Clearly such rules will be inapplicable to the historical question which of two hypotheses is most likely to be true.

The author forgets that the negative hypothesis is just as much a hypothesis as the positive, and needs to be defended in precisely the same manner.

Either the Gospels were used, or they were not used.

In order to prove the second side of this alternative, it is necessary to show not merely that it is _possible_ that they were not used, but that the theory is the _more probable_ of the two, and accounts better for the facts.

But the author of 'Supernatural Religion' hardly professes or attempts to do this.