ly to wake
up with anything short of the grasp of a rough lay hand upon its
shoulder; it is the question whether the New Testament books, being,
as I believe they were, written and compiled by people who, according
to their lights, were perfectly sincere, will not, when properly
studied as ordinary historical documents, afford us the means of
self-criticism. And it must be remembered that the New Testament books
are not responsible for the doctrine invented by the Churches that
they are anything but ordinary historical documents. The author of the
third gospel tells us, as straightforwardly as a man can, that he has
no claim to any other character than that of an ordinary compiler and
editor, who had before him the works of many and variously qualified
predecessors.

* * * * *

In my former papers, according to Dr. Wace, I have evaded giving an
answer to his main proposition, which he states as follows--

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 relation to
His Father in Heaven, and that He bore testimony to that
Father's providence, love, and grace towards mankind. The
Lord's Prayer affords a sufficient evidence 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 (pp. 354-355).

Again--

The main question at issue, in a word, is one which
Professor Huxley has chosen to leave entirely on one
side--whether, namely, allowing for the utmost uncertainty
on other points of the criticism to which he appeals, 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 teaching (p. 355.)

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