The plural pronoun is used, indicating the sect, Basilides and his followers. Therefore our author says there is uncertainty as to who he is when used in the same sentence. He says "Hippolytus is giving an epitome of the views of the school with nothing more definite than a subjectless φησἱ (he says) to indicate who is referred to. None of the quotations which we have considered are directly referred to Basilides himself, but they are introduced by the utterly vague expression, 'He says' (φησἱ), without any subject accompanying the verb." The suggestion (p. 51) that Hippolytus "consciously or unconsciously, in the course of transfer to his pages, corrected the text," is very unsatisfactory. An intelligent reader cannot fail to see how an obvious inference is avoided, and how ingenuity is taxed to make words square with foregone conclusions. Tischendorf asks: "Who is there so sapient as to draw the line between what the master alone says, and that which the disciples state, without in the least repeating the master?" (p. 59) and our author says, "Tischendorf solves the difficulty by referring everything indiscriminately to the master" (p. 59). To say that Tischendorf does this is reckless assertion. When our author has to account for such a passage in Basilides as, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee," he says it _happens_ to agree with the words in Luke i. 55; and resorts to his usual mode of avoiding the acknowledgment that such a verbatim quotation is against his hypothesis, by saying, "There is good reason for concluding that the narrative to which it belongs was contained in other Gospels." The following sentence is startling, and apt to mislead those who do not take the trouble to be sure of his meaning. He says (p. 67): "Nothing, however, can be clearer than the fact that this quotation, by whomsoever made, is not taken from our Third Synoptic, inasmuch as there does not exist a single MS. which contains such a passage." What does he mean? We turn to Luke i. 35, and read: "The Holy _Ghost_ shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the _Son of God_." Does he mean the whole passage is not in any MS? No: he means the following, with the slight variation at the end, is not in any MS. "The Holy _Spirit_ shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore the thing begotten of thee shall be called _holy_." Only the words in italics are different in the two passages, and the meaning is the same, the only difference being that the latter does not include the words "the Son of God." The remark that the quotation _happens_ to agree with the passage in Luke i. 35, should not be unnoticed.