6Article II. The New English Version. (pt. 2)
22[14] The Question modestly proposed,—Whether Bp. Ellicott's adoption of Westcott and Hort's “new Textual Theory” does not amount to (what lawyers call) “Conspiracy”?
7Article III. Westcott And Hort's New Textual Theory. (pt. 1)
23[15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the Instructions they received from the Convocation of the Southern Province.
8Article III. Westcott And Hort's New Textual Theory. (pt. 2)
24[16] The calamity of the “New Greek Text” traced to its source.
9[1] Preliminary Statement.
25[17] Bp. Ellicott's defence of the “New Greek Text,” in sixteen particulars, examined.
10[2] The Bishop's pamphlet was anticipated and effectually disposed of, three weeks before it appeared, by the Reviewer's Third Article.
26[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.”
11[3] Bp. Ellicott remonstrated with for his unfair method of procedure.
27[19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16. (pt. 1)
12[4] (Which be “the recognized principles of Textual Criticism”?—a question asked in passing.)
28[19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16. (pt. 2)
13[5] Bp. Ellicott's and the Reviewer's respective methods, contrasted.
29Appendix Of Sacred Codices.
14[6] Bp. Ellicott in May 1870, and in May 1882.
30Index I, of Texts of Scripture,—quoted, discussed, or only referred to in this volume.
15[7] “The fabric of modern Textual Criticism” (1831-81) rests on an insecure basis.
31Index II, of Fathers.
16[8] Bp. Ellicott's strange notions about the “Textus Receptus.”
32Index III, Persons, Places, and Subjects.
