[325:2] Cf.  Bleek, Einleitung, p. 735; Reuss, Gesch.  N.T. p. 447.

[326:1] This is the date commonly accepted since Massuet, Diss. in Irenaeum, ii. 1. 2.  Grabe had previously placed the date in A.D. 108, Dodwell as early as A.D. 97 (of.  Stieren, Irenaeus, ii. pp. 32, 34, 182).

[326:2] Routh, Rel.  Sac. i. p. 306.

[327:1] Eus. H.E. v. 11, vi. 6.  Eusebius, in his, ‘Chronicle,’ speaks of Clement as eminent for his writings ([Greek suntatton dielampen]) in A.D. 194.

[327:2] The books called ‘Stromateis’ or ‘Miscellanies’ date from this reign. H.E. vi. 6.

[327:3] Stromateis, i. 1.

[327:4] Adv.  Marc. iv. 5.

[327:5] De Praescript.  Haeret. c. 36; see Scrivener, Introduction, p. 446.

[328:1] pp. 450, 451.

[328:2] p. 452.  These facts may be held to show that the books were not regarded with the same veneration as now.

[329:1] v. 30. 1.

[330:1] Adv.  Haer. iii. 11. 8.

[330:2] Ib. iii. 14. 2.

[331:1] Cf. Adv.  Haer. iv. 13. 1.

[332:1] The varieties of reading in this verse are exhibited in full by Dr. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 120, notes 4 and 5.

[336:1] Matt. v. 28 is omitted as too ambiguous and confusing, though it is especially important for the point in question as showing that Tertullian himself had a variety of MSS. before him.

[336:2] St. Matthew’s Gospel is wanting in this MS. to xxv. 6; two leaves are also lost, from John vi. 50 to viii. 52.

[346:1] Strom. ii. 20.

[347:1] In a volume entitled The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, Macmillan, 1872.  I may say with reference to this book—­a ‘firstling’ of theological study—­ that I am inclined now to think that I exaggerated somewhat the importance of minute details as an evidence of the work of an eye-witness.  The whole of the arguments, however, summarised on pp. 287-293 seem to me to be still perfectly valid and sound, and the greater part of them—­notably that which relates to the Messianic expectations—­is quite untouched by ‘Supernatural Religion.’

[348:1] It is instructive to compare the canons elaborately drawn up by Mr. M’Clellan (N.T. i. 375-389) with those tacitly assumed in ‘Supernatural Religion.’  The inference in the one case seems to be ‘possible, therefore true,’ in the other, ’not probable, or not confirmed, therefore false.’  Surely neither of these tallies with experience.