sort of relations between the two texts, when what
a recent and competent writer (Dr. Salmon, of Trinity College, Dublin)
considers to be the difficulties and anomalies and apparent perversities
in the text of Westcott and Hort are compared with the decisions of the
Revisers {59}. There are, I believe, only sixty-four passages in the
whole revision, in which the text of the Revisers, when agreeing with the
text of Westcott and Hort, has not also the support of Lachmann, or
Tischendorf, or Tregelles.

I observe that the above-named writer expresses his satisfaction that the
Revised Version has not superseded the Authorised Version in our Churches
{60a}, and that things which were read at Rome in the second century may
still be read in our own Churches in the nineteenth century. This,
perhaps, is a strong way of expressing his aversion to the text of
Westcott and Hort, but it is not perfectly clear that the Revisers' text
has "so closely" followed the authority of these two eminent critics as
to be open, on Dr. Salmon's part, to the same measure of aversion. Until
more accurate evidence is forthcoming that the Revisers have shown in
their text the same sort of studied disregard of Western variations as is
plainly to be recognized in the text of Westcott and Hort, I can only
fall back on my persuasion, as one who has put to the vote these critical
questions very many times, that systematic neglect of Western authority
cannot fairly be brought home to the Revisers. It is much to be
regretted then, that in the very opening chapter of his interesting
volume, Dr. Salmon roundly states that Westcott and Hort exercised a
"predominating influence" on their colleagues in the revision on the
question of various readings {60b}, and that "more than half of their
brother members of the Committee had given no special attention to the
subject." Now, assuming that the word "Committee" has been here
accidentally used for the more usual term Company, I am forced to say
that both statements are really incorrect. I was permitted by God's
mercy to be present at every meeting of the Company except two, and I can
distinctly say that I never observed any indication of this predominating
influence. We knew well that our two eminent colleagues had devoted many
years of their lives to the great work on which they were engaged; and we
paid full deference to what they urged on each reading as it came before
us, but in the end we decided for ou