[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 Illustrations 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 assertion 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 passage 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.]