“On the other hand there is an etymological difficulty in the way of this identification. ’Askar begins with the letter ’Ain, which Sychar does not appear to have contained; a letter too stubborn and enduring to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name ...  These considerations have been stated not so much with the hope of leading to any conclusion on the identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless, as with the desire to show that the ordinary explanation is not nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed to be.” [34:3]

Mr. Grove is very right.

I have been careful only to quote from writers who are either “apologetic,” or far from belonging to heterodox schools.  Is it not perfectly clear that no place of the name of Sychar can be reasonably identified?  The case, in fact, simply stands thus:—­As the Gospel mentions a town called Sychar, apologists maintain that there must have been such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site for it.  It is certain, however, that even in the days of St. Jerome there was no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers have not since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations.

With regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notes constitute a “subtle mode of intimidation” and “literary browbeating,” Canon Lightfoot omits to say that I as fully and candidly refer to those who maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who support me.  It is very possible, considering the number of these references, that I may have committed some errors, and I can only say that I shall very thankfully receive from Dr. Lightfoot any corrections which he may be good enough to point out.  Instead of intimidation and browbeating, my sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious further to examine questions in debate, works in which they may find them discussed.  It is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinions with perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed by anyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be made acquainted with the true state of the case.  As Dr. Mozley rightly and honestly says:  “The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief rather to the outward influence of custom and education than to any strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many, if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would not find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing as they appear to find it.” [36:1]

I shall not here follow Dr. Lightfoot into his general remarks regarding my ‘conclusions,’ nor shall I proceed, in this article, to discuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through his misunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding the Supreme Being.  I am almost inclined to think that I can have the pleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, before coming to