market curtail the anticipated profits of their adventure, how many hundreds are there, who are so little harassed by suspicion of deception on the part of those they have confided in, that though we cannot perhaps say such a notion never crosses their minds, we may safely say that it never robs them of their peace, or hampers them in their plans. If a man be of the poorest rank, he must more or less depend upon his fellowmen. The labourer goes through his daily toil in the confidence that his master will remunerate him; and the master entrusts a commission to his servant in the expectation that it will be faithfully performed. And the more extensive a man's property, influence, or power, let him be active and penetrating as he may, unless he be more than man, the more indispensable will it be for him to confide in others. It is needless to say confidence will not be indiscriminately reposed in all; there will be various maxims to guide him in the selection of his agents, and in the measure of dependence he can place in each, founded chiefly on his notion of their ability or integrity. Some he will regard as worthy of very little, others of implicit trust; there may be one he knows to be competent for the task assigned him, but he suspects his fidelity; another he would trust as himself; but doubts his capabilities. Room will be found for the exercise of the most comsummate skill and discernment, in nicely balancing all the varied qualifications of these several agents, and apportioning to each the post he can occupy to the best advantage. If this be mismanaged confusion and disorder, loss and ruin, may ensue; but it is manifest without it nothing can be done.

Again, it is no less self evident that in innumerable cases the communication between a principal and his subordinates must be carried on by writing. Personal interviews would in most instances be precluded by distance, if not by other considerations; and could thoroughly faithful messengers be found in sufficient numbers; the employment of them would, except in a very few cases of unusual emergency, be found so inconvenient as to be next to impracticable. And even when a messenger is employed on any special occasion, it is for the most part found that the intervention of writing is more certain; and he is charged with this, rather than with a verbal message, or at least in addition to it. By far the largest portion of the business of the world

at the present day is carried on by writing. The transactions of the merchant; the adjustment of the vast machinery of government; the proceedings of a court of justice; the possessions of a private family, the relations of friendly kingdoms, are all secured, more or less, by writing; and inscriptions on stone have been frequently and successfully resorted to, as the most imperishable application of the principle, and one least open to be tampered with. Indeed if there be an age or a people among whom written documents are less familiar, this alone is sufficient to mark it as rude and uncivilised.

But with regard to past transactions writing is still more indispensable. It is true a report may be handed down from generation to generation; but we have only to observe the constant inaccuracies arising from verbal communications, the numerous alterations and amplifications a story undergoes in passing through many hands; the variations with which two persons, with no intention to deceive, will narrate the same event; nay even the discrepancies often traceable in a story repeated by the same individual at different periods; and we may form some notion of the great uncertainty that must attend this method; and satisfy ourselves that a statement calmly and deliberately committed to writing, with a view to be given to the world as final and authentic, must be far preferable to oral tradition, liable as this must be to accidental errors in its best form, not to mention the wilful falsifications to which it is exposed. Indeed experience has shown that in those countries, and during those ages, when written records have been neglected, little or no history at all, not to say authentic history, has been preserved; and we have only to instance the dearth of Hindoo history, and the remark is strikingly vindicated to the full.

But not to insist on this, I will be content to assume that the certainty of past history is, at least, greatly enhanced by written records. This is beyond all question. But are not written records themselves open to falsification? How can we assure ourselves of their integrity; especially when we go back to the remote ages of antiquity? This is a subject of vital importance; and will well deserve much pains and thought. For all external evidence bearing on the Christian Scriptures we have no

living witness to summon; no recent facts to investigate. The newest portion of our story is nearly two thousand years old, and we necessarily depend on written testimony alone. I shall therefore devote a few pages to its illustration; and endeavour as clearly as may be, even at the expense of some prolixity, to acquaint the reader with the principles on which its investigation depends. They will be seen to bear a close analogy to those on which the selection of living agents would be founded; though the difference of circumstances will necessarily give a different turn to some points of the inquiry. But without adverting to the former, with which we have now no concern, I shall confine my observation to written testimony, and if those whose attention has not been much directed to such investigations will candidly and thoughtfully consider what will be advanced, they will probably be surprised at the degree of certainty attainable, in what at first sight seems so great a difficulty; and if the patience of those already familiar with the subject be wearied, I must beg of them to bear with me for the sake of those who are not; for it is for such these pages were planned and written.

It is comparatively easy to pronounce upon the authenticity of documents of but a few years standing; at least there may be facilities for conducting the inquiry which do not exist in cases of more ancient date. The handwriting of the record itself, or of its signature may be remembered; living witnesses may still be brought forward to attest its identity, or the custody it has lain in, may vouch for it that no imposition can have been attempted. A record of a remoter generation will present greater difficulties; but the uncertainty will be found to depend far less on the distance of the time to which it professes to belong, than on other concomitant circumstances to be noticed regarding it. There is for example more uncertainty as to the transactions of many of the native states of India, of very recent date, than of those of Greece and Rome more than two thousand years ago. The history of almost every incident of the Peloponnesian war is as circumstantially, and as certainly known as that of the late short conflict at Gualior; while the very existence of King Arthur, a British Prince who lived, if he lived at all, a thousand years later, is involved in doubt and obscurity; and the same may be said of Prester

John, the Nestorian sovereign of the Keraites, and others many hundreds of years nearer to our own times. The most satisfactory method of conducting our researches, when an ancient document is laid before us, will be, if we can trace back a regular series of records from the present time to that whose authority we have to pronounce upon. If these, as we examine them in order, refer, each to one or more that preceded it; if the dates and names, persons and places correspond; if the language be such as we know, from other sources, prevailed at the respective times to which each professes to belong; and if a diligent comparison of the whole series with itself, give a consistent narrative, free from confusion, and bearing no positive marks of forgery; the presumption in its favour is strong, and in ordinary cases we should not fail to receive it as of good authority.

Suppose another series of records were now discovered, so far differing from the former as to be entirely independent; yet occasionally referring to the same persons, places, or incidents; and each of these were found, as often as they occurred, to tally with those of the first series; here would be a corroborating testimony of a very convincing kind; and it would depend upon the fulness of the two records, and the minuteness of the correspondence between them, whether this were not at once satisfactory enough to relieve us of the necessity of entering on a further search; though if more evidence of a like nature did occur, it would still further persuade us of the correctness of our conclusion, and more surely confirm us therein. Moreover, so far as this series carried us back, it would carry with it our faith. If it satisfy us for fifty years, there is no reason why it should not for a hundred. If it satisfy us for a hundred, the very same reasons that satisfy for that period, exist in all their force for two, three, four hundred; for a thousand, nay, if it could go so far back, for ten thousand. The considerations on which our conclusion is based, are independent of time; and ought to lose no part of their force at any distance of time. We prove at any time, as recent as we please, the existence of one document; that carries us back to the preceding one; and that again to one earlier still, and if each be satisfactorily proved trust-worthy, it as certainly proves its predecessors, so far as the series extends.

But there is another consideration that tends to show that

mere antiquity should have no weight in weakening evidence otherwise satisfactory. It is this, that we should justly expect our juniors to be satisfied, not only with our testimony as to the transactions of our own time, but with the testimony we are handing them down, at least, of the generation preceding us; and they again being thus satisfied, will expect their juniors to receive their testimony of their own age; of ours, and of that preceding us, the two latter of which they have derived from us. It is obvious how, in a few generations, this testimony would accumulate, while nothing depending merely on time could detract from its weight; and carrying the same reasoning backward, mere lapse of time, independent of other considerations, ought to be no obstacle to our confidence in ancient records. Whether any thing else may have occurred to shake our faith must be a matter of subsequent and independent inquiry.

When the series, as we have hitherto supposed, is unbroken, the evidence is the most perfect the nature of the case admits of. But it is not essential that it should be thus absolutely unbroken, provided internal marks of authenticity be present. Suppose an interruption occur, corresponding to a single generation, or to more; if the parts of the series, before and after, answer to each other, so far as there is any thing common to the two, or the interval between them might lead us fairly to expect, the gap might safely be passed over as an accidental loss, expecially if it corresponded to any known period of general disorder, or distress; and the extent of the interruption thus admissible must depend upon the peculiar circumstances of each individual case. But should there, on the contrary, be found in the broken portions of the series, or in one pretending to be complete, discrepancies in facts, one affirming what another denies; and names and dates contradictory and confused; should events be alluded to, ascertained to be of later date; should the references to kings and public officers vary from the records of the nation; should the language used be more modern, or single words be introduced not then in use, we should not hesitate to reject the whole as a fabrication; or if part were consistent, that part would command our respect; where the consistency ended, our assent to its validity would be withdrawn. If the originals of our series of documents, as penned in