helps to determine the bearing of those which seem
ambiguous.

It cannot be too much borne in mind that the evidence with which
we have been dealing is cumulative; and as in all other cases of
cumulative evidence the subtraction of any single item is of less
importance than the addition of a new one. Supposing it to be
shown that some of the allusions which are thought to be taken
from our Gospels were merely accidental coincidences of language,
this would not materially affect the part of the evidence which
could not be so explained. Supposing even that some of these
allusions could be definitely referred to an apocryphal source,
the possibility would be somewhat, but not so very much, increased
that other instances which bear resemblance to our Gospels were
also in their origin apocryphal. But on the other hand, if a
single instance of the use of a canonical Gospel really holds
good, it is proof of the existence of that Gospel, and every new
instance renders the conclusion more probable, and makes it more
and more difficult to account for the phenomena in any other way.

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to have overlooked
this. He does not seem to have considered the mutual support which
the different instances taken together lend to each other. He
summons them up one by one, and if any sort of possibility can be
shown of accounting for them in any other way than by the use of
our Gospels he dismisses them altogether. He makes no allowance
for any residual weight they may have. He does not ask which is
the more probable hypothesis. If the authentication of a document
is incomplete, if the reference of a passage is not certain, he
treats it as if it did not exist. He forgets the old story of the
faggots, which, weak singly, become strong when combined. His
scales will not admit of any evidence short of the highest.
Fractional quantities find no place in his reckoning. If there is
any flaw, if there is any possible loophole for escape, he does
not make the due deduction and accept the evidence with that
deduction, but he ignores it entirely, and goes on to the next
item just as if he were leaving nothing behind him.

This is really part and parcel of what was pointed out at the
outset as the fundamental mistake of his method. It is much too
forensic. It takes as its model, not the proper canons of
historical enquiry, but the procedure of English law. Yet the
inappropriateness of such a method is seen as