After this tragi-comical ending to what an old historian calls a “robustious and rough coming on”; and after some praises of the provisions of the Mosaic law in the matter of not eating pork—­in which, as pork disagrees with me and for some other reasons, I am much disposed to concur, though I do not see what they have to do with the matter in hand—­comes the serious onslaught.

Mr. Huxley, exercising his rapid judgment on the text, does not appear to have encumbered himself with the labour of inquiring what anybody else had known or said about it.  He has thus missed a point which might have been set up in support of his accusation against our Lord. (P. 273.)

Unhappily for my conduct, I have been much exercised in controversy during the past thirty years; and the only compensation for the loss of time and the trials of temper which it has inflicted upon me, is that I have come to regard it as a branch of the fine arts, and to take an impartial and aesthetic interest in the way in which it is conducted, even by those whose efforts are directed against myself.  Now, from the purely artistic point of view (which, as we are all being told, has nothing to do with morals), I consider it an axiom, that one should never appear to doubt that the other side has performed the elementary duty of acquiring proper elementary information, unless there is demonstrative evidence to the contrary.  And I think, though I admit that this may be a purely subjective appreciation, that (unless you are quite certain) there is a “want of finish,” as a great master of disputation once put it, about the suggestion that your opponent has missed a point on his own side.  Because it may happen that he has not missed it at all, but only thought it unworthy of serious notice.  And if he proves that, the suggestion looks foolish.

Merely noting the careful repetition of a charge, the absurdity of which has been sufficiently exposed above, I now ask my readers to accompany me on a little voyage of discovery in search of the side on which the rapid judgment and the ignorance of the literature of the subject lie.  I think I may promise them very little trouble, and a good deal of entertainment.

Mr. Gladstone is of opinion that the Gadarene swinefolk were “Hebrews bound by the Mosaic law” (p. 274); and he conceives that it has not occurred to me to learn what may be said in favour of and against this view.  He tells us that

Some commentators have alleged the authority of Josephus for stating that Gadara was a city of Greeks rather than of Jews, from whence it might be inferred that to keep swine was innocent and lawful. (P. 273.)

Mr. Gladstone then goes on to inform his readers that in his painstaking search after truth he has submitted to the labour of personally examining the writings of Josephus.  Moreover, in a note, he positively exhibits an acquaintance, in addition, with the works