Part 34 (1/2)

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)...