Part 28 (1/2)

3,-objected against, above, pp. 56-8.-You defend yourself 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.”

(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) ”_t.i.tus 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 (_supra_ 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 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 Ma.n.u.scripts; 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.)

In such terms you venture to contrast our respective methods. You want the public to believe that I make the ”Textus Receptus” ”_a standard from which there shall be no appeal_,”-entertain ”the notion that it is _little else than sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last 300 years_,”(916)-and so forth;-while _you_ and your colleagues act upon the conviction that the Truth is rather to be sought ”_in the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities_.” I proceed to show you, by appealing to an actual instance, that neither of these statements is correct.

(_a_) And first, permit me to speak for myself. Finding that you challenge the Received reading of S. LUKE ii. 14, (”_good will towards men_”);-and that, (on the authority of 4 Greek Codices [? A B D], all _Latin_ doc.u.ments, and the Gothic Version,) you contend that ”_peace among men in whom he is well pleased_” ought to be read, instead;-I make my appeal unreservedly to ANTIQUITY.(917) I request the _Ancients_ to adjudicate between you and me by favouring us with their verdict. Accordingly, I find as follows:

That, in the IInd century,-the Syriac Versions and Irenaeus _support the Received Text_:

That, in the IIIrd century,-the Coptic Version,-Origen in 3 places, and-the Apostolical Const.i.tutions in 2, do the same:

That, in the IVth century, (_to which century_, you are invited to remember, _codices_ B _and_ ? _belong_,)-Eusebius,-Aphraates the Persian,-t.i.tus of Bostra,-each in 2 places:-Didymus in 3:-Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus,-Cyril of Jer.,-Epiphanius 2-and Gregory of Nyssa-4 times: Ephraem Syr.,-Philo bp. of Carpasus,-Chrysostom 9 times,-and an unknown Antiochian contemporary of his:-these eleven, I once more find, are _every one against you_:

That, in the Vth century,-besides the Armenian Version, Cyril of Alex. in 14 places:-Theodoret in 4:-Theodotus of Ancyra in 5:-Proclus:-Paulus of Emesa:-the Eastern bishops of Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431;-and Basil of Seleucia:-_these contemporaries of cod._ A I find are _all eight against you_:

That, in the VIth century,-besides the Georgian-and aethiopic Versions,-Cosmas, 5 times:-Anastasius Sinait. and Eulogius, (_contemporaries of cod._ D,) are _all three with the Traditional Text_:

That, in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries,-Andreas of Crete, 2:-pope Martinus at the Lat. Council:-Cosmas, bp. of Maiume near Gaza,-and his pupil John Damascene;-together with Germa.n.u.s, abp. of Constantinople:-are again _all five with the Traditional Text_.