1]

I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced
without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias
himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much
more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords
any evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our
believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they
are the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it
cannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him,
the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch
as it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels;
and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so
clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written
documents with which he was acquainted. However important such a
discussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence,
it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of
Divine Revelation.

The next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of
reasoning" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following:

"Again, when he reproduces the Tuebingen fallacy respecting 'the
strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the
often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer
refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the
words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these
words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of
initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that
Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as
misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tuebingen
interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which
we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists'
might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [23:1]

I reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I
merely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single
sentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation
in Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: "This, however, does not concern us here, and
we have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus
opposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in
fact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why