Irenæus with or without acknowledgment, his copy is extremely faithful, and agrees with the Latin version of the model more closely than the Greek of Epiphanius. It would seem, therefore, that our author’s statements, although in no sense unworthy of belief, yet require in many cases strict examination before they can be unhesitatingly accepted.[32] 4. THE COMPOSITION OF THE WORK In these circumstances, and in view of the manifest discrepancies between statements in the earlier part of the text and what purports to be their repetition in the later, the question has naturally arisen as to whether the document before us was written for publication in its present form. It is never referred to or quoted by name by any later author, and although the argument from silence has generally proved a broken reed in such cases, there are here some circumstances which seem to give it unusual strength. It was certainly no reluctance to call in evidence the work of a schismatic or heretical writer which led to the work being ignored, for Epiphanius, a century and a half later, classes Hippolytus with Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria as one from whose writings he has obtained information,[33] and Theodoret, while making use still later of certain passages which coincide with great closeness with some in Book X of our text,[34] admits, as has been said, Hippolytus’ claim to both episcopacy and martyrdom. But the passages in Theodoret which seem to show borrowing from Hippolytus, although possibly, are not necessarily from the work before us. The author of this tells us in Book I that he has “aforetime”[35] expounded the tenets of the heretics “within measure,” and without revealing all their mysteries, and it might, therefore, be from some such earlier work that both Epiphanius and Theodoret have borrowed. Some writers, including Salmon,[36] have thought that this earlier work of our author is to be found in the anonymous tractate _Adversus Omnes Hæreses_ usually appended to Tertullian’s works.[37] Yet this tractate, which is extremely short, contains nothing that can be twisted into the words common to our text and to Theodoret, and we might, therefore, assert with confidence that it was from our text that Theodoret copied them but for the fact that he nowhere indicates their origin. This might be only another case of the unacknowledged borrowing much in fashion in his time, were it not that Theodoret has already spoken of Hippolytus in the eulogistic terms quoted above, and would therefore, one would think, have been glad to give as his informant such respectable authority. As he did not do so, we may perhaps accept the conclusion drawn by Cruice with much skill in a study published shortly after the appearance of Miller’s text,[38] and say with him that Theodoret did not know that the passages in question were to be found in any work of Hippolytus. In this case, as the statements in Book IX forbid us to