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 minds have believed the truth of these historic records against all this uniform experience!  Their prejudices against it must surely have been stronger than those for it.—­But to resume the statement of my difficulties.  I say the question returns whether there is any history in the world which either presents in inexplicable marks of historic credibility, or in which as numerous and equally inexplicable discrepancies cannot be discovered.  If there be none, then how far shall we adopt and carry out the principles of Strauss? for if we carry them out with rigid equity, the whole field of history is abandoned to scepticism:  it is henceforth the domain of doubt and contention; as, in truth, a very large part of it in Germany has already become, in virtue of these very principles.  Much of profane history is abandoned, as well as the sacred; and Homer becomes as much a shadow as Christ.”

“You seem,” said Robinson, “to be almost in the condition to entertain Dr. Whately’s ingenious ‘Historic Doubts’ touching the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte!” * ____

* Are the ingenious “Historic Certainties,” by “Aristar hus Newlight,” from the same admirable mint?—­Ed. ____