ugh to send me an
early copy of his fourth edition, and I sincerely thank him for his
courtesy. Unfortunately it arrived too late for me to make any use of it
in my previous article. With one exception however, I have not noticed
that my criticisms are affected by any changes which may have been made.
But this single exception is highly important. A reader, with only the
fourth edition before him, would be wholly at a loss to understand my
criticism, and therefore some explanation is necessary.

In my former article [53:1] I pointed out that the author had founded a
charge of 'falsification' against Dr Westcott on a grammatical error of
his own. He had treated the infinitive and indicative moods as the same
for practical purposes; he had confused the oblique with the direct
narrative; he had maintained that the passage in question (containing a
reference to St John) was Irenaeus' own, whereas the grammar showed that
Irenaeus was repeating the words of others; and consequently, he had
wrongly accused Dr Tischendorf and Dr Westcott, because in their
translations they had brought out the fact that the words did not belong
to Irenaeus himself.

I place the new note relating to Dr Westcott side by side with the old
[54:1]:--

FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
'Having just observed that a note | 'Canon Westcott, who quotes
in this place, in previous | this passage in a note (_On the
editions, has been understood as | Canon_ p. 61, note 2), translates
an accusation against Dr Westcott | here, "This distinction of dwelling,
of deliberate falsification of | they taught, exists" etc.
the text of Irenaeus, we at once | The introduction of "they taught"
withdraw it with unfeigned regret | here is most unwarrantable; and
that the expressions used could | being inserted, without a word
bear an interpretation so far | of explanation or mark showing
from our intention. _We desired | its addition by the translator, in
simply to object to the insertion | a passage _upon whose interpretation
of "they taught"_ (_On the Canon_ | there is difference of opinion_,
p. 61, note 2), without some | and whose origin is in dispute, it
indication, in the absence of the | amounts to a falsification of the
original text, that these words | text. Dr Westcott neither gives
were merely supplementary and | the Greek nor the ancient Latin
conjectural. The source _o