The Revision Revised Part 34

CHRIST." You add that it is not improbable "that the words are quoted from some known _hymn_, or probably from some familiar _Confession of Faith_."

Accordingly, in your Commentary you venture to exhibit the words within inverted commas _as a quotation_:-"And confessedly great is the mystery of G.o.dliness: 'who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,' "

&c.,(1115)-for which you are without warrant of any kind, and which you have no right to do. Westcott and Hort (the "chartered libertines") are even more licentious. Acting on their own suggestion that these clauses are "a quotation from _an early Christian hymn_," they proceed to print the conclusion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 stichometrically, as if it were a _six-line stanza_.

This notwithstanding, the Revising body _have adopted_ "He who," as the rendering of ??; a mistaken rendering as it seems to me, and (I am glad to learn) to yourself also. Their translation is quite a curiosity in its way. I proceed to transcribe it:-

"He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory."

But this does not even pretend to be a sentence: nor do I understand what the proposed construction is. Any arrangement which results in making the six clauses last quoted part of the subject, and "great" the predicate of one long proposition,-is unworthy.-Bentley's wild remedy testifies far more eloquently to his distress than to his apt.i.tude for revising the text of Scripture. He suggests,-"CHRIST _was put to death_ in the flesh, justified in the spirit, ... seen _by Apostles_."(1116)-"According to the ancient view," (says the Rev. T. S. Green,) "the sense would be: 'and confessedly great is the mystery of G.o.dliness [in the person of him], who [mystery notwithstanding] was manifested in the flesh, &c.' "(1117)...

But, with submission, "the ancient view" was not this. The Latins,-calamitously shut up within the limits of their "_pietatis sacramentum, quod_,"-are found to have habitually broken away from that iron bondage, and to have discoursed of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, as being Himself the "sacramentum" spoken of. The "sacramentum," in their view, was the incarnate WORD.(1118)-Not so the Greek Fathers. These all, without exception, understood S. Paul to say,-what Ecclesiastical Tradition hath all down the ages faithfully attested, and what to this hour the copies of his Epistles prove that he actually wrote,-viz. "_And confessedly great is the mystery of G.o.dliness_:-G.o.d _was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit_," and so on. Moreover this is the view of the matter in which all the learning and all the piety of the English Church has thankfully acquiesced for the last 350 years. It has commended itself to Andrewes and Pearson, Bull and Hammond, Hall and Stillingfleet, Ussher and Beveridge, Mill and Bengel, Waterland and Berriman. The enumeration of names is easily brought down to our own times. Dr. Henderson, (the learned non-conformist commentator,) in 1830 published a volume with the following t.i.tle:-

"The great mystery of G.o.dliness incontrovertible: or, Sir Isaac Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a corruption in the text 1 Tim. iii. 16: containing a review of the charges brought against the pa.s.sage; an examination of the various readings; and a confirmation of that in the received text on principles of general and biblical criticism."

And,-to turn one's eyes in quite a different direction,-"Veruntamen,"

wrote venerable President Routh, at the end of a life-long critical study of Holy Writ,-(and his days were prolonged till he reached his hundredth year,)-

"Veruntamen, quidquid ex sacri textus historia, illud vero haud certum, critici collegerunt, me tamen interna cogunt argumenta praeferre lectionem Te??, quem quidem agnosc.u.n.t veteres interpretes, Theodoretus caeterique, duabus alteris ?? et ?."(1119)

And here I bring my DISSERTATION on 1 TIM. iii. 16 to a close. It began at p. 424, and I little thought would extend to seventy-six pages. Let it be clearly understood that I rest my contention not at all on Internal, but entirely on External Evidence; although, to the best of my judgment, they are alike conclusive as to the matter in debate.-Having now incontrovertibly, as I believe, established T??S as the best attested Reading of the place,-I shall conclude the present LETTER as speedily as I can.

(1) _"__Composition of the Body which is responsible for the __'__New Greek Text.__'__ "_

There remains, I believe, but one head of discourse into which I have not yet followed you. I allude to your "few words about the composition of the body which is responsible for the 'New Greek Text,' "(1120)-which extend from the latter part of p. 29 to the beginning of p. 32 of your pamphlet.

"Among the sixteen most regular attendants at your meetings," (you say) "were to be found most of those persons who were presumably best acquainted with the subject of Textual Criticism."(1121) And with this insinuation that you had "all the talents" with you, you seek to put me down.

But (as you truly say) "the number of living Scholars in England who have connected their names with the study of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is exceedingly small."(1122) And, "of that exceedingly small number," you would be puzzled to name so much as _one_, besides the three you proceed to specify (viz. Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Westcott, and Dr.

Hort,)-who were members of the Revision company. On the other hand,-(to quote the words of the most learned of our living Prelates,)-"it is well known that there are _two opposite Schools_ of Biblical Criticism among us, _with very different opinions as to the comparative value of our Ma.n.u.scripts of the Greek Testament_."(1123) And in proof of his statement, the Bishop of Lincoln cites "on the one side"-_Drs. Westcott and Hort_; "and on the other"-_Dr. Scrivener_.

Now, let the account be read which Dr. Newth gives (and which you admit to be correct) of the extraordinary method by which the "New Greek Text" was "_settled_,"(1124) "for the most part at the First Revision,"(1125)-and it becomes plain that it was not by any means the product of the independently-formed opinions of 16 experts, (as your words imply); but resulted from the apt.i.tude of 13 of your body to be guided by the sober counsels of Dr. Scrivener on the one hand, or to be carried away by the eager advocacy of Dr. Hort, (supported as he ever was by his respected colleague Dr. Westcott,) on the other. As Canon Cook well puts it,-"The question really is, Were the members competent to form a correct judgment?"(1126) "In most cases," "_a __ simple majority_"(1127) determined what the text should be. But _ponderari debent testes_, my lord Bishop, _non numerari_.(1128) The vote of the joint Editors should have been reckoned practically as only _one_ vote. And whenever Dr. Scrivener and they were irreconcilably opposed, the existing Traditional Text ought to have been let alone. All pretence that it was _plainly and clearly erroneous_ was removed, when the only experts present were hopelessly divided in opinion. As for the rest of the Revising Body, inasmuch as they extemporized their opinions, they were scarcely qualified to vote at all.

Certainly they were not ent.i.tled individually to an equal voice with Dr.

Scrivener in determining what the text should be. Caprice or Prejudice, in short, it was, not Deliberation and Learning, which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. A more unscientific,-to speak truly, a coa.r.s.er and a clumsier way of manipulating the sacred Deposit, than that which you yourself invented, it would be impossible, in my judgment, to devise.

(2) _An Unitarian Revisionist intolerable._-_The Westminster-Abbey Scandal._

But this is not nearly all. You invite attention to the const.i.tuent elements of the Revising body, and congratulate yourself on its miscellaneous character as providing a guarantee that it has been impartial.

I frankly avow, my lord Bishop, that the challenge you thus deliberately offer, surprises me greatly. To have observed severe silence on this part of the subject, would have seemed to me your discreeter course. Moreover, had you not, in this marked way, invited attention to the component elements of the Revising body, I was prepared to give the subject the go-by. The "_New Greek Text_," no less than the "_New __ English Version_," must stand or fall on its own merits; and I have no wish to prejudice the discussion by importing into it foreign elements. Of this, you have had some proof already; for, (with the exception of what is offered above, in pages 6 and 7,) the subject has been, by your present correspondent, nowhere brought prominently forward.

Far be it from me, however, to decline the enquiry which you evidently court. And so, I candidly avow that it was in my account a serious breach of Church order that, on engaging in so solemn an undertaking as the Revision of the Authorized Version, a body of Divines professing to act under the authority of the Southern Convocation should spontaneously a.s.sociate with themselves Ministers of various denominations,(1129)-Baptists, Congregationalists, Wesleyan Methodists, Independents, and the like: and especially that a successor of the Apostles should have presided over the deliberations of this a.s.semblage of Separatists. In my humble judgment, we shall in vain teach the sinfulness of Schism, if we show ourselves practically indifferent on the subject, and even set an example of irregularity to our flocks. My Divinity may appear unaccommodating and old-fas.h.i.+oned: but I am not prepared to unlearn the lessons long since got by heart in the school of Andrewes and Hooker, of Pearson and Bull, of Hammond and Sanderson, of Beveridge and Bramhall.

I am much mistaken, moreover, if I may not claim the authority of a greater doctor than any of these,-I mean S. Paul,-for the fixed views I entertain on this head.

All this, however, is as nothing in comparison of the scandal occasioned by the co-optation into your body of Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian Minister of S. Saviour's Gate Chapel, York. That, while engaged in the work of interpreting the everlasting Gospel, you should have knowingly and by choice a.s.sociated with yourselves one who, not only openly denies the eternal G.o.dhead of our LORD, but in a recent publication is the avowed a.s.sailant of that fundamental doctrine of the Christian Religion, as well as of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture itself,(1130)-filled me (and many besides myself) with astonishment and sorrow. You were respectfully memorialized on the subject;(1131) but you treated the representations which reached you with scornful indifference.

Now therefore that you re-open the question, I will not scruple publicly to repeat that it seems to me nothing else but an insult to our Divine Master and a wrong to the Church, that the most precious part of our common Christian heritage, the pure Word of G.o.d, should day by day, week by week, month by month, year after year, have been thus handled; for the avowed purpose of producing a Translation which should supersede our Authorized Version. That the individual in question contributed aught to your deliberations has never been pretended. On the contrary. No secret has been made of the fact that he was, (as might have been antic.i.p.ated from his published writings,) the most unprofitable member of the Revising body. Why then was he at first surrept.i.tiously elected? and why was his election afterwards stiffly maintained? The one purpose achieved by his continued presence among you was that it might be thereby made to appear that the Church of England no longer insists on Belief in the eternal G.o.dhead of our LORD, as essential; but is prepared to surrender her claim to definite and unequivocal dogmatic teaching in respect of Faith in the Blessed TRINITY.

But even if this Unitarian had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold, (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of G.o.d'S Word may not be attained without the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer.

In the meantime, this same person was invited to communicate with his fellow-Revisers in Westminster-Abbey, and did accordingly, on the 22nd of June, 1870, receive the Holy Communion, in Henry VII.'s Chapel, at the hands of Dean Stanley: declaring, next day, that he received the Sacrament on this occasion without "joining in reciting the Nicene Creed" and without "compromise" (as he expressed it,) of his principles as an "Unitarian."(1132) So conspicuous a sacrilege led to a public Protest signed by some thousands of the Clergy.(1133) It also resulted, in the next ensuing Session of Convocation, in a Resolution whereby the Upper House cleared itself of complicity in the scandal.(1134)...

How a good man like you can revive the memory of these many painful incidents without anguish, is to me unintelligible. That no blessing from Him, "_sine Quo nihil validum, nihil sanctum_," could be expected to attend an undertaking commenced under such auspices,-was but too plain.

The Revision was a foredoomed thing-in the account of many besides myself-from the outset.

(3) _The probable Future of the Revision of_ 1881.

Not unaware am I that it has nevertheless been once and again confidently predicted in public Addresses, Lectures, Pamphlets, that ultimate success is in store for the Revision of 1881. I cannot but regard it as a suspicious circ.u.mstance that these vaticinations have hitherto invariably proceeded from members of the Revising body.

It would ill become such an one as myself to pretend to skill in forecasting the future. But of _this_ at least I feel certain:-that if, in an evil hour, (quod absit!), the Church of England shall ever be induced to commit herself to the adoption of the present Revision, she will by so doing expose herself to the ridicule of the rest of Christendom, as well as incur irreparable harm and loss. And such a proceeding on her part will be inexcusable, for she has been at least faithfully forewarned. Moreover, in the end, she will most certainly have to retrace her steps with sorrow and confusion.

Those persons evidently overlook the facts of the problem, who refer to what happened in the case of the Authorized Version when it originally appeared, some 270 years ago; and argue that as the Revision of 1611 at first encountered opposition, which yet it ultimately overcame, so must it fare in the end with the present Revised Version also. Those who so reason forget that the cases are essentially dissimilar.

If the difference between the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Revision of 1881 were only this.-That the latter is characterized by a mechanical, unidiomatic, and even repulsive method of rendering; which was not only unattempted, but repudiated by the Authors of the earlier work;-there would have been something to urge on behalf of the later performance. The plea of zeal for G.o.d'S Word,-a determination at all hazards to represent with even servile precision the _ipsissima verba_ of Evangelists and Apostles,-_this_ plea might have been plausibly put forward: and, to some extent, it must have been allowed,-although a grave diversity of opinion might reasonably have been entertained as to _what const.i.tutes_ "accuracy"

and "fidelity" of translation.

But when once it has been made plain that _the underlying Greek_ of the Revision of 1881 is an entirely new thing,-_is a manufactured article throughout_,-all must see that the contention has entirely changed its character. The question immediately arises, (and it is the _only_ question which remains to be asked,)-Were then the Authors of this "New Greek Text"

_competent_ to undertake so perilous an enterprise? And when, in the words of the distinguished Chairman of the Revising body-(words quoted above, at page 369,)-"_To this question, we venture to answer very unhesitatingly in the negative_,"-What remains but, with blank astonishment, not unmingled with disgust, to close the volume? Your own ingenuous admission,-(volunteered by yourself a few days before you and your allies "proceeded to the actual details of the Revision,")-that "_we have certainly not acquired sufficient Critical Judgment_ for any body of Revisers hopefully to undertake such a work as this,"-is decisive on the subject.

The gravity of the issue thus raised, it is impossible to over-estimate.

We find ourselves at once and entirely lifted out of the region originally proposed for investigation. It is no longer a question of the degree of skill which has been exhibited in translating the t.i.tle-deeds of our heavenly inheritance out of Greek into English. Those t.i.tle-deeds themselves have been empirically submitted to a process which, _rightly or wrongly_, seriously affects their integrity. Not only has a fringe of most unreasonable textual mistrust been tacked on to the margin of every inspired page, (as from S. Luke x. 41 to xi. 11):-not only has many a grand doctrinal statement been evacuated of its authority, (as, by the shameful mis-statement found in the margin against S. John iii. 13,(1135) and the vile Socinian gloss which disfigures the margin of Rom. ix.

5(1136)):-but we entirely miss many a solemn utterance of the SPIRIT,-as when we are a.s.sured that verses 44 and 46 of S. Mark ix. are omitted by "_the best ancient authorities_," (whereas, on the contrary, the MSS.

referred to are _the worst_). Let the thing complained of be ill.u.s.trated by a few actual examples. Only five shall be subjoined. The words in the first column represent what _you_ are pleased to designate as among "the most certain conclusions of modern Textual Criticism" (p. 78),-but what _I_ a.s.sert to be nothing else but mutilated exhibitions of the inspired Text. The second column contains the indubitable Truth of Scripture,-the words which have been read by our Fathers' Fathers for the last 500 years, and which we propose, (G.o.d helping us,) to hand on unimpaired to our Children, and to our Children's Children, for many a century to come:-

REVISED (1881). AUTHORIZED (1611).

"And come, follow me." "And come, _take up the cross and_ follow me."(1137) "And they blindfolded "And when they had him, and asked him, blindfolded him, _they saying, Prophesy." struck him on the face_, and asked him, saying, Prophesy."(1138) "And there was also a "And a superscription superscription over him, also was _written_ over This is the King of the him _in letters of Greek, Jews." and Latin, and Hebrew_, This is the King of the Jews."(1139) "And they gave him a "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish." piece of a broiled fish, _and of an honeycomb_."(1140)

But the next (S. Luke ix. 54-6,) is a far more serious loss:-

" 'Lord, wilt thou that " 'Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down we command fire to come from heaven, and consume down from heaven, and them?' But he turned and consume them, _even as rebuked them. And they Elias did_?' But he went to another village." turned and rebuked them, _and said, _'Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them'. And they went to another village."

The unlearned reader sees at a glance that the only difference of _Translation_ here is the subst.i.tution of "bid" for "command."-which by the way, is not only uncalled for, but is a change _for the worse_.(1141) On the other hand, how grievous an injury has been done by the mutilation of the blessed record in respect of those (3 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 24 = ) _forty-three_ (in English _fifty-seven_) undoubtedly inspired as well as most precious words,-even "ordinary Readers" are competent to discern.

I am saying that the systematic, and sometimes serious,-_always_ inexcusable,-liberties which have been taken with the Greek Text by the Revisionists of 1881, const.i.tute a ground of offence against their work for which no pretext was afforded by the Revision of 1611. To argue therefore from what has been the fate of the one, to what is likely to be the fate of the other, is illogical. The cases are not only not parallel: they are even wholly dissimilar.

The cheapest copies of our Authorized Version at least exhibit the Word of G.o.d faithfully and helpfully. Could the same be said of a cheap edition of the work of the Revisionists,-dest.i.tute of headings to the Chapters, and containing no record of the extent to which the Sacred Text has undergone depravation throughout?

Let it be further recollected that the greatest Scholars and the most learned Divines of which our Church could boast, conducted the work of Revision in King James' days; and it will be acknowledged that the promiscuous a.s.semblage which met in the Jerusalem Chamber cannot urge any corresponding claim on public attention. _Then_, the Bishops of Lincoln of 1611 were Revisers: the Vance Smiths stood without and found fault. But in the affair of 1881, Dr. Vance Smith revises, and ventilates heresy from within:(1142) the Bp. of Lincoln stands outside, and is one of the severest Critics of the work.-Disappointed men are said to have been conspicuous among the few a.s.sailants of our "Authorized Version,"-Scholars (as Hugh Broughton) who considered themselves unjustly overlooked and excluded. But on the present occasion, among the mult.i.tude of hostile voices, there is not a single instance known of a man excluded from the deliberations of the Jerusalem Chamber, who desired to share them.

To argue therefore concerning the prospects of the Revision of 1881 from the known history of our Authorized Version of 1611, is to argue concerning things essentially dissimilar. With every advance made in the knowledge of the subject, it may be confidently predicted that there will spring up increased distrust of the Revision of 1881, and an ever increasing aversion from it.

(4) _Review of the entire subject, and of the respective positions of Bp.

Ellicott and myself._

Here I lay down my pen,-glad to have completed what (because I have endeavoured to do my work _thoroughly_) has proved a very laborious task indeed. The present rejoinder to your Pamphlet covers all the ground you have yourself traversed, and will be found to have disposed of your entire contention.

I take leave to point out, in conclusion, that it places you individually in a somewhat embarra.s.sing predicament. For you have now no alternative but to come forward and disprove my statements as well as refute my arguments: or to admit, by your silence, that you have sustained defeat in the cause of which you const.i.tuted yourself the champion. You constrained me to reduce you to this alternative when you stood forth on behalf of the Revising body, and saw fit to provoke me to a personal encounter.