One of the most effective devices for refuting the arguments and exposing the assumptions by which some higher critics discredit books in the Bible, is to apply the same methods to more recent documents that are known to be genuine and authentic, and thus show how futile they are. This has been done again and again by recent scholars, who have used the Epistle to the Romans, the parable of the prodigal son, etc., for the purpose. Many other well-known documents can be used in the same way. I have before me, for example, in a copy of the Bulletin, San Francisco, a lecture by Dr. William Alexander, of that city, in which he applies the method to the history of our war with Mexico, to the Declaration of Independence, and to the history of German criticism [204] itself. I copy below the first of these as an illustration of all:

      Let us, for example, take a history so recent as the war between the United States and Mexico and the acquisition of California. And let us suppose that we are living in the year A. D. 5897, when our country has been reduced to the same condition as that of ancient Israel. Then comes a higher critic investigating the records of our history, as they now do those of the Pentateuch, and the result would be something like this:

      California is represented in the legend as a part of an alleged conquest from Mexico. But the evidence of any such war as that is open to very grave doubt. In the documents which pretend to relate this history even the very names are suspicious, being for the most part not the names of persons, but of some occupation or calling, or of some article of domestic use. Records have been found bearing such names as Taylor, Worth, Ringgold, Wool, Pillow, and of such reputed battles as Resaca de la Palma, which probably means merely a grove of palms, and not a battle at all. And another battle is named Buena Vista, which probably means only a fine prospect, or a pleasant view. And what is still more to the purpose, different and conflicting accounts of the same thing have been dug up. According to another form of the legend, the conquest was effected by a man whose name was Scott. And here again the story can hardly be considered historic, for the hero of this alleged conquest is called Winfield, and all military heroes are alleged to win fields. And still further, in some of the remains this same mythical hero is called "Fuss and Feathers."

      He is alleged to have invaded the country called Mexico by sea, and to have bombarded a city called Vera Cruz which does not seem to have been a city at all, but in the language of the Mexicans means the true cross. The mythical hero, the legend goes on to say, advanced by way of Cerro Gordo, a steep and difficult pass in the mountains which a mule with his pack could with difficulty pass, but was utterly impracticable for an army, even if but feebly defended; but that a warlike people like the Mexicans would allow a hostile army to penetrate to the very heart of their country without the most determined resistance, is utterly incredible, not to say inconceivable. And, besides, both of these legends, improbable as they are, and contradictory [205] as they are, can be traced solely to American sources. In one thing they agree, and in one only, that no disaster ever occurred to their arms, but they were victorious in every encounter, a story which is totally at variance with the known casualties of war, and stamps the whole thing as one of the heroic legends of a barbarous or a semi-civilized people. This, gentlemen, may be taken, mutatis mutandis, for the higher criticism of the Hexateuch, as the critics prefer to call it. The principles and methods are the same in both, and both are equally worthless and misleading.

[SEBC 204-206]