The Revision Revised Part 14

"Non enim sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes (?ap??e???te?) verb.u.m DEI."-2 Cor. ii. 17.

"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"-JOB x.x.xviii. 2.

"Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?"-S. LUKE vi. 39.

Proposing to ourselves (May 17th, 1881) to enquire into the merits of the recent Revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures, we speedily became aware that an entirely different problem awaited us and demanded preliminary investigation. We made the distressing discovery, that the underlying Greek Text had been completely refas.h.i.+oned throughout.

It was accordingly not so much a "_Revised English Version_" as a "_New Greek Text_," which was challenging public acceptance. Premature therefore,-not to say preposterous,-would have been any enquiry into the degree of ability with which the original Greek had been rendered into English by our Revisionists, until we had first satisfied ourselves that it was still "the original Greek" with which we had to deal: or whether it had been the supreme infelicity of a body of Scholars claiming to act by the authority of the sacred Synod of Canterbury, to put themselves into the hands of some ingenious theory-monger, and to become the dupes of any of the strange delusions which are found unhappily still to prevail in certain quarters, on the subject of Textual Criticism.

The correction of known Textual errors of course we eagerly expected: and on every occasion when the Traditional Text was altered, we as confidently depended on finding a record of the circ.u.mstance inserted with religious fidelity into the margin,-as agreed upon by the Revisionists at the outset. In both of these expectations however we found ourselves sadly disappointed. The Revisionists have _not_ corrected the "known Textual errors." On the other hand, besides silently adopting most of those wretched fabrications which are just now in favour with the German school, they have enc.u.mbered their margin with those other Readings which, after due examination, _they had themselves deliberately rejected_. For why?

Because, in their collective judgment, "for the present, it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others."(705) A fatal admission truly! What are found in the margin are therefore "_alternative Readings_,"-in the opinion of these self-const.i.tuted representatives of the Church and of the Sects.

It becomes evident that, by this ill-advised proceeding, our Revisionists would convert every Englishman's copy of the New Testament into a one-sided Introduction to the Critical difficulties of the Greek Text; a labyrinth, out of which they have not been at the pains to supply him with a single hint as to how he may find his way. On the contrary. By candidly avowing that they find themselves enveloped in the same Stygian darkness with the ordinary English Reader, they give him to understand that there is absolutely no escape from the difficulty. What else must be the result of all this but general uncertainty, confusion, distress? A hazy mistrust of all Scripture has been insinuated into the hearts and minds of countless millions, who in this way have been _forced_ to become doubters,-yes, doubters in the Truth of Revelation itself. One recals sorrowfully the terrible woe denounced by the Author of Scripture on those who minister occasions of falling to others:-"It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

For ourselves, shocked and offended at the unfaithfulness which could so deal with the sacred Deposit, we made it our business to expose, somewhat in detail, what had been the method of our Revisionists. In our October number(706) we demonstrated, (as far as was possible within such narrow limits,) the utterly untrustworthy character of not a few of the results at which, after ten years of careful study, these distinguished Scholars proclaim to the civilized world that they have deliberately arrived. In our January number(707) also, we found it impossible to avoid extending our enumeration of Textual errors and multiplying our proofs, while we were making it our business to show that, even had their _Text_ been faultless, their _Translation_ must needs be rejected as intolerable, on grounds of defective Scholars.h.i.+p and egregious bad Taste. The popular verdict has in the meantime been p.r.o.nounced unmistakably. It is already admitted on all hands that the Revision has been a prodigious blunder. How it came about that, with such a first-rate textual Critic among them as Prebendary Scrivener,(708) the Revisers of 1881 should have deliberately gone back to those vile fabrications from which the good Providence of G.o.d preserved Erasmus and Stunica,-Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,-three centuries ago:-how it happened that, with so many splendid Scholars sitting round their table, they should have produced a Translation which, for the most part, reads like a first-rate school-boy's _crib_,-tasteless, unlovely, harsh, unidiomatic;-servile without being really faithful,-pedantic without being really learned;-an unreadable Translation, in short; the result of a vast amount of labour indeed, but of wondrous little skill:-how all this has come about, it were utterly useless at this time of day to enquire.

Unable to disprove the correctness of our Criticism on the Revised Greek Text, even in a single instance, certain partizans of the Revision,-singular to relate,-have been ever since industriously promulgating the notion, that the Reviewer's great misfortune and fatal disadvantage all along has been, that he wrote his first Article before the publication of Drs. Westcott and Hort's Critical "_Introduction_." Had he but been so happy as to have been made aware by those eminent Scholars of the critical principles which have guided them in the construction of their Text, how differently must he have expressed himself throughout, and to what widely different conclusions must he have inevitably arrived! This is what has been once and again either openly declared, or else privately intimated, in many quarters. Some, in the warmth of their partizans.h.i.+p, have been so ill-advised as to insinuate that it argues either a deficiency of moral courage, or else of intellectual perception, in the Reviewer, that he has not long since grappled definitely with the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort,-and either published an Answer to it, or else frankly admitted that he finds it unanswerable.

(_a_) All of which strikes us as queer in a high degree. First, because as a matter of fact we were careful to make it plain that the _Introduction_ in question had duly reached us _before the first sheet_ of our earlier Article had left our hands. To be brief,-we made it our business to procure a copy and read it through, the instant we heard of its publication: and on our fourteenth page (see above, pp. 26-8) we endeavoured to compress into a long foot-note some account of a Theory which (we take leave to say) can appear formidable only to one who either lacks the patience to study it, or else the knowledge requisite to understand it. We found that, from a diligent perusal of the _Preface_ prefixed to the "limited and private issue" of 1870, we had formed a perfectly correct estimate of the contents of the _Introduction_; and had already characterized it with entire accuracy at pp. 24 to 29 of our first Article. Drs. Westcott and Hort's _New Testament in the original Greek_ was discovered to "partake inconveniently of the nature of a work of the Imagination,"-as we had antic.i.p.ated. We became easily convinced that "those accomplished Scholars had succeeded in producing a Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists and Apostles of our LORD, than any which has appeared since the invention of Printing."

(_b_) But the queerest circ.u.mstance is behind. How is it supposed that any amount of study of _the last new Theory_ of Textual Revision can seriously affect a Reviewer's estimate of the evidential value of the historical _facts_ on which he relies for his proof that a certain exhibition of the Greek Text is untrustworthy? The _onus probandi_ rests clearly not with _him_, but with those who call those proofs of his in question. More of this, however, by and by. We are impatient to get on.

(_c_) And then, lastly,-What have _we_ to do with the _Theory_ of Drs.

Westcott and Hort? or indeed with the Theory of _any other person who can be named_? We have been examining the new Greek Text _of the Revisionists_. We have condemned, after furnis.h.i.+ng detailed proof, _the results_ at which-by whatever means-that distinguished body of Scholars has arrived. Surely it is competent to us to upset their _conclusion_, without being constrained also to investigate in detail the illicit logical processes by which two of their number in a separate publication have arrived at far graver results, and often even stand hopelessly apart, the one from the other! We say it in no boastful spirit, but we have an undoubted right to a.s.sume, that unless the Revisionists are able by a stronger array of authorities to set aside the evidence we have already brought forward, the calamitous destiny of their "Revision," so far as the New Testament is concerned, is simply a thing inevitable.

Let it not be imagined, however, from what goes before, that we desire to s.h.i.+rk the proposed encounter with the advocates of this last new Text, or that we entertain the slightest intention of doing so. We willingly accept the a.s.surance, that it is only because Drs. Westcott and Hort are virtually responsible for the Revisers' Greek Text, that it is so imperiously demanded by the Revisers and their partizans, that the Theory of the two Cambridge Professors may be critically examined. We can sympathize also with the secret distress of certain of the body, who now, when it is all too late to remedy the mischief, begin to suspect that they have been led away by the hardihood of self-a.s.sertion;-overpowered by the _facundia praeceps_ of one who is at least a thorough believer in his own self-evolved opinions;-imposed upon by the seemingly consentient pages of Tischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.-Without further preface we begin.

It is presumed that we shall be rendering acceptable service in certain quarters if,-before investigating the particular Theory which has been proposed for consideration,-we endeavour to give the unlearned English Reader some general notion, (it must perforce be a very imperfect one,) of the nature of the controversy to which the Theory now to be considered belongs, and out of which it has sprung. Claiming to be an attempt to determine the Truth of Scripture on scientific principles, the work before us may be regarded as the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the Traditional Greek Text,-that strange impatience of its authority, or rather denial that it possesses any authority at all,-which began with Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. in 1831), and has prevailed ever since; its most conspicuous promoters being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf (1865-72).

The true nature of the Principles which respectively animate the two parties in this controversy is at this time as much as ever,-perhaps _more_ than ever,-popularly misunderstood. The common view of the contention in which they are engaged, is certainly the reverse of complimentary to the school of which Dr. Scrivener is the most accomplished living exponent. We hear it confidently a.s.serted that the contention is nothing else but an irrational endeavour on the one part to set up the many modern against the few ancient Witnesses;-the later cursive copies against the "old Uncials;"-inveterate traditional Error against undoubted primitive Truth. The disciples of the new popular school, on the contrary, are represented as relying exclusively _on Antiquity_. We respectfully a.s.sure as many as require the a.s.surance, that the actual contention is of an entirely different nature. But, before we offer a single word in the way of explanation, let the position of our a.s.sailants at least be correctly ascertained and clearly established. We have already been constrained to some extent to go over this ground: but we will not repeat ourselves. The Reader is referred back, in the meantime, to pp. 21-24.

Lachmann's ruling principle then, was exclusive reliance on a very few ancient authorities-_because_ they are "ancient." He constructed his Text on three or four,-not unfrequently on _one or two_,-Greek codices. Of the Greek Fathers, he relied on Origen. Of the oldest Versions, he cared only for the Latin. To the Syriac (concerning which, see above, p. 9), he paid no attention. We venture to think his method _irrational_. But this is really a point on which the thoughtful reader is competent to judge for himself. He is invited to read the note at foot of the page.(709)

Tregelles adopted the same strange method. He resorted to a very few out of the entire ma.s.s of "ancient Authorities" for the construction of his Text. His proceeding is exactly that of a man, who-in order that he may the better explore a comparatively unknown region-begins by putting out both his eyes; and resolutely refuses the help of the natives to show him the way. _Why_ he rejected the testimony of _every Father of the IVth century, except Eusebius_,-it were unprofitable to enquire.

Tischendorf, the last and by far the ablest Critic of the three, knew better than to reject "_eighty-nine ninetieths_" of the extant witnesses.

He had recourse to the ingenious expedient of _adducing_ all the available evidence, but _adopting_ just as little of it as he chose: and he _chose_ to adopt those readings only, which are vouched for by the same little band of authorities whose partial testimony had already proved fatal to the decrees of Lachmann and Tregelles. Happy in having discovered (in 1859) an uncial codex (?) second in antiquity only to the oldest before known (B), and strongly resembling that famous IVth-century codex in the character of its contents, he suffered his judgment to be overpowered by the circ.u.mstance. He at once (1865-72) remodelled his 7th edition (1856-9) in 3505 places,-"to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency."(710) And yet he knew concerning Cod. ?, that at least ten different Revisers from the Vth century downwards had laboured to remedy the scandalously corrupt condition of a text which, "as it proceeded from the first scribe," even Tregelles describes as "_very rough_."(711) But in fact the infatuation which prevails to this hour in this department of sacred Science can only be spoken of as incredible. Enough has been said to show-(the only point we are bent on establis.h.i.+ng)-that the one distinctive tenet of the three most famous Critics since 1831 has been a superst.i.tious reverence for whatever is found in the _same little handful_ of early,-but _not_ the earliest,-_nor yet of necessity the purest_,-doc.u.ments.

Against this arbitrary method of theirs we solemnly, stiffly remonstrate.

"Strange," we venture to exclaim, (addressing the living representatives of the school of Lachmann, and Tregelles, and Tischendorf):-"Strange, that you should not perceive that you are the dupes of a fallacy which is even transparent. You _talk_ of 'Antiquity.' But you must know very well that you actually _mean_ something different. You fasten upon three, or perhaps four,-on two, or perhaps three,-on _one, or perhaps two_,-doc.u.ments of the IVth or Vth century. But then, confessedly, these are one, two, three, or four _specimens only_ of Antiquity,-not 'Antiquity' itself. And what if they should even prove to be _unfair samples_ of Antiquity? Thus, you are observed always to quote cod. B or at least cod. ?. Pray, why may not the Truth reside instead with A, or C, or D?-You quote the old Latin or the Coptic. Why may not the Peschito or the Sahidic be right rather?-You quote either Origen or else Eusebius,-but why not Didymus and Athanasius, Epiphanius and Basil, Chrysostom and Theodoret, the Gregories and the Cyrils?... It will appear therefore that we are every bit as strongly convinced as you can be of the paramount claims of 'Antiquity:' but that, eschewing prejudice and partiality, we differ from you only in _this_, viz. that we absolutely refuse to bow down before the _particular specimens of Antiquity_ which you have arbitrarily selected as the objects of your superst.i.tion. You are illogical enough to propose to include within your list of 'ancient Authorities,' codd. 1, 33 and 69,-which are severally MSS. of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth centuries. And why? Only because the Text of those 3 copies is observed to bear a sinister resemblance to that of codex B. But then why, in the name of common sense, do you not show corresponding favour to the remaining 997 cursive Copies of the N. T.,-seeing that these are observed to bear _the same general resemblance to codex_ A?... You are for ever talking about 'old Readings.'

Have you not yet discovered that ALL 'Readings' are 'OLD'?"

The last contribution to this department of sacred Science is a critical edition of the New Testament by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. About this, we proceed to offer a few remarks.

I. The first thing here which unfavourably arrests attention is the circ.u.mstance that this proves to be the only Critical Edition of the New Testament since the days of Mill, which does not even pretend to contribute something to our previous critical knowledge of the subject.

Mill it was (1707) who gave us the great bulk of our various Readings; which Bengel (1734) slightly, and Wetstein (1751-2) very considerably, enlarged.-The accurate Matthaei (1782-8) acquainted us with the contents of about 100 codices more; and was followed by Griesbach (1796-1806) with important additional materials.-Birch had in the meantime (1788) culled from the princ.i.p.al libraries of Europe a large a.s.sortment of new Readings: while truly marvellous was the accession of evidence which Scholz brought to light in 1830.-And though Lachmann (1842-50) did wondrous little in this department, he yet furnished the critical authority (such as it is) for his own unsatisfactory Text.-Tregelles (1857-72), by his exact collations of MSS. and examination of the earliest Fathers, has laid the Church under an abiding obligation: and what is to be said of Tischendorf (1856-72), who has contributed more to our knowledge than any other editor of the N. T. since the days of Mill?-Dr. Scrivener, though he has not independently edited the original Text, is clearly to be reckoned among those who _have_, by reason of his large, important, and accurate contributions to our knowledge of ancient doc.u.ments. Transfer his collections of various Readings to the foot of the page of a copy of the commonly Received Text,-and "_Scrivener's New Testament_"(712) might stand between the editions of Mill and of Wetstein. Let the truth be told. C. F.

Matthaei and he are _the only two Scholars who have collated any considerable number of sacred Codices with the needful amount of accuracy_.(713)

Now, we trust we shall be forgiven if, at the close of the preceding enumeration, we confess to something like displeasure at the oracular tone a.s.sumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort in dealing with the Text of Scripture, though they admit (page 90) that they "rely for doc.u.mentary evidence on the stores acc.u.mulated by their predecessors." Confident as those distinguished Professors may reasonably feel of their ability to dispense with the ordinary appliances of Textual Criticism; and proud (as they must naturally be) of a verifying faculty which (although they are able to give no account of it) yet enables them infallibly to discriminate between the false and the true, as well as to a.s.sign "a local habitation and a name"

to every word,-inspired or uninspired,-which purports to belong to the N.

T.:-they must not be offended with us if we freely a.s.sure them at the outset that we shall decline to accept a single argumentative a.s.sertion of theirs for which they fail to offer sufficient proof. Their wholly unsupported decrees, at the risk of being thought uncivil, we shall unceremoniously reject, as soon as we have allowed them a hearing.

This resolve bodes ill, we freely admit, to harmonious progress. But it is inevitable. For, to speak plainly, we never before met with such a singular tissue of magisterial statements, unsupported by a particle of rational evidence, as we meet with here. The abstruse gravity, the long-winded earnestness of the writer's manner, contrast whimsically with the utterly inconsequential character of his antecedents and his consequents throughout. Professor Hort-(for "the writing of the volume and the other accompaniments of the Text devolved" on _him_,(714))-Dr. Hort seems to mistake his Opinions for facts,-his a.s.sertions for arguments,-and a Reiteration of either for an accession of evidence. There is throughout the volume, apparently, a dread of _Facts_ which is even extraordinary. An actual ill.u.s.tration of the learned Author's meaning,-a concrete case,-seems as if it were _never_ forthcoming. At last it comes: but the phenomenon is straightway discovered to admit of at least two interpretations, and therefore never to prove the thing intended. In a person of high education,-in one accustomed to exact reasoning,-we should have supposed all this impossible.... But it is high time to unfold the _Introduction_ at the first page, and to begin to read.

II. It opens (p. 1-11) with some unsatisfactory Remarks on "Transmission by Writing;" vague and inaccurate,-unsupported by one single Textual reference,-and labouring under the grave defect of leaving the most instructive phenomena of the problem wholly untouched. For, inasmuch as "Transmission by writing" involves two distinct cla.s.ses of errors, (1st) Those which are the result of _Accident_,-and (2ndly) Those which are the result of _Design_,-it is to use a Reader badly not to take the earliest opportunity of explaining to him that what makes codd. B ? D such utterly untrustworthy guides, (except when supported by a large amount of extraneous evidence,) is the circ.u.mstance that _Design_ had evidently so much to do with a vast proportion of the peculiar errors in which they severally abound. In other words, each of those codices clearly exhibits a fabricated Text,-is the result of arbitrary and reckless _Recension_.

Now, this is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. In S. Luke's Gospel alone (collated with the traditional Text) the _transpositions_ in codex B amount to 228,-affecting 654 words: in codex D, to 464,-affecting 1401 words. Proceeding with our examination of the same Gospel according to S.

Luke, we find that the words _omitted_ in B are 757,-in D, 1552. The words _subst.i.tuted_ in B amount to 309,-in D, to 1006. The readings _peculiar_ to B are 138, and affect 215 words;-those peculiar to D, are 1731, and affect 4090 words. Wondrous few of these _can_ have been due to accidental causes. The Text of one or of both codices must needs be depraved. (As for ?, it is so frequently found in accord with B, that out of consideration for our Readers, we omit the corresponding figures.)

We turn to codd. A and C-(executed, suppose, a hundred years _after_ B, and a hundred years _before_ D)-and the figures are found to be as follows:-

In A. In C.

The transpositions are 75 67 affecting 199 words 197 The words omitted are 208 175 The words subst.i.tuted 111 115 The peculiar readings 90 87 affecting 131 words 127

Now, (as we had occasion to explain in a previous page,(715)) it is entirely to misunderstand the question, to object that the preceding Collation has been made with the Text of Stepha.n.u.s open before us. Robert Etienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth, and cod. D in the VIth, are so widely discordant from one another; A and C, so utterly at variance with both. The simplest explanation of the phenomena is the truest; namely, that B and D exhibit grossly depraved Texts;-a circ.u.mstance of which it is impossible that the ordinary Reader should be too soon or too often reminded. But to proceed.

III. Some remarks follow, on what is strangely styled "Transmission by printed Editions:" in the course of which Dr. Hort informs us that Lachmann's Text of 1831 was "the first founded on doc.u.mentary authority."(716)... On _what_ then, pray, does the learned Professor imagine that the Texts of Erasmus (1516) and of Stunica (1522) were founded? His statement is incorrect. The actual difference between Lachmann's Text and those of the earlier Editors is, that _his_ "doc.u.mentary authority" is partial, narrow, self-contradictory; and is proved to be untrustworthy by a free appeal to Antiquity. _Their_ doc.u.mentary authority, derived from independent sources,-though partial and narrow as that on which Lachmann relied,-exhibits (_under the good Providence of _G.o.d,) a Traditional Text, the general purity of which is demonstrated by all the evidence which 350 years of subsequent research have succeeded in acc.u.mulating; and which is confessedly the Text of A.D.

375.

IV. We are favoured, in the third place, with the "History of this Edition:" in which the point that chiefly arrests attention is the explanation afforded of the many and serious occasions on which Dr.

Westcott ("W.") and Dr. Hort ("H."), finding it impossible to agree, have set down their respective notions separately and subscribed them with their respective initial. We are reminded of what was wittily said concerning Richard Baxter: viz. that even if no one but himself existed in the Church, "Richard" would still be found to disagree with "Baxter,"-and "Baxter" with "Richard".... We read with uneasiness that

"no individual mind can ever act with perfect uniformity, or free itself completely from _its own Idiosyncrasies_;" and that "the danger of _unconscious Caprice_ is inseparable from personal judgment."-(p. 17.)

All this reminds us painfully of certain statements made by the same Editors in 1870:-

"We are obliged to come to the _individual mind_ at last; and Canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings against _natural illusions_, and aids to circ.u.mspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final decision."-(pp. xviii., xix.)

May we be permitted without offence to point out (not for the first time) that "idiosyncrasies" and "unconscious caprice," and the fancies of the "individual mind," can be allowed _no place whatever_ in a problem of such gravity and importance as the present? Once admit such elements, and we are safe to find ourselves in cloud-land to-morrow. A weaker foundation on which to build, is not to be named. And when we find that the learned Professors "venture to hope that the present Text has escaped some risks of this kind by being the production of two Editors of different habits of mind, working independently and to a great extent on different plans,"-we can but avow our conviction that the safeguard is altogether inadequate.

When two men, devoted to the same pursuit, are in daily confidential intercourse on such a subject, the "_natural illusions_" of either have a marvellous tendency to communicate themselves. Their Reader's only protection is rigidly to _insist_ on the production of _Proof_ for everything which these authors say.

V. The dissertation on "Intrinsic" and "Transcriptional Probability" which follows (pp. 20-30),-being _unsupported by one single instance or ill.u.s.tration_,-we pa.s.s by. It ignores throughout the fact, that the most serious corruptions of MSS. are due, _not_ to "Scribes" or "Copyists," (of whom, by the way, we find perpetual mention every time we open the page;) but to the persons who employed them. So far from thinking with Dr. Hort that "the value of the evidence obtained from Transcriptional Probability is incontestable,"-for that, "without its aid, Textual Criticism could rarely obtain a high degree of security," (p. 24,)-we venture to declare that inasmuch as one expert's notions of what is "transcriptionally probable" prove to be the diametrical reverse of another expert's notions, the supposed evidence to be derived from this source may, with advantage, be neglected altogether. Let the study of _Doc.u.mentary Evidence_ be allowed to take its place. Notions of "Probability" are the very pest of those departments of Science which admit of an appeal to _Fact_.

VI. A signal proof of the justice of our last remark is furnished by the plea which is straightway put in (pp. 30-1) for the superior necessity of attending to "the relative antecedent credibility of Witnesses." In other words, "The comparative trustworthiness of doc.u.mentary Authorities" is proposed as a far weightier consideration than "Intrinsic" and "Transcriptional Probability." Accordingly we are a.s.sured (in capital letters) that "Knowledge of Doc.u.ments should precede final judgment upon readings" (p. 31).

"Knowledge"! Yes, but how acquired? Suppose two rival doc.u.ments,-cod. A and cod. B. May we be informed how you would proceed with respect to them?

"Where one of the doc.u.ments is found habitually to contain _morally certain, or at least strongly preferred, Readings_,-and the other habitually to contain their rejected rivals,-we [_i.e._ _Dr. Hort_] can have no doubt that the Text of the first has been transmitted in comparative purity; and that the Text of the second has suffered comparatively large corruption."-(p. 32.)

But can such words have been written seriously? Is it gravely pretended that Readings become "_morally certain_," because they are "_strongly preferred_"? Are we (in other words) seriously invited to admit that the "STRONG PREFERENCE" of "the individual mind" is to be the ultimate standard of appeal? If so, though _you_ (Dr. Hort) may "_have no doubt_"

as to which is the purer ma.n.u.script,-see you not plainly that a man of different "idiosyncrasy" from yourself, may just as reasonably claim to "have no doubt"-_that you are mistaken_?... One is reminded of a pa.s.sage in p. 61: viz.-