TH E REVISION REVISED IE IJEAN OF CHICHESTER. IV' . (, · ( r t'R C- /!IC -' .. é rr-/ ..e . THE REVISION RE'TISED. LOXI>O : p IU TED BY 'W ILL I AM C LOW E SAN D SON S, 1.1 !II IT R D, STA31FulW 1l{EEI A II (;HAI:I G CHO:\S. TIlE l{EVISION RE1 T ISED. 'fIIREE 1\.11TICLES RRrR/ VTED FROJI TlfE 'QUA.RTERLY REV1EIV. 1. TIlE XE'V GnEEl TEXT. II. TIrE NE'V ENGLISII Y.El lO . 111. "T}:STCOTT ...\.ND HOTIT'S NE'Y TEXTU '\L TlrEOU {. TO WHICH IS ADDED A TIEPLY TO DISIIOP ELLICOTT'S P A IPHI1ET IS DLFE GE OF 'rUE REVISEns AXD THEIR GREEK TEXT OJ? THE KE\r TEST.\)[E T: IXCLUDIKG A \TIXDICATION OF THF. TRADITIO AL I E \DIXG OF 1 TIMOTHY III. 16. l1y .JOlIN 'Y1LLIÂJI l U] (}O.N., n.D. DEAX OF CUICHESTEI . .. It is happened unto them according to the true prO\.erb, KtÍwl' nrí- O'Tpt.paç È7rt TÒ t tOV È 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. LOXDOK: JOHN 1\IUltIL.\ Y, .L\.LßEl\IAI LE STTIEET. 1883. 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. : p 531, 537, 542, 60 TO TIlE InGIIT HO . ,TI8COU:NT CR.1XBROOI\, G.C. .I., &c., &c., &c, ]1 Y DEAR LORD CRA....YBROOK, 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, This .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. Yl DEDICATIOX. 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 DEDIC \TIOX. VII Inspiration in every page, (oul oj' having lllJ titllte(l for thell/; .fllhricatetl Rea,dings u:hiclt the Olturch has lOllg since refused to acknolcledge, OJ. else has rejected fith aùhorrence; and I.:ltich 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 'olume (;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- VJlI DEDIC.\TION. thing there is Ct season, (t}tcl a tirite to every jJurpo:;e IUHler the Sltn ': ., (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 bered, ny dear lJord Oranb'ì'ook, as Your graleful and qDèctionate llriend and Be'i'vant, J-OHN w: BURGON. DE.ANERY, CHICHE'S1'ER, ALL S11fN1'S' DAy. 1883. ( IX ) PRE F ACE. 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 doclulleIlÜ , or rather, of one particular lnalillscript,-(llaluely x PREFACE, 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 convinc 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. :\.1 had received its death-blow.. It luight for a fc,v years ùrag out a lllai111ed e istencc; eagerly defended oy sOllle,-tÏ1nidly ple 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 lnis 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. Xl] PH EFACE. 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, rnEFACE. XUl 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 :EXGLlf'H TR \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" 1 ce below, pr. 113 to 3 , XIY "PTIEF ACE. "\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 \yeb. 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 ,, ith 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. rln l!'AC I ", "\.v 1, Two full years haye elapsed since the first of thc (' j 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, XVI PREFACE. 2. Thus, a ,vriter in the' Church Quarterly' for January 1882, (\vhose kno,vledge of the subject is entirely derivtìHEFACE. XIX 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. c XÀ. PREFACE. 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.- Iac- n1il1an, pp. 79. S See below, pp, 369 to 520. 4 Pages 371- . PREFACE, XXl 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 ed 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 XXll PREF ACE. 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. PUEIfAUE. XXlll 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 place." 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. Iark'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 from . 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 ÀXIV PREFACE 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 })U.EFAUE. xxv the received Text, is the necessary foundation of all scientific Criticism. I employ that Text,-( as Iill, Bentley, vYetstein; Griesbach, 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 him 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 þ- ÀXVI PREFACE. 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 -30(j. PREF ACE, XXVll 'Theory.' 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 tcott. XXVIII PHEF ACJ':. 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 ,, its. 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 PUE 'ACE. XIX 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. xxx PREF ACE. 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 'idge 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 PREF ACE, XXXI 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 BiLle 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. XXXll GENERAL I'4U1\I1\IARY OF COXTENT . 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, DEANERY, CHICHESrrER, ALL SAINTS' DAY, 1883, GENERAL SU IMARY OF CONTENTS. DEDICATION PREFACE .. TABLE OF CONTE TS Art. I. THE NEW GREEK TEXT " II. THE NEW EXGLISH VERSION " III. 'VESTcOTT AND HORT'S NEW TEXTUAL THEORY LETTER TO BISHOP ELLICOTT DISSERTATION on 1 Timothy iii. 16 ApPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL SACRED CODICES.. 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 . . " II. FATHERS QUOTED .. " lIT. GENERAL INDEX .. PAGE V IX XXXIII ] 113 235 369 424: to 501 521 528 529 538 541 ( XXXlll ) TABLE OF CONTENTS. ARTICLE I.-THE NEW GREEK r.I.'EXT. PAGE 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 (c.) IA).uSCRIPT , VERSIO 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 OMlSSIO 8 in 8. Luke xxii., xxiii., xxiv,-for which Cod. D 75 is chiefly responsible :-xxii. 19, O :-xxÏi. 43, 44 77 XXXiV TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGP. Our LORD'S' Agony in the Garden,'-His 'Bloody Sweat' and the 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 b 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 b 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 ARTICLE II.-THE NEW EKGLISH VERSION. (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 'r \nLE OF CO TEXTR, XXXy PAGE 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 d X,XVI rrABI.E OF CONTENT . Certain of the Revisers at least are frfle fr0111 blame Consolation PAGI" 22H 232 ARTICI.E III.-'VEsTCOTT AND HORT'S NEW Tl" XTUAL THEORY, (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 TE TS. XXXVII rAGE 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 in inuating it e1f into the writings of all the Greek Fathers 2V8 and thus e tabli 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 Ca e of the Codices' B c' .. 325 Visit to the library of CIClnens .Alexandrinus (A.D. 183).. 3 6 (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 XXXVlll TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE 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 LETTER TO THE RIGHT REV. C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL, IN REPL Y TO HIS P Al\IPHLET IN DEFEKcE OF THE REVISERS, AND THEIR NEW GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. (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 TABLE OF COXTJ.:NTS. XXXIX PAGE 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 Engli 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 :xl TABLE Oli' CONrrENT . PAGE 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 Ignatius,-Barnabas,-Hippolytus,-Gregory 'haunlatur- gus,-the Apostolical Constitutions,-Basil 4() Cyril of Alexandria . . 464 rrhe arrrument e silentio considered 469 ö rl'he story about Macedonius examined, and disposed of 470 Anonymus,-Epiphanius (A.D. 787),- 'heo<.lorus Studita, -Scholiasts, - 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. ] 2 THE REVISIONISTS HA YE NOT CÛ:MPLIED [ART. 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 OJ 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. I.] 'VITII THE CONDITIO:KS I:\lPO ED UPO THE1\T 3 '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- 't 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- fulness.' 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 n 4 :r.lISCHIEF OF ENCUl\IBEIUNG THE [...\RT. 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 b hands, (i.e.- at least 999 readers out of 1000,) ,yill never be 1 On Revisio71,-pp. 215-6. J,] )IARGIN 'YITII REJECTED READINGS. 5 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 distress. 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 y). 15 p, 7 . 6 i. 5-18 c; yiii, O. a. 7 iy. 20,3. 6 A NEW GREEK TEXT HAS BEE [4\UT, 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. I.J THE U FORE EEN RESULT OF 'REVlSlO:S.' 7 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 8 ELE:r.IENTARY OUTLINES :-THE [ART. 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 ntrusted ,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.] 'I\L\TEUL\I.S }1 On 1'] XTU.AL C1UT1018:\1. 9 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 , 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 : o conDo Den SITO'VK TO DE IIOPELESS1JY [AUT. ,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). 1.] AT TIUFE _\:\IOXG TJI:E)r EL YE . :n 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 neither 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 COUl 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; -A 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 OI 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> ') .) .) ..... nASEN1 SS OF THE TEXT OJ? n D, 'YIIICU [.AnT. 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' (7rpOuE'Y"l{ua aVTrjJ), unroofed the house, is lost in B,-,vhose 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 V 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. I.] lL\ F \T.\ LLY :\TI LED OUR HEY1;-.IOXI TS, , , t') . >>.) cl:;e fl'UIn \-er. ', l 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. , II : -! THE LOUD'S PRAYEU (S. LUKE XI. 2-4) [AnT 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 codices 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' J..lâ()). 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. (e) D for òiòov -\vrite SÓ() (fronl l\Iatt.). (f) 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 I.] TJI(,E TIOU L Y EXIIIBITED BY ...\ BCD, 3:> 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.).-] ut, (Ii) 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 òcþElÀ.ÉTaL 1]fLWV) in place of ' ercry one that ,is indebtal to u. ' (7TavTÌ, ÒcþE{À,OVTt 1JfLîv).-Finally, (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 JlûS' cÌ7rù TOV 7TOVTJPOÛ. 11 2 3H THE LAST T'V} LVE YEU8ES OF S, l\L\TIK, [AnT. 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- ,vith ?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. I.] .\ E'r \\rA Y OF ' ETTLI G' TIlE TEXT. ,) .... .) , 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 e\ 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,, o 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 de 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 tions,-Dr. 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. 38 A NEW WAY OF 'SETTLING' THE TEXT. [AnT. 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 . :.H8),-p, 28U. Thi:.; haH heen hitherto overlooke<1. I,J 'I'IlI Tn.UE UE.\DING OF S, LUKE II. 14, 41 "\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 it.'I 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' i 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). 1 criYener's Introd ct 'on, 1'. 31;,. 2 Tb('h. pl'cifil' 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 cuveraLlc. 42 THE RECEIYED TEXT OF S. LUKE II. 14 [ART. 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 I 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. I.J PROVED TO TIE THE TRUE TEXT. 4 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. \lso C t. in Ps. iii. 139. 14 Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417. I I/ 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 a. 18 Conci!. iii. 100 . 19 A p. Galland, ix. fì n. I) Coucil. iii. 10 ),"), 21 ('uncil. iii. t>2Ð = ('yr. OJ}p. vi. 139. 44 PATllIS'fIC 'fES'fI)IONY DECISIVE [AuT. 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 porl(/rics, 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 Nys 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 3. 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. I.] A:4 TO 'filE TEXT ()F . LlTI{E II. 14. 4.) 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 for 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!'? 4G THE 'fES'fIl\IONY OF NAB C D CONCEUNIXG [AnT. 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 I.] . 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 ;- c, 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; (of 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 ion ,-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 l 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 hall ay l1u\\' many mure ecc<:utricitit:s would havc Lccu di c()\'crablc? 48 s. l\1:ARK XVI. 9-20, AND S. LUKE II. 14 [AnT, 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 1 '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 p '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 ;j. I.] :\1.\ y o LOXGER BE MOLESTED. 4!} 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 ,, hich 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 t1 ((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: [oreov('r, (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 E ;")0 CAUSE ,rHICH HA VI<: OCCASIONED [AUT. 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. L] VAHIOL"S Hl' AIHXGS.-..\CTS XXVII. 37, .) 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 hi la 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 52 HO'V AC'fS XXVII. 37 lIAS BEEN [AUT. 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 O ' - 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.) I.] nLl7 DERED BY COD. B.-ACTS XVIII. 7. 53 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 .....Òf: yscr-avTOV å7TOO'TEXXH nA.\I . 58 s. "'lARK XI. 8, CORRUPTED: TIlE [ART. 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 ? (b) 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. Y.] E\....\\'"Gl.:LI T;S :r.IE..\XIXG EXPL \IXED .j!) ""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 a 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 t 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 ]nunhll' t 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. 60 THE CRITICS HAVE ALL nEE [ART. 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; for 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 ÈIC TWV 1.] c.\ p( Jr lIT I THE TRAP.-S, l..UKB XXIII, 45, 131 '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 E'N pnN, Ka ì 'E:ITPn'NNTON EI' 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' T 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 afl'e 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 Iti 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 pl) !=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. G2 THE SUN 'DAllKENED,'-NOT [AnT. 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. R , append., which by the way deserves to be CoIn pared with Chrys. vii. I 8 ;j a. 12 àAA V UKÓTO!) Bf01TOí"TOV, ÔtÓT(. TÒV Kvpwv uvvlß'7 1TaBÚv.-Routh, ii. 298- 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 fV J-LL 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 OVX W5t p.óvov fUKóTaufll K. T. A.-Cyril of Jerusalmn (pp. 57, 11G, l!)Ð, J ] C ECLIPSED,'-A T THE CRT.;CIFIXIOX. f;: enlploycd copies ,vhich had been . 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 insidiatore 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. ,-..þ.., ù_ , . f EI(^f;7rOVTn i:-; on] ftl\mtl hc:--ilh.' in eleven ]ectionarics. 64- DEPRAVED TEXT ADOI)TED BY [AnT. 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 claris :;imuln lumen mundi, hoc est luminare lnajus, retraxisse radios suos, ne aut pcndenteln vidcrct Dominum; aut impii blasphClnantes suâ luce fruerentur." I.] 'I'll E nEYJtHO IST IX . LUKE XXJTI. 4-5. ô3 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 ; Pl]V. 2 .For it will he perceive(} that onr Hl',.isioni:;t:-; have ;H}opted tlw rra 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. L] rilE HEYJ rONJST I . 1tL\HT\: VI. :!o. G, 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 ôiCù 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 emplar 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 ;Cl) 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 clca.r 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,- 3. Dr. S, C. lIalan infurms the Hevicwcr. 2 ntl"', that tokens ahound c..f a d(.termination a.nciently to assimi1ate F 2 68 IJEPUA VED TEXT AIJOPT:ED BY [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 e 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 t 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 EPTJJ.LOV TÓ7TOV, in 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 s. Iark Yi. 14-1G, for proofs of Assin1Ïlation. Instead of 'K VEKp6JV YfpeTJ (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 fþv"^aK 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 , codices 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, I.] TB E REYISI<\ 1STH IX S. :\1..-\HK \'1. :!o. ô9 \,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 ,, ith the traditional Text, (The Thebaic, the Gothic, and Cureton's Syriac are defective here. The ancient Fathers are silent,) I'T. 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 crip- 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(' 70 TIlE SACHED TBx'r l\llTTILATED IX [AnT. inspircroposed to disfigure cyery page of the everlasting Go pel; 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 W3. 74 s. LUKE YI. 1, l\IUTIL...\ TED. [ART. 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 est.' I ] ():\lIf-.. IOS IN . I..UKE XXII" XXI II., XXI'. 7G 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 evisioni ts, 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, -1 ,yonls.) (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 e 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 t,-'l'hc 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. 76 O)IISSIONS IN . LUKE'S GOSPEL,-F...\.TAL [ART. (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 1.] Y rp \TlIY \\ï1'11 "ï STGUTT .A p 1I0HT. 77 bracket the 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 l'ithin 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 'i8iolâst..; !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 t'" l'yitlellce' is no'v Lefore the l cadcr. If, in Ids judglllcnt, thë te 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;). 78 COl\IPLICITY [N ERROR COXCEn ING [AU'r. 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. I.] K I,CKE XXII. 1 0, O AXD XXII. 43, -1-1:. 79 '\ 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 iYelr 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. uav- TOO; KaL TÒ 7TOT pWV fLfTtÌ TtJ òfl.Trvijum, ).11OOV, TOÛTO TÒ 7TOT pWV, IwtV 1 ì Ò((l.8 Kl} iv TC:> aífLaTí fLOV, TÒ íl1rfp ÚfLWV /ICXVVOfLEVOV. p, 10',2. 10 ii. ;-1;. 11 i. 151G, Cè hdow, p, :? 80 THE '_\GO Y IN TIlE GARDEN' Dn \ LT O'VED [AUT, 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. I.] ny 'YESTCOTT A J) HOUT, A f) TIlE ItEVJ:-3EH . 8L Ps.-Cn"\sariUR,I-Thcodosius Alcx.,2-John Damascene,3- :\Ia 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. nf 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, O. 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 ::)ignat 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,' G 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 e 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 l 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, I.] DIS.ALI,( "'"'ED BY "TERTCOTT .A D non r 8. 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:-;tel'n ' witnc . 2 nr, Hurt's N. T. yoI. ii. ...VI/l t , p. fj . ( ... ) -c _ 84 ANCIENT 'YIT ESSE TO S. LUKE XXIII. 34, [ART. 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 u- 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 Iaxillnl ,29-ùy ....<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. J,J TJlI' 1 CHIl)TIUY O 'l'll I.; CHù :-{. 85 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 yria(;: 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. SG . LUKE' I ::;CIUPTIOX () TIlE CROS8, [AUT. 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 :- A exbibits-OYTOC ECTIN 0 BACI^EYC TWN IOYðAIWN B (,vith L and a) exhibits-o BACI^EYC TWN IOYðAIWN OYTOC 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 A'WN 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 . s e(' pascf. to 17. I,] DIVERSELY HEPUE E TEH BY N n c n. 87 co(lex x and the Sahidic ycrsion conspire in ß fifth variety, viz., OYTOC eCTIN IHCOYC 0 BACI^EYC TWN IOY6AIWN (\\yhieh is S. :ì\Iatt. xxvii, 37); \vhile Anlùrosc 1 is founlliloxenian; - 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 aCente- 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 \.s 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. I.] FA L IFIED,-.AB t;nU TIL\ \ rO:--ITIOXS. . 3 (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 es, even of ,,"hole sentences of Scripture; - ,,'as aneientIy accounted an allo\nLble, e, en a graceful exerci:se uf thr critical faculty. 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 whilt 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. 94 TRANsrOSITION IN S. I..UKE XIX, A D XX. [ART, 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:- and n D, for 4 each :-A Band N .A B, for 3 each :-A, for 1 Yiz, from ch, xix. 7 to xx. -!G, I.J THE HEYI H)X[ TS' YEHIFYI t1 FACPLTY. f).') 2 :-B, C, l , N A, and ft D, each for I.-In other ".or<1'. Hort, have transposed the familiar Angelic utterance (in S L k . 7) "'\' ,.., '" ,.., e ' . u e XXIV. , ^E'YWV OTt OEI, TOV VLOV TOV av PW7TOV 7Tapa- 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. 1 larcion (Epiph. i. 317); - Eusebius (ì\Iai, iv. 2öG); - Epiphanius (i. 34:8) ;-Cyril (Mai, ii. 438) ;-J ohn Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188). I.] TEXT OF nH , \\.E TCOTT \.XD HOHT ft'ï It l lEÓ, 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 LUpp tJT}V ß ., 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". 2 TOVTO p.îll TÒ p.É)'a p.vur pI.OV . . ó Èvav8pw7r uaS' L' 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 prc:,s. 4 8H)S' y(Ìp ÈcþavEp&J81] Èv uapKí.-Coucilia, i. 833 d. ð Cramer's Cut. Ù Rom. 1). 1 -l. , Onc quutation may suflìce :-Tò 8EÒII 6J1Ta, tIv8pW7TOV 8f'). Uat. -YfvÉu8m Kaì àllfuxiuBm Karaßijvm TouoiiTOV. . . Tovró Èun TÒ ÈK7T').;' fWS' 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 102 rE8TIl\Iü Y Ü}i' THE 11'ATJIEn [AUT, -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 pLOV. 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 ø:þavEp 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. E 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 Gallandius. 6 i. 313; ii. 263. g iii. Ll01-2. 7 Ap. Athanas. i. 706. 9 Ap. Phot 230. 10 Cuutra Ilær. ....Yutt, c. 17. I} F..\.T} .L TU DC I 1 Tnt. III. 16. lO /l'Y'YJÀOtç;: l-atHl (:!3) Barnaùas, '111CToûÇ . . . . ó V;Ò 7'OÛ (-)fOÛ 7'úrrr:' Kat, Èv 'JapKl cþavfpwBfl.;: 2- ttIl (1 carlier still ( -!) Tgnatin : (--)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 Epiphanius,-pJ 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 e , seriously declare that Ö is the lletter sustained reaêóÇ 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 thi 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. 'b. 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 in . )'iark i. j (in thc Synagogue uf Cal'crllcn,-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 ::;essed 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. 110 A LIGIITIIOUSE O TIIE GOOD"TIN R...\.XD , [.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 ] ddystone 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 Coptic. ARTICLE II. TIlE NEW ENGLISH 'TEnSIO . " 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, TilE TIEV[STON RE\TTSED. AUTICLE II.-TIlE KE"r E GLI rI ,TETISIOX, " 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 ,\"l'. 3();,)-f;). 7 Ap. Au . viii. -t:?2 P. I 2 IlG UNFAIRNESS OF TIlE TEXTUAL [AUT. 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 Gospel. 2 Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the state- ment. I I.] .\ 01'.ATJ( )S:::; IX TIII i\IAH(a . 117 lIlarginal .Annotation ".as of course a".arc that the same <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 JE 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 .Opw7rC&>v. 120 rENNH I NOT rENE I THE [ART. ,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. II] rnUE READI G OF K )I...\TTII. I. It:). 121 \\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 cxhihit '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,- a 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 Father 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 .1. 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 (If) 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. vii. 8; viii. :H L 122 Ii'IHST TIIHEE rEXT1J \JJ \XXOTATIO S [AnT. 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> oiì , '" ' , , f , ' e ' Ò " ' ß ' l:. 'TrpWT1} 7r^uutr, YEllllT}Utr UE T} EK KUTllULKT}r TOlJ UllUTOlJ ta T1}ll 7rUPU UUtll Eç ùÀÀryÀwv ta 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. II.] I CORnECT.-TEXT of S. l\IATTII. I. 2á, 1 ')" .....:J 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 others 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 ost.ol11,l1- 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. 2 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 ent 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. 1C). ] 24 TIP. ELLICOTT A D DR, ""ESTCOTT Dl' CLAUE [_\UT. 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 nnl)er, 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 ut 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.] TIEYI':)IOX TO DE rnE)IATrnE. 12.. 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/ danlcntal ])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 no 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 ' Enslox be 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 1 ,.. ) _\ TEXTUAL CRITICIS:\I NOT YET UNDERSTOOD. [AnT. 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. II.] I.ICE"TIOUS" E OF TIlE nEYI IO"r T 1 ()- _i 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:\;-; A rO :::;IBLE IXTO THE TEXT OF TIlE ....\UTIIOI:IZED Y"EHSIOX, 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 ITY 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 128 CIL\XGES 'V.\ TOXLY I TRODUCED. [AnT. 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 II,] E :-;ELE \l-,TEnAT]OX . 1 ) llicrest \\"antonnc:-;:-;. \.fter suhstitutin ' tlU1 ('ful c' for' tht'li ' (a the rendering of ovv) a score of times,-the Hcvisionists II uitfl Hccdlessly substitute' then' for' therefore' in . ,J o. xix. 4 .-...\.llÙ ,vhy has the singularly beautiful greeting of 'the cIder unto the ,,"ell-beloved Gaius,' ùeen exchanged for' unto r:-((í1l. 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 elcl 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 cecd- 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. tl (' 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/,- K 130 U FAIRNESS OF THE REVISIONISTS IN [ART. 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... II.] HE PE ""1'1' OIi1 THEIn )L\HG[ .\L ItE.AD[XG 1 1 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 hilll 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 lllurùerer (xxiii. 34),-and much beside of tran,;; 'cndent i1nl'ortance and inestÜnalJIe value, l11ay, aCCOl'rlÙ1J to UlI.1' lttri ioni:)lg, pru,.e tu r(l t upon nu fouu<1atillll whate, el'. K :! 132 s. l\IAUK J, 1: :::;. JUH J. 3, AND III. 13. [ART. 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 nuspicion: ,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 d. 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 . 134 A PUECIOU8 CI-,AU .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 1 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 D SYIUAX.' 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. II.] BE nE-IX 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 ] 'fìl!lli.'ih , .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 hif)ll? 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 pel 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 l " 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, 136 'NUl\IBER O}' rrHE BEAST.' [ART, 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. 8. iii. 414. 4 Ilist. .Eccl. v. 8. n.) UXli'.\.[H sepPRES IO OF SCUII")TUUE. 1: 7 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 (jl't- 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' 138 REVISIOXISTS' NOTION OF l\IAKI G [ART. 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 proceed,- '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 J(,] 'A FE"" .ALTER.A.TIOXt4 ...\ PO....::;rßLK' 13U p(J itively required by change of reading in the Greek Text' (Ibid.). (1) Thus, in S. ,John xii. 7, '\e find' SI'iter 710" to l'('cp it against the erty of three bad I 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 saith unto hÍIn, If lholf CfOist !) ( Ik. i , ;;).-' ne('al1 e of your liltl 140 THE EXOLIRH SUFFERS \VITH THE GREEK. [ART 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 JlUI. Tà ÊJJÒOJl È EpEVJl UUI. uK01rijUUI., rhavori- TIll:;, quuted by Bruder. II,] HE:\TEDYI 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 , 142 CASES OF 'I COItnECTNESS' AND' OBSCURITY,' [AUT. 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 n.] I1u\r nE:\IEDIED BY 'fIIB nE'.J IO I TK 143 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 lllanife ted his word in the 'J1lCð age' (Tit. i. , 3) :-' Your plCllSllrU; rand "hy not' lusts' 1] that ,var in your Inelnbers' (J 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 (}vision- ists can unly IJe established LJ' an alllount uf illustration \vhich b at unCe inconvenient tu the Itc\'ic,,-er and unwclCülllC pI'ù- 144 . LUKB II, 38 A D X, 40: AI$O lAnT. 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. 11.] . .TOIIS' XIIi. 1 .- lI I'IL\X L \TEO 14 j t'alalllit()u pr'f'rl'Jlc-' for a depraycd Tcxt,-has pruvcd t]lP ruiu of oup of the lllu t aflt'<:Liug scene in . ,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 it oLvif usly ought) the oricrinal of S_ J()hn iv. 6 :]-' on JE U ' 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 ('ertainI f7r I:TjfU(V I'. lfe 'jll...., . (fill.,'-lt,t his hl'ad 'fall'-oll hi )la 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. Ineall '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 i. 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 ha 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 , cli 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 Inultitu(h .' 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 .) I 14() IN.JlnHCIOUR OR EHRONEOUS CHANGER. [AUT, , 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? e[tt 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. If,] [ JUDJCIOUS on EUHONEOUS CJlA GEH. 147 It. 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 El'i 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/ brothers' for (Castur and ])ollux' in Acts xxviii. II? The Greek (j.tÓUKoVPOt) is neither the. one nor the other.-In the s nne 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 o lllaee 11eing Tà óíópa)(jLa,-in the latter, uTaTJ1P.-' þ'lute- 1 TpaTLWT1} tJ 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. I 148 CH.A GES J'()l THE 'VOl{SE. [AUT. 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, l- c.-In , 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 to cO'J"J'cct 'PLAIX ANI> CLEAR ERROHS,' (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. lI.] AC'l' XXI. :.57, )Il TIL\:XSLATEl). 1-1U 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, and 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 a ()ìJlTES' '.\(WTtUTí, lcaì oinc fìuìJl frrtYLJlWUKOJlTf.f u fîJl 'Iouôai"rrTi (quotcll }'\_ "-l't:-teill), . 150 So l\I...\TTHE'Y XXVI. 15, No,r l\IISTRA SLATED, [AUT. 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 " eighed, 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 In tructions, if in doz{;btjul casl's they had abstained froBl tonchinO' the Authorized \T ersion, but had recorded their o,vn o 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 \UIL\XTAnLI CIL\ (jE I ACTS XXVI. 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 " ords, 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 ing 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. 79. 2 \ , ,,.,.., , '" ,.. " KU TOV UI.KaS' 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,:>' TOVTft dÙl 1 call Iny son.' \..nd yet ,\.110 sees not, that in Luth Üu;tallces the olù rellÙl)rillg i bett r? Impor- 15G SPECLUEXB OF IXFELICITOeS [.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 rXI1HU:\IATI(. HEXHEHIXG, 15í cOllchuling worùs of the chapter? If N a wpaîo KÀ7]fh}(]"ETat 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 th second chapter, 'Yhat does the l eader think of the result? 1'-. Next, thl; ]:{:)"isiunists inyite attention to certain I)oint of detail: and first, to their rendering of TIlE TEx ES (){.' 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,- 158 PEDANTllY OF THE TIEYI8JOXISTS I'N [ART. 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 :-,entence. 'Vhen our Divine Lonn, at the close of His Iinistry,- (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 sent 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'? II.] HEXDRnI G THE GREEK \()nI T. 15 ) "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 pl'l. H7/ id i 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 anù 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 in 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; ; (s. latt. xxvii, 46) "Vhy hast Thou fm"sake'lL I\10 ?' 1 :-ËóEL a 1 Y ct cYen here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the l< pre ent participle in the dativc ca c, (' To JllC, [cavill!! 11lY hOUSt,' 1 &c.). One i astoni 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 e::' '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, :1. ' F. · '9 "" ' .av nt1V npmT'fJEp'lÇ. 1\1 ]() THE UHEEK TE E:S, )II ItF.PI:ESEXTEn [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 11.] TIII:O("(;)I0l:T BY TilE UE\ï:-'I().\"I T . 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 [ evi- SiOBi 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, anr. Fif'Icl'" delightful O';'l1lt J.Yun'ialtsc, 11, 4);). )[ ") 1û-! THE UHEEK AHTIULE, ::\[I U:XIJEH TUUIJ [ \HT. (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 EYr I()Xr T ,-TJI E pn() ()ux:,. 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 falllou pa sage, \\ hich we lwye t1i Lu::;:-;ed el:-:e\\'Ìlere,l I ='l'C a1,0\-e, pp, 18-10t o Al:-:o il,/Ion, towartl the end. 166 THE PARTIOLES, 'fA8TELE88LY [_\It'l', '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- with 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, II.] OJ: I .\CCCIL\TEL Y HEXDEHED. 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- pea('hahl 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 's " , 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 pa a 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: ,,'here:1 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. 7. 6 ....\ct:-: xxvii. :!(i. 7 Hum. iii. . 9 Cor. v. R 10 S. )Iark À v. 3l. 12 1 Cor. x. 1. 13 K ::\Iatth. vi. 20. 1 Cor. i. 3. 16 Cor. vii. 13. 18 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. O, Gal. ii. 4-. 8 Ephes, iv. l. 11 R J ark vi. n. 1-1 ,John xx. 4. 17 Cor. ii. I:!. 20 1 Cor. xii. O. Z3 ...\cts viii. 3. ll)8 1'A TRJ.ESS OR INACCURATE [ART. . '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. II.] HEXDEIUX(, OF P..\HTICLE . leg 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 hotly. (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 anle 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. , 4 . Luke xii. . ; 1 K .Tohn ii. ;, 10 \d:-- :\xiii. ;t 2 8. Luke xix. ; , 5 . Luke xviii. ;, 1 R .Tll1m i. . s Cor. xiii. l. 6 K Luke xiv, I. 9 f', 'lark ix, 3 t. 170 UXIDJO IA'fIC RE DERI G U.F [AUT. 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 1'1acc ,-(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 sly (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. 171 ,,"cml(l of COUl'-;e ill Leculne such an OIlC a thc present l e,"iewer to lay claim to the furegoing flattering designatiun : but really, ,,"hen he no\v fur the first tiIne reat1 (in ...lets ix. .'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 aL 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.)-,. R,Y. 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 16 temperanco patience; and in 17 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.' 1 ó) '-i :30 OIL\XGE:-j I:S- 38 "'OllD::;.-YIOLATED [_\RT. 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, 11.1 pnoPJUETIE:-:: OF TIlL EX(.I.J:--II L.\XGU \(iE. 17:1 '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 l e(lder uf ordinary intelligence'? Lut so ubscure in thc latter as to render ItCCU5Slt1'Y the alteration to 'through'? Or t it . 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 174 YIUl. \.TRD pnOrnTETIE of TIlE [AI:T. , 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 U CnRI 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 1 ollgh' (in place of 'by') in the Inargin of S. r ohn i. :{ and IV, and not e\ en offering us the alternati\ c 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 "T( 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.] EXG LI lI 1..\Xca..\( a:.- JL\ItGIS_\L XOTEs, 17.) 1:.-\ i i()nist , 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 T 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/ du 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 :- 'The 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.. indicating 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 otc úf tltÏs last group are nUlnerous, and ]argely in cxcûs of tlWF,C ,vhich ""Tere iL(hnitted by our pret1ece:SSiJTs. In the 70 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- Tí("VTn 'v rciJ 'IopS(Îvn- 17ft )L\HGIX EXCU::\TBETIEI> WITH TEXTU_\.L EHHOJ: . [_\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 evisionists 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 that 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 \QU]LO 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 If.] TW'O SPECr:'IEX OF llLUXDERS. 177 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 a 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 fÌrst yllahle of v' uo ".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 Yorvicellsc, 17R SOnRY 'ALTERNA TIrE RENDERINGS.' [.ART. 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 ollyh 1-cater: '-against 2 I>et. iii. 7,-' storcd 'with fire: '-again::;t s. 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. II.] U ELE :-: ,L\H(HX ..\L G LOS ES. ] 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 the \nnotation, 'Or, teaclwr.' -!' \pTO , (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 a 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. iloÐÀo , 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 o 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 2 180 IISTAKE on 11'OOLIf'H 'EXPLANATORY [ART. 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 V 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, OZl1 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- tt 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. J1.] ÞtOTES' I FEST TIlE IARGIY. 181 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). \8 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, code.v 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 ent 1 ::5ce Hcsychius, and the llutes un the plal:e. 182 1\IIST AKES RESULTING FRO:U "r A T OF [ \nT. t\VO places in S. J 01n1's Gospel; \vhere the evidence agaÍ1LSt <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- po itnm est nunc piritui ancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis iutuc- mur, Evangeli:.;ta crihit, unguento; eJ de nardo spirituali.' ..Aud u Jerome himself, ,"ii. 1 . 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. 1SG )IAUGINAL INCOXSISTE CY. [.ART. 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.'),' 'Salat7 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 e- 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? II.] l\II T \KEX })IUXCrPLE U}' TIL\ LATIO . 187 '::\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 nalnes 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 Chu1 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 this. 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 the (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 tlte 188 TIlE TRA SLATOnS OF 1611:- [AUT. 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 arcl- 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 \yorll 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 , 3, 4, 5, 26, 30, 31. II,] IX 1881.-l\rYSTERIER OF LANGUAGE. la7 l..ct it not he suppnscd that w'e lllake light of the difficnl- tic ,,'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 i 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 di 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 S, fatthe\v;- six til11e hy . l\[ark; - eight timcR hy 198 TIlE IIOL Y 'SEPFLCIIRE.' [ART. 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 all \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 rl)Blflill true, nut\yithstanding, that the receptacle of our SA YIOUn'S l 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. fl.] 'DOCTRLYF.'-' VIALS' SOT' BOJrLS: l tn 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. tSax 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. uo C VIAL.'-' BOX.'-' CRUSE.' [ART, (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, II.] 'CIIARITY' EXPELLED FRO:\I THE N. T. 201 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-. 2u2 ' IIRACLES' nE OLUTELY EJECTED [ART, 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 I 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 II,] FHO:\I THE NE" T.ESTA IENT. 203 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 o 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,'- fLaO'1}T (), '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 prin iple ? ,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. Th ,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 , 204 NOTE CO:N"CER I O I lIOL Y GHOST.' [AI T. "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. II.] · EPILEPTIC,' ..\ OnnY GLû S, 205 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 s. 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. -po 6: an admirable pcrformancc,-unanswered, becau e unanswerable. 2 Dr. Vance Smith's R(visc(l Text!; awl J.llargÏ1ls,-p. 45. s . 1\[atth, xvii. 1:>: S. Ik. ix. IH, O, :!, n: So Ln. ix, 3D, -t? 206 , EPILEPTIC,' 'YHY IN AD'IISSIllLE. [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 in 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. II.] 'EVF:nLASTI ?G' EXPEI.I.ED FHO:\J THE X, T. 207 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 thu 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 . 0 (l&U&U,", 2 S. )Tatth. xxv. 46. 208 ETERNITY.- I RPIRA TION. [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 TOV alwva 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 TOV alwva 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 e' 1 Clemens AI. (p. 71) says :-Tà }'pacþà Ó t A7TÚUTOÀO ef07rJlfVUTOV 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.. , f()7r"fVUTO ovua W"Pf^LP.O fUTL. Tregory..l\ yss. n. li L) ,-1raua }'p a "P1J efÚ7rJlfVUT() Àf-YfTaLo Dial. (ap. ()rig. i. 80b),--1i"âua }'pacþ efÓ7rJlfVUTO 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. II,] TIP. 'nDDLET() l'l'r 1f Dr, ELLICOTT. :.!oa 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 prl' 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 -st('- l' 210 TIlE ETEllN...\L SON' I\:NO'YI..EDGE. [ART. 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 s. 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 appointed 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 ity' 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 PXf flJo}liJlTJ lj yvwUtr . . . TOVTiuTtIl, 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 interpretation- â Toivvv ÈK 7rmòò 'ffapà TWV 'ffar{pCAJv K.OVuap.fv. n.] :::;OCJXL\ ULO :--: n, nO L\X IX, 5. 211 1/'110 i. Ol'cr all [things], GU/J [J!C8Sf't! fOì' (;f(')'! .A.lllell,' A gr uHler or Inore UtlCCluivocal testilllony to our LÛRU'H etcrnal (i-( )ohead is nowhcre to Le found in 8criptnre. ..l\ccordingly, thes( ,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 l 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, (a ])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 I/ tcl'prctcrs' 1 2 'Ye have hitherto supposed that it " as '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, 22-;). p l HO:\[.L\ 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 T 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 'íOV aìwva . 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. 2 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 -!U. 2-1 i. 4G-!, 483; vi. 53-1; vii. 51; viii. 1Ð1; ix. GO-!, G53; x. 172. 11.] BY THE .\XCJE T F...\TIIEH8. l:) -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. 51. 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. 1 i. 1-170; ii. 457, 51G, GOU, 790. 16 Cancilia, ii. U8 c. 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;3, 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 1. 214 TIfE DEVIL TL\. BEEN I:\IrnOPEUL Y [AUT. 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 Yocinian 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 uln. 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.' 11.] TIInU T I To 'rIlE L()HD' PJL\ YEn. 213 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 alh l'J\ative, it \\ ns in a vcry high Jl gree unl)CColllÏng for the n( 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 sen c: e"peeially ,dWll (as ill the present ill tanee) the larger llwaning llistinctly illeludes anù covers the le er: witness thc paraphrase in our Church Cateehislu,-' and that lIe 'will heep us (a) frolll all sin and ,,'ickedness, [lIlll (b) fru'll 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 Lonu' 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 1Il' illuiug. Thus Tcrtulliau,-' &\'lU:Ull atlituri. . . cOllte:,talllur llo l'L'- llulltiare ùia.bolo, ct 110/ "1)(V et augclis eius' (i. 421): and _\.mbro e,- " \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 .rru ,-)A7TOTá(]"(TOf.La& Tcê aTav 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 ' (Galbwl. i. 18 e). 2 :! Tim. iv. 18. 21G UN,rA HRA TAULE CIIAXGE IX THE I.OI D'H [.AUT. no\v undcr consideratiun' TIe explains that in the T ORD'S 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 L\." 'AIIO' TOY" IIo npoy". 90TI OY 'E TIX 'H BA L\ErA . . . /Caì 'U .lO'E.\. EI' TOY' AI'{rN.\. , 'AMlI'N. ') rJl. . 18 ' ( K ' .... .1.1nl, 1Y. .-/Cat 'py' ET.\l' :\IE 0 VpLOÇ '.\.IIO' II.\.XTO' "EPl'OY IIO lIPOY" /Caì UwuEt Elc; TII'N D.\. IAEI'A AY'TOY" , , . . 6J 'H O':=.\. EI' I. TOY' .AI'n x.\: . . . . '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 ell 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 l 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 re ult of this l cyision has Lcen thc planting in of a f1'(; h 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 teles 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, 218 , l\llDIPSI:\[L"S' IL\nITU \LLY PUEFEUREn [.AWl'. 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 ,vhich 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, t7te 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. II.] TO ' P'IPSI1IUS' BY rj'HE UEVl IOXr TS, lg 'world ont fOtll'" the Greek \vhich supplic(l the Latin, the Hyrian, the Coptic Churches, ,, ith thc to-x:t of their 1'0- spccti\ 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 lIc 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 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 fair 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 e 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: \ EOT.OGY J THO])r( ED. Ó)') ... -' .-, 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 introrelate, (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 L 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. 230 CERTAIN OF THE REVISERS, BLAl\IEIJESR [Awl'. 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 lajority 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 II.] rUEllENDAUY CRIVENER. 231 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 232 CONSULATION. [.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. 'VES r TC01'T AND HORT'S NE"\V rrExr rU.AL r rlIEOltY. "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 VOJlT r) verbUlIl DEI."-2 Cor. Ïi. 17. TIlE REV ISION BE VISED. ARTICLE III.-'V}:STCOTT ..AND I-IOTIT'S NE'V TEXTUAL THEOTIY. "'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 2:16 'fIlE UEVISION, A GUEA'r DIRArrOINTl\IEN1'. L \UT. 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. III.] (H3JECT OF OUR FOR!\TER ARTICLE . 237 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 238 THE REVISION, CHARACTERIZED. [ART. 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 u 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. III,] THE REVIEWER'S SUPPOSED :MISFOnTU E. 23U 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 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.'- crivencr' Preface tu Suo. Test, leJ'tûs ;:)tepluwici, &c, ce aLuvc, p. :3 , Iwte. It 244 UXDERLYING FALLACY OF RECENT [ART. 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 scicn 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. l 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 tnfaÍ'J. 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 ] EDITORS OF TIlE SACRED TEXT. 245 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 cience 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 Headings; 24() 'VESTCOT'r AN]) lIORT RELY OX THE KVIDJ< XCE [AUT, ,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 \Ya 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 a. 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 two-third 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 tho e enulnerated in p. 238 II 1.] COLLEU'l'EU llY THEIH !)REDECES80US. 247 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 t]lU::' 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 fal 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 ack till we have collated our lS .,-re-edited our \" crsior.s,-indexed our FathEr;,. They will be abundantly in time then, 248 DR. HORT'S STRA GE l\IETIIOD. [ART. 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. nr.] HO"ETIIIXG ABOUT CODICES D, D,-A, C. 2JD 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)roceerofessor 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.] EX \ IIXED 'rITIf IHSl\L\ Y. 2;)1 disagree ".ith 'Baxter,'-an). 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,- j4- DU. IIOlt'fAXU THE 'JIl...'1'lIUlJ [..\U'l'. \ve read un: and sþeedily COBle to a ecund nxicHll (which i:.;; again printed in capital letters), viz. that' .A11 truRt\vorthy n 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 eX 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 ( 53) 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 ca 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 25ß 'TIlE FACTOR OF GENEALOGY.' [AUT. 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 ,, e 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, III,] RESULTS OF 'GENEALOGY.' 257 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 S 258 DATE UF THE' TEXTUS RECEPTUS.' [ART. Testament,-the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, in short,-is, according to Dr. Hort, 'BEYO D ALL QUESTIO ' the' TEXT OF THE SECOXD 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 ^eov.- 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 II!.] "EIGHT PECI:\IEXS 011' 'CONFLATIOY.' 259 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 fa 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 ELraisiu[Jrmd (ß) hltssin,'l nOD,' Such 262 THE IIYI)OTHESIS OF 'CONFLATION' [ART. 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 Yer 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, 49, I II.] FOU D TO B VI [O \nY 2() (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 B 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 fù 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 and ,] 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.) 264 THE THEORY OF 'CONFLATION' [AUT, 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 vords 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 III.] SHO""'N TO DE nA ELES . 2G5 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 2ô6 ASTO:NISHIXG l\IETIIOD OF [ART, 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 III.] nR , \VESTCOTl' AXD IIOUT. 267 ,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 fonned.' '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 distinctively 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 2G8 DR. ROUT'S INCONSEQUENTIAL :\IETHOD. [ART. 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. III,] IIIH DIFFICULTY EXPL..\IXED. 2G 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 I 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 \ I I I 1 Hefcrrcd to below, p. Ðt3. 2 oo abuve, pagc::; .) 7 (Luttonl) and 58 (tup). 270 L\L\GIXARY ACCOUNT OF THE [ART. 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 IlL] uRIGIX of THE TEXTUS llECEl'TUb. 271 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 ' 272 THE DREAl\l CONTIXUED, [ART. 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 JlI.] HU. IIOHT' F \ T.A TIC l\IETIIOD. 273 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 ible, -(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. T 274 ASS1T:\IED RECENSION OF THE GREEK, [AUT, 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 \.UTIIORS OF TIlE SYRIAX TEXT seem to have nlost desired to impre H on it are luciùity anù C0111- l)letcllc 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 similation, 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 II!.] AX}) O ., TIlE SynL\C VEU8IOX-A.D. 350. .-)... - -íJ ,,"ith our sketch of the Theory, (of the D"c(l'ln rather,) ,vhich is intClHleù to account fur the exiRtellcc of the Traditional Te 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 evision 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.) 'IIi 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 isibi .'-(l'. 136.) T 27G DUR. 'VERTCOTT AND HORT'S [ART, 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 vhy \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- In.] F.AXT6\STlC THEORY, EXA:\UNED. 277 '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 th lS with what precedes, \ve propose to be lllost kind and 78 Dn . \\ ESTCOTT AXD IIOllT'8 [AUT. al'COlllluuåating tu 1)1'. Jlort. \Y c proceed tv accept his Thevry in its entirety. ,V c will, \vith tho Reader's pennission, a 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 eyisioll ".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- hllted it seenlS, to the po".cr and influcnl:c of tIH' Authors of tlH' illUl inary Syriac Hevisioll. [ibid.] TIp, Ellicott, b.v III.] F nULO\;S :XARR TIVE. 270 the \va)" (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton's Syriac as ( sinJular and sometimes rather 'wild.' (The text, of a , 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 280 DRS. 'VESTCOTT AND HORT'S FABULOUS [ART. 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 n 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. III,] HISTORY OF TIlE UECEIVED TEXT. 281 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 (xxii. 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" ay. (5) .And there "Till have l)een no account ùiscoveraLle of S. PETER'S VISIT TO THE SEPULCIIHE (xxiv. 12). (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 282 Dlt HORT DEFORE THE :F.ATHERS [AnT. \vill have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLIKG OF THE !)OOL OF nETIIESD \ (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 l)laces. '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 III,] UF 'fIlE IIIRD ...\ D IVTIl CENTUUIES, 283 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.) (3) TIlE ru...\ YEU OF OUR LUUD FOR H I IURDEREn8 (1)1'. ] fort \vould have said),-' I cannot doubt conIes frOlll an extrancous source.' It is ' a "T estern interI)ulation.'-(p.G8.) (4) To TIlE IXS(,RIPTIO OX TIlE CROSS, IX GREEK, L \TIX, 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 )lation.' ] )1'. 110rt ,vould have tried to persuade them that oun LOUD'S ...\ CEXSIO INTO IlEA YE '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 her we forlJcar to conjectufe.)-(p. 71.) (7) TIlE TROUllLIXG OF Tln 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\". 284 DR. HORT verSU8 THE FA TIlERS [ART. 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.] OF TIII IIIRD AXD IYTII CEXTUHIEK 28.3 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 rejoinder. 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! 28G rfllE TEXTUS llECEPTCS TIlE ,rORK OF [AnT. . 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 IlL] TIlE ASSEi\lnLI 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 rislte,z in sense and fm.ce; more fitted fur cursory penuml or recitation than fur r 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- 288 DR. IIORT'S ESTI:\IATE OF TilE CHURCH'S [AnT. 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. 2sa 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- tiou ly trall po ed between 2m,S (B) and 22u ( ) :-and in respect of number, case, nlo0l1, tell:;c, per::;un, &c., altered without authurity between ll (n) and 1:!63 (N) w()rd , u 00 DR. HORT'S FANTASTIC TI-IEOTIY, [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 a 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 Hr.] IT:; IXCOXYEXIEXT C()X EQUEXCES. 1 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 Iliarvel. XXXIL .For, (it is time to enquire,)-Does not the learned JÞrofessor see that, by thus getting ric 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. o . III,] "VITII IIrS F.A T...\STIC THEOUY, 95 ,\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 applic 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 for? 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 (x/llplars 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 29G THE TUADITIOXAL TEXT, A TROUDLE [ART. 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 nquire,-nut \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. 50-350. 2 t;cc aboyc, p. 269. IlL] TC DIU;, \VESTcOTT .AXLJ HoHT. 207 .\.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 nece ::;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 PRDL\RY DOCU)rEXT \RY "TITXESS,"-not to "OXE .AXTIOCIIL\X ORIGI 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 E AXTIOCllI.A om(a :\I. '-[note the fallacy 1]-' U'as mul- tiplied Ùdo tlu" Clll'ÛVC hu t:; (if the lahr ([yu;,'- Pl'. 113-1. , 298 DR, IIORT REJECTS TIlE TFXT OF [AUT. ( 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 reek 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.) III.] TIlE GTIEEK FATIIEn AFTElt EU EBHT . ÐU .And thus, at a tr(jke, behold, 'ahnost all Grcek ]latlters after .E'as 'ÙÍ1lS' - ("rho died A,D. 340) - are disposed of! wa 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 stl/Jl{J. 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 300 THB B:ECR"ET OUT AT LAS'f. [An'l". 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. . . . . o 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 IlL] Ol)EX B .\ 1J COHEX. , 301 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. O -5), -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 02 BRR "TESTCOTT AXD HORT'S [AnT, 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 , ubiblls,- 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.) III,] EXTTL\( )RTH ,\nY 'TETIIOD OF HE \SOXIXG, o ] 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.'- (p. o. See top of p. 221.) Or tbat,-' The close app1.oaclt to the time of the autographs rai es the prct:;uluption of purity to an unusual strength.' --(po 224.) 301 EFFORTR OF TIlE I:\L\GI A TIOX. [ART. 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.) II!.] A RE:\TOXSTllAXCE. 305 IT ntil at last, "..c find it announced as a C Inoral ccrtainty: '- , It is mmO{tlly certain that tho ancestries of ß and direrged 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 practi 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 nlÏ1ul. 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 i "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 x 300 TIlE l\IETIIOD OF REITEll.A TIO . [AnT. 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 IlL] 'RIl\YG OF UENrISEXESS,' :107 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, i , 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 G OF GE 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 30R DR, HORT'S IX ER COXSCIOUS:NES , [ART. 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 eadings 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 III.] AX UNS \FE TEXTUAL GUIDE. u \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. . 4 Yult.s,-p. 31. :; Scrh'cllcr' Plaill Intj'oductiun,-Pl\. 307-8. JIU , TIlE RING OF GENUISE1VESS,' NOT [ART 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. III.] .\PPIJICAllLE AR A TEST. 311 that, on tho contrary, Dr. 110rt is frequently constrained to atln1Ït that tlw omitted 'lcorrls actually luu"(' 'the ring of genuillcllc 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 omis 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 tatc- 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.) In . 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 31 DR. HOUT' rUOP08..\.L TO IIUT US UP [ART. 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, fuun0], 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 spcci}}wJ 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 1 Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1) The exclusive onlission by B and of [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 hes, 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: with 13 timc : with 13, 11 times: with c, 4 tiJHcs. :118 ESTE\IATE OF CODD. B A D . [ART, 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 d 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. III] ERTI::\L\ TE OF CODD. II AXD . 319 even lTIOrC untrust\yorthy. Thus, ,, hereas (in the Gospels :llone) n has 580 TIeadings quite peculia?" to itself, affecting R38 ,, ortls,- has 14GO such I eadings, affecting 2640 " onls. 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 () DIALOGTTE OF TIlE REYIE'YER [ART. 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 OnstTatcd 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 eview 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, IlL] ""ITH A l!PP()SED OBJECTOR. 3il 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. y 322 FRAG IEXT OF THE 'MEDEA,'-B,C. 200. [ART. 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 r 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 fpO 5 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 III.] CAIU8 (A.D. 17;.) ON TEXTUAL DEPRA YATIOX. - "'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 2 324 TIlE TEXT DEPHA VED BY HETIETICR. [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'. Eh 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 extant 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 ). IlL] CA E O ' THE CODICE II N C. 325 Q. R. C( fly no Ineans. ..ct copy like coùex ll, once ri'-co[j1l1zcd a 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 de 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(' cllc , Part ii. p. . 2 I.:rivcuer'... l'rl'fatc'r - Illf,"or/w"{itm,--p" xi,,-, 3 I bid, 1', iii. 32G Il\IAGINARY VISIT TO CLEl\IEXS, [AnT. 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. IlL] AT ALEXAXDRL.\, A,D. 183. 327 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 7 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 Tischenloyed 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 centu1.y.'-(p.152.) 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 IlL] DOTH CO SPInE IX ERROR AT 1 s. JOll 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 JK TOÛ 8eoû can be none other than the Only Begotten SO of 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 XAL So should be intended? : LI:8 THE TUL"E BEADIXU 01f 1 So JOIlX y, 18. [Aln'. 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 est.' 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. 1fT,] , LVNOCEX1' IO...YOU...tSCB' OF TIlE HEYIE,rER. 3-1-9 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. 350 NE IESIS OF STTPERSTITION AND IDOLATRY. [ART. 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. HJ.] ])H, UOU1' O ' cONJECTUR J L EilIE}' DJ. TION.' 351 lJrother-Hc\'isiollisrs that 'the IJrevalcnt assunlption that throuO'hont the X. T. the true Text is to ùe found sO'Jllcwhcre o 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 ca 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 ]Jlinisters.') . 35 TEXT OF :! TIM. I, 13, VI DICATEV: [AUT. 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 III] ...\ T. O, of J()TI VI. 4, A D (H1 ACTR XX, 2H, oJ .., " dad 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 so 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 2 \ 54 , COl'l.TEOTURAL E},IENDA T ION' IR ALI O'VED [ART. 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 l 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 l )IEXD_\TIOX ' C.A BE ALLO'VED KO rLACE ,\rUATEVER IN TIlE TEXTUAL CnITICIS:\l OF TIlE NE'V TESTA IEXT 1 lIe will no don l.t disregard our counsel. J\iay Dr. SCl'iyener then el 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 XT. ; G!) (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 \' l'Y :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' (KUTUKU1}UETUt ). 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 sU l'icious documcnts lea,'c out the 'not.' Our F.:òitor:-l, ratJwr tllan re- 2 .\ 356 TEXT OF 2 PETER III. 1 0, VINDICATED. [ART. 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 crentur,-(some,, 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 EOPAKEN EMBATEYWN into AEPA KENEMBATEYWN; which (if 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 worthle 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. III.] DR, HORT'S SINGULAR SELF-DELUSIO . 357 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. 3fi8 HI:. IIORT'R EXTR \OnDINARY l\lETIIOH. [Awr. 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 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 w1 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. jI. 3HO 1'HE TEXT ü}i' S. ?tlATTHE"" V. 22, [AUT. 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 7 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. 40). 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 ]. Ill.] VINDIC \. TED AGAIKST DR. IIORT. 3Gl 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. 3G2 'VESTCOTT AN"D HORT'8 l\IETHOD OF DEALI 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 Ü. III.] '\"ITII TIlE IXBPIRED TEXT, INDEFEXRlnLJ' 3G3 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 pru 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 c (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. 364 ".fIIE SCIENCE OF C TEXTUAL CRITICISM' [ART. 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. III,] )[AY NO IORB nJ' SUFFERED TO t41.EEP. 365 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 ntal cholars join in the fray, Englauù,-,vhich 3GG , GOD DEFEND THE RIGHT.' [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. . I lL\ V E BEEN VERY JEALOUS FOR TIlE LORD GOD OF HOSTS. LETTER TO ß 18 II OP ELLIC 0 TT, IN ItEPL Y TO HIS I) Al\IPJILET. 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."- BISHOP ELLICOTT. s " 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 rlIE HIGII1 1 REY. CIIATILES JOlIN ELLICO'f'f, ]),n" BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER A.ND ßRISrOL, IS REPLY TO IllS PAl\IPHLET IN DEFENCE OF TIlE REVISERS .A D TIIEIR GREEI( TEXT OF THE NE"\V TESTA iENT. "'VHAT COURSE WOULD REVISERS HAVE US TO FOLIOW . . . 'VOULD IT n:g WEI,L FOR TJlE [ TO AGREE o A CRITICAL GREEK TEXT? To THIS Qr:ESTIOX WE rEXTlTRE TO AXSWER VERY USIIESIT.ATLYGLY LV TilE' XEG.ATIJr:. "THOUGH WE HAVE MUCH CRITICAL MATERIAL, A D A VERY F IR A IOUKT OF ClnTICAL KKOWT.EDGE, WE H.A VE CERTAI...YLY ,^YOT YET AC- Ql;IRED SrPFICIE.YT CRITICAL JUDGJfEXT FOR AXY BODY OF REVISERS HOPEFULLY TO UXDERTAKE RUCH A WORK AS TIllS." BISHOP EJ,LICOTT. 1 iy LORD BISHOP, 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 discu 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 370 rRELI:\Ie' . \nY.-nIRHor ELI,ICOTT'S [R 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 study. 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. UP, ELLICOTT.] p \)IrIILET ,y \. \. TICIP...\.TED, : 71 (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 lRS ,) I was making a fatal inroad into your position, ])y sho\ving ho\v utterly ,vithout foundation is the ' Textual 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. . f. U 372 nI 1I01) ELLICOTT' 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 proccr!1trc. 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,- (18H . pp.250. l\Turrny,)-p. 232. Canon Cook's temperate [l1Ic1 very interesting volume wilJ be found simply un:m:.;weral,le. .uP. ELLICOTT.] 'IETIIOD OF PROCEDURE. 373 the Convocation of the Southern Province: have corrected. only (( plain {I nd clear errors." [nstead uf this, you labour to cnlist vulgar pn->jullstain '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. 376 INCIEl.VT AUTIIORITY [REl)LY TO 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 COXSE TIE 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 CIE 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,] YEH U lIODERN UPISIO...Y 377 ,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, Ti 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 ue e:..; 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. 3iB TIlE FADnIC OP RECENT [REPLY TO 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 eyisers 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 tual 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 2. 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. HI'. ELJ.JCU':'T.] TEX'f{T .\L CHITICI :\I, IX I.:{iFnE. :17a -" The case uf Tischendorf" (you said) "is still 11101'e easily tli 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) 1 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- ce :::-ion t)f faluous Critic , that as "a fabric," its ycry 1 On Eu'itiiull, pp. -17-8. 380 CO TR \DICTORY E TI:\L\TE ()F [REPLY TO 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 chich 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. Iattha 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.) :UP. ELLICOTT.] nEC E T TEXTV \L CnITI(I :\I. ; 81 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 . . .. carccl.r 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. 382 nECE T CRITICIS 1.-nIRJI()p [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. Dp. ELLICOTT,] EL1.ICOTT \XD THE 'TEXTU RECEPTIYR' 3Hj pain 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." ( crivencr':) Iutroductiull,-p. l ï.) 2 P. 1 . :1R-t- BI-::;Hor ELT.ICOTrr's QUEEU KOTIOXS [HEPL Y TO of (C all cxtant doclunents," ho,veycr ancient? . . . . ThiR first. \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 Oollation! (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. BI'. ELLICOTT.] COXCEllXIXG TilE RECEIYED TEXT. 3B5 ] 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 illu tration. It is discùycred that, in 111 page8, . . . the sorious 2 C 38G THE STAXD..\Un OF COl\IP..\TITSOX IR XüT [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,- fanu- 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- pare 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. UP. EU.If'OTT.] TIIEIlEFOllE THAT OF EXCELLENCE, 387 [ ] Tlte llevicwcì" vÍiulicatcs h i}'U Clf (([f{( iast Bp, Ellicoft'.r;; 1n'l: - conception.':. 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. C 388 .AN AL Yf4IS OF THE P Al\IPHLE r r. [REPLY TO 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 nI'. ELLICOTT,] THB nU HOr O TIIB ' TEXTUS RECEPTCS.' 389 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 re Hlerg shuuld dra\v therefrum, hall he <:atterl'(1 to the willd l,y the unequiyol'tll testÏIllony of l1u h':-- di tingui he(l a witlle::; than yourf'l'lf. N otwithstalHling all that has gone 39U TilE nI J[Or'S nOnnO\VED NOTIO S [RErL Y TO 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 ,,' ORD IXC.AHN \.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 J E 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, lip, ELLICOTT.] CU'\CEll'\IXG TIIF 'TEXTU:-; nECEPTe .' 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 ItEcEPTUH' 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 iblo tu regard it as a sta.ndard Il.om 'lvhiclt there was '110 appeal. The rea 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 ll 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: . 392 IHSHOP ELLICOTT IX .A.D. 1870, [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 I 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 IIOP El..LICOT'l' I \,D. 18ö], 3U3 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 Chrysostom." (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 ('onjecture fl)r facts,-as:,crtions for arglUllCllt.,,-and reite- 394 HIS SERVILE RErRODUCTIO OF [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 Theory. 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. TIP, ELLICOTT.] 'VE TCOTT .\ND IIOllT'S TIIEOUY. 93 ':-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. 396 Dr. ELT.IC0TT IL\S ENTIRELY _\DUrTED [REl'LY TO 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 cl 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. l. 2 J 'po :3--!. 3 :::llpnl, pp. 2Ü8- tj6. HI', EI.LWOTT,] 'VESTUOTT AXD IIORT' TEXTUAL THEORY. 397 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 InuniIiatioll. \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 , 1. !)H " COXSrIn \CY."-DIRnEG.ARD [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 \vhole 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- take , "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 indceoen 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- KallTf (xv. 23), &c. FJ.'hese arc generally the rcsult of a change of con- struction. 2 )l . communication frL'll1 my friend, the Editor. 40ö l'UOOF TIL\'l' TIlE ltEVI EnS IL\ VB [UEI'L Y TO 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 in 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' In IX TnUCTIO , 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 aìrrov 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 ()ay 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 408 counUPTIO OF . JOlIN IV. 15. [REPLY TO is found (I discover) in o,Ûy two Greek JISS. of bad character 1 (B ), ,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! ,: IIp. ELLICUTT.] ì\Il r.AKEX OFFTCIOU E .- . '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 = L'tss. Gfi). Note that the reference is 'not to ::;. ::\Iatt, x. 1.). 8 P. 123. 410 IUTILA TION OF S, l\[A TTIIE"r V. 44. [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 pi(;C- 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 \TEnslo 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, l esides, of the Latins, hy Tertullian, - by Lucifer, - by 1 Viz. vi. 7-1a. 2 i. lÐÐ and 200. J In luc. Dp. ELLICOTT,] HEYIRETIS' TnEAT:\TE T OF rnIrTunE. 411 AHtlH'o 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 eaaillgs ,,'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 1 l:C aùoyc, Pl'. 3-:17 -U. 2 S(:c aùove, lip. 79-85, 412 IIE.ADI ÜS .A D ]L\HGIN \L nEFEnE CE . [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 ft\ YIOUU'S GODHE \D. 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 nvay. 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. : tI. IJp. EI.LICOTT,] ..\ UGnEHTED .ALLOCUTIO . 41:3 " 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 DE L\L ? [IG] Tlt(' caZa1nity of the , T"cw Grcck Text' traced to its source. 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 I evised Text of the N. T. to their colleagues, accolnpanieicate 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. TIp. ELLICOTT,] UI IIOr ELLICOTT A p.\nTIZ.\X. 415 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 nevi el's had been indivi1;-8.- -ìFou (l('felHl your- E -tIS TIII IXTEE rIJ \CE::; DEFEXlÞED [fiEl'LY TO solf at pre 48-9,-an.1 "cannot (1ouht that the lleyisers ,vere I 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 1/ 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." (1 ) 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,] I In'. ETII.ICOTT':, PA:\lrnLET. 19 (1 ; ) Th(' gr(). ." foll)'; 'alion in S. Luke xxi ii. 4';, L hav(' eXI"J 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 paulphlet. (lG) 'Titus Ju,stns,' thrust hy the Revisors into .Act xviii. 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 ,, ill 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 ut happily, Iny 101'(1 Jjishop, this is a l)oillt \yhich adulÏts of l illg Lrought tu issue hy an appeal to fact. Yon shall first 2 E 4 O TTIE TE T OV CATHOLTC A TTQPTTY [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 cript ; 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 TJE T TESTDIO Y OF TIlE l\IOsr A CIEXT AUTHOn[TIE ."-(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. FineLius,- 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: :--TheuP, 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 TIlE TEST OF CATIIOLIC .\NTIQUITY [UEl'LY Tv \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. L\l:K, \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 t llJlcicnt autÌloriti{'s." ...\.nd I illyitC you to nute the result of such an appeal in the pre:sent instance. The V crses in (1l1e tioH 1 íìud arc recugnized, I ., lh'. ELLICOTT,] ..\PPJ.IED TO H. :\1.\ UK XVI. f)-20. 4 ..)" ...J.J 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;- 1\Iacarius 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 Iercator. 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 Iodestus, 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 T OF . 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 \TIIOLIC A 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" IIO\\TN TO BE TIlE TUDE UEADIXG OF 1 TIMOTHY III. 1 ö. A DISSERTATIOY. 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( 2 t.'t.' a bon>, 1" : ï, note e). Dl). ELLICOTT.] DI EnT_\.TIO () 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 EnT \TIOX shall understand it also :)- 'Yhereas, I say, \\.e have hitherto read the place tInIs, "GUE_\.T I TIlE )IY:jTERY OF GODLIXES :-GOD \y \ )L\XI- FE::;T IX THE .FLESH, Jl;::;TIFIED IX THE SPIlUT, :::5EEX UF \.xc EL , rltE_\CHED UXTO THE GEXTILE , llELIEYED OX IX THE ""UHLD, HECEIYED UP IX TO ULOHY:" 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, "l}UE \T IS TilE IYSTERY OF GODLIXE S, " IIO W' \S )L\ I- FESTED I TIlE FLESH, JL'"STIFIED IX THE SPlnIT," ,--\:c. : '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. 426 DI SERT.ATIO O 'fHE TUDE [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,- (")EÒ 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.,. lll', ELLICOTT.] HE.ADIXG OF 1 TDIOTHY III, ] ß. t27 ])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 in 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: - c tnriu , 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'. 42R UP. ELl..ICOTT' T.\TEl\[EXT OF TIlE [HEPLY Tù this place, l)ccausc (in his ConUlll'ntary on Isaiah) hc spl'( ks of our ..\ VIOUR as One ,dlO ',vas nlanifested in the Hesh, justified in the pil'it.'l ..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 (õç) cas 1JUlnifcstcd in tltc jlc."h, jnstificd in thc Spirit," 2 &c. &c. .And presently, " I consider tltc '1nystcry of gVllli/ css 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 ed 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 hl lawfully inferred fro111 the fullowing annotation in your "Critical (oal G1'(l1JlJ'lldical CUJJuJll'Ji!aJ'!J on the Fastoral J 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: and-( ) 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 that,- "The state of the evidence is briefly as follows:- (1) r'OÇ is read with Al [indisputably; after 111Ïnuto personal in 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 Father::;. (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 th 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 nIf nor'R ST \TE1\TE"NT 01i' THE EVIDE CE. [RErLY TO 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 proyokeolyglott 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 .-TIp. "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 con- 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 ertim acl partelll sini:::-tram, Cpl:l' l)eriphcriam litera' rcrtingit," &c.-l/l loco. Bp. ELLICOTT.] (IF THE CODEX .\ T.EX.\ XnnTXUH, \. 4 ;' (171 G) collatl'<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 1773. 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." [Præfa . p. xxxi.] DI'. Er,LlcOTT.] DI:-;PPTE TUB TE:::;TI)IO 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 I . 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 4jG 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, llUuld (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 vidi 8emus, evanuerant." Dp. ELLICOTT.] TIlE CASI' O}1' CODEX U. 437 (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. That 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 ac-iJl[J 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. (1783). S "Quoticscunque locunl inspicicba.m (ill pcxi autcnl pcr hoc bicnnium særi::-; illlC) nlihi pror us apparchat." "Quam [lincolam] m.iror }PlclH;quC ollillium oculo fllg,i;-.s ." [C 1'0/t !j!J. p. 11]. . . . Eq uidcm miror oanc. 438 'l'HE READIXG O:F CODEX 0, [REI'LY TO 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 UP. ELLICOTT,] A D OF CODD. )1' AND G, 43 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 matter. 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. IauI17,' , 73 ' and' 181,' cOiLccnLÍ'llJ 1 Tin1. iii. IG. Next, for the cursiye Copies. You clainl "Tithout enquiry, -and only bcca'ils(, you .find that 'lncn have claÍ'Jncd thc'ln bcJ01 e Y07l,-Nos. 17, 73, 181, as "ritnesscs for õ . 'Yill you permit Jl1e to point out that no 11rogress ,rill eycr he D1ade in these 444 TIlE CA B 0]' TILE TIIUEE CURSIVE [REl>LY TO studies so long as "professed Critics" will perseyere in the evil practice of transcribing one another's references, and thus appropriating one another's blunders? About the reading of 'rauI17,' (the notorious' 33' of tho Gospels,) there is indeed no doubt.-1\1indful ho,vever of l resident TIouth's advice to me al"rays 'to verify my refer- ences,' -concerning' l>aul 73' I '''Tote a letter of enquiry to Upsala (.July 28, 1879), anù for all alls,ver (Sept, 6th) received a beautiful tracing of 'v hat my correspondent called the'l Thim. iii, 16 paraphc.' It proved to be an abriùged exhibition of 21 lines of illculnenius. I instantly "Tote to enquire ,,,hether tllÍs " as really all that the codex in question has to say to 1 TÎ1n. iii, 16? but to this I received no reply. I presulneJ therefore that [ had got to the bottOlll of the business. TIut in July 1882, I addresseù a fr:esh enquiry to ]}r. BclsheÏ1n of Christiania, and got his ans,ver last Octol)er. ] y that tÎ1ne he had visited U psala: haù verified for IHO readings in uther 1\18S., and reported that the reaùing here is Õ . I instantly "Tote to enqnire ,vhether he had seen the ,vord ,vith his o,vn eyes 1 lIe replied that he desired to luuk further into this matter on SOlliC future occasion,-the IS. in question being (he says) a difficult ono tu handle. I aIll still a,vaitillg his final report, ,vhich he pron1Íses to scud lue ,vhen next he visits Upsala, (, .A.urivillius' says nothing aùout it.) Let' ranI 73' in the nleantÏ1ne stand ,vith a noto of interrogation, or ho,y you ,vill. About' Faul1S1,' (,vhich Scholz describes as "vi. 36" in the Laurentian liùrary at Florence,)I take leave to repeat (ill a foot-note) ,yhat (in a letter to Dr. Scrivener) I explained in the ' Guardian ' ten years ago.! In consequence ho"rever 1 "You will perceive that I have now ðlweceded in idcntifying every EvangeliUlll hitherto ::;l)ukcli tJf a cxi::;ting in Flurcm;c, with thc cÀcc!,tion Dr. ELLU"OTT,] COPIE ,-' P.\UL 17,' c 7:3,' '181' 1- tf) of your tliscourteous relnarks (,,-hich yon ,vill hp gratific(l tn find (luotC::;ahlls.' I a sure )'ou no l5uch Codex exil5ts in the Laureutia.n Library; no, nor ever did ex.ist there. Dr. ...\nziani '1.{;llatcd by the expression C '/ltag/uon pietat1"s S(U'lY(.1ncnlll m.' (b) It is, 1. adlllÏt, a striking circun18tance that uch a Inistake as this in the old Latin should ha ye been retained in the ''''ULG.ATE. But if you ever study this suhject "yith attention, you ,yill find that J erome,-although no doubt he "pro- fessrdly corrected the old Latin Y. ersion Ly the help of ancient Greek Inanuscripts," (p. 69,)-on Inany occasiuns retains readings ,vhich it is nevertheless deulunstrable that he individually disapproved, No certain inference therefore as to ",.hat J erOI11e fonnd in ancient Greek )188. can be safely drawn fronl the text of the Vulgate. (c) Next, for the Syriac (PESCHITO) ,r ersioll. I beg to subjoin the vie,v of the late loved and lamented P. E. Pusey, -the editor of Cyril, and ,yho at the tÏ1ne of his death ,,-as engaged in re-editillg the Pes chi to. He says,-" In 1 TÏIu. iii. 16, the Syriac has C qui 'lnanifestatlls cst.' The relative is indeterIuinate, but the verb is not. In Syriac ho"Teyer J.LVUT17ptoV is nlasculine; and thus, the natural ,vay ".oulù be to take J.LVqT ptoV as the antecedent, and translate C quod 'Jnanifcstatll1lt cst.' No onc 'lvOlÛd have thought of any otlzel" 'way of translating thc Syriac-but for the existence of the various reading Õ\; in the Greek, and the poò,o;ibility of its affecting the translation into 8yriac. But the Peschito is so really a translation into good Syriåc, (not into ,yord-for-"yord Syriac,) that if the translator had "yallted to expre.ss the Greek Õ\;, in so difficult a passage, he r/.l"Ollld harc turned it differently." 1 - The l}eschito therefore yields the saIne testÏInony as the Latin; allù lllay not be declared (as you declare it) to be indetenninate. Still le s Jllay it be represented as ,vitne::;sing to õ\;. 1 318. lettcr to my clf, August 11, ltiï t. 2 G 4GO TIIB rUILOXENL\X oU nAHKLEI.A , [UErL"\ TO (d) It folIo,,':;;; to en(luire concerning the rendering of 1 TiIn. iii. lU in the PlIILOX.EXIAX, or rather the ll.AUKLEL\X \Tersion (\Tllth cent.), concerning ".hich I haye had recourse to the learned Editor of that ,r ersion. He ,vrites :-" There can be no doubt that the authors of this Version had either t:JEÓÇ or 8EOÛ Lefore theln: ,vhile their Dlarginal note sho,,"s that they 'v ere a\\Tare of the reading öç. They exhibit,- 'Great is the 'J11ystc'I'Y oj the !Joodness oj the fea')' (fenÜnine) oj Gun, 'lvho-1vas-'Jnanífcstcd (lnasculine) in the flesh.' The Inarginal addition [ocr. before ll?] lllakes the reference to GOD all the plainer." 1 See 1110re Lelo\'T, at p. 480. Now this introductiun of the "Tord E>EóÇ into the text, ho".ever inartistic it D1ay seeln to you and to Jne, is a fatal circulllstanco to those ,vho ,voulù contend un your side. T t s11o".s translators divided Let\veen t"..o riyal and conflicting readings: but detol'lnined to give pron1Înence to the CirCUJll- stance ".hich constituted the greatness of the lnystery: viz. líOD IXCARXATE. " :Thlay I sugge8t" (add the \"itty scholar ill his rost-script) "that there "ould be no Inystery in 'a lnan being manifested in the flesh' 1 " The facts concerning tho I [arkleian \ ersion being such, you ,viII not be surprised to hear nle say that I aln at a loss to understand ho\v, \vithout a syllable expressive of doubt, you should claim this yersion (the' I>IÜloxcnian ' you call it- but it is rather the llarkleian), as a ,vitness on rour sidc,- a \vitness for 0\;,2 It not only ,,'itnesses against you, (for the Latin and the Peschito do that,) but, as [ have shown you, it i a \VitllcsS on 'lny side. (e) and (f). Next, for th(\ ,r er ion of J.JO\VER an(l U prER ] GYrT. 1 IS. letter frunl the Bev. -Ilenry Deane, of S, John's College, Oxfunl. 2 Hec above, page !:!U. Bp, ELLJ' OTT.] \XU 'l'1J J' 1'\VU Et. Y I'TL\:\ V EH:-:[O\B, ,.1.) 1 ""\\T C are content" (you say) to "refer uur readers tu Tischclldorf alHl Trcgl}l1es, \vho unhesitatingly clainl the }'Iellll'hitic [01' Copti ] aULl the ThelJi.LÏe [ur ahidie] fur Õ ."l But surely, in a TIlatter of this kind, IllY lord :Dishop-(I 1llCan, \vhen \ve are discussing sonle nicety of a language of w"hich personally \ve kno\v absolutely nothing,)-\\'"ß may ne,"er " be content to refer our readers" to individuals \vho are every bit as ignorant of the lllatter as ourselves. I{ather should \\ e be at the pains to obtain for those \\-holn ,ye pro- pose to instruct the deliberate verdict of those \vhu have nuule the subject their special study. Dr. 1\Ialan (\\9ho nUlst Le heartily sick of me by this time), in reply to IllY repeated enquiries, assures lne that in Coptic and in Sahidic alike, "the relative pronoun ahyays takes the gender of the Greek antecedent. But, inasmuch as there is properly speaking no neuter in either language, the Illasculine does duty ju)' the neuter; the gender of the definite article and relatiye pronoun being determined by the gender of the \vord referred to. Thus, in S. John xv. 26, the Coptic' pi' anll 'phè' respectively represent the definite article and the relative, alike in the expression ó ITapáKÀ7JTO ÕV, and in the expression TÒ ITvEvj.La 3: and so throughout. In 1 TÏ1n. iii. IG, therefure, 'pi }n1.t tèrion phè,' lllust perforce be rendered, TÒ , rl t I , rl A d t . f 1 jLVUT1JptOV 0 :-no , sure y, 0 jLVUT1JptfJV oç. n ye, I t,W rc- lalice nuty be Inasculine, why nut the article also? But in fact, we have no InOl'e right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidie) relative hy õç in 1 Tiln. iii. IG, than in any other sÏ1nilar l)LlS- sage \vhere a neuter nuun (e,g. 7rvevjLa or uWJLa) ha gone IJefore. In tll-is lia1'ticular case, of course a pretence DWY bl' set up that the genùer of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but ill strictness of granullar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic ur Sahidic Lack into Greek, 1 Page.1. \nd o p, G5 and (jf). 2 G 2 452 'TilE GOTIIIC, THE "ETIIIOI)IC, THE [1tEPL Y TO \voulù ever ùrealn of \vriting anything else but TÒ ftVG"T1}- ptOV õ." 1 . . . . . And no\v 1 trust I have nlade it plain to you that YO'l/; arc mistaken in your stateulent (p. 69),-that "1"0,, is supported by the t.wo Egyptian Vcrsions." It is supported by ncithcr. You have been sho,,?n that they both ,vitness against you. You ,vill therefore not be astonished to hear Ine again declare that I am at a loss to understand ho,v you can cite the' l}hiloxenian, Coptic and Srthidic,'2- as ,vitncsses on your side. It is not in this ,vay, my lord Bishop, that GOD'S Truth is to be established. (g). As for the GOTHIC Version,-dissatisfied w'ith the ver- dict of Dc Gabelentz and Loebe,3 I aùdressed Inyself to Dr. Ceriani of filall, the learned and Inost helpful chief of the .A.mbrosian Library: in w'hich by the ,vay is preserved thc only known copy of Ulphilas for 1 Tim. iii. 16. He inclines to the opinion that' saci ' is to be read,-the rather, because Andreas U ppströnl, the recent editor of the codex, a diligent and able scholar, has decided in favour of that 'ObSC1U'C' reading. 4 The Gothic therefore must b e considered to 1 1\18. lettcr to myself. 2 See above, page 429. S Ulfilas. Veteris et J{ovi Test. rersionis Goth. fragmenta quæ supe1'- Sllllt, &c. 4to. 1843. 4 "Si taJnen Uppströln 'obsc'ltrum' dixit, non 'incertum,' fides illi adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me enÏ1n præsente in aula. codicenl tractabat."-(Private letter to myself.) Ceriani proceeds,-" Quæris quomodo cOJuponatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii. 1ß, nota ð Proleg. Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens 8Eór. Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti 'Let me recommend to you the practice of ahcays verifying your references, sir. '" The reader will be interested to bc informed that Vastiglione, the former editor of the codex, was in favour of ' GOD' in 1835, and of ' soei ' (quæ [= Ó], to agree with 'runa,' i.e. 'nlystery,' which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured to print 'saei' = ôr. "Et 'saei ' legit etiam diligentissiInus Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis AInbrosiaui investigator et editor, in opere Codicis Gothici .Ambrosictll,i sive A'pist. Pauli, &c. IIolmiæ et Lipsiæ, 18G8." UP. ELLtCOrT.] AR IE IAX AXD TIlE AnAnIC YEnSIO S. 453 witness to the' (1l1ore than) extraordinary comhination;- ftÉryA"2. . . . fLvuT1jptOV . . . "0"2., (Set' the footnote (4) p. 45 ,) I obtain at the sanle time, the sanle verdict, and on the same grounds, from that distinguished and oLliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheinl of Christiania. " But" (he adds) "the reading is a little dubious. H. :F'. l.Iassmann, in the notes to his edition, 1 at page 657, says,-' saei [qui] is altogether obliterated.' "-In claiming the Gothic therefore as a w'Ítness for Õ , you ,,,ill (I trust) agree ,vith Ine that a single scarcely legible copy of a Version is not altogether satisfactory testi- Inony :-,,'hile certainly '1naglll.lS est pictatis sacralllelltunl, qui manifestatus est in corpore '-is not a rendering of 1 TiIn. iii. IG ,vhich you are prepared to accept. (h) For the .lETHIOPIC V ersion,- Dr. Hoerning, (of the British 1fuseuln,) has at lny request consulted six cOJ)ie8 uf 1 TÜnothy, anù illforIns Ine that they present no variety uf text. The antecedent, as 'If.xll as the relative, is rnasculinc in all. The Æthiopic nlust therefore be considered to favour the reading fLVUT"17ptoV. & ÈcþavEpWO'T}, and to represent the same Greek text ,yhich underlies the Latin and the Peschito Versions. The Æthiopic therefore is against you. (i) "The ARMENIAN ,\T ersion," <,,,rites Dr. l\Ialan) "frolll the very nature of the language, is indeteru1inate. There is no grammatical distinction of gcnd rs in Armenian." (j) The ARABIC Versioll, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu 2 illfOl'lI1:i Illt',) 1 Stuttgard, 1857. 2 Of the department of Oriental1\r S. in the Brit. r1.lH., who derives hi text frOIu "tlw three .:\Inseum 1\ISS. which contain the Arabic Version of the Epistles: viz. IJad. 5474: (dated A.D. 1332) :-Orieutul1328 (Xth ccnt.) :-..J.ruudcl Urient. lÐ ((latcù A,D, 161G)."-\Valtun's PulygloU, he 454 TITE OEOR(a \N .\xn TlIE L \ YO IC. [UI l'I.y TO exhibitR,-" In truth the 'l/lystcry of this justicf' is great. It is that lie" (or" it," for the _\rabic has no distinction bet" een Inasculine and neutcr) "1,.rlS IJtCl1l1fcsted in, the body, and was justified in th spirit," &c.- This ycrsion therefore ,vitnesses for neither C \yho,' C "rhich,' nor C GOD.' (1.:) and (l). There only renutÏn the GEOUGL\N \T ersion, ,vllich is of the 'Tlth century,-alHl the SLA VO IC, ,,'hich is of the IXth. N O"T, both of thesc (Dr. l\Ialan infornls 111e) 11}(( ql1ivoeally 1.l'itncss to 8eóç', Thus far then for the testiIllony yiel(lcd by ancient l\L\ USCIUPTS and VERSIOX8 of S. l aul's Epistles. rg] Ecricw of the l 1T (j!lTess 'lchieh has been hitherto rnadc '/-'it tlie present Enquiry, Up to this point, you lllUst adn1Ít that \vondrous little sanction has been obtained for the reading for ,vhich Y01.t contend, (viz. fLVU7" plOV. ()Ç' ècþavepwB7],) as the true reading of 1 Tinl. iii. 16. UndisturLeù in your elljoynlcnt of the testilnony borne by Cod. , you cannot but fcel that such testin10ny is fully counterbalanced hy the \vitness of Cod. A: and further, that the conjoined evidence of the HAUKLEIAN, the G EORGIAX, and the SLA YONIC ,r ersions out,veighs the single cvidence of the GOTHIC. But ,,'hat is to be said about the consent of the llUtnU- scripts of S. Paul's Epistles for reading 8eóç' in this place, in the proportion of 125 to I? Yon Inust surely see that, (as I eXplained aboye at pp. 445-6,) such Inultitudinous testi- Inony is ab olutely decisive of the question before us. At Rays, exhibits" a garbled version, quite distinct fI'ml1 the genuine Ara11ic: yiz. ' Thft:e g7uries COm1f1Lmorate tlU'1lt in the !Jreatness qf the 7nystery qf .Jr.tir lJidy. (]n]) ((lJl)(.:ared Ùt the flesh,'" &c. )JP. EU,ICOTT.] llEYIE"'" OF rn()(nn;: , () F..\U. -t- 5 .t p. 30 of your palllphlet, you announce it as a "lesson of primary Ï1nportance, often reiterated hut øften forgotten, jJmu[cl'a7'i dcbcre tC8tC.' , non nU'J}wIYlri." 1'" on n1ight have added \\Tith advantage,-" and oftcllcst of all, lIâsll ndcrstuut/," Fur are you not a'VfiTe that, generally speaking, ':x lunLer' rmiðtitutcs '\\T eight' ? If you have discovered SOInc 'regia via' "rhich renders the general consent of COrIE ,-the general consent of Y"EU IOXB, - the general consent of l""\1'11EUS, a consideration of seconllary Ï111portance, ,,,hy do you not at once cOlnnluuicate the precious secret to luan- kiud, and therehy save us all a ,yorld of troul)le? Yon ,, ill perhaps propose to fall hack on Hort's ,,,ild theory of a 'Syrian Tc.rt,' --executed by authority at Antioch sOlne\vhere bet,veen ..\,D. 250 and A,D. 350. 1 De it so. l.et that faLle be arguell upon as if it \vere a fact. _\nd ,,,hat follo".s ? That at (t period anteccdcnt to the date of any c 'ist- ing eopy of the Epistle Lefore us, the Church in her corporate capacity declared (--)EÓÇ- (not oç-) to he the true reading of 1 TÜll, iii. 16, Only one other head of Evidence (the l).ATHISTIC) relllaiu8 to be explored; after ".hich, ,ye shall he alJlc to sunl up, and to conclude the present Dissertatioll. [h] Tcstirltony of the F ATHEIlS concc1'ning the true. readin!J of 1 Ti1ì . iii. 16 :-G-UEGORY OF NYSSA,-DIDYMUS,-TIlEO- DORET,-J OIl D A IASCENE, -CIIHYSO TOM,-G REGORY N AZ.J -SEVERUS OFAxTIOCH, - DIODORUS OF TÞ\u:::; US. It only remains to ascertain ,,,hat the '.ATIIERS have to say on thi suLject. Anù ,vhell ".C turn our eyes in this direc- tiull, \ve are cncuuntereù Ly a lllass of evidence \vhich cffec- 1 See aùo\ c, pp. 71 to U 1. 456 GUEGORY NY8S., DIDYl\IUS, THEODORET, [nEJ>LY TO tually closes this discussion. Yon contended just no'v as eagerly for the Vth-century Codex A, as if its \vitness \\Tcre a point of vital Í111portance to you. But I anl prepa 'ed to sho\v that GREGORY OF NYSSA (a full century before Codex A \vas proùuced), in at least 22 places, kne\v of no other l'ead- ing but 8EÓÇ.l Of his \veighty testimony you appear to have l)cen ,vholly Ulla\Vare in 1869, for you ùid not even mention Gregory by nalne (see p. 429). Since ho\vever you no\v adlnit that his evidence is unequivocally against you, laIn \villing to hasten for\\Tard,-only supplying you (at foot) \vith the means of verifying \vhat I have stated above concernIng the testimony of this illustrious Father. Yon are besides a\vare that DIDYMUS,2 another illustrious witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony. You are also aw'are that TUEODORET,3 in fOUT places, IS certainly to be reckoned on the same side: 1 i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 a bis.-Ïi. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 59.3 b (thesc two, of the 2nd pagination): 6Ð3d [= ii. 2ß5, ed. 1615, fror:1 which 'risch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full, supra, p. 101.] -iii. 3Ð b his: 67 a b.-Ap. Galland. vi. 518 c: 51U d: 520 b: 526 d : 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these placcs, I belicye, exhibit ó eEór,-which seems to have been the reading of this Father. The article is seldom scen in MSS. Only four instances of it,-(they will be found distinctly specified below, page 493, note [1]),-are known t.o exist. l\Iore places must have been overlooked. Notc, that Griesbach only mcntions Gregory of Nyssa (whose namc Tregelles omits entirely) to remark hat he is not to be cited for 8Eór; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read thus :-TÒ P.VUTÍ]pLDV Èv uapKL ÈcþavEpwBT}. Griesbach borrowed that quotation and that blunder from 'Vetstein; to be blindly followed in turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question are not the words of Gregory Nyss. at all; but of Apolinaris, against whom Grcgory is writing,-as Gregory himself explains. [Antirrh. adv. Apol. apud Galland. vi. 522 d.] 2 De 1 J rin. p. 83. 'rhc testimony is exprcss. 3 i. U2: iii. û57.,iv. 1Ð, 23. Bp, EU.ICOTT,] CIIllYSOSTOl\I AXD (;nEUORY N.AZI...\.XZ. 457 And fnrther, that IT OH DAMA CENEI t1.rire adds his falllons evidence to the rest,--and is also against you. CnUYSOSTO,r 2 again, ,,-hose testÏ1nony you called in ques- tion in 18G0, you now adnlit is another of your opponents. I ,,-ill not linger over his name therefore,-except to remark, that ho,v you can ,vitness a gathering host of ancient Fathers illustrious as these, 'without misgiving, passes my compre- hension. Chrysostom is three times a ,vitness. Next come two quotations from GREGORY OF :NAZIA:SZUS, -,vhich I observe you treat as cc inconclusive." I retain them all the same. 3 You are reminded that this most rhetorical of Fathers is seldom more precise in quoting Scripture. And to the same century which Gregory of Nazianzus adorned, is probably to be referred,-(it cannot possibly be later than A,D. 350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,)-THE TITLE besto,ved, in the ,,"'ay of summary, on that portion of S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy,vhich is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,--viz., ITepì 1 i. 313 :-ii. 263. 2 i. 497 c d e.-viii. 85 e: 86 a.-xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.-(The first of these places occurs in the Homily de Beato Philogonio, which ltlattbæi in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the endJ edited fron1 an independent source [Lectt. J.l1osqq. 1779J. Gallandius [xiv. .Append. 141-4J reprints iatthæi's labours).-Concerning this place of Chrysostonl (vide sllprà, p. 101), Bp. Ellicott says (p. (6), -" The passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer J Goes allege, deserves to be placed before our readers in fun, as 3n illustration of the precarious character of patristic evidence. ]f this passage attests tbe reading eEÓ in 1 Tim. iii.16, does it not alRo attest the reading Ó eEÓ in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator has introouced it?" . .. I can but say, in reply,-' No, certainly not.' :May I be per- n1itted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible how Bp. Ellicott can show himself so planè hospes in this departlnent of sacred Scieuce as to ùe ca.pable of gravely asking such a very foolish question? 8 i. 15 a: 6 5 b. 'fhe place::; may be seen 'luoteJ S1l1J1'à, p. 101. 4G8 THE' TITLE,'-BEYEnU , IHODOHUf, TAnK [REPLY TO eEl' A APKWUEWÇ. \Ve cOllllnonly speak of this as the seventh of the ' "uthali(/n ' KEcþáÀata or chapters: Lut Euthalius hÏ1uself declares that those 18 titles "Tere "devised Ly a certain very ".ise and pious }-'ather ;" I and this particular title (IIEp BEíaç uapKwuEwÇ) is freely enlployed antl discussed in Gregory of Nyssa's treatise against \ polinaris, 2-,vhich latter had, in fact, lnaùe it part of the title of his O\\Tn heretical treatise,3 That the present is a yery ".eighty attestatiun of the rear<1s (f')EÒÇ- ÙþavEpwO'1] Èv UllpKí), and c\:p1'oss]y says that he findR thenl ill S. j)f{,ZÛ'S l)isllc to 1'iilwthy ? I Jlü\\r- Jua)" I. Le pel'luitted to ask-\\Toulù you ha.ve a fluotation luaùe plainer? ri] ]]p, Ellicott as a controvctsialist. The caðC ú/ EUTIL\LIUS. :Forgive lue, IllY lurd lJishop, if I declare that the aniJJl1ls you display in conùuctiug the present critical disquisition not only astonishes, but even shocks n1e. You seelU to say,- l\ on persuadcbis, ctia7nsi pers'llascrÏ8. The plainest testimony you reckon doubtful, if it goes against you: an unsatisfactory quotation, if it 111akes for your side, you roundly declare to be " eviùence" \vhich " stands the test of exanlÍnatiol1," 2 . . . "'Ve have examined his references carefully" (you say). "Gregory of Nyssa, DidYIUUS of Alexandria, Theodoret and J o11n Dalnascene ('l 'ho died severally about 394, 39G, 457 and 75G A,}),) scent unquestionably to have read 8EÓÇ-."3 Excuse nle fur telling you that this is not the language of a candid eIhluirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of the lln- cfJltÍ1;oeal evidence borne by these four illustrious Fathers:- your atten1pt to detract from the inlportance of their testi- luony by scre"ring do\vn their date' to the sticking place: ,- your assertion that the testÏ1nony of a fifth Father" is not nna'lnbiguolts: "-your insinuation that the eJnphatic "ritne s of a sixth Inay "perhaps" be inadmissible :-all this kind ûf thing is not only quite .un\vorthy of a Bishop "rhen he turns disputant, but effectually indisposes his opponent to receive his argulnentation \vith that respectful deference \vhich else \vonId have ùeen undoubtedly its due. Need I relnind you that n1en do not 'write their Looks ,vhen they are in articulo mortis? Didynnls dicd in \,D. 394, to be 1 Uramcr's Cat. in Rom. p. 1 .1. 2 P. Gï. s P. 65. 460 THE CA E OF EUTIIALIUS. [REPLY TO sure: but he ,vas then 85 years of age. lIe ,vas therefore born in A.D. 309, and is said to have flourished in 347. Ho,v old do you suppose ,vere the sacred codices he had employed till then? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text of Scripture must in fairness ùe held to ùelong to the first q'lu rter of the IVth century ?-is more ancient in short (and infinitely more important) than that of any written codex ,vith which ,ve are acquainted 1 Pressed by my " cloud of ,vitnesses," you seek to get rid of thc1n by insulting me. "'V e pass oyer" (you say)" na7ne brought in to s'well the n1.t1nber, such as Euthali'lls,-for WhOll no reference is given."1 Do you then suspect me of the base- ness,-nay, do you mean seriously to impute it to me,-of introducing' naInes' , to s\vell the number' of ,vitnesses on Iny side 1 Do you mean further to insinuate that I prudently gave no reference in the case of 'Euthalius,' because I "'"as unaLle to specify any place ,vhere his testimony is found? . . . I should really pause for an ans,ver, but that a trifling cir- CUlu::;tance solicits me, ,vhich, if it dues not entertain the TIp. of Gloucester and 13ristol, ,viII certainly entertain every OIle else 'v ho takes the troll ble to read these pages. , Such as E'llthalius' ! You had evidently forgotten ,vhen you penned that offensive sentence, that EUTII.AI.IUS is one of the fe,v Fathers adduced by Y01.trselj2 (but for whonl you , gave no reference,') in 1869,-w"llen you were setting down the l atristic evidence in fayour of E>EÓÇ-. . . . This little inci- . dent is really in a high degree suggestive. Your practice has evidently been to appropriate ratristic references 3 ,vithout thought or verification,-prudently to abstain from dropping 1 P. 65. 2 See above, p. .!2Ð. 3 Bentley, Scholz, 'rischendorf, Alford anù othcrð aùùnce ' E utllalius.' :UP. ] LI.IcOTT,] Tln. CASE OF EUTIL\LTUK 4fjl a. hint ho\v you calue by theJn,-but to use thenl like tluuullies, fur sho\v, _\.t the end of a fe\v years, (naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,-and proceed vigorously to ùox the ears of the first unlucky Dean \vho COlllCS in your \\yay, ,vhom yon suspcct of having COIne hy his learning (such as it is) in the saIne slovenly nlanncr. Forgive me for declaring (,vhile my ears are ret tingling) that if you ,vere even Inotlerately acquainted ,vith this depart- U1ent of Sacred cience, you \vould see at a glance that Jny Patristic references are never oLtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that elsewhere they are not to Le Inct ,, ith. TIut ,vaiving this, you have made it luce clll'j'ius to all the ,,,"orld that so late as the year 1882, to you 'Euthalius ' ,vas nothing else but' a name.' And this really does astonish nle: for not only ,vas he a faIllous Ecclesiastical personage, (a Bishop like yourself,) hut his ,york (the date of ,,-hich is A.D, 458,) is one with \vhich no .Author of a "Critical COlll- n1entary" on S. l}aul's Epistles can aflord to be unacquainted. Pray read ,vhat Berriman has written concerning Euthalius (pp. 217 to 222) in his adn1Írable U Dissertation on 1 TÙn. iii. 16." Turn also, if you please, to the Bibliotheea of OaHan- dius (vol, x, 197-323), and you ,viII recognize the plain fact that the only reason \vhy, in the' Quarterly Revie\\T,' "no reference is given for Euthalius," is because the only reference possible is-l Tim. iii. 16. [j] The testimony of tlw letter ascribed to DIONYSIUS OF ALEXAXDRIA. Six otlwr prÙnitive witnesses to 1 TÏIn. iii. 16, specified. Then further, you absolutely take no notice of the relnark- able testimony ,vhich I adduced (p. 101) from a fan10us Epistle purporting to have been aùdressed by DIO YSIUS uF ....\LEX- .A DRIA (A.D. 264) to Paul of alnosata. That the lung aud J() PS.-l)fO Y ru OF ...\LEX.\XDTIT.\, [R ErLY TU interesting cOIn position in .\NEP!fen , , · , t. e .... n ' 8 " , "EN .\.PKI, YfVOJJ.EVOS- fK yvvmKo , 0 fK EOV arpo YfVVT} fL fK yaurpos- 1rpÒ fWU1>t)POV,- Concilict, i. 853 a. 4 Cap. xi. UP. ELUCOTT.] :-,rx OTHEH PHnUT[YE \\ITXE-; EK l(j: 1 hongh not in a \\ray to l,c helpful to us in our prcsent ell( llllry. [cannot feel surprised at thc circuIHstance. The yct earlier refercnccs in thc cpistlcs of (1) InX4\TIUX (three in JlU111her) ((r(' helpful, ana 111ay not l)c overlooke(l. They are as fullo\\Ts :-(--)EOÛ tÌvOpw7rlvwç cþavEpOUj.LÉVou :-Èv , , ( ' 'l' ( .\" ., cþ , , , , uapKt ryEVOj.LEVO') -lEO, :-El8 EO'; EUTtV 0 aVEpwuaç EaUTOV ota ' 1 .... X ........',..,....", ,,.. \ ' , ,. 1 'luOU ptUTOU TOU ULOU aUTou, 0, EUTtV aUTOU 1 oryoç lÛOLOÇ. It is to ùe \vished, no (IOllht, that these lcfercnce8 had been a little 11101'e full and explicit: but the ycry e.lrly Fathers arc eycr oLscrved to quote Scripture thus partially,-allusively, -elliptically. (2) It\I x.\n_\s has just such another allusiye reference to the \\ ords ill dispute, ,, hich seeU1S to sho\\r that he Blust have 1 8 ' , ' 0 ' ,. ' 1 .... ",.... reat ,.. EOÇ E't'aVEpw 'TJ EV uapKL: VIZ, 'TJUOUç.... 0 ULOÇ TOU (-)EOÛ TÚ7r <<,) Kaì Èv uapKì cþavEpwOElS. 2 -(;)) IIIrrOLYTUS, on two uccasions, even IHore nneq ui vocally refers to this reading-. Once, ,,'hile engaged in proving that CnnIsT is GOD, he O T "'\ 8 ' " r. :) " , ' cþ mys:- UTO') 7rpOEI\, WV ELí) KOUj.LOV EOÇ EV UWj.LaTL E aVE- PW01] :3-ancl again, in a yery sÏ1nilar passage which Theo- cloret quotes fro In the saIne Father's lost "Work on the I ) 1 0 ? , "'\ 0 ' , " t"_\' ", 0 sa lns:- UTOÇ 0 7rpoel\, WV EL') TOV KOUj.LOV, öEO') KaL av PW7rOí) tlcþavEpWO'TJ.4_( 4) GREGORY THAU)IATUHGL"S, (if it really Lc he,) see IllS also to refer directly to this place \vhen he says (in a pa sage qnotcd. by Photius 5 ),-Kal ËUTl 8EÒ') à^-'TJOtvò, ó auap- /(,0') Èv uapKì cþavEpwOEí').-:.F'urther, (3) in thc ApOBTOLIC \L CO STITUTIOXS, ,ve Ineet ,vith the expression,-8Eò,) Kupto') f, cþ , f ...., '6 o E7rt aVEL') 1lj.LtV EV uapKL. 1 .Ad Ephcs. c. lU: c. 7. Ad JJagncs. c. 8. 2 Cap. xii. 3 Cont1.u llæresim Noeli, c. "Xvii. (Routh's Opllscltla, i. 76,) Read the antecedent chapters. 4 Dialu!J. ii. 'Iil,COlljusus.'-Ol'P. iv. 132. ð COll. 30,-p. Sl:), liuc .tu. 6 vii. I), (/1'. :allaud, iii. 182 a. 4GJ CYTIIL UF _\LEX.A DHI.A, I .\ [REPLY TO And 'v hen (6) BASIL TIlE GUEAT [A.D. 377], ,vriting to the lllcn of Sozopolis ,vhose faith the Arialls had assailcd, remarks that such teaching " suLverts the saving Dispensation of our LORD JESUS CIIUIST;" and, blending Ilom. xvi. 25, 2G "Tith "the great mystery" of 1 Tim. iii. 16,-(in order to afford himself an opportunity of passing in revie,v our SA VIOCR'S ,york for His Church Ï1i ancient days,)-viz. " After all these, at the end uf the day, aÙTòr; ÈcþavEpwB7J Èv uapKí, ryEvójJÆvor; ÈK ryvvatKÓr; :" l-'ll'ho will deny that such an one probaLly found neither ór; nor ó, but eEÓ , in the copy before him 1 I have thought it due to the enquiry I have in hand to give a distinct place to the foregoing evidence-such as it is-of Ignatius, Barnabas, Hippolytus, Gregory Thauluaturgus, the A postolical Constitutions, and nasi!. But I shall not llil ild upon such foundations. Let nle go on ,vith \\T hat is indis- putàble. [k] The tcstÍ1nony of CYRIL OF ALEXANDIUA. Next, for CVRIL OF .A.LEXA DRIA, ,,,hOlll you decline to accept as a ,vitness for 8Eór;. You are prepared, 1 trust, to sublnit to the logic of faets ? In a treatise addressed to the EInpresses Arcadia and 1Iarina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that our LORD is very and eternal GOD. 2 His method is to estaLlish several short theses all tending to this one 0 bj ect, by citing from the several books of the :N. T., in turn, the principal texts ,vhich make for his purpose. Prèsently, (viz. at page 117,) he announces as his thesis, - "Faith in CHRIST {tS GOD;" and ,vhen he comes to 1 Timothy, he qltotes iii. 16 at length; 1 iii. 401-2, E'pist. 261 (= 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4 follO\, s. 2 J-La8 UET(lt ï'àp ön cþVUfL J-LÈV Kaì lÌÀTj8EÍ.C} 8Eór ÈUTLV Ó 'EJ-LJ-Lavov À, 8EoTóKor êÈ êt' aVTòv KClì TEKoÎJ(ra 7rap8ivor.- Vol. v. Part. ii. 48 e. 1Jp. EI_LlcOTT.] 'rITXEs FUn (OO)EO' I 1 TIlU III It;' 4fif) reasons upon it, and poiuts out that AEÒ\' Èv uapKí is here spoken of.l There can ùe no doubt aùout thi quotation, ,vhich exhibits no essential variety of reatliug ;-a quotation ,,'hich Euthyn1Ïus Zigabenus reproduces in his' P(l1toplio,'- and ,,,hich C. E. Iattha. i has ,,'ith painful accuracy edited f1'0111 that source,2-0 nce Blore. In a ne,vly recovered trea- tise of Cyril, 1 TÏ1n. iii. 16 is again. quotcd at lCJlfjth 1vith (-.JEó\',-follo,ycd Ly the relllark that" our X ature ,vas justi- fi0tl, by GOD '/naJâfestcil. in lIil1 ," 3 I really see not ho'v you ".ould have Cyril more distinctly recognize 8EÒ\' ÈcþavEpwB7} Èv uapKt as the reading of 1 Tin1. iii. 16,4 You are reque ted to observc that in order to prevent cavil, I forbear to build on two other fanions places in Cyril's ,vritings ,,'here the evidence for reading ( EÓ\' is alJuut balanced by a corresponding alnount of evidence "Thich haR been discovered for reading öç. Not but ,,'hat the context renders it plain that 8EÓ\' luUSt have Leen Cyril's \\Tord on both occaSIons. Of this let the reader himself be judge:- (1) In a treatise, addressed to the Enlpresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, Cyril quotes 1 TÏ1n. iii. 16 in cætcnso,5 "Tf" (he Legin::;)-" the "r orù, being GOD, could be said to inhabit 1 \" A,.'" 0 ' t - '1 B t ,,- '" " ' t , leal. ovn 1rOV 'fJaJ-LfV on lea 1"JJ-La av PW'TT'Oç a7f'I\W , (ll\/\ w 8fOS' iv anpleì. leal lea8' ryJ-Lâ yeyovwt;.-Opp. V. Part 2, p. 1 -! c d. (= Concilia, iii. 221 c ù.) 2 . T. vol. xi. Præfut. p. xli. 3 ðLà TOV Èv aVTCi> fþavfpwBÉVTO 8fov.-De lncarnatione Domini, Afai, }..T OV . P P. Bibliotlteca, ii. 68. 4 Earlier in the same Treatise, Cyril thus grandly paraphraðes 1 rL'im. iii. 16 :--TÓTf ð TÓTE TÒ J-LÉya leaì. dPP'lTOV yívfTat TijÇ olleovop.[a J-LVUT - ptov. aVTò yàp ó AóyoS' TOÛ 8fOÛ, Ó ð1"JJ-Ll.ovpyò ú7f'áu1"JS' Tij IeTíafW , Ó àXWP1"JTO , Ó à7f'fpíypU'lrTo , Ó (ìvaÀÀoíwTO , ÍJ 7f''7Y Tij 'wij , TÒ lie TOÛ fþwTÒ fþé:J , (é:Jaa TOV rraTpò flle >V, TÒ à'TT'aÍryaui-<<1 TijS' ðÓ 1"J ' ó xapUIe- T p Tij ÚrroUTáufW , T V àVOpW'TT'fíav fþÍiaLv ùvaÀaJ-LßávfL.-I bid. 1" 37, ti P. 153 d. (= Conci1ia, iii. 264: cd,) 2 II -+1;1 ; TIlE EYIlJEXCE OF CYIUL [HEI'LY TO :\lau's nature (È7raVepW7r uat) \vithout yet ceasing to be GOD, hut l'cnutined for eyer ,,-hat lie was before -then greatr , , '-' indeed is the luystery of Guùliness," 1 lIe proceeùs in the sanle strain at nluch length,2 X ext ( ) the saIne place of TÜllothy is just as fully quotml in Cyril's Þ]J:planalio xii. capi- tWJì : \vhere not only the Thesis,3 but also the context con- strains belief that Cyril "Tote eEÓ :-" \Vhat then means , \vas nutnifested in the flesh' 1 It nleans that the "T ord of GOD the " \THEH \vas lnaùe flesh. . , In this \vay therefore " e say that lIe \\Tas Loth GOD and 11an . . Thus" (Cyril con- cludes) " is JIe GOD and LORD of all." 4 Hut, as aforesaid, ] ùo not propose to rest my case on either of these passages; but on those t\VO other places concerning which there exifsts no yariety of traùition as to the reading, ""'hetlier the pa:s:;ages in ".hich the reading is cCl'lain ought not to be held to determine the reading of the passages con- eerllillg ,,'hich the eyidence is about evenly balanced ;-\vhether in (lou Ltful caseð, the re(luireillent of the context should not be allu,,'ed to tnrn the scale ;-1 forbear to eUH A SClIOLIPl\I l\n UND:EnSTOOD. [UEl'LY TO 6EÓÇ,l ..A \Yaterland renlarked to BerrÏ1nan IGO years ago,2 the Scholiast's one ohject ,vas to sho,v ho,v Cyril interpreted the expression 'j/l.' tifi('d Í1 the Spirit.' Altogether Inisleading is it to quote onl!! the first linc, heginning at oç and ending at 7rVEvjLaTt, as the Critics inl7ltriflbl/l do. The point to ,, hich in this ,yay prominence is exclusively given, \vas clearly, to the COlnmentator, a lllatter of no concern at all. He quotes fruln Cyril's' Scholic( de Incarnatione Uni!Jeniti,'3 in preference to any other of Cyril's ,vritings, for a vastly different reason. 4 And yet this-( viz. Cyril's supposed substitution of oç for 8EÓÇ)- is, in the account of the Critics, the one thing ,vhich the Scholiast ,vas desirous of putting on record. In the nlean,, hile, on referring to the place in Cyril, ,ve 111ake an Ílllportant discovery. The Greek of the ScholÜun in question being lost, " e depend for our kno,vledge of its contents on the Latin translation of farius Iercator, Cyril's contemporary. _\..nd in that translation, no trace is discover- able of either oç or 0. 5 The quotation frolll Timothy begins abruptly at lcþavEpw87J. The Latin is as follo'ws :-' Divinus raulus 'JìUtgnu'Jn quidem ait esse my.sterinm pietatis. Et vere ita sr res hahet: manifcstatus cst eniln in carne, cum sit DEUS "erbum.' 6 The supposed hostile evidence from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on. 1 Pointed ont long since by :Matthæi, N. T. vol. xi. Præfat. p. xlviii. Also in his eel. of 1807,-iii. 443-4. "Kec ideo laudatus est, ut doceret Cyrillunl loco 8fó legisRe Ö , Red ideo, ne quis si Deuln factuln legeret hominem, hUlnanis peccatis etiaIll obnoxium esse crederet." 2 See Berrirnan's Dissertation, p. Ib9.-(l\IS. note of the Author.) 3 Not from tbe 2nd article of his .Explanatio xii. capitum, as rrischen- dorf supposes. 4 See how P. E. Pusey characterizes the' Scholia,' in his Preface to vol. vi. of his edition,-pp. xii. xiii. 6 Cyril's Greek, (to judge from l\Iercator's Latin,) lnnst have run some- what as follows :-'0 8H]"7rÚTto naiìÀo óJ-LO^oyovJ-Livw J-Liya cþ1}uìv flvat TÒ ... · ß ' , K \ ., rt./ 'rI,. ' 8 \' , T1} n)u Ha J-LVUT1JpLDV. at OVTW OVTW fXEI.. f"PaVfpW 1] yap fV uapKL, efÒ &v ó Aóyos-. 6 Opp. vol. v. P. i. p. 785 d.-The original scholium (of which the extant 131'. ELI,ICOTT.] TIlE _\nGU IEXT E SILl'; VTIO. 4ß [1] Tile ctrgzllnent e silentio considered. The arguluent e silentio, - (of all arguments the mOHt precarious,) - has not been neglected. - 'nut ',e can- not stop here,' you say: 1 , 'Vetstein observed long ago that Cyril does not produce this text ,, hen he (loes pro- duce Rom. ix. 5 in answer to the allegation ,,'hich he quotes from Julian that S. Paul never eluployed the ,vord <:JE'ó of our LORD.' 2 \Vell but, neither does Gregory of yssa proùuce this text ,,,hen he is ,vriting a Treati:se expres ly to prove the GODhead of the SO and of the ![OLY GHOST. '(i-raz-e est,'-says Tischendorf.3 No, not 'grave' at all, I ans" er: but ,vhether ' grave' or not, that G1"c!Jory of ..\Tyssa read (-)EÓ in this place, is at least certain, As for "\Yetstein, you have been ren1Ïllded already, that 'ubi de DÜ'initate CnRlsTI a[Jitl/;) , ibi profceto szti dissi1nilior dCJn"eltcnditul".'4 ExanlÏne the place in C)Tril ..Alex. for yourself, reading steadily on frolll p. 327 a to p, 333 b. Retter still, read- paying special attention tu his Scriptural proofs-Cyril's t,, o Treatises 'Dc 1"CCtÚ Fide.'s nut in fact attend to the luethoù of Athallasius, of Basil, or of 'VholIlsoever else you ,viII; 6 a.llll you ,, ill speedily convince yourself that the argulnent e silentio is next to valueless on occasions like the present. Cheek proyes to be only a garbleò fragment, [see Pusey's ed. vi. p. 520,] ) abollll00 yeiH's, perverse ,,,its ,vould Inake of their \\Titings,-the astonishing inferences they,youlcl pro- })ose to extract fi'onl their very silence. llnay not go further into the subject in this place. [nl] The story about l\L\CEDO ICS. l-lis tcstirnoTìY. It follows to say a fe\\r ,vords concerning l\IACEDOKIUS II., patriarch of Constantinople [A.D. 496-511], of 'VhOIH it has been absurdly declared that he "-as thc'in/L"cntor of the reading for ,vhich I contend. I pointed out on a forlner occasion 1 Burgon's Last 'T'welve "Verses, &c., 1). lÐ5 and note. See Canon Cook 0ll this suhject,-pp. 146-7. HI'. ELLICOTT.] TIlE TUHY .\BOUT :\IA('EIH þ [U . +71 that it ,yon}(l follo,, fronl that yery circUl11stance, (as far as it ic; true,) that ::\Ia('edonill " is (/ 1,.iIJ/f). ." fl/}. 8Eóç-pnfnJ'{'('." I I nste HI of either asscnting to this, (,yhieh is surely a self- cvident propositiun ),-or el e disproving it,-you are at the pain to furbish up afresh, as if it ,yere a novelty, the stale and stupid nglnent propaqated by I.Jiheratus of Carthage, that l\{acedonius "Tas expelled fro1l1 his see hy the J Iuperor ...\nastasius for falsifying 1 Tiulothy iii. IG. This explode(l fable you preface l)y announcing it as c. a rcmrtrh:r.J1Jlc fact," that cc it ".as the distinct belief of Latin 'lJTilcrs as early as the 'TIth century that the reading of thi passage had been corrupted by the Greeks." 2 IIo,v you get your" ren1arkaLle fact," out of your prcn1Ïss,-" the distinct belief of Latin "Titers," out of the indistinct runlour [, dicitur '] 'Touched for by a single individual,-I see not. But let that pass. cc The story show.s" (you proceed) "that the Latins in the sixth century believed õç to l)e the reading of the older Greek luanuscripts, an(l regarded 8EÓÇ as a false reading nlac1e out uf it." (p. 69.)-l\Iy lord Bishop, I yenture tò declare that the story show.s nothing of the sort. The I..atinR in the \rlth (and crcJ'Y othcr) century believed that-Jwt õ'), but-õ, ,vas the right reading of the Greek in this place, Their belief on this suLject ho,,?ever has nothing ".hateyer to ùo ,\?ith the 8tory before us. Liheratus ,vas not the spokeSlnall of cc the Latins of the 'TIth," (or any other hygone) "century: " hut (as Bp. Pearson points out) a ::;ingularly ill-infonned ...\rchdeacun of Carthage; "ho, had he taken ever so little pains ,yith the subject, ,yould have become a,yare that for no sllch reason as he assigns ,vas l\Iacedonius [A,D. 311] thrust out of his hishopric. If, ho,vever, there were at least thus llluch of truth in the story, -namely, that one of the charges brought against ::\laceùonius 1 SltjJI'Ù, p. 10:!. 2 Pp. f ;b-!t, i .) -II.... THE TESTI)IONY UF LIllERATU:-3 [REPLY TO ,vas his having corrupted Scripture, and notably his having altered Õ into eEÓ in 1 Tim, iii. 16; - surely, the most obvious of all inferences ,voulù be, that8Eó 1-vasfound in c Jpics of S. Pcclll's epistles p'lltfoJ'th at Constantinople by archiepiscopal authority bet1.veen A.D. 496 and A.D. 511. To say the least,- l\facedonius, by his ,vritings or by his discourses, certainly by his influence, must have shou-'n hi'/nc:rlf fat"ourable to eEÓ (not Õ ) .ÈcþavEpw81]. Else, ,vith "That sho,y of reason could the charge have been brought against hÏ1n? "I suppose" (says our learned Dr. John lin) "that the fable before us arose out of thp fact that lacedonius, on hearing that in several 1\188, of the Constantinopolitan Church the text of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (,vhich "Titnesses expre sly to the (}odhead of CHRIST) had been depraved, ,vas careful that those copies should be cor- rected in cOl1fonnity ,vith the best exeulplars," 1 But, in fact, I suspect you cOlnpletely misunderstand the ,vhole Dlatter. Yon speak of "the story." But pray,- H7âeh "story" do you D1ean? "The story" ,vhich Libe- ratus told in the '''Ith century? or the ingeniou gloss w'hich l[incDlar, Abp. of IUwÏ1ns, put upon it in the IXth? Yon '/Jtcntiun the first,-you reason fr07{'" the second. Either ,vill suit 111e equally ,veIl. TIUt-1 na la 'L"oltrt, per carità! Hincnlar, (,vholn the critics generally follo,v,) relates that l\Iacedonius turned OC into eeoc (i,e. èC ).2 If lIIacedonius did, he p1'efcrrcd eEÓ to Ö . . . . TIut the story "Thich Liberatus promulgated is quite different. 3 Let hÏ1n be heard :- "At this time, l\Iacedonius, bp. of OP., is said to have been dcposed by the clnperor Anastasius on a charge of having falsified the Gospels, and notably that saying of the Apostle, 1 p'J'uleg. in ]{. ,- 1013. 2 Opp. (cd, 16-15) ii. 4-17. 3 Con cilia, v. 772 a. I quote from Gmuicr's ed. of the Brevia1'Í'llm, reprinteù l)y Gallandius, xii. 1532. UP, ELLICOTT,] l\Il {T DEn TOOU BY 13ISlIOP ELLICOT r. -17:3 'Quia apparuit in carne, jllstifil'atus est in spiritu.' TIe v:as charged with having turned the Greek monosyllable oe (i.e. 'qui '), by the change of a singJe letter (w for 0) into we: I.e. , llt essct Deus apparuit lJcr carnem.' " N o ,v, that this is a \ery lanle story, all must see. In reciting the passage in Latin, LilJcratus himself exhiLits neither' qui,' nor' quod,' nor' .Dcus,'-but 'QUIA apparuit in carne.' (The translator of Origen, by the .way, docs the saIne thing. I ) And yet, LiLeratus straight\vay adds (as the effect of the change) 'l.lt cs:;;et Dcu.-; upparuit per Carnelll:' as if that " ere !)ossilJle, unless 'Dcus' stood in the text already! Quite plain in the Dleantinle is it, that, according to Liheratus c:)(; was the word ,vhich :\lacedonius introduced into 1 Tinl. iii. 16. And it is ,vorth observing that the scrihe ,vho rendered into Greek Pope l\Iartin I.'s fifth Letter ("Titten on the occasion of the Lateran Council A,D, 64!J),-having to translate the Pope's quotation from the 'Tulgate (' qlwd manifcstatlls est,')-exhibits 00') È avEpWe1J in this place,2 High time it becomes that I should offer it as my opInIon that those Critics are right (Cornelius à Lapide [lß14] aud Cotelerius [1681]) ,vho, reasoning from "That Liberatus actually says, shre,,-dly infer that there must haye existed codices in the tinle of ::\lacedonius ,vhich exhibited oe SEoe in this place; and that this nlust be the reading to ,, hich Liberatus refers. 3 Such codices c.rist still. One, is prcf'erycd in the library of the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata, 1 iv. 465 e. 2 Concilia, vi. 8 e [= iii. 64.3 e (ed. IIarduin)]. 3 "Ex seqllcntibus eolligo quællam t'xemrlaria tempore ....\nastasii ct )lacedonii habuisse 8 eEÓ ; ut, Inutatiùne fact., Õ in ooS', intel1keretur ut Cðset Deli-s." (Cotf'lerii, Eccl. Gr. j11on. iii. (iG3)-'1 Q. d. Ut hie homo, qui dicitur Jesus, essct et dici I,osset Deus," &e. (Cornelius, in loco lIe declares absolutely" olim lege runt . . . . t eEóS':')- \ll this was noticed long since by Bcrriman, lip. 13-1. 4-74 TILE LIllRAllY AT CHYPTA :FEHUATA, [REl'L Y TO already spoken of at pp. 44-t;-8: another, is at })r1Tis, I can thcln respectiyely , Apost. 83 ' and' Paul 282.' I This is ne,v. Enough of all this ho"Teyer. Too nlllch in fact. 1 nlust hasten on, The entire fable, by \yhonlsopyer fabricated, has lleen treated "Tith ,yell-lnerited contenlpt by a succession of learned nlen ever since the days of TIp, Pearson,2 \.nd although during the last century seyeral "Titers of the unLelieving school (ehietly t'ocinians 3 ) reyiyc(l and embellished the silly story, in order if possible to get rid of a text ,,-hich ,vitnessés inconveniently to the nODHE \D of CIInI T, one ,vould have hoped that, in these cnlightenc(l dnYR, a Christian nishol) of the sanle Church ,yhich the learned, pious, and judicious John BerrÏ1nan adorned a century alHl a-half ago, ,vould have been ashamed to rekindle the ancient strife and to s,vell the Soci- I '.Apost. 83,' is 'Gl'ypffl-Ferraf. A. ß. iv,' described in the ApPEXDIX, I owe the information to the karnerl librarian of Crypta Ft'rrata, the lIicromonachus A. Bocchi. It is a plea ure to tram:icribe the letter which con,'eyed information which the writcr knew would be acccptable to lHe:- " ClllIe HUle Domine. Quod ('rat in yotis, plures loci illius Paulini non nlOdo in nostris cod(I. lectlUnes, ed et in his ipsis yariatione8, a(bequutus es. l\Iodo ego nperi Il1eo finem imponam, Jescriptis rrope sexcentis ct quinquaginta qninque yel co(licihus vel lSS, Tres autem, quos IH'imum nunc notatos tibi exhiheo, l't'rtinent at! Liturgiconun onlinem. Jam felici OIlline tuas pnls quere elucuLratione:--, cautus tantum nc tuÚio ct lahore nimio valetudinenl tuam d.cfatiges. Yale. De Tu culano, xi. kal. 11aia , an. R. S. 1\1 DCC('J.X:XXI JI. ...\XTO IUS HOcCIII, Hicronwnachus Ba ilianus." For' l)aul 28 ,' (a hilingual )IS. at Paris, known as 'Arnlénien Ð,') I aJn indebted to the AbLé :Martin, who dt' crihes it in his Infrodltctiou å In Cn'tique Te :tilelle dn .J.Y". 'P., 1883,-pp, GGO-l. See ApPEKI>IX, 2 Prehendary crivener (p. 553) H l)ly clo es the list. Anyone dcsirous of mastering the entirc literature of the subject should study the Rev. John Bcrrilllan's interesting and exhaustive Dissertation,-pp. 2 Ð-2G3. 3 The J'(atlcr is invitcd to read what Berrin1an, (who was cngaged on his , /Jissel'tatiun ' while Dp. Dutler was writing the' Ad,'crtiscment' prefixcd to bis ' _llwl qy' [17iWJ,) has written on t.hi part of the snbject,-l'}l. l O- }, 1 "j3-1 18, 31- .lO, 25Ð-()O, f) , &c. HI'. EI.I,I OTT.] BPI PIL\XI U8 CAT,-'1'1I E01>O]t t:'S TPn. 4- 7;) llian chorus, l shall Le satisfied if I have at least convinced you that l\laccdonius is a , 'itness for 8eó in 1 TiIn. iii. IG. [n] Tit" tcstimony i1 an .A_XO YMOUR w1'itc7" (A.D 430),- (If ErIPIL\XIUS ( \.D. 787),-of TIJEODOltUS TCI>ITA ( \.I'. 7U5 ?),-of SCIIOLL\,-Of (ECU)[EXIU::;,-of TIIEOPIIYL \CT,- (If EUTIIYl\TIUS, The evidence of an AXOXY:\I01JS Author ,,,ho has Leen Inis- taken for Athanasius,-you pass by in silence, That this ,vriter lived in the days ,,-hen the X estoriau ControYcl' Y ,vas raging,-naulely, in the first half of the "\"Tth ccntury,-is at all events evident. He is therefore at least as ancient a ,vitness for the text of Scripture as coclex A itself: ancl (-)eò, ÈcþavepwÐ1] is clearly,vhat he found "Titten in this plaee. 1 'Vhy do you lnake such a fuss about Cod. A, and yet ignore this contemporary ,vitness? "r e do not kno,v v.ho 1.1"1'ote the Epistle in question,-true. Neither do "Te kno,,, ,vho "Tote Codex A. \Yhat then? ....\.nother eminent ,,-itness for Beó\', ,,,hOl11 also you do not condescend to notice, is EPIPIIANIUS, DE.ACO OF C \TAXA in icily, - ,vho represented Thol11as, Abp. of Sardinia, at the 2ntl Kicene Council, A.D. 787. A long discourse of thi :Ecclesiastic 111ay be seen in the Acts of the Council, trans- lated into Latin,-,,-hich lnakes his testinlony so striking, ]Jut in fact his ,vords are express,2 and the nlure yalual)le hecausc they COllle froln a region of 'Yestern Christendulll from ,,-hich textual utterances are rare. ..r\. far nlore conspicuous \\Titer of nearly the sarne date, THEoDonuB STUDI'L\ of CP, [.\.D. 739-8 (),] is al u a ,vitnes 1 Apud Athanasium, Opp. ii. 33; and see Ga.rnier's introd.uctory Xote. 2 'Audi Pauium magnâ voce clamantcm: Del s manifestatl s est in carne [down to] assumptus cst in glo1'ÙÎ. 0 ma;.;ni òoctoris amltulll! DUls, inquit, lIlallife '(('lls c:-t ill (,((1'IIC,' &c.-CoIH:ilia, vii, 1', HIS c 476 TIlE TESTL\IüXY OF [HEPLY TO for 8EÓÇ.l Ho,v does it happen, Iny lord Bishop, that you contend so eagerly for the testimony of codices F and G, ,vhich are but one lXth-century witness after alI,-and yet entirely disregard living utterances like these, of knu,vn nlen,-,, ho belongeù to kno\\ n pla es,-and \'Tote at a kno,vn time? Is it because they \vitness unequivocalIy against you ? Several ancient SCHOLIASTS, expressing themselves di- yersely, deserve enulllcration here, ".ho are all \\ itnesses for 8EÓÇ exclusiycly.2 Lastly,- CECU)IEXIUS 3 (.A.D. 990),-TßEorIIYL \.CT 4 (A,D. 1077),- EUTlIY IIUS 5 C\..D. 1116), - close this enulneration. They are all three clear \\.itnesses for reaùing not öç but E:.kóç. [0] The testimony of ECCLESL\.STIC_\.L TRADITIOY. :N ot1ling has Leen hitherto said concerning the Ecclpsiasti- cal usage w.ith respect to this place of Scripture. 1 TÏIn, iii. 1 G occurs in a lection consisting of nine verses (1 Tiln. iii. 13-iv. 5), ,,-hich used to be puhlicly reacl in ahnost all the Churches of ]< astern Clll'istend01n un the 8aturday hefore 1 piphany.6 It "as also read, in not a fe\v Churches, on the ; --lth Saturday ùf the year. 7 U nfortullately, the book ,vhich 1 Theodori Studitæ, Epistt. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirl11ondi's Upera Varia" vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,- V enet. 1728.) 2 Paul 113, ( Iatthæi's a) contaiw; two Scholia which wìtne s to 8fòr IfþavEpév8'f} :-Paul 115, ( Iatthæi's cl) also contains two bcholia.-Paul 118, Ç [attl'æi's h).-Paul 123, (l\[atthæi's n). See Iatthæi's . T. I . P ol'. t I " ... 3 .. '>'> 8 4 .. 5 ' () 5 - 0 vo . Xl. 'ræJ a . 11P. x ll.-JU. 11....._ a. 11. uv e : . a. ð l>anoplia,-Tergohyst, 1710, fol. PKY'. p. 2, col. 1. 6 ußßáTC:> npò TÚ>V cþWTCtJV. '1 But in Apost. 12 (Beg. 373) it is the lection for the 30th (A') Satur- day.--In Apost. 33 (Heg. 382), for the 31:4 (Au').-In Apost. G (Beg, : O), the lcctiun for the :;-1th Saturday ùegins at 1 Tim. vi. 11.-Apo tt. 6 and "27 (Regg, 3 O-1) arc saiù to hayc a peculiar orùer of ]c sun8. HI', ELLICOTT.] ECCLE L\ TIC..\L TIL\DITIOX. 477 contains lection froDI S. Paul's Epistles, ('. .1postolus' it is technically caned,) is of conlparatiyely rare uccurrcllce,-i often found in a 11lutilateù conùition,-and (for this anù other reasons) is, as often as not, ,,-ithout this particular lesson,l Thus, an analysis of UO copies of the ' \ postolus ' (Xo. 1 to 90), is attendeù by the follo,ving result :-10 are founù to have been set do,vn in error; 2 ,vhile 41 are declared-( sometÏInes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of those ,,-110 profess to haye exanlined thenl),-not to contain 1 TÏIll, iii, 1G. 3 Of 7, I haye not 1een able to ohtain tidings. 4 Thus, there are but 32 copies of the book calleù ' .A.postolus ' ayaila1Ie for our preðent purpose. But of these thirty-t,,?O, tlccnty-scvcn exhihit AEÓ .5 1-r ou ,,-ill be interested to hear that one rejoices in the unique 1 For convenience, D1any codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of , Apostolus') which are rather' A1róUToÀo-E1JayylÀLa. Iany again which are but fmgmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the Epistles: such are .A P() tt. Ð7 to 103. See the ApPEXDIX. 2 No. 1, , 31 are aia to be Go pellefo1 om;; (' Evstt.'). No. 29, 3'> and 3G are Euchologia; "the two latter probably Ielchite, for the codices exhibit some Arabic words' (...\.bbé Iartin). Xo. 43 and 48 must be em ed. No. 70 and öl are identical with 5 (ß. I. ..JrlJit. 320'>1). 3 \iz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Ienologies with a few Gospel lections): 15: IG: 17: 19: O: 24: 6: 7: 3 : 37: 39: 44: 17: 30: 53: 55: 56: 50: 60: 61: G3: 64: 66: G7: ßH: 71: .2: 73: 75: 7G: 7H: .9: 80: 87: 88: ÐO. .. Yiz. A post. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, .f at Hon1e: 54 at St. Peter::;burg: 74: in Alnerica. 5 Yiz. Al'ost. 2 and 5 (Addit. 3:!()31) in the D, )Ius., also GÐ (...\ddit. 29714 verified h.\- Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: . at the Propa- ganda (verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 28, 23, O, 33 at Paris (verified hy Ahhé lartin): 13, 14:, 18 at roscow: 38, W in the Vatican (verified by Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow ('\"'erified by Dr. Young): 46 at :Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besançon (verified by 1\1. Castan) : 57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65 B-C (all tllft'e verified by Scrivener): 58 at Ch. Ch., OÅford : 77 at I08cow: 82 at )Ie::,sina (verified by Papc" 1'Ta- tranga): b4 and 89 at Crypta. Fcrrata (verified by lIieromonachus Rocchi). 47R I . _\ T CHYPT \ .FEnn.AT \. [RFPLY TO reading (")fOÛ : I ,vhile another Copy of the' ....\postolus ' keeps 'raul 282' in countenance by reading 8 efÓ , 2 In other ".ords, 'GOD' is found in 29 copies out of 3 : \vhile ' \vho ' (ö ) is ohserved to slu'vive in only 3,-and they, "r estern ducnnlents ùf suspicious character. T\vo of the e '\Tere pro- duced in one anù the saIne Calabrian 1110nastery; and they still stand, side by side, in the library of Crypta Ferrata: 3 heing exclusively in sympathy \yith the yery suspicious "\Vestern doculnent at "Paris, already described at pagè 446, ECCLESIA TICAL TIL\DITION is therefore clearly against you, in respect of the reaùing of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Ho". you esti- Iuate this head uf Evidence, I kno\v not. For nlY o\vn part, I hold it to be of superlative importance. It transports us back, at once, to the prinlitive age; and is founù to be infinitely Letter deserving of attention than the ,,"'itlless of any extant uncial docunlents ,yhich can be produced. .A.nd ',,11y? For the plain reason that it nlust needs have been once attested by an indefinitely l(aye n'llinbcr of codices l7 o,.e ancient by fro. tltaa any 'lthich 'lce now j1oð;-;esð. In fact, ECCLESL\ TICAL TR \DITIO , ,vhen superadded to the testi- 111U11Y of l\la11uscripts ilnd Fathers, Lecomes an over- \yhehning c011ßideration. .And I:O\V ,ve may at last proceed to sunl up. Let llle gather out the result of the foregoing fifty pages; and rel11ind 1 Viz. Ap<.)st. :a (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Code . The Abhé :l\Iartin assures lne that this copy exhibits JlVUT pLOII. I eb È allfpWeT}. Xote however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation, proves that nothing else but e was intended. 'Ihis is very instructh'e. 'Vhat if the ::;ame slip of the pen hail been found in Cod. B? 2 Yiz. \ post. 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. ß. iv.) S Yiz. Praxapost. 85 and BG (Crypta Ferrata, A. ß. vii. which exhibits P.VUT ptoll' bU È a I IIfpWeT) Ell uapl<í.. and A. ß. viii., which exhibits P.VUTl- pWII. 8u È.. IIf/)( eT} I ÈII uapKv. [sic.]). Concerning these codices, see above, PI . 44ü to 448. Jh'. EU.ICOTT.] TilE E'ï()I XCE FOI M'r TH'PION "0. 47U the reader briefly of the al110unt of external testÏ1110ny pro- ducible in support of each of these rival readings :-õ,-õ ,- (-)EÓ . [L] Slln of the YfÙlencc of ,-rER IOXR, COI'IE , :FATIIERS, in fllVOllJ of1'cadin!J JLVUT17PtOV. ð lcþavEpwB'l) in 1 TiIu. iii. 16. (a) The reading JLVUT17pWV. cþavEpwBl},-( ,d1Ïch ,,-r et- stein stroye hard to bring into fayour, and ,,,hieh ,vas highly popular ".ith the Socinian party clo\,.n to the third quarter of the last century,)-enjoys, as ,ve haye seen, (pp. 4-18-53,) the ,veighty attestation of the Latin and of the Peschito, -of the Coptic, of the Sahidic, and of the ...Ethiopic \' ersions. x 0 one 111ay l>resulne to speak slightingly of such eyidence as this. It is the oldest ,,"hich can be produced for the truth of anything in the inspired Text of the X e,v Testa- nlent; and it conIes fro111 the J:ast as 'yell as frol11 the ,yo est. Yet is it, in anù by itself, clearly inadequate. T\,"o charac- teristics of Truth are .wanting to it,-t"..o credentials,- unfurnished ,,-ith ,,-hich, it cannot be ::;0 lunch as seriously cntcrtained. It c1enlanc1s TT(O'icty as ,,-ell as Largeness (if (Iltl'stc tÙ)/ . It shouhl be able to exhibit in support of its claÜns the additional,yitness of COPIES and F_\THERS. But, (ß) On the contrary, ö is found besides in unly one C,.eek J[{1I11 l script,-viz. the \TIth-centnry codex Clarolllontanus, D. .. \nd further, ('''1) Two (( Jwind 'lCì'ite/ s alone bear ,,,itlless to this reading, \'iz. GEL.\t;ICS OF CYZICCS,l ,vhose ùate is ..\,D, 4:76;2 and the rXKXU'\. \.rTHoH of a honÜly of uncertain date in the ] CUlLcili , ii, 17 c ( = ell. Hard. i. 418 h). 2 IIp wrote a hbtory of the Council of !\ici.l'a, in which he introduces the discus ions uf the several ni:-;hops present,-all the proùuct (as Ca.Ye t ltillks) of his own hrain. 480 TIlE EVIDENCE OF [REPLY TO Appendi to Chrysostom 1 . . . . It is scarcely intelligible ho,v, on such evidence, the Critics of the last century can have persuaded thelllselves (w'ith Grotius) that J.LVUT ptOV. & ÈcþavEpw81] is the true reading of 1 TÍ1llothy iii. 16. And yet, in order to Inaintain this thesis, Bir Isaac N e"rton descended froIll the starry sphere and tried his hand at Textual Criti- cisIn. 'Yetsteiu (1752) freely transferred the astronolner's laùours to his o\vn pages, and thus gave rene,vecl currency to an opinion ,yhich the laùours of the learned Uerrhnan (1741) had already deJnonstrated to be untenable. "Thether THEODORE OF 1\lorsuEsTL\ (in his ,york' de Incar- ')latione') "rote Õ or Õ, 111USt ren1ain uncertain till a sight has lJeen obtained of his (1reek together ,, ith its context. I find that he quotes 1 TÜn iii. 16 at least three tirnes :-[1] Of the first place, there is ouly a Latin translation, ,vhich begjns , QUOD Justificatc'S cst in spÚ.itU.'2_[2] The second place con1es to us in Latin, Greek, and Syriac: but unsatisfac- torily in all three :-( a) The Latin version introduces the quotation thus,-' Consonantia et Apostolus dicit, .E't rnaJd- fcstc rnagu'll1n cst pictatis 'JJz!fsterhrm, QUI 3 (or Q170D 4 ) mani- fcstatcs (or TUl\I) cst in carnc, Ju. tificatus (or TV)I) cst in . pÍ1'it'l/;:'- (b) The Greek, (for ,vhich ,ve are indebted to Leolltius Byzantinus, A,D. 610,) reads, - ,'O ÈcþavE- pwOY} Èv uaplC{, ÈðtlCalw87J Èv 7TVEvjLaTt 5 -divested of all 1 viii. 1 J n. 2 Cited at the Council of CPo (A.D. 553). [Collcilia, cd. Labbe et Cossart, v. 4-17 b c=cd. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.] 3 Concilia, Laùbe, v. 4-19 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d. 4 Harduin, iii. 32 d. 6 ....\. Latin tram;lation of the work of Leontius (Contra ]..Testor. et E'lltych.), wherein it is stated that the }Irescnt place was found in lib. xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. GGO-ÐÐ: the pa::>::>age under consideration ùeing given at p. üÐ-! c d]: but rai [Script. Veil. vi. 290-31 ], having discovered in the Vatican the original text of the excerpts from Theod. Iops., published (fron1 the xiith book of rrheod. de Incarnatione) the Greek of the passage [vi. 308]. From this source, l\Iigne [Fatr. Gr. vol. 6ß, co!. tlbb] scenlS to have obtained his quotation. UP. EJ,J.ICOTT.] THEODon E o It' 'I()p nE TL\ 4Rl preface. l Those seven \vorrls, thus iSolatc(l 1'1'0111 th0Îr con- text, are accordingly printed by l\Iigne as a hcaifin!J unly:- (c) The Syriac translation unlnistakaLly reads, C Et Apo- stolus dixit, Vere S1.tblinl,c est hoc rnystcrium, QuoD/-omitting T EÙQ'EßE{a .2_[3] The third quotation, \vhich is found only in Syriac,3 begins,-' Fur truly greflt is the-'J1 ystcry 0/- tlw-fenr-of (}OD, who 'was JJtrlnifested in-tll('-flc.;;;li ltJl.d-WftS- justified in-lite-spirit.' This ditlers frotn the received text uf the J1eschito by substituting a Jifferent word for f.ùulßf.ta, ancl by elnploying the emphatic state' the-fle:sh,' 'the-spirit w'here the !)eschito has the absolute state 'flesh,' 'spirit.' The t\VO later clauses agree \vith the llarkleian ùr I>lÜloxe- nian. 4 -1 find it difficult from all this to kno\v \vhat pre- cisely to do ,vith Theodore's evidence. It has a truly oracular ambiguity; \vavering betw'een ö-ö -and even f)eó . You, I observe, (\vho are only acquainted "rith the second of the three places above cited, anù but imper- fcctly \vith that,) ùo not hesitate to cut the knot by sinlply claiming the heretic's authority for the reading you advo- cate,-viz. ö . I have thought it due to IUY readers to tell 1 Either as given by ]}Iai, or as represented in the Latin translation of Leontius (obtained from a different coc1ex) by Canisius [Antiquæ Lectt., 1601, vol. iv.J, from whose work Gallandius simply reprinted it in 1788. 2 Tlzeodori ...lIops. F'1'agm,enta, Syria.cu, ve'rtit Ed. Sachau, Lipr.;. IHG!), -po 53.-1 am indebted for llluch zealous help in respect of these Syriac quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,-who, I yenture tv prcdict, will some day make his mark in these studies. 3 Ibid. 1'.6-1. The context of the place (which is derh'cd from Lagarde's Ânalecta Syriaca, p. 102, top,) is as fol)ows: "])eitas enim iuhahitam:: hæc omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam gratia Spiritus Sandi aùjuvabat ad hunc effectuffi, ut bcatus quoqu . Apostolus dixit: ' Ferc grande . . . 1."n spiritlt ;' quoniam nos quoque auxiliuUl SpiritQs a.ccepturi sumus ad perfectiollCln justitiæ." A further reference to 1 Tinl. iii. IG at page t59, does not help us. t I owe this, and more help than I can expres in a foot-note, to my learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, (,f S. JohU'8. I 482 SU I OF 'rH EVIDENCE [REPLY TO them all that is known about the eviùence furnished by Theodore of l\lopsuestia. At all events, the utlnost \vhich can be advanced in favour of reading fLVUT pLOV. Õ in 1 Timothy iii. 16, has no\v been freely stated. I anI therefore at liberty to pass on to the next opinion. [II.] Sum of the Evidencc ()f VERSIO S, COPIES, FATHERS in fav01.tr of trcading fLVU'T pLOV. & ÈcþavEpw8'l} in 1 Tinlothy iü. 16. Relnarkable it is ho\v cOlnpletely Griesbach succeeded in diverting the current of opinion \vith respect to the place before us, into a ne,v channel. At first indeed (viz. in 1777) he retained eEÓ in his Text, tÏ1nidly printing Õ\' in snlall type above it; and relnarking,-' Jlldicinn de hâc lcctionis varictate lcctorib1ts libcrll1n 'j'clinq1.lcre placllit.' But, at the end of thirty years (viz. in 1806), \vaxing bolder, Griesbach sub- stituted ó\, for 8EÓ\',-' l.ä ipsi' (as he says) 'nobis cOT staremus.' Laclllnann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, "T estcott and Hort, and the Revisers, under your guidance, have follo\ved hinl: ,vhich is to me unaccountable,-seeillg that even less autho- rity is producible for ó\" than for Ó, in this place. TIut let the evidence for fLVUTlJptOV · & Ècþavfpw8'l} Èv uapKt be briefly recapitulated :- (a) It consists of a sin9le 'ltncial copy, viz. the corrupt cod. ,-(for, as ,vas fully eXplained above,1 codd. c and F-G yield uncertain testirnony): and perhaps t100 cltrsire copies, viz. Paul 17, (the notorious cc 33 ' of the Gospels,)-and a copy at U psala (No. 73), \vhich is held to require further verifica- tion. 2 To these, are to be added three other liturgical \vit- neSSèS in the cursive character-being "T estern copies of the book called 'Apostol1ts,' ,vhich have only recently come to 1 PagPH 4 7-.4 2 SCf' ahove, p. 144. HI'. Eu.rcoTT.] ].'OU HE,\ IHNG .O 'ECÞANEPO'8H. -t-K? light. T\\ 0 of t.hl" ctHlices in f1l1estioll are of UalalJriall origin.l A few \vords nHnc on this f;ubject \\'ill he found aLove, at pages 4:77 and 47ft (ß) 'l'l e only V rsion ,vhich certainly \vitncsscs in favour of öç;, is the Gothic: ,vhich, (as eXplained at pp. 452-: ) ex- hihits a hopelessly obscure construction, and rests on the c\'illence of a single copy in the Ambrosian library. (ry) Of Patristic testimonies (to J.LVUT pLOV . èJç; ÈcþavEpwB'I}) thcrc cxists not OIW. That EriPHANIU8 [A.D. ;{GO] prufcs,')iu!} tu transcribe from an early treatise of his O\\'U, in which J avEpwB11 stands 'wit/wut a '/Uì1Jl hudil'c, should prefix öç;- proves nothing, as I have fully eXplained else,vhere. 2 -Th() equivocal testimony rendered by THEOlJORF. OF l\forsUESTJA f A.D. 390 1 is already before the reaùer. 3 And this exhausts the evidence for a reading \v hich came in,-anù (I venture to predict) \\Till go out,-with the present century. );Iy only ,vonùer is, ho\v an exhibition of 1 Tim. iii. 16 so feebly attested,-so abnost Wit/LOllt attesta- tion,-can have COine to be seriously entertained by any. " Si," -( as Griesbach remarks concerning 1 ,} ohn Y. 7)_U si taul pauci . . . . testes . . . . suffic rellt aa deIllonstraudalll lectionis cujusdam ryV'1)ULóT'1)Ta, licet obstent tanl Iuulta tanltlue gravia et testimonia et argumenta; n?lllll1; prUI':-5n,c; s'ltpcru;sct in 1'e c;'iticâ vcri falsi'lltc critcrinm, et tcxtns J..v?"o'ri Tcstanunti nnivc1's1ls plane incertus cssct tqul; d1Jl ius." , .. Yet tltis is the I eading ,vhich YÛl:., IUY lord Bishop, not only stiffly n1aintain, but ,vhich you insist is no longer so 1 Hee above, pp. 44G-R; also the ....lppcnd;x. 2 See pp. 1 h-8. 3 ce pp. 480- . ( . rr. 180fi ii. (Id (''''eem, p. [2:;]. I 2 484 OT l\IODERK OPINION, nUT [REPLY TO lnuch as "oprn to 'reconsideration." Yon are, it seems, for introducing the clôturc into Textual debate. But in fact you are for inflicting pains and penalties as ".ell, on those ,vho have the nlisfortune to differ in opinion from yourself. You discharge all the vials of the united sees of Gloucester and ] ristol on 'me for my presull1ption in daring to challenge the verdict of "the Textual Criticisll1 of the last fifty years," -of the TIevisers,-and of yourself ;-nlY folly, in yenturing to believe that the traditional reading of 1 Till1. iii, 16, (\vhich you admit is at least 1530 yeal' old,) is the right reading after all. You hold DIe up to puhlic indignation. "He has nlade" (you say)" an elaborate etlort to shake conclusions about 'which no professed Scholar ItflS any doubt 1.()hate 'er; but ".hich an ordinary reader (and to such ,ve address ourselves) n1Ïght regard as still open to '1'cconsidclYdion." -" ::\loreover" (you proceed) "this case is of great iInportance as an exanlple. It illustrates in a striking manner the conlplete isolation of the I evic\Yer's position. If he is right, all other Critics are \vrong." 1 "Till you perluit nle, my lord Bishop, as an ordinary "Triter, addressing (likc yourself) "ordinary readers,"-re- spectfully to point out that you entirely n1Îstake the pro- blem in hand? The Greek Text of the N. T. is not to be " settled l,y IoDERX OI)IXIOX, but by \XCIEXT .A.UTHORITy.2 In this departInent of enquiry therefore, "complete isolation" is his, and his only, ,yho is forsaken by COI)IES, VERSIOXS, FATHEHS. The llian ,yho is 3,) t".ice conlCS for,vard as a \VitllèsS 011 the saDle side.] [(d) In the IIII'd century,-GnEGORY TIIAUl\1ATUHGUS, (if 1 V IZ. frOlll p. L131 tu p. 17t3. 2 See abovc, PI). H.j --1. . Dp. ELLICOTT,] :FOU SED IN 1 'l'I:\f. III. 16. 487 it Le indeed he) has been already shown (at page 4(3) pro- Lably to testify to the reading EJEÒ\' ècþavEpwtJ1],] [(c) To the same century is referred the ,vork entitled CONSTITUTIONES ArosToLICÆ: which seems also to witness to the same reading. See aLove, p. 4G3.] [(I) BASIL THE GRE.\T also [A.D. 355], as \vill be found eXplained at page 4G4, must be held to \vitness to (-JEÒ\' ècþavEpwtJ1] in 1 Tim. iii. 16: though his testimony, like that of the five names which go Lefore, being open to cavil, is not here insisted oll.]--Alld no\v to get upon tc}'l'{f., fiJ'jna. (1) To the IIII'd century then [A,D. 264 ?], Lelongs the Epistle ascribed to DIO YSIUS OF ....L\.LEXANDUIA, (spoken of above, at pages 461-2,) in ,vhich 1 Tim. iii. 16 is distinctly quoted in the same way. (2) In the next, (the I\Tth) century, unequivocal Patristic ,vitnesses to 8Eò\, ècþavEpwtJ7] abound, Foremost is DIDY IUS, who presided over the Catechetical School of Alexandria,- the teacher of Jerome and Rufinus. Born A.D. 309, and becoming early famous, he clearly ,vitnesses to ,vhat ,yas the reading of the first quarter of the IVth century. IIis tes- timony has been set forth at page 456. (3) GREGORY, BISHOP OF N AZIANZUS r A.D. 355], a con- temporary of Basil, in two places is found to bear sin1Ïlar ,vitness. See above page 457. (4) DIODORUS, (or 'Theodorus' as rhotius ,vrites his name,) the teacher of Chrysostom,-first of Antioch, after- wards the heretical BISHOP OF TAR us in Cilicia,-is next to be cited [A,D. 370]. His testimony is givcn above at pages 458-9. 488 EVIDE CE OF THE AXCIE T:5 [UEPL Y 'I'I) (5) The next is perhaps our most illustrious witness,-viz. l REGORY, BISHOP OF XYSSA in Cappadocia [A.D. 370]. lle- ferences to at least twenty-tuJO places of his writings have been already given at page 456. (6) Scarcely less important than the last-nalned Father, is CIIRYSOSTO I [A.D. 380], first of Antioch,-after\vards r \TRIARCII OF CONSTANTINOPLE,-,vho in tkree places \vit- nesses plainly to (-)EÒÇ ÈcþavEpwO'1}. See above, page 457. (7) l-\nd to this century, (not later certainly than the last half of it,) is to be referred the title of that KEcþáÀatov, or chapter, of St. Paul's :First Epistle to TiInothy \vhich con- tains chap. iii. 16,-(indeed, w"hich begins ,vith it,) viz. IIEpì OEíllS uapKwuEwÇ. Very eloquently does that title \vitness to the fa.ct that 8EÓ\' ,vas the established reading of the place under discussion, before either cod. n or cod. \vas pro- duced. See aboye, pages 457-8. (8) In the Vth century,-besides the CODEX ALEXAN- DHI US (cod. A,) concerning ,vhich so much has been said already (page 431 to page ..t-:37),-\ve are able to appeal for the reading EJEòÇ ÈcþavEpW01], to, (V) CVRIL, .A.RCHßISIIOP OF ...\LEXA DIUA, [.\,D. 410,] \vho ]11 at least two places \vitnesses to it unequivocally. See above, pp. 4GJ to 470. So does, (10) TIIEODORET, BISHOP o:t CYRUS in Syria, [A,D. 420]: ,\.110, in at least four places, (see above, page 456) renders unequivocal and inlportant ,vitness on the sanle side. (11 ) Next, the ANONYMOUS AUTHOU claims notice [A.D. 4:30], \vhose composition is found in the ..A.ppendix to the '" ul'ks uf .A.thauasius, ce ahuve, page 4:75. lip. Et.LWUTl'.] FOH l':)EO/ I 1 1'1::\1. III. ] G. 4t;!) (12) lou ,vill Le anxious to see your friend ELTIL\LIUS, IHSIIOr OF S ULCA, duly recognized in this en unlcration. lIe COIIles next. [ \.D, 458.] The discussion concerning him ,vill ùe founù above, at page 459 to page 461. (13) L\CEDO IUS II" PATRIARCH OF C1'. [A,D. 4gü] must of :necessity be Dlentioned here, as I have very fully explained at page 470 to page 474. (14) To the '1"Ith century belongs the GEOWlIAN Version, as already noteù at page 454. (15) And hither is to be referred the testirnony of SEYERUS, BISHOP OF ÅNTIOCII [A.D. 512], \vhich has Leen already particularly set do,vn at page 458. . (16) To the VIIth century [A.D. 61G] belongs the HARK- LEIAN (or rHILOXE IA ) Version; concerning 'v hich, see above, page 450. "That eEÓ was the reading of the manuscripts froln \vhich this Version was made, is put beyond reach of doubt by the fact that in tw'elve of the other places \vhere Eva-I.ßna occurs,l the ,vords l l lo (' beauty-of-fear ') arc found witlW'ltt the addition of l (' GOD'). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2), where the Peschito reads 'fear of GOD,' the Harkleian reads 'fear' only. On the other hand, the Harkleian nlargin of Acts iii. 12 expressly states that EÌJa-Éßeta is the Greek equivalent of l l lo (' beauty-of-Jear '), This effectually esta- blishes the fact that the author of the Harkleian recension found eEÓ in his Greek manuscript of 1 Tim. iii, 16." 2 1 Yiz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit. i. 1 ; Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; Hi. II. 2 From the friend whose help is ackllowledgcù a.t foot uf 1'p. -130, UH. 490 EVIDENCE OF 'fIIE AN"CIENTS. [REl'L Y TO (17) In the 'TIIIth century, J OII DA IASCENE [A,D. 730] pre-ell1Ïnently claims attention. He is twice a ,vitness for 8EÒ\' ÈcþavEpwB7j, as \vas explained at page 457. (18) Next to be mention cd is EPIPHAXIUS, DEACON OF CAT ANA; 'v hose memorable testimony at the 2nd Kicene Uoullcil [.A.D. 787] has been set do\vn above, at page 475. And then, (19) TIIEODORUS STUDITA of cr. [A.D. 7UO],-concerning 'VhOlll, see above, at pages 475-6. (20), (21) and ( 2). To the IXth century belong the tIaee remaining uncial codices, ,,-hich alike \vitness to 8EÒ\' ÈcþavEpwB7j Èv uaplCi :-viz. the' COD. l\10SQUENSIS' (K); the 'COD. AXGELICUH' (L); and the COD. PORPIIYUIA US ' (p). (23) The SLA YOXIC .Y.ERSIO belongs to the same century, and exhibits the SRIne reading. (24) IIither also lIlay be referred several ancient SCIIOLIA ,vhich all ,vitness to t)EÒS- icþavEpwB'l} Èv UllPICL, as I explained at page 476. (25) To the Xth century belongs æCU IEKIUS [A.D. 990], \vho is also a ,vitness on the same side. Sce page 476. (26) To the Xlth century, THEOPIIYLACT [A.D. 1077], ,vho bears express testimony to the same reading. See page 476. (27) To the Xllth century, EUTHYMIUS [A.D. 1116], who closes the list with his approving verdict. See page 476. And thus ,ye reach a period ,yhen there awaits us a mass of testimony ,vhich transports us back (per saltum) to the Church's pahniest days; testimony, \vhich rightly under- TIp. ELJ.ICQTT,] EYIDE CE OF TIlE COI)lES. 4 )1 stood, is al)solutely decisive of the point no\v under ilid- cussion. I allude to the testÏInony of EVERY K O'VN COpy OF S. PAUL'S EPISTLES except the thrEe, or four, already specified, viz. D uf S. Paul; , 17, and þerhaps 73. ..A fe\v \vords on this last head of Evidence Inay nut be ,vithout the grace of novelty even to yourself. They are supplementary to ,vhat has already been offered on the same subject froln page 443 to page 446. The copies of S. Paul's Epistles (in cursive \vriting) supposed to exist in European libraries,-not including those in the monasteries of Greece and the Levant,l-anlount to at least 302,2 Out of this nunlber, 2 are fabulous :3_ 1 has been destroyed by fire :4-and 6 have strayed intu unkno\vn localities. Add, that 37 (for various reasons) are said not to contain the verse in question;6 ,vhile of 2, r I Scholz enumerates 8 of the8e copies: Coxe, 15. But there l11USt exist a vast many more; as, at 1\1. Athos, in the convent úf 8. Catharinc, at l\leteora, &c., &c. 2 In e:\.planation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to the ApPEXDIX at the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing words have been in print I have obtained fronl HOllie tidings of about 34 more copies of S. Paul's Epistles; raising the present total to 33G. The known copies of the book called' ..&postol-us' now anlount to 127.] 3 Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener'8 Introduction, 3rd ed. p. 251): and Paul un (see above, at pp. 444-5). 4 Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg. 5 Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener's Introduction): 15 (which is Dot in the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener's Intro- duction): 209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are no lungcr preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the suppression of tho Jesuits, is anyone able to tell what has become of them). 6 Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (Vat. 165,-frúm Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: 64: 66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: 161: 162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (Milan N. 272 sup., -from Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (.. odena II. A. 13,-from Sig. Cappilli [Acts, lü5-see .Appendix]): 86 (J.lIila1l, E. 2 inf.-from Dr. Ccriani [see .J.l'pendix)): 87 (.I.llilan A. 41 Úif.-from Dr. Ceriau\ 4U2 UNANIl\IITY OF THE COPIEB [REPLY TO have been hitherto unsuccessful in oLtaining any account :1_ and it \vill be seen that the sum of the available cursive copies of S. raul's Epistles is exactly 254. No\v, that 2 of these 254 cursive copies (viz. Paul 17 and 73)-exhibit õç,-you have been so eager (at pp. 71-2 of your pamphlet) to estal)lish, that I am un\villing to do nlore than refer you Lack to pages 443,-4,-5, \vhere a fc\v \vords have been already offered in reply. l)ernlÍt me, ho\vever, to suLn1Ït to your consideration, as a set-off against those t'lVO copies of S. l>aul's Epistles \vhich read õç,-the follo\ying t7fo-h1.lndred and fijty-tu'o copies wllÍch read 8EÓÇ. 2 To speak [see Appendix]): 2U3 (Crypta Ferrata, A. ß. ,i.-from the Hieromonachus .A. Rocchi [see .Appcltdix]): 302 (Berlin, lJI/:). Græc. vo. No, Uo-from Dr. C. de Boor [see Appendix]). 1 Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener's Introduction): and Paul 2G1 ( lura1t's 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330). 2 I found the reading of 150 copies of . Paul's Epistles at 1 '.rim. iii. 1G, ascertained ready to my haud,-chiefty the result of the lahours of :Mill, Kuster, 'Yalker, Berriman, Birch, Iatthæi, Scholz, Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I aIn enabled to contribute to the llumher,-thanks to tbe many friendly belpers whose names follow:- In the VATICAN (Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of th library, whose friendly forwardne::,::, and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently ac- knowledge. See the Appendix) No. 185, 186, luG, 204, 207, 294, 295, 2Ð6, U7.-PROPAGAKDA (Dr. Beyer) No. 92.-CRYPTA FERRATA (the lIieromonachus A. Hocchi. See the Appendix,) No. 290, 291, 292.- V EX ICE (Sig. Y eludo) 1\0. 215.-MILAN (Dr. Ceriani, the most learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 17G, 223, 288, 28Ð.-FERRARA, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.- IoDEKA (Sig. Cappilli) No. 285.-BoLOGNA (Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.-TuRIN (8ig. Gorresio) .No. 165, 168.-FLoREKcE (Dr. Anziani) No. 1t$2, 2 G, 239.-}IESSINA (Papas Filippo :Matranga. See the Appendix,) No. 216, 283.-PALERMO (Sig. Penerino) No. 217.- 'rhe EðcURIAL (S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at the instance of bis Excellency, Sir Robert Iorier, who is requested to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.-PARIS ( 1. 'Vescher, who is as obliging :\s he is learned in this departn1ent,) No. 1G, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 137, lU{.-(L'Abbé :Martin. See the .Appendix) No. 282. ARS.EXAL Er. ELI.ICOTT.) OF . P \ t;L' EPIRTLEK 1!) : ".ith perfect accuracy,-4 of these (232) exhibit ó AfÒS- Ècþav pwe'1} ;1_1, ß\' 0EÓ\' ;2-and 247, (-.JEÓ\' absolutely. The numùers follo\v:- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 16, 18. 19. 20, 21. 22. 23. 24, 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 43. 44. 43. 4G. 47. 48. 49. 52. 55. 56. 57. 59. 62. 63. 65. 67. G8. 69. 70. 71. 72. 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 90. 91. 92, 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 10-1. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112, 113. 11-1, 115. 11ô. 117. 120. 121. 122. 123. 125. 126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 133. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 1-12. 143. 14-1. 145. 149. 150. 151. 153. 15-1, 155. 156. 157. . 158. 159. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 182. 183. 18-1. 185. 186. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 194:. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 203. 20-1. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211. 212. ( I. Thierry) Xo. 130.-8. GE EVIEVE ( 1. Denis) No. 247.-POICTIF.r.S (11. Dartige) No. 276.-nERLI (Dr. C. de Boor) Ko. 220, 29t'1, 2!J!), 300, 301.-DRESDEX (Dr. Forstemann) Ko. 237.-)Irr\IcH (Dr. Laub- mann) No. 55, 125, 126, 128.-GOTTISGES (Dr. Lagarde) Ko. 2-13.- ".OLFE ßUTTEL (Dr. yon Heinemann) :No. ,4, 41.-nASI.E (?fons. Sieber) No. 7.-UPSALA (Dr. nelsheim) So. 273, 274.-LI COPIXG (the same) No. 272.-ZCRICH (Dr. Escher) :Ro. 56.-PrebenJary cri\"ener verified for me Paul 252: 253: 2:>5: 256: 237: 238: 260: 264: 2G3: 277.-Rev. T. Randell, has yerified Xo. 13.-Alex. Peckoyer, E q" No. 278.-Personally, I have inspected 1\0. 24: 34: 62: 63: 4: 227: 234: 3 : 236: 240: 24 : 249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 26 : 269: 270: 2.9: 280: 281. 1 Viz. Paul 37 (the Codex Leicest" 69 of the Gospels) :-Paul ö:> (Yat. 1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi :-Paul 93 (Naples 1. B. 12) which is 83 of the Acts,-noticed by Birch :-Paul 175 (Ambros. F. 12:) sup,) at :Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See abo,e, p. 456 note (I). 2 Yiz. Paul 282,-concerning which, see abo\ye, p. 174, note (I). 494 rIlE UOI'IR UN..\ T:\lOUS A Tu ll1EPI Y TO 213. 215. 216. 217. 218,1 21!). 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 24 . 243. 244:. 245. 246. 247. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 255. 256. 257. 258. 260. 262. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 70. 272. 273. 274. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 2 283. 285. 288. 289, 2DO. 291. 292. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. Behold then the provision ,vhich THE AUTHOR of Scripture has Inadc for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this 11ortion of IIis ,vritten \V ord ! U p,vards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the' Inystery of Godliness;' declaring this to be the great foundation-fact,-namely, that' GOD 'VAS L\XIFESTED I THE FLESH.' ...'\nd 10, out of tu'o hl.lnd,tcd and .fifty-four copies of S. l"}aul's Epistles no less than tu.o hU'Julrcd and .fifty-tu/"O are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such' Consent' an10unts to UnanÍ1nity; and, (as I eXplainetl at pp. 454-5,) unanilüity in this subject-n1atter, is conclusive. The copies of w'hich ,ve speak, (you are requested to ob- serve,) "Tere produced in every part of ancient Christendonl,- being derived in every instance froIn copies older than thel11- sel\ es; ,yhich again ,yere transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their ,yay, ,vithout design or con- trivance, into the liùraries of every country of Europe,- "'here, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,-(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and no,v respectfully propose it to YO'll, nlY 1 The present lucalityof this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218) is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the 'Scnlinario' at Syracuse are an ' EVðt.' anù an ' Apost,.' (which 1 number respectively 3G2 and 113). 1'1y authority for BEe)S' in Paul 218, is Birch [Proleg. p. xcviii.], to whom 1tlunter communicateù his collations. 2 For the ensuing codices, see the ApPEXDIX. ßp. ELLICOTT.] eEO IX 1 TI:\I. Ill. 1 ß. 4 t5 lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favour Dle puhlicly \vith an answer ;)-}"or ,,-hat conceivable reason can this lnultitude of \vitnesses ùe supposed to have entered into a \vicked conspiracy to deceive lnankind ? True, that no miracle has guarded the sacreù Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of CIIRIsT,-in order to I>rove that not this, but some other thing, it DUlSt have Leen, ,,'hich the Apostle ,vrote. And yet (as I have fully sho\vn) the result of all the evidence procuralJle is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have '\Titten no other thing bu t this. To the over\vhelnling evidence thus furnished by 232 out of 254 cursive Copies of S. Paul's Epistles,-is to be Rtlded the evidence supplied by the Lectiona1.ics. It has lJeen already explained (viz. at pp. 4: 77 -8) that out of 32 copies of the 'Apostolus,' 29 concur in ,vitnessing to 0EÓÇ. I have just (l\fay 7th) heard of another in the Vatican,l To these JO, sholùd be added the 3 Liturgical codices referred to at pp. 448 and 474, note (1). No\v this is emphatically the voice of a ncic/ t Ecclesiastical Tradition. The nunlerical reslùt of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:- (I.) In 1 TDIOTHY iii. 1h, the reading ( EÒÇ Ècþavfpw(}11 Èv uapKí, is witnessed to by 289 )IAYUSCRIPTS :2_by 3 \T ER - SIOXS :3-by up\yards of :!U Greek F \THERS. 4 1 Yat. 2068 (Basil. l07),-which I number C A post. 115' (see API)E ï)JX.) 2 Viz. by 4 uncials (A, K, L, p), + (24;- Paul + 31 Apost. =) 27 cursi,"c manuscripts reading 8EÓS-: + 4 (Paul) reading ó 8EÓS-: + 2 (1 Paul, 1 Apo:-;t.) reading 8s- 8EÓS-: + 1 (Apost.) reading eù = ð9. (See abovc, pp. 473-4: 1 , .) S The lIarkleian (see pp. 450, 489): the Georgian, and the RlanÞJlic (p. 454). 4 See above, pp. 4ö7 -4UO,-which is the summary (,f what will Lc fOUI)(1 more larg('l - tlelh'cred from page 453 to page 4,G. -l9G U1\I L\RY OF TIlE EXTFUN.AL EVIDENCE, [REPLY TO (II.) The reading ó (in place of 8EÓ") is supported by a single 1\18. (D) :-by 5 ancient ,TERSIONS :l-by 2 late Greek FATHERS. 2 (III.) The reading ó" (also in place of E)EÓ") is countenanced by 6 1\L\.XUSCRIPTS in all ( , Paul 17, 73 : Apost. 12, 85, 86) :- by only one VERSIO for certain (viz. the Gothic 3) :-'}1ot for ccrt(tin by a single G'rcck }'A.THEH.. I ,\?ill not repeat the renlarks I nlade before on a general survey of the evidence in favour of 8" bþavEpwB1J: IJllt I must request you to refer back to those relnarks, now that ,ve have reached the end of the entire discussion. They extend from the nlÍddle of p. 483 to the bottonl of p. 485. The unhappy Logic ,vhich, on a survey of ,vhat goes before, can first persuade itself, and then seek to persuade others, that f')fÓ" is a "plain and cl car erl'or;" and that there is "decidedly ptepondcrating cridcncc," in favour of reading ó\, in 1 Tinlothy iii. If> ;-must needs be of a sort ,,-ith ,vhich I neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaint- ance. I cOlnmend the case bet"yeen you and myself to the judgment of 1\lankind; and trust you are able to a,vait the COlllillon verdict ,vith the saIne serene confidence as I am. "Till you excuse nle if I venture, in the homely vernacular, to assure you that in your present contention you' have not a leg to stand upon'? "l\foreoyer" (to quote from your o"Tn panlphlet [p, 76],) " this case is of great Í1nportancc as an e..nllnple." You made deliberate choice of it in order to con- vict 1ne of error. I have accepted your challenge, you see. Let the present, Lyall means, be regarded by the public as 1 See above, pp. 448-453: also p. 479. S See above, pp. 45 -3. 2 See above, pp. 479-480. 4 See above, pp. 482, 483. HI>. ELUOOTT.] A\Xl\ OF THE PE CHITO YUL\P. -1--1- t Trinity, is d signal lilY the exprcs ion 'lIlaY,11un pi tatiç 8 C1. 11tCntU?n.' . (b) It is, 1 R(bnit, a striking cin'uIllstallce that such a Iuistake as this in the old Latin shouleschito is o really a translation into good yriac, (not into ,,"ord-for-\\yonl };yriac,) that if the translator had ,vallted to express the Greek Ö , in so difficult a passage, llC 1.collltl have ill?'1L it diffcrcntly." 1 - The Peschito therefore yields the salnc testÏ1nony as the Latin; and lnay not he ( leclareù (as you tleclare it) to he indetcl'lilinate. till le:-; lllay it La represented as ,\Titne:;:;ing to Õ . 1 l . letter to my c1f, Augu t 11, 1 iH. 2 G 4;30 'l'IIE PH n.UXEXL\ on II.\ HKI EL\X, [llEI'L\ TO (d) It follo\\?s to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 TiIn, iii, 16 in the PllILOXE L\X, or rather the IIARKLJ<:L\X \r el'ðion (\rr [th cent.), concerning ".hich 1 haxe had recoursp to the learned Editor of that V" el'sion. lIe ,vrites :-" There can l)e no douLt that the authors of this V" ersion hall either (':)EÓ or (-JEOÛ before then1: ,vhile their Inarginal note sho'vs that they ,yere a,vare of the reading Ö . They exhibit,- 'Grcat is t7i(' ?ny.-;tcry of the .'Joodnc s of tile fC(l1 (felninine) of GOD, 'll'ho-1.CaS-1na ìl ifc::;tcd (lnasculine) in the flc::;h.' Th( lnarginal addition [om Lefore lll] Blakes the reference to GOD all the plainer." 1 See nlore Lelo,v, at p. 489. N o,v this introùuction of the \\yorù (-)EÓ into the te\:t, ho,yever inartistic it Inay seem to you and to nle, is a fatal circulllstance to those ".ho \\rould contend on your side. 1 t sho,'ys translators divided het,veen t,vo rival and conflicting readings: but deterlnined to giye pronlÏnence to the circunl- stance "yhich constituted the greatness of the nly-stery: viz. nOD I C.\RX.ATE. cc :\Iay ] suggest" (a.dds the ,,'itty scholar in his Post-script) "that there "yould be no Inystery in 'a luan being luanifestecl in the flesh' 1 " The facts concerning the Jlarkleian ,r ersiOll Leing such, you 'v ill not be surprise(l to hear l11e say that I aIll at a loss to understand ho\v, ,vithout a syllable expressive of douht, you should claÏ1n this version (the' Philoxenian ' you call Ìt- but it is rather the IIarkleian), as a ,vitness on your side,- a ,vitness for Õ .2 It not only ,yitnesscs against you, (for the Latin and the reschito do that,) Lnt, as L haye shown you, it is a ,vitness on Iny side. (c) antI (f). Next, for the "\T ersions of Lü\rER and UPPER EGYPT. 1 :MS. letter from the Hev. Henry Denne, of S. Jùhn's College, OxforJ. 2 C aùo\?c, llnge 42a. UP. ELLICOTT.] \ H THE 'l"VO EUYPTL\ VEH ro s, 1.31 "'Ve are content" (you say) to "refer our readers to Tischendorf and Tl'egellcf3, \vho unhesitatingly clai1l1 the :\IClllphitic [or Coptic] aUll the Thehaic [or Sahi(lic] for Ó,."l nut surely, in a TIlatter uf this kind, Iny lord Bishop-(l Blcau, '" hcn ,ve are tIiscussin SOlne nicet y uf a lan(fuacre of '-' ð ü ,vhich personally ,ve kno,v aLsolutely nothing,)-\yC nutY ncyer " be content to refer our readers" to inllividual::) ,vho are every bit as ignorant of the IHatter as oursclYcs. natheI' should ,ve be at the pains to obtain for those ".110111 \\"e pro- pose to instruct the deliberate verdict of those Vd10 haye ulade the subject their special study. Dr. lalan (".110 11luSt" be heartily sick of 111e by this tÏ1ne), in reply to IllY repcated enquiries, assures 111e that in Coptic and in Sahiùic alike, " the relative pronoun ahvays takes the genùer of the Grcek antecedent. But, inasll1uch as there is properly speaking no neuter in either language, the lllasculine does duty J01" the neuter; the gender of the definite article and l"elati ye pronoun being determined by the genùer of the "TortI referred to. Thus, in S. John XY. 26, the Coptic' pi' anll 'phè' respectively represent the definite article and the relati ve, alike in the expression ó ITapáJCÀ7]TO, õv, and ill the expression TÒ IIvEvjLa (S: and so throughout. In 1 Tim. iii. 16, therefore, 'pi rnustèrion phè,' n1ust perforce be renùered, TÒ jLvaT ptov Õ :-/ ot, surely, ó jLvaT ptf)V õ . Anù yet, if tlte 1'e- latire lllay be lllasculine, \vhy not the article also? But in fact, "Te have no IHore right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) relative by Õ in 1 TÍ1n, iii. lô, than in any other sÍlnilar pas- sage ",.here a neuter noun (e,g. 7TvEûfLa or aWfLa) has gone before. In this partienlar cað J, of course a pretence lllay he set up that the gender of the relatiyc shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness of granunar, it is far uther,vÜse. No Coptic or Sahitlic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic hack into Greek, 1 Page 71. And o p. G3 and G!ì. 2 G 452 'rIII GOTHIC, THE .a THIOPTC, TilE [ItEPL Y TO would ever dreanl of \vriting anything else but TÒ J-tV(J"T - ptOV (S." 1 . . . . . And no\v I trust 1 have nlade it plain to you that yon arc 'ìnistakcn in your statelllent (p. (9),-that "I"O is sllpportlYl by the t'lCO Egyptian Versions." It is supported by neither. You have been shown that they both ,vitness against you. You \vill therefore not be astonished to hear me again declare that I anl at a loss to understand ho\v you can cite the C Philoxenian, Coptic and Sahidic,'2- as \yitnesses on your side. It is not in this ".ay, nlY lord Bishop, that GOD'S Truth is to be established. (g) As for the GOTIIIC 'T ersion,-dissatisfied \yith the ver- dict of De Gabelentz and Loebe,3 I addressed nl)'"self tu Dr. Ceriani of l\Iilau, the learned and most helpful chief of the AUlbrosian Library: in ,yhich by the way is preserved tlie only kno'l/)n copy of Ulphilas for 1 Tim. iii. 16. I1e inclines to the opinion that' saei ' is to be read,-the rather, lJecause Andreas U ppströnl, the recent editor of the codex, a diligent and able scholar, has decided in favour of that' obscure' reading. 4 The Gothic therefore must be considered to 1 IS. letter to Dlyself. 2 See above, page 429. S Dlfilas. Veteris et þtovi Test. rersionis Goth. fragmenta gum sllpcr- llnt, &c. 4tu. 1843. 4 "Si tamen Uppström C Obscu1'um' dixit, non C incertum,' fides illi adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices OInnes investigabat; me enim l)ra' ente in aula. coJicenl tractabat."-(Private letter to Dly elf.) Ceriani proceeds,-" Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii. 16, nota ð4 Proleg. Ga.belentz Gothicam versionelll legens 8fÓS-. Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos fuisse doctos illos Germnnos, ohlitos illius Routh præ( epti 'Let me recommend to you the Pl'uctice if always verifying your references, sir. ,,, The reader will ùe interested to be informed that Castiglione, the former editor of the codex, was in favour of' GOD' in 1835, and of' soei' (quæ [= Ó], to agree \\ ith 'runa,' i.e. 'mystery,' which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 18-13, ventured to print 'saei' = ór. "Et 'saei ' legit etianl diligentissÎIllus Andreas Uppströnl nuperus coùicis Alubrosialli investigator et editor, in opere Codicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c. IIolmiæ et Lipsiæ, 1868." TIp, ELLICOTT.] ..\R:\[EXIA X A D TII1' \ TL\ UTC VEnRT() . 453 witness to the (In ore than) extraordinary combination;- J.LÉryA% . . . J.LVUT ptov . . . "0%. (Hec the footnote (') p. 4fi2.) I obtain at the saDIC time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from that distinguished and oLliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheinl of Christiania. " But" (he adds) "the reading is a little dubious. II. F. :\Iassnlann, in the notes to his edition, 1 at page 657, says,-' saei [qui] is altogether obliterated.' "-In claiming the Oothic therefore as a ".itness for Õ , you w'ill (I trust) agree ,vith 111e that a single sertrcdy legible copy of a ,r ersiun is not altogether satisfactory testi- nIony:-".hile certainly '7nagn1tS est pietatis sacraIllent1.un, qui nlanifestatus est in corpore '-is not a rendering of 1 TÏIn. iii. 16 ,vhich you are prepared tú accept. (h) For the L"ETHIOPIC V ersion,- Dr. Hoerning, (of the British l\Iuseum,) has at Iny request consulted six copies of 1 Timothy, and inforlns Ine that they present nu variety of text. The antecedent, as u.cll as thc rclatÍ1x, is ?n(u cllliìle in · all. The ..lEthiopic nlust therefore be considered to favour the reaùing J.LVa:.T plOV. () aVEpWe1J, and to represent the same Greek text ,vhich underlies the Latin and the Peschito Versions. The LEthiopic therefore is against you. (i) "The ...\.Rl\IENL\ Version," (,\rites Dr. )Ialan) "froln the very nature of the language, is inùetern1Ìnate. There is no grammatical distinction of gC1U[C/'S in Arnlenian." (j) The ARABIC Versioll, (so Dr. Ch. Hieu 2 infornlS IHC,) 1 Stuttgard, 1857. 2 Of the tlepartment of Oriental :MS . in the Brit. rU8., who derives his text frOlll " the three l\Il1semn 1\ISS. which contain the .Arabic Versiun of the Epistles: viz. lIar!. 5-17-1 (dated A.D. 1332) :-OTielltal13 8 (Xth cent.) :-.Ântmhl Uriatl. lU (dated A.D. 161G)."-'Valtun's Pulyglott, he 454 TIlE f:FOnnL\N .AND THE L \. VO TC. [nET'I., TO exhiùits,-" In in th tlte mystery of tit is justice is great. It is that It " (or" it," for the _\rabic has no distinction bet,yeen luasculine and neuter) "'l -CiS Inanifested in tlie budy, and was jllstifi'd in the spirit," &c.- This yersioll therefore ,, itnesse for neither' ,vho,' 'w'hich,' nor' GOD.' (k) and (I). There only reluain the GEOnGL\ Version, ,vhich is of the'TIth century,-and the SLAYO IC, ".hich is of the TXth, Now', both of these (Dr. l\Ialan infonlls lue) 1f }lcrj1 f irocalll/ 'U'itncss to 8E'ó". Thus far then for the testÜnony yielded by ancient l\L\XL"SCJUPTS and 'T}:nsIo s of S. }>aul's Epistles. ("g] IleriCl" of the liro!/rcss lcli ieh h(( been hitherto 'ìi ((tle 'In tI/C lJf'cscnt Enquiry. IT p to this point, you lUUst adnlÏt that ,vondrous little :5anction has been obtained for the reading for ".hich yon cuntend, (yil.. fLV(]'7"lJptOV. 8" JcþavE'pw87],) as the true reading of 1 TÏ1n. iii. 16. Undisturbed in your enjoynlent of the testilllony 1Jo1'no by Cod. , you cannot but feel that such testiInollY is fully counterl)alancel1 l)y the ,vitness of Cod. A: and further, that the conjoined evidence of the JL\l KLEL\N, the GEORGIAX, and the SLA VOXIC 'T ersions out"Teighs the sinnle evidence of the (jOTHIC. û J ut ,,"hat is to be said alJout the con'3ent of the 1l1anU- scripts of ::;. Paul's Epistles for reaùing (:)E'Ó" in this place, in the JYroportion of 125 to 11 You must surely see that, (as I explained aboye at pp. 445-6,) such nlultitudinous testi- lllony is absolutely decisiye of the question Lefore us. At ays, cxhibits "a garbled version, quite distinct from the gClluine Arabic: viz. C Tltrsc g7u}'ies commemorate thcm, in t7l grcalllcs.,) (1 tlte mystery (if fair pidy. GOD apiJLared ill ilw " jicsh,' \c. Br, ELLICOTT.] TIEVIE'V OF PTInr:TIEkR, RO FAIt 4!}!) p. 30 of your palllph1et, you announce it as a "lesson of prÍ1uary ÏInportance, often reiterateTO])()U1T TAH , [llEI'LY TO eEl' A APKCÓUEW . "r e co 111111 only speak of this as the seventh of the 'Euthalian' KEcþlÍÀaLa or chapters: Lut Euthalius hill1 elf declares that those 18 titles ""ere" deyised by a certain very ,,'ise and pious :Father;" 1 and this particular title (I1Ept BE{a uapKwuEw ) is freely enlployed tlnd discussed in Gregory of Nyssa's treatise against A polinaris,2-,,'hich latter had, in fa,ct, made it part of the title of his O'Yll heretical treatise. 3 That the present is a yery ,veighty attestation uf the l"eadillg, 0EO\ ÈcþnvEpwBl] Èv APKI' nu one proLahly ,viII deny: a lllellluraLle prouf llloreuver that (-:)EÓ 4: Illust haye Leen univer- sally re tll in 1 Tilll. iii. It) throughuut the century ,d1Ïeh ,vitncsscd the pruductiun uf cotlices n alHI . EYEnUS, BP. OF ..A..XTIOCII, you also consider a "not unalll- l)ignous" \\ itness. I yenture to POillt out to you that ,vhell a Father of the Church, ,vho has Leen already insisting on the GODhead uf ClIUI T (KafT Ô "Iàp v7nÎPXE (:)EÓ ,) goes on to speak of !-IÏ1n as TÒV Èv uapKì cþavEpw{}Év7a 8EÓV, thpre is no 'aluLiguity' ,,'hateyer about the fact that he is quoting 1'1'0111 1 Tilll. iii. 1 G. 5 ..AUtl ".hy arc we only" pCJ'haps" to add the testimony of JJIODORUS OF T.An us; seeing that Diudoru:-3 adduce:-3 S. l>aul's 1 The place is quoted in Scrivcner's IntrodltclioJl, p. 59. 2 ....lntirrheticlls, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77. 3 The full title wa::5,- .A7ní n L 1iEpì T r 8fiar uaplCwufwr T KCL8 ()jloí.wULV tÌv8pw7rov. Ibid. 518 b, c: 519 a. 4 .L\..polinaris did not deny that CHRI T was very GOD. IIis heresy (lilw that of Arius) turneù upon the nature of the conjunction of the Godhead with the Manhood. Ileal' 'rheoùort t :-A. ÐEòr A()yo UClpKì Évw8ELr I .l'] "'''\ Ð ' 0 T ... "\' .l']' , .1,,' \ tlVDPW7rOV Cl7rfTf^fUEV EOV. . OtiTO OtiV ^fYHr DEtaV EJ-L'f tlxLUV; 1.. Kaì 7rávtI. o. 'AVTì vtlx r ovv ó Aóyor; A. NelÍ. Dial. vi. adu. ....11)()l. (Opp. v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.) ô Cnuner'8 C(d. in .Jct1ls, iii. G . It is also met with in the Catena on the Acts which J. U. \V olf published ill his Auccdota Græca, iii. 137-8. 'fhc place is quotcJ aùove, p. 10 . IJp. ELLICOTT.] ill'. ELLIe( )TT \ \ l'OXTTt( )YEH:,L\LI:-,'I'. 4;) . actual " oras (f')EÙÇ JcþavEpwB11 Èv l1"llPKí), ana expressly says that he finds thenl ill S. ])uul's ]-Jl'istlc to Timothy? 1 JIo,\"'- 1ua)" I 1e pcrn1Îtteù to ask-,vouhl you have a quotation 11ladc plainer? [i] Bp, Ellicott itS a controversialist. The case of EUTIL\LIU'S. Eorgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that the (1.JLÙnus you display in conducting the present critical ùisquisition not only astonishes, but even shocks Inc. You seem to say,- .I.Yon pCì'snadcbis, ctiæmsi pcrsuascris. The plainest testÏ1nollY you reckon doubtful, if it goes against you: an unsatisfactory quotation, if it 111akes for your side, you roundly declare to be " evidence" ,vhich " stands the test of exaluination." 2 . . . ""r e have examined his references carefully" (you say). "Gregory of Kyssa, Didymus of Alexandria, Theoduret nnd John Danlascene ('who died severally about 394, 396,457 and 7jG A,D.) seem unquestionably to have read E>t:Óç."3 Excuse nle for telling you that this is not the language of a canùid enquirer after Truth. Your grudging adnlÍssion of the un- equivocal evidence borne by these four illustrious Fathers:- your attenlpt to detract from the inlportance of their testi- Illony by scre,ving do,, n their date' to the sticking place:'- your assertion that the testÜnony of a fifth Father" is not unambiguolls : "-your insinuation that the elllphatic ".itucss of a sixth lllay "pcrhaps" be in::uhllissible :-all this kind of thing is not only quite unworthy of a Dishop ".hen he turns disputant, but etfectually indisposes his opponent to receive his argumentation ,vith that respectful deference which else ,vould have been undoubtedly its due. Need I renlÍnd you that nlen do not ,vrite their books ,vhen they are in articuio 'lnortis? DidynHls died in A.D. 394, tv Le 1 Cramer'::; Cat. ù Rom. p. 1 4. 2 P. G.. 3 P. ßi3. 4(10 THE CA E UF EUTIIAI.IUS. [REPLY TO sure: but he ,vas then 8& years of age. He ,yas therefore born in A.D. 309, and is said to have flourished in 347. Ho,v old do you suppose \\"ere the sacred codices he had employed till then? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong to the first q1lartcr of the I'T th cent1l1'Y ?-is nlore ancient in short (and infinitely more important) than that of any written codex ,vith which \ve are acquainted? Pressed by my " cloud of ,vitnesses," you seek to get rid of them by insulting me. " "repass oyer" (you say) It narnes brought in to s1.ocll the number, such as EuthalÍ'lls,-for 'whom.! no reference is given."l Do you then suspect TIle of the ùase- ness,-nay, do you mean seriously to iInpute it to Ine,-of introducing , n unes' , to s,vell the number' of \vitnesses on nlY side 1 Do you mean further to insinuate that I prudently gave no reference in the case of 'Euthalius,' because I \vas unable to specify any place "'here his testimony is found? . . . I should really pause for an ans'''er, but that a trifling cir- Clunstance solicits me, ,vhich, if it does not entertain the Dp. of Gloucester and Bristol, ,yill certainly entertain every one else ,,,ho takes the trouble to read these pages. , Such as Ellthalills' ! You had evidently forgotten \vhcn you penned that offensive sentence, that EUTIL\l..IUS is one of the fc,v Fathers adduced by YO'ltT çclf2 (but for whom you 'gave no reference,') in 18G },-,,?hen you ,vere setting do\vn the Patristic evidcnce in fayonr of 8fÓÇ. . . . This little inci- dent is really in a high degree suggestive. Your practice has evidently been to a1>propriatc Patristic refel'cnces 3 ,vithout thought or verification,-prudently to abstain frOlJl dropping 1 P. 65. 2 See above, p. 429. B Bcutley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and uthcr a.dduce ' Eutlwli'lls.' UP. EU.rcOTT.] TIfI' CA E OF ETTTIL\ LIU:-:, ifil I ! . a. hint ho\v you came by them,-but to U:-30 thCIH like v Èv -rcp na-rpì uvvaîSwr Àóyor, :v av-roû 1TpÓUCi>1TOV, cìópa-ro eEór, Kaì ópa-ròr )'EvóJ-LEvor. eEO' r.-\.' P 'E<<Þ.-\lXEPO ell , , , t. e - n ' B " , 'E .\PKI, YEvOI1.Evor EK YVVatKOS-, 0 EK EOV a-rpor )'EVV1J Etr EK yau-rpor ?rpù ÉCi>ucþópov.- Cancilia, i. 853 a. 4 Cap. xi. lJP, FLLICOTT.] IX uTIlElt PI DIITI\"E \\ïTXE ES. 4.,;3 though not in a "yay to he helpful to ns in onr pre ent elle L uiry. I cannot feel surpl'i'3ed at the cirCu111stance. The yet earlier reference in the epistles of (1) IGx \.T[U (three in nUTI1her) 07'C helpful, and TIlar nut be overlooked, They are as follo\\ s :-8fOV lÌVBPW7rlVWÇ cþavEpovfLÉvOV :-Èv , , 8 ' ... C\" f ,.I., , " , , uapKL 'Yl:VOfLEVOÇ - l:OÇ' :-fLÇ' ÖEO EUTtV 0 'jJaVEpwuaç' EaVTOV OUt 'll}uOÛ XptUTOV TOV vlov aÛTov, ÖÇ' ÈUT('V aÙToû .... \.órl/oÇ' tiiÓtOç'.1 It is to be ,vished, no doubt, that these references had been a little n10re full and explicit: Lnt the very early Fathers nre eyer ubser\Tcù to quute Scripture thus pal'tially,-allusively, -elliptically. (2) D \.nX.AB \S has just such another allusive reference to the ,vurds in dispute, ,vhich seeIns to sho,," that he Blust have 1 ( ' ' cþ , B ' I' ' 1 "" "r\,... real -JEO() E aVEpw 1} fV uapKL: YIZ, 1}UOV().... 0 VLOÇ' TOV ( EOV Tí),Tr rJ Kat Èv uapKt cþavEpwBf{Ç'.2_(; ) IIIPPOLYTUS, Oil two uccasions, even l110re uneq uiyocally refers to this reading. Once, ,vhile engaged in proving that CHRIST is GOD, he O .,. '- 8 ' " e " , ',.1., says:- VTOÇ' 7rpOEf\- WV ELÇ' KOUfLOV - EOÇ' EV UWfLaTt E'jJaVE- pwB'l} :3-and again, in a very sÏ1uilar passage ,vhich Theo- cloret quotes fruIll the saUle Father's lost ,york on the P 1 0 ? " '- B ' , " e ' ,,, e sa lns:- VTOÇ' 0 'TipOff\- WV ELÇ' TOV KOUfLOV, - fOÇ' KaL av pW7rOÇ' ÈcþavfpwB1}.4_( 4) GREGORY THAU1\IATURGUS, (if it really be he,) seeIllS also to refer directly to this place ,,-hell he says (in a pa sage quoted by Photius 5 ),-Kat [UTi- AEòÇ' tÌ)\;l}Btvò() Ó auap- KOÇ' Èv uapKl cþavEpwBEl().-Further, (5) in the ....\.I'OSTOLIC \L COXSTITUTIO , ,ve nleet "ith the exprCS:-5iOll,-(:)EÒÇ' KÚptoç' '" ,.I., , " ,..., '6 o E7rt'jJaVELç' 1}fLLV EV uapKL. 1 ....Id Epltes. c. 1D: c. 7. .Ad ...1fagll s. c. 8. 2 Cap. xii. s Contra I/æresim .....Yoeti, c. xvii. (HOllth's Úl'uscuJu, Î. 7(3,) Head tIJl' antecedent chapters. " Dialog. ii. ' Illcmifuslls.'-Opp. iv. 132. ð COll. 230,-p. 8--1:5, line 40. 6 vii. :!f;, ap. Galland. iii. It\:! 3. 464 uynrL UF ALEXAKnHI.\, r:--; .\ [HEPLY TO .i\nd ,,,hen (n) It\SIL TIlE GnE \T [A.D. 77], "Titing to th(' Iuen of Sozopalis \vhose faith the \rialls had assailed, remarks that such teaching" subverts the ::;a,ving )Jispensation of our LORD JESUS CIIHI T;" and, blending HOln. xyi. 2;), 26 ,,'ith "the great mystery" of 1 Tin1. iii. 16,-(in order to atlor(l hÎ1nself an oppurtunity of passing in revie,v our BA YIOrR'R ,vork for IIis Church in ancient days,)-viz. " After all theHe, at the end of the day, aÌrrò() ÈcþavEpW01J Èv uapKl, ryEVÓ/JÆVO() ÈK ryvvatKÓ():" l-? 'ho will deny that such an one probaLly fauna neither ó() nor õ, Lut E)EÓ(), in the copy Lefore him 1 I have thought it due to the enquiry I have in hand to give a distinct place to the foregoing evidence-such as it is-of Ignatius, l arllabas, Hippolytus, Gregory ThaUIllatul'gus, the Apostolical Constitutions, and Basil. nut I shall not vililtl upon such foundations. Let lne go on ,vith ,,-hat is indis- putable. [k] The tCBtÍ1nony of CYRIL OP .ALEXAXDIUA. Next, far CYRIL OF .A \L:EX.AXDIUA, \\" hOln you decline to accept as a ,vitllCSS for 8EÓ(). You are prepared, I trust, ta su lnnit to the logic of facts? In a treatise addressed to the Empresses .L\.rcadia and l\Iarina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that our LORD is very and eternal GOD. 2 His method is to estahlish several short theses all tending to this one object, by citing froln the several haoks of the N. T" in tnrn, the principal texts ,vhich Blake for his purpose. Presently, (viz. at page 117,) he announces as his thesis, - "Faith in CHHIST ItS GOD;" anù ,yhen he CaInes to 1 Timuthy, he quotes iii, 16 at lIJt(Jth; 1 iii. 401-2, Apist. 61 (= 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4 f01l0\\ 8. 2 fLulJ UfTUL yàp ón fþvun fLfll Kuì ÙÀTJlJEíf!. ÐfÓÇ ÈfTTl.1I Ó tEfLfLUIIOV À, lJfOTóKOÇ ðf ðl. t UVTÒIl Kuì q TfKOVUU 'lraplJilloç.- V 01. v. Part ii. 48 e. lip. ELLICOTT.] DIFFEnEXT FOOTIXG FRO:\t 'rIlA T OF 1881. !j 1 The cheapest copies of our Authorized \T ersion at le:LRt exhibit the \V ord of GOD faithfully and helpfully. Coul(l the sanle be said of a cheap edition of the ,york of the Uevisiollists,-ùestitute of headings to the Chapters, and containing no Tecord of the extent to "rhich the Sacred Text has undergone depravation throughout? Let it be further recollected that the greatest Scholars anC\ the Inost learned Divines of "rhich our Church could boast, conducted the ,york of Revision in l ing J alTIeS' days; and it will be ackno,vledged that the pron1Ïscuous asselnblagc \\rhich n1et in the Jerusalem Chalnber cannot urge any corresponding claim on public attention. Then, the Bishops of Lincoln of 1611 ,vere TIevisers: the Vance Snliths stooration of text 0l' uf translation will be found anywhere to make up for this los ; a indeed it is well understood that the N. T. contains neither precept nor examplt' which really anctions the religious \\orshipof Jl<:-,n; CHUIsT."-Text:- and lar[Ji71s,-p. 47. \ L 51--1 R EYIE'" OF THE EXTITIE SUDJECT. [REPLY TO To nrgue therefore concerning the prospects of the TIevision of 1881 from the kno,vn history of our Authorized Version of 1611, is to argue concerning things essentially dissimilar. 'Yith every advance lllade in the kno,vledge of the suhject, it nlay he confillently predicted that there ,viII spring up increased distrust of the Ilevision of 1881, and an ever increasing aversion from it. (4) Rcricu' of the entire subject, and of the rcspcctÍ1:e positions of Ep. Ellicott and 'inysdJ. Here I lay do,vn my pen,-glad to have cOlnpleted w'hat (hecause I haye endeavoured to do IllY ""ork thoroughl!!) has proved a very laborious task indeed. The present rejoinder to your I)amphlet covers all the ground you have yourself traversed, anù ,vill be found to have disposed of your entire contention. I take leave to point out, in conclusion, that it places you individually in a sOlne,vhat embarrassing predicament. }'or you have no,\" no nlternatiye but to come for,vard and disproyp Iny statements as ,veIl as refute my arguments: or tu acbnit, by your silence, that you have sustained defeat in the cause of ,vhich you constituted yourself the chaIn pion. Y ull constrained llle to reduce you to this alternative ,,"hen you tood forth on Lehalf of the llevising hody, and sa,v fit to provoke me to a personal encounter. nut yûu Illust COllie provirled ,vith sOlnething vastly more fnnllidahle, reInelnLer, than denunciations,-,yhich are but \vind: and vague generalitieH,-,yhich prove nothing and persuade llohoay: anrl appeals to the authority of "Lach- nutnn, Tischenùurf, and Tregelles," -\vhich I disallo,v and disregard. lou HUlst produce a counter-array of ,veIl-ascer- tained facts; and you nUlst Luihl thereupon irrefragable ßr. ELLICOTT.] . O E RE8UI..lT OF TIII CO TEXTIOX. fi15 arglunents. In other \vorùs, you Il1Ust conduct your cause ,\'ith learning and aùility. Else, helievo 1110, you \"ill nlake the painful discovery that "the last error is \vorse than the first." You had better a thou:-:;and tÌIues, ovcn now., ingenuously adn1Ït that you Inade a grievous mistake \vhen yon put yourself into the hands of those ingenious theorists, lJrs. 'Vestcott and IIort, and clnbraced their arbitrary decrecs,-than l)er- severe in your prcsent do\vn\vard course, only to sink deeper and deeper in the Inire. (3) Anticipatcd effect of thc J11"cscnt contcldion on thr Tc./,t of 1 Timothy iii. 1 G. I like to believe, in the Il1CantÏJlle, that this passage of anns has resulted in such a vindication 1 of the traditionaI l eading of 1 TIMOTHY üi. 16, as \vill effectually secure that falnous place of Scripture against further molestation. Fa. 'it DEL S! . .. In the margin of the l evision of 1881, I observe that you have ventured to state as follo,vs,- "The word GOD, in place of He who, rests on no Bufficien t ancien t eviLlence." In the \vords of your Unitarian ally, Dr. ,,.. ance Sn1Ïth,- " The old reading is pronounced untcna l,le by tbe neviser , as it bas long been known to be l)y all careful fitudents of the New Testament. . . . It is in truth another exampl of tho facility with which ancient copiers coulJ introduce the word God into their manu cripts,-a reaùing ,vhich was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times. . . to look upon the huulùle 'feacher as the incarnate \r orù, and therefore as ' Goel manifesteJ in the flesh'" (p. 39). Such remarks proceeding from such a q unrtpr create no surprise. But, pray, IHY lord Dishop, of "What \Yere you thinking \vhon you pern1itted yourself to Inake the serious I Supra, p. 4 ! to p. 501. 2 L 2 j 1 ft VTTEH lXC01\IPATIDILITY 01" TTIE E [[{FrI.\" TO l11is-statelnent \vhich stands in the n1nrgin ? You nHlst needs have meant thereby that,-" The \vord I-Ic 'lcAo iu place of GOD, on the contrary, docs rest on sufficient ancient cyidellce," T sulelnnly call npun yon, ill the N alne of l-IÌln l)y ,,-hose Spirit I-Ioly Scripture \\-as given, to prove the truth of your n1arginal Note of \vhich the foregoing 70 pages n re a rcfutation.- Yon add, " Some ancient authorities read 'lvhiclt." nut ,vhy did you suppress tbe fact, ,yhich is undeniaùle, yiz.: that a great nlany lC J,I01'C ancient authorities" reaù , \vhich ' (ö), than read' \vho ' (ö')) 1 (6) The I/;aturc oj this contention explained. And yet, it ,vas no isolated place ,yhich I ,vas eager to estab- lish, ,,,hen at first I took up Iny pen. It ",.as the general trust- "Torthiness of the Traditional Text,-(the Text \vhich you adn1Ït to l)e uIHrards ûf IGOO years old,)-".hich I ainled at illus- trating: the essential rottenness of the foundation on ,vhich the Greek Te)..t of the l evision of 1881 has been constructed by yourself and your fello\\T l eyisers,-which I ,vas determined to expose. I clainl to have proved not only that your entire superstructure is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,-but also that you haye reared it up on a fuundation of sanù. In no yauntiug spirit, (GOD is IllY ,vitness ), but out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,-your ,york, ,vhether you kno"T it or not, has been so handled in the course of tbe present vulume of 500 pages that its pssential deformity must be apparent to every unprejudiced heholc1er. It can only be spoken of at this time of day as a shapeless ruin. A ruin moreoyer it is 'rhicb . 4Ul-2 and 477-8. \prEXDIX OJ? SACRED CODICER. ;;23 ADDITIOXAL CODICES OF S. P Al"]:S EPISTLES, 282, (= Act. 2-10. A pOC'. ] 09), Paris,' Arménien 9' (Olil,.t Reg. 22-17). memlJr. foIl. 2::J, Thi bilingual codex (Greck and Armenia.n) is described by the Abbé :\tartin in his Illtrnductiull, à la Criti'lue Tt""f'Iw 11 du N. T, (1883), p. 660-1. See above, p, 471, note (1). An Italian version is adùed from the Cath. Epp, onwarùs, Mut. at be'ginning (Acts iv. 11) and end. (For it:.; extraordinary reading at 1 Tim, iii. 16, see above, p. 473-4,) 283. (= Act, 211). Messina P K Z (i.f', 127) [xii.], chart. foIl. 22-1. ..llut. begins at Acts viii, 2,-ends at Hebr. viii. 2; also a lenf is lost between foIl. 90 and 91. Has {J7ro88. and Commentary of an unknown author. 284. (= Act. ] 95). :l\Iodena, ii. A. 13 [xiii. ?], "flInt, at the end, 285. (= Ad. 196), Iodénn, ii. c. 4 [xi. or xii.J. Sig. Ant. Cappelli (sub- librarian) senùs me a tracing of 1 Tim, iiL ]6. 286. Ambrosian Jibrary, E. 2, illf. the Catena of Nicetas. 'Textus particu- latim prærnittit Commentariis,' 287. Ambrosian A. 211, inf., 'est Catena ejusdem auctoris ex initio, sed non complectitur totum opus,' 288. Ambrosian D, 511 info [x. or xi.] memlJr. Text and Catena on all S. Paul's Epp. 'Textus continuatus. Catena in marginibus.' It" as brought fl'om rrhessaly. 289. l\Iilan c. 295 info [x. or xi.J membr. with a Catena. 'Textus continu- atus. Catena in marginibus.' 290. (= Evan, G22. Act. 212. Apoc. 110), Crypta Fl'rrata, A. a. i. [xiii. or xiv.J folIo 38G: chart. a beautiful codex of tho entire X. T. described by Rocchi, p. 1-2. l\Ionolog. ...1Illt. 1 Nov. to 16 Dec. 291. (= Act. 213), Crypta Ferr..lÌn., A. {3. i. [x.] foIl. 139: in two columns,- Jetters almost uncial. Particularly de cribed by Rocchi, p.r. 15, 16. Zacaglli used this codex when writing about Euthalius. ]Jfllt., beginning with the argument for 1 S, John and ending with 2 Tim. t202, (= Act. 211:), Crypta Ferrata, A, ß. iii. [xi. or xii.]. JIcntl1r., foll. 172. in 2 columns beautifully illuminated: described by Rocchi, p, 18-9. Za.cagni employed this codex while treating of Euthalius. JIelwloy. 2!)3, (= .\.ct. 2-15). Crypta Ferrata, A. ß, vi. [xi.J, foIl. IfJ3. J.lIut. at tht: end, Describeù bJT Rocchi, p, 22-3. 291:, (= Act. 21:6). Vat, 1208. Abbate Cozzi-Luzi confirms Derriman's account [p, 98-9J of the splendour of this codex. It is written in gold letters, and is said to have belonged to Carlotta, Queen of Jerusakm, Cyprus, and Armenia, who died at Home A.D. l-1ð 7, antI probably gave the book to Pope Innocent VIII" whose arms are printed at the beginning, It contains effigies of 8. lJUke, 8, Jame , S. l'etl r, S, J olln, S, Jude, S. Paul. 205, (= Act 247). Palatino-Yat. 38 [xi,J membr. foIl. 3.3. DelTiman (p. 100) says it is of quarto size, and refers it to the Ixth cent. 29G. Barberini iv. 85 (oUm 19), dateJ A.D. 1321. For my knowletlge of thi codex I am entirely indebted to Derl'iman, who :says that it contains 'the argumcnt and marginal :5cholia written" (p. It) ), 5 4 APPEXDIX OF A('iRED CODTCE , 297. Darberini, vi. 13 (oUm 229), membr. [xi.] fon. 19.3: contains S. Paul's 14 Epp. This codex also was known to Berriman, who I'dates (p. 102), that it is furnished' with the old marginal scholia.' 298. (= Act, 24:8), Berlin (Hamilton: No 625 in the Bnglish printed catalogue, where it is erroneously described as a 'Lectionarium.') It contains Acts, Cath. Epp. and S, Paul,-as Dr, C. de Door informs me, 299. (= Act. 249), Berlin, 4to. 40 [xiii.]: Bame contents as the preceding. 300, (= Act. 250), nerlin, 4to, 43 [xi.], same contents as the preceding, but commences with the P::;alllls. 301. (= Act. 251), Berlin, 4to. 57 [xiv.], chart, Same contents as Paul 298, 302, (= Evan. 64:2. Act. 252.) Berlin, 8vo, 9 [xi,], probably once contai ned all the N. T. It now begills with S. Luke xxiv, 53, anù is mut. after 1 Thess. 303. Iilan, N. 272 info "Exccrpti loci." 304:, (= _\et. 253) Vat. 3m) [xiv.] foIl. 226, chart. 305. Vat, 54:9, mlmlJr. [xii.] foIl. 380. S, Paul's Epistles, \\ith TheopLylaet's Corn men tary. 30G. Vat. 550, mernbr. [xii.] foU. 290; contains Romans with Com Ill. of Chrysostom. 307. Vat. 551, membr, [x.] foIl. 283, A largo codex, containing Bome of 8. Paul's Epp. with Comm, of Chrysostom. 308, Vat. 552, membr. [xi.] foIl. 155. Contains Hebrews with Comlll. of ChrY80stolll, 309. Vat. 582, memb1". [xiv.] foIl. 146. S. Paul's Epistles with Corum, of Chrysostom, 310. Vat. 6-16 [xiv,], foIl. 250: 'cum supplcmentis.' Chart, S. Paul's Epp, with Comm. of Theophylact and Euthymius. Pars I, et II. 311. (= Evan. (71), Vat. tH7. Chart. foIl, 338 [xv,]. S. Paul's Epistles and the Gospels, with Theophylact's Commentary. 312. Vat. 64:8, written A,D. 1 2, at Jerusalem, by Simeon, 'qui et Saba dicitur:' foIl. 338, chart. S. Paul'8 Epistles, with Comm, of Theo- phylact. 313, (= Act. 23Ð). Vat. 652, chart. [xv,] full, 105. TLe Actd and Epi::!t1es with Commentary. :5ee the Preface to Theophylact, ed. 1758, vol. iii. p, v,-viii., also' Acts 239' in Scrivener's 3r(1. edit. (p. 2(3), 314:. Vat. 682, membr. [xii.] foIl. 93, mut. Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, with Commentary. 315. Vat. 1222, chart. [xvi.] foll. 437, S. Paul's Epp, with Theophylact's Corum, 316. (= Act. 255). Vat. 1654:, mernbr. [x, or xL], foIl. 211. Acts and Epistles of S. Paul with Chrysostom's Comm. 317. Vat, 1656, membr. [xii.], foIl. 182, Hebrews with Comm. of Chryso- stom, folio. 318, Vat. 1659, 'lnenwr, [xL] foIl. 444:. S. Paurd Epp, with Comm. of Chrysostom. 319. Vat. 1971 (BasilIO) membr. [x.] foIl. 24:7. 'E1rUrToÀa2 TWV Ò.1rOCTTÓÀWV crvv TOîs 'TOV Eù8aÀ{ov. 320. Vat. 2055 (Basil 94:), mcmJJI'. [x,] foll, 2 2. S. Paul's Epp. "ith Comm. of Chrysustom. .\rPE IHÀ OF \C'nEn COI)fC'ER -')- )...... ) 321. Vat. 2065 (Bßsil 104), [x.] mnn1Yr, foIl. 358. Romans with C(lJ11n1, of Chry::;ostom, 322. (= A ct. 256) Yat. 2m)!) (Basil 138) mcmllr. foIl. 120 [x. ]. Note tha. t though numbered fur the Act:;, tl1Ïs codc only contains bruTToÀal t ' lCal lCaOoÀtlCal, UÒJ/ Taîs U1JJJ.EtWUfUt ÀEtTOVfYYtICo.îs 7rEpl TWJ/ 1]J.LEpWV lJ/ aTs ÀEICTÉat, :i23. Vat, 2180 [xv,] foIl, 2a1:, chart. 'Vith Comm. of Theophylact. 3 4, Alexand. Vat. 4 [x.] foIl, 256, mrmlJr. · Optimro notæ.' nomans with Corom, of Chrysostom, AO'}' . ICß'. 'Fuit monasterii dicti TOV nEptßÀÉ7r7'Ov.' 325. (= Evan, G!}S. Apoc, 11 ï), Alcxand. Yat. 6, chart. foIl. ?,3G [xvi.], n large codex, The GospelB with Comm. of icetas: S, Paul's Epp. with Corum, of Theophylact: Apocalypse \Vith an anonymous Comm. 32(t Vat. Ottob. 74: [xv.] foIl. 291, chart. Romans with Theodoret's Corum. 3 7. Palatino-Vat. 10 [x,] memùr. foIl. 268. S. Paul's Epp. with a l>atristic Commt:'utary. 'Fclkman adnotat.' 328. Palatino-Vat.201: [x,] foll. 181, cum additamentis. "?ith the interpre- tatbn of CEcumenius. 32!}. Palatino-Vat, 325 [x,] memùr, foll. 163, mute IntC'r alia adest fl l7rUTT, 7rpÒS Ttp.ó8EoJ/ ðJ.LtÀEîat 7"tvU XPVUOUTÓJ.LOV. 330. Palatino-Vat. -123 [xii.], partly chart. Codex miscell. habet l7rtUTOAWJ/ 7rpÒS KOÀauuaEîs leal 0EuuaÀoJ/ucEÎs 7rEpUC07rdS ubJ/ Tfi ÉpJ.L1JJ/EEq.. 331. Angelic. T. 8, 6 [xii.] foIl, 326. S. Paul's Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom. 3ß2, (= Act. 2.39), Barberini iii. 36 (olim 22): membr. foll. 328 [lCt], Inter alia 7rtToJ.LallCE(þaÀ, TWJ/ npd. EWJ/ lCal brtUTOÀWJ/ TWJ/ å'}', à7rOUTÓÀWJ/. 3:{3. (= Act, 2(0), Barberini iii. 10 (oUm 25 )) chm.t, foIl. 296 [xiv.]. Excerpta IC npd. . (f, 152): '!o.lCcfJ/3ov (f. 159): nÉ7'pOV (f. I(2): 'IWd.J/J/, (f. 1(5): '!oùõ. (f. 1(6): 7rpÒS PWJ.L' (f. 1(7): 7rpÒS Kop. (f. 179): 7rphs KoÀ. (fol. IS!}): 7rpÒS 0EUU. (f. 193): 7rpÒS Ttp., a' (tIef. infin.), 3 !, Barb. v. 38 (oUm 30) [xi.] foIl. 219, mut. Hebrews with Comm, of Chrysostom, 335. ValliceU, F. [xv,], chart. miscell, Inter alia, Els TdS 7rUJTOÀdS TWJ/ 'A7rOCTTÓÀWV l 1J'}'.ryuEtS TtJ/ES. 336. (= Act. 2(1), Casanatensis, G, 11, 6.-Note, that though numbcrt d fur 'Acts,' it contains only the Catholic Epp. find tho e of S, Paul with ß Catena. 337. OUob, 328, [All I know as yet of this and of the next codcx is that 8EÓS is read in both at 1 Tim. iii. 16], 338. Borg, F, vi. 16. [See note on the preceding.] ADDITIO'XAL COPIES OF THE' ArosToLrs' 82, l\Iessina nr (i.e. 83) foIl. 331, 8vo. Perfect. 3. Crypta Ferrata, A, ß. iv. [x.] monùr. foB, 139. Pra apostolus. Rocchi gives an interesting account of this codex, pp. 19-20. It Sf'ems to be an adaptation of t11p liturgical use of C P. to the rcquiremt'nts of the. Ba.sHian monks in the Calabrian Church. This particular codex is nm/. in the heginning find at the end. (For its í'xtrnordinary reading at 1 Tim, iii. 16, see above, p, 473-4), 52t; ArrE DIX OF SACRED CODICES, 8-1. Crypta Ferrnta, A. 'ß. v. [xL], membr. foIl. 245, a most beautiful f'odex. Rocchi describes it carefully, pp. 20-2, At the end of tbe l\IenoJogy is Borne liturgical matter. 'Patet l\Ienologium esse merl1111 à7T"ð')'pacþoJl nlicujus l\Ienologii CPtani, in usum. sÌ yeU::;, forte redacti Ecclesiao nossallen is in Calabria,' A suggestive remark follows that from this source'rituum rubricnnnn'lue magnum seg-etC'l11 colligi posse, n('c non Commemorationem Sanct01'um mirum sane nuwenlm, quas in aliis 1\Ienologiis vix invenies.' 85, Crypta Ferrata A, 13. ,ii. [xL] memùr. foIl. 64, Praxapostolus. This coùex and tho next exhibit ts Ècþavepcf81] in 1 Tim. iii. 16. The l\lenology is r.mt, after 1 ï Dec. 86 Crypta J!'1crrata A, 13. viii. [xii, or xiii.l fl'a. ments of foIl. 127, 7rlrmbr. rraxapostolu8, (See the preceding,) Interestingly descrihed by Rocchi, p. 23-4. 87. Crypta Ferrata A, ß. ix. [xii], foIl, 104, 'm1'1nllr. Praxnpostolus. Interestingly described by Rocchi, I). 24:-5. The l\lcnology is unfortu- nately defective after !Jth Nç>vember, 88. CrYI)ta Ferl'ata, A. ß. x. [xiii.?) 'memùr. 16 fragmentary leaves. 'V ere lamentanda h;t qure Imic Ec1ogadio calamitas even it ' (says the learned Rocchi, p. 25), 'quoniam ex ejus residuis, multa Sanctorum nomina reperic::J qure a1ibi frustra quæsieris.' 8V. Crypta Ft.'lTata A, 13. xi. [xL] -mcmlìr. foIl. 2!Jl, 'mut., written in two columns. The l\Ienology is defective after 12 June, and dse\\her('. De::!cribed by Rocchi, p, 26. DO. (= Evst. 22) Cl'ypta Ferrata, A, 13, ii. [xi.] nzembr. foIl, 2:i!J, with many excerpts from the Fathers, fully described by Rocchi, p. 17-8, frag- mentary and imperfect. tn. (= Evst. 32R) Crypta Ferrata, A. ô. ii. [x.] rneml)r, foll, 155, a singularly full lectionary . De:-:cribed by Rocchi, p. 38-4:0, ü2. (= Evst. 325) Crypta FelTata, A. ô. iv. [xiii,] ,urmlJr, foIl. 257, a beautiful ana interesting- codex, 'CalJigrapho Joanne RORsanem;Í lIicro- monacho Cryptæferratæ': fully described by Uocchi, p, 40-3. Like many other in the saIlle collection, it is a palimp est. 93. (= Evst. 327) Crypt:.\ :Fcrmta, A. ô. vi. [xiii.] membr. foIl, 37. 7mtf. at hog-inning and end, and other\\ise much injured: de::.-:cribed by Rocchi, p, 4:5-6, !)4:. (= Evst, 328) Crypta Ferl'3.ta, A. ô. ix. [xii.], Tlte71tbr. foIl, 117, mute at beginning find end. 95. (= En;;t. 331) Crypta !,'errata, A. ô. xx. [xii.] manhr. foIl. 21, a mere fragment. (Rocchi, p, 51.) 96. (= Evst. i137) Crypta Ferrata, A. Ô, xxiv. A collection of fragments. (Rocchi, p. 5R.) 97. (= Evst. 33 ) Crypta Ferl'ata, r. ß. ii. [xi,] memlJ'J', foIl, 151, elaborately descriùeù by Rocchi, p. 244-9. This codex onco belonged to Thomasius. Ü8. (= Evst. 34:0) Crypta Ferrata, r. 13 iii. [xiv,], '1nerulJr, folI, 201. Goar u;:,od this codex: described by Rocchi, p. 24:9-51. 99. (= Evst. 34:1) Crypta Ferrata, r. ß. vi. [xiii. or .xiv,], membr. foIl. 101: ùcscl'ibeù by Rocchi, p. 25j-7. .\ prE DIX OF ..\('nED ('onI(,E , ;):1.7 100, (= En;t, H) Crypta Ferratn, r, 13, ix. [xvi.], m<'ml)1', filII. !);), m1lt, at heginning' and {'nfl, and much injured, 101. (= Evst. :-;4(;) Cryptil Fcrrnta. r. ß. xii. [xiv,], memlJr, foU, 8. mut. fit b{'ginning and end. 10 . (= Ev t. B-17) Crypta FNratn, r, ß. xiii. [xiii.] m mTlr. foll. 188: written by John of Ro sano, Hieromonachus of Cryptafcrrata, described by Rocchi, p. 2G5-7. 103. (=-= Evst. 34!)) Crypta Ferrata, r. 13, xv. [xi. to xiv.] memhr. foIL 41.- DeH'l'ibed p. 2ÜS-9. lOt (= EV8t. 3;')0) Crypta Ferrata, r, ß. xvii, IX\;.]. Chart. foIl. 2G9. Desf'ribed. p, 2G9-70. 10!), (= Evst. R,")l), Cryph\ Ferrata, r, ß. xviii. [xiv.] chart. foll. 5-1. 105. (= EV8t. 352) Crypta Ferrata, r, ß, xix. [xvi.] chart, fol1. I!),'), described p, 271. ] 07, (= Evst. 35R) Crypta Ferrata, r. ß. xxiii, [xvii.], rftf'mlJr. foIl. 75,-the work of Dasilius Falasca, Hieromonachus, and head of the mOllastery, A.D. IG41,-deseribed p, 273-4. 108, (= Evst. 354) Crypta Ferrata. r. ß. xxiv. [xvi.] chad, foIl. 302,-the work of Lucas Felix, head of the monastery; described, p. 274-5. 109. (= E\'st. 356) Crypta Fl'l'rata, r. ß. xxxviii. [xdi.]. . chart, foIl. !)1. tho work of' Romanus Yasselli ' and' l\Iiehacl Lodolillus.' 110, (= Evst, 357) Crypta Ferrata. r, ß. xIii. [xvi,] chart. foIl, 344. 111. (= Ev t. 358) Crypts Ferrata, 6. ß, xxii. [xviii.] chart. foIl. 77,- described foIl. 365-6, 112, (= Evst. 312) 1\lessina, rn em l)T, in 8vo. foIl. 60 [xiii.],-' fragmentum parvi momenti.' 113. SyraCll:3e (' Semillario') clzm.t. foIl, 21 , mIlt, given by the Ca\'. Lan- dolin{l, 114, (= Evan. 155) Alex, Vat. 115. [I have led Scrivener into error by assigning this number (Apost. 115) to 'Vat, 2068 (Basil 107).' See above, p. 493, note (1), 1 did not advert to the fact that' Basil 107' had already been numbered' Apost. 49.'] 116. Vat. 368 (praxapostolus) [xiii.] foIl, 136, mem ' )'J'. 117, (= Evst. 381) Vat. 774 [xiii.], foIL IGO, rnern1Jr. 118. (= Ev::;t. 387) Vat. 2012 (DasH 51), fon, 11 [xv.] chart, 119. Yat. 2116 (Basil 155) [xiii.] foH. 111. 120. Alexand. Vat, 11 (Praxapostolus), [xiv.] 'Tnf'm 1 )r. foIl, IG9. 121. (= En.t. 3!)5) Alexand, Vat. 59 [xii,] foIl. 1 7. 1 . Alexand, Vat. 70, A,D. 15-14, foIl, 1;;;: "in fronte pl'onunciatio Grroca Latinis litcris descripta." 12R, (= Evst. 400) Palatino-Yat. 241 [xv.] chart, foIl. 14R 1 -1, (= Evst, 410) Darb, iii. 129 (olim 2:34) chart, [xiv.] foIl, 189. 12,3. Darb, iv. 11 (olim 193), A.D. 1366, chart. foIl. 158, Praxapostolus. 12G. Darb. iv. CO (olim 116) [xL] foIl. 322, a fine codex with menologium, Praxapostolus. 127, BarL. iv. 84 (olim 117) [xiii.] foIl. IS3, wilh menologium. :Jlut. 528 APrENDIX OF ACRED CODICEK ] 28. Paris, R{>(I. {ireell, 13, 'nU'rnbr, [xiii. or xiv,], fi huge folio of I,Ïturgi('al l\li::5cello.lliet;, cousia;;ting of hctwc<:n G and gOO unnumhcrcd kav('s. (At the craßß. 7rpÒ 'TWII cþcIrT'wlI, line 11, 8S' Ècþa.) Communi('o.ted hy thc Abbé 1\lartin. POSTSCRIPT (N OY. 1883.) It 'will be found stated at p. 495 (line 10 froIlI tho bottom) that the Codices (of 'Paul' and' Apost.') ,vhich exhibit 0(òç lcþav(pwÐ'Y} alnount in all to 289. From this sum (for tho reason already assigned above), one Inust be deducted, viz., 'Apost. 115.' On the other hand, 8 copies of' P \UI ' (conl111unicateù 1y the Abbate Cozza-Luzi) are to be aùded: yiz. T Qt. 646 (Paul 310): 647 (Paul 311 ),: 1971 (Palù 319). Palal. JTat. 10 (PtuIl 327): 204: (Paul 328). Casn:nat. G. 11, 16 (Paul 3:16). OUoù. 3 8 (Paul 337). Bm.g. F. vi. 16 (Paul 3:18). Ho that no less than 260 out of 26 cursiye copieR of St, Paul's Epi tle,-[ not 252 out of 2:>4, as stated in p. 49:> (line 21 fronl the bottom )J,-are fOllIJd to witlle s to the Reading here contended for. 'rhe enun1era- tion of CodIces at page 494 is therefore to be continued as follo\vs :-310, 311, 319, 327, 328, 336, 337, 338. To the foregoill are nhm to be added 4 copies of the 'ArosToLuS,' "\'iz. Vàt. 2116 (Apost. II!}). Palat. Vat. 241 (Apost. 123). Barb. iv. 11 [olim 193] (Apost. 125). Paris, Reg. Gr. 13 (Apo t. 128). From all ,vhich, it appears that, (including copies of the 'Apostolns,') THE CODICES 'VIIICH ARE KNO'\ N TO WIT ESS TO eEÒC 'E<ÞANE WeH IX 1 Tim. iii. 16, A:\10UNT [289-1+8+4) TO EXACTLY THREE HUNDRED. fi2!J J INDEX T. , of TEXTS OF SCRIPT'GRE,-quoted, disc'l.lssed, 0)' only nferred to i'll this volwne.-.JYote, t!tat an asterisk ("') distinguishe refe1'e1lreS tn the G'1'eek Textfrom references to the English Translation (t).- TVhere eithe1' the Reading of the Original, 01' the English Translation 'i.'Ì largely discllsserl, tlU3 sign is dottbled (** or tt). '"'" PAGE Genesis ii, 4 119 180 180 119 18:1 61 183 48 181 192 192 192 201 235 185 182 181 56 185 467 64- 64 150 " 10 " iii. 7 " v. 1 " xviii. 14- . Exodus x. 21-23 Leviticus iv. 3 Deut. xxxiv. I-I Judges iv. 13 2 Sam, vii. 2, 3 , 1 Kings viii. 17, 18 1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2 . 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11 Job xxxviii. 2 . P!'alms xxxiii. 18 " xlv. 6 " lxxxiii. 9 Isaiah xh . 15 . " h-ii. 15 . " liii. 9 . Jeremiah xv. 9 . Amos ,iii. 9 Zechariah xi. 12 Apocrypha-Baruch iii, 38 [or 37] 177* S. L\Jatt. i. (genealogy) . . 167t 1 119-21t 3,7, 10, 12 . . 186t 18 119-2Zt"'., 204t, 224t 21 165t, 184t 2 173t 23 186 :; 12J-4....t, 311"', 315"', 416., 417 " " " ,. S, Matt. ii. 1 2 4 PAG.... . 156t 15:>t . 156t 173t 156t 155t . '156t 155t 146t 156t 167t 156t, 157t, 184t 184t 175t 164t 193t . 175t 511t 193t 186 1 4t 180t . 141t t.n t, 180t, 317"', 3 R-61.. " 23 . 161t " 37 . 214t ,,39 129t, 214t " 40 193t ,,4.... 410-1"'.,412 " ,i.8 .317'" " l . 163t 12, 14, 15 193t 13 . 1(15,311"',316. 2 I " " ., 5 6, 7 9 11, 12, 13 I:> 16 17 " " ., " " " 22 " 23 " iii, 5 6 10 15 16 " h . 3 11 13, 15 18 18, 20, 21 " v. 15 2 ., ., " " " " " " " " 5:3U IXDEX I. FAGE FAnE S. Iatt, vi. 29 167t S. :\J att, xyi. 17 . 181 " 30 . 167t " 21 . 17* " ,'iL 4 . 193t " xyii. 1:. . .205tt " 9 . 1 68 t " 20 139*t, 317* " 28 . 199t " 21 91-2**, 206**, 217t, " viii. 3 . 153t 311 *,317*, 417 " 4 259 " 22 176*t,317* " 8 . 511t " 2-1 147t, 1;)0 " 13 . 31G* " 25 1-16t 19 183t c).. 128t, 147t . " -I " ix. 2 32 " xviii. G 181t " 3 33 ., 11 9i**,311*,315*,417 " 5 32 " 17 164t " " G 259 " 35 143t " 9 . 141t " xix. 17 10 , 139*t,217,316* 17 . 148t " xx. 1.3 . . IG t " ., ix.18 . 18 t " 20 19:3t, 512t " 23 1-!8t " 21 512t " 3a 3:1 " 34 . 15 3 t " x. 8 . 108* " xxi. 1-3 57 " 9 201t " 2 . 15 4 t " 21 51lt " 8 . 59, 61, 145t " 35 317* " 28 . 178t " xi. 11 1 8t, 16Gt " :n . 316* " 23 . 54-!)6**, 217* " x",ii, 9 141t " 2!) . 317* " 3:3 19!)t " xii, 24, 27 . . 317* " xxiii, 35 . . 316* 29 14-3t, 168t " xxiv. 3 . 178t " 3R . 20-!t " xxv. 18, 27 . 148t " 40 128t " 39 . 1()7t " 4 1 64 t " 46 . 207t " 47 311*,315* " xxvi. 3 . 143t " xiii. 3 . 164t " 7 .200tt " 5 . 15-!t " 15 . 149-150tt " 19, 38 . 214t " 22 128t " 3 . 164t " 24 . 173t " 35 316* " 36 . 182t,210* " 36 .195tt " 48 . 203t . C) 141t 53 168t " X 1\.. .. . " . " 2, 3, 13 . 68 " 69 . 183t " 15, 22, 23 . 19 5 t " 74 154 " 22 15 4 t " xxvii. 34 315* " 30 71*, 317* " 37 87 " 31 153t " 45 . 61, 64 " XY. 14 361 " 46 159t " 32, 39 . 195t " 49 . 33-4*, 309*, 315'" " x,'j, 2, 3 . . 103, 311*, 316* " 50 . . 193t " 7 . 159t 60 . . 1f32t, 198tt " ., 12 . 199t 61 88 " IXDEX I. 521 PAGE r .H p: S. l\1:ltt. xxyii. 61, G4, GG . 198t S, Mark ,'iii. 9 19Jt " xxviii. 1 . 198t " 23 . 143t " 2 . 162t " 26 . 259* " 19 . 174f, 316* " ix. 1 . . 316* " 20 . . 182t " 18, 20, 22, 26 . 20Jt S. Mark i. 1 132**, 135, 316* " 23 139"'t, 21 ï* " 8 204t " 23, 24, 29 . 69-71* " 9 . 174t, 175t " 38 260* " 1 . 165t " 39 . 169t " 16 . 184t " 42 181 " 16, 18, 19 . 180t " 44-, 46 . 510 " 18 . 193t, 194t " 49 260'" " 2 199t " x, 17-31 326-31** " 2 172t " 21 21 i*, 510* " 27 105, 139t " 35, 37 . 512* " 28 . 316* " 44-,46 10. " 44- 259 " .Ii. 1-6 57 " ii. 1-12 30-33** " 3 . 56-58**,217*,417 " 11 259 " 4 . 18 t " 21 1::19*t, 148t " 6 . 19:\t " 2'2 148t " 8 . 58-61**,418,439* " iii. 5 . . 141t " 26 . 217* " 14, 16 316* " xii. 37 1 46 t " 27 1 43 t " 42 183t " 29 . ,139*t " xiii. 19 160t ,. Ï\ . 13 . 170t " 3') . .210** " 29 178t " x h'. 3 , 200 tt, 184-5tt* " 36 . 145t, 195t ,,-' 6 193t " v.31 402* " 8 . 18J " 36 139*t, 316* , ]I 1;')0 " 43 . 511* " 30 . 71** " vi. 11 118, 137-8*"', " O, 68, 72 . 316* 409-10*1<, 412* ., 32 182t " 14, 16 . 68 " 50 . 194t " 16 70 " 65 . 139* " 17 68 " fiB 141 t, 316'" 20 . 66-69**, 313*, 41 ï -() 316* " " 1- " 22 . . 68, 315* " x,r, 8 139*, 191 t " 24, 25 . ()\) " H . . 167t " 27 . 147t " 3:J 61 ,. 29 . . 167t " 39 . 71-2"'* " 30, 32 . 68 " 47 E9 " 3::1 2:í8* " xvi. 9-2cî 3,36-40*"',47-9*"', ,. 3tt. 4.3 195f 51*, 2 1-4*, 311*, 317"', ,. vii. S . 19 4 t 418,419,422-4...., " 27 179t 51 . " 31 . 315* " 17, 20 . . 20-lt " 33, 3.j, &c, . . 180t " 19 470 " viii. '; 511f $, Luke i. 1.3 . 180t, 204t 2 .:\1 2 5 ó).) . .:..>- IxnEX 1. J' AG F. rA(;R S. Luke i. 213 . 316* S. Luke viii. 4[1-6 .4111-3**t " 37 . 183t " 46 . 158t " 42 . 139"'t " ix, 7 '66-9**, 40;'* " 51 . 172t " 7, 8. 68 " 78 . 179t " 10 68, 260-1 * " ii. 9 . 144t " 12 . 195t " 12 . 203t " 31 . 184t " 14 41-7**,51, 139t,316*, " 39, 42 205t 340-1 **, 418, 419, " 54-6 . 311*, 315*, 511 * 420-2**, 519* " 55, 5f) 93*, 217, 41R " 29 178t " x. 1 316* " 33 . 161t " 10 68 " 38 144t " 11 128t " iii. 3 184t " 15 . 54-6**, 418 " 9 . 164t " 20 . 128t " 20 68 " 40 . 144t " 22 .115"'* " 41, 42 116-117*, 311 * " iv. 1 218-219*t " 41 to }"i. 11 . 510* " 3 . 403*t,511t " -1-2 315* " 7, 8, 17, 18, 21, 23, " xi. 2-4. , 34-6**, 418 27, 35 .403*t " 4 163t, 317* " 29 . 129t, 403t* " 11 179t " 32 . 199t " IS, 18, 19 317* " 38, 43 .404*t " 21 143t " 39 144 " 54 . 261* " 44 . 315*, 404*t " xii. 2 169t " v. 2 . 180t " 18 . 261* " 4 141t, 16 2 t " 39 194t " 5 . 159t " 45 195- 6 tt " 9 128t, 352 " xi,". 1 . 179t " 13 . 153t " 21 169t " 18, 19 32 " xv. 16 . 181t " 20 32 " 16, 17 .139t* " 21 33 " 17 .407*t " 36 139t " 21 . 315* " 37 148t " 22 18 0 t " 3U 110 " 23 405'" " vi. 1 ( fV'T,) 7:J-5**, 311 *, " 31 178t 316* " x\"i. 3 . 159t " 1 (f}u8.) 93-4* 9 . 139t* " 6 . 129t " 11 180t " 35 146t " 1 . 316* " 38 352 " 21 .139t* " 39 235 " xvii. 2 . 181t " 48 110, 315* " x,'iii, 7 . 169t " vii, 7 . 511* " xix. 10 92 " 17 172t " 18 .406*t " 37 ,2 0 0tt " 23 169t " \ Hi. 35-44 16-7** " 9 . 184t IXl>EX 1. l'AGR 57 9!-5** . 14:4t .406*t . 170t 316* 144:t 18-!t V')Û 75-7* 78- ** s. Luke xix, -3-!, 33 . " ix., xx. " xx. 1 " " " xxi. 2! " ,. C)- _.) 44 34, 37 " xxiL 3, 6. " 19, 20 to xxÏ\", 53 " 19, 20 . 173t 43-4-. 75, 76, 79-82**, 131, 281*, 311*, 316*, 340**, 411 * 154 . 511* 204t . 7;', 76, 311* . 191t 317* . 165t . re,'erse of title, 75, 76, 82-5**, 131, 281-3*,311 *,316*, 411* 7;', 76, 85-8**, 2 1-3, 311*, 418, 511* " " " " " xxiii. 8 17 23, 25 32 33 3-1 " " ,. " " " 4 45 55 " xxÎ\.1 " " " " " " " , , " " ., " . , . , " ., n " :!2 GO ü-! 38 3 4 6 7 9 ]0 12 13 17 3tì,4U 41 4 44: ;'1 [,:! 72* . 61-5**, 315* 419 88-9** . 75, 76, 88-9** 76 1-14t 76 96-7** 76 89 76, 89-90**, 281-3*, 311* 316* 10':>, 139*t 76, 90-1** 93* . 76, 511* .407*t . ï6, :.!81-3*, 470 7t; 333 J AC'H S. Luke xxi,.. 53 7#.J, 21)1-2* S. John i. 1 469 " 3 132*t, 133, 174t " 3, 10 174- 4- 316* 9 tRot 10 174t 13 347 ]4 178t 18 1 2t, 315* 34 316* 42 ,181t* " ii, 3 316* " iii. 3, 5, ü, 7, 8 347 13 13:.?-5**, 311 *, 315*, 510* 145 .407-8**t .5-6** 282-3, 311*, 316* lu5 353**, 354* 154t 160t 180t . 142t 316* 164t 316* 311* 139t*, 316* 142t 140t*, 316* . 315* . 316* . 220-1 **t, 315* . 160t . 14 t . 141t . 163t . 184-5.tt 20tt ,139*t, 18;' . 140*t . 1-!2t 1-Ut,316* . 145t 16 t Ins " " " " " " " " " " i,'. 6 " 15 " .. C) .. .-J " 3, 4 . " 34- " vi. 4 i1 " " 2 " 32 33 51 " " " 70 " yii. 39 53 to yiii. 11 " ix. 4- 5 11 35 38 " x. 14 " " " " " " 32 " 39 " xi. 12 27 xii. 3 G " " " " 7 " 41 " 43 " iii. 10 12 14 " " " 21-1 . 534 1 l>EX I. rA(;t!: FAGP' S. John xiii. 2-:1 . . 316* S, John xxi. 12, 15 . 142t " 24-5 . 145*tt " 15 . 1G2t, 181 *t " 29 201t " 15, 16, 17 180t xiv. 4 . 72-3*t, 141t, 419 C) 23-4**, 317 " " ..J " 5,9 . 170t Acts i, 2 2ü 4 t " 10, 14 . 140f" " 3 12 t " 18 . 1G 3 t " 5 . 317* " 22 142t " 9 470 " xv. 1 . 180t " 18 . 153t " 15 . 179t " 19 31G. " 20 352 " 23 15Q " 26 . 451* " ii. 22 .173t,352 " xvi. 13 335 " 43 . 173t " 15 lO " ii i. 6 316* " 16, 17, 19 . 163t " 14- . . 191t " 21 T 1G4:t " i\". 1 144t " 2J . 14-0*t " 6 . 129t " 32 . 169t " 16 . . 173t " x\Ïi. 4 . 140*t " 1 6, 2 . 204t " 4, 6. . 15 t " 4 . 17 8 t 11 3-') 36 142t " J... " . " ] 1, 12 . 140*t " v. 24 . . 183t " 14- 15 8 t " ,. i. 7 129t " 24 .217-8**t " 12 . 144t C) 15tst 15 129t " _J . " . . " xviii. 1 18 1 t " yii. 13 . . 129t " 5 . 316* " 16 . . 141t " 18 . 161t " 17 . 352 " 24- 162t " 45 . . 186t, 352 " 27 128t " 46 . . 19 1 t " 35 160t " viii. 3 . . 1G7t " 37 178t " 5 . . 316* " xix, 16 . 128t " 20 . . 148t " 18 87 " ix. 13 . . 1GOt " 20 86 " 25 . . 171t " 29 128t " x. 11 . 180t " 34 33, 309* " 15 . 146t, 160t " 39 . 317* " 17 . 144 " 40 128t, 436 " 19 . 31G* " 41 . 317* " xi. 5 . l Ot " 42 . 129t " 11 . . 144t xx. 2 15 9 t I') 146t " . " ... . " 4 167t " 16 . 143t " 12 lE2t, 165t " 17 . 142t " 13 . 15 9 t " xii. 7 . 144t " 16 140t " 13 . 195t " 28 469 " 17 . . 162t " 30 204t " 20 . 192t " >.xi. 1, 9 . 12t;t " 25 , 316* lXDBX 1. ;)33 PAGE PAGE Acts xiii. :!8 . . 191t I um. xii. U 1-lt " xÌ\., 9 . 1ôlt " xi\'"o 4 . Wit " xvi. 16 . 193t " 1:; , 1-!3t " :W . 19 t " X\?, :!o , lU7t " xvii. 5 . 14-!t " xvi. :J . 127t 19 , 143t .) 14: t " " _J , " 28 . 316* " 2:;, 26 . 4f34 29 . 128t 1 Cor. . c)... 160 " 1, ...1 " 31 I:;Ut, 160t " i\.. 21 . 441* " xviii. 2, 24 . 1-!2t " vi. 20 160 " 7 53-4** " viii. 6 174t " xix, 12 . 14-0t " ix, 11 160 " xx. 8 . 353-4* " x. 1 167t " xxi. 37 . ,1-!9tt " J..ii. 8-10 166t "xxii. 13 . . 14-1-t " 20 167t,16Rt " 15 . 352 " 27 167t " 20 . 144t " xiii. - W1-2tt " xxiii, 1 1 9t " 3 316* " 3 . 169t " J..iv. 7 . 148t " 11, 27 1-!-!t " 36 168t " xxv. 13 316* " x\r. 34- 141t,178t " xxvi, 28, 29 .1.j1-2*tt " 4-1 142t " xxvii. 1-1 176t " 55 142t,440* " 26 . 167t " }. vi, 12 16-1t,170t " 37 51-3**, 316* " 22 . 180t " xxviii. 1 177-8**t 2 Cor. i. 3-7. . 189t " 2 1-!4t " 4 352 <) 177t 23 167t " ..> " . " 4 160t " ii. 12 . 167t " 11 147t " iii, 3 . 140*t " 13 317* " v. 8 . 167t Rom. i. 7 . 127t " 17, 19 440* " 7 -xiii, 1 . 4-!0* " vi. 11 440* " o . . 07t " 12 . 153t " iii. 22 . 167t " 13 . 167t " 9 . 168t " 15 . 153t " i \0. 8 . 315* " viii. 11, 14 441* " Y. 5 . . 20-!t " ). ii, 7 219-20**t " vi, 2 . 160 " xiii, 1 169t " 3 . 168t Gal. ii. 4 . . 167t " vii. 1 . 142t, 168t " 16 . 146t " 15 . 1-l2-3t " j i i. 1 . 4-1-0* " ix. 5.208tt,210-4-**tt,354*, " iv. 21-31 . . 19t.itt 412*, 469, 510 Eph. i, 1 . . 317* 13 , 160 " 6 . 352 " " 2 . 167t " 10 . . 17:1t xi. .) 14-2t " iii, 13 . 102t " oJ . 4 . 15Gt " 21 . 17Rt " ).11, U , Ilj7t " he. 1 . .1G7t,252 " 5:16 INDEX I. l'AGI-: PAGJ.. Eph. iv. 14 . 1 9t Tim. h", Ii 166t " 17 . 178t " 18 215 " 20 . 160 l'itn:s i. 2 . 17 8 t* " 29 . 178t " 2, 3. . 143t " yi. 16 . 214t " 4 143t Phil. i. 1 . 129t " 7 128t " 8 . 153t " 7, 9. . 164t ., 15 . vmt " 13 439* " 18 . 128t " ii. 1 164t " ii. 6 . 14:3t l'hilenlon, ,er, 12 . 153t " 10 . 51:1* HeL. i. 1, 2 . 172t " 3 , 146t " 2 . 174t " iii. 16 . 128t " 8 182 " iv. 3 , 440* " ii. 4 204t (;01. i. 9 . 192t " 14 216 " 16 . 172t, 174t " 16 . 143t " 23 . 441* " iii. 19 169t ., 27 . . 497-8* " h., 8 162t, 186t " ii. 8 . 128t " Yi. 2 . 199t " 18 . . 355-6**, 140t " ,iii, 2 . . 180t " 2, 2J . 441* " ix, 24 . 180t " iii. 2 . 441* " x. .n . . 183t " 12 . 153t " xi .17 . 160t,161t 1 Thess, i, 9 441* " 17, 28 . 163t " iv, 15 . 127t " 26 . 146t 2 Thess. i. 3 . 127t " 2R . 160t 1 Tim. ii. 2 489* " 35 . 143t " 10 440* " 38 . 141t " 17 . 440* " Jiii. 2 146t " 19 439* " 9 164t " iii. 1 . 441* " 14 . 164t " 13 to iy. :) . 476 " 18 . 178t ., . 16 . 98-106***, 163t, " xiii. 9 . . 199t 316*, 353, 419, S. James i. 11 163t, 170t 424-501 ***, 515, " 1:) . . 164t 519* " 17 . 317* " h", 1, 2 440* " 17, 18 . 217t " 10 . 439* " ii, 2, 3 190t " 14 441* " 6 . 160t " v.13 441* " 11 511* " yi. 15 441* " 16 . 128t " 20 344 ., 19 148t " 20 440* " iii. 3 140t 2 Tim. i. 13 . 28, 351* " 5 . 14 t " ii, 1 143t " 11 . 164t " 17, 2,") 440* .. h', 1 143t " iii. 6 441* , , 7 129t " 16 208- 9 tt " v. 16 141t " Ï\". 3 164t 1 S. Peter i. 5 1.Ut J Ul X 1. !J37 PACE PAGL 1 . Peter j, :!3 . 216* 1 S, John v. , . 483 ii. 2 179t }.) H34t " " - . " . 467 " 18 . .347-50.... " iii. 21) 178t " 21) . 469 " Y. 9 . 12 tt 3 S. John 1 1:!9t " 13 . 1 9t, 141 t " 1-l . Ij4-t , P tel' i, 5-7 174t,400 S, Jude 1 . 12 9 t " o . 179t " 5 140t ., ii. 13 142 " 6 2Ù7t " :!2 1U6,33;) " 14 178t " iii, 7 l78t " 18 129t 10 353-6.... l:cv. ii. 5 143t " 13 167t " Hi. 2 140t 1 S, Jühn i, 2 . . 16 9 t " hr. G 143t , . 3. 167t " Y. 1 14:Jt ii. 14 . 160. " vi. 9 1 7t ., 22 . 16 4 t " ,'iii. 13 183t " 27 . 169t " ix. 13 183t ,. 29 . 347 " "iii. 18 135-7** " iii. 4. . 143t " "iv. G 165t " 8 . .1 9t, 216 " 14 Ib:>t " 9 . 347 " 19 . 172t " 15 . 359 " xv. 6 . 140t " 17 . 153t " xvi. 17 1 Î t, 199tt " i ". 3,6 . 127t " xvii. 1 . oott " 7 . 347 " xviii. 21 . 183t " 14 . 129t " 2 . 148t " 19 . . 140t " xix. 6 ... 129t, 162t " Y. 1 . 347 " 17 183t " 2 . 12ït, 129t " 21 129t " 4 . 347 " xxii, 18, 19 1 .l b . . 164t " 19 . 409 538 INDEX II. of }' \.TllEU nfc'J'J'erl to, Of f:lse f)'lwtf.'d (*), in this 'l:ulnme. 1(01' tlle chief Editiulls ellLpluyed, see tlte /lute at p. 1 1. I'AGE PAGE .Acta Apostt. (SYl'iac) 40,62, 84,423 ---- Phmppi 84 ---- PilaU . . 45, 62, 84, 423 .Alcimus Avit. , 213 AmLl'osius 24, 40, 73,79, 83, 87, 90, 91, 9j, 123, 132, 133, 21 215 21 410,423 Ammonius . 23, 29, 88*, 89, 91 Amphilochius 133,213 [ed. Combefis] ps. 85 Annplwra Pilati . 62 .Anastasi us Ant.. . 213 [ed. Migne] Sin. 44-, 81, 84, 421 Cede l\Iigll ] Andreas Crete 23, 44, 84, 421 [ed. Combefis] Anonymous . 43, 100, 102 Antiochus mono 84, 3t30 [cd. Migne] Apbraates . 40, 43, 133, 421, 423 Apostolical, see" Constitutioncs." Archelaus (with Ianes) 84 Arins . 80 .Athenagoras . . 410 Athanasius 44, 62, 64, 80, 84, 90, 91, 121, 12:!, 123, 133, 212, 220, 359 p . 133, 402, 475 Augustinus 24, 40, 81, 85, 90, 91, 92, 116*, 123, 132, 133, 213, 356, 360, 410,423, 500* Barnabas. . 10::1*, 463* Uasilius 1\1. 44, 79, 84,91, 102*, 108, 122, 123, 133, 210*, 212, 218, 21Ð, 360, 402, 464* -- CiJ. . . 133 SeI. , . 4-:;, 421 Brevia,. 'um . 213 C'apl'eolus . 133 Cassianus. 81, 133, 213.348,411 [rd. 1611] . 218 . 212, 215* . 53, 74, 81 . 353 . a48 . 40,74,353 [ed. Du Fresne] Chl'ysostomus 5, 23, 26, 27, 40, 43, 44,53,55,62*,71*, 72, 74, 80, 84, 90, 91, Ð2, 99, 101*, 108, 121, 122, 123, 133, 151 *, 1;>2*, 177, 212, 218, 219, 220, 353, 356, 360, 402, 410, 421, 423, 457 . 85, 90, 133, 218, 360,402,427 Clemens, Alex. 115, 121, 208*, 218, 327, 336*, 410 . 38* 91 84 Labbe et Cossart] passim,. Consfitutiones Apostolicæ 43, 84-, 212, 360,410,4-21, 423, 46:3* Cosmas Indicopleustes 44-,63, 133, 421 [cd, )Iontfuucon] - ep. l\Iaiumæ . . 44, 4 1 Cramer, see Catena. C')"priauus Cælestinus Cæsarius . ps.- . Catena (Cramer's) Chromatiu5 . Ch,.o11icon Pasc7tale ps, Rom. - (Syriac) . Clement inrz Concilia [cd. . 13, 218, 339 I UEX H. 53 PAGE Cyrillus Alex, 5, 23, 43, 55, 6:!, 79, 80, 84-, 86, 8 1, 90, 96, 102*, 103, 121, 122, 132, 133, 163, 213, 218, 219, 220, 353, 356, 360, 40 , 410, 421, 423, 427, 428*, 464-469** lIieros 43,62,72,123,151 *, 177,421, 470 Damascenus, see' Johannes.' l>amasus, P. . 92 Dialùgus . 208*, 402 Di1lynJUs 5, 40, 43, 80, 101, 122, 123, 133, 212, lV, 34 , 40 , 421, 4 3, 427, 45li 101, 458 . 163 ps. -- - 23, 80, 101, 133, 212, 462* ps. - Al'eop, . 80, 84 Eastern Bishops at EplLes1ts col- lectirely (A.D. 431) . 43, 80, 421 Epiphanius 40, 43, 44, 74, 79, 80, 90, 96, 116, 122, 123, 133, 212, 360, 402, 421, 423, 427 . 427 diac. Catan, [A,D. 787] . 102, 103, 475 E})hraemus Syrus 43, 62, 64, 80, 82*, 84, 122, 123, 215*, 348, 360, 421 ps,------ -. 84,353,423 Eulogius . 44, 212, 421 Eusebius Cres. 5, 23, 40, 43, 62*, 72, 80, 84, 86, 87, 88*, 89, 90, 96, 108, 122, 136, 163, 218, 219, 323-324**, 353, 359, 410, 421, 423 His Canons. 91 133, 212 102,458,459-461** 84, 103, 427 .3GO, 410, 465, 476* [cd, l\Iatthæi) . 81, 21:J . 115 Diodorus Tal's, Dionysius Alex. . ps,- Eustathius :EuthaJius Eutherius Euthymius Zig. J."acundus . .Faustus . }>AGl . :! 13, 500* . 213, 500. 24- . 100, 213, 479 . 80, 213 44, 122, 421 t>2 . 4-23 2:3, 43, 73*, 80, 101 *, 121, 134, 421, 437 ps. --. 163, 220 ----- Kyssen, 23, 40, 43, 44, 8-1-, 87, 89, 101., 123, 1 4, 2ÜR., 212, 3GO, 410, 421, 456, 4:>8 Thaum. 44,45, 102*,463. Hegesi ppus . 84 Hesychius 84, 163, 4:!:1 Hieronymus 24,40,41,63*,64*,73*, 79*,81,83, 9û, 92, 103*, 108,123*,133,213,348, 356,339,360*,423,427 Hilarius 79, 81, 85, 91, 92, 115, 133, 213,218,281,360,410 Hippolytus 62, 64, 80,84, 102*, 133, 136, 212, 35 42 463* Ignatius . . 103*, 463* ps. - . 84- Johannes Ðamascel1us 44, 81, 85, 91, 102, 123, 133, 177, 213, 220, 356, 360, 421, 457 -- Thessal. . 96, 4 3 Irenæus 42, 64*, 80. 84, 122, 132, 212, 220, 353, 356, 3:>9, 409, 420, 42:3 Isidorus. . 23, 74, 123*,360, 410 J ovi us mono . 92 Julian hæret. 80 Julius Africanus . . 62., 64- Justinus Iart. 79,80,115, 121,360, 410, 42:3 84,90 91, 108, 115 . 115 FerranJus Fulgentius Gaudentius . Gela--ius Cyzic. Gel1nadi us Germallus CPo Gospel of };icoouuus Gregentius Gregorius Xaziauz, ps. J u ,'encus . Lactantius J.eo í'p, -- ((p. ::;ahatier . 213,42:; 41 540 PAGE IXDEX II. J.eontius Byz. 81, 213,423,480 I..iheratus of Carthage. 471-3 Lucifer Calarit. . 133, 3tW, 410 l\Iacal"ius Magnes 40, 62*, :.!O, 42:-J [ed. 1876] [acedonius . 4-70-475**, lO:!, 10: .Malchion . . 212 Marcion . .34, R5, 61, 64, 96, 40 Marius :Mercator 133, 213, 423, 468 - Victorinus . .500* Martinus P. . 421, 473 .Maximus . . 23, 79, 81, 8t Taurin, . 91, 133, 21R, 219, :!O, 360 Methodius 44, II:>, 12 [i'd. Combefis] Modestus Hier. . . 423 l\"estol'ius. . 80, 121, 212, 423, 427 :Kicetas . 12:-J ::\ilus mOll. 6:?, 339, 410 Konnus . 3, 133, 18, 333 Kovatianus . 133, 213 *, 41lJ, 423 Titus Bostr. . . 4:1, 421 Theodoretus 43, 5:>, 79, 80, 84, 91, 102, 1 :!, 133, 152*, 13, 218, 21 , 220, 336, 56, 360, 410, 4 1, 436, 438* Theodorus lJerac. . 84, 92, 133 hæret. 81 -- 'lolls. 2:{, 6 t 80, 103, 1 1, 133, 212, 356, 360, 480-482* Studita red. Sirmondi] 475 Theodosius Alex. 81 Thcodûtus Ancyr. 40, 212, 421 -- Gnosticus. .102* Theophilus Alex.. . 212 Ant, . . 410 Theophylactus 102, 147, 348, 360, 410, 476 [ed. Venet. 1755] Yidol' Antioch, 23,40,66*, 132,409, 423 133, 213 . 218 133, 348 . 423 . 133 Yictorinus Yictricius Yigilius . Yincentius Zeno . :;41 INDEX TIT. General Index of Persons, !}laces, and Subjects r fe1Ted to in this Volume. But Scriptural References are to be souglLt Ù, IXDEx T.; anrl Patri tic References, in IXDEX. II. 'Xew Codices' will be fimnrl enu.nu"fafpil in the ....\PPEXDIX. PAGE 'A,' s e 'Alexandriulls.' anll B: see' B,' and' Antiquity.' A ß C D, in conflict, 12, 13, 14, 16-7, 30-1, 46-7, 73-8, 94-5, 117, 49, 262,265, 289, 386 146 178 . 50-6 , ALntol' ' Aracins, Bp, of ::\Ielitene Accident ..Ethiopic, see' Yersion.' ù & .201-2 ò.1"ðws 207 a;.,.Û" .191-3 al " . . 18 , 208 aiwJll.os . 2t t7 àÀ&ßauTrOV. .20u-1 Alexander (Dr.), Bp. of Derry, 107-8 'Alexandrian' rE'aùing 271-2, 357 Alexandrinus (cod.) (A) 11-17, 34;)- 347, 431-7 Ò.}..1]ÐtVðS. 180 Alford (Dean) 381, 436, 498 Allocution . .413-5 Alterations, yet not improyements 139-143 29 186 184, 210 182 139 14-5 Ammonius . Amos (in S. Matt. i.) . ùp.cpí.ß}.. UTpOV . Amphilochil1s p.cpo8ov . à.vaßá s , , ava f'UWV Anastasius (Imp.) . .472-3 Ancient .Authorit p, see' Ellicott.' , Ancoratus ' . Anùrewps, Bp. . Antioch . , Antiochian,' see 'Syrian.' , Antiquity'. 333 ÙVT[tTT1]T 129 Anziani (Dr.) . 44.3, 49 Aorist . 1;)8-60, 162 à7I'EÀ7I'l(oVTH 146 ò.cpdval . .193-5 Apolinaris . 456, 458 Apollonides .323-4 ù oÀÚEtV 19;) Ù OUToÀoEvartb\ ta, 448 'Apostolus' 44:6-8, 476-8, 482, 491. &e the ApPEXDIX. Aram (in S. Matt. i.) . 186 Argument e silentio 469 Arnwnian, see Yersion. Article, the . ,164- 5 Articles (Three) in the 'Quarterly Re,-iew,' their history p 'ef. ix-xiv pTOS 1;9 ùPX aí 1bO Asaph (in S, :\Iatt. i.). .186-7 Asclepiades . .323-4 'Ask' (ahEîv) . . 171-:-J 'Assassins' . 14-7 Assimilation. .32, 65-69 , proofs of . 6(j àTf'v[uavTH. 129 'Attraction' .351-2 aÙÀ1]Ta[ . 148 Authority. (ancient) see' EHicott! aVTós 165 PAGR 427 500 . 38,'}, 391 5--12 rAGE IXD EX III. , B,' see' Vaticanus.' B and (cod d.), sinister resem- blance 12 Band 12,2J0-7,R1 -20,333,3J7, 361, 365, 408, 410 Bandinel (Dr.) 445 , Baptist' Revisers . .504-5 Baptismal Renunciation 215 Basil to Amphilochius . 210 Basilides 29 Beckett, Sir Edmund. . 38, 222 Belsheim, Dr. J. 444, 453, 493 Bengel (J. A,) . . 24ß, 500 Bentley, Dr. R. . 432, 467, 499 Berlin (see' De Boor') . . 492, 493 Berriman, Dr. J. 432 433,446,468, 474, 480, 500 Bethesda 5 Beveridge (Bp,) . 351, 500 Beyer (Dr.). 477 Bezæ, cod. (D) 11-7,77-9, 117, 264-5 Birch (Andreas) 246, 383, 467 Blunders 149, 150, 180, 181 ;-17'2, 176, 177, &c. 228 196 217 200 184 513 . 212, 500 Bois (John) . , Bondmaid ' . , Boon' . 'Bowls'. , Branch' Broughton (Hugh) . Bull (Bp,) . · C,' see' Ephraemi.' Caius (A.D. 175) on the Text .323-4 Cambridge, Codex (D), see Bezæ. , -- Greek Text' Pref. xxviii Capper (S. Herbert), Esq, . 492 Cappilli (Sig.) . .491-2 Carob tree . 1 R1 Castan pI.) . 477 Castiglione . 452 Catalogue of Crypta Ferrata . 447 Cedron . 181 Ceriani (Dr.) 381,4,")2,477,491-2-3. &>c tlte ApPEXD1X. Changes (licentious) 127,403-7 'Charity' .201-2 xwp[ov . 182 Chronicle of Convocation. 507 , Ohurch Quarterly' (1882) Prcf. xvi I'.\GF. , Cll'llrclJ Quadcdy,' (1883) Plocf. xvi xx" xxiv-yii. Citations, see' Fathers.' Clemens, Alex.. . 326-7, 327-31 Codd. ß- - A -C -D 11-17, 30, 108, 249, 262, 2G -71 - F and G . 438-4:1 - Paul 73 4-1-4 - - 181 . .444-5 - new, see the ApPENDIX. Collation of l\ISS. . . 12."),246-7; with the Received Text 249-50,262 Complutensian 391 'Conflate readings' . 258-65 , Conflation ' examined. 258-65, 285 , Congregationalist' Re,.isers .504-5 Conjectural emendation .351-7 Consent of copies (see 'Fathers') 454-5 , Com:ersantibus' 176 Cook, (Canon) 204-5, 214, 2 4, 372, 381, 470, 50 Cornelius à Lapide . 47 Corruptions in the N. T, .334--5 Cotelerins 47:1 Coxe (Rev. H. 0.). 3 0 6, 44:>, 491 Cozza-Luzi(Abbate) 447,477.491- 2-3 see the ApPE DIX. Cranbrook, Yiscount. . page v-viii Creyk (John) 43:1 , Crib' 238 Cross, title on . . 85-8 Cru'C criticorllm, the 98 Crypta ferrata. . 447,473-4,478, 521 , D,' sce ' Bezæ.' ðaLJ.LÓVLoV Darkness Dartigf> pI.) Dated codices ðÉ Deane (Rev, H.) De Boor (Dr, C,) Definite, see Article. Delicate distinction, Demoniacal possession . Denis ( I.) . Derry (Bp. of), see Alex:mder. Design . .56-65 ð v"' pÓ7rpWTOV . 7 3 179 . 62-4 4H;l 29 .167-R 4JO, 4tH, 48!) .4U2-3 402 20() . 493 PAGIi: IXDEX J II. , Devil' . .214-6 ð,á . . 170, 173-4, see {J7ró Dialogue (supposed) 32 H -8, 328-42 I>iatessaron, see 'Tatian,' ðtÔaCTKaÀ(a . ÔtÔaCTKaÀos . ðtôaX1J . ðdpxwpat Dionysius Alex.. AtÓCTKOVPOt . DIS5L:RTATIO on 1 Tim. iii. 16 Pre]: xxi-h', 424-501 Divination, &e ' Verifying faculty.' , Doctrine' extirpated . 199 ô()vÀos . 179 ôtJvap.ts . 204 Dublin (Abp. of), see Trench. interrogative . F.bionite Gospel. Ecclesiastical Tradition. Ecli pse . Editions of Fathers. l'}'JlwJI Egyptian, see Versioll, ftÔE for tÔE . 199 179 199 407 .461-2 147 .168-9 116 495 . 63-5 121 1'::;9 flKij . fÌ7rflJl 140 359-61 .511-2 183 . 63-5 139 fTs iKÀE[7rOJl7'OS . lJ\.aßoJl . É ÀÀ 1]JI tCT7' [ EUicott (Bp. of Gloucec;:ter), on the 'old uncials' . 14-5 - on the A. V. . 112, 368 - on ' Revision' :xlii, 112, 124, 126, 226-8, 368 -- on ' :\IaJ'ginal Readings' 136-7 - on 'Textus Receptus' 383-8, 389-91 - on 1 Tim. iii. 16 428-31 - on 2 Tim. iii, 16 209 - on Textual Criticism. 234 - 011 'innocent Ignorance' 349-50 - on the Gl'eek Text. 369,509 - on ' Euthalius ' .460-1 - his jaunty proposal 216 - his Pamphlet ]>,'cf, xX-J..xii, 369 Sf']. 54;; PAGK Ellicott, his critical knowledge 370, 371j, 38,'),43 0 , 4.j7, 459-61, 471-2, Dedication p. \"iii - his requirement antici- pated . . 371, 397 - his method of procedure 372--l,419-24,4j9-61 - method of his nc\rie\\ er 375- 383, 4 t3-7,517, Prcf. xxiv-\rii - appeals to J[OO('1'1l. Opi- nion, instead of to An- cient Authority 376-8,413-6, 438- ,483-5, 514-3 - follows Dr, Hort 391-8,43,), 517-8 - complains of Injustice 399, 400-13 - suggested Allocution 413-,) -- his defcnce of the' Scw Greek Text,' c amined 41,)- 9, 419-:?4- 'p.!3a7'fVWJI . 140 iv, its different renderings. .171- ÈJI òÀ('}''I' . 151-2 English idiom 1,)4-5, 1,')8-7.) 'cþaJlfprf:(J1] . . 4 ï, 41 8 ÈcþtCT'T&Jlat 144 Ephraemi cod. (C) . 11-1ï, 325 , Epileptic' . .211,)-6 È1n7rECTcfJJI 145 Epiphaniu5 . 427 È7rtCT7'âCTa 144 7]7rÓpet [see Scri\ ener, ed. 3, pp. 581-2] 66-9 Errors (plain and clear) 3,4, 103, 14 , 172, 21 6, 22 -3, 22f<, 3-18, 400-1, 43 H , 49ö, 512 493 61 150 207 208 149 Escher (Dr.) ÈCTKOTlCT(J1] l CT7'1] CT aJl , Eternal' Eternity. Ethiopic, sæ ' Y ersinn.' Eudocia . , Eura'luilo t fVPf(J'Í]CTE7'al . Euripides (p:1pyrus of) . , EuroclyJoll ' Euthalius 465 lïG 3;)G . 21-2 176 42P, 460-1 !>44 I DEX HI. I'AGE Eutherin;;; 427 fv8h""s .153-4- Euthymius Zigabenus. SCt' I DEx II. , Eyerlastillg I 207 'E,.n One J . .214-6 i fÀ8oûuav , 402 f o os 184- Exodus . 184 External evidence . .19-20 , F' and' G' (codd,) 237 , Factor of Genealogy' . 256 }<'arrar, Canon (now \rchd.) Prc!. xv Fathers . 121, 12j-ß, see I DI;x II, Fell (Bp,) 432 Field (Dr,) 146, 148, 16:3, 177,180,382 Florence, see' Auziani.' Flute-players 148 J<'orstemann (Dr.). . 441, 493 Future sense .163-4 Gabelentz and toebc 452 Gandell (Professor) 184 Gardiani (Sig,) . 492 "Yf'YfVJl1]/J.'1I0f 347 Gelasills ofCyzicus 479, see I DEx II. 'Genealogical Eddence J 253 "Ylvffns anll ')'ÉVV1'JUlS. 119-22 ')'fJlv1]8f[S 347 "Y'vos . . . . 142 Geographical distribution of Pa- tristic Testimony . 4:J, 134 Gifford (Dl..) 214 ')'IVc:,UKfIS 149 Gloucester (Bp. oQ, see' Ellicott.' ')'ÀWUUÓKOP.OV 201 , GOD b](lssed for eyer'! 211 Gorresio (Sig.) , 492 Gospel incident. . 194-5 - (the Ebionite) . 116 - 01' the Hebrews. 29 Gothic, see Version. 'Græco-Syrian, see' SYJ;an.' , Great priest' . 182 Green, Rev. T, S. 499 Gre ory (Dr. C. It) 477 Gregory Naz. ... 73 Gri('sbach (J. J.) 380, 456, 4R2, 483 Hall, Bp. 500 Hammonti (Dr.) . 43 , :'íOO Heaflings of the Chapters , 2 . 4-12 PAl:F. Ht>llrnistic (heel,: . lR2-+ See'S(lptnagint.' Henderson (Dr,) 500 Heracleon 29 Hermophilus . 23-4 Herodotus , 65 Hesychius . 29, 163 Hilary on /J-tJÀos ÒVlKÓS. 281 Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims . 47:3 Hoerning (Dr.) . 451 , HOLY GHosr' . 204 Hort, Dr. 37, 135, 182,211,248,394, (see \Yest.cott and Hort). -- hypothesis and system, see ,.everse of Title-page. -- his 'Introduction' anal yzed. 246-69 -- ' trong preference' for codd. B and 252, 269- 271, 298-305, 307-8, 312-14 mistaken estimate of ß ami 31:J-20 divining and verify- ing faculty 253,290, 291, 307-8 -- imaginary history of the Traditional Greek Text 271-88, 296-8 -- antagonism with Pa- tristic Antiquity 283-5, 298-300 .292-3 306 -- fhtal dilemma Reiteration . -- ultimate appeal to his own individual mind .307-8 -- (Art of Conjectural Emendation' . .351-7 -- :lbsurd Textual hypo- thesis . . 2 :1-4 -- intellect ual peculiar- itr . method of editing the Greek Text 363 -- Text of the N. T, .364-5 -- often forsaken by Dr. \Vestcott Hug (1. L.) , 362 t!) 2 3Hl I DEX [II. 545 PAGE Huish (Alex.) . 432 Idiom, see' English.' ífpfbs(ð J.LÉ-ya.s). 182 Imperfect tense 161 Incident (unsuspected) . .194-5 C Independent' Reviewers. .504-5 C Innocent ignorance' of the Reviewer. 347-9, 411 Inspiration . 208 C Instructions,' see C Revisers.' Instrumentality (ideas of) . 173 Internal Evidence . .. 253 Interpreters, (modern) , 211 , Intrinsic probability', .251-2 Jacobson (Dr. \Y.) Bp. of Chester 37 Jechonias (in Matt. i,) , 186 Jerome . . 73, 427, 449 , JESUS' . 184 , Joanes' . 181 John (S.) and S. lark 185 Jona (son of) .181-2 Josephus 52 Ka.C . 169-70 - its force . 209 Ka.l 7f'WS . 170 Kaye (Bp.) on Clemens AI. 336 K' pWV . 181 KfVfJ.L!3an-lJwJ! . 356 Kfp&:na. . 181 Kidron . 181 Kippax (Rev. John) 433 Kishon . 181 KLUUWV . 181 Knowledge of CHRIST not limited 210 Kp&. a.S . . 71-2 Lachmann's Text 21,242-3,246,270, 380-1 J.agarde (p. A, de) . 493 - Analccta S!JÞ'. . 481 Latin Version . 9 Laubmalln (Dr,) 493 Lawrence (Abp,) 380 · Layers of leaves' . .58-61 · Lecythus' . 201 Lee (Archd,) on Inspiration 208, 230, 382 Leontius Byzantinus 480, see IXDEX II. Liberatu! of Carthage. .471-3 Lice?tious, see' Changes.' PAGE Lightfoot. (Dr.) ßp. of Durham 145, 498, P,'e!. xxxi, Limitation of our SAVIOUR'S knowledge 210 Lincoln (Bp. of), see "r ordsworth, A[(los J.LVALK!JS 181 Lloyd (Bp.) ed. of N. T,. .. Pre!. xvii-ix, 1 G LORD'S Prayer , . 34-6, 214-6 'Love' . .201-2 Lucian . 29 Luke (r.ospel according to S,) 16, 34-5, 75-91, 249, 403-7 , Lunaticus ' . .205-6 ::\lacedonius . . 103, 470-5, 489 :Mai (Carel,) . 121 :Malan (Dr. S. C.) 67, 120, 123, 124, 348, 356, 382, 451, 453-4 :\lanichæan depravation.. 220 , ::\laranatha ' 180 Marcion . . 29, 34-5, 61 :Margin 3-6, 33, 115, 130, 131, 137, 175, 236-7 ;\Iarginal References . 223,412 Marius Mercator 468, Mark (Gospel according to S,) 30,262 - collation of 15 verses 327-31 - last Tweh.e Verses 36-7, 39-40, 48, 49, 51, Ded, \"ii, Pre!. xxiii - and S, John . 185 Martin (Abbe) . 382, 446, 474, 471, 478, 492, 528 Martin 1. (Pope) . 421,473 Massmann (H. F.) , 453 Matranga (Papas Filippo) , 4ï7, 492, see tAe ApPESDIX, p. 522-3 Matthæi (C. F.). 246 -- - Scholia 348, 380,427, 434, 465, 468 Matthew (S.) chap. i. (Greek) 119-24, 186 -(English) 156- 7, 18G }Iedial agency . 173 Melita and Melitene .177-8 l\Ienander 361 l\Ierivale (Dean) 230 Iessina, see' Matranga': and p. 523 J.Lla . 183 2 X 34û I'AGE I DEX Ill. :\Iiùdleton (TIp,), Iilan (see' Ceriani ') 165, 209 . 452, 477, 491-2-3 lill (Dr. John) . 24-5, 383, 432, 437, 47:?, 500 - on cod. D . 13 - (Dr. \V. H,) 354 )Jilligan (Dr,) .39,48 , Miracle' . 20 -4 p. JI '1lp.ÛOJl . 197-9 :MoLerly (Dr,) Bp. of alisburf 106, 2 t)-9 :Modena, see ' C'appilli ': and p. 5:?3 '[odern Interpreters 411 - Opinion, see' Ellicott.' P.OJloì'f:JI S 0f:6s . 182 Montfaueon . 121 , )[oreh ' Usu :Morier (Sir Robert) 492 p.wp' 180 p.tJÀos ÒJlIKÓS 181 :Mutilation .69-93 :\Iystical interpretation 185 Jlåpðou 1rIO'7'LK1]S .184-5 Nazareth 184- · Xecessity' of Re,oision 127,150,223, 228 Xcedless ehanges 87-8, 224-5; 97, 224-5,399,403-7 Jlf:KpotS 'i'f:(per 108 Nemesis of superstition 350 , Setser' 184- 'Neutral' J'eadings . 271-2, 357 ' ew English Yersion' .225-6 , New Greek Text' . 130, 224-5 Kewth (Dr,) 37-9, 109, 126, 369,502 Xewton (Sir Isaac) . 426, 480, 500 Xilus Rossanensis 447 ineteen changes in 34 words. 401 l'ominati\'e repeated 165 , X on-Alexandrian' readings 357 · Non-Alexandrian Pre-Syrian' 357 :Konsensical rendering . 218 'Non-Western' . .357-8 Notes in the margin 175 Numerals in )ISS, 52-3 , Number of the Beast' 135 ð &JI ÈII 'T ovpaJl 133 Occupation (Right of) 199-206 WÔf: 139 , Olivet ' . 184 Ollivant (Bp,) 146 Omission, intentional. . G9-93 ðvos . 181 , Or ' not meant by 11 ,IG8-9 Opinion, (modern) see' Ellicott,' Origen, as a textual critic . ()S ðs and Ðf:ós, in lSS. 8-n for ð'Tf: . , Ulium }.Torricense,' see' Field.' ., OU'TWS 'If' 0.1 [0' K'1l 7ráÀUI Palmer (Arehd,) Papyrus. 'If'apa rP 1rap áKÀ 'lJO'ls . Paral ytic borne of four Paris cod" see ' Ephraerni.' -, see' \Yescher,' , Martin.' rarq uoi ( r.) 437 Particles (Greek) 166 1râO'a. i'pa.cþ . .208-9 1ráO'as 'Tàs 'hp.'pas . ] 52 1ráO'xa, 'TÒ . 353 Paul' 17,' '73,' '181' . .443-8 - (S.), Codd. .493-4 - Kew Codd., see the ApPENDIX. Pearson (Bp,) 212, 432, 471, 500 Peckover (Alex.), Esq. . 493 Penerino (Sig.) . 492 Perfect (English) 158-60 - (Greek) 163 1rf:p(xwpos 184- Pel'owne, (Dean) Pre!. xxx Perverted sense. .218-9 , Phaseo/us 'tul!Jaris' 181 Phavorinus . 140 Phùtius . 467 cþ u1À '1l 200 , Pistic nard ' 1 4 , Plain and clear,' see ' Errors.' 1rÀf:îO''TOS ðXÀos. Plupe1.fect sense of Aorist. Ponderari debent testes . 'If'OJl'YJpov, (à'lf'ò 'Tov) . Possession (DemoniacaI) I'AGE 292 11);) Ð9-105 14-0 145 .195-6 57 49, 12G .3 1- li8 190 30-3 145 162 455 .214-6 206 ;-)47 IXDEX If(, Possession (right of) , 199-206 Powles (Re\'". R. Cowley) Pre!, xx\"iii. 3"') , Praxapostolus,' see' .Apostolus.' , Pre-Syrian' . j7-8 , Pre-Syrian K on- 'Yes tern ' : 5 7 Preface of 1611. 187-91, 19t-i-9 1881. 189 Preponderating evidence . 411, 496 Preposi lions. . 170-5 , Present' (Greek). sometimes a Future. ,163-4 sense of C perfect' 163 Principle of translation, mis- taken. 187-96 'Principles of Textual Criti- cism' 125-6, 227, 34 t-50,37+-5,411 Probabiìity . 497 Proper names in S. :Matt. i. 186 , Proud - in -the-imagination-of- their-hearts' . Provision (GOD'S) for the safety ûf His "... ord . . 8, 9, 338, 494 wpoÉ 8aufv . 146 Pronouns 16j Wp T 180 Pulcheria 465 Pusey (P. E.) . 345, 382, 449, 468 Pyramus and Thisbe 171 Pyramid poised on its apex .342-5 , QuartLrly Review' ,Pre!. ix- iv Quia. . 448, 473 Quod (in 1 Tim, iii. 16) 448 Quotations, see' Fathers.' Ranùell (Rev. T.) , Ravine' , Readings,' see' Various.' before 'Renderings' 1 UG, . 481,493 181 Receiyed Text, see' Textus.' Recension (imaginary) . 271-88 l eiche (J. G,) . .380-1 Reiteration not Proof. .311lÌ-7 Rendering of the same word 13 . 15 -4, 187- 02 Result of acquaintance with documents 337 Rettig (H. C. 1\1.) . 442 , Revised Version,' see' Revision.' P\GR PAGE 1 _') loJ Revisers e ceeded their In,;truc- tions :- (1) In respect of the English 112, 127-30 15j-7, 22:J-G, 68, 400-3 (2) In respect of the Greek 57-8, 97,118-26,224,399,4(13-6 Reyising body (composition of) j04-5 Revision, original nesolutionand Rules concerning 3, 97, 114, 127, 130 - of 1611 . . 167, 508-14 - of 1881, how it was conducted. 37, 117-8, 369 - unfair in its method 116, 131-8 - essentiaUy different from that of 1611 . 508-14 - rests on a foundation of sand . . 110, 516 - incapable of being fur- ther re\'ised . 107 - its case hopeless . ::?6-7 - characterized . 238 - its probable fate 508-14 -- unfavourable to Ortho- doxy . - interesting specimens 2:!j 513 171, 401 Rhythm in translation. 188 Rieu (Dr.) . 453 Right of possession. 199 , Ring of genuineness' . 307, 309-12 Roberts (Dr,) 36, 39-40, 4-R, 98, 230 Rocchi (Hieromonachus) 447-8, 4-74, 492, see the \PPEXDIX. Rogers, the poet 162 Romans ix. 5 . :! 1 0-4 Rome, (See' Cozza Luzi,' , Escher ') Rose, (Hev. 'V. F.), of 'V'orle, :;omelSetshire. P"C!. xxviii Rouser (Professor) . 30ô Routh (President) 152, 211,44-4,452, 501 481 of), see 'W ords- 521 Sachau . S. Andrews (Bp. worth.: Salisbury (Bp. of), sCt" , 'Ioberl}".' 548 PAGE INDEX nL PAGB Samaria, (woman of). 407-8 Sanday, (Dr.) . . Pre!, xvi Saville (Prof.) . 306 Scholium misundel'stood . 467,468 Scholz (Dr.) . . 246, 380, 445, 456 Scott (Sir Gi1bel't) . 306 Script.ure, God's provision for its safety. 8, 9, 338, 494 depraved by heretics 336 Scrive:ler (Prebendary) 13,30,37,49, 106, 108, 126, 231, 237-8, 243, 246, 317, 381, 405, 431, 474, 477, 493, 502-3, see back of T "tle. Septuagint. . 182, 183, 184, 228 'Sepulchre,' the Holy . 198 t1''1lp.EÎOJl . 203-4 um wl. 1 Sieber (M,) . 493 UCKfpa. . 180 Sinaiticus, cod, ( ) 11-17, 265, 286, 289, 291, 314-5, 325-6, 343-5 Sixteen places . 415-9 Smith (Dr . Vance) 174,204-5, 503-8, 513, 515 .210-4- 126,228, xxxi 147 .186-7 153 . 171,180 . 135,507 500 .58-60 185 .176-7 Sociniall gloss . , &lvere amhulando ' U7rfKovÀ&:rwp Spelling of proper names . t1'7rÀ4-YX Jl a. . u7rvpls Stanley (Dean) . Stillingfleet (Bp.) . unßá.s find U'Totßá. H . uVJl'Tpll}aua . UV(f'TpfcþOP. JI"'JI . Syndics of Cambridge Press . xxx-i Syracuse. Syriac Version . · Syrian,' 'Antiochian,' , Græco- Syrian,'-Dr. Hort's designations of the Traditional Greek Text 257- 65, 269 its assumed origin 272-88 and history. . 290-1 characterized 290 87, 288- 7&cþOS 298 Tatian (see INDEX II.) . 29, 336, 350 494 9 , Teaching' . 7ÉKJlOJl . 7ÉÀOS Tenses 199 . 153,179 51 . 157-64, see' Aorist,' 'Im- perfect,' 'Perfect.' 'Pluper- fect,' 'Present.' - unidiomatically rendered 402 Test-places (three) . 47,519 Text to be determined byexter- nal evidence . .19-20, 45 - proyision for its security 10 - (Received), see' Textus Recep- tus' and' Syrian.' Texts, see bWEX 1. 'Textus Receptus' 12-3,17-8, 107, 118 (Bp.Ellicott on) 388 needs correction 21, ]07 see 'Syrian,' 'Tra- ditiona1.' Theodore of .Mopsuestia 480, see I DEX II. Theodotus, the Gnostic. .323-4 . Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch 29 8f&7rJlfVU'TOS. ,208-9 E>fÓS and ðs in MSS. 99-105, 425-6 -, not 8s, to be read in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Pref, xxi-iv, 424-501 Thierry ( L) 493 Thirty changes in 38 words 171 1 Timothy iii. 16. See E>f&S Tischendorf (Dr.) 22-4, 45, 243-4, 246, 270-1, 370, 383, 437-8, 45], 467 . 85-8 . 53-4 198 495 Ti tIe on the Cross . , Titus Justus' . 'Tomb' . Tradition (Ecclesiastical) . Traditional Text departed from 6000 times see 'Syrian,' meaning of S. lark xiii. 32, 209-10 'Transcriptional probability' .251-2 Translators of 1611 . 187-91,207 of 1881, mistaken principle of 138, 187-96 Transposition . 93-7 107 ISDEX III. PAGE Tregelles (Dr,) 22, 45, 43, 246, 270, 370, 380, 383, 431, 451, 467,498 Trench (Abp,). . xlii, 10li, 229 Trilli tarian doctrine . 174-5 True Text, (only safe way of ascertaining) . 339-42 Tuscul um 446 Tyndale (William). 167, 191, 192 Uncials (depravity of the old) 12-17, 30-5,46-7,75-6,94-5 Uniformity of rendering . 166, 187 , Unitarian' Reviser, intolerable 503-8 {J7ró and u . 156 V-rrOTtnrW(J'I.S . 351 Uppström (Andr.) . 452 Upsala. . 444, see' Belsheim,' Ussher (Abp,) 432, 469, 500 Valckenaer . 228 Valentinus . 29 Yarious Readings 49-50 t 56, 65,130-1 Vatican us, codex (B) 11-17, 265, 273, 286, 289, 291, 314-5, 325, 342-5, see ' B and .' 492 381 Vel udo (Sig.) Yercellone (C,) . Verifring faculty Version (Authorized) . - (old Latin). - (V 1llgate) . - (Peschito) . - (Harkleian) - (Coptic) - (Sahidic) , - (Gothic) - (Armenian) - (Æthiopic), - (Georgian). - (Arabic) - (Slavonian) · Vials' . . 95-6, 109, 253, 290-1, 307-8 .112-4 ,9,448 .9,419 ,9,449-50 450 . 9,451-2 . 9,451-2 . 9,452-3 .9,453 .9,453 454 .453-4 454 . . 4')00 Von Heinemann (Dr,) . Y u 1 gate, see ' Version.' \V, (!\f.) . '\" alton (Bp. Brian) \\Taterland (Dr.) 'Yay (only safe) of ascertaining the True Test 339-42 'Yeber (M.) . 437 W escheI' pI.) . 492 , 'V esleyan Iethodist ' Revisers 504-5 \Vest the painter 162 Westcott (Dr.) xlii, 1:l4, see ' Hort.' ""estcott and Hort (Drs,) 24-9, 33, 49, 51, 72, 83, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 110, 114,125, 134-5, 177, 239-41, 245, 247, 370, 380, 382, 499, 502, 518-9, See rcrcrse of Title-pa!Jc, and Pre!. xi-iv, xxvi-viii, xxxi "Vestern,' . 357 readings. .271-2 and 'Syrian' 361 , \V estmill ter Abbey scandal'. 507 Wetstein (J. J.) 246, 383, 426, 4;)6, 467, 469, 480, 497 Wïlberforce (Bp.) 9, 415, 505, 507 'Yoide (C. G.) . .434.-7 ,y olfii Anced. Gl'æca. . 4=>8 'Yood (C, F. B,) 183 Word, incarnate and written 334-5, 390-1 'Vordsworth (Dr. Charles) Bp. of S. Andrews 106, 165, 229-30,382 (Dr. Christopher), Bp. of Lincoln 37, 112, 147, 184,226, 368, 382, 400,502,505,513, Ded. '\"i ,y otton (Henry) 433 Xenophon 149 Young (Patrick) 43 - (Dr.), ofGI;u,gow. 477 , "", . 201 5.!!) rAGB 493 . Pre!. J.x,.iii 432 500 Wl>DOX: I'HI TI:.D 81- WILLIAM CI 0" a,:s ASD so s. LIllnED, 6TA)lf\lHD STRP;P;T A:-'D <:HAHI G <:RV"",. 2 0 BY THE SA.LJfE AUTHOR. A Plai11, C011l11lclitary OIl the Fottr Holy Gospels, intended chiefly for Devotional Reading, 1855. 5 vols" fcap. 8vo., cloth, j;1 IS. Ninety Short Ser11l0JlS for F aJlzily Readi1lg .. follo\ving the Course of the Christian Seasons. First Series. 1855. 2 vols" fcap, 8vo., cloth, 8s. Illspiration a1ld Interþretation. Seven Sermons preached before the University of Oxford; with an Introduction, being an Answer to a volume entitled 'Essays and Reviews.' 1861. 8vo., cloth, I4s. A Treatise OIl the Pastoral Office, addressed chiefly to Candidates for Holy Orders, or to those who have recently undertaken the Cure of Souls. 1864. 8vo., I2s. NÙle!J'-Olle Short SerlJlOl1S for F anti!.)' Reading: follo\ving the Course of the Christian Seasons. Sccond Series. 1867. 2 vols., f\:ap. 8....0., cloth,8s. The last Twelve Verscs of the Gospel according to S. lIIark, "Vindicated a.;aÙzst Recolt Critical Objectors, and Established, 1871. 8vo., cloth. Plea for the Study of Divillit.J, Zll the UllÏt)crsity of Oxford. 1875. The N C'"& Lectz.ollary exal1tÙzed, with Reasons for l.ts A 1Jli1zd- ment at the þresent time :-jointly with the Bishop of Lincoln and Dean Goulburn, 1877. Neheuliah, a Pattern to Builders: - Cou1lsels Oft the reCOmmfllce11lCllt of the Academical year. A Sermon preached at S, :Mary- the-Virgin's, 1878. The Servants of Scripture.. published by the S.P.C.K., 18 7 8 . ProphecY-llot {{Forecast," but (ill the 'i.vords of Bishop Butler,) "the history of evel/ls before they come to þass " ..-A Sermon preached at S. :Mary-the- Virgin's, 1880: being a reply to Rev, Brownlow :Maitland's H Argument from Prophecy,"-pp. 47. The Discstablis/I1Jlellt of Religion Ùz O.?vford, the Betrayal of a Sacred Trust..- rVords of lVarnÙl to the University. A Sermon preached at S, l\Iary-the- Virgin's, 1880; 2nd edition, pp. 56. ) II-