8z THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



form to St. Mark, and declares that there is no ground whatever 

 for that supposition of an Ur-Marcus — that is an original ground- 

 work — from which Prof. Huxley alleges that " at the present time 

 there is no visible escape." If I were such an authority on mo- 

 rality as Prof. Huxley, I might perhaps use some unpleasant lan- 

 guage respecting this vague assumption of criticism being all on 

 his side, when it, in fact, directly contradicts him ; and his case is 

 not the only one to which such strictures might be applied. In 

 " Robert Elsmere," for example, there is some vaporing about the 

 " great critical operation of the present century " having de- 

 stroyed the historical basis of the Gospel narrative. As a matter 

 of fact, as we have seen, the great critical operation has resulted, 

 according to the testimony of the critics whom Prof. Huxley him- 

 self selects, in establishing the fact that we possess contemporary 

 records of our Lord's life from persons who were either eye-wit- 

 nesses, or who were in direct communication with eye-witnesses, 

 on the very scene in which it was passed. Either Prof. Huxley's 

 own witnesses are not to be trusted, or Prof. Huxley's allegations 

 are rash and unfounded. Conclusions which are denied by Volk- 

 mar, denied by Renan, denied by Reuss, are not to be thrown at 

 our heads with a superior air, as if they could not be reasonably 

 doubted. The great result of the critical operation of this cent- 

 ury has, in fact, been to prove that the contention with which it 

 started in the persons of Strauss and Baur, that we have no con- 

 temporary records of Christ's life, is wholly untenable. It has 

 not convinced any of the living critics to whom Prof. Huxley 

 appeals ; and if he, or any similar writer, still maintains such an 

 assertion^ let it be understood that he stands alone against the 

 leading critics of Europe in the present day. 



Perhaps I need say no more for the present in reply to Prof. 

 Huxley. I have, I think, shown that he has evaded my point ; he 

 has evaded his own points ; he has misquoted my words ; he has 

 misrepresented the results of the very criticism to which he 

 appeals ; and he rests his case on assumptions which his own au- 

 thorities repudiate. The questions he touches are very grave 

 ones, not to be adequately treated in a review article. But I 

 should have supposed it a point of scientific morality to treat 

 them, if they are to be treated, with accuracy of reference and 

 strictness of argument. 



II. 



By W. C. MAGEE, 



BISHOP OF PETEBBOBOTJGH. 



I should be wanting in the respect which I sincerely enter- 

 tain for Prof. Huxley if I were not to answer his " appeal " to me 

 in the last number of this review for my opinion on a point in 

 controversy between him and Dr. Wace. Prof. Huxley asks me, 



