A Reply to Dr. Lightfoots Essays | Page 7

am quite ready to accept correction even
from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite content to leave to
the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair spirit the
voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism,' in which Dr.
Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely rises above
the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb. [13:1]
I am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical
errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and
magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his
apologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as "a
highly important question of Biblical criticism." In speaking, en
passant, of a passage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the "Age of
Miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally omitted from
vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read, "and it is argued
that it was probably a later interpolation." [14:1] In vol. ii. p. 420, after
again mentioning the rejection of the passage, I proceed to state my
own personal belief that the words must have Originally stood in the
text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of such a context. The second
error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24, in which "only" has been substituted
for "never" in deciphering my MS. Since this is such a
_common-place_ of "apologists," as Dr. Lightfoot points out, surely he

might have put a courteous construction upon the error, instead of
venting upon me so much righteous indignation. I can assure him that I
do not in the slightest degree grudge him the full benefit of the
argument that the fourth Gospel never once distinguishes John the
Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition [Greek: ho Baptistês].
[15:1]
I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks
me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of
dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says--
"Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:--
"'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, as
well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' ('Canon,' p. 264)
"The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's
book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating the
statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of St. Peter by
the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark was an
interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of information,
one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author remarks--
"'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading system
which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to, in the
introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as St. Mark,
was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics are the gratuitous
addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only have been inserted
for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact that Glaucias was
actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition represented Mark to be; or
(2) to insinuate to unlearned readers that Basilides himself
acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the interpreter of Peter. We
can hardly suppose the first to have been the intention, and we regret to
be forced back upon the second, and infer that the temptation to weaken
the inferences from the appeal of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias,
by coupling with it the allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt,
too strong for the apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459)
"Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself. It stands
far too high to be touched by insinuations like these. I only call
attention to the fact that our author has removed Dr. Westcott's inverted
commas, and then founded on the passage so manipulated a charge of
unfair dealing, which could only be sustained in their absence, and

which even then no one but himself would have thought of." [16:1]
In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to quote
Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott says:
"Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times, it is not
surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian doctrine
besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration was still
fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary prophets,
Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror into the
superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar views. At
the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, as well as
St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2] and he also made use