others [5:4]. I shall not retort this charge of 'falsification,' because
I do not think that the cause of truth is served by imputing immoral
motives to those from whom we differ; and indeed the context shows that
our author is altogether blind to the grammatical necessity. But I would
venture to ask whether it would not have been more prudent, as well as
more seemly, if he had paused before venturing, under the shelter of an
anonymous publication, to throw out this imputation of dishonesty
against a writer of singular candour and moderation, who has at least
given to the world the hostage and the credential of an honoured name.
It is necessary to add that our author persists in riveting this
grammatical error on himself. He returns to the charge again in two
later footnotes [6:1] and declares himself to have shown 'that it [the
reference to the Fourth Gospel] must be referred to Irenæus himself,
and that there is no ground for attributing it to the Presbyters at
all.' 'Most critics,' he continues, 'admit the uncertainty [6:2].' As it
will be my misfortune hereafter to dispute not a few propositions which
'most critics' are agreed in maintaining, it is somewhat reassuring to
find that they are quite indifferent to the most elementary demands of
grammar [6:3].

The passage just discussed has a vital bearing on the main question at
issue, the date of the Fourth Gospel. The second example which I shall
take, though less important, is not without its value. As in the former
instance our author showed his indifference to moods, so here he is
equally regardless of tenses. He is discussing the heathen Celsus, who
shows an acquaintance with the Evangelical narratives, and whose date
therefore it is not a matter of indifference to ascertain. Origen, in
the preface to his refutation of Celsus, distinctly states that this
person had been long dead ([Greek: êdê kai palai nekron]). In his first
book again he confesses his ignorance who this Celsus was, but is