A Reply to Dr. Lightfoots Essays | Page 2

gave at the time of
their appearance. The first Essay appeared in the Fortnightly Review,
and others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of Supernatural
Religion, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the portions
attacked, where reply seemed necessary. I cannot hope that readers will
refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is published with
the view of affording a convenient form of reference for those
interested in the discussion. I add brief notes upon those Essays which
did not require separate treatment at the time, and such further
explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my
statements. Of course, the full discussion of Dr. Lightfoot's arguments
must still be sought in the volumes of Supernatural Religion, but I trust
that I may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his
allegations and their bearing on my argument.
I have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without any
alteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the

first time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position to wind
up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally show the
inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot's treatment. But I have still more been
moved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easier
reach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not
contain them.
Dr. Lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. I do not think
that I am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my
opinions; but I may distinctly say that I have always held that
arguments upon very serious subjects should be impersonal, and neither
gain weight by the possession of a distinguished name nor lose by the
want of it. I leave the Bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and I
take my stand upon the basis of reason and not of reputation.

CONTENTS
I. A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON
"SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES
III. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA
IV. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS
V. MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS
APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES
VI. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL
VII. TATIAN'S "DIATESSARON"
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
[ENDNOTES]
INDEX.

I.
_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON
"SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."_ [Endnote 1:1]
The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important, that
it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work should
receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his
remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible
that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge fairly

either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and in every
undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws and
mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose
perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained
application. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel
otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes
which can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing
more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments
which may be fallacious.
Reluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of
silent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the
face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the case
is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of the
Rev. Dr. Lightfoot's article upon Supernatural Religion in the
December number of the "Contemporary Review." Whilst delivering
severe lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching
temperance and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes
happens, falls very short of his precept. The example of moderation
presented to me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying,
his impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I
fail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew
Arnold so justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article,
and I trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat
Dr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand.
I should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his attack
at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience and divert
attention from the issues of a serious argument by general detraction.
The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be pronounced
original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the threadbare maxim:
"A bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney," remains in force; and it is
surprising how effectual the simple practice still is. If it were granted,
for