to deceive us. But so are our senses;-they also may deceive, and perhaps have deceived us, as in the case of ocular spectra; but we do not, on that account discredit the evidence of our eyes; we only take means, in certain cases, for correcting their indications by other senses, as by touching the object, or by a comparison with the visual impressions of other men; and, whatever probability there is that the eyes of one man may be deceived in any one instance, the probability is as nothing that both his sight and touch should be deceived at once; or that the senses of ten men should be deceived in the same manner at the same time. It is the same with regard to testimony. It may have deceived us in particular instances; but this applies to one species of testimony only; there is another species which never deceived us. We learn by experience to separate distinctly the one from the other, and fix upon a species of testimony on which we rely with the same confidence as on the uniformity of the course of nature. Thus, if we find a man who in other respects shows every indication of a sound mind, relating an event which happened under his own inspection, and in such circumstances that he could not possibly be deceived; if his statement be such as contributes in no respect to his credit or advantage, but, on the contrary, exposes him to ridicule, contempt, and persecution; if, notwithstanding, he steadily perseveres in it, under every species of persecution, and even to the suffering of death; to suppose such a testimony intended to deceive would be to assume a deviation from the established course of human character, as remarkable as any event which it could possibly convey to us. This might be main tained in regard to one such testimony; but if we find numerous witnesses agreeing in the same testimony, all equally informed of the facts, all showing the same characters of credibility, and without the possibility of concert or connivance, the evi

dence becomes, not convincing only, but incontrovertible.

The grounds on which we receive with confidence the evidence of testimony, may, therefore, be briefly stated in the following manner:

1. That the statement refers to a matter of fact, -that the fact was such as could be easily ascertained by the person who relates it, and that he had sufficient opportunity of ascertaining it. When the statement includes a point of opinion, the case comes under another principle; and we require, in the first instance, to separate what is opinion from what is fact.

2. That we have no reason to suspect the witness to be influenced by interest or passion in his evidence; or that he has any purpose to answer by it calculated to promote his own advantage.

3. That various individuals, without suspicion of connivance, have concurred in the same statement. This is a point of the utmost importance; and in cases in which we are satisfied that there could be no connivance, a degree of evidence is derived from the concurrence of testimonies which may be often independent even of the credibility of the individual witnesses. For, though it were probable that each of them singly might lie, the chances that they should all happen to agree in the same lie may be found to amount to an impossibility. On this subject there is also a further principle of the greatest interest, which has been well illustrated by Laplace, namely, that the more improbable a statement is in which such witnesses agree, the greater is the probability of its truth. Thus we may have two men whom we know to be so addicted to lying that we would not attach the smallest credit to their single testimony on any subject. If we find these concurring in a statement respecting an event which was highly probable, or very likely to have occurred at

the time which they mention, we may still have a suspicion that they are lying, and that they may have happened to concur in the same lie, even though there should be no supposition of connivance. But if the statement was in the highest degree improbable, such as that of a man rising from the dead, we may feel it to be impossible that they could accidentally have agreed in such a statement; and, if we are satisfied that there could be no connivance, we may receive a conviction from its very improbability that it must be true. In cases of concurring testimonies, we expect that the witnesses shall agree in all essential and important particulars; and, on the other hand, evidence of the authenticity of testimony is sometimes derived from the various witnesses differing in trifling circumstances in such a manner as, without weakening the main statement, tends to remove the suspicion of collusion or connivance.

4. In all matters of testimony, we are greatly influenced by our confidence in a certain uniformity of human character. We attach much importance, for example, to our previous knowledge of the narrator's character for veracity; and a man may have acquired such a character in this respect that we con fide in his veracity in every instance in which his testimony is concerned, with a confidence equal to that with which we rely on the uniformity of the course of nature. In such a case, indeed, we proceed upon a uniformity which applies only to a particular order, namely, those whom we consider as men of veracity. But there is also a principle of uniformity which applies to the whole species; and in which we confide as regulating every man of sane mind. Thus, if the statement of a narrator contain circumstances calculated to promote his own advantage, we calculate on the probability of fabrica tion, and reject his evidence, except we had previously acquired absolute confidence in his veracity. But if, on the contrary, his statement operates

against himself, conveying an imputation against his own character, or exposing him to contempt, ridicule, or personal injury; without any previous knowledge of his veracity, we are satisfied that nothing could make him adhere to such a testimony but an honest conviction of its truth.

5. A very important circumstance is the absence of any contradictory or conflicting testimony. This applies, in a striking manner, to the miraculous statements of the sacred writings; for, even on the part of those who were most interested in opposing them, there is no testimony which professes to show, that at the time when the miracles are said to have taken place they did not take place. It is, indeed, a remarkable circumstance, that the earliest writers against Christianity ascribe the miraculous events to the power of sorcery or magic, but never attempt to call them in question as matters of fact.

6. Much corroboration of testimony may often be obtained from our knowledge of facts of such a nature as, without directly bearing upon the statements to which the testimony refers, cannot be accounted for on any other supposition than the conviction of these statements being true. This principle applies, in a remarkable manner, to the miraculous histories of the sacred writings. We know, as an historical fact, the rapid manner in which the Christian faith was propagated in the early ages, against the most formidable opposition, and by means of the feeblest human instruments. We are told, that this was owing to the conviction produced by miraculous displays of Divine power; we feel that the known effect corresponds with the alleged cause; and that it cannot be accounted for on any other principle.

It does not belong to our present inquiry to allude more particularly to the direct evidence by which the miracles of the sacred writings are supported; we merely refer, in this general manner, to the principles on which the evidence is to be estimated. A

H

very interesting branch of the subject will come under our view when we speak of memory and arbitrary association. We shall then see the irresistible importance of the commemorative rites of Christianity, by which the memory of these events has been transmitted from age to age, or rather from year to year; and by which our minds are carried backward, in one unbroken series, to the time when the events occurred, and to the individuals who witnessed them. In this manner, also, is entirely removed any feeling of uncertainty which may attach to testimony, as we recede from the period at which the events took place, and as the individuals are multiplied. Upon the whole, therefore, the evidence becomes so clear and conclusive, that we may say of those who reject it what the great Author of Christianity said on another occasion,-" If they hear not these, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."

PART III.

OF THE INTELLECTUAL OPERATIONS.

THROUGH the various sources referred to in the preceding observations, we acquire the knowledge of a certain number of facts, relating either to the mind itself or to things external to it. The next part of our inquiry refers to the operations (to use a figurative expression) which the mind performs upon the facts thus acquired. The term functions, or powers of mind, has often been applied to these operations; but, as we are not entitled to assume