of Bishop Wordsworth and of Archbishop Trench; and even shows that he has read Hudson’s commentary on Josephus.  And yet people say that our Biblical critics do not equal the Germans in research!  But Mr. Gladstone’s citation of Cuvier and Sir John Herschel about the Creation myth, and his ignorance of all the best modern writings on his own side, produced a great impression on my mind.  I have had the audacity to suspect that his acquaintance with what has been done in Biblical history might stand at no higher level than his information about the natural sciences.  However unwillingly, I have felt bound to consider the possibility that Mr. Gladstone’s labours in this matter may have carried him no further than Josephus and the worthy, but somewhat antique, episcopal and other authorities to whom he refers; that even his reading of Josephus may have been of the most cursory nature, directed not to the understanding of his author, but to the discovery of useful controversial matter; and that, in view of the not inconsiderable misrepresentation of my statements to which I have drawn attention, it might be that Mr. Gladstone’s exposition of the evidence of Josephus was not more trustworthy.  I proceed to show that my previsions have been fully justified.  I doubt if controversial literature contains anything more piquant than the story I have to unfold.

That I should be reproved for rapidity of judgment is very just; however quaint the situation of Mr. Gladstone, as the reprover, may seem to people blessed with a sense of humour.  But it is a quality, the defects of which have been painfully obvious to me all my life; and I try to keep my Pegasus—­at best, a poor Shetland variety of that species of quadruped—­at a respectable jog-trot, by loading him heavily with bales of reading.  Those who took the trouble to study my paper in good faith and not for mere controversial purposes, have a right to know, that something more than a hasty glimpse of two or three passages of Josephus (even with as many episcopal works thrown in) lay at the back of the few paragraphs I devoted to the Gadarene story.  I proceed to set forth, as briefly as I can, some results of that preparatory work.  My artistic principles do not permit me, at present, to express a doubt that Mr. Gladstone was acquainted with the facts I am about to mention when he undertook to write.  But, if he did know them, then both what he has said and what he has not said, his assertions and his omissions alike, will require a paragraph to themselves.

The common consent of the synoptic Gospels affirms that the miraculous transference of devils from a man, or men, to sundry pigs, took place somewhere on the eastern shore of the Lake of Tiberias; “on the other side of the sea over against Galilee,” the western shore being, without doubt, included in the latter province.  But there is no such concord when we come to the name of the part of the eastern shore, on which, according to the story, Jesus and his disciples landed.  In the revised version, Matthew calls it the “country of the Gadarenes:”  Luke and Mark have “Gerasenes.”  In sundry very ancient manuscripts “Gergesenes” occurs.