about an equal number of them on each side proved incontestably that British blood was first shed both in Lexington and Concord.

Those who have not closely studied single points in history may be astonished by these examples; but the wonder may very easily be explained away. The great curiosity of posterity about events which did not seem so very important when they occurred, while their consequences have been very momentous, wholly changing the condition of a great people, and intimately affecting the political affairs of most civilized nations, has caused the history of them to be studied with great minuteness. It is the accumulation of testimony on single and minute points, which gives rise to all these contradictions and doubts. The discrepancies in the accounts of these two revolutionary battles would never have been heard of, if the insurrection had been crushed in the outset, so as to occupy as small a space in the world's history as the account of an Irish or a Canadian rebellion. Look at the matter in another point of view, and the importance of these discrepancies dwindles away almost to nothing. All the important points, all the great features, all that is really and intrinsically valuable to the student of history, of the battles of Lexington and Bunker's hill are perfectly well known; they are as clear as the sun in the heavens. If we look to more recent history for an account of some battle the political consequences of which may be compared in importance with those of the two here referred to, there is perhaps the single instance of Waterloo; and here we find the same accumulation of minute accounts, and the consequent almost interminable list of doubts and contradictions. Those who please may examine and try to reconcile the French, English, and Prussian reports of the battle; but some persons have given up the attempt in despair.

What would be thought of the honesty or the sanity of some grave doctor, who should write a huge book, bringing together with immense industry all these varying accounts, placing all the acknowledged discrepancies in the strongest light, and fairly inventing others by excessively minute criticism, and thus attempt to prove that the whole story of the American Revolution was a myth; that the supposed incidents in it are nothing but old poetical legends, which have sprung out of the well known inventive disposition of the

Americans, and of their intense desire to be independent of Great Britain; that Captain Parker, Colonel Prescott, General Warren, and General Putnam are all fabulous personages; that possibly a struggle may at some time or other have taken place between the Colonists and the mother country, but we know nothing about it, and never can know any thing; and that probably the American provinces still remain subject to the British crown? Our readers may think that we are here verging upon caricature; but they may be assured that we have too deep a sense of the awful importance of our main subject, and we must add-too contemptuous an opinion of Dr. Strauss as a reasoner or a judge, to stoop to any such unworthy artifice as that of ludicrous exaggeration of his theory. Our illustration, it is true, does not do justice to his hypothesis; yet only because it falls below, instead of exaggerating, its prodigious absurdity. Here are three thick octavos, all occupied with a most minutely critical examination of a history which, if printed at large, would not fill a third part of one of the volumes. And the larger portion of this space is devoted to an exposition of real or supposed inconsistencies in the accounts of the four Evangelists. If this enumeration of discrepancies were expunged, the remainder of the work would not deserve notice, for it contains nothing that is either novel or true. Such an attempt at criticism may be compared to a tediously complete examination of some vast object with a compound microscope, the lenses of which are so striated and colored that not a ray of light finds its way through them without distortion or stain.

For what, we ask again, is the nature and importance of these discrepancies, and how far do they affect the credibility of the narrators? The gospel history, eighteen hundred years old, contains a biography of one person, but dwells chiefly upon his actions and discourses during a small portion of his life; nearly all of it relates to a period of only three years and a half, and a good portion gives the history of but one week. There are four distinct accounts, claiming to be by as many biographers, all dwelling chiefly upon the same periods of time, and occupied in the main with the same discourses and events. The authors are evidently simple and unlearned; but their honesty, frankness, and willingness to state the truth are so conspicuous on the face of their writings, even if they were not attested, as most persons believe, in such an

affecting manner by the latter part of their lives, that even Dr. Strauss ventures but very seldom and very faintly to charge them with an intent to deceive. They seldom speak of themselves, and only in one or two cases do they write in the first person; they record only the acts and sayings of their beloved master and friend. The story is told with amazing simplicity and minuteness, the mere fragments of his life and conversation, a short dialogue on the road, a walk through the cornfields, a remark made at the supper-table, being all chronicled with the particularity which strong affection and the unspeakable importance of the subject to the whole human race justify and require. There is not a work or a fragment of ancient biography extant, claiming to be authentic, which makes any approach to such minuteness. And now, judging by the examples just given, what various and conflicting statements may we not reasonably expect to find in four such narratives? If we decide only by comparison with modern history, with the most authentic and careful accounts of recent events, we should hardly expect to gain more than a general notion of the leading incidents in the life, and a tolerably fair idea of the character, of the subject of biography, all to be made out from a mass of glaring discrepancies in the more minute and particular statements. But what we do find is a harmony among these records which, under the circumstances, is perfectly amazing; for the discrepancies apparent at first sight, and all reconcilable with each other with but little violence, hardly amount to specks on a broad and bright surface. We have given a fair specimen of them, putting the third hour for the sixth, anointing the head instead of the feet, the omission of three words in an inscription, and the like. We will take one or two more instances in Strauss's own words.

"The first two evangelists agree in stating that Jesus, when walking by the sea of Galilee, called, first, the two brothers Andrew and Peter, and, immediately after, James and John, to forsake their fishing-nets, and to follow him (Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i. 16-20). The fourth evangelist also narrates (i. 35-51) how the first disciples came to attach themselves to Jesus, and among them we find Peter and Andrew, and, in all probability, John, for it is generally agreed that the nameless companion of Andrew was that ultimately favorite apostle. James is absent from this account, and, instead of his vocation, we have that

of Philip and Nathanael. But even when the persons are the same, all the particulars of their meeting with Jesus are variously detailed. In the two synoptical Gospels, the scene is the coast of the Galilean sea; in the fourth, Andrew, Peter, and their anonymous friend, unite themselves to Jesus in the vicinity of the Jordan; Philip and Nathanael, on the way from thence into Galilee. In the former, again, Jesus in two instances calls a pair of brothers; in the latter, it is first Andrew and his companion, then Peter, and anon Philip and Nathanael, who meet with Jesus. But the most important difference is this: while, in Matthew and Mark, the brethren are called from their fishing immediately by Jesus; in John, nothing more is said of the respective situations of those who were summoned, than that they come, and are found, and Jesus himself calls only Philip; Andrew and his nameless companion being directed to him by the Baptist, Peter brought by Andrew, and Nathanael by Philip."- Strauss, Vol. 11., pp. 51, 52.

Compare this "most important difference" with the instances of Generals Putnam and Warren at Bunker's hill, and consider in which case absolute exactness of statement could most reasonably have been expected.

"We have hitherto examined only two accounts of the vocation of Peter and his companions; there is a third given by Luke (v. 1-11.) I shall not dilate on the minor points [!!] of difference between his narrative and that of the first two evangelists; the essential distinction is, that in Luke the disciples do not, as in Matthew and Mark, unite themselves to Jesus on a simple invitation, but in consequence of a plentiful draught of fishes, to which Jesus has assisted Simon!"-Strauss, Vol. II., pp. 61, 62.

We will do no injustice to Dr. Strauss by our mode of quotation, but honestly confess that the Italics and marks of admiration here are our own.

These are among the more striking instances of contradiction which are detected by our critic. The lighter ones, which are still subjected to very sharp comment, are such as these : Matthew says that Simon Peter once resided in Capernaum, while John declares that Bethsaida was "the city of Andrew and Peter";- both accounts may be true. According to Matthew, Jesus "went up into a mountain" before he preached his famous sermon; Luke says that "he came down and stood in the plain" ["upon a level place" is the correct translation]; there is no alarming discrepancy here. Luke speaks of "Simon called Zelotes,"

"It

who is termed by Matthew "Simon the Canaanite," both wishing to distinguish him from Simon Peter. In another case, by an unlucky omission of a surname, "Matthew the publican," as he is termed in one place, appears as "Levi the son of Alpheus, sitting at the receipt of custom" (the employment of a publican), in another. Of course, omissions by one Evangelist of what is related by another are considered as destroying the credit of both. "Matthew mentions two instances in which a league with Beelzebub was imputed to Jesus, and a sign demanded from him; circumstances which in Mark and Luke happen only once." is suspicious, that the demoniac who gives occasion to the assertion of the Pharisees is in both instances dumb." Matthew's report of the sermon on the mount is rejected because it contains more than Luke's; and Luke's is evidently false, since it contains less than Matthew's. Another discourse, reported with literal agreement by two of the narrators, shows that they are neither of them independent witnesses, but must have stolen the report from some anonymous old record not now extant. In fine, Dr. Strauss has but two principles of criticism to be applied to a comparison of the four Gospels with each other, but these are tolerably comprehensive. First, if two accounts of the same event agree with verbal accuracy, neither of them is genuine; secondly, if they differ in the slightest particular, both are false. If the careful and exact application of these two rules to every line written by the Evangelists does not disprove the gospel history, it is very evident that it never can be disproved.

But our readers have probably had enough of the infidel argument, so far as it is founded upon disagreements among the several historical records of our religion. And as this is the last point in a comparative view of the testimony and arguments adduced to prove respectively the sacred and the profane history of a few centuries coming nearest to the birth of Christ, we recur to the original question,- Why is it that the truth of the latter is universally taken for granted, while that of the former is so frequently assailed? There can be but the extraordinary character of the events narrated. This is the only ground of distinction, and we fully admit that it is a proper one so far as it goes. The whole question between the Christian and the infidel- in this case, between Professor Greenleaf and Dr. Strauss-is reduced

one answer,