Lord recorded only in St John's Gospel. The passage begins thus:

'As the elders say, then also shall those deemed worthy of the abode in heaven depart thither; and others shall enjoy the delights of paradise; and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they that see Him shall be worthy.'

Then follows the important paragraph which is translated differently by our author' and by Dr Westcott. For reasons which will appear immediately, I place the two renderings side by side:

SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

'But there is to be this distinction of dwelling (elvai dè τὴν διαστολὴν ταύτην τῆς οἰκήσεως) of those bearing fruit the hundred-fold, and of the (bearers of) the sixty-fold, and of the (bearers of) the thirty-fold: of whom some indeed shall be taken up into the heavens, some shall live in Paradise, and some shall inhabit the City, and for that reason (Sià TOUTO-propter hoc) the Lord declared many mansions to be in the (heavens) of my Father (ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου μονὰς εἶναι πολλάς), etc.

On this extract our author remarks that 'it is impossible for any one who attentively considers the whole of this passage and who makes himself acquainted with the manner in which Irenæus conducts his argument, and interweaves it with texts of Scripture, to doubt that the phrase we are considering is

1 S. R. II. p. 328 sq.

2 Canon p. 63, note 2.

3 The Greek is Εἶναι δὲ τὴν διαστο λὴν ταύτην τῆς οἰκήσεως...καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν Κύριον ἐν τοῖς τοῦ

πατρός μου μονὰς εἶναι πολλάς κ.τ.λ.

4.[Tacitly corrected in ed. 4 (II. p. 328) where the sentence runs: 'But... there is this distinction etc.' See below, p. 56.]

introduced by Irenæus himself, and is in no case a quotation from the work of Papias'. As regards the relation of this quotation from the Fourth Gospel to Papias any remarks, which I have to make, must be deferred for the present; but on the other point I venture to say that any fairly trained schoolboy will feel himself constrained by the rules of Greek grammar to deny what our author considers it 'impossible' even 'to doubt.' He himself is quite unconscious of the difference between the infinitive and the indicative, or in other words between the oblique and the direct narrative; and so he boldly translates εἶναι τὴν διαστολήν as though it were ἔσται (or μέλλει εἶναι ἡ διαστολή, and εἰρηκέναι τὸν Κύριον as though it were εἴρηκεν ὁ Κύριος. This is just as if a translator from a German original were to persist in ignoring the difference between 'es sey' and 'es ist' and between 'der Herr sage' and 'der Herr sagt.' Yet so unconscious is our author of the real point at issue, that he proceeds to support his view by several other passages in which Irenæus 'interweaves' his own remarks, because they happen to contain the words dià ToÛTO, though in every instance the indicative and not the infinitive is used. To complete this feat of scholarship he proceeds to charge Dr Westcott with what amounts to a falsification of the text',' because this scholarly writer has inserted the words 'they taught' to show that in the original the sentence containing the reference to St John is in the oblique narrative and therefore reports the words of others. I shall not retort this

1 [The author's defence is dealt with, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.]

2 [The question is discussed below, p. 142 sq, where the author's subsequent explanation is considered.]

3 [This charge is withdrawn in ed. 4 (п. p. 328 n. 3), but objection is still taken to the words 'they taught' as conveying 'too positive a view of the case.' On the character of this withdrawal see below, p. 53 sq.]

4 Our author has already (II. p. 326) accused Tischendorf of 'deliberately

falsifying the text by inserting, "say they." Tischendorf's words are, 'Und deshalb sagen sie habe der Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,' because the German idiom habe' enables him to express the main fact that the words are not Irenæus' own, without this addition. But he has not altered any idea which the original contains; whereas our author himself has suppressed this all-important fact in his own translation. [On this treatment of Tischen.

charge of 'falsification,' because I do not think that the cause of truth is served by imputing immoral motives to those from whom we differ; and indeed the context shows that our author is altogether blind to the grammatical necessity. But I would venture to ask whether it would not have been more prudent, as well as more seemly, if he had paused before venturing, under the shelter of an anonymous publication, to throw out this imputation of dishonesty against a writer of singular candour and moderation, who has at least given to the world the hostage and the credential of an honoured name. It is necessary to add that our author persists in riveting this grammatical error on himself. He returns to the charge again in two later footnotes1 and declares himself to have shown 'that it [the reference to the Fourth Gospel] must be referred to Irenæus himself, and that there is no ground for attributing it to the Presbyters at all.' 'Most critics,' he continues, 'admit the uncertainty? As it will be my misfortune hereafter to dispute not a few propositions which 'most critics' are agreed in maintaining, it is somewhat reassuring to find that they are quite indifferent to the most elementary demands of grammar3.

The passage just discussed has a vital bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the Fourth Gospel. The second example which I shall take, though less important, is not without its value. As in the former instance our author showed his indifference to moods, so here he is equally regardless of tenses. He is discussing the heathen Celsus, who shows an acquaintance with the Evangelical narratives, and whose

date therefore it is not a matter of indifference to ascertain. Origen, in the preface to his refutation of Celsus, distinctly states that this person had been long dead (ồŋ kaì máλai VEKρÓV). In his first book again he confesses his ignorance who νεκρόν). this Celsus was, but is disposed to identify him with a person of the name known to have flourished about a century before his own time1. But at the close of the last book', addressing his friend Ambrosius who had sent him the work, and at whose instance he had undertaken the refutation, he writes (or rather, he is represented by our author as writing) as follows:

'Know, however, that Celsus has promised to write another treatise after this one. If, therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise to write a second book, we may well be satisfied with the eight books in reply to his Discourse. If however, he has commenced and finished this work also, seek it and send it in order that we may answer it also, and confute the false teaching in it etc.3'

On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes that Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had mean while been 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him as a contemporary.' Unfortunately however, the tenses, on which everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen does not say, 'Celsus has promised,' but 'Celsus promises' (èπayуeλλóμevov), i.e. in the treatise before him, for Origen's knowledge was plainly derived from the book itself. And again, he does not say 'If he has not fulfilled his promise to write,' but 'If he did not write as he undertook to do' (eypayev vπоσxóμevos); nor if he has commenced and finished,' but if he commenced and finished' (áp§áμevos σvvetéλeσe). Thus Origen's language itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with the earlier passages in his work.

These two examples have been chosen, not because they are

1 c. Cels. i. 8.

2

c. Cels. viii. 76.

3 S. R. 11. p. 231 sq. [So also the Complete Edition (1879) ñ. p. 229 sq.]

4 There is also another aorist in the part of the sentence, which our author has not quoted, ἄλλο σύνταγμα... ἐν ᾧ διδάξειν ἐπηγγείλατο.

by any means the worst specimens of our author's Greek, but because in both cases an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar. If any reader is curious to see how he can drive his ploughshare through a Greek sentence, he may refer for instance to the translations of Basilides (II. p. 46)1, or of Valentinus (II. p. 63), or of Philo (II. p. 265 sq)3. Or he may draw his inferences from such renderings as ὁ λόγος ἐδήλου, Scripture declares', or κατὰ κόρρης προπηλακίζειν, ‘to infict a blow on one side;' or from such perversions of meaning as 'did no wrong,' twice repeated as a translation of ovdèv 1⁄2μapte in an important passage of Papias relating to St Mark, where this Father really means that the Evangelist, though his narrative was not complete, yet 'made no mistake' in what he did record.

Nor does our author's Latin fare any better than his Greek, as may be inferred from the fact that he can translate nihil tamen differt credentium fidei,' 'nothing nevertheless differs in the faith of believers',' instead of 'it makes no difference to the faith of believers,' thus sacrificing sense and grammar alike. Or it is still better illustrated by the following example :

'Nam ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus, Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet.' Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 2.

:

'For of the Commentators whom we possess, Marcion seems (videtur) to have selected Luke, which he mutilates.' S. R. II.

p. 999.

Here again tenses and moods are quite indifferent, an imperfect subjunctive being treated as a present indicative;

1 [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6 (11. p. 46).]

2 [Some of the grammatical errors are corrected in ed. 6 (11. p. 63), where however new mistranslations are introduced, as woaxŵs 'in divers parts,' and οὕτω μακαρίζεται...ὅτι ὄψεται τὸν Oebv 'becomes so blessed that he shall see God.']

3 [rò pua from 'Reason' becomes 'Word' in ed. 6, but rhoavtes still remains 'they who inquire' (II. p. 265).]

4 II. p. 296 sq. [Corrected in ed. 6.]