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 auto], 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