AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 169 



Apart from all disputed points of criticism, no one practically doubts that our 

 Lord lived and that he died on the cross, in the most intense sense of filial rela- 

 tion to his Father in heaven, and that he bore testimony to that Father's provi- 

 dence, love, and grace toward mankind. The Lord's Prayer affords a sufficient evi- 

 dence on these points. If the Sermon on the Mount alone be added, the whole 

 unseen world, of which the agnostic refuses to know anything, stands unveiled 

 before us. . . . If Jesus Christ preached that sermon, made those promises, and 

 taught that prayer, then any one who says that we know nothing of God, or of a 

 future life, or of an unseen world, says that he does not believe Jesus Christ.* 



Again — 



The main question at issue, in a word, is one which Prof. Huxley has chosen 

 to leave entirely on one side — whether, namely, allowing for the utmost uncer- 

 tainty on other points of the criticism to which he appeals, there is any reason- 

 able doubt that the Lord's Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount afford a true 

 account of our Lord's essential belief and cardinal teaching, f 



I certainly was not aware that I had evaded the questions here 

 stated ; indeed, I should say that I have indicated my reply to 

 them pretty clearly ; but, as Dr. Wace wants a plainer answer, he 

 shall certainly be gratified. If, as Dr. Wace declares it is, his 

 " whole case is involved in " the argument as stated in the latter 

 of these two extracts, so much the worse for his whole case. For 

 I am of opinion that there is the gravest reason for doubting 

 whether the " Sermon on the Mount " was ever preached, and 

 whether the so-called " Lord's Prayer " was ever prayed by Jesus 

 of Nazareth. My reasons for this opinion are, among others, 

 these : There is now no doubt that the three synoptic Gospels, 

 so far from being the work of three independent writers, are 

 closely interdependent, J and that in one of two ways. Either all 

 three contain, as their foundation, versions, to a large extent ver- 

 bally identical, of one and the same tradition ; or two of them are 

 thus closely dependent on the third ; and the opinion of the ma- 

 jority of the best critics has, of late years, more and more con- 

 verged toward the conviction that our canonical second Gospel 

 (the so-called " Mark's " Gospel) is that which most closely repre- 

 sents the primitive groundwork of the three.* That I take to be 



* "Popular Science Monthly" for May, 1889, p. 68. f Ibid., p. 69. 



\ I suppose this is what Dr. Wace is thinking about when he says that I allege that 

 there " is no visible escape " from the supposition of an " TJr-Marcus " (p. 82). That a 

 " theologian of repute " should confound an indisputable fact with one of the modes of 

 explaining that fact, is not so singular as those who are unaccustomed to the ways of 

 theologians might imagine. 



* Any examiner whose duty it has been to examine into a case of " copying " will be 

 particularly well prepared to appreciate the force of the case stated in that most excellent 

 little book, " The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels," by Dr. Abbott and Mr. Rush- 

 brooke (Macmillan, 1884). To those who have not passed through such painful experiences 

 I may recommend the brief discussion of the genuineness of the "Casket Letters" in my 

 friend Mr. Skelton's interesting book, " Maitland of Lethington." The second edition of 

 Iloltzrcann's "Lehrbuch," published in 1886, gives a remarkably fair and full account of 



