(1) Four words omitted in S. Matth. i. 25,—complained of, above, pp. [122-4].—You defend the omission in your pamphlet at pages 43-4,—falling back on Tischendorf, Tregelles and Lachmann, as explained on the opposite page. (p. [416].)
(2) The omission of S. Matth. xvii. 21,—proved to be indefensible, above, pp. [91-2].—The omission is defended by you at pp. 44-5,—on the ground, that although Lachmann retains the verse, and Tregelles only places it in brackets, (Tischendorf alone of the three omitting it entirely,)—“it must be remembered that here Lachmann and Tregelles were not acquainted with א.”
(3) The omission of S. Matth. xviii. 11,—shown to be unreasonable, above, p. [92].—You defend the omission in your pp. 45-7,—remarking that “here there is even less room for doubt than in the preceding cases. The three critical editors are all agreed in rejecting this verse.”
(4) The substitution of ἠπόρει for ἐποίει, in S. Mark vi. 20,—strongly complained of, above, pp. [66-9].—Your defence is at pp. 47-8. You urge that “in this case again the Revisers have Tischendorf only on their side, and not Lachmann nor Tregelles: but it must be remembered that these critics had not the reading of א before them.”
(5) The thrusting of πάλιν (after ἀποστελεῖ) into S. Mark xi. 3,—objected against, above, pp. [56-8].—You defend yourself [pg 418] at pp. 48-9,—and “cannot doubt that the Revisers were perfectly justified” in doing “as Tischendorf and Tregelles had done before them,”—viz. inventing a new Gospel incident.
(6) The mess you have made of S. Mark xi. 8,—exposed by the Quarterly Reviewer, above, pp. [58-61],—you defend at pp. 49-52. You have “preferred to read with Tischendorf and Tregelles.” About,
(7) S. Mark xvi. 9-20,—and (8) S. Luke ii. 14,—I shall have a few serious words to say immediately. About,
(9) the 20 certainly genuine words you have omitted from S. Luke ix. 55, 56,—I promise to give you at no distant date an elaborate lecture. “Are we to understand” (you ask) “that the Reviewer honestly believes the added words to have formed part of the Sacred Autograph?” (“The omitted words,” you mean.) To be sure you are!—I answer.
(10) The amazing blunder endorsed by the Revisers in S. Luke x. 15; which I have exposed above, at pp. [54-6].—You defend the blunder (as usual) at pp. 55-6, remarking that the Revisers, “with Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, adopt the interrogative form.” (This seems to be a part of your style.)
(11) The depraved exhibition of the Lord's Prayer (S. Luke xi. 2-4) which I have commented on above, at pp. [34-6],—you applaud (as usual) at pp. 56-8 of your pamphlet, “with Tischendorf and Tregelles.”