This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the “misfortune to dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in maintaining.”  I have no objection to his disputing anything.  All that I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there is anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of Dr. Lightfoot.  Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what I objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme.  But although I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who says “that there is this distinction of dwelling,” &c., I did what was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction, a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a “fairly trained schoolboy.”  I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note, the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below, but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek:  einai de ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos], for the express purpose of showing the construction.  That I did not myself mistake the point is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make any objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott, beyond condemning the unmarked introduction of precise words, and that I proceed to argue that “the presbyters,” to whom the passage is referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the work of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended to maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel.  An observation made to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again.  I immediately withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different from what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which Dr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it as well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this was already published before Dr. Lightfoot’s criticism appeared, and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2]

With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself.  “Tischendorf’s words,” he says, “are ’und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der Herr den Ausspruch gethan.’  He might have spared the ‘sagen sie,’ because the German idiom ‘habe’ enables him to express the main fact that the words were not Irenaeus’s own without this addition.”  Writing of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds:  “But he has not altered any idea which the original contains.” [9:1] I affirm, on the contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea—­that, in fact, he has warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted to point out that the words just quoted are introduced