I would strongly disagree that modern textual criticism is inherently rationalistic and subjective. Just because some people who practice it are rationalistic and favor subjective arguments overly much does not mean that the discipline itself is so. Almost all seminaries today practice modern textual criticism. The canons of modern criticism are simply common sense (not rationalistic): older manuscripts will tend to be more accurate (this is a generalization, not an infallible rule!); geographical distribution of a reading will tend to greater accuracy, since it cuts down the possibility of a purely local error of copying; family traits tend to lessen the authority of the family as a whole (a child manuscript can only be as accurate as its parent, unless corrected against another manuscript); number of manuscripts favoring a reading is not so important as the weight of the manuscripts (measured according to the above criteria); the more difficult reading is more likely to be correct (copyists tended to simplify or explain something, rather than make it more obscure), although this canon certainly has its limits. There are other rules as well. All of them taken together have to be weighed and balanced on a case by case basis (that is, variant reading by variant reading basis). This is not rationalistic. This is taking human nature into account, and the balance of probabilities, which in no case is against the providence of God.
I have two questions so that I can better understand your post:
How do you define subjective and subjectivism?
What is your objective standard for common sense?
I would probably define "subjective" in this context as the text being placed under the textual critic so that the critic gets to decide, based on an arbitrary feeling or hunch what the original was supposed to be. It would also involve ranking internal evidence (which cannot be discounted entirely), such as intrinsic probability of what a scribe would have done, over the external evidence (the manuscripts' readings themselves, the geographical distribution of readings, and other facts). I suppose one would have to say that complete objectivity is impossible, no matter what position one takes on textual criticism (whether one holds to the Textus Receptus or the Critical Text). In other words, one's presuppositions will undoubtedly affect the outcome of one's scholarship. I would merely deny that the presuppositions of the textual critic who favors the Critical Text have to be opposed to biblical truth and God's Providence.
Standard for common sense? Much more difficult question. I guess what I mean is that it seems evident that an older manuscript, copied closer to the time of the original, has more likelihood of being closer to the original than a later one does. Of course, there are all sorts of qualifications one has to introduce immediately, since the number of intervening manuscripts has to play a part, and the provenance of the manuscript can also play a part (who copied it and why, which are difficult questions). In other words, if a 4th century manuscript has 10 generations in-between it and the autograph, it will probably be less accurate than a 6th century manuscript that has only 5 generations of manuscripts in-between. Such situations do occur regularly in textual criticism. However, since it is often quite difficult to discern the generations (how many there were, and whether there were any at all), except in families of manuscripts, the canon of age still stands as one canon among many others that have to be weighed. And it seems a self-evident one to me.
The TR people will probably come back with "yes, but such older manuscripts were not used by the church, and hence are of lesser value, since, if they were used and approved, then they would have worn out." This argument does not hold water for several reasons. One is that we cannot discern why it is that a certain manuscript is preserved and another is not. God's providence works in more than one way. Suspicion should not fall on a manuscript simply because of its old age. Why could not a scribe carefully copy a manuscript, and then put it away so that, in the future, there would be correctives in place? I think scribes knew back then that manuscripts did not last forever. Otherwise, we wouldn't have over 5,000 manuscripts of the NT. In other words, the common sense argument of old age for a manuscript as being in its favor is a useful criteria. And scribes in those days were not dumb. They would have been thinking about future generations, not just their own.
Another criteria for textual criticism, namely, geographical distribution, also makes good common sense. Lots of manuscripts were copied in particular locations. We talk of the Byzantine text-type, for instance, or the Alexandrian text-type. A variation that is located in only one of these text-types is less likely to be original, since it quite possibly originated in that locality only. If, however, a particular reading finds support in all four of the major text-types (Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, and Caesarean), then it is far more likely to be original, since, in order to be in all four text-types, it had to have been in the parent manuscript that gave rise to all the text-types. Personally, I think this canon has been under-rated by many text critics. To me it seems like common sense. But then, I am not sure I can give you an objective standard for why this seems like common sense. Common sense is usually described as something that understands how the world works. But that is not too helpful. What I have tried to do is explain how it is that these canons work, so that you can understand why it is that I call it common sense.
) And I haven't done a verse count from the various books.
I've quoted it twice, once more and I did think of it. Aren't those the rules? 
