us terrors for the fate of Christianity,) can have any idea of
the extent to which the modern forms of unbelief in Germany--so far as
founded on any positive grounds, whether of reason or of criticism,--are
indebted to our English Deists. Tholuck, however, and others of his
countrymen, seem thoroughly aware of it.

The objections to the truth of Christianity are directed either against
the evidence itself; or that which it substantiates. Against the latter,
as Bishop Butler says, unless the objections be truly such as prove
contradictions in it, they are 'perfectly frivolous;' since we cannot be
competent judges either as to what it is worthy of the Supreme Mind
to reveal, or how far a portion of an imperfectly-developed system may
harmonise with the whole; and, perhaps, on many points, we never can be
competent judges, unless we can cease to be finite. The objections to
the evidence itself are, as the same great author observes, 'well worthy
of the fullest attention.' The a priori objection to miracles we have
already briefly touched. If that objection be valid, it is vain to argue
further; but if not, the remaining objections must be powerful enough to
neutralise the entire mass of the evidence, and, in fact, to mount to a
proof of contradictions; 'not on this or that minute point of historic
detail,--but on such as shake the foundations of the whole edifice of
evidence. It will not do to say, 'Here is a minute discrepancy in the
history of Matthew or Luke as compared with that of 'Mark or John;'
for, first, such discrepancies are often found, in other authors, to be
apparent, and not real,--founded on our taking for granted that there is
no circumstance unmentioned by two writers which, if known, would
have been seen to harmonise their statements. We admit this possible
reconciliation readily enough in the case of many seeming discrepancies
of other historians; but it is a benefit which men are slow to admit in
the case of the sacred narratives. There the objector is always apt to
take it for granted that the discrepancy is real; though it may be easy
to suppose a case (a possible case is quite sufficient for the purpose)
which would neutralise the objection. Of this perverseness (we can call
it by no other name) the examples are perpetual in the critical tortures
which Strauss has subjected the sacred historians.*"--

It may be objected, perhaps, that the gratuitous supposition of some
unmentioned fact--which, if me