The next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of
reasoning" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following:

"Again, when he reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the
strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the
often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer
refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the
words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these
words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of
initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that
Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as
misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tübingen
interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which
we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists'
might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [23:1]

I reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I
merely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single
sentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation
in Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: "This, however, does not concern us here, and
we have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus
opposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in
fact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why does
he not also state that I distinctly refer to Tischendorf's denial that
Hegesippus was opposed to Paul? And why does he not further state that,
instead of being the "single notice" from which the view of the
anti-Pauline feelings of Hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based
upon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain?
It was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling
against Paul entertained by a large section of the early Church. What I