[Footnote 16:  The Romans practised fornication at pleasure, and held it ridiculous to blame them.  If Paul had claimed authority to hinder them, they might have been greatly exasperated; but they had not the least objection to his denouncing fornication as immoral to Christians.  Why not slavery also?]

[Footnote 17:  I fear it cannot be denied that the zeal for Christianity which began to arise in our upper classes sixty years ago, was largely prompted by a feeling that its precepts repress all speculations concerning the rights of man.  A similar cause now influences despots all over Europe.  The Old Testament contains the elements which they dread, and those gave a political creed to our Puritans.]

[Footnote 18:  More than one critic flatly denies the fact.  It is sufficient for me here to say, that such is the obvious interpretation, and such historically has been the interpretation of various texts,—­for instance, 2 Thess. i. 7:  “The Lord Jesus shall be revealed... in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction,” &c.  Such again is the sense which all popular minds receive and must receive from Heb, x. 25-31.—­I am willing to change teaches into has always been understood to teach, if my critics think anything is gained by it.]

[Footnote 19:  The four monarchies in chapters ii. and vii, are, probably, the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, the Macedonian.  Interpreters however blend the Medes and Persians into one, and then pretend that the Roman empire is still in existence.]

[Footnote 20:  The first apparent reference is by Micah (vi. 5) a contemporary of Hezekiah; which proves that an account contained in our Book of Numbers was already familiar.]

[Footnote 21:  I have had occasion to discuss most of the leading prophecies of the Old Testament in my “Hebrew Monarchy.”]

[Footnote 22:  A critic is pleased to call this a mere suspicion of my own; in so writing, people simply evade my argument.  I do not ask them to adopt my conviction; I merely communicate it as mine, and wish them to admit that it is my duty to follow my own conviction.  It is with me no mere “suspicion,” but a certainty.  When they cannot possibly give, or pretend, any proof that the long discourses of the fourth gospel have been accurately reported, they ought to be less supercilious in their claims of unlimited belief.  If it is right for them to follow their judgment on a purely literary question, let them not carp at me for following mine.]

[Footnote 23:  I am told that this defence of John is fanciful.  It satisfies me provisionally; but I do not hold myself bound to satisfy others, or to explain John’s delusiveness.]

[Footnote 24:  Phil. ii. 5-8; Rom. xv. 3.  The last suggests it was from the Psalms (viz from Ps. lxix. 9) that Paul learned the fact that Christ pleased not himself.]