Method of Proof. 27 



perfect instruction, we can well imagine what a trea- 

 sure it would be regarded. With what eagerness 

 would they examine the proof of its authenticity, 

 when one set of witnesses appeared, assuring them 

 that their father had spoken the words recorded to 

 them, stamping the writings with his own royal sig- 

 net, while bold declaimers were heard on every side 

 declaring the book to be a forgery, or the work of 

 men so deluded that they thought themselves record- 

 ing the \\orcls of the king, when they were penning 

 their own fanatical or mystical notions! Still more 



Id this i: ied, it" it were shown that 



the gravest consequences depended upon deciding 

 this question aright. If we were called upon to 



ide the question, what would be our method of 

 investigation, and what would be to us ample proof 

 that the palace and the book were the offspring of 

 the same mind, that they were the work of the same 

 master's hand ? Plainly we should never expect 

 fairly and successfully to settle the question by the 

 examination of either alone ; but making ourselves 

 complete masters of both, we should institute be- 

 tween them the strictest comparison. Suppose we 

 find in the book a history of our palace, even to 

 its foundation-stones, and, removing the rubbish 

 of ages, we find the gigantic courses laid as they 

 are described in the book, while beneath the corner- 

 stones are found the historic memorials confirming 

 the written record, though we know those who pen- 

 ned it never could have personally known of their 

 existence. And the more we study the writing 



