e last words stood
'certainly a late interpolation' in the first edition, so that the
passage had undergone revision, while yet the contradiction had been
suffered to remain.

In justice to our author, I will give his reply in his own words:--

The words 'it is argued that' were accidentally omitted from vol.
i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read, 'and it is argued
that it was probably a later interpolation [126:2].'

To this the following note is appended:--

I altered 'certainly' to 'probably' in the second edition, as Dr
Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of
exaggeration, but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that
I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness,
reporting the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive
the absence of the words given above.

This omission runs through four editions.

But more perplexing still is the author's use of language.

The reader will already have heard enough of the passage in Irenaeus,
where this Father quotes some earlier authority or authorities who refer
to the fourth Gospel; but I am compelled to allude to it again. In my
first article I had accused the author of ignoring the distinction
between the infinitive and indicative--between the oblique and direct
narrative--and maintaining, in defiance of grammar, that the words might
very well be Irenaeus' own [126:3]. In my second article I pointed out
that whole sentences were tacitly altered or re-written or omitted in
the fourth edition, and that (as I unhesitatingly inferred) he had found
out his mistake [126:4]. I have read over the passage carefully again in
its earlier form in the light of the explanation which the author gives
in his reply, and I cannot put any different interpretation on his
language. It seems to me distinctly to aim at proving two things: (1)
That there is no reason for thinking that the passage is oblique at all,
or that Irenaeus is giving anything else besides his own opinion (pp.
326-331); and (2) That, even supposing it to be oblique, there is no
ground for identifying the authorities quoted with the presbyters of
Papias (pp. 331-334). With this last question I have not concerned
myself hitherto. It will come under discussion in a later article, when
I shall have occasion to treat of Papias [127:1]. It was to the first
point alone that my remarks referred. The author however says in h