A Reply to Dr. Lightfoots Essays | Page 9

and the introduction
of the words "as well as St. Mark," seem at once to impart a full flavour
of orthodoxy to Basilides which I do not find in the original. I confess
that I fail to see any special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr.
Lightfoot does, let me point out to him that he commences his
quotation--upon the strength of which he accuses me of "manipulating"
a passage, and then founding upon it a charge of unfair
dealing--immediately after the direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work,
in which those inverted commas are given. The words they mark are a
quotation from Clement, and in my re-quotation a few lines lower
down they are equally well indicated by being the only words not put in
italics. The fact is, that Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the
whole case. He has been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that
he has failed to perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this
wonderful illustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness
which pervades the critical portion of this (my) book." [19:3] It rather
exemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article.
Dr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "Dr. Westcott's honour may
safely be left to take care of itself." It would have been much better to
have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such
advocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it would
be the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, in
the most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any
other have I had the most distant intention of attributing "corrupt
motives" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I
recognise, and for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The
utmost that I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly
possessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in
particular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and
unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which
should be more impartially made.

Dr. Lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the
arguments of my adversaries. "The author," he says, "does indeed
single out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic'
writers, and on these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts
and lines of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often
occur in the same books, and even in the same contexts which he
quotes." [20:1] I am exceedingly indebted to Dr. Lightfoot for having
had compassion upon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments,
and for giving me "samples" of the "weightier facts and lines of
reasoning" of apologists which I have ignored.
The first of these with which he favours me is in connection with an
anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius being spoken
of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested regarding
him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlier passage he is
represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:-- "Why, then, does
he not notice the answer which he might have found in any common
source of information, that when the Latin version (the Greek is
wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated into the original
language, [Greek: tois sun autô], the 'anachronism' altogether
disappears?" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparently attach much
weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons for not troubling my
readers with this argument in words which, I hope, may find more
favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on "Christian
Literature and Doctrine," says: "In the ninth chapter Ignatius is spoken
of as a martyr, an example to the Philippians of patience ... In the
thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests information with regard to
'Ignatius and those with him.' These words occur only in the Latin
translation of the epistle. To get rid of the difficulty which they present,
it has been supposed that the words 'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong
rendering of the Greek [Greek: peri ton met' autou]. And then the
words are supposed to mean, 'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I
heard, but of which I wish particulars) and those who were with him.'
But even the Greek could not be forced into such a meaning as this; and,
moreover, there is no reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the
peculiar difficulty presented by a comparison with the ninth chapter."
[21:2] Dr. Lightfoot, however, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit
to impugn translations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely

handling the tenses of a Greek text which the critic