3GO AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY i* 



could not justify belief in it, unless we had the 

 clearest evidence as to their capacity as observers 

 and as interpreters of their observations. But it 

 is evident that the three authorities are not inde- 

 pendent ; that they have simply adopted a legend, 

 of which there were two versions ; and instead of 

 their proving its truth, it suggests their super- 

 stitious credulity : so that if " Matthew/' " Mark/' 

 and " Luke " are really responsible for the Gospels, 

 it is not the better for the Gadarene story, but 

 the worse for them. 



A wonderful amount of controversial capital 

 has been made out of my assertion in the note to 

 which I have referred, as an obiter dictum of no 

 consequence to my argument, that if Kenan's 

 work 1 were non-extant, the main results of 

 biblical criticism, as set forth in the works of 

 Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volkmar, for example, 

 would not be sensibly affected. I thought I had 

 explained it satisfactorily already, but it seems 

 that my explanation has only exhibited still more 

 of my native perversity, so I ask for one more 

 chance. 



.In the course of the historical development of 

 any branch of science, what is universally observed 

 is this : that the men who make epochs, and are 

 the real architects of the fabric of exact know- 

 ledge, are those who introduce fruitful ideas or 



1 I trust it may not be supposed that I undervalue M. Kenan's 

 labours, or intended to speak slightingly of them. 



