[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort's Theory.

But in the meantime, so confident are you of the existence of a Syrian text,—(only however because Dr. Hort is,)—that you inflict upon your readers all the consequences which the Syrian text is supposed to carry with it. Your method is certainly characterized by humility: for it consists in merely serving up to the British public a réchauffé of Westcott and Hort's Textual Theory. I cannot discover that you contribute anything of your own to the meagre outline you furnish of it. Everything is assumed—as before. Nothing is proved—as before. And we are referred to Dr. Hort for the resolution of every difficulty which Dr. Hort has created. According to Dr. Hort,—as Dr. Hort observes,—to use Dr. Hort's language,—stated by Dr. Hort,—as Dr. Hort notices,—says Dr. Hort: yes, from p. 14 of your pamphlet to p. 29 you do nothing else but reproduce—Dr. Hort!

First comes the fabulous account of the contents of the bulk of the cursives:⁸⁸¹⁸⁸¹P. 15.—then, the imaginary history of the 395 Syriac Vulgate; which (it seems) bears indisputable traces of being a revision, of which you have learned from Dr. Hort the date:⁸⁸²⁸⁸²P. 16.—then comes the same disparagement of the ancient Greek Fathers,—for reasons which have been stated by Dr. Hort with great clearness and cogency:⁸⁸³⁸⁸³P. 17.—then, the same depreciatory estimate of writers subsequent to Eusebius,—whose evidence is declared to stand at best on no higher level than the evidence of inferior manuscripts in the uncial class:⁸⁸⁴⁸⁸⁴P. 18. but only because it is discovered to be destructive of the theory of Dr. Hort.

Next comes the Method of Genealogy,—which you declare is the result of vast research, unwearied patience, great critical sagacity;⁸⁸⁵⁸⁸⁵P. 19. but which I am prepared to prove is, on the contrary, a shallow expedient for dispensing with scientific Induction and the laborious accumulation of evidence. This same Method of Genealogy, you are not ashamed to announce as the great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials. For the full explanation of it, you must refer your reader to Dr. Hort's Introduction.⁸⁸⁶⁸⁸⁶P. 19. Can you be serious?

Then come the results to which the application of this method has conducted Drs. Westcott and Hort.⁸⁸⁷⁸⁸⁷P. 20. And first, the fable of the Syrian Text—which Dr. Hort considers to have been the result of a deliberate Recension, conducted on erroneous principles. This fabricated product of the IIIrd and IVth centuries, (you say,) rose to supremacy,—became dominant at Antioch,—passed thence to Constantinople,—and once established there, soon vindicated its claim to be the N. T. of the East: whence it overran the West, and for 300 years as the Textus Receptus, has held undisputed 396 sway.⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸P. 21. Really, my lord Bishop, you describe imaginary events in truly Oriental style. One seems to be reading not so much of the Syrian Text as of the Syrian Impostor. One expects every moment to hear of some feat of this fabulous Recension corresponding with the surrender of the British troops and Arabi's triumphant entry into Cairo with the head of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in his hand!

All this is followed, of course, by the weak fable of the Neutral Text, and of the absolute supremacy of Codex b,—which is stated in Dr. Hort's own words:⁸⁸⁹⁸⁸⁹Pp. 23-4.—viz. b very far exceeds all other documents in neutrality of text, being in fact always, or nearly always, neutral. (The fact being that codex b is demonstrably one of the most corrupt documents in existence.) The posteriority of the (imaginary) Syrian, to the (imaginary) Neutral, is insisted upon next in order, as a matter of course: and declared to rest upon three other considerations,—each one of which is found to be pure fable: viz. (1) On the fable of Conflation, which seems to supply a proof that Syrian readings are posterior both to Western and to Neutral readings—but, (as I have elsewhere⁸⁹⁰⁸⁹⁰Supra, pp. 258-266. shown, at considerable length,) most certainly does not:—(2) On Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence,—of which however not a syllable is produced:—(3) On Transcriptional probability—which is about as useful a substitute for proof as a sweet-pea for a walking-stick.

Widely dissimilar of course is your own view of the importance of the foregoing instruments of conviction. To you, these three reasons taken together seem to make up an argument for the posteriority of the Syrian Text, which it is impossible to resist. They form (you say) a threefold cord of evidence which [you] believe will bear any amount 397 of argumentative strain. You rise with your subject, and at last break out into eloquence and vituperation:—Writers like the Reviewer may attempt to cut the cord by reckless and unverified assertions: but the knife has not yet been fabricated that can equitably separate any one of its strands.⁸⁹¹⁸⁹¹Pp. 25-7.... So effectually, as well as so deliberately, have you lashed yourself—for better or for worse—to Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory, that you must now of necessity either share its future triumphs, or else be a partaker in its coming humiliation. Am I to congratulate you on your prospects?

For my part, I make no secret of the fact that I look upon the entire speculation about which you are so enthusiastic, as an excursion into cloud-land: a dream and nothing more. My contention is,—not that the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort rests on an insecure foundation, but, that it rests on no foundation at all. Moreover, I am greatly mistaken if this has not been demonstrated in the foregoing pages.⁸⁹²⁸⁹²See Art. III.,—viz. from p. 235 to p. 366. On one point, at all events, there cannot exist a particle of doubt; namely, that so far from its not being for you to interpose in this controversy—you are without alternative. You must either come forward at once, and bring it to a successful issue: or else, you must submit to be told that you have suffered defeat, inasmuch as you are inextricably involved in Westcott and Hort's discomfiture. You are simply without remedy. You may find nothing in the Reviewer's third article to require a further answer: but readers of intelligence will tell you that your finding, since it does not proceed from stupidity, can only result from your consciousness that you have made a serious blunder: and that now, the less you say about Westcott and Hort's new textual Theory, the better.