MR. GLADSTONE'S CONTROVERSIAL METHOD. 531 



show that my non-belief in the story is based upon what appears 

 to me to be evident : firstly, that the accounts of the three synop- 

 tic Gospels are not independent, but are founded upon a common 

 source ; secondly, that even if the story of the common tradition 

 proceeded from a contemporary, it would still be worthy of very 

 little credit, seeing the manner in which the legends about medi- 

 seval miracles have been propounded by contemporaries. And, 

 in illustration of this position, I wrote a special essay about the 

 miracles reported by Eginhard.* 



In truth, one need go no further than Mr. Gladstone's sixth 

 proposition to be convinced that contemporary testimony, even 

 of well-known and distinguished persons, may be but a very frail 

 reed for the support of the historian, when theological preposses- 

 sion blinds the witness. f 



Prop. 7. And he treats the entire question, in the narrowed 

 form in which it arises upon secular testimony, as if it were capa- 

 ble of a solution so clear and summary as to warrant the use of 

 the extremest weapons of controversy against those who presume 

 to differ from him, 



The six heretical propositions which have gone before are 

 enunciated with sufficient clearness to enable me to prove with- 

 out any difficulty that, whosesoever they are, they are not mine. 

 But number seven, I confess, is too hard for me. I can not 

 undertake to contradict that which I do not understand. 



What is the " entire question " which " arises " in a " narrowed 

 form " upon " secular testimony " ? After much guessing, I am 

 fain to give up the conundrum. The " question " may be the 



* The Value of Witness to the Miraculous. Nineteenth Century, March, 1889. [Pop- 

 ular Science Monthly, September, 1889.] 



f I can not ask the editor of this Review to reprint pages of an old article but the 

 following passages sufficiently illustrate the extent and the character of the discrepancy 

 between the facts of the case and Mr. Gladstone's account of them : 



" Now, in the Gadarene affair, I do not think I am unreasonably skeptical, if I say 

 that the existence of demons who can be transferred from a man to a pig does thus 

 contravene probability. Let me be perfectly candid. I admit I have no a prion objection 

 to offer. ... I declare, as plainly as I can, that I am unable to show cause why these 

 transferable devils should not exist." . . . (Agnosticism, Nineteenth Century, 1889, p. 

 17V.) [Popular Science Monthly, April, 1889, pp. 758, 759.] 



" What then do we know about the originator, or originators, of this groundwork of 

 that threefold tradition which all three witnesses (in Paley's phrase) agree upon that we 

 should allow their mere statements to outweigh the counter-arguments of humanity, of 

 common sense, of exact science, and to imperil the respect which all would be glad to be 

 able to render to their Master? " (Ibid., p. 175.) [Popular Science Monthly, p. 756.] 



I then go on through a couple of pages to discuss the value of the evidence of the 

 Synoptics on critical and historical grounds. Mr. Gladstone cites the essay from which 

 these passages are taken, whence I suppose he has read it ; though, it may be, that he 

 shares the impatience of Cardinal Manning where my writings are concerned. Such impa- 

 tience may account for, though it will not excuse, his sixth proposition. 



