(12) The omission of 7 important words in S. Luke xxiii. 38, I have commented on, above, at pp. [85-8].—You defend the omission, and “the texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles,” at pp. 58-9.
(13) The gross fabrication in S. Luke xxiii. 45, I have exposed, above, at pp. [61-5].—You defend it, at pp. 59-61.
(14) A plain omission in S. John xiv. 4, I have pointed out, above, at pp. [72-3].—You defend it, at pp. 61-2 of your pamphlet.
(15) “Titus Justus,” thrust by the Revisers into Acts xviii. 7, I have shown to be an imaginary personage, above, at pp. [53-4].—You stand up for the interesting stranger at pp. 62-4 of your pamphlet. Lastly,
(16) My discussion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (suprà pp. [98-106]),—you contend against from p. 64 to p. 76.—The true reading of this important place, (which is not your reading,) you will find fully discussed from p. [424] to p. 501.
I have already stated why I dismiss thirteen out of your sixteen instances in this summary manner. The remaining three I have reserved for further discussion for a reason I proceed to explain.
[18] Bp. Ellicott's claim that the Revisers were guided by “the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities,”—disproved by an appeal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The self-same claim,—(namely, of abiding by the verdict of Catholic Antiquity,)—vindicated, on the contrary, for the “Quarterly Reviewer.”
You labour hard throughout your pamphlet to make it appear that the point at which our methods, (yours and mine,) respectively diverge,—is, that I insist on making my appeal to the “Textus Receptus;” you, to Ancient Authority. But happily, my lord Bishop, this is a point which admits of being brought to issue by an appeal to fact. You shall first [pg 420] be heard: and you are observed to express yourself on behalf of the Revising body, as follows:
“It was impossible to mistake the conviction upon which its Textual decisions were based.
“It was a conviction that (1) The true Text was not to be sought in the Textus Receptus; or (2) In the bulk of the Cursive Manuscripts; or (3) In the Uncials (with or without the support of the Codex Alexandrinus;) or (4) In the Fathers who lived after Chrysostom; or (5) In Chrysostom himself and his contemporaries; but (6) In the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities.”—(p. 28.)