ค

ence I have nothing to retract hire be melige reader will see by my refersimindering verse and worse in his

ta mi znam nisstatements. It is indeed tiresome stung ni Lu tamen Castles ".

me rw U te ver narrow of our Schclastikos's reasoning, ipse Lønsi mt London Assurance run mad, all at 1 Air Ven" Vic is made, if possible, more than ever Ind NA TO VLicet ppearing to know it! It is stated that na etimens of the Authorized Version is wretchedly (n the contam I was very rich, embracing with few exceptions 1. the prominent and best editores, according to the expressed opinions sal billbographers and critics. Indeed if any man

104

e this statement I appeal to the Catalogue. Scholastikos however Ir ad sweep admits one exception and says that the collection tans in fact only one volume of any importance, the Bodleian y of the famous Bible of 1631, that is, the Wicked Bible' (see , with the word not left out of the seventh commandment. This ie statement simply proves, I think, that this remarkable critic, kos, must be a clergyman of the high and palmy state and a wit the Society of the Holy Cross. None but a parson carrying ir of sanctity about him would be likely to pronounce the B. ie (reading, by purely typographical error in the seventh ment, Thou shalt commit adultery,') an edition of importance! vre next informed that Scholastikos failed to find a first Oxford a first Cambridge 10 Testament, a Blaney's 11o quarto, a first irst American," etc. or in fact, with the exception of the ⚫ any thing of great note in this department. I answer →g Oxford Testament is as yet an unascertained fact, as far I un 'nclined to think that the New Testament of 1673 in ssued with the first Oxford Bible of 1675, was first issued so, this was the first Oxford Testament, a copy of which "ngs be not admitted then there were two editions of 1679 I know not which of ne Bed'eian, and both scarce.

110

I am sorry to disparage our witling's little e first Oxford Testament, but one is really getting sissed it four or five times during the past season in Saturday Review with as yet no reply. He before CHCPS on Mr Gladstone's speech at the opening of dence in his remarks on Mr Jones's address Sans Convention, page 419, of Oct. 6, in Genealogies, which we are somewhere inof the British Museum. As to the first De reviewer means the little Geneva version of

111

[1590?], in 48m0, it could not be borrowed, only two copies being known to me, both inaccessible. If he means the small edition of 1628 it was there, see No 1066. For the first Blaney's folio and quarto see Nos 1261 and 1262. The first Irish1 was there from the opening of the Exhibition and is described under N° 1216*, dated Dublin, 1714. If these corrective hornets do not sting our Saturday critic then he may be classed among the pachydermatous.

116

We are next told that 'There is a poor116 copy of the Scots Bible in octavo,' etc. On the contrary, this was perhaps the finest book that came to the Exhibition from Scotland, a fine clean and beautifully bound copy, in the original richly tooled binding, the pride of Mr David Laing's collection. It is described under N° 1078 of this catalogue. Who but a critic that is truth-blind could coolly record such false statements? and if he could what is the object of such criticism? It is beyond our comprehension. There seems to be a moral squint in the eye of this writer. You never know when it is looking at you or telling the truth. It is painful to be thus placed on one's guard all the time against rampant ignorance, distorted conceit and warped knowledge. No honest University education, one would think, could possibly have turned out in this country such a master of the long-bow! He is manifestly a graduate of Nature's University, a genus, if not a genius, of his own kind,—a self-made man-who adores his maker—and sees no good in the handiwork of any other Author. I confess that I am tired of commenting upon the prolific misstatements of this critic, and though I have numbered them from 1 to 141 in this single page of the Saturday Review, I must remind him and my readers that all this false criticism relates exclusively to the English Bibles, which formed only a small and later portion of the Bible Exhibition. One trembles for him and the Saturday when he undertakes to discourse upon the early Bibles in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, German, Bohemian, and many other languages, to say nothing of the Great Polyglots, parts of Bibles, etc. which are collated and described in this our little Catalogue-nearly a thousand selected out of about thirty thousand. But I leave the last score or two of my references untouched, having exhausted myself rather than the subject. The Saturday has had its fling and I have now fired my blank cartridge as promised, and come what may, shall continue to read the Review hoping in the future to find as in the past, now and then, an article of sterling merit, true, fair, noble, manly and generous. There are occasional articles in it that refresh one like the balmy breath of the south wind in springtime, and make one forget all these mountains of stuff and nonsense like the writings of Scholastikos and his kind. I ask no remedy, knowing that the Saturday Review is seldom brought to its apologetic knees as it was in italics by the Daily News on the 13th of October last, on its page 467. But I confess I

C*

in 1611 of the present version of our Bible. I have nothing to retract in that note and therefore the intelligent reader will see by my references 100 that the learned critic is floundering worse and worse in his egregious, bumptious, and random misstatements. It is indeed tiresome work this demolishing his old Spanish Castles 1o1.

103

101

104

We come now to the very marrow of our Scholastikos's reasoning, ipse dixit upon ipse dixit! Egotism and London Assurance run mad, all at the expense of our Weakly which is made, if possible, more than ever ridiculous and that too without appearing to know it! It is stated that the collection of editions of the Authorized 102 Version is wretchedly poor. On the contrary, it was very rich, embracing with few exceptions all the prominent and best editions, according to the expressed opinions of trustworthy biblical bibliographers and critics. Indeed if any man challenge this statement I appeal to the Catalogue. Scholastikos however in his broad sweep admits one exception and says that the collection contains in fact only one volume of any importance, the Bodleian copy of the famous Bible of 1631, that is, the 'Wicked Bible' (see No 1075), with the word not left out of the seventh commandment. This remarkable statement simply proves, I think, that this remarkable critic, Scholastikos, must be a clergyman of the high and palmy state and a Fellow of the Society of the Holy Cross. None but a parson carrying such odour of sanctity about him would be likely to pronounce the Wicked Bible' (reading, by purely typographical error in the seventh commandment, Thou shalt commit adultery,) an edition of importance! We are next informed that Scholastikos failed to find a first Oxford Testament," a first CambridgeTM Testament, a Blaney's" quarto, a first Irish," a first American,"* etc. or in fact, with the exception of the Wicked Bible," any thing of great note in this department. I answer that the first Oxford Testament is as yet an unascertained fact, as far as I know. I am inclined to think that the New Testament of 1673 in small quarto, issued with the first Oxford Bible of 1675, was first issued separately. If so, this was the first Oxford Testament, a copy of which is N1107. If this be not admitted then there were two editions of 1679 in octavo, both in the Bodician, and both scarce. I know not which of the two was the earlier. I am sorry to disparage our witling's little conundrum about the first Oxford Testament, but one is really getting zired of it, for he has asked it four or five times during the past season in various articles in the Saturday Review with as yet no reply. He before asked it in his comments on Mr Gladstone's speech at the opening of 252 Caxton Exhibition, and since in his remarks on Mr Jones's address 22 the opening of the Librarians' Convention, page 419, of Oct. 6, in connection with Hamilton's Genealogies, which we are somewhere inTormod is wanting in the library of the British Museum. As to the first Cambridge Testament, if the reviewer means the little Geneva version of

[1590?], in 48mo, it could not be borrowed, only two copies being known to me, both inaccessible. If he means the small edition of 1628 it was there, see N° 1066. For the first Blaney's folio and quarto see Nos 1261 and 1262. The first Irish 111 was there from the opening of the Exhibition and is described under N° 1216*, dated Dublin, 1714. If these corrective hornets do not sting our Saturday critic then he may be classed among the pachydermatous.

116

We are next told that 'There is a poor' copy of the Scots Bible in octavo,' etc. On the contrary, this was perhaps the finest book that came to the Exhibition from Scotland, a fine clean and beautifully bound copy, in the original richly tooled binding, the pride of Mr David Laing's collection. It is described under N° 1078 of this catalogue. Who but a critic that is truth-blind could coolly record such false statements? and if he could what is the object of such criticism? It is beyond our comprehension. There seems to be a moral squint in the eye of this writer. You never know when it is looking at you or telling the truth. It is painful to be thus placed on one's guard all the time against rampant ignorance, distorted conceit and warped knowledge. No honest University education, one would think, could possibly have turned out in this country such a master of the long-bow! He is manifestly a graduate of Nature's University, a genus, if not a genius, of his own kind,—a self-made man—who adores his maker—and sees no good in the handiwork of any other Author. I confess that I am tired of commenting upon the prolific misstatements of this critic, and though I have numbered them from 1 to 141 in this single page of the Saturday Review, I must remind him and my readers that all this false criticism relates exclusively to the English Bibles, which formed only a small and later portion of the Bible Exhibition. One trembles for him and the Saturday when he undertakes to discourse upon the early Bibles in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, German, Bohemian, and many other languages, to say nothing of the Great Polyglots, parts of Bibles, etc. which are collated and described in this our little Catalogue-nearly a thousand selected out of about thirty thousand. But I leave the last score or two of my references untouched, having exhausted myself rather than the subject. The Saturday has had its fling and I have now fired my blank cartridge as promised, and come what may, shall continue to read the Review hoping in the future to find as in the past, now and then, an article of sterling merit, true, fair, noble, manly and generous. There are occasional articles in it that refresh one like the balmy breath of the south wind in springtime, and make one forget all these mountains of stuff and nonsense like the writings of Scholastikos and his kind. I ask no remedy, knowing that the Saturday Review is seldom brought to its apologetic knees as it was in italics by the Daily News on the 13th of October last, on its page 467. But I confess I