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, with out 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 fabrication, 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

that they are not in fact separate functions in the usual acceptation of that expression, it is perhaps more correct, and accords better with our limited knowledge of mind, to speak simply of the operations which it is capable of performing upon a given series of facts. These seem to be chiefly referable to the following heads.

I. We remember the facts; and we can also recall them into the mind at pleasure. The former is MEMORY; the latter is that modification of it which we call RECOLLECTION. But, besides this simple recollection of facts, we can recall a perception; that is, the impression of an actual scene which has been witnessed, or a person who has been seen, so as to place them, as it were, before the mind, with all the vividness of the original perception. This process is called CONCEPTION. It is often described as a distinct power, or a distinct operation of the mind; but it seems to be so nearly allied to memory that it may be considered as a modification of it. It is the memory of a perception.

II. We separate facts from the relation in which they were originally presented to us, and contemplate some of them apart from the rest;-considering, for example, certain properties of bodies apart from their other properties. Among a variety of objects, we thus fix upon qualities which are common to a certain number of them, and so arrange them into genera and species. This process is usually called ABSTRACTION.

III. We separate scenes or classes of facts into their constituent elements, and form these elements into new combinations, so as to represent to ourselves scenes, or combinations of events, which have no real existence. This is IMAGINATION.

IV. We compare facts with each other,-observe their relations and connexions,-and trace the results which follow particular combinations of them. We also observe their general characters, so as to deduce from the whole general facts or general principles. This is REASON OF JUDgment.

In this arrangement, it will be observed, I confine myself entirely to facts. I do not say that the mind possesses distinct faculties, which we call memory, abstraction, imagination, and judgment,-for this at once leads into hypothesis; but simply, that, in point of fact, the mind remembers, abstracts, imagines, and judges. These processes appear to constitute distinct mental acts, which every one is conscious of who attends to the phenomena of his own mind. But beyond the simple facts we know nothing, and no human ingenuity can lead us one step farther. Some of the followers of Dr. Reid appear to have erred in this respect, by ascribing to the mind distinct faculties or functions, somewhat in the manner in which we ascribe to the body distinct senses. Dr. Brown, on the other hand, has shown much ingenuity in his attempts to simplify the arrangement of the mental processes, by referring them all to his two principles of simple and relative suggestion. But, without inquiring what has been gained to the science by this new phraseology, and avoiding entirely any system which seems to suppose distinct functions of mind, I confine myself to facts respecting the actual mental operations; and it appears to answer best the purpose of practical utility to speak of these operations in the arrangement, and by the names, which are commonly used by the generality of mankind.