enced and finished_', but 'if he
_commenced and finished_' ([Greek: arxamenos sunetelese]) [7:4]. 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 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) [8:1], or of Valentinus (II. p. 63) [8:2], or of Philo (II.
p. 265 sq) [8:3]. Or he may draw his inferences from such renderings as
[Greek; ho logos edelou], 'Scripture declares,' [8:4] or [Greek: kata
korres propelakizein], [8:5] 'to inflict a blow on one side'; or from
such perversions of meaning as 'did no wrong,' twice repeated [8:6] as a
translation of [Greek: ouden hemarte] 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,' [8:7] instead of 'it makes no difference to the faith of
believers,' thus sacrificing sense and grammar alike [8:8]. Or it is
still better illustrated by the following example:--

'Nam ex iis commentatoribus | 'For of the Commentators
quos habemus, Lucam videtur | whom we possess, Marcion seems
Marcion elegisse quem caederet.' | (_videtur_) to have selected Luke,
Tertull. _adv. Marc._ iv. 2. | which he mutilates.' _S.R._
| II. p. 99. [8:9]

Here again tenses and moods are quite indifferent, an imperfect
subjunctive being treated as a present indicative; while at the same
time our author fails to perceive that the "commentatores" are the
Evangelists themselves. His mind seems to be running on the Commentaries
of De Wette and Alford, and he has forgotten the Commentaries of Caesar
[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