Evangelists themselves. His mind seems to be running on the Commentaries
of De Wette and Alford, and he has forgotten the Commentaries of Cæsar
[9:1].

Having shown that the author does not possess the elementary knowledge
which is indispensable in a critical scholar, I shall not stop to
inquire how far he exhibits those higher qualifications of a critic,
which are far more rare--whether for instance he has the discriminating
tact and nice balance of judgment necessary for such a work, or whether
again he realizes how men in actual life do speak and write now, and
might be expected to speak and write sixteen or seventeen centuries
ago--without which qualifications the most painful study and
reproduction of German and Dutch criticism is valueless. These
qualifications cannot be weighed or measured, and I must trust to my
subsequent investigations to put the reader in possession of data for
forming a judgment on these points. At present it will be sufficient to
remark that a scholarly writer might at least be expected not to
contradict himself on a highly important question of Biblical criticism.
Yet this is what our author does. Speaking of the descent of the angel
at the pool of Bethesda (John v. 3, 4) in his first part, he writes:
'The passage is not found in the older MSS of the Fourth Gospel, and it
was probably a later interpolation.' [9:2] But, having occasion towards
the end of his work to refer again to this same passage, he entirely
forgets his previously expressed opinion, and is very positive on the
other side. 'We must believe,' he writes, 'that this passage did
originally belong to the text, and has from an early period been omitted
from the MSS on account of the difficulty it presents.' [10:1] And, to
make the contradiction more flagrant, he proceeds to give a reason why
the disputed words must have formed part of the original text.