there given add Iren. iii. 25. 2 'Alterum quidem _judicare_ et alterum
quidem salvare dixerunt,' and sect. 3, 'Marcion igitur ipse dividens
Deum in duo, alterum quidem bonum et alterum _judicialem_ dicens,' with
the context.
[121:1] I might add also that it is directly stated in the account of
his martyrdom (§ 13), that he was treated with every honour, [Greek: kai
pro tês polias], 'even before his grey hairs,' as the words ran in
Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 15. The common texts substitute [Greek: kai pro tês
marturias].
[122:1] Hilgenfeld (_Apost. Väter_ p. 273) evidently feels this
difficulty, and apologises for it.
[123:1] This reference to 1 Tim. ii. 2 is pointed out in Jacobson's
note.
[123:2] See above, p. 15 sq.
[124:1] See above, p. 20.
[124:2] See above, p. 17 sq.
[124:3] _S.R._ 1. p. 423.
[124:4] Credner _Einleitung_ p. 209 sq.
[125:1] The author, in his reply, calls attention to the fact that the
language of the other writers to whom he gives references in his
footnote is too clear to be misunderstood.
[125:2] I do not think I can have misapprehended our author's meaning,
but it is best to give his own words: 'Now even Tischendorf does not
pretend that this [a saying cited in the Epistle of Barnabas] is a
quotation of Matt. xx. 16, "Thus the last shall be first, and the first
last" ([Greek: outôs esontai oi eschatoi prôtoi kai oi prôtoi
eschatoi]), the sense of which is quite different. The application of
the saying in this place in the first Synoptic Gospel is evidently quite
false, and depends merely on the ring of words and not of ideas. Strange
to say, _it is not found in either of the other Gospels_; but, like the
famous phrase which we have been considering, it nevertheless appears
twice quite irrelevantly, in two places of the first Gospel. In xix. 30,
it is quoted again with slight variation: "But many first shall be last,
and last first,"' etc. _S.R._ I. p. 247. The italics are my own.
[125:3] _S.R._ I. p. 200 sq.
[125:4] Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12. The point to be observed is, that
St Paul treats the fact of his working miracles as a matter of course,
to which a passing reference is sufficient.
[125:5] [See above, p. 9.]
[126:1] _S.R._ I. p. 113.
[126:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9 sq.
[126:3] [See above, p. 3 sq.]
[126:4] See above, p. 53 sq.
[127:1] [See below, p. 194 sq.]
[127:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 5. The author states that he
'actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai de tên
diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of showing the
construction.' The impression however which his own language left on my
mind was quite different. It suggested that he inserted the words not
for this purpose, but for quite another, namely, to show that there was
nothing corresponding to Tischendorf's 'they say,' or Dr Westcott's
'they taught,' in the original, and so to justify his charge of
'falsification.' If the reader will refer to the context, and more
especially to note 4 on p. 328 of the second volume of _Supernatural
Religion_ (in the editions before the fourth), he will see what strong
justification I had for taking this view.
[127:3] _S.R._ II. p. 330.
[128:1] I ought to add that these alterations do not appear to have been
made in all copies of the fourth edition. I am informed by a
correspondent that in his copy the whole passage stands as in the
earlier editions.
[128:2] _Inquirer_, Nov. 7, 1874. 'Elsewhere a blunder on the part of
the writer is made the occasion of a grave charge against Dr Tischendorf
and Canon Westcott. They are accused of deliberately falsifying etc....
His own translation however overlooks the important fact that at the
critical point in question Irenæus passes from the direct to the
indirect speech. This is made obvious by the employment of the
infinitive in place of the indicative. The English language affords no
means of indicating this change except by the introduction of some such
phrases as those employed by Tischendorf and Westcott, which simply
denote the transition to the _obliqua oratio_. To neglect this is to
throw the whole passage into confusion; and the writer's attempt to
fasten a suspicion of dishonesty on the critics whose views he is
combating recoils in the shape of a suggestion of imperfect scholarship
upon himself.'
This occurs in a highly favourable review of the book.
[128:3] See above, p. 3 sq.
[128:4] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 9.
[128:5] [Corresponding to about a page in this reprint, pp. 7, 8 'These
two examples ... Commentaries of Cæsar.']
[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 336. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]
[129:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 23. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]
[129:3] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 7 sq. I need not stop to inquire
whether Tischendorf's 'nicht geschrieben hat' conveys exactly the same
idea which is conveyed in English, 'has not written,' as our author
assumes in his reply.
[129:4] [See above, p. 8.]
[129:5] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 9, note.
[131:1] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 18.
[131:2] [See above, p. 16 sq.]
[131:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5. The passover of the Passion cannot have been
later than A.D. 36, because before the next passover Pilate had been
superseded. This is the only _terminus ad quem_, so far as I am aware,
which is absolutely decisive; and it would allow of a ministry of eight
years. The probability is that it was actually much shorter, but it is
only a probability.
[131:4] [See above, p. 14 sq.]
[132:1] I am afraid however that our author would not agree with me in
regarding it as plainly the language of a man accustomed to think in
Hebrew. He himself says (_S.R._ II. p. 413), 'Its Hebraisms are not on
the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with Hellenic
Greek.' Though the word is printed 'Hellenic,' not only in the four
editions, but likewise in the author's own extract in the _Fortnightly
Review_ (p. 19), I infer from the context, that it ought to be read
'Hellenistic,' [which word is tacitly substituted in ed. 6]. By
'Hellenic' would be meant the common language, as ordinarily spoken by
the mass of the Greeks, and as distinguished from a literary dialect
like the Attic; by 'Hellenistic,' the language of Hellenists, _i.e._,
Greek-speaking Jews. The two things are quite different.
[132:2] _S.R._ II. p. 395.
[133:1] [See above, p. 17 sq.]
[133:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 20.
[134:1] _S.R._ I. p. 469; II. pp. 56, 59, 73, 326. [The last reference
should be omitted: the words had been already withdrawn (ed. 4) before
this Essay was written; but the language in the other references remains
unaltered through six editions, and is only slightly modified in the
Complete Edition.]
[134:2] [_S.R._ II. p. 421; and so ed. 6. The Complete Edition
substitutes 'evident' for 'admitted.']
[136:1] Stanley _Sinai and Palestine_ p. 229.
[136:2] John iv. 35.
[137:1] [See above, p. 20 sq.]
[137:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 13.
[138:1] [See above, pp. 5, 55, 128.]
[138:2] [See above, p. 26.]
[139:1] _S.R._ I. p. 210. The italics are mine.
[139:2] Towards the close of his Reply the author makes some remarks on
a 'Personal God,' in which he accuses me of misunderstanding him. It may
be so, but then I venture to think that he does not quite understand
himself, as he certainly does not understand me. I do not remember that
he has anywhere defined the terms 'Personal' and 'Anthropomorphic,' as
applied to Deity; and without definition, so many various conceptions
may be included under the terms as to entangle a discussion hopelessly.
No educated Christian, I imagine, believes in an anthropomorphic Deity
in the sense in which this anthropomorphism is condemned in the noble
passage of Xenophanes which he quotes in the first part of his work. In
another sense, our author himself in his concluding chapter betrays his
anthropomorphism; for he attributes to the Divine Being wisdom and
beneficence and forethought, which are conceptions derived by man from
the study of himself. Indeed, I do not see how it is possible to
conceive of Deity except through some sort of anthropomorphism in this
wider sense of the term, and certainly our author has not disengaged
himself from it.
In spite of our author's repudiation in his reply, I boldly claim the
writer of the concluding chapter of _Supernatural Religion_ as a
believer in a Personal God, in the only sense in which I understand
Personality as applied to the Divine Being. He distinctly attributes
will and mind to the Divine Being, and this is the very idea of
personality, as I conceive the term. He not only commits himself to a
belief in a Personal God, but also in a wise and beneficent Personal God
who cares for man. On the other hand, the writer of the first part of
the work seemed to me to use arguments which were inconsistent with
these beliefs.
[142:1] Iren. v. 33. 4 [Greek: Iôannou men akoustês, Polukarpou de
hetairos gegonôs].
[143:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: Ouk oknêsô de soi kai hosa pote
para tôn presbuterôn kalôs emathon kai kalôs emnêmoneusa sunkatataxai]
[v.l. [Greek: suntaxai]] [Greek: tais hermêneiais, diabebaioumenos huper
autôn alêtheian, k.t.l.] This same reference will hold for all the
notices from Eusebius which are quoted in this article, unless otherwise
stated.
[144:1] See above, p. 96 sq.
[145:1] _Hær._ iv. 27. 1, 3; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; v. 5. 1; v. 33. 3;
v. 36. 1, 2.
[145:2] _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55, 'The blessed elder Irenæus.' Clement
of Alexandria uses the same phrase of Pantænus; Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 14.
[145:3] _H.E._ iii. 3; v. 8; vi. 13.
[145:4] Heb. xi. 2.
[146:1] Weiffenbach _Das Papias-Fragment_ (Giessen, 1874) has advocated
at great length the view that Papias uses the term as a title of office
throughout, p. 34 sq; but he has not succeeded in convincing subsequent
writers. His conclusions are opposed by Hilgenfeld _Papias von
Hierapolis_ p. 245 sq (in his _Zeitschrift_, 1875), and by Leimbach _Das
Papias-Fragment_ p. 63 sq. Weiffenbach supposes that the elders are
distinguished from the Apostles and personal disciples whose sayings
Papias sets himself to collect. This view demands such a violent
wresting of the grammatical connection in the passage of _Papias_ that
it is not likely to find much favour.
[146:2] In illustration of this use, it may be mentioned that in the
Letter of the Gallican Churches (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1) the term is applied
to the Zacharias of Luke i. 5 sq.
[146:3] 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, 17, 19.
[147:1] See above, p. 103 sq.
[147:2] See Clinton, _Fast. Rom._ II. p. 385.
[147:3] This difficulty however cannot be regarded as serious. At the
last (the sixtieth) anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, the _Times_
gave the names of no fewer than seventy-six Waterloo officers as still
living.
[148:1] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 481 sq (ed. Bonn.); Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 15.
[148:2] There is no indication that the author of this Chronicle used
any other document in this part besides the History of Eusebius and the
extant Martyrology of Polycarp which Eusebius here quotes.
[149:1] The martyrdom of Papias is combined with that of Polycarp in the
Syriac Epitome of the _Chronicon of Eusebius_ (p. 216, ed. Schöne). The
source of the error is doubtless the same in both cases.
[149:2] _S.R._ i. p. 448.
[149:3] I had taken the latter view in an article on Papias which I
wrote for the _Contemporary Review_ some years before these Essays; but
I think now that the Apostle is meant, as the most ancient testimony
points to him. I have given my reasons for this change of opinion in
_Colossians_ p. 45 sq.
[149:4] Acts xxi. 9.
[150:1] See above, p. 90.
[150:2] The chapter relating to Papias is the thirty-ninth of the third
book; those relating to Polycarp are the fourteenth and fifteenth of the
fourth book, where they interpose between chapters assigned to Justin
Martyr and events connected with him.
[150:3] It is true that he uses the present tense once, [Greek: ha te
Aristiôn kai ho presbuteros Iôannês ... _legousin_] [see above, p. 143],
and hence it has been inferred that these two persons were still living
when the inquiries were instituted. But this would involve a
chronological difficulty; and the tense should probably be regarded as a
historic present introduced for the sake of variety.
[150:4] _S.R._ I. p. 444, 'About the middle of the second century.'
Elsewhere (II. p. 320) he speaks of Papias as 'flourishing in the second
half of the second century.'
[151:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ 51 sq (p. 271 sq), 80 sq (p. 307);
Irenæus _Hær._ v. 81 sq; Tertullian _adv. Marc._ iii. 24, _de Resurr.
Carn._ 24.
[151:2] _Ep. Barn._ § 15.
[151:3] See above, p. 32 sq.
[152:1] See above, p. 41 sq.
[152:2] These are the expressions employed elsewhere of this Gospel;
_H.E._ iii. 25, 27; iv. 22.
[152:3] _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: hên to kat' Hebraious euangelion
periechei].
[152:4] Clem. _Strom._ ii. 9 (p. 453). Our author says, 'Clement of
Alexandria quotes it [the Gospel according to the Hebrews] with quite
the same respect as the other Gospels' (_S.R._ i. p. 422). He cannot
have remembered, when he wrote this, that Clement elsewhere refuses
authority to a saying in an Apocryphal Gospel because 'we do not find it
in the four Gospels handed down to us' (_Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553).
'Origen,' writes our author again, 'frequently made use of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews' (_l.c._). Yes; but Origen draws an absolute
line of demarcation between our four Gospels and the rest. He even
illustrates the relation of these Canonical Gospels to the Apocryphal by
that of the true prophets to the false under the Jewish dispensation.
_Hom. I. in Luc._ (III. p. 932). Any reader unacquainted with the facts
would carry away a wholly false impression from our author's account of
the use made of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
[152:5] _S.R._ I. pp. 272 sq, 332 sq. The fact that Eusebius did not
know the source of this quotation (_H.E._ iii. 36), though he was well
acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, seems to me to
render this very doubtful.
[153:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3817, [Greek: Papia Dii sôtêri].
[153:2] Boeckh 3930, 3912a App.: Mionnet iv. p. 301.
[153:3] Boeckh 3817.
[153:4] Galen _Op._ xii. p. 799 (ed. Kühn).
[153:5] One Rabbi Papias is mentioned in the Mishna _Shekalim_ iv. 7;
_Edaioth_ vii. 6. I owe these references to Zunz _Namen der Juden_ p.
16.
[153:6] See above, p. 142.
[153:7] See above, p. 89 sq.
[154:1] [Greek: ho panu, ho polus]. The first passage will be found in
the original Greek in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 15 (comp. Migne _Patr.
Græc._ lxxxix. p. 860, where only the Latin 'clarissimus' is given);
the second in Migne _ib._ p. 961 (comp. Routh _l.c._ p. 16, where
again only the Latin 'celebris' is given).
[155:1] Whether the first word should be singular or plural,
'Exposition' ([Greek: exêgêsis]) or 'Expositions' ([Greek: exêgêseis]),
I need not stop to inquire. The important points are (1) that Papias
uses [Greek: logiôn], not [Greek: logôn], 'oracles,' not 'words' or
'sayings'; (2) that he has [Greek: kuriakôn logiôn], not [Greek: logiôn
tou Kuriou]--'Dominical Oracles,' not 'Oracles of the Lord.' I shall
have occasion hereafter to call attention to both these facts, which are
significant, as they give a much wider range to his subject-matter than
if he had used the alternative expressions.
[155:2] _S.R._ I. p. 434 sq.
[156:1] So again, I. p. 484 sq, 'Whatever books Papias knew, however, it
is certain, from his own express declaration, that he ascribed little
importance to them, and preferred tradition as a more reliable source of
information regarding Evangelical history,' etc. See also II. p. 820 sq.
[156:2] _H.E._ iv. 23, v. 8.
[156:3] See below, p. 160.
[157:1] The references will be found above, p. 154.
[157:2] The proper word, if the work had been what our author supposes,
was not [Greek: exêgêsis] but [Greek: diêgêsis], which Eusebius uses
several times of the anecdotes related by Papias; _H.E._ iii. 39.
[158:1] This attempt has recently been made by Weiffenbach _Das
Papias-Fragment_ p. 16 sq; and it is chiefly valuable as a testimony to
the real significance of the words, which can only be set aside by such
violent treatment. Weiffenbach is obliged to perform two acts of
violence on the sentence: (1) He supposes that there is an anacoluthon,
and that the [Greek: _kai hosa pote_] here is answered by the words
[Greek: _ei_ de pou _kai_ parêkolouthêkôs], which occur several lines
below. (2) He interprets [Greek: tais hermêneiais] 'the interpretations
belonging to them.' Each of these by itself is harsh and unnatural in
the extreme; and the combination of the two may be safely pronounced
impossible. Even if his grammatical treatment could be allowed, the fact
will still remain that the _interpretations are presupposed_.
Weiffenbach's constructions of this passage are justly rejected by the
two writers who have written on the subject since his essay appeared,
Hilgenfeld and Leimbach.
[158:2] Hær. v. 33. 1 sq.
[158:3] It may be observed in passing, as an illustration of the
looseness of early quotations, that this passage, as given by Irenæus,
does not accord with any one of the Synoptic Evangelists, but combines
features from all the three.
[159:1] The view that Papias took _written_ Gospels as the basis of his
interpretations is maintained by no one more strongly than by Hilgenfeld
in his recent works; _Papias von Hierapolis_ (_Zeitschrift_, 1875) p.
238 sq; _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (1875), pp. 53 sq, 454 sq.
But it seems to me that he is not carrying out this view to its logical
conclusion, when he still interprets [Greek: biblia] of Evangelical
narratives, and talks of Papias as holding these written records in
little esteem.
[160:1] _Hær._ Præf. 1; see also i. 3. 6: 'Not only do they attempt to
make their demonstrations from the Evangelical and Apostolic [writings]
by perverting the interpretations and falsifying the expositions [Greek:
exêgêseis], but also from the law and the prophets; as ... being able to
wrest what is ambiguous into many [senses] by their exposition' [Greek:
dia tês exêgêseôs].
[161:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17, p. 898.
[161:2] Compare also the language of Hippolytus respecting the books of
the Naassenes; _Hær._ v. 7, 'These are the heads of very numerous
discourses ([Greek: pollôn panu logôn]), which they say that James,'
etc.
[161:3] This same epithet 'foreign' ([Greek: allotrios]) is applied
several times in the Ignatian Epistles to the Gnostic teaching which the
writer is combating; _Rom._ inscr., _Trall._ 6, _Philad._ 3.
[161:4] Reasons are given by Dr Westcott in the fourth edition of his
_History of the Canon_ p. 288.
[Footnote 5] _Strom._ iv. 12, p. 599.
[162:1] The following passage in _Supernatural Religion_ is highly
instructive, as showing the inconsistencies involved in the author's
view (I. p. 485): 'It is not possible that he [Papias] could have found
it better to inquire "what John or Matthew, or what any other of the
disciples of the Lord ... say," if he had known of Gospels such as
ours,' ['and believed them to have been' inserted in the Complete
Edition] 'actually written by them, deliberately telling him what they
had to say. The work of Matthew which he mentions being, however, a mere
collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what the
Apostle himself said of the history of the Master.' Here the author
practically concedes the point for which I am contending, and which
elsewhere he resists; for he states that Papias as a sane man must, and
as a matter of fact did, prefer _a book_ to oral tradition. In other
words, he allows that when Papias disparages books (meaning Evangelical
records, such as the St Matthew of Papias was on _any_ showing), he
cannot intend all books of this class, but only such as our author
himself arbitrarily determines that he shall mean. This point is not at
all affected by the question whether the St Matthew of Papias did or did
not contain doings, as well as sayings, of Christ. The only escape from
these perplexities lies in supposing that a wholly different class of
books is intended, as I have explained in the text.
[163:1] _S.R._ I. p. 445. It is not likely that our author would
appreciate the bearing of these references to St Mark, because, as I
pointed out in my first article [see above, p. 8], he mistranslated
[Greek: ouden hêmarte] 'did no wrong,' instead of 'made no mistake,'
thus obscuring the testimony of Papias to the perfect accuracy of the
result of St Mark's conscientious labours. The translation is altered in
the last edition, but the new rendering, 'committed no error in thus
writing,' is ambiguous, though not incorrect.
[165:1] I. p. 456.
[165:2] I. p. 460. [So too ed. 6; but struck out in the Complete
Edition.]
[166:1] I. p. 459.
[167:1] I. p. 460. [So also ed. 6; the word 'ever' disappears in the
Complete Edition.]
[167:2] I. p. 447. This criticism is given above, p. 143 sq.
[167:3] I. p. 447.
[168:1] The manner in which Eusebius will tear a part of a passage from
its context is well illustrated by his quotation from Irenæus, ii. 22.
5:--'A quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo anno declinat jam in aetatem
seniorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat, sicut Evangelium [et omnes
seniores testantur, qui in Asiâ apud Joannem discipulum Domini
convenerunt] id ipsum [tradidisse eis Joannem. Permansit autem cum eis
usque ad Trajani tempora]. Quidam autem eorum non solum Joannem, sed et
alios Apostolos viderunt, et haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt et testantur
de hujusmodi relatione.' Eusebius gives only the part which I have
enclosed in brackets: _H.E._ iii. 23.
[169:1] I. p. 474.
[169:2] [I. p. 475. So also ed. 6; modified in the Complete Edition.]
[171:1] I. p. 465.
[171:2] _Introduction to the New Testament_, I. p. 109 sq (Eng.
Transl.), where there is more to the same effect.
[171:3] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 456 sq. 'An eine blosse
Aufzeichnung der Reden Jesu hat er nicht einmal gedacht.... Nicht eine
blosse Redensammlung, sondern ein vollständiges Evangelium lässt schon
Papias den Matthäus hebräisch geschrieben haben.' See also pp. 54 sq,
454 sq.
[172:1] I. p. 470 sq, 'That Irenæus did not derive his information
solely from Papias maybe inferred,' etc.... 'The evidence furnished by
Pantænus in certainly independent of Papias.'
[172:2] _Einleitung_ pp. 54 sq, 456 sq.
[172:3] Photius _Bibl._ 228.
[173:1] I. p. 464. [And so all later editions.]
[174:1] _De Conj. erud. grat._ 24 (p. 538); _de Profug._ 11 (p. 555).
Elsewhere he says that all things which are written in the sacred books
(of Moses) are oracles ([Greek: chrêsmoi]) pronounced ([Greek:
chrêsthentes]) through him; and he proceeds to distinguish different
kinds of [Greek: logia] (_Vit. Moys._ iii. 23, p. 163).
[174:2] Clem. Rom. 53 [Greek: enkekuphate eis ta _logia_ tou [Theou].]
Elsewhere (§ 45) he uses the expression [Greek: enkuptein eis
tas graphas].
[174:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 7.
[174:4] Iren. _Hær._ i. 8. 1.
[174:5] Clem. Alex. _Coh. ad Gent._ p. 84 (ed. Potter), _Strom._ i. p.
392.
[175:1] _De Princ_. iv. 11 (I. p. 168, Delarue), _in Matth._ x. § 6
(III. p. 447).
[175:2] _Hom._ xi. 5 (II. p. 96); _ib._ xii. 1 (p. 97).
[175:3] See p. 163.
[176:1] I. p. 466.
[176:2] Our author has not mentioned the various reading [Greek: logôn]
for [Greek: logiôn] here, though Hilgenfeld speaks of it as the reading
of the 'best editions.' If it were correct, it would upset his argument;
but the most recent critical editor, Laemmer, has adopted [Greek:
logiôn].
[177:1] Iren. _Hær._ v. 20. 2; Dion. Cor. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.
[177:2] _Ep. Barn._ 4, 5. The bearing of this fact on the testimony of
Papias is pointed out in an able and scholarly article on _Supernatural
Religion_ in the April [1875] number of the _Dublin Review_, p. 403.
[177:3] [The Essay on the Epistle of Barnabas was never written; see the
Preface to this Reprint.]
[178:1] See above, p. 34 sq.
[178:2] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46 sq.]
[179:1] [Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, pp. xi--xxiii.]
[179:2] [The passage quoted occurs above, p. 38 'Eusebius therefore
proposes--however precise.']
[179:3] Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xv.
[180:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]
[180:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi.
[182:1] Iren. _Hær._ iii. 11. 1.