306 AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER vm 



omissions, what there is of it is often verbally 

 identical with the corresponding passages in the 

 other two gospels. The most unabashed of 

 reconcilers cannot well say that one man is the 

 same as two, or two as one ; and, though the 

 suggestion really has been made, that two different 

 miracles, agreeing in all essential particulars, 

 except the number of the possessed, were effected 

 immediately after the storm on the lake, I should 

 be sorry to accuse any one of seriously adopting it. 

 Nor will it be pretended that the allegory refuge 

 is accessible in this particular case. 



So, when Dr. Wace says that he believes in the 

 synoptic evangelists' account of the miraculous 

 bedevilment of swine, I may fairly ask which of 

 them does he believe ? Does he hold by the one 

 evangelist's story, or by that of the two evan- 

 gelists ? And having made his election, what 

 reasons has he to give for his choice ? If it is 

 suggested that the witness of two is to be taken 

 against that of one, not only is the testimony 

 dealt with in that common-sense fashion against 

 which the theologians of his school protest so 

 warmly ; not only is all question of inspiration at 

 an end, but the further inquiry arises, After all, is 

 it the testimony of two against one ? Are the 

 authors of the versions in the second and third 

 gospels really independent witnesses ? In order to 

 answer this question, it is only needful to place 

 the English versions of the two side by side, and 



