[Footnote 6: Hume's Essay, "Of the Academical or Sceptical Philosophy,"

in the _Inquiry concerning the Human Understanding_.--[Many critics of this pa.s.sage seem to forget that the subject-matter of Ethics and aesthetics consists of, matters of fact and existence.--1892.]]

[Footnote 7: Or, to speak more accurately, the physical state of which volition is the expression.--[1892.]]

[Footnote 8: _Declaration on the Truth of Holy Scripture_, _The Times_, 18th December, 1891.]

[Footnote 9: _Declaration_, Article 10.]

[Footnote 10: Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi ecclesiae Catholicae me commoveret auctoritas.--_Contra Epistolam Manichaei_ cap. v.]

[Footnote 11: _Hasisadra's Adventure._]

[Footnote 12: _The Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of Nature_ and _Mr. Gladstone and Genesis._]

[Footnote 13: _Agnosticism; The Value of Witness to the Miraculous; Agnosticism: a Rejoinder; Agnosticism and Christianity; The Keepers of the Herd of Swine_; and _Ill.u.s.trations of Mr. Gladstone's Controversial Methods_.]

[Footnote 14: I employ the words "Supernature" and "Supernatural" in their popular senses. For myself, I am bound to say that the term "Nature" covers the totality of that which is. The world of psychical phenomena appears to me to be as much part of "Nature" as the world of physical phenomena; and I am unable to perceive any justification for cutting the Universe into two halves, one natural and one supernatural.]

[Footnote 15: My citations are made from Teulet's _Einhardi omnia quae extant opera_, Paris, 1840-1843, which contains a biography of the author, a history of the text, with translations into French, and many valuable annotations.]

[Footnote 16: At present included in the Duchies of Hesse-Darmstadt and Baden.]

[Footnote 17: This took place in the year 826 A.D. The relics were brought from Rome and deposited in the Church of St. Medardus at Soissons.]

[Footnote 18: Now included in Western Switzerland.]

[Footnote 19: Probably, according to Teulet, the present Sandhofer-fahrt, a little below the embouchure of the Neckar.]

[Footnote 20: The present Michilstadt, thirty miles N.E. of Heidelberg.]

[Footnote 21: In the Middle Ages one of the most favourite accusations against witches was that they committed just these enormities.]

[Footnote 22: It is pretty clear that Eginhard had his doubts about the deacon, whose pledges he qualifies as _sponsiones incertae_. But, to be sure, he wrote after events which fully justified scepticism.]

[Footnote 23: The words are _scrinia sine clave_, which seems to mean "having no key." But the circ.u.mstances forbid the idea of breaking open.]

[Footnote 24: Eginhard speaks with lofty contempt of the "vana ac superst.i.tiosa praesumptio" of the poor woman's companions in trying to alleviate her sufferings with "herbs and frivolous incantations." Vain enough, no doubt, but the "mulierculae" might have returned the epithet "superst.i.tious" with interest.]

[Footnote 25: Of course there is nothing new in this argument; but it does not grow weaker by age. And the case of Eginhard is far more instructive than that of Augustine, because the former has so very frankly, though incidentally, revealed to us not only his own mental and moral habits, but those of the people about him.]

[Footnote 26: See 1 Cor. xii. 10-28; 2 Cor. vi. 12 Rom. xv, 19.]

[Footnote 27: _A Journal or Historical Account of the Life, Travels, Sufferings, and Christian Experiences, &c., of George Fox._ Ed. 1694, pp. 27, 28.]

[Footnote 28: See the _Official Report of the Church Congress held at Manchester_, October 1888, pp. 253, 254.]

[Footnote 29: In this place and in _Ill.u.s.trations of Mr. Gladstone's Controversial Methods_, there are references to the late Archbishop of York which are of no importance to my main argument, and which I have expunged because I desire to obliterate the traces of a temporary misunderstanding with a man of rare ability, candour, and wit, for whom I entertained a great liking and no less respect. I rejoice to think now of the (then) Bishop's cordial hail the first time we met after our little skirmish, "Well, is it to be peace or war?" I replied, "A little of both." But there was only peace when we parted, and ever after.]

[Footnote 30: Dr. Wace tells us, "It may be asked how far we can rely on the accounts we possess of our Lord's teaching on these subjects." And he seems to think the question appropriately answered by the a.s.sertion that it "ought to be regarded as settled by M. Renan's practical surrender of the adverse case." I thought I knew M. Renan's works pretty well, but I have contrived to miss this "practical" (I wish Dr. Wace had defined the scope of that useful adjective) surrender. However, as Dr.

Wace can find no difficulty in pointing out the pa.s.sage of M. Renan's writings, by which he feels justified in making his statement, I shall wait for further enlightenment, contenting myself, for the present, with remarking that if M. Renan were to retract and do penance in Notre-Dame to-morrow for any contributions to Biblical criticism that may be specially his property, the main results of that criticism, as they are set forth in the works of Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volkmar, for example, could not be sensibly affected.]

[Footnote 31: See De Gobineau, _Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l'Asie Centrale_; and the recently published work of Mr. E.G. Browne, _The Episode of the Bab_.]

[Footnote 32: Here, as always, the revised version is cited.]

[Footnote 33: Does any one really mean to say that there is any internal or external criterion by which the reader of a biblical statement, in which scientific matter is contained, is enabled to judge whether it is to be taken _au serieux_ or not? Is the account of the Deluge, accepted as true in the New Testament, less precise and specific than that of the call of Abraham, also accepted as true therein? By what mark does the story of the feeding with manna in the wilderness, which involves some very curious scientific problems, show that it is meant merely for edification, while the story of the inscription of the Law on stone by the hand of Jahveh is literally true? If the story of the Fall is not the true record or an historical occurrence, what becomes of Pauline theology? Yet the story of the Fall as directly conflicts with probability, and is as devoid of trustworthy evidence, as that of the Creation or that of the Deluge, with which it forms an harmoniously legendary series.]

[Footnote 34: See, for an admirable discussion of the whole subject, Dr.

Abbott's article on the Gospels in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_; and the remarkable monograph by Professor Volkmar, _Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit_ (1882). Whether we agree with the conclusions of these writers or not, the method of critical investigation which they adopt is unimpeachable.]

[Footnote 35: Notwithstanding the hard words shot at me from behind the hedge of anonymity by a writer in a recent number of the _Quarterly Review_, I repeat, without the slightest fear of refutation, that the four Gospels, as they have come to us, are the work of unknown writers.]

[Footnote 36: Their arguments, in the long run, are always reducible to one form. Otherwise trustworthy witnesses affirm that such and such events took place. These events are inexplicable, except the agency of "spirits" is admitted. Therefore "spirits" were the cause of the phenomena.

And the heads of the reply are always the same. Remember Goethe's aphorism: "Alles factische ist schon Theorie." Trustworthy witnesses are constantly deceived, or deceive themselves, in their interpretation of sensible phenomena. No one can prove that the sensible phenomena, in these cases, could be caused only by the agency of spirits: and there is abundant ground for believing that they may be produced in other ways.

Therefore, the utmost that can be reasonably asked for, on the evidence as it stands, is suspension of judgment. And, on the necessity for even that suspension, reasonable men may differ, according to their views of probability.]

[Footnote 37: Yet I must somehow have laid hold of the pith of the matter, for, many years afterwards, when Dean Mansel's Bampton Lectures were published, it seemed to me I already knew all that this eminently agnostic thinker had to tell me.]

[Footnote 38: _Kritik der reinen Vernunft._ Edit. Hartenstein p. 256.]

[Footnote 39: _Report of the Church Congress_, Manchester, 1888, p.

252.]

[Footnote 40: I suppose this is what Dr. Wace is thinking about when he says that I allege that there "is no visible escape" from the supposition of an _Ur-Marcus_ (p. 367). That a "theologian of repute should confound an indisputable fact with one of the modes of explaining that fact is not so singular as those who are unaccustomed to the ways of theologians might imagine.]

[Footnote 41: Any examiner whose duty it has been to examine into a case of "copying" will be particularly well prepared to appreciate the force of the case stated in that most excellent little book, _The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels,_ by Dr. Abbott and Mr. Rushbrooke (Macmillan, 1884). To those who have not pa.s.sed through such painful experiences I may recommend the brief discussion of the genuineness of the "Casket Letters" in my friend Mr. Skelton's interesting book, _Maitland of Lethington_. The second edition of Holtzmann's _Lehrbuch_, published in 1886, gives a remarkably fair and full account of the present results of criticism. At p. 366 he writes that the present burning question is whether the "relatively primitive narrative and the root of the other synoptic texts is contained in Matthew or in Mark. It is only on this point that properly-informed (_sachkundige_) critics differ," and he decides in favour of Mark.]

[Footnote 42: Holtzmann (_Die synoptischen Evangelien_ 1863, p. 75), following Ewald, argues that the "Source A" (= the threefold tradition, more or less) contained something that answered to the "Sermon on the Plain" immediately after the words of our present "Mark," "And he cometh into a house" (iii 19). But what conceivable motive could "Mark" have for omitting it? Holtzmann has no doubt, however, that the "Sermon on the Mount" is a compilation, or as he calls it in his recently-published _Lehrbuch_ (p. 372), "an artificial mosaic work."]

[Footnote 43: See Schurer, _Geschichte des judischen Volkes_, Zweiter Theil, p. 384.]

[Footnote 44: s.p.a.cious, because a young man could sit in it "on the right side" (xv. 5), and therefore with plenty of room to spare.]

[Footnote 45: King Herod had not the least difficulty in supposing the resurrection of John the Baptist--"John, whom I beheaded, he is risen"

(Mark vi. 16).]

[Footnote 46: I am very sorry for the interpolated "in," because citation ought to be accurate in small things as in great. But what difference it makes whether one "believes Jesus" or "believes in Jesus"

much thought has not enabled me to discover. If you "believe him" you must believe him to be what he professed to be--that is "believe in him;" and if you "believe in him" you must necessarily "believe him."]

[Footnote 47: True for Justin: but there is a school of theological critics, who more or less question the historical reality of Paul, and the genuineness of even the four cardinal epistles.]

[Footnote 48: See _Dial. c.u.m Tryphone_, -- 47 and -- 35. It is to be understood that Justin does not arrange these categories in order, as I have done.]

[Footnote 49: I guard myself against being supposed to affirm that even the four cardinal epistles of Paul may not have been seriously tampered with. See note 47 above.]

[Footnote 50: Paul, in fact, is required to commit in Jerusalem, an act of the same character as that which he brands as "dissimulation" on the part of Peter in Antioch.]

[Footnote 51: All this was quite clearly pointed out by Ritschl nearly forty years ago. See _Die Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche_ (1850), p. 108.]