[7] The fabric of modern Textual Criticism (1831-81) rests on an insecure basis.

I have been guilty of little else than sacrilege, it seems, because I have ventured to send a shower of shot and shell into the flimsy decrees of these three Critics which now you are pleased grandiloquently to designate and describe as the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up within the last fifty years. Permit me to remind you that the fabric you speak of,—(confessedly a creation of yesterday,)—rests upon a foundation of sand; and has been already so formidably assailed, or else so gravely condemned by a succession of famous Critics, that as a fabric, its very 380 existence may be reasonably called in question. Tischendorf insists on the general depravity (universa vitiositas) of codex b; on which codex nevertheless Drs. Westcott and Hort chiefly rely,—regarding it as unique in its pre-eminent purity. The same pair of Critics depreciate the Traditional Text as beyond all question identical with the dominant [Greek] Text of the second half of the fourth century:—whereas, to bring the sacred text back to the condition in which it existed during the fourth century,⁸⁶⁴⁸⁶⁴Scrivener's Introduction,—p. 423. was Lachmann's one object; the sum and substance of his striving. The fancy of a Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that has been grounded on its presumed existence,⁸⁶⁵⁸⁶⁵Ibid. p. 421. Tregelles declares to have been swept away at once and for ever, by Scrivener's published Collations. And yet, what else but this is the fancy, (as already explained,) on which Drs. Westcott and Hort have been for thirty years building up their visionary Theory of Textual Criticism?—What Griesbach attempted [1774-1805], was denounced [1782-1805] by C. F. Matthæi;—disapproved by Scholz;—demonstrated to be untenable by Abp. Laurence. Finally, in 1847, the learned J. G. Reiche, in some Observations prefixed to his Collations of MSS. in the Paris Library, eloquently and ably exposed the unreasonableness of any theory of Recension,—properly so called;⁸⁶⁶⁸⁶⁶Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto silentium,—sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto, deque summâ Codicum dissonantiâ querelæ, nec non ipsæ corruptiones inde a primis temporibus continuo propagatæ,—satis sunt documento, neminem opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidiæ et calumniis obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de singulis locis disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in rebus criticis fuisse.—Codd. MSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nova descriptio, et cum textu vulgo recepto Collatio, &c. 4to. Gottingæ, 1847. (p. 4.) thereby effectually 381 anticipating Westcott and Hort's weak imagination of a Syrian Text, while he was demolishing the airy speculations of Griesbach and Hug. There is no royal road (he said) to the Criticism of the N. T.: no plain and easy method, at once reposing on a firm foundation, and conducting securely to the wished for goal.⁸⁶⁷⁸⁶⁷He proceeds:—Hucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto, continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium singulorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium testimonium pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum, certum firmumque sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio careamus.—Ibid. (p. 19.)... Scarcely therefore in Germany had the basement-story been laid of that fabric of Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years, and which you superstitiously admire,—when a famous German scholar was heard denouncing the fabric as insecure. He foretold that the regia via of codices b and א would prove a deceit and a snare: which thing, at the end of four-and-thirty years, has punctually come to pass.

Seven years after, Lachmann's method was solemnly appealed from by the same J. G. Reiche:⁸⁶⁸⁸⁶⁸Commentarius Criticus in N. T. (in his Preface to the Ep. to the Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to this. See by all means his Revised Text of the first three Gospels,—pp. 4-8. whose words of warning to his countrymen deserve the attention of every thoughtful scholar among ourselves at this day. Of the same general tenor and purport as Reiche's, are the utterances of those giants in Textual Criticism, Vercellone of Rome and Ceriani of Milan. Quite unmistakable is the verdict of our own Scrivener concerning the views of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, and the results to which their system has severally conducted them.—If Alford adopted the prejudices of his three immediate predecessors, 382 his authority has been neutralized by the far different teaching of one infinitely his superior in judgment and learning,—the present illustrious Bishop of Lincoln.—On the same side with the last named are found the late Philip E. Pusey and Archd. Lee,—Canon Cook and Dr. Field,—the Bishop of S. Andrews and Dr. S. C. Malan. Lastly, at the end of fifty-one years, (viz. in 1881,) Drs. Westcott and Hort have revived Lachmann's unsatisfactory method,—superadding thereto not a few extravagances of their own. That their views have been received with expressions of the gravest disapprobation, no one will deny. Indispensable to their contention is the grossly improbable hypothesis that the Peschito is to be regarded as the Vulgate (i.e. the Revised) Syriac; Cureton's, as the Vetus or original Syriac version. And yet, while I write, the Abbé Martin at Paris is giving it as the result of his labours on this subject, that Cureton's Version cannot be anything of the sort.⁸⁶⁹⁸⁶⁹It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abbé to the present writer,) the Post-scriptum of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from p. 234 to p. 236,) is a jeu d'esprit only,—intended to enliven a dry subject, and to entertain his pupils. Whether Westcott and Hort's theory of a Syrian Text has not received an effectual quietus, let posterity decide. Ἁμέραι δ᾽ ἐπίλοιποι μάρτυρες σοφώτατοι.

From which it becomes apparent that, at all events, the fabric of Criticism which has been built up within the last fifty years has not arisen without solemn and repeated protest,—as well from within as from without. It may not therefore be spoken of by you as something which men are bound to maintain inviolate,—like an Article of the Creed. It is quite competent, I mean, for any one to denounce the entire system of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles,—as I do now,—as an egregious blunder; if he will but be at the 383 pains to establish on a severe logical basis the contradictory of not a few of their most important decrees. And you, my lord Bishop, are respectfully reminded that your defence of their system,—if you must needs defend what I deem worthless,—must be conducted, not by sneers and an affectation of superior enlightenment; still less by intimidation, scornful language, and all those other bad methods whereby it has been the way of Superstition in every age to rivet the fetters of intellectual bondage: but by severe reasoning, and calm discussion, and a free appeal to ancient Authority, and a patient investigation of all the external evidence accessible. I request therefore that we may hear no more of this form of argument. The Text of Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles,—of Westcott and Hort and Ellicott, (i.e. of the Revisers,)—is just now on its trial before the world.⁸⁷⁰⁸⁷⁰It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott's notice, (and yet the fact well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and Tregelles on the Church's gratitude, are not by any means founded on the Texts which they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill, Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that they patiently accumulated evidence. Tischendorf's reputation as a Biblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the world. (Scrivener's Introduction,—p. 427.)