[73] I am very sorry for the interpolated "in," because citation ought to be accurate in small things as in great. But what difference it makes whether one "believes Jesus" or "believes in Jesus" much thought has not enabled me to discover. If you "believe him" you must believe him to be what he professed to be--that is, "believe in him;" and if you "believe in him" you must necessarily "believe him." [74] True for Justin: but there is a school of theological critics, who more or less question the historical reality of Paul, and the genuineness of even the four cardinal epistles. [75] See _Dial. cum Tryphone_, §47 and §35. It is to be understood that Justin does not arrange these categories in order, as I have done. [76] I guard myself against being supposed to affirm that even the four cardinal epistles of Paul may not have been seriously tampered with. See note 1, p. 287 above. [77] Paul, in fact, is required to commit in Jerusalem, an act of the same character as that which he brands as "dissimulation" on the part of Peter in Antioch. [78] All this was quite clearly pointed out by Ritschl nearly forty years ago. See _Die Entstchung der alt-katholischen Kirche_ (1850), p. 108. [79] "If every one was baptized as soon as he acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah, the first Christians can have been aware of no other essential differences from the Jews."--Zeller, _Vorträge_ (1865), p. 26. [80] 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. IX: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY [1889] Nemo ergo ex me scire quærat, quod me nescire scio, nisi forte ut nescire discat.--AUGUSTINUS, _De Civ. Dei_, xii. 7. [81] The present discussion has arisen out of the use, which has become general in the last few years, of the terms "Agnostic" and "Agnosticism."