
. Rom. cd. ,\... otton, p. 27. 2 Herriman, pp. 1'>4-5. 
s Ibid. (.1.118. Note.) ßerriman adds other important testimony, p.1.>6. 
, Dissertation, p. 15ß. Berrimal1 refers to the f..'tct that some one in 
recent time
, with a view apparently to e
tablish the actual reading of the 
place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common black ink, 
and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the e. There has heoh no 
attempt at frawl. Such a line and 
uch a dot could decei,'e no one. 
2 F 

434 IT 18 roo LATE, llY 150 YEARS, TO [REPL1. TO 

accuululated and consistent testinlony (borne A.D. 1628 to A.D. 
1741) by eye-w'itnesses as cOlnpetent to observe a fact of this 
kind as yourself; and fully as deserving of credit, ,,'hen they 
solelnnly declare ,vhat they have seen :-ho,," yon, I say, after 
a survey of this evidence, can gravely sit do\yn and infornl 
the ,vorld that" the1'"e is no sufficient et'idence th(ll there u'as 
Cl'cr a tiouJ 'when this reading 'lcas patent as the 1"eading 'll'hich 
c(one frvll1 thr original scribe" (p. 72) :-this passes nlY conl- 
prehension,-It shall only be added that Bengel, ,vho ,vas a 
very careful enquirer, had already cited the Codex Alex- 
Ltndrinus as a ,,"itness for (-:')EÓÇ in 1734 :1-and that 'V oide, the 
learned aUfl conscientious editor of the Codex, declares that 
so late as 1765 he had seen traces of the e "rl1Ïch t,,'enty 
years later (viz. in 1785) ".erc visil)le to hin1 no 10nger. 2 

That "r etsteill subsequently changed his TIlind, I am not 
uua\\'are. lIe "Tas one of those n1Ïserable lHen ,vhose visual 
organs return a false report to their possessor ,,-heneycr they 
are ShO'\'11 a text "rhich ,vitnesses inconveniently to the GOD- 
head of JESUS CIIRIST. 3 I kno\\. too that Griesbach in 1785 
announced himself of "\"\J"T' etstein's opinion. It is suggestive 

1 "Quanquam Ii neola, quæ 8fÓS- compendiose scriptum ab ós dis- 
tinguitur, sublesta videtur nonnullis."-N. 'r. p. 710. 
2 Griesbach in 1785 nla,kes the 
ame report :-" l\fanibus llOminum 
incpte curiosorunl ea folii pars quæ dictum controversum continet, adeo 
dctrita cst, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere possit . . . 
Non oculos tantum ::;ed digitos etianl adhibui::;sc vidcntur, ut primitivanl 
illius loci lectionem eruerent et veblt exsculperent." (Symb. Crit. i. p. x.) 
The 1\18. was evidently in precisf'ly the same state when the Rev. J. C. 
V elthu
en (Obsorvations on l'arious Subjects, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 
S As C. F. .Thfatthæi [N. T. m. xi. Præfat. pro lii.-iii.] remarks :-" cum 
de Divinitate CHRISTI agitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur." 
'V oide instances it as an example of the force of prejudice, that \\T etstein 
"apparitionmn lineolæ alii causre adscripsissc, quia eam abesse volehat." 
. p. xxxi.] 

 1 O.h' COD, _\. 4:3

how"ever that ten years before, (N.T. eù. 177fi,) he had rested 
the fact not on the testÏ1nony borne by the 
. itself, hnt on 
, the consent of Versions, Copies, and ..F'athers ,,-hich exhilJit the 
.Alexandrian l{ecension.' I-Since Griesbach's tillie, Davidson, 
Tregelles, Tischendorf, 'Vestcott and 1Iort, and Ellicott havo 
announced their opinion that ec "Tas never "Titten at 1 Tiln. 
iii. 16: confessedly only because ec is to theln invisible one 
h lf1Hlrcrl Nears aftrr ec has (lisrtpp('({J'crl from sight. The fact 
l'CInains for all tlud, that the original reading of A is attested 
SO anlply, that no sincere lover of Tl nth can ever hereafter 
pretend to duubt it. " Olnnia testimonia," (my lord IHshop,) 
"omnemque historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere 
non licet; nec nlÏrum est nos ea nunc non discern ere, qUffi, 
antequanl nos Codicenl yidissemlls, evanuerant."2 

The SUIn of the matter, (as I pointed out to you on a 
rorulcr occasion,3) is this.,- That it is too late by 150 years to 
contend on the negative side of this question. Nay, a fanlous 
living Critic (long nlay he live!) assures us that w'"hen his 
eyes "Tere 20 years younger (Feb. 7, 1861) he actually dis- 
cerned, stilllingcrinfl, a faint trace of the dianleter of the e 
".hich BerrÍ1l1an ill 1741 had seen so plainly. "I have 
exan1Ínecl Codex: A at least t" enty tinles "rithin as nlany 
years" (\\Tote Prebendary Scrivener in 1874 4 ), "aud . . . . 
seeing (as everyone lnust) 'with IllY o\vn eyes, I haye ah\'ays 
felt conyinced that it reads ec " . . .. For yon to assert, in 
reply to all this n1a
s of positive evidence, that the reading is 
" indisputably" OC,-ë:tnd to contend that "'hat lllakes this 
indisputable, is the fact that behind part of the th t( (e), [but 
too high to n1Ïslead a skilful observer,] an epsilon stands on 
the reyerse siùe of the page; - strikes IHe as Lorùering 
inconveniently on thl
 ri(liculous. If this be your notion of 

1 'Patct, ut alia mittamus, C con
cnsn YCf:,:ionum,' &c. -Ïi. I.Hr. 
2 \roide, rvit!. S S"prrt, p, 100, .. lufrndncti071, p. .),'):}. 
2 }1" 2 


CUD. .A UEADts (8C. i.e.) 8EOC. 

[llErLY TO 

"That docs constitute "sufficient evidence," ,,"'ell 11lay the 
testinlonyof so lnany testes oculati Seell1 to you to lack suffi- 
ciency. Your notions on these subjects are, I should think, 
peculiar to yourself. Yon even fail to see that your state- 
Inent (in Scrivener's ,yords) is" not relevant to the point at 
iSS1.W." 1 The plain fact concerning cod, A is this:- That at 
1 TÎ1n. iii. 16, t".o delicate horizontal strokes in 8C which 
""ere thoroughly patent in 1628, - ,vhich could be se,en 
plainly do,,'n to 1737,-and w'hich ""ere discernible by an 
expert (Dr. 'V oide) so late as _\.D. 17G5,2 - have for the 
last hundred years entirely disappeared; w'hich is precisely 
\vhat BerrÏInan (in 1741) predicted ,vould be the case. 1\101'e- 
over, he solemnly ,yarned men against dra"9ing fronl this 
circUlllstance the Inistaken inference ,,,hich you, my lord 
Rishop, nevertheless in'sist on dra".ing, and representing as 
an "indisputable" fact. 

I ha ve treated so largely of the reading of the Codex 
Alcxandrinus, not because I consider the tCRtÏ1nony of a 
solitary copy, ,vhether uncial or cursive, a Inatter of luuch 
inlportance,-ccrtainly not tho tc,;tinlony of Codex A, ,vhich 
(in defiance of every other authority extant) exhibits "tlie 
bully oj GOD" in S. John xix. 40 :-but because YO'lt insist 
that A is a ".itnc ss on your side: ,vhercas it is den10nstrable, 
1 III trod. p. 553. 
2 A.ny one desirous ()f understanding this question fully, 
(hesides TIcrrim:tu's adn1Ïraùle Dissertation) read \V oide's Prafatio to 
his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (9 87).-" Erunt fortasse 
quidaul" (he writes in conclusion) "qui suspieaùuntur, nonllullos hane 
lineolalll c1hunetralem in medio 8 vidissc, quoniam e
un viderc volebant. 
Nec negari potC8t præsUlnptarUll1 opinionUlll esse Villi pennagnam. Scd 
idem, etianl \Vetstcnio, nce immerito, ohjici pote8t, emn apl'aritioncm 
liueolæ alii eau
æ ad::;cripsisse, quia. eanl a.ùes8e vuleùa.t. Et eruùitissimis 
placerc aliquando, quæ vitio
a sunt, scio: sed mllnia te:-timollia, 0111- 
nClnque historicalll veritatenl in suspicionern aù.ùucere non Heet: nee 
n1Ïruffi cst nos 03. nunc non ùiscernerc, quæ, antt;quam DOS Codiccm 
8emus, evanuerant." 


 O}1' CODEX U. 


(and I clainl to have deUlonstrated,) that you cannot honestly 
ùo so; anù (1 trust) you ,vill never do so any Inore. 

[c] Te
ti'lnony of CODICE8 
 and c eOlUXrni'ng 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
 reaùs oc is adulitted.-N ot 80 Codex c, ,vhich the 
éxcessive application of chen1Ìcals has rendered no longer 
decipherable in this vlace. Tischendorf (of course) insists, 
that the original reading ,vas oc. 1 'Yetstein and Griesbach 
dust as ,,'e should expect,) avo,v the same opinion,- 'V oide, 

lill, "\,r cber and Parquoi being just as confident that the 
original reading ,vas ec . As in the case of cod. A, it is too 
late by flill100 years to re-open this question. Observable 
it is that the ,yitnesses yield contradictory evidence. "r et- 
stein, 'ITiting 150 years ago, before the origiu'tl \\Titing had 
bccolne so greatly defaced,-( and "r etstein, inasllluch as he 
collated the :\18. for Bentley [1716], 11luSt have been 
thoroughly familiar 'with its cOlltents,)-only 'thought' that 
he read oc; 'because the delicate horizontal stroke w"hich 
luakcs e out of 0,' 'vas to him' -not apparent.'2 "T oide-on the 
contrary ,vas cOllvinced that ec had been ,vritten by the first 
hand: 'for' (said he) 'though there exists 1W 'Ccstige of the 
delicate stroke ,vhich out of Olnakes 8, the stroke w'l'itten abo1:e 
ilu letters is by the first hand.' 'Yhat ho,,'ever to \Vetstein 
and to ,V oide \vas not apparent, \vas visible enough to 
"T cLer, "T etstein's contelnporary. ..\.nd TischenLlorf, so late 
as 1843, expressed his astonishnlent that the stroke in 
question had hitherto escal-'ed the eyes of everyone; l
bUlL 'repeatedly seen by hÙnself3 He attributes it, (just as "We 

1 Prolegomena to hi
 cd. of Cod. c,-pp. 3Ð-42. 
:l "oS' habet codcx c, ut puto; nanl lineola illa tenuis, quæ ex 0 facit 
8, non apparct." (In loc.) And so Gric
bach, Symb. Crit. i. p. viii. 
S "Quoticscunque locunl inspicicba.m (ill
pcxi autcnl pcr hoc bicnnium 
illlC) nlihi pror
us apparchat." "Quam [lincolam] m.iror }PlclH;quC 
ollillium oculo
." [C 1'0/t !j!J. p. 11]. . . . Eq uidcm miror oanc. 




should expect) to a corrector of the 
IS.; partly, because of 
its colour, (' subnigra '); partly, because of its inclining 'llP- 
'wards to the right. And yet, who sees not that an argument 
derived from the colO1lT of a. line ,vhich is already well-nigh 
invisible, must needs be in a high degree precarious 1 while 
Scrivener aptly points out that the cross line in e,-the 
ninth letter further on, (which has neyer been questioned,)- 
also C ascends to,vards the right.' The hostile evidence 
collapses therefore. In the meantime, '\vhat at least is 
certain is, that the subscribed musical notation indicates that 
a thousand years ago, a word of t1.DO syllables ,vas read here. 
FrOIl1 a review of all of w"hich, it is clear that the utmost 
,vhich can be pretended is that some degree of uncertainty 
attaches to tho testimony of cod. c. Yet, 'lDhy such a plea 
should be either set up or allo'wed, I really see not--except 
inùeed by men who haye Iuade up their minds beforehand 
that 00 shall be the reading of 1 Tinl. iii. 16. Let the sign of 
uncertainty ho,,
eYer follo\\r the notation of c for this 
text, if you ,vill. That cOll c is an indubitable ,,?itness for 00, 
1 venture at least to think that no fair person ,,?ill eyer 
any IHore pretend. 

[d] TCÆJtimony of CODICES F and G of S. Paul, c01wc1'ning 
1 Tim. iii. 16. 
The next dispute is about the reading of the t"ro IXth- 
century codices, F and G,-concerning ,vhich I l)ropose to 
trouLle you ,vith a fe\\? "ords in addition to \\?hat has been 
already offered on this subject at pp. 100-1: the rather, 
because you have yourself devoted one entire page of your 
palnphlet to the testimony yielded by these t\\TO codices j and 
because you therein have recourse to ,,?hat (if it proceeded 
from anyone but a TIishop,) I should designate the insolcnt 
method of trying to put llle do,vn by authority,-instead of 
seeking to convince 1110 of Iny error h) producing SOlne good 


D OF CODD. )1' AND G, 


reasons for your opinion. Y Oil scelH to think it enough to 
hurl 'Yetstein, Griesbach, Lachulallll, Tregelles, Tischendorf, 
and (cruellest of all) my friend Scrivener, at D1Y head. I>ermit 
me to point out that this, as an arg1/mcnt, is the feeblest to 
,vhich a Critic can have recourse. He shouts so lustily for 
help only because he is unaLle to take care of hÏ1nself. 

F and G then are confessedly independent copies of one 
r..nd the saIne archetype: and" both F and G" (you say) 
"exhibit OC ." 1 Be it so. The question arises,- 'Vhat does 
the stroke above the oc signify? I venture to believe that 
these tw'o codices represent a copy w'hich originally exhibited 
ec., but from ,vhich the diau1eter of the e had disappeared- 
(as very often is the case in codex A)-through tract of tÏ1ne. 
The effect of this ,volùd be that F and G are in reality 
,vitnesses for 8EÓ
. Not so, you say. That slanting stroke 
represents the aspirate, and proves that these t,vo codices arc 
,vitnesses for Õ
.2 Let us look a little 1110re closely into this 

Here are t,vo documents, of ,vhich it has been said that 
they ",vere separately derived from some early codex, in 
,vhich there ,vas probably no interval bet,veen the 'words."3 
They ,vere not intllwdiatcly derived from such a codex, I 
rClnark: it being quite incredible that tw'o independent 
copyists could have hit on the same extravagantly absurd 
,vay of dividing the uncial letters.' The common archetype 

1 rage 75. 
2 l)ages 6-1, 69, 71, 73.-Some have pointed out that opposite DC in F 
-above DC in G,-is written C quod.' Yes, but not C qui.' The Latin 
version is independent of the Greek. In S. 
I<lrk xi. 8, alxne ArpWN is 
writtcn 'm.boribus j' and in 1 'rim. iv. 10, ArWNIZOMESA is translated 
by F C maledicimul.,'-by G, C exprobramur vel1naledicimur.' 
S Introduction to Cod. Augiensis, p. X
 Tim. ü. 19], they both make 
o ' P.EJI . TO . (,(1 . Tfpal.O
. Fur VytuíVWULJI ['fit. i. 13], buth write VYH . 


J\IEANlsn ()fi' ÖC, ""HUll I

l Ltm 'L Y 1'0 

,vhich Loth lnnploycll Blust have been the \\ ork uf a. late 
'V e
tern scribe eYery bit as licentious and a8 unacquainted 
,,,ith Greek as thelllsel ve
.l Thai archetYI)e ho\\rever lllay 
very \\"ell have been obtained 1'ru111 a prÏ1uitive codex of the 
kind first suppused, in '\Thich the ,vords \\.e1'C \yritten con- 
tinuously, as in codex D. Such l\Ianuscripts \\rere furnished 
\vith neither hreathings nor act:eutS: accordingly, "of the 
ordinary breathings or accents there are no traces" 2 in either 
1" or G. 

ut then, cod. F occasionally,- G much oftener,-cxhibits 
a littlp straight stroke, nearly horizontal, o,Ter the initial 
\,o\,.,.el of certain "TortIs, SonIc have supposed that tlris ,vas 
(lesigned to represent the aspirate: but it is not so. The 
proof is, that it is found consistently introduced over the saBle 
yo\vels in the interlinear Latin. Thus, the Latin preposition 
, a' always has the slanting stroke above it: 3 and the Latin 
interjection '0' is furnished ,vith the saUle appcndag(;,- 
alike in the Gospels and in the Epistles. 4 This observation 

 Cor. v. 17] both give KUL . Jl1}KTl.UL
 [1 Tim. iii. 10], hoth exhihit GJlfV. KÀT}TOI.OV . (XOJlTH 
(' nulJum crhnen habentes') :-for év
 )'cíy)'patJlU vo""'
v ;
fL [2 rriJn. ii. 
17], both exhibit WS' . )'UJI)'pU . LJlU. (F G) JlO""'T}JlE
EL (u, who writes abuve 
the wurd::; , sicztt cancer ut serjJat '). 
1 lIe must be held respon
ihle fur hvnOKPICI in place of V7rOKpíUfL 
[1 rrim. iv. 2]: ACTIZOMENOC instead of 
 [2 Cor. v. 1n]: 
nPIXOTHTI instead uf 7rpaúTT}TL [2 Tim. ii. 
5]. .And he was the author 
c.lf rEPMANE in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of 0 ð( 7rJlfVP.U in 1 Tim. iv. 1. 
But the scribes of F and (f also were curiously innocent of Greek. 
G suggests that )'VJlat
(l.JI (in 1 Tim. Ï1. 10) may be ' iujinitivus '-(of cour::;e 
frónl )'VJlUíKW). 
2 IntJ'odudiou, p. 155. 
S Ffhirtcen tinles between Hon1- i. 7 and xiii. 1. 
4 E,g. Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (õ
 and õ). rrhose who 
havc Mattha:'i's reprint of G at hand are invited to refer tu the last lino of 
101. HI: (l rrim. \"i, 20) WhC1C '"n TLp.óBH i
 cxhihiterl t hu::; :--0 6) 

UI'. ELI,1(;OI"I',] TIlE UK..\ IH
 011' colJlÞ. Ii' \.ND G. J-ll 

evacuates the supposed significance of the fe\v instances 
\\'here à is \\Tittcn Ã: 1 as ,veIl a
 of the TIluch fe,ver places 
\\'herc ó or Ô are ,vritten Õ :2 especially ,vhen account is taken 
of the TIlany hundred occasions, (often in rapid succession,) 
\\Then nothing at all is to be seen abuve the' 0.'3 .As for the 
fact that Lva is ahvays \vrittcn INA (or ïNA),-let it only be 
noted that besiùes I.,ÙOOj.LEV, I.,xOvr;, I.,uxvpor;, &c., IalCooßor;, 
}ooavv1]r;, Iovùar;, &c., (,vhich are all distinguisheù in the 
mune ,vay,)-Latin 'lcords also be[Ji/
nill!/ 'lvith an 'I' arc 
sÜnilarly adorned,-alld \\ e LecolIle convinced that the little 
stroke in question is to be eXplained on SOlne entirely 
different principle. At last, ,ve discover (frolll the exaluplo 
uf ' sÏ,' 'sïc,' 'etsï,' 'servïtus,' 'saeculïs,' 'idulis,' &c.) that tho 
supposed sign of the rough breathing is