[108] Neither is it of any consequence whether the locality
          of the supposed miracle was Gadara, or Gerasa, or
          Gergesa.  But I may say that I was well acquainted with
          Origen’s opinion respecting Gergesa.  It is fully
          discussed and rejected in Riehm’s Handwoerterbuch.  In
          Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopaedia (ii. p. 51) Professor
          Porter remarks that Origen merely “conjectures” that
          Gergesa was indicated:  and he adds, “Now, in a question
          of this kind conjectures cannot be admitted.  We must
          implicitly follow the most ancient and creditable
          testimony, which clearly pronounces in favour of
          Gadarenhon.  This reading is adopted by Tischendorf,
          Alford, and Tregelles.”

    [109] I may call attention, in passing, to the fact that this
          authority, at any rate, has no sort of doubt of the
          fact that Jewish Law did not rule in Gadara (indeed,
          under the head of “Gadara,” in the same work, it is
          expressly stated that the population of the place
          consisted “predominantly of heathens"), and that he
          scouts the notion that the Gadarene swineherds were
          Jews.

    [110] The evidence adduced, so far as post-exile times are
          concerned, appears to me insufficient to prove this
          assertion.

    [111] Even Leviticus xi. 26, cited without reference to the
          context, will not serve the purpose; because the swine
          is “cloven-footed” (Lev. xi. 7).

    [112] 1st Gospel:  “And the devils besought him, saying,
          If Thou cast us out send us away into the herd of
          swine.” 2d Gospel:  “They besought him, saying, Send
          us into the swine.” 3d Gospel:  “They intreated him
          that he would give them leave to enter into them.”

    [113] See Marquardt, Roemische Staatsverwaltung, Bd.  III.
          p. 408.

    [114] Nineteenth Century, March 1889 (p. 362).

    [115] “The Value of Witness to the Miraculous.” Nineteenth
          Century, March 1889.

    [116] I cannot ask the Editor of this Review to reprint pages
          of an old article,—­but the following passages
          sufficiently illustrate the extent and the character of
          the discrepancy between the facts of the case and Mr.
          Gladstone’s account of them:—­