d | of the second paragraph (Sec. 2) is
paragraph Irenaeus enlarges upon, | an enlargement or comment on what
and illustrates, what "the | the Presbyters say regarding the
Presbyters say" regarding the | blessedness of the Saints, and
blessedness of the Saints, _by | Irenaeus illustrates the distinction
quoting the view held_ as to the | between those bearing fruit
distinction between those bearing | thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and one
fruit thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and | hundred-fold, so often represented
one hundred-fold, and _the | in the Gospel, _by the saying_
interpretation given of the saying_ | regarding "many mansions" being
regarding "many mansions."' | prepared in Heaven.'

After this our author, in the earlier editions, quotes a number of
passages from Irenaeus to support his view that the words in question
are direct and not oblique, because they happen to begin with [Greek:
dia touto]. It is unfortunate that not one of them is in the infinitive
mood, and therefore they afford no illustration of the point at issue.

'These,' he there adds, 'are _all direct quotations by Irenaeus_,
as is _most certainly_ that which we are considering, which is
introduced in precisely the same way. That this is the case is
further _shown_ etc.... and it is rendered _quite certain_ by the
fact that' etc.

All these false parallels are withdrawn in the fourth edition and the
sentence is rewritten. We are now told that '_the source of his_
(Irenaeus') _quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the
exegesis of his own day_ [57:1].' So then it was a quotation after all,
and the old interpretation, though declared to be 'most certain' and
'quite certain' in two consecutive sentences, silently vanishes to make
room for the new. But why does the author allow himself to spend nine
octavo pages over the discussion of this one passage, freely altering
sentence after sentence to obliterate all traces of his error, without
any intimation to the reader? Had not the public a right to expect more
distinctness of statement, considering that the author had been led by
this error to libel the character of more than one writer? Must not
anyone reading the apology to Dr Westcott, contained in the note quoted
above, necessarily carry off a wholly false impression of the facts?

I add one other passage for comparison:--

FOURTH EDITION. |