[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: outos esontai oi eschatoi protoi kai oi protoi 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 pa.s.sing 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 ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos], 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 pa.s.sage 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 Irenaeus pa.s.ses 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 pa.s.sage 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 Caesar.']

[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 a.s.sumes 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 pa.s.sover of the Pa.s.sion cannot have been later than A.D. 36, because before the next pa.s.sover 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 h.e.l.lenic Greek.' Though the word is printed 'h.e.l.lenic,' 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 'h.e.l.lenistic,' [which word is tacitly subst.i.tuted in ed. 6]. By 'h.e.l.lenic' would be meant the common language, as ordinarily spoken by the ma.s.s of the Greeks, and as distinguished from a literary dialect like the Attic; by 'h.e.l.lenistic,' the language of h.e.l.lenists, _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 subst.i.tutes '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 G.o.d,' 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 n.o.ble pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, but also in a wise and beneficent Personal G.o.d 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: Ioannou men akoustes, Polukarpou de hetairos gegonos].

[143:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: Ouk okneso de soi kai hosa pote para ton presbuteron kalos emathon kai kalos emnemoneusa sunkatataxai]

[v.l. [Greek: suntaxai]] [Greek: tais hermeneiais, diabebaioumenos huper auton aletheian, 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.