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 Baptistes]. [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