[12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the Textus Receptus from Westcott and Hart's fable of a Syrian Text.

Let us hear what comes next:—

At this point a question suggests itself which we cannot refuse to consider. If the pedigree of the Received Text may be traced back to so early a period, does it not deserve the honour which is given to it by the Quarterly Reviewer?—p. 12.

A very pertinent question truly. We are made attentive: the more so, because you announce that your reply to this question shall go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned.⁸⁷⁹⁸⁷⁹P. 13. That reply is as follows:—

If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text represented verbatim et literatim the text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to regard it as a standard from which there was no appeal. The reason why this would be impossible may be stated briefly as follows. In the ancient documents which have come down to us,—amongst which, as is well known, are manuscripts written in the fourth century,—we possess evidence that other texts of the Greek Testament existed in the age of Chrysostom, materially different from the text which he and the Antiochian writers generally employed. Moreover, a rigorous examination of extant documents shows that the Antiochian or (as we shall henceforth call it with Dr. Hort) the Syrian text did not represent an earlier tradition than those other texts, but was in fact of later origin than the rest. We cannot accept it therefore as a final standard.—pp. 13, 14.

A final standard!... Nay but, why do you suddenly introduce this unheard-of characteristic? Who, pray, since the invention of Printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as a final standard? Not the Quarterly Reviewer certainly. The honour which is given to the Textus Receptus by the Quarterly Reviewer is no other than the honour which it has enjoyed at the hands of scholars, by universal consent, for the last three centuries. That is to say, he uses it as a standard of comparison, and employs it for habitual reference. So do you. You did so, at least, in the year 1870. You did more; for you proposed to proceed with the work of Revision, whether of text or translation, making the current Textus Receptus the standard.⁸⁸⁰⁸⁸⁰Bp. Ellicott, On Revision, &c.—p. 30. We are perfectly agreed therefore. For my own part, being fully convinced, like yourself, that essentially the Received Text is full 1550 years old,—(yes, and a vast deal older,)—I esteem it quite good enough for all ordinary purposes. And yet, so far am I from pinning my faith to it, that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged.—And with this renewed explanation of my sentiments,—(which one would have thought that no competent person could require,)—I proceed to consider the reply which you promise shall go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned. I beg that you will not again seek to divert attention from that which is the real matter of dispute betwixt you and me.

What kind of argumentation then is this before us? You assure us that,—

(a) A rigorous examination of extant documents,—shows Dr. Hort—that the Syrian text—[which for all 393 practical purposes may be considered as only another name for the Textus Receptus]—was of later origin than other texts of the Greek Testament which existed in the age of Chrysostom.

(b) We cannot accept it therefore as a final standard.

But,—Of what nature is the logical process by which you have succeeded in convincing yourself that this consequent can be got out of that antecedent? Put a parallel case:—A careful analysis of herbs shows Dr. Short that the only safe diet for Man is a particular kind of rank grass which grows in the Ely fens. We must therefore leave off eating butcher's meat.—Does that seem to you altogether a satisfactory argument? To me, it is a mere non sequitur. Do but consider the matter for a moment. A rigorous examination of extant documents shows Dr. Hort—such and such things. A rigorous examination of the same documents shows me—that Dr. Hort is mistaken. A careful study of his book convinces me that his theory of a Syrian Recension, manufactured between a.d. 250 and a.d. 350, is a dream, pure and simple—a mere phantom of the brain. Dr. Hort's course is obvious. Let him first make his processes of proof intelligible, and then public. You cannot possibly suppose that the fable of a Syrian text, though it has evidently satisfied you, will be accepted by thoughtful Englishmen without proof. What prospect do you suppose you have of convincing the world that Dr. Hort is competent to assign a date to this creature of his own imagination; of which he has hitherto failed to demonstrate so much as the probable existence?

I have, for my own part, established by abundant references to his writings that he is one of those who, (through some intellectual peculiarity,) are for ever mistaking conjectures for facts,—assertions for arguments,—and reiterated 394 asseveration for accumulated proof. He deserves sympathy, certainly: for,—(like the man who passed his life in trying to count how many grains of sand will exactly fill a quart pot;—or like his unfortunate brother, who made it his business to prove that nothing, multiplied by a sufficient number of figures, amounts to something;)—he has evidently taken a prodigious deal of useless trouble. The spectacle of an able and estimable man exhibiting such singular inaptitude for a province of study which, beyond all others, demands a clear head and a calm, dispassionate judgment,—creates distress.