d candor,--the
general harmony of these so-called sacred writers with themselves and
with profane authors (quite as general, to say the least, as usually
distinguishes other narratives by different hands),--above all, the
long-concealed, and yet most numerous 'coincidences' which lie deep
beneath the surface and which only a very industrious mind brings to
light; coincidences which, if ingenuity had been subtle enough to
fabricate, that same ingenuity would have been too sagacious to conceal
so deep, and which are too numerous and striking (one would imagine)
to be the effect of accident;--all these things, I say, would seem
to argue (if any thing can) the integrity of the narrative. Yet all
these things must necessarily, of course, go for nothing, on Strauss's
hypothesis. There are, you say, certain discrepancies, and from them
you proceed to conclude that the narrative is uncertain, and unworthy
of credit; that, if there be a residuum of truth at all, no man can
know with any certainty what or how much it is. We must there-fore
leave the whole problematical. Now the question comes, whether we must
not in consistency apply the same principle further; and, if so, whether
we can find in any history whatever stronger marks of credibility;
whether any was ever submitted to an examination more severe, or so
severe; whether any can boast of a larger number of minds, of the
first order, giving their assent to it."

"Let me stop you there," said the other; "you must consider that
those minds were prejudiced in favor of the conclusion. They were
inclined to believe the supernatural wonders which these pretended
historians retail."

"How differently men may argue with the same premises! I was about to
mention the suspicion attaching to miraculous narratives, as attesting
(I still think so, notwithstanding your observation) that stress and
pressure of supposed historic credibility under which so many powerful
minds--minds many of them of the first order--have felt themselves
compelled to receive these histories as true, in spite of such obstacles.
Surely, you do not think that a miracle is in our age, or has been for
many ages, an antecedent ground of credibility; or that if a history
does not contain enough of them, as this assuredly does, it is certain
to be believed. No; do not you with Strauss contend that a miracle is
not to be believed at all, because it contradicts uniform experience?
And yet thousands of powerful mind