vocacy. If anything could check just or generous
expression, it would be the tone adopted by Dr Lightfoot; but
nevertheless, I again say, in the most unreserved manner, that
neither in this instance, nor in any other, have I had the most
distant intention of attributing 'corrupt motives' to a man like Dr
Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognize, and for whose
earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost that I have at
any time intended to point out is that, utterly possessed as he is
by orthodox views in general, and on the Canon in particular, he
sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and
unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements
which should be more impartially made [137:2].

I am well content to bear this blame when I have elicited this
explanation. A great wrong had been done, and I wished to see it
redressed. But who could have supposed that this was our author's
meaning? Who could have imagined that he had all along felt a 'genuine
respect' for the single-mindedness of one whom he accused of 'discreet
reserve,' of 'unworthy suppression of the truth,' of 'clever evasion,'
of 'ignorant ingenuity or apologetic partiality,' of 'disingenuousness,'
of 'what amounts to falsification,' and the like, and whom in the very
passage which has called forth this explanation he had charged with
yielding to a 'temptation' which was 'too strong for the apologist,' and
'insinuating to unlearned readers' what he knew to be untrue respecting
Basilides? This unfortunate use of language, I contend, is no trifling
matter where the honour of another is concerned; and, instead of his
rebuke, I claim his thanks for enabling him to explain expressions which
could only be understood in one way by his readers, and which have so
grievously misrepresented his true meaning.

I trust also that our author wishes us to interpret the charges which he
has brought against Tischendorf [138:1] in the same liberal spirit. I
certainly consider that Tischendorf took an unfortunate step when he
deserted his proper work, for which he was eminently fitted, and came
forward as an apologist; and, if our author had satisfied himself with
attacking the weak points of his apologetic armour, there would have
been no ground for complaint, and on some points I should have agreed
with him. But I certainly supposed that 'deliberate falsification' meant
'deliberate falsi