with numerous affidavits of pretended eye-witnesses, proving (?) that he did command the American troops throughout the action. This brought out a rejoinder from the aforesaid distinguished individual, accompanied also with a host of affidavits and certificates from eye-witnesses, proving (?) that Putnam not only did not command, but was not on the hill during the battle!* 9. After such an array of discrepancies and contradictions, after such bewilderment and uttter confusion among eye-witnesses, can any man who has the least claim to logic, philosophy, or even common sense, believe the story of Bunker's Hill Battle? Can any well balanced mind be so far blinded and warped by patriotic prejudices, so far hurried away by the desire to "glorify " our country, as to take for actual history what is so manifestly legend, a mere myth? What palpable contradictions, what opposite and positive assertions; not in regard to minute and trifling details, but respecting the most important features of the affair-as the commander of the troops and even the place where the battle was fought! Now, can it be possible, if this battle had been a real event, that such momentous facts could, in so few years, have been forgotten? nay, that even those who profess to have had part in the terrible conflict, could not tell where it was they fought so valiantly, or who had command during the action? And these absurdities are only a part * See Weems' Washington, p. 74; Paulding's Life of Washington, p. 150. Goodrich's United States, p. 132. Also a most admirable article in the Christian Examiner for March 1846, "Doubts concerning the Battle of Bunker's Hill." It is an application of Hume's philosophy to this memorable event, after the manner of that celebrated work of the archbishop of Dublin, "Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte." In both cases the argument is reduced to an absurdity in a most amusing manner. I wish they might be read of all. of a large number which present themselves to the critical reader. The whole narrative, from first to last, is beset with improbabilities and military blunders; and every where the mythic element appears, showing the probable origin, design, and growth of the legend. To believe the story of this fabulous battle true, to belleve it to be actual history, in the face of all the contradictions, difficulties, and unhistorical features, with which it is overloaded, requires a degree of credulity which only an American can be expected to have; and an absence of philosophy and critical acumen, which the most orthodox advocate of all-believing patriotism might envy! 1. And now, in few words, let us bring the argument of this chapter to a close. We have endeavored to show the weakness of the argument which attempts to destroy the historical character and integrity of the Gospel narratives, because of their discrepancies and disagreements in regard to some of the details of some of the events described. We started with the proposition, that the same course of argument and criticism which Strauss, Hume, Paine, &c. had pursued in regard to the New Testament records, if applied universally, would destroy the foundations of all history, modern as well as ancient-that there are no reliable records in existence, if this kind of criticism is to be allowed in all the results claimed for it that we cannot believe any statements we hear; nay, not even what we see with our own eyes, for some one else may start up to deny their witness. In fine, if we follow out the argument to its last results, our own life cannot be established as a historical fact; and, for aught we know, we are allowed to believe we really live only by the kind forbearance of a philosophical criticism. And we tremble to think that some Strauss may by and by rise up and, no longer merciful, demonstrate to us that existence itself is only a myth; and, throwing us all, himself included, into the crucible of his criticism, reduce all to the gaseous essence of infinite negation, and leave us as impalpable and unreal as the shadow of a ghost! 2. But seriously, a very little thought will show the true value of this sort of criticism. The differences in respect to the details of an event do not affect the reality of the event itself. There is no difference of testimony with regard to this. For example: In regard to Alexander the Great—the main facts of his life, character, reign and conquests, are all agreed to; and the precise hour or day of his birth or death, the exact length of his reign, the particular date of a battle, &c., do not affect the integrity of the facts in the least. So the great question is, whether Hannibal crossed the Alps at all, not the exact point at which he passed; and the disagreement respecting the last unimportant particular does not touch the first important fact, about which all the witnesses agree. 3. The same remarks may be made in regard to the other examples named. It is a matter of no consequence whether the Marquis of Argyll was put to death on Saturday or on Monday; whether he was hanged or beheaded. The real question is whether he was put to death at all, which no one doubts. So what matters it whether Cortez had a hundred soldiers more or less in his enterprise; whether he burned his fleet with or without the consent of his army? The only point that we need concern ourselves with is, whether he and his brave Spaniards conquered the mighty empire of the Montezumas. And who doubts this? And who doubts that the Battle of the 17th of June was actually fought, because historians differ as to the number of American troops, or the number of houses burned in Charlestown? or because those who fought in the battle disagree, and flatly contradict each other, as to who commanded in the action? or because the conflict is known as Bunker's Hill Battle, though really fought on Breed's Hill? These details, however differently stated, do not affect the universal belief in the main, and only essential fact, viz: that the battle was fought. 4. So in regard to the Gospel histories. It is matter of little moment whether the writers do or do not agree in all the minute details of the events described. What is it whether Jesus wrought a certain miracle on one spot of ground or on another, on this day or on that? whether one angel was seen at the sepulchre or two? whether Matthew or John is right, as to the calling of Andrew, Peter, &c., or both wrong? They all agree in respect to the great facts of Christ's life, character, teachings, miracles, death, and resurrection. On these momentous points there is no difference of opinion or testimony. Not a syllable is uttered that renders their faith or witness in regard to these facts doubtful. Here there is but one testimony, one voice, one heart-and in confirmation of their witness, we have before us the indisputable and irrefutable evidence of the present existence of Christian Doctrine, Christian Faith, and Christian Civilization. CHAPTER XII. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED-INSPIRATION COMMON TO ALL MEN. CHRIST'S INSPIRATION NOT SPECIAL; THE TRUTHS HE TAUGHT DISCOVERABLE WITHOUT THE DIRECT HELP OF GOD; WOULD HAVE BEEN AND NECESSARY PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENTS OF THE RACE. 1. It is well known that in these days much as been said and written for the purpose of showing that God did not give to Christ any knowledge or truth directly, or in any way differently from that in which he gives them to all men; that in the reception of those revelations, or in the inspiration of Jesus, there was no departure from the ordinary method of the divine communications with all souls; that the discovery of the sublime truths revealed by Christ to the world, and similar truths, were, and are, within the reach of every man, who will as faithfully obey all the laws of being;-in a word that every man may be a Christ, if he will; and if he will live as truly as Christ lived, may know as much of the mind and purpose of God, may sound as far the depths of infinite wisdom, and bring forth as great, and even greater revela |