“I believe that it is simply our proximity to the events which renders it difficult to entertain them.  If the injuries of time and the caprice of fortune should in the remote future leave as large gaps in the evidence, and as large scope for ingenious plausibilities, as in relation to the remote past, I believe multitudes would find no difficulty in entertaining those ‘doubts.’  They seem to me perfectly well argued, and absolutely conclusive on the historic canons on which Strauss’s work is constructed,—­namely, that if you find what seem discrepancies and improbabilities in a reputed history, the mass of that historic texture in which they are found may be regarded as mythical or fabulous, doubtful or false.  If you say the principles of Strauss are false, that is another matter.  I shall not think it worth while to contest their truth or their falsehood with you.  But if you adhere to them, I will take the liberty of showing you that you do not hold them consistently, if you think any remote history is to be regarded as absolutely placed beyond doubt.”

“Well, if you will be grave,” said Robinson, “though, upon my word.  I thought you in jest,—­is it possible that you do not see that there is a vast difference between rejecting, on the same ground of discrepancies, the credibility of the narratives of the Gospel, and that of any common history?”

“I must honestly confess, then, that I do not, if the discrepancies, as Strauss alleges, and not something else, is to be assigned as the cause of their rejection.  If indeed, like some criminals under despotic governments, they are apprehended and convicted on a certain charge, but really hanged for an entirely different reason, I can understand that there may be policy in the proceeding; but I do not comprehend its argumentative honesty.  Be pleased, therefore, (that I may form some conclusion,) to tell me what are those circumstances which so wonderfully discriminate the discrepancies in the New Testament histories from those in other histories, as that the inevitable consequence of finding a certain amount of discrepancies in the former leads to the rejection of the entire, or nearly entire, documents in which they are found, while their presence in other histories even to a far greater extent shall not authorize their rejection at all, or the rejection only of the parts in which the discrepancies are found.  And yet I think I can guess.”

“Well, what do you guess?”

“That you think that the miraculous nature of the events which form a portion of the New Testament history makes a great difference in the case.”

“And do not you?”

“I cannot say I do:  for though it is doubtless Strauss’s principal object to get rid of these miracles, it is not as miracles, but as history, that his canons of historic criticism are applied to them.  It is as history that he attacks the books in which they are contained.  His weapons are directed against the miracles, indeed; but it is only by piercing the history, with which alone the supposed discrepancies had ally thing to do.”