215-218, was introduced by heretics and harmonized with Arian tenets, and was rejected on the other side.

That some orthodox churchmen fell into the trap, and like those who in these days are not aware of the pedigree and use of the phrase, employed it even for good purposes, is only an instance of a strange phenomenon.

We must not be led only by first impressions as to what is to be taken for the genuine words of the Gospels.

Even if phrases or passages make for orthodoxy, to accept them if condemned by evidence and history is to alight upon the quicksands of conjecture.
A curious instance of a fate like this has been supplied by a critic in the _Athenaeum_, who, when contrasting Dean Burgon's style of writing with mine to my discredit, quotes a passage of some length as the Dean's which was really written by me.

Surely the principle upheld by our opponents, that much more importance than we allow should be attributed to the 'Internal evidence of Readings and Documents,' might have saved him from error upon a piece of composition which characteristically proclaimed its own origin.