offer, surprises me greatly. To have observed severe silence on this part
of the subject, would have seemed to me your discreeter course. Moreover,
had you not, in this marked way, invited attention to the component
elements of the Revising body, I was prepared to give the subject the
go-by. The “_New Greek Text_,” no less than the “_New __ English
Version_,” must stand or fall on its own merits; and I have no wish to
prejudice the discussion by importing into it foreign elements. Of this,
you have had some proof already; for, (with the exception of what is
offered above, in pages 6 and 7,) the subject has been, by your present
correspondent, nowhere brought prominently forward.
Far be it from me, however, to decline the enquiry which you evidently
court. And so, I candidly avow that it was in my account a serious breach
of Church order that, on engaging in so solemn an undertaking as the
Revision of the Authorized Version, a body of Divines professing to act
under the authority of the Southern Convocation should spontaneously
associate with themselves Ministers of various
denominations,(1129)—Baptists, Congregationalists, Wesleyan Methodists,
Independents, and the like: and especially that a successor of the
Apostles should have presided over the deliberations of this assemblage of
Separatists. In my humble judgment, we shall in vain teach the sinfulness
of Schism, if we show ourselves practically indifferent on the subject,
and even set an example of irregularity to our flocks. My Divinity may
appear unaccommodating and old-fashioned: but I am not prepared to unlearn
the lessons long since got by heart in the school of Andrewes and Hooker,
of Pearson and Bull, of Hammond and Sanderson, of Beveridge and Bramhall.
I am much mistaken, moreover, if I may not claim the authority of a
greater doctor than any of these,—I mean S. Paul,—for the fixed views I
entertain on this head.
All this, however, is as nothing in comparison of the scandal occasioned
by the co-optation into your body of Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian
Minister of S. Saviour’s Gate Chapel, York. That, while engaged in the
work of interpreting the everlasting Gospel, you should have knowingly and
by choice associated with yourselves one who, not only openly denies the
eternal Godhead of our LORD, but in a recent publication is the avowed
assailant of that fundamental doctrine of the Christian Religion, as well
as of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture itself,(1130)—filled me (and many
besides myself) with astonishment and sorrow. You were respectfully
memorialized on the subject;(1131) but you treated the representations
which reached you with scornful indifference.
Now therefore that you re-open the question, I will not scruple publicly
to repeat that it seems to me nothing else but an insult to our Divine
Master and a wrong to the Church, that the most precious part of our
common Christian heritage, the pure Word of GOD, should day by day, week
by week, month by month, year after year, have been thus handled; for the
avowed purpose of producing a Translation which should supersede our
Authorized Version. That the individual in question contributed aught to
your deliberations has never been pretended. On the contrary. No secret
has been made of the fact that he was, (as might have been anticipated
from his published writings,) the most unprofitable member of the Revising
body. Why then was he at first surreptitiously elected? and why was his
election afterwards stiffly maintained? The one purpose achieved by his
continued presence among you was that it might be thereby made to appear
that the Church of England no longer insists on Belief in the eternal
Godhead of our LORD, as essential; but is prepared to surrender her claim
to definite and unequivocal dogmatic teaching in respect of Faith in the
Blessed TRINITY.
But even if this Unitarian had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would
remain in full force; for I hold, (and surely so do you!), that the right
Interpretation of GOD’S Word may not be attained without the guidance of
the HOLY SPIRIT, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer.
In the meantime, this same person was invited to communicate with his
fellow-Revisers in Westminster-Abbey, and did accordingly, on the 22nd of
June, 1870, receive the Holy Communion, in Henry VII.’s Chapel, at the
hands of Dean Stanley: declaring, next day, that he received the Sacrament
on this occasion without “joining in reciting the Nicene Creed” and
without “compromise” (as he expressed it,) of his principles as an
“Unitarian.”(1132) So conspicuous a sacrilege led to a public Protest
signed by some thousands of the Clergy.(1133) It also resulted, in the
next ensuing Session of Convocation, in a Resolution whereby the Upper
House cleared itself of complicity in the scandal.(1134)...
How a good man like you can revive the memory of these many painful
incidents without anguish, is to me unintelligible. That no blessing from
Him, “_sine Quo nihil validum, nihil sanctum_,” could be expected to
attend an undertaking commenced under such auspices,—was but too plain.
The Revision was a foredoomed thing—in the account of many besides
myself—from the outset.
(3) _The probable Future of the Revision of_ 1881.
Not unaware am I that it has nevertheless been once and again confidently
predicted in public Addresses, Lectures, Pamphlets, that ultimate success
is in store for the Revision of 1881. I cannot but regard it as a
suspicious circumstance that these vaticinations have hitherto invariably
proceeded from members of the Revising body.
It would ill become such an one as myself to pretend to skill in
forecasting the future. But of _this_ at least I feel certain:—that if, in
an evil hour, (quod absit!), the Church of England shall ever be induced
to commit herself to the adoption of the present Revision, she will by so
doing expose herself to the ridicule of the rest of Christendom, as well
as incur irreparable harm and loss. And such a proceeding on her part will
be inexcusable, for she has been at least faithfully forewarned. Moreover,
in the end, she will most certainly have to retrace her steps with sorrow
and confusion.
Those persons evidently overlook the facts of the problem, who refer to
what happened in the case of the Authorized Version when it originally
appeared, some 270 years ago; and argue that as the Revision of 1611 at
first encountered opposition, which yet it ultimately overcame, so must it
fare in the end with the present Revised Version also. Those who so reason
forget that the cases are essentially dissimilar.
If the difference between the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Revision
of 1881 were only this.—That the latter is characterized by a mechanical,
unidiomatic, and even repulsive method of rendering; which was not only
unattempted, but repudiated by the Authors of the earlier work;—there
would have been something to urge on behalf of the later performance. The
plea of zeal for GOD’S Word,—a determination at all hazards to represent
with even servile precision the _ipsissima verba_ of Evangelists and
Apostles,—_this_ plea might have been plausibly put forward: and, to some
extent, it must have been allowed,—although a grave diversity of opinion
might reasonably have been entertained as to _what constitutes_ “accuracy”
and “fidelity” of translation.
But when once it has been made plain that _the underlying Greek_ of the
Revision of 1881 is an entirely new thing,—_is a manufactured article
throughout_,—all must see that the contention has entirely changed its
character. The question immediately arises, (and it is the _only_ question
which remains to be asked,)—Were then the Authors of this “New Greek Text”
_competent_ to undertake so perilous an enterprise? And when, in the words
of the distinguished Chairman of the Revising body—(words quoted above, at
page 369,)—“_To this question, we venture to answer very unhesitatingly in
the negative_,”—What remains but, with blank astonishment, not unmingled
with disgust, to close the volume? Your own ingenuous
admission,—(volunteered by yourself a few days before you and your allies
“proceeded to the actual details of the Revision,”)—that “_we have
certainly not acquired sufficient Critical Judgment_ for any body of
Revisers hopefully to undertake such a work as this,”—is decisive on the
subject.
The gravity of the issue thus raised, it is impossible to over-estimate.
We find ourselves at once and entirely lifted out of the region originally
proposed for investigation. It is no longer a question of the degree of
skill which has been exhibited in translating the title-deeds of our
heavenly inheritance out of Greek into English. Those title-deeds
themselves have been empirically submitted to a process which, _rightly or
wrongly_, seriously affects their integrity. Not only has a fringe of most
unreasonable textual mistrust been tacked on to the margin of every
inspired page, (as from S. Luke x. 41 to xi. 11):—not only has many a
grand doctrinal statement been evacuated of its authority, (as, by the
shameful mis-statement found in the margin against S. John iii. 13,(1135)
and the vile Socinian gloss which disfigures the margin of Rom. ix.
5(1136)):—but we entirely miss many a solemn utterance of the SPIRIT,—as
when we are assured that verses 44 and 46 of S. Mark ix. are omitted by
“_the best ancient authorities_,” (whereas, on the contrary, the MSS.
referred to are _the worst_). Let the thing complained of be illustrated
by a few actual examples. Only five shall be subjoined. The words in the
first column represent what _you_ are pleased to designate as among “the
most certain conclusions of modern Textual Criticism” (p. 78),—but what
_I_ assert to be nothing else but mutilated exhibitions of the inspired
Text. The second column contains the indubitable Truth of Scripture,—the
words which have been read by our Fathers’ Fathers for the last 500 years,
and which we propose, (GOD helping us,) to hand on unimpaired to our
Children, and to our Children’s Children, for many a century to come:—
REVISED (1881). AUTHORIZED (1611).
“And come, follow me.” “And come, _take up the
cross and_ follow
me.”(1137)
“And they blindfolded “And when they had
him, and asked him, blindfolded him, _they
saying, Prophesy.” struck him on the face_,
and asked him, saying,
Prophesy.”(1138)
“And there was also a “And a superscription
superscription over him, also was _written_ over
This is the King of the him _in letters of Greek,
Jews.” and Latin, and Hebrew_,
This is the King of the
Jews.”(1139)
“And they gave him a “And they gave him a
piece of a broiled fish.” piece of a broiled fish,
_and of an
honeycomb_.”(1140)
But the next (S. Luke ix. 54-6,) is a far more serious loss:—
“ ‘Lord, wilt thou that “ ‘Lord, wilt thou that
we bid fire to come down we command fire to come
from heaven, and consume down from heaven, and
them?’ But he turned and consume them, _even as
rebuked them. And they Elias did_?’ But he
went to another village.” turned and rebuked them,
_and said, _‘Ye know not
what manner of spirit ye
are of. For the Son of
man is not come to
destroy men’s lives, but
to save them’. And they
went to another village.”
The unlearned reader sees at a glance that the only difference of
_Translation_ here is the substitution of “bid” for “command.”—which by
the way, is not only uncalled for, but is a change _for the worse_.(1141)
On the other hand, how grievous an injury has been done by the mutilation
of the blessed record in respect of those (3 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 24 = )
_forty-three_ (in English _fifty-seven_) undoubtedly inspired as well as
most precious words,—even “ordinary Readers” are competent to discern.
I am saying that the systematic, and sometimes serious,—_always_
inexcusable,—liberties which have been taken with the Greek Text by the
Revisionists of 1881, constitute a ground of offence against their work
for which no pretext was afforded by the Revision of 1611. To argue
therefore from what has been the fate of the one, to what is likely to be
the fate of the other, is illogical. The cases are not only not parallel:
they are even wholly dissimilar.
The cheapest copies of our Authorized Version at least exhibit the Word of
GOD faithfully and helpfully. Could the same be said of a cheap edition of
the work of the Revisionists,—destitute of headings to the Chapters, and
containing no record of the extent to which the Sacred Text has undergone
depravation throughout?
Let it be further recollected that the greatest Scholars and the most
learned Divines of which our Church could boast, conducted the work of
Revision in King James’ days; and it will be acknowledged that the
promiscuous assemblage which met in the Jerusalem Chamber cannot urge any
corresponding claim on public attention. _Then_, the Bishops of Lincoln of
1611 were Revisers: the Vance Smiths stood without and found fault. But in
the affair of 1881, Dr. Vance Smith revises, and ventilates heresy from
within:(1142) the Bp. of Lincoln stands outside, and is one of the
severest Critics of the work.—Disappointed men are said to have been
conspicuous among the few assailants of our “Authorized Version,”—Scholars
(as Hugh Broughton) who considered themselves unjustly overlooked and
excluded. But on the present occasion, among the multitude of hostile
voices, there is not a single instance known of a man excluded from the
deliberations of the Jerusalem Chamber, who desired to share them.
To argue therefore concerning the prospects of the Revision of 1881 from
the known history of our Authorized Version of 1611, is to argue
concerning things essentially dissimilar. With every advance made in the
knowledge of the subject, it may be confidently predicted that there will
spring up increased distrust of the Revision of 1881, and an ever
increasing aversion from it.
(4) _Review of the entire subject, and of the respective positions of Bp.
Ellicott and myself._
Here I lay down my pen,—glad to have completed what (because I have
endeavoured to do my work _thoroughly_) has proved a very laborious task
indeed. The present rejoinder to your Pamphlet covers all the ground you
have yourself traversed, and will be found to have disposed of your entire
contention.
I take leave to point out, in conclusion, that it places you individually
in a somewhat embarrassing predicament. For you have now no alternative
but to come forward and disprove my statements as well as refute my
arguments: or to admit, by your silence, that you have sustained defeat in
the cause of which you constituted yourself the champion. You constrained
me to reduce you to this alternative when you stood forth on behalf of the
Revising body, and saw fit to provoke me to a personal encounter.
But you must come provided with something vastly more formidable,
remember, than denunciations,—which are but wind: and vague
generalities,—which prove nothing and persuade nobody: and appeals to the
authority of “Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,”—which I disallow and
disregard. You must produce a counter-array of well-ascertained facts; and
you must build thereupon irrefragable arguments. In other words, you must
conduct your cause with learning and ability. Else, believe me, you will
make the painful discovery that “the last error is worse than the first.”
You had better a thousand times, even now, ingenuously admit that you made
a grievous mistake when you put yourself into the hands of those ingenious
theorists, Drs. Westcott and Hort, and embraced their arbitrary
decrees,—than persevere in your present downward course, only to sink
deeper and deeper in the mire.
(5) _Anticipated effect of the present contention on the Text of_ 1
Timothy iii. 16.
I like to believe, in the meantime, that this passage of arms has resulted
in such a vindication(1143) of the traditional Reading of 1 TIMOTHY iii.
16, as will effectually secure that famous place of Scripture against
further molestation. _Faxit __DEUS__!_... In the margin of the Revision of
1881, I observe that you have ventured to state as follows,—
“The word GOD, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient
ancient evidence.”
In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,—
“The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it
has long been known to be by all careful students of the New
Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with
which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their
manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing
tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble
Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as ‘God manifested in
the flesh’ ” (p. 39).
Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray,
my lord Bishop, of what were _you_ thinking when you permitted yourself to
make the serious mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs
have meant thereby that,—“The word _He who_ in place of GOD, on the
contrary, _does_ rest on sufficient ancient evidence.” I solemnly call
upon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to
prove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are
a refutation.—You add,
“Some ancient authorities read _which_.”
But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great
many “_More_ ancient authorities” read “which” (ὅ), than read “who” (ὅς)?
(6) _The nature of this contention explained._
And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at
first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the
Traditional Text,—(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years
old,)—which I aimed at illustrating: the essential rottenness of the
foundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been
constructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,—which I was determined
to expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure
is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,—but also that you have reared it up
on a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (GOD is my witness!), but
out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,—your
work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the
present volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent
to every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of
day as a shapeless ruin.
A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored.
And why? Because the mischief, which extends to every part of the edifice,
takes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the
foundation.
And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated
that no compromise is possible between our respective methods,—yours and
mine: between the NEW GERMAN system in its most aggravated and in fact
intolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given
in your adhesion; and the OLD ENGLISH school of Textual Criticism, of
which I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott
and Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present
Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are
antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,—except
certain documents; which _I_ insist on interpreting by the humble
Inductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of
deducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of
your own,—every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to
disprove.
Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination—(1) That the
traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style “_The Syrian
text_,”) is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch, A.D. 250
and 350:(1144)—(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a
Recension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:(1145)—(3) That
Cureton’s is the Syriac “Vetus,” and the Peschito the Syriac
“Vulgate:”(1146)—(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two
IVth-century Codices, B and א, “diverged from a common parent extremely
near the apostolic autographs:”(1147)—(5) That this common original
enjoyed a “general immunity from substantive error;” and by
consequence—(6) That B and א provide “a safe criterion of genuineness,” so
that “no readings of א B can be safely rejected absolutely.”(1148)—(7)
Similar wild imaginations you cherish concerning C and D,—which, together
with B and א _you_ assume to be among the most trustworthy guides in
existence; whereas _I_ have convinced myself, by laborious collation, that
they are _the most corrupt of all_. We are thus diametrically opposed
throughout. Finally,—(8) _You_ assume that you possess a power of
divination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of
Induction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of
Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of
the largest number of the best COPIES, FATHERS, VERSIONS.(1149) There is,
I am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this
department of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,—only
by self-renouncing labour,—may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine.
_They_ do but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who
first _invent their facts_, and then proceed to build thereupon their
premisses.
Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom (by your own avowal)
you stand completely identified.(1150) I repeat, (for I wish it to be
distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those
Critics is,—_not_ that their superstructure rests upon an insecure
foundation; but that it rests on _no foundation at all_. My complaint
is,—_not_ that they are _somewhat_ and _frequently_ mistaken; but that
they are mistaken _entirely_, and that they are mistaken _throughout_.
There is no possibility of approximation between _their_ mere assumptions
and the results of _my_ humble and laborious method of dealing with the
Text of Scripture. We shall only _then_ be able to begin to reason
together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they
have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and
unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.
(7) _Parting Counsels._
Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that
of your friends,—(I.) “THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK’S GOSPEL:”—(II.)
THE ANGELIC HYMN on the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of 1
TIMOTHY iii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to this hour, you
and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as convenient _Test
places_. When you are prepared frankly to admit,—(I.) That there is no
reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S. MARK xvi.
9-20:(1151)—(II.) That ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the
Evangelical text of S. LUKE ii. 14:(1152)—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη
ἐν σαρκί is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1
TIMOTHY iii 16,(1153)—we shall be in good time to proceed to something
else. _Until_ this happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of
time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.
I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your
part will amount to an admission that “the whole fabric of Textual
Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by
successive editors of the New Testament,”—Lachmann namely, Tischendorf,
and Tregelles,—is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence of
this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has
been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.
(8) _The subject dismissed._
The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility,
to ALMIGHTY GOD. The SPIRIT OF TRUTH will, (I know,) take good care of His
own masterpiece,—the Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance,
and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to
have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of
Scripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.