A marked feature of the 19th century is the number of cults and sects which sprang up, and which since their inception have bewitched millions of people throughout the world. There are the Mormons, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah Witnesses, etc., and last but not least the Westcott and Hort Cult, or as it is generally known, the Westcott and Hort School. Its claim to be a School gives it a status and an academic halo to which none of the above-mentioned sects can lay claim. But in common with the sects its foundation, as we shall see, is a foundation of sand.
To acquaint oneself with the views and tenets which the Mormons hold one would have to consult the Book of Mormon, or of the Seventh Day Adventists the writings and visions of Mrs Ellen G. White which are held to be inspired and infallible. The cabala of the Westcott and Hort School are the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. The former Codex or manuscript was discovered in 1859 by Dr Tischendorf, a German higher critic, in the Convent of St Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai in a waste-paper basket full of old parchments. The Codex Sinaiticus is also known as Aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. About the same time there was discovered in the Vatican library in Rome another manuscript of the New Testament. This manuscript, the Codex Vaticanus is known as B.
Westcott and Hort, who were professors in Trinity College, Cambridge, in the latter part of the last century, claimed that Codex Aleph and Codex B contained the genuine Greek text of the New Testament, and not the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, which had been providentially preserved in the Greek Church, and on which the Authorised Version is based, and also all the versions of the Churches of the Reformation on the Continent. Westcott and Hort accordingly produced a new Greek Text which they constructed on Codex Aleph and Codex B. They devised an elaborate theory, elevating these two manuscripts and one or two others, C and D of a later date, to the heights of almost infallible authority. “Their treatise on the subject and their editions of the Greek New Testament exercised a powerful and far-reaching influence, not only on the next generation of students and scholars, but also indirectly upon the minds of millions also who have had neither the ability, nor the time, nor the inclination to submit the theory to a searching examination.” (Rev. Terence Brown). In “The King James Version Defended — A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts” by Dr E. F. Hills, the author states, “Hort made a distinction between B (the Codex Vaticanus) and all other manuscripts. He believed that B contained a singularly pure text to which he gave the name ‘Neutral’ (uncontaminated). . . . This theory of the unique excellence of Codex B was enthusiastically upheld for many years by Hort’s followers especially in Britain and America.”
“It was positively said by someone,” wrote the late Rev. D. Beaton, “that the rule of Westcott and Hort was that Codex B was infallible, and that the evangelists were not. Dr Salmon of Dublin, who was by no means a blind advocate of Burgon’s principles says — ‘It seemed as if Hort regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of a sacred writer’.” (F.P. Magazine, Vol viii p. 74).
As to the doctrinal views of the two Cambridge professors — Westcott and Hort, Bishop D. A. Thomson says that in doctrine they favoured the Romanising movement in the Church of England, they accepted the Darwinian hypothesis and the Higher Criticism of the Old Testament. Hort in a letter Dated April 3rd, 1860, writes: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with . . . My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.” (Life of Hort, Vol. I p. 416), they both denied the historicity of the first three chapters of Genesis. Westcott in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury dated March, 4th 1890, writes — “No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history — I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think that they did.” (Life of Westcott, Vol. II p. 69). Hort claimed to be “a staunch sacerdotalist.” “I have been persuaded for many years” he wrote to Westcott, “that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common in their causes and in their result.” (Life of Hort, Vol. II p. 50). These are the Goliaths, uncircumcised in heart and blind as bats to spiritual truth who are the founders of the Westcott and Hort cult, and to whom multitudes pay homage as the Mormons do to Joseph Smith, the Jehovah Witnesses to Charles Russell, and the Seventh Day Adventists to Mrs Ellen G. White.
As to the manuscripts Aleph and B on which they constructed their Greek Text, and which form the basis of the Revised Version and other perversions of the Truth, they were written in the 4th century when Arianism, the heresy which denies the eternal deity of the Son, was in full ascendancy in the Church. They both contain internal proofs of their Arian origin. Words, clauses and entire sentences are obliterated or mutilated in these two manuscripts.
Dr Scrivener gives passages from these manuscripts to prove that they are corrupt documents and that the Greek Text founded on them is destitute not only of historic foundation, but of all probability. (Introduction to Textual Criticism, p. 531). Canon Cook says, “the omissions and corruptions of these two Greek manuscripts Aleph and B are logically incompatible with an entire faith in the Saviour’s proper and true divinity, and that these two manuscripts are responsible for nearly every charge which weakens or perverts the record of sayings and incidents in our Lord’s life.” (Revised Version of First Three Gospels. In his Bampton lectures on the divinity of our Lord delivered in the year 1866, Canon Liddon gave a timely and solemn warning of the perils which beset the Church of Christ through the denial of the Saviour’s essential and eternal deity. The detractors of the vital truth of God’s Word have found a powerful ally in the modern versions which have been based upon the pro-Arian type of Greek Text exhibited by manuscripts of the Vatican-Sinai group.
“I insist and am prepared to prove,” wrote Dean Burgon, “that the text of these two Codexes (B and Aleph) is very nearly the foulest in existence.”
Dean Burgon, a Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, Gresham Professor of Divinity, and during the last twelve years of his life, Dean of Chichester, was one of the greatest scholars of his day, and a valiant defender of the Received Text. In his writings he exposes and tears to shreds “the speculations,” “the ingenious webs,” “the subtle theories” of Westcott and Hort. “The new Greek Text, of which the Revised Version is only a poor lame translation,” he writes, “is extremely corrupt. Very much has been done and said to make it appear an improved text, and many students, as well as the public have been deceived . . . I am able to prove that this revision of the Sacred Text is untrustworthy from the beginning to the end. The systematic depravation of the underlying Greek is nothing but a poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our revisers, (with the best and purest intentions, no doubt) stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of inspiration on every page, and of having substituted for them fabricated readings, which the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence, and which only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the most depraved type. “The Pharisees have in fact been the dupes of an ingenious theorist . . . If any complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out, that when the words of inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined to preserve the deposit in its integrity to hit either too straight or too hard. I have traced the mischief home to its true authors, Drs Westcott and Hort, a copy of whose unpublished text (it was published later in 1881) of the Greek New Testament, the most vicious in existence, had been confidentially, and under pledge of strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising body. “Shame — yes, shame on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting and to mislead the blind! Shame — yes, shame on the two-thirds majority of well-intentioned, but most incompetent men, who finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct ‘plain and clear errors’ in the English ‘Authorised Version’ — occupied themselves with falsifying the inspired Greek Text in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the Spirit! Shame — yes, shame upon them!” (Extract from “The Revision Revised” by Dean Burgon).
It was refreshing to come across what the bishops of the Church of England unitedly said in 1863 when the Word of God was being assailed: “all our hopes for eternity, the very foundations of our faith, our nearest and dearest consolations are taken from us if one line of the Sacred Book be declared unfaithful or untrustworthy.”
Fantastic views of one kind or another are peculiar to all the sects and cults. And the Westcott and Hort Cult is not found wanting in this respect. What more fantastic, as Dean Burgon pointed out, than to believe that the Truth of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, remained as good as unknown until discovered in the year 1859 by a German critic in a waste-paper basket in the Convent of St Catherine! And what more fantastic than to hold that the true New Testament text is hardly to be found in any place save in Codex B which is in the custody of the Pope! It has been said, “Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.”
It is the Textus Receptus on which the Authorised Version is based that the Westminster divines refer to in Chapter I, Section VIII — “The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.” “The providential preservation of the Scriptures,” says Dr E. P. Hills, “is a necessary consequence of their divine inspiration. The God who inspired the Scriptures and gave them to His people to be an authoritative guide and consolation cannot allow this perfect revelation of His will to perish. Because God has inspired the Scriptures, He also has preserved them by His providence.”
Probationers and ministers in Churches professing to adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith as their subordinate standard come under solemn and weighty vows before God and man, when answering the Questions and signing the Formula. Question 3 is — “Do you disown all Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian, Erastian and other doctrines, tenets and opinions whatsoever contrary to and inconsistent with the foresaid Confession of Faith?” In the Formula subscribed not only by probationers and ministers but also by elders and deacons, all vow — “And I promise that through the grace of God, I shall firmly and constantly adhere to the same and to the utmost of my power shall, in my station, assert, maintain and defend the said doctrine.” The inspiration and providential preservation of the Word of God is not only a fundamental doctrine of the Confession but is fundamental to all the doctrines thereof. The textual theories of Westcott and Hort are contrary to and inconsistent with the said doctrine. What a contradiction between the vows and the views of ministers who have answered the Questions and signed the Formula, and who circulate, propagate and defend the false and unfounded textual theories of Westcott and Hort! Are there not very serious implications involved in such a contradiction? When “the River of Life at its source,” to quote Burgon, “is being poisoned” by the damnable depravations of Westcott and Hort are Church Courts, all of whose members signed the Formula, forgetful of their duty to God and to the rising generation to assert, maintain and defend to the utmost of their power the said doctrine of the Confession? The late Rev. Neil Cameron, Glasgow, said, “Schism is to depart from a Church which holds to God’s Word in doctrine and practice.” Churches, therefore, which countenance the textual tenets and opinions of the Westcott and Hort School, or which give sanctuary to, and honour those who do are schismatic and secessionist. Our duty is clear and theirs also — Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them. (Jer. 15:19).
At the meeting of the Synod in Inverness in May 1948 the late Rev. D. N. MacLeod, Ullapool, said, “This is a time when men must stand . . . There is no going back, my friends, for the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. So far as I can understand things it was not nearly so necessary in 1893 for the Church to make the stand she did, as it is now. Things have gone from bad to worse every day. This age, yes and this land are full of traitors to the Lord Jesus Christ, and there are many who know more about that class of persons than I do. But I do know this much that there are persons who are never relied on, and never trusted, and of whom others are always afraid, and we have every reason to be afraid of them. This land is just swarming with traitors to the Lord Jesus Christ, whose names, sad to say, are on many Communion Rolls, for there is a great forsaking of the true faith in this land as well as throughout the world in this sad day of ours. It is indeed a cloudy and dark day — so dark and cloudy that whoever will get through safely and be accounted worthy of the Lord will have reason to praise God throughout eternity . . . But I say this to the rising generation: they have been left a goodly heritage — a heritage of which they have every reason to be proud, and it is their duty to value that heritage, and leave it to those who will come after them unimpaired, as others left it to them. Let them make conscience of that before God, to be faithful to what was left by those who went before them. It was not the work of men and women at all. It was the Lord’s work. Well, they are duty bound to serve Him. If not, I pity them when they will meet the Lord at the last day. I pity them from the bottom of my heart who will be unfaithful and will not do their utmost to preserve that heritage for the generation coming after them.”
“Thou hast given a banner to them that fear Thee, that it may be displayed because of the truth.” Psalm 60:4.
W.M.
Gathan Gloir na Diadhachd
Leis an Urr. Eideard Pearce
(Air a leantuinn bho t.d. 55)
- Thà Dia neo-chaochlaidheach ann an fior ìnnleachdan agus oibreachadh a mach a ghràidh. Thà mì’g ràdh, “fior ìnnleachdan” ged nach eil iad mothachail. Faodaidh gràdh Dhé dhà shluagh a bhì am folach agus a bhì air a chumail air ais, cho fad agus a thà mothochadh agus foillseachadh air a ghabhail a stigh, ach eadhon an sin, thà e beothail, agus gu cìnteach ag oibreachadh air an son, b’e mar a bhios foillseachaidh bho’n leith a muigh ag atharrachadh, a nis a nochdadh deagh-ghean, a nis a foluch a ghnùis, a nis a togail suas, an sin a tilgeadh sios, a nis a lionadh, a ris a deanamh falamh, a nis a soillseachadh, an sin a cruthachadh dorchadais; gidheadh anns na h-uile nì thà E dol air adhart ann an gràdh dhoibh; anns na h-uile nì, thà a gràdh ag oibreachadh air an son agus dhà’n taobh, agus E ciallachadh agus a rùnachadh gràdh do dh’aon cho maith ris an aon eile, agus uime sin, an toiseach na mu dheireadh, thà E dhà thoirt mu’n cuairt. Agus cha’n eil so ach a reir a chùmhnant riutha agus a reir a ghealladh dhoibh. “Agus nì mì riu coimhcheangal siorruidh, nach pill mì air falbh uatha, chùm maith a dheanamh dhoibh; agus cuiridh mì m’eagal ‘n an cridhe, chùm nach dealaich iad rium.” Ier. xxxii. 40. Agus a ris, “Agus thà fhios againn gu’n comh-oibrich na h-uile nithean a chùm maith, do’n dream aig am bheil gràdh do Dhia, eadhon dhaibh-san a ghairmeadh a reir a rùin.” Rom. viii. 28. Ge b’e nì a nì Dia rinn, ge b’e mar a ghiulaineas Se E Fein dhà ar taobh, gidheadh thà E deanamh gu maith dhà’r taobh, agus a toirt cleachdadh dhà ghràdh dà ar taobh. Mar a thà duine diadhaidh ag ràdh, “Thà sinn buailteach air bhì smuainteachadh, gu’m bheil Dia a nochdadh a ghràdh dhuinn, ‘n uair a nì E nì mòr air ar son; Ach, (tha e’g ràdh)” thà Dia a ghnàth a toirt cleachdadh dhà ghràdh dhà ar taobh, ‘n uair a dh’fholaicheas E a ghnùis, cho maith agus ‘n uair a dh’fhoillsicheas E ì, ‘n uair a thàirnigeas E air ais, cho maith ris an uair a thàirnigeas E dluth. “Ann am focal, Anam! ge b’n nì a nì Dia, thà gràdh an sin, agus thà E ciallachadh gràdh agus maith leis. Am bheil E togail a ghnùis, a toirt seachad, a lionadh, a cumail beo, a tarruig dlùth dhuit? Ann sna h-uile nì dhiubh sin thà gràdh, tha gràdh sònraichte ag iobreachadh agus a riuth tre’n a h-uile, nà mà thà E nochdadh diumb, a tabhairt leis, a falachadh, a marbhadh, a folach a ghnùis. Ann an sin uile thà gràdh, seadh, thà ‘n aon ghràdh sònraichte Aige-san ag iobreachadh anns na h-uile, agus a riuth tre’n a uile.
Thà Dia toirt cleachdadh dhà ghràdh dhuit-sa anns an aon cho maith ris an aon eile. O cia milis a thà so! Thà’m bàs a tighinn a dh’ionnsuidh sluagh Dhé bho’n aon tobar gràidh ann an cridhe Dhé ‘s a thà beatha a tighinn.
Caib. iv. Nì a tha toirt cùnntas c’ar son, nà co bh’uaithhe, a thà e gu’m bheil Dia neo-chaochlaidheach.
Gù’m bheil Dia neo-chaochlaidheach, agus mar an ceudna cò ann, chunnaic sibh a cheana. A’ nì a thuiteas a ris fodh ar beachd, ‘s e bhì nochdadh co bh’uaithhe thà e gu’m bheil Dia dà-rìreadh neo-chaochlaidheach, nà mà thogras sibh ciod e bhunait air a bheil neo-chaochlaidhheach air a togail. Thà ì air a togail air bunait trì-filte (1) Fior-ghloine neo-chriochnach agus sìmplieachd a nàtuir. (2) Oirdheirceas neo-chriochnach agus iomlanachd a bith. (3) Meudachd neo-chriochnach agus farsuinneachd a ghliocais.
- Tha neo-chaochlaidheachd Dhé air a togail, nà ag eirigh bho, fior-ghloine agus sìmplidheachd a nàduir.
Thà Dia, Fear mo ghràidh, nà ghnìomh rò fhiar-ghlan. Is Spiorad E, Spiorad neo-chriochnach, Iob. iv. 24, agus mar sin na bhith neo-chriochnach fior-ghlan, sìmplidh agus neo-mheasgaichte, agus mar sin neo-chaochlaidheach. Thà duine foghlumaichte ag ràdh, “Thà Dia rò sìmplidh agus iomlan naomh, saor bho gach uile mheasgachadh, agus uime sin cha’n urrain E air chor air bith a bhì air a leaghadh, air a thruailleadh, na fàs sean, na seargadh as.” Thà Austin thà cuimhne agam, a bunaiteachadh neo-chaochlaodheachd Dhé air a ghrùnnd, na air a bhunait so, “Is tusa mhàin Dia,” (thà e’g ràdh) “agus cha’n urrain thù bhi air t-atharrachadh a chùm a’ nì is fearr nà an nì is miosa nà thà thù, do bhrigh gu’m bheil ann a d’ bhith thù rò fhior-ghlan agus simplidh.” Thà aig daoine agus aig creutairean eile a measgachadh agus an deanamh suas. Thà iad air an deanamh suas de dh’eilimeidean eadar-dhealaichte, agus sin aon aobhar, a measg mhòran, air son am bheil iad ag atharrachadh; ach thà Dia na bhith ro fhiór-ghlan agus simplidh, thà E na fhiór-ghloine agus na shimplidheachd fein, agus uime sin neo-chochlaidheach. Thà ainglean agus anamaibh air an deanamh suas de nithean àraidh. Thà iad air an deanamh suas de chuspairean, de nàdur, de ghràsan agus de nithean mar sin, ach thà Dia ‘n a aon ghniomh suas, roinn, dùblachadh, na leithidean sin, agus uime sin as eugmhais atharrachadh. Far am bheil deanamh suas, faodaidh atharrachadh a bhi, ach far am bheil simplidheachd neo-chriochnach, thà neo-chochlaidheachd iomlan, agus mar sin chì thù thaobh Dhé.
(R’a leantuinn)