puted author of Paradise Lost. The discrepancies in regard to some important particulars in his life are enough to shake the faith of any critic of the mythic school, and to bring the whole into grave doubt among those who build so confidently on the differences in the Gospel histories. Toland says he was born in the year 1606; and he wrote near the time of Milton. The parish register, and his biographer Todd, witness that he was born in 1608, on the 9th day of December. But Hallam declares that he was born in 1609! Surely, he could not have been born at all these different dates; and how do we know which is the true one? and, if you come directly to it, how do we know he was born at all? One account says he died Nov. 8, 1674; another says Nov. 9th or 10th. Todd states that Milton married into the family of Justice Powell of Sandford, and lived at Forest Hill; but Brydges says that the Powells of Sandford and the Powells of Forest Hill were not the same family, nor in any way connected. Hallam is of opinion that none of Milton's poetry, now in existence, was composed before his twenty-third year; but Brydges speaks of extant poems written in his sixteenth year!* So the witnesses disagree and contradict each other; and, as observed, if sifted down close enough, who knows that there was a John Milton; or if there was, that he wrote Paradise Lost? A sound and philosophical criticism may well hesitate till these difficulties are cleared up.

4. So in regard to the death of the Marquis of Argyll. Clarendon says he was condemned and executed on the same day; but Burnet, Woodrow, and others, say he was condemned on Saturday and executed on Monday. Again Clarendon says he was hanged, but Burnet, &c., say he was beheaded. Now here we have two flat contradictions;

* Beard's Moral Argument, pp. 20, 21.

and of course, a la Strauss, the whole story is a myth. The narrative cannot be historical with such difficulties in the way; and whether such a personage as the Marquis of Argyll ever lived, or, if he lived, whether he was condemned and publicly executed, we have no means whatever of knowing. The probability, however, is, that the thing is a fiction, gotten up to frighten rebels and those disposed to question the right of tyrants and usurpers; and that these writers, honestly enough without doubt, have taken it all for history.

5. Let us now look into Prescott's "Conquest of Mexico," and note the harmony existing among his authorities, and the companions of Cortez, and eye-witnesses of the things they relate. When the conqueror landed at Cape St. Antonio, Bernal Diaz says his army consisted of 663; another authority says 600; and another, 400. And this at a time, and under circumstances when every soldier counted, and was considered of the utmost importance. On one occasion, before entering into battle, he called his officers together, one witness says, to ask advice of them; another says, to tell them that he had decided without their advice. When the fleet was destroyed, that great act in the drama, the particular friend of Cortez says it was done with the knowledge and approbation of the army; another, his chaplain, and the conqueror himself, affirm that it was done without the knowledge, and to the utter consternation, of the army! The witnesses were When the

all on the spot, and had part with the army! fifty Tlascalan spies were taken, one authority says seventeen had their hands cut off; the rest their thumbs; another says the whole fifty had their hands cut off, and were sent back in this mutilated condition. Both witnesses were there, and had part in the transaction! In the awful retreat from Mexico on the " Melancholy Night," one account says the number of Spaniards slain

was 150; another, 200; another, 300; another, 450; another, 1170! And all these witnesses either were actors in the scene, or had their statements from those who were! Bernal Diaz, who went through the whole bloody tragedy, says the rear guard consisted of 120, and in a few lines after says 150 of these were slain! and a little farther on the number of the slain rises to 200!!*

6. Now, after such unparalleled discrepancies and contradictions, is there any other conclusion to which we can come, following the criticism of Dr. Strauss and his school, than that the whole history of this pretended conquest of Mexico is mere fiction; a legend, the manifest object of which is to exalt the valor and fame of the Spanish cavaliers? Nothing is more palpable to the reader of the narrative, than the "tendency to glorify" these mythic heroes in every possible way. That certain Spaniards might have visited the shores of the Gulf, and even penetrated some distance into the interior-that they might also have had a quarrel or two with some wandering savages, and shot or wounded some of them—this is probable, or at least possible; but as for believing the Don Quixotic story about a handful of soldiers conquering a vast empire, as Mexico is represented to have been, with its hundreds of thousands of troops, with such feeble means, and in the face of such gigantic difficulties-this is too absurd, too monstrous a prodigy for the belief of any sound and critical mind. And the manifold contradictions, disagreements, and exaggerations of the wit nesses, show so plainly the mythical origin and character of the narrative, show so plainly that the authors are not writing history, however honest they may be in thinking

Prescott's Conquest of Mexico. The examples are taken at random, mostly from Vol. i. See pages 263, 283, 376, 462; also Vol. ii. 376, 377. Notes.

they are, that it is wonderful the story has been believed as truth and fact so long.

7. Look now into Bancroft's History of the United States, and see if there is any room for sceptical criticism there. One or two examples from a multitude: In the narrative of the great rebellion in Virginia in 1677, on the authority of the True Account in Burk, it is stated that, "of those who put themselves on trial, none escaped being convicted and hanged." On the other hand, this same witness, some fifty pages back, had positively affirmed "the acquittal of ten in one day!" In reference to the first Swedish settlement in Delaware, a host of authorities fix it about the year 1631; while the Albany Records and other authorities bring it down to 1638-a difference of seven years. So in the matter of imprisoning the Catholic bishops, Penn is represented by Mackintosh as 66 lending himself to the measures of the king;" but Lawton states positively that "Penn was against the commitment of the bishops," and "pressed the king exceedingly to set them at liberty." So contradictory are the witnesses in this history.* A just philosophical criticism, therefore, pronounces the " great rebellion," the Swedish settlement in Delaware, and the imprisonment of the Catholic bishops, so many myths, the basis of which cannot well be defined. The question whether there was a country called Virginia, or a tract of land known as Delaware at that period, we will not now subject to investigation; but it is a singular fact that several authors, who wrote at the time specified, do not make the slightest mention of such places!

8. Let us take one other and more familiar example; the Battle of Bunker's Hill, so called. Here is another instance of how little real history there is in the world,

* Bancroft's United States, Vol. ii. pp. 232, 286, 397.

according to the philosophy of Strauss, Hume, and their imitators, and of how much we owe to the forbearance of a merciful criticism.

(1.) Weems, in his life of Washington, says "fifteen hundred men were sent to throw up an entrenchment on Bunker's Hill on the night of the 16th of June." But Goodrich says only "one thousand were ordered to this work.

(2.) Weems says "the British moved to the attack with rattling drums and incessant discharges of muskets and great guns." Paulding, on the contrary, states that they "came steadily on, silent as the grave!"

(3.) Weems states that "by order of Gage, the beautiful port of Charlestown, of three hundred fine buildings, was wrapped in flames." But Goodrich says that "six hundred buildings" were destroyed,-a slight difference! But this is not all.

(4.) The supposed battle has always gone by the name of Bunker's Hill Battle; but it is well known now that no battle was fought on Bunker's Hill, and no entrenchment thrown up there. The great monument, about which so much noise is made, and which was raised expressly to commemorate this fabulous conflict, is itself a virtual admission of the fact; for it is erected, not on Bunker's, but Breed's Hill! How does a monument on Breed's Hill prove that a battle was fought on Bunker's Hill!

(5.) So it has been commonly believed that General Putnam commanded the American troops on this memor. able occasion, as it is called. This is one of the first articles in the historical creed of an American. But some years ago a distinguished citizen of Massachusetts, who claimed to have commanded a company in the battle, published an account denying that Putnam commanded the troops on the Hill. The friends of the General replied