the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation.
I can assure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him
the full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once
distinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition
[Greek: ho Baptistês]. [15:1]

I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks
me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of
dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says--

"Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:--

"'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who,
as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' ('Canon,'
p. 264)

"The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's
book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating
the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of
St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark
was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of
information, one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author
remarks--

"'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading
system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to,
in the introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as
St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics
are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only
have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact