ess be alleged, except in
the case of Mahomet; and to that the answer is brief. The history of
Mahomet is the history of a conqueror--and his logic was the logic of
the sword.

In spite of the theory of Strauss, therefore, not less than that of
Gibbon, the old and ever recurring difficulty of giving a rational
account of the origin and establishment of Christianity still presents
itself for solution to the infidel, as it always has done, and, we
venture to say, always will do. It is an insoluble phenomenon, except by
the admission of the facts of the--New Testament. 'The miracles,' says
Butler, 'are a satisfactory account of the events, of which no other
satisfactory account can be given; nor any account at all, but what is
imaginary merely and invented.'

In the meantime, the different theories of unbelief mutually refute one
another; and we may plead the authority of one against the authority of
another. Those who believe Strauss believe both the theory of imposture
and the theory of illusion improbable; and those who believe in the
theory of imposture believe the theory of myths improbable. And both
parties, we are glad to think, are quite right in the judgment they form
of one another.

But what must strike every one who reflects as the most surprising thing
in Dr. Strauss, is, that with the postulatum with which he sets out,
and which he modestly takes for granted as too evident to need proof, he
should have thought it worth while to write two bulky volumes of minute
criticism on the subject. A miracle he declares to be an absurdity, an
contradiction, an impossibility. If we believed this, we should deem a
very concise enthymene (after having proved that postulatum though) all
that it was necessary to construct on the subject. A miracle cannot be
true; ergo, Christianity, which in the only records by which we know
anything about it, avows its absolute dependence upon miracles, must be
false.

It is a modification of one or other of these monstrous forms of
unbelieving belief and Christian infidelity, that Mr. Foxton, late of
Oxford, has adopted in his 'Popular Christianity;' as perhaps also Mr.
Froude in his 'Nemesis.' It is not very easy, indeed, to say what
Mr. Foxton positively believes; having, like his German prototypes, a
greater facility of telling what he does believe, and of wrapping up
what he does believe in a most impregnable mysticism. He certainly
rejects, however, all that which, when rejected a