33Q THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



is recorded in St. Matthew. He notices, for instance, the com- 

 bined similarity and difference between St. Matthew's Sermon on 

 the Mount and St. Luke's so-called " Sermon on the Plain," and 

 then he adds : 



I thought that all fairly attentive and intelligent students of the Gospels, to 

 say nothing of theologians of reputation, knew these things. But how can any 

 one who does know them have the conscience to ask whether there is " any reason- 

 able doubt " that the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Jesus of Nazareth ? 



It is a pity that Prof. Hnxley seems as incapable of accuracy 

 in his quotations of an opponent's words as in his references to 

 the authorities to whom he appeals. I did not ask "whether 

 there is any reasonable doubt that the Sermon on the Mount was 

 preached by Jesus of Nazareth," and I expressly observed, in the 

 article to which Prof. Huxley is replying, that "Prof. Eeuss 

 thinks, as many good critics have thought, that the Sermon on 

 the Mount combines various distinct utterances of our Lord." 

 What I did ask, in words which Prof. Huxley quotes, and there- 

 fore had before his eyes, was " whether there is any reasonable 

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

 a true account of our Lord's essential belief and cardinal teach- 

 ing." That is an absolutely distinct question from the one which 

 Prof. Huxley dissects, and a confusion of the two is peculiarly 

 inexcusable in a person who holds that purely human view of the 

 Gospel narratives which he represents. If a long report of a 

 speech appears in the " Times " and a shortened report appears in 

 the " Standard," every one knows that we are none the less made 

 acquainted — perhaps made still better acquainted — with the essen- 

 tial purport and cardinal meaning of the speaker. On the sup- 

 position, similarly, that St. Matthew and St. Luke are simply giv- 

 ing two distinct accounts of the same address, with such omissions 

 and variations of order as suited the purposes of their respective 

 narratives, we are in at least as good a position for knowing what 

 was the main burden of the address as if we had only one account, 

 and perhaps in a better position, as we see what were the points 

 which both reporters deemed essential. As Prof. Huxley himself 

 observes, we have reports of speeches in ancient historians which 

 are certainly not in the very words of the speakers ; yet no one 

 doubts that we know the main purport of the speeches of Pericles 

 which Thucydides records. 



This attempt, therefore, to answer my appeal to the substance 

 of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is a palpable evasion, 

 and it is aggravated by the manner in which Prof. Huxley quotes 

 a high German authority in support of his contention. I am 

 much obliged to him for appealing to Holtzmann ; for, though 

 Holtzmann's own conclusions respecting the books of the New 



