by the distinct assertion “that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters, those high authorities of Papias.”  The German apologist, therefore, not giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the “habe,” quietly inserts “say they,” in reference to these “high authorities of Papias,” without a hint that these words are his own. [9:2]

My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the passage in question, with its reference to “many mansions,” was derived from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus—­not directly from the Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing more than the exegesis of his own day.

The second point of Canon Lightfoot’s attack is in connection with a discussion of the date of Celsus.  Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage from Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows:  “On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes that Origen’s impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile 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 ([Greek:  epangellomenon])—­i.e., in the treatise before him, 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’ ([Greek:  egrapsen huposchomenos]); nor ‘If he has commenced and finished,’ but ’If he commenced and finished’ ([Greek:_arxamenos sunetelese_]).  Thus Origen’s language itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with the earlier passages in his work.” [10:2] These remarks, and the triumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here “an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar,” convey a totally wrong impression of the case.

The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report; [10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give the passage in its place, which I subsequently do.  All the complimentary observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce.  The manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself by Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick of his precursor’s scolding.  Volkmar had paraphrased