instance, that Papias did not refer to our St Mark's Gospel--does not
savour more of the vehemence of the advocate than of the impartiality of
the judge, I must ask the reader to decide for himself. But of the
highly discreditable practice of imputing corrupt motives to those who
differ from us there cannot be two opinions. We have already seen how a
righteous nemesis has overtaken our author, and he has covered himself
with confusion, while recklessly flinging a charge of 'falsification' at
another. Unfortunately however that passage does not stand alone. I will
not take up the reader's time with illustrations of a practice, of which
we have seen more than enough already. But there is one example which is
sufficiently instructive to deserve quoting. 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."' [21:1]

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: (I) to assert the fact
that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition