can most easily be removed, would not weaken the central argument, and after the Apologist’s ingenuity has been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of Supernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure.  It is, however, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which have “a vital bearing” upon the question at issue, arguments “wrecked” which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change the aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once to reply.  I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to sap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the weakness of his own.  Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has the “misfortune” “to dispute not a few propositions which ’most critics’ are agreed in maintaining.”  He will probably find that “most critics,” for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many points, from most critics.

The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is regarding “a highly important passage of Irenaeus,” containing a reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers that I am “quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive and indicative;” a point upon which “any fairly trained schoolboy” would decide against my reasoning.  I had found fault with Tischendorf in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words “say they,” and “they taught,” in rendering the oblique construction of a passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation, in the total absence of the original, that these special words were supplementary and introduced by the translator.  I shall speak of Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr. Westcott.  Irenaeus (Adv.  Haer. v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what “the presbyters say” regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and he then proceeds (Sec. 2) with indirect construction, indicating a reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced.  This passage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of Hierapolis.  Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text:  “In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears to have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;” [4:1] and in a note on an earlier page:  “The passage quoted by Irenaeus from ’the Elders’ may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of interpretation;” [4:2] and then follows the passage in which the indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of “they taught.” [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the slightest allusion to