The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-03-01
PULPIT AND PEW.
TEpS EXTRACTS or INTEREST TO
CHURCH PEOPLE.

what Hon. William +. Gladstone Has to
Say of Professor Huxley and the Swine
MiracIe-Tbe Kings Dsughtcrs-The VaInc
of the Organization.
The controversy in which this paper has to
take its place arose out of statement indeed
boast, as I understood il, by Prof. Huxley
that the adopts in natural sciences were as
fling the churches with weapons Of precis-
Son. and that their opponents had only anti
quated and worthless implements TO employ
IN the business of defense i took upon me to
impeach at certain points the precision of the
Professors own weapons Upon one Of these
points the miracle of the swine. as recorded in
the gospels, he had given us assumption. in
stead of proof. upon what he thinks the vital
question, whether the keeping Of the swine
was an innocent and lawful occupation. He
has now offered an elaborate attempt al proof
that such was its character The smallest In
dication cf such an attempt in the original ar
ficle would have sufficed entirely to alter the
form of my observation. which would then
have been what il will now be; not that he Of
fers no argument, but that his argument is
unsound from beginning TO end.
OF his sneers, imputations. and lectures
ever But the personal action of our Lord is
The basis OF Christian revelation. and to i'm
pugn ii successfully in any part is To pierce
the innermost heart of every Christian. No
inquiry: therefore. can be too painstaking
which serves to carry such an inquiry TO IA
conclusive issue.
must. however, in passing. make the con-
fessiOn that / did not state with accuracy. as
ought to have done, the precise form of the
accusation. treated it as IN imputatlon on
the action of our Lord; he replies that 1t
the narrative Of three Evangelsts respecting
him. The difference from his point OF view
Is probably material, and / therefore regret
that overlooked it. But if the Gospels are
put on their trial as literary documents, and
their contents summary condemned on
charge of intrinsic unwOrthlness and lmmOr-
alty. upon no higher authority than the pri-
waite Judgment of this OF that individual then,
and so long a. we are dealing with "A portion
of the attested pOrtrature, an arraignment of
these becomes. at least in my view, hard to
distinguish from an Arrangement OF Him
whom they portray Told and told in detail
by all the three Synoptcs, the miracle of the
of the demoniac and the swine does not well
bear this severance from the staple of the
biography. Nor. indeed is 1t so severed by
Mr.. Huxley. who frankly treats it as involv
ing at large the authority OF the Synopuc Cos
pels.
MIR. Huxley observes that the Eva cyclists do
not betray any consciousness of the legal or
moral difficulties involved in the question.
But if the Evangelists believed that our Lord
was dealing in this case with Hebrews, or with
persons bound 10y the law of Moses, then for
them. believers in the Messiah there were no
legal or moral difficulties at all.
There are indeed. those who are content TO
rest the case on the absolute right of the
Deity 10 deal at will with the property of the
creatures whom he has made; put waving that
,At ,c alt~
whether this assertion Of power was such as
20 involve serious injury 70 the proprietary
rights of innocent persons. This is the char
acter which Professor Huxley stamps upon
the narrative; justly as he thinks. but, as |
hold. in defiance of historical authority:
agree with him. however, that il is material to
know whether the act recorded involved the
infection of heavy penalty upon conduct in
itself innocent.
Our main question then is the lawfulness
and innocence of the employment of the
swineherds The clinical character of Gadara
and of its district derives its interest from its
relation TO that main question. In my opin-
ion. not formed without an attempt at sull eX-
animation, there is no historical warrant for
doubling that the swineherds were persons
bound by the Mosaic law. In the opinion Of
Mr. Huxley, "the proof that Gadara was to
all intents and purposes Gentle and not a
Jewish city is complete" And again. Ca
d8ra was for JOsephus Just as much a Gentle
city AS Ptolemais" Utterly contesting these
two propositions, make two admissions:
first, that one or more Of the many and sparse
references of JOsephus may easily mislead a
prepossessed and incomplete inquirer; and
second. that in the territory of Gadara and in
various other parts of Palestine, II would be a
mistake to look for a perfectly homogeneous
population: either Hebrew or Gentle. Pro-
fessor IiuXley's master tallacy Is his assump-
ton as TO the cleavage of the Paestinian COM
munites. According TO him, all that was
anti-ROman was Jewish or Hebrew. and all
that acted on the other side was Gentle:
while the whole text of Josephus testtes that
the Jews themselves We're sharply divided
into Roman and anti-Roman faction.
Let me now summarily point ont what |
conceive To be the main sources of error,
which, taken together, vitiate the entire argu-
ment Of Professor Huxley.
l. Throughout the paper he confounds to-
gether what had distinguished, namely, the
city of Gadara and the vicinage attached toit
not as a mere pom@rium, but rs rural dis
trct
g. He more fatally confounds the local city
government and its followings, including per-
haps, the whole wealthy class and those at
tached TO il. with the clinical character Of the
general population.
g. His one item of direct evidence as TO the
Gentle character of the city. refers only to
the former. and not to the latter
4. He fatally confounds the question of po-
hucal party with those Of nationality and re-
ligion. and assumes that those who took the
side Of Rome IN the factions that prevailed.
could not be subject TO the Mosaic Law
s. His examination of thetext of Josephus is
alike ne-Sided, inadequate and erroneous.
6. Finally he sets aside, on grounds not
critical or historical, but purely subjective
the primary historical testimony on the sub
Ject, namely, that Of the three Synoptic Evan
gelists: who write as contemporaries. and
deal directly with the subject neither of
which Is done 10y any other authority.
7. And he treats the entire question, in the
narrow form in which it arises, upon secular
testimony, as If IL were capable OF solution
so clear and summary as to warrant the use of
the EXTREMIST weapons of controversy against
those who presume 10 differ from him.
Mr.. Gladstone here evinces his perfect ia
miliarity with the writings of Josephus.
Strabo. and others, and adduces an apparent
~ overwhelming mass of evidence in support
Of the view that the Mosaic Law was the pub-
lie law OF Gadara. and while not DENYING that
the population of Lecapolis was mixed one.
asserts that It would run counter to every law
OF reasonable historic Interpretation. 10 as
sumo that the swineheards were punished by
Christ for pursuing, what was TO them. an in
nocent calling.
The Kings Daughters
In the order of the Kings Dauc lters every