[Footnote 53:  Dr. Harnack, in the lately-published second edition of His Dogmengeschichte, says (p. 39), “Jesus Christ brought forward no new doctrine”; and again, (p. 65), “It is not difficult to set against every portion of the utterances of Jesus an observation which deprives him of originality.”  See also Zusatz 4, on the same page.]

[Footnote 54:  I confess that, long ago, I once or twice made this mistake; even to the waste of a capital ‘U.’ 1893.]

[Footnote 55:  “Let us maintain, before we have proved.  This seeming paradox is the secret of happiness” (Dr. Newman:  Tract 85, p. 85).]

[Footnote 56:  Dr, Newman, Essay on Development, p. 357.]

[Footnote 57:  It is by no means to be assumed that “spiritual” and “corporeal” are exact equivalents of “immaterial” and “material” in the minds of ancient speculators on these topics.  The “spiritual body” of the risen dead (1 Cor. xv.) is not the “natural” “flesh and blood” body.  Paul does not teach the resurrection of the body in the ordinary sense of the word “body”; a fact, often overlooked, but pregnant with many consequences.]

[Footnote 58:  Tertullian (Apolog. adv.  Gentes, cap. xxiii.) thus challenges the Roman authorities:  let them bring a possessed person into the presence of a Christian before their tribunal; and if the demon does not confess himself to be such, on the order of the Christian, let the Christian be executed out of hand.]

[Footnote 59:  See the expression of orthodox opinion upon the “accommodation” subterfuge already cited above, pp. 85 and 86.]

[Footnote 60:  I quote the first edition (1843).  A second edition appeared in 1870.  Tract 85 of the Tracts for the Times should be read with this Essay.  If I were called upon to compile a Primer of “Infidelity,” I think I should save myself trouble by making a selection from these works, and from the Essay on Development by the same author.]

[Footnote 61:  Yet, when it suits his purpose, as in the Introduction to the Essay on Development, Dr. Newman can demand strict evidence in religious questions as sharply as any “infidel author”; and he can even profess to yield to its force (Essay on Miracles, 1870; note, p. 391).]

[Footnote 62:  According to Dr. Newman, “This prayer [that of Bishop Alexander, who begged God to ‘take Arius away’] is said to have been offered about 3 P.M. on the Saturday; that same evening Arius was in the great square of Constantine, when he was suddenly seized with indisposition” (p. clxx).  The “infidel” Gibbon seems to have dared to suggest that “an option between poison and miracle” is presented by this case; and, it must be admitted, that, if the Bishop had been within the reach of a modern police magistrate, things might have gone hardly with him.  Modern “Infidels,” possessed of a slight knowledge of chemistry, are not unlikely, with no less audacity, to suggest an “option between fire-damp and miracle” in seeking for the cause of the fiery outburst at Jerusalem.]