AGNOSTICISM. 81 



2. Of the three synoptic Gospels one only, that which ecclesiastical tradition 

 agrees in attributing to Luke, has reached us in its primitive form. 



3. Luke could draw his knowledge of the Gospel history partly from oral 

 information ; he was able, in Palestine itself, to receive direct communications 

 from immediate witnesses. . . . We may think especially here of the history of 

 the passion and the resurrection, and perhaps also of some other passages of which 

 he is the sole narrator. 



4. A book, which an ancient and respectable testimony attributes to Mark, the 

 disciple of Peter, was certainly used by St. Luke as the principal source of the 

 portion of his Gospel between chapter iv, 31, and ix, 50 ; and between xviii, 15, 

 and xxi, 38. 



5. According to all probability, the book of Mark, consulted by Luke, com- 

 prised in its primitive form what we read in the present day from Mark i, 21, to 

 xiii, 37. 



It seems -unnecessary, for the purpose of estimating the value 

 of Prof. Huxley's appeal to these critics, to quote any more. It 

 appears from these statements of Reuss that if " the results of 

 biblical criticism/' as represented by him, are to be trusted, we 

 have the whole third Gospel in its primitive form, as it was writ- 

 ten by St. Luke ; and in this, as we have seen, Reuss is in entire 

 agreement with Renan. But besides this, a previous book written 

 by Mark, St. Peter's disciple, was certainly in existence before 

 Luke's Gospel, and was used by Luke ; and in all probability this 

 book was, in its primitive form, the greater part of our present 

 Gospel of St. Mark. 



Such are those " results of biblical criticism " to which Prof. 

 Huxley has appealed ; and we may fairly judge by these not only 

 of the value of his special contention in reply to my paper, but of 

 the worth of the sweeping assertions he, and writers like him, are 

 given to making about modern critical science. Prof. Huxley 

 says that we know " absolutely nothing " about the originators of 

 the Gospel narratives, and he appeals to criticism in the persons 

 of Volkmar and Reuss. Volkmar says that the second Gospel is 

 really either by St. Mark or by one of his friends, and was written 

 about the year 75. Reuss says that the third Gospel, as we now 

 have it, was really by St. Luke. Now Prof. Huxley is, of course, 

 entitled to his own opinion ; but he is not entitled to quote au- 

 thorities in support of his opinion when they are in direct opposi- 

 tion to it. He asserts, without the slightest fear of refutation, 

 that " the four Gospels, as they have come to us, are the work of 

 unknown writers." His arguments in defense of such a position 

 will be listened to with respect : but let it be borne in mind that 

 the opposite arguments he has got to meet are not only those of or- 

 thodox critics like myself, but those of Renan, of Volkmar, and of 

 Reuss — I may add of Pfleiderer, well known in this country by his 

 Hibbert Lectures, who, in his recent work on original Chris- 

 tianity, attributes most positively the second Gospel in its present 



VOL. XXXV. — 6 



