accustomed to think in
Hebrew. He himself says (_S.R._ II. p. 413), 'Its Hebraisms are not on
the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with Hellenic
Greek.' Though the word is printed 'Hellenic,' not only in the four
editions, but likewise in the author's own extract in the _Fortnightly
Review_ (p. 19), I infer from the context, that it ought to be read
'Hellenistic,' [which word is tacitly substituted in ed. 6]. By
'Hellenic' would be meant the common language, as ordinarily spoken by
the mass of the Greeks, and as distinguished from a literary dialect
like the Attic; by 'Hellenistic,' the language of Hellenists, _i.e._,
Greek-speaking Jews. The two things are quite different.

[132:2] _S.R._ II. p. 395.

[133:1] [See above, p. 17 sq.]

[133:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 20.

[134:1] _S.R._ I. p. 469; II. pp. 56, 59, 73, 326. [The last reference
should be omitted: the words had been already withdrawn (ed. 4) before
this Essay was written; but the language in the other references remains
unaltered through six editions, and is only slightly modified in the
Complete Edition.]

[134:2] [_S.R._ II. p. 421; and so ed. 6. The Complete Edition
substitutes 'evident' for 'admitted.']

[136:1] Stanley _Sinai and Palestine_ p. 229.

[136:2] John iv. 35.

[137:1] [See above, p. 20 sq.]

[137:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 13.

[138:1] [See above, pp. 5, 55, 128.]

[138:2] [See above, p. 26.]

[139:1] _S.R._ I. p. 210. The italics are mine.

[139:2] Towards the close of his Reply the author makes some remarks on
a 'Personal God,' in which he accuses me of misunderstanding him. It may
be so, but then I venture to think that he does not quite understand
himself, as he certainly does not understand me. I do not remember that
he has anywhere defined the terms 'Personal' and 'Anthropomorphic,' as
applied to Deity; and without definition, so many various conceptions
may be included under the terms as to entangle a discussion hopelessly.
No educated Christian, I imagine, believes in an anthropomorphic Deity
in the sense in which this anthropomorphism is condemned in the noble
passage of Xenophanes which he quotes in the first part of his work. In
another sense, our author himself in his concluding chapter betrays his
anthropomorphism; for he attributes to the Divine Being wisdom and
beneficence and forethought, which are conceptions derived by man from
the study of himself. Indeed, I do not see how it